Driver-only operation

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Because guards tend to keep their head out of the window/ door when the train is leaving.

Even newer units like 170s have openable guards' windows.

If someone is trapped the train can be stopped quickly. Drivers have to look forward when driving and would not notice until a passenger pulls the communication chord.

[autotank]

Because guards tend to keep their head out of the window/ door when the train is leaving.

Even newer units like 170s have openable guards' windows.

If someone is trapped the train can be stopped quickly. Drivers have to look forward when driving and would not notice until a passenger pulls the communication chord.

Voyagers and 180's don't have openable guards' windows

[Btline]

Good point!

[Chris from Nailsea]

It's a long time since I read the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report into the Huntingdon accident, so I may have remembered this incorrectly. However, I think that the driver checked the monitors before he applied power and thought that the person who was trapped was just standing rather close to the train. Interestingly I don't remember that report containing any mention of the relative merits or demerits of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) versus driver/guard operation.

Intrigued by your comments, inspector_blakey, I did a bit of digging, at http://www.raib.gov.uk/latest_news/news_archive/news_archives_2007/070430_pn_huntingdon.cfm

Report released into Huntingdon train door incident

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) has released its report today into the train door incident at Huntingdon station on 15 February 2006.  The full report is available here: http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2007/report112007.cfm

A summary of the key points from the report is included below -

On Wednesday 15 February a member of the public was standing on the edge of the platform at Huntingdon station seeing a passenger off when he became trapped by his coat in the door of the train. As the train departed the man ran, and then was pulled along the platform, before falling down the gap between the train and platform edge. The man sustained serious injuries to his left arm and hand.

The immediate cause of the accident was the train pulling away with the injured man's coat trapped in the door. Contributing factors were the actions of the injured person before the train doors closed; the design of the train's doors; the position of the train in relation to the CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) monitors on the platform and the design of these monitors; and the presence of other passengers on the platform.

Recommendations

The RAIB has made six recommendations aimed at:

driver training;
design of CCTV monitors;
the design of Class 365 train doors;
positioning of CCTV monitors at Huntingdon station;
safety standards for train doors;
improved signage and controls for emergency exits at doors on Class 365 trains.

[dog box]

Drivers should be driving trains  looking Forward not worrying about looking back at things happening behind.The Drivers atttention should be at all times on the road ahead.
Guards are essential to the safe operation of the train they are highly trained staff who have to undertake a variety of roles sometimes all at the same time.
Was on a train recently where 2 females were sexually assaulted by a male the guard was on the ball and the train was stopped at a station but the doors were not released untill the police arrived whilst the driver liased with the signal man about the situation,.....ohhh for DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) is this situation.

[gaf71]

Freight trains also dont have passengers to help in the event of an incident. This is part of a guards duties as you know. Evacuation for example.

Why couldn't a ticket inspector be trained in evacuation?? 

They could, and then they'd be called a guard, or conductor, or Train manager........

[gaf71]

Freight trains also dont have passengers to help in the event of an incident. This is part of a guards duties as you know. Evacuation for example.

Why couldn't a ticket inspector be trained in evacuation?? 

When I joined FGW^▸ (First Great Western) just under 3 years ago in a clerical role even I did a train evacuation course, which was done at St Philips Marsh.

If I remember correctly all staff do it.

This may be true, but I doubt you were trained in PTS^▸ (Personal Track Safety), protection, emergency evacuation etc, as you are not in a 'safety critical' role. At the end of the day a guard is needed on board all trains, purely for the reasons stated above by dog box.

[inspector_blakey]

Thanks for backing me up, dog box and gaf71! 

And for elegantly making in a few sentences points that I failed to get across in my extensive ramblings on the subject! 

[Doctor Gideon Ceefax]

Oh dear, DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) again!

Let's first concentrate on the travelling public, after all the reason the service actually runs. It would be an incredibly naive person to think that the cost saving of getting rid of guards is going to trickle down to the fare paying passenger, either by way of fare cuts, extra services, or better facilities.

What DOO does however lead to is a complete decrease in any sort of passenger care. Ever been on a DOO train? You might get the odd announcemnt at major terminals from the driver, but he's too busy concentrating on driving the train to do anything else. What if the train breaks down or there are problems? Well the driver is going to be too busy dealing with the signaller or sorting out the train, to do much other than make the occasional announcements. And he certainly won't have access to journey information, knowledge of tickets or anything like that.

What if there is trouble on the train? Well the driver is busy driving it isn't he? So in all likelyhood he's not going to know what's going on. Drivers who drive DOO may have more information on this, but it is my understanding that certainly there are agreements with ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) about not leaving the cab. There are strict rules about the guard contacting the driver when a train is in motion these days, let alone a member of the public. If the driver hears someone screaming banging on his cab door, he is likely to ignore it, as it is a distraction, and besides all the drunks and smackheads do it quite regularly. All he can do is advise the signaller the police / ambulance or whatnot is required. At least a guard has the ability to move passengers, perform basic first aid, or attempt to find competent medics. The driver is in the cab, driving, trying to get the train to the destination where the emergency services can attend.

What about the worst case. Derailments and suchlike? If the driver is killed, who deals with things? On the turbo in the Paddington crash, it is worth noting that a driver and a trainee driver were riding in the back cab and were able to co-ordinate evacuations. It is not usual practice for anyone to be in there, other than someone with a cab pass travelling on duty around, or a guard route learning. As for the other major DOO crash at Potters Bar, it was only the rear vehicle that came off, so the driver wasn't harmed. But then that's just down to luck. If the only person trained in safety is dead, alright the computer systems these days SHOULD knock signals to red, and protect the line as such, but that doesn't help if a train is already in the section, nor does it help bewildered passengers having to dodge live power lines (residual current), debris on the tracks and whatnot.

Now let's look at staff issues.

With two members of staff, there is a guaruntee of someone to back you up no matter what the incident is. Certain faults or incidents on train would require the guard to ride in the front and act as a 'secondman'. If there is no guard, then the driver has to hope that there is another driver / fitter or guard riding passenger in the train, otherwise it's out of service. Minor incidents can be resolved more quickly with a guard onboard, i.e. door problems, circuit breakers tripping in the rear cab.

What about unruly passengers? Two members of staff are better than one, and a lot of drivers will help guards throw off miscreants.

Finally what if the driver has a fatality or has a brick thrown through his window. Many drivers in that situation will not be in a state to deal with passengers, where as the guard can get on with that part of the job, or assist the driver as he is competent to do so.

So there you have it. DOO is a cost cutting exercise, much along the lines of closing post offices. It doesn't benefit the staff, and certainly doesn't benefit the public.

Incidentally regards freight trains, certain freight trains DO operate with a guard. Companies like DRS^▸ (Direct Rail Services Ltd), First GBRF do employ forms of Trainmen, who amongst other duties do ride on the locomotive. And I dare say that with a guard on them, freight train faliures might just be cleared quicker, rather than getting the driver alone to walk the length of the thing up and back all the time, when problems occur!

[Doctor Gideon Ceefax]

Oh and I forgot to put why training a steward or ticket collector in full evacuation is not suitable, (no disrespect to these grades intended mind you, they are important members of the railway family).

As part of the training for guards, route knowledge is key. It is no good putting someone in charge of evacuation if they don't know the route, i.e. line speeds, potential hazards, electrification working and whatnot, as they could potentially lead passengers into more harm.

If you then go down the route of saying "well we can get these grades to learn the route and PTS^▸ (Personal Track Safety)", then you're going to have to pay them extra to cover these new responsiblities and duties, and any saving made will be pointless, and they will more or less become a trainman by default.

With regards internal training on evacuation for clerical employees, I think you will find that they are only permitted to perform tasks related to evacuation under the authority and direction of the driver, guard or a suitably qualified manager. They can't just go ahead and do it, and would be in breach of the railway rulebook and their contract of employment if they did.

[Doctor Gideon Ceefax]

People are sensible and move away from the doors when alighting so it should be possible to see if somebody is stuck. Anyway there would still be platform staff at busy stations such as Paddington, Slough, Reading, Oxford and Newbury to check.

There's a man who's never seen the amount of d*ckheads try and put doors on catches or jump through HST^▸ (High Speed Train) windows at Reading. For every 100 sensible people, there's always one idiot, and that's a lot of idiots when it all adds up!

[thetrout]

Not strictly FGW^▸ (First Great Western) related but LU have been using DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) for quite a long time, They have CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) screens at the end of the platform that the driver uses to check that no one is in the doorway. You get the odd RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) who tries to make things slightly awkward for you when you can't find your ticket...

[super tm]

This is all very well but does not change the fact that a guard is no longer required and DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) has been accepted as safe.

What about great heck accident both the driver and guard were killed.  Should we have a third member of staff on board?  Or a fourth or fifth.

The guard does not do anything that a driver could do on a DOO train.  With HST^▸ (High Speed Train) a guard is currently needed for the doors but apart from that they are not required.

Yes it may be nice to have another person on board but the fact that DOO is allowed to exist means that the guard is not needed.  Many routes will need someone on board to sell tickets and serve tea coffee etc but the rule book requirement for a guard was removed many years ago.  Drivers took a big pay rise as a result.

[autotank]

Well said super TM^‡(resolve) - drivers are very well paid with excellent conditions and the long suffering passengers shouldn't be expected to also fund high rates for guards where they are no longer required. Technology, and as a result safety, has improved so much in recent years that accidents and are very rare negating the need for an expensive back up man.

[dog box]

Sorry but i totally disagree with you autotank you certainly are not in a position to appreciate the working of the railway, just look at what the guard did during the ufton nervet incident, the actions of this individual saved many lives ,and as he is know personally to me i think your opinions are an insult to his professionalism