It is a local instruction, and applies to 180's as well. As for HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s and coaching stock the guard has to have his head out of the window and remain by the door control (or a position where he can apply the emergency brake) until the last vehicle has left the platform.

If DOO was to come in, then it would be the marginal services first for the chop! Who's going to spend money on CSR^▸ (Cab Secure Radio) / mirrors / full track circuiting and all the other equipment to run a limited service 1 car train? Cheaper to employ a guard on that, unless you dilute the requirements for DOO, which definitely would impede safety. Or alternatively run a bus...

What onboard staff? Very few DOO trains always have onboard staff. Usually you get the odd ticket collector or RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) on for part of the journey on maybe between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 journeys if that?

The cancellation argument is poor anyway, and is generally due to either poor rostering, man management, decreases in the number of relief crews or serious delays. And drivers can be just as affected by this. By that logic we may as well make everything automated, so drivers aren't needed, in case they are a no show and the service is cancelled!

Latest news on that service, is that the union have advised guards to work to rule, i.e. only take the train out if it either runs non stop between the offending stations, remain in the brake van at all times, or that transport police accompany it between Bristol and I think Swindon.

This is due to attacks on passengers, and staff. When problems arose, more experienced guards were asked to work it, just to make sure the new ones were't getting out of their depth, and even the experienced men were being threatened and assaulted left right and centre.

Certain companies have local instructions which still apply the old rule, of which Great Western and I think Northern are two specific examples, where as London Midland do not. In much the same way that on HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s Great Western guards generally have to dispatch from the back, where as on Cross Country they dispatch from more or less wherever they want, and West Coast dispatched from the DVT^‡(resolve) a lot of the time, even if it was the leading vehicle.

Assuming the guard is opening the doors from the rear...

Both driver and guard were killed, but one of the freight drivers survived. And should we have a third member of staff on board, well perhaps if all railway staff of all grades were taught how to contact the signaller from a trackside phone, and recognise mileposts or overhead line structures, in order to at least give some identification as to where they are, I can't see that being a bad thing.

Indeed by that logic, you may as well have completely automated trains with no drivers, after all the driver may get killed, then what? The Docklands light railway has been proven to be safe...

As for guards doing nothing but doors on HST's, I'd hate to think what would happen if this really was the case, having to wait for the driver to reset passcoms, fix door faults, stop the train to answer the call for aid and whatnot...

Presumably the 'long suffering passenger' would like to see a decrease in fares, with the money saved by the removal of guards?

Gatwick Express went D.O.O. once the 73s and coaching stock were removed. I didn't see them cutting the cost of tickets, after laying off all their Senior Conductors.

C2C also went D.O.O. Again no decrease in fares with the wage savings.

Therefore please do tell in what way D.O.O. benefits the passenger, if it is not in fare decreases?

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!

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.

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!

Unless he means via Sailsbury? Perhaps SWT^▸ (South West Trains) have plans to go on to Weston that no one else knows about.

Weston Super Mare and intermediate stations have nothing to do with NSE^▸ (Network South East). Temple Meads came under the Intercity sector, the stops to Weston were Regional Railways.

NSE land ended at Didcot Parkway (which incidentally came under Intercity anyway).

What research? The buffets at peak time are packed with commuters propping up the bar getting cans of beer or bottles of wine on their journey home.

But not dissimilar to London - Weston, as your previous post stated?

Or Virgin West Coast running London to Birmingham then all stations to Wolverhampton.

Not knowing much about Hungerford, I thought I'd check the population, which stands at 5,559. (http://www.hungerford.uk.net/councilmainpages/council_statistics.php). Far too small to warrant regular HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), and an extension of Bedwyn shuttles to Westbury as everyone else has said is more sensible.

Perhaps when this crossrail lark actually comes in, it will free up more turbos to provide more suitable services for these stops.

I'd like to see a similar design to the HST^▸ (High Speed Train), 2 power cars, but 9 or 10 coaches in length. Definitely not a voyager type creation. Capacity can only realistically be increased by longer trains.

Power cars, MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engines, possibly a bit beefier than currently (futureproofed with the long term option of replacing or modifying for overhead power). Maybe some sort of guards accommodation in them if noise levels can be reduced and considered safer / regards inergen or whatnot, so that guards areas can be given over to seats in coaches.

Coach A - guards van (assuming power cars unsuitable), standard class quiet coach
Coach B - standard class coach with more tables
Coach C, D & E - standard class coach airline seating
Coach F - standard class coach (more tables), and disabled space.
Coach G - buffet / bar, standard seating area perhaps similar to on the old class 442 'bar' area
Coach H - First class / resturaunt coach
Coach I - First class
Coach J - First class quiet coach and another guards or staff area at the end

Power doors on all coaches except in guards vans ends, tip up seats in vestibules. Doors at ends of carriage rather than middle as in current design. SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) system fitted, and PAs^▸ (Public Address) at all door controls. CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) throughout the train which can be monitored by guards from secure areas - e.g. guards vans or power cars. Possibly some sort of distributed traction to enable faster acceleration, as long as ride quality isn't compromised.

Standard class seating similar to on SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s 159's although with higher backs to meet safety standards. First class leather seating similar to existing service.

Luggage racks and spaces at ends of carriage broadly similar as to existing coach layouts. Working plug sockets, perhaps some sort of Wi Fi System. Toilets at each end of each carriage as in present coaches.