Driver-only operation

[whole diary]

[inspector_blakey]

I'm in favour of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) on all units. They are obviously required on HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s due to slam doors, but I don't see the point on even 180's or Voyagers. The amount of revenue lost on stoppers because the Guard has to check the doors close must be huge! Not all of them even bother checking tickets - from experience in the West Midlands many just stay in the back cab all the time and read The Sun/Star! Although the incidents described above are unfortunate, they are extremely rare and I don't think justify the vast cost of providing a guard on every train.  Turbos work really well with no guard and extremely safely - what would they do between Reading and London where most stations have ticket barriers?

I don't think your argument holds in the light of what has been said above: guards are not simply ticket examiners and have much wider safety responsibilities. If anything what you have written reads to me like a case for the greater provision of ticket examiners rather than the abolition of guards. In fairness to rail staff though, there may be a good reason they hang around the back cabs. Some of the second-generation BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) units were, in a moment of genius, designed with guard's door controls in the cabs only (I think I'm right in saying that the intermediate door controls on the 150/2 fleet were only provided during a relatively recent refurbishment). This means that a guard working one of these units on a stopper has to high-tail it back to the rear cab every time a station is reached which is not conducive to ticket examination!

Of course, given  the age of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) rolling stock, I wouldn't rule out the return of the fireman.

Trust me, you don't want that to happen. They're trouble  

[super tm]

I'm in favour of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) on all units. They are obviously required on HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s due to slam doors, but I don't see the point on even 180's or Voyagers. The amount of revenue lost on stoppers because the Guard has to check the doors close must be huge! Not all of them even bother checking tickets - from experience in the West Midlands many just stay in the back cab all the time and read The Sun/Star! Although the incidents described above are unfortunate, they are extremely rare and I don't think justify the vast cost of providing a guard on every train.  Turbos work really well with no guard and extremely safely - what would they do between Reading and London where most stations have ticket barriers?

I don't think your argument holds in the light of what has been said above: guards are not simply ticket examiners and have much wider safety responsibilities. If anything what you have written reads to me like a case for the greater provision of ticket examiners rather than the abolition of guards. In fairness to rail staff though, there may be a good reason they hang around the back cabs. Some of the second-generation BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) units were, in a moment of genius, designed with guard's door controls in the cabs only (I think I'm right in saying that the intermediate door controls on the 150/2 fleet were only provided during a relatively recent refurbishment). This means that a guard working one of these units on a stopper has to high-tail it back to the rear cab every time a station is reached which is not conducive to ticket examination!

Of course, given  the age of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) rolling stock, I wouldn't rule out the return of the fireman.

Trust me, you don't want that to happen. They're trouble  

I don't think your argument holds in the light of what has been said above: guards are not simply ticket examiners and have much wider safety responsibilities

No they dont. If they did then DOO could not exist.  Freight trains dont have guards.

Some of the second-generation BR units were, in a moment of genius, designed with guard's door controls in the cabs only (I think I'm right in saying that the intermediate door controls on the 150/2 fleet were only provided during a relatively recent refurbishment).

Thats because they were designed for DOO.  The reason DOO has not really extended in the last 15 years is because of privatisation.  The short length of franchises mean it has not been cost effective for the franchise holder to bring in DOO as the return on the investment will not be enough in the short time until the franchise ends.

[G.Uard]

I'm in favour of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) on all units. They are obviously required on HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s due to slam doors, but I don't see the point on even 180's or Voyagers. The amount of revenue lost on stoppers because the Guard has to check the doors close must be huge! Not all of them even bother checking tickets - from experience in the West Midlands many just stay in the back cab all the time and read The Sun/Star! Although the incidents described above are unfortunate, they are extremely rare and I don't think justify the vast cost of providing a guard on every train.  Turbos work really well with no guard and extremely safely - what would they do between Reading and London where most stations have ticket barriers?

More accidents could be prevented by investing the money saved on guards wages by imporving services or reopening lines and getting people of the roads - one of the biggest killers in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)

The main problem with the rail industry in this country I think is that the unions are so unbelievably resistant to change - in the past this has led to increased costs and ultimately the abolishment of services and jobs!

Is there a DIY Fatwah facility on this site?

[Tim]

Thanks for all the interesting replies.  

I do think that the issue of checking tickets clouds the discussion.  If Guards are unable to do proper ticket checks (because they are busy with more important jobs raher than laziness) then that would seem to be an argument for introducing ticket inspectors  on the train or at the stations or using penalty fares or whatever to discourage ticketless travel not for downgrading the safety role of the Guard.  

International comparisons are not always applicable.  The Munich S-Bahn has DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) and mostly unstaffed stations with ticket machines.  But, then there are fewer yobs in Munich so personal security is less of an issue, most of the platforms are straight, the doors close automatically with sensors, many of the lines are S-Bahn dedicated and tickets are so cheap that revenue protection isn't such a big issue (many of the locals have an annual season paid for by direct debit - not much point in checking then everyday) the tickets are simple so buying from a machine (or a cafe with a simple machine a minimal training) works .  On the otherhand perhaps the service is only good and faresdirt cheap because it is run efficiently without the fuss of blowing whisles, pressing buzzers, automatic barriers  etc.

i'm glad there are Guards on the trains, the comprimise of letting the driver open the doors does seem sensible though.  The train will be stationary when this happends so you can't argue that the driver has other jobs to do.  Anything that reduces the station dwell time if only by half a second will feed into the preformance statistics.

The problem with safety issues like this is that everyone thinks that their train ought to be as safe as absolutely possible (and you probably need gaurds to ensure this).  However because risks are very low on any train(compared with road transport for example) it doesn't follow that DOO is unsafe.  In fact if you abolished guards (and TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System), ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection), door locking, the RAIIB etc and other expensive safety measures) and used the money saved to lower fares and encourage people out of their much more dangerous cars I would bet that you would save a large number of lives overall.  If we were all perfectly rational beings who valued each life equally that is what would happen.  In the realworld most of use would agree that such actions would be wrong although I am not sure why.

[gaf71]

[/quote]
No they dont. If they did then DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) could not exist.  Freight trains dont have guards.





[/quote]
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.

[Tim]

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?? 

[autotank]

I'm in favour of having a member of staff on trains to do tickets, improve security and help passengers, but on modern units there appears to be no need for them to open and close the doors. We should remove this slightly ridiculous tiltle on DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s which I don't think imporoves safety and gives jobsworths the safety argument as an excuse to sit around and do basically nothing. After rereading the incidents described earlier you can argue that in both cases the driver was at fault and should have been paying more attention to the closing doors.

With improved signalling and radio communications on most lines the need for Guards to protect trains in the event of a breakdown is more or less negated now. Plus now with TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) and more safety regulations than ever the risk of an accident is now less than at any other time in British rail history. Sorry Guards, your time is almost up.

[Tim]

After rereading the incidents described earlier you can argue that in both cases the driver was at fault and should have been paying more attention to the closing doors.

Its fair enough to expect the driver to watch the doors close.  But once they are closed and the train starts moving it has to be eyes forward

If you get your coat or rucksack strap caught in the doors that is very difficult for anyone to see until the train starts moving so having someone watching the train as it pulls out is an aid to safety.  (you can argue over whether that should be the guard or someone on the platform - who argueably has an even better view) with an emergency stop button or if you ant super-safett Both)

[autotank]

But there are usually a few seconds between the doors closing and the train moving off - the driver should use this time to check people are clear of the doors.

[Tim]

But there are usually a few seconds between the doors closing and the train moving off - the driver should use this time to check people are clear of the doors.

Are you suggesting he should only pull out when everyone is behind the yellow line (I can't see that working at busy platforms) ?
the problem with some incidents of getting clothes and bags caught in the door is that no-one notices (including the person who is trapped) or could reasonably be expected to notice (the door might be a very long way from either the driver or the guard's position) until the train starts moving.  Its not so much that having someone watch the train after it has started moving allows trapped clothing/bags to be noticed it is that it allows distress/screaming/shouting/running alongsidethetraininacomedymanner trapped passengers to be noticed and the train stopped before it reaches a lethal speed. 

[autotank]

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.

[Tim]

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.

I am not sure that platform staff can stop the train as quickly as a guard can (not without tube-style emergency stop buttons).  Platform staff can and should also check the train pulls out safely (and they usually do) but I suspect that if they saw something amis the first thing they would do would be to yell to the guard.

[Ollie]

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.

[inspector_blakey]

I am not sure that platform staff can stop the train as quickly as a guard can (not without tube-style emergency stop buttons).  Platform staff can and should also check the train pulls out safely (and they usually do) but I suspect that if they saw something amis the first thing they would do would be to yell to the guard.

Absolutely right: on most current stock the guard can being an immediate halt to proceedings by signalling "one" on the buzzer to the driver, telling him to stop immediately. On older vehicles (e.g. mark II stock) the guard has an emergency brake "setter" and can physically stop the train himself. I don't know how effective the passcom apparatus on DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) stock is in this situation: it does not cause a brake application as on older stock, but simply sounds an alarm in the driver's cab and opens an intercom channel. I don't know if procedure dictates that a driver should stop immediately on receiving a passcom activation when he's leaving a station.

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.

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 versus driver/guard operation.

[super tm]

I am not sure that platform staff can stop the train as quickly as a guard can (not without tube-style emergency stop buttons).  Platform staff can and should also check the train pulls out safely (and they usually do) but I suspect that if they saw something amis the first thing they would do would be to yell to the guard.

Absolutely right: on most current stock the guard can being an immediate halt to proceedings by signalling "one" on the buzzer to the driver, telling him to stop immediately. On older vehicles (e.g. mark II stock) the guard has an emergency brake "setter" and can physically stop the train himself. I don't know how effective the passcom apparatus on DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) stock is in this situation: it does not cause a brake application as on older stock, but simply sounds an alarm in the driver's cab and opens an intercom channel. I don't know if procedure dictates that a driver should stop immediately on receiving a passcom activation when he's leaving a station.

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.

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 versus driver/guard operation.

How is the guard able to see any better than a driver that someone is trapped.  There is no requirement for the guard to keep a look out on trains with power doors. The guard can be positioned anywhere on the train and the requirement to stay at the panel until it left the platform was removed a couple of years ago.  once the train starts moving it is already too late even if the train stops within a few seconds.  That is still more than enough time to fall time and be crushed by the train. It is far more important to make sure that nobody is trapped before the signal to move is given and I dont see why having a guard on board is any better than DOO.