Driver-only operation

[whole diary]

[inspector_blakey]

Can anyone on here explain a few things to me about the requirements for DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))? It's interested me for a while because (a) I am a guard, albeit on a minor railway, and (b) as everyone knows, the guard is the most important person on a train  .

I have seen lots of different ways of despatching DOO trains on my travels. At Oxford trains are despatched by platform staff using 'CD^▸ (Capital Delivery)' (close doors) and 'RA' (rightaway) buttons that light the appropriate indicators on the platform starter signal. At Reading platform staff despatch using the bat or a white light for CD, then a green flag/Bardic for RA. All fair enough, this I can understand.

What puzzles me is the requirements for stations where the driver "despatches" the train him/herself, especially at Didcot: London-bound trains through platform 4 have banks of CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) cameras/monitors, and platform 5 has mirrors (as also seen at lots of other stations e.g. Radley, Appleford, Culham). BUT, platform 3 has nothing, and the driver of an Oxford-bound has to look out of the window back along the train to check that it is safe to depart. How does this situation arise? Platforms 3 and 4 are both dead straight, so there is no issue with visibility along the train that causes this difference. If platform 4 needs banks of CCTV monitors why does platform 3 have no DOO equipment at all when both are equally busy with DOO trains? 

[IndustryInsider]

For there to be no mirrors or CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) provided at DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) stations the driver has to have a clear view down the platform. To use your example at Didcot Parkway although virtually straight platforms there is a slight curve on both platforms at the Bristol end. It's enough to mean that a driver looking out of his cab on platform 4 can't clearly see the doors of their train after more than two coaches back when driving a three carriage train. At platform 3 in the opposite direction this slight curve aids the drivers view.

There are a couple of examples where mirrors/CCTV are provided where the driver can still see clearly down the length of their train by looking out of the cab, but there are no examples where nothing is provided when it should be.

[inspector_blakey]

Thanks for that, it's been bugging me for ages. I must admit I never noticed the curve on platforms 3 and 4.

[Tim]

I don't understand DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)).  Either it is perfectly safe for the driver to be the only person responsible for train safety in which case it could be introduced more widely to both save money and let the guard sell and check tickets (I know it involves investment in extra equipment - but on busy routes the costs must be low relative to staffing costs)   OR  it is dangerous in which case why is it used anywhere.

I know that this post risks inflaming the feeling of the Guards posting on this forum (and I don't have any axe to grind in either direction and I understand perfectly why people in a safety critical role do not want to be downgraded to "glorified kit kat sellers" and also the practical problems of extending DOO - union agreements etc) But, putting emotions and self interests aside for a moment and thinking purely hypothetically is there any evidence that DOO trains are any more or less safe than trains with Guards? 

How many accidents have been averted by having a guard on board?  How many accidents have been contributed to by confusion over splitting the responsibility for train safety between two people who may not always communicate effectively?

If you were inventing the railways from scratch would it really make sense to make one person responsible for closing the doors and a different person responsible for checking the doors are closed before pulling away. or does having two peopel check that things are done make it safer?

As a passenger I am reasured that there is more than one person with some safety training on board (for example the ability to "protect" and evacuate a train) afterall the driver could be hurt or attacked or just die sudenly, but I don't know why a ticket inspector or bufet host couldn't have this training instead or needing a guard.

[inspector_blakey]

Whilst given my previous postings I guess you'd hardly expect me to be in favour of diluting the guard's role, I have always been of the opinion that DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) is operating trains "on the cheap" and inherently less safe that driver/guard operation.

Firstly a bit of history: go back 40 years or so the role of the guard was virtually entirely operational. Their customer-facing duties were confined largely to providing information to passengers on request, and in fact in many cases guards were expressly forbidden to examine tickets, with this being the domain of ticket examiners and travelling ticket inspectors. Operationally the guard was in overall charge of the train and responsible for despatch, timekeeping, safety, looking after mail and parcels, etc etc. One of (if not the most important duties of the guard was to "protect" his train if it was disabled for some reason (for instance, a train failure or extended signal check) by walking a set distance in rear with a red flag/lamp and laying detonators (explosive charges that are clipped to the rail and make an almighty bang when struck by a wheel; as soon as a driver hears one of these he knows he needs to stop sharpish) to guard against the possibility of an errant driver of a following service running by signals at danger and causing a rear-end collision.

Gradually the guard was also given responsibility for ticket inspection and collection, initially on lightly-used branchlines using DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) as Paytrains when stations were de-staffed. Initially titled "conductor guards", over the course of time this has contracted simply conductor (incidentally, I would argue that from a purely semantic point of view there are very few "guards" on passenger trains these days: they are almost invariably conductors as they have both operating and revenue responsibilities). For simplicity's sake the rulebook still refers to guards as guards, and does not mess around with the various different TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) names for them!

Although to the untrained eye the guard's job may well seem mundane (the routine aspects revolving around safety, train despatch and ticket examination), they have a vast amount of knowledge and are really essential as soon as things start going awry, particularly in an emergency situation.  Remember that a guard has mechanical knowledge of his train and also detailed knowledge of the route over which it travels. In any sort of accident because the driver is right at the front of the train s/he is vulnerable and often incapacitated: the implications for a DOO train being involved in a collision are obvious, with large numbers of passengers potentially being left without any staff assistance. In this situation the presence of a guard could, in my humble opinion, be lifesaving.

Here's another thing: as I see it despatching a driver-only train is also less safe than despatching by a guard. Watch the guard on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) or unit. You will see that they always keep a sharp lookout until their whole train has cleared the platform, in case anything goes amiss (some clown trying to board or alight, for example). On a DOO train, as soon as the driver's cab has cleared the monitors/mirrors, the driver is looking at the line ahead, not back along his train, and will not be able to respond to such a situation. A couple of years ago at Huntingdon a man was trapped by his coat, dragged by a departing DOO train and seriously injured when he fell between the train and platform. The train was eventually stopped by a passcom activation. I think it's a safe bet that the presence of a guard keeping a sharp lookout would have prevented this accident entirely.

Sorry, I've rambled on way too much here. I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: guards have a vast amount of operational training that ticket examiners and buffet stewards do not. You can't give a ticket examiner or buffet steward a bit of additional training: what you need is a fully qualified guard!

By the way, if you're still reading, thanks!

[super tm]

I am afraid the operational role of the guard no longer exists.  It cannot otherwise you could not have DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)).  Either you need a guard or you dont there is no half measures.  As DOO is legal and has been accepted by the unions it will only be a matter of time before they disappear altogether. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for your very detailed 'case' for the retention of 'conductors', inspector_blakey! 

Writing as a commuter passenger here - I agree with you entirely.  I'm happy that, on a two or three carriage train, containing a fair few people between Nailsea and Bristol, there are (at least) two staff who can deal with anything untoward that might arise.  The fact that the train is too crammed (particularly the 1754 from BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) to Nailsea) for the conductor to ever carry out a ticket inspection is neither here nor there. 

[John R]

Unlikely Super TM^‡(resolve) as any new installations will not gain approval from whichever safety authority currently rules on these matters. Existing arrangements effectively are grandfathered. Which as Tim says is a bit curious. Either it's safe or it's not.

There was another incident on the GN a few years back when a toddler was left on the platform when its mother went back in to get the pram and second child. Before she could get the pram off, doors closed and off the train went, leaving a 2 year old on an empty platform at an unstaffed station (Sandy). I doubt whether that would have happened with an alert guard watching. Thankfully the toddler was safe, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the emergency handle was pulled and the train had to reverse back, which took quite a time for obvious reasons.        

[Btline]

In some ways it would be better to have more ticket barriers and ticket inspectors (RPIs^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))), which would allow the guard to carry out other duties.

I am for guards, except maybe on shorter commuter journeys, where cameras can be used.

I certainly don't think HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) should become DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)).

One case study is the Chiltern line. Btw London and Bicester, there is rarely a guard on board (esp on fast trains, as any fare dodgers would have the Marylebone barriers to get past). At Bicester, the guard gets on.

And I do wish TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) would abandon Train Manager - it is the WRONG title.

[super tm]

Unlikely Super TM^‡(resolve) as any new installations will not gain approval from whichever safety authority currently rules on these matters. Existing arrangements effectively are grandfathered. Which as Tim says is a bit curious. Either it's safe or it's not.

I am afraid this is not true.  This is a rumour which has come from somewhere.  I believe that the new line incorporating the old East London underground line and the new javelin service will both be DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)). 

Unless you can show me somewhere this is officially noted.

[super tm]

Sorry to reply to my own post but see this link

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1126

nothing to suggest that no new DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) will be allowed

[G.Uard]

Inspector Blakey and STM have covered the role of the guard and much of the background to this 'vexed question' in their posts, so not a lot for me to add.  I must say tho' that the drivers I have talked toabout this issue appreciate having someone 'on the back'.  Their job is complicated enough without having the added responsibility of doors to oversee.  Of course, given  the age of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) rolling stock, I wouldn't rule out the return of the fireman.

[welshman]

SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) seem to manage DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) at least on the Transilien or Paris suburban services.  That's achieved by having a bank of 4 CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) screens at the end of each platform to enable the driver to see whether he's about to crush anybody.  There's no-one on the platform to give the "right away".  He just sods off when he wants.

There you can buy as many tickets as you like and you use them by putting them through the machine which stamps them to "validate" them.  Here are the rules.

What's this got to do with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) etc?  Nothing except that personal security doesn't seem to be such an issue in France.  Hmm.

[autotank]

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!

[paul7575]

I like the compromise SN use on their Electrostars on longer distance services. The driver opens the doors (I believe with automatic SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening)), avoiding the long delay typical on SWT^▸ (South West Trains) where the guard does it. Then the guard deals with closing up and gives the right away. Train spends less time stationary, guard keeps his job.

Paul