Are there any definitive and independent studies confirming that Driver only trains are safe (enough).
Mods - this is not intended to be political - I would really like to know.
:beers:
I think that the Office of Rail and Road report is independent. They are the arbiters of safety on the railways and from my first hand dealings with them they are more likely to be cautious when examining safety issues, where their vested interest is not having passenger injury accidents.
There are already plenty of Driver Only Operation lines around the country, about one third of all passenger trains across 11 train operators without thinking about freight trains. I am struggling to think of an accident where the driver being the only one in control of the train was the determining issue.
Quote from: woodbury22uk on January 08, 2017, 09:15:46 AM
I think that the Office of Rail and Road report is independent. They are the arbiters of safety on the railways and from my first hand dealings with them they are more likely to be cautious when examining safety issues, where their vested interest is not having passenger injury accidents.
Thanks for that - its just that if you look at the ORR web site they quote
"ORR is a non-ministerial government department with around 280 staff and a budget of about £30m each year"So they are a government department!! - Is that truely independent?
Do you know if there are any other independent departments/reports?
:beers:
I know these guys are also a government department, but have a look through here...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/raib-current-investigations-register/rail-accident-investigation-branch-current-investigations (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/raib-current-investigations-register/rail-accident-investigation-branch-current-investigations)
The RAIB are obliged to investigate any incident reported; even near misses.
Bob
Everyone is paid by someone. I think experience on London Underground, Chiltern, Thameslink, etc. is the best guide you will get. Anyone who is truly independent will still need to gather evidence from non-independent sources and evaluate it against safety, operational and financial yardsticks.
Thanks for the replies folks..
Probably best to end this thread now afore the Mods get upset about political content.
Thanks again...
:beers:
There are answers technical and human. But two I think matter are:
Some trains cannot be single operated and some have been designed or modified to be so. The question has to be asked are the technical modifications and designs good enough on a design by design basis and will maintenance be up to the task. If a toilet does not work they shut it off, if a camera does not work do they switch it off and try to do without rather than withdraw the train.
There is a big upgrade in personal risk with single operation as there is no one else to blame if something goes wrong. There are hundreds of industrial accidents where the report concludes that bad or miscommunication was to blame. One man operation means that person takes full responsibility and the consequences if something goes wrong, and you can see why drivers wont want that, particularly if manslaughter by negligence is involved. I'm specifically thinking of post incident with passengers wandering on the track etc
I remember being on a Paddington to Didcot service where the driver overshot Didcot station by about 200 ft. This was about 1990 and pre the double locking of coach doors on the HST units. Half the train jumped onto the track and walked back to the station. On that train there was a driver a guard and a buffet staff of two and the four of them could not stop what happened so do numbers make a difference - not sure.
I am writing here as a retired Guard/Train Manager who worked for BR, Thames Trains and FGW on everything from loco and coaches, HSTs to 166 DMUs, along with various Southern electric EMUs both in Guard and Driver Only operation and my opinion is a firm no DOO is not 'safe'.
I feel that the railway/Department for Transport is only considering the operational side of the 'argument' - but that is only one aspect.
I feel on any train where passengers are carried there must be a member of staff who can be contacted in order to deal with the everyday questions e.g. "Where do I change for Oxford?" to lost property, passengers behaving badly (loud music or other anti social behaviour) to even threatening others (one of my last trains before retirement was carrying a man with a knife threatening other passengers; he was arrested but had a Guard not been there to alert the police?).
I believe that there are many points which are simply not being taken into account - the Guard on a passenger train does much more than close doors and goes back to his newspaper which, from the reports I'm reading, seems to be what some sections seem to think.
I totally fail to see how you can discuss the railways and exclude Politics from that discussion because to do so means you have no meaningful discussion .
Quote from: pctrainman on January 08, 2017, 11:21:05 AM
I totally fail to see how you can discuss the railways and exclude Politics from that discussion because to do so means you have no meaningful discussion .
My original post was a question not an invitation to discussion.
'Are there any definitive and independent studies confirming that Driver only trains are safe (enough)?'.Hence, in the light of some of the responses I have suggested this thread be ended. Perhaps I shouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
:beers:
Quote from: pctrainman on January 08, 2017, 11:21:05 AM
I totally fail to see how you can discuss the railways and exclude Politics from that discussion because to do so means you have no meaningful discussion .
The best way to head off politicians, and all the other campaigning interested parties, is get you facts straight, your technology sound and make them look stupid for not accepting the blindingly obvious.
Politicians as a breed thrive on bluff, "the stuff bulls produce", bravado and misdirection so make them swallow the facts, but make sure they are copper bottomed facts.
So in asking a question you are not inviting a discussion ? I should'nt hold your breath whilst waiting for a reply then .
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 08, 2017, 11:19:34 AM
I am writing here as a retired Guard/Train Manager who worked for BR, Thames Trains and FGW on everything from loco and coaches, HSTs to 166 DMUs, along with various Southern electric EMUs both in Guard and Driver Only operation and my opinion is a firm no DOO is not 'safe'.
I feel that the railway/Department for Transport is only considering the operational side of the 'argument' - but that is only one aspect.
I feel on any train where passengers are carried there must be a member of staff who can be contacted in order to deal with the everyday questions e.g. "Where do I change for Oxford?" to lost property, passengers behaving badly (loud music or other anti social behaviour) to even threatening others (one of my last trains before retirement was carrying a man with a knife threatening other passengers; he was arrested but had a Guard not been there to alert the police?).
I believe that there are many points which are simply not being taken into account - the Guard on a passenger train does much more than close doors and goes back to his newspaper which, from the reports I'm reading, seems to be what some sections seem to think.
That's one of the most sensible, lucid discussion points I've heard since this whole sorry episode began last year. :thankyousign:
Quote from: pctrainman on January 08, 2017, 11:21:05 AM
I totally fail to see how you can discuss the railways and exclude Politics from that discussion because to do so means you have no meaningful discussion .
It's easy, you stick to the facts about railway procedure and leave out the whys and wherefores of who made the rules and whether it ties in with your own beliefs or not ;)
So far people seem to have kept to the right track :D so if anyone can answer Austinbob 's question?
Paul
Totally agree.... try catching trains in NSW Australia. Ain't no politics here, mate....just a bad service.
They generally run on time, but are just awful to be on.
Quote from: newportnobby on January 08, 2017, 11:42:52 AM
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 08, 2017, 11:19:34 AM
I am writing here as a retired Guard/Train Manager who worked for BR, Thames Trains and FGW on everything from loco and coaches, HSTs to 166 DMUs, along with various Southern electric EMUs both in Guard and Driver Only operation and my opinion is a firm no DOO is not 'safe'.
I feel that the railway/Department for Transport is only considering the operational side of the 'argument' - but that is only one aspect.
I feel on any train where passengers are carried there must be a member of staff who can be contacted in order to deal with the everyday questions e.g. "Where do I change for Oxford?" to lost property, passengers behaving badly (loud music or other anti social behaviour) to even threatening others (one of my last trains before retirement was carrying a man with a knife threatening other passengers; he was arrested but had a Guard not been there to alert the police?).
I believe that there are many points which are simply not being taken into account - the Guard on a passenger train does much more than close doors and goes back to his newspaper which, from the reports I'm reading, seems to be what some sections seem to think.
That's one of the most sensible, lucid discussion points I've heard since this whole sorry episode began last year. :thankyousign:
One other aspect which I didn't mention - with many unstaffed stations around the network older, or 'disabled' passengers often require help joining/alighting the train and, with all respect to the Driver grade they are unlikely to be in a position to help - in any case they are not supposed to leave the cab when the train is on a running line unless for certain laid down operational requirements such as contacting the signal box via a signal post telephone for example.
That is a good point, especially with so many unmanned stations these days.
Paul
Speaking purely as a paying passenger I think it is good to have a guard on a train. It is someone who can contact authorities in the event of a problem and someone who can offer knowledgeable advice regarding connections etc.
Regarding safety, I would think that on a lightly used three car service with proper equipment doors could be safely operated by the driver. Conversley I can imagine that a rammed six or more car commuter train running in pouring rain almost certainly needs someone who can clearly see the whole train to operate the doors safely and ensure that nobody is doing anything stupid which might not be picked up on camera. Surely the fact that a pair of eyes can see far more than a camera is important.
Guards do of course vary. There are some who do their job diligently and check everyone has the correct ticket and others who can't be bothered to sell you a ticket even when you ask them. This happened to me not long ago when the platform machine was broken.
How long now till we get driverless trains?
Quote from: javlinfaw7 on January 08, 2017, 12:23:37 PM
How long now till we get driverless trains?
I think we've had those for some time with Southern trains...
:)
:laughabovepost:
Paul
If you're not prepared to take the ORR as an unbiased body then I suggest you go into the RAIB reports and look at the number and consequences of accidents involving "platform train interface" issues and whether the trains in question were DOO or guard operated.
You will then need to normalise these against, ideally, the number of times passengers board/alight DOO versus guard-operated trains per year. Unfortunately I don't think any statistics are available on that, but table 12.12 in the link below gives passenger journeys by train operator and estimates can be made by knowing which operators use DOO (although unhelpfully DOO Thameslink is bundled with non-DOO Southern as GTR).
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/22056/passenger-rail-usage-2015-16-q4.pdf (http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/22056/passenger-rail-usage-2015-16-q4.pdf)
If you get any useful results then please share...
It's easy, you stick to the facts about railway procedure and leave out the whys and wherefores of who made the rules and whether it ties in with your own beliefs or not ;) And in so doing totally ignore the truth , yep that figures these days .
Quote from: javlinfaw7 on January 08, 2017, 12:23:37 PM
How long now till we get driverless trains?
the DLR has been unmanned since 1990 having initially "Train Captains" on the first line prior to this.
It brings me back to properly designed systems, fit for the task.
Quote from: Chris Morris on January 08, 2017, 12:15:35 PM
... Regarding safety, I would think that on a lightly used three car service with proper equipment doors could be safely operated by the driver. Conversley I can imagine that a rammed six or more car commuter train running in pouring rain almost certainly needs someone who can clearly see the whole train to operate the doors safely and ensure that nobody is doing anything stupid which might not be picked up on camera. Surely the fact that a pair of eyes can see far more than a camera is important....
Excluding DOO on London Underground then?
And other countries presumably have it?
The Safety aspect as much mentioned by the ORR is to give a specific slant on the issue, to suit the argument for DOO.
Like Greg Western Princess states, "Safety" on a train is about much more than meeting operational requirements.
When the Driver is the only member of staff on the train, and is locked away at the front (one hopes!) who exactly is going to stop and or assist.....*
Vandalism
Assault
Theft
Robbery
Passengers fighting
Ticketless travel (generally carried out by people of an anti social nature)
Anti-social behaviour
Passengers taken ill
Who is going to offer advice, assistance and generally make the journey as pleasant as practicable.
I have all the above incidents happen on-train, the worst case where a man got 30 months jailtime for his crime. HadI not been there he would have been free to walk away from a pretty serious matter.
Ok well we all know where this topic stems from,
I have travelled all over the UK now on pretty much every operator in the last 12 months, the one this that has got me is a massive over sight that in the case of Southern and actually Gatwick Express when they say driver operation of the doors then there is still a guard on board.
But away from that I personally think it depends entirely on area I used to travel daily between Altrincham and Northwich to school and many a time it was driver only and that wasn't an issue as it was a relatively quiet service.
But with the services around London in particular they are that busy that having the driver take full responsibility of that is well questionable, as the services are packed although the DLR and LU prove it can be done.
It's a reality Driver only services are coming across the board, but to do that there has to be some money put into the infrastructure, for things like platform levels for wheel chair access and CCTV and monitors for the driver to be able to see the doors based on the platforms.
As for the other secondary duties of Guards well they are pretty much un-replaceable, the only one I think is a matter which effects the railways but is a bigger thing which no one let alone rail staff should have to deal with is Anti - Social behaviour on any level!
Whilst I support guards on trains I'm wondering why we need drivers? Surely with today's technology drivers could soon be a thing of the past.
Best put my tin hat on now .
Quote from: Chris Morris on January 08, 2017, 07:40:38 PM
Whilst I support guards on trains I'm wondering why we need drivers? Surely with today's technology drivers could soon be a thing of the past.
Best put my tin hat on now .
This raises an interesting question for the future.
Driving a train is largely a rules based task (see DLR) and as with self driving cars, rules based AI is well advanced and getting better by the day.
Checking for random dangers to passengers when closing doors is actually a more complicated thinking task so much harder to automate.
So projecting forward ten years, why aren't drivers desperate to get to close the doors to save their jobs in the future, as we return to the DLR Train Captains.
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this subject, being the cynical so-and-so that I am am, surely it ultimately boils down to money? If you have two people doing a job each, (in any industry), and some bright spark comes along and decides that one person can do both jobs, the bright spark gets rid of one person, tells the other person that he has now got extra responsibilities and immediately cuts his wage bill in half ???. But the above is really off topic - sorry.
Is this not yet another example of large companies cost cutting to the benefit of themselves and to the detriment of their clients.
That's probably the drivers' and guards' view of the situation, however the company's view is probably that other TOCs happily run driver-only trains so why "waste money" on extra staff that are not actually needed? ;)
Again whether they are needed is the bone of contention and depends on many other circumstances as already mentioned - type of trains, staffing levels at stations, etc.
Paul
There was a story last week of a disabled lady, she was a disabled athlete I think, she got on a train with a disabled carriage to find the disabled toilet was not working and out of order. She could not get off the train at the next stop because the was no ramp and no one to help her and was forced to stay on the train and dirty herself, which must have been very distressing and embarrassing for her. It does not sound like there was a guard on the train but I am un-sure about that. This kind of shows you need at least one other person on a train.
Quote from: lil chris on January 08, 2017, 10:02:32 PM
This kind of shows you need at least one other person on a train.
Or alternatively one person manning the station :thumbsup:
Paul
Quote from: javlinfaw7 on January 08, 2017, 12:23:37 PM
How long now till we get driverless trains?
We've already got them - 'people movers' at airports, the Docklands Light Railway and other examples.
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 09, 2017, 12:57:22 PM
We've already got them - 'people movers' at airports, the Docklands Light Railway and other examples.
I haven't been on the DLR for quite a while now, but when I used to use it regularly, the trains had a guard/conductor who would occasionally unlock the control panel at the pointy end and drive the train.
No idea why, though.
Quote from: Nick on January 09, 2017, 05:20:16 PM
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 09, 2017, 12:57:22 PM
We've already got them - 'people movers' at airports, the Docklands Light Railway and other examples.
I haven't been on the DLR for quite a while now, but when I used to use it regularly, the trains had a guard/conductor who would occasionally unlock the control panel at the pointy end and drive the train.
No idea why, though.
Yes, a Train Captain (I think the DLR call them) and there would be two reasons as I understand it;
1/ the :censored: computer's broken (again) ::)
2/ to keep in practice for when the :censored: computer breaks down (again) ::)
ISTR that the Victoria Tube was meant to be automatic, but that the U****s demanded a driver & a dog ( the dog drives, and the driver feeds the dog!)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_of_the_London_Underground
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 09, 2017, 11:30:30 PM
Quote from: Nick on January 09, 2017, 05:20:16 PM
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 09, 2017, 12:57:22 PM
We've already got them - 'people movers' at airports, the Docklands Light Railway and other examples.
I haven't been on the DLR for quite a while now, but when I used to use it regularly, the trains had a guard/conductor who would occasionally unlock the control panel at the pointy end and drive the train.
No idea why, though.
Yes, a Train Captain (I think the DLR call them) and there would be two reasons as I understand it;
1/ the :censored: computer's broken (again) ::)
2/ to keep in practice for when the :censored: computer breaks down (again) ::)
Don't worry, in the brave new world of Big Data it wall all work fine. Until it doesn't, and we've sacked everyone who used to do it. It's the same reasoning that got everything working so perfectly now. Don't complain though, you'll be called a Luddite or a c@&&£ist. (No politics here....)
Just watched the film Howl. This is why you need a guard, in case the driver gets eaten by a werewolf. :D
Quote from: Snowwolflair on January 17, 2017, 11:44:26 AM
Just watched the film Howl. This is why you need a guard, in case the driver gets eaten by a werewolf. :D
At last! The truth! Now we can have hinest information announcements. I can hear them now:
"The 1430 from Waterloo has been delayed by a werewolf on the line. Services to Guildford are delayed indefinitely by a zombie incursion at Surbiton."I knew that that rubbish about leaves and the wrong sort of snow was just a cover. ;D
Isn't this a trend that all transport sectors have been following for decades now?
A scheduled passenger flight in the 70's would typically have a cockpit crew of four - Pilot, Co-pilot, Engineer, and Navigator. Now the Engineer and Navigator have been digitized. Has the incidence of aircraft accidents increased since this change in cockpit crew numbers?
Buses and trams once had Drivers and Conductors, but now both commonly operate with only a Driver. Has the incidence of bus/tram accidents increased since this change in crew numbers?
As others have commented, several TOCs already commonly run without Guards. Has the incidence of accidents increased for those TOCs?
If any sector had seen even a nominal increase in accidents, we would know it. Even the internet conspiracy theorists don't seem to have twisted their knickers over this one. I make no comment on the moral implications of this trend, but to me it doesn't appear there is any negative impact on safety.
It is not about "accidents" it is about Safety.
One side seem to think (or pretend to) that they are one and the same, when they totally are not.
Especially with the "zombie incursion at Surbiton" :goggleeyes:
How does one measure or quantify 'safety'? ??? Would it be wrong to say that a low incidence of accidents at my breakfast table, is indicative of my breakfast table being safe?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-dead-after-coat-became-stuck-in-train-doors-on-paris-metro-a6812746.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-dead-after-coat-became-stuck-in-train-doors-on-paris-metro-a6812746.html)
Quote from: Cooper on January 17, 2017, 04:49:01 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-dead-after-coat-became-stuck-in-train-doors-on-paris-metro-a6812746.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-dead-after-coat-became-stuck-in-train-doors-on-paris-metro-a6812746.html)
The Paris metro uses "snap shut" doors that would be illegal on British trains and they don't detect obstructions blocking the doors. There are regular incidents of broken arms and hands on the Paris Metro. Its a very bad example as a justification of the hazards of no guards, there are better ones.
Quote from: RailGooner on January 17, 2017, 04:43:54 PM
How does one measure or quantify 'safety'? ??? Would it be wrong to say that a low incidence of accidents at my breakfast table, is indicative of my breakfast table being safe?
In statistical terms, yes, it would be wrong. Off the top of my head, trip hazards, hot liquids and other food related hazards come to mind. Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean nothing can happen. !00 year floods are a good example. No flood for three generations, then the heavens open.
I can see that there is a difference between a driver having to multitask on a rural line, with not much going on, and a driver who is already having to concentrate extrememely hard to keep up with complex signalling and timing, while making sure that there are no arms hanging out of the coach at the other end of the train.
On the BBC Southern News today it was stated the ASLEF agreed to DOO on 12 coach Thameslink trains now the are taking industrial action because Southern wish to introduce it as well. Last week on the same program last week Southern said there would be a rostered 2nd Safety Train person on all trains that currently have a guard or conductor. RMT said they also demanded this on all trains that are currently DOO and have been for several years before further talks would take place.
Is this a dispute over safety or politics?
Dodger
Quote from: dodger on January 17, 2017, 06:16:22 PM
Is this a dispute over safety or politics?
Dodger
You need to ask that question, really? ;)
Paul
Quote from: dodger on January 17, 2017, 06:16:22 PM
On the BBC Southern News today it was stated the ASLEF agreed to DOO on 12 coach Thameslink trains now the are taking industrial action because Southern wish to introduce it as well. Last week on the same program last week Southern said there would be a rostered 2nd Safety Train person on all trains that currently have a guard or conductor. RMT said they also demanded this on all trains that are currently DOO and have been for several years before further talks would take place.
Is this a dispute over safety or politics?
That is the news for you. DOO was agreed to in a period of retrention of railway services and has been extended under existing agreements that have been honoured by the Union, despite concerns that DOO is less safe when used in 12 car formations and a much increased ridership. Southern by contrast, have used strike days to do test runs and extend DOO working without agreement, and even the ORR, when they said DOO 'could be safe' had Southern in mind when they said with correct lighting, equipment and training. Southern has done little or none of this. (Certainly no new training at depots new to DOO working).
Thameslink trains are moving to 12 cars with Class 700 stock, with an advertised capacity of 1700 persons under one member of staff, but at least they have decent cameras. The older stock has poor camera equipment and is being rolled out onto 12 car services. Southern are at the same time de-staffing stations and the concern is that whilst LUL have a despatch procedure the ORR are happy with, Southern are not planning anything like this for busy stations, and with trains much longer.
The OBS grade means the train continue without them if they're delayed or absent. This is the cause of the last weeks headlines about disabled passengers being stranded for considerable periods of time. There are genuine concerns amongst Drivers about how this is being pushed through with haste and little apparent care, to the extent that over 900 of them are losing money when on strike for no future financial gain, but because they had exhausted all negotiating options to have their safety concerns dealt with.
Quote from: RailGooner on January 17, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
.. to me it doesn't appear there is any negative impact on safety.
Thanks to some of the well reasoned comments of others, I can now see that in this case there most likely will be a negative impact on safety.
I don't want to get involved in any way in a discussion about the safety rights or wrongs or any political dimension, but I'm curious about a factual aspect of all this.
I'm rather surprised that it's permissible for the train operator and the unions to debate minimum acceptable staffing levels.
I would have instinctively thought that, in today's world, anyone whisking hundreds of people along in a metal tube at high(ish) speed, would have mountains of safety related paperwork to contend with and a veritable forest of regulations and licence conditions needing compliance. Basically, I would have expected ORR to rule on whether or not a particular operating pattern met acceptable safety standards based on proper investigation, and that that would be the end of the matter.
Is that not the case, or have I missed something?
The staffing levels are changing though, are they? My understanding is that the number of personnel on the train remains unchanged. What seems to be changing is the guard no longer has to open or close the doors. The guard becomes a train supervisor (I think) and remains on the same pay and pay scale and is guaranteed a job for the remaining life of the "franchise" as well. Indeed apparently many guards have already signed up to the deal.
Southern have stated that the guard/supervisor will be rostered on all DOO trains, but has stated that if the guard/supervisor isn't available for some reason (sickness, absence, etc.) then the DOO allows the train to depart until a guard/supervisor can join the train at a later stop. At present, if the guard isn't there at the start of the journey, the train is cancelled. I think i'm right in saying that, but happy to be corrected if not.
I don't think either side of the dispute covers itself in glory, and maybe I'm being a bit devil's advocate, but it really doesn't look like a safety aspect to me.
This fortnights issue of rail has an editorial purporting to show a copy of a letter signed by the union leader in 2011 agreeing to DOO trains in 2011. This includes 12 coach units and the class 700. Regardless of whether it is safe or not, how can the same chap seem to agree it was safe in 2011 but it isn't safe now? That's never really been explained......
Quote from: Carmont on January 17, 2017, 08:17:57 PM
The staffing levels are changing though, are they? My understanding is that the number of personnel on the train remains unchanged. What seems to be changing is the guard no longer has to open or close the doors. The guard becomes a train supervisor (I think) and remains on the same pay and pay scale and is guaranteed a job for the remaining life of the "franchise" as well. Indeed apparently many guards have already signed up to the deal.
Southern have stated that the guard/supervisor will be rostered on all DOO trains, but has stated that if the guard/supervisor isn't available for some reason (sickness, absence, etc.) then the DOO allows the train to depart until a guard/supervisor can join the train at a later stop. At present, if the guard isn't there at the start of the journey, the train is cancelled. I think i'm right in saying that, but happy to be corrected if not.
I don't think either side of the dispute covers itself in glory, and maybe I'm being a bit devil's advocate, but it really doesn't look like a safety aspect to me.
This fortnights issue of rail has an editorial purporting to show a copy of a letter signed by the union leader in 2011 agreeing to DOO trains in 2011. This includes 12 coach units and the class 700. Regardless of whether it is safe or not, how can the same chap seem to agree it was safe in 2011 but it isn't safe now? That's never really been explained......
The Guards signed up on a sign up or your out the door basis. They (as OBS staff) are no longer safety critical, so not able to get electrical isolations or have the knowledge of the nearest evacuation point in emergencies. Trains are routinely running without them already.
The 2011 agreement was signed because it had already been committed to, (see my post above) and was therefore honoured despite not being ideal. Crucially for him, Union policy was changed by it's conference in the intervening years. So with 5 more years of passenger increases, recent advice from RAIB to all drivers following a platform drag incident that after 30 years of operation the 'Interlock' light showing doors are shut can no longer be relied upon to indicate it is safe to depart, is he and the Union membership not allowed to change his view in the light of events? For example, DOO covers 30% of passenger miles but disproportionately more incidents at TPI (Train Platform Interface) than that 30% would indicate was expected.
The media simply say it is about 'who presses the button to close the doors'. 🐎💩
Quote from: Cooper on January 17, 2017, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: Carmont on January 17, 2017, 08:17:57 PM
The staffing levels are changing though, are they? My understanding is that the number of personnel on the train remains unchanged. What seems to be changing is the guard no longer has to open or close the doors. The guard becomes a train supervisor (I think) and remains on the same pay and pay scale and is guaranteed a job for the remaining life of the "franchise" as well. Indeed apparently many guards have already signed up to the deal.
Southern have stated that the guard/supervisor will be rostered on all DOO trains, but has stated that if the guard/supervisor isn't available for some reason (sickness, absence, etc.) then the DOO allows the train to depart until a guard/supervisor can join the train at a later stop. At present, if the guard isn't there at the start of the journey, the train is cancelled. I think i'm right in saying that, but happy to be corrected if not.
I don't think either side of the dispute covers itself in glory, and maybe I'm being a bit devil's advocate, but it really doesn't look like a safety aspect to me.
This fortnights issue of rail has an editorial purporting to show a copy of a letter signed by the union leader in 2011 agreeing to DOO trains in 2011. This includes 12 coach units and the class 700. Regardless of whether it is safe or not, how can the same chap seem to agree it was safe in 2011 but it isn't safe now? That's never really been explained......
The Guards signed up on a sign up or your out the door basis. They (as OBS staff) are no longer safety critical, so not able to get electrical isolations or have the knowledge of the nearest evacuation point in emergencies. Trains are routinely running without them already.
The 2011 agreement was signed because it had already been committed to, (see my post above) and was therefore honoured despite not being ideal. Crucially for him, Union policy was changed by it's conference in the intervening years. So with 5 more years of passenger increases, recent advice from RAIB to all drivers following a platform drag incident that after 30 years of operation the 'Interlock' light showing doors are shut can no longer be relied upon to indicate it is safe to depart, is he and the Union membership not allowed to change his view in the light of events? For example, DOO covers 30% of passenger miles but disproportionately more incidents at TPI (Train Platform Interface) than that 30% would indicate was expected.
The media simply say it is about 'who presses the button to close the doors'. 🐎💩
Thanks for the clarification, and I bow to your superior knowledge of matters.
I take your point re the media. It could be argued that it's a double edged sword, however, since it's not truly Driver Only Operation (unlike some (or all?) tube services) and train crews aren't, in theory and contractually at least, being depleted, as some are suggesting.
I take the point re sign on or ship out, and like I said neither side is covering themselves in moral glory.
With the change in tack re the safety or non-safety, and the change in opinion then of the unions, might we see further industrial action on the services that are currently and have historically been DOO up to now, to attempt to reverse the implications of them not now being safe?
Regardless, the subject is a mine field.........
The bottom line is Southern wish to degrade the long standing position of the Grade of Guard solely to save* money.
It really is that simple.
Whether you agree with them or not is probably down to how much you know about Railways and how people interact when on them.
end of me in this thread ;)
(Save in the fashion of not bothering with House Insurance for example.....)
Quote from: JasonBz on January 17, 2017, 09:19:09 PM
Whether you agree with them or not is probably down to how much you know about Railways and how people interact when on them.
On a board that tries to be apolitical, that's an extremely provocative statement! If I'm reading your comment right (and correct me if I'm not) then you seem to be suggesting that anyone who agrees with Southern that driver-only operation is safe "doesn't know anything" about railways.
There are argument both ways in terms of driver-only operation. It isn't a simple as choosing between "cheaper" and "more safe". There are costs involved in making trains driver-only operated, and conversely, there hasn't been any measurable decrease in safety where driver-only operated trains already operate.
Even if it was about simply saving money, if services are too expensive to run, they get withdrawn, so the costs of running a train service
have to be considered when balancing risks against expense.
I'd direct forum members to this excellent and balanced review at Rail Magazine, here:
http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/the-pros-and-cons-of-driver-only-operation (http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/the-pros-and-cons-of-driver-only-operation)
Cheers, NeMo
Going round in circles, this argument will go on and on until the train manufacturers meet the demand of operators to build robotic trains with no guard and no driver, that run on time and don't go on strike.
Coming to this purely from an IT perspective I think the comment about eventually needing guards more than drivers is spot on.
I think we *know* enough to build driverless trains that would be safer than any human driver. We don't yet know how to build it, test it and deploy it cheaply enough except in very controlled environments. (Underground for example because there are less freaky things to deal with). At the moment our processes for producing very safe, very reliable highly tested computer code are effective, but they are incredibly expensive.
We can't replace guards with machines yet. We couldn't even build a robo guard that could walk the length of a crowded HST at 125mph stepping over baggage and dealing with questions.
It turns out people are hard. If we wanted today we could build a supermarket that robot self restocked, had full automated payment systems and was even largely self maintaining. It would be awesome, efficient and reliable, but the moment a bunch of drunks run in and try and steal all the cider it would be screwed.
So it turns out the most important rôle for staff in a future supermarket is probably security.
It's often not the obvious bits of a job that are hard to automate.
Alan
Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 31, 2017, 09:53:16 PM
Coming to this purely from an IT perspective I think the comment about eventually needing guards more than drivers is spot on.
I think we *know* enough to build driverless trains that would be safer than any human driver. We don't yet know how to build it, test it and deploy it cheaply enough except in very controlled environments. (Underground for example because there are less freaky things to deal with). At the moment our processes for producing very safe, very reliable highly tested computer code are effective, but they are incredibly expensive.
We can't replace guards with machines yet. We couldn't even build a robo guard that could walk the length of a crowded HST at 125mph stepping over baggage and dealing with questions.
It turns out people are hard. If we wanted today we could build a supermarket that robot self restocked, had full automated payment systems and was even largely self maintaining. It would be awesome, efficient and reliable, but the moment a bunch of drunks run in and try and steal all the cider it would be screwed.
So it turns out the most important rôle for staff in a future supermarket is probably security.
It's often not the obvious bits of a job that are hard to automate.
Alan
Disagree with the statement about Guards. The day of the Traditional Train Guard is numbered
However the future of the lower skilled, not safety critical Revenue protection office is guaranteed despite all the fear about trains only having one member of staff.
Someone is still needed to sell and enforce tickets (How else can the make money!). Not every station can be manned or fitted with barriers so someone is still needed.
Give them basic train safety and With credit cards and contact-less payment they don't even need to be trained or trusted to handle money in areas where walk-on tickets are available.
CCTV recognition software, door edge detection and a range of other sensors could all eliminate the need for a human pair of eyes to watch the doors be it the driver or the guard. What should be controversial is rather than force operators to prove they have a new system in place (or force them to implement one) to safeguard the train and passengers instead any danger no mater how unlikely is simply written off.
(Doesn't matter who closes the doors I am of the opinion if there isn't a drop down window for the guard to look out off there is always the risk of people getting hurt.)
As for the driver, newer signally systems could well see the computer taking more control.
20-30-40 years from now the Driver could be replaced with a minder with nothing more than a start and emergency stop button if we haven't made that leap of faith to trust the computer completely.
Automation is coming, we are on the edge of a new industrial revolution. A wide range of jobs from all backgrounds are set to be deskilled or eliminated completely and these disputes will appear quaint and simple to those who witness it.
And as the Skilled Jobs which remain require more and more Training and Education we will be presented with a choice;
Fight for Training opportunities and the retention of jobs like Ticket inspectors which have a social worth and value over the cost-savings of a machine.
Let it overwhelm us and face becoming confined to the scrapheap chasing race to the bottom jobs whilst the new industrialists profit greatly.
Or Reject it all, limit progress and force a future generation to face the hard decisions for we can not un-invent it.
I thought that all modern airliner crew were just minders already?
Quote from: Bealman on February 01, 2017, 12:11:16 AM
I thought that all modern airliner crew were just minders already?
Yes
I have looked at the comments on this thread and would like to put forward my own tuppence worth for your consideration.
some people have pointed out that other lines already operate driver only trains the former western region for example, my answer is that you cannot compare a line whose local services are more spread using at most 9 car units on almost dead straight platforms to the Southern whose platforms often at curved in more than one direction using up to 12 car trains especially in the rush hour with the suicidal attitudes of modern commuters trying to save that last second (anyone doubting this can see a perfect example any weekday at Stratford on the Jubilee line or waterloo in the evening, I have no doubt that it is any different anywhere else).
modern management is obsessed with the one size fits all solution even where common sense deems it dangerous, and of course the people who formulate these dangerous ideas rarely if ever stand to take the blame for the frequently inevitable consequences, preferring to hide behind PR people when things go wrong.
The obviously one sided reporting by the media helps no one at all, most of the angry commuters only think in one direction until their viewpoint is challenged with a more logical argument - believe me I have hav a few pointed conversations on platforms, and as soon as the facts are pointed out, the most vociferous amongst them go quiet while they realise that the last bastions of safety protecting them are going to be removed by people whose only loyalty is to the pound note or the bottom line.
For those who point to the DLR, I would remind them that the longest units currently in use are 4 cars long, which is not much longer than a 3 car unit on the proper railways and the train captains close the doors and step out to see that all is ok before getting back in to send that train on its way.
finally I have to say that my personal observations come from 40 years travelling on rail, tube and DLR
Regards,
Alex
Back in the days of Wessex Trains I was coming back from Portsmouth Harbour to Bristol, when the train arrived at Southampton we all had to detrain. We then went by bus to Romsey and boarded the same train! I asked the guard why this had happened, his reply was that the train had to be diverted and although there was a pilotman up front he had not signed for that route and there was no signed guard available, thus they could not carry passengers. If that was the case then have the rules and standards of safety been changed now to appease the mighty god of profit. Is this yet another idea dreamed up by people who do not live in the real world and have never worked at the coal face, rather like the use of the hard shoulder on motorways as a running lane to save costs at the expense of safety.
Geoff
I've been keeping an eye on this one for a while and the below reply is the best reason why OMO trains are a bad idea.
On a personal note.
Some 30+ years ago on an Edinburgh-London train a rather drunk Scotsman took exception to everyone and everything English. He was very drunk (At 10 am) and his behaviour was very worrying as he was plainly looking for someone to fight him. Luckily the guard came through the carriage while he was launching a tirade at one poor guy who was wearing an England Football shirt. The guard not only managed to cool him down, but also called the Police who escorted the guy off the train at the next stop. With One Man Operation this had the potential to turn very bad very quickly!
Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on January 08, 2017, 11:19:34 AM
I am writing here as a retired Guard/Train Manager who worked for BR, Thames Trains and FGW on everything from loco and coaches, HSTs to 166 DMUs, along with various Southern electric EMUs both in Guard and Driver Only operation and my opinion is a firm no DOO is not 'safe'.
I feel that the railway/Department for Transport is only considering the operational side of the 'argument' - but that is only one aspect.
I feel on any train where passengers are carried there must be a member of staff who can be contacted in order to deal with the everyday questions e.g. "Where do I change for Oxford?" to lost property, passengers behaving badly (loud music or other anti social behaviour) to even threatening others (one of my last trains before retirement was carrying a man with a knife threatening other passengers; he was arrested but had a Guard not been there to alert the police?).
I believe that there are many points which are simply not being taken into account - the Guard on a passenger train does much more than close doors and goes back to his newspaper which, from the reports I'm reading, seems to be what some sections seem to think.
Quote from: NeMo on January 31, 2017, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: JasonBz on January 17, 2017, 09:19:09 PM
Whether you agree with them or not is probably down to how much you know about Railways and how people interact when on them.
On a board that tries to be apolitical, that's an extremely provocative statement! If I'm reading your comment right (and correct me if I'm not) then you seem to be suggesting that anyone who agrees with Southern that driver-only operation is safe "doesn't know anything" about railways.
There are argument both ways in terms of driver-only operation. It isn't a simple as choosing between "cheaper" and "more safe". There are costs involved in making trains driver-only operated, and conversely, there hasn't been any measurable decrease in safety where driver-only operated trains already operate.
Even if it was about simply saving money, if services are too expensive to run, they get withdrawn, so the costs of running a train service have to be considered when balancing risks against expense.
I'd direct forum members to this excellent and balanced review at Rail Magazine, here:
http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/the-pros-and-cons-of-driver-only-operation (http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/the-pros-and-cons-of-driver-only-operation)
Cheers, NeMo
Nothing political there, just that having spent the best part of 15 years working on trains as a Guard/Conductor/Train Manager gives me a much better view (and opinion) of what on-board life will be like for the passengers when there is no person
with authority there to keep order.
The Guard is in charge of the train - period.
There is no supervisor or "higher authority", if the Guard tells you to behave, or leave the train, that is what you do. OR be arrested/taken away at the next available point.
BTP won't argue the case, they will carry out the Guard's request.
I simply do not believe that some "on board staff" will have that authority - or they would be "guards", and it is that authority that keeps a general sense of order on the huge majority of train services.
Having been at both ends of a train, Starting as a Guard and ending my Railway days as a Driver I can see both sides of this discussion.
From a Guards point of view, his training places him in total charge of the train and it's safe and correct operation but only initially in an oversight capacity, Only when something needs to be done or safety is compromised do their duties compel them to act so as long as nothing in the above takes place they are essentially along for the ride.
Not wishing to detract from the import of the Guards duties, The Driver, on the other hand being at the sharp end has the duty of enacting all required rules regulations and actions involved in moving a train from point to point in good order.
In the past when onboard communications was not available, Long promised but never provided, a lot of what took place followed set methods that required two or more individuals to work in unison, Station and yard operations being only two areas, Now with the introduction of technology Platform operations can be conducted by the Driver alone and to some extent interior oversight can be achieved but the loss of the second person on some passenger trains does present risks not only to the safe operation of the train but to the passengers an crew.
Open line operation becomes far simpler as the Driver need not leave the cab except in exceptional circumstances so main line movements between locations can be made without a second person aboard as long as nothing goes wrong.
To the layman, Rail operations can be a mystery, how things happen and in what order even reading the rule book and operating manual can leave them with more questions than answers, To the staff however once trained and that includes a period of acclimatisation will be able to fill in the gaps.
Long gone is the equipment I had to use, voice-activated telephones in dank spider filled wooden boxes talking to a signalman many miles away, a wind up watch and train consist sheets written out by hand and calculated often in the dark of an unlit siding in mid-winter. Overall the job has got a lot simpler but has lost something along the way.
In the end, it's the tech that will make Driver only operations work, driven by shareholders dividends, not sure the travelling public will really note a difference as long as they get there in one piece and about on time, I just wish that the train operating companies learned something that BR new all about decades ago, that joined up thinking works.
Operating companies are there to make profits. As in Victorian times the rush to save money and any safety issues that result will only be curbed by regulations unfortunately introduced after some disaster. As someone said every screw saved is more profit.
Avoided this thread, because it's the most infernal and pointless discussion ever! However, surely discussions about profit are entirely moot because of how the Southern franchise is operated. GTR don't care if they make profit, they hand it straight to the government. There's no incentive to Southern to even run a train, let alone cut costs.
JasonBz - you're not disinterested, you can be as vocal as you like, but you're arguing for your own livelihood! Few people would put their hand up and say they're entirely superfluous.
Either way, it seems to have settled down, Southern are performing well at the moment (from my first hand experience on the Arun Valley line). The OBSs are making pointed announcements starting "this is your OBS", where they never used to say "this is your guard", but they've also started checking tickets, which didn't happen once to me in the whole of the second half of last year. So they obviously feel they can come out of hiding now, which is nice. I'd sooner have a visible OBS than an invisible guard.
Miraculously the camera reliability has markedly improved on 377s too, and there are far fewer cancellations!
Personally, I feel the situation is fine. The only element where I think DOO is genuinely an issue is with disabled passengers at unmanned stations. I've yet to see a good explanation of how that'll be handled without staff. There's far too much hand-wringing going on about how dangerous this is. If you believe the hyperbole you'd think that people were losing arms on a daily basis. IMO the defence that "trains are long and crowded, and platforms are curved" is totally invalid; a guard cannot see down a packed, curved, rush hour platform any more than the driver can.