Driver only trains - safe??

[Cooper]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-dead-after-coat-became-stuck-in-train-doors-on-paris-metro-a6812746.html

[Snowwolflair]

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.

[Yet_Another]

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.

[dodger]

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

[Sprintex]

Is this a dispute over safety or politics?

Dodger

You need to ask that question, really?


Paul

[Cooper]

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.

[RailGooner]

.. 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.

[Nick]

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?

[Carmont]

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......

[Cooper]

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'. 🐎💩

[Carmont]

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......... 

[JasonBz]

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.....)

[NeMo]

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

Cheers, NeMo

[Snowwolflair]

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.

[EtchedPixels]

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