Page 1 of 2
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 18:20 #78271 | |
tjfrancis
359 posts |
is this a going forwards or backwards for the good of the railway and it customers https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-and-aslef-executives-sign-joint-statement/ what's your opinion on it my is that it good because it wll bring more jobs for the train companies and it more safer on the trains? I am dyslexic so please consider this when reading my posts Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 18:24 #78272 | |
Steamer
3985 posts |
To clarify, the actual agreement is that any attempt to extend DOO-P/DCO will cause the two unions to enter into dispute with the TOC in question. The real question is whether the DfT will pay any attention and stop their attempts to force it through. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 18:48 #78273 | |
postal
5265 posts |
" said:is this a going forwards or backwards for the good of the railway and it customersWhy is it good that the costs of running the railway (already far too high) should be inflated by creating unnecessary jobs? Also remember that the current system of someone on the train who has to dash off from his/her customer service and revenue protection work to open and close the doors only leads to delay. There is often a considerable wait while that person gets to the door and works the release whereas the driver can have the doors releasing as soon as the train stops. DOO is not a panacea but if it is already accepted over large parts of the network is there any justification for this stance except for the trade unions looking to protect their members jobs. Exactly what you would expect a trade union to do because that is the reason for their existence but remember the expense that it causes to every user of the railway in order to protect what is in comparison a small number of people. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Last edited: 01/12/2015 at 18:51 by postal Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Peter Bennet, GoochyB |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 19:18 #78275 | |
|
tjfrancis
359 posts |
at the end of the day customer safety is at the top and haveing guards on trains wll keep the safety at a high standend and it wll keep lost ticket cost down low when they check tickets so it a win win for the train companies
I am dyslexic so please consider this when reading my posts Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 19:21 #78276 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
" said:Creating jobs for the sake of it is not the answer. As someone who travels on the GN were we have had DOO since before I was a commuter (1970s?) I have no issue with it. Where I have been on trains with guards (or whatever they are called) its just a faff waiting for the doors to open when one is used to DOO. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 19:26 #78277 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
" said:To clarify, the actual agreement is that any attempt to extend DOO-P/DCO will cause the two unions to enter into dispute with the TOC in question.It's a Franchise requirement to extend DOO to Southern trains on TSGN if I recall correctly: so that will be interesting. Glasgow Subway is moving to driverless trains like DLR. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 19:27 #78278 | |
DriverCurran
688 posts 
|
At the end of the day a conductor who is competent to a high standard on his route knowledge will know how and when to undertake revenue duties to avoid delaying his or her train. For example when I used to work the Medway Valley line I knew that I could get the rear coach done between Strood and Cuxton and still make it back to rear cab of a 508 to dispatch the train with no delay (other than waiting for customers to take their time getting on and off), however I also knew that I could complete one coach in this time and therefore I would stagger which coach I went to first to prevent any likely personage who wished to avoid their fare on this section knowing where I would be undertaking this coach. You could also hit without any delay the whole train between Aylesford and Maidstone Barracks. Paul You have to get a red before you can get any other colour Log in to reply The following user said thank you: tjfrancis |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 19:35 #78280 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
" said:is this a going forwards or backwards for the good of the railway and it customersLet it first be said I don't have a side/opinion in this argument. I understand and appreciate both sides reasoning. But the arguments for increased DOO are compelling. Let us not forget DOO isn't a new thing - driver-only (and indeed briefly driver-less, in a very self-contained test setup) operation on the underground started in the 1960s on a remote corner of the central line. It has been Mostly DOO since the mid 1990s, and completely DOO by the turn of the century. That's over 1 billion passenger journeys annually with very very few passenger/train interface-related fatalities in the 15 years since its total introduction. Outside of the Underground though, large swathes of railway in the South East of England have been DOO, either wholly or partly since the 1990s. Again, very few P/TI related fatal incidents. Indeed, Merseyrail (which does not operate any DOO-P services) are once again unfortunately in the headlines after a guard is to stand trial for injuries caused to a woman who fell between platform and a guard-operated train service. This coming just a few years after the death of a teenager who was killed in similar circumstances. 7/7, Potters Bar - both are incidents involving DOO passenger services, whereby the lack of a guard had no bearing on the outcome. Those facts, coupled with no contrary evidence that DOO services are any less safe than services operated with a guard, essentially shatter the union's belief that "DOO compromises safety". I do however feel the unions have a point with regard to job security- or the lack thereof. DCO is simply DOO by the back door. It won't take much imagination from the TOCs to make that jump once DCO is approved. I guess my advice to guards would be to make themselves as indispensable as possible. The 2 or 3 black sheep in every depot who spend their time hiding in the back cab the entire journey do not do their colleagues any favours. While I agree their principal job is a safety role, they need to stop fuelling this belief by the majority of "outsiders" who think all they do is open and close the doors. Engage with the public and demonstrate that, when not fulfilling a safety critical role, they still perform a vital function that cannot be dealt with by the driver. There are arguments of cost aswell. Subsidy is high, fares are stratospheric, and we have commitments to run significantly more trains over the coming years than we ever have. If we pander to the unions every demand here, that will only increase. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: tjfrancis, DriverCurran, GoochyB, sorabain, lionel87 |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 20:24 #78285 | |
|
Jersey_Mike
250 posts |
First, proper term is One Person Train Operation, or OPTO.  Second, OPTO is generally acceptable for transit style operations, but not railway style. A second person is necessary to do things throw switches, couple cars, reverse seats, open/close manual doors, make sure nobody is being dragged, conduct running repairs, flag crossings, collect fares, protect reverse moves and copy train orders. If all of those duties have been eliminated then you're running a transit system and you can use OPTO. B) Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 20:30 #78286 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
" said:First, proper term is One Person Train Operation, or OPTO.Throw switches - done by the signaller (or ARS) Couple cars - done by the driver, coupling systems are mostly automagic Reverse seats - ours don't do that open/close manual doors - doors are being made automatic, only manual doors are on Mk3 rolling stock (HSTs mostly) Make sure nobody is being dragged - can be done just fine with a combination of CCTV / platform staff / people not trying to jump a closing door. Conduct running repairs - better to have specialists in that case Flag crossings - again, that's a job for different people. Collect fares - can be done by revenue protection, occasionally contracted out. Protect reverse moves - would be done by someone else Copy train orders - I'm sure someone else can operate a printer. Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 20:36 #78287 | |
|
RainbowNines
272 posts |
I'm fairly unionised, as it goes, and am involved with the union (I won't say which) in my industry in a couple of ways - including as a former rep. I always back industrial action of others as the right to take it is one of the big advantages of democracy and stops us all being walked over. However, I do feel like this is impeding the course of progress somewhat, especially in commuterland where it's been commonplace for years. On t'other hand, I have to say I think as a passenger I'd like a guard (train manager...?) on long distance services, so I'm not really a big fan of the new GWR expresses being DOO. But as I say - it's progress. The railway has thrived on being thrifty since forever, and will surely continue to do so. If you look back at the time that some of 58050's timetables are set in - 20-30 years or so - it's a different world even in the 80s. It does raise the fascinating question of what the railway will look like in another 20 years! I watch with interest. Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 20:54 #78290 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
2:33 Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 21:23 #78295 | |
|
Steamer
3985 posts |
" said:Why is it good that the costs of running the railway (already far too high) should be inflated by creating unnecessary jobs? Also remember that the current system of someone on the train who has to dash off from his/her customer service and revenue protection work to open and close the doors only leads to delay. There is often a considerable wait while that person gets to the door and works the release whereas the driver can have the doors releasing as soon as the train stops.Trains are increasingly being fitted with door controls at every set of passenger doors, so there's less of a problem in having to walk to the back at every stop. A lot of the inflated running costs arise from sheer incompetence at a high level- I think that should be the first to be tackled, rather than staff who provide a useful function. " said: 7/7, Potters Bar - both are incidents involving DOO passenger services, whereby the lack of a guard had no bearing on the outcome.7/7 was in the centre of London, where help is never far away. I see your Potters Bar and raise you Ladbroke Grove, where both drivers were killed instantly. The passengers on the HST had the guard to look after them, and fortunately there were off-duty members of staff travelling in the Turbo- if they weren't there, those passengers would've been on their own. It's also unclear who would look after the passengers/report the incident if a DOO service hit an obstruction (tree/tractor etc.) leaving the driver seriously injured, trapped or otherwise incapable of carrying out their duties. Quote: Indeed, Merseyrail (which does not operate any DOO-P services) are once again unfortunately in the headlines after a guard is to stand trial for injuries caused to a woman who fell between platform and a guard-operated train service. This coming just a few years after the death of a teenager who was killed in similar circumstances.This is one reason why drivers are dead against it- they're extremely worried by the new trend of prosecuting the person closing the doors. The Merseyrail cases are a travesty- at James Street, the RAIB was of the opinion that the guard couldn't reasonably have prevented the accident, but the report wasn't allowed to be published until a prosecution was completed. In the more recent case, Merseyrail's internal inquiry found the guard to be in the clear, and indeed he helped rescue the person who became trapped. For reasons not entirely clear, the CPS think they have a case. " said: Collect fares - can be done by revenue protection, occasionally contracted out.And herein lies the next round of cost cutting- don't bother recruiting staff and training them properly, phone up "Rent-a-Goon" instead. " said: 2:33For the benefit of non-UK forum members, this is a very rare form of operation with passenger trains in the UK. That line (the Heysham Port branch) only sees one train a day. There are very few locations where the driver has to change points manually when working a passenger train, they'd only have to do that on depots. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 01/12/2015 at 23:56 #78303 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Traditionally (which probably means "currently" in the USA) train orders are dictated over the radio, written by hand, and read back. I've visited two control rooms in Australia in the last few weeks and also talked to the stationmaster on another single line. The train orders are issued electronically by computer and radio. The controller puts together the order on her computer screen, has the computer validate it doesn't conflict with any other movement or possession, then presses a button to send it to the train. It appears on a screen in the driving cab with a 4 character "security code"; the train crew read the code back to the controller over the radio, who confirms it. As the train progresses, its location (using GPS) is radioed back to the control centre every minute or so. When the train is clear of a passing loop (the train's computer knows how long it is) the computers automatically cancel that part of the order, freeing up the line for a following or opposing move. Apart from the fact that orders can go between any two points, not just adjacent stations, and can include instructions like "enter loop" (meaning working hand points), it's very similar to RETB in principle. Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 02:56 #78305 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:" said:"Mostly" would probably fit the bill. I have seen some installations where digital dispatch center to engine transmission was involved but not sure if that was a trial. The dispatching centers do have some sort of conflict prevention though.Traditionally (which probably means "currently" in the USA) train orders are dictated over the radio, written by hand, and read back. I'm most interested to see how the shambles that is PTC (sorry, will be PTC if they get it working properly everywhere it's required) will handle train orders (DTC/TWC) like this. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 06:31 #78306 | |
Mattyq
259 posts |
" said:First, proper term is One Person Train Operation, or OPTO.No Mike, the North American term is "OPTO". I have never heard anything but "DOO" used elsewhere. " said: Second, OPTO is generally acceptable for transit style operations, but not railway style.Well, you better tell Queensland Rail, Aurizon, V/Line and Pacific National (QLD) that they're doing it wrong. They have collectively been running Driver Only Operated freight and locomotive-hauled medium/long distance passenger trains for nearly 25 years now and with a great deal of success. Further to that, the commuter railways in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth have been DOO for many years too and they are NOT transit systems. " said: A second person is necessary to do things throw switches, couple cars, reverse seats, open/close manual doors, make sure nobody is being dragged, conduct running repairs, flag crossings, collect fares, protect reverse moves and copy train orders. If all of those duties have been eliminated then you're running a transit system and you can use OPTO. B)"Necessary"? Again, tell that to the aforementioned companies - and that's in Australia alone. I can't speak for the other operators but no serious setback has ever been recorded against a QR train because it was DOO (to the best of my knowledge and I worked with QR for 30 years). Not fat ..... fluffy!! (G Iglesias) Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 16:23 #78312 | |
|
Jersey_Mike
250 posts |
" said:Try switching! Sounds more professional than DOO. :lol: " said: I'm not sure how you get away with it seeing all the common freight train operations that work better with two people. I don't even think it is even possible to perform a shoving move without a second person. Also re: passenger trains I am sure there is a second employee somewhere on the train. " said: The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Canada was attributable to one person operation. Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 16:40 #78314 | |
|
postal
5265 posts |
Good to see that what started as a sensible discussion about the merits or otherwise of DOO on the UK's congested passenger railway has degenerated into another transatlantic squabble with no relevance to the original discussion. Perhaps it would be better if there was some facility apart from "Reply" or "Quote" so that those who wish to go off at a tangent about something totally irrelevant to the original topic could have a button like "I've got nothing to add to the original topic but I want to troll out my fishing line". “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply The following user said thank you: GoochyB |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 17:20 #78317 | |
|
RainbowNines
272 posts |
" said:" said:With respect, I can't see where it says having an extra person with the driver would have made a difference? Surely both of them would have got in the taxi when they'd finished.The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Canada was attributable to one person operation. Are you suggesting that the error wouldn't have happened had the driver had someone to prompt him? That sounds like a union's argument. From Jersey_Mike...! Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 18:10 #78318 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Canada was attributable to one person operation.No it wasn't. Transport Canada requiring two-person operation of dangerous goods does not equate to attribution. As numerous accidents in the past have shown, two person operation is no guarantee whatsoever of avoiding accidents. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 19:19 #78320 | |
|
RainbowNines
272 posts |
I'm glad you cleared that up Geoff... I thought I was going mad.
Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 20:38 #78325 | |
|
Andy174
94 posts |
I drove trains both with guards & then DOO up until the mid 90's & can see the arguments on both sides. Personally from the point of the driver I found DOO quite enjoyable from the point of the actual door operation and actually relieved the tedium of some commuter routes & when the procedures were adhered to encountered no safety issues. However its flaws come into place when there was an eqpt failure or incident where a guard could deal with the passengers etc leaving the driver to concentrate on the technical side etc. On the suburban networks out of South East London when there were guards they didn't walk through trains re ticket checks etc as the door controls were in intermediate cabs. Can't see DOO being removed from existing lines, looks like industrial strife ahead.
Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 20:55 #78327 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
" said:Perhaps it would be better if there was some facility apart from "Reply" or "Quote" so that those who wish to go off at a tangent about something totally irrelevant to the original topic could have a button like "I've got nothing to add to the original topic but I want to troll out my fishing line".Yes, some people do like to ramble off in their own direction :doh I'm not sure DOO will catch on here fast until a lot more stations have ticketing facilities. Last edited: 02/12/2015 at 20:55 by Sacro Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 02/12/2015 at 21:07 #78330 | |
|
postal
5265 posts |
" said:" said:DOO and having someone on the train issuing and checking tickets are not mutually exclusive although you lose some of the cash savings by still employing someone on the train to do the passenger interface.Perhaps it would be better if there was some facility apart from "Reply" or "Quote" so that those who wish to go off at a tangent about something totally irrelevant to the original topic could have a button like "I've got nothing to add to the original topic but I want to troll out my fishing line".Yes, some people do like to ramble off in their own direction :doh “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| ASLEF and RMT agree: no more DOO or DCO 03/12/2015 at 03:15 #78354 | |
|
LucasLCC
94 posts |
" said:The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Canada was attributable to one person operation.Having just read the majority of that article, I'm really confused to how a train left on the main line overnight unattended (i.e. Not even a driver there...), can be blamed on driver only operation? Surely to be driver only operation, then you'd require a driver? Log in to reply |