Hopefully just a rumour

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

Why is DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) not allowed to be expanded.  Is this a H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) issue or an agreement with the Unions? 

To be honest, Tim, you make some reasonable and well argued suggestions. The trouble with the railway industry is that it's very resistant to change. The Unions (and many of the crew's) point of view to a change such as the Driver assuming full control of the door operation is that (on the Guards side) it is a slow reduction in duties that will eventually lead to the removal of them all-together, and (on the Drivers side) that they should receive a much better salary for taking on more responsibility. These things all hinder change/progress even when the will behind the idea is positive.

I would be surprised to see any expansion in DOO operation and agree that it benefits nothing except for the annual salary budget - though how much of that is lost through untapped revenue, train vandalism, and other factors that only having a driver on board result in is anyones guess?

[vacman]

There is some form of agreement between the unions the HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s about DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)).

[The SprinterMeister]

There is some form of agreement between the unions the HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s about DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)).

There is also the conditions of service of the staff to consider too.

On ''West'' it is permissable for the driver to release the doors, that was agreed but the other unions were never consulted as to the implementation. Therefore it fell doormant and the door release buttons have been removed from the rolling stock driving cabs. The guard was / is still required to close the doors in all instances. To introduce stock designed for DOO operation on 'West' staff would require negotiation to agreement. Sorry folks, fact of life.

The current standards for DOO require lineside and on train equipment which would be uneconomical to fit and maintain on the southwest branch lines. If you were to have a punch up on a rural train I would imagine the time taken to get BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) / Civil police to the train would be measured in hours rather than minutes. And don't forget that the traincrew have no more statutory powers than joe public when it comes to dealing with offenders in the middle of nowhere. Tazers and Batons are not part of the personal protective equipment. Once your driver gets lumped, sorry folks thats it until the cavalry turn up, fend for yourselves.

While noting that LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) run DOO trains the drivers are renumerated for the extra duties that they undertake. I expect if you asked those same drivers, a fair percentage would prefer to see the guard on the back end however.

[The SprinterMeister]

East Midlands Trains had some 158s in Wessex Trains livery, not sure how many.  If they were 3 car 158s then it's likely the centre coach was taken out and sent to Northern.

Wessex never ever ran the 'pukka' three car 158 units in the 158798-814 series. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has only one set, 158798. This is in fact the only three car set running in its original formation.

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) 158815-7/855/871-2 went to Northern, FSR^▸ (First Scot Rail) took 158866-70 & EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about) took 158863-5.

[IndustryInsider]

While noting that LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) run DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) trains the drivers are renumerated for the extra duties that they undertake.

They get paid less than their HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) colleagues who don't do DOO train operations, and although they get more than West drivers the cost of living near London is higher. Conditions of work also affect what pay is appropriate too though I should add, and in my opinion, LTV have the best set of conditions.

And, will the great 'harmonisation' white elephant do away with any DOO premium entirely?

[swlines]

Sorry why?

SWT^▸ (South West Trains) have hundreds of spare 158s and the stretched FGW^▸ (First Great Western) fleet is to be taken away?

I'd love to meet the idiot that made this decision, of course, hopefully a rumour

As I've explained to you many times, the additional 158s SWT have are part of the franchise agreement for 2x10 coach trains on peak time services on the West of England.

[The SprinterMeister]

They get paid less than their HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) colleagues who don't do DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) train operations, and although they get more than West drivers the cost of living near London is higher. Conditions of work also affect what pay is appropriate too though I should add, and in my opinion, LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) have the best set of conditions.

And, will the great 'harmonisation' white elephant do away with any DOO premium entirely?

Your guess is quite frankly as good as mine at the moment. Neither you nor I are going to be involved in the negotiations that will be occurring in September. The 'West' and 'LTV' drivers are being canvassed for their views by the local reps for their views as to the best way forward however. Having never seen the LTV terms and conditions I couldnt possibly comment as to their content although I understand there is no 'DOO Premium' merely a higher base salary. DOO is not paid on a 'per turn' basis I believe.

The whole question of differing salaries within a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) is a result of the franchises having been left to their own devices on pay and conditions for a number of years and then bought together by the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) messing around with the franchise areas at re-franchising time. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is not the only TOC with this problem as you are no doubt well aware. Until the issue has been adequately addressed there is no further scope for extending the scope of cross covering other tractions or routes.

[qwerty]

DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) won't happen any time soon in the West Country. I'ts not on the agenda simply because the investment in Infastructure is massive and the savings are small on rural branch lines.

On an intensive suburban railway say 6 trains per hour, there may be 12 or 14 trains on a circuit. That's maybe 40 members of staff saved (2 shifts + spare + holiday cover).

On the Paignton line it's 1 train per hour, for the basic unit service.

[12hoursunday]

I heard today from a fairly senior source that 5 to 10 165 and or 6s may be transferred to Brizzle from Reading.  Speculation is that they will be used on  core routes, particularly to/frm Gloucester.  Unsure just how solid this is and I think that I read somewhere that Turbos would require work to be usable in the west.  If driver operation of doors is retained,  guards will be freed up to take more revenue. 

 I believe that SWT^▸ (South West Trains) only have 11 2 car sets of 158s, but who knows what is lurking at Salisbury.

The guard would have to operate the doors as it would be deemed as DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) if the doors are operated by the driver and the DOO system is not allowed to be expanded from the areas where it is in operation now. Don't think our 158's are going anywhere, EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about) have a surplus of 153's which will cover.

Ah! but in the days of the Bristol-Oxfords the driver operated the doors, but only after the instruction from the guard. The driver also opened the doors of class 180 traction after prompting from the Train Manager. So it's not a new thing in the West Country.

[The SprinterMeister]

I heard today from a fairly senior source that 5 to 10 165 and or 6s may be transferred to Brizzle from Reading.  Speculation is that they will be used on  core routes, particularly to/frm Gloucester.  Unsure just how solid this is and I think that I read somewhere that Turbos would require work to be usable in the west.  If driver operation of doors is retained,  guards will be freed up to take more revenue. 

 I believe that SWT^▸ (South West Trains) only have 11 2 car sets of 158s, but who knows what is lurking at Salisbury.

The guard would have to operate the doors as it would be deemed as DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) if the doors are operated by the driver and the DOO system is not allowed to be expanded from the areas where it is in operation now. Don't think our 158's are going anywhere, EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about) have a surplus of 153's which will cover.

Ah! but in the days of the Bristol-Oxfords the driver operated the doors, but only after the instruction from the guard. The driver also opened the doors of class 180 traction after prompting from the Train Manager. So it's not a new thing in the West Country.

From memory and correct me if I am wrong the Oxford - Bristol services were operated in the main with what would now be termed LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) drivers with a few HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) men who had previous knowledge of 165 units. There was no Wales & West involvement with these services at all.

[Electric train]

The whole question of differing salaries within a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) is a result of the franchises having been left to their own devices on pay and conditions for a number of years and then bought together by the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) messing around with the franchise areas at re-franchising time. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is not the only TOC with this problem as you are no doubt well aware. Until the issue has been adequately addressed there is no further scope for extending the scope of cross covering other tractions or routes.

This exactly the pain that NWR have and still are going through harmonising the disharmony caused by the big wild world of privatisation, unfortunately the people who have bared the brunt of it are the coal face staff, lets hope there is an amicable agreement

[G.Uard]

But then you arrive at the Gare St Lazare and see a few CRS on the platform with sub-machine guns at the ready... 

I would love to see how the Yate commuters would react to that scenario

I was at Reading yesterday and a colleague confirms that the idea (nothing more), of a transfer of some Turbo stock has been mooted.

Old hands at  local depots confirm earlier posts which point out that DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) is very unlikely to happpen in the west.

[12hoursunday]

From memory and correct me if I am wrong the Oxford - Bristol services were operated in the main with what would now be termed LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) drivers with a few HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) men who had previous knowledge of 165 units. There was no Wales & West involvement with these services at all.

You are right, although it was a 50/50 thing in the terms of driver numbers. There was no W&W^▸ (Wales and West - (before Wessex Trains!)) involvement. The point of the posting was to state that whilst 165/166 are I think primaraly designed for DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) there was a way around the the old chestnut of the guard being in charge of the train and that was for the guard to give the instruction to the driver to operate the doors. This I assume must of been acceptable to the unions at the time so I guess that there shouldn't be much of a problem should these trains make a re-apperance in these parts.

[IndustryInsider]

I think it's been said before, but Turbos on non-DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) lines have the following method of despatch:

1) Driver opens doors on arrival at station (no input from Guard).
2) Guard gives 1-2 to driver on buzzer to shut doors.
3) Driver shuts doors and responds with 1-2.
4) Guard gives 2 to driver on buzzer to give right away.
5) Driver responds with 2 and departs station.

This is in use daily on several routes including Gatwick and the Cotswold Line. If Turbos get transferred to Bristol then I would imagine the same method would be used, after the relevant Union consultations have taken place so that the local staff can accept them.

[The SprinterMeister]

As far as I can gather, going back to the original subject matter, I do not think the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 158 fleet will be going anywhere for the forseeable future so I don't think the 165 situation arises in any case. The only units which could concieveably dissapear are the 5 ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) 150/2s which are on short term sublease. The 5 142's going back to Northern are cover for the 15x stopped in works for refurbishment. I'm led to believe the 158 programme is nearing its end, only the 143's and remaining 150/2's to be dealt with.

I suspect the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter) has somehow confused last years transfer out of the 14 Angel 158's to other operators as being an event to occur this December. I have seen no other reference to it anywhere else in cyberspace.

I rather doubt the LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) fleet has spare capacity to bail out the 'West' fleet in anycase.