DOO is a safe sys­tem

Rail (UK) - - Open Access | Letters -

Am I alone in be­liev­ing that the ar­gu­ments of safety and “con­cern for pas­sen­ger wel­fare” - be­ing used by the unions over the ques­tion of con­trol­ling doors - are some­what un­jus­ti­fied? My grounds for say­ing this are:

For over 30 years my lo­cal Thames­link line has op­er­ated on a Driver-Only ba­sis with­out in­ci­dent.

In my ex­pe­ri­ence, on many trains fares go un­col­lected or tick­ets unchecked be­cause ei­ther the sec­ond man/woman is con­stantly in­ter­rupted by the need to stop and op­er­ate the doors, or be­cause he/she does noth­ing but op­er­ate the doors. Hence we have lines on which ‘free travel’ is the norm (for ex­am­ple, the Gospel Oak line in pre-Lon­don Over­ground days), where even the most well- in­ten­tioned pas­sen­ger is un­able to pur­chase a ticket.

Even on in­ter-city trains it can hap­pen that no one ap­pears to check tick­ets or to give face-to-face re­as­sur­ance/ in­for­ma­tion to pas­sen­gers.

Has the time not come for the ex­perts to clearly state once and for all what the sys­tem re­quires, in the in­ter­ests of the pas­sen­ger and tax­payer, rather than the RMT wish­ing to pre­serve roles that are no longer rel­e­vant?

I cer­tainly do not claim to be such an ex­pert but I ven­ture to sug­gest the fol­low­ing:

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.