QueenslandRail Driver Only Operation (DOO) - How to DOO it?

[#Metro]

METRO AUTOMATION FACTS, FIGURES AND TRENDS
-
A global bid for automation: UITP Observatory of Automated Metros
confirms sustained growth rates for the coming years

http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/Metro%20automation%20-%20facts%20and%20figures.pdf

[timh]

#Metro I'm with you in that I think going forward in the long term a fully automated rail network is the obvious way to go. However I can see how with our current network it would be an absolutely phenomenal cost. Small sections like darra to Springfield or eagle junction to airport or even Beenleigj to Varsity Lakes could work yeah. But basically any other line has either a) freight trains on the same tracks, and/or b) shitloads of level crossings. That's not to mention the cost of upgrading all the stations to be compliant, including glass doors to the platforms, full height platforms, etc. As a result of this I don't think any Queensland stage government is going to even consider it in the next 15 years
I think rather they're better off considering driverless as an option for new lines. Maybe Darra - Springfield back to Ipswich through Ripley is a candidate. Salisbury shares with freight so that's not gonna work. CAMCOS could work, but only to Beerwah. So it doesjt allow a rapid rail connection directly to Brisbane.

[#Metro]

That's not to mention the cost of upgrading all the stations to be compliant, including glass doors to the platforms, full height platforms, etc. As a result of this I don't think any Queensland stage government is going to even consider it in the next 15 years

Oh of course! Going by how CRR went, 15 years in the minimum horizon required for the Queensland Government.

The costs to upgrade stations to be compliant is not an avoidable cost - it has to be done anyway to comply with modern DDA standards and generally renew the station infrastructure.

So not DOOing it will not reduce that cost. The Chatswood-Epping line in Sydney needed platform doors retrofitted, and it was done. The line to Bankstown will have the same treatment.

Freight is an interesting one - there are automated driverless freight trains now, the technology there will mature. Perhaps it would be similar to air traffic control, when a freight train approaches the suburban network, control is handed over to QR who then drive it to where it needs to be. It might require freight operators to install equipment so that the network can 'see' the train.

Again if you compare Melbourne and Sydney, Melbourne has the lower operating cost per passenger by almost half.
A number of lines are moving to or are already 10 minutes all day.

World Conference of Transport Research 2010
RAIL PATRONAGE MANAGEMENT –
effectiveness in practice, and new theoretical frames

http://backontrack.org/docs/wctr10.pdf

(Click image to enlarge)

[James]

I think the first step would be DOO - as a lot of the work required for driverless trains is also required for DOO e.g. level platforms, platforms with appropriate amounts of curvature, ATP/ETCS etc.

Driverless trains require total network segregation, something that I don't think we'll see for quite a long time on many lines. Perhaps something to be futureproofed for when doing works, but not to be actively worked towards. As you'd still be paying the driver to sit in a cab doing nothing, a semi-automatic driverless train (one which is only automatic in certain sections) would deliver limited benefits. You'd need to go for all or nothing here to make it worth it IMHO.

[verbatim9]

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg252383.msg#252383

I believe the best strategy to undertake and implement driver only operation, is to start transitioning guards now to driver jobs before Cross River Rail is fully commissioned. Then in 2024 some services can be run driver only. This will help introduce much needed services onto the network at a lower cost to the traveller, Government and tax payer.

[#Metro]

DOO has been on QR's wishlist since 1987??

[HappyTrainGuy]

There were strikes over it....

[verbatim9]

This is what happens when there is no plan to move to Driver Only operations. Cost blow outs, especially in operations.

In Qld---> Auditor General's report warns public sector blowouts could force cuts to services

[HappyTrainGuy]

Clutching straws at that one.

[#Metro]

A good economy upgrades its services and infrastructure over time to deliver service better, both for itself and those whom it serves.

We are going to see electric and possibly driverless cars in our lifetime, and in this environment, we are still going to run 30 minute trains with two staff on it. (!)

DOO should be phased in, converting guards to drivers, along with upgraded and more accessible stations on the network.

Certain lines should move to DOO where possible (e.g. Gold Coast Line).

Change isn't easy, you get all the negative loss aversion responses first.

But with guards now drivers, QR can offer more train service.

Melbourne got rid of train guards in the 1990's, and got rid of Tram conductors soon after that.

Following that, Melbourne was able to provide a massive boost to train frequencies across the entire train network, particularly on weekends when penalty rates apply, which meant labour costs were very high and a strong disincentive to provide more service.

If you are putting more staff into PT, you wouldn't prioritise train guards
https://www.danielbowen.com/2013/02/04/train-guards/

Melbourne on Transit
https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2019/07/an-important-anniversary-for-sunday.html

The boost removed the need for passengers to meticulously plan their trips and slashed waiting times across the network, with positive consequences for patronage growth.

The effect this had cannot be underestimated, bringing thousands more people into the city each weekend and massively improving connectivity for those making shorter trips or changing between train and bus.

There has never been anything this big network-wide in the 20 years since.

I know the optics of this might be unpalatable, but once the initial costs to upgrade the network are overcome, we will have a much better network able to provide more frequent train service at a reasonable cost.

Frequency and Freedom on Driverless Rapid Transit
https://humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-transit-why-it-matters.html

The lack of a driver is the key to those extreme frequencies. When you have a driver on every vehicle, the labor cost is the dominant cost of operations. So when you have to cut service, as many North American agencies are doing this year, you end up cutting frequencies, starting with late night and weekend.

[Gazza]

Aren't HF services coming when CRR opens?

[#Metro]

^ What's the train frequencies and running patterns for these lines on Sat & Sun?? And on what dates are they being introduced?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just remember when DOO was brought into Melbourne the majority of station staff also went along with a number of other positions made redundant and outsourcing to save massive costs. There were also constant problems with DOO. Mtce took a hit and the network mtce took a hit too in cost cutting. The government thought it was a sinking ship so privatised it. Only problem there was they wanted profits so costs were minimal with the state still footing the bill on somethings. There were a serious number of safety breaches and numerous derailments. Metro took over and made small changes but it was also the state government that injected money into PT which is where things started to really change. Metro being a private company still exploited loopholes in the contract to win bonuses from the state government. Station staff numbers here have increased here due to having trains designed for DOO running on a non compliant DOO network and there couldn't be the public perception of having new trains doing nothing or limited roles. Newman axed a lot of roles internally which looked good short term on the books but overtime (more staff took on more roles and apprentices that would have transitioned into QR went to Aurizon/another state only for those retiring then having no one trained to replace them - while true there was no front line cuts but on the books lots on the front line took the voluntary redundancy due to how it established. The ones with a few years had a minimal payout while those that had been there for a while had big payouts) and problems followed.

And just because you convert the network to DOO doesn't mean additional services or patronage will follow. You need the entire PT network to be working as one otherwise you'll continue to have the park and ride problems from Northgate-Caboolture.

Long story short you need substantial political power and investment. And that's only once again you spend more money reverting Translink back to what it was before Newman also gutted it by removing planners, consultants and people who had pt knowledge before it was merged into TMR where people there took on the same roles. After you've done that operating procedures around the cab need to be modified, station modifications etc etc etc. Its not a cheap exercise if you have to spend a couple billion to save a few bucks in the short term from a political perspective. As I said Melbourne had no choice and just cut services left, right and centre over a 20-25 year period which was on back of serious neglect as I'm sure bob can tell you about.

There are moves to DOO such as station design to enable it down the line but it's not something that can quickly come about without serious expenditure in the PT service be it bus services, light rail, railways or planning which at the moment most infrastructure projects seem to be more politically motivated instead of service motivated such as metro and crr.

[Gazza]

^ What's the train frequencies and running patterns for these lines on Sat & Sun?? And on what dates are they being introduced?

2025

[#Metro]

Just remember when DOO was brought into Melbourne the majority of station staff also went along with a number of other positions made redundant and outsourcing to save massive costs. There were also constant problems with DOO. Mtce took a hit and the network mtce took a hit too in cost cutting. The government thought it was a sinking ship so privatised it.

Only problem there was they wanted profits so costs were minimal with the state still footing the bill on somethings. There were a serious number of safety breaches and numerous derailments. Metro took over and made small changes but it was also the state government that injected money into PT which is where things started to really change. Metro being a private company still exploited loopholes in the contract to win bonuses from the state government.

You are right, and contract design is very important when moving operations to private management. A franchise arrangement is very different to a gross contracting/concession model. This is the key detail most commentators hostile to outsourced management conveniently like to skip over.

In fact, what we have here in Brisbane is the contracting/concession model used for tram operators, private bus operators and ferry operators. It works well. This model be can adapted for use with trains also if there was a desire to open Queensland Rail operations to public competition. That said, we can move to DOO without contracting, they are separate issues.

I note Adelaide has recently moved to contract out the rail network management, along with Auckland NZ and Sydney (Sydney metro). Melbourne has been contracting out operations for two decades.

Station staff numbers here have increased here due to having trains designed for DOO running on a non compliant DOO network and there couldn't be the public perception of having new trains doing nothing or limited roles. Newman axed a lot of roles internally which looked good short term on the books but overtime (more staff took on more roles and apprentices that would have transitioned into QR went to Aurizon/another state only for those retiring then having no one trained to replace them - while true there was no front line cuts but on the books lots on the front line took the voluntary redundancy due to how it established. The ones with a few years had a minimal payout while those that had been there for a while had big payouts) and problems followed.

The reason why Newman was able to do this was because QR employees at that time were public servants. Indeed, QR's status as a GOC was amended to be a statutory government entity to enable this to happen. Although it may be inconvenient to point this detail out because it doesn't fit with the narrative of "only public servants should be allowed to drive trains" the thing is that with a contractor the operational aspects are separated from the strategic direction. The operational side of things are left to management - because that is what they have been hired to do.

If QR was a contracted entity, Newman would not have the power to fire staff. Just like he wouldn't have had the power to fire staff at, say, Officeworks, even though an agreement might exist to supply the Queensland Government with goods and services, for example.

A contract also forms a boundary between government and the contracted operator, and this has the backing of the courts. Under a direct government model, the contracts and service standards are virtually unenforceable simply because the government never sues itself.

And just because you convert the network to DOO doesn't mean additional services or patronage will follow. You need the entire PT network to be working as one otherwise you'll continue to have the park and ride problems from Northgate-Caboolture.

You are right, and it is well worth pointing out that removing disincentives is just an enabling step that will assist bring about more services. For example, the transport department could spend the savings on more park and rides rather than more services, however I'm sure you'll agree that when disincentives are removed, it will make adding more services more of an attractive proposition.

Long story short you need substantial political power and investment. And that's only once again you spend more money reverting Translink back to what it was before Newman also gutted it by removing planners, consultants and people who had pt knowledge before it was merged into TMR where people there took on the same roles. After you've done that operating procedures around the cab need to be modified, station modifications etc etc etc. Its not a cheap exercise if you have to spend a couple billion to save a few bucks in the short term from a political perspective. As I said Melbourne had no choice and just cut services left, right and centre over a 20-25 year period which was on back of serious neglect as I'm sure bob can tell you about.

You are right, and as seen in Victoria, it was done.

There are moves to DOO such as station design to enable it down the line but it's not something that can quickly come about without serious expenditure in the PT service be it bus services, light rail, railways or planning which at the moment most infrastructure projects seem to be more politically motivated instead of service motivated such as metro and crr.

How quick is 'quick'? This has been on the books at DTMR and QR since 1987, so hopefully they can take positive and concrete actions to bring DOO about, such as working on an introductory line such as the Gold Coast line or Airport Line to roll out DOO.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Who drives the trains wasn't my point. It was cost cutting at the time putting the future network in a worse off position. Newman only made QR public servants in preparation for privatisation asap with any problems being shifted to the new operator to fix. On paper it looked good for potential buyers but it was not a sustainable model which has now seen costs rise and the network worse off. Rather than having people at QR with experience move across to TMR they were simply let go (same with Translink). NGR design/cuts. Springfield line cuts. Petrie station cuts (provisions for trouts road/9 car trains/starters). MBRL line cuts. L2P cuts. All good on paper to save costs but now we are paying for it. Labour has had their chance to fix these issues but keep dragging their feet because it's not a cheap fix to resolve. With Melbourne their pt network only improved with more funding from the state government and not cost cutting moves. Look at the Translink network review and how that unfolded with scare tactics from bcc instead of making the whole network efficient.

[JimmyP]

Sydney also manage high frequency services 7 days a week while having guards, as do many places around the world, so it's certainly not an impossibility to do so...

[verbatim9]

Sydney also manage high frequency services 7 days a week while having guards, as do many places around the world, so it's certainly not an impossibility to do so...

Sydney too has likely gone into operational defect. They are just lucky they sold their assets at the right time.to pay for it.

Qld will need to change and adapt to modern economical policy in the long run and move to Driver Only operations. The model they have now is unsustainable.

If they don't they will need to raise fees and taxes,  rely more on royalties and ask for more federal funds.

Perth and Adelaide are driver only for that reason. It's a sustainable model before technology is adapted to go driverless.

[#Metro]

Sydney also manage high frequency services 7 days a week while having guards, as do many places around the world, so it's certainly not an impossibility to do so...

It certainly "is possible" by spending 2x more on staff and trying to structure the rail entities such that the true and fair costs appear off budget (NSW Auditor General has pushed back against that), but it is much more appealing to do it only paying 1x and using the remaining 1x on other transport initiatives.

The metro is driveless and has trains arriving every few minutes, which is in contrast to the rest of the Sydney trains network.

There's a good map doing the rounds showing the sections of the Sydney Trains network that run every 10 minutes on weekdays off-peak.

For interest 10 minute frequency map:



https://twitter.com/bambul/status/1490848592571301890?

The NSW government is scrambling to keep a controversial $40 billion rail corporation from unravelling and exposing it to a multibillion-dollar hole in the state budget.

State government finances in turmoil as Auditor-General plays hardball
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/state-government-finances-in-turmoil-as-auditor-general-plays-hardball-20211213-p59h0e.html

[#Metro]

Sydney too has likely gone into operational defect. They are just lucky they sold their assets at the right time.to pay for it.

Qld will need to change and adapt to modern economical policy in the long run and move to Driver Only operations. The model they have now is unsustainable.

If they don't they will need to raise fees and taxes,  rely more on royalties and ask for more federal funds.

Perth and Adelaide are driver only for that reason. It's a sustainable model before technology is adapted to go driverless.

Precisely. Why pay more?

[Jonno]

@Verbatim9 - this is right down your alley


RISSB

New Product - Risk Management of Driver Only Operation Code of Practice

RISSB is committed to delivering safety improvements to the Australian rail industry and recognises the importance of demonstrating due diligence in managing risk.

This Risk Management of Driver Only Operation Code of Practice has been prepared by a Development Group consisting of industry specialists.

As part of the document preparation, the Development Group examined and addressed:

The safety assessment methodologies for SFAIRP and Reverse SFAIRP
The need for due diligence to be demonstrated by RTOs managing DOO
The need for suitably competent person/s to complete the risk assessments
The need to consult with all stakeholders affected by DOO
The change management factors to be addressed when introducing DOO
The role of the second person in managing safety and operation tasks
Potential risk factors that can influence DOO
Potential risk control for consideration.

The Development Group recognised the importance of ensuring that this Code of Practice supports RTOs in managing the risks associated with DOO in the Australian rail environment. As such, it has been developed to provide a structured approach to demonstrate due diligence when identifying and mitigating risks, ensuring safety of rail operations.

How to contribute
Risk Management for Driver Only Operation will be available for public consultation for 30 days. All interested parties are encouraged to provide comments during this time.

Click this link to download the document.

To make comments on the draft, please use the commenting tools in Adobe Acrobat or Acrobat Reader to comment in-line with the text.

Please return your PDF with comments to ihodges@rissb.com.au by Tuesday, October 15, 2024.

As the rail industry's accredited standards development organisation, RISSB continues to collaborate with government, rail operators and industry leaders to improve the efficiency and harmonisation of Australia and New Zealand's rail network, ensuring national interoperability into the future.

https://www.rissb.com.au/news/new-product-risk-management-of-driver-only-operation-code-of-practice/