On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need for guards (other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. It's to do
with the procedure. It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow produre on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.