Northern and TPE Consultation Document

[LNW-GW Joint]

The following is from Cheshire and Warrington Local Transport Body on Rail North:

Makes you wonder if such an opaque organisation can have any impact on the specification and operation of the franchise.
It needs a "controlling mind" to battle with DfT, NR and the TOCs.

 

[Olaf]

http://www.transportforgreatermanch...link_and_rail_networks_sub_committee_24_10_14

Lifted this from elsewhere in the forum as it's interesting to note that in the last sentence of the Northern revenue protection presentation, it states that Northern do not support the introduction of DOO in the next franchise. Perhaps it's not such an open and shut case as some would have you believe.

I think that is only because of tactical constraints, as hinted at in the brief notes in the minutes, not because they oppose DOO in principle.

 

[Carlisle]

I have always had the impression Northerns way throughout their franchise Is very much not to annoy the unions unless it's absolutely necessary so their views on DOO are not surprising

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I think that is only because of tactical constraints, as hinted at in the brief notes in the minutes, not because they oppose DOO in principle.

The Northern MD Alex Hynes has said on Facebook that he does not support DOO and now is the time for guards to show why. Yes obviously a push for Guards to take more revenue BUT to be fair he has been pretty straightforward to his staff on the Facebook page, something you do not see very often

 

[LowLevel]

I have no idea what Olaf is reading but it's not what I'm seeing, no quiet ifs, buts or speculation therein.

Companies are saying no, drivers are saying no and the rest of us who are employed as guards are saying no. Now is the time to be counted and stand up against this rubbish. Our passengers deserve us and knowing just one driver who has been dragged out of his train on a spinal board following an incident cements this idea in my mind. Screw Mcnulty , screw the people who haven't been there - keep the guard on the train.

 

[Bevan Price]

Why not extend the Llandudno - Manchester Piccadilly service to Lincoln via Sheffield and the Lincoln - Sheffield service to Llandudno via Manchester?
Joining up services like these will open up new markets and would be a win, win for all.
In the scheme of things would this cost money, need new stock? It can’t be that difficult.

Unfortunately, such innovations are unlikely since the unified BR rail system was split into fragments with separate TOCs, and a bare minimum of cooperation between them.

(For example, in a sensible world, early workings on the Liverpool - Norwich service would be operated by Liverpool-based units & drivers; instead trains run empty from Nottingham to Liverpool to operate these services.)

 

[Olaf]

I have no idea what Olaf is reading but it's not what I'm seeing, no quiet ifs, buts or speculation therein.

Companies are saying no, drivers are saying no and the rest of us who are employed as guards are saying no. Now is the time to be counted and stand up against this rubbish. Our passengers deserve us and knowing just one driver who has been dragged out of his train on a spinal board following an incident cements this idea in my mind. Screw Mcnulty , screw the people who haven't been there - keep the guard on the train.

Operational costs have to be reduced on the railways in order to continue the protected funding of the growing costs of the NHS and social care. On top of that the next Government, whatever it's make up has to contend with further cuts to Government spending. So when it comes down to the alternatives of protecting nurses or conductors jobs, I think it is going to be hard luck for the latter soon or later.

 

[Manchester77]

Operational costs have to be reduced on the railways in order to continue the protected funding of the growing costs of the NHS and social care. On top of that the next Government, whatever it's make up has to contend with further cuts to Government spending. So when it comes down to the alternatives of protecting nurses or conductors jobs, I think it is going to be hard luck for the latter soon or later.

But much easier efficencies could be found through subsidy reduction through public operation as opposed to cutting jobs from the industry. It's not like BR had no guards when it was in its final years and yet it still received less subsidy than the current network. DOO is not the answer to cutting the costs of operation when there are far costlier parts of the system.

And you can quite easily increase NHS budgets (therefore protecting NHS staffs jobs) and that is to save £10bn every year through the scrapping of the internal market which will scrap many of the breaucratic jobs within the NHS.

 

[LowLevel]

Operational costs have to be reduced on the railways in order to continue the protected funding of the growing costs of the NHS and social care. On top of that the next Government, whatever it's make up has to contend with further cuts to Government spending. So when it comes down to the alternatives of protecting nurses or conductors jobs, I think it is going to be hard luck for the latter soon or later.

I suspect from that perspective unfortunately our colleagues in the signalboxes are becoming the latest political victims to save money. I suspect there will still be guards in the medium to long term but concede on suburban routes they may be at higher risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

knowing just one driver who has been dragged out of his train on a spinal board following an incident

An assault, I'm guessing? Surely that merits police/security guards of the rent-a-thug persuasion on the train, rather than a guard specifically?

With regard to nationalisation, I support this anyway - but plenty of other nationalised railways run rural DOO. Germany and Switzerland do, to name two. And in those cases, you have security guards on trains where necessary, and do targetted penalty fares inspections.

I do like the friendly face of the guard on the train...but if a bus only requires one person, and staff are your main cost...you can see where this is going

Neil

 

[LowLevel]

No chief, he crashed into a bridge that a careless contractor knocked onto the railway with no time for a warning to be given. That's the kind of eventuality a guard has safety training for. http://www.alamy.com/thumbs/6/{12E47239-9809-434A-BF92-4DF2339501A4}/AWRCWR.jpg

That was the train afterwards. It's been a sensible redundancy for a very long time, and the bus comparison is a nonsense - it was tried by BR previously with the Railbus concept and doesn't work. As I say, my opinion is there will still be guards in the UK in 20 years. I would my commit to anything longer but I'd stake a tenner at least. Making things DOO is no longer like it was in the 80s, stick a mirror on a platform end. The standards are far higher and who knows whether they will be adopted in rural locations (even the lighting requirements are quite onerous).

 

[Tomnick]

It's a false economy, though, if the reduction in staffing costs is outweighed by a loss of revenue and/or increase in other costs (delays, operational incidents and so on). Even if guards are replaced by an equivalent number of ticket inspectors on a lower rate of pay, with a relatively very small cost saving, there's still the possibility of those other costs increasing to weigh it against.

I'd guess that the unfortunate driver being dragged out of the train on a spinal board had been involved in a collision with something, possibly in a relatively rural and inaccessible area. Who ensures the safety of the line, arranges for the emergency services to attend exactly the right location and looks after the passengers, if not the guard? There's every chance that the driver would no longer be with is, had that been the case.

 

[northwichcat]

It's a false economy, though, if the reduction in staffing costs is outweighed by a loss of revenue and/or increase in other costs (delays, operational incidents and so on). Even if guards are replaced by an equivalent number of ticket inspectors on a lower rate of pay, with a relatively very small cost saving, there's still the possibility of those other costs increasing to weigh it against.

Main problem on Northern seems to be that the conductor frequently has to do one of the following:
1. Return to the back of the train in good time to release the doors, meaning a number of passengers aren't asked for their tickets on board.
2. Keep checking for too long and not be at the back of the train in time to release the doors, causing extended dwell times and the train to run behind schedule (which can sometimes be made up by recovery time further down the line.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Main problem on Northern seems to be that the conductor frequently has to do one of the following:
1. Return to the back of the train in good time to release the doors, meaning a number of passengers aren't asked for their tickets on board.
2. Keep checking for too long and not be at the back of the train in time to release the doors, causing extended dwell times and the train to run behind schedule (which can sometimes be made up by recovery time further down the line.)

Allowing the driver to release the doors, while retaining the guard for general emergency safety purposes plus revenue, would solve that problem. Voyagers use that method of operation - the guard only has a signal buzzer and local door control, the doors are closed by giving 1-2 on the buzzer.

Neil

 

[40129]

The problem could also be solved (or at least significantly reduced) by having a guard's panel at every door as per cl.350. At least then the guard would stand a much better chance of getting to the doors in time

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem could also be solved (or at least significantly reduced) by having a guard's panel at every door as per cl.350. At least then the guard would stand a much better chance of getting to the doors in time

That would also work, but with interlocks at passenger doors that method of operation is less safe than doing it from the cab of a modern unit, because the guard cannot use the droplight to watch the train out of the platform.

That said, 15x (except 150/1) don't have cab-door droplights, so it wouldn't make things any worse.

Nonetheless I have seen this problem on 142s which do have staff controls in the saloon, and 153s where they are at all doors. So it isn't the solution driver release would be.

Neil

 

[Aictos]

The problem could also be solved (or at least significantly reduced) by having a guard's panel at every door as per cl.350. At least then the guard would stand a much better chance of getting to the doors in time

Indeed isn't this what Northern did with the ex Scotrail 322s?

 

[northwichcat]

The problem could also be solved (or at least significantly reduced) by having a guard's panel at every door as per cl.350. At least then the guard would stand a much better chance of getting to the doors in time

Northern conductors are instructed to return to the rear of a diesel formation even if there is a guard's panel in the middle.

Maybe your idea would only work with more modern trains?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Northern conductors are instructed to return to the rear of a diesel formation even if there is a guard's panel in the middle.

Maybe your idea would only work with more modern trains?

on our diesels there is no middle panel (West side) so on a single formation we have to close doors from the rear.

But

If its a double set we can operate the doors from the front door panel of the leading coach of the rear set.

 

[LowLevel]

That would also work, but with interlocks at passenger doors that method of operation is less safe than doing it from the cab of a modern unit, because the guard cannot use the droplight to watch the train out of the platform.

That said, 15x (except 150/1) don't have cab-door droplights, so it wouldn't make things any worse.

Nonetheless I have seen this problem on 142s which do have staff controls in the saloon, and 153s where they are at all doors. So it isn't the solution driver release would be.

Neil

The 319s are I believe being fitted with door panels through the train to alleviate this. Other operators (FGW, EMT etc) have done this with reasonable success. The stock I work I would imagine is faster operated by a guard than it would be with a driver as a) I can manage luggage and other loading issues, and there are plenty of them and b) I can operate the doors from anywhere within the train (as long as I can view the train/signal if required).

 

[Olaf]

I suspect from that perspective unfortunately our colleagues in the signalboxes are becoming the latest political victims to save money. I suspect there will still be guards in the medium to long term but concede on suburban routes they may be at higher risk.

The migration to centralised signalling and control is primarily aimed at improving operational efficiency to meet customer expectations and as a first step towards bring the UK railways into the modern age. Yes operational savings accrue, but the changes are essential in order to adopt new technologies, and operational practices which are the primary goals and not head-count reductions. The later is the focus of the operators.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But much easier efficencies could be found through subsidy reduction through public operation as opposed to cutting jobs from the industry. It's not like BR had no guards when it was in its final years and yet it still received less subsidy than the current network. DOO is not the answer to cutting the costs of operation when there are far costlier parts of the system.

And you can quite easily increase NHS budgets (therefore protecting NHS staffs jobs) and that is to save £10bn every year through the scrapping of the internal market which will scrap many of the breaucratic jobs within the NHS.

If you want to believe those fables, that is fine with me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a false economy, though, if the reduction in staffing costs is outweighed by a loss of revenue and/or increase in other costs ...

The current practises do not even fit with the shift in ticketing that is envisioned and which is starting to be introduced. There are going to be significant changes in this area in order to meet customer aspirations and expectations; reliance on human intervention is an obstacle rather than an enabler.

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of Northern, their guards appear to be their primary source of revenue collection and inspection, so don't expect to see driver only trains any time soon.

 

[Carlisle]

In terms of Northern, their guards appear to be their primary source of revenue collection and inspection, so don't expect to see driver only trains any time soon.

Yes agreed , despite rumours in recent magazines like modern railways that DFT rail is keen to see DOO expanded,for various reasons they presently clearly lack either the will , interest or belief to actually specify it on widespread basis anytime soon

 

[LowLevel]

The migration to centralised signalling and control is primarily aimed at improving operational efficiency to meet customer expectations and as a first step towards bring the UK railways into the modern age. Yes operational savings accrue, but the changes are essential in order to adopt new technologies, and operational practices which are the primary goals and not head-count reductions. The later is the focus of the operators.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you want to believe those fables, that is fine with me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The current practises do not even fit with the shift in ticketing that is envisioned and which is starting to be introduced. There are going to be significant changes in this area in order to meet customer aspirations and expectations; reliance on human intervention is an obstacle rather than an enabler.

Thus far we have unreliable new signalling systems like automated level crossings that are a nightmare for the TOCs and the maintenance staff who look after them. We also have smart card ticketing systems that don't work with the exception of oyster with pretty much universally low take up and serious implementation problems that are leading to constant contract re-lets as they fail to achieve the specification.

I don't doubt your beliefs on the matter however with the exception of possibly suburban lines served by the more modern trains I don't think anything will develop in the short to medium term. Believe it or not from my own views but I do associate in my personal life with some fairly senior consultants and managers responsible for in part for things like DOO proposals and implementations (you can't let work influence your personal life!) and their view is effectively that yes, you are paying guards on suburban lines to do nothing but slow the trains down while reading the paper and a better option is to increase station staffing in these areas instead and go DOO. However outside that the cost/benefit does not stack up for reasons including train dispatch issues with things like luggage and high levels of unconfident leisure travellers on long distance routes, concern over staff provision in rural areas in the event of incidents and heavy delay and also the cost of infrastructure changes to allow DOO to take place versus maintaining the current system with a less frequent service in operation compared to suburban lines and much reduced cost benefits from headcount reduction. Basically if you're going to retain a person on board the train outside the mainly electrified suburban routes it may as well still be the guard as they offer benefits to be considered alongside the cost of removal.

I can't say that I agree with them but that seems to be where they are working towards - we will see I suppose who was right in the next 10 years.

 

[northwichcat]

In terms of Northern, their guards appear to be their primary source of revenue collection and inspection, so don't expect to see driver only trains any time soon.

The idea wasn't to have only a driver on board but for the driver to take responsibility for opening and closing of doors so that conductors can concentrate on collecting revenue. The RMT didn't like the idea as they thought conductors could be replaced by low cost agency staff selling tickets.

 

[yorksrob]

The idea wasn't to have only a driver on board but for the driver to take responsibility for opening and closing of doors so that conductors can concentrate on collecting revenue. The RMT didn't like the idea as they thought conductors could be replaced by low cost agency staff selling tickets.

I think the key is that the traditional method of DOO with sporadic ticket checks won't work. Whether they could justify the investment needed for DOO when the trains will still need to be fully staffed, I doubt it.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the key is that the traditional method of DOO with sporadic ticket checks won't work. Whether they could justify the investment needed for DOO when the trains will still need to be fully staffed, I doubt it.

The issue at present is the conductor can't get to everyone on a lot of services. An alternative option is to put two conductors on most services but will that cost more or less?

An alternative to the alternative is to put ticket inspection staff (not conductors) on trains, who could be paid a lower rate than conductors.

 

[Haydn1971]

Thinking about the logical conclusion to this, barriers on all stations - how would that work at stations where there is no enclosed area to place a barrier ?

 

[LowLevel]

The issue at present is the conductor can't get to everyone on a lot of services. An alternative option is to put two conductors on most services but will that cost more or less?

An alternative to the alternative is to put ticket inspection staff (not conductors) on trains, who could be paid a lower rate than conductors.

A lot of it is down to operational practice. The few trains I can't get round myself I wouldn't get round if I was just revenue - they tend to be the ones that load 100 people at a station 8 minutes from their destination so it makes no odds. Having door panels throughout the train helps a lot.

 

[edwin_m]

Thinking about the logical conclusion to this, barriers on all stations - how would that work at stations where there is no enclosed area to place a barrier ?

Under current rules barriers can only be operational when the station is staffed. Video intercoms are possible to staff elsewhere on the station but I'm not sure if one to a remote centre would be acceptable. Either way that's quite a few extra staff.

If on-train staff were kept, primarily for revenue but perhaps retaining some safety responsibilities in emergency, then on some routes the extra revenue might pay for the costs of having drivers work the doors. GSM-R effectively provides the radio system needed for DOO, and on-train cameras might be used instead of station cameras and monitors.