Arriva Rail North DOO

[Robertj21a]

I believe this dispute will show that the government are pulling the strings and not the companies.

I thought that was already well known, and recognised as such by all parties ?

 

[kingqueen]

I'm wondering what impact the potential move to 50% DCO operation might have on disabled people.

I guess the same concerns as with other areas:

1) the other staff member might not have responsibility for ramps or other assistance
2) the other staff member may not be there all the time anyway ("all reasonable endeavours...")
3) the two above mean that unstated stations are not accessible to anybody needing assistance to board or alight.

Is that reasonable supposition?

 

[northwichcat]

I'm wondering what impact the potential move to 50% DCO operation might have on disabled people.

I guess the same concerns as with other areas:

1) the other staff member might not have responsibility for ramps or other assistance
2) the other staff member may not be there all the time anyway ("all reasonable endeavours...")
3) the two above mean that unstated stations are not accessible to anybody needing assistance to board or alight.

Is that reasonable supposition?

The staffing of more stations and longer staffing hours might be a clue as to how they will get around that.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm wondering what impact the potential move to 50% DCO operation might have on disabled people.

I guess the same concerns as with other areas:

1) the other staff member might not have responsibility for ramps or other assistance
2) the other staff member may not be there all the time anyway ("all reasonable endeavours...")
3) the two above mean that unstated stations are not accessible to anybody needing assistance to board or alight.

Is that reasonable supposition?

The disability lobby has been very successful and could well have an influence on DOO or DCO. Wheelchair user left on platform by DCO operated train operated by driver only could be headlines coming soon.....

 

[74A]

The disability lobby has been very successful and could well have an influence on DOO or DCO. Wheelchair user left on platform by DCO operated train operated by driver only could be headlines coming soon.....

Running DOO/DCO is a separate issue to disability provision. RMT could make an agreement that there will be an OBS on board every train that stops at an unstaffed station. However the RMT refuse to negotiate on the principle of DCO.

 

[Dave1987]

Running DOO/DCO is a separate issue to disability provision. RMT could make an agreement that there will be an OBS on board every train that stops at an unstaffed station. However the RMT refuse to negotiate on the principle of DCO.

What utter and complete nonsense! The union were prepared to negotiate on DCO as long as it was guaranteed that the second member of staff was always on board but the government weren't interested. Please please don't let facts get in the way will you.

 

[HowardGWR]

Running DOO/DCO is a separate issue to disability provision. RMT could make an agreement that there will be an OBS on board every train that stops at an unstaffed station. However the RMT refuse to negotiate on the principle of DCO.

True, but unlikely as I see matters. There are already many stations where the intending disabled traveller could not even access on their own, let alone board the train. The same goes for bus stops. Disability access is an entirely separate issue and should never have been confused with DCO /DCO (and it won't be).

I have considered whether it would most probably be infinitely cheaper for TOCs to pay for a taxi for disabled people to the nearest manned station, and when alighting at unmanned stations, again to pay for a taxi from the nearest manned station to that location, rather than pay for constant on-train presence of assistants, 'just in case'.

 

[northwichcat]

From what I heard they wanted the threshold to be 90% for a strike to be legal.

From the below it was 40% needed to back a strike if all eligible members voted but it could be as high as 80% if half the members didn't bother to vote.

According to the Department for Business the changes to the strike ballot rules are likely to include:

• At least 50% of members entitled to vote must do so for ballots on industrial action to be valid. Currently balloting rules do not require any specific level of participation by union members.
• 40% of those eligible to vote must back action for strikes in core public services (Health, Education, Transport & Fire Services). Ballots currently require a simple majority to back action.
• Removal of restrictions on using temporary workers to cover for striking staff. A ban has been in place since 1973.
• Tightening rules on ballot mandates. This would prevent unions undertaking action based on historic strike ballots.
• Unions must appoint a picketing supervisor to help provide protection for non-striking workers. Employers will be able to seek injunctions or damages from unions that break these new rules.
• Increasing to 14 days from seven days the notice a union must provide workers ahead of a strike.

The TUC says that the new thresholds will make legal strikes close to impossible.
"Union negotiators will be left with no more power than Oliver Twist when he asked for more," a spokesperson said.
It will be a particular problem in the public sector where postal ballots of large workforces rarely achieve high turnouts.
Even if unions achieve the 50% turnout, they then need 40% of those eligible to vote to back the action. That amounts to an 80% vote in favour of strikes - far higher than that needed to win a general election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32870930

Unions called it impossible at the time but the Southern ballot would have meet the required threshold if the Tories had got their proposed changes through parliament.

 

[IanXC]

If anyone is wishes to discuss the pros and cons of DOO please use the relevant thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=129551

This thread is to discuss this specific issues relating to the proposals on Northern; discussions on whether people like DOO or not can go in the other thread. Thanks.

Can I request posters reacquaint themselves with the above.

 

[kingqueen]

yes; my question is whether the obligation on ATN to run 50% DCO in 7 years time will have the same potential or actual impacts as DCO running is having, or is postulated to have, in other franchises.

I guess we can't know yet as ATN have not stated what the training or responsibilities of the second member of staff would be? i.e. we don't know if they would include checking platforms for the presence of disabled people requiring assistance to get on the train, and to assist such people. Also we don't yet know if ATN may make a commitment (above and beyond the "all reasonable endeavours" required by the franchise agreement) that there will always be a second member of staff on each DCO train?

I have my suspicions about the above but then suspicions aren't facts, so I guess I may just have to wait until Northern give more details?

re: taxis - ATN have issues with booking taxis. They already promise taxis where a station is inaccessible or where travel is disrupted. To give two examples, recently I wanted to go to Hebden Bridge, and only one platform has step-free access, so I got off at Mytholmroyd. ATN's / Carillion's customer service staff had great difficulty working out how to get authorisation to book said taxi and eventually booked one from Bingley, to take me the 1.5 miles from Mytholmroyd to Hebden Bridge.

Also on the Settle to Carlisle: the staff tried to tell me to go from Skipton to Carlisle via Leeds and the West Coast Mainline because the rail replacement bus between Appleby and Carlisle is not accessible; then they told me they could only book the taxi once I had bought my rail ticket - which wasn't going to work given I was going to use a Cumbria Day Ranger, which they couldn't sell me in advance of the day in question, and booking an accessible taxi from Appleby to Carlisle on the day could be difficult...

Also: whilst ATN have committed to increasing the staffing on stations, there are many stations that will still be unstaffed, so whilst this may mitigate any impact a bit, it won't solve any problem caused by ATN's move to 50% DCO.

 

[Fincra5]

Running DOO/DCO is a separate issue to disability provision. RMT could make an agreement that there will be an OBS on board every train that stops at an unstaffed station. However the RMT refuse to negotiate on the principle of DCO.

Not sure where you got that from. The Unions were wanting to discuss it, as long as there was a guarantee of a second person onboard at all times or the train cannot run. Same agreement to what Southeastern HS1 services have.

But it seems the Gov/TOCs concerned won't entertain the idea.

 

[Andrew32]

As a work colleague pointed out to me yesterday, the franchise agreement states that 50% of mileage has to be DCO, not 50% of services and he said that the new Northern Connect routes would easily satisfy that criteria reading mileage as the route doesn't yet exist and is in addition to current routes already operated by ATN.

So the same number of guards will be needed to what we have now to run the existing services but the Northern Connect services will be DCO with a second member of staff on board (whoever that may be).

Still, if Aslef let it in, it's the start of a slippery slope.

 

[northwichcat]

As a work colleague pointed out to me yesterday, the franchise agreement states that 50% of mileage has to be DCO, not 50% of services and he said that the new Northern Connect routes would easily satisfy that criteria reading mileage as the route doesn't yet exist and is in addition to current routes already operated by ATN.

So the same number of guards will be needed to what we have now to run the existing services but the Northern Connect services will be DCO with a second member of staff on board (whoever that may be).

Still, if Aslef let it in, it's the start of a slippery slope.

Some of the Northern Connect services will be brand new but others will be extensions or revisions of existing services. However, there will also be a number of new local non-Connect services so displaced guards could be moved to the new non-Connect services.

 

[lejog]

The Franchisee shall use all reasonable endeavours to operate such Passenger Service in accordance with the train crew diagram.

The get out clause

I would like to point out that in legal terms "all responsible endeavours" puts a high level of responsibilty upon Northern to provide an additional employee. There are three levels of "endeavours" used in contracts - "best","all reasonable" and "reasonable". All reasonable endeavours may be thought of as requiring Northern "to go on using endeavours until the point is reached when all reasonable endeavours have been exhausted” which is close to best endeavours, but with an intermediate level regard for its own commercial interests. It is certainly not a get-out clause.

With regard to disabled passengers, presumably at the moment, if there is no guard, there is no train, so no chance whatever of boarding even if the station is staffed.

 

[kingqueen]

With regard to disabled passengers, presumably at the moment, if there is no guard, there is no train, so no chance whatever of boarding even if the station is staffed.

The corollary is the issue: currently at Northern (unlike in some other operators) if a train is operating there is a guard on it and the guard has as part of their duty the responsibility of assisting passengers e.g. wheelchair users at unstaffed stations.

The somewhat specious argument goes thus: surely it's better to have trains running with only the driver or a driver and somebody who isn't responsible for assisting disabled passengers, than the train be cancelled? because the effect on disabled passengers is exactly the same - they can't travel whether it be cancelled, just as they can't travel if there's not somebody to assist them on board, but at least in the latter case other passengers can travel.

That's a real slippery slope argument, however. I hate such: it shifts the blame onto the disabled passenger. "You're being unfair to the other passengers by suggesting that their services should be cancelled if they can't meet your needs." No, we're simply saying that services in the future should be at least as accessible as they are now, and that we must not let provision for disabled people's needs get worse instead of better, with changes and improvements to ATN's service provision.

I'd argue that Northern must ensure that all trains run with a second member of staff on board who can assist disabled people to get on or off, as they do now, and that any attempt to resile from the current situation in this regards is unacceptable. So I very much hope when they finally announce (?) their intention as regards DCO services, disabled people don't lose out.

 

[HowardGWR]

I am very sympathetic to the points you make kingqueen. My suggestions are that if a system for accessibility can be introduced that both saves money and is equal or superior to the present one, then it should be supported by unions in their negotiations with Northern.

I don't think disabled people have a right to dictate how the service is implemented, as long as the result is satisfactory.

 

[74A]

I'd argue that Northern must ensure that all trains run with a second member of staff on board who can assist disabled people to get on or off, as they do now, and that any attempt to resile from the current situation in this regards is unacceptable. So I very much hope when they finally announce (?) their intention as regards DCO services, disabled people don't lose out.

I believe that in the franchise there must be a second member of staff onboard UNLESS the stations the train is calling at are staffed. That way there will always be someone to assist either on the train or on the station.

 

[RJ21]

I have considered whether it would most probably be infinitely cheaper for TOCs to pay for a taxi for disabled people to the nearest manned station, and when alighting at unmanned stations, again to pay for a taxi from the nearest manned station to that location, rather than pay for constant on-train presence of assistants, 'just in case'.

I have been told by a reliable source that this provision already exists, but has to be booked in advance. A number of the stations near me are either not accessible at all or are only partly accessible and Northern will provide a taxi for a disabled person to a station which is accessible and from where the required journey can be completed. The person who told me had used the service when travelling, I think from Marple, to London before the lifts were fitted and was taken by taxi to Stockport, but it was was booked more than a day in advance. Likewise similar has been done at Romiley where while there is step free access it cannot be used by someone who is unassisted on the down (platform 1) side due to the gradient of the ramp and gate at the top. I believe again the taxi took said person to Stockport.

 

[Dave1987]

The corollary is the issue: currently at Northern (unlike in some other operators) if a train is operating there is a guard on it and the guard has as part of their duty the responsibility of assisting passengers e.g. wheelchair users at unstaffed stations.

The somewhat specious argument goes thus: surely it's better to have trains running with only the driver or a driver and somebody who isn't responsible for assisting disabled passengers, than the train be cancelled? because the effect on disabled passengers is exactly the same - they can't travel whether it be cancelled, just as they can't travel if there's not somebody to assist them on board, but at least in the latter case other passengers can travel.

That's a real slippery slope argument, however. I hate such: it shifts the blame onto the disabled passenger. "You're being unfair to the other passengers by suggesting that their services should be cancelled if they can't meet your needs." No, we're simply saying that services in the future should be at least as accessible as they are now, and that we must not let provision for disabled people's needs get worse instead of better, with changes and improvements to ATN's service provision.

I'd argue that Northern must ensure that all trains run with a second member of staff on board who can assist disabled people to get on or off, as they do now, and that any attempt to resile from the current situation in this regards is unacceptable. So I very much hope when they finally announce (?) their intention as regards DCO services, disabled people don't lose out.

Indeed I totally agree. I think if there was a belief that it would be a very rare occurrence for a train to run without a second member of crew on board (whatever their title) then unions might be more willing to put the get out of jail cards in agreements so the service could run on that very rare occasion. But there is just no trust that a loophole wouldn't be exploited like it was elsewhere. It seems to be the belief that if the unions allow those loopholes then far from being a very rare occasion, they would become a common occurrence. One hopes that the negotiations in this potential dispute are a lot more productive but I doubt seeing as the government have already given little room for negotiation it would seem.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I believe that in the franchise there must be a second member of staff onboard UNLESS the stations the train is calling at are staffed. That way there will always be someone to assist either on the train or on the station.

I cannot see any such stipulation in the franchise agreement.

 

[kingqueen]

I have been told by a reliable source that this provision already exists, but has to be booked in advance. A number of the stations near me are either not accessible at all or are only partly accessible and Northern will provide a taxi for a disabled person to a station which is accessible and from where the required journey can be completed.

This is true and is their policy. I would add, however, that they struggle. They always did a bit, it seemed their procedure for booking such was rusty. Things are worse now that the assistance enquiry and booking is run by the oursourced call centre in Carillion: sometimes staff have been unaware of that policy (in my direct experience) and when they have been made aware, they are unaware of ATN's system for obtaining permission to book taxis in these circumstances and to actually book them.

When they do manage to book a taxi, it's often booked from a ridiculously long way away, even to only travel a short distance - e.g. a taxi they booked for me from Mytholmroyd to Hebden Bridge (1.5 miles) was sourced from Bingley, despite there being much more local, accessible taxis.

If DCO would mean more reliance on taxi alternatives for disabled people, I hope ATN have a better system in place. (Meanwhile I hope ATN resurrect the lifts at Hebden Bridge!! - perhaps approriate for Halloween, I understand they've been zombified for decades!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My suggestions are that if a system for accessibility can be introduced that both saves money and is equal or superior to the present one, then it should be supported by unions in their negotiations with Northern.

As long as the system actually is equal or superior to that currently provided to disabled people, I agree. However the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and I'm naturally cynical that not all changes that promise such, actually result in it...

 

[lejog]

This is true and is their policy. I would add, however, that they struggle. They always did a bit, it seemed their procedure for booking such was rusty. Things are worse now that the assistance enquiry and booking is run by the oursourced call centre in Carillion: sometimes staff have been unaware of that policy (in my direct experience) and when they have been made aware, they are unaware of ATN's system for obtaining permission to book taxis in these circumstances and to actually book them.

When they do manage to book a taxi, it's often booked from a ridiculously long way away, even to only travel a short distance - e.g. a taxi they booked for me from Mytholmroyd to Hebden Bridge (1.5 miles) was sourced from Bingley, despite there being much more local, accessible taxis.

If DCO would mean more reliance on taxi alternatives for disabled people, I hope ATN have a better system in place. (Meanwhile I hope ATN resurrect the lifts at Hebden Bridge!! - perhaps approriate for Halloween, I understand they've been zombified for decades!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As long as the system actually is equal or superior to that currently provided to disabled people, I agree. However the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and I'm naturally cynical that not all changes that promise such, actually result in it...

Northern should be complying with the industry wide Passenger Assist scheme and if given 24 hrs notice "make alternative arrangements for you if the station is not step free or not staffed at the time you wish to travel", which as an moccasional carer in the Calder Valley area I agree they do by providing taxis to/from the nearest suitable station.

If their customer service team are unaware of the policy or unable to book taxis, then complain to Northern,, but my relative hasn't had any problems, although sometimes operators do need guiding towards Halifax rather than Keighley or Burnley Manchester Road as the most convenient staffed accessible station (perhaps the same is true for booking taxis). It seems poor in the extreme to provide a dedicated number for Passenger Assist only for the staff to be unaware of the policy.

Hebden Bridge does have funding to be made fully accessible, when the work will be done I'm less sure.

And finally as others have pointed, initially DCO will apply to Northern Connect services and Northern are mandated to provide staffing at the larger Northern Connect stations (handling the majority of journeys) and have to "provide reasonable endeavours" to staff the rest. It seems to me that in order to continue to support the Passenger Assist scheme, they have two options. First to stop taking bookings to the small number of unstaffed stations and provide transport to staffed. Or secondly to have some sort of emergency procedure if a Passenger Assist booking has been made at an unstaffed station and no second member of staff is available. Neither seem to be that difficult.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So the RMT didn't read the ITT for the Northern franchise or the Northern franchise agreement which specified that?

They did, and they raised it as an issue then.

You can read their press release from 2014 if you want:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-government-over-northern-and-tpe-bidders/

RMT said from the off that the consultation was wholly bogus, this morning’s outrageous manoeuvring has proved that conclusively and RMT will use every tool at our disposal to expose this racket for what it is.

Of course, people like yourself were saying in 2014 that the RMT can't go on strike about hypotheticals and should wait and see what happens when the franchise actually starts.

And, guess what: the RMT were right. Just fancy that!

 

[lejog]

I cannot see any such stipulation in the franchise agreement.

There isn't, but Northern have to plan for 100% of trains with a second member of staff and provide "all reasonable endeavours" to do so, so an estimate of 99.5% of services with two staff seems reasonable to me. And with the commitments for improved staffing at Northern Connect stations say 95% of journeys will be to/from a staffed station. If so 99.975% of journeys will either be on a train with a second staff member or to a staffed station.

 

[northwichcat]

They did, and they raised it as an issue then.

You can read their press release from 2014 if you want:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-government-over-northern-and-tpe-bidders/

No that was in response to the consultation document. The ITT was a separate document published which took in to account the feedback given in response to the consultation document. The consultation document mentioned options of replacing ticket offices with machines, full DOO and extra services at busy stations by reducing services at lesser used stations - all options which were dismissed but the RMT keep going on about them like they are all still current. The ITT specified the minimum requirements for the franchise.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

There isn't, but Northern have to plan for 100% of trains with a second member of staff and provide "all reasonable endeavours" to do so, so an estimate of 99.5% of services with two staff seems reasonable to me. And with the commitments for improved staffing at Northern Connect stations say 95% of journeys will be to/from a staffed station. If so 99.975% of journeys will either be on a train with a second staff member or to a staffed station.

Can you show me the bit which says that 100% of trains must be planned to have a second member of staff? I cannot find that bit either.

 

[lejog]

They did, and they raised it as an issue then.

You can read their press release from 2014 if you want:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-government-over-northern-and-tpe-bidders/

Of course, people like yourself were saying in 2014 that the RMT can't go on strike about hypotheticals and should wait and see what happens when the franchise actually starts.

And, guess what: the RMT were right. Just fancy that!

Well, I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the RMT's record on that particular press release isn't exactly wonderful.

The new franchises are to be let on the clear basis of axing guards and other safety-critical staff, closing routes and stations, hiking fares, closing ticket offices and cancelling first and last trains.

The basis on which the franchises were actually let?

• Axing guards? OK, tick.
• Closing routes and stations? Err what, cross.
• Hiking fares? Fares will be equalised, but an unqualified hike, no, cross.
• Closing ticket offices? Wrong, opening ticket offices, cross.
• Cancelling first and last trains? Wrong, earlier and later trains, cross.

One out of five.

RMT said from the off that the consultation was wholly bogus, this morning’s outrageous manoeuvring has proved that conclusively and RMT will use every tool at our disposal to expose this racket for what it is.

As jcollins points out it was the "conclusively proven to be wholly bogus" consultation exercise that saw off all but DCO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you show me the bit which says that 100% of trains must be planned to have a second member of staff? I cannot find that bit either.

Clause 18.2, p311 is incredibly verbose, but does in fact contain an unqualified direct mandate - no ifs, buts, or endeavours.

Where in accordance with paragraph 18.1, a Passenger Service is operated as Driver Controlled Operation the Franchisee shall, in preparing the train crew diagram relating to such Passenger Service plan for an additional Franchise Employee (that is, in addition to the driver) to be present on such Passenger Service for the purposes of customer service and/or revenue control.

From a project management/operational background, I'd actually interpret that as an obligation to plan for 100% coverage and a degree of contingency cover (a plan isn't a plan if it doesn't allow for sickness etc), but some lawyers may argue for a literal meaning.

 

[kingqueen]

We.From a project management/operational background, I'd actually interpret that as an obligation to plan for 100% coverage and a degree of contingency cover (a plan isn't a plan if it doesn't allow for sickness etc), but some lawyers may argue for a literal meaning.

That word "reasonable" - all "reasonable" endeavours - is problematic. Under the Equality Act, all service providers must make "reasonable adjustments" to make their services accessible to disabled people. What is "reasonable" takes into account a number of factors, including the size and resources of the service provider for example, and isn't set down definitively anywhere. The only time it is pinnedc down is through retrospective legal action, of which there isn't much.

What one person considers to be "reasonable" in relation to finding and providing a second member of staff will be different from another...

 

[Class 170101]

What, bolting cameras onto the outside? No, it wouldn't.

Can you clarify please?

Do you mean no it wouldn't be easy bolt cameras? or no bolting cameras would compromise the crashworthiness?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you clarify please?

Do you mean no it wouldn't be easy bolt cameras? or no bolting cameras would compromise the crashworthiness?

The very small holes you would need to drill to retrofit bodyside cameras would not be likely to compromise the crashworthiness of the unit. And because you would be able to speak to the manufacturer about it, they would be able to confirm for certain what could be done.

On some units (e.g. wider, slab-sided ones like Class 150s and 156s) a bodyside camera might be out of gauge and therefore unable to be fitted for that reason, but given that most Electrostars have them fitted it would seem unlikely that the same camera fitted to a Turbostar would be out of gauge. However, again, the manufacturer will be able to provide the appropriate engineering drawings and data to confirm.