Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

Let me tell you what McNulty was. He was a faceless idiot who's understanding of the railway was as limited as Wilkinson's. But now all his flawed thinking is beginning to appear.

McNulty was another Beeching. He was given the role because he wasn't associated closely with the railways and he had no power to implement any of his recommendations, only report back to someone who did have the power to implement his recommendations.

 

[Carlisle]

McNulty was another Beeching. He was given the role because he wasn't associated closely with the railways and he had no power to implement any of his recommendations, only report back to someone who did have the power to implement his recommendations.

Are McNulty and Beeching really comparable? Wasn't the original main purpose of the Mc Nulty report an attempt to find ways of lowering costs on the railways precisely to try and the reduce the likelihood of Beeching style route closures happening at a later date

 

[wingsoveryorks]

Are McNulty and Beeching really comparable? Wasn't the original main purpose of the Mc Nulty report an attempt to find ways of lowering costs on the railways precisely to try and the reduce the likelihood of Beeching style route closures happening at a later date

An attempt at lowering costs. By getting rid of the staff who protect revenue.

Yep, the man's an idiot alright.

 

[LETHLFH]

I think they intend to have revenue protection on trains, just paying them 10k a year less than guards would earn, I think current guards are safe from being axed, however if Northern get their own way, they'll start recruiting on board customer service staff, as guards retire/progress/leave they'll not replace them and eventually in 20/30 years time the workforce will be significantly cheaper and the driver will be the only safety critical member of staff on the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they intend to have revenue protection on trains, just paying them 10k a year less than guards would earn, I think current guards are safe from being axed, however if Northern get their own way, they'll start recruiting on board customer service staff, as guards retire/progress/leave they'll not replace them and eventually in 20/30 years time the workforce will be significantly cheaper and the driver will be the only safety critical member of staff on the train.

And that creates a difficult issue - is it right for the unions to be acting to protect the theoretical employment of future staff, rather than simply to protect the terms and conditions of *current* guards? I'm not convinced it is.

 

[Robertj21a]

An attempt at lowering costs. By getting rid of the staff who protect revenue.

Yep, the man's an idiot alright.

Not really. He could be quite realistic if he has found that there are alternative and/or cheaper ways to protect revenue.

 

[AlterEgo]

And that creates a difficult issue - is it right for the unions to be acting to protect the theoretical employment of future staff, rather than simply to protect the terms and conditions of *current* guards? I'm not convinced it is.

You mean future subs-payers, Neil.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You mean future subs-payers, Neil.

Cynical but possibly true.

In principle I get that the unions want to ensure that present guards can continue to be guards. I don't think it's right that they should act against the use of natural wastage to get rid of guards, as if that's the policy that is adopted none of the current guards would be affected. If a similar policy applies to drivers, i.e. all new drivers will drive DOO, but all existing drivers remain on guarded operations, I again don't see an issue they should really be fighting. Policy not adversely affecting current staff should not in my view be within their remit.

It's a bit like the Night Tube - they had something valid to fight if existing staff were going to be driving them, but the policy that was actually adopted of recruiting a completely separate set of drivers does not in my view merit their involvement.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's a different world oop't north: there are platforms within the Northern franchise where it's impossible to see the rear of a 2 coach train from the front. At least one of which - Accrington - has no platform despatchers and is one of the Northern Connect stations destined to be served by DOO trains. I'm not entirely convinced this is as safe as some would have us believe.

Surely, if you can't see one end of the train from the other, then that applies whether you are at the front or rear?
What is so special about the front to ban despatch?
At Earlestown, for instance (Warrington-Manchester platforms), why would a Northern 150 be despatched any differently from an ATW 150?

 

[BestWestern]

Not really. He could be quite realistic if he has found that there are alternative and/or cheaper ways to protect revenue.

I seem to recall the RSSB 'Pathway to DOO' document suggested 'infrequent revenue checks but with harsh penalties', or words to that effect. Anybody who thinks that has even the slightest chance of success is a complete clown.

 

[craigybagel]

Surely, if you can't see one end of the train from the other, then that applies whether you are at the front or rear?
What is so special about the front to ban despatch?
At Earlestown, for instance (Warrington-Manchester platforms), why would a Northern 150 be despatched any differently from an ATW 150?

For what it's worth, at Earlestown on ATW you dispatch from the middle

 

[northwichcat]

I seem to recall the RSSB 'Pathway to DOO' document suggested 'infrequent revenue checks but with harsh penalties', or words to that effect. Anybody who thinks that has even the slightest chance of success is a complete clown.

It's how Manchester Metrolink and Merseyrail operate but they have ticket selling facilities at every stop.

 

[BestWestern]

It's how Manchester Metrolink and Merseyrail operate but they have ticket selling facilities at every stop.

And I imagine the fare evasion is rife in both cases. The same principle was tried on London's bendybuses, and they swiftly became thought of as a free service. It isn't a model that would prove successful as a national standard. There are plenty who won't buy a ticket to travel on a train with a Guard unless they are directly approached and asked to. The railway already uses the harshest penalties available to it, they are far from a universal deterrent. And the track record of providing well maintained, working TVMs is abysmal.

 

[Kite159]

It's how Manchester Metrolink and Merseyrail operate but they have ticket selling facilities at every stop.

And some passengers will just walk straight past them.

For example on Saturday I was on a train which departed Sheffield towards Leeds which had a 2nd member of staff on board doing tickets. Must have sold at least 5 tickets in the rear carriage alone

Similar when departing Nottingham (whose gateline is a joke), a few passengers of the "pay if challenged" brigade on the Northern service towards Leeds.

 

[northwichcat]

And some passengers will just walk straight past them.

For example on Saturday I was on a train which departed Sheffield towards Leeds which had a 2nd member of staff on board doing tickets. Must have sold at least 5 tickets in the rear carriage alone

Similar when departing Nottingham (whose gateline is a joke), a few passengers of the "pay if challenged" brigade on the Northern service towards Leeds.

Northern don't have a real penalty fare scheme.

 

[HH]

Northern don't have a real penalty fare scheme.

Do they have any? Never used to.

 

[Smidster]

I am going to be interested to see what kind of service they are going to try for in 10 days time.

In addition to it being the Friday before a bank holiday it is also the first stage of the Tour De Yorkshre cycle race between Scarborough and Bridlington. While TPE will be expected to pick up some of those passengers I would expect it to add significant traffic to some routes.

Unlike the Grand National which is a fixed location at a fixed time the nature of bike racing is much more fluid with more viewing opportunities and timing that can be, somewhat, dependent on conditions so perhaps more of a challenge for the planners.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

I think they intend to have revenue protection on trains, just paying them 10k a year less than guards would earn, I think current guards are safe from being axed, however if Northern get their own way, they'll start recruiting on board customer service staff, as guards retire/progress/leave they'll not replace them and eventually in 20/30 years time the workforce will be significantly cheaper and the driver will be the only safety critical member of staff on the train.

Evidence please.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

I am going to be interested to see what kind of service they are going to try for in 10 days time.

In addition to it being the Friday before a bank holiday it is also the first stage of the Tour De Yorkshre cycle race between Scarborough and Bridlington. While TPE will be expected to pick up some of those passengers I would expect it to add significant traffic to some routes.

Unlike the Grand National which is a fixed location at a fixed time the nature of bike racing is much more fluid with more viewing opportunities and timing that can be, somewhat, dependent on conditions so perhaps more of a challenge for the planners.

The same service as before. They thought they might be able to run a few more trains the other Saturday because they thought a few more staff might clock on. Now they know where thought gets you.

Another thing. Some of the scab management who are running trains are not happy with being asked to work up to 11.5 hours. But the RMT messed up like only the RMT can. They called this strike to support VTEC like they called the last to support Merseyrail. What they should have done is call it on Mayday, and really upset the managers.

 

[Robertj21a]

Evidence please.

How can anyone provide 'evidence' when their statement starts '....I think.....'.

It's a forum, people have their own ideas !

 

[wingsoveryorks]

How can anyone provide 'evidence' when their statement starts '....I think.....'.

It's a forum, people have their own ideas !

Like a gaggle of old washer women sat in a coffee shop. It just makes me laugh when people come out with these ideas and you know they are a million miles from the truth. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

A comma after 'I think' would have been advisable.

 

[Robertj21a]

Like a gaggle of old washer women sat in a coffee shop. It just makes me laugh when people come out with these ideas and you know they are a million miles from the truth. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

A comma after 'I think' would have been advisable.

In my view it's rather refreshing that people come on here with their own ideas. It's quite obvious that there are some others who could get rather blinkered when it comes to anything 'different' and/or not to their own personal liking.

 

[LETHLFH]

This is my opinion on what I believe Northern are trying to achieve, which part of it do you believe to be a million miles from the truth?

 

[313103]

This is my opinion on what I believe Northern are trying to achieve, which part of it do you believe to be a million miles from the truth?

I do believe in some of what you say, and it is more near to fact when you say staff will be paid £10,000 and i would add that pay difference will be even more.

 

[LETHLFH]

There are no facts in my previous post, I just think the TOCs ultimate aim is to have cheap ticket checkers/customer service staff to replace guards. This could represent significant savings on labour costs however it leaves the driver as the only safety critical member of staff which isn't safe in emergency situations. I personally don't agree with DOO as I value passenger safety, however I don't believe Northern intend to lose revenue by having nobody on the train except the driver. I believe they wish to reduce cost by reducing competency, natural wastage, employing new members of staff cheaply by creating a new grade, not having to cancel trains last minute as there is no guard due to displacement or sickness. I don't think arguing Northern will lose revenue will help current guards and I don't believe it to be true. I think to persuade members of the public DOO is a bad idea we should highlight guards competencies and which aspects of safety would be lost by running without a second safety critical member of staff.

 

[BestWestern]

-----

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

An attempt at lowering costs. By getting rid of the staff who protect revenue.
Yep, the man's an idiot alright.

He was idiotic enough to enquire why the railway's unit costs had gone up despite a doubling of patronage, when all the economic laws say they should have gone down (greater revenue on a largely fixed cost base).
He spotted labour costs were one of the major culprits (in Network Rail as well as the TOCs).
Network Rail is doing its bit to reduce costs (ROC migration etc).
The TOCs are also trying to do the same (pushed by ever tighter cost controls from the DfT).
Have you heard the government wittering on about "national productivity" and how we are miles behind Germany and the US?
It's all part of the serious economic debate you call "idiotic".

 

[Bantamzen]

Speaking purely from a passenger point of view, I don't believe for a moment that Arriva/Northern will simply look to change the roles of guards under DOO and leave it at that. Ultimately, companies will always try to seek quick and easy methods of reducing costs, more often than not the first point of call being front line staff. At the moment this seems to be contrary to what Northern are doing. There are more revenue staff at more stations, especially in the morning peaks. And it seems to be having an effect, I've noticed a considerable drop in the number of "pay when challenged" passengers on my morning commute because there are revenue staff at both stations I use en route. But travel outside of the morning peaks, and the story changes rapidly.

This charm offensive also seems to replicate what is happening, or has happened with other parts of the private sector. Banks for example started to employ more and more staff to "meet and greet" customers arriving at their branches. At first they helped direct customers to the shortest queue, or even deal with basic inquiries. But then they start to act as a buffer, trying to direct customers away from the human interface and towards the ATMs or on-line services, slowly chipping away at the footfall and creating a growing case for reducing the number of front-facing staff and even eventually closing branches. And similar models have been used right through the retail sector, especially supermarkets.

So as Northern prepare to add TVMs to the stations that did not previously have them, add ticket barriers to more of the larger stations, and start to move towards DOO a similar pattern emerges. Encourage the customers to buy at TVMs, or even better in advance online. And if they don't, then there is always the guard / revenue officer to help advise passengers on how to avoid needing their services in future. As customer behaviour changes, the case (at least in the eyes of the board) to review the future role of the second member of rail crew grows.

Make no mistake, it may not be Northern policy to reduce staffing levels as a result of some routes going DOO at the moment. But sooner or later it will be.

 

[northwichcat]

This is my opinion on what I believe Northern are trying to achieve

I believe Northern are trying to achieve a franchise requirement while retaining as many services as possible with guards. If they were targeting all-stops services to be DCO to achieve 50% of passenger mileage as DCO then the number of traditional guards required would be significantly less.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe Northern are trying to achieve a franchise requirement while retaining as many services as possible with guards. If they were targeting all-stops services to be DCO to achieve 50% of passenger mileage as DCO then the number of traditional guards required would be significantly less.

Quite possibly. It'll also only be the new stock which is DOO-capable.