Arriva Rail North DOO

[the sniper]

Do you have any evidence for your theory that Northern are going down the same route as Southern and LO?

They're just having to spend a fortune implementing DCO, both in the short and long term if you buy into their 'vision', to deliver a relatively small reduction in delays & cancellations and an 'improved passenger experience' that could have been delivered far cheaper with better management of the Guard grade.

It's just a coincidence that they're required to fight to pay for the engineering of a situation where single manning can be widely and easily achieved in eight years with little consequence, achieving massive cost savings going forward.

Yeah, sure.

 

[northwichcat]

No i do not have direct evidence, i base it on everything that has gone on before, history always has this nasty habit of repeating itself.

The difference is Northern don't operate a commuter franchise around the largest city in the UK. I seem to recall DfT suggested full DOO in metropolitan areas as an option prior to the ITT being drawn up and the bidders opposed it. Quite sensible as providing ticket barriers and barrier staff at every station in Greater Manchester wouldn't be economically viable, even if there are some stations where ticket barriers could be a viable option.

but LOROL were and they had 14 new conductors in their second week of training,

14 is a very small number compared to the number of additional ones Northern are recruiting.

DOO on LO come in 7 years after LO had been given the concession and less then 1 year after the 2012 olympic games in which they were awarded the Gold star for Customer satisfaction and service. Cynical me believes that conductors were only kept on because of the olympics and got rid of soon after.

It seems to be an international trend of you provide better staffing for a major event. I recall hearing Berlin customer facing rail staff all had to learn English or French ahead of the Euro 2006 being played in Germany (if they didn't already speak a foreign language), you'd think perhaps for a capital city which gets many visitors would be a useful requirement to keep but apparently they dropped the requirement.

Another example is the UP Express in Toronto (the rail link between Toronto and the airport) was opened in time for the Pan America Games. I think those services may be DOO but when I travelled on it last year I noticed the level of staff presence is very high - you can get a few on board staff when it's operated by a 2/3 car multiple unit. I wonder if they'll maintain that level of staffing long term.

 

[northwichcat]

They're just having to spend a fortune implementing DCO, both in the short and long term if you buy into their 'vision', to deliver a relatively small reduction in delays & cancellations and an 'improved passenger experience' that could have been delivered far cheaper with better management of the Guard grade.

There's no additional cost to the operator in acquiring trains which can run as DOO - DfT and the ROSCO want the feature on all new trains, even if there's no plan to use it, so they are 'futureproofed.' Even the TPE 397s and 802s will have DOO equipment fitted but it won't be used unless they transfer to another operator, or the operator of the next franchise wants to use it.

There's also no cost to the operator for industrial action - DfT will compensate them. Yes I realise that could mean the cost to the tax payer of the Northern franchise may not be lower if industrial action continues, despite the reduction in subsidy.

 

[craigybagel]

There's no additional cost to the operator in acquiring trains which can run as DOO - DfT and the ROSCO want the feature on all new trains, even if there's no plan to use it, so they are 'futureproofed.' Even the TPE 397s and 802s will have DOO equipment fitted but it won't be used unless they transfer to another operator, or the operator of the next franchise wants to use it.

There's also no cost to the operator for industrial action - DfT will compensate them. Yes I realise that could mean the cost to the tax payer of the Northern franchise may not be lower if industrial action continues, despite the reduction in subsidy.

I'll be very surprised if the drivers at Northern will accept DOO (Hence RMT's desire to get ASLEF involved now) but if they do it's going to take a massive payrise. That's not going to come cheap.

 

[craigybagel]

14 is a very small number compared to the number of additional ones Northern are recruiting.

Yes but proportionally that's still a lot - given only part of London Overground had conductors at the time, 14 would have been quite a lot for them.

Another example is the UP Express in Toronto (the rail link between Toronto and the airport) was opened in time for the Pan America Games. I think those services may be DOO but when I travelled on it last year I noticed the level of staff presence is very high - you can get a few on board staff when it's operated by a 2/3 car multiple unit. I wonder if they'll maintain that level of staffing long term.

Almost certainly. DOO is very rare on heavy rail in North America. I believe that even the subway trains in Toronto still have guards.

 

[northwichcat]

Almost certainly. DOO is very rare on heavy rail in North America. I believe that even the subway trains in Toronto still have guards.

UP Express call the onboard staff 'Guest Service Representatives' and having one or more per carriage does seem to be an over provision of staff.

According to Wikipedia the two original subway lines have guards, while the new 2 routes don't and the the route under construction won't. Apparently if the TR stock is used on line 4 it's full DOO, while if it's used on line 1 it has a guard but the guard is told by a computer when it's safe to release the doors!

 

[Bletchleyite]

New York has guards.

 

[Robertj21a]

If this thread is supposed to relate to DOO on Northern, I'm not sure that many of these examples are particularly relevant.
Surely, a fairer comparison would be those with similar operations to Northern, probably across Europe ?

 

[FordFocus]

I was speaking to a high level rep from ASLEF and he's still intrigued at how Northern propose to sell DOO to drivers when the vast majority would vote against any deal.

 

[74A]

I was speaking to a high level rep from ASLEF and he's still intrigued at how Northern propose to sell DOO to drivers when the vast majority would vote against any deal.

As the legal action against ASLEF last year showed the drivers will have to drive the trains. ASLEF lost a lot of money when a driver refused to drive a 12 car train DOO for Gatwick Express.

In the ruling the judge said that certain thinks require negotiation and agreement but bringing in new trains does not.

For example if on Northern a manager tells a driver to start training with a new train and the driver says ASLEF have told him not to do it then ASLEF would find themselves on the losing side of another court case.

 

[northwichcat]

As the legal action against ASLEF last year showed the drivers will have to drive the trains. ASLEF lost a lot of money when a driver refused to drive a 12 car train DOO for Gatwick Express.

In the ruling the judge said that certain thinks require negotiation and agreement but bringing in new trains does not.

For example if on Northern a manager tells a driver to start training with a new train and the driver says ASLEF have told him not to do it then ASLEF would find themselves on the losing side of another court case.

Wasn't the DOO agreement on Gatwick Express seen as a 'gentleman's agreement' and based on 10 x 23m trains, while ASLEF told their members to refuse to take out 12 x 20m trains?

It would seem stupid if ASLEF refused to let drivers do door duties on 2-6 car formations on Northern and claim safety is the reason when they accepted 10 car elsewhere. If 2 car is unsafe then how can 10 car be safe?

 

[74A]

Wasn't the DOO agreement on Gatwick Express seen as a 'gentleman's agreement' and based on 10 x 23m trains, while ASLEF told their members to refuse to take out 12 x 20m trains?

It would seem stupid if ASLEF refused to let drivers do door duties on 2-6 car formations on Northern and claim safety is the reason when they accepted 10 car elsewhere. If 2 car is unsafe then how can 10 car be safe?

ASLEF can't refuse to let their drivers do door duties. If they do then they will be taken to court like Southern. Also if you read the full court case ASLEF did not try and use safety as a reason not to drive the trains. Thats because no one has been able to provide any evidence to show DOO is unsafe.

Just because you don't like DOO doesn't make it a reason not to do it.

 

[coxxy]

ASLEF can't refuse to let their drivers do door duties. If they do then they will be taken to court like Southern. Also if you read the full court case ASLEF did not try and use safety as a reason not to drive the trains. Thats because no one has been able to provide any evidence to show DOO is unsafe.

Just because you don't like DOO doesn't make it a reason not to do it.

if it isn't part of the duties at present,and isn't part of the drivers contract then a change of contract would be needed.

So actually I'd imagine that northern can't make the drivers perform door duties if not trained/contracted etc.

If that was the case then Northern would rush to get door buttons etc in cabs to reduce the impact of the strikes..

 

[northwichcat]

if it isn't part of the duties at present,and isn't part of the drivers contract then a change of contract would be needed.

So actually I'd imagine that northern can't make the drivers perform door duties if not trained/contracted etc.

If that was the case then Northern would rush to get door buttons etc in cabs to reduce the impact of the strikes..

Saying the drivers can't do it if they aren't trained doesn't mean much. Drivers will have to continue working 142s instead of 195s if they aren't trained on the new traction and they also can't work new routes if they aren't trained on them.

I suppose it'll come down to how specific the driver role is in a Northern contract. If it refers to the driver only operating trains alongside a guard then a revision would be needed but if it doesn't then talking to ASLEF might only be to prevent morale being reduced and potentially prevent a driver's strike.

The new trains will have CCTV monitoring the doors and monitors in the cab. They won't work on the old DOO approach which requires equipment to the fitted on the platform so the driver can watch the doors, so it'd require more than just making the door buttons operational from the driver's cab on the existing trains.

 

[313103]

14 is a very small number compared to the number of additional ones Northern are recruiting.

How many Guards are currently employed by Northern?

How many Guards are currently in Training for Northern.

For what its worth and to get a better perspective

London Overground had 129 Guards in there employment when the announcement of DOO was given.

London Overground had just recruited 14 from a application list going into the couple of hundreds. Plans were afoot to recruit more, this was cancelled.

 

[LETHLFH]

I can confirm it is not in drivers contracts or agreements on the east side to operate doors, not sure about the west but I highly doubt it. This point is likely to go into dispute as most drivers aren't willing to do it any price and those who are willing expect huge pay rises.

 

[northwichcat]

I can confirm it is not in drivers contracts or agreements on the east side to operate doors, not sure about the west but I highly doubt it. This point is likely to go into dispute as most drivers aren't willing to do it any price and those who are willing expect huge pay rises.

Employment contracts rarely contain a comprehensive list of every duty someone may have to carry out. It's more relevant whether it says the driver will always work a train alongside a guard or if it states a driver will never have to do the doors. It used to be the case that many west drivers released the doors for passengers to board at the origin station if the guard was delayed (something which also happened with other operators like LM), now they seem to have given up doing that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Employment contracts rarely contain a comprehensive list of every duty someone may have to carry out. It's more relevant whether it says the driver will always work a train alongside a guard or if it states a driver will never have to do the doors. It used to be the case that many west drivers released the doors for passengers to board at the origin station if the guard was delayed (something which also happened with other operators like LM), now they seem to have given up doing that.

Some LM drivers do, some don't. I think they aren't meant to until both are there, but that isn't strictly done (and most guards will release absent a driver).

But I don't think DOO is proposed for son-of-LM so it probably doesn't bother them.

 

[LowLevel]

Some LM drivers do, some don't. I think they aren't meant to until both are there, but that isn't strictly done (and most guards will release absent a driver).

But I don't think DOO is proposed for son-of-LM so it probably doesn't bother them.

Do you not think? I'd bet at least 50p that DCO is proposed at the very least for the Cross City line. They've not said anything on the matter at the moment as they're not in office so to speak.

 

[Greybeard33]

It used to be the case that many west drivers released the doors for passengers to board at the origin station if the guard was delayed (something which also happened with other operators like LM), now they seem to have given up doing that.

The unit that forms Northern's 1657 Stockport to Chester service normally arrives ECS from Newton Heath in Stockport Platform 2 at about 1647, before the guard arrives from Piccadilly at 1651 on another service.

A few years ago the driver would usually release the doors before the guard arrived. Then the policy seemed to change, and the passengers were kept waiting on the platform until the guard opened the doors. But this year most drivers have started releasing the doors on arrival again, even on a 142 where they have to leave the cab and go into the vestibule.

 

[175001]

ASLEF has told us not to release or close doors as we are not allowed to do it due to us not being trained to do the door procedure, and the great platform train interfaces risk of which we, as drivers, would be liable if anything was to go wrong whilst the doors are released by us.

 

[FordFocus]

Employment contracts rarely contain a comprehensive list of every duty someone may have to carry out. It's more relevant whether it says the driver will always work a train alongside a guard or if it states a driver will never have to do the doors. It used to be the case that many west drivers released the doors for passengers to board at the origin station if the guard was delayed (something which also happened with other operators like LM), now they seem to have given up doing that.

Northern drivers have DOO-NP (non passenger) in their contracts, not DOO-P. A key difference and a different situation from the Gatwick Express 12 car court case that was brought up in the past.

 

[johntea]

Looks like tomorrow has been chosen in order to disrupt the Leeds Lights switch on, though I suspect a lot of people will ironically use Arriva buses to get home instead!

 

[Jamesrob637]

Something tells me that this won't be the last Northern strike, possibly not this year even...

 

[CN75]

Northern drivers have DOO-NP (non passenger) in their contracts, not DOO-P. A key difference and a different situation from the Gatwick Express 12 car court case that was brought up in the past.

ASLEF have to officially stay away from any safety arguments about emergencies then, because the drivers are already taking on all the risk of protecting the train in an accident on a DOO train.

The big changes are opening doors and closing doors or managing passengers which drivers haven't been trained for. So Northern provide the training and do the risk assessments and offer ASLEF to join them. The technical objections can all be overcome and ultimately if it comes to it the courts will say that ASLEF members can't just decline to take part as that is illegal industrial action. ASLEF need a reason for a dispute that is based on bargaining procedures, change to working conditions. Not enough to say they are not being asked to do something they haven't been trained for or is unsafe when that can be managed to the court's satisfaction.

Surely ASLEF drivers on Northern could ask the same question as the RMT did to Northern and get their own ballot and rolling strikes started? No need to wait as guards haven't had to change anything about working to get their ballot through. Just ask Northern if they plan to alter terms and conditions during the franchise about DOO, get a vague answer, see what membership say about lack of clear answer and ballot on trade dispute about DOO. If they strike or not then the mandate is there and it's more pressure. It depends how much talk there is and how much real support for the guards.

None of the safety arguments are going to make any difference in a court because DOO happens safely every day for the longest trains and there won't be any technical reason why Northern's new or refreshed trains cannot have driver door control with Cctv.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh dear!

RMT identifies 330 station “crime hot spot and no-go areas” if Northern Rail proceed with plan to sack Guards.

IN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S STRIKE ACTION over Northern Rail’s plans for Driver Only trains RMT has named 330 unstaffed stations which it fears will become crime hot spots and no-go areas for vulnerable and disabled passengers if rail bosses get away with their plans.

A list of the unstaffed stations is attached together with a map showing unstaffed stations.

Although these stations are currently unstaffed, protection and assistance for passengers and the train driver at stations is provided by the Guard who is on all trains.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said,

“No staff on many routes and lines, no staff on the stations and no staff on the trains travelling through these stations means there will be a cocktail of dangers at the locations we have identified which will increasingly become no-go areas for vulnerable passengers and new crime hot spots. At the same time our isolated drivers will be on their own, increasingly exposed to anti-social and violent behaviour.

“As well as these dangers there will be also be disadvantages for disabled and older passengers who require assistance because there will be no one there to help them on and off the train or provide assistance during their journey.

“These are yet another set of reasons why the Prime Minister should stop us sabotaging a deal with Northern and why we will keep up the fight for a safe, secure and accessible railway with properly staffed stations and a Guard on every train.”

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-identifies-330-station-crime-hot-spot-and-no-go-areas/

While a guard could report something he/she sees, on a route with an hourly service they'll be around 58 minutes every hour when a wannabe criminal can do something at an unstaffed station without being seen a guard. Surely in the case of rural unstaffed stations CCTV being monitored properly monitored 24 hours a day would be more effective at preventing crime and catching those responsible.

I'd also question why they think the risk of crime is higher at unstaffed stations in rural areas, then at stations in urban areas with part time staffing. On the Mid-Cheshire line I would expect the likelihood of a crime at Northwich (with a part time ticket office) is higher than stations like Mobberley and Ashley (with no staffing at all.)

 

[craigybagel]

ASLEF have to officially stay away from any safety arguments about emergencies then, because the drivers are already taking on all the risk of protecting the train in an accident on a DOO train.

The big changes are opening doors and closing doors or managing passengers which drivers haven't been trained for. So Northern provide the training and do the risk assessments and offer ASLEF to join them. The technical objections can all be overcome and ultimately if it comes to it the courts will say that ASLEF members can't just decline to take part as that is illegal industrial action. ASLEF need a reason for a dispute that is based on bargaining procedures, change to working conditions. Not enough to say they are not being asked to do something they haven't been trained for or is unsafe when that can be managed to the court's satisfaction.

Surely ASLEF drivers on Northern could ask the same question as the RMT did to Northern and get their own ballot and rolling strikes started? No need to wait as guards haven't had to change anything about working to get their ballot through. Just ask Northern if they plan to alter terms and conditions during the franchise about DOO, get a vague answer, see what membership say about lack of clear answer and ballot on trade dispute about DOO. If they strike or not then the mandate is there and it's more pressure. It depends how much talk there is and how much real support for the guards.

None of the safety arguments are going to make any difference in a court because DOO happens safely every day for the longest trains and there won't be any technical reason why Northern's new or refreshed trains cannot have driver door control with Cctv.

From ASLEF's point of view, I assume they see no point in striking just yet as they can sit back and wait and see what happens with the RMT dispute first. Let the guards take the financial hit first, and wait until it looks like they have no choice but to intervene themselves. If the RMT wins, ASLEF will get what they want without it having cost their members a penny - if RMT loses, then ASLEF can strike when their members still have some money and willpower to fight.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern drivers have DOO-NP (non passenger) in their contracts, not DOO-P. A key difference and a different situation from the Gatwick Express 12 car court case that was brought up in the past.

It'll also depend whether the contract specifically forbids DOO-P and how flexible the terms are. If there's flexibility within the terms then talking to employees/unions is a sensible approach rather than a legally imperative approach.

 

[scrapy]

Oh dear!



https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-identifies-330-station-crime-hot-spot-and-no-go-areas/

While a guard could report something he/she sees, on a route with an hourly service they'll be around 58 minutes every hour when a wannabe criminal can do something at an unstaffed station without being seen a guard. Surely in the case of rural unstaffed stations CCTV being monitored properly monitored 24 hours a day would be more effective at preventing crime and catching those responsible.

I'd also question why they think the risk of crime is higher at unstaffed stations in rural areas, then at stations in urban areas with part time staffing. On the Mid-Cheshire line I would expect the likelihood of a crime at Northwich (with a part time ticket office) is higher than stations like Mobberley and Ashley (with no staffing at all.)

Northern don't monitor their CCTV anywhere that I am aware of nor am i aware of any plans to do so.

There are quite a few inaccuracies in that map (also wrong in the Northern disability leaflet the map is produced from).

Marple is staffed
Chelford is unstaffed
Burscough Bridge is unstaffed
The map producer also seems to have got Adlington Lancs and Cheshire mixed up

I also it is misleading for Northern just to say a station is staffed as a passenger may turn up expecting help when it's only available in the morning peak.

 

[FordFocus]

ASLEF have to officially stay away from any safety arguments about emergencies then, because the drivers are already taking on all the risk of protecting the train in an accident on a DOO train.

I've read that statement a few times and don't quite follow. Why would ASLEF stay away from any safety arguments? For example, they had meetings with the ORR and RSSB about GSM-R failures when ASLEF advised members to not run above 20mph during failures. In our union branch meetings safety issues are regularly brought up by members to the H&S rep as well as the company channels.

The big changes are opening doors and closing doors or managing passengers which drivers haven't been trained for. So Northern provide the training and do the risk assessments and offer ASLEF to join them. The technical objections can all be overcome and ultimately if it comes to it the courts will say that ASLEF members can't just decline to take part as that is illegal industrial action. ASLEF need a reason for a dispute that is based on bargaining procedures, change to working conditions. Not enough to say they are not being asked to do something they haven't been trained for or is unsafe when that can be managed to the court's satisfaction.

It's quite key changes to Terms and Conditions in their employment contract. Like I said before Northern drivers do not have DOO-P in their employment contracts. Discussions would have take place under collective bargaining to implement it as what has happened to some other TOCs. Once an agreement is reached training would then obviously take place.

None of the safety arguments are going to make any difference in a court because DOO happens safely every day for the longest trains and there won't be any technical reason why Northern's new or refreshed trains cannot have driver door control with Cctv.

There are technical reasons which will make it difficult to initially run DOO trains. The majority of existing stock won't be fitted as there is nowhere to put the banks of CCTV screens in the cab and station lighting isn't up to scratch for DOO operation.

I drive DOO and conventionally manned trains and in my personal experience is that DOO is a less safe operation with a higher workload for the driver. There are more SPADs and PTI incidents in the DOO area. I'm yet to hear any credible argument in favour of removing the second safety critical member of staff other than to save money.