Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

The press release suggests that the RMT pitched something new to Arriva. Is that the case?

The way I read it is they said "Agree to accept the model used by Scotrail and we'll talk to you but if you refuse to have guards closing the doors then we'll have 3 days of strike action" while Northern responded with "Our franchise agreement requires us to..."

 

[FordFocus]

So how are Arriva putting private profit before safety? It is DfT who specified 50% of passenger mileage to be under driver controlled operation and DfT (under the Conservatives) who want private operators to get reduced subsides. Mick Cash talks about 50% of services being DOO and refusing to talk to Arriva, so it sounds like he doesn't know what the exact plan is and by his own omission he's refusing to talk to Northern unless they agree to breach their franchise agreement.

Arriva knew what they were bidding for and agreed to do the DfT's work so it can be argued that it is Arriva Rail North that are trying to put their profit before safety. They'll lose guards through natural wastage on these 50% DOO routes, employ the underqualified 'Assistant Ticket Examiners' in their place on less money as per the RSSB DOO Report. Then eventually once the next franchise comes around they are likely to quietly disappear.

 

[WatcherZero]

They pitched the same deal as on Scotrail, drivers open doors guards close them.

 

[northwichcat]

Arriva knew what they were bidding for and agreed to do the DfT's work so it can be argued that it is Arriva Rail North that are trying to put their profit before safety.

So you have evidence Arriva can make more profit from the model for this franchise than Serco/Abellio made from the old one? If so would you like to share it with us?

Are you sure you don't mean the Conservative government want the franchise to get a lower subsidy but want them to run more services and lease more modern trains at the same time? If so shouldn't it be an austerity before safety argument?

 

[Overspeed110]

This is like that old tune by Dead or alive. Again.

READ BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.........

Northern are NOT guaranteeing a second safety critical member of staff on EVERY train run DCO/DOO.

Their franchise agreement does not say they MUST provide this second person. I know this as I've just read the relevant part.


THAT IS WHAT THIS DISPUTE IS ABOUT! THE FACT THAT NORTHERN ARE NOT GUARANTEEING A SECOND SAFETY CRITICAL PERSON ON EVERY TRAIN!

Now, what part of that do you not understand?

 

[Wombat]

The way I read it is they said "Agree to accept the model used by Scotrail and we'll talk to you but if you refuse to have guards closing the doors then we'll have 3 days of strike action" while Northern responded with "Our franchise agreement requires us to..."

Yes, understood. I phrased the question poorly. What I mean is: have they proposed something that they haven't proposed already in this dispute? If it's just the Scotrail thing, the first post way back at the start of this thread suggests not, which doesn't jive with the tenor of today's RMT statement.

 

[yorksrob]

So what are the chances of Northern going for an offer similar to the one accepted on Southern recently ?

 

[northwichcat]

This is like that old tune by Dead or alive. Again.

READ BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.........

Northern are NOT guaranteeing a second safety critical member of staff on EVERY train run DCO/DOO.

Their franchise agreement does not say they MUST provide this second person. I know this as I've just read the relevant part.


THAT IS WHAT THIS DISPUTE IS ABOUT! THE FACT THAT NORTHERN ARE NOT GUARANTEEING A SECOND SAFETY CRITICAL PERSON ON EVERY TRAIN!

Now, what part of that do you not understand?

So the RMT can talk to Arriva about why a second person needs to be on board and what safety training that person needs. The franchise spec doesn't say the second person can't have safety training, the only requirement is for the drivers to take over the door duties. But the RMT are too stubborn to have constructive meetings and have to resort to misleading the public to try and get some ordinary passengers to say they support the strikes.

 

[northwichcat]

So what are the chances of Northern going for an offer similar to the one accepted on Southern recently ?

Have the RMT accepted it? I thought ASLEF agreed to it on condition they have a second person on board (not doing door duties.)

 

[yorksrob]

Have the RMT accepted it? I thought ASLEF agreed to it on condition they have a second person on board (not doing door duties.)

I read that one of them had accepted it. I assumed it was the one leading the industrial action.

 

[Carlisle]

This is like that old tune by Dead or alive. Again.

READ BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.........

Northern are NOT guaranteeing a second safety critical member of staff on EVERY train run DCO/DOO.

Their franchise agreement does not say they MUST provide this second person. I know this as I've just read the relevant part.


THAT IS WHAT THIS DISPUTE IS ABOUT! THE FACT THAT NORTHERN ARE NOT GUARANTEEING A SECOND SAFETY CRITICAL PERSON ON EVERY TRAIN!

Now, what part of that do you not understand?

Yes but given the Scotrail solution was clearly rejected by northern/ DFT a year ago, why did the union meet the TOC yesterday merely to offer an identical deal. Aside from the hardline activists, Im pretty certain this continuing arrogance will only lead to dwindling public support for the entire campaign regardless of whether it ultimately succeeds or not .

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes but given the Scotrail solution was clearly rejected by northern/ DFT a year ago, why did the union meet the TOC yesterday merely to offer an identical deal. Aside from the hardline activists, Im pretty certain this continuing arrogance will only lead to dwindling public support for the entire campaign regardless of whether it ultimately succeeds or not .

Surely any public support is fairly low already (once they are given the whole story) ?

 

[PR1Berske]

Surely any public support is fairly low already (once they are given the whole story) ?

Passengers who can afford to switch back from rail to cars will do so with haste the longer the RMT drags itself through this dispute.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Somebody I know is already buying a car to avoid having to rely on Northern to reach their precious first job. Having to pay for six taxis for three days' strikes next week will wipe out their earnings.

 

[Sonic1982]

I’m sure some of you on here are Grayling, Maynard and Plummer in disguise with your attack on the Guards grade, yes sometimes the RMT’s press releases are not the best I agree there, but they are trying to protect the grade from being wiped out across the rail industry as it will happen on all the Toc’s eventually then welcome to a railway vertualy staffless and sod safety and accessibility for those who need it as long as the train runs and the Toc saves money on not having to have the number of safety critical staff needed so nice win win for the Toc not the staff and those who need the help assistance and reasurance that having a Guard on board brings.

 

[387star]

Ex conductors can still strike even if they become an obs or train captain

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ex conductors can still strike even if they become an obs or train captain

But the effect of them doing so is small as the train then runs without them.

 

[DarloRich]

This is like that old tune by Dead or alive. Again.

READ BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.........

Northern are NOT guaranteeing a second safety critical member of staff on EVERY train run DCO/DOO.

Their franchise agreement does not say they MUST provide this second person. I know this as I've just read the relevant part.


THAT IS WHAT THIS DISPUTE IS ABOUT! THE FACT THAT NORTHERN ARE NOT GUARANTEEING A SECOND SAFETY CRITICAL PERSON ON EVERY TRAIN!

Now, what part of that do you not understand?

you waste your breath - the reverse politics of envy shown by many here will blind them to any facts.

 

[northwichcat]

I’m sure some of you on here are Grayling, Maynard and Plummer in disguise with your attack on the Guards grade, yes sometimes the RMT’s press releases are not the best I agree there, but they are trying to protect the grade from being wiped out across the rail industry as it will happen on all the Toc’s eventually then welcome to a railway vertualy staffless and sod safety and accessibility for those who need it as long as the train runs and the Toc saves money on not having to have the number of safety critical staff needed so nice win win for the Toc not the staff and those who need the help assistance and reasurance that having a Guard on board brings.

You have to remember the franchise agreement was signed off by McLoughlin not Grayling. While McLoughlin may not have been the perfect SoS for Transport he was a lot more competent than Grayling. If Arriva were to hand back the keys to the franchise they'll be a new franchise specified by Grayling - don't expect that to be more favourable to guards!

Accessibility will be a legal requirement by 1st Jan 2020. A wheelchair bound passenger must be able to board and alight the new trains without booking in advance. On Merseyrail they have a solution to allow that without requiring a member of staff to assist the passenger but Northern don't so staff in addition to the driver are required. However, I don't think accessibility legislation alone would require a service to be cancelled if a booked second member of staff is unavailable - bus operators are allowed to use a step entry vehicle in an emergency but there's a limit of how many emergencies they are allowed to have in a 12 month period.

While Northern's plans about which routes are to be DCO aren't public I think it's generally accepted that it'll be the routes which get new trains. The routes which will get new trains are generally semi-fast services which given DfT specified 50% of passenger mileage as DCO not 50% of services sounds like Northern are trying to protect the guard grade as much as they can within what the franchise spec permits - as hard as that is to believe for those want to blame public companies owned by foreign governments.

 

[47802]

I’m sure some of you on here are Grayling, Maynard and Plummer in disguise with your attack on the Guards grade, yes sometimes the RMT’s press releases are not the best I agree there, but they are trying to protect the grade from being wiped out across the rail industry as it will happen on all the Toc’s eventually then welcome to a railway vertualy staffless and sod safety and accessibility for those who need it as long as the train runs and the Toc saves money on not having to have the number of safety critical staff needed so nice win win for the Toc not the staff and those who need the help assistance and reasurance that having a Guard on board brings.

I am neither Grayling, Maynard and Plummer but as difficult as might be for you to accept there are ordinary people out their like myself who don't support the RMT position, and no I'm not some raving right wing Tory. But it does strike me that history tends to show that resistance to change doesn't really protect those that it is trying to protect in the long term.

 

[northwichcat]

I am neither Grayling, Maynard and Plummer but as difficult as might be for you to accept there are ordinary people out their like myself who don't support the RMT position, and no I'm not some raving right wing Tory. But it does strike me that history tends to show that resistance to change doesn't really protect those that it is trying to protect in the long term.

Indeed. I believe the RMT were one of those who labelled Liz Kendall as a 'Red Tory' when Kendall is someone who has fought for worker's rights and given support to some trade union disputes. It seems a number of their members follow the same 'logic' and label anyone who supports a review of the role of the guard as a 'guard basher' even if they want 2 members of staff on all services and the second person of staff to have some safety training.

In any other industry it would be laughable to keep the same procedures from 30 years ago when we are going through a digital revolution.

 

[PR1Berske]

In any other industry it would be laughable to keep the same procedures from 30 years ago when we are going through a digital revolution.

Quite so. And the pace of change won't slow down: e-tickets are beginning to change the way people book rail travel, with consequences for ticket offices. Some of those consequences can already be seen, such as staff having iPads on the station floor rather than being behind glass.

Practices change. The RMT drags on.

 

[lejog]

I am neither Grayling, Maynard and Plummer but as difficult as might be for you to accept there are ordinary people out their like myself who don't support the RMT position, and no I'm not some raving right wing Tory. But it does strike me that history tends to show that resistance to change doesn't really protect those that it is trying to protect in the long term.

Agreed, I've never voted Tory in my life, but as the left-leaning Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman said

Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.

The UK's productivity crisis is well known (if you're unaware of this google it, the country hasn't see rises in productivity in 10years). Yet guards have been receiving above average pay rises without any corresponding gains in productivity. The consequences are inevitable, posters can call it an "attack on the guards' grade" or "the reverse politics of envy" as much as they like, but productivity will have to rise one way or another, the present situation is unsustainable.

 

[B&I]

Agreed, I've never voted Tory in my life, but as the left-leaning Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman said



The UK's productivity crisis is well known (if you're unaware of this google it, the country hasn't see rises in productivity in 10years). Yet guards have been receiving above average pay rises without any corresponding gains in productivity. The consequences are inevitable, posters can call it an "attack on the guards' grade" or "the reverse politics of envy" as much as they like, but productivity will have to rise one way or another, the present situation is unsustainable.

Reluctantly, I'd have to agree with this. Reluctantly, because there are too many jobs being downgraded or scrapped in this country without proper replacement. But agreeing because, unless Northern's costs are addressed, there is little hope in the current political climate of improving services, and because I am not convinced that trains cannot run safely without guards.

Even if the RMT do themselves few favours with their cack-handed and transparently disingenuous PR, it's very hard not to feel a lot of sympathy for individual guards. And some (but only some) of the people on here supporting DOO come across as the sort of unpleasant right-wing headbangers who are, in general, responsible for this country turning into Mexico with worse weather.

 

[yorksrob]

Quite so. And the pace of change won't slow down: e-tickets are beginning to change the way people book rail travel, with consequences for ticket offices. Some of those consequences can already be seen, such as staff having iPads on the station floor rather than being behind glass.

Although that sounds like a change desired by management, rather than customers. I'm sure most people buying their ticket would prefer someone with the full range of information and ticketing options at their finger tips.

The most frustrating aspect of this dispute is that surely Northern, with it's long rural routes and abundance of unmanned stations, is surely one of the least suitable TOC's for genuine one man operation in the whole country. Given that for the vast majority of routes will effectively require a second person on board anyway (for revenue protection as much as anything) what is the point of the Government pressing for making that second person non-compulsory. A Scotrail type agreement would be the most sensible option, in which a second person is guaranteed, but with amended responsibilities, but no, we have to be put through this so that the Government can score a point.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Although that sounds like a change desired by management, rather than customers. I'm sure most people buying their ticket would prefer someone with the full range of information and ticketing options at their finger tips.

The most frustrating aspect of this dispute is that surely Northern, with it's long rural routes and abundance of unmanned stations, is surely one of the least suitable TOC's for genuine one man operation in the whole country. Given that for the vast majority of routes will effectively require a second person on board anyway (for revenue protection as much as anything) what is the point of the Government pressing for making that second person non-compulsory. A Scotrail type agreement would be the most sensible option, in which a second person is guaranteed, but with amended responsibilities, but no, we have to be put through this so that the Government can score a point.

We so need a like button!

 

[Carlisle]

A Scotrail type agreement would be the most sensible option,.

I don’t think it would, that agreement merely allows the driver rather than guard to release the doors but nothing more, it’s not flexible enough for todays technology/ the modern railway

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I don’t think it would, that agreement merely allows the driver rather than guard to release the doors but nothing more, it’s not flexible enough for todays technology/ the modern railway

One of the main arguments for DOO was the lack of dwell times so the ScotRail agreement would be great. What is this Modern Railway you speak of? We still have Semaphores, 30 year old Trains and Token working in some areas.

 

[CN75]

This is like that old tune by Dead or alive. Again.

READ BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.........

Northern are NOT guaranteeing a second safety critical member of staff on EVERY train run DCO/DOO.

Their franchise agreement does not say they MUST provide this second person. I know this as I've just read the relevant part.


THAT IS WHAT THIS DISPUTE IS ABOUT! THE FACT THAT NORTHERN ARE NOT GUARANTEEING A SECOND SAFETY CRITICAL PERSON ON EVERY TRAIN!

Now, what part of that do you not understand?

The franchise ITT says:

“The Department requires a Franchisee who, during each Reporting Period from the first such period that commences on or after 1 January 2020 until the end of the Franchise Term, will operate a minimum of 50 per cent of all passenger train mileage under the driver’s full operational control. For the avoidance of doubt this means that the train must be fitted with the necessary equipment, the driver must be suitably trained, and all other necessary steps must have been taken to enable the train to be operated in passenger service without the need for a second member of staff on board. This requirement does not oblige the Franchisee to reduce levels of on-train staffing, and Delivery Plan 4.1 specifies requirements regarding the continued provision of trained customer-facing staff.”

And Arriva must be

“ix. Planning to deploy a trained and knowledgeable member of staff to provide information and customer assistance in a prompt and civil manner, in both normal and disrupted operation on-board every train in addition to the driver, except on routes and services where:

• All passengers boarding the train, including young people and others without access to a card that allows them access to funds immediately and electronically, will have had an opportunity to buy their ticket at the station prior to boarding, or will have such an opportunity on board the train;

• The effective collection of revenue, in particular from travel between stations other than the start and finish points of the service, will not be adversely affected;

• The characteristics of the service in question are such that the absence of a second member of staff will have no material impact on passenger perceptions of security, including anti-social behaviour; and

• All passengers on board are able to receive appropriate information about the train service.”

The DfT presumably agreed with Arriva what trains and routes could meet this and Arriva signed up to it.

 

[alansheppard77]

let the drivers operate the doors so the conductor can collect fares,to many people getting away with not paying