Arriva Rail North DOO

[Bletchleyite]

staff sickness is an acceptable excuse for not providing the second member of staff but industrial action is not

As a passenger I have a problem with that. It is either required for safety reasons or it is not; an agreement specifically to allow the union to disrupt services is not acceptable to me.

 

[47434]

I am clearly being thick here. Given DOO is commonplace in the London area and of course the tube, why is there a safety issue elsewhere? Just to be clear, I don't support one-person operation for areas where there are unstaffed stations for the issues surrounding boarding by those requiring assistance.

 

[Mathew S]

Given DOO is commonplace in the London area and of course the tube, why is there a safety issue elsewhere?

Quite. This is what I've been saying for ages now; if RMT are striking to protect jobs, that's fine, but they ought to be honest about it. Continuing to pretend this is about safety, when there's plenty of evidence to show DOO is safe, is not only lying, it's really, really stupid.

 

[Eccles1983]

Quite. This is what I've been saying for ages now; if RMT are striking to protect jobs, that's fine, but they ought to be honest about it. Continuing to pretend this is about safety, when there's plenty of evidence to show DOO is safe, is not only lying, it's really, really stupid.

Come up here, and then visit some of the areas and stations not in the immediate metro areas.

Then call it out as lies.

DOO works when lots of money is spent. Northern operate or serve over 500 stations. A large percentage of them are in the sticks, with no staff for miles. If you are in need of assistance on the train you are done for up here without guards.

Furthermore, unless you are going to spend an absolute fortune on new trains then how do you propose dispatching trains? As 150's 156's 158's do not have the room in the cab for monitors.

Also unlike london there is large areas of semaphore signalling. And plently of token/single line working.

You are comparing apples with coal.

 

[Robertj21a]

I assume the numerous posts from 12th January until today have been deleted as off-topic ?

 

[Chester1]

Quite. This is what I've been saying for ages now; if RMT are striking to protect jobs, that's fine, but they ought to be honest about it. Continuing to pretend this is about safety, when there's plenty of evidence to show DOO is safe, is not only lying, it's really, really stupid.

Especially when ASLEF are able to set aside safety concerns for a massive pay rise and the RMTs "comrades" running Merseytravel pushing for DOO for Merseyrail. There needs to be some train and infrastructure investment to make it safe for Northern though.

 

[Carlisle]

Quite. This is what I've been saying for ages now; if RMT are striking to protect jobs, that's fine, but they ought to be honest about it. Continuing to pretend this is about safety, when there's plenty of evidence to show DOO is safe, is not only lying, it's really, really stupid.

Exactly, as on most of these reality shows like Big Brother etc the game players are usually (intentionally or not) outed /revealed for what they really are

 

[Mathew S]

Come up here, and then visit some of the areas and stations not in the immediate metro areas.

Then call it out as lies.

DOO works when lots of money is spent. Northern operate or serve over 500 stations. A large percentage of them are in the sticks, with no staff for miles. If you are in need of assistance on the train you are done for up here without guards.

Furthermore, unless you are going to spend an absolute fortune on new trains then how do you propose dispatching trains? As 150's 156's 158's do not have the room in the cab for monitors.

Also unlike london there is large areas of semaphore signalling. And plently of token/single line working.

You are comparing apples with coal.

I don't need to "Come up here" - I live here. I travel most days of the year on Northern services across the North West and North East of England. Of course there are areas which are currently unsuitable for DCO/DOO, since it's only planned that 50% of services by mileage will be operated in that way, I really don't see that as a problem. Of course new trains are needed, they are already being built. Of course there are issues with accessibility and assistance, which is why Northern are obliged to plan to have customer service staff on every train. I assume you know all of this; in fact I'm certain you do.

Nevertheless, not one of the points you made actually responds to my post. In the absence of any evidence - actual, researched, quantifiable evidence - that DCO/DOO is unsafe, I think I'm perfectly justifed in calling the RMT out as liars... especially when there is evidence from other sources which says that it is as safe as other ways of working. If you have evidence, please do feel free to share it, I'll be the first to change my mind if you can. However in the meantime, I prefer to base my opionins on facts and evidence rather than the RMTs poorly executed, scaremongering, 1970s-style, political hissy fits.

 

[Eccles1983]

I drive the routes.

I also know the areas in which the new trains are going. None of the problem areas I know of will see the new trains.

So that without major investment in station monitors means that the dispatch process will be unsafe. Accrington is one example of a station that will be very unsafe to dispatch from. There are numerous examples of this across northerns network.

I prefer to base my opinions on experence. And having seen what the dft makes of agreements on staffing I will politely suggest that you get a dose of reality. The exceptions where the staff wont require to be on board before it can go will be key.

DCO is untested in a region like up around here. So using London and its areas as a guide that it is safe is folly. (Also I have seen and been delivered safety briefs about how doo goes wrong with uncontrolled evacuations, and PTI faults)

I'm no fan of the RMT. But they have a valid case until proven otherwise with the safety element in the North.

 

[Mathew S]

None of the problem areas I know of will see the new trains.

That was rather my point. If only the new trains are equipped for DCO/DOO, and none of the new trains will operate in areas which are a problem, then there isn't a problem since DCO/DOO can't happen in those areas. I would have thought that was obvious.

I prefer to base my opinions on experence.

And I fully respect your experience, but experience isn't the same thing as evidence. If I put my journalist hat on for a second, if I imagine I was producing a report on the RMT strike action, and an RMT rep says to me that DOO/DCO is unsafe, I have to respond by pointing out the RSSB/DfT evidence which says the opposite. It doesn't matter how many individual examples from experienced drivers or other staff the RMT give me, they don't carry the same value as researched, evidence-based, studies published by professional bodies (not saying the RMT is unprofessional, but you know what I mean).
If they want to play the safety card, then rather than just saying the the DfT evidence is wrong, RMT need research of their own need to prove it.

I'm no fan of the RMT. But they have a valid case until proven otherwise with the safety element in the North.

Proving the complete safety of a way of working is always going to be impossible, and so can't be the threshold, no matter how desirable it might be. Instead, the threshold has to be whether any risks that are discovered through a thorough assessment can be mitigated to a level where the residual risks are considered acceptable. Unfortunately, agreeing what 'acceptable' means is always going to be 'challenging'. For me, if the risk of my being killed or seriously injurred on the railway is the same or less than it is when I'm driving, I'm happy. That is, after all, where I'd be if I wasn't on the train. My understanding of the evidence is that, DCO/DOO or not, the risk to my safety on the railway is actually very much lower than that, and therefore completely acceptable in my book.

 

[Mathew S]

It sounds like Northern have guaranteed a non driving member of staff on every service which the RMT see as progress not a solution.

Isn't that a change from the franchise specification saying that trains should be able to run without a second staff member in-extremis? If so, it sounds like Arriva must have DfT agreement to make that offer - otherwise they're going to need a lot of spare staff knocking around ready to cover for absence/delays.

 

[Eccles1983]

You seem to have a lot of faith in the dft/rssb/northern.

I would take the word of the practitioners of the trains than people who might be under political/financial pressure from central goverment.

Who would you believe more. A doctor telling you about the risks of a certain condition or hospital conditions or Jeremy Hunt?

The dco/doo exceptions would be key to all of this. And knowing what I do I have little faith in a non doo fitted unit not being used on the routes when a doo fitted unit is in for repair.

 

[Chester1]

Isn't that a change from the franchise specification saying that trains should be able to run without a second staff member in-extremis? If so, it sounds like Arriva must have DfT agreement to make that offer - otherwise they're going to need a lot of spare staff knocking around ready to cover for absence/delays.

I suspect Arriva are using the infrastructure delays as leverage with DfT to get rid of or water down a franchise requirement they don't like. The wording either indicates the Strathclyde model or perhaps Southern model if the RMT are exaggerating. The RMT would be mad to reject Strathclyde if it is in offer.

 

[Robertj21a]

You seem to have a lot of faith in the dft/rssb/northern.

I would take the word of the practitioners of the trains than people who might be under political/financial pressure from central goverment.

Who would you believe more. A doctor telling you about the risks of a certain condition or hospital conditions or Jeremy Hunt?

The dco/doo exceptions would be key to all of this. And knowing what I do I have little faith in a non doo fitted unit not being used on the routes when a doo fitted unit is in for repair.

Haven't we had all these broader DOO/safety discussions already - on the Southern thread ? - we're just going over old ground, yet again.

 

[Mathew S]

You seem to have a lot of faith in the dft/rssb/northern.

I have hardly any faith at all, but they're the only parties in this dispute who've provided evidence. So if there's nothing to disprove what they say, who am I supposed to believe?

The dco/doo exceptions would be key to all of this. And knowing what I do I have little faith in a non doo fitted unit not being used on the routes when a doo fitted unit is in for repair.

I completely agree that only suitably fitted trains on suitably equipped routes should be used DCO/DOO and that the scenario you quote would be unacceptable.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I have hardly any faith at all, but they're the only parties in this dispute who've provided evidence. So if there's nothing to disprove what they say, who am I supposed to believe?

One sticking point is that the RSSB has amongst its board members some TOC directors. This is a very clear potential conflict of interest and creates a dilution of its credibility. It came about during the privatisation process when the embryonic TOCs, realising that they would be contributing to RSSB's costs, insisted on no taxation without representation. Whether such an approach is suitable for a body charged with setting and maintaining safety standards is well worth considering as an important background to the whole DOO discussion.

 

[Mathew S]

One sticking point is that the RSSB has amongst its board members some TOC directors. This is a very clear potential conflict of interest and creates a dilution of its credibility. It came about during the privatisation process when the embryonic TOCs, realising that they would be contributing to RSSB's costs, insisted on no taxation without representation. Whether such an approach is suitable for a body charged with setting and maintaining safety standards is well worth considering as an important background to the whole DOO discussion.

It's a fair point. Self-regulation's a problem in many industries, my own included. And I'd certainly agree it could be more transparent. But nobody's yet published anything that disproves the RSSB evidence, unless I'm mistaken?

 

[WatcherZero]

It sounds like Northern have guaranteed a non driving member of staff on every service which the RMT see as progress not a solution.

They've offered that since the start, and that they would be increasing headcount. They also offered all DOO stations would be manned with platform staff.

 

[northwichcat]

They've offered that since the start, and that they would be increasing headcount. They also offered all DOO stations would be manned with platform staff.

I thought at the start they offered a second member of staff booked to be on all services but with the option of running without the second member if the booked member of staff is unavailable.

 

[northwichcat]

I would take the word of the practitioners of the trains than people who might be under political/financial pressure from central goverment.

Who would you believe more. A doctor telling you about the risks of a certain condition or hospital conditions or Jeremy Hunt?

That's a very dubious comparison. Doctors need to have around 7 years of training and even then they are closely monitored by other doctors for a while after they are fully qualified. It was possible to give Grayling guard training so he could fully understand the guard's role (even though no minister in the position is likely to agree to it), it wouldn't be possible to train Hunt as a doctor so he could fully understand the GP's role.

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't that a change from the franchise specification saying that trains should be able to run without a second staff member in-extremis? If so, it sounds like Arriva must have DfT agreement to make that offer - otherwise they're going to need a lot of spare staff knocking around ready to cover for absence/delays.

As we know the possible reasons for Northern running a service without the second member of staff aren't included in the public version of the franchise agreement. I'm not sure the franchise requirement specifically requires Northern to run a service without the second member of staff, more that it allows the option of Northern not cancelling a DCO service if they are short of staff.

 

[northwichcat]

I suspect Arriva are using the infrastructure delays as leverage with DfT to get rid of or water down a franchise requirement they don't like. The wording either indicates the Strathclyde model or perhaps Southern model if the RMT are exaggerating. The RMT would be mad to reject Strathclyde if it is in offer.

My interpretation is Northern have offered the Southern model (within the terms of the franchise agreement) but the RMT see it as progress towards getting the Strathclyde model (outside the terms of the franchise agreement.) If what WatcherZero said is true then it might be Northern will also offer to have new platform staff dispatching trains, alongside other duties.

 

[Carlisle]

My interpretation is Northern have offered the Southern model (within the terms of the franchise agreement) but the RMT see it as progress towards getting the Strathclyde model (outside the terms of the franchise agreement.)

Aren’t the Southern and Strathclyde models virtually identical in many ways, as both roster a second staff member (OBS or TE) on all the services covered by the agreement. but trains can run without them under certain conditions.

 

[northwichcat]

Aren’t the Southern and Strathclyde models virtually identical in many ways, as both roster a second staff member (OBS or TE) on all the services covered by the agreement .

I thought Southern allows the driver to close the doors plus includes conditions for when a service can and can't run with just a driver on board e.g. member of staff taking ill - fine, industrial action - not fine.

 

[Carlisle]

I thought Southern allows the driver to close the doors plus includes conditions for when a service can and can't run with just a driver on board e.g. member of staff taking ill - fine, industrial action - not fine.

Yes the southern one I suppose mainly due to being agreed with ASLEF whilst RMT was still heavily in dispute is far more strict .

 

[Andrew32]

As already pointed out, the Facebook post about fresh talks on dispatch is from last January, quite why someone decided to post it is rather confusing.

Lets be very clear, unfortunately is going to be a long process with the company not guaranteeing anything until the government alters the franchise agreement.

 

[northwichcat]

with the company not guaranteeing anything until the government alters the franchise agreement.

There is no guarantee the government will agree to alter the franchise agreement. Judging by Grayling's comments on all the disputes there's strong evidence the RMT will have to accept something which does not require an alteration to the franchise agreement, otherwise the dispute will go on until 2025.

 

[Andrew32]

Agreed

 

[Domh245]

I thought Southern allows the driver to close the doors plus includes conditions for when a service can and can't run with just a driver on board e.g. member of staff taking ill - fine, industrial action - not fine.

I think you've confused Strathclyde with Scotrail. Strathclyde is full DOO, but with a ticket examiner rostered on each train and (nominally) large fines if the TE isn't onboard. Southern is full DOO, with an OBS rostered on each train, but no such fines if the OBS is absent (as well as agreed times when the train will supposedly be cancelled if without OBS). The Scotrail method agreed with the Unions is Driver Open/Guard Close (just as guarded services on Southern used to be) but has safety critical guard on the train otherwise it won't run.

 

[lejog]

Isn't that a change from the franchise specification saying that trains should be able to run without a second staff member in-extremis? If so, it sounds like Arriva must have DfT agreement to make that offer - otherwise they're going to need a lot of spare staff knocking around ready to cover for absence/delays.

No the Franchise Agreement says something subtly different, that a DCO train must be operated "by a driver alone without the need for a conductor". However Northern should prepare DCO diagrams with "an additional Franchise Employee (that is, in addition to the driver) to be present .... for the purposes of customer service and/or revenue control" and then take "all reasonable endeavours" to ensure that there is one. "All reasonable endeavours" is the closest step in legalise to meaning "must for reasons under their control" and isn't a copout as some have claimed.

So what would breach the agreement would be the second staff member having a safety critical role or operating the doors. Not that Northern have to run trains without a second member, although they can if the absence is for a reason outside their control.