Arriva Rail North DOO

[woodmally]

Genuine question to all RMT members on this page that are taking action, Northern, SWR, Southern, Merseyrail, GA and I’m sure there’s a few I’ve missed as well.

Do you actually think this is a winnable fight? Or are you taking action because of the old mantra of ‘if you fight, you might still lose, but if you run, you’ll definitely lose’.

Personally I can’t see the DfT moving from their initial position, they’ll just get fed up and do what they done on Southern, tear up their contracts, 90 days notice and put people on crap T&Cs because they know the RMT aren’t going to accept that grade.

What does make things a bit more interesting is that some of the TOCs (from what I can tell) is that the 2nd member of staff will maintain all current safety critical knowledge (including knowledge of dispatch), but services will still run if there’s no one to meet the train.

Do any of the guards taking action regret not taking the bribes at the beginning of the disputes? Reduced working week etc....? I’m sure I know the answer to that though.

I think to be honest you have asked the right question, in relation to Northern at the very least. The crux of it is that DOO is happening regardless of any action RMT can take (if anyone has any ideas on how RMT can win this let me know). For this very important reason. Northern cannot back down. I asked Liam Sumpter on Facebook this question on one of his chats with customers. I asked why dont they back down and he said he cant as its in the franchise agreement, a fact echoed by people on here. The tory government we know wont back down partly as it reduces costs and partly because they dont support trade unions. The passengers have no power so that leaves the RMT. What can they do? Well all they can do is strike a few days each month and visit the German Embassy for a chat. They cannot do much else to be honest. The strike days are getting so frequent now people are planning for them and Northern have enough scab workforce to fill the gaps and operate a Sunday service of sorts. So in short this argument will continue till DOO is implemented hence RMT have lost.

Interesting to note though with the Merseyrail issue they can win that one and I suspect they will. However for Northern its just RMT stubborness refusing to accept they have lost. And sadly this is to the detriment of the workers who are losing money but believe in the principles of loyalty to the union and the poor passenger.

 

[XDM]

One of my very good friends joked with me recently that they would be out of a job soon anyway or the pay and conditions will be degraded so much that the job will become intolerable. It’s all about winning hearts and minds and the Government is not doing that at all, or they just don’t care......

As you say it was a joke. Don't try & frighten the horses!

 

[Jamesrob637]

So is that the end of the strikes now? (Probably not the only one asking this and I think that I might know the answer!)

 

[Smidster]

So is that the end of the strikes now? (Probably not the only one asking this and I think that I might know the answer!)

Don't be daft - they just haven't announced any more yet

 

[scrapy]

I think to be honest you have asked the right question, in relation to Northern at the very least. The crux of it is that DOO is happening regardless of any action RMT can take (if anyone has any ideas on how RMT can win this let me know). For this very important reason. Northern cannot back down. I asked Liam Sumpter on Facebook this question on one of his chats with customers. I asked why dont they back down and he said he cant as its in the franchise agreement, a fact echoed by people on here. The tory government we know wont back down partly as it reduces costs and partly because they dont support trade unions. The passengers have no power so that leaves the RMT. What can they do? Well all they can do is strike a few days each month and visit the German Embassy for a chat. They cannot do much else to be honest. The strike days are getting so frequent now people are planning for them and Northern have enough scab workforce to fill the gaps and operate a Sunday service of sorts. So in short this argument will continue till DOO is implemented hence RMT have lost.

Interesting to note though with the Merseyrail issue they can win that one and I suspect they will. However for Northern its just RMT stubborness refusing to accept they have lost. And sadly this is to the detriment of the workers who are losing money but believe in the principles of loyalty to the union and the poor passenger.

I don't think we can say either way whether the RMT have won, drawn or lost yet.

At the moment there hasnt been any DOO passenger trains operated on the Northern network.

There hasn't been any training for drivers.

There hasn't been any agreement with ASLEF for drivers to operate doors or run trains solo.

There hasn't been any proposal by Northern over how there will be a turn up and go railway for disabled people at all times on DOO services.

In the Manchester area the lack of staff on Metrolink is causing concern with a worrying number of violent incidents. Destaffing trains May become more politically unpopular.

More Northern drivers may join RMT action if they think it will have the impact that driver action seems to have had on Merseyrail or ASLEF may ballot for action seperately.

There will certainally be plenty of twists and turns and possibly concessions on both sides. Northern have already this week decided to cut the hours of its formally 24 hours customer service centre by 10 hours a day which was a franchise requirement so franchise requirements can be altered or ignored when it suits.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think we can say either way whether the RMT have won, drawn or lost yet.

At the moment there hasnt been any DOO passenger trains operated on the Northern network.

There hasn't been any training for drivers.

There hasn't been any agreement with ASLEF for drivers to operate doors or run trains solo.

Surely drivers can't be trained to operate 195s and 331s under DOO when there isn't a unit in the U.K. available for training and surely ASLEF need to actually see how the DOO equipment will work before they can say either "That's extra responsibility, in return for that extra responsibility we want...." or "We are not happy with our members being expected to use that equipment."

There hasn't been any proposal by Northern over how there will be a turn up and go railway for disabled people at all times on DOO services.

I'd say bringing that in the DOO dispute is a red herring. The problem is going to be at unstaffed stations where disabled passengers will need assistance crossing the line. That's an issue whether you have a guard or a CSA on board. Northern and Network Rail need to do a lot of work to improve accessibility at stations.

Bus operators are apparently allowed to use a non-compliant vehicle in an emergency without breaking the law, so do we actually know for certain if a CSA or guard is planned to be on every service, whether running a service without one and leaving a disabled passenger to wait for the next service in an emergency would actually be breaking the law?

In the Manchester area the lack of staff on Metrolink is causing concern with a worrying number of violent incidents. Destaffing trains May become more politically unpopular.

Which is why DCO could be popular with passengers because the aim is for the second member of staff to be a more visible staff presence by having fewer duties to perform.

There will certainally be plenty of twists and turns and possibly concessions on both sides. Northern have already this week decided to cut the hours of its formally 24 hours customer service centre by 10 hours a day which was a franchise requirement so franchise requirements can be altered or ignored when it suits.

DfT and Rail North are able to fine Northern for franchise breaches. They need to ensure the fine is bigger than the saving made by not following the agreement properly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is why DCO could be popular with passengers because the aim is for the second member of staff to be a more visible staff presence by having fewer duties to perform.

FWIW I was on a WMT service from Birmingham to Stratford earlier in the week, and it was very visible just how much of a faff it was each time the guard had to go and do the doors at each station, often doing so half way through selling a ticket or trying to assist someone, and having to push in front of people waiting to get off to open the doors.

Certainly driver release would improve this, as the transaction could be finished while people board and alight. Full driver door operation would have made it even smoother as per the way all the tram networks that have conductors work.

This is quite different to the situation on the likes of Southern's mainlines where tickets are all sold prior to boarding and so the OBSs look more than a bit lost with not a lot to do unless a wheelchair user wishes to board.

 

[northwichcat]

It's not a red herring at all. What if the next service is also running DOO because of "exceptional circumstances" as well. Cynics might suggest that "exceptional circumstances" might not become so exceptional and that it might become a regular occurrence. The DFT just seem to want to break the unions pure and simple. As Peter Wilkinson said 'we have to break the unions'.

There needs to be a way of any passenger getting to any platform that a train could depart from, without phoning for assistance in advance, so arranging a platform alteration or a guard/CSA going off to look for a passenger who has phoned for assistance who hasn't been able to get to the platform the train is departing from are not suitable options.

I've been told bus operators are allowed to have a non-compliant vehicle out on registered bus services a maximum of 4 times a year, if it happens 5 times and they get caught they could find themselves before the Traffic Commissioner who could revoke their registration or their operating licence. Logically they'll be some sort of similar arrangement for trains so a faulty CIS or a CSA being unavailable doesn't have to mean the service has to be cancelled or it will be illegal but there's a limit to how often it can happen and remain legal.

It's obvious from this dispute the RMT are very stubborn and reluctant to change anything (except if it relates to more pay, shorter working hours etc.) How long has it been going on and they've only just started to consider a fully trained guard on every service but with the driver having responsibility for the doors?

 

[scrapy]

Surely drivers can't be trained to operate 195s and 331s under DOO when there isn't a unit in the U.K. available for training and surely ASLEF need to actually see how the DOO equipment will work before they can say either "That's extra responsibility, in return for that extra responsibility we want...." or "We are not happy with our members being expected to use that equipment."



I'd say bringing that in the DOO dispute is a red herring. The problem is going to be at unstaffed stations where disabled passengers will need assistance crossing the line. That's an issue whether you have a guard or a CSA on board. Northern and Network Rail need to do a lot of work to improve accessibility at stations.

Bus operators are apparently allowed to use a non-compliant vehicle in an emergency without breaking the law, so do we actually know for certain if a CSA or guard is planned to be on every service, whether running a service without one and leaving a disabled passenger to wait for the next service in an emergency would actually be breaking the law?



Which is why DCO could be popular with passengers because the aim is for the second member of staff to be a more visible staff presence by having fewer duties to perform.



DfT and Rail North are able to fine Northern for franchise breaches. They need to ensure the fine is bigger than the saving made by not following the agreement properly.

Firstly I am not saying that drivers can be trained on units that have not arrived in the UK. My post was in reply to Woodmaly saying that the RMT should give up because they had lost the fight and I am simply saying there is still a lot to happen until DOO comes in.

ASLEF reps have had several trips to Spain see the units and will continue to have input into them but have not agreed anything regarding their members operating trains under DOO conditions.

As far as I am aware the under the equalities act it would be theoretically be illegal to leave somebody behind but I am not aware of any test cases.

 

[northwichcat]

As far as I am aware the under the equalities act it would be theoretically be illegal to leave somebody behind but I am not aware of any test cases.

Even if the claim that bus operators can do that in an emergency is untrue (if it's not why would it be different for trains), we do know for certain the legislation allows the Secretary of State for Transport to grant exemption orders and let's be honest who thinks a service should be cancelled, even if the next one is an hour away, just because the CIS is faulty? If you cancelled a service because of a fault that like, ironically a deaf passenger who benefits from the visual CIS might be unable to board the following service due to it being too full to board!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if the claim that bus operators can do that in an emergency is untrue (if it's not why would it be different for trains), we do know for certain the legislation allows the Secretary of State for Transport to grant exemption orders and let's be honest who thinks a service should be cancelled, even if the next one is an hour away, just because the CIS is faulty? If you cancelled a service because of a fault that like, ironically a deaf passenger who benefits from the visual CIS might be unable to board the following service due to it being too full to board!

Barely any trains would run in the UK if the PIS not fully functioning was a bar to operation. They really are very unreliable in operation, be that by staff not setting them properly or them simply not working.

 

[scrapy]

It's obvious from this dispute the RMT are very stubborn and reluctant to change anything (except if it relates to more pay, shorter working hours etc.) How long has it been going on and they've only just started to consider a fully trained guard on every service but with the driver having responsibility for the doors?

The suggestion of having a fully trained guard on every service with the driver operating the doors was actually put to Northern before the first strike last year and rejected.

Personally I think driver release/guard close is the best option for Northern coupled with unit modifications to allow the guard to close the doors from any door on the train to allow them to visable throughout the train.

Having the guard/obs simply concentrate on revenue is pointless because:-
1) need for revenue duties will probably decline as penalty fares and introduction of smartcards mean fewer people will require tickets on board.
2) if they are selling tickets whilst the train is stopped they will not see if there is anyone requiring assistance on the platform. The person may be out of the range of the drivers cameras, not all disabilities/needs maybe obvious without a two way conversation either. Even if a driver picks somebody up requiring assistance they would need to.then contact the OBS to go and assist by this time and time savings from driver operation would be lost.
3) by going to the doors at each stop the guard can see exactly who is getting on and is likely to improve revenue as they know where in the train to target.
4) By being visable on the station platforms passengers can see exactly where the guard is if they need to contact them especially when a service is busy and they can't see all the way down inside.
5) When a train is full if the guard/obs has no door duties they would be completely invisible in the back cab. At least if they were stepping out at every station they could be easily contactable and passengers would know they are on the train.

This is before you consider the safety role a guard potentially has.

 

[scrapy]

Barely any trains would run in the UK if the PIS not fully functioning was a bar to operation. They really are very unreliable in operation, be that by staff not setting them properly or them simply not working.

Whilst CIS are extremely important to deaf people they do not physically stop that person boarding or alighting the train and many deaf people travel on trains without it and before it was brought in quite problem free and there are often other ways round it.

Not having a boarding ramp if you are reliant on a wheelchair is quite different as you physically cannot get on or off a train.

 

[northwichcat]

The suggestion of having a fully trained guard on every service with the driver operating the doors was actually put to Northern before the first strike last year and rejected.

The franchise requirement is for the driver to both open and close the doors for 50% of passenger mileage so the RMT knew it would be rejected before they even proposed it. Driver both opening and closing with a second person PTS trained is the closest thing to what the RMT want that can be accepted by Northern, as well as the RMT getting a say as to which routes are operated in that way.

By being visable on the station platforms passengers can see exactly where the guard is if they need to contact them especially when a service is busy and they can't see all the way down inside.

So if the guard gets off and goes to assist a passenger or speak to a member of staff on the platform would they always return to the same door to close the doors from? If not then your argument falls apart, if they do then surely they are doing something unnecessary which could cause delays.

When a train is full if the guard/obs has no door duties they would be completely invisible in the back cab. At least if they were stepping out at every station they could be easily contactable and passengers would know they are on the train.

Surely an OBS should be in a fixed point in the saloon, not in the cab, if unable to get through - ideally near the wheelchair area. Like what happens with trolley staff if they can't get through.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would a viable option be to have these super-OBSs dispatch the train at any station that doesn't have dispatch staff (thus ensuring passengers requiring assistance won't be missed), but the driver actually press the button? This would be rather like the Voyager method of operation where the guard only has a signal buzzer.

 

[Carlisle]

Would a viable option be to have these super-OBSs dispatch the train at any station that doesn't have dispatch staff (thus ensuring passengers requiring assistance won't be missed), but the driver actually press the button? This would be rather like the Voyager method of operation where the guard only has a signal buzzer.

What’s the point then in fitting body side cameras? If your going that far, just as well keep guard operation as it is now (perhaps adding driver release) , it would be far simpler as to operate system the way you suggest OBSs would still need identical training to today’s guards for any trains to run

 

[Bletchleyite]

What’s the point then in fitting body side cameras? If your going that far, just as well keep guard operation as it is now, it would be far simpler as to operate the system the way you suggest OBSs would still need identical training to today’s guards .

It (like driver open, guard close) indeed doesn't require cameras, but unlike driver open, guard close it would actually fulfil the franchise agreement requirement as the driver would open and close the doors.

Part of the problem here is that it's not Northern's choice. They are contractually obliged to meet the requirement of 50% of passenger mileage with the driver opening *and* closing. Retaining guards but having them dispatch instead would meet the letter of that requirement and may satisfy the union as the guard is still safety trained and in control.

 

[scrapy]

The franchise requirement is for the driver to both open and close the doors for 50% of passenger mileage so the RMT knew it would be rejected before they even proposed it. Driver both opening and closing with a second person PTS trained is the closest thing to what the RMT want that can be accepted by Northern, as well as the RMT getting a say as to which routes are operated in that way

What is the difference between what I am saying the RMT proposed (A fully trained guard with the driver operating the doors) and what you are saying is acceptable under the franchise agreement?

The only differences i can see between a fully trained guard and someone simply trained in PTS is that a fully trained guard would have the ability to operate doors on other non DCO routes and they have route knowledge. Where in the franchise agreement does it say these people can't be the second person on a DCO train? Another benefit would be that they could dispatch the train in the event of failure of DCO equipment.

 

[scrapy]

So if the guard gets off and goes to assist a passenger or speak to a member of staff on the platform would they always return to the same door to close the doors from? If not then your argument falls apart, if they do then surely they are doing something unnecessary which could cause delays.

Surely an OBS should be in a fixed point in the saloon, not in the cab, if unable to get through - ideally near the wheelchair area. Like what happens with trolley staff if they can't get through.

If the guard gets off the train to assist I suspect this would be a quick reaction and anyone else looking for them would quite quickly notice them walk down the train as they are waiting to board especially if they are trying to seek them out.

If a train is very full I would expect a guard or OBS to go to a non passenger area to allow more space for passengers. They would only be any immediate use to people in their immediate vicinity and would be more use at stops where everyone on the train could stick their head out and see where they are.

 

[northwichcat]

What is the difference between what I am saying the RMT proposed (A fully trained guard with the driver operating the doors) and what you are saying is acceptable under the franchise agreement?

You said

The suggestion of having a fully trained guard on every service with the driver operating the doors was actually put to Northern before the first strike last year and rejected.

I've heard that as well but retaining the guard closing was the difference between the RMT's position and what was permitted in the franchise agreement, which is why the RMT knew it would be rejected.

If the guard gets off the train to assist I suspect this would be a quick reaction and anyone else looking for them would quite quickly notice them walk down the train as they are waiting to board especially if they are trying to seek them out.

So you think the passenger who wants to ask a member of staff a question would follow the guard around on the platform as they assisted the disabled passenger instead of boarding through the nearest door and looking for him/her later on?

If a train is very full I would expect a guard or OBS to go to a non passenger area to allow more space for passengers. They would only be any immediate use to people in their immediate vicinity and would be more use at stops where everyone on the train could stick their head out and see where they are.

It it's literally a turn up and go railway for disabled people then a wheelchair passenger should be allowed to spontaneously decide to break their journey if their ticket permits a break in journey. Also if the wheelchair ramp is stored near the disabled bay then surely it would make more sense for the guard/OBS to be near it, rather than to have to fight their way through the train to get to it.

 

[scrapy]

I've heard that as well but retaining the guard closing was the difference between the RMT's position and what was permitted in the franchise agreement, which is why the RMT knew it would be rejected

we seem to be going round in circles. As I've said the RMT said before any strikes they were prepared to allow driver operation of the doors (THAT MEANS OPENING AND CLOSING) provided that a fully trained guard was provided on each train. This was rejected by Northern who said that their business model would not allow a second member of staff on every train. Can you tell me where in the franchise agreement it says the second person cannot be fully trained provided they didn't operate the doors.

 

[scrapy]

You said



I've heard that as well but retaining the guard closing was the difference between the RMT's position and what was permitted in the franchise agreement, which is why the RMT knew it would be rejected.



So you think the passenger who wants to ask a member of staff a question would follow the guard around on the platform as they assisted the disabled passenger instead of boarding through the nearest door and looking for him/her later on?



It it's literally a turn up and go railway for disabled people then a wheelchair passenger should be allowed to spontaneously decide to break their journey if their ticket permits a break in journey. Also if the wheelchair ramp is stored near the disabled bay then surely it would make more sense for the guard/OBS to be near it, rather than to have to fight their way through the train to get to it.

You said



I've heard that as well but retaining the guard closing was the difference between the RMT's position and what was permitted in the franchise agreement, which is why the RMT knew it would be rejected.



So you think the passenger who wants to ask a member of staff a question would follow the guard around on the platform as they assisted the disabled passenger instead of boarding through the nearest door and looking for him/her later on?



It it's literally a turn up and go railway for disabled people then a wheelchair passenger should be allowed to spontaneously decide to break their journey if their ticket permits a break in journey. Also if the wheelchair ramp is stored near the disabled bay then surely it would make more sense for the guard/OBS to be near it, rather than to have to fight their way through the train to get to it.

I wouldn't expect them to follow them around but they would be able to see where they board. At the majority of stations nobody requires assistance so it wouldn't be an issue.

I understand if its a turn up and go railway but are you seriously suggesting there should be somebody permanently provided at every wheelchair location in case a passenger suddenly decides to break their journey? Call for aid buttons eliminate this problem anyway.

 

[LowLevel]

It it's literally a turn up and go railway for disabled people then a wheelchair passenger should be allowed to spontaneously decide to break their journey if their ticket permits a break in journey. Also if the wheelchair ramp is stored near the disabled bay then surely it would make more sense for the guard/OBS to be near it, rather than to have to fight their way through the train to get to it.

The call for aid is specifically provided to allow those with mobility issues to contact the traincrew if they require their attendance or assistance, it's not an emergency call button. You can also have plenty of these areas throughout the train. In actual fact on the stock I work for example which can have multiple locations I have to return to a driving cab to cancel/answer it.

There's no reason for the guard on a full train not to travel in a cab or office where they can also announce their position rather than taking up sweating space in the saloon.

 

[northwichcat]

we seem to be going round in circles. As I've said the RMT said before any strikes they were prepared to allow driver operation of the doors (THAT MEANS OPENING AND CLOSING) provided that a fully trained guard was provided on each train. This was rejected by Northern who said that their business model would not allow a second member of staff on every train. Can you tell me where in the franchise agreement it says the second person cannot be fully trained provided they didn't operate the doors.

If they meant that why has Mick Cash repeatedly said it is ludicrious that driver opening and guard closing can't be agreed on Northern when it's been accepted by Scotrail?

 

[scrapy]

If they meant that why has Mick Cash repeatedly said it is ludicrious that driver opening and guard closing can't be agreed on Northern when it's been accepted by Scotrail?

Has Mick Cash actually said that? I've only heard Mick Cash demand an agreement for a second safety critical person as on Scotrail.

 

[Carlisle]

Has Mick Cash actually said that? I've only heard Mick Cash demand an agreement for a second safety critical person as on Scotrail.

This press release clearly suggests northern s failure to guarantee traditional guard dispatch methods is a major factor in their reason to ballot https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-strike-ballot-opens-today-on-northern-rail/

 

[scrapy]

This press release clearly suggests northern s failure to guarantee traditional guard dispatch methods is a major factor in their reason to ballot https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-strike-ballot-opens-today-on-northern-rail/

That was before the offer was made to Norrthern to agree driver controlling doors with a second safety critical person on the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was before the offer was made to Norrthern to agree driver controlling doors with a second safety critical person on the train.

Which is at least possible under the franchise agreement.

As I think there is little to gain from running long distance trains with only one member of staff, and as only the new rolling stock is to be DOO capable with no scope for any of the old kit to be converted, I can see this being agreed fairly soon now.

 

[northwichcat]

That was before the offer was made to Norrthern to agree driver controlling doors with a second safety critical person on the train.

So can you confirm when the RMT made that offer to Northern (if they even have)? The RMT's press releases do not say they are willing to agree to that arrangement and based on claims posted in various places on the web they only said they would be willing to consider driver opening and closing in the last few weeks after Northern said they weren't prepared to hold further talks unless the RMT bring something new to the table. Only a couple of months ago the RMT were calling for three way talks involving Northern and DfT so that the franchise agreement could be modified to suit their demands - something that was not required if they were willing to accept driver opening and closing.

 

[Carlisle]

That was before the offer was made to Norrthern to agree driver controlling doors with a second safety critical person on the train.

The publicly available press releases suggest RMT was prepared to agree a trial period of the OBS on Southern provided they’d cancel any trains without one, and on Merseyrail a few months after their ballot , suggested an independent body could adjudicate on dispatch procedures providing Merserail firstly agreed to a second safety critical person on all their new trains, I can’t see any suggestions of similar offers on northern, was it a far more recent offer?