Arriva Rail North DOO

[Tractor2018]

The TOCs don't think they need guards any more

No. The DfT have told the TOCs they've not to have guards any more. A world of difference.

Honestly, it's garbage like that that gets peoples hackles up.

 

[Wombat]

No. The DfT have told the TOCs they've not to have guards any more. A world of difference.

Honestly, it's garbage like that that gets peoples hackles up.

I'm sure the TOCs are distraught. Feel free to address the central point of the post to which you've replied.

 

[Tractor2018]

I'm sure the TOCs are distraught. Feel free to address the central point of the post to which you've replied.

Feel free to challenge the accuracy of what I said, what you said, and then we'll maybe revisit it.

 

[Wombat]

Feel free to challenge the accuracy of what I said, what you said, and then we'll maybe revisit it.

I'm happy with the accuracy of your comment, if not the relevance. Over to you.

 

[driver_m]

I still find this perspective a bit odd. If I conclude that my factory no longer needs 20 widget inspectors to maintain its output, should I continue to employ them as widget inspectors anyway?

I mean, this is what it comes down to, isn't it? The TOCs don't think they need guards any more, and I certainly don't expect them (or the drivers) to be happy about it, but on what genuine grounds do we think that taxpayers and commuters should pay to fill a role that's no longer necessary? In theory I'm happy to accept a principled stand on safety grounds, but I really don't think that's anyone's primary motivation here. Why is "I like this job and I wish to continue doing it" sufficient justification to maintain the status quo?

For a start there is probably the hassle involved with dragging brakes or anything which needs the wheels to be observed turning. Obvs happens now with freight and existing DO trains but I'd wager it clears the track a lot quicker with 2 safety crit people on board.
Then there are the occasions where a second person can accompany you on the cab to look for OLE damage, trespassers, that kind of thing. Two pairs of eyes always better than one.

Passcom pulls on a DO train, I'd imagine every driver who agreed to DO probably regretted it on a rainy Friday night on a vomit comet. Especially if it's a 12 car and the back one got pulled.

The guard can adjust to bright light on a platform by simply adjusting their position, a monitor being stuck in place, well, that's a problem isn't it? Especially when you head east or west directly into low sun and the cleaners gave your now smeary windows a rudimentary wipe in the dead of night.

It's less a point of the TOCs thinking they don't need a guard. More the point that the TOCs thinking they can make more money and profit by replacing guards with a combo of drivers and equipment.

 

[Tractor2018]

I'm happy with the accuracy of your comment, if not the relevance. Over to you.

The relevance is, if content is inaccurate, like yours, it reduces the relevance, like yours.

The crux being - if inaccurate content like yours is written/spoken enough, and heard/read enough, people who aren't as informed start to believe and repeat the inaccuracies.

And that isn't a good outcome for any discussion or debate?

 

[Wombat]

For a start there is probably the hassle involved with dragging brakes or anything which needs the wheels to be observed turning. Obvs happens now with freight and existing DO trains but I'd wager it clears the track a lot quicker with 2 safety crit people on board.
Then there are the occasions where a second person can accompany you on the cab to look for OLE damage, trespassers, that kind of thing. Two pairs of eyes always better than one.

Passcom pulls on a DO train, I'd imagine every driver who agreed to DO probably regretted it on a rainy Friday night on a vomit comet. Especially if it's a 12 car and the back one got pulled.

The guard can adjust to bright light on a platform by simply adjusting their position, a monitor being stuck in place, well, that's a problem isn't it? Especially when you head east or west directly into low sun and the cleaners gave your now smeary windows a rudimentary wipe in the dead of night.

It's less a point of the TOCs thinking they don't need a guard. More the point that the TOCs thinking they can make more money and profit by replacing guards with a combo of drivers and equipment.

All good points, and my primary argument against DOO remains the (in?)ability of the TOCs to provide disabled passenger assistance when a guard isn't present. As far as I'm concerned, that overrides any efficiency arguments. However, I'm not convinced that the absence of a guard is a sufficient reason to cancel a train.

 

[Wombat]

The relevance is, if content is inaccurate, like yours, it reduces the relevance, like yours.

The crux being - if inaccurate content like yours is written/spoken enough, and heard/read enough, people who aren't as informed start to believe and repeat the inaccuracies.

And that isn't a good outcome for any discussion or debate?

Yes, you'll have to either forgive my slip or not, as you prefer - I'm watching the snooker and I'm willing to forgive myself, so I can sleep soundly tonight. That said, perhaps you can now address the relevant point, if you've finished playing meta-thread tennis with yourself.

 

[Tractor2018]

That said, perhaps you can now address the relevant point

I thought I had - your incorrect statement. And you've cleared it up, saying it was a slip.

Do you mean regarding the OP? Not at this moment.

Do you mean regarding your post? No thanks! You've drained me enough clearing that bit up.

 

[driver_m]

The disability one is interesting, it's a circle that cannot be squared simply by telling them to get off at another step free station or pre-book. A person in a wheelchair expects the railway to let them get on and off a train in the same way someone able bodied can. The law agrees with them and there's a deadline to get the last few bits such as PRM ready by a certain date. It can't be put in the 'do it tomorrow' tray.

Another one is an incapacitated passenger. I'm aware of a Train Manager of ours saving someone's life on the train with a defibrillator. Again, a guard can make the biggest difference here, co-ordinating saving the person's life while the driver can get the train to a suitable location. For me, it's a price of something, versus the value of something argument. We've got away with a lot of these issues due mainly to where DOO is operated, but I can just see it causing some serious issues if introduced in Northern services in certain parts .

 

[Wombat]

The disability one is interesting, it's a circle that cannot be squared simply by telling them to get off at another step free station or pre-book. A person in a wheelchair expects the railway to let them get on and off a train in the same way someone able bodied can. The law agrees with them and there's a deadline to get the last few bits such as PRM ready by a certain date. It can't be put in the 'do it tomorrow' tray.

I entirely agree, and I've previously mentioned here that the requirement to pre-book disabled passenger assistance is unacceptable; disabled people should have the same ability to travel spontaneously that everyone else enjoys. In many cases, that requires the presence of a guard, and I have no problem with retaining the guard on those routes precisely for that purpose. What I object to is the assertion that any train without a guard must be cancelled, as that provides a direct disbenefit to disabled passengers in that the next train which may otherwise have been sufficiently capacious may now be full of passengers bumped from the cancelled train.

 

[Wombat]

I thought I had - your incorrect statement. And you've cleared it up, saying it was a slip.

Do you mean regarding the OP? Not at this moment.

Do you mean regarding your post? No thanks! You've drained me enough clearing that bit up.

I see. Well, thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

 

[Tractor2018]

I see. Well, thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

You're welcome. Always glad to help with inaccuracies, thus not devaluing the discussion you're so keen on.

Post 3131 has a poorly thought out notion on disabled access and traincrew, but it's an innocent oversight, rather than misinformation

 

[Wombat]

Oh dear, a winking smilie! Alas, poor me, I am cut to the bone by your devastating rhetoric. Perhaps you might consider contributing something useful, such as the nature of my poor innocent oversight? I'm going to grant you the inestimable favour of assuming that you'd actually like to state an opinion on something at some point, but I've girded my loins and am prepared for disappointment.

 

[muz379]

For a start there is probably the hassle involved with dragging brakes or anything which needs the wheels to be observed turning. Obvs happens now with freight and existing DO trains but I'd wager it clears the track a lot quicker with 2 safety crit people on board.
Then there are the occasions where a second person can accompany you on the cab to look for OLE damage, trespassers, that kind of thing. Two pairs of eyes always better than one.

Passcom pulls on a DO train, I'd imagine every driver who agreed to DO probably regretted it on a rainy Friday night on a vomit comet. Especially if it's a 12 car and the back one got pulled.

The guard can adjust to bright light on a platform by simply adjusting their position, a monitor being stuck in place, well, that's a problem isn't it? Especially when you head east or west directly into low sun and the cleaners gave your now smeary windows a rudimentary wipe in the dead of night.

Completely agree , there are 101 situations when a properly trained guard can be invaluable not just to the driver but to continuing operation of the service for the passengers , or to properly responding to emergency situations for the benefit of the passengers . The time a train that a colleague was working hit a tree on the line and the Pway team was 15 miles away clearing another bigger tree . Him and the driver Managed to get the tree shifted , inspect the train , keep the signaller control and the passengers informed and get moving in a quarter of the time it would have taken the Pway team to arrive . The time an old lady was having a stroke on an express train and the guard managed to arrange with control and the driver to stop at an intermediate station to get her medical assistance quicker . The examples are numerous , they might not be everyday occurrences but for the people involved the role a guard played was none the less important .

It's less a point of the TOCs thinking they don't need a guard. More the point that the TOCs thinking they can make more money and profit by replacing guards with a combo of drivers and equipment.

I honestly dont even think if given the choice as many TOC's as are trying to implement it would actually do it if it was not a franchise requirement .

The ITT for the northern franchise already received an amendment to include a requirement for a second person to be diagrammed to every train . Although the objections in my view are the same , just because a second person should be diagrammed to every train does not mean that when implemented a second person will actually be on every train . The operation method proposed still brings about the very real possibility of trains running driver only , and nothing has been said yet about the competencies of the second person when they are present .

 

[Tractor2018]

I honestly dont even think if given the choice as many TOC's as are trying to implement it would actually do it if it was not a franchise requirement .

This.

I don't think, left to their own devices, there'd be much will from the TOCs to remove guards.

I know sometimes it seems to staff and passengers alike that the TOCs ineptness is actually the result of a co-ordinated effort to be so bad! But that's not the case - they want their operations to run as smoothly as possible, for everyone's benefit.

Very few of them have any desire to encourage industrial disputes..........unless/until there are interjections from the DfT.

 

[Grannyjoans]

I don't think, left to their own devices, there'd be much will from the TOCs to remove guards.

The TOC won't want to remove the Guards as long as the subsidy is there to pay for them from the government

 

[northwichcat]

The TOC won't want to remove the Guards as long as the subsidy is there to pay for them from the government

Are you talking generally or referring specifically to Northern? Southern's a premium paying franchise so DOO on Southern doesn't directly relate to subsides.

 

[northwichcat]

The ITT for the northern franchise already received an amendment to include a requirement for a second person to be diagrammed to every train . Although the objections in my view are the same , just because a second person should be diagrammed to every train does not mean that when implemented a second person will actually be on every train . The operation method proposed still brings about the very real possibility of trains running driver only , and nothing has been said yet about the competencies of the second person when they are present .

It needs to be remembered the bidders asked for that amendment as they knew no revenue checks on trains and ticket barriers at all suburban stations wasn't a viable option on Northern (unlike the London commuter area), as well as being less likely to come to agreements with the unions if the driver was the only person on board.

One of the arguments people keep making against trains never operating without a second member of staff (not even in an emergency) is disabled people and Equalities Act. However, there's also reasons why cancelling a service (except as an absolute last resort) and leaving vulnerable passengers (who don't need the assistance of a second member of staff to board) at unstaffed toilet-less stations for an hour would be a bad idea.

 

[CN75]

The ITT for the northern franchise already received an amendment to include a requirement for a second person to be diagrammed to every train.

It does indeed - but there are a long list of exceptions. Arriva’s plans to move the guards from suburban and new train routes onto the stations for customer service and revenue protection, more ticket machines which take cash, and on-train information system upgrades set out to deal with them.

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.

 

[Carlisle]

Surely the fundamental issue here is all about the number of safety trained people on a train and not who opens/closes the doors. If you pick a fight about who operates the doors then you will almost certainly lose as that precedent was set in the 1980's with Bedpan and Strathclyde Manning Agreement. If the argument is about safety on an increasingly busy railway, with more anti social behaviour and possible acts of terror than ever before your case becomes much stronger.
I don't care who operates the doors on my train but I do care about my safety, security and that of my fellow passengers. There is no clear argument for any extension to DOO/DCO/OPO or whatever else you call it other than financial. Until a clear evidence based case is made then the status quo should remain.

This post whether intentional or not comes across as virtually a mirror image of the RMTs current anti DOO campaign, ie, claim firstly to be reasonable and open minded towards change, with passenger safety as the ultimate concern, before being made aware of its primary aim which is of course to preserve the guards grade totally or almost totally in its current form on all present non DOO trains nationally.

 

[driver_m]

This post whether intentional or not comes across as virtually a mirror image of the RMTs current anti DOO campaign, ie,claim firstly to be reasonable and open minded towards change, with only passenger safety as the ultimate concern, before being made aware of it’s primary aim which is of course the unions desire to preserve the guards grade totally or almost totally in its current form, on all present non DOO trains nationally.

But the guard does the thing that most people ultimately want!! Say everyone had our way of working on 221's t at VT & also XC. We open them, guard tells us to shut them, because they've checked the platform is clear. Now most people would think that is perfectly reasonable. The guard (TM) still checks tickets, still sorts out all the problems that may occur on board, can help disabled people get on and off, and can deal with all the unusual situations that may arise. I can concentrate on driving.

It only suits people to say it's about doors because it's getting in the way of saving money paying people, if it was only about doors, they'd have gone a long long time ago en masse.

 

[northwichcat]

But the guard does the thing that most people ultimately want!! Say everyone had our way of working on 221's t at VT & also XC. We open them, guard tells us to shut them, because they've checked the platform is clear. Now most people would think that is perfectly reasonable. The guard (TM) still checks tickets, still sorts out all the problems that may occur on board, can help disabled people get on and off, and can deal with all the unusual situations that may arise.

Some do a better job of providing a visible helpful staff presence than others and that goes across all operators not just Northern.

I've never seen Virgin Manchester-London TMs getting out ramps or loading or unloading wheelchair passengers, it always seems to be the station staff who do it. The same is true with Northern services at larger stations like Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.

 

[Tractor2018]

Some do a better job of providing a visible helpful staff presence than others and that goes across all operators not just Northern.

I've never seen Virgin Manchester-London TMs getting out ramps or loading or unloading wheelchair passengers, it always seems to be the station staff who do it. The same is true with Northern services at larger stations like Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.

If the station is manned, it's the staff's responsibility. Not a matter of the TM providing less help.

 

[northwichcat]

If the station is manned, it's the staff's responsibility. Not a matter of the TM providing less help.

Those were two unrelated points I made. The first being in response to 'what passengers want' and the second being in response to what driver_m said about the TM assisting disabled passengers on VT services.

 

[Tractor2018]

Those were two unrelated points I made. The first being in response to 'what passengers want' and the second being in response to what driver_m said about the TM assisting disabled passengers on VT services.

I see.

To take your second point in isolation then, in relation to what he said - DM said TMs/Guards can help with disabled people, and they can and do, regardless of what you see happening at those stations. If for any reason there was no station staff available you'd see the guard using the ramp.

Generally station staff are very good with assists. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, they're not available.

 

[driver_m]

Some do a better job of providing a visible helpful staff presence than others and that goes across all operators not just Northern.

I've never seen Virgin Manchester-London TMs getting out ramps or loading or unloading wheelchair passengers, it always seems to be the station staff who do it. The same is true with Northern services at larger stations like Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.

Maybe you should travel to somewhere like Lichfield or Tamworth where there's no platform staff and see the TM do it then. If you want to try and pick faults I will always return them with interest. Most disability travellers will use the journeycare system to try and speed things up for all parts concerned. As has already been pointed out to you, the platform staff will take the lead and organise the leaving of the train because they're usually always first point of contact, which is part of the customer service provided.. Doesn't mean to say the TM will stand there arms folded and chuckling thinking 'that aint my job' I've seen numerous ones helping out at Euston, and many other stations. The TM is stood at their ideal location point ready to commence the dispatch sequence for a prompt departure.

 

[LowLevel]

Some do a better job of providing a visible helpful staff presence than others and that goes across all operators not just Northern.

I've never seen Virgin Manchester-London TMs getting out ramps or loading or unloading wheelchair passengers, it always seems to be the station staff who do it. The same is true with Northern services at larger stations like Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.

I spend half my life dealing with assisting wheelchair users and so on at Manchester Piccadilly, it feels like, thanks to Network Rail's insistence on using temps and so on in this role.

It's rubbish when someone who is apparently representative of the station facilities owner can come up to you as a guard on a train and say 'hello, is this platform 14 (It wasn't) and are you going to Blackpool (I wasn't)' when working solo providing passenger assistance.

Liverpool Lime Street (another NR) is just as bad.

Stockport (in common with other Virgin stations) are generally good though they suffer with understaffing.

If you go to somewhere like Skegness in summer or anywhere else at busy times it's not unusual to see the guard pushing people around in wheelchairs to and from taxis while the station staff load luggage and so on.

We work as a team and try to make it work as best we can but (competent) station staffing in general has been much reduced in recent years.

 

[northwichcat]

If you want to try and pick faults I will always return them with interest.

I simply pointed out an observation and even said it was an observation not a fact. The majority of Virgin's Manchester services don't call at Lichfield or Tamworth and if I did want to go to either of those stations there would be a very high chance I'd be boarding and alighting LNR services at those stations, not that I'm suggesting Virgin TMs don't needed to prepared for potentially loading or off-loading disabled passengers there.

 

[whitrope]

This post whether intentional or not comes across as virtually a mirror image of the RMTs current anti DOO campaign, ie, claim firstly to be reasonable and open minded towards change, with passenger safety as the ultimate concern, before being made aware of its primary aim which is of course to preserve the guards grade totally or almost totally in its current form on all present non DOO trains nationally.

Carlisle, my post is based on my 40 years experience in the rail industry including Senior Leadership roles accountable for DOO working and post incident investigation. I have also driven DOO services under the SMA in the mid 1980's. I am not saying DOO is unsafe, I am not saying the guard should control the doors. What I am saying however is I have yet to read an objective assessment that further DOO working is safe and sensible without a second safety critical person still on-board.