Arriva Rail North DOO

[woodmally]

Can anyone give me one historical example where ASLEF have taken the money to sell out guards - and thus their own members, by putting huge added responsibility onto drivers - and the queen's shilling they've taken hasn't been absorbed into the pay after a decade or so?

You've got many TOCs now where DOO drivers get considerably less than drivers on other TOCs who work guarded services. Whst happened to the extra money ASLEF negotiated for them? Any extra money is just a loan, a false promise... And this is before you consider the added risks to a drivers job such as wrong side release, trap and drag, self dispatch against a red SPADs etc.

All that money GTR drivers took will be absorbed soon enough.

Trust me, as a driver who has worked both guarded and DOO services... I know what I'd rather do. Any driver who wants to take a few quid now for a career of DOO is, quite frankly, a short sighted fool.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41912490

Drivers from the Aslef union have accepted a deal with Southern rail, bringing to an end an 18-month dispute.

Members voted by 79.1% to accept the resolution which includes a five-year pay increase worth 28.5%.

The dispute over safety came after Southern introduced driver-only operated (DOO), or driver-controlled operated (DCO) trains.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union, which is locked in the same row, described it as a "shoddy deal"....

 

[driver_m]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41912490

What part of the 'historical' did you not get? Bionic already mentioned GTR drivers in the post you've quoted, which is ongoing, not historical, seeing as RMT are still in dispute over it. If it was an attempt at being sarky, it didn't really work.

 

[northwichcat]

There's a lot of criticism on Twitter of Northern's decision to use minibuses for replacement bus services yesterday.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

There's nothing in the franchise agreement that prohibits Northern to guarantee a second person on every train. Also nothing to say they can't be safety critical.

So by both parties being sensible about this, you would think a compromise can be thrashed out.

I would say there is something which prohibits Northern from guaranteeing a 2nd member of staff on every train. The attached pictures show an extract from the finalised, signed, franchise agreement. This shows that a) a certain % of trains must be operated in DCO mode and b) the definition of DCO in the franchise agreement says it is operation of the train by the driver alone without the need for any other franchise employee.

If Northern guarantee a 2nd member of staff of any sorts then if that person is guaranteed then they are required to be there. The franchise agreement says trains must be operated without the need for any other franchise employee.

What happens when that 2nd guaranteed person isn't available? If they are guaranteed then the train won't run without them. But the franchise agreement says they must be able to run without them.

Thus you cannot guarantee a 2nd person.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-rail-2016-rail-franchise-agreement

 

[Overspeed110]

I would say there is something which prohibits Northern from guaranteeing a 2nd member of staff on every train. The attached pictures show an extract from the finalised, signed, franchise agreement. This shows that a) a certain % of trains must be operated in DCO mode and b) the definition of DCO in the franchise agreement says it is operation of the train by the driver alone without the need for any other franchise employee.

If Northern guarantee a 2nd member of staff of any sorts then if that person is guaranteed then they are required to be there. The franchise agreement says trains must be operated without the need for any other franchise employee.

What happens when that 2nd guaranteed person isn't available? If they are guaranteed then the train won't run without them. But the franchise agreement says they must be able to run without them.

Thus you cannot guarantee a 2nd person.View attachment 51581 View attachment 51582

Rubbish. You can read that anyway you like depending on whether you are for or against DOO

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Rubbish. You can read that anyway you like depending on whether you are for or against DOO

As it happens I am against DOO.

So please tell me which bit of "operation of a train by thr driver alone, without the need for a conductor or any other franchise employee" allows Northern to guarantee somebody else on board the train?

And also please tell me what happens if that guaranteed second person is not available for any reason?

 

[northwichcat]

And also please tell me what happens if that guaranteed second person is not available for any reason?

And could someone tell me from a safety point of view why it's better to leave passengers at remote rural stations for an hour, rather than them travelling for a short distance on a train without a second person on board, if those are the only two options available? Also as passengers with a medical condition requiring frequent toilet use is classed as a disability under the Equalities Act surely cancelling the train can be classed as discrimination against disabled passengers, just like having no-one to put down a ramp can be.

Yes Northern should recruit enough staff so that the second person being unavailable is very rare but there will be occasions when the second person is unavailable - in some cases they could take ill while working a train and that would cause a whole load of disruption if the train can't move until a replacement staff member gets to the train, even if one is available.

 

[Robertj21a]

Rubbish. You can read that anyway you like depending on whether you are for or against DOO

Can you ? - I don't think so.

 

[ComUtoR]

So please tell me which bit of "operation of a train by thr driver alone, without the need for a conductor or any other franchise employee" allows Northern to guarantee somebody else on board the train?

Because 'operation' of the train is different from running it in service. My TOC runs DOO, DCO and Guards. All units can be operated as DOO and yet we still have Guards. There is a very thin line between DOO and DCO and is pretty much one of semantics.

The agreement also states that an additional franchise employee be diagrammed for customer service and revenue. So they can indeed keep a second person.

 

[Confused52]

As it happens I am against DOO.

So please tell me which bit of "operation of a train by thr driver alone, without the need for a conductor or any other franchise employee" allows Northern to guarantee somebody else on board the train?

And also please tell me what happens if that guaranteed second person is not available for any reason?

The last sentence of 18.2 (of the redacted execution draft) does indeed require a second member of staff on all the service listed below the text of 18.2 but redacted according to footnote 107 (not shown).
However, those services only require that the TOC uses all reasonable endeavours to comply with the crew diagram. If it fails to supply a second member of staff it does not form a breach of contract. However failing to use a second member of staff by effectively planning for it without a force majeure (aka strike) would be a certain breach of contract (it would be equivalent to having two sets of Crew diagrams, one of which was not true).
Importantly the text does not forbid additional services to carry a second member of staff and the requirement on DCO operation is only on aggregate. Since DCO as defined in the agreement as operation by the Driver "without the need for a conductor ( or any other Franchise Employee)" the presence of a second member of staff is permissible as long as there is no requirement for them to take action to allow the service to operate.

Any suggestion that the TOC can simply agree to maintain the status quo is seeming incorrect. They can maintain employment levels but not in the role of conductors. I see no hope!

 

[Starmill]

the presence of a second member of staff is permissible as long as there is no requirement for them to take action to allow the service to operate.

Isn't this exactly the point S&W has been making across several posts?

The RMT will only accept a settlement where it is a requirement for the second member of staff to be onboard. As you correctly identify, if there is a requirement for this second member of staff, in the cases specified, then the Franchise Agreement is breached.

Hence the deadlock. The situation at Greater Anglia isn't the same as the above.

 

[Tomnick]

The last sentence of 18.2 (of the redacted execution draft) does indeed require a second member of staff on all the service listed below the text of 18.2 but redacted according to footnote 107 (not shown).
However, those services only require that the TOC uses all reasonable endeavours to comply with the crew diagram. If it fails to supply a second member of staff it does not form a breach of contract. However failing to use a second member of staff by effectively planning for it without a force majeure (aka strike) would be a certain breach of contract (it would be equivalent to having two sets of Crew diagrams, one of which was not true).

My interpretation is that there will be no breach of contract if a second member of staff isn't provided, as long as the train crew diagrams ("in preparing the train crew diagram") provide for a second member of staff even if that diagram is subsequently left partly or fully uncovered on any given day.

 

[rishtonlad]

With the replacement buses yesterday I came off the delayed 18:57 arrival and the coordinators could have done with delaying the 19:10 bus to Colne, as the train arrived at 19:10. It ended up costing northern quite a bit as there was a least 30 off us wanting the connection.

 

[Carlisle]

A mistake lots of the usual baiters on here seem to make is judging Northern to Southern. There is zero scope for doo (p) up here as it's never been tested or even introduced.

There’s scope for DOO on virtually every railway in the U.K., provided they satisfy the safety standards and criteria laid down for its operation, Sure there’ll be a few cases where that’ll be so expensive to achieve, that it won’t happen for years if at all, but it was only the absence of the CSR communication system outside of the south east or Strathclyde that prevented any proposals for expanding it a lot earlier on..

 

[driver_m]

There’s scope for DOO on virtually every railway in the U.K., provided it satisfies the safety standards and criteria laid down for its operation, (ok I appreciate there’ll be a few cases where that’ll be so expensive to achieve, that it won’t happen for years if at all) It was only the absence of the CSR communication system outside of the south east or Strathclyde that prevented any proposals for expanding it a lot earlier on..

Wrong. CSR existed on Merseyside. Never implemented there .

 

[Carlisle]

Wrong. CSR existed on Merseyside. Never implemented there .

Id heard it was seriously considered on occasions, but as you say never actually carried out whether that was down to conversion cost, union opposition or both I’ve no idea, there were certainly a few guards strike days around the time of privatisation, mainly due to the RMT seeking assurances on this matter.

 

[driver_m]

Id heard it was seriously considered on occasions, but as you say never actually carried out whether that was down to conversion cost, union opposition or both I’ve no idea, there were certainly a few guards strike days around the time of privatisation, mainly due to the RMT seeking assurances on this matter.

CSR also existed on the southern end of the WCML. As we all should know, the drivers there refused to work DOO at any cost. Though that seems to be a conveniently ignored point by the pro-dooers. No doubt someone else will come on and say.... ".yes, but. "

They voted against it.
So much for '' I guarantee the drivers will say yes if the moneys right"

No they won't.

 

[Pacer fan]

Is there a date confirmed for the pacers to be going and are any down for preservation. They are doing well. Had a lovely ride on 142021 between Newcastle and metrocentre and back. Really will be a shame to see them go

 

[LOL The Irony]

5.4.1.6 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.

Well Northern could just break that and use the May timetable card in their defence.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Is there a date confirmed for the pacers to be going and are any down for preservation. They are doing well. Had a lovely ride on 142021 between Newcastle and metrocentre and back. Really will be a shame to see them go

Best to ask that here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-unit-refurbishments.128846/

 

[Confused52]

Well Northern could just break that and use the May timetable card in their defence.

That quote is from the ITT not the franchise agreement so it isn't valid. The real document appears to be here: https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/594494/northern-franchise-agreement.pdf
but it does contain some redactions in annoying places!.

There is no defence just penalties.

 

[Carlisle]

CSR also existed on the southern end of the WCML. As we all should know, the drivers there refused to work DOO at any cost. Though that seems to be a conveniently ignored point by the pro-dooers. No doubt someone else will come on and say.... ".yes, but. "

They voted against it.
So much for '' I guarantee the drivers will say yes if the moneys right"

No they won't.

I remember those crude grainy black and white monitors sat working but unused for years at the likes of Tring etc, probably not surprising they weren’t deemed acceptable in the first place, presumably any project of a similar nature would have to meet far higher standards nowadays.

 

[muz379]

Also as passengers with a medical condition requiring frequent toilet use is classed as a disability under the Equalities Act surely cancelling the train can be classed as discrimination against disabled passengers, just like having no-one to put down a ramp can be.

Even if the train is running there is no guarantee that there will be available toilet facilities on board .

Yes Northern should recruit enough staff so that the second person being unavailable is very rare but there will be occasions when the second person is unavailable - in some cases they could take ill while working a train and that would cause a whole load of disruption if the train can't move until a replacement staff member gets to the train, even if one is available.

The only times I have heard of a conductor being taken ill delaying a train is when a conductor has had an accident either on board or on the platform when working a train and has suffered an injury like a broken bone that has resulted in them needing an ambulance . Even under DCO its unlikely that the injured OBS(or some other name) is going to get turfed off on the platform by the driver and the train continues . In the same way that we dont treat passengers like that .

 

[LowLevel]

CSR also existed on the southern end of the WCML. As we all should know, the drivers there refused to work DOO at any cost. Though that seems to be a conveniently ignored point by the pro-dooers. No doubt someone else will come on and say.... ".yes, but. "

They voted against it.
So much for '' I guarantee the drivers will say yes if the moneys right"

No they won't.

They actually commissioned it, the drivers sat in their trains refusing to drive until a guard was provided I believe and the lot went in the bin.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Because 'operation' of the train is different from running it in service. My TOC runs DOO, DCO and Guards. All units can be operated as DOO and yet we still have Guards. There is a very thin line between DOO and DCO and is pretty much one of semantics.

The agreement also states that an additional franchise employee be diagrammed for customer service and revenue. So they can indeed keep a second person.

They can keep the second person, but they can't guarantee the second person.

 

[Carlisle]

They actually commissioned it, the drivers sat in their trains refusing to drive until a guard was provided I believe and the lot went in the bin.

BR at that time lacked sufficient funding to make major improvements/alterations to what they’d originally thought were the completed Euston & Waterloo suburban DOO schemes in order to try and make them acceptable to ASLEF,, so they both just got postponed indefinitely with almost all equipment remaining in place unused for several years until the franchises took over, it wasn’t an admission by any of the parties involved that DOO itself was either unworkable or unsafe.

 

[Confused52]

They can keep the second person, but they can't guarantee the second person.

From reading it I think they can guarantee a second person if they want to. The limitations are that if they do guarantee a second person then he/she must not be allocated duties that are required for the operation of the train for a service listed in the redacted list in clause 18.2. Clause 18.3 only requires that the make best endeavours to have a second person for those service which MUST have one diagrammed according to Clause 18.2, but if they choose to cancel the service in those circumstances they can but it is not required by the agreement that they should.
The principle I applied to reach that conclusion is that which is not forbidden is permitted.

 

[northwichcat]

Even if the train is running there is no guarantee that there will be available toilet facilities on board .

The only times I have heard of a conductor being taken ill delaying a train is when a conductor has had an accident either on board or on the platform when working a train and has suffered an injury like a broken bone that has resulted in them needing an ambulance . Even under DCO its unlikely that the injured OBS(or some other name) is going to get turfed off on the platform by the driver and the train continues . In the same way

If the train runs then you can get to a toilet up to an hour sooner even if the toilet on board is broken.

The difference with an OBS is they don't have to be replaced in an emergency. If the guard is taken off either the passengers are too or they wait for a replacement guard.

 

[CN75]

I would say there is something which prohibits Northern from guaranteeing a 2nd member of staff on every train. The attached pictures show an extract from the finalised, signed, franchise agreement. This shows that a) a certain % of trains must be operated in DCO mode and b) the definition of DCO in the franchise agreement says it is operation of the train by the driver alone without the need for any other franchise employee.

If Northern guarantee a 2nd member of staff of any sorts then if that person is guaranteed then they are required to be there. The franchise agreement says trains must be operated without the need for any other franchise employee.

What happens when that 2nd guaranteed person isn't available? If they are guaranteed then the train won't run without them. But the franchise agreement says they must be able to run without them.

Thus you cannot guarantee a 2nd person.View attachment 51581 View attachment 51582

Clause 18.2 states there is a list of which trains require a second person for customer service and revenue control. It does not say that all services operated in ‘DCO’ require them.

Northern’s information on their on website says:

“Our plans will see staff more visible and available than ever before on trains and at stations. We want to keep a second person on many of our services and, at some locations, we may choose to staff the station to give better customer support.”

 

[Intermodal]

They can keep the second person, but they can't guarantee the second person.

Northern can guarantee whatever they want that the franchise agreement does not say they cannot do.

The franchise agreement does not say that Northern cannot guarantee a free pink party hat with a bobble on top and a red ribbon top to every passenger.

Northern can therefore guarantee a free pink party hat with a bobble on top and a red ribbon top to every passenger.

The franchise agreement does not say that Northern cannot guarantee a second member of safety critical staff on every train.

Northern can therefore guarantee a second member of safety critical staff on every train.