Arriva Rail North DOO

[northernchris]

The biggest danger is that as the years pass by you start losing staff at a even faster rate, who in their right mind is going to sit in a job and not look elsewhere when the day you might be turfed out is looming. Also it becomes very hard to recruit in the same way. It really is not a sensible way of running a business from a staffing point of view.

The damage to the Northern brand (not just by the strikes) must make recruiting staff a lot harder. I suspect a lot of good people have been put off applying for roles by the negative publicity. This will also affect the skills and experience needed - I notice you mentioned in a previous post about the talent being driven away - it will be almost impossible for Northern to attract strong and experienced managers in their current situation

As for Arriva itself. The frontline staff have all but disenfranchised themselves from the company. The recent Arriva staff survey was basically binned by about 75% of the frontline workers. Relations are awful, and we need a smart man to come along and say, "This has to change, we have to step back a little and start to breathe again"

Which would explain the Sunday cancellations across the North West. Northern have a long way to go to get back to where things were when they gained the franchise and it will need more than a few new trains and the end to the strikes. Part of me wants Arriva to hand back the keys as it will highlight that many of the problems currently being faced aren't of their making and that any other operator - be it public or privately owned - will still be backed in to the dispute until the DfT backs down

 

[CN75]

Apparently David Brown turned up at a picket line today and declared that Arriva had never wanted it to be this way and were in negotiations with the DfT about their contract. What it means or how true it is who can say *shrug*

Sounds like a myth to keep the spirits up round the brazier that it’s all going to be worth it in the end!

 

[northwichcat]

Also what was also clear from the meeting was that this is affecting wages of staff. I suspected, wrongly, members could recoup lost wages on a Sunday. However its clear that's not the case.

That comment sounds a bit ambiguous for two reasons:
1. It's claimed west side guards can volunteer to work Sundays as overtime, while east side guards have Sundays in their working weeks.
2. Guards who would be volunteering to work Sundays even if there was no strike action are losing money even if they are still volunteering to work Sundays. Does that mean even the guards who wouldn't volunteer to work Sundays but have been because of the strike action are? Could it even be those who would normally volunteer to work Sunday are finding there are fewer Sunday shifts available due to more guards volunteering?

 

[Gems]

Sounds like a myth to keep the spirits up round the brazier that it’s all going to be worth it in the end!

If I was a gambler, I would say it was a myth, but you never know. Not one to mix with the minnions isn't David, and to be honest, it hasn't helped his cause.

 

[Andrew32]

Yes he did turn up to two pickets yesterday and it's been posted somewhere that he will allegedly be presenting new proposals to the DFT this coming week or next.

We shall see.

 

[northwichcat]

Part of me wants Arriva to hand back the keys as it will highlight that many of the problems currently being faced aren't of their making and that any other operator - be it public or privately owned - will still be backed in to the dispute until the DfT backs down

Next General Election is scheduled for 2022. A cynic might think if Arriva hand the keys back it'll become a public franchise with no plans to introduce DOO/DCO, with a new private franchise starting in 2021 having a requirement to introduce DOO/DCO on all routes.

 

[Meerkat]

I am not sure why some think the DfT should roll over, and not the RMT.
Surely it’s more likely that DfT go all in and convert the franchise to a management contract with an immediate start of talks with ASLEF?

 

[Gems]

That comment sounds a bit ambiguous for two reasons:
1. It's claimed west side guards can volunteer to work Sundays as overtime, while east side guards have Sundays in their working weeks.
2. Guards who would be volunteering to work Sundays even if there was no strike action are losing money even if they are still volunteering to work Sundays. Does that mean even the guards who wouldn't volunteer to work Sundays but have been because of the strike action are? Could it even be those who would normally volunteer to work Sunday are finding there are fewer Sunday shifts available due to more guards volunteering?

I can probably answer this for you.

East side guards do not have Sunday's in the working week. The agreement is this. Sundays are overtime, if you don't wish to work your Sunday you can ask to have it covered by another making themselves available to work it. However, if nobody wants to work overtime, you have to cover it yourself. It is of no extra cost to the company, as the overtime rate is agreed. To make the process fair, we have what is called a equalisation system. This works thus. If two people make themselves available to cover one uncovered shift, the person who has worked less Sunday overtime gets it.
This is fair, but what it does mean is that it makes it very hard for one person to cover strike days by volunteering for a Sunday all the time. So the answer is simple, it is not easy to continually cover strike loses. You also have to be aware of another fact. Many Sunday shifts are very long, some are 10 hours plus. This means it is very difficult to come off a Saturday late and cover a Sunday if you are on a early Monday. So if for example you had a depot of say 40 guards, in reality only about 10 of those would be in a position to cover a Sunday.

 

[Gems]

I am not sure why some think the DfT should roll over, and not the RMT.
Surely it’s more likely that DfT go all in and convert the franchise to a management contract with an immediate start of talks with ASLEF?

Surly it is not about anyone rolling over. The question has to be asked, are Northern rail actually in a position to implement DCO within the time frame. When you have something like 12 different types of units of which only about 3 could be safely used for DCO, it becomes a bit of a nightmare making sure those units are available. You restrict your ability to move units about.
Rush this through, and you might end up with a situation that makes last May's chaos look attractive.

 

[Tomnick]

So why aren’t the RMT doing the same for guards? Because there still will be signaller members, but they might lose most of those in OBS/station roles?

I don’t know. It suggests that the RMT aren’t the problem here, though. Maybe it’s because Network Rail were honest about their plans and the scale (and timescale) of the job losses, whereas I suspect the union’s perception (it’s certainly mine) is that the DfT are intending to shift guards into a non-job as a short-term measure to get their proposal through, after which they can bin the lot regardless of any assurances that have been given.

 

[Gems]

I can give you all another piece of info I do know is true. In a meeting recently, it was suggested by management to ASLEF representatives that there was serious doubts that Northern had the management talent left to pull this out of the bag. Many have gone. So the story about David Brown saying that could have serious merit.

 

[Meerkat]

The RMT are demanding a guarantee the guards stay in charge of the doors aren’t they?
The DfT won’t roll over on that

 

[Gems]

The RMT are demanding a guarantee the guards stay in charge of the doors aren’t they?
The DfT won’t roll over on that

No they are not demanding that at all. They are wanting onboard staff, and for them to remain safety critical. If this can be agreed, everything is up for negotiation.
When any negotiation takes place both sides are always poles apart, but remove the obstacles that prevent talks, and you usually meet in the middle and come up with a serious working proposal. We need to stop bashing the RMT, agreements have been made with Scotrail, Anglia, Merseyrail, (Although that one even baffles me)
Let me tell you now as a guard, we are not married to the RMT. Serious proposals will bring this to an end.

 

[Halifaxlad]

No they are not demanding that at all. They are wanting onboard staff, and for them to remain safety critical. If this can be agreed, everything is up for negotiation.
When any negotiation takes place both sides are always poles apart, but remove the obstacles that prevent talks, and you usually meet in the middle and come up with a serious working proposal. We need to stop bashing the RMT, agreements have been made with Scotrail, Anglia, Merseyrail, (Although that one even baffles me)
Let me tell you now as a guard, we are not married to the RMT. Serious proposals will bring this to an end.

But what is wrong running an occasional train without a guard? It would be like running two trains coupled together!

Northern gave the RMT an guarantee that they would roster a guard on board every train. They should just accept it!

I can understand why guards would feel threatened, but the reality is that as previously stated somewhere on this forum it is not pratical to install Ticket Gates at every station! For those who think this is part of a big masterplan to run train with only a driver then TOC's and the DFT would loose revenue hand over fist.

Im sure the last thing the Conservatives want is a failing franchise system as this would only support Labour's and the RMT's ambition of a re-nationalized railway!

 

[Gems]

But what is wrong running an occasional train without a guard? It would be like running two trains coupled together!

Northern gave the RMT an guarantee that they would roster a guard on board every train. They should just accept it!

I can understand why guards would feel threatened, but the reality is that as previously stated somewhere on this forum it is not pratical to install Ticket Gates at every station! For those who think this is part of a big masterplan to run train with only a driver then TOC's and the DFT would loose revenue hand over fist.

Im sure the last thing the Conservatives want is a failing franchise system as this would only support Labour's and the RMT's ambition of a re-nationalized railway!

Point 1) Yes indeed it would be like running two coupled units you can't walk through. But by having a guard in the rear unit, you have safety critical staff who know their roles should those units split No guard at all means nobody at all in the rear unit should that happen.

Point 2) A good point, and I see you have the handle 'Halifaxlad' I assume you know ticket barriers were planned for Halifax, but the bridge wasn't strong enough to support them, so they were installed at Skipton instead. But more to the point you make about losing revenue. Believe it or not, this thought really does not seem to have registered with Arriva or the DFT. I personally have highlighted major issues internally about people buying mobile tickets using railcard discounts they are not in possession of. All you get is denial that it is a problem. Yes it may seem strange, but you can't help get the feeling that so intent on forcing through change, the revenue protection role of the guard has disappeared off the radar. Perhaps this is partly why Arriva are asking for more money.

 

[Tomnick]

Northern gave the RMT an guarantee that they would roster a guard on board every train. They should just accept it!

What exactly did they guarantee? There’s a huge difference between producing traincrew diagrams that show a second member of staff on every train, producing a base roster that covers all the work and actually managing to cover all turns on the daily sheets. They can’t cover the work as it is now, so what hope is there when there’s no incentive to pay overtime etc.?

Once drivers are “occasionally” working trains on their own, also, it’ll be a lot easier for Northern, perhaps under the DfT’s instruction, to push it further, bin the assurances and go into dispute again knowing that they’ve got a strong hand.

 

[Gems]

What exactly did they guarantee? There’s a huge difference between producing traincrew diagrams that show a second member of staff on every train, producing a base roster that covers all the work and actually managing to cover all turns on the daily sheets. They can’t cover the work as it is now, so what hope is there when there’s no incentive to pay overtime etc.?

Once drivers are “occasionally” working trains on their own, also, it’ll be a lot easier for Northern, perhaps under the DfT’s instruction, to push it further, bin the assurances and go into dispute again knowing that they’ve got a strong hand.

Spot on. How will the drivers know if the booked second member turns up or not? How will the disabled assist who has just put the wheelchair passenger on the train know if somebody will be onboard to get them off again?
A whole new thread could start up on this topic alone.

 

[Carlisle]

The biggest danger is that as the years pass by you start losing staff at a even faster rate, who in their right mind is going to sit in a job and not look elsewhere when the day you might be turfed out is looming. Also it becomes very hard to recruit in the same way. It really is not a sensible way of running a business from a staffing point of view.
"

There’s no evidence suggesting once an alternative system to traditional guards becomes established, be it Javelin OBMs, Southern OBS or Scotrail TEs that staff recrtiment or retention is a particular problem.aside from the few who wish to opt for redundancy rather than change as in any industry reorganisation

 

[Gems]

There’s no evidence suggesting once an alternative system to traditional guards becomes established, be it Javelin OBMs, Southern OBS or Scotrail TEs that staff recrtiment or retention is a particular problem.

It is far too early to say if Southern will have a problem once their guarantee date approaches. As for Scotrail, their TE's don't have a guarantee date as far as I am aware. But put yourself in this position, you are looking to change jobs, you see a vacancy for a northern conductor, but know the role might end in a year or so, would you apply? I wouldn't. What you will get is part time, casual, which is what the DFT want. But it won't lead to a well run, well motivated workforce.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Point 1) Yes indeed it would be like running two coupled units you can't walk through. But by having a guard in the rear unit, you have safety critical staff who know their roles should those units split No guard at all means nobody at all in the rear unit should that happen.

FWIW not every TOC has that rule and it is not a mandatory part of guarded operation. LNR for instance does not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(It isn't a rule I support as it causes far more issues than it solves, such as GWR locking out half of 800 formations far too often)

 

[Robertj21a]

No they are not demanding that at all. They are wanting onboard staff, and for them to remain safety critical. If this can be agreed, everything is up for negotiation.
When any negotiation takes place both sides are always poles apart, but remove the obstacles that prevent talks, and you usually meet in the middle and come up with a serious working proposal. We need to stop bashing the RMT, agreements have been made with Scotrail, Anglia, Merseyrail, (Although that one even baffles me)
Let me tell you now as a guard, we are not married to the RMT. Serious proposals will bring this to an end.

People are 'bashing the RMT' simply because they are not budging at all from their 'safety critical guard on every train' stance. There's no chance of any 'meeting in the middle' when they have stated quite clearly that they are not going to drop that requirement.

I like your confidence that 'serious proposals will bring this to an end' - I thought all the proposals had been serious throughout, and yet there's been no progress. To answer an earlier point that someone else raised, I've no idea whether or not Arriva now send only relatively junior staff to attend meetings with the RMT but it would be hardly surprising. Why would the more senior staff, capable of properly negotiating a settlement to the dispute, need to attend yet another meeting where the RMT just stick to their 'red line' ?

 

[Meerkat]

What exactly is the definition of “safety critical”? Can an OBS be safety critical?
The fact that other TOCs have rolled over due to union blackmail doesn’t mean those agreements were sensible.

 

[Robertj21a]

What exactly is the definition of “safety critical”? Can an OBS be safety critical?
The fact that other TOCs have rolled over due to union blackmail doesn’t mean those agreements were sensible.

I'm fairly sure that, in layman's terms at least, a safety-critical OBS would be called a...........guard..

 

[B&I]

Absolutely true that we should be focusing on decades of cutting back, where land has been sold to make improvements difficult if not impossible, where trackside equipment gets in the way of later realignment, tracks have been singled, junctions over simplified, platforms removed and shortened, sidings and loops decommissioned,rolling stock outdated, not enough rolling stock, signalling and controls vulnerable to failures and weather. And some.

The ordinary passenger doesn't want to know about them in detail, or the massive schemes that are taking place that should reduce delays and improve reliability over time.

The present dispute is a festering and obvious self inflicted wound - and one that could be healed in days with the injection of goodwill from both sides.

Looking at the myriad threads on this forum there appear to be many thousands of postings about numerous failings of the rail industry. There's immense scope for improvement at all levels. However, members of the public wanting to use the trains that aren't running today can only see the reason as members of RMT not turning in due to strike action.

They wouldn't, if they were standing at Newton le Willows waiting for another operator's train not to turn up due to signal failure, or standing crammed into yet another operator's train on its way to Victoria because the twerps who run the DfT didn't let that franchise order enough rolling stock.

The reality is that rail throughout most of the north is second rate, and in some places its several rates below that, thanks to persistent underinvestment. Hence my annoyance with people who pretend everything would be wonderful, if it wasn't for the RMT, and my despair at people who seem to think (or pretend to think) that any money saved on cutting down staffing levels will be re-invested in the north's railways

 

[Gems]

FWIW not every TOC has that rule and it is not a mandatory part of guarded operation. LNR for instance does not.

Absolutely. It is a Northern standards rule, but it is a safe rule in my opinion. Northern's standards are strict, but their safety record is pretty good as a result.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. It is a Northern standards rule, but it is a safe rule in my opinion. Northern's standards are strict, but their safety record is pretty good as a result.

How often do coupled units separate on Northern?

 

[Gems]

People are 'bashing the RMT' simply because they are not budging at all from their 'safety critical guard on every train' stance. There's no chance of any 'meeting in the middle' when they have stated quite clearly that they are not going to drop that requirement.

I like your confidence that 'serious proposals will bring this to an end' - I thought all the proposals had been serious throughout, and yet there's been no progress. To answer an earlier point that someone else raised, I've no idea whether or not Arriva now send only relatively junior staff to attend meetings with the RMT but it would be hardly surprising. Why would the more senior staff, capable of properly negotiating a settlement to the dispute, need to attend yet another meeting where the RMT just stick to their 'red line' ?

It is very hard for any of us who are not sat in the meetings to know what is going on or being discussed. It is all speculation and you can believe any side you like.
I personally would be very disappointed if the RMT wasn't under any circumstances prepared to shift position. But I have heard that Northern have not behaved in a perfect manner either. It must be incredibly frustrating if you were trying to reach some form of compromise and in the background you had the DFT zipping close the mouths of those doing the talking. Arriva are having to run back for more money, that suggests that the whole franchise bid was horribly wrong.
Honestly, you have to work for them to see the mismanagement and complete foolery of some of these people. It leaves me exasperated. I never thought I would say this, but I almost crave the days of 'Northern spirit' and they were bad.

 

[B&I]

I can’t find a post in this particular thread expressing zero care about others loosing their jobs. There are a number claiming to have been through restructuring or reapplication processes for their jobs without their union protesting so vigorously, if that’s what you meant .

Look back further. Plenty of posts telling us all about how job losses are an inevitable result of technological and economic change (in amongst posts positively salivating at the prospect of the 'no redundancies' guarantee being revoked, and guards fleeing the franchise regardless of whether trains could actually run or not once that happens). Not a lot of empathy expressed for the people losing their jobs as a reuslt, usually just some blasé assumption that they'll find something else and the whole process is great for everyone concerned.

I would love to know how blasé these people would be if suddenly their job no longer existed, and the next mortgage / rent payment was looking harder to come by. I wonder would their apparent belief that they are among life's winners come to their rescue then

 

[Gems]

How often do coupled units separate on Northern?

There has been a few. One in particular right on Leeds west junction a year or so ago. But I have heard of a few others also.