Arriva Rail North DOO

[LowLevel]

People hearing the story would not, but was it a recent story? The guard should only be doing protection in terms of walking off down the track with red flags and a torch (abandoning the passengers to do as they please) if they cannot speak to the signaller and even then it’s to talk to them by the quickest possible means and then go back to the train. A derailed pacer would have two GSMR radios on board - a European wide standard technical system that doe not just ‘drop out’ day to day and has an emergency function that does the job of protecting trains a hundred times better than a guard or driver could.

The Northern (happily ECS) train that struck a tree on the Newcastle Carlisle line in the last month or two leaving the GSMR disabled at, reportedly, both ends - luckily the driver was able to arrange protection by alternative means but the signaller was unable to participate in the radio call.

The Freightliner that struck a tree near Leamington on New Years Day or tbe 27th Dec last year, luckily before passenger trains had started, which again took out the GSMR and had the (again luckily unharmed) driver running to a signal phone.

The train that killed someone in the East Mids last year where the driver was unable to protect the scene even using the GSMR having gone into a state of severe shock so the guard had to do it.

Those of us who work around the system know it is bloody useful but it's not foolproof.

 

[Gems]

The Northern (happily ECS) train that struck a tree on the Newcastle Carlisle line in the last month or two leaving the GSMR disabled at, reportedly, both ends - luckily the driver was able to arrange protection by alternative means but the signaller was unable to participate in the radio call.

The Freightliner that struck a tree near Leamington on New Years Day or tbe 27th Dec last year, luckily before passenger trains had started, which again took out the GSMR and had the (again luckily unharmed) driver running to a signal phone.

The train that killed someone in the East Mids last year where the driver was unable to protect the scene even using the GSMR having gone into a state of severe shock so the guard had to do it.

Those of us who work around the system know it is bloody useful but it's not foolproof.

The rule book say's TCOC's first. That rule has not changed with the introduction of GSM-R for the very reasons you mention.

 

[LowLevel]

The rule book say's TCOC's first. That rule has not changed with the introduction of GSM-R for the very reasons you mention.

It does and they're theoretically of use to return signals to danger - I once had that debate with an inspector who declared that it was pointless using them on a no signaller key token line because there were no track circuits and I pointed out the rule book doesn't say 'if there's no track circuits'.

It's worth pointing out that as far as I know except possibly the Leamington one of the above incidents TCOCs are about as much use as a chocolate teapot but still - the rules say you have to place them in the required circumstances.

Large swathes of the lines I work are axle counters nowadays - they provide the same indication of where a train is as the old absolute block sections they replaced (ie somewhere over a numerous mile area) and axle counters don't work with TCOCs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does and they're theoretically of use to return signals to danger - I once had that debate with an inspector who declared that it was pointless using them on a no signaller key token line because there were no track circuits and I pointed out the rule book doesn't say 'if there's no track circuits'.

I guess the reason for this is to ensure that confusion about whether it's a track circuit area where the staff may be dazed or injured in a very serious incident doesn't prevent the train from being protected?

 

[Gems]

It does and they're theoretically of use to return signals to danger - I once had that debate with an inspector who declared that it was pointless using them on a no signaller key token line because there were no track circuits and I pointed out the rule book doesn't say 'if there's no track circuits'.

It's worth pointing out that as far as I know except possibly the Leamington one of the above incidents TCOCs are about as much use as a chocolate teapot but still - the rules say you have to place them in the required circumstances.

Large swathes of the lines I work are axle counters nowadays - they provide the same indication of where a train is as the old absolute block sections they replaced and axle counters don't work with TCOCs.

I have had similar arguments with protection at junctions and which line you would protect. You get a rather incredulous look when you say."I'd kick a load of ballast between the points so they cant move and be detected, and then protect the route they are set for" The rule book doesn't say do this, but common sense say's you can buy valuable time by doing so.

 

[northwichcat]

The problem with this form of working is crew diagramming. You end up having multi work links where one link may not have 'safety critical staff' and the other is seriously depleted in times of staff sickness, holiday's etc. It just creates a whole new layer of potential cancellations and short running.

Not necessarily. If you have a Manchester Airport to Windermere service which has a guard throughout it might end up being terminated short at Preston if a crew change is scheduled there and the replacement guard isn't available. If you have a Manchester Airport to Windermere service which is DCO between Manchester Airport and Preston then you still have a service being terminated short in the event of a guard shortage.

 

[Jonfun]

I guess the reason for this is to ensure that confusion about whether it's a track circuit area where the staff may be dazed or injured in a very serious incident doesn't prevent the train from being protected?

And also just because somewhere might not be Track Circuit Block doesnt necessarily mean it doesn't have track circuits.

 

[northwichcat]

Computer programs are good at performig routine functions like telling you the time of the next train. They are not good at dealing with anything the slightest bit out of the ordinary, or requiring any thought or flexibility. Recently spent 30 pointless minutes going round in circles on an HMRC computerised 'assistance' scheme trying to find out why they had returned my income tax payment. When eventually I got through to a human, it was in the wrong department. I wonder how much that piece of electronic brilliance cost the taxpayer ?

Computers do exactly what they are programmed to do e.g. if ticket barriers have not been told on Bank Holidays peak time restrictions don't apply then they won't accept off-peak tickets at what would normally be peak times. Also often new computer systems are rolled out before they are ready because they are costing money while being developed - not making money, the logic used by some managers is often the old system often isn't perfect so even if the new system still need perfecting rolling it out is no worse than sticking with the old one.

 

[CN75]

The Northern (happily ECS) train that struck a tree on the Newcastle Carlisle line in the last month or two leaving the GSMR disabled at, reportedly, both ends - luckily the driver was able to arrange protection by alternative means but the signaller was unable to participate in the radio call.

The Freightliner that struck a tree near Leamington on New Years Day or tbe 27th Dec last year, luckily before passenger trains had started, which again took out the GSMR and had the (again luckily unharmed) driver running to a signal phone.

The train that killed someone in the East Mids last year where the driver was unable to protect the scene even using the GSMR having gone into a state of severe shock so the guard had to do it.

Those of us who work around the system know it is bloody useful but it's not foolproof.

The CSR radio system had largely the same functionality and was a pre-requisite to operating DOO-P. It was installed by BR across the South East but not, for instance, the Northern network which now benefits from GSM-R. There will always be occasional examples of systems having failures, so the highest practical level of equipment performance must be required to declare a system safe. GSM-R is proven at that level and ‘dead area’ signal dropouts last seconds only in virtually all cases. If that was not the case, the answer is NR improving the infrastructure rather than justifying the retention of guards.

Remember that the guard did not undertake protection when he should have to prevent a major accident at Ais Gill in the 1990s, before GSM-R was installed. He should not be blamed for his performance under the pressure, but the incident highlights that a safer system was urgently required.

Perhaps, given how poor the practical training for using generic emergency train protection rules has to be, it is not a surprise that faced with a real situation guards and drivers undertaking train protection using the rules is an unsafe system. It should be consigned to history as a plausible safety strategy in an age of smartphones and radio signal. Only when all else fails - in a scenario so unlikely that it has not caused a major accident in the CSR area justifying the return of guards in thirty years - would it be justified today. The network will soon enough begin running trains without track circuits or lineside signals too, including the complex East Coast mainline.

It is completely understandable why train crew - particularly guards - are proud of their knowledge and training around emergency protection as they have been trained to believe it defines their primary responsibility since the beginning of the railways. This is the best example of the shift needed for the guard grade’s survival, that understanding “safety” is not the “number one priority” any longer - looking after customers and being an expert in customer service is the only alternative which doesn’t lead to technical redundancy. It’s evolve or become obsolete. Guards are only used on passenger trains nowadays, and therefore are only justified by passengers - not operations. That is not to say that operational training for guards should be erased but that it should be credible and presented as part of an overall package of responsibilities.

 

[Meerkat]

If there is a crash and any sort of mobile signal the BTP should get loads of texts as every poor bloody passenger must know their number by now!!

 

[Robertj21a]

The CSR radio system had largely the same functionality and was a pre-requisite to operating DOO-P. It was installed by BR across the South East but not, for instance, the Northern network which now benefits from GSM-R. There will always be occasional examples of systems having failures, so the highest practical level of equipment performance must be required to declare a system safe. GSM-R is proven at that level and ‘dead area’ signal dropouts last seconds only in virtually all cases. If that was not the case, the answer is NR improving the infrastructure rather than justifying the retention of guards.

Remember that the guard did not undertake protection when he should have to prevent a major accident at Ais Gill in the 1990s, before GSM-R was installed. He should not be blamed for his performance under the pressure, but the incident highlights that a safer system was urgently required.

Perhaps, given how poor the practical training for using generic emergency train protection rules has to be, it is not a surprise that faced with a real situation guards and drivers undertaking train protection using the rules is an unsafe system. It should be consigned to history as a plausible safety strategy in an age of smartphones and radio signal. Only when all else fails - in a scenario so unlikely that it has not caused a major accident in the CSR area justifying the return of guards in thirty years - would it be justified today. The network will soon enough begin running trains without track circuits or lineside signals too, including the complex East Coast mainline.

It is completely understandable why train crew - particularly guards - are proud of their knowledge and training around emergency protection as they have been trained to believe it defines their primary responsibility since the beginning of the railways. This is the best example of the shift needed for the guard grade’s survival, that understanding “safety” is not the “number one priority” any longer - looking after customers and being an expert in customer service is the only alternative which doesn’t lead to technical redundancy. It’s evolve or become obsolete. Guards are only used on passenger trains nowadays, and therefore are only justified by passengers - not operations. That is not to say that operational training for guards should be erased but that it should be credible and presented as part of an overall package of responsibilities.

What a refreshingly clear and sensible post. Thank you.

 

[LowLevel]

I don't actually disagree - generally detonators and a red flag are now only used as a belt and braces approach to assisting a failed train.

What I don't agree with is the wholesale stripping back to a passenger with revenue training of the role that seems to be an aspiration and especially not, considering the greatest merit of the role in dealing with disruption, just buggering off into the beyond without the on board crew. Everyone at our depot with a few exceptions (mostly those who are accomodated to particular shifts) can go anywhere the trains we operate from our depot go anyway.

I think much of the problem in perception of the role has come from the recruitment side. Instead of advantage of the salary commanded to hire people who are capable of looking smart, being friendly but also keep their head when things go very wrong, the latter has been brushed off in favour of people who look good but break down in a mess when things go wrong.

I keep myself clean and tidy, I wear my uniform correctly and with some pride and I am particularly good at managing people of all types (albeit with some frustration that boils out on here at times). When it goes wrong I also dissociate entirely from the problem and don't generally suffer emotionally until after the event if at all which means I am superb at taking the lead in managing pretty much everything from violent individuals to train accidents (I've been involved in both).

Ex police and ex forces people tend to be brilliant at it.

Basically there is room for change but for me making sure the role is still operationally involved (regardless of the doors - though I believe whole heartedly that the on board crew should be able to efficiently indicate to the driver that their duties are complete, and not rely on it being the other way round) is a must. As is ensuring the second crew member is actually there, which in actual fact, with the right incentive for the operator, is pretty easy.

Fine them £100,000 every time they run a train without a guard and I guarantee they'll never need to run a train without a guard.

 

[northwichcat]

Fine them £100,000 every time they run a train without a guard and I guarantee they'll never need to run a train without a guard.

What's the fine for a cancellation? It would make no sense for the fine to be higher for running a service without a second member of staff.

 

[LowLevel]

What's the fine for a cancellation? It would make no sense for the fine to be higher for running a service without a second member of staff.

It does if your motives are purely about providing a better service as opposed to financial - that way you ensure you have enough crews and never have to pay the fine.

I used a manifestly excessive amount to make a point but still. If you fined companies a very large sum of money on each occasion they'd find a way to make crews available

 

[Robertj21a]

I don't actually disagree - generally detonators and a red flag are now only used as a belt and braces approach to assisting a failed train.

What I don't agree with is the wholesale stripping back to a passenger with revenue training of the role that seems to be an aspiration and especially not, considering the greatest merit of the role in dealing with disruption, just buggering off into the beyond without the on board crew. Everyone at our depot with a few exceptions (mostly those who are accomodated to particular shifts) can go anywhere the trains we operate from our depot go anyway.

I think much of the problem in perception of the role has come from the recruitment side. Instead of advantage of the salary commanded to hire people who are capable of looking smart, being friendly but also keep their head when things go very wrong, the latter has been brushed off in favour of people who look good but break down in a mess when things go wrong.

I keep myself clean and tidy, I wear my uniform correctly and with some pride and I am particularly good at managing people of all types (albeit with some frustration that boils out on here at times). When it goes wrong I also dissociate entirely from the problem and don't generally suffer emotionally until after the event if at all which means I am superb at taking the lead in managing pretty much everything from violent individuals to train accidents (I've been involved in both).

Ex police and ex forces people tend to be brilliant at it.

Basically there is room for change but for me making sure the role is still operationally involved (regardless of the doors - though I believe whole heartedly that the on board crew should be able to efficiently indicate to the driver that their duties are complete, and not rely on it being the other way round) is a must. As is ensuring the second crew member is actually there, which in actual fact, with the right incentive for the operator, is pretty easy.

Fine them £100,000 every time they run a train without a guard and I guarantee they'll never need to run a train without a guard.

I've already suggested, on a number of occasions, that a fine of, say, £5,000 should be applied if a TOC operates a service without an OBS when the basic requirement was for one to be present.
To my mind that would ensure that a train running DOO 'in exceptional circumstances' wouldn't become a regular event.

 

[northwichcat]

It does if your motives are purely about providing a better service as opposed to financial - that way you ensure you have enough crews and never have to pay the fine.

I used a manifestly excessive amount to make a point but still. If you fined companies a very large sum of money on each occasion they'd find a way to make crews available

Around 75% of passengers would prefer an understaffed service to no service at all.

I also think TOCs would demand an exception as guards are not robots so if a guard signs off sick 5 minutes before a service is about to depart and the departure isn't from a station where the TOC has a crew base there's nothing they can do about it.

 

[Meerkat]

Especially a TOC which already thinks that sickness is being used as an industrial relations strategy.....
“Keep signing off sick late and these bastards will go bust!!”

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've already suggested, on a number of occasions, that a fine of, say, £5,000 should be applied if a TOC operates a service without an OBS when the basic requirement was for one to be present.
To my mind that would ensure that a train running DOO 'in exceptional circumstances' wouldn't become a regular event.

That in essence sums up the Strathclyde agreement, doesn't it?

 

[Mag_seven]

That in essence sums up the Strathclyde agreement, doesn't it?

A lot of people mention the Strathclyde Manning Agreement. It should be pointed out that this was not brought in painlessly - there was strike action and threats to sack people first.

 

[Gems]

Around 75% of passengers would prefer an understaffed service to no service at all.

I also think TOCs would demand an exception as guards are not robots so if a guard signs off sick 5 minutes before a service is about to depart and the departure isn't from a station where the TOC has a crew base there's nothing they can do about it.

The number of cancelled services due to lack of any staff is very small. If you want the main reasons for cancellations they are thus.
1) Failed infrastructure such as signals points.
2) Late running units
3) Failed units
4) Other reasons such as passenger illness fatalities etc
Spare and SPT turns usually more than cover staff issues, I really don't know where this myth that lack of train crew is the main reason comes from. I suppose it is a myth that supports a particular argument. I feel rather aggrieved though when I am onto my 30th working rest day to keep the service running and getting a day off is sort of impossible. Are we to blame for that as well? When does Northern rail get blamed for losing staff and relying on goodwill that is rapidly dwindling.

 

[Gems]

Especially a TOC which already thinks that sickness is being used as an industrial relations strategy.....
“Keep signing off sick late and these bastards will go bust!!”

Just a vivid imagination at work here. Let's have some facts other than what you like to believe.

Northernrails 'Managing for attendance' procedures are the toughest in any workplace I have ever worked in.

 

[northwichcat]

The number of cancelled services due to lack of any staff is very small. If you want the main reasons for cancellations they are thus.
1) Failed infrastructure such as signals points.
2) Late running units
3) Failed units
4) Other reasons such as passenger illness fatalities etc
Spare and SPT turns usually more than cover staff issues, I really don't know where this myth that lack of train crew is the main reason comes from. I suppose it is a myth that supports a particular argument. I feel rather aggrieved though when I am onto my 30th working rest day to keep the service running and getting a day off is sort of impossible. Are we to blame for that as well? When does Northern rail get blamed for losing staff and relying on goodwill that is rapidly dwindling.

Who says it's the main reason and why would you only address the main reason? Northern can only address reasons within their control - infrastructure issues aren't. Late running units isn't a reason by itself it's usually due to an earlier infrastructure issue/unit fault/staff member being delayed/unit being left out-of-position due to earlier cancellation/a late running Intercity service being given priority over an on-time Northern service etc. Passenger illness also isn't something directly within their control but well maintained trains and having the correct size unit on each service will help prevent some problems.

Yesterday on my local line there were 4 cancellations - all due to staffing issues, although in one case it was actually control failing to arrange a taxi to transport a guard after the service they would have worked was cancelled due to a driver shortage. There were also numerous delays mainly caused by a faulty Pacer being used on the route and overcrowding problems meaning the trains were spending longer stopped at stations then they were supposed to (partly caused by the cancellations but there's overcrowding problems on days when everything runs.)

 

[Gems]

Who says it's the main reason and why would you only address the main reason? Northern can only address reasons within their control - infrastructure issues aren't. Late running units isn't a reason by itself it's usually due to an earlier infrastructure issue/unit fault/staff member being delayed/unit being left out-of-position due to earlier cancellation. Passenger illness also isn't something directly within their control but well maintained trains and having the correct size unit on each service will help prevent some problems.

Yesterday on my local line there were 4 cancellations - all due to staffing issues, although in one case failing to arrange a taxi to transport a guard after the service they would have worked was cancelled due to a driver shortage was the real reason. There were also numerous delays mainly caused by a faulty Pacer being used on the route and overcrowding problems meaning the trains were spending longer stopped at stations then they were supposed to (partly caused by the cancellations but there's overcrowding problems on days when everything runs.)

Late running units are a reason, and a common reason. You'll see this through 'Not to stop orders' and terminating early. It has become more of an issue since May when they fell back on their new computer diagramming program. So units now have as little as 2 minute turn around's in places.
It is the same for crew diagram's which some have got ridiculous. It is no wonder crew can't make a service.

 

[northwichcat]

Late running units are a reason, and a common reason. You'll see this through 'Not to stop orders' and terminating early. It has become more of an issue since May when they fell back on their new computer diagramming program. So units now have as little as 2 minute turn around's in places.
It is the same for crew diagram's which some have got ridiculous. It is no wonder crew can't make a service.

Northern's Journey Check site uses reasons like 'train late from depot' or 'train delayed on previous journey' - there's a long list of reasons why a train could be late from the depot or why it might have been delayed on a previous journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Late running units are a reason, and a common reason. You'll see this through 'Not to stop orders' and terminating early. It has become more of an issue since May when they fell back on their new computer diagramming program. So units now have as little as 2 minute turn around's in places.
It is the same for crew diagram's which some have got ridiculous. It is no wonder crew can't make a service.

It's that that needs simplifying. One crew, one unit, one route. It's less efficient, but it's hugely more reliable. Run fewer, longer trains if necessary, I'd rather have an hourly service I could set my watch by than a hotch-potch, unpunctual and unreliable half-hourly one. There would need to be a bit of shuffling to allow for breaks, but other than as required for that purpose keep it consistent and simple.

(WMT need to act in this way on the appallingly unpunctual and unreliable Liverpool-Brum service too, so Northern are not the only ones at it).

 

[Gems]

Northern's Journey Check site uses reasons like 'train late from depot' or 'train delayed on previous journey' - there's a long list of reasons why a train could be late from the depot or why it might have been delayed on a previous journey.

Yes they are ve

It's that that needs simplifying. One crew, one unit, one route. It's less efficient, but it's hugely more reliable. Run fewer, longer trains if necessary, I'd rather have an hourly service I could set my watch by than a hotch-potch, unpunctual and unreliable half-hourly one. There would need to be a bit of shuffling to allow for breaks, but other than as required for that purpose keep it consistent and simple.

(WMT need to act in this way on the appallingly unpunctual and unreliable Liverpool-Brum service too, so Northern are not the only ones at it).

Quite agree. We used to have a system where crews stayed together, then last May it changed. You can have 5 or 6 different drivers per diagram now. But this is what we have come to expect from Arriva. Far too many people who know very little about railway issues and the associated problems.

 

[northwichcat]

It's that that needs simplifying. One crew, one unit, one route. It's less efficient, but it's hugely more reliable. Run fewer, longer trains if necessary, I'd rather have an hourly service I could set my watch by than a hotch-potch, unpunctual and unreliable half-hourly one. There would need to be a bit of shuffling to allow for breaks, but other than as required for that purpose keep it consistent and simple.

(WMT need to act in this way on the appallingly unpunctual and unreliable Liverpool-Brum service too, so Northern are not the only ones at it).

Using a computer program which doesn't produce diagrams which work or not employing enough staff are not valid excuses for consideration of reducing the service level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Using a computer program which doesn't produce diagrams which work or not employing enough staff are not valid excuses for consideration of reducing the service level.

They absolutely are in the short term.

 

[northwichcat]

They absolutely are in the short term.

We're now 5 months after the timetable change took place and Northern have already gone through a period of Northern running a reduced timetable on certain routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We're now 5 months after the timetable change took place and Northern have already gone through a period of Northern running a reduced timetable on certain routes.

And it'll need to be permanent, or at least until all the 195s and 331s are there and more crews can be recruited.