Arriva Rail North DOO

[yorksrob]

The RMT have issued a statement saying they will suspend this weekend's action if Northern agree that -

100% of trains will run with a second on board crew member, no exceptions

The second crew member will be safety critical

The second crew member will be involved in the dispatch of the train/platform train interface.

It sounds like they're angling for a deal along the lines of ScotRail (and why shouldn't they, I suppose) and to try and pull what the company are really after out into the open whether they accept that as a basis for talks or not.

Presumably using the principle that TfN have stated they expect a deal to be made and for changes to a contract to be looked at as a result if required.

Good move.

I think that such an agreement would be quite suitable. Either way, it would further clarify what the protagonists are angling for

 

[yorksrob]

So in short they want more than what they settled for on Merseyrail, despite previously saying it was ludicrous they had come to an agreement with Merseyrail but not with Northern.

There seems to be some question as to what the second person on Merseyrail would do, whereas Northern, by its nature would include established customer focused activities.

 

[yorksrob]

Driver release guard close would be a major step forward. The number of times I have stood when the train has stopped waiting for the doors to open...* Getting this would mean we could probably cut time out of schedules. and speed elasticity would mean more passengers -and more revenue. Ian Walmsley rants about this a fair bit. Combine that with allowing the door opening sequence to start when the train is doing (say) 3mph.

Cross city line trains at New St, and at Worcester Foregate St seem to be worst in my experience.

Yes, no more stood in the rain waiting for the doors to open would be a bonus.

 

[scrapy]

Given the Government restricts a picket to 6 or so people it's hard to see what they're expected to do, have all three figure guards at Manchester Victoria turn up and get arrested?

The limit only applies if the police believe it will cause a nuisance or on safety grounds. Picket numbers in the 10s and 20s are not uncommon.

Wrong again. You may only picket at your normal place of work. On the railway this is taken to be your home station or other workplace. I doubt anyone would be bothered if 6 people did turn up to picket Gainsborough Central but they'd still be in breach of the picketing code of practice.

Could we cut the snipey comments somewhat? It doesn't do anything for the discussion at hand.

Correct the RMT wanted to picket at Bolton station but weren't able to as no guards are based there

 

[yorksrob]

Guards are free to key in to the DKS before the train stops. In fact it used to be common practice on some units for the DKS to be left active almost continuously during a journey. The speed is a non-factor, it's down to the door operator being available in good time. If drivers take that role then the availability question is dealt with. But in the contemporary safety culture there can be no question of a door open sequence starting before the train stops: the essential first stage in the process is to confirm the train is not only stopped but stopped at a safe position. This is just as true for automated, even driverless, systems.

I think the point is, many of is have been waiting while the guard has been sorting out someones ticket.

 

[Starmill]

I have seen around 15 guards doing a picket at Wigan Wallgate's car park (i.e. not at the station or near the entrance).

I've never seen a picket of any size at Manchester Piccadilly or Manchester Victoria, or any sign at either station of RMT activity. However, I have heard that it happens.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think the point is, many of is have been waiting while the guard has been sorting out someones ticket.

Driver open, guard close was of course the standard method of operation on Southern's Electrostars but that wasn't good enough for Wilkinson. While I suspect most guards would be perfectly happy to accept that method I doubt the DfT will move their position that far as it eliminates the possibility of future staff cost savings. And without those savings pure DOO has no merit. I still believe it will take the involvement of ASLEF to bring the dispute to a head.

 

[Meerkat]

And without those savings pure DOO has no merit

Technically that isn’t true if it means that on board staff can concentrate on revenue and customer care.
And if you are cynical/realistic (delete as per your own bias!) it wouldn’t break the RMT.....

 

[B&I]

One advantage of the RMT finally deciding to try something a bit more clever is just how much it discomfits the usual mini-Wilkinsons on here

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Northern was to combine a policy of driver open, guard close with the removal of the "must be a member of staff in each unit of a multi-unit train" policy, they would stop haemorrhaging revenue in a massive way by making it more likely to be collected and making it easier to collect on stopping services by the guard not having to break off a transaction to open doors.

This could provide significant savings while still having actual, safety critical guards.

 

[yorksrob]

Driver open, guard close was of course the standard method of operation on Southern's Electrostars but that wasn't good enough for Wilkinson. While I suspect most guards would be perfectly happy to accept that method I doubt the DfT will move their position that far as it eliminates the possibility of future staff cost savings. And without those savings pure DOO has no merit. I still believe it will take the involvement of ASLEF to bring the dispute to a head.

In its letter, TfN seems to be stamping its authority on the dispute. Frankly, if it's been decided that there should be a second person on each train, quibbling over whether they should close the door seems pointless. If this Wilkinson character has decided to put Northern passengers through this inconvenience over such a triviality, it should be exposed to public scrutiny.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Technically that isn’t true if it means that on board staff can concentrate on revenue and customer care.
And if you are cynical/realistic (delete as per your own bias!) it wouldn’t break the RMT.....

I specifically referred to "pure DOO" ie where trains routinely run with the driver being the sole staff member on board. That is what the DfT is after in the long run even if not on every route. Without this possibility there's no point to having engineered the dispute in the first place.

In its letter, TfN seems to be stamping its authority on the dispute. Frankly, if it's been decided that there should be a second person on each train, quibbling over whether they should close the door seems pointless. If this Wilkinson character has decided to put Northern passengers through this inconvenience over such a triviality, it should be exposed to public scrutiny.

Wilkinson lives in Austria and commutes in each week. How that can be acceptable for a senior civil servant is beyond me but seemingly the press and wider public don't really care. I do not think he is worried about "public scrutiny".

 

[Ken H]

I specifically referred to "pure DOO" ie where trains routinely run with the driver being the sole staff member on board. That is what the DfT is after in the long run even if not on every route. Without this possibility there's no point to having engineered the dispute in the first place.
...".

If the 'guard' has no safety role, then you dont have to cancel a train due to lack of guard.

 

[yorksrob]

Wilkinson lives in Austria and commutes in each week. How that can be acceptable for a senior civil servant is beyond me but seemingly the press and wider public don't really care. I do not think he is worried about "public scrutiny".

We need civil servants who commute in the North of England.

 

[Carlisle]

One advantage of the RMT finally deciding to try something a bit more clever

Can you enlighten us as to what that is ? as all I’ve seen is another repeat of their existing position

 

[HowardGWR]

Looks like we are back to just hot air on this thread as previously. Why not discuss the issue, which is why is a system of working on one line, not suitable on another? Nobody is influenced by what is said here so why not hold just an academic discussion on what is so special about Northern services, compared with elsewhere in the country ? I thought we were getting somewhere on that earlier.

 

[Robertj21a]

In its letter, TfN seems to be stamping its authority on the dispute. Frankly, if it's been decided that there should be a second person on each train, quibbling over whether they should close the door seems pointless. If this Wilkinson character has decided to put Northern passengers through this inconvenience over such a triviality, it should be exposed to public scrutiny.

Whether they open/close the doors is certainly less relevant if they have to be safety critical anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Whether they open/close the doors is certainly less relevant if they have to be safety critical anyway.

If you're closing the doors, you are safety critical. But being safety critical is surely less relevant if there has to be a second person anyway.

 

[Mag_seven]

We need civil servants who commute in the North of England.

Until DfT (and other government departments) get out of their cosy London bunker that will never happen.

 

[Carlisle]

Why not discuss the issue, which is why is a system of working on one line, not suitable on another?

No main reason aside from a well rehearsed and proven strategy over the years by the unions in opposing DOO on a area by area basis

 

[driver_m]

Hasn't Wilkinson gone? That cretin should be be a historical name now, like McNulty .

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If the 'guard' has no safety role, then you dont have to cancel a train due to lack of guard.

This is a line much beloved of DOO supporters but it ignores real world experiences. Cancellations due to no driver are more common than due to no guard. Cancellations for either reason are more likely during periods of disruption which are exactly when the presence of that second person can make a huge difference to passengers. The real issue, which RMT have been reluctant to discuss, is ensuring that going forward all guards take their customer service role seriously as opposed to a minority who insist on using the need to deal with their safety responsibilities as an excuse for ignoring passengers' needs. Instead of trying to get rid of guards we should be looking to ensure that they all perform to a uniformly high standard. And IME the job is much more rewarding to those that try to do just that.

 

[Starmill]

specifically referred to "pure DOO" ie where trains routinely run with the driver being the sole staff member on board. That is what the DfT is after in the long run even if not on every route.

Good of you to explain the meaning of your made-up term, but perhaps you ought be less quick to complain that other people don't recognise it!

 

[Meerkat]

The real issue, which RMT have been reluctant to discuss, is ensuring that going forward all guards take their customer service role seriously

Don’t know how you would put that in an agreement but it would be something the RMT could offer as face saving for Northern.
Northern can say they have improved the passenger experience, most RMT members would presumably shrug and say “I already do that”.
Reckon Northern would at least want driver door release as well though

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good of you to explain the meaning of your made-up term, but perhaps you ought be less quick to complain that other people don't recognise it!

"DOO with OBS" describes the Southern situation i.e. guard not safety critical but another member of staff rostered and very rarely absent. The problem is that there's not a term that highlights the other situation, i.e. where no other member of staff is routinely present.

 

[Meerkat]

I thought DCO was driver plus other (non door operating) staff, DOO was literally driver only?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought DCO was driver plus other (non door operating) staff, DOO was literally driver only?

Pretty sure they just mean the same thing, the former being used to make it sound less undesirable? DOO means driver only *operation* i.e. the driver is the only person involved in the *operation* of the train, if I have that right. It doesn't comment on who else is there, it's just that they are not needed for the train to run.

 

[LowLevel]

This is a line much beloved of DOO supporters but it ignores real world experiences. Cancellations due to no driver are more common than due to no guard. Cancellations for either reason are more likely during periods of disruption which are exactly when the presence of that second person can make a huge difference to passengers. The real issue, which RMT have been reluctant to discuss, is ensuring that going forward all guards take their customer service role seriously as opposed to a minority who insist on using the need to deal with their safety responsibilities as an excuse for ignoring passengers' needs. Instead of trying to get rid of guards we should be looking to ensure that they all perform to a uniformly high standard. And IME the job is much more rewarding to those that try to do just that.

There's a lot to that.

Take Belgium as an example.

The staff wear a distinctive uniform. The guards are generally visible and having your ticket checked is the norm rather than the exception. Their security service (SecuRail) are professionally dressed and look like people you don't want to get the wrong side of without looking like rentathugs. They also have an armed police presence and sadly due to recent events the Army. Their stations and trains are however often on the tired side.

Zoom back to the UK. We use private security contractors who use agency people with no railway training equipped with nothing more than a grubby hi vis that gets passed around depending on who turns up this week. The powers that be seem happy with that because it's cheap. There's little management action against lazy guards. Uniforms vary from discreet to overwhelming but with no standardisation leading to a fragmented image.

You could do so much better. And here we are, despite trains operating with guards being a perfectly feasible and reasonable position to take, as seen in various places, sticking on a point of being able to leave without one every now and then causing the worst disruption to rail in the north for a very long time. You wouldn't in 100 years save the number of cancellations this action caused by decisions being taken before negotiation has begun has caused.

Just bloody bin the stupid plans. TPE trains get to have guards. ScotRail trains get to have guards. Welsh trains get to have guards.

Someone needs to drag these shadowy decision makers from their offices and put them on a public, open stand and force them to justify themselves.

 

[Starmill]

"DOO with OBS" describes the Southern situation i.e. guard not safety critical but another member of staff rostered and very rarely absent. The problem is that there's not a term that highlights the other situation, i.e. where no other member of staff is routinely present.

Single staffed?

 

[ComUtoR]

Pretty sure they just mean the same thing

The differences between each method of operation has been highlighted many times in this thread. Nobody seems to remember the differences, either deliberately so or because they just don't listen.