Arriva Rail North DOO

[Bletchleyite]

We are indeed very fortunate in having developed an extremely safe railway network. Much praise and recognition should be given to all those who enabled this to be the situation that we now enjoy. It should not, however, be used as some indicator that the status quo must be set in tablets of stone, just because the RMT is desperate to retain members.

Nor does it mean that huge sums should be spent on making it a small amount safer. TPWS was the last big improvement that cost money - most more recent ones might as well happen anyway and cost little, e.g. procedural changes to improve PTI issues and building new rolling stock to higher standards - but the savings from going DOO going into lower fares[1] or road safety improvements would almost certainly give an overall transport safety benefit over not going DOO.

[1] Merseyrail's retention of "OBS" is said to be in part funded by fares increases - this specific situation could well cause more car or bicycle journeys and therefore more deaths and injuries than would have been caused had the network gone "full DOO" (i.e. never any staff on the train except the driver), for instance. The same argument may well apply to Northern city services like the Hadfields.

 

[Tomnick]

There's the rub. How much less safe is it in practice? The awful answer to that question is only useful if it morphs into "How many extra people will die on the Northern Franchise each year if you don't adopt the system you propose?". That is what you need for the Benefit Cost analysis using the Green Book and the Dft WebTAG method. How does the benefit measure up against the cost? I think the rather good insights you provided earlier show that the answer for Northern Connect service which only stop perhaps at staffed stations is the model you should look at because it generates a totally different answer to services with mainly unstaffed calls.

One of the major problems that sends this debate round and round is the insistence on one size fits all and it being the same as another franchise too. It isn't the all the same and it isn't all operations so where the compromise and resolution of this dispute will be found is some where else with targeted changes. They clearly need to save enough money to safely pay for the extra connect services and stop the government subsidy going up even further. The insistence that you can never have too many safety measures and there is only one mode of operation no matter how much it costs is quite unreasonable to most people without a vested interest.

Sorry for quoting the whole post - I can’t chop it down on my phone for some reason...

You’re right, of course, that the decrease in risk has to be justify the increase in cost of a safety-critical less flexible guard over an OBSesque chap who’s probably on much less money (Southern’s approach, whilst commendable, seems completely illogical and contrary to the DfT’s objectives, so I really can’t see it lasting). My view is that the Northern Connect routes, largely rural and certainly not serving only staffed stations, are probably the least suitable. It’d actually make more sense (though I’m still not a fan!) on intensive suburban routes with decent investment in continuously staffed stations instead. The whole thing seems back to front.

I thought it had been agreed previously that there was no evidence to support this theory ?

I don’t think anyone could credibly argue that DOO dispatch isn’t less safe, even if only slightly, than dispatch with a guard. The same applies to emergency situations - as unlikely as they might be, I can’t think of a scenario where the presence of a guard would make things worse, but plenty where they’d make things better. It’s all relative.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You’re right, of course, that the decrease in risk has to be justify the increase in cost of a safety-critical less flexible guard over an OBSesque chap who’s probably on much less money (Southern’s approach, whilst commendable, seems completely illogical and contrary to the DfT’s objectives, so I really can’t see it lasting). My view is that the Northern Connect routes, largely rural and certainly not serving only staffed stations, are probably the least suitable. It’d actually make more sense (though I’m still not a fan!) on intensive suburban routes with decent investment in continuously staffed stations instead. The whole thing seems back to front.

Some of the new EMUs are going on some suburban services which would fit that description, though, aren't they?

I do agree that Northern Connect is about as suitable for DOO as VTWC is, but I don't see any great reason why the Manchester surburban network *wouldn't* be suitable provided such investment was in place - basically make it more like Merseyrail. Or just convert as much of it as possible to Metrolink, which is DOO (and has cheaper drivers too).

 

[Robertj21a]

Sorry for quoting the whole post - I can’t chop it down on my phone for some reason...

You’re right, of course, that the decrease in risk has to be justify the increase in cost of a safety-critical less flexible guard over an OBSesque chap who’s probably on much less money (Southern’s approach, whilst commendable, seems completely illogical and contrary to the DfT’s objectives, so I really can’t see it lasting). My view is that the Northern Connect routes, largely rural and certainly not serving only staffed stations, are probably the least suitable. It’d actually make more sense (though I’m still not a fan!) on intensive suburban routes with decent investment in continuously staffed stations instead. The whole thing seems back to front.

I don’t think anyone could credibly argue that DOO dispatch isn’t less safe, even if only slightly, than dispatch with a guard. The same applies to emergency situations - as unlikely as they might be, I can’t think of a scenario where the presence of a guard would make things worse, but plenty where they’d make things better. It’s all relative.

It wasn't my opinion, there was industry research quoted on this forum (somewhere !). Perhaps someone else can identify it.

 

[northwichcat]

But the compromise elsewhere seems to involve a guaranteed second person on board, something that would be more effective on the Northern network at protecting revenue, than in South Eastern commuterland, where a larger proportion of stations are staffed.

Any reasonable Northern passenger should demand that a compromise found elsewhere should be extended here. We're sick and tired of National vested interests using our railway as an ideological battle ground.

While Southern is a very different network to Northern I think a similar agreement to the Southern/ASLEF one is suitable - we need a booked second member of staff on every train but if the train is suitable to go out with only a driver then it doesn't need to be cancelled if the second person is off sick or the train doesn't need to be terminated short if the second person becomes ill or gets injured.

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry for quoting the whole post - I can’t chop it down on my phone for some reason...

You’re right, of course, that the decrease in risk has to be justify the increase in cost of a safety-critical less flexible guard over an OBSesque chap who’s probably on much less money (Southern’s approach, whilst commendable, seems completely illogical and contrary to the DfT’s objectives, so I really can’t see it lasting). My view is that the Northern Connect routes, largely rural and certainly not serving only staffed stations, are probably the least suitable. It’d actually make more sense (though I’m still not a fan!) on intensive suburban routes with decent investment in continuously staffed stations instead. The whole thing seems back to front.

I don’t think anyone could credibly argue that DOO dispatch isn’t less safe, even if only slightly, than dispatch with a guard. The same applies to emergency situations - as unlikely as they might be, I can’t think of a scenario where the presence of a guard would make things worse, but plenty where they’d make things better. It’s all relative.

There is a franchise requirement to staff all Northern Connect stations, so the only grey area is what happens when a Northern Connect service makes peak time only extra calls at a station which isn't a Northern Connect station, as well as the exception where the plan is to divert peak time only Northern Connect Cheshire services to Ellesmere Port instead of Chester.

However, as there's more semi-fast services on Northern Connect than the commuter routes there's less advantage to not having the person who is doing revenue duties also having to release the doors.

The disadvantages of guard dispatch over DOO dispatch mentioned by RSSB are possible miscommunication e.g. accidental buzzer/bell due to human error a fault and driver possibly less likely to check a signal if given the green light by the guard and there may have been other reasons they gave as well. Although, of course the counter argument on the signal is if the driver always check the signal then it's checked twice meaning a SPAD is less likely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a franchise requirement to staff all Northern Connect stations, so the only grey area is what happens when a Northern Connect service makes peak time only extra calls at a station which isn't a Northern Connect station, as well as the exception where the plan is to divert peak time only Northern Connect Cheshire services to Ellesmere Port instead of Chester.

Better idea: get a 230, run a part diesel, part electric shuttle to Hooton connecting with one of the Chesters 15 minutes offset from the through Liverpool-Ellesmere Port, bin that Northern Connect idea off.

 

[ComUtoR]

The disadvantages of guard dispatch over DOO dispatch mentioned by RSSB are possible miscommunication e.g. accidental buzzer/bell due to human error a fault and driver possibly less likely to check a signal if given the green light by the guard and there may have been other reasons they gave as well. Although, of course the counter argument on the signal is if the driver always check the signal then it's checked twice meaning a SPAD is less likely.

Another counter argument and advantage of a Guard is that the two PTI incidents that occurred this week at my TOC would never of happened. None of the knock on services would have been cancelled and the delay and cancellation costs would never have occurred. Passengers wouldn't have got stranded, missed appointments and the services they did travel on would not have had the additional passenger load.

It swings both ways, lets not keep forgetting that.

 

[northwichcat]

Better idea: get a 230, run a part diesel, part electric shuttle to Hooton connecting with one of the Chesters 15 minutes offset from the through Liverpool-Ellesmere Port, bin that Northern Connect idea off.

Given TfW Rail will still run their peak time extras between Chester and Manchester, maybe the peak time Northern Connect services have to go to Ellesmere Port especially considering TfW Rail will require Chester-Runcorn-Liverpool paths soon as well?

 

[northwichcat]

Another counter argument and advantage of a Guard is that the two PTI incidents that occurred this week at my TOC would never of happened. None of the knock on services would have been cancelled and the delay and cancellation costs would never have occurred. Passengers wouldn't have got stranded, missed appointments and the services they did travel on would not have had the additional passenger load.

It swings both ways, lets not keep forgetting that.

Yes as I mentioned in an earlier post Northern threw off passengers at little rural Plumley station last week due to the guard getting injured. While the counter-argument from rail staff is that line won't be getting DCO stock anyway, a similar incident could happen on any line and at any time - it would have been much worse for the last train to be terminated short at a remote unstaffed station without a help point or CIS even if Northern promptly organised a replacement bus.

 

[Carlisle]

Another counter argument and advantage of a Guard is that the two PTI incidents that occurred this week at my TOC would never of happened. .

Without any description or inside information nobody’s any idea of the vladity or not of that claim

 

[yorksrob]

While Southern is a very different network to Northern I think a similar agreement to the Southern/ASLEF one is suitable - we need a booked second member of staff on every train but if the train is suitable to go out with only a driver then it doesn't need to be cancelled if the second person is off sick or the train doesn't need to be terminated short if the second person becomes ill or gets injured.

To be honest, we're talking about such a comparatively small number of trains, I'd be happy to compromise by specifying a second member of staff on them all.

 

[Confused52]

Better idea: get a 230, run a part diesel, part electric shuttle to Hooton connecting with one of the Chesters 15 minutes offset from the through Liverpool-Ellesmere Port, bin that Northern Connect idea off.

How will that help me get from Warrington to York through Manchester Victoria? Anyway the point he was making was that Northern Connect stations are all staffed in normal circumstances, which had been denied earlier. I think the alternative service to Ellesmere Port referred to will have been running short on the Bank Quay to Chester leg of the proposed Connect service from Leeds.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Better idea: get a 230.........

How does the mention of "a 230" fit in a sentence with the word "better"....

 

[Bletchleyite]

How will that help me get from Warrington to York through Manchester Victoria?

What's the Ellesmere Port branch to do with that? My point was that it would be better to have a consistent hourly Takt to Chester rather than randomly diverting them to Ellesmere Port to keep one man and his dog and bicycle happy.

 

[Confused52]

The requirement for Northern Connect is "between Chester or Ellesmere Port and Leeds via Warrington Bank Quay 14 trains per day in each direction (Monday to Saturday) " from the Franchise Agreement. Hence the possibility of Ellesmere Port. The ARN Northern Connect however map does not include Ellesmere Port at all. So the opportunity of an alternative service to mitigate the problems caused by TfW service to Lime Street is not helpful since that is not a Northern Connect service but the one via Bank Quay to Victoria and Leeds is supposed to be. So all intertwined and confused, never mind just ignore it!

 

[northwichcat]

The requirement for Northern Connect is "between Chester or Ellesmere Port and Leeds via Warrington Bank Quay 14 trains per day in each direction (Monday to Saturday) " from the Franchise Agreement. Hence the possibility of Ellesmere Port. The ARN Northern Connect however map does not include Ellesmere Port at all. So the opportunity of an alternative service to mitigate the problems caused by TfW service to Lime Street is not helpful since that is not a Northern Connect service but the one via Bank Quay to Victoria and Leeds is supposed to be. So all intertwined and confused, never mind just ignore it!

Yet there's also a requirement for
AM:
Warrington to Ellesmere Port
Ellesmere Port to Leeds

PM:
Leeds to Ellesmere Port
Ellesmere Port to Leeds

Which will almost certainly be part of the same diagrams as the Chester to Leeds service plus between Warrington and Leeds they will run hours when there's no direct Chester service.

 

[Confused52]

The Warrington to Ellesmere Port already runs in the morning as a DMU, not that I have ever seen any passengers on it. The demand for a service from Ellesmere Port rather than Chester such that only 2 out of 15 services a day don't go to Chester seems a little insane but fortunately the TSR in all phases requires those services to proceed via WBQ to Leeds via Manchester Victoria. Whether that turns out to be what eventually happens I would doubt since as I say Northern don't have EP on their Connect Map and it is essentially a works service which does not map at all on to the Northern Connect profile where all the other phase 1 services go to Manchester Airport.

 

[northwichcat]

The Warrington to Ellesmere Port already runs in the morning as a DMU, not that I have ever seen any passengers on it. The demand for a service from Ellesmere Port rather than Chester such that only 2 out of 15 services a day don't go to Chester seems a little insane but fortunately the TSR in all phases requires those services to proceed via WBQ to Leeds via Manchester Victoria. Whether that turns out to be what eventually happens I would doubt since as I say Northern don't have EP on their Connect Map and it is essentially a works service which does not map at all on to the Northern Connect profile where all the other phase 1 services go to Manchester Airport.

Hopefully it'll work out so that the TfW Rail service peak time extra runs just ahead of the ex-Ellesmere Port train in the morning peak and just behind the Ellesmere Port bound train in the evening peak so passengers wanting to go between Chester and Victoria or beyond can easily change.

The problem at the moment is the evening Ellesmere Port is a shuttle from Helsby and it only does that after running a Stockport-Chester peak time extra meaning even if a lot of people from Ellesmere Port got jobs in Manchester the train wouldn't be very attractive and they would probably get the bus to Chester or, if they have a car available, drive to Helsby/Frodsham.

 

[muz379]

My view is that the Northern Connect routes, largely rural and certainly not serving only staffed stations, are probably the least suitable. It’d actually make more sense (though I’m still not a fan!) on intensive suburban routes with decent investment in continuously staffed stations instead. The whole thing seems back to front.

That is another thing . If the company do get their way and get an agreement to run "Northern Connect" services using new stock and DOO then they will actually reduce operational flexibility .

If the trains running using legacy guarded stock before and after a "Northern connect" service over a route are cancelled there will be reduced opportunities to make a "Northern connect" service into a stopper . Something that regularly occurs currently with express services being turned into all stops because of cancellation or severe delay to the actual stopper .

Of course another symptom of the "northern connect" will probably be a shift from the supposedly excess spare compliment of guards to a compliment of spare station staff so that some semblance of a guarantee for start to end of service staffing can be provided at Northern connect stations

 

[Muttley]

There is a franchise requirement to staff all Northern Connect stations...

We've already established (post5953) Northern's ability to reach franchise requirements.
I cannot for the life of me see how you can agree that they've missed this target, that target, the other target, and yet will blindly believe that they'll stick to this target because....it's a franchise requirement.

And the same query for your defence of Northern's negotiation stance. They are failing their franchise targets, yet cannot alter their negotiations, because its a franchise commitment,;even though they're missing just about every other target.

Your hatred of the RMT is blinding you to the obvious.

 

[scrapy]

Northern Connect stations will be staffed from 06.00 to 22.00 according to Northern, some will be longer than this but no guarantee of first to last train staffing. Some stations will likely see regular Northern Connect services but won't be Northern Connect stations e.g. Carnforth, Bramley and Mytholmroyd so no guarantee of full time staffing there. It's also likely Mauldeth Rd, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley will have DCO Northern Connect services but not full time staffing. Stations on Hadfield and Stoke lines will likely have DCO 331s (although these won't be branded Northern Connect) but not full time (Or any) staffing.

 

[northwichcat]

We've already established (post5953) Northern's ability to reach franchise requirements.
I cannot for the life of me see how you can agree that they've missed this target, that target, the other target, and yet will blindly believe that they'll stick to this target because....it's a franchise requirement.

And the same query for your defence of Northern's negotiation stance. They are failing their franchise targets, yet cannot alter their negotiations, because its a franchise commitment,;even though they're missing just about every other target.

Your hatred of the RMT is blinding you to the obvious.

Many of their missed targets are at least partly due to a third party failure as already mentioned. Failing to provide station staff isn't something which they can get away with and blame on someone else.

As a passenger the RMT are doing a lot more to prevent me travelling by train than Northern are. How am I supposed to like a loud arrogant organisation which prevents me going about my usual daily business? They have more of a negative effective on my life than extremist groups who march through cities.

 

[142Pilot]

Daily business?

One strike a week is not daily for clarity.

And comparing a trade union to extremist groups is bizarre, even for the shock value.

 

[Tracked]

They have more of a negative effective on my life than extremist groups who march through cities.

As an occasional Northern user I'd say that my fear of spiders has more of a negative effect on my life than either extremist groups marching through cities or the RMT, especially at this time of year

Did hear a rumour that they were going to escalate the strikes in December, but it's a "someone who knows someone who works for Northern" thing, so pinch of salt provided ...

 

[Tomnick]

Northern Connect stations will be staffed from 06.00 to 22.00 according to Northern, some will be longer than this but no guarantee of first to last train staffing. Some stations will likely see regular Northern Connect services but won't be Northern Connect stations e.g. Carnforth, Bramley and Mytholmroyd so no guarantee of full time staffing there. It's also likely Mauldeth Rd, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley will have DCO Northern Connect services but not full time staffing. Stations on Hadfield and Stoke lines will likely have DCO 331s (although these won't be branded Northern Connect) but not full time (Or any) staffing.

this page refers to “36 Connect stations”, which presumably are those highlighted on the map (there’s 37 shown, but only one shared between the two routes at Wakefield and five that aren’t on Connect routes). Whichever those 36 stations are, if those are the only ones that the staffing commitments apply to, it’s clear that Connect trains on pretty much every route will regularly call (i.e. not just peak or otherwise off-pattern) at stations that continue to be unstaffed or only part-time staffed. Can anyone clarify?

 

[northwichcat]

Daily business?

One strike a week is not daily for clarity.

Yes daily business. Saturday is a day hence it being called Saturday and it's also, for many, the only day in the week they can do certain things. For instance, for someone studying at college the RMT striking on every Saturday might mean they can no longer do a Saturday job even if the strikes don't prevent them getting to college. Retail businesses in Cheshire are really struggling to fill shifts on Saturdays due to the RMT strikes.

And comparing a trade union to extremist groups is bizarre, even for the shock value.

It's true whether you like it or not. How many people have been put off travelling to northern cities this year by extremist groups like the EDL organising protests and marches and how many people have been unable to travel to northern cities this year due to the RMT strikes?

 

[142Pilot]

Last time I checked a dictionary DAILY means everyday.

Not a select day during the week. That would be WEEKLY.

And for the rest of your wibble, I suggest you actually grow up. Having seen the effects of extremism at my place of work and the shutdown for over 2 weeks I suggest your nonsense is completely misguided.

It's comments like this that caused you to be cut off from accessing Northern internal websites.

 

[northwichcat]

Last time I checked a dictionary DAILY means everyday.

Not a select day during the week. That would be WEEKLY.

I went off on a tangent but that doesn't mean I don't understand the meaning of daily. First dictionary definition of daily is 'adj done every day or every working day' so if something you do daily requires you to travel by train to do it then the RMT is preventing it, hence the RMT are preventing people going about their daily business - FACT.

And for the rest of your wibble, I suggest you actually grow up. Having seen the effects of extremism at my place of work and the shutdown for over 2 weeks I suggest your nonsense is completely misguided.

A few years back I was unfortunate to end up in a city on a day when an EDL splinter group were protesting about approval being given for a new mosque. That resulted in me checking when protests were due to take place and avoiding cities on said dates but it has only affected my plans once or twice in the few years since. The RMT strikes have affected my plans on around 10 days this year alone, so the RMT strikes are having a much greater impact in putting me (and presumably others) off visiting cities.

It's comments like this that caused you to be cut off from accessing Northern internal websites.

Now what rubbish are you talking about? I'm not a Northern employee and never have been so I've never had access to any staff only websites.

 

[142Pilot]

I know you're not.

You did have the inside scoop through the previous regime, inciuding access to the shed. Which has dried up. Unless I am mistaken.

And I'll repeat as you seem to think one day is daily - it's a weekly event. Not a daily event. Daily events happen every day or every working day. Now for the general public one day a week is not a daily occurrence. No matter how you try to spin it.