Arriva Rail North DOO

[Halifaxlad]

RMT have been sharing this on Social Media, whats interesting is that they have officially called for the DCO requirement upon Northern to be removed!

 

[Tomnick]

So have staff side offered to sell it back for longer turnarounds balancing company vs crew requirements? They are elected by to represent traincrew...

Surely allowances like walking time, prep time, booking on time shouldn't ever be on the table as part of a pay deal? It takes what it takes and that's that. If it's insufficient, then it's going to have a performance impact, no matter how much extra you're paying the crews to have a shorter turnaround!

Coal face staff get no say in turn round times, many years ago turn rounds times were worked out by actually doing the walk physically. But this is a best case, no distractions, no passenger questions, right turn arrival etc - real world a lot of turn rounds don’t work.

That's still how they're worked out, or how they should be at least. We had our walking times (for drivers and guards) adjusted on a temporary basis recently when the middle footbridge was closed for a week, which meant a longer walk via the main concourse. It was timed, jointly, by union reps and managers. Some diagrams were broken as a result, which presumably cost a fair bit to get the work covered a different way.

Is a departure (in the opposite direction) one minute after an arrival (I.e. a ‘re-occupation’ rather than a ‘headway’ issue) actually very unusual? I think that they used to be quite common at Leicester around xx25 a couple of years ago, for example.

It depends on the junction margins defined in the rules of the plan, but no, it's not unusual at all.

 

[Killingworth]

RMT have been sharing this on Social Media, whats interesting is that they have officially called for the DCO requirement upon Northern to be removed!

And if it is they can declare a victory, which by making it so public they make almost impossible to achieve.

Negotiation is all about give and take, as far as possible quietly where all angles can be considered. RMT appears to be giving absolutely nothing, not a single driver opened door, anywhere. Is there nothing they can offer to help bring the railway into the future? A small first step?

Constant opposition to any progress means bad blood will continue for years/ever. Working together for a better railway this is not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Constant opposition to any progress means bad blood will continue for years/ever. Working together for a better railway this is not.

Quite. All this makes me want to do is support Arriva and the DfT against a Union who are acting totally unreasonably.

If they would concede to driver release/guard close[1], or perhaps OBS working with a hefty penalty for non-provision, then we would be getting somewhere.

[1] As I think I mentioned upthread, they have form for this. The Class 175s had to be modified to remove driver release because they wouldn't agree to that when they were first introduced; this is utterly ridiculous in my eyes.

 

[LowLevel]

Quite. All this makes me want to do is support Arriva and the DfT against a Union who are acting totally unreasonably.

If they would concede to driver release/guard close[1], or perhaps OBS working with a hefty penalty for non-provision, then we would be getting somewhere.

[1] As I think I mentioned upthread, they have form for this. The Class 175s had to be modified to remove driver release because they wouldn't agree to that when they were first introduced; this is utterly ridiculous in my eyes.

To be fair the class 175 is a different issue. Having a small fleet of trains that function in a different way to every other train in the fleet when they don't have to is not a sensible method of working regardless. It increases the risk of errors when moving between traction types and is the main reason 15x have similar cabs despite having different manufacturers - it also reduces training time. This should have been taken into account in the design.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair the class 175 is a different issue. Having a small fleet of trains that function in a different way to every other train in the fleet when they don't have to is not a sensible method of working regardless. It increases the risk of errors when moving between traction types and is the main reason 15x have similar cabs despite having different manufacturers - it also reduces training time. This should have been taken into account in the design.

Was that the actual reason for the rejection of that method of operation?

 

[muz379]

Quite. All this makes me want to do is support Arriva and the DfT against a Union who are acting totally unreasonably.

If they would concede to driver release/guard close[1], or perhaps OBS working with a hefty penalty for non-provision, then we would be getting somewhere.

[1] As I think I mentioned upthread, they have form for this. The Class 175s had to be modified to remove driver release because they wouldn't agree to that when they were first introduced; this is utterly ridiculous in my eyes.

Fairly early on during the dispute driver release was offered to the company . I dont think many guards I know would vote this down if it was offered .

The modification of 175's was nothing to do with the union . It might have been presumed that the RMT would disagree to the drivers releasing (although see above) . But in reality it was decided long before the training package for the units was seen by either union that they would be modified to be worked conventionally .

 

[Robertj21a]

Fairly early on during the dispute driver release was offered to the company . I dont think many guards I know would vote this down if it was offered .

The modification of 175's was nothing to do with the union . It might have been presumed that the RMT would disagree to the drivers releasing (although see above) . But in reality it was decided long before the training package for the units was seen by either union that they would be modified to be worked conventionally .

I would guess that any offer of driver release would have only been turned down because it would have still come with the usual insistence on a safety-critical guard on every train.

 

[Gems]

RMT have been sharing this on Social Media, whats interesting is that they have officially called for the DCO requirement upon Northern to be removed!

Big deal. It's a letter in the public domain published in response to Arriva doing the same a week or so earlier.

You don't start negotiations when you have already conceded to the half way mark. So why not start from the top which is what they are. It is utter nonsense to think drivers opening the doors would be rejected, this idea was muted around about 12 years ago actually, but the motive then was the idea that it would be quicker because the guard might not be in a position to immediately do so. Then a careful study of the issue showed most delays were not down to guards, but passenger boarding.
There are times when driver operation is perfectly safe, and there are times it is very unsafe. So meet in the middle and thrash this out, but how can you when the DFT has parked a tank on the lawn. The only people who object to compromise are those who don't understand and see the dangers, and both the DFT and RMT are guilty of this.

 

[northwichcat]

Big deal. It's a letter in the public domain published in response to Arriva doing the same a week or so earlier.

You don't start negotiations when you have already conceded to the half way mark. So why not start from the top which is what they are. It is utter nonsense to think drivers opening the doors would be rejected, this idea was muted around about 12 years ago actually, but the motive then was the idea that it would be quicker because the guard might not be in a position to immediately do so. Then a careful study of the issue showed most delays were not down to guards, but passenger boarding.
There are times when driver operation is perfectly safe, and there are times it is very unsafe. So meet in the middle and thrash this out, but how can you when the DFT has parked a tank on the lawn. The only people who object to compromise are those who don't understand and see the dangers, and both the DFT and RMT are guilty of this.

The RMT refuse to accept that though. Northern have told them the list of DCO routes submitted as part of the franchise bid can be changed, yet the RMT have refused to say which routes they think are and aren't suitable for DCO. If they wanted to make it look like they were even willing to negotiate they would have submitted a list of routes where DCO is least suitable and reasons why, even if they didn't want to submit a list of routes which they think are suitable for DCO. It's coming across as the RMT who are parking tanks on lawns, not DfT or Northern.

 

[Gems]

The RMT refuse to accept that though. Northern have told them the list of DCO routes submitted as part of the franchise bid can be changed, yet the RMT have refused to say which routes they think are and aren't suitable for DCO. If they wanted to make it look like they were even willing to negotiate they would have submitted a list of routes where DCO is least suitable and reasons why, even if they didn't want to submit a list of routes which they think are suitable for DCO. It's coming across as the RMT who are parking tanks on lawns, not DfT or Northern.

Seriously, do you think the RMT are going to come along and say. "Yes, we think you can go ahead with your plan and run 50% of trains on this route with no second person on at all" Seriously.
I have said along that some times it might be safe, and sometimes it isn't. Let Northern sort that out.

 

[northwichcat]

Seriously, do you think the RMT are going to come along and say. "Yes, we think you can go ahead with your plan and run 50% of trains on this route with no second person on at all" Seriously.
I have said along that some times it might be safe, and sometimes it isn't. Let Northern sort that out.

RMT have been given guarantees about jobs, pay grades and annual pay reviews - they've been offered the things a trade union representing guards should be concerned about. If Northern propose an unsafe method of operation not involving guards or using a method of operation on a line it's not suitable for then that's something for the RSSB or ASLEF to address. The fact that the RMT want to concern themselves with it means they don't agree with that it's for Northern to sort out, they want to tell Northern exactly what to do and will keep calling strikes until they do.

 

[Robertj21a]

Seriously, do you think the RMT are going to come along and say. "Yes, we think you can go ahead with your plan and run 50% of trains on this route with no second person on at all" Seriously.
I have said along that some times it might be safe, and sometimes it isn't. Let Northern sort that out.

Not sure that I really agree with you on that one. Surely, a union that was seen to be explaining *why* certain routes are totally unsuitable would be better than their standard blanket refusal to consider any route at all. If it's a safety issue (as they still keep claiming) then they should have no problem in explaining why each route is totally unsuitable.

 

[Gems]

RMT have been given guarantees about jobs, pay grades and annual pay reviews - they've been offered the things a trade union representing guards should be concerned about. If Northern propose an unsafe method of operation not involving guards or using a method of operation on a line it's not suitable for then that's something for the RSSB or ASLEF to address. The fact that the RMT want to concern themselves with it means they don't agree with that it's for Northern to sort out, they want to tell Northern exactly what to do and will keep calling strikes until they do.

Well lets not involve the RSSB, we know who pays the piper with them.
ASLEF will address it, meanwhile it is not their dispute, it is the RMT's, so where we are is where we are. But personally I think this. "Whilst Northern take disciplinary action against guards who get door and dispatch duties wrong, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the RMT to involve themselves"

 

[Gems]

Not sure that I really agree with you on that one. Surely, a union that was seen to be explaining *why* certain routes are totally unsuitable would be better than their standard blanket refusal to consider any route at all. If it's a safety issue (as they still keep claiming) then they should have no problem in explaining why each route is totally unsuitable.

But to discuss which routes are safe is to admit the process is safe. We can play devils advocate with this one all day, and we all have different opinions in this job based on experience, but that is never going to happen is it.

 

[Tomnick]

There are times when driver operation is perfectly safe

Nothing is ever, of course, "perfectly safe"! A pedantic point, perhaps - I know what you mean.

Driver release on its own though. It achieves the stated objectives of improving dwell times and allowing the guard to spend more time dealing with customer service issues. That just leaves the reliability issue - so this lengthy dispute, with a huge number of trains cancelled, is all about avoiding a relatively tiny number of cancellations for the lack of a guard in the future?

 

[Robertj21a]

But to discuss which routes are safe is to admit the process is safe. We can play devils advocate with this one all day, and we all have different opinions in this job based on experience, but that is never going to happen is it.

Fair enough. While I understand all that you say, it still doesn't really put the RMT in a good light if they're simply not prepared to co-operate at all (albeit only as expected from them). If they have a sound case then they shouldn't be scared of being able to explain their reasons - otherwise, some people might just come to the conclusion that they are being deliberately obstructive.........

 

[Robertj21a]

Nothing is ever, of course, "perfectly safe"! A pedantic point, perhaps - I know what you mean.

Driver release on its own though. It achieves the stated objectives of improving dwell times and allowing the guard to spend more time dealing with customer service issues. That just leaves the reliability issue - so this lengthy dispute, with a huge number of trains cancelled, is all about avoiding a relatively tiny number of cancellations for the lack of a guard in the future?

No, as you know, the dispute is primarily over the RMT insistence on a safety-critical member of staff on every train. Other parts of the country have run trains as DOO for decades - it defies belief that Northern has not got a single route that could be run in the same way.

 

[Tomnick]

No, as you know, the dispute is primarily over the RMT insistence on a safety-critical member of staff on every train. Other parts of the country have run trains as DOO for decades - it defies belief that Northern has not got a single route that could be run in the same way.

Well, yes. The franchise requirement is really what's provoked the dispute though, and Northern have repeated trumpeted the proposal as something that'll help improve dwell time, customer service and reliability. Here's a solution to at least two of those objectives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, yes. The franchise requirement is really what's provoked the dispute though, and Northern have repeated trumpeted the proposal as something that'll help improve dwell time, customer service and reliability. Here's a solution to at least two of those objectives.

Indeed. Driver release is used at many TOCs and was used at Southern prior to the switch to DOO+OBS (and still is used on the small number of services that carry guards e.g. the WCML ones, and the increased speed of the doors being released when compared to the conventionally operated 350s is very noticeable, though most Southern guards and OBS seem to come from the "London bus driver" school of customer service and barely ever seem to communicate with anyone).

 

[northwichcat]

Not directly rail related but Steve Rotheram has just been on the local news saying how important it is to create jobs for people in creating robots and AI, stressing they'll create more jobs than they'll remove. So even one of the most left wing elected politicians doesn't share the doom and gloom about technology taking jobs that one or two have posted in this thread.

 

[scrapy]

Nothing is ever, of course, "perfectly safe"! A pedantic point, perhaps - I know what you mean.

Driver release on its own though. It achieves the stated objectives of improving dwell times and allowing the guard to spend more time dealing with customer service issues. That just leaves the reliability issue - so this lengthy dispute, with a huge number of trains cancelled, is all about avoiding a relatively tiny number of cancellations for the lack of a guard in the future?

Speaking to a Northern guard though she said that the number of times she's had to get a driver to draw forward before releasing doors has increased massively in the past few years, drivers have stopped short with passenger doors hanging off the platforms due to the a combination of different stock with different carriage lengths and inexperienced drivers. There are no statistics for how often this is done because it is not considered reportable on Northern (I know it is on some TOCs) as the guard has buzzed the driver to draw forward so nothing dangerous has occurred. She said it had occurred to her at least 6 times in the past year. Obviously if driver release that check by the guard would be omitted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Speaking to a Northern guard though she said that the number of times she's had to get a driver to draw forward before releasing doors has increased massively in the past few years, drivers have stopped short with passenger doors hanging off the platforms due to the a combination of different stock with different carriage lengths and inexperienced drivers. There are no statistics for how often this is done because it is not considered reportable on Northern (I know it is on some TOCs) as the guard has buzzed the driver to draw forward so nothing dangerous has occurred. She said it had occurred to her at least 6 times in the past year. Obviously if driver release that check by the guard would be omitted.

Sounds to me like that needs to become reportable, as there is some kind of safety or procedural issue there.

Do they need, for instance, a display in the cab of the train length?

Of course, if DOO cameras are fitted, the driver can check the train is platformed before releasing just like a guard can.

 

[Wychwood93]

Indeed. Driver release is used at many TOCs and was used at Southern prior to the switch to DOO+OBS (and still is used on the small number of services that carry guards e.g. the WCML ones, and the increased speed of the doors being released when compared to the conventionally operated 350s is very noticeable, though most Southern guards and OBS seem to come from the "London bus driver" school of customer service and barely ever seem to communicate with anyone).

My own experience of OBS on Southern is the total opposite - I am sure I mentioned this on a post some while ago - they appear, are friendly etc. - excellent! Perhaps Bletchleyite has experienced the ones who were, in a former life, London bus operatives.

 

[Wychwood93]

Sounds to me like that needs to become reportable, as there is some kind of safety or procedural issue there.

Do they need, for instance, a display in the cab of the train length?

Of course, if DOO cameras are fitted, the driver can check the train is platformed before releasing just like a guard can.

I am sure that drivers are aware of the train length? Back in the day, and certainly with freight, they had a consist. For passenger services there are those useful blue/white, black/white (for XC) stop markers for assorted lengths of stock - certainly down here on the former L&SWR we have them. If in doubt a driver could proceed to the 'S' marker. Trying to make an issue out of something that already exists?

 

[Bletchleyite]

My own experience of OBS on Southern is the total opposite - I am sure I mentioned this on a post some while ago - they appear, are friendly etc. - excellent! Perhaps Bletchleyite has experienced the ones who were, in a former life, London bus operatives.

As the WLL is my main Southern service, I tend to encounter more guards than OBSs to be fair, and most of them just do the doors and otherwise hide. Perhaps the new-recruit OBSs are indeed better.

 

[Wychwood93]

As the WLL is my main Southern service, I tend to encounter more guards than OBSs to be fair, and most of them just do the doors and otherwise hide. Perhaps the new-recruit OBSs are indeed better.

My own experience limited to the West Coastway in Sussex on an infrequent basis.

 

[Meerkat]

Do the RMT get any PR advice at all?
Even if actually aimed at third parties’ eyes sending official correspondence to Arriva using the phrase “Lords and masters” is just infantile. You can almost picture him standing with his hands on his hips waving his head from side to side whilst saying it.
All it does is play right into the image of a bunch of bolshie boilersuit Red Robbos who must be defeated to prevent a reoccurrence of the darkest Seventies

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the RMT get any PR advice at all?
Even if actually aimed at third parties’ eyes sending official correspondence to Arriva using the phrase “Lords and masters” is just infantile. You can almost picture him standing with his hands on his hips waving his head from side to side whilst saying it.
All it does is play right into the image of a bunch of bolshie boilersuit Red Robbos who must be defeated to prevent a reoccurrence of the darkest Seventies

Quite, it seemed a reasonable piece of text until it got to that bit, at which point it sounded like a 10 year old writing it after having had an argument with his mate at playtime.

 

[scrapy]

Sounds to me like that needs to become reportable, as there is some kind of safety or procedural issue there.

Do they need, for instance, a display in the cab of the train length?

Of course, if DOO cameras are fitted, the driver can check the train is platformed before releasing just like a guard can.

A DOO camera would only show the immediate door area. It might be obvious if a door is completely off the platforms but not if it is in a redundant area off limits to the public. You would only be able to see that if you had a full view.