Arriva Rail North DOO

[Class 170101]

And gates need staffing.

I know its the law and all that but why?

Friends who have gone to Europe say they have seen stations with ticket gates closed yet unsupervised? Why not here?

 

[Bungle965]

I know its the law and all that but why?

Friends who have gone to Europe say they have seen stations with ticket gates closed yet unsupervised? Why not here?

Because ticket gates have a tendency to reject tickets which are valid most likely due to poor programming. Meaning that fare paying passengers can end up being trapped in the station.
Sam

 

[6Gman]

Who was going to look after the steam heat boiler then?

Got your dig at staff in there as well so well done for that! :roll:

I was going to make the same point.

Also that, on loco-hauled trains, the second man could also be necessary for coupling/ uncoupling at many locations.

 

[6Gman]

I know its the law and all that but why?

Friends who have gone to Europe say they have seen stations with ticket gates closed yet unsupervised? Why not here?

And if you're using a ticket which is incompatible with the gates?

Vault them?

 

[Class 170101]

Because ticket gates have a tendency to reject tickets which are valid most likely due to poor programming. Meaning that fare paying passengers can end up being trapped in the station.
Sam

I am sure this ticket issue isn't just confined to the UK.

 

[northwichcat]

I am sure this ticket issue isn't just confined to the UK.

Indeed. I've had valid tickets rejected by barriers in Barcelona and Lisbon.

 

[All Line Rover]

if all stations have barriers then you don't need on board revenue staff

You mean no on-board ticket checks whatsoever?

 

[455driver]

You mean no on-board ticket checks whatsoever?

Thats a perfect recipe for doughnutting, saves a fortune.

 

[northwichcat]

You mean no on-board ticket checks whatsoever?

Thats a perfect recipe for doughnutting, saves a fortune.

Nice selective quoting there.

I was saying for London which is where passengers are given financial incentives to use contactless meaning their origin and destination station are correctly recorded. If they choose to use standard tickets they pay a lot more.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

Some points and thoughts regarding Northern. My ballot paper by the way, was filled in and posted within the hour.

1) The franchise agreement does not allow for a Scotrail type arrangement. It is wishful thinking, and a point I make with my work colleagues who are under the illusion it is a way out.

2) 50% DOO by the franchise end. It stands to reason that it makes more financial sense to introduce this on future 'Northern connect' services, and new units as they appear. Adapting present stock makes no financial sense and this is as good as confirmed.

3) Northern is not Southern. I'm not talking about franchise and management contract issues either. Many Northern stations are simply not geared up to having no staff on board trains. The current plans to man more stations does not even come close. If they cut staff on trains doing revenue, ticketless travel would cripple Northern at a time when they are having to look forward to reduced subsidies. Some stations have three or four entrances to platforms with no form of barrier. People are not honest despite what they would have you believe. Ticketless travel is viewed by many as a victimless crime, opening the floodgates would swamp them.

4) The role will change in DOO areas. However, the diversity of Northern's fleet means it will be a very risky policy to have depots that are exclusively DOO.

5) Natural wastage of staff in some depots is exceptionally high. It would not make any sense to tear up existing pay and employment contracts when they could introduce changes to new staff contracts, and new staff will still appear despite the changes. Employment laws are still in existence although the trashy Tories would like you not to have access to them. Even Southern didn't risk cutting peoples wages.

6) Strike action at this time on Northern is not a forgone conclusion. There is still an underlying belief amongst many that they can trust 'Arriva' not to play too dirty like Southern have. It helps a little that most PTE's in the north are Labour controlled, and as stakeholders, will have a big say. Many are also saying the RMT has gone in for the fight too early. My soundings are that it will be a closer call than some believe, and any resulting action will have to be carefully thought out to keep people on board. If the RMT go in like a 'bull in a China shop' they may get their fingers burned.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought the aim was to have on-board staff checking tickets and providing customer service, rather than opening and closing doors?
Like Strathclyde, in fact.
You'd expect less ticketless travel that way, not more.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

I thought the aim was to have on-board staff checking tickets and providing customer service, rather than opening and closing doors?
Like Strathclyde, in fact.
You'd expect less ticketless travel that way, not more.

Of course you are right. Even I as a guard sometimes get frustrated at having to operate the doors 90 metres away from where the scroat you had dealings with just the other day got on.

But the thin end of the wedge is what do they pay those who come into the job at a later date. I'm not a believer that it will be a minimum wage job, nobody would stick the abuse for the same money you could get pushing trolleys around Tesco's car park. But it still the thin edge.

 

[northwichcat]

2) 50% DOO by the franchise end. It stands to reason that it makes more financial sense to introduce this on future 'Northern connect' services, and new units as they appear. Adapting present stock makes no financial sense and this is as good as confirmed.

It also makes sense because it's 50% of mileage not 50% of services so having the fast services running without guards probably means they'll need something like 3 guards for every 4 drivers, whereas switching stoppers and keeping guards on fast service would mean something like 1 guard for every 4 drivers.

If they cut staff on trains doing revenue, ticketless travel would cripple Northern at a time when they are having to look forward to reduced subsidies.

Again the proposal isn't to reduce staff, it will involve a lot more staff and a lot more services but some services will have a second member of franchise staff who isn't a guard. While the RMT claim Arriva haven't guaranteed there will be two members of staff on board the franchise agreement requires it except in exceptional circumstances. In the case of Southern the franchise agreed with ASLEF what those exceptional circumstances could include and industrial action isn't one of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. I've had valid tickets rejected by barriers in Barcelona and Lisbon.

I had an interesting one in Tokyo. Practice there is, or was 10 years ago anyway, that if you don't know the fare, you pay the lowest fare and get a paper ticket for that, enter the system, then pay the difference to what you should have paid at a "fare adjust" machine before exiting the barriers. It's sort of a bit like how Oyster works but manual and involving paper tickets and cash, or like if you always bought a ticket to the next stop and overdistance excessed it at the end of your journey (were that allowed).

We decided to go and ride around a circular high-level route (I forget which one) to see the sights, so bought the cheapest single and entered, rode round the loop, got back to the origin, inserted our tickets into the adjust machine to pay the correct fare...and it rejected them. It seems that a circular journey was not something the system was designed to deal with.

There were no staff on the station whatsoever and even if we had spoken Japanese no obvious way (e.g. a help point) to contact them. In the end we had to walk through the barriers, getting clouted[1] by them on the way through - there was no other way to get out. A loud alarm sounded but there was nobody there to do anything about it.

[1] Japanese ticket barriers are "normally open" but close on you if you didn't insert a valid ticket. They aren't strong enough to physically stop you walking through, more of an "oi, go and pay, where's your social responsibility?", but you do feel them close on you!

 

[Bletchleyite]

5) Natural wastage of staff in some depots is exceptionally high. It would not make any sense to tear up existing pay and employment contracts when they could introduce changes to new staff contracts, and new staff will still appear despite the changes.

And this was sort-of one of my points.

It is understandable that staff would strike to preserve their own working conditions and the safety of things in relation to their own job. It's less understandable as to why they would strike, and give up some pay, to protect the conditions for future staff.

If Northern will be able to lose guards solely by natural wastage, perhaps with a bit of voluntary early retirement (if you offer a good deal, plenty of people will take it), and similarly lose drivers by natural wastage, employing new ones for the DOO work and keeping existing ones on existing rolling stock with guards, should that really be the concern of existing staff? In the end, if the new staff really don't like the conditions of the job they are being offered (driving DOO trains), they won't take the job, or possibly won't even apply for it. And if Northern can't get any drivers to drive DOO trains, that means they'll have to have guards. The unions can of course run a publicity campaign to put people off those roles if they wish, by quoting the safety/liability issues and the likes.

I do see the altruistic idea of striking for the long-term safety benefit of passengers - but are most staff really doing that (no doubt some will be)? I would have thought not. Most people are not altruistic enough to lose several days' pay for the benefit of an entirely different set of people. Many would take sympathetic strike action for a class of people (say other drivers/guards) if that were legal, but would they take it for passengers? I think very few would.

It's an interesting one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the aim was to have on-board staff checking tickets and providing customer service, rather than opening and closing doors?
Like Strathclyde, in fact.
You'd expect less ticketless travel that way, not more.

FWIW, this could be half-way provided by introducing driver-released doors (guard-closed), as is already the case on significant parts of the network including all of VTWC, most of XC[1] and I think others.

Notably, the Class 175s were designed for that method of operation - one I think has massive benefits in areas where guards also do revenue and almost none of the disadvantages of actual DOO - and the unions insisted they were modified to prevent it.

[1] Sort-of. All Voyagers are driver door *operated*, but guard dispatched. The guard effectively does a CD-RA type procedure by giving 1-2 on the buzzer to close the doors, then 2 to depart - there are no non-local door controls other than in the cabs. I do wonder who came up with this ever so slightly clunky idea, and if long-term DOO was the plan.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

And this was sort-of one of my points.

It is understandable that staff would strike to preserve their own working conditions and the safety of things in relation to their own job. It's less understandable as to why they would strike, and give up some pay, to protect the conditions for future staff.

If Northern will be able to lose guards solely by natural wastage, perhaps with a bit of voluntary early retirement (if you offer a good deal, plenty of people will take it), and similarly lose drivers by natural wastage, employing new ones for the DOO work and keeping existing ones on existing rolling stock with guards, should that really be the concern of existing staff? In the end, if the new staff really don't like the conditions of the job they are being offered (driving DOO trains), they won't take the job, or possibly won't even apply for it. And if Northern can't get any drivers to drive DOO trains, that means they'll have to have guards. The unions can of course run a publicity campaign to put people off those roles if they wish, by quoting the safety/liability issues and the likes.

I do see the altruistic idea of striking for the long-term safety benefit of passengers - but are most staff really doing that (no doubt some will be)? I would have thought not. Most people are not altruistic enough to lose several days' pay for the benefit of an entirely different set of people. Many would take sympathetic strike action for a class of people (say other drivers/guards) if that were legal, but would they take it for passengers? I think very few would.

It's an interesting one.

I mean look. Lets be brutally honest here. If it was about passenger safety alone the drivers would be involved from the off. It is a rather uncomfortable truth, but it's not is it.
Most of us get pretty frustrated at the antics of the drunks on a Saturday night and the anti social behaviour in general. I would happily hand over the problem to the drivers. I have been assaulted enough in my railway life, and every time it erodes away your empathy a little more towards people in general.

As for your point about not striking for people who come into the job. No, I wouldn't. If you come into any job you know the terms and conditions, take it or leave it.

 

[455driver]

6) Strike action at this time on Northern is not a forgone conclusion. There is still an underlying belief amongst many that they can trust 'Arriva' not to play too dirty like Southern have. It helps a little that most PTE's in the north are Labour controlled, and as stakeholders, will have a big say. Many are also saying the RMT has gone in for the fight too early. My soundings are that it will be a closer call than some believe, and any resulting action will have to be carefully thought out to keep people on board. If the RMT go in like a 'bull in a China shop' they may get their fingers burned.

Its the same DaFT forcing this through so Arriva will do what they have to do to maintain the franchise, there is no Mr Nice Guy where implementation is involved.

Why would Arriva 'play nice' when there is a big payday at the end of it, business is business!

Once the trains are delivered with everything in the cab it will be too late, you and your colleagues will be offered new carefully worded contracts which will give you zero protection in future so when its time to 'dispose' of you it can be done at the stroke of a pen.

 

[Andrew32]

Some points and thoughts regarding Northern. My ballot paper by the way, was filled in and posted within the hour.

1) The franchise agreement does not allow for a Scotrail type arrangement. It is wishful thinking, and a point I make with my work colleagues who are under the illusion it is a way out.

2) 50% DOO by the franchise end. It stands to reason that it makes more financial sense to introduce this on future 'Northern connect' services, and new units as they appear. Adapting present stock makes no financial sense and this is as good as confirmed.

3) Northern is not Southern. I'm not talking about franchise and management contract issues either. Many Northern stations are simply not geared up to having no staff on board trains. The current plans to man more stations does not even come close. If they cut staff on trains doing revenue, ticketless travel would cripple Northern at a time when they are having to look forward to reduced subsidies. Some stations have three or four entrances to platforms with no form of barrier. People are not honest despite what they would have you believe. Ticketless travel is viewed by many as a victimless crime, opening the floodgates would swamp them.

4) The role will change in DOO areas. However, the diversity of Northern's fleet means it will be a very risky policy to have depots that are exclusively DOO.

5) Natural wastage of staff in some depots is exceptionally high. It would not make any sense to tear up existing pay and employment contracts when they could introduce changes to new staff contracts, and new staff will still appear despite the changes. Employment laws are still in existence although the trashy Tories would like you not to have access to them. Even Southern didn't risk cutting peoples wages.

6) Strike action at this time on Northern is not a forgone conclusion. There is still an underlying belief amongst many that they can trust 'Arriva' not to play too dirty like Southern have. It helps a little that most PTE's in the north are Labour controlled, and as stakeholders, will have a big say. Many are also saying the RMT has gone in for the fight too early. My soundings are that it will be a closer call than some believe, and any resulting action will have to be carefully thought out to keep people on board. If the RMT go in like a 'bull in a China shop' they may get their fingers burned.

Absolutely spot on

 

[falcon]

What 10.4.1 says is industrial action is a 'Force Majeure Event' like extreme weather and Arriva won't be subject to penalties for the failure to provide all the services they are required to as part of the franchise agreement.

8.3 says



So it's not a 'DfT will cover' it's 'DfT may decide to cover if they decide the unions are being unreasonable.'

Have you got a link to a copy of the franchise agreement? I would like to see the whole document.

 

[lejog]

Have you got a link to a copy of the franchise agreement? I would like to see the whole document.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-rail-2016-rail-franchise-agreement

Edit: there are actually two clauses relating to industrial action

Miscellaneous Payment Provisions
The Secretary of State, in his discretion, may at any time decide to reimburse or ameliorate net
losses of the Franchisee arising from Industrial Action (however caused and of whatever nature) in
circumstances where the Franchisee has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State
that it has taken all reasonable steps to avoid the Industrial Action and that, Industrial Action having
nevertheless occurred, the Franchisee has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate its effect

and the Force Majeure clause saying that Northern will not be responsible for breaches of the franchise contract due to industrial action.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-rail-2016-rail-franchise-agreement

Edit: there are actually two clauses relating to industrial action



and the Force Majeure clause saying that Northern will not be responsible for breaches of the franchise contract due to industrial action.

Yep. The taxpayer will pay. This however isn't a new clause, it has always been present in rail franchises. Northern is already taking steps to meet that criteria by finding managers and other staff to try and fill in. It's an open cheque book, and the principle reason why the DFT is happy to try and force it's way. I'm sure this may be a reason why the RMT is moving early.
If strikes do come, perhaps weekend strikes might be more effective. Let the army of strike breakers deal with the joys of Saturday night drunks, without it hurting the commuters.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If strikes do come, perhaps weekend strikes might be more effective. Let the army of strike breakers deal with the joys of Saturday night drunks, without it hurting the commuters.

I am sure that you did not mean what you say as a method of intimidation, noting how the laws that govern strikes currently apply, but the wording of your paragraph would suggest that could be the case, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps one method would be enforcement groups of train protection staff being employed in numbers by the TOC concerned and strategically placed in known locations where such behavioural problems occur to enforce any relevant by-law that applies to drunken individuals wishing to travel by train.

The cost of such an operation could be borne by the TOC appearing to meet its requirements for passenger transportation and be noted by the DfT as one that could be reimbursed.

Perhaps the time has come to stop being soft on this type of drunken anti-social behaviour and to breathalyse such people as an aid to achieving such an aspiration and have full BTP backup in the said areas. Let the full power of the law be seen to being used to ensure that the crass behaviour of the few does not override the needs of the many. What may I ask is the policy of airlines in the matter of drunken passengers who want to fly?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the time has come to stop being soft on this type of drunken anti-social behaviour and to breathalyse such people as an aid to achieving such an aspiration

Why breathalyse? You can be intoxicated and of no threat to others, and you can be a threat to others without being intoxicated. Rather, what passengers need to know is that if they behave unacceptably they will be prosecuted. That requires not cameras nor technology, but traditional police on the ground.

and have full BTP backup in the said areas.

This, certainly.

Let the full power of the law be seen to being used to ensure that the crass behaviour of the few does not override the needs of the many. What may I ask is the policy of airlines in the matter of drunken passengers who want to fly?

An awful lot of drunk people get on planes every day, whatever the policy might technically be.

 

[DarloRich]

Some points and thoughts regarding Northern. My ballot paper by the way, was filled in and posted within the hour.

1) The franchise agreement does not allow for a Scotrail type arrangement. It is wishful thinking, and a point I make with my work colleagues who are under the illusion it is a way out.

2) 50% DOO by the franchise end. It stands to reason that it makes more financial sense to introduce this on future 'Northern connect' services, and new units as they appear. Adapting present stock makes no financial sense and this is as good as confirmed.

3) Northern is not Southern. I'm not talking about franchise and management contract issues either. Many Northern stations are simply not geared up to having no staff on board trains. The current plans to man more stations does not even come close. If they cut staff on trains doing revenue, ticketless travel would cripple Northern at a time when they are having to look forward to reduced subsidies. Some stations have three or four entrances to platforms with no form of barrier. People are not honest despite what they would have you believe. Ticketless travel is viewed by many as a victimless crime, opening the floodgates would swamp them.

4) The role will change in DOO areas. However, the diversity of Northern's fleet means it will be a very risky policy to have depots that are exclusively DOO.

5) Natural wastage of staff in some depots is exceptionally high. It would not make any sense to tear up existing pay and employment contracts when they could introduce changes to new staff contracts, and new staff will still appear despite the changes. Employment laws are still in existence although the trashy Tories would like you not to have access to them. Even Southern didn't risk cutting peoples wages.

6) Strike action at this time on Northern is not a forgone conclusion. There is still an underlying belief amongst many that they can trust 'Arriva' not to play too dirty like Southern have. It helps a little that most PTE's in the north are Labour controlled, and as stakeholders, will have a big say. Many are also saying the RMT has gone in for the fight too early. My soundings are that it will be a closer call than some believe, and any resulting action will have to be carefully thought out to keep people on board. If the RMT go in like a 'bull in a China shop' they may get their fingers burned.

that is a very good post actually!

 

[crehld]

Some points and thoughts regarding Northern. My ballot paper by the way, was filled in and posted within the hour.

1) The franchise agreement does not allow for a Scotrail type arrangement. It is wishful thinking, and a point I make with my work colleagues who are under the illusion it is a way out.

2) 50% DOO by the franchise end. It stands to reason that it makes more financial sense to introduce this on future 'Northern connect' services, and new units as they appear. Adapting present stock makes no financial sense and this is as good as confirmed.

3) Northern is not Southern. I'm not talking about franchise and management contract issues either. Many Northern stations are simply not geared up to having no staff on board trains. The current plans to man more stations does not even come close. If they cut staff on trains doing revenue, ticketless travel would cripple Northern at a time when they are having to look forward to reduced subsidies. Some stations have three or four entrances to platforms with no form of barrier. People are not honest despite what they would have you believe. Ticketless travel is viewed by many as a victimless crime, opening the floodgates would swamp them.

4) The role will change in DOO areas. However, the diversity of Northern's fleet means it will be a very risky policy to have depots that are exclusively DOO.

5) Natural wastage of staff in some depots is exceptionally high. It would not make any sense to tear up existing pay and employment contracts when they could introduce changes to new staff contracts, and new staff will still appear despite the changes. Employment laws are still in existence although the trashy Tories would like you not to have access to them. Even Southern didn't risk cutting peoples wages.

6) Strike action at this time on Northern is not a forgone conclusion. There is still an underlying belief amongst many that they can trust 'Arriva' not to play too dirty like Southern have. It helps a little that most PTE's in the north are Labour controlled, and as stakeholders, will have a big say. Many are also saying the RMT has gone in for the fight too early. My soundings are that it will be a closer call than some believe, and any resulting action will have to be carefully thought out to keep people on board. If the RMT go in like a 'bull in a China shop' they may get their fingers burned.

It may be worth adding a seventh point to this. Am I right in thinking the new Trade Union Act is now in force? This would mean any ballot would have to cross a 50% turnout threshold and at least 40% of all eligible members (whether they voted or not) would have to support strike action. Also any mandate for industrial action would only valid for six months.

 

[lejog]

I don't believe so.

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/trade-union-act-2016-draft-rules-public-service-industrial-action-unveiled/

The Government has published draft rules defining which public services are deemed “important” to require a 40% strike vote to take industrial action.

........

Once approved by Parliament, the Regulations will come into force on 1 March 2017 or, if Parliament has not approved the rules by then, 21 days after approval.

What is the date of the ballot?

 

[Camden]

It's an interesting law. On the one hand some public services are so important they require a certain level of vote to enable a strike... and yet no level of turnout is too low and no "victory" is by too narrow a margin in order to permit a government of random individuals wide ranging powers over nearly 70 million people.

I think that can only be either an admission that the government is of no real operational importance to the country, or a hypocritical discrepancy.

 

[northwichcat]

It's an interesting law. On the one hand some public services are so important they require a certain level of vote to enable a strike... and yet no level of turnout is too low and no "victory" is by too narrow a margin in order to permit a government of random individuals wide ranging powers over nearly 70 million people.

Indeed and if it was we would probably never have a majority Conservative or Labour government again, which is precisely why neither party would want to implement such a proposal. Note David Cameron rejected the Lib Dem's calls for a referendum on switching to proportional representation but allowed one on the alternative vote as a compromise, which probably wouldn't prevent a majority Conservative or Labour government.

 

[Moonshot]

It's an interesting law. On the one hand some public services are so important they require a certain level of vote to enable a strike... and yet no level of turnout is too low and no "victory" is by too narrow a margin in order to permit a government of random individuals wide ranging powers over nearly 70 million people.

I think that can only be either an admission that the government is of no real operational importance to the country, or a hypocritical discrepancy.

Probably some truth in that, I myself would certainly go down the route of " what services would I like the state to provide for which I pay tax " .....there is a proper debate to be had in that respect.