• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Arriva Rail North DOO

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,667
It doesn't need to be like this does it. I have listened carefully to both sides of the argument. I have spoken by email to the top bosses and heard what they have to say. The more I hear, the more I think they are lying. But I don't blame them entirely, it is clear who is behind this, and it is not them.

Shame on the Labour led PTE's also. Don't any Labour candidate come knocking on my door in the future begging for votes.

You seem to view this problem as very black and white. Do so at your peril. Nothing is ever as simple as you wish it to be.

What if those PTEs had a choice, try introduce DOO on some services or have no extra rolling stock in the franchise. Frankly would you put something like that past the DfT to try on? I wouldn't. What exactly would you do in a PTE if faced with that sort of position when you are desperately trying to improve the rail network in the North of England to try and boost our economy.

To make it clear i am not pro DOO, if you pinned me against the wall and forced me to answer i'd go the scotrail way, drivers open guards close. But i am just trying to demonstrate how the world is not black and white.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
Let's roll. This will make Southern look like a petty squabble.

I'm sure we'll all be watching events with great interest. There were many similar posts from RMT members about the Southern dispute but those same people have little to say nowadays.
Despite your comments I would hope that there is a deep down understanding that rail staff/unions should not be immune to progress.
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
Progress? Its been proven DOO is LESS Safe everyone who works on the railway regardless of their grade knows this. This is just about the DaFT trying to get more money for the TOC's Shareholders. The Northern and Merseyrail strikes will be a different beast because of one simple fact.... There is NO DOO in these areas whatsoever (unless you include empty stock). The vote has shown the feeling up here, now hopefully the DaFT/TOC's will see sense and put this DOO con to bed once and for all.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,421
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Progress? Its been proven DOO is LESS Safe everyone who works on the railway regardless of their grade knows this. This is just about the DaFT trying to get more money for the TOC's Shareholders. The Northern and Merseyrail strikes will be a different beast because of one simple fact.... There is NO DOO in these areas whatsoever (unless you include empty stock). The vote has shown the feeling up here, now hopefully the DaFT/TOC's will see sense and put this DOO con to bed once and for all.

I do agree the DfT should pack in forcing it on TOCs.

I can't, however, see any justification for retaining guards on Merseyrail. The argument is totally different (and has its own thread).

The RMT would do well to keep the arguments regarding Northern away from those regarding Merseyrail. The operations are only similar to the extent of there being 2 bits of rail two horses' backsides apart. Merseyrail is better compared to the London Underground, and I don't see any guards there.

Key comparisons:
- Merseyrail has all stations staffed throughout the period of service (except south of Hooton, where you could have a member of staff shuttling back and forward with a ticket machine), Northern does not.
- Merseyrail is self contained, short-distance and all accessible reasonably easily, Northern is not.
- Merseyrail's new stock will have level boarding with moving automatic gap-fillers, thus avoiding a need for wheelchair users to book advance assistance, Northern will not.
- Merseyrail have effective, railway-employed Byelaw enforcement people, Northern do not.
- Most of Merseyrail's key destination stations are barriered, most of Northern's are not, some aren't even feasible to be without major rebuild.
- Merseyrail is fully track circuited/axle counter fitted, Northern is not.
- Merseyrail is almost all two-track where a passenger-led evacuation to the offside would pose limited risks, Northern has many 4-track and more complex sections.

Etc.

In principle, I believe Northern should have traditional guards (but with a blanket switch to driver release/guard close of doors to prevent delays to disembarkation when doing tickets), but Merseyrail should not - there should be more directed provision of on board staff such as security guards/Byelaw teams, platform staff, tourist guides at busy times in heavily touristed areas etc.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,421
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Perhaps, but you only have to look at the number of PTI incidents on Tyne and Wear Metro to see what the consequences of DOO are...

How many PTI incidents are there on Metrolink, I wonder? That's also comparable.

What DOO system does Metro use - modern high quality monitors or wing mirrors? The new Merseyrail stock will use high quality monitors with on-train cameras showing relatively large views of (most of the time) just 6 pairs of doors.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,097
Location
Redcar
This thread should only be used to discuss the situation on Northern NOT the situation on Merseyrail. Anyone wishing to do so should use the existing thread for that topic. Any further posts relating to Merseyrail are liable for deletion unless they are VERY clearly related to the situation and dispute on Northern.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
Despite your comments I would hope that there is a deep down understanding that rail staff/unions should not be immune to progress.
I'd say that most of us accept that progress is inevitable, but that not every proposal represents progress in a way that benefits the industry or its customers!

I used to be a signalman. I knew, from the start, that my job was under threat from resignalling (my job's still there, for now, but I took the chance to move into a more secure job when it was offered). My employer was entirely open about their proposals, and kept us as well updated as they could. Did my union - the very same RMT - stamp its feet and demand continual industrial action? No - they instead worked constructively with Network Rail to further improve the communication and, more importantly, ensure that the process was managed so that those who didn't want to lose their job were supported in being redeployed and/or relocating and that those who were happy to leave were offered a good package. I don't believe there's been a single compulsory redundancy in the signalling grades during this process yet, and the latest pay deal includes a commitment to maintaining that position.

Why is the DOO dispute so different, then?
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
I'd say that most of us accept that progress is inevitable, but that not every proposal represents progress in a way that benefits the industry or its customers!

I used to be a signalman. I knew, from the start, that my job was under threat from resignalling (my job's still there, for now, but I took the chance to move into a more secure job when it was offered). My employer was entirely open about their proposals, and kept us as well updated as they could. Did my union - the very same RMT - stamp its feet and demand continual industrial action? No - they instead worked constructively with Network Rail to further improve the communication and, more importantly, ensure that the process was managed so that those who didn't want to lose their job were supported in being redeployed and/or relocating and that those who were happy to leave were offered a good package. I don't believe there's been a single compulsory redundancy in the signalling grades during this process yet, and the latest pay deal includes a commitment to maintaining that position.

Why is the DOO dispute so different, then?

Playing devil's advocate......

Why are you so sure that it truly is so different ? - not being told the whole story ?
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
Why are you so sure that it truly is so different ? - not being told the whole story ?
There's no doubt that the unions' (both ASLEF and RMT) response is very different - that's what I meant. There's one difference in the process itself that stands out, though.

Network Rail were entirely transparent about what they wanted to achieve, why and (even though the dates invariably slipped) when. There was no doubt that cost savings were a big, big part of what it was all about. It was clear that a lot of jobs would ultimately be lost.

Here, the TOCs (and the DfT) seem determined to dress it up as a big improvement that's going to greatly benefit passengers, making short-term guarantees of jobs being retained but no long-term assurances, the DfT are clearly deeply involved but are trying to hide behind the TOCs and there just seems to be an air of dishonesty hanging over the whole thing.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Progress? Its been proven DOO is LESS Safe everyone who works on the railway regardless of their grade knows this. This is just about the DaFT trying to get more money for the TOC's Shareholders. The Northern and Merseyrail strikes will be a different beast because of one simple fact.... There is NO DOO in these areas whatsoever (unless you include empty stock). The vote has shown the feeling up here, now hopefully the DaFT/TOC's will see sense and put this DOO con to bed once and for all.

You know apart from both ORR and RAIB both producing research reports that DOO is safer than Guard operation of doors. But I suppose canteen hearsay trumps physical evidence. The feeling among the population In Manchester and other big cities as well as visitors to London is they use light rail daily that is longer, more demanding to drive, and copes perfectly well without guards.

ASLEF has also previously signed up to operate DOO services in the North.
 
Last edited:

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
You know apart from both ORR and RAIB both producing research reports that DOO is safer than Guard operation of doors. But I suppose canteen hearsay trumps physical evidence. The feeling among the population In Manchester and other big cities as well as visitors to London is they use light rail daily that is longer, more demanding to drive, and copes perfectly well without guards.

ASLEF has also previously signed up to operate DOO services in the North.

Come on surely you should know that the bible containing the Gospels according to Crowe, Cash, Corbyn and Whelan contradicts those reports and anyone who believes the reports gets ex-communicated and must stay away from the railways for the rest of their lives. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,806
has anyone got links to reports about the safety aspect of DOO in relation to PTI ?
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
You know apart from both ORR and RAIB both producing research reports that DOO is safer than Guard operation of doors. But I suppose canteen hearsay trumps physical evidence. The feeling among the population In Manchester and other big cities as well as visitors to London is they use light rail daily that is longer, more demanding to drive, and copes perfectly well without guards.

ASLEF has also previously signed up to operate DOO services in the North.
Can you provide a reference to these RAIB and ORR reports that conclude that DOO is safer than Guard operation, please?

Regarding your own example of "canteen hearsay", or whatever the equivalent amongst the population In Manchester and other big cities is - how is the opinion of the travelling public on the technical aspects of the drivers' roles relevant? The vast majority have no idea what the jobs actually involve...
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
You know apart from both ORR and RAIB both producing research reports that DOO is safer than Guard operation of doors. But I suppose canteen hearsay trumps physical evidence. The feeling among the population In Manchester and other big cities as well as visitors to London is they use light rail daily that is longer, more demanding to drive, and copes perfectly well without guards.

ASLEF has also previously signed up to operate DOO services in the North.

where is this evidence you speak of? and I know that drivers (yes they are the ones who know all about "driving") do not want DOO and as I speak to passengers almost everyday (part and parcel of being a "guard") I have a pretty good idea of the feeling amongst passengers. ASLEF have not signed up to any DOO in Northernland or TPE so please do tell is there something that the 1300 Northern Guards and 1600 Northern Drivers don't know that you obviously do?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
ORR

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...driver-only-operation-report-january-2017.pdf

RSSB
https://www.rssb.co.uk/News/Pages/RSSB research projects find no increased safety risk from DOO.aspx

RAIB
You will have to browse through their various reports, but for example they are saying what happened on Merseyrail wouldn't have happened if the driver had been in control of doors because the guard cannot maintain vision through the entire dispatch process.

ASLEF signed up to operate DOO on class 185 before they were introduced to service, the TOC though never implemented it.
 
Last edited:

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
Come on surely you should know that the bible containing the Gospels according to Crowe, Cash, Corbyn and Whelan contradicts those reports and anyone who believes the reports gets ex-communicated and must stay away from the railways for the rest of their lives. ;)

Please do tell as you are so well versed in the railway why Red 43 magically vanished from all TOC's that have or was due to have a dispute regarding DOO as that Safety Video is part of a series that has been going for many years and used by almost all TOC's and Red 43 shows the severe dangers of DOO? or does all your years of experience with the MCRUA make you more knowledgable then drivers and guards?
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
ORR

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...driver-only-operation-report-january-2017.pdf

RSSB
https://www.rssb.co.uk/News/Pages/RSSB research projects find no increased safety risk from DOO.aspx

RAIB

You will have to browse through their various reports, but for example they are saying what happened on Merseyrail wouldn't have happened if the driver had been in control of doors because the guard cannot maintain vision through the entire dispatch process.

Everyone knows that McGhee was criminally negligent so how on earth can you use that argument?

from a good website that is respected

https://fullfact.org/economy/are-driver-only-trains-safe/

The union has released a dossier cataloguing incidents on the ‘Platform/Train Interface’ (getting on and off trains) that rail accident investigators have looked into since 2011. Of the 10 investigations into accidents of this nature, eight were on driver-only trains and two on trains with guards.

Two safety organisations have looked into driver-only trains

The Rail Safety and Standards Board is charged with helping the rail industry to improve safety. In a statement published in June 2016, it said that

“No increased risk from properly implemented Driver Only Operation has been detected in any research carried out by RSSB or its predecessor organisation 'Rail Safety'.

A number of projects have been published by RSSB over the last 15 years on various aspects of DOO (Driver Only Operation) on passenger trains. None of these pieces of work has identified any increased risk from dispatching a train without a guard being present—providing the correct procedures have been followed. The removal of any possible miscommunication, which could exist between driver and guard could, potentially, deliver some safety benefits.”

RMT denies that the Board is independent, pointing to the involvement of train company representatives on its board.

How a organisation can claim to be independent when it has Rail execs on their board is beyond me.

imho there needs to be a PURELY independent safety assessment by someone with NO affiliations/links etc. to either TOC's/Unions or Dft and only then will the argument be put to bed.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Was the safety video based on CAF Civity trains running on the UK network? And who funded the video? I know to question to source, something which some union members appear to not have the ability to do especially if the source is the leader of a union which is likely to be downscaled over the next 10 years.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
ORR

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...driver-only-operation-report-january-2017.pdf

RSSB
https://www.rssb.co.uk/News/Pages/RSSB research projects find no increased safety risk from DOO.aspx

RAIB
You will have to browse through their various reports, but for example they are saying what happened on Merseyrail wouldn't have happened if the driver had been in control of doors because the guard cannot maintain vision through the entire dispatch process.

ASLEF signed up to operate DOO on class 185 before they were introduced to service, the TOC though never implemented it.
So no, neither the RAIB nor the ORR have stated, as you claimed, that DOO is safer than Guard operated doors.

Not wishing to go off topic really, but what happened on Merseyrail could still happen on a DOO train - the difference being that the Driver would be far more likely to remain blissfully unaware of what had happened until reaching the next station (the Guard can't see much once he's carried out his safety check and closed his local door but will stand a good chance of picking up on visual cues on the platform and shouts of alarm - the Driver can't see *anything* once he's carried out his safety check and taken power). I don't recall the introduction of DOO being given as a recommendation in the RAIB report.

There don't appear to be any door controls readily accessible from the driving position (they're on the bulkhead behind the driver's and secondman's seat, if I recall), and certainly no dispatch monitors in the cab, so I find it most unlikely that ASLEF agreed to work them DOO(P).
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
Was the safety video based on CAF Civity trains running on the UK network? And who funded the video? I know to question to source, something which some union members appear to not have the ability to do especially if the source is the leader of a union which is likely to be downscaled over the next 10 years.

the rssb make the RED series of videos
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Last edited by a moderator:

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,329
Shouldn't have. It's been taken out of the briefs for a while

I have had the pleasure of seeing it twice, it couldnt have been more pro Guard if it had been produced by the RMT and ASLEF.

It perfectly shows how the driver can be completely overwhelmed in an emergency situation but I suppose its cheaper to pay out for the odd death (they can always blame the driver for it) than it is to have a proper Guard on board the trains.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
Who in 2017 say DOO can be safer than having guards as it removes the risk of miscommunication

https://www.rssb.co.uk/hot-topics/driver-only-operation

If the argument is they are not independent now, then is there strong evidence that they were independent when they opposed DOO?
A very strange press release which seems to contradict their own report on DOO implementation (which acknowledges that the risk associated with each of thirteen defined "undesired events" - likelihood and consequences - may be greater under DOO). There's no reference to any research or statistics to support their rather simplistic claim. The implication seems to be that the numerous individual risks are considered exactly equal between DOO and conventional operation, with the exception of this seemingly unlikely risk of "miscommunication", which is a rather bizarre and illogical claim. Incidentally, I'd welcome some actual examples of this mysterious driver/guard "miscommunication"...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top