Could do with a lot more detail of what the longer term plan is .....right now its very sketchy.
-
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
- Thread starter Andrew32
- Start date
- Status
Could do with a lot more detail of what the longer term plan is .....right now its very sketchy.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
northwichcat
Veteran Member
One problem the RMT face is they seem to want long-term assurances that on board staff will be retained, while the TOC can only give assurances for the current franchise period. In theory DfT could give a long-term assurance but in practice any assurance would only be valid if the Conservatives remain in government and the RMT can not take strike action against DfT if they don't give a long-term assurance or break their agreement.
Which from the way I ve just read your post would seem to say a long term assurance could be given but only if you vote Conservative !!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
[Bangs his head on the table] That most supercilious comment above, especially as now TWICE I have stated that I do NOT know what the job of a guard entails, but where I kindly asked what standing instructions for guards were on three of the scenarios that YOU so described as having dealt with, where you satisfy yourself with making a stock defensive answer above rather than answering the question you were asked, beggars belief [/Bangs his head on the table]...:roll:
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
It is plain for all to see what colours of yours are "nailed to the mast", yet there are claims made by some union staff that there is no political agenda.
Last edited:
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Any government promise is only valid as long as the governing party is in government.
How many of Brown's promises were dropped after he lost the 2010 election?
Last edited by a moderator:
How many government promises are dropped while they are still in office??
Government promises are only tentatively potentially valid if they can be enforced in the courts and you have the means to do so. Otherwise they're not worth the vellum they're not yet written on.
Government promises are only tentatively potentially valid if they can be enforced in the courts and you have the means to do so. Otherwise they're not worth the vellum they're not yet written on.
Last edited:
I assume you mean the party election manifestos on which each one produces prior to an election. What were the promises made by each party in relation to the Northern Franchise ?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
The tendering process began before the last general election. The Northern franchise specification was set by both parties in coalition government (Conservatives and Lib Dems) plus Rail North. The two most influential bodies on the Rail North board are TfGM and Metro, which are both Labour controlled. Therefore, you could say the specification was an agreement between the three largest political parties in England.
Ah right...the Rail North body was one that had slipped my mind.
I just had a text from RMT stating that posters and the like have been put up by Northern saying that the strike has been called off.....has anyone seen one of these?
No, if I meant that I would have said that.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Website homepage still says
It's much quicker to update a website than to create, print and put up a load of posters. I suspect if any posters have been put up they have been done by an anti-DOO group to try and stir things up more.
Noted.....website still saying there is a strike on Monday
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Week on Monday
sorry yes....missed the date off
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,498
This conversation has been done to death, if you don't accept/understand how easily disposable OBS or equivalent are in comparison to Guards by now, than you're obviously not interested in hearing that theory again.
Obviously if you were a Guard you'd be happy to concede the only duty that gave you any real job security, even though you have nothing to gain by doing so. When you inevitably get made redundant, however many years that is down the line, sooner or later, seemingly you'd support or at least accept industrial action at that point, even though (by design) industrial action then will be completely irrelevant and pointless, that valuable horse having bolted when you happily opened the door for it and DCO/DOO now...
Finally Paul you got your proof! Yeah, the whole DOO/DCO implementation thing is irrelevant and somehow all these TOCs managed employ thousands of anti-Conservative revolutionaries who wish to bring down the state... You got us! To think, the Guards on Merseyrail are solely striking to throw you personally off the scent, what with our Labour brothers being behind the DOO plans there. I'll let the brothers there know they can go back to work now, as you've worked us all out. :roll:
No one ever said not one person in the Guard grade dislikes the Conservatives, but even wingsoveryork has stated he's fighting for his job, rather than just fighting some crusade against the Conservatives for the sake of it, like you have seemed to suggest is widely the case, many times...
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I would kindly ask you to read the exact wording of posting # 567, as that was the one to which I responded to and think of the sentiments expressed therein.
Obviously someone thinks nothing of all the hard work in the winter months that have gone into the reopening of the Settle to Carlisle line.
modernrail
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,456
As a matter of interest does anybody know how many guards there are in the UK and the average salary? It would be interesting to compare this with the Network Rail budget. I happen to think a safety essential second member of staff is important, especially on the modern, extremely crowded network.
I did a bit of a calculation based on the number of passengers required on board a Southport - Manchester off-peak train required to pay for the guard. Using my very rough maths it is 2 passengers. Think about this on a stuffed Southern train with peak fares and it is probably 1 person. 1 person's fare for a very useful second pair of hands seems like bloody good value to me.
I would be interested to see what NR would have to agree to save to fund the franchises to retain guards. For me, this is the sort of face saving compromise that should be persued.
This is not to agree for a second with the RMT or the way it has run this whole thing. I think it is inexcusable that they have caused so much disruption to the lives of already stressed very hard working customers, especially parents, who pay the wages of their members. There is no justification to strike when jobs are not at risk. If this really was about passenger safety as the union claims, they should have shown vastly more respect to the travelling public they claim to fight for (which is not their job) and made a damn sight more effort to get them on side.
I did a bit of a calculation based on the number of passengers required on board a Southport - Manchester off-peak train required to pay for the guard. Using my very rough maths it is 2 passengers. Think about this on a stuffed Southern train with peak fares and it is probably 1 person. 1 person's fare for a very useful second pair of hands seems like bloody good value to me.
I would be interested to see what NR would have to agree to save to fund the franchises to retain guards. For me, this is the sort of face saving compromise that should be persued.
This is not to agree for a second with the RMT or the way it has run this whole thing. I think it is inexcusable that they have caused so much disruption to the lives of already stressed very hard working customers, especially parents, who pay the wages of their members. There is no justification to strike when jobs are not at risk. If this really was about passenger safety as the union claims, they should have shown vastly more respect to the travelling public they claim to fight for (which is not their job) and made a damn sight more effort to get them on side.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
By my reckoning 2 x off-peak returns for Southport to Manchester Airport would pay the guard's salary for around 2 hours. Southport to Manchester Airport is longer than 1 hour in each direction and the guard isn't just paid from the departure time to the arrival time. Also note train crews have shorter working weeks and longer holidays than most people who work full time so the number of hours worked a year is lower than the average. Therefore, I imagine it's at least 4 off-peak returns for the entire route and even more if it's a service which takes mainly PTE subsided fares.
Typical working weeks are only marginally shorter though, 35 hours is only marginally shorter than the 37 hour week typical in the public sector. Additionally that takes no account of areas where Sundays are outside the working week.
Again not entirely representative on holiday either - remember that bank holidays should be deducted from the holiday allowance to obtain a comparative figure with most other industries.
A better way of looking at that is how much revenue would be lost if the guard wasnt on board. I generally take around £50k a year in tickets, but I guess most of that would be revenue collected anyway at barriers. In effect I m worth what I get from pax travelling between stations with no facilities.
I fully understand your concerns about job security having been through similar issues myself, however the RMTs been well aware of these planned changes for at least 2-3 years by now (probably a lot longer) and could have at least tried to use that time far more productively attempting to negotiate reasonable changes in working practice, pay, job security etc. instead of merely hoping an alliance with their ASLEF brothers will ultimately deliver all their demands through industrial action
Last edited:
modernrail
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,456
The problem with the fare revenue collection, whilst completely valid in some existing contexts, argument for me is that over time, this will become less relevant as the ticket buying becomes easier at stations etc. Guards on Southern, for instance, don't undertake that function particularly.
The irony is that guards on northern probably have to work quite a bit harder than Southern in this regard. There are also huge inefficiencies on northern that are not the fault of guards, for instance the fact that doubled up units often seem to have two guards. This is down to the rolling stock with no unit connections.
That is why I would rather the debate focussed on the fact that you really should have a member is staff on board that does not need to focus their atttention on driving. I am completely comfortable with drivers dispatching as a rule where the technology is in place. However, importantly I think the driver should always have the option of asking the guard to dispatch, maybe with a ping over the tannoy or simple announcement. That might be where screens are not working or where the driver just wants the extra pair of eyes involved in dispatch.
On Southern, which is a good example of a well served line in terms of good availability of station ticket buying being the norm, the role does need to evolve. I have been on many trains where the guard seems to have very little to do. It would be very useful for passengers to have much better access to this guard, as they do on northern, to ask questions, help with more vulnerable passengers etc. A couple of ideas on this. First, dual train some of the guards as security, possibly even with some BTP powers. It won't be for every guard but would help on busy traditionally rowdy trains, for instance on match days. Second, widen the tickets that can be sold by guards on Southern, so passengers can buy tickets for onward travel, the next day or even buy ahead proper advance fares. There have been many times when I would have done this reducing strain on ticket offices or gate lines and enhancing that revenue role.
My view is that the guard, driver and train company need to feel like they are working much more in partnership. Together, they need to contribute to an efficient system that is paid for and has a good passenger experience. I would support guards to the hilt if they made this much more positive argument. The bottom line is that there should be a guard on routes where you go outside the heavily urbanised systems. I do think there is an argument for DOO without a guard on Merseyrail and the London Overground. The total number of staff on these systems is decent, with staff at all stations which is a very important point. This is why I think the argument for guards needs to be made in a different, much more positive way, with the the underlying anchor that the driver should have the option of delegating doors to the guard.
Yes, the logic of my argument is that I would reverse any situation on the network where trains currently run without a second member of staff. I just think we need to isolate the cost, as a proportion of overall costs, and argue much more vigorously that a crowded railway, sometimes with lots of unstaffed stations at certain times of the day, just needs that number of humans to help get everything to work smoothly.
Other parts of the railway also need to be engage with the debate. I have a sneaking suspicion that the saving required in the NR budget to guarantee funding for guards would be proportionately small compared to the cost of guards on all trains. Bearing in mind the important role guards play in times of disruption, helping to keep the system moving, I bet there is a case to be made that NR enjoys a follow on benefit, with their fines reduced by the actions of guards. It is difficult to quantify and obviously does not help in cases severe infrastructure failures are so serious as to deprive the guard of any useful opportunity to help. However, look at the Lime Street situation. There are guards on northern at the moment that are providing very useful man/lady power in keeping the system moving as best as it can in a difficult situation. This is to NR's benefit as it tries to maximise the use of a sub-optimal system until repairs are made.
As a cheeky example, what is the total cost of guards this year compared to the cost of the overrun on GW electrification? Do colleagues in NR realise that their poorly managed programme is putting a strain on finances that cause the network to look for savings in other places? Is it too much to ask them to have this at the front of their minds when trying to get things right?
The irony is that guards on northern probably have to work quite a bit harder than Southern in this regard. There are also huge inefficiencies on northern that are not the fault of guards, for instance the fact that doubled up units often seem to have two guards. This is down to the rolling stock with no unit connections.
That is why I would rather the debate focussed on the fact that you really should have a member is staff on board that does not need to focus their atttention on driving. I am completely comfortable with drivers dispatching as a rule where the technology is in place. However, importantly I think the driver should always have the option of asking the guard to dispatch, maybe with a ping over the tannoy or simple announcement. That might be where screens are not working or where the driver just wants the extra pair of eyes involved in dispatch.
On Southern, which is a good example of a well served line in terms of good availability of station ticket buying being the norm, the role does need to evolve. I have been on many trains where the guard seems to have very little to do. It would be very useful for passengers to have much better access to this guard, as they do on northern, to ask questions, help with more vulnerable passengers etc. A couple of ideas on this. First, dual train some of the guards as security, possibly even with some BTP powers. It won't be for every guard but would help on busy traditionally rowdy trains, for instance on match days. Second, widen the tickets that can be sold by guards on Southern, so passengers can buy tickets for onward travel, the next day or even buy ahead proper advance fares. There have been many times when I would have done this reducing strain on ticket offices or gate lines and enhancing that revenue role.
My view is that the guard, driver and train company need to feel like they are working much more in partnership. Together, they need to contribute to an efficient system that is paid for and has a good passenger experience. I would support guards to the hilt if they made this much more positive argument. The bottom line is that there should be a guard on routes where you go outside the heavily urbanised systems. I do think there is an argument for DOO without a guard on Merseyrail and the London Overground. The total number of staff on these systems is decent, with staff at all stations which is a very important point. This is why I think the argument for guards needs to be made in a different, much more positive way, with the the underlying anchor that the driver should have the option of delegating doors to the guard.
Yes, the logic of my argument is that I would reverse any situation on the network where trains currently run without a second member of staff. I just think we need to isolate the cost, as a proportion of overall costs, and argue much more vigorously that a crowded railway, sometimes with lots of unstaffed stations at certain times of the day, just needs that number of humans to help get everything to work smoothly.
Other parts of the railway also need to be engage with the debate. I have a sneaking suspicion that the saving required in the NR budget to guarantee funding for guards would be proportionately small compared to the cost of guards on all trains. Bearing in mind the important role guards play in times of disruption, helping to keep the system moving, I bet there is a case to be made that NR enjoys a follow on benefit, with their fines reduced by the actions of guards. It is difficult to quantify and obviously does not help in cases severe infrastructure failures are so serious as to deprive the guard of any useful opportunity to help. However, look at the Lime Street situation. There are guards on northern at the moment that are providing very useful man/lady power in keeping the system moving as best as it can in a difficult situation. This is to NR's benefit as it tries to maximise the use of a sub-optimal system until repairs are made.
As a cheeky example, what is the total cost of guards this year compared to the cost of the overrun on GW electrification? Do colleagues in NR realise that their poorly managed programme is putting a strain on finances that cause the network to look for savings in other places? Is it too much to ask them to have this at the front of their minds when trying to get things right?
Last edited:
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Figure in payroll taxes and personnel overheads its more like 7/8.
modernrail
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,456
Is it? I took an average that included payroll taxes and overheads, so £30k average. I then divided this by 300 days and presumed 5 diagrams per day. This might be too low, I just don't know the exact average, but I can't see it needing 7/8 passenger fares on most routes at most times. Then average in very busy trains and the number drops further.
Even if it is, most trains on the network are so full that this does not seem to be a deal breaker, I just don't believe it is this high.
Even if it is, most trains on the network are so full that this does not seem to be a deal breaker, I just don't believe it is this high.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
28 days including BH is the legal minimum and what a lot of businesses offer. Some offer up to 33 but you normally only get 33 after you've worked for them for a while. People working BHs is becoming more and more common.
37.5 compared to 35 is 115 hours extra over the course of the year so equivalent to doing over 3 extra weeks work a year. The standard 37.5 in the public sector also doesn't include any meal breaks, they are additional unpaid hours.
Last edited by a moderator:
So just to clarify seen as though this is what I do for a living......its a 35 hour week which will vary slightly week to week according to the roster. All breaks are inclusive in that 35 hours.....and its also a 4 day week. Sundays are outside of the working week and are paid as overtime....they are voluntary though there is a system of booked overtime.
modernrail
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,456
I have to say I don't get this 4 day week non-Sunday business. Going forward would guards not prefer a 5 day week with guaranteed salary increase but in exchange for Sunday working as standard?
Am I as a passenger paying for overtime rates for Sunday guards and for lots of guards hours that are overtime Monday to Saturday? If so, that is unacceptable. The RMT cannot expect passengers to take strikes with anything other than extreme anger when guards are currently enjoying arrangements that are just not the norm in the U.K.
I am not saying guards get paid a fortune, I don't think they do, but the railway needs a more certain cost and resource base. If the RMT cannot engage with that concept, expect railway companies to try to find a workaround.
Am I as a passenger paying for overtime rates for Sunday guards and for lots of guards hours that are overtime Monday to Saturday? If so, that is unacceptable. The RMT cannot expect passengers to take strikes with anything other than extreme anger when guards are currently enjoying arrangements that are just not the norm in the U.K.
I am not saying guards get paid a fortune, I don't think they do, but the railway needs a more certain cost and resource base. If the RMT cannot engage with that concept, expect railway companies to try to find a workaround.
Last edited:
wingsoveryorks
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 258
What you have to understand firstly is that Northern, (I cannot speak for other TOC's arrangements) actually have three different sets of employment contracts in force. The old Northern Spirit or (Evil spirit) as we knew them, the old First North Western, and now part of the old Transpennine.
In the last franchise it was suggested to try and bring these terms of employment in line. It proved impossible mainly because Abellio would only attempt it on a cost neutral basis.
You have to understand that Sunday working is not part of our working week, but this is because the TOC's benefit financially from this. The RMT in particular is, and always has been, open to negotiation about bringing it into the working week. But because of diagram issues, it would mean employing more staff if this happened. They have always found it cheaper to use overtime as a cheaper option. As for thinking it is bad us being paid overtime Monday-Saturday, hang on. we get 12% overtime rate. What would you prefer, no trains? The TOC's wouldn't at a going rate of about £5,000 per cancellation. You might do a couple of hours on a Saturday morning overtime, we do a whole day. Why blame the guards for being paid to keep the trains running? I mean, I will happily not go in and work over on Monday, but they'll be a lot of rather pee'd off commuters. Where does this four day week come from? We work five, sometimes up to seven in a row, that is how we get rest day blocks.
Don't blame the RMT for this. The offer has always been there, but overtime and goodwill has always been the chosen path.
Last edited:
- Status