Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

Quite possibly. It'll also only be the new stock which is DOO-capable.

If Arriva had wanted to they could have gone for refurbished 158s and 170s on Northern Connect routes and ordered 195s with more short distance style interiors for other routes.

 

[northwichcat]

Article in my local paper today quotes Mick Cash as saying "The passengers want...."

What form of market research have the RMT undertaken in the Northern franchise area?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Article in my local paper today quotes Mick Cash as saying "The passengers want...."

What form of market research have the RMT undertaken in the Northern franchise area?

I know the majority of passengers I speak are set against DCO/DOO. Sure there are some that don't really care but there are plenty that do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Arriva had wanted to they could have gone for refurbished 158s and 170s on Northern Connect routes and ordered 195s with more short distance style interiors for other routes.

I'm sure they could (LM did in the West Midlands, for example - the Class 172s were built to replace the 150s on suburban work), but TOCs typically prefer putting the better (new) rolling stock on more lucrative long distance work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know the majority of passengers I speak are set against DCO/DOO. Sure there are some that don't really care but there are plenty that do.

I suspect they are set against not having a second person on the train, not what that second person's precise role is. I similarly suspect they would be happy with a Strathclyde approach.

 

[Robertj21a]

I know the majority of passengers I speak are set against DCO/DOO. Sure there are some that don't really care but there are plenty that do.

I can accept that '.......the majority of passengers I speak to are set against DCO/DOO' - that's partly because you're speaking to them on that very subject !!
I'd be far more amazed if any significant number of the general passengers were in the least bit bothered by it. Some passengers on Thameslink have said that they would be up in arms if anybody tried to remove the guard from their trains.......... [There's no guards on Thameslink]

 

[BestWestern]

I can accept that '.......the majority of passengers I speak to are set against DCO/DOO' - that's partly because you're speaking to them on that very subject !!
I'd be far more amazed if any significant number of the general passengers were in the least bit bothered by it. Some passengers on Thameslink have said that they would be up in arms if anybody tried to remove the guard from their trains.......... [There's no guards on Thameslink]

If you were to ask the clear, unbiased question, "Would you prefer to have qualified, safety trained customer facing staff on board the train, or use trains where the Driver is the sole member of staff", and you pointed out that neither option is likely to affect the price of their ticket, very few would likely prefer DOO. Why would they, the staffed option is clearly beneficial.

 

[Robertj21a]

If you were to ask the clear, unbiased question, "Would you prefer to have qualified, safety trained customer facing staff on board the train, or use trains where the Driver is the sole member of staff", and you pointed out that neither option is likely to affect the price of their ticket, very few would likely prefer DOO. Why would they, the staffed option is clearly beneficial.

Quite possibly. You could also ask if they wanted a further person to be employed to answer any questions/serve coffee/give a guided tour etc etc - I'm guessing that they'd agree with that too.

 

[northwichcat]

I can accept that '.......the majority of passengers I speak to are set against DCO/DOO' - that's partly because you're speaking to them on that very subject !!
I'd be far more amazed if any significant number of the general passengers were in the least bit bothered by it. Some passengers on Thameslink have said that they would be up in arms if anybody tried to remove the guard from their trains.......... [There's no guards on Thameslink]

And like I've mentioned before when the BBC spoke to passengers they found a few who thought Northern had already removed guards from trains because they rarely see any member of staff walk through while making a journey. Some obviously think the primary function of a guard is providing a visible staff presence.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm sure they could (LM did in the West Midlands, for example - the Class 172s were built to replace the 150s on suburban work), but TOCs typically prefer putting the better (new) rolling stock on more lucrative long distance work.

Whether Sheffield to Lincoln, Bradford to Manchester and Newcastle to Carlisle are the more lucrative routes is debatable. Although, I accept on some routes they'll be directly competing against other operators e.g. Manchester to Preston, Manchester to Liverpool, Manchester to Chester and Sheffield to Nottingham.

 

[3141]

If you were to ask the clear, unbiased question, "Would you prefer to have qualified, safety trained customer facing staff on board the train, or use trains where the Driver is the sole member of staff", and you pointed out that neither option is likely to affect the price of their ticket, very few would likely prefer DOO. Why would they, the staffed option is clearly beneficial.

I don't think it's unbiased if you include terms such as "qualified, safety trained customer facing staff". "A second member of staff" might be unbiased.

 

[Wombat]

If you were to ask the clear, unbiased question, "Would you prefer to have qualified, safety trained customer facing staff on board the train, or use trains where the Driver is the sole member of staff", and you pointed out that neither option is likely to affect the price of their ticket, very few would likely prefer DOO. Why would they, the staffed option is clearly beneficial.

Hard to ask an unbiased question that conveys all the relevant information. If you asked "Would you like us to have the ability to maintain our regular service even if no guard is available?" I suspect you'd get a lot of support for that one too.

 

[BestWestern]

I don't think it's unbiased if you include terms such as "qualified, safety trained customer facing staff". "A second member of staff" might be unbiased.

It is perfectly unbiased. There is little point in asking with no description of what the staff member does.

 

[3141]

It is perfectly unbiased. There is little point in asking with no description of what the staff member does.

We have completely opposed views about whether it's biased or unbiased.

"Qualified" doesn't say anything about what the person does. "Safety trained" implies that the person knows what to do if everyone has to get off the train for some reason, but that's very unusual. "Customer facing" only says that they're there to tell you things if necessary. But all three of those terms would have the effect of encouraging people to answer "Yes" to the question, which would not be unbiased.

 

[Tomnick]

We have completely opposed views about whether it's biased or unbiased.

"Qualified" doesn't say anything about what the person does. "Safety trained" implies that the person knows what to do if everyone has to get off the train for some reason, but that's very unusual. "Customer facing" only says that they're there to tell you things if necessary. But all three of those terms would have the effect of encouraging people to answer "Yes" to the question, which would not be unbiased.

...whereas omitting those three terms would mean that people wouldn't be given the information that they'd need to give a relatively informed answer to the question.

 

[Robertj21a]

It is perfectly unbiased. There is little point in asking with no description of what the staff member does.

But isn't this the basic dilemma for guards, and the RMT ? The general travelling public don't really have any interest in what the guard does - they think he/she may 'wave the train off' and may open/shut the doors, possibly check tickets. They don't usually know whether or not their train even has a guard on board - and don't seem too bothered either way.

As we've all said for a good many months now, the RMT has been very poor at conveying to the public what a guard actually does, and why. All the time that the public have such little regard/interest in the role then there's little chance of any tangible support.

 

[3141]

But isn't this the basic dilemma for guards, and the RMT ? The general travelling public don't really have any interest in what the guard does - they think he/she may 'wave the train off' and may open/shut the doors, possibly check tickets. They don't usually know whether or not their train even has a guard on board - and don't seem too bothered either way.

As we've all said for a good many months now, the RMT has been very poor at conveying to the public what a guard actually does, and why. All the time that the public have such little regard/interest in the role then there's little chance of any tangible support.

...whereas omitting those three terms would mean that people wouldn't be given the information that they'd need to give a relatively informed answer to the question.

If it were possible to discuss this issue dispassionately, the starting-point would be a definition of what a second member of staff should be there to do. Robertj21a has stated that the public in general aren't sure. The "three terms" BestWestern proposed and which I questioned represent what he believes the guard should be there for. The second staff member now on Southern services, the name for whom I forget, presumably does the customer-facing bit but I'm not sure what else, or how important it is.

For people to be able to provide a relatively-informed answer about whether there should be a second person some statistical information should be available. You can't give objective answers without objective facts. But feelings on this issue are so strong that getting agreement on those facts and how to express them seems very unlikely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

neither option is likely to affect the price of their ticket

That may or may not be the case. It might not affect the *ticket* price but might affect taxation. The Government isn't just going to allow it to go on TOC profits. So the saving will, in some form, make it to passengers.

If the question was framed as "If we could get public spending on the railway down a bit by having only the driver on local trains", I expect you'd see much more support.

 

[muz379]

I believe Northern are trying to achieve a franchise requirement while retaining as many services as possible with guards. If they were targeting all-stops services to be DCO to achieve 50% of passenger mileage as DCO then the number of traditional guards required would be significantly less.

I dont know if it is fair to say that it is a concerted effort to retain guards on as many services as possible . I think it is more the case that infrastructure is going to place heavy limits on places that DCO can be introduced and Northern and the dft know this .

I think it would be naive to think that the 50% target would still exist or that northern would do anything to moderate the effects of the target if we had totally compliant modern infrastructure up north .

I dont think that Northern are really doing anything other than being a puppet for the DFT in this area . And in future franchises if the infrastructure upgrades that are needed take place the DFT will be looking to extend DCO and whichever franchise owner is in place then will be puppet for round two of the battle .


People on this thread have alluded to the fact that metrolink runs with only a driver on board the vast majority of trams . But look at the fares on metrolink , and look at the money that TFGM has ploughed into infrastructure at metrolink .

But isn't this the basic dilemma for guards, and the RMT ? The general travelling public don't really have any interest in what the guard does - they think he/she may 'wave the train off' and may open/shut the doors, possibly check tickets. They don't usually know whether or not their train even has a guard on board - and don't seem too bothered either way.

As we've all said for a good many months now, the RMT has been very poor at conveying to the public what a guard actually does, and why. All the time that the public have such little regard/interest in the role then there's little chance of any tangible support.

Whilst I am not for one minute saying that the RMT is or has been perfect in its handling of these disputes . I think it is worth mentioning that the media have framed this dispute as an argument over who presses the button to close the doors . Essentially trivialising the safety critical task of dispatching a train , and also completely ignoring the many other things a guard is competent in dealing with . Including the essential role they can and often do play in out of course situations of all kinds .

That may or may not be the case. It might not affect the *ticket* price but might affect taxation. The Government isn't just going to allow it to go on TOC profits. So the saving will, in some form, make it to passengers.

If the question was framed as "If we could get public spending on the railway down a bit by having only the driver on local trains", I expect you'd see much more support.

"local trains"

What do we mean by this though , a large number of northern trains travel accross county boundaries , some of them travelling through several major towns and cities on their journey .

What to someone might be a local train from Manchester to Bolton is actually a train that travels through several major towns , a few cities,large rural areas and across counties .

Someone asked that question might think well yes from Manchester to Bolton the guard has never been of any use nor benefit to me . But to run that train the whole distance without a guard because of the views of travellers only making short local journeys would be daft .

 

[Robertj21a]

----Edit


Whilst I am not for one minute saying that the RMT is or has been perfect in its handling of these disputes . I think it is worth mentioning that the media have framed this dispute as an argument over who presses the button to close the doors . Essentially trivialising the safety critical task of dispatching a train , and also completely ignoring the many other things a guard is competent in dealing with . Including the essential role they can and often do play in out of course situations of all kinds .



.

I agree up to a point but then the media is hardly known for bothering with facts at the best of times. No, it was for the RMT to come down hard - and fast - on getting the facts much clearer (not whingeing on about Tories, fat cats, profits etc).

All I'm sure of is that Bob Crow would have been straight in front of a TV camera explaining bluntly, but clearly, what the real issues were.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"local trains"

What do we mean by this though

Ones that would be S/RB/R/RE in Switzerland or Germany, so all of Northern. (Note I'm not in support of this, but certainly in CH DOO and Penalty Fares are the default on such trains).

I do think we will need to consider rural DOO at some point, and a driver only branch line 153 is in my book much safer than a 12 car commuter service.

 

[northwichcat]

Article in my local paper today quotes Mick Cash as saying "The passengers want...."

What form of market research have the RMT undertaken in the Northern franchise area?

Someone's summed up a very good response elsewhere saying passengers want more modern clean trains and faster and more frequent services with who releases the doors or dispatches the train not being something they really care about.

It is annoying that the RMT, Arriva and DfT have all failed to properly inform passengers of what the planned changes are and yet try to claim they are doing what passengers want. Most passengers think driver only operation and the driver being the only member of staff on board a train are the same thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is annoying that the RMT, Arriva and DfT have all failed to properly inform passengers of what the planned changes are and yet try to claim they are doing what passengers want. Most passengers think driver only operation and the driver being the only member of staff on board a train are the same thing.

That's because on pretty much all of the present DOO lines that is precisely the case.

That might be why the term DCO is being bandied about, which points more at a Strathclyde style approach (a second member of staff on all trains who does not have responsibility for the train itself).

 

[LowLevel]

Ones that would be S/RB/R/RE in Switzerland or Germany, so all of Northern. (Note I'm not in support of this, but certainly in CH DOO and Penalty Fares are the default on such trains).

I do think we will need to consider rural DOO at some point, and a driver only branch line 153 is in my book much safer than a 12 car commuter service.

The problem with class 153 as any train crew would tell you is that actually they're among the higher risk trains to operate - there aren't *that* many such branch lines and in rural areas your chances of collisions on crossings etc increase. Being a single carriage with an engine and fuel tank beneath the answer to most problems is an emergency evacuation out of the train and owing to poor design the driver has only one exit from the cab making it easy for them to become trapped.

Part of the traction training for class 153 is repeatedly having it drilled into you 'if in doubt get everybody out' which is the opposite to usual accepted railway wisdom.

Take the Matlock branch - this is a very busy little railway line full of connecting passengers from long distance services (more disability assistance required), substandard platform infrastructure, complicated tickets and of a summer weekend hundreds of bikes and push chairs to contend with and get stored safely - it's also not unusual to see single 153s. Running a DOO penalty fare only service would raise many eyebrows (They were annoyed enough at being left with the ticket machines and one guard having got accustomed to having two on train staff!).

 

[HH]

(They were annoyed enough at being left with the ticket machines and one guard having got accustomed to having two on train staff!).

It's simple, most people don't like change. Full stop.

 

[BestWestern]

It's simple, most people don't like change. Full stop.

...and some people don't like stupid decisions made for the wrong reasons.

 

[northwichcat]

...and some people don't like stupid decisions made for the wrong reasons.

And some people (like Mick Cash or Boris Johnson) think an idea is stupid but can't find real facts to prove it's stupid so resort to making up things which look like facts.

 

[Andrew32]

It's very difficult to see any way out of the impasse here -the company are APPARENTLY making it clear they want whole lines of route where there will be no second member of staff on the train at all - so they want three modes of operation Guard (where the infrastructure doesn't currently allow DOO) - some sort of in between system where there's no guarantee of a second person but there might be - and finally a system where they plan to have no second person on board at all.

 

[northwichcat]

It's very difficult to see any way out of the impasse here -the company are APPARENTLY making it clear they want whole lines of route where there will be no second member of staff on the train at all

Are they? There's no provision for planning to operate services with only a driver on board in the franchise agreement but there is provision for operating a service with just a driver on board if a scheduled member of staff is unavailable. The RMT have been asking Arriva for a guarantee the latter won't happen and the service would instead be cancelled but Arriva have refused.

 

[Andrew32]

Yes that's the question 'ARE THEY?'

Thats why I put apparently, there seems to be an awful lot of the company are going to do this and they company are going to do that, the current proposals represent a blank sheet of paper because the union are stonewalling the company in regards to two questions being answered.

We ain't talking until two questions have been answered, that attitude will no get things resolved and could result in employees being given a deal they don't want rather than one that's negotiated by both sides.