Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

A statement from Mick Cash was just read out on the news. It sounds like he thinks if there's enough rail strikes they can bring an end to a Conservative minority government and the railways will get nationalised under a new government. So the strikes aren't about safety - they're about the RMT making a political point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure the guards foregoing thousands of pounds in wages themselves would also like to see it stop but until the DfT and the TOCs cease to play silly games it's unlikely to get any better.

That rather depends on whether you consider DOO a "silly game" or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A statement from Mick Cash was just read out on the news. It sounds like he thinks if there's enough rail strikes they can bring an end to a Conservative minority government and the railways will get nationalised under a new government. So the strikes aren't about safety - they're about the RMT making a political point.

Given that it's the Government pushing for DOO, in what way would achieving that stop DOO?

Clue: it wouldn't - if anything there would be more DOO. Most of the existing DOO came in under BR.

 

[313103]

To clarify when you mean left the industry do you mean subject to compulsory redundancy or accepted a voluntary redundancy offer or refused an offer of an alternative role on same pay? Merseyrail have promised no compulsory redundancies for permanent employees therefore its hard to understand why some people are certain a large number of Merseyrail and Northern conductors will literally end up unemployed and in the dole queue.

I took voluntary redundancy as i felt personally the company did want my services anymore. So you could say i refused to do a role that its only purpose is to stop a policy of compulsory redundancies. In the end i moved 200 miles and took on another role.

Companies loath to use Compulsory redundancies unless they are on the verge of closing down ie BHS etc, because it makes them look bad. Companies go down the road of voluntary redundancies because it softens the blow of receiving bad news for current employees and it makes it much easier for staff to leave because you have given them a opportunity to do so.

Merseyrail of course have to say this it is spin. They have already admitted that passengers have a choice of either new trains or keep the staff, that alone tells me they want/need to reduce the overall head count. However what they will do is to create new roles within the company that only those who were guards will go into, the same as on London Overground, the same as on Southern these roles are closed on the point of being filled in by surplus staff.

The way this country works you cannot go unemployed because you have left or been made redundant, the onus is on the company to make sure they either take on new roles or allow you to take a redundancy settlement that way the onus is then on the individual to find work and cannot claim any state benefit. So no one will end up on the dole queue per se, but to many there own usefulness is at an end.

 

[313103]

I believe 313103 was made compulsory redundant, former Overground conductors had to apply for other jobs many of which did not include the same level of pay.

No Monty no one was made compulsory redundant, the one thing the union did do was to preserve the then current rate of pay the Guards were on.

 

[313103]

For bleeps sake

I have an interview in London that day (live in West Yorkshire) so what was already going to be a long day becomes an awful lot worse...All adds to the fun I guess.

If I had any sympathy for the Guards this would end it - Enough of this!

If you are currently unemployed i have sympathy for you, however if this for promotion or more money sorry no sympathy whatsoever.
Yes enough of this indeed stop the wide scale implementation of DOO and the troubles will go away.

 

[Chester1]

I believe 313103 was made compulsory redundant, former Overground conductors had to apply for other jobs many of which did not include the same level of pay.

I don't support that approach. However haven't Merseyrail and Northern promised to avoid compulsory redundancies or grade demotions for permenant staff? Northern can phase in DOO through a massive increase in services and natural wastage. Merseyrail have been recruited staff on fix term contracts to replace permanent staff retiring etc so the number of permanent staff will have dropped substantially by 2021 and they need 60 OBS. The fixed term staff know their contracts will end in approximately 2020 or 2021. They will be legally entitled to at least statuatory redundancy pay for the 2-4 years of work but signed up in the knowledge that their employment was time limited and it is was still a great oppertunity for them.

Given that it's the Government pushing for DOO, in what way would achieving that stop DOO?

Clue: it wouldn't - if anything there would be more DOO. Most of the existing DOO came in under BR.

The RMT leadership appear to basically be marxists, especially after the president calling for a series of multi industry strikes to bring down the government earlier in the year. The RMT haven't learnt from the miners that if you directly challenge the Tories legitmacy to form the government (apart from during elections) then they will try to crush you and probably succeed. The Tories will look at the three railway unions and think: Aslef - increase drivers responsibility and pay but neogiate with them over safety equipment investment, RMT - try to destroy it, TSSA - try to avoid a fight.

I think Cash thinks a Labour government would stop DOO but eventually it will happen regardless. Labour is the party pushing for it on Merseyrail with virtually nil involvement from central government. I don't think Cash would accept the legitimacy of any Conservative government.

 

[LowLevel]

That rather depends on whether you consider DOO a "silly game" or not.

Rather than DOO being a silly game I mean this business of acting like the proverbial men in black, putting clauses in contracts then denying all knowledge or complicity but redacting the detail relevant to staff on vaguely odd commercial grounds, claiming that matters are uncertain when the relevant decisions have clearly been made, the list goes on. They don't have to do it, there's no obligation to do it, they're choosing to do so and all involved should live or die career wise on an open book. Then we wouldn't have one department of government producing advise to train operators to create non jobs to weed numbers down to avoid reputational damage while another arm insists there's no such plan and everything is fine, there will be no losers anywhere, whether passengers, staff or TOCs, in any way.

Elected representatives and their officials shouldn't be able to play games with people's lives - it should all be in the open and if that places them at a tactical disadvantage, tough - I personally didn't ask to be caught in a political Game of Thrones between the RMT and Conservative Party.

 

[northwichcat]

I think Cash thinks a Labour government would stop DOO but eventually it will happen regardless. Labour is the party pushing for it on Merseyrail with virtually nil involvement from central government. I don't think Cash would accept the legitimacy of any Conservative government.

Indeed. Labour say they are anti-DOO but when a Labour body are given the choice of old trains with guards or new trains without guards, they want the sparkly new trains not the guards.

 

[Wombat]

Companies loath to use Compulsory redundancies unless they are on the verge of closing down ie BHS etc, because it makes them look bad. [...] The way this country works you cannot go unemployed because you have left or been made redundant, the onus is on the company to make sure they either take on new roles or allow you to take a redundancy settlement that way the onus is then on the individual to find work and cannot claim any state benefit. So no one will end up on the dole queue per se, but to many there own usefulness is at an end.

The first bit might be true in railway land, but not elsewhere. Redundancies on small or large scales happen all the time, including to me (most recently) five years ago. My wife was made redundant last week. At my current gig, a large charity, substantial numbers were made redundant over the summer. Management decide rightly or wrongly that the money used to pay Group X can be more productively spent elsewhere, and the people in Group X move on. It's genuinely not a rare and freakish occurrence.

The second bit is wrong: a person made compulsorily redundant is deemed to be not at fault in their new unemployed status, and is eligible for unemployment benefits.

 

[313103]

Indeed. Labour say they are anti-DOO but when a Labour body are given the choice of old trains with guards or new trains without guards, they want the sparkly new trains not the guards.

I think you are beginning to be the complete opposite of Mick Cash. You say in virtually comment Labour this, Labour that, new trains this or Guards that, we must remember that its a Labour group who wants DOO trains.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Can be a tiny bit smug about this day since I'm not in work (annual leave) but still very disappointed to hear that all is not yet resolved

 

[northwichcat]

I think you are beginning to be the complete opposite of Mick Cash. You say in virtually comment Labour this, Labour that, new trains this or Guards that, we must remember that its a Labour group who wants DOO trains.

You seem to be criticising my post then saying my conclusion is correct.

 

[KN1]

A statement from Mick Cash was just read out on the news. It sounds like he thinks if there's enough rail strikes they can bring an end to a Conservative minority government and the railways will get nationalised under a new government. So the strikes aren't about safety - they're about the RMT making a political point.

Hasn't it always been about politics, anybody who thinks it's about safety is rather misguided to say the least.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

For bleeps sake

I have an interview in London that day (live in West Yorkshire) so what was already going to be a long day becomes an awful lot worse...All adds to the fun I guess.

If I had any sympathy for the Guards this would end it - Enough of this!

Isn't this the problem with the RMT's approach of announcing strikes as the first course of action rather than as a last resort when all other possibilities have been explored? All further strike days now are doing is p*ssing off the travelling public and losing what little sympathy the public has left for their cause.

Surely there are other actions short of a strike the RMT can pursue - maybe an overtime ban or having a day of not collecting fares and leaving ticket gates unmanned for example?

 

[scrapy]

Isn't this the problem with the RMT's approach of announcing strikes as the first course of action rather than as a last resort when all other possibilities have been explored? All further strike days now are doing is p*ssing off the travelling public and losing what little sympathy the public has left for their cause.

Surely there are other actions short of a strike the RMT can pursue - maybe an overtime ban or having a day of not collecting fares and leaving ticket gates unmanned for example?

Ticket gates are largely manned by private security operatives so this course of action is not a possibility.

Not collecting fares is not work to rule, or action short of a strike as it is part of a conductors job. The union could be liable for the companies losses and could face court action.

 

[northwichcat]

Hasn't it always been about politics, anybody who thinks it's about safety is rather misguided to say the least.

Yes but Mick Cash has effectively admitted the strike is political after previously insisting it's all about safety.

 

[CN75]

There is a reason why the Guard grade in most of the country bar the South East has remained is quite simple we are worth far more in the long run to the safety and revenue of the railway than to politicians trying to score Brownie points or Franchise Holders trying to get even more profit then they get now. Strikes Suck we all know this but the thousands of Guards Striking for Safety and yes..Jobs are worth far more than most people realise. That is until we are gone.

As has been said British Rail brought in more DOO than any private profiteering company ever has. They started with the South East only because of the strategy of Network SouthEast and their modernisation plans for the old fleets.

This led to the nonsense from a safety perspective that a guard is unnecessary on busy, 8 car, non stop, 100mph commuter trains in London but critical on a 1 car trundling in countryside with ten people on board. That awkward truth pretty much flaws the whole safety argument and brings it down to train dispatch really now.

The only technical reason guards outside of the South East didn’t go at the same time was because the NRN system they had wasn’t acceptable for DOO (whereas the South East had CSR system from the early 1990s) and because of some of the signalling systems.

Now there is GSM radio across the country, there’s nothing to stop any DOO for that previous reason at any company. Which is why Northern is now involved with the 50% DCO.

None of which means everything that a guard does isn’t important, but the facts are the problem to arguing for keeping things they way they are now.

The drivers already take empty trains DOO.

 

[313103]

You seem to be criticising my post then saying my conclusion is correct.

And that is correct, you have mentioned this fact so many times it has become very tiresome to read your posts. I have lost count the amount of times you have mentioned this.

No one likes it when Cash keeps saying Foreign owned companies, profit making companies etc etc, you are following in the same vein, Labour run group, new trains or Guards! Its exactly the same.

 

[northwichcat]

And that is correct, you have mentioned this fact so many times it has become very tiresome to read your posts. I have lost count the amount of times you have mentioned this.

Doing a Google search I can only find one instance of where I've previously made that claim on this forum. I may have made the same point on two other transport related forums I post on so if you're a member of both of those perhaps you've read the same comment from me 3 times before. However, not everyone on here is a member of other transport related forums.

 

[313103]

Surely there are other actions short of a strike the RMT can pursue - maybe an overtime ban or having a day of not collecting fares and leaving ticket gates unmanned for example?

Guards dont man ticket gates, these are done by separate grade of staff who are not in dispute with the company and in same companies as as been mentioned previously by private security companies.

Collection of revenues where it is by Guards is part and parcel of the role, the union cannot say work part of your role but leave certain parts out of it. You either do your role complete or not at all, that is all the union can insist on. They could insist on a overtime ban, but that doesn't really work as much as it once did or is effective.

 

[PR1Berske]

Trade Unions don't write job descriptions, or decide general election results, some points which should be remembered by all sides in this debate.

 

[Robertj21a]

Trade Unions don't write job descriptions, or decide general election results, some points which should be remembered by all sides in this debate.

Quite - but the impression is that they often seem to think they do.

 

[FordFocus]

As has been said British Rail brought in more DOO than any private profiteering company ever has. They started with the South East only because of the strategy of Network SouthEast and their modernisation plans for the old fleets.

A senior BR manager who implemented the first DOO scheme in the 80s recently went on record and say he regrets it. After retiring he discovered how inaccessible the railway can be for disabled passengers because of DOO operation. Originally it was designed that stations were to be full time manned but the franchising and cost saving axe is falling on station staff now.

This led to the nonsense from a safety perspective that a guard is unnecessary on busy, 8 car, non stop, 100mph commuter trains in London but critical on a 1 car trundling in countryside with ten people on board. That awkward truth pretty much flaws the whole safety argument and brings it down to train dispatch really now.

I drive 8 car DOO trains and as the network has got busier, platforms more overcrowded, unable to dispatch because of blocked DOO cameras, no contingency plan when equipment fails. The safety case on the current DOO areas needs to be re-evaluated before new schemes are introduced. Too many RAIB reports because of PTI accidents involving DOO trains.

I spoke to one of my safety managers recently who is very reluctant to entertain the idea of a station by station audit because he knows there are stations that would fail to meet modern standards for DOO dispatch. It would cost the TOC a large sum to fix infrastructure, if it goes wrong the driver gets the blame as they are ultimate in charge of the dispatch.

Now there is GSM radio across the country, there’s nothing to stop any DOO for that previous reason at any company. Which is why Northern is now involved with the 50% DCO.

Radio isn't an issue but Absolute Block could be. Many miles of long sections of AB routes, not particularly DOO friendly when things go belly up.

 

[FordFocus]

Trade Unions don't write job descriptions, or decide general election results, some points which should be remembered by all sides in this debate.

Quite - but the impression is that they often seem to think they do.

Trade unions are consulted over job descriptions under something called "Collective Bargaining"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=collective+bargaining

 

[Robertj21a]

Trade unions are consulted over job descriptions under something called "Collective Bargaining"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=collective+bargaining

Yes - consulted.

 

[northwichcat]

Everyone was consulted over DOO on Northern - staff, passengers, RUGs, local councils, MPs, prospective bidders etc. End conclusion was only having the driver on board was a bad idea but transferring door duties to the driver so the second person could provide a more visible staff presence was something most passengers wanted.

 

[LowLevel]

Everyone was consulted over DOO on Northern - staff, passengers, RUGs, local councils, MPs, prospective bidders etc. End conclusion was only having the driver on board was a bad idea but transferring door duties to the driver so the second person could provide a more visible staff presence was something most passengers wanted.

Well yes - but I doubt they also said 'remove most responsibilities, charge of the train and authority to make any operating decisions from the person who is effectively the purser on board as well as safety critical status' - that's something the company has doggedly taken it upon itself to do despite it being a supposedly fairly minor issue - hence smelling a rat when you combine the 'needs to be around in the saloon more to get all the tickets done' with the 'introducing mobile ticketing and attempting to be rid of paper tickets (and therefore a large proportion of on board sales) within 2 years if possible' thing which will significantly self limit the very duties that the change was supposedly brought in to promote. Changing the door control role improves revenue collection by not having to split time between duties, not necessarily visibility of staff as dispatch positions are far less critical on shorter Northern trains (see how ScotRail work their 170s with the guards based in the saloon and only using the cab when authorised).

Stripping down the rest of the role seems to be just something they're taking the opportunity of doing because they can.

Radio isn't an issue but Absolute Block could be. Many miles of long sections of AB routes, not particularly DOO friendly when things go belly up.

AB is relevant to a degree but it's also important to remember that there's plenty of areas with continuous train detection that are effectively as much use as AB in that regard - for example the Allington to Barkston axle counter sections I work over reflect the former AB section and are literally miles long.

 

[northwichcat]

attempting to be rid of paper tickets (and therefore a large proportion of on board sales) within 2 years if possible' thing which will significantly self limit the very duties that the change was supposedly brought in to promote.

Yesterday a Northern service I was on was delayed by around 20 minutes. While the guard was passing through doing revenue duties a lady sat near me asked him about whether the train would arrive at the terminus station in time for her connection. Not that long ago a guard would have found out the platform number in case the connection could just be made and also the time of the following service for the passenger in case they didn't make it. However, the guard yesterday just gave a "I Dunno" type response. Maybe there would be more work for the on board staff to do if some of the guards didn't have a can't be arsed attitude.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Everyone was consulted over DOO on Northern - staff, passengers, RUGs, local councils, MPs, prospective bidders etc. End conclusion was only having the driver on board was a bad idea but transferring door duties to the driver so the second person could provide a more visible staff presence was something most passengers wanted.

I don't know of any on board staff i.e. Drivers and Guards who were consulted about DOO. The wording that the passengers should have had to decide would be. Do you wish to take safety critical operations away from the conductor so the service can run single manned at the slightest drop of the hat. Then mention how they would look after themselves in the result of an accident etc etc. It's about the Safety Critical aspects of the Guards Role that the so-called consultation cleverly worded should have made more light of.