Arriva Rail North DOO

[Sonic1982]

I don’t think it would, that agreement merely allows the driver rather than guard to release the doors but nothing more, it’s not flexible enough for todays technology/ the modern railway

You mean it doesn’t allow the Toc to be able to run the train with just the driver in DOO mode, that’s really all these disputes are about saving money, breaking the RMT’s ability to strike and cause any disruption, creating a grade like on the Southern has seen loads of trains run with no OBS and leave disabled passengers either on platforms or stuck on trains welcome to the great modern railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

let the drivers operate the doors so the conductor can collect fares,to many people getting away with not paying

Having recently taken a Marston Vale trip and noticed just how slow it all was as the guard took fares and ran back and forth to do the doors I am starting to agree with this line. OBSs barely have any purpose on Southern, because all the ticketing and enforcement is off-train. The Northern rural lines are Paytrains and will be for the foreseeable future, so dedicating the second member of staff to that role would seem to make some level of sense, and would allow operations to be speeded up, particularly on lines with more frequent stops.

 

[DarloRich]

Having recently taken a Marston Vale trip and noticed just how slow it all was as the guard took fares and ran back and forth to do the doors I am starting to agree with this line. OBSs barely have any purpose on Southern, because all the ticketing and enforcement is off-train. The Northern rural lines are Paytrains and will be for the foreseeable future, so dedicating the second member of staff to that role would seem to make some level of sense, and would allow operations to be speeded up, particularly on lines with more frequent stops.

it doesn't help that the 150 lacks door controls within the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

it doesn't help that the 150 lacks door controls within the train.

Indeed it doesn't, but it is still a bit of a faff interrupting a transaction to do the doors on a train with panels inside when it is perfectly safe on a short DMU[1] for the driver to do them. The effect is maybe 10 seconds of delay at some stops - but the different losses of 10 seconds are all adding up to very slow running overall.

[1] We're not talking 12-car commuter EMUs here. On a 3 or 4-car DMU it's easily possible to provide large monitors with a clear view of every set of doors.

 

[LowLevel]

Yet I average a transaction every 30 seconds or so and sell more tickets than some booking offices despite being a guard on a stopping train

Perhaps when it comes down to recruitment ability to effectively manage time and indeed the equipment provided should be given more priority as non technical skills.

Disability regs require an announcement to be made within 5 minutes of a station stop. As a result I do my doors, announce the next stop and then operate the doors from further down the train and repeat. Our trains are having auto announcers enabled shortly (except the 153s which have no confirmed future) which will help even more.

The guard can be adequate to cover the workload particularly with a push towards mobile ticketing. It just requires a willingness to work smart and also work hard. If I can work a 4 car 158 on a stopping service and take £1000 in revenue (I'm not even joking) or even a 2 car and do £400 in local fares in 30 minutes while running to time etc if you recruit the right people this could be standard.

I'm not even a 'specialist' local guard - I work everything from urban stoppers to long distance trains.

 

[northwichcat]

let the drivers operate the doors so the conductor can collect fares,to many people getting away with not paying

Introducing a conductor whose primary focus is revenue worked very well for Stagecoach Supertram and I seem to recall at the time the RMT praised Stagecoach for putting a second member of staff on all services, even though they don't do door duties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Introducing a conductor whose primary focus is revenue worked very well for Stagecoach Supertram and I seem to recall at the time the RMT praised Stagecoach for putting a second member of staff on all services, even though they don't do door duties.

On none of the new generation trams with conductors do they operate the doors. This model seems to work fairly well.

 

[Robertj21a]

I’m sure some of you on here are Grayling, Maynard and Plummer in disguise with your attack on the Guards grade, yes sometimes the RMT’s press releases are not the best I agree there, but they are trying to protect the grade from being wiped out across the rail industry as it will happen on all the Toc’s eventually then welcome to a railway vertualy staffless and sod safety and accessibility for those who need it as long as the train runs and the Toc saves money on not having to have the number of safety critical staff needed so nice win win for the Toc not the staff and those who need the help assistance and reasurance that having a Guard on board brings.

I think most criticism is actually directed at the RMT themselves rather than the guards. If the Union was better run, and generally more professional, it's quite likely that these various disputes would have been resolved far sooner.

 

[Carlisle]

One of the main arguments for DOO was the lack of dwell times so the ScotRail agreement would be great. What is this Modern Railway you speak of? We still have Semaphores, 30 year old Trains and Token working in some areas.

All those 30 year old units you mention will have been built equipped for DOO albeit requiring platform monitors or mirrors so it’s not a new debate

 

[johntea]

Interesting how both my parents are adamant that 'all Northern trains are cancelled' on Monday just because they heard on BBC Look North no trains were running from Pontefract!

 

[B&I]

I don’t think it would, that agreement merely allows the driver rather than guard to release the doors but nothing more, it’s not flexible enough for todays technology/ the modern railway

But as Yorksrob points out, Northern, eith its antiquated trains, long stretches of rural running, and lack of infrastructure modernisation (and manned stations / ticket barriers) in urban areas, is not a 'modern railway' in this sense. So pretending that it is looks like making excuses for 'flexibility' ie sacking as many people as possible.

 

[387star]

Off topic

 

[northwichcat]

But as Yorksrob points out, Northern, eith its antiquated trains, long stretches of rural running, and lack of infrastructure modernisation (and manned stations / ticket barriers) in urban areas, is not a 'modern railway' in this sense. So pretending that it is looks like making excuses for 'flexibility' ie sacking as many people as possible.

Northern are getting 98 brand new trains which will be fully equipped for DOO operation. All new multiple units are being DOO equipped even if the operator taking them on has no plans to operate DOO services as the ROSCOs want them to be future proofed - this is the case with the new 802s and 397s for TPE, they'll have DOO equipment but they'll all have guards.

The trains on the electrified routes out of Leeds will be on a par with those used by c2c in terms of age once the 331s replace the 321s and 322s.

 

[47802]

Northern are getting 98 brand new trains which will be fully equipped for DOO operation. All new multiple units are being DOO equipped even if the operator taking them on has no plans to operate DOO services as the ROSCOs want them to be future proofed - this is the case with the new 802s and 397s for TPE, they'll have DOO equipment but they'll all have guards.

The trains on the electrified routes out of Leeds will be on a par with those used by c2c in terms of age once the 331s replace the 321s and 322s.

Indeed and there also Northern Connect with mainly New Trains, limited stop at stations which will likely be manned.

If this continues to drag on and on across the franchises then those that can will make alternate arrangements and may never come back, and the government may start to think again about the level of future rail investment.

 

[Carlisle]

So pretending that it is looks like making excuses for 'flexibility' ie sacking as many people as possible.

I presume your fortunate enough not to have been truly sacked in recent times, as I’m sure anyone that has will assure you that the job restructuring northern propose and sacking bear no similarities whatsoever, if the RMT were a bit more honest they might have more credibility.

 

[northwichcat]

I presume your fortunate enough not to have been truly sacked in recent times, as I’m sure anyone that has will assure you that the job restructuring northern propose and sacking bear no similarities whatsoever, if the RMT were a bit more honest they might have more credibility.

Especially considering sacking is where the job role still exists but the employee who currently holds the role has shown that they are unable to do it properly, so the employer has made a decision to get rid of the inefficient employee and to employ a more efficient one. Where the role is lost the first stage is for the employer to inform the employee that their role is at risk and to consult over alternative employment, with redundancy (not sacking) being a last resort if alternative employment can't be found.

It's also worth remembering Northern have offered the RMT a guarantee of all guards staying in employment until at least 2025. Personally I think the RMT are more concerned about CSAs (or equivalent) supplementing existing guards opting against joining the RMT, which would significantly reduce the chance of the RMT being able to hold the operator to ransom in the future. I seem to recall someone saying the RMT tried to get the contracted RPIs to join the union and the majority of them weren't interested in joining a rail union.

 

[northwichcat]

I think most criticism is actually directed at the RMT themselves rather than the guards. If the Union was better run, and generally more professional, it's quite likely that these various disputes would have been resolved far sooner.

Indeed. I've also noticed anyone who criticises the RMT is automatically labelled as being 'anti-union' as though some people think if you're not supportive of one union then you're against trade unions in general, which is a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[Sonic1982]

Whilst not northern I found the following interesting... what greater anglia have to say on the issue :



Greater Anglia train services
Monday 8 f 2018
Normal timetable planned to operate

You may be aware that the RMT has called a 24-hour strike by conductors working for Greater Anglia, on Monday 8 January 2018

We’d like to re-assure you that Greater Anglia is planning to run a full, normal service with no service alterations.

About 60 per cent of our services do not have conductors – these are commuter trains to London Liverpool Street from Essex, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Ipswich. For the remaining 40% of services which do have conductors (intercity and regional services and on a couple of other routes in Essex - see below for a full list), we have trained extra staff to safely cover for conductors who choose to take part in the strike action.

Greater Anglia is keeping conductors on its trains.

We highly value our conductors. We know customers agree that they do a great job providing them with help and assistance on our trains. That is why we are keeping conductors on our trains and guaranteeing their jobs right through to the end of our franchise in October 2025. There will be no erosion of their pay or terms and conditions. They will still be safety trained and continue to have to pass key safety, competence and medical tests to carry out the conductor’s role.

We want our conductors to be able to provide even more help to our customers, so when we get new trains, from 2019, we’d like drivers to open and close the train doors, which would mean conductors can spend more time with customers (as they wouldn’t have to break off from helping customers to go and open and close the doors at every station).

Drivers already safely open and close doors on 60 per cent of our trains, and have done so for 30 years. Independent safety reports by the Railway and Safety Standards Board and the Office of Rail and Road conclude that, as long as correct procedures are followed, it is at least as safe for drivers to open and close doors.

So, our proposals are all about giving a better and safer service to our customers, by guaranteeing our conductors’ jobs, but changing their roles slightly - so that they can spend more time with customers, using a safe method of operation where drivers open and close the train doors (a system which already works well across much of our network).

We remain keen to talk with the RMT to try to avert strike action. We will keep you updated on the situation via the Greater Anglia website and social media.

These are the routes where we have conductors:

Norwich to London, Cambridge, Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, SheringhamIpswich to Cambridge, Lowestoft, Felixstowe, PeterboroughMarks Tey to SudburyManningtree to HarwichClacton/Walton-on-the-
Naze to Colchester

If you believe all the rubbish about freeing up the second person to fully concentrate on customers on board etc then think again, how is the on board staff member going to be aware of any disabled passengers or anyone in need of assistance waiting on the platform if they are dealing with customers on board, that’s why Southern realised this in the end and the instruction for a OBS if there is one onboard is to take control of a local door and visually check the platform for any customers in need of assistance etc so basically what a guard does now just without having full door control so again not able to fully give all there time to those onboard when coming into a station, so it sounds good when the Toc’s sugar coat it like they do, they always fail to mention that there will be a second member of staff guaranteed on the service which is at the heart of the dispute not who gets to press the door control buttons, if something is not guaranteed then it can be easily done away with in the future which is the RMT’s worry and yes perhaps they are not going about it the right way sometimes with there pr etc at times and getting the point across to the media/public like the Toc’s do at times and I hope they learn to sharpen up on that side soon.

 

[northwichcat]

If you believe all the rubbish about freeing up the second person to fully concentrate on customers on board etc then think again, how is the on board staff member going to be aware of any disabled passengers or anyone in need of assistance waiting on the platform if they are dealing with customers on board

In the case of Northern (which this thread is supposed to be about rather than Anglia) there's been talk of staffing unstaffed stations without talk of new ticket offices which has led to suggestions the staffing will consist of someone with a mobile ticket machine who will put a ramp down if anyone requiring assistance turns up (as already happens at many staffed stations even if the service has a guard.)

 

[Andrew32]

I have been informed that allegedly Aslef have cancelled next weeks meetings with the company now that the company have officially put it in writing that they want drivers to open AND close doors in this weeks company brief to conductors.

They had previously stated that they wanted drivers to have responsibly for door operation but didn't state the extent of the responsibility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree the OBSs are rather a fudge, but then that's in the background of an operation where there are platform staff etc. Northern's services are somewhat different. I'm not convinced, say, that the S&C will ever be DOO.

OK, Germany has rural DOO, but that's on the background of a much larger number of people having season tickets and a generally more trustworthy population where more will use the TVM rather than walking past it. Germany also accepts a much lower level of disabled accessibility than we do, mainly because they are a low platform country requiring rather more than a small ramp for access so this tends to be available only at large stations. That is one aspect of German practice we should not follow. Switzerland also has rural DOO, but that's on the basis of both ticketing trust and a near-total fleet replacement and platform rebuild for the kind of level, gap-free boarding that will be provided on Merseyrail.

I can however see how much the driver doing the doors will speed things up on some routes (or at least allow revenue to be done properly again).

 

[Overspeed110]

I have been informed that allegedly Aslef have cancelled next weeks meetings with the company now that the company have officially put it in writing that they want drivers to open AND close doors in this weeks company brief to conductors.

They had previously stated that they wanted drivers to have responsibly for door operation but didn't state the extent of the responsibility.

Hopefully this is a sign that ASLEF are finally going to get involved in this dispute and ballot the drivers.....

 

[northwichcat]

If this continues to drag on and on across the franchises then those that can will make alternate arrangements and may never come back, and the government may start to think again about the level of future rail investment.

Agreed. We've seen additional trains promised for a franchise become replacement trains before, as well as additional trains not materalise and if passenger numbers drop then the chance of that happening increases. It's also possible the offer of all existing guards remaining in employment gets withdrawn if the proportion of older trains used by the franchise decreases from what was originally proposed e.g. if the additional 170s don't come or if Northern don't get all the additional 15xs expected, as a higher proportion of services will be operated by trains suitable to run as DCO.

 

[northwichcat]

I have been informed that allegedly Aslef have cancelled next weeks meetings with the company now that the company have officially put it in writing that they want drivers to open AND close doors in this weeks company brief to conductors.

They had previously stated that they wanted drivers to have responsibly for door operation but didn't state the extent of the responsibility.

Have ASLEF had any previous meetings? If not I'd find it strange they are refusing to talk, I would have thought they'd want to explain their position and exactly what they won't accept. As they've just accepted DOO on Southern it'll be hard for them to reject DCO on Northern outright on safety grounds, given the shorter formations and lower number of passengers. Although, I still accept there may be certain routes/stations where they can say it would be less safe than on Southern.

 

[WCMLaddict]

Cancelled ASLEF meetings have nothing to do with DOO.

 

[northwichcat]

According to BBC North West just now the strikes are due to the RMT's objection to 'the changing of the guard.' Better tell The Queen.

 

[Carlisle]

Her regular train service has been DOO for years now so she’ll be unaffected .

 

[FordFocus]

So you have evidence Arriva can make more profit from the model for this franchise than Serco/Abellio made from the old one? If so would you like to share it with us?

Are you sure you don't mean the Conservative government want the franchise to get a lower subsidy but want them to run more services and lease more modern trains at the same time? If so shouldn't it be an austerity before safety argument?

Bringing Serco/Abellio in is pointless as that was a different franchise contract under different terms. Unless you want a conversation about the glory days of that "no growth" franchise. Of course Arriva will make more money, staffing costs will be lower because there will either a) be a non safety critical person with no operation training in charge of just tickets (as per the RSSB DOO report) OR b) have no second person. Arriva then save money.

Tories are following the ill thought out McNulty report with a splash of union bashing. You and I both know that.

 

[Mathew S]

This is like that old tune by Dead or alive. Again.

READ BELOW VERY CAREFULLY.........

Northern are NOT guaranteeing a second safety critical member of staff on EVERY train run DCO/DOO.

Their franchise agreement does not say they MUST provide this second person. I know this as I've just read the relevant part.


THAT IS WHAT THIS DISPUTE IS ABOUT! THE FACT THAT NORTHERN ARE NOT GUARANTEEING A SECOND SAFETY CRITICAL PERSON ON EVERY TRAIN!

Now, what part of that do you not understand?

Why you feel that's necessary when DCO/DOO is safe, and when customers are saying they want a second member of staff doing customer service / revenue. That's what I don't understand.
If the RMT want to strike because they believe their jobs are at risk, I'll support them every step of the way. But they can't, because their jobs have been guaranteed for as long as ARN can. But to continue pretending that this is safety related, or that it's 'what the public want' is, in my opinion, bilge. And worse, politically motivated bilge.

 

[FordFocus]

Have ASLEF had any previous meetings? If not I'd find it strange they are refusing to talk, I would have thought they'd want to explain their position and exactly what they won't accept. As they've just accepted DOO on Southern it'll be hard for them to reject DCO on Northern outright on safety grounds, given the shorter formations and lower number of passengers. Although, I still accept there may be certain routes/stations where they can say it would be less safe than on Southern.

It's up to Northern to approach ASLEF for meetings about future DOO because it will be a change of Terms & Conditions. I guess they want RMT to agree but that looks very unlikely. Northern can't force drivers to do DOO unlike Southern.

The Southern approach was it was an extension of a previous deal. ASLEF have stated that the OBS model is not a future model throughout the UK, it was a compromise agreement that secured the jobs 2:1 OBS staff to diagrammed turns. I believe it's costing more than GTR budgeted for, ah well.