Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

I think the Government taking ASLEF to court on the whole Gatwick Express has had a huge impact over this entire process. Everything needs to be watertight and legally binding.

ASLEF must have realised the 10 car DOO agreement was pointless unless it also included carriage lengths. I imagine they have refused 10 x 26m carriages for DOO operation on the basis that the formation was 30m longer than the 10 x 23m which was agreed on.

 

[pt_mad]

So does the Merseyrail franchise agreement also include a committment to introduce x percentage of DOO services? And if so what is the percentage?

And my second question is why the Northern franchise in particular?

As the West Midlands franchise has just been awarded and there's been no mention of any such committment as part of that franchise. Would the public now know if it was written into the West Midlands franchise for example?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail is a bit different as it is not a regular franchise. But AIUI the commitment is to 100% DOO[1], the money saved from which can fund the increased leasing cost of the new rolling stock.

[1] Not to the exclusion of other staff on an "as needed" basis.

 

[Dave1987]

ASLEF must have realised the 10 car DOO agreement was pointless unless it also included carriage lengths. I imagine they have refused 10 x 26m carriages for DOO operation on the basis that the formation was 30m longer than the 10 x 23m which was agreed on.

It doesn't get away from the fact that the agreement ASLEF had was a sort of gentlemen's agreement that gave a little bit of room and the Government took full advantage of that. So straight away you take goodwill completely out of any negotiations. Everything has had to be legally watertight. Without trust negotiations are extremely difficult. The railway runs on goodwill day in day out.

 

[WatcherZero]

So does the Merseyrail franchise agreement also include a committment to introduce x percentage of DOO services? And if so what is the percentage?

And my second question is why the Northern franchise in particular?

As the West Midlands franchise has just been awarded and there's been no mention of any such committment as part of that franchise. Would the public now know if it was written into the West Midlands franchise for example?

The local authorities business plan for merseyrail new fleet relied on the savings of 100% DOO, if they kept guards on board they couldn't afford new rolling stock. It was already the most heavily subsidised franchise in the country and the government had made clear there would be no increase in resources. Their funding settlement essentially guaranteed the same annual central government support for the next 30 years allowing them the certainty to make the financial decision to approve fleet renewal.

 

[pt_mad]

The local authorities business plan for merseyrail new fleet relied on the savings of 100% DOO, if they kept guards on board they couldn't afford new rolling stock.

Oh right. Well I'm sure many industries could plan to get rid of whole grades of staff in order to buy new equipment, but what it might eventually lead to would be large numbers out of work, young people with no jobs, and lack of a future for our children if there isn't a job for everybody in society.

 

[74A]

It doesn't get away from the fact that the agreement ASLEF had was a sort of gentlemen's agreement that gave a little bit of room and the Government took full advantage of that. So straight away you take goodwill completely out of any negotiations. Everything has had to be legally watertight. Without trust negotiations are extremely difficult. The railway runs on goodwill day in day out.

I don't think you understand the implications of the court action. The action was over whether ASLEF had the right to tell its members not to work 12 car trains. The court said it did not. The court also said this applied to new traction generally. So if a company tells a group of Northern drivers that they will be learning to drive DOO train then the drivers will have to do it.

On Southern the drivers did go on strike but when they were working they were trained to operate DOO over new routes and DOO was introduced over those routes. Even before the final agreement had been made all the routes had already gone over to DOO.

Sure you can go on strike and make it difficult for the company. The only way you can stop it would be to go on all out indefinite strike.

 

[IanXC]

I don't think you understand the implications of the court action. The action was over whether ASLEF had the right to tell its members not to work 12 car trains. The court said it did not. The court also said this applied to new traction generally. So if a company tells a group of Northern drivers that they will be learning to drive DOO train then the drivers will have to do it.

I don't think its as simple as that. Northern drivers work empty stock movements DOO at the moment, however this does not therefore include duties such as opening and closing doors. The issue in the 10/12 car case was that the Court felt that the difference between a driver working a 10 car train and a 12 car train, when all other details remained the same, was not a material change.

I do wonder whether we will see some farce where drivers operate trains which depart DOO with platform dispatchers, then stop at each station without doors released at intermediate stops...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think its as simple as that. Northern drivers work empty stock movements DOO at the moment, however this does not therefore include duties such as opening and closing doors. The issue in the 10/12 car case was that the Court felt that the difference between a driver working a 10 car train and a 12 car train, when all other details remained the same, was not a material change.

I do wonder whether we will see some farce where drivers operate trains which depart DOO with platform dispatchers, then stop at each station without doors released at intermediate stops...

It is the right of an employee to withdraw their labour in protest, and to "work to rule" (which on the railway they should be doing anyway, so this basically AIUI means working only the contracted hours in practice), but not to do your job partially or incorrectly. So unless the TOC accepted that as a means of making the trains run, no they couldn't do that, or rather if they did they would end up with disciplinary action.

There would be a similar issue with a "fare strike" i.e. crews operating but refusing to take fares.

 

[Robertj21a]

Oh right. Well I'm sure many industries could plan to get rid of whole grades of staff in order to buy new equipment, but what it might eventually lead to would be large numbers out of work, young people with no jobs, and lack of a future for our children if there isn't a job for everybody in society.

All businesses need to be as efficient as possible, it's nothing unique to railways. There's no point in employing staff who really are not needed.
Despite regular scaremongering, we have one of the lowest levels of unemployment for very many years and good, hardworking, employees should have little cause for concern if/when they need to change jobs.

 

[IanXC]

It is the right of an employee to withdraw their labour in protest, and to "work to rule" (which on the railway they should be doing anyway, so this basically AIUI means working only the contracted hours in practice), but not to do your job partially or incorrectly. So unless the TOC accepted that as a means of making the trains run, no they couldn't do that, or rather if they did they would end up with disciplinary action.

There would be a similar issue with a "fare strike" i.e. crews operating but refusing to take fares.

That could only occur once the TOC had imposed the new conditions. If there is no agreed change in the method of working then drivers could not be 'doing the job partially or incorrectly' as they are only acting with the previously agreed terms.

 

[Dave1987]

All businesses need to be as efficient as possible, it's nothing unique to railways. There's no point in employing staff who really are not needed.
Despite regular scaremongering, we have one of the lowest levels of unemployment for very many years and good, hardworking, employees should have little cause for concern if/when they need to change jobs.

Ha ha this line gets peddled regularly! Automation is hollowing out the middle classes and only creating poorly paid work that is cheaper to use a minimum wage human than automate it. That’s why even though we have record employment levels, the middle and lower classes are statistically poorer than in 2010! All these record numbers of jobs are all very poorly paid, but people face sanctions if they don’t take them. “Good & hardworking” doesn’t mean didly squat in the modern economy that’s been created, you’re always expendable!

 

[Overspeed110]

All businesses need to be as efficient as possible, it's nothing unique to railways. There's no point in employing staff who really are not needed.
Despite regular scaremongering, we have one of the lowest levels of unemployment for very many years and good, hardworking, employees should have little cause for concern if/when they need to change jobs.

.
"Lowest levels of employment for very many years"

Absolute B.S.

Figures are fudged by our oh so competent strong and stable "government". How many "self employed" do we have now? How many people are on zero hours contracts?

 

[Carlisle]

That could only occur once the TOC had imposed the new conditions. If there is no agreed change in the method of working then drivers could not be 'doing the job partially or incorrectly' as they are only acting with the previously agreed terms.

If the industrial relations situation had deteriorated that badly surely the employer would already be In the process of offering the option of signing up to the new terms or taking redundancy

 

[Dave1987]

If the industrial relations situation had deteriorated that badly surely the employer would already be In the process of offering the option of signing up to the new terms or redundancy

That’s just ridiculous.

 

[Carlisle]

That’s just ridiculous.

It may well be, really needs someone experienced in HR to clarify what the realistic options would be given that scenario

 

[Carlisle]

Did C2C Gatwick Express and London Overground go DOO without government backing ?

Those schemes came about as a result of pay deals reached with ASLEF in the era of much lower wage levels just after privatisation, when the union was willing to negotiate on DOO etc in order to boost their members pay, therefore Bob Crow’s RMT just had to get the best deal they felt they could.
I think some compensation was paid by the SRA for the few strikes tha did actually happen

 

[yorksrob]

It is the right of an employee to withdraw their labour in protest, and to "work to rule" (which on the railway they should be doing anyway, so this basically AIUI means working only the contracted hours in practice), but not to do your job partially or incorrectly. So unless the TOC accepted that as a means of making the trains run, no they couldn't do that, or rather if they did they would end up with disciplinary action.

There would be a similar issue with a "fare strike" i.e. crews operating but refusing to take fares.

Perhaps law ought to enshrine transport operatives right to go on a fares strike, as an alternative to an actual strike. It is, after all a withdrawal of non-safety critical labour.

 

[Robertj21a]

.
"Lowest levels of employment for very many years"

Absolute B.S.

Figures are fudged by our oh so competent strong and stable "government". How many "self employed" do we have now? How many people are on zero hours contracts?

It seems that you need to better understand quite a lot.

 

[pt_mad]

All businesses need to be as efficient as possible, it's nothing unique to railways. There's no point in employing staff who really are not needed.
Despite regular scaremongering, we have one of the lowest levels of unemployment for very many years and good, hardworking, employees should have little cause for concern if/when they need to change jobs.

Can these good hardworking employees, particularly young people, that should have little concern, afford buy a house in which to live under the age of about 35?

 

[northwichcat]

All businesses need to be as efficient as possible, it's nothing unique to railways. There's no point in employing staff who really are not needed.
Despite regular scaremongering, we have one of the lowest levels of unemployment for very many years and good, hardworking, employees should have little cause for concern if/when they need to change jobs.

On the first point yes businesses should be as efficient as possible and it's worth remembering these machines and apps which are 'taking jobs' actually create jobs themselves.

However, if you believe the 'the lowest levels of unemployment for very many years' is a good thing I'm afraid you're mistaken. Under the Tories out of work benefits have been made harder to get which reduces the number of people claiming them but a reduction in claimants does not automatically mean fewer unemployed. Also we now have the highest ever number of people who are working part time when they want to be working full time - 3 x people working 12 hours a week instead of one person working 36 and 2 being unemployed doesn't mean there's more work overall.

If the guard role was to become surplus to requirements across all TOCs then I do believe redundant guards would stand a good chance of getting alternative employment outside the rail industry - there's lot of skills which guards have which would be useful for other roles. However, if some guards are made redundant and others retain employment then I can see former guards finding it difficult to get alternative employment outside the rail industry as employers may feel a redundant guard from one TOC would leave them for a guard's role at another TOC as soon as one becomes available.

 

[northwichcat]

a withdrawal of non-safety critical labour.

I'm not sure that would stand up in court. A passenger flight must have at least one member of cabin crew per 50 seats for passenger safety - that's a legal requirement. However, there is no legal requirement for a guard on a train for passenger safety.

 

[Robertj21a]

Can these good hardworking employees, particularly young people, that should have little concern, afford buy a house in which to live under the age of about 35?

No idea. How am I supposed to know their total household income, outgoings, housing costs in their area etc?. Since when did the ability to buy your own house become a part of an employer's responsibilties ?
Good workers can find jobs, that's the key issue.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure that would stand up in court. A passenger flight must have at least one member of cabin crew per 50 seats for passenger safety - that's a legal requirement. However, there is no legal requirement for a guard on a train for passenger safety.

A non-DOO train can't run in passenger service without a guard, however it can run in passenger service without ticket checks, so the law should enshrine the option of withdrawing the extra bits that aren't required for the train to run.

 

[northwichcat]

A non-DOO train can't run in passenger service without a guard, however it can run in passenger service without ticket checks, so the law should enshrine the option of withdrawing the extra bits that aren't required for the train to run.

That's fine for a 15x. However, all new trains will be capable of running in DOO mode.

 

[northwichcat]

No idea. How am I supposed to know their total household income, outgoings, housing costs in their area etc?. Since when did the ability to buy your own house become a part of an employer's responsibilties ?
Good workers can find jobs, that's the key issue.

In most cases it's confident people who are good at selling techniques get the job, regardless of the job role. I've worked with many people who've managed to get themselves through the interview stage and are completely hopeless at actually doing the job, while many talented people (who could do the work with minimal or no training) miss out on jobs because they aren't good at selling themselves.

 

[YorkshireBear]

In most cases it's confident people who are good at selling techniques get the job, regardless of the job role. I've worked with many people who've managed to get themselves through the interview stage and are completely hopeless at actually doing the job, while many talented people (who could do the work with minimal or no training) miss out on jobs because they aren't good at selling themselves.

And very sadly very true.

Painfully true.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. Assessment centres, if done well, are far better at working out who is genuinely going to be better at the job, but as long as most companies use the interview as the primary decider, it's those who are better at selling themselves that will win.

 

[FordFocus]

ASLEF must have realised the 10 car DOO agreement was pointless unless it also included carriage lengths. I imagine they have refused 10 x 26m carriages for DOO operation on the basis that the formation was 30m longer than the 10 x 23m which was agreed on.

The issue is with the additional doors that had to monitored during dispatch, in this case it was 4. Electrostars in cab CCTV were designed originally for 8 coaches or 16 sets of doors. The images were bigger because it was 4 images split across a single screen, obviously 2 screens present for the 8 car formation. When Southern decided to run 12 car DOO trains there was no space for a third screen. The RSSB published a report saying it was "safe" to squeeze in the additional images to make 6 images split across a single screen.

There has to be a limit on DOO operation at some point. Imagine 16 car trains through the Thameslink core, the workload just for 12 cars is at breaking point for a single human.

 

[FordFocus]

I don't think you understand the implications of the court action. The action was over whether ASLEF had the right to tell its members not to work 12 car trains. The court said it did not. The court also said this applied to new traction generally. So if a company tells a group of Northern drivers that they will be learning to drive DOO train then the drivers will have to do it.

On Southern the drivers did go on strike but when they were working they were trained to operate DOO over new routes and DOO was introduced over those routes. Even before the final agreement had been made all the routes had already gone over to DOO.

Sure you can go on strike and make it difficult for the company. The only way you can stop it would be to go on all out indefinite strike.

The difference is Southern has DOO in their contracts for passenger trains so it was easy for GTR to go to court and claim they could do it as the 12 car agreement was on dodgy ground and more of a 'gentleman's agreement' with management that have long gone. The court agreed with GTR. Northern drivers on the other hand do not have DOO for passenger trains, so it would be harder for the courts to 'force' DOO. An agreement would have to come through the usual collective bargaining channels. ACAS would probably get involved.

Arriva are hitting a stalemate. The RMT won't agree trains without guards, their compromise is drivers opening and guards closing as per Scotrail. Even if Arriva agree, the DfT and Mr Wilkinson won't be happy with the outcome as this is not DOO. So presumably when these new units arrive, Arriva are going to have to directly approach ASLEF.

I can see them having to go back to the DfT and have frank discussions about their next moves. Arriva have bailed on the Welsh franchise, Chiltern isn't making enough money and XC needs some serious fixing in the next franchise.