• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,442
I don’t think many see the ‘Southern arrangement’ as any more than a short-term stepping stone to near-complete destaffing of trains. The Tories are determined to beat the unions, but they can only hope to do so by hiding behind the TOCs and pretending that it’s nothing to do with them. I don’t think they’d be able to continue as they are if the majority of the public realised that the extensive disruption that they’re suffering is because of the Tories’ ideological desire to destroy the unions rather than anything that’ll actually benefit them. They’re already treading a very fine line and can’t afford to throw away any more support from their voters.

Trains are very low down peoples priorities when they decide who to vote, there are very few marginal seats in the north and there is plenty of time until the next election for rail disruption to be forgotten. Labour builds up the chances of an early general election because its members need to believe the socialist revolution could be just around the corner. In reality the Tories and DUP have every reason to stick together until the last minute of this parliament. What happens on the railway in 2018 to 2020 won't matter at the 2022 general election. When the unions are stupid enough to fight the Tories head on they lose.

Can you imagine what would develop were the RMT and ASLEF merge?!

Why would drivers support that? They are getting big pay increases from the current situation and have too much to lose.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
Driver dispatch wil not be quicker. Nor will driver release.

If i am in charge of making absolutely sure the train is on, then I'm going to take my time to ensure it is.

Dispatch will take even longer. Check cameras. Press button. Check cameras again, stick head out of window and look back, check signal, check camera again then and only then take power.

I cannot see how that is quicker than a guard stepping out and then back in, close local door - buzz buzz and away
 

Wombat

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2013
Messages
302
I can’t get my head around why passengers actually want fewer trained people on a train. There is no conceivable benefit to joe public by not having a guard in their current form.
If a guard isn't safety-critical, the train can still run if he/she isn't present for some reason.
 

Dentonian

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
Trains are very low down peoples priorities when they decide who to vote, there are very few marginal seats in the north and there is plenty of time until the next election for rail disruption to be forgotten. Labour builds up the chances of an early general election because its members need to believe the socialist revolution could be just around the corner. In reality the Tories and DUP have every reason to stick together until the last minute of this parliament. What happens on the railway in 2018 to 2020 won't matter at the 2022 general election. When the unions are stupid enough to fight the Tories head on they lose.



.

Interesting you should say that Trains are very low down on people's priorities. Certainly, the Media create the impression that Trains are the most important domestic issue bar none, but I agree with you in the "real" world. Again you mention seats in the North, where despite the fact that Labour is at least as obsessed with Rail as the other political parties, the majority of people in "pig with a red rose" constituencies don't use trains from one year to the next. That said, I would hope you are wrong about the timing of the next GE, but won't expand as I will be jumped on for going Off-topic.
I also agree about the obsession with Season tickets, if only for the usual reasons - all the talk is based on the Travel to London catchment area, which conveniently forgets the billions going into Infrastructure. Correct me if I am wrong, but Season tickets are pegged at RPI + 1%, resulting in a 4.1% increase this year. Competing bus tickets where I live have increased 12.4% in the last year, and there is no hope of anything other than cuts in headways, cuts in punctuality, increases in running times and generally speaking, ever older buses.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don’t think many see the ‘Southern arrangement’ as any more than a short-term stepping stone to near-complete destaffing of trains.

I would agree that Southern is likely in the long term to end up fully DOO. But Northern is not Southern, in particular on the rural lines there is a need for on-board ticket sales. Maintaining TVMs on the S&C or the Cumbrian Coast is never going to be economic.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
Take a ride on any DOO TOC and you will see that it demonstrably is.

The benefit of driver release is that the guard can complete a transaction without having to try to get to the doors.

I have been on a doo service, nice long platforms and infrastructure to cope.

I am telling you, that from experience it will not happen like that up here. I dont understand the faith in rail north or northern to carry out all this upgrading. The company is on its uppers at the minute and is heading towards a drivers dispute over seperate issues. In short they cannot be trusted to carry out promises.

When the full roll out comes, there is no way I am taking any chances on the curved, short platforms. If needs be I am getting out of the cab and physically walking to the back of the train to check.

But what do I know?
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,614
There is no chance of the Tories agreeing to that. They are determined to defeat the RMT and have until at least June 2022. RMT have already been sold out by ASLEF on Southern and Merseyside Labour on Merseyrail. The best solution would be to cut the RMT out of the loop and negotiate with ASLEF to introduce DCO under the Southern rules combined with infrastructure changes and a big pay rise for drivers to buy them off.

In comparison with the original objective of DOO, I do tend to think that Southern's agreement with ASLEF is a significant movement. I do sometimes ponder what Northern Conductors would make of it (perhaps with enshrined geographical restrictions) if put to the vote...

ASLEF/Southern agreement said:
Driver Only Operation on Southern Services:
Agreement between GTR and ASLEF

1. Introduction
The arrangements in this document only apply to Southern service routes that, as at 21 August 2016, were operated with a conductor, and which were not subject to pre-existing agreements. It does not apply to Southern service routes that continue to operate with a conductor. GTR commits to not extend DOO on the Southern network beyond the routes shown in Appendix A of this document, without the clear agreement of ASLEF.

For serviced within the scope of this agreement, the driver is responsible for the control, movement and dispatch of the train. GRT Southern recognised the associated increased responsibility and workload that this creates for the driver. All services will normally operate with both a driver and an On Board Supervisor (OBS). As part of this DOO agreement, and to ensure coverage of services, GTR will guarantee to diagram and roster an OBS for all services that previously had a conductor on 21 August 2016. GTR reaffirms in commitment to maintaining an establishment based on a minimum ration of 2:1 OBSs to running turns for services covered by this agreement. This ration will be subject to regular reviews to ensure that this is sufficient.

GTR and ASLEF agree to work together to develop improved safe system of work. We confirm that changes to working methods will only be dealt with through the agreed collective bargaining procedures with the relevant trade unions.

2. Technology improvement
The parties acknowledge that some of the equipment, although meeting industry stands, is capable of updating. The intention of the Company is to provide the driver with an improved image quality in line with more recent compatible rolling stock. GTR agrees to develop further safe systems for DOO train operation in passenger service across the network, so far as is reasonably practicable. To this end the company will:

a) Provide an update programme to cab equipment for the DOO systems on the Class 377(1-5)
b) Agree a process to ensure appropriate monitoring of the effectiveness of the equipment in use and the cleaning and maintenance regimes.
c) Support this with an investment fund to process, over an agreed timescale, the delivery of progressive benefits to DOO. This will apply to the defined older equipment in use across the Southern network. Both parties acknowledge that while the current systems meet industry safety standards, the future investment programme will continue over a period of time, subject to the exigencies of the train service.
d) Prove regular programme updates to the DOO Joint Working Party.

The investment programme will require a period of system design and approval, with a trial unit having been available from the end of April 2017. Subject to a satisfactory trial, it is the intention of the Company to complete the roll-out across the applicable fleet by autumn 2019.

3. DOO JWP ASLEF/Southern
GTR and ASLEF agree to create a new Joint Working Party to work together to review the current and future concerns over the operation of DOO on Southern services. The parties will monitor existing arrangements and cooperate to monitor and discuss the future implementation of any changes to DOO on Southern, to include the rollout of agreed technology upgrades to improve existing systems. The purpose of this JWP is to ensure that there is alignment and co-operation between ASLEF and GTR.

3.1 Members of the JWP
The core membership of the JWP will be as follows:

ASLEF - 4 members (ASLEF to confirm membership at each meeting from a pool of 6)
GTR - 4 members (including 1 Train Operations, 1 Health & Safety, 1 Engineering)

This JWP is established under the Collective Bargaining arrangements in place on Southern, and, as such, it reports to and escaltes any issues to the Monthly Drivers' Company Council meetings, where they will be discussed and appropriate remedial action taken as required.

3.2 Remit

a) To monitor the operation of DOO on Southern, to include the identification and resolution of any issues.
b) To review the scope of the introduction of new technology and monitor the implementation of any such introduction.
c) To review the application and implementation of relevant industry guidance and instructions, and any proposed changes.
d) Both parties commit to active and positive dialogue in regard to the ORR Joint Improvement Plan.
e) To be the forum for the initial discussion of any changes to DOO on Southern.
f) The JWP will initial meet as required and then move to being bi-monthly. Thereafter, meetings will take place not less than quarterly.
g) The cope of the working party can be varied by agreement.

4. DOO in Degraded Working Situations (Control Instruction)
In degraded conditions, an OBS who holds relevant competency many assist int he dispatch of the train, if required and authorised by Control to do so; to undertake the relevant specific degraded safety critical task.

'Degraded working' is agreed as the following:
a) Unable to gain door interlock
b) In cab CCTV images missing
c) In cab CCTV images not suitable for dispatch.

In any of the above degraded circumstances, the driver must firstly contact Fleet Control, as per current procedures, and clearly report details of the issue.

4.1 Unable to gain door interlock
a) The driver and/or OBS to investigate any blockage of doors preventing door interlock.
b) In the event that the driver/OBS are unable to rectify the problem, then the reporting procedures as detailed int he Rule Book should be followed.

4.2 In cab CCTV image issue
Control will decide, based on specific circumstances, time, location, type of traction, alternative services etc one of the following courses of action:

a) To instruct the driver to follow the specified fault rectification procedure to see if the images return.
b) To run the train as booked, if an OBS with relevant competence is on board, to assist in the dispatch of the train at unstaffed stations. At staffed dispatch stations, normal DOO dispatch arrangements will apply.
c) To ask the driver to use degraded operation in accordance with the Rule Book.
d) To call the train at staffed dispatch stations only.
e) To terminate the train and remove from service.

5. OBS Competencies and Role in Emergencies
a) All newly employed OBSs from the date of this agreement will receive PTS training appropriate to this role; this training will be certified, monitored and maintained via the Company Competency Management System. This training to include all relevant emergency stop on train systems that could be encountered within the passenger areas and cab environment, such as 'one on the bell'. full knowledge of door egress/reset, passcom/reset, GSM-R REC functionality, use of stewards/door panel, door reset/isolation, fire on train and train evacuation procedures.
b) All OBSs shall hold the PTS certification appropriate to the role.
c) All other OBSs employed prior to the date of this agreement will be enabled and expected to gain PTS certification appropriate to the role. However, no one currently employed will be displaced as a consequence of this clause.

6. Running of DOO Services Booked to have an OBS (Control Instruction)
Both GTR and ASLEF recognise that there will be some occasions when, in order to maintain service resilience for the benefit of passengers and employees, services covered by this arrangement may run without an OBS. This will only happen when all other options of OBS provision have been fully exhausted. Where an OBS is not available, GTR's commitment is to provide on for part of the service at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Control will log all train services that run without an OBS as part of this agreement. The DOO Joint Working Party (JWP), established under the Collective Bargaining arrangements, will monitor the application of this part of the agreement and will report to and escalate any issues to the monthly Drivers' Company Council meeting, where they will be discussed and appropriate remedial action taken, as required.

6.1 Agreed reasons to run without an OBS
From 2 January 2018, the following are the circumstances when Control may require the service to run without the OBS. Before applying any of the reasons below, all other options for OBS provision must have been fully exhausted:

a) Late notification of OBS sickness (late notice is defined as less than two hours before booking on time). The granting of emergency leave or OBS absence at the start of duty.
b) OBS displaced by service disruption, late running and driver/OBS error from misreading diagrams of being left behind on a platform.
c) OBS unable to continue duty having commenced booked diagram, for example through sickness or having to leave the service to assist with a customer services incident / emergency. This will not include the issuing of tickets or penalty fares.

In all of the above circumstances, arrangements must be made to restore OBS presence to the service in question at the earliest opportunity.

7. Passengers with Accessibility Needs
If it the responsibility of station staff and on board customer service staff to assist passengers with reduced mobility in boarding and alighting Southern Services.

If the driver becomes aware of a passenger with reduced mobility waiting to board or alight from a service running without an OBS, they should inform the Signaller / Control, who will take responsibility for making appropriate arrangements to assist the passenger.

Appendix A - Scope of Southern Service covered by this Agreement
The following Southern service routes, which on 21 August 2016 were operated with a conductor, which were not subject to pre-existing agreements and are operated using in cab CCTV fitted rolling stock, are covered by this agreement:

a) Services to East Grinstead
b) Services between Reigate/Redhill and Tonbridge
c) Services between Horsham and Dorking
d) Services between Three Bridges/Horsham/Arun Valley
e) Brighton/Haywards Heath to East Coastaway
f) Brighton/Haywards Heath to West Coastaway

The routes listed above (a-f) will normally operate with diagrammed and rostered OBS, except when covered by the exceptions detailed in section 6.

Brighton Mainline (BML)
The BML is DOO in its totality. For clarity:

a) Victoria / London Bridge to Brighton services are DOO, but may operate with OBSs for reasons of customer services and operational efficiency
b) Where services part furn over the BML, these will normally operate with a diagrammed and rostered OBS. However the service can run without an OBS whilst it is on the BML. When it leaves the BML, the exceptions detailed in section 6 apply.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
When the full roll out comes, there is no way I am taking any chances on the curved, short platforms. If needs be I am getting out of the cab and physically walking to the back of the train to check.

On a curved platform you will have a better view on your train-based DOO monitors than a guard would dispatching from the platform, as you will be able to see all the doors at once while your hand is on the close button.

Indeed, platform "DOO" monitors are provided for guards at some stations to mitigate this - I believe Birkenhead Hamilton Square is one, as is Berkhamsted.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
In comparison with the original objective of DOO, I do tend to think that Southern's agreement with ASLEF is a significant movement. I do sometimes ponder what Northern Conductors would make of it (perhaps with enshrined geographical restrictions) if put to the vote...

That document seems very reasonable, but I'm surprised at the presence of a few drafting errors in it - "GRT", "Coastaway" and probably others. Unless of course it has been retyped.
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,309
On a curved platform you will have a better view on your train-based DOO monitors than a guard would dispatching from the platform, as you will be able to see all the doors at once while your hand is on the close button.

Indeed, platform "DOO" monitors are provided for guards at some stations to mitigate this - I believe Birkenhead Hamilton Square is one, as is Berkhamsted.
These stations are in the minority though.Doesn't that prove that at the vast majority of cases where these aren't provided that the guard has a better view of the train than someone simply looking at monitors.

Otherwise monitors would be provided at more stations to assist the guard.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,511
Hell you could improve morale overnight and lead to an increase in productivity by guaranteeing to fit all stock with intermediate door panels and allowing guards to do their doors from them .
.
It may do in some cases or equally it may just lead to a feeling of apathy amongst many staff, comfortable in the knowledge their industry is too weak,fragmented and badly run to get any changes past their ever so powerful union, a fairly common culture in a number of industries in the 1970s which didn’t ultimately make them successful.
 
Last edited:

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,614
That document seems very reasonable, but I'm surprised at the presence of a few drafting errors in it - "GRT", "Coastaway" and probably others. Unless of course it has been retyped.

Yes that may be my retyping. The copy I obtained just wouldn't stand up to being scanned.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
3,496
Location
Over The Hill
No one has yet answered my question, regarding drivers being contractually obliged to drive DOO/DCO or not. I assume no one actually has the answer to this?

Unless a TOC has a specific DOO agreement in place then drivers' contracts will only stipulate an obligation to operate empty trains without a guard. This arises from the standard templates for contracts which arose during the privatisation process during which "historic" allowances and bonuses which existed under BR were consolidated into standard rates of pay. Clearly DOO enhancements were not going to be consolidated and paid for by TOCs which had no DOO. I have said previously if nothing else changes then the matter will finally come to a head when Northern starts assigning drivers to DOO(P) training (the "P" signifying operation of DOO with passengers aboard). If this is attempted without an agreement in place with ASLEF regarding DOO I would expect ASLEF would very quickly go into dispute over the issue.
 

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,502
At some stations RPIs direct anyone who hasn't been given an opportunity to buy a ticket to the normal ticket office person at the station, so on occasions guards not selling tickets might mean more revenue for the TOC, even if the passenger would likely prefer to pay during their journey than to have to queue up after they've completed it.
Indeed , its all dependent on locations .
But the vast majority of Northern stations are not staffed , and even of those that are staffed its rare outside of the large PTE areas to have booking offices staffed from first to last train .
Also at many of the stations with booking offices the booking office is on one side and there are no barriers or revenue protection staff so passengers are capable of quite easily making journeys without being challenged to pay .

Granted passengers travelling into the big cities now know that they have to pay as they have no way out , but go out onto the rural lines or even services between big cities and passengers can still quite easily avoid paying if the guard or an on train RPI does not challenge them . Even the deployment of agency station revenue protection staff is fairly unpredictable .
If a guard isn't safety-critical, the train can still run if he/she isn't present for some reason.
This is true , but then when the train stops in the middle of nowhere because there is a unit fault /infastructure fault or for some other reason and the driver is busy speaking with control and the signaller the same passengers who benefit from the train running without a second member of crew will want somebody who actually understands what is going on to explain to them .

Take a ride on any DOO TOC and you will see that it demonstrably is.

The benefit of driver release is that the guard can complete a transaction without having to try to get to the doors.
I see the benefit of driver release .

But at the moment with the mis match of units and platform layouts I fundamentally do not agree that Driver dispatch will be quicker . Fairly often as a guard you find yourself directing someone with a bike/pushchair / large luggage to a set of doors with an area for them to accommodate such . Or you find yourself blowing a whistle to speed up boarding . If you do not direct that person with the large item to the correct set of doors it just results in further delay down the line as people struggle to board or alight from that set of doors as they are blocked .

In peak times as well the guard or a dispatcher often find themselves repeated the announcement that passengers should use all doors to speed up boarding .

These are all things a guard stood on the platform is in a better position to do .

It may do in some cases or equally it may just lead to a feeling of apathy amongst many staff, comfortable in the knowledge their industry is too weak,fragmented and badly run to get any changes past their ever so powerful union, a fairly common culture in a number of industries in the 1970s which didn’t ultimately make them successful.
I disagree , there have been changes to the guards grade over the years . And the union is open to even more changes , it was the one that suggested to Northern that an agreement be reached on Drivers opening doors and Guards closing . This was a fundamental change from their previous position
 
Last edited:

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,442
Unless a TOC has a specific DOO agreement in place then drivers' contracts will only stipulate an obligation to operate empty trains without a guard. This arises from the standard templates for contracts which arose during the privatisation process during which "historic" allowances and bonuses which existed under BR were consolidated into standard rates of pay. Clearly DOO enhancements were not going to be consolidated and paid for by TOCs which had no DOO. I have said previously if nothing else changes then the matter will finally come to a head when Northern starts assigning drivers to DOO(P) training (the "P" signifying operation of DOO with passengers aboard). If this is attempted without an agreement in place with ASLEF regarding DOO I would expect ASLEF would very quickly go into dispute over the issue.

Its not a matter of if but when Northern drivers are assigned to DOO(P) training. Presumably they will offered a financial incentive too. ASLEF will then have a choice of publically refusing to drive new trains or back down. Even in the 80s drivers backed down after a year. Today it would be a hard position to maintain especially when Northern needs the 195s. The Southern agreement and more spending on train and platform equipment would be a good outcome.

The Southern deal was a victory for the government despite not being what they wanted. The RMT wouldn't still be striking and refusing to recognise the OBS role if they had won.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,498
If revenue duties don't benefit the guard why do guards get generous commission on the tickets they sell (including on excesses for those who bought the wrong ticket)?
FGW passengers did organise a 'fares protest' but I don't think one against the RMT would work, the RMT would probably claim passengers are doing it in support of their members.

That's the flaw you perceive in this harebrained scheme... seriously?! o_O

Wow. There is no hope.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
The RMT have not surveyed passengers but claim they know what passengers want. Ironically the DfT have surveyed passengers and have come up with ways DCO can be used to meet what passengers expect.
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,700
I have been on a doo service, nice long platforms and infrastructure to cope.

snip..snip

there is no way I am taking any chances on the curved, short platforms. If needs be I am getting out of the cab

I'm a mere onlooker, but isn't this much of the problem? There are places where different ways of operating will be practical and places and times where it is not and for whatever reason we are nowhere near discussing anything like that but are locked in to disruptive IA that isn't going to bring the employers to the table in its current form.

Elsewhere I've grumbled that the RMT has precipitated this dispute too early but I now wonder if they've actually shot themselves in the foot because by the time training on the new rolling stock becomes an issue this dispute will have ended because they will have run out of steam.
 

CN75

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2017
Messages
179
I don’t think many see the ‘Southern arrangement’ as any more than a short-term stepping stone to near-complete destaffing of trains. The Tories are determined to beat the unions, but they can only hope to do so by hiding behind the TOCs and pretending that it’s nothing to do with them. I don’t think they’d be able to continue as they are if the majority of the public realised that the extensive disruption that they’re suffering is because of the Tories’ ideological desire to destroy the unions rather than anything that’ll actually benefit them. They’re already treading a very fine line and can’t afford to throw away any more support from their voters.

The problem with the idea that the ‘Southern arrangment’ is a stepping stone is that there is no good reason to have done it, if that was the case. Why not just sack the guards? How is it any different from a missing stepping stone later when the guards got sacked?

That being said, as Northern have committed in their contract to moving some of the conductors to station jobs to meet the accessibility rules, the ‘Southern arrangment’ isn’t an option.

For the DfT they will see the performance issue as more than station dwell time: it is not having the right guard at the right place and right time that causes the delays and cancelled trains. Guards only closing the doors is not enough to ‘modernise’ this performance risk and Scotrail only ‘agreed’ to it because the Scottish government bottled carrying on the fight they knew all about from the contract they had signed.

Also, the Labour government commissioned the McNulty report. The Labour Party also control Merseyside politics. The idea this is all just a Tory attack on the RMT is a bit simplistic. The government is continuing the project that British Rail started, which was put off for decades because the private companies had every commercial incentive not to rock the boat.

There is also a lot of talk about de-skilling. In reality this means guards not having to know or do things that are redundant. There is plenty of extra knowledge the companies could and should teach guards with modern training on customer service skills like smart phones and the fine details of tickets - and guards should be willing to learn them. As soon as BR started asking guards to check tickets the job was given a lifeline. Without the customer service there really would not be much of a leg to stand on left when the new trains are in place.
 
Last edited:

CN75

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2017
Messages
179
Its not a matter of if but when Northern drivers are assigned to DOO(P) training. Presumably they will offered a financial incentive too. ASLEF will then have a choice of publically refusing to drive new trains or back down. Even in the 80s drivers backed down after a year. Today it would be a hard position to maintain especially when Northern needs the 195s. The Southern agreement and more spending on train and platform equipment would be a good outcome.

The Southern deal was a victory for the government despite not being what they wanted. The RMT wouldn't still be striking and refusing to recognise the OBS role if they had won.

ASLEF won’t go on strike unless they are forced to. The thing that makes ASLEF so powerful is the threat of strikes. Actually calling them is much more risky. If they called strikes at Northern when they were offered a large pay rise for DOO, and the change didn’t really affect some drivers anyway, the risk to ASLEF of the drivers at Northern splitting as the strikes started to break down is huge.

ASLEF also can’t afford to have their strike ruled illegal in the Supreme Court and lose the ability to threaten a strike again, possibly at any company. Any court action is also very expensive unless you win it.

Nor do they want to provoke the government into new legislation requiring 50% minimum cover in transport strikes (like in France?) or creating new train driver academies etc.

These are a few of the reasons why ASLEF and the train companies are both winning from letting the issue be kicked along and ASLEF drivers can save face in front of the guards.

If ASLEF did decide that all out strikes were what the drivers wanted and pursued that strategy, ultimately Northern’s option is to give twelve weeks notice of contract change and write it in that way.
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,309
Giving 12 weeks notice of contract change is a risky strategy. There are a significant number of drivers coming up to retirement age who desperately don't want retraining and will quite happily take a payout to leave if DOO is forced upon them. Northern are strugging for drivers as it is.

An ASLEF rep this week told me relations with Northern have over the past few weeks gone quite sour (nothing to do with DOO). Northerns previous strategy of keeping ASLEF onside whilst not bothering with the RMT and hopefully dividing the two seems to have changed and Northern seem to have gone back on a number of local agreements. Drivers are now not working rest days meaning cancelled trains (particularly on ex TPE services), This will get worse when training on new units and routes kicks in and people start wanting to take annual leave over the summer.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Giving 12 weeks notice of contract change is a risky strategy. There are a significant number of drivers coming up to retirement age who desperately don't want retraining and will quite happily take a payout to leave if DOO is forced upon them. Northern are strugging for drivers as it is.

An ASLEF rep this week told me relations with Northern have over the past few weeks gone quite sour (nothing to do with DOO). Northerns previous strategy of keeping ASLEF onside whilst not bothering with the RMT and hopefully dividing the two seems to have changed and Northern seem to have gone back on a number of local agreements. Drivers are now not working rest days meaning cancelled trains (particularly on ex TPE services), This will get worse when training on new units and routes kicks in and people start wanting to take annual leave over the summer.

I've noticed a significant number of cancellations due to a 'member of staff being unavailable' particularly on services worked by Lime Street crews recently.
 

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,502
Drivers are now not working rest days meaning cancelled trains (particularly on ex TPE services), This will get worse when training on new units and routes kicks in and people start wanting to take annual leave over the summer.
indeed once people start going on their summer leave and the usual bouts of summer sickness set in I can see things getting worse .

Pay negotiations not far off now as well
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
The problem with the idea that the ‘Southern arrangment’ is a stepping stone is that there is no good reason to have done it, if that was the case. Why not just sack the guards? How is it any different from a missing stepping stone later when the guards got sacked?
The RSSB seem to think that it's a good idea:
SDG have shown that the best solution, in pure economic terms, is to make all guards compulsorily redundant and to run trains with mostly single person operation, with occasional ticket checks . This results in a large salary saving from a reduction in staff levels. In the short term, there may be losses due to potential industrial action. From an operational point of view, there may be financial drawbacks to single person operation, these impacts are discussed further below.
If compulsory redundancies are felt to be unacceptable, an alternative approach is natural wastage, replacing guards with NSCOS in a phased approach. If guards are to be retained, then it is cost efficient to give them an alternative role, using them as a second on-board staff member, dealing with customer relations and revenue protection. There would be few savings in the short term, but savings would increase over time. As guards leave, they would be replaced with NSCOS on lower salaries. An operator might choose not to replace the guards, and to run some trains with the driver only. This could be done in phases, or a one-off change in operating regime once staffing levels had reduced.
(https://abcommuters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rssb-report-on-doo.pdf)

Maybe the DfT will ignore the 'best solution' and genuinely commit to maintaining a staff presence on trains. That's also at odds with MuNulty's report (which was commissioned by a Labour government, but quite probably with a Tory influence in its later stages; how much is the Merseyside political situation influenced by central government cutbacks? - but yes, I agree that it's not as simple as that). I certainly don't trust them though. My feeling is that they're pretending to make it about 'better customer service', 'modernisation' and that to make it more palatable to the travelling public, so that they feel that the unions are standing in the way of something that they'll benefit from (but, really, there won't be any significant benefit to them), and to either avoid compulsory redundancies altogether (fair enough if so!) or to put them off until such time as their industrial action is no longer disruptive.

There is also a lot of talk about de-skilling. In reality this means guards not having to know or do things that are redundant. There is plenty of extra knowledge the companies could and should teach guards with modern training on customer service skills like smart phones and the fine details of tickets - and guards should be willing to learn them. As soon as BR started asking guards to check tickets the job was given a lifeline. Without the customer service there really would not be much of a leg to stand on left when the new trains are in place.
Things like carrying out emergency protection or having sufficient route knowledge to be able to correctly pass the train's precise locations aren't redundant, though. There are plenty of potential scenarios, some of which have been played out to some extent recently, in which the ability for the guard to do that could make all the difference. Yes, the customer service element of the role is significant nowadays - but if they're there anyway, the cost of having a second safety-critical member of staff isn't all that significant. If the cost saving achieved is less, the increase in risk that would be acceptable is also less, no? If the aim is genuinely to keep a second member of staff on the majority of Northern services, then 'modernisation' in my opinion would be far better represented by an investment in further 'customer service' and revenue training if it's needed (I don't know whether it is or not) and provision of things like intermediate door controls to let the guard carry out his safety-critical duties from within the train at all - or at least most - times.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I doubt anyone on this site actually hates train staff thats just what you have decided to think because they disagree with something that has a negative affect on you. Personally I think we will eventually get to the point were every rail service is DOO, probably during my life time and few people will care or remember that guards were essential to opperate train services. People negatively affected by major change are always going to think that its awful because it is for them.

Remember the hyperbole about what would happen if Jeremy Hunt didn't back down over junior doctors contracts? He imposed them and everyone moved on. Remember how replacing EMA allowance with an expenses system for sixth formers from low income families was aparently going to cause loads of people to not do A Levels? Hardly anyone who is not politically motivated or that was not directly affected remembers those issues now. DOO is the railways version. Anyone who thinks the Tories are even 1% right is evil, change happens and all but a few die hards move on and forget. I support DOO when the infrastructure and rolling stock are adequate and with Northern the infrastructure is currently inadequate so I don't support it in this instance. I have no doubt that for some guards that means I am either deluded or hate guards!


Alternatively, it could be that so many bad decisions have been made by this government that the individual ones become hard to remember.
 

CN75

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2017
Messages
179
The RSSB seem to think that it's a good idea:

(https://abcommuters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rssb-report-on-doo.pdf)

Maybe the DfT will ignore the 'best solution' and genuinely commit to maintaining a staff presence on trains. That's also at odds with MuNulty's report (which was commissioned by a Labour government, but quite probably with a Tory influence in its later stages; how much is the Merseyside political situation influenced by central government cutbacks? - but yes, I agree that it's not as simple as that). I certainly don't trust them though. My feeling is that they're pretending to make it about 'better customer service', 'modernisation' and that to make it more palatable to the travelling public, so that they feel that the unions are standing in the way of something that they'll benefit from (but, really, there won't be any significant benefit to them), and to either avoid compulsory redundancies altogether (fair enough if so!) or to put them off until such time as their industrial action is no longer disruptive.


Things like carrying out emergency protection or having sufficient route knowledge to be able to correctly pass the train's precise locations aren't redundant, though. There are plenty of potential scenarios, some of which have been played out to some extent recently, in which the ability for the guard to do that could make all the difference. Yes, the customer service element of the role is significant nowadays - but if they're there anyway, the cost of having a second safety-critical member of staff isn't all that significant. If the cost saving achieved is less, the increase in risk that would be acceptable is also less, no? If the aim is genuinely to keep a second member of staff on the majority of Northern services, then 'modernisation' in my opinion would be far better represented by an investment in further 'customer service' and revenue training if it's needed (I don't know whether it is or not) and provision of things like intermediate door controls to let the guard carry out his safety-critical duties from within the train at all - or at least most - times.


It is possible things will play out the way the RSSB report imagines, but wasn’t this a piece of commissioned research rather than an outright policy statement? Any assumptions any of the railway players might have made about industrial action and the willingness of the unions to sustain it have clearly been proven to be wrong. However, it would seem possible that guard-replacement jobs continue but on new contract terms for new joiners. Southern appears not to have any plans to do that, but it’s not uncommon in private companies like British Airways (for example) and surely the industry could attempt the same for drivers at some point. Whatever the future holds, sticking an ostrich head in the sand and hoping it will all go away as the RMT strategy appears to be will do nothing except lead to them having no say whatsoever in the outcome.

Northern are planning to have a mixture of former conductors at stations and on some trains, based on what they have said in public. Presumably, where the new trains run through a route and are a majority of the trains stopping on it, staffing every station up deals with the legal access issues and complies with the parts of the franchise agreement about revenue protection. It would probably improve customer service levels and revenue protection on short routes (assuming all the staff were willing and had the right hardware to do it properly).

Guards having limiting specific route deployment or any involvement in operating doors makes them another link in the system which could cause a train not to run or not to run on time. What McNulty wants (cost cutting) and what the DfT want are not necessarily the same. This is one of the lazy links that is often made. For the DfT, cutting their public subsidy to companies like Northern is important, and probably quite fair. But they also want all the money that has been spent in upgrades and ever increasing ticket prices to mean a punctual and reliable system above all else. The DfT is a department of civil servants who exist to specify better services where the risk is on the TOCs. Cutting staff levels is not their objective as they don’t pay for them. If changes can be sold to them as better for passengers then they will buy them and a contract is signed. This is where Arriva have got to. If they tried to renegotiate with the DfT, and therefore admit defeat on delivering the promised improvements that the DfT signed up to and bought with Arriva’s bid, they will have substantial commercial penalties. As far as the DfT are concerned, covering industrial action costs (formal or informal) provides the support Arriva need to get on with what they have promised.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,511
I disagree , there have been changes to the guards grade over the years . And the union is open to even more changes , it was the one that suggested to Northern that an agreement be reached on Drivers opening doors and Guards closing . This was a fundamental change from their previous position
I’m pretty certain many guards are now far better qualified (many with degrees) and conduct their duties in far more professional manner compared to much of the BR era, but the Driver open Guard close plan had allready long been accepted (albeit a bit reluctantly) by the RMT on the entiire Networker Turbo, Voyager, Pendelino and Electrostar fleets plus some others all with no strikes as far as I’m aware, so it isn’t really a recent or substantial concession by them to actually solve the current disputes without the industry collectively having to as good as abandon their plans altogether
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top