Arriva Rail North DOO

[woodmally]

Where were you when Northern's service was falling down around its ears ?

I accept they bodged up on a massive scale. However where was the RMT. Oh that's it still striking making it ten times worse for the poor passenger.

 

[woodmally]

Deals on greater anglia and Mersey imminent

How? Is DOO not part of their agreement?

 

[driver_m]

Deals on greater anglia and Mersey imminent

If it's in favour of keeping SC trains onboard staff in a similar vein to ScotRail then it'll make for interesting reading.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not entirely, people I know who use Southern understandably don’t have a lot of time for govt or the TOC, but there’s also a fair bit of relief the RMT can’t neatly as easily cause such prolonged misery in future.

That’s entirely understandable, but I’d suggest those same people you mention, as GTR (southern) commuters, would much prefer that the dispute hadn’t happened in the first place.

The RMT’s position was unchanging, and was clear from the outset. Let’s face it, the DfT chose to go in ham-fisted and picked a fruitless battle. A bit like wading into the battle of the Somme - a wholly pointless war of attrition.

The southern franchise worked very well and was of the few TOCs which operated “in the black” until the DOO dispute kicked off.

In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here we are, 3 years on, £100m+ of public money wasted, untold economic grief, years of extreme misery for commuters.

For all of that disruption, all that heartache, what does the DfT actually have to show for its endeavours?! They’ve achieved precisely sweet f*ck all. The GTR wage bill is now higher than before the dispute kicked off and will be, far into the future.

Wouldn’t it have been far better all round if the whole hornets’ nest had been left alone in the first place!?

Mark my words. The northern dispute will go the same way.

 

[bramling]

That’s entirely understandable, but I’d suggest those same people you mention, as GTR (southern) commuters, would much prefer that the dispute hadn’t happened in the first place.

The RMT’s position was unchanging, and was clear from the outset. Let’s face it, the DfT chose to go in ham-fisted and picked a fruitless battle. A bit like wading into the battle of the Somme - a wholly pointless war of attrition.

The southern franchise worked very well and was of the few TOCs which operated “in the black” until the DOO dispute kicked off.

In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here we are, 3 years on, £100m+ of public money wasted, untold economic grief, years of extreme misery for commuters.

For all of that disruption, all that heartache, what does the DfT actually have to show for its endeavours?! They’ve achieved precisely sweet f*ck all. The GTR wage bill is now higher than before the dispute kicked off and will be, far into the future.

Wouldn’t it have been far better all round if the whole hornets’ nest had been left alone in the first place!?

Mark my words. The northern dispute will go the same way.

Agree with all of the above. Why interfere with something which worked well, a franchise which was performing reasonably okay and had already been immensely improved since the dark days of Connex South Central. Obviously time will tell if the OBS role survives into the future, but I tend to take the view that if you’re going to have a second person on the train you might as well get the safety/performance/customer service benefits of having them fully trained up as a guard.

 

[farleigh]

Bromley Boy is correct in my opinion. Southern was a great improvement and I believe would have been seen as a success were it not for the disputes. They did some good things.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

That’s entirely understandable, but I’d suggest those same people you mention, as GTR (southern) commuters, would much prefer that the dispute hadn’t happened in the first place.

The RMT’s position was unchanging, and was clear from the outset. Let’s face it, the DfT chose to go in ham-fisted and picked a fruitless battle. A bit like wading into the battle of the Somme - a wholly pointless war of attrition.

The southern franchise worked very well and was of the few TOCs which operated “in the black” until the DOO dispute kicked off.

In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here we are, 3 years on, £100m+ of public money wasted, untold economic grief, years of extreme misery for commuters.

For all of that disruption, all that heartache, what does the DfT actually have to show for its endeavours?! They’ve achieved precisely sweet f*ck all. The GTR wage bill is now higher than before the dispute kicked off and will be, far into the future.

Wouldn’t it have been far better all round if the whole hornets’ nest had been left alone in the first place!?

Mark my words. The northern dispute will go the same way.

But remember its nothing to do with the money its about providing customers with a high level of customer service...... Govia do not know anything about delivering and inspiring their staff to deliver excellent customer service and I really hope post 2021 its given to a reputable operator who can develop the brand and service provided as a regional rail operator now Thameslink have taken over a lot of the high density commuter work and TfL could potentially take over South London Metro.

It must be cheaper in some ways because the OBS do not have to have route knowledge, and as such can be used across the network with much less training than a traditional Guard however they are still employing Guards alongside OBS at Brighton, Barnham and Eastbourne as well as a pretty big Guards depot at Selhurst who have lost a huge chunk of work so there is no crossover and they need extra staff to cover this divison of roles. This and the increased number of station staff to dispatch all these DOO services where previously you could have one member of staff dispatching to the Guard where as now you need two or three depending on location.

I do still believe the auxilary staff model can be successful it works well on Scotrail where they have a Ticket Examiner on board Strathclyde services and the Northern Connect service could well fit the bill for a service where this can really work.

 

[387star]

Still unclear if the OBS are being PTS trained per the agreement

 

[Carlisle]

The RMT’s position was unchanging, and was clear from the outset.

It was anything but clear, it flitted from dispatch issues to disabled access issues to job security & competency issues, to no sccond person issues, depending mainly on how well it was felt their tie up with ASLEF was going at the time, all from a union that had been perfectly happy to sign off almost identical deals like Airdrie-Bathgate & full DOO on London Overground only a few years previously.

Wouldn’t it have been far better all round if the whole hornets’ nest had been left alone in the first place!?
.

The fact you describe the whole thing as a hornets nest suggests industrial relations were pretty poor and possibly imbalanced anyway, if they weren’t, all sides would have likley worked together a lot sooner & much harder behind the scenes in order to secure a deal for the good of their industry.

 

[B&I]

I accept they bodged up on a massive scale. However where was the RMT. Oh that's it still striking making it ten times worse for the poor passenger.

So where were your online complaints about Northern's inability to run a vertical piddle session in a brewery ? Or are you another one who believes that every time you stub your toe it must somehow be Len McCloskey's fault ?

 

[northwichcat]

In fairness to the RMT, though, they aren’t wrong in saying that. The current operator of Northern presumably did their due diligence and therefore took the franchise on in full knowledge of what the agreement specified.

It’s also no secret that the RMT aren’t exactly fans of the current conservative government! But the nature of an industrial dispute is that, by definition, it must be conducted directly against the employer in question.

Reportedly Abellio and Govia planned to introduce more DCO services than Arriva in their Northern bids, so if that's true from the RMT's prospective the best bidder won. Although, Abellio reportedly would have delivered more improvements for passengers while Govia would reportedly have introduced a lot of DCO and as few improvements as possible, so if that's true from the passenger's prospective it could have been better but it could also have been worse.

While a union representing private sector employers can't strike against the government, there's no reason they could organise anti-DfT protests and/or marches instead of taking strike.

 

[scrapy]

Northern and RMT have agreed to talks aimed at resolving the dispute, (first time since February). These talks will directly involve Mick Cash and David Brown (and their respective delegations). So is the first time the leaders of the two sides have got directly involved. I am not aware that either sides position on DOO has changed so agreement is unlikely but may at least delay further strikes.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

From what I understand Abellio West Midlands and the RMT have also now agreed to Drivers operating the doors on new or upgraded suitable rolling stock similar to Greater Anglia as long as a Safety Critical Guard is on board. As the majority of Northern routes will retain older or diesel rolling stock is this not the best solution to the whole dispute, and then they can utilise their on board staff throughout the network and not on this isolated route.

This seems to be a good compromise and a good operating model now being used throughout the country. I am surprised Scotrail did not follow this model during the shortlived dispute.

 

[Dave1987]

From what I understand Abellio West Midlands and the RMT have also now agreed to Drivers operating the doors on new or upgraded suitable rolling stock similar to Greater Anglia as long as a Safety Critical Guard is on board. As the majority of Northern routes will retain older or diesel rolling stock is this not the best solution to the whole dispute, and then they can utilise their on board staff throughout the network and not on this isolated route.

This seems to be a good compromise and a good operating model now being used throughout the country. I am surprised Scotrail did not follow this model during the shortlived dispute.

A thoroughly sensible post! And one I very much agree with. All these disputes could end right now if the intransigence of the Grayling and the DFT stopped.

 

[northwichcat]

As the majority of Northern routes will retain older or diesel rolling stock is this not the best solution to the whole dispute, and then they can utilise their on board staff throughout the network and not on this isolated route.

I'm not sure it is. Victoria drivers sign the Mid-Cheshire line but Victoria guards don't, while Victoria crews sign 158s but Piccadilly and Buxton guards (who sign the Mid-Cheshire) don't sign 158s. So if Northern were able to operate DCO services on the Mid-Cheshire and DCO services using 158s, they could put a 158 on the Mid-Cheshire line this afternoon, if they wanted to. However, with guards they can't do that unless either Victoria guards learn the Mid-Cheshire or Piccadilly or Buxton guards first learn 158s. That's just an illustrative example, I'm not trying to suggest either the Mid-Cheshire line should be a DCO route or that 158s are suitable to run under DCO. However, in the case of the mess following the May 2018 timetable change it could have made it easier and quicker to clean up. Of course, an alternative is to reduce the number of different trains used, just like Greater Anglia are doing.

 

[HowardGWR]

From what I understand Abellio West Midlands and the RMT have also now agreed to Drivers operating the doors on new or upgraded suitable rolling stock similar to Greater Anglia as long as a Safety Critical Guard is on board. As the majority of Northern routes will retain older or diesel rolling stock is this not the best solution to the whole dispute, and then they can utilise their on board staff throughout the network and not on this isolated route.

This seems to be a good compromise and a good operating model now being used throughout the country. I am surprised Scotrail did not follow this model during the shortlived dispute.

I don't understand the significance of this suggestion. How are staff savings to be made if there are still two staff on the train? Second, where do your capital letters come from? Is this a new grade, neither a guard nor an OBS?

 

[OxtedSignaller]

I don't understand the significance of this suggestion. How are staff savings to be made if there are still two staff on the train? Second, where do your capital letters come from? Is this a new grade, neither a guard nor an OBS?

Why is everyone so obsessed with so called staff savings. I have never heard any of the TOCs directly suggest it is about staff savings but 'Customer Service' instead and increasing the visibility of staff. I know it all doesn't very plausible however I imagine the staff savings, and efficiency savings are more than likely to be achieved during the second phase of DOO introduction which I am sure will be with us in a few years time, especially when smart ticketing has taken off.

 

[northwichcat]

Why is everyone so obsessed with so called staff savings. I have never heard any of the TOCs directly suggest it is about staff savings but 'Customer Service' instead and increasing the visibility of staff. I know it all doesn't very plausible however I imagine the staff savings, and efficiency savings are more than likely to be achieved during the second phase of DOO introduction which I am sure will be with us in a few years time, especially when smart ticketing has taken off.

TOCs and DfT will be more bothered about the total staffing costs than the number of staff employed. Something as simple as having an OBS work 30 minutes longer per shift in lieu of employing additional staff could represent a saving, even if the OBS' are paid more to allow for the longer working hours. They don't need extra training to work 30 minutes longer, they don't need an additional uniform set to work 30 minutes longer employer's NI and pension contributions favour fewer employees working longer hours etc.

 

[Dave1987]

TOCs and DfT will be more bothered about the total staffing costs than the number of staff employed. Something as simple as having an OBS work 30 minutes longer per shift in lieu of employing additional staff could represent a saving, even if the OBS' are paid more to allow for the longer working hours. They don't need extra training to work 30 minutes longer, they don't need an additional uniform set to work 30 minutes longer employer's NI and pension contributions favour fewer employees working longer hours etc.

So the DFT are trying reduce staff numbers? Yet I clearly heard our delightful **** of a PM stating at PM questions today that this Tory Government is all about jobs and good quality well paid jobs. Yet one department in her Government departments is trying to get rid of a well paid job. Something smells distinctly like hypocrisy here!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Deals on greater anglia and Mersey imminent

My tenner is on OBS a likes and bye bye ticket offices...

 

[speedy_sticks]

From what I understand Abellio West Midlands and the RMT have also now agreed to Drivers operating the doors on new or upgraded suitable rolling stock similar to Greater Anglia as long as a Safety Critical Guard is on board. As the majority of Northern routes will retain older or diesel rolling stock is this not the best solution to the whole dispute, and then they can utilise their on board staff throughout the network and not on this isolated route.

This seems to be a good compromise and a good operating model now being used throughout the country. I am surprised Scotrail did not follow this model during the shortlived dispute.

As long as the guard/OBS is able to get on to the platform at every stop. How else can a wheelchair passanger get on to the train at an unstaffed platform?

 

[ComUtoR]

TOCs and DfT will be more bothered about the total staffing costs than the number of staff employed.

Which puts a reliance on overtime and reduces flexibility. Congratulations, that's the problem with GTR and the rest of the bloody railway..

Something as simple as having an OBS work 30 minutes longer per shift in lieu of employing additional staff could represent a saving, even if the OBS' are paid more to allow for the longer working hours.

Which is still a direct increase in costs.

They don't need extra training to work 30 minutes longer,

But in the long term you still need to consider maximum term lengths, average working hours, fatigue, rostering etc etc. It really isn't 'simple'

they don't need an additional uniform set to work 30 minutes longer employer's NI and pension contributions favour fewer employees working longer hours etc.

Having less staff, working longer. Doesn't work. Every job I've ever had has suffered because of it; except one. They had a glut of staff and never had a single staffing issue. Flexibility was high, wages were low, sickness was almost non existent, I never had a day where I didn't have enough staff.

 

[Loop & Link]

My tenner is on OBS a likes and bye bye ticket offices...

Must be great to have all the answers, and play trains in your head and on a forum, in reality these are real peoples jobs and careers you’re talking about, but nice you can just say “Bye, Bye” to their jobs, try not to come across as being smug next time, in regard to this, almost sounds like your made up.

It’s as if your thought process is guards won’t be losing their jobs, but we’ll just have to go after another grade now instead.

 

[northwichcat]

So the DFT are trying reduce staff numbers? Yet I clearly heard our delightful **** of a PM stating at PM questions today that this Tory Government is all about jobs and good quality well paid jobs. Yet one department in her Government departments is trying to get rid of a well paid job. Something smells distinctly like hypocrisy here!

In the case of Northern I don't think it can be argued they are reducing staff considering they'll need significantly more staff to run the December 2019 timetable than they needed at the December 2016 timetable change date. However, it could be that they are trying to minimise the number of additional staff they are going to take on.

 

[northwichcat]

Which is still a direct increase in costs.

You're missing the point. Say you pay the employees £15 an hour, 28 staff working 37.5 hours per week totals 1050 hours worked per week, 30 staff working 35 hours per week total 1050 hours worked per week. In both cases the gross salaries for the week would be £15,750. However, in the case of 28 staff working 37.5 hours per week the employer's NI contributions will be lower, the pension contributions will also be lower, 2 fewer sets of uniform are required, 2 fewer employees require training etc.

 

[Dave1987]

In the case of Northern I don't think it can be argued they are reducing staff considering they'll need significantly more staff to run the December 2019 timetable than they needed at the December 2016 timetable change date. However, it could be that they are trying to minimise the number of additional staff they are going to take on.

If they kept the same number of roles they would be providing even more good quality jobs! Utter hypocrisy from Mays Government.

 

[HowardGWR]

The McNulty report stated that there were too many staff (presumably both NR and TOCs) and there had to be savings. I assumed the DOO improvements being incorporated in franchise agreements was to help bring this about. I also assumed that where an OBS would be present anyway, this was justified on revenue protection and customer service grounds, the point being that the OBS didn't have to break off from those duties to muck about with doors. I assume the OBSs pay for themselves, by stopping fare evasion, otherwise no saving would occur. They would have to take £15 to £20 pounds an hour in otherwise lost revenue to achieve that.

 

[ComUtoR]

You're missing the point. Say you pay the employees £15 an hour, 28 staff working 37.5 hours per week totals 1050 hours worked per week, 30 staff working 35 hours per week total 1050 hours worked per week.

The initial 28 members of staff you stated should be working additional hours. If people are booked to work 35 hours per week. Your staff cost is £14,700. By increasing their hours by 2.5hrs a week you now overspend on your budget by £1,050. That is a direct increase. Whether it's staff or overtime, you are increasing your costs.

In your example the cost of two additional staff becomes too simplistic. You are ignoring basic employment issues. What if all those staff refused to do the overtime ? You have 70hrs of work uncovered. Feel free to check the various posts about reliance on overtime.

The exact problem the railway has is exactly what you want to continue with its shortsighted and there is clear evidence that reliance on overtime is a broken method of working.

 

[northwichcat]

The initial 28 members of staff you stated should be working additional hours. If people are booked to work 35 hours per week. Your staff cost is £14,700. By increasing their hours by 2.5hrs a week you now overspend on your budget by £1,050. That is a direct increase. Whether it's staff or overtime, you are increasing your costs.

In your example the cost of two additional staff becomes too simplistic. You are ignoring basic employment issues. What if all those staff refused to do the overtime ? You have 70hrs of work uncovered. Feel free to check the various posts about reliance on overtime.

The exact problem the railway has is exactly what you want to continue with its shortsighted and there is clear evidence that reliance on overtime is a broken method of working.

Northern will have to employ 100s of extra staff. You suggested earlier that they should employ new guards and train them on both the new and existing routes.

These new staff have no contracts yet and there aren't any existing staff on OBS contracts so Northern will have to decide on the terms of the OBS contracts and as the RMT refuse to recognise the role if Northern say they'll have more contracted hours than guards then that'll be the case.

They'll also be a significant number of guards still needed, as far as I'm concerned the existing guards stay on guard contracts.

I'm also not suggesting the idea I proposed is the solution, I'm saying it's the answer to how do you get lower staffing costs by having OBS' without creating a poorly paid role.

 

[Robertj21a]

Clearly, it would be sensible for all concerned if Northern came up with a 'good' package of T&Cs for any new OBS role - something that most people would recognise as realistic and a positive way forward. The lack of RMT input may well prove advantageous.