Arriva Rail North DOO

[LOL The Irony]

Would we be having this discussion if a Labour Government was in power , or we had a more reasonable person in Grayling’s shoes ?

No & no.

 

[woodmally]

You're making presumptions about the management (to make them correspond with the RMT's view that they want to use a delaying tactic), despite not knowing the managers and not being there. I'm throwing ideas in to the mix that the RMT wouldn't want to suggest, which could be plausible reasons for managers being late for any meeting in any business. I may have not worked for Northern but I have worked for busy responsive businesses where workload or demands can change from 1 minute to the next - all it takes is for one phone call or email to drop in for everything to change and I'm sure the railways are no exception (someone reported on here services were cancelled on a strike day because a manager standing in as a guard had to respond to an incident with another service so couldn't continue to stand in as a guard.) It's obvious from the RMT's press releases past and present that they don't know or care how management works, all they care about is management giving them what they want when they want it.

Right second time I will defend the RMT in an hour. Hope I won't make a habit of it. Yes meetings can be cancelled due to emergencies but it seems it was more than one meeting and its not an unimportant one. Its the resolution of a major dispute so it should have taken priority. However I believe Northern did it to delay strike action rather than resolve a problem they legally due to the franchise agreement couldn't resolve. They would have been better to ride our the strikes till DOO gets implemented.

 

[Carlisle]

I'll give you an example. Driver has a SPAD on his first day out on his own at a TOC. You're the person in charge of him overall. Do you

A. Work out why, check the fundamentals of whats gone wrong, retrain and ask why he was sent out ready, when he clearly wasn't.
B. Put it down as a one off and hope it doesn't happen again after filling out a bit of paperwork.
C. Sack him

I’ve known several people who work or have worked as bus drivers, and heard tales of plain clothes inspectors going round spying on drivers, some getting pulled up for what appeared to be only reasonably mediocre misdemeanours and ultimately sacked, meaning driver turnover was probably a lot higher than it perhaps needed to be with a just a bit more thought .

 

[footprints]

No & no.

I must have imagined Labour councillors trying to impose DOO on Merseyrail then.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't claim to have a great knowledge of the pro's and con's of DOO. As far as I'm concerned, If agreements have been reached in other TOC's (which they have) I want them reached here now, not after another year of disruption with Northern passengers getting the mucky end of the stick.

This is a good point.

If I was an affected passenger (I’m not, neither am I an RMT member!) I would be extremely frustrated by the strikes, but I would probably place the blame squarely on the doorstep of the DfT. The RMT did not start these disputes (and were only ever going to respond one way to the roll out of DOO*) and you can bet your bottom dollar the TOCs wouldn’t be choosing to have these battles if they weren’t required by the franchise agreements (see Scotrail).

At the end of the day the DfT (not the RMT) is charged with looking after the interests of the travelling public, so the question has to be asked: what was the DfT hoping to achieve in starting these disputes?

Cost savings? Nope - looking at GTR the wage bill has increased (I would actually have more respect if they’d simply sacked all the guards and saved money - at least then they’d be able to point to a concrete benefit - but clearly that was never going to be possible).

Efficiency savings? Again, not really, since driver-vice-guard cancellations were only ever a small % to begin with.

Increased commercial sales? Maybe but that could have much more easily been achieved with reform short of forcing through DOO (and all the disruption that has entailed): moving to driver open guard close; making SWR non commercial guards commercial etc.

So, after hundreds of millions in public money wasted, enormous disruption leading to reduced economic growth and appalling hardship for passengers what does the DfT have to show for its efforts, other than an increased staff wage bill and a negligible affect on train cancellations?

In my view it would be better for everyone, passengers, taxpayers and TOC staff alike, if things had simply been left alone.

*and yes, safety arguments aside, of course the RMT is primarily concerned with preserving its members’ jobs - as it should be as a TU - that should come as no surprise to anyone.

 

[Carlisle]

Right second time I will defend the RMT in an hour. Hope I won't make a habit of it. Yes meetings can be cancelled due to emergencies but it seems it was more than one meeting and its not an unimportant one. Its the resolution of a major dispute so it should have taken priority. However I believe Northern did it to delay strike action rather than resolve a problem they legally due to the franchise agreement couldn't resolve. They would have been better to ride our the strikes till DOO gets implemented.

The RMT entered the talks on the back of the recently signed GA deal, once they realised northern weren’t or couldn’t imminently more or less confirm they’d work towards an almost identical agreement (meaning zero DOO as they don’t currently have any) the strikes will have been back on .

 

[driver_m]

I must have imagined Labour councillors trying to impose DOO on Merseyrail then.

They are very quiet after Momentum have started organising in the area. They wanted the trains desperately, and probably now hope that public opinion will allow them to have an about face. We've had very poor leadership from Steve Rotheram on this other than to say "yes, Andy" with Andy Burnham. Standing up for DOO will almost certainly lose councillors their seats.

 

[driver_m]

I’ve known several people who work or have worked as bus drivers, and heard tales of plain clothes inspectors going round spying on drivers, some getting pulled up for what appeared to be only reasonably mediocre misdemeanours and ultimately sacked, meaning driver turnover was probably a lot higher than it perhaps needed to be with a just a bit more thought .

Bus drivers can be trained up in weeks though, we can't. They're more easily replaced and that's not good for them .No idea how good their union is TBH. The bus industry management has a very bad reputation amongst us, this typifies why that is so.

 

[Tomnick]

If anyone out there disagrees and argues it is about safety then I will make this point. If all your concerned about is passenger safety and after two years and goodness knows how much lost earnings and strike days (not just Northern but other networks too) and you are still in the same place now then the best decision would be to stop striking. When an accident happens that you predicted you can then say I told you so we tried to stop it and Grayling has blood on his hands etc. Its clear the argument isn't going to be won by strike action. If they thought there was a case to be had then they would work with disabled groups and other pressure groups to mount a case to reverse this decision.

The trouble is that when an accident happens, as accidents have happened on DOO trains, it's likely to be because the driver (with his increased workload and pressure, new distractions from core duties, possibly inadequate dispatch equipment) has made an error or misjudgment, missed a trapped passenger in the monitors or whatever. Human factors stuff - it's inevitable really. You can guarantee that Grayling, the DfT/RSSB officials and the TOC's senior management will be protected by a mountain of risk assessments (presumably carefully written to support the pre-determined outcome) whilst the driver will be looking at a manslaughter charge, and the union saying "we told you so" won't help his particular cause even if he is later found not guilty.

 

[woodmally]

This is a good point.

If I was an affected passenger (I’m not, neither am I an RMT member!) I would be extremely frustrated by the strikes, but I would probably place the blame squarely on the doorstep of the DfT. The RMT did not start these disputes (and were only ever going to respond one way to the roll out of DOO*) and you can bet your bottom dollar the TOCs wouldn’t be choosing to have these battles if they weren’t required by the franchise agreements (see Scotrail).

At the end of the day the DfT (not the RMT) is charged with looking after the interests of the travelling public, so the question has to be asked: what was the DfT hoping to achieve in starting these disputes?

Cost savings? Nope - looking at GTR the wage bill has increased (I would actually have more respect if they’d simply sacked all the guards and saved money - at least then they’d be able to point to a concrete benefit - but clearly that was never going to be possible).

Efficiency savings? Again, not really, since driver-vice-guard cancellations were only ever a small % to begin with.

Increased commercial sales? Maybe but that could have much more easily been achieved with reform short of forcing through DOO (and all the disruption that has entailed): moving to driver open guard close; making SWR non commercial guards commercial etc.

So, after hundreds of millions in public money wasted, enormous disruption leading to reduced economic growth and appalling hardship for passengers what does the DfT have to show for its efforts, other than an increased staff wage bill and a negligible affect on train cancellations?

In my view it would be better for everyone, passengers, taxpayers and TOC staff alike, if things had simply been left alone.

*and yes, safety arguments aside, of course the RMT is primarily concerned with preserving its members’ jobs - as it should be as a TU - that should come as no surprise to anyone.

I am a fair paying passenger and put the blame squarely on the RMT to be honest. They are the ones calling the strike action. Most people are not fussed who operates the doors they just want to get from a to b. Its the RMT that's causing this disruption fighting a battle they cannot win. As for the last comment about preserving its members jobs. If they were to say that then that would be great. However they have been lying to us for so long that its not about jobs. I know its about jobs most passengers know its about jobs yet they use "our safety" as a smokescreen. I just wished they would be honest with us all. Honesty would go a long way.

 

[Starmill]

If ASLEF throwing their hat in the ring is likely to result in a quicker resolution, I wish they'd get on with it.

It could have that effect.

It could also have the effect of a driver's strike. I would speculate that if there is a driver's strike at Northern, the likely outcome is that they will operate no service.

 

[yorksrob]

It could have that effect.

It could also have the effect of a driver's strike. I would speculate that if there is a driver's strike at Northern, the likely outcome is that they will operate no service.

Well, I did say "if"

 

[Moonshot]

Well, I did say "if"

Won't happen, because ASLEF locally are negotiating a significant pay deal , some of which has already bore fruit. If ever there was a good time to be a Northern Driver, then this is it

 

[yorksrob]

Won't happen, because ASLEF locally are negotiating a significant pay deal , some of which has already bore fruit. If ever there was a good time to be a Northern Driver, then this is it

That's interesting, and explains some things.

 

[Moonshot]

That's interesting, and explains some things.

Indeed..and to add to that they have had a joint working party for a good while. It actually got bogged down which is why the Union wouldn't extend the rest day working agreement which by chance happened to clash with the new timetable back in may which as we all know , ended up going pear shaped. Interestingly, this week has seen ( for the first time this year ) a number of spare units now appearing at the depot on a daily basis. There should now be no shortage of rolling stock to cover the planned timetable enhancement.

 

[yorksrob]

Interestingly, this week has seen ( for the first time this year ) a number of spare units now appearing at the depot on a daily basis. There should now be no shortage of rolling stock to cover the planned timetable enhancement.

At least that's something that seems to be getting sorted out then.

 

[Bromley boy]

Most people are not fussed who operates the doors they just want to get from a to b. Its the RMT that's causing this disruption fighting a battle they cannot win.

Most passengers probably don’t care who does the doors, I agree. A much larger % probably do value having a second person on board (so long as that person does the customer service bit, walks through the train etc.)

I guess the wider question is, as per my previous post: as a fare paying passenger and a tax payer, what benefits do you think this industrial dispute will bring you, when set against the inconvenience/disruption you’ve experienced/are experiencing?

Do you think it’s worth it (rest assured the one thing you will not be getting is lower fares)? The body accountable to you for your answer to that question is the DfT rather than the RMT.

win. As for the last comment about preserving its members jobs. If they were to say that then that would be great. However they have been lying to us for so long that its not about jobs.

There is a safety case but it is debatable how strong it is based on available figures - of which there don’t seem to be many. But yes they have emphasised safety from a PR perspective (just as the DFT seem to use customer service/increased efficiency as an excuse for forcing through DOO - which is also a lie).

The RMT should have pushed the (far stronger) customer services case, in my view. The point being that if you are in favour of a second person on the train, DOO/DCO (or however you dress it up) is the thin end of the wedge towards the trains I drive where people regularly smoke cigarettes and joints, fight, mug each other, wheelchairs are left behind on a daily basis etc.

 

[Confused52]

There is a safety case but it is debatable how strong it is based on available figures - of which there don’t seem to be many. But yes they have emphasised safety from a PR perspective (just as the DFT seem to use customer service/increased efficiency as an excuse for forcing through DOO - which is also a lie).

The safety case is actually perverse because what the Franchise Agreement calls for is DCO not DOO. However it is clear that there is no penalty for using DOO if best endeavours to provide DCO fail. Under these circumstances the RSSB report says that if it is for an urban service the risk falls not rises. Thus the opposition to DOO is such as to increase risk rather than to reduce it. That, of course relies on the services specified in the actual Franchise Agreement conforming to the characteristics identified in the TSSB report which we cannot check.

The difference between DCO and DOO is critical as the ability to use DOO without penalty allows the TOC to overcome the power of RMT to take action that will always disrupt services, as has been hinted at by other contributors.

 

[Tomnick]

The safety case is actually perverse because what the Franchise Agreement calls for is DCO not DOO. However it is clear that there is no penalty for using DOO if best endeavours to provide DCO fail. Under these circumstances the RSSB report says that if it is for an urban service the risk falls not rises. Thus the opposition to DOO is such as to increase risk rather than to reduce it. That, of course relies on the services specified in the actual Franchise Agreement conforming to the characteristics identified in the TSSB report which we cannot check.

The difference between DCO and DOO is critical as the ability to use DOO without penalty allows the TOC to overcome the power of RMT to take action that will always disrupt services, as has been hinted at by other contributors.

“DCO” *is* DOO, it’s apparently proposed for “Northern Connect” services that run largely outside urban areas and the ability of the TOC to run trains without a second member of staff without penalty means that it’ll undoubtedly become increasingly widespread until it becomes the norm.

 

[Bromley boy]

The safety case is actually perverse because what the Franchise Agreement calls for is DCO not DOO.

I don’t see how it can be when DCO and DOO are the same thing from an operational perspective.

Under these circumstances the RSSB report says that if it is for an urban service the risk falls not rises.

Are you suggesting there’s an RSSB report stating DCO (as distinct from traditional guarded operation) is safer than DOO? Please could you link to it?

As stated previously DOO/DCO are operationally identical so I rather doubt it!

The difference between DCO and DOO is critical as the ability to use DOO without penalty allows the TOC to overcome the power of RMT to take action that will always disrupt services, as has been hinted at by other contributors.

That’s incorrect based on how things have come out in the wash on GTR (Southern). The deal agreed by ASLEF specifically carved out industrial action by OBSs from the agreed “exceptional circumstances” where a train can run “true DOO”.

In fact the only stumbling block to OBSs ability to strike appears to be RMT’s failure to recognise the role (although I’m not sure that’s still the case).

 

[Confused52]

“DCO” *is* DOO, it’s apparently proposed for “Northern Connect” services that run largely outside urban areas and the ability of the TOC to run trains without a second member of staff without penalty means that it’ll undoubtedly become increasingly widespread until it becomes the norm.

I think you know the difference is the presence of a second member of staff who is not charged with the safety duties of a guard. There appears to be nothing in the Franchise Agreement stopping a voluntary agreement to use only DCO which guarantees employment and improves customer service and RP. The assumption that it is intended to push to full DOO would suggest that you believe that the blame for the dispute lies with Northern but I have not seen evidence of that. They are saying they want DCO, as the franchise requires, but the wholesale use of DOO is not something I have seen so far, where did you see that asserted by Northern?

 

[Confused52]

Are you suggesting there’s an RSSB report stating DCO (as distinct from traditional guarded operation) is safer than DOO? Please could you link to it?

As stated previously DOO/DCO are operationally identical so I rather doubt it!

The quote is in Recommendation 1 of https://www.rssb.co.uk/DCOContent/safety-of-driver-controlled-cperation-june-2018.pdf

1If an auxiliary person is normally provided for
a given service then:
•Train operators should consider training
the auxiliary person to use the GSM-R
radio (particularly the REC functionality) in
an emergency;
•If the auxiliary person is unavailable then
the train should continue into service
as DOO, as this option is the lowest risk
overall

 

[Tomnick]

No, it isn’t. A train, even one with a second or third or fourth member of staff, where the driver is solely responsible for the safe operation of the train is a DOO train.

If there is no requirement to actually provide a second member of staff on a given train, do you *really* think that Northern will go to any great lengths to fill vacancies or pay staff overtime to cover work?

I’m cynical about the long term plan because what they’re proposing, redeploying staff into a ‘customer service’ role is exactly what the RSSB propose in their report into the implementation of DOO. They propose it as a more palatable, less disruptive way of implementing full, widespread DOO, by gradually letting the new role fade away as existing staff leave.

 

[Bromley boy]

the ability of the TOC to run trains without a second member of staff without penalty means that it’ll undoubtedly become increasingly widespread until it becomes the norm.

Is the right answer!

The passengers on here baying for DOO should be asking how it will improve their travel experience. They certainly won’t be getting lower fares!

On my (true DOO) trains we might as well put straw into the carriages to soak up the vomit/urine/bodily fluids. The fares are no cheaper...

 

[Bromley boy]

[




!

The quote is in Recommendation 1 of https://www.rssb.co.uk/DCOContent/safety-of-driver-controlled-cperation-june-2018.pdf

You seem to have misread the document you’ve linked to.

Recommendation 8.1 states:

1 If an auxiliary person is normally provided for a given service then:
• Train operators should consider training the auxiliary person to use the GSM-R radio (particularly the REC functionality) in an emergency;
• If the auxiliary person is unavailable then the train should continue into service
as DOO, as this option is the lowest risk overall.

So far so good.

But read that in conjunction with section 6 of the same document which states:

If the auxiliary person is trained to be able to use the GSM-R REC functionality, then entering service as DOO will lead to a small increase
in risk, due to the albeit unlikely scenario of
the train being involved in an accident where the driver is incapacitated and cannot use the GSM-R radio.

So, unless I’m much mistaken, that document* tells us that a second person on board, trained and competent to use the GSMR, is safer than true DOO?

In which case the safety case favouring second person operation is proven and your previous statement is revealed as being incorrect. It might be marginal but certainly isn’t perverse, as you previously stated.

And that’s before we get onto why a second person aboard might be a good idea for customer service reasons!

*after #that# press release (swiftly deleted), which I’m sure we all remember, there’s a suspicion that the RSSB’s figures are massaged in favour of DOO in order to achieve a political objective in any case...

 

[muz379]

I rather suspect the RMT (for all their faults) have a pretty shrewd idea of how TOC management work after 100 years or so in the business and failure to attend meetings on multiple occasions, sending representatives without authority to negotiate etc. smacks either of extreme incompetence or (more likely) delaying tactics.

This is a very salient point . Bearing in mind the people in attendance on the RMT side will be a negotiating team so full time officer and upwards . Its not something that would be attended by local reps . So we are talking about people here with experience of dealing with various different employers practice . They know precisely what a bona fide attempt at resolving a dispute looks like .

The full time officer will have produced a report which is then considered by the NEC who make the decision on how to proceed with the dispute . This report will have detailed all attempts to hold meetings , content of meetings etc etc .

The types of people on the companies side that should be sent to properly negotiate a resolution to a dispute like this would not be those that would need to be called away to deal with day to day operational matters . Decisions on that are made by people in far junior positions .

Lets not forget the bottom line here which is that this is a dispute in which a large group of the organisations staff members have voted for and continued to take part in industrial action over a prolonged period with an impact on the customers of the business and the business itself . Resolution of this should be given appropriate priority and treated as a serious matter . Representatives of those staff members should not just be left for hours on end in conference suites waiting for management wondering if they are going to be able to actually get a go at resolving the dispute that day . I think the vast majority of us would run out of patience much sooner in that situation . Being slightly late for a meeting because of travel disruption is one thing . Routinely turning up late and cutting short agreed meetings with elected staff representatives is just a sure route to further degrading morale of the staff members concerned .

I wonder if the ASLEF negotiating team was treated with similar disdain when meetings took place to agree to an extension of rest day working ?

Even if you do not necessarily subscribe wholly to the unions view that this was an out and out attempt of time wasting but that it is an indication of a very busy senior management team attempting to juggle the competing demands of various massive projects all at once . That is of little concern to the staff in dispute and their reps and an increase in headcount in management should be made to ensure that this dispute can be given sufficient attention if the company really wants to appear serious about a resolution .

 

[Andyh82]

What is the point of Northern sending anyone in authority when there won’t be any negotiating.

DOO is in the franchise agreement, RMT won’t budge from the status quo.

How can you negotiate past that stalemate?

 

[Overspeed110]

What is the point of Northern sending anyone in authority when there won’t be any negotiating.

DOO is in the franchise agreement, RMT won’t budge from the status quo.

How can you negotiate past that stalemate?

The franchise agreement allows Northern, If they want to, to guarantee that a second person who would be safety critical trained will be on every train. No exceptions.

The RMT will not back down from their position that they will accept nothing less than a guarantee of this second safety critical trained person on board every train. (And rightly so.)

So the decision by Northern to not guarantee this second person on every train would seem to be motivated purely for reasons of saving money.

So it is a stalemate (presently), but not insurmountable. What will hopefully happen now that Northern seem to be taking the discussions more seriously will be for the RMT to give a bit on who does what regarding door control, and for Northern to give a bit by guaranteeing that every train will run with a second safety critically trained person.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[Moonshot]

The franchise agreement allows Northern, If they want to, to guarantee that a second person who would be safety critical trained will be on every train. No exceptions.

The RMT will not back down from their position that they will accept nothing less than a guarantee of this second safety critical trained person on board every train. (And rightly so.)

So the decision by Northern to not guarantee this second person on every train would seem to be motivated purely for reasons of saving money.

So it is a stalemate (presently), but not insurmountable. What will hopefully happen now that Northern seem to be taking the discussions more seriously will be for the RMT to give a bit on who does what regarding door control, and for Northern to give a bit by guaranteeing that every train will run with a second safety critically trained person.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

Does that second safety critical person have to be called a guard? If not , why don't Northern simply create a new grade called OBS who has all the competencies for safety, but has nothing to do with door operations and have a salary of £20k a year? That would seem to me to be a win win all round.

 

[Carlisle]

The franchise agreement allows Northern, If they want to, to guarantee that a second person who would be safety critical trained will be on every train. No exceptions.

The RMT will not back down from their position that they will accept nothing less than a guarantee of this second safety critical trained person on board every train. (And rightly so.)

So the decision by Northern to not guarantee this second person on every train would seem to be motivated purely for reasons of saving money.

So it is a stalemate (presently), but not insurmountable. What will hopefully happen now that Northern seem to be taking the discussions more seriously will be for the RMT to give a bit on who does what regarding door control, and for Northern to give a bit by guaranteeing that every train will run with a second safety critically trained person.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

So summed up, your post confirms exactly what @Andy 82 has stated, and reinforces the reasoning why the various parties involved chose to act in the way they did .