Arriva Rail North DOO

[Overspeed110]

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 .

No it doesn't at all. He implies that its impossible for a deal to be done.

There is quite obviously room for manoeuvre on both sides. (And it will happen) and that is the point I was making.

 

[387star]

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.

You out of your mind ?
Thought you were a guard

 

[CN75]

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.

It’s possibly debatable if that is an option to Northern as the ITT says the following:


5.4.1.6 The Department requires a Franchisee who, during each Reporting Period from the first such period that commences on or after 1 January 2020 until the end of the Franchise Term, will operate a minimum of 50 per cent of all passenger train mileage under the driver’s full operational control. For the avoidance of doubt this means that the train must be fitted with the necessary equipment, the driver must be suitably trained, and all other necessary steps must have been taken to enable the train to be operated in passenger service without the need for a second member of staff on board. This requirement does not oblige the Franchisee to reduce levels of on-train staffing, and Delivery Plan 4.1 specifies requirements regarding the continued provision of trained customer-facing staff.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/407802/northern-invitation-to-tender.pdf

 

[Overspeed110]

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.

If that second person (whatever the job title) retains all safety competencies, and a guarantee from Northern that person will be on every train, and if a deal where the driver opens and guard closes cannot be reached, then that may be a solution, but with the proviso that the second person retains door competency for emergencies / degraded working. But on the same money as now, at least. £20k is not enough.

 

[Overspeed110]

It’s possibly debatable if that is an option to Northern as the ITT says the following:


5.4.1.6 The Department requires a Franchisee who, during each Reporting Period from the first such period that commences on or after 1 January 2020 until the end of the Franchise Term, will operate a minimum of 50 per cent of all passenger train mileage under the driver’s full operational control. For the avoidance of doubt this means that the train must be fitted with the necessary equipment, the driver must be suitably trained, and all other necessary steps must have been taken to enable the train to be operated in passenger service without the need for a second member of staff on board. This requirement does not oblige the Franchisee to reduce levels of on-train staffing, and Delivery Plan 4.1 specifies requirements regarding the continued provision of trained customer-facing staff.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/407802/northern-invitation-to-tender.pdf

I don't think so at all.

 

[Robertj21a]

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.

I'm getting totally lost !!

I thought they were required to operate 50% as DOO - no ifs/buts/door open/closed or any other red herrings. If the driver operates everything on his own (i.e as understood to be DOO) then any other person on board is more like the OBS on Southern. There's no requirement for them to be safety critical.

 

[Overspeed110]

I'm getting totally lost !!

I thought they were required to operate 50% as DOO - no ifs/buts/door open/closed or any other red herrings. If the driver operates everything on his own (i.e as understood to be DOO) then any other person on board is more like the OBS on Southern. There's no requirement for them to be safety . critical.

There's nothing in the franchise agreement that prohibits Northern to guarantee a second person on every train. Also nothing to say they can't be safety critical.

So by both parties being sensible about this, you would think a compromise can be thrashed out.

 

[Carlisle]

So by both parties being sensible about this, you would think a compromise can be thrashed out.

However you don’t raellly sound like your suggesting a comprise , more constructing an agreement almost solely to meet all the RMTs current red lines, it won’t be cheap to keep every member of future onboard staff fully competent on routes and doors if a sizeable proportion don’t actually require it 99.9 % of the time

 

[CN75]

There's nothing in the franchise agreement that prohibits Northern to guarantee a second person on every train. Also nothing to say they can't be safety critical.

So by both parties being sensible about this, you would think a compromise can be thrashed out.

Only Arriva and the DfT will know what is in the franchise agreement as such. The ITT is just a minimum set of requirements that the DfT offered that would be acceptable to bidders. Arriva won, so the DfT bought their version of the plans. Arriva’s plans apparently met the clause for 50% DOO but also go further and made commitments about how it would be done by converting some routes to DOO supported by station staffing instead. As such, they are contractual commitments which Arriva are now responsible to deliver to the DfT. To help mitigate against financial risk, the DfT insure against industrial action in the contract. Arriva have told the RMT what they need to achieve, and the RMT refused to accept any role in achieving it. Hence the stalemate.

It also isn’t possible to have a driver solely responsible for moving a train in passenger service if a second person is needed for that train to run.

 

[Robertj21a]

There's nothing in the franchise agreement that prohibits Northern to guarantee a second person on every train. Also nothing to say they can't be safety critical.

So by both parties being sensible about this, you would think a compromise can be thrashed out.

Ah, thanks, I see what you mean. I still can't see why a TOC would volunteer to put a 2nd person on board (safety critical or not) if they aren't required to. They run a business, not a charity !

 

[Overspeed110]

Whatever.

Then the strikes will continue, and hopefully once ASLEF get involved then all the drivers will start taking strike action as well, on different days, when no trains whatsoever will turn a wheel.

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, thanks, I see what you mean. I still can't see why a TOC would volunteer to put a 2nd person on board (safety critical or not) if they aren't required to. They run a business, not a charity !

Er, perhaps revenue collection and protection ?!

 

[northwichcat]

Er, perhaps revenue collection and protection ?!

Indeed. I wonder if the franchise agreement actually requires them to put a driver on every train or whether they just do it because the trains would go nowhere without one?

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. I wonder if the franchise agreement actually requires them to put a driver on every train or whether they just do it because the trains would go nowhere without one?

I'd be surprised if any franchise agreements bother to specify a driver !

 

[Robertj21a]

Er, perhaps revenue collection and protection ?!

Well, if Thameslink don't need a 2nd person on board then there may well be Northern routes that don't need a 2nd person. If it's not a contractual requirement then Arriva can be flexible as to where the business needs to employ a 2nd person - and where it's unnecessary. That's how you keep the business profitable.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, if Thameslink don't need a 2nd person on board then there may well be Northern routes that don't need a 2nd person. If it's not a contractual requirement then Arriva can be flexible as to where the business needs to employ a 2nd person - and where it's unnecessary. That's how you keep the business profitable.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced that having a few hired hands with little knowledge of ticketing matters etc, turning up at random times is remotely as effective as having someone assigned to the train and going up and down it after every couple of stops.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm afraid I'm not convinced that having a few hired hands with little knowledge of ticketing matters etc, turning up at random times is remotely as effective as having someone assigned to the train and going up and down it after every couple of stops.

I didn't suggest 'hired hands' and I didn't suggest anybody without knowledge of ticketing issues !!
Why wouldn't an OBS (as on Southern) be suitable - in those cases where Arriva want a 2nd person on board ?

 

[Moonshot]

Whatever.

Then the strikes will continue, and hopefully once ASLEF get involved then all the drivers will start taking strike action as well, on different days, when no trains whatsoever will turn a wheel.

Absolutely not going to happen, drivers will open doors as long as the money is right. I will guarantee you that.

 

[CN75]

I'm afraid I'm not convinced that having a few hired hands with little knowledge of ticketing matters etc, turning up at random times is remotely as effective as having someone assigned to the train and going up and down it after every couple of stops.

Guards/On train staff doing ticket selling is a reasonable form of revenue protection on light services. Arriva’s plan is that checking passengers before they get on and off at busier stations is more effective, which it has to be for short hop journeys. Many of these journeys are made in the urban areas and having staff at those stations has lots of benefits too. Therefore the guards whose jobs would be subject to conversion to station jobs would likely come from the city depots.

An intelligent negotiation option for the RMT would be to propose all guards will do a mixture of station and guards duties on the trains that need guards, rather than split into two grades. Therefore, the whole group retains the industrial power to stop services running and bargain for pay and conditions. It would keep all the jobs highly skilled, keep up the overtime and prevent agency staff creeping in to the station jobs in the future.

 

[muz379]

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.

Ceating this new grade and hiring more people into it increases the headcount . When what you really need is for the current staff to agree to change of job role .

Otherwise you will be left in a situation when you have to make mass redundancies . And that never gets favourable coverage .

Absolutely not going to happen, drivers will open doors as long as the money is right. I will guarantee you that.

I have no doubt that drivers will agree to open if that is agreed by the RMT . Its not know if they or their union will agree to close them and thus dispatch the train themselves with no guard . And that is the important part .

 

[Eccles1983]

Absolutely not going to happen, drivers will open doors as long as the money is right. I will guarantee you that.

Is this you speaking to drivers like you do guards?

I mean a good deflection saying opening doors - the fight is over doo. I can guarentee you now that the vast majority of drivers will not accept it.

Unless you know more than me, a driver.

 

[driver_m]

Absolutely not going to happen, drivers will open doors as long as the money is right. I will guarantee you that.

Nice to see you have such faith in your 'colleagues' that they'd take the money. Assuming that your not talking about the same as my way of working which has both Driver & Guard and me opening the doors, I'll guarantee you that you're wrong. If it's the same as our working with no DOO then I'd agree with you.

 

[yorksrob]

I didn't suggest 'hired hands' and I didn't suggest anybody without knowledge of ticketing issues !!
Why wouldn't an OBS (as on Southern) be suitable - in those cases where Arriva want a 2nd person on board ?

You might not suggest, but that's what we tend to end up with.

 

[yorksrob]

Guards/On train staff doing ticket selling is a reasonable form of revenue protection on light services. Arriva’s plan is that checking passengers before they get on and off at busier stations is more effective, which it has to be for short hop journeys. Many of these journeys are made in the urban areas and having staff at those stations has lots of benefits too. Therefore the guards whose jobs would be subject to conversion to station jobs would likely come from the city depots.

An intelligent negotiation option for the RMT would be to propose all guards will do a mixture of station and guards duties on the trains that need guards, rather than split into two grades. Therefore, the whole group retains the industrial power to stop services running and bargain for pay and conditions. It would keep all the jobs highly skilled, keep up the overtime and prevent agency staff creeping in to the station jobs in the future.

Yes, but they already check getting on and off at busier stations. There's nothing more to be gained from that, just losing revenue from the intermediate ones.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

If the driver is carrying out train dispatch why does the second person need to be safety critical and in any case they wouldn't be defined officially as such. They are not directing the movement of trains. Nobody is safety critical for the sake of it only if they are required to be by law.

However I do see it as being a pretty bizzare situation as you could say that they take part in receiving and relaying safety critical information particularly if they are being trained in using the GSMR however GTR seem to be allowed to operate with non safety critical staff carrying out various functions so it doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[Robertj21a]

You might not suggest, but that's what we tend to end up with.

My example was of the OBS role at Southern - which appear to meet your concerns. Why wouldn't a similar role be appropriate on Northern, if Arriva so wished ?

 

[driver_m]

If the driver is carrying out train dispatch why does the second person need to be safety critical and in any case they wouldn't be defined officially as such. They are not directing the movement of trains. Nobody is safety critical for the sake of it only if they are required to be by law.

However I do see it as being a pretty bizzare situation as you could say that they take part in receiving and relaying safety critical information particularly if they are being trained in using the GSMR however GTR seem to be allowed to operate with non safety critical staff carrying out various functions so it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Can't help thinking that you need to actually have a ride in the cab or with a guard and see what the job entails. You have box lads/girls to do exactly the same thing in your job, relaying SC info, so why do you feel you're qualified to say what we do or don't need to do?

 

[yorksrob]

My example was of the OBS role at Southern - which appear to meet your concerns. Why wouldn't a similar role be appropriate on Northern, if Arriva so wished ?

They don't seem to do it well, from what I've read on here. They're not provided with the ticketing kbowledge of a guard, andunless they're on the same train, they can't keep an eye on who's getting on and off.

 

[bionic]

Can anyone give me one historical example where ASLEF have taken the money to sell out guards - and thus their own members, by putting huge added responsibility onto drivers - and the queen's shilling they've taken hasn't been absorbed into the pay after a decade or so?

You've got many TOCs now where DOO drivers get considerably less than drivers on other TOCs who work guarded services. Whst happened to the extra money ASLEF negotiated for them? Any extra money is just a loan, a false promise... And this is before you consider the added risks to a drivers job such as wrong side release, trap and drag, self dispatch against a red SPADs etc.

All that money GTR drivers took will be absorbed soon enough.

Trust me, as a driver who has worked both guarded and DOO services... I know what I'd rather do. Any driver who wants to take a few quid now for a career of DOO is, quite frankly, a short sighted fool.

 

[Eccles1983]

Can anyone give me one historical example where ASLEF have taken the money to sell out guards - and thus their own members, by putting huge added responsibility onto drivers - and the queen's shilling they've taken hasn't been absorbed into the pay after a decade or so?

You've got many TOCs now where DOO drivers get considerably less than drivers on other TOCs who work guarded services. Whst happened to the extra money ASLEF negotiated for them? Any extra money is just a loan, a false promise... And this is before you consider the added risks to a drivers job such as wrong side release, trap and drag, self dispatch against a red SPADs etc.

All that money GTR drivers took will be absorbed soon enough.

Trust me, as a driver who has worked both guarded and DOO services... I know what I'd rather do. Any driver who wants to take a few quid now for a career of DOO is, quite frankly, a short sighted fool.

I dont think any driver has said they would. (If it ever gets to a ballot I will be doing mine in full view of the guards that I am assumed already to be selling out)

The usual mob on here have decided that its a done deal. Yet I havent met one driver who considers it a good thing, never mind one that is entertaining the actual process of accepting DOO.

A mistake lots of the usual baiters on here seem to make is judging Northern to Southern. There is zero scope for doo (p) up here as it's never been tested or even introduced.

The union doesnt have the fear of being sued as any challenge would be fully legal and justifiable - thats even before they put it to members who from what I can judge do not want it at any cost.