Arriva Rail North DOO

[agbrs_Jack]

No your not the only one. I've felt this for a while. The current set up no one really loses. Northern dont lose as they can maintain a skeleton service on Saturday and those on strike can gain an income on Sunday that they lost due to strike. A prolonged strike action would force the situation to a head one way or the other.

Correct, no one really loses, EXCEPT the passengers.

 

[northwichcat]

So is it unsafe where there are no dispatchers and no members of staff, visible or otherwise ? Who decides where they are 'needed' and what requirements would you implement ?

That argument applies for all services (ones with and ones without guards.)

Why is it OK for Northern to operate a pair of 150/1s with the guard in the rear unit at all times but it not OK for Northern to operate a 2 car 195 with just a driver on board?

Why is it OK for a 3 car 323/4 car 319 to be dispatched at Alderley Edge or Cheadle Hulme without a dispatcher but not at Wilmslow or Stockport?

Why is it OK for a Northern guard to not walk through a train late at night meaning no visible staff presence but LNR have guards and additional security staff walking through trains late at night?

There's no consistency.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Why is it OK for a 3 car 323/4 car 319 to be dispatched at Alderley Edge or Cheadle Hulme without a dispatcher but not at Wilmslow or Stockport?

I'm assuming that it was down to a formal risk assessment. Straight line platform, low passenger numbers. Both Wilmslow and Stockport are busier stations with greater numbers of passengers, many who will be waiting for other services at the same platform.

Not that I don't agree with your inconsistency point, I can see the reasoning.

 

[Carlisle]

I'm assuming that it was down to a formal risk assessment. Straight line platform, low passenger numbers. Both Wilmslow and Stockport are busier stations with greater numbers of passengers, many who will be waiting for other services at the same platform.
.

Perhaps Virgin contributes towards the costs of employing dispatch staff at the above stations, as I don’t believe self dispatch is normal accepted practice at most stations for Pendolinos

 

[northwichcat]

I'm assuming that it was down to a formal risk assessment. Straight line platform, low passenger numbers. Both Wilmslow and Stockport are busier stations with greater numbers of passengers, many who will be waiting for other services at the same platform.

Not that I don't agree with your inconsistency point, I can see the reasoning.

A busier station doesn't mean every service calling at it has more passengers. Passenger count data shows more passengers board and alight Mid-Cheshire services at Knutsford and Altrincham (where there's no dispatchers) than at Chester and Stockport (where there are dispatchers.)

 

[Puffing Devil]

A busier station doesn't mean every service calling at it has more passengers. Passenger count data shows more passengers board and alight Mid-Cheshire services at Knutsford and Altrincham (where there's no dispatchers) than at Chester and Stockport (where there are dispatchers.)

I was thinking more of the total passenger numbers milling around on the platform. At the Alderley and Cheadle platforms I would expect everyone to be either entering or leaving the train. At the other stations, there will be passengers waiting for other services.

Perhaps Virgin contributes towards the costs of employing dispatch staff at the above stations, as I don’t believe self dispatch is normal accepted practice at most stations for Pendolinos

The Virgin funded staff will be there, though we're talking about the 323/319, not the Pendos as they don't (normally) call at Alderley or Cheadle.

 

[northwichcat]

I was thinking more of the total passenger numbers milling around on the platform. At the Alderley and Cheadle platforms I would expect everyone to be either entering or leaving the train. At the other stations, there will be passengers waiting for other services.

At Cheadle Hulme the Stoke southbound service is 5 minutes after the Alderley Edge and while there's bigger gaps northbound if the Wigan bound service is late, people for Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme (who have to catch the ex-Crewe to Piccadilly) might be waiting on the platform by the time it arrives.

 

[Puffing Devil]

At Cheadle Hulme the Stoke southbound service is 5 minutes after the Alderley Edge

That's on a different platform (4).

people for Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme (who have to catch the ex-Crewe to Piccadilly) might be waiting on the platform by the time it arrives.

Might. We're only assuming as to why and assuming it would have been a risk assessment. That there might be a couple of Pax waiting does not equate to the numbers at the other stations.

 

[Carlisle]

The Virgin funded staff will be there, though we're talking about the 323/319, not the Pendos as they don't (normally) call at Alderley or Cheadle.

Yes, I was only referring to a possible explanation for those arrangements at Wilmslow or Stockport

 

[ComUtoR]

That argument applies for all services (ones with and ones without guards.)

So do you believe that no staff is unsafe ? Because you are arguing to a get a default position that no staff are present. Your argument seems to imply that you should be supporting to keep Guards and Station staff and if anything support DCO as a minimum.

 

[Carlisle]

So do you believe that no staff is unsafe ? Because you are arguing to a get a default position that no staff are present. Your argument seems to imply that you should be supporting to keep Guards and Station staff and if anything support DCO as a minimum.

If unions and top management had been willing to properly debate these issues in a mature fashion rather than threatening each other with ballots or redundancies at the first hint of change then I’m sure acceptable default positions could have probably been agreed years ago or even soon after the Mc Nulty report, but as that didn’t happen and the industry /DFT simply chose to park any remotely challenging decisions until the present franchise, we are where we are .

 

[northwichcat]

So do you believe that no staff is unsafe ? Because you are arguing to a get a default position that no staff are present. Your argument seems to imply that you should be supporting to keep Guards and Station staff and if anything support DCO as a minimum.

I want the best scenario for passengers which I believe is a second member of staff booked to be on every service and for that member of staff to be clearly visible to passengers. However, if the second member of staff is unavailable and cancelling the next service would likely leave passengers isolated at remote stations for a long time, as well as causing the next service to be overcrowded, then I believe in the circumstances the best thing to do is to run a service with just a driver on board. No point in arguing the train can't run with just a driver on board for 'safety reasons' when there's plenty of safety issues which will occur as a result of the cancellation.

 

[woodmally]

Correct, no one really loses, EXCEPT the passengers.

Well actually the current strike action minimises impact on passengers but yes we are losing out over this action. However to be honest I didnt even consider us commuters in that post because throughout this dispute no side really cares about us. Thats why I get so angry when the RMT use the excuse its simply about our safety. If they really were concerned for us and it wasnt about pay or job loses they would just abandon the strike action. Most passengers dont want the strikes and many wouldnt have a problem with DOO.

 

[PR1Berske]

Anecdote alert.

I was in a pub earlier, here in Preston. Two blokes noted that I was drinking Cloudwater cans so struck up a conversation. They were from Chorley and had intended to take the train to Manchester, but, and i quote;

"The woman at the counter said, basically, think twice about going anywhere because it's so hard to get back, with the strikes and that."
​

They chose a train to Preston and either a train/bus/taxi back, as required. I suggested that the strikes could carry on until Christmas, even beyond. They said they were resigned to this. One of them said:

"It's making me think twice about the Christmas Markets in Manchester. What if I'm stuck there then?"
​

Remembering a few lines from this forum, I suggested that the RMT were only trying to safeguard (so to speak) jobs for the future. and that guards are only fighting for the safety of passengers. They ummed and aaahed, argued and conversed, and we had quite a good chat. Before we said our goodbyes we got on to the topic of the Lancashire Day Rangers, one of my favourite tickets to use on a payday weekend so I can have a few drinks here and there without carrying dozens of tickets. When I had explained the ticket and we'd recommended pubs to each other, one of them said:

"I suppose there's little point making plans to leave the house let alone make a day of it if these strikes are going on every week!"
​

I suppose the leisure market for Saturday/Sunday travel might continue to rise and fall, dip and recover, as the interminable Saturday strikes continue. I wonder, though, how many of these individual instances have come together to create a bigger, less avoidable problem. How many people have been told, "perhaps don't go to Manchester because it's hard to get back"? How many denied passengers have told their friends, who have told their friends, who have told their friends, who have all chosen to go by car or coach or mini-bus?

How many people were thinking of dates, office parties, corporate do's, payday splurges, driving lesson passing celebratory meals, football matches, rugby grand finals, trips to the pubs, who are all now thinking "we cannot leave our town because of the RMT strikes"? How many dozens have turned into hundreds have turned into thousands of people?

One anecdote is just an example, a conversation. But I do wonder just how many similar conversations have been held, how many people have changed their plans. How radically different have the RMT strikes made the leisure travel market? What price the continued opposition to DOO?

 

[agbrs_Jack]

Well actually the current strike action minimises impact on passengers but yes we are losing out over this action. However to be honest I didnt even consider us commuters in that post because throughout this dispute no side really cares about us. Thats why I get so angry when the RMT use the excuse its simply about our safety. If they really were concerned for us and it wasnt about pay or job loses they would just abandon the strike action. Most passengers dont want the strikes and many wouldnt have a problem with DOO.

Some places maybe, but Congleton (Yes, I go on a lot) has zero trains and is the busiest station not served on strike days (with no alternative).
so it might 'minimise impact' for Buxton, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds. But us that want to go into Manchester on a Saturday simply can't.
People will realise there are no trains every Saturday and just assume that it the case even when the strikes (eventually...) end. Leisure travel could cease to exist.

 

[DaveB10780]

Today daughter wanted to go to Manchester and got a train in on the Buxton line. Since the line is now down to one train, three hourly service I had to pick her up from Stockport on the way back. She has a season ticket does this mean delay repay I wonder? We are sick to death of this strike and feel the RMT should think again about what they are doing to thousands of people. All the strikers should be banned from overtime payments and be hurt in the pocket as much as possible for what they have perpetrated.

Thanks very much to those who are working and keeping some services operational, you are much appreciated.

 

[agbrs_Jack]

Today daughter wanted to go to Manchester and got a train in on the Buxton line. Since the line is now down to one train, three hourly service I had to pick her up from Stockport on the way back. She has a season ticket does this mean delay repay I wonder? We are sick to death of this strike and feel the RMT should think again about what they are doing to thousands of people. All the strikers should be banned from overtime payments and be hurt in the pocket as much as possible for what they have perpetrated.

Buxton had an hourly service last Saturday and RTT shows the same for the 20th.

Today seems to be a lot worse, but still not awful!

 

[northernchris]

All the strikers should be banned from overtime payments and be hurt in the pocket as much as possible for what they have perpetrated.

That would lead to a lot more disruption though across the other 6 days as services are cancelled due to no conductor

 

[a_c_skinner]

Again we are going round in circles, with more heat than light.

 

[Eric]

The RMT have a valid point though. What happens when the train is DOO and there is a major incident/accident?

 

[Moonshot]

The RMT have a valid point though. What happens when the train is DOO and there is a major incident/accident?

It hasn't stopped ASLEF members driving trains on there own

 

[Moonshot]

Again we are going round in circles, with more heat than light.

Indeed, 5700 posts and nothing has actually changed at ground level

 

[agbrs_Jack]

The RMT have a valid point though. What happens when the train is DOO and there is a major incident/accident?

Nothing can be perfect, there will always be incidents.
You simply cannot make everything 100% safe because nothing is.
DOO is already in use further south, I don't believe there have been any major incidents yet?

 

[DaveB10780]

I work in London quite often and have travelled about quite a lot on the suburban services which are certainly DCO and maybe DOO. The doors can be opened a few seconds after arrival, the trains depart shortly afterwards. There is often a second person on the train which is great. That is all we wish for here. Not union bashing except to highlight how misguided they are in this instance where no jobs will be lost for the next 10-20 years which is all anyone can ask for. Please get back to doing your jobs. It is NOT a safety issue.

 

[a_c_skinner]

As I've said before the mountain the RMT has to climb is many years of safe DOO (one man actually as it was called back in the day) operation on Thameslink and BedPan before that. Add to that the apparent lack of added value for the passengers in normal operation. I still think a second person should be on the train serving the needs of the passengers. They plainly are not needed for safe day to day operation given the correct precautions. So the RMT is forced to fall back on the "what if.." argument. They've not because the only practical "what ifs" that demand a fully trained second person are highly unlikely or contrived.

 

[Carlisle]

The RMT have a valid point though. What happens when the train is DOO and there is a major incident/accident?

Probably because all reasonable evidence so far suggests the outcome of an accident resulting in driver incapacitation, wouldn’t be significantly altered by the presence of a loan guard

 

[yorksrob]

I have to say, I've yet to be on a service without a mandatory second staff member, where I have found the customer experience to be better than that offered by (to my mind) normal services where a guard has to be present, therefore I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that a second member of staff should be guaranteed on board. I disagree that this member of staff should necessarily have the same duties preserved in aspic.

 

[Tomnick]

If they really were concerned for us and it wasnt about pay or job loses they would just abandon the strike action. Most passengers dont want the strikes and many wouldnt have a problem with DOO.

It's about job losses *and* your safety (and, in turn, the implications on the continued liberty of those with direct responsibility for your safety). Most passengers have very little idea of the safety implications.

What price the continued opposition to DOO?

The price is high, there's no doubt about that, although it's still only a relatively small part of the much greater cost of the daily general disruption. That said, let's look back at Peter Wilkinson's comments at that "break the unions" speech in Croydon a couple of years ago:

"Over next three years we're going to be having punch ups and we will see industrial action and I want your support," Mr Wilkinson told residents in Croydon Town Hall during a meeting organised by local Conservative MP Gavin Barwell, the Croydon Advertiser reported.

He knew full well what was coming and seemed to relish the challenge. What price the personal agenda of Peter Wilkinson?

All the strikers should be banned from overtime payments and be hurt in the pocket as much as possible for what they have perpetrated.

Get a grip - it's legitimate industrial action "perpetrated" by workers who are fighting to protect their livelihoods and your safety. What you propose sounds far from legitimate, and in any case sounds rather foolish when the service relies on exactly that overtime for the rest of each week.

I work in London quite often and have travelled about quite a lot on the suburban services which are certainly DCO and maybe DOO. The doors can be opened a few seconds after arrival, the trains depart shortly afterwards. There is often a second person on the train which is great. That is all we wish for here. Not union bashing except to highlight how misguided they are in this instance where no jobs will be lost for the next 10-20 years which is all anyone can ask for. Please get back to doing your jobs. It is NOT a safety issue.

It's certainly not my experience, albeit probably more limited, that DOO suburban services "often" have a second member of staff. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone other than roving revenue protection teams, and I'm not aware of any arrangement (recent Southern OBS developments possibly aside) to provide anyone.

Probably because all reasonable evidence so far suggests the outcome of an accident resulting in driver incapacitation, wouldn’t be significantly altered by the presence of a loan guard

It's pretty obvious that the outcome would likely be significantly altered by the presence of someone who is competent to carry out emergency protection, has the route knowledge to summon the emergency services to a suitable access point, arrange and lead an emergency evacuation if it's necessary or reassure the passengers and encourage them to stay on the train otherwise.

It wouldn't take much to incapacitate the driver - a collision with a fallen tree could do it, maybe derailing the leading bogie (foul of the adjacent line) but not causing any other injuries. Who's going to get that adjacent line stopped before another train arrives on the scene and makes things many, many times worse.

I have to say, I've yet to be on a service without a mandatory second staff member, where I have found the customer experience to be better than that offered by (to my mind) normal services where a guard has to be present, therefore I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that a second member of staff should be guaranteed on board. I disagree that this member of staff should necessarily have the same duties preserved in aspic.

If there's a second member of staff guaranteed to be on board, why go to such lengths to change their duties? Does it really justify a dispute on this scale?

 

[yorksrob]

It's about job losses *and* your safety (and, in turn, the implications on the continued liberty of those with direct responsibility for your safety). Most passengers have very little idea of the safety implications.


The price is high, there's no doubt about that, although it's still only a relatively small part of the much greater cost of the daily general disruption. That said, let's look back at Peter Wilkinson's comments at that "break the unions" speech in Croydon a couple of years ago:


He knew full well what was coming and seemed to relish the challenge. What price the personal agenda of Peter Wilkinson?


Get a grip - it's legitimate industrial action "perpetrated" by workers who are fighting to protect their livelihoods and your safety. What you propose sounds far from legitimate, and in any case sounds rather foolish when the service relies on exactly that overtime for the rest of each week.


It's certainly not my experience, albeit probably more limited, that DOO suburban services "often" have a second member of staff. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone other than roving revenue protection teams, and I'm not aware of any arrangement (recent Southern OBS developments possibly aside) to provide anyone.


It's pretty obvious that the outcome would likely be significantly altered by the presence of someone who is competent to carry out emergency protection, has the route knowledge to summon the emergency services to a suitable access point, arrange and lead an emergency evacuation if it's necessary or reassure the passengers and encourage them to stay on the train otherwise.

It wouldn't take much to incapacitate the driver - a collision with a fallen tree could do it, maybe derailing the leading bogie (foul of the adjacent line) but not causing any other injuries. Who's going to get that adjacent line stopped before another train arrives on the scene and makes things many, many times worse.

If there's a second member of staff guaranteed to be on board, why go to such lengths to change their duties? Does it really justify a dispute on this scale?

Well, I don't think it does. Unfortunately, as a passenger, I don't trust any of the protagonists in this dispute to be acting in the passengers interest. We know the DfT is being disingenuous when it states that it has "nothing" to do with such industrial disputes. Yet at the same time I hear that the RMT has changed its position since making an agreement with Merseyrail.

 

[Eric]

Probably because all reasonable evidence so far suggests the outcome of an accident resulting in driver incapacitation, wouldn’t be significantly altered by the presence of a loan guard

Although in a perceived poorly wrote tweet, I was thinking of someone or a safety hazard on board in the carriages endangering the lives of passengers. Something which the driver would be oblivious to happening until perhaps it was too late.