Arriva Rail North DOO

[a_c_skinner]

It is a law of nature that politicians will make sure trains are too short, except in London.

 

[scrapy]

Not according to the Northern Franchise Agreement committed obligations in Schedule 6.2 , section 18.2 they can't, since it states " … an additional Franchise Employee (that is, in addition to the driver) to be present on such Passenger Service for the purposes of customer service and/or revenue control."

Yes but youve only quoted part of it. It goes on to say. The passenger services in respect the franchise holder shall plan for an additional franchise employee (in addition to the driver) are as follows:-The services that have to have a second member of staff are then ommited from the public version of the document. So nowhere does it say there has to be an OBS or second member of staff planned for every service. There may be roving STM RPIs and STM security staff. (According to Arriva, franchise employees don't actually have to be employed by the franchise holder which is why the STM staff some gatelines where the franchise agreement says it must be a franchise employee e.g. Bolton and Salford)

 

[OxtedSignaller]

It is almost a given that if the RMT wished to they could negotiate a second person rostered on board services like an OBS on Southern. If Northern rejected that offer you could very well argue that they were not helping matters and being reasonable particularly if such a clause is in the contract. You have forgotten the reasons why they roster a second person, generally speaking it's to provide assisted travel, customer service, revenue protection by selling and checking ticket. Unless Northern are going to staff all the stations with customer service and revenue staff they aren't going to be very successful. Why do you think OBS staff on Southern have to check every platform. I am increasingly seeing this whole DOO business North and South as a big boxticking exercise, to please the government. There is no real appetite for change with TOCs hence why they are rostering staff on the same services with the same T&Cs.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes but youve only quoted part of it. It goes on to say. The passenger services in respect the franchise holder shall plan for an additional franchise employee (in addition to the driver) are as follows:-The services that have to have a second member of staff are then ommited from the public version of the document. So nowhere does it say there has to be an OBS or second member of staff planned for every service. There may be roving STM RPIs and STM security staff. (According to Arriva, franchise employees don't actually have to be employed by the franchise holder which is why the STM staff some gatelines where the franchise agreement says it must be a franchise employee e.g. Bolton and Salford)

It's understood that section is omitted because Arriva submitted a list of DCO routes as part of the franchise bid (as Abellio and Govia also did) but DfT wanted to give them the option of talking to the unions and passenger groups and changing the routes included and excluded if valid objections were made.

Given it would cost Arriva a fortune to sack guards in redundancy payments I think any idea of mass replacement of guards with STM employed staff is fantasy - for staff that's one of the benefits of the franchise system as the franchises aren't going to say "Well over 25 years we'll save...."

 

[northwichcat]

It is a law of nature that politicians will make sure trains are too short, except in London.

While in London they have trains designed to carry a high number of standing passengers instead.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Northern have stated that they don't currently intend to run 331s and 195s in multiple in passenger service.

But how are they going to run 6 car trains on the Aire Valley and Calder valley lines then?

It has already been announced that these are the line these new trains will be running and previously announced that trains upon the Aire Valley are to be lengthened to 6.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....hem_/?action=success#comments-feedback-anchor

 

[northwichcat]

But how are they going to run 6 car trains on the Aire Valley and Calder valley lines then?

It has already been announced that these are the line these new trains will be running and previously announced that trains upon the Aire Valley are to be lengthened to 6.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....hem_/?action=success#comments-feedback-anchor

Unless there's some secret deal for the 323s (which isn't impossible) I don't think the original claim is accurate.

I'm doubtful of Northern only running 195s and 331s in single formation even if they retain 323s and use them doubled up. Even if they revise their rolling stock plans and only use 195s/331s in single formation on normal days, what are they going to do for special events?

 

[Andyh82]

How many 2-car sets are there? I fail to see any sensible application for them.

It’ll be the next ‘Northern Fail’ negative press story which will take the shine of the new trains.

Of course they could fast track a repeat order of additional centre cars, or they could just run in over crowded form like Crosscountry Voyagers and TPE 185s.

 

[scrapy]

It's understood that section is omitted because Arriva submitted a list of DCO routes as part of the franchise bid (as Abellio and Govia also did) but DfT wanted to give them the option of talking to the unions and passenger groups and changing the routes included and excluded if valid objections were made.

Given it would cost Arriva a fortune to sack guards in redundancy payments I think any idea of mass replacement of guards with STM employed staff is fantasy - for staff that's one of the benefits of the franchise system as the franchises aren't going to say "Well over 25 years we'll save...."

I don't think Arriva would see the financial benefits of DCO anyway. Arriva won't make guards redundant however is there anything to stop the roles being tendered to STM or Carlisle I think it is now? Existing guards could then be TUPE'd over. It's happened with station cleaning staff.

If it's that the routes are subject to consultation with unions and passenger groups them why can't they be made public in the franchise agreement and put subject to consultation? Where have you got this understanding from?

 

[Confused52]

Yes but youve only quoted part of it. It goes on to say. The passenger services in respect the franchise holder shall plan for an additional franchise employee (in addition to the driver) are as follows:-The services that have to have a second member of staff are then ommited from the public version of the document. So nowhere does it say there has to be an OBS or second member of staff planned for every service. There may be roving STM RPIs and STM security staff. (According to Arriva, franchise employees don't actually have to be employed by the franchise holder which is why the STM staff some gatelines where the franchise agreement says it must be a franchise employee e.g. Bolton and Salford)

I have raised the whole thing before but I find people don't read what is there and make up some other meaning rather often. You are correct that there doesn't have to be a second employee on every train, however if it is diagrammed it is a breach to not supply that employee. It is not for a driver to decide whether he should take the train if it is diagrammed as DCO, but it is for the DfT to decide if abuse represents a franchise breach, and I expect the RMT will help bring those to light if they become habit forming! You chose to ignore the requirement for diagramming in your quote.

The definition of Franchise Employee is in the Franchise agreement and does include sub-contractors.

The idea that there has to be an OBS on every train is not the RMT's position or Arriva's. I am grateful for @jcollins explanation of the redaction of the list of service for which a second employee must be provided for the specified purpose since that means that it was meant to be helpful in negotiations and not to hinder them. The idea that the company is deliberately trying to do something other than what they say publicly and always to the detriment of its staff is becoming tiresome. The will no doubt be services that are just DCO without a second employee but the public care only where and when those services are they don't understand that there needs to be a particular grade present at all.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Im currently trying to understand the history off all this, can someone please point out if was originally the intention to implement DOO instead of DCO?

Also does anyone know if SWT are also legally obligated to implement DCO? Thanks

 

[hwl]

Im currently trying to understand the history off all this, can someone please point out if was originally the intention to implement DOO instead of DCO?

Also does anyone know if SWT are also legally obligated to implement DCO? Thanks

SWR need to to reduce platform dwell times otherwise they have no chance of running a reliable service as passenger numbers have increased.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think Arriva would see the financial benefits of DCO anyway. Arriva won't make guards redundant however is there anything to stop the roles being tendered to STM or Carlisle I think it is now? Existing guards could then be TUPE'd over. It's happened with station cleaning staff.

If it's that the routes are subject to consultation with unions and passenger groups them why can't they be made public in the franchise agreement and put subject to consultation? Where have you got this understanding from?

The new rolling stock information was commercially sensitive at the time the agreement was published. How can DCO be signed off with relevant parties when the new rolling stock is still a secret?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Unless there's some secret deal for the 323s (which isn't impossible) I don't think the original claim is accurate.

I'm doubtful of Northern only running 195s and 331s in single formation even if they retain 323s and use them doubled up. Even if they revise their rolling stock plans and only use 195s/331s in single formation on normal days, what are they going to do for special events?

I have had similar thoughts regarding what do you do with the units outside peak hours, although that is what Ive heard on here, from what I know Northern are required to lengthen them to 6, so I presume they will run for the majority of the day doubled up then lay one off in the evening.

If they're not going to do it, surely they wouldn't have bothered lengthening the platforms?

 

[northwichcat]

Im currently trying to understand the history off all this, can someone please point out if was originally the intention to implement DOO instead of DCO?

Also does anyone know if SWT are also legally obligated to implement DCO? Thanks

The Northern consultation looked at various money saving options which Peter Wilkinson and co came up with. They included reducing calls at lesser used stations so that stations with higher patronage could get more services without requiring more rolling stock, replacing ticket offices with TVMs, axing guards etc. Pretty much all the proposals didn't go ahead in the original form suggested but from the RMT press releases you'd think they are going ahead.

 

[northwichcat]

I have had similar thoughts regarding what do you do with the units outside peak hours, although that is what Ive heard on here, from what I know Northern are required to lengthen them to 6, so I presume they will run for the majority of the day doubled up then lay one off in the evening.

If they're not going to do it, surely they wouldn't have bothered lengthening the platforms?

I'd suggest @scrapy is giving some misinformation, possibly unintentionally. For instance, maybe he asked his manager about doubled up 195s and 331s and his manager said there wouldn't be any - meaning the routes scrapy signs don't include any with plans to use doubled up 195s or 331s, rather than that being the situation network wide.

 

[scrapy]

I'd suggest @scrapy is giving some misinformation, possibly unintentionally. For instance, maybe he asked his manager about doubled up 195s and 331s and his manager said there wouldn't be any - meaning the routes scrapy signs don't include any with plans to use doubled up 195s or 331s, rather than that being the situation network wide.

I don't work for Northern and haven't done since the early days of Serco Abellio. My information has come from a Northern driver who has been told this by a DTM involved in developing the training plan for these units. It may well be the case that units are coupled for special events but when the units were ordered the plan was that they would be diagrammed to operate individually.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't work for Northern and haven't done since the early days of Serco Abellio. My information has come from a Northern driver who has been told this by a DTM involved in developing the training plan for these units. It may well be the case that units are coupled for special events but when the units were ordered the plan was that they would be diagrammed to operate individually.

But aren't the Yorkshire 331's being paired up during peak?

 

[Bantamzen]

But aren't the Yorkshire 331's being paired up during peak?

Its always been mooted as being the case. I can't honesty see a single 331 coping with the demands at the peaks in West Yorkshire, when the 321/322/333s all struggle as it is.

 

[northwichcat]

Its always been mooted as being the case. I can't honesty see a single 331 coping with the demands at the peaks in West Yorkshire, when the 321/322/333s all struggle as it is.

The franchise announcement improvement lists mentioned 6 car EMU workings and an internal cascade so released 333s replaced the 321s and 322s. Plus Northern handed Network Rail a list of platforms they want lengthening and the required lengths, which included stations on the Skipton route.

 

[Starmill]

I don't work for Northern and haven't done since the early days of Serco Abellio. My information has come from a Northern driver who has been told this by a DTM involved in developing the training plan for these units. It may well be the case that units are coupled for special events but when the units were ordered the plan was that they would be diagrammed to operate individually.

Unless this is in relation to work done at the moment either by solo 153s, or solo 2-car pacers, then I don't believe this claim. A 2-car 195 would be a very significant reduction in capacity on some diesel services as compared to the current situation.

 

[muz379]

Unless this is in relation to work done at the moment either by solo 153s, or solo 2-car pacers, then I don't believe this claim. A 2-car 195 would be a very significant reduction in capacity on some diesel services as compared to the current situation.

Is the consensus not that these new dmu's are going to be put to use on the limited stop "connect services" ? which will with some juggling of other services ,introduction of 769's and other cascades provide for additional capacity above what is already provided ?

Besides there are only going to be 25 double car sets . So if these are to be run doubled up all the time they wont actually spread that far .
I do however think that in the interest of future proofing they should all have been 3 car minimum .

 

[yorksrob]

I see that on the SWT DOO thread, someone has posted that the RMT have said that they would agree to a Greater Anglia style compromise whereby the driver would open the doors and the guard close them.

Have the RMT made any such comment in relation to the dispute on Northern ?

 

[northwichcat]

I see that on the SWT DOO thread, someone has posted that the RMT have said that they would agree to a Greater Anglia style compromise whereby the driver would open the doors and the guard close them.

Have the RMT made any such comment in relation to the dispute on Northern ?

The 'Greater Anglia style compromise' meets the franchise requirements for Anglia but doesn't for Northern so if Northern came to that style of arrangement with the unions they could be penalised or even be stripped of the franchise, unless DfT approve the change first.

 

[yorksrob]

The 'Greater Anglia style compromise' meets the franchise requirements for Anglia but doesn't for Northern so if Northern came to that style of arrangement with the unions they could be penalised or even be stripped of the franchise, unless DfT approve the change first.

I'm aware of that. I wanted to know whether the RMT have said they'd agree to such a solution with Northern, were it on the table.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm aware of that. I wanted to know whether the RMT have said they'd agree to such a solution with Northern, were it on the table.

That deal (driver release, guard close), much as it makes absolute sense for pretty much every guarded train and is widely used across the network already, has frequently been refused in the North West - in particular the Class 175s were delivered for only that method of operation and had to be modified before use. Goodness only knows why, as it is to me the best method of operation available, as it avoids guards having to break off what they are doing to release the doors while retaining them and the safety and customer service benefits of guarded dispatch.

 

[northwichcat]

That deal (driver release, guard close), much as it makes absolute sense for pretty much every guarded train and is widely used across the network already, has frequently been refused in the North West - in particular the Class 175s were delivered for only that method of operation and had to be modified before use. Goodness only knows why, as it is to me the best method of operation available, as it avoids guards having to break off what they are doing to release the doors while retaining them and the safety and customer service benefits of guarded dispatch.

It was also refused when Northern took the 180s on a temporary basis and resulted in guards doing local door release at a couple of stations with short platforms even though the units had SDO as it was only set up for SDO if the doors were released by the driver. The RMT even balloted on strike action and added to the dispute the fact Northern were set to operate the tram-trains between Rotherham and Sheffield using a driver and RPI staff - why was why it ended up subcontracted to Supertram.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm aware of that. I wanted to know whether the RMT have said they'd agree to such a solution with Northern, were it on the table.

The RMT also know what the Northern franchise agreement says so they know they could offer that knowing that it'll be rejected but it would be good for their PR.

 

[PR1Berske]

Good for PR, terrible for passengers!

 

[northwichcat]

Good for PR, terrible for passengers!

But.. but.. the RMT are striking for the passenger's safety. Passengers are much safer using unstaffed bus stops to board overcrowded single manned bus services and rail replacement buses operated using by vehicles which wouldn't be allowed to run public bus services anymore, or using Uber if there's no buses. :roll: