Arriva Rail North DOO

[Gems]

There is absolutely nothing new in this. TFTN have always taken this view. It was Arriva who went off on a tangent and decided to tell staff and union reps they wanted to explore the idea of running many trains with no staff on board at all.

This is welcome, but I seriously doubt it will unlock any doors unless Arriva drop this insane idea of running trains with nobody on board and no staff at stations. The cynic in me thinks it is just a ploy to save Christmas and as a Northern guard, I am completely unmoved.

 

[Andyh82]

And the RMT response to that statement.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-responds-to-transport-for-the-north-statement/

So they are prepared to discuss a proposal, the only caveat being that it must be exactly the same as currently?

 

[northernchris]

There is absolutely nothing new in this. TFTN have always taken this view. It was Arriva who went off on a tangent and decided to tell staff and union reps they wanted to explore the idea of running many trains with no staff on board at all.

This is welcome, but I seriously doubt it will unlock any doors unless Arriva drop this insane idea of running trains with nobody on board and no staff at stations. The cynic in me thinks it is just a ploy to save Christmas and as a Northern guard, I am completely unmoved.

Now that the Government and TFN have publicly backed retaining the second member of staff onboard, Arriva would have to be stupid to continue with a DOO stance.

 

[yorksrob]

There is absolutely nothing new in this. TFTN have always taken this view. It was Arriva who went off on a tangent and decided to tell staff and union reps they wanted to explore the idea of running many trains with no staff on board at all.

This is welcome, but I seriously doubt it will unlock any doors unless Arriva drop this insane idea of running trains with nobody on board and no staff at stations. The cynic in me thinks it is just a ploy to save Christmas and as a Northern guard, I am completely unmoved.

Are they not, effectively publicly calling on Arriva to drop the idea of running trains without a second person on board ? Up until now, the position of the contracting authorities on this has always seemed pretty woolly to me.

 

[Gems]

Now that the Government and TFN have publicly backed retaining the second member of staff onboard, Arriva would have to be stupid to continue with a DOO stance.

Yes they would, so let us see what happens now. But until they do, nothing has changed.

 

[Killingworth]

Are they not, effectively publicly calling on Arriva to drop the idea of running trains without a second person on board ? Up until now, the position of the contracting authorities on this has always seemed pretty woolly to me.

Seems like semantics but it's not.

Guard. Second person on board. And what they may do.

That's the crux of the dispute.

 

[yorksrob]

Seems like semantics but it's not.

Guard. Second person on board. And what they may do.

That's the crux of the dispute.

Given that this dispute has seemed to generate more heat than light, I think it would certainly help to clarify matters if both sides were to publicly disown the idea of running trains without guards. The RMT couldn't then claim it as a back door to "driver only" trains, and would have to negotiate on what role the second person played.

 

[Andyh82]

Given that this dispute has seemed to generate more heat than light, I think it would certainly help to clarify matters if both sides were to publicly disown the idea of running trains without guards. The RMT couldn't then claim it as a back door to "driver only" trains, and would have to negotiate on what role the second person played.

But the RMT would still not negotiate on drivers opening and/or closing doors, or guards losing any safety critical duties, so I can’t see how their position has changed.

If anything the RMT’s position would be weaker as up to this point due to inaccurate media reports, many people think all Northern trains were going to be one person operated.

 

[yorksrob]

But the RMT would still not negotiate on drivers opening and/or closing doors, or guards losing any safety critical duties, so I can’t see how their position has changed.

If anything the RMT’s position would be weaker as up to this point due to inaccurate media reports, many people think all Northern trains were going to be one person operated.

Northern must surely have to offer a second person on every train, albeit with amended duties, otherwise they wouldn't have the backing of their contracting authority.

If the RMT weren't then willing to negotiate on the role of a guaranteed second person (which could be driver open/guard close, for example), it would show them to be subjecting Northern passengers to a greater degree of disruption than other passengers, a position that would look particularly bad under public scrutiny. That aside, just closing the doors is clearly a safety critical function, so the RMT could agree to this amendment, whilst still having insisted on a safety critical staff member on each train.

 

[Robertj21a]

Good to see that somebody is prepared to wade in, hoping to make some progress.

Terribly disappointing to see the RMT come back, very quickly, with their usual blanket conditions.

 

[Robertj21a]

Now that the Government and TFN have publicly backed retaining the second member of staff onboard, Arriva would have to be stupid to continue with a DOO stance.

Not sure I follow you. There can still be 2 people on board - DOO is just that the driver is the only person operating the train. A second person can also be on the train, just like the Southern OBS.

 

[Carlisle]

If the RMT weren't then willing to negotiate on the role of a guaranteed second person (which could be driver open/guard close, for example), it would show them to be subjecting Northern passengers to a greater degree of disruption than other passengers, .

They already do , as they’ve provisionally ended the adjacent Merseyrail dispute with no outright guarantee of safety critical status or door duties

 

[yorksrob]

They already do , as they’ve provisionally ended the adjacent Merseyrail dispute with no outright guarantee of safety critical status or door duties

Well, we need the dispute ended here now.

 

[northernchris]

Not sure I follow you. There can still be 2 people on board - DOO is just that the driver is the only person operating the train. A second person can also be on the train, just like the Southern OBS.

It does Arriva more leeway now though, and hopefully will encourage both sides back to negotiations. At the very least I'd hope the RMT would accept driver open / guard close

 

[a_c_skinner]

Judging by all that the thread was unlocked prematurely.

 

[Sleepy]

EMT (and crews) must be tearing their hair out over what it's doing to Manchester - Liverpool etc.

 

[Gems]

Judging by all that the thread was unlocked prematurely.

Agreed. It is toxic

 

[Robertj21a]

Judging by all that the thread was unlocked prematurely.

Why ? - there was fresh news that none of us knew about previously.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed. It is toxic

I think an intervention of this sort by the contracting authority is worthy of comment.

 

[Killingworth]

EMT (and crews) must be tearing their hair out over what it's doing to Manchester - Liverpool etc.

So are passengers travelling between Sheffield and Manchester wanting to catch a reliable service from either TPE or East Midlands.

East Midland's decision not to stop any extra trains on the Hope Valley route must be influenced by the late running that's at its worst on the Liverpool - Manchester section.

TfN's CE may be familiar with Edale and the particular difficulties being caused on that line and others like it.

 

[Killingworth]

Northern's response sent to Stakeholders is linked here; https://mailchi.mp/northernrailway....be-retained-on-northern-services?e=03ae721055

It will be interesting to see if it can generate any cooperative response.

"Dear colleague,

I am writing to you following the statements issued yesterday evening by the Government and Transport for the North (TfN) regarding a second person on board our trains.

We welcome the Government’s public support for a second person to be retained on board our trains, which should give reassurance to our customers and staff and should meet RMT’s aspirations.

There can now be no reason for the RMT to continue its disruptive and economically damaging strikes in the build up to Christmas.

As I have previously advised you, we invited RMT to ACAS talks in the summer and were willing to discuss the options that they themselves put forward, including those RMT had agreed with other train operators. Despite those talks breaking down, we have remained open to further discussions, but all attempts have been rejected by RMT.

I look forward to RMT suspending their December strikes, and accepting my long-standing invitation to get back round the table at ACAS to resolve their dispute.

Any remaining concerns about safety, security or accessibility have now been answered – there will be a second person on-board to meet customers’ needs in those areas, and in the other vital customer service work they do.

We will continue the important job of modernising local rail for customers with new trains, better stations and more services and keep you updated with our progress.

Yours sincerely

David Brown
Managing Director
Northern"

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Transport for the North does not support removing the second person from trains"

That isn't a guard (necessarily). I don't see what has changed and I should not imagine the RMT does either..

OBS would of course deliver what they want. Just not what the RMT wants.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Seems like semantics but it's not.

Guard. Second person on board. And what they may do.

That's the crux of the dispute.

Given that this dispute has seemed to generate more heat than light, I think it would certainly help to clarify matters if both sides were to publicly disown the idea of running trains without guards. The RMT couldn't then claim it as a back door to "driver only" trains, and would have to negotiate on what role the second person played.

The future role of retained guards, with whatever amended job title, could still depend on ASLEF. A month ago Northern was saying that the new trains would be infiltrated into service from December onwards. But this week they have said that the trains will not enter service before the May timetable change due to there being no agreement (yet) with ASLEF about the training programme required for new traction. It seems highly likely that the hold-up is about door operation. As such there is little point in RMT discussing any change to the role of the guard without there first being a clear understanding about what drivers will or will not do in future. Unless of course Northern declares itself to be no longer interested in introducing DOO operation. When I first heard about the government intervention I was hopeful that finally progress could be made but on reflection I think the dispute has some time to go before it is resolved.

 

[muz379]

The future role of retained guards, with whatever amended job title, could still depend on ASLEF. A month ago Northern was saying that the new trains would be infiltrated into service from December onwards. But this week they have said that the trains will not enter service before the May timetable change due to there being no agreement (yet) with ASLEF about the training programme required for new traction. It seems highly likely that the hold-up is about door operation. As such there is little point in RMT discussing any change to the role of the guard without there first being a clear understanding about what drivers will or will not do in future. Unless of course Northern declares itself to be no longer interested in introducing DOO operation. When I first heard about the government intervention I was hopeful that finally progress could be made but on reflection I think the dispute has some time to go before it is resolved.

I can tell you now that it isn't .

 

[Robertj21a]

Northern's response sent to Stakeholders is linked here; https://mailchi.mp/northernrailway....be-retained-on-northern-services?e=03ae721055

"Dear colleague,

I am writing to you following the statements issued yesterday evening by the Government and Transport for the North (TfN) regarding a second person on board our trains.

We welcome the Government’s public support for a second person to be retained on board our trains, which should give reassurance to our customers and staff and should meet RMT’s aspirations.

There can now be no reason for the RMT to continue its disruptive and economically damaging strikes in the build up to Christmas.

As I have previously advised you, we invited RMT to ACAS talks in the summer and were willing to discuss the options that they themselves put forward, including those RMT had agreed with other train operators. Despite those talks breaking down, we have remained open to further discussions, but all attempts have been rejected by RMT.

I look forward to RMT suspending their December strikes, and accepting my long-standing invitation to get back round the table at ACAS to resolve their dispute.

Any remaining concerns about safety, security or accessibility have now been answered – there will be a second person on-board to meet customers’ needs in those areas, and in the other vital customer service work they do.

We will continue the important job of modernising local rail for customers with new trains, better stations and more services and keep you updated with our progress.

Yours sincerely

David Brown
Managing Director
Northern"

Nice and clear. A public statement that there will be a second person on board. No need for more debate on that specific issue.

An OBS was what I had always assumed would be the eventual solution - but, of course, that still doesn't change the demands of the RMT.

 

[yorksrob]

The future role of retained guards, with whatever amended job title, could still depend on ASLEF. A month ago Northern was saying that the new trains would be infiltrated into service from December onwards. But this week they have said that the trains will not enter service before the May timetable change due to there being no agreement (yet) with ASLEF about the training programme required for new traction. It seems highly likely that the hold-up is about door operation. As such there is little point in RMT discussing any change to the role of the guard without there first being a clear understanding about what drivers will or will not do in future. Unless of course Northern declares itself to be no longer interested in introducing DOO operation. When I first heard about the government intervention I was hopeful that finally progress could be made but on reflection I think the dispute has some time to go before it is resolved.

Presumably if ASLEF disagree with any change in the role of the guard, we are just back to the status quo, in which case what does it matter, so long as the trains are running.

The RMT agreeing on changes to the guard role, which ASLEF may or may not agree to, is a lot less damaging than saddling the railway in the North of England with a highly destructive industrial action, which is probably already causing long term damage to the rail industry here.

 

[yorksrob]

Nice and clear. A public statement that there will be a second person on board. No need for more debate on that specific issue.

An OBS was what I had always assumed would be the eventual solution - but, of course, that still doesn't change the demands of the RMT.

Driver open/guard close is an option used on other TOC's, so this should be on the table.

 

[Carlisle]

Driver open/guard close is an option used on other TOC's, .

Only really, given current technologies , due to either a lack of body side cameras/ platform equipment, or the TOC being unable to gain agreement for driver door operation. Hence why DFT, specified the recent deals broadly as they did .

 

[yorksrob]

Only really, given current technologies , due to a lack of either body side cameras/ platform equipment, or the TOC being unable to gain agreement for driver door operation.

I'd personally think that a second person would probably be better positioned to check whether someone's leaning on the train for example, than the driver who ought to be concentrating on the way ahead.

Anyhow, even if that wasn't the case, it'll be a long time before all Northern's fleet has bodyside cameras, so its frankly a theoretical argument that isn't worth the disruption.

 

[SC43090]

The one point that all those statements don't say is that the second person should be SAFETY CRITICAL........... That could be the word that could end this dispute or not.......

SC 43090