Northern discussions on conductor restructuring at an end

[Fokx]

No problem with the principle that Sundays should be part of one's core contract and be pensionable, but as for there being no guarantee one can book a specific Sunday off, isn't that the case for just about everyone for whom Sunday working is part of their job? A reasonable employer will do their best to accommodate such requests, but there's no inherent guarantee that any particular day can be booked as leave

Perhaps I should have rephrased this part:

Essentially you can't book Sundays you are rostered to carry out (1 in 3) as daily leave. You can request leave, but you'll only be granted this if there is sufficient cover, rest day volunteers or a reduced timetable in place.

Whereas if Sunday was a normal day, a quota of conductors would be allowed to request to book this off with no conditions attached.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 17:27 ==

Is it? I thought that Sundays weren't "committed" on the West side, and therefore entirely reliant upon willing volunteers. Or has that changed?

On transpennine, yes it's compulsory overtime 1 Sunday every 3 weeks.

For some reason my comment on Transpennine Express from my Transpennine Express Industrial Action thread was moved onto this (Northern?) one hence the confusion.

 

[scrapy]

From what I understand on the matter, in simple terms discussions were ongoing and progressing well about Sundays.

The company then decided to add driver open to the deal along with a reduction in annual leave allowances for depots on a 4 day week on the west side, and longer maximum turn lengths, scrapping walking times on the east and various other changes all of which benefitted the company rather than guards.

There was an uplift in salary for all this but this was only a similar figure as what the RMT had originally been discussed for Sundays only.

The company said its all or nothing. The RMT offerred its members two seperate votes. One to bring Sundays in the working week (accepted) one for all the other changes to terms and conditions (rejected). Neither of which had been formally offerred by the company as seperate deals. It did however send a clear message to the company that the guards were willing to do a deal on Sundays.

It begs the question, why did Northern waste months talking about Sundays alone only to throw productivity in at the end, knowing it would likely be turned down. Was it opportunist?, was it DFT interference? or do they/the government simply not want to bother running trains on a Sunday as the subsidy needed would be too great?, and the guards contract issue is a scapegoat.

What seems clear is that if the offer for Sundays alone is put back on the table, it would be accepted by RMT because they have a mandate.

 

[mickey]

Has the RMT explained how they believe DOCC is less safe on Northern than on any other TOC that uses it? If not it’s hard to see it as anything other than plainly opportunistic. And didn’t they accept it fairly recently on SWR?

 

[ModernRailways]

As far as I'm aware, Northern guards actually voted to accept bringing Sundays into the working week. The issue is that the company wouldn't accept only part of the deal being accepted. They have the mandate to do it.

This is correct. It was voted to accept Sundays as part of the working week, along with all the rest of the t&c (CRI) changes. DOCC was a resolution proposed to the role of the guard dispute and was never agreed, but was instead, at the 11th hour, added into the CRI changes.
RMT held a vote and the CRI changes was barely accepted, DOCC was heavily voted against.

Northern could be running a full timetable on Sundays this December, but instead Angela Hern has chosen against it and arguably seems quite happy with the current situation of no trains running. The comms from Northern internally are also horrific and are only serving to lower morale even further.

Considering Andy Burnham was Manchester mayor and wanted to see services running and places connected it’s amazing to see this still hasn’t gone through.

 

[Dr Hoo]

References to ‘the company’ meaning the DfT Operator Limited presumably?

 

[lowe1409]

Northern could be running a full timetable on Sundays this December, but instead Angela Hern has chosen against it and arguably seems quite happy with the current situation of no trains running. The comms from Northern internally are also horrific and are only serving to lower morale even further.

Considering Andy Burnham was Manchester mayor and wanted to see services running and places connected it’s amazing to see this still hasn’t gone through.

I don't feel like there's enough publicity about it. RMT should really try to communicate it more than the conductors are on board with Sundays. It's now purely the politicians who ain't. No other way will the political pressure be put on northern to accept what they can with Sunday's. And talk about the rest afterwards.

 

[ModernRailways]

I don't feel like there's enough publicity about it. RMT should really try to communicate it more than the conductors are on board with Sundays. It's now purely the politicians who ain't. No other way will the political pressure be put on northern to accept what they can with Sunday's. And talk about the rest afterwards.

Full agreement. The RMT have been exceptionally poor with comms, both to their members and externally especially when compared with ASLEF.
They should put out a press release, be speaking with media, especially within Manchester and other North West towns that are essentially cut off on Sundays, that train crew are wanting to sort their T&Cs and are in agreement but that Northern have added in a stipulation almost knowingly that it’ll fail to go through and Northern are happy with the status quo.

 

[Undiscovered]

Deleted

 

[Flying_Turtle]

Because it is the right thing to do. A driver is best placed to ascertain if the train has stopped in the correct place and open the doors. This archaic insistence on adhering to outdated processes and bending the knee to every union demand no matter how trivial or stupid has to stop. This is not just a Northern disease ; it is across the industry, Throw in amateur bean counters in the DfT and disinterested ToC management in the throes of being nationalised and it is easy to see how this dispute and many others are prolonged unnecessarily.

You really should try to drive a train for a living...

 

[Jimini]

You really should try to drive a train for a living...

...or wait for the doors to finally open on a LNWR train. It's painfully slow. Seems like a sensible option to me, as a passenger.

 

[scrapy]

Because it is the right thing to do. A driver is best placed to ascertain if the train has stopped in the correct place and open the doors.

Really??? What makes you say this? If a guard stands on the platform the they can see the full train and whether the train is in the right place. They can see hazards such as broken paving, tripping hazards etc that they may want to make safe or warn people about before opening the doors.

A driver can see in front and a limited view to the side (maybe not even the platform side on certain stock types, where the platform is on the right). On 331s/195s there are unclear cameras giving a small image (in reverse), of each door, assuming they are not steamed up. On other Northern stock types there are no cameras.

I am aware of several occasions of wrong side door release by drivers (not on Northern obviously) as it becomes autopilot because they can't see much of the platform, by looking to the left to view cameras they press the button on the left but the platform is on the right. I am only aware of one incidents of wrong side door release where it was a guards fault and this was because the guard was totally wreckless and never worked on a train again and was dismissed following the incident with company having the full support of the RMT.

 

[pr1]

Passengers and other 'outside the industry' people viewing this thread must be in disbelief that Sunday contracts/T&C's are of such a state that the current skeleton service could well be reduced yet further. What's the next step down from skeleton?

I don't know who to believe or what to accept in this complex and multi-layered argument: I'd just like a train to run on a Sunday.

 

[TUC]

Passengers and other 'outside the industry' people viewing this thread must be in disbelief that Sunday contracts/T&C's are of such a state that the current skeleton service could well be reduced yet further. What's the next step down from skeleton?

I don't know who to believe or what to accept in this complex and multi-layered argument: I'd just like a train to run on a Sunday.

I just want the rail industry to stop turning every issue such as this into a complex task when every other industry has gone on and solved it long ago. It isn't just the Sunday working issue. There is a wider culture of complexity and overthinking which needs addressing.

 

[Kilopylae]

It begs the question, why did Northern waste months talking about Sundays alone only to throw productivity in at the end, knowing it would likely be turned down. Was it opportunist?, was it DFT interference? or do they/the government simply not want to bother running trains on a Sunday as the subsidy needed would be too great?, and the guards contract issue is a scapegoat.

I think the managers (or DfT perhaps) really think they will strongarm the union into these changes going through, because they think they HAVE to. They think these changes MUST be made now or at some point (for the sake of 'efficiency', 'productivity', etc).

This obsession with 'modernising' working practices is an endemic cultural issue - they can't leave things alone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This obsession with 'modernising' working practices is an endemic cultural issue - they can't leave things alone.

This can also be worded differently - any business that does not constantly improve and modernise its processes and working practices in line with modern technology will (and should) fail because others competing with them will (and should) take the business by being cheaper or otherwise better.

The railway is only hidden from this because it receives subsidy and is an effective monopoly.

 

[lowe1409]

This can also be worded differently - any business that does not constantly improve and modernise its processes and working practices in line with modern technology will (and should) fail because others competing with them will (and should) take the business by being cheaper or otherwise better.

The railway is only hidden from this because it receives subsidy and is an effective monopoly.

Not all modernising in the customer interest though. For a lot of businesses it means delivering a worse product for a higher price, why shouldn't the railway be sheilded from some of this trend.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not all modernising in the customer interest though. For a lot of businesses it means delivering a worse product for a higher price, why shouldn't the railway be sheilded from some of this trend.

Now the railway is operated not for profit, one of the stakeholders will benefit from that - the taxpayer. The argument that it is done to line shareholders' pockets is no longer valid.

The debate on where more railway costs should fall - user or taxpayer - is a separate political one. But individuals benefit from cost reductions financially one way or the other now, either in their fares or in their taxes or a bit of both.

 

[ainsworth74]

At TPE it’s compulsory regardless of depot. This thread is a little complex as it’s got both TPE and Northern Sunday issues in it

On transpennine, yes it's compulsory overtime 1 Sunday every 3 weeks.

For some reason my comment on Transpennine Express from my Transpennine Express Industrial Action thread was moved onto this (Northern?) one hence the confusion.

Yes, apologies, I tried to disentangle the threads yesterday to hive the TPE dispute into its own discussion and the Northern discussion into its own (as they were originally completely muddled in one thread). It seems I wasn't entirely successful

For the avoidance of doubt this thread should be about Northern's latest industrial relations shenanigans (and I'm not going to try and move any more posts in case I make even more of a hash of it) so any questions about TPE's industrial relations or working practices should be in that thread which can be found here.

Again, apologies for any confusion!

 

[david l]

Like others, it is frustrating beyond belief that this situation on Northern (west side) has been allowed to go on for so long. How long is it since the company was amalgamated with others?? Well over 20 years +. It's now over 18 months since one Transport for the North commitees (led by one Mr Burnham) expressed their absolute disbelief/frustration/anger at the service that was being 'offered' with minimum 2 hours gaps - and plenty many more when a 'volunteer' conductor didn't appear. The resultant claim from the management team was that it was better to have a 'certain' service every blue moon was better than what was being offered.- unbelievable.
This 'temporary' timetable came in during December 2024, which in effect means a 6 day railway - there are certain bits in the NW that haven't had a train on a Sunday since then......having spiffed £110m on a Wigan-Lostock Jn. electrifiaction that hasn't seen a train, let alone an electric train since it ws finished on a Sunday really does beggar belief. It's no wonder that further investment is 'being thought about'...
Who on earth decided to split an RMT ballot into two sections? We have still not been told whether it was DfT, Northern or RMT? Heads do not need banging together, a stronger hand is needed and if that results in some action from either side, so be it. GET ON WITH IT! DfT- yea, right. Management -stop pussy footing around and tell us if your hands are tied behind your backs, RMT - smell the coffee!
In the meantime I use the car on a Sunday....

 

[officewalla]

Really??? What makes you say this? If a guard stands on the platform the they can see the full train and whether the train is in the right place. They can see hazards such as broken paving, tripping hazards etc that they may want to make safe or warn people about before opening the doors.

A driver can see in front and a limited view to the side (maybe not even the platform side on certain stock types, where the platform is on the right). On 331s/195s there are unclear cameras giving a small image (in reverse), of each door, assuming they are not steamed up. On other Northern stock types there are no cameras.

I am aware of several occasions of wrong side door release by drivers (not on Northern obviously) as it becomes autopilot because they can't see much of the platform, by looking to the left to view cameras they press the button on the left but the platform is on the right. I am only aware of one incidents of wrong side door release where it was a guards fault and this was because the guard was totally wreckless and never worked on a train again and was dismissed following the incident with company having the full support of the RMT.

Please tell me how a guard will know that the train is positioned correctly before the doors are opened? Not talking about despatch when CDRA or a guard despatch have a more detailed view than a DOO one. Wrong side door release can happen no matter who opens the doors so not really sure what your rant is about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 11:17 ==

You really should try to drive a train for a living...

I do!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please tell me how a guard will know that the train is positioned correctly before the doors are opened? Not talking about despatch when CDRA or a guard despatch have a more detailed view than a DOO one. Wrong side door release can happen no matter who opens the doors so not really sure what your rant is about.

A guard has to physically go to the side of the train they are releasing, release the local door and step out onto the platform before releasing. This means there's a physical check that it's not wrong side.

They could just as easily as a driver do that as muscle memory and omit to check the back end wasn't off, sure, but wrong side would be basically impossible unless they omitted that check entirely (a big thing to forget) as if they did just do it blindly they'd fall into the cess rather than being able to step back in and issue the release.

 

[ModernRailways]

I think the managers (or DfT perhaps) really think they will strongarm the union into these changes going through, because they think they HAVE to. They think these changes MUST be made now or at some point (for the sake of 'efficiency', 'productivity', etc).

This obsession with 'modernising' working practices is an endemic cultural issue - they can't leave things alone.

There is an element that all jobs need to modernise and go with the times, the railway can be very backwards in some places but is also at the forefront in others.

Northern currently only have the 195/331 that could go DOCC. New trains are optimistically 5+ years away from entering service. Northern could have put the DOCC on the back burner, got the changes in terms through (inc Sundays) and then revisited DOCC. Worth reminding everyone that the role of the guard dispute largely stemmed from the 195/331 fleet as they were meant to be DOO. Role of the guard was pretty much resolved but due to the national dispute it was unable to be resolved, and now it’s been kicked so far down the road that Northern is now getting another new fleet and are obviously looking at further ways to strip away the guard role.

Who on earth decided to split an RMT ballot into two sections? We have still not been told whether it was DfT, Northern or RMT? Heads do not need banging together, a stronger hand is needed and if that results in some action from either side, so be it.

RMT. They believe it is two separate disputes, and so put it as two separate questions. Northern were also treating it as two separate disputes until they proposed the final CRI changes which Northern added DOCC unexpectedly.

 

[officewalla]

A guard has to physically go to the side of the train they are releasing, release the local door and step out onto the platform before releasing. This means there's a physical check that it's not wrong side.

They could just as easily as a driver do that as muscle memory and omit to check the back end wasn't off, sure, but wrong side would be basically impossible unless they omitted that check entirely (a big thing to forget) as if they did just do it blindly they'd fall into the cess rather than being able to step back in and issue the release.

And a driver cannot check which side the platform is on before releasing the doors? DOO works perfectly well so long as the driver carries out a procedural check before releasing the doors. Why would there be a problem with the back end be off if the driver has stopped at the correct place? Automatic or manual door selection still has to be done and a guard stepping out does not remove the risk of doors off the platform being opened in and of itself. Don't understand why who opens the doors is even a question at any ToC. As long as the traction allows it and drivers adhere to their trained processes and company procedures then the DOO works perfectly well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And a driver cannot check which side the platform is on before releasing the doors?

They can, but there is no physical check in the same way. Unless a guard is being very negligent and just hitting the release buttons blind, they have to physically step onto a platform on the side they are releasing before doing so, and don't have access to buttons to do the other side without doing something very obviously wrong, i.e. reboarding, walking to the wrong side and opening the panel.

 

[Killingworth]

And a driver cannot check which side the platform is on before releasing the doors? DOO works perfectly well so long as the driver carries out a procedural check before releasing the doors. Why would there be a problem with the back end be off if the driver has stopped at the correct place? Automatic or manual door selection still has to be done and a guard stepping out does not remove the risk of doors off the platform being opened in and of itself. Don't understand why who opens the doors is even a question at any ToC. As long as the traction allows it and drivers adhere to their trained processes and company procedures then the DOO works perfectly well.

Maybe someone could devise simple technology that would allow the train to identify which side platform it was in and only allow doors on that side to release? (Before someone points it out, I know, platforms like 7 and 2C in Sheffield could be accessed from either side!)

 

[muz379]

As long as the traction allows it and drivers adhere to their trained processes and company procedures then the DOO works perfectly well.

Human factors impact all aspects of safety critical work, that's why the industry goes to great lengths trying to better understand and mitigate for them. Just saying "people should adhere to their trained processes and procedures" has never and will never prevent us from having operational incidents.

And yes Guards or Drivers could potentially release with doors off the platform either by stopping short or releasing the wrong side entirely. Although It is very rare to hear of a guard releasing doors on the wrong side in my experience. Indeed post 25 seems to suggest that it is more common for Drivers at one particular TOC to have higher risk of some irregularity with releasing doors.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 12:04 ==

Maybe someone could devise simple technology that would allow the train to identify which side platform it was in and only allow doors on that side to release? (Before someone points it out, I know, platforms like 7 and 2C in Sheffield could be accessed from either side!)

Technology already exists that can "tell a train" which side the platform is and can even calculate from the trains length/how far it has travelled after passing the balise which doors should be released.

 

[Iskra]

Maybe someone could devise simple technology that would allow the train to identify which side platform it was in and only allow doors on that side to release? (Before someone points it out, I know, platforms like 7 and 2C in Sheffield could be accessed from either side!)

This exists on the CAF fleet, but it gets confused at some stations so has to be manually overridden…

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe someone could devise simple technology that would allow the train to identify which side platform it was in and only allow doors on that side to release? (Before someone points it out, I know, platforms like 7 and 2C in Sheffield could be accessed from either side!)

There's a speculative thread ongoing about that:

Balise based ASDO - feasible to make this the standard?

The thread on Northern's guards deal made me wonder about this. Balise based ASDO (automatic selective door operation) is clearly the gold standard. By having a balise at the platform start and end, the train can know precisely which doors are platformed, and so when the relevant member of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[gobbla]

Please tell me how a guard will know that the train is positioned correctly before the doors are opened? Not talking about despatch when CDRA or a guard despatch have a more detailed view than a DOO one. Wrong side door release

And a driver cannot check which side the platform is on before releasing the doors? DOO works perfectly well so long as the driver carries out a procedural check before releasing the doors. Why would there be a problem with the back end be off if the driver has stopped at the correct place? Automatic or manual door selection still has to be done and a guard stepping out does not remove the risk of doors off the platform being opened in and of itself. Don't understand why who opens the doors is even a question at any ToC. As long as the traction allows it and drivers adhere to their trained processes and company procedures then the DOO works perfectly well.

As already stated by others, it’s a second check, which makes the entirety of the process safer.

Northern and the DFT wish to remove this responsibility from the Guard and wish to add it to the already large amount of things Drivers have to know and do already, further watering down the role of the Guard until eventually they’ll say well, let’s have the drivers close the doors now, and do away with the safety critical staff member onboard the service entirely. Do you think that won’t cause any complications further down the line, when all told, how Northern services operate from a dispatch point of view works perfectly well as is?

It isn’t the dispatch method of work that makes Northern services inefficient; its poor diagramming, short-forming, and a lack of interest from management to get a robust timetable in place if it means the DFT cannot have their way of introducing a new method of work that comes wholly unjustified and without any clear idea of how it will be implemented.

It is meddling from top brass, plain and simple, and the waters are truly muddied by it all.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think this is the point I step in and point out that this is not a venue for a debate on DOO and it's implications. There is no suggestions that Northern are proposing to introduce DOO on their services at this time so a discussion is not required not sensible (as it has been done to death).