Arriva Rail North DOO

[Loop & Link]

Deleted

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you explain the difference then between wanting a second person in this case and a possible evacuation/emergency situation on the Liverpool Loop in the tunnel section then? Since you are so in favour of DOO on Merseyrail?

Yes. Liverpool is a big city, full of people, including emergency services. People can be brought to the scene very quickly from one of the access points (stations) which are very close together.

The S&C is a rural railway that runs through often inaccessible countryside miles away from anywhere. It would take time to get assistance to the scene of an accident - possibly hours, possibly longer e.g. in severe snow. The Conwy Valley is in places similar (though I will admit is a weaker case than the S&C because stations, and therefore access points, are closer together).

It is not even similar. And again I quote LU, who always seem to manage evacuations, including in the very serious case of the bombings, perfectly well.

 

[313103]

It is not even similar. And again I quote LU, who always seem to manage evacuations, including in the very serious case of the bombings, perfectly well.

Since the bombings in London 2007 the number of London Underground staff has declined, all ticket offices have now closed so a significant number left the industry. Whether they will be be as good as they were then is open to conjecture, even the fire service has seen many stations closed in London so who knows what there response time will be.

For J Collins it still says (and has not been updated since first being mooted) Driver Only Operation in the RSSB Rule book. So that is the term that must be used. There is no clear guidance from anyone as to what DCO actually means and is, if you ask Managers they dont know, you ask other members of staff they dont know. So until an absolute definition by those who do know what it is and puts it in writing (as they say the Pen is mightier then the Sword) the correct terminology is Driver Only Operation. None of this if, but and maybe nonsense that is currently prevailing.

 

[northwichcat]

For J Collins it still says (and has not been updated since first being mooted) Driver Only Operation in the RSSB Rule book. So that is the term that must be used.

I was referring to what term gets used when passengers are being told of the plans, where what's in a staff rule book is irrelevant. It must be communicated in a way which clearly explains to passengers what is going to happen in jargon they understand and also understand the difference between what will happen on Merseyrail and what will happen on Northern. Using the term 'DOO' in both cases when most passengers don't understand doesn't achieve anything other than a union claiming they have support of people who don't understand what they are supporting. I'm sure if things were explained properly to passengers, the RMT could still claim to have the support of passengers relating to their Merseyrail dispute but whether they could claim to have support for their Northern dispute is less certain.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

An interesting working as a result of the industrial action was a triple dogbox on the 1239 Batley to Rochdale. Silver linings and all that! Don't think I've ever seen such a combo on Northern before.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed. Can you name a time when DOO has resulted in lower fares?

Not directly, but the Treasury will have noted the lower subsidies/higher premiums, and lower taxpayer support for the railway.
It will figure in the lower costs put up by the TOCs in their bids.
Fares are on a completely different track (inflation + x%) so are detached from the true cost of running the railway.

Another line of thought:
The worst economics is on the double-manned 2-car trains beloved of Northern (and ATW and others).
If RMT wins its battle and retains the guard role, I expect 2-car trains will be deemed uneconomic.
So how would the RMT feel about guards on all trains, but only half the number of trains (same trains/capacity, but running as 4-car services on a reduced frequency)?
It would solve some of the infrastructure capacity problems too.
I'm just pointing out that a "win" for the RMT might not be the end of the matter of staffing costs.

 

[Moonshot]

The DfT could always permit the TOC to retain guards and raise fares above inflation or keep the fares down and implement the current plan. This could then be consulted with the public, the outcome which ever way it went, would then have support.

In actual fact this has already been done.....and I have a very lengthy report in my possession.

Page 26 of this report stated that passengers recognised the need for more staff on board and at stations - they were aware of the cost but were of the opinion that this would be covered by improved revenue collection.

 

[Moonshot]

Not directly, but the Treasury will have noted the lower subsidies/higher premiums, and lower taxpayer support for the railway.
It will figure in the lower costs put up by the TOC in their bids.
Fares are on a completely different track (inflation + x%) so are detached from the true cost of running the railway.

Another line of thought:
The worst economics is on the double-manned 2-car trains beloved of Northern (and ATW and others).
If RMT wins its battle and retains the guard role, I expect 2-car trains will be deemed uneconomic.
So how would the RMT feel about guards on all trains, but only half the number of trains (same trains/capacity, but running as 4-car services on a reduced frequency)?
It would solve some of the infrastructure capacity problems too.
I'm just pointing out that a "win" for the RMT might not be the end of the matter of staffing costs.

Reducing frequency on services that are currently hourly doesnt sound feasible to me I m afraid.

 

[northwichcat]

Another line of thought:
The worst economics is on the double-manned 2-car trains beloved of Northern (and ATW and others).
If RMT wins its battle and retains the guard role, I expect 2-car trains will be deemed uneconomic.
So how would the RMT feel about guards on all trains, but only half the number of trains (same trains/capacity, but running as 4-car services on a reduced frequency)?
It would solve some of the infrastructure capacity problems too.
I'm just pointing out that a "win" for the RMT might not be the end of the matter of staffing costs.

Indeed. I asked in the Merseyrail thread whether guards would rather have new trains with guards but half the number of services (consequently half the guard and driver roles go) or new trains operated mainly with just a driver on board (meaning all driver roles are retained but few, if any, guard roles.) None of the rail staff responded to it.

 

[northwichcat]

Reducing frequency on services that are currently hourly doesnt sound feasible to me I m afraid.

Have you seen what's happened with bus services as a result of subsidy cuts? Hourly services have been reduced to 2 hourly services or peak time only services, possibly with an odd service between the peaks. However, the remaining services become less useful to some people and it results in a 2 hourly service with up to 15 passengers on the bus, rather than an hourly service with up to 25 passengers on the bus.

Another thing that's happened with bus services is all the services on a route can be one driver's work for the day so there's an extended gap in the middle of the day for the driver's lunch break.

 

[Moonshot]

Have you seen what's happened with bus services as a result of subsidy cuts? Hourly services have been reduced to 2 hourly services or peak time only services, possibly with an odd service between the peaks. However, the remaining services become less useful to some people and it results in a 2 hourly service with up to 15 passengers on the bus, rather than an hourly service with up to 25 passengers on the bus.

Another thing that's happened with bus services is all the services on a route can be one driver's work for the day so there's an extended gap in the middle of the day for the driver's lunch break.

Yes. An attraction of rail from a passenger perspective is increased frequency.....its why Metrolink is so popular.

Northern are currently training some significant numbers of both drivers and guards in lieu of increased frequencies in the coming 12 month.

 

[Carlisle]

Reducing frequency on services that are currently hourly doesnt sound feasible to me I m afraid.

They could choose to fund additional bus services instead of trains, it'll be cheaper and its happened in the past

 

[Tetchytyke]

Bolton passengers claim they are favour of guards because disabled passengers need help to get on and off.

As has been said before passengers don't understand the plan.

Oh, but they do understand the plan. They understand it very well, no matter how much Arriva and the DfT apparatchiks try and blag otherwise.

If you lose the qualified and trained member of staff, then you lose the assistance that comes with having that member of staff there. This will be most keenly felt by disabled passengers, who will lose the ability to travel from many stations, and in times of disruption.

If you don't guarantee a second member of staff, and you don't guarantee they will be trained and qualified, then all talk of aims and hopes is just PR guff.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh, but they do understand the plan. They understand it very well, no matter how much Arriva and the DfT apparatchiks try and blag otherwise.

Arriva or DfT aren't saying it. People like me are saying it based on what passengers have been quoted as saying on the news and in newspapers.

If we believe some of the passengers interviewed Northern have already sacked guards and are running trains with no-one other than the driver on board and the role of the conductor is nothing more than selling tickets and providing passenger assistance.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Arriva or DfT aren't saying it. People like me are saying it based on what passengers have been quoted as saying on the news and in newspapers.

If we believe some of the passengers interviewed Northern have already sacked guards and are running trains with no-one other than the driver on board and the role of the conductor is nothing more than selling tickets and providing passenger assistance.

For RMT to win the PR battle, there needs to be an insistence on guards actually coming out of the back cab and being visible. Most guards do this, but it's certainly not unheard of for guards to be pretty much invisible, and not only when the service is extra busy or full of drunks. If passengers rarely see or interact with guards, they won't see a good reason to keep them.

 

[Moonshot]

For RMT to win the PR battle, there needs to be an insistence on guards actually coming out of the back cab and being visible. Most guards do this, but it's certainly not unheard of for guards to be pretty much invisible, and not only when the service is extra busy or full of drunks. If passengers rarely see or interact with guards, they won't see a good reason to keep them.

The flipside of that coin is that increasingly, Northern are operating 4 car units for which its impossible for a guard to get in the front 2 anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The flipside of that coin is that increasingly, Northern are operating 4 car units for which its impossible for a guard to get in the front 2 anyway.

Only because they operate a rule that other TOCs don't.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The flipside of that coin is that increasingly, Northern are operating 4 car units for which its impossible for a guard to get in the front 2 anyway.

This will only get worse with the 2-car 195s of course... not to mention the 170s, though as they'll be 3-car units they'll be doubled up less frequently.

 

[northwichcat]

For RMT to win the PR battle, there needs to be an insistence on guards actually coming out of the back cab and being visible. Most guards do this, but it's certainly not unheard of for guards to be pretty much invisible, and not only when the service is extra busy or full of drunks. If passengers rarely see or interact with guards, they won't see a good reason to keep them.

I don't know if someone's seen your post or it's just conincidence but guards seem to have started doing more on the services I've caught recently. As well as guards being more visible, we now seem to be getting annoucements if a train arrives early at a station informing us it'll be sat there for a minute or two until it's scheduled departure time.

 

[northwichcat]

Only because they operate a rule that other TOCs don't.

But it's interesting some people say guards not not being able switch trains is a stupid Northern policy at the same time as saying no service should be allowed to operate without a guard, even if it's run by a single train. (I'm not referring to you Neil) If driver only is so bad for safety reasons then why is no member of staff on board a unit acceptable if it's carrying passengers?

I noticed today the 11:53 Rose Hill Marple to Piccadilly was operated by 2 x 142s and had an AFC as well as a guard but all the passengers would have fitted on a 153. Northern's diagramming (both for units and staff) seems to be all over the place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are in the next unit. In emergency they can always walk along the ballast.

 

[northwichcat]

They are in the next unit. In emergency they can always walk along the ballast.

But if a passenger sees an emergency before the train crew how can they inform a member of staff? I imagine a lot would resort to pulling the chord which in some cases, like a passenger collapsing, might not be the best course of action.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's what it's there for. On modern stock you pull it and explain the issue to the driver.

 

[40129]

That's what it's there for. On modern stock you pull it and explain the issue to the driver.

Indeed so, meaning the driver can decide whether or not he/she needs to stop immediately or can carry on to the next station. The exception being the cl-170 where the driver has to stop as a result of being deafened by the alarm.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW don't be afraid of using the passcom if there is a problem. 100 people died in Eschede because people (the guard included) didn't think a piece of tyre coming through the floor and impaling a seat was serious enough to pull it straight away (and in Germany there are two handles - red emergency brake and green passcom - would definitely be a case of use the red one).

I have pulled it on at least 2 occasions (struggling to remember the third at the moment but I think there was a third) and on none of them was it even suggested that it was the wrong thing to do - and for far more minor things than the above, too.

 

[TC60054]

Don't also forget that in a double unit, there's always one safety critical member of staff in each unit if the units are not gangwayed, in the case of the front unit it is the driver and the rear it is the guard.

 

[northwichcat]

Don't also forget that in a double unit, there's always one safety critical member of staff in each unit if the units are not gangwayed, in the case of the front unit it is the driver and the rear it is the guard.

That's what I was getting at - at present that is the case. However, some people (especially some in the GWR area) say Northern's policy is stupid as guards should be allowed to switch between units like they already do but those same people are anti-DOO even when it's a single unit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's what I was getting at - at present that is the case. However, some people (especially some in the GWR area) say Northern's policy is stupid as guards should be allowed to switch between units like they already do but those same people are anti-DOO even when it's a single unit.

Yes, precisely my contention. Other TOCs do not have this policy. For example, plenty of 12-car sets of 4-car non-gangwayed stock operate in the South East, which means that if not DOO there is always going to be one unit with no staff in it, and DOO two units.

And if there's a serious incident meriting stopping the train, the guard can generally access the other unit via the ballast.

The policy makes as little sense as their ordering of 2-car DMUs did.

 

[coxxy]

This may well throw a spanner in the works..

A few years ago Northern said they were going to trial allowing the guard to go between units on non gangway stock again..

The RMT threw a wobbler because the deemed that "unit hopping" is an unsafe practice.. so it's not just Northern that stop the guards being able to use any door control panel and train..

Unfortunately I have no evidence of this..

 

[Bletchleyite]

I despair. I really do.

They want Guards to stay, but they consider a sensible use of Guards (patrolling the train) is unsafe.

Doesn't exactly give me lots of sympathy.