Arriva Rail North DOO

[B&I]

Dave,

With the greatest respect, and acknowledging that you say these things quite sincerely, your continual ranting about 'hard working people who just want to have a decent job and get on with life' is wearing very thin, with me at least. It's beginning to sound far too much like the 'look at Me - Me - Me' that's all too common in this country nowadays.

Why on earth do you keep going on as if rail staff are so terribly hard done by ? Don't you think that many millions of other people living in this country also work hard and just want to have a decent job and get on with life ? Out here, in the real world, the rest of us non-rail staff have had to accept that jobs rarely exist for life, or even lengthy periods. We've also had to accept that we may need to change jobs from time to time, against our wishes. We've also recognised that we may need to move house, or gain more qualifications, or retrain to work in different industries. What makes the rail staff any different ? What is it that you feel all the rest of us should do so that rail staff can have job guarantees for, seemingly, ever and a day.

Why do we all accept that? Why do we put up with an economy which is designed to benefit a tiny handful of people, which makes most of the population worse off, and which ensures we have the worst rates of productivity in the developed world ?

Maybe if we didn't, and stopped voting for the politicians who created this situation, we wouldn't have to live in a perpetual state of insecurity, interrupted by the occasional expression of envy towards other people whose jobs remain secure (for the time being)

 

[Robertj21a]

Why do we all accept that? Why do we put up with an economy which is designed to benefit a tiny handful of people, which makes most of the population worse off, and which ensures we have the worst rates of productivity in the developed world ?

Maybe if we didn't, and stopped voting for the politicians who created this situation, we wouldn't have to live in a perpetual state of insecurity, interrupted by the occasional expression of envy towards other people whose jobs remain secure (for the time being)

I would suggest that the UK is one of the better places to live and work. You only need to travel to many parts of the world to realise that we have a very good standard of living.

 

[pemma]

From what I gather from your rhetoric you hate the fact that rail staff do not have to pay for their training and can get decent salaries at the end of it. When a pilot passes their training and gets their (f)ATPL they are doing so in the bid to one day be a captain. Airline captains at the major airlines earn way in excess of what drivers or guards do. I can never ever hope to achieve a salary close to what a young individual starting their commercial flight training could earn within a matter of a decade of starting their careers.

But at least we have got to the crux of your anti rail staff rhetoric. You seem to believe we are all paid too much and should pay for our training.

I used to be very pro conservatives under Cameron. I have and always will be a great believer that people who work hard should be entitled to a decent standard of living. May and many of her extreme right wing MP's have shown their support for the likes of Deliveroo and Uber companies that like to exploit their workforce. I no longer believe the Tory party stand for working people who want work hard and get on with life. If they are willing to show their support for the likes of Uber then they clearly don't believe in workers have decent pay and conditions and a decent standard of living. They clearly don't like the fact the railways still have decent pay, pensions and conditions and this is merely the first step in a massive attack on the railway workforce in general. And therefore "race to the bottom" is a cliche that seems very apt in the "modern" economy of the future, where no one is entitled to any kind of job security and should be living in a state of constant anxiety about whether they will have a job in six months time.

I believe those who pay for their own training should be rewarded with higher salaries if the risk of paying for their own training pays off - completing a course at your own expense does not guarantee you a job. In common with some other train crew members on here you make wild accusations against non-rail staff if you're unable to justify your own arguments.

The Tories have never stood for ordinary working people even under Cameron. The only policy which supported ordinary hard working people under David Cameron was a Lib Dem policy which Cameron originally said was 'not viable.' What you mean is train drivers were all right under Cameron and now you're scared about the long term future of your role you don't still think train drivers are all right under the Conservatives. Or perhaps you're of the opinion train drivers are ordinary hard working people but the likes of teachers, nurses and civil servants are not. If we believe Cameron supported hard working people then it also suggests you think single parents can't be hardworking people, given how Cameron's married tax allowance works and the fact he cut child tax credits.

Dave,

With the greatest respect, and acknowledging that you say these things quite sincerely, your continual ranting about 'hard working people who just want to have a decent job and get on with life' is wearing very thin, with me at least. It's beginning to sound far too much like the 'look at Me - Me - Me' that's all too common in this country nowadays.

Why on earth do you keep going on as if rail staff are so terribly hard done by ? Don't you think that many millions of other people living in this country also work hard and just want to have a decent job and get on with life ? Out here, in the real world, the rest of us non-rail staff have had to accept that jobs rarely exist for life, or even lengthy periods. We've also had to accept that we may need to change jobs from time to time, against our wishes. We've also recognised that we may need to move house, or gain more qualifications, or retrain to work in different industries. What makes the rail staff any different ? What is it that you feel all the rest of us should do so that rail staff can have job guarantees for, seemingly, ever and a day.

Well said.

 

[Bromley boy]

I believe those who pay for their own training should be rewarded with higher salaries if the risk of paying for their own training pays off

Except that, as discussed above, this simply isn’t the reality of how things work in many industries.

Employers generally pay what they need to to secure the right person for a role, based on a number of factors. They don’t tend to “reward” those who pay for their own training with higher salaries. What on earth would be the commercial point of doing so?

Your belief that they should is therefore irrelevant. It bears no relation to what happens in the real world and simply highlights your own naïveté.

 

[pemma]

They don’t tend to “reward” those who pay for their own training with higher salaries. What on earth would be the commercial point of doing so?

Very simple. Those are properly trained to do a role (at their own expense) are worth more to the business than those who need training in order to do a role.

If you're going on about the commercial point, what's the commercial point of TOCs training wannabe train crews unless the cost of training is only provided on condition that they can't move to another employer until a certain time frame has elapsed (unless they choose to pay for their own training)?

 

[Chester1]

There is a big difference between opposing specific changes and change in general. Luditte is an insult for good reason - opposing technology replacing workers eventually looks absurd. I don't understand how so many people can't get their heads around technology not increasing unemployment in the long term. We have had 250 years of technical revolutions and new jobs have grown in new industries. It needs to be managed to try to prevent damage to individuals, which is why reducng staff through natural wastage is much more humane than making tons of people redundant. I strongly believe that there always has been and always will be a minority of people who think the country is going down the pan. Lifes actually pretty good for most brits!

How true is the story that the rail unions forcing BR to have the third man on multiple units on the grounds of safety when it was really about preventing staff cuts when steam engines were phased out?

 

[LowLevel]

There is a big difference between opposing specific changes and change in general. Luditte is an insult for good reason - opposing technology replacing workers eventually looks absurd. I don't understand how so many people can't get their heads around technology not increasing unemployment in the long term. We have had 250 years of technical revolutions and new jobs have grown in new industries. It needs to be managed to try to prevent damage to individuals, which is why reducng staff through natural wastage is much more humane than making tons of people redundant. I strongly believe that there always has been and always will be a minority of people who think the country is going down the pan. Lifes actually pretty good for most brits!

How true is the story that the rail unions forcing BR to have the third man on multiple units on the grounds of safety when it was really about preventing staff cuts when steam engines were phased out?

Well then Mystic Meg, where are these millions of opportunities for mass employment coming from this time? They've had 30 years and not caught up with the former coal field areas yet (except if you want to count the likes of Sports Direct in Shirebrook). It's no coincidence that there is a lot of concern about the future and no one seems to be predicting where the future mass employment opportunities for human beings are going to be.

 

[Bromley boy]

Very simple. Those are properly trained to do a role (at their own expense) are worth more to the business than those who need training in order to do a role.

If you're going on about the commercial point, what's the commercial point of TOCs training wannabe train crews unless the cost of training is only provided on condition that they can't move to another employer until a certain time frame has elapsed (unless they choose to pay for their own training)?

But that first statement simply isn't correct in every case. Someone who has paid for their own training may well be completely unemployable for other reasons. You are again ignoring the fact that in many industries (eg the legal and accounting sectors) the people who end up earning the most are those selected by the most prestigious employers who sponsor their training.

Jobs requiring specific qualifications attract a salary that reflects the role as a whole. No hiring manager is ever going to say to applicant "we were going to pay £X but we will pay you £X+Y to reflect the fact you previously spent your own money on a training course". There is simply no commercial incentive to do this.

The reason TOCs try to prevent newly qualified drivers from moving soon after qualifying* is obviously to protect the substantial investment the business has made in training them up.

*although it's questionable how enforceable these clauses actually are, in practice.

 

[coppercapped]

SNIP
The Tories have never stood for ordinary working people even under Cameron. The only policy which supported ordinary hard working people under David Cameron was a Lib Dem policy which Cameron originally said was 'not viable.' What you mean is train drivers were all right under Cameron and now you're scared about the long term future of your role you don't still think train drivers are all right under the Conservatives. Or perhaps you're of the opinion train drivers are ordinary hard working people but the likes of teachers, nurses and civil servants are not. If we believe Cameron supported hard working people then it also suggests you think single parents can't be hardworking people, given how Cameron's married tax allowance works and the fact he cut child tax credits.
SNIP

There are two sides to all these social and political arguments. Let’s be honest. It’s the political Left that has society’s best interests at heart, that works for the good of all. It has always been the Left that has struggled to protect the weak from the strong, that has fought for workers’ rights, for sexual and racial equality, for the welfare state. It is the Left that now challenges abuses of power by corporations and financial institutions. And it is the Left that seeks to build a world based on mutual respect, not individualistic self-seeking. It is the Left, not the Right, that has right on its side.

Yet according to conservatives, it is precisely that self-regard, that attempt to monopolise virtue, which exposes the hypocrisy of left-wing ideology. To flaunt your concern for your fellow man doesn’t make you right – it just gives you the smug glow of signalling one's virtue. In fact, by expanding the state, overtaxing the rich and splurging benefits on the poor, the Left has always damaged society by crippling people’s natural instinct to better themselves. It is the Right, by championing free markets, free choice and social cohesion, that has right on its side.

These pen portraits are much simplified and are therefore by definition incomplete - books, no, libraries, have been written discussing these issues. But essentially which viewpoint one represents depends on one's view of the world. It is not, and never has been, one political wing 'right' and 'good' and the other political wing 'wrong' and 'malevolent'.

The 'tribalisation' of politics helps nobody at all. It stops people thinking.

 

[pemma]

But that first statement simply isn't correct in every case. Someone who has paid for their own training may well be completely unemployable for other reasons. You are again ignoring the fact that in many industries (eg the legal and accounting sectors) the people who end up earning the most are those selected by the most prestigious employers who sponsor their training.

Jobs requiring specific qualifications attract a salary that reflects the role as a whole. No hiring manager is ever going to say to applicant "we were going to pay £X but we will pay you £X+Y to reflect the fact you previously spent your own money on a training course". There is simply no commercial incentive to do this.

The reason TOCs try to prevent newly qualified drivers from moving soon after qualifying* is obviously to protect the substantial investment the business has made in training them up.

*although it's questionable how enforceable these clauses actually are, in practice.

Of course having completed a course doesn't automatically make you suitable for a job. I'm referring to cases where having the training course is what makes you more employable than the person who hasn't done it, who'll need training to be brought up to the same level as the person who has done it, even if they have the potential to be as good.

You seem be saying employers should only do what is commercially viable, you should be well aware the rail industry does not take a commercially viable approach to recruitment and training, so it sounds like your agreeing with me in part but also trying to make it sound like your disagreeing with me so that it sounds like you're on the side of train crews and I'm on the opposing side.

 

[pemma]

Well then Mystic Meg, where are these millions of opportunities for mass employment coming from this time? They've had 30 years and not caught up with the former coal field areas yet (except if you want to count the likes of Sports Direct in Shirebrook). It's no coincidence that there is a lot of concern about the future and no one seems to be predicting where the future mass employment opportunities for human beings are going to be.

I think the underlying issue is areas like North East are unattractive to big businesses, despite the fact be basing themselves there they can have lower operating costs e.g. commercial space in Sunderland is a fraction of the cost of commercial space in London. Big businesses only seem interested in opening/continuing to have a North East base if they get some form of government support e.g. Hitachi and Nissan. You have to ask why that is. Do the businesses think there's a shortage of people able to do the work there? Would that change if better training options were made available to people?

 

[Bromley boy]

Of course having completed a course doesn't automatically make you suitable for a job. I'm referring to cases where having the training course is what makes you more employable than the person who hasn't done it, who'll need training to be brought up to the same level as the person who has done it, even if they have the potential to be as good.

Your original statement was that you believe employees should be rewarded for paying for their own training. I've given you several examples to show how that doesn't generally happen in the real world.

You seem be saying employers should only do what is commercially viable, you should be well aware the rail industry does not take a commercially viable approach to recruitment and training, so it sounds like your agreeing with me in part but also trying to make it sound like your disagreeing with me so that it sounds like you're on the side of train crews and I'm on the opposing side.

I've not made a value judgement about what employers should or shouldn't do. I've merely made some factual observations. Yes the railway is unionised, but it's quite a leap from that to suggesting it "does take a commercially viable approach to recruitment and training." TOCs struggle to make profits and tend to be very cost conscious where recruitment is concerned, hence the regular discussions on here about the fact they rely on overtime in order to cover their work.

I'm not necessarily accusing you of being on either side, although I would observe you seem to spend a great deal of time on her attacking the roles of train crew and their pay. It's very obvious from the tone of your posts that you believe train crew are overpaid.

 

[craigybagel]

Interestingly, the Class 175s were built to work that way and had to be modified due to this stubbornness.

Actually, it was because of all the short platforms on the North Wales Coast that they got modded. The cab controls are still there, and still work.

Yet the 'guard guarantee' would still allow all Valley Lines guards to be removed if light rail conversion goes ahead (and there's a strong possibly it might.) Given the lack of transparency from the Welsh government with regards to the next Wales & Borders franchise it would more surprising if none of the 4 bidders had pulled out.

I don't recall anything in the statement by the WAG that allowed for DOO, even in the case of light rail? And even if it does, it definitely applies to the rest of the network - and given how similar it is to the Northern network itsia very relevant point.

Now, it's debatable how much of this is down to the RMT (Although personally, I think if they hadn't caused so much trouble on other franchises over this issue there's no way the WAG would have even thought about it) but the fact remains - an agreement has been reached in Wales that is satisfactory to the RMT and to the WAG. It can be done - but only when the DFT isn't pulling all the strings as it is with English franchises.

 

[74A]

Now, it's debatable how much of this is down to the RMT (Although personally, I think if they hadn't caused so much trouble on other franchises over this issue there's no way the WAG would have even thought about it) but the fact remains - an agreement has been reached in Wales that is satisfactory to the RMT and to the WAG. It can be done - but only when the DFT isn't pulling all the strings as it is with English franchises.

In the welsh and scottish cases the Welsh and Scottish governments decided they did not want the performance improvements from DOO. They did not want the disruption from strike action so decided to agree to what the RMT wanted. However in the Northern case the UK government have decided they want the improved performance from DOO. Unless there is a change of government I cannot see that changing so all the strikes in the world will not make any difference.

Its clear the RMT want to keep a member of staff on board which is essential to operate the train so they can keep their power to stop trains running. If you don't have this second person then they will lose a lot of their influence. However the issue of having a second person was resolved in 1982 over 35 years ago. I thought it would be interesting to see what Jeremy Corbyn had said about it in parliament at the time. It turns out he hadn't even been elected as an MP !

In case anyone doubts the performance benefit from DOO here is a quote from the court case about the accident at Bishops Stortford

• 19:05:23 - Door interlock is engaged, that is to say all the passenger doors were closed and locked. At this point the Claimant was on the platform side of the yellow line.

• 19:05:25 – The driver applies power to start the Train. At about this time Umbrella Man can be seen walking along the platform with his umbrella in his right hand and the tip of his umbrella striking the yellow line. He is clearly walking purposefully without deviating in the direction of the London end of the platform. His appearance in my judgment is utterly commonplace at a railway station in rush hour and therefore unremarkable

So it takes 2 seconds from getting interlock to the driver taking power. With a guard you can add 15 - 25 seconds at each stop so you can see the benefit is substantial. With a train having 20 stops that is equal to 5 to 9 minutes on a journey.

 

[Chester1]

Well then Mystic Meg, where are these millions of opportunities for mass employment coming from this time? They've had 30 years and not caught up with the former coal field areas yet (except if you want to count the likes of Sports Direct in Shirebrook). It's no coincidence that there is a lot of concern about the future and no one seems to be predicting where the future mass employment opportunities for human beings are going to be.

The jobs to replace traditional heavy industry have been created, unfortunately due to bad government policy they have been focused in the South East and balanced too heavily towards services over hi tech industry. Despite no limits on immigration from Europe we have unemployment at 4%, which is much worse than the post war boom but overall historically and compared to other countries its pretty good. People have said what you have said for generations, which is why I mentioned the luddites. Their concerns must have made a lot of sense to the individuals and to pessimists at the time but they where absurdly wrong in the long term. The very rough answer to your question which I am sure won't satisfy you is more services, more hi tech manufacturing, more IT and more care work. My town of Stockport was built through the hat industry and the industrial accidents and poor working conditions carried on long into the 20th century. A quick tour of its hat musuem would make most people question their opposition to a service based economy.

More relevantly, does anyone know why MUs had a third man and when the role was scrapped? It seems comparable. My opposition or support for DOO depends on the situation and safety. I don't have much sympathy for a Merseyrail guard if they are transferred as OBS on the same pay grade. I certainly don't think that unions should be fighting for the creation of future jobs. Who knows the technology pessimists might finally be right after 200+ years but I am prepared to bet they won't be during my life time.

Actually, it was because of all the short platforms on the North Wales Coast that they got modded. The cab controls are still there, and still work.

I don't recall anything in the statement by the WAG that allowed for DOO, even in the case of light rail? And even if it does, it definitely applies to the rest of the network - and given how similar it is to the Northern network itsia very relevant point.

Now, it's debatable how much of this is down to the RMT (Although personally, I think if they hadn't caused so much trouble on other franchises over this issue there's no way the WAG would have even thought about it) but the fact remains - an agreement has been reached in Wales that is satisfactory to the RMT and to the WAG. It can be done - but only when the DFT isn't pulling all the strings as it is with English franchises.

Light rail = DOO. The indications from the extremely limited information available e.g. planning permission for the depot etc, indicates trams or tram trains not T&W metro style units. Its likely that the units will ussually have a second person onboard like in Sheffield but not necessary i.e. light rail OBS. The Welsh Government has made that promise because its South Wales Metro plans will remove the most suitable routes for DOO/DCO from the heavy rail network so it is a very easy commitment to make.

 

[quantinghome]

So it takes 2 seconds from getting interlock to the driver taking power. With a guard you can add 15 - 25 seconds at each stop so you can see the benefit is substantial. With a train having 20 stops that is equal to 5 to 9 minutes on a journey.

It does not take 15-25 seconds from interlock to applying power with a guard. In my experience it's much closer to your 2 seconds.

Whilst DOO clearly has a proven record on high volume urban services in the SE, I do wonder whether it would provide much benefit to the North, Wales and Scotland. Even commuter services in these areas go through relatively isolated countryside and many of the stations are unmanned. In that context I think it's important to have a second safety-critical member of staff on board.

 

[B&I]

I would suggest that the UK is one of the better places to live and work. You only need to travel to many parts of the world to realise that we have a very good standard of living.

Yes, the fact that we are not Bangladesh or South Sudan is definitely a reason for complacency about the fact that living standards for most people in the country are deteriorating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does not take 15-25 seconds from interlock to applying power with a guard. In my experience it's much closer to your 2 seconds.

Whilst DOO clearly has a proven record on high volume urban services in the SE, I do wonder whether it would provide much benefit to the North, Wales and Scotland. Even commuter services in these areas go through relatively isolated countryside and many of the stations are unmanned. In that context I think it's important to have a second safety-critical member of staff on board.

With the need to close the local door then buzz buzz, buzz buzz it’s probably at least 10.

I can see benefits even on rural services even if you retain a second safety critical member of staff but just take door operation off them (after all they didn’t have door operation in slamdoor days, just dispatch). They can concentrate on doing fares without interruption, and the train moves more quickly. It is noticeable just how glacially slow the Marston Vale is, with each stop taking maybe 2 minutes, often more. Switching to driver door control and units with faster acceleration (which it’s getting) would give a substantial speed-up. Move to bus style request stops (press the button to get off) and you would potentially save yet more. This is part of the “light rail model” I see as working quite well for branches.

 

[pemma]

I don't recall anything in the statement by the WAG that allowed for DOO, even in the case of light rail?

If the RMT release is accurate

Rail union RMT today welcomed the announcement by the Welsh Government's First Minister Carwyn Jones that it has committed for the next franchise to keep a safety critical conductor or guard on all of the Wales & Borders trains and services including the South Wales Metro trains and that the trains will require this second person on board to operate.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/wales-to-retain-safety-critical-guards/

So if the next franchise ends up operating trams at some point in the future....

 

[B&I]

The jobs to replace traditional heavy industry have been created, unfortunately due to bad government policy they have been focused in the South East and balanced too heavily towards services over hi tech industry. Despite no limits on immigration from Europe we have unemployment at 4%, which is much worse than the post war boom but overall historically and compared to other countries its pretty good. People have said what you have said for generations, which is why I mentioned the luddites. Their concerns must have made a lot of sense to the individuals and to pessimists at the time but they where absurdly wrong in the long term. The very rough answer to your question which I am sure won't satisfy you is more services, more hi tech manufacturing, more IT and more care work. My town of Stockport was built through the hat industry and the industrial accidents and poor working conditions carried on long into the 20th century. A quick tour of its hat musuem would make most people question their opposition to a service based economy.

Be thankful for your good fortune. Once you accept that all jobs are replaceable, none are safe. I am educated to postgraduate level, with specific professional qualifications, and have a professional job which was considered prestigious and well-paid as recently as a decade ago. Now I, along with many others in my specific area of work, earn about half what I did 5 years ago, largely because the government and certain large private sector players have decided to reduce the amount they pay us, the amount of work that comes to us, and the degred of qualification and experience needed to do the work (allowing us to be undercut by people without the same qualifications or training). Count yourself lucky if your own job is secure, because you're in an increasingly small minority.

 

[Chester1]

Be thankful for your good fortune. Once you accept that all jobs are replaceable, none are safe. I am educated to postgraduate level, with specific professional qualifications, and have a professional job which was considered prestigious and well-paid as recently as a decade ago. Now I, along with many others in my specific area of work, earn about half what I did 5 years ago, largely because the government and certain large private sector players have decided to reduce the amount they pay us, the amount of work that comes to us, and the degred of qualification and experience needed to do the work (allowing us to be undercut by people without the same qualifications or training). Count yourself lucky if your own job is secure, because you're in an increasingly small minority.

Again, protecting current staff is different to maintaining staffing levels for the sake of national employment rates or union subscriptions.

My job has some security but the real security comes from transferable skills, which I am slowly building up. Your argument would be more convincing if there were not plenty of people staying in secure jobs that they have lost interest in, constantly moan about and feel hard done by but won't change because deep down they know they are fortunate. Not saying that you at all but I bet you have worked with people like that. Average pay has dropped slightly in real terms since the crash but unemployment is also lower. There is a trade off between workers rights, productivity and unemployment levels. France has double digit unemployment levels but higher productivity and more job protection. When its really difficult and expense to fire people or make them redundant then organisations will only employ new staff as a last resort. Its good for people with jobs but means more people don't have one. At risk of getting into a further tangent, one of the factors that has decreased pay and job insecurity is the high level of low skilled immigration since 2004. Hopefully in the long term OBS should be reasonable secure through a relative shortage of people prepared to commit long term to a £20-22k job which has more responsibility than most customer service jobs. OBS can be very valuable, I suspect some of the guards that oppose the change are partly motivated by not really liking customer service and I have zero sympathy.

Btw - I don't support DOO on Northern as things stand, I think there needs to be a lot of money spent to make it safe. I support it for Merseyrail because like the Merseyside Labour party I think its safe there with the new trains.

 

[Robertj21a]

Be thankful for your good fortune. Once you accept that all jobs are replaceable, none are safe. I am educated to postgraduate level, with specific professional qualifications, and have a professional job which was considered prestigious and well-paid as recently as a decade ago. Now I, along with many others in my specific area of work, earn about half what I did 5 years ago, largely because the government and certain large private sector players have decided to reduce the amount they pay us, the amount of work that comes to us, and the degred of qualification and experience needed to do the work (allowing us to be undercut by people without the same qualifications or training). Count yourself lucky if your own job is secure, because you're in an increasingly small minority.

As people have tried to say, over and over again, hardly any jobs are what most people would call 'safe'. It doesn't really matter where you are, or what you do, that job can be gone within a short space of time (i.e takeovers/mergers, insolvency etc). The best protection is to have sufficient skills to transfer to other roles, other industries, other parts of the country - or whatever it takes to give you on-going employment.
It really is very difficult to see why so many people can't seem to understand this simple concept.

 

[pemma]

I think it's ironic the RMT were saying Brexit would be a good thing. Public transport is an industry which employs more people due to net migration being a positive figure and the number of European train guards employed by Northern seems to be very low. Yet the RMT seem to be more bothered about the parent company of Northern having a few Germans on the board than retaining high passenger numbers on the railways. Do they really care about a few British senior managers losing their jobs to Germans more than the guards retaining employment?

 

[Chester1]

As people have tried to say, over and over again, hardly any jobs are what most people would call 'safe'. It doesn't really matter where you are, or what you do, that job can be gone within a short space of time (i.e takeovers/mergers, insolvency etc). The best protection is to have sufficient skills to transfer to other roles, other industries, other parts of the country - or whatever it takes to give you on-going employment.
It really is very difficult to see why so many people can't seem to understand this simple concept.

Because many people fear change and / or have no wish to change their attitudes and outlooks to adapt for a new jobs. Back to the railways, I get the job security fear but lets face it, there are some guards who don't like interacting with the public but simultanously think they have a right to their current job until they retire and that that the Tories / Merseyside Labour are evil for changing their job. I have absolutely zero sympathy for that. OBS can be valuable if the right people are recruited and on sufficient pay to retain them long term.

 

[LowLevel]

The jobs to replace traditional heavy industry have been created, unfortunately due to bad government policy they have been focused in the South East and balanced too heavily towards services over hi tech industry. Despite no limits on immigration from Europe we have unemployment at 4%, which is much worse than the post war boom but overall historically and compared to other countries its pretty good. People have said what you have said for generations, which is why I mentioned the luddites. Their concerns must have made a lot of sense to the individuals and to pessimists at the time but they where absurdly wrong in the long term. The very rough answer to your question which I am sure won't satisfy you is more services, more hi tech manufacturing, more IT and more care work. My town of Stockport was built through the hat industry and the industrial accidents and poor working conditions carried on long into the 20th century. A quick tour of its hat musuem would make most people question their opposition to a service based economy.

More relevantly, does anyone know why MUs had a third man and when the role was scrapped? It seems comparable. My opposition or support for DOO depends on the situation and safety. I don't have much sympathy for a Merseyrail guard if they are transferred as OBS on the same pay grade. I certainly don't think that unions should be fighting for the creation of future jobs. Who knows the technology pessimists might finally be right after 200+ years but I am prepared to bet they won't be during my life time.

As far as I know going right back to the 60s old DMUs were generally 2 manned crewed by a driver and guard as were EMUs. They may have had a fireman to start with on the early units but as for why/if they were provided I would imagine it was for signal sighting particularly on the former right hand drive Western Region - AWS wasn't particularly wide spread in the 50s and I believe some of the earliest first gen DMUs didn't have it fitted anyway. There isn't even a secondman's seat in most old DMUs I've seen - anyone else travelling in the cab has to perch on a box for want of a better word that covers some equipment.

 

[pemma]

As far as I know going right back to the 60s old DMUs were generally 2 manned crewed by a driver and guard as were EMUs.

A new 195 (or similar) will be very different to a old 101 (or similar)!

 

[craigybagel]

In the welsh and scottish cases the Welsh and Scottish governments decided they did not want the performance improvements from DOO. They did not want the disruption from strike action so decided to agree to what the RMT wanted. However in the Northern case the UK government have decided they want the improved performance from DOO. Unless there is a change of government I cannot see that changing so all the strikes in the world will not make any difference.

Its clear the RMT want to keep a member of staff on board which is essential to operate the train so they can keep their power to stop trains running. If you don't have this second person then they will lose a lot of their influence. However the issue of having a second person was resolved in 1982 over 35 years ago. I thought it would be interesting to see what Jeremy Corbyn had said about it in parliament at the time. It turns out he hadn't even been elected as an MP !

In case anyone doubts the performance benefit from DOO here is a quote from the court case about the accident at Bishops Stortford

• 19:05:23 - Door interlock is engaged, that is to say all the passenger doors were closed and locked. At this point the Claimant was on the platform side of the yellow line.

• 19:05:25 – The driver applies power to start the Train. At about this time Umbrella Man can be seen walking along the platform with his umbrella in his right hand and the tip of his umbrella striking the yellow line. He is clearly walking purposefully without deviating in the direction of the London end of the platform. His appearance in my judgment is utterly commonplace at a railway station in rush hour and therefore unremarkable

So it takes 2 seconds from getting interlock to the driver taking power. With a guard you can add 15 - 25 seconds at each stop so you can see the benefit is substantial. With a train having 20 stops that is equal to 5 to 9 minutes on a journey.

I would suggest you're being exceptionally naive if you believe that DFT/the TOC's involved are getting themselves into this massive battle purely to improve performance.

Light rail = DOO. The indications from the extremely limited information available e.g. planning permission for the depot etc, indicates trams or tram trains not T&W metro style units. Its likely that the units will ussually have a second person onboard like in Sheffield but not necessary i.e. light rail OBS. The Welsh Government has made that promise because its South Wales Metro plans will remove the most suitable routes for DOO/DCO from the heavy rail network so it is a very easy commitment to make.

If the RMT release is accurate



https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/wales-to-retain-safety-critical-guards/

So if the next franchise ends up operating trams at some point in the future....

Just because light rail has usually been DOO in the past does not necessarily mean it will be in this case - especially when the WAG did specifically include the South Wales metro when they made their pledge IIRC

 

[pemma]

Just because light rail has usually been DOO in the past does not necessarily mean it will be in this case - especially when the WAG did specifically include the South Wales metro when they made their pledge IIRC

What I'm saying is if the wording is exactly what the RMT describe then if trams or even tram-trains are introduced on Valley Lines then the agreement to keep the guards is worthless as they could be removed without breaching the agreement.

 

[LowLevel]

A new 195 (or similar) will be very different to a old 101 (or similar)!

That goes without saying and is nothing to do with what I was asked regarding manning of trains some time ago. Given I'm one of not a huge number of guards that actually still signs class 101 and class 156 for 2 generations of Met Cam unit I'm sure I could give you chapter and verse on the differences but it's not really relevant (though the guard does far more and has to know far more on the 30 year old 156 than the 60 year old 101, as it happens).

It doesn't mean stripping the majority of the second crew member's training and competence is a good thing or a necessity on the newer train however. If I genuinely never did anything other than check tickets and assist passengers I'd have no problem with it. The problem is that actually I do and the underpinning operational knowledge makes the world go round even if some of it is hardly ever used.

 

[Overspeed110]

As people have tried to say, over and over again, hardly any jobs are what most people would call 'safe'. It doesn't really matter where you are, or what you do, that job can be gone within a short space of time (i.e takeovers/mergers, insolvency etc). The best protection is to have sufficient skills to transfer to other roles, other industries, other parts of the country - or whatever it takes to give you on-going employment.
It really is very difficult to see why so many people can't seem to understand this simple concept.

"Hardly any jobs are what you'd call safe" . What absolute gibberish.

I've driven trains for a long time now, but I was a coded welder before. Of course my certification has long run out but I could get back into that industry tomorrow if I wanted to.

So, how safe are these jobs?, bricklayer, plasterer, roofer, electrician, plumber, gas fitter, joiner, painter/decorator, and many asociated roles in building and construction, not forgetting civil engineering, gardener, car mechanic and many other roles in the motor trade, hundreds if not thousands of different types of jobs in engineering, solicitors, teachers, accountants, nurses, care workers, many other roles within NHS, chefs, cleaners,office staff, etc etc etc. All jobs you would expect to find within an acceptable travelling time from wherever you live in the UK.
No need with any of the above jobs ( and many many more) to totally retrain or have the need to move to the other end of the country to find work if you don't want to.
Unless of course you live in RailUK cloud cuckoo land.