Arriva Rail North DOO

[Tomnick]

From the driver's prospective I can understand there's no real difference between a DOO and a DCO service. However, from a passenger's prospective there's no real difference between a guard operated service and a DOO/DCO service which has a second member of staff on board throughout. While I think DfT have made a lot of bad decisions, referring to DCO not DOO is 100% correct from the passenger's prospective for the reasons given by @Andyh82

My perception is that the DfT have starting referring to DOO as DCO purely to make it sound more palatable to users. If there was a guarantee of a second member of staff on every "DCO" service, then it'd be a useful distinction (other than in an operational sense), I agree. Otherwise, it'd just DOO with a staff presence somewhere between 'occasional' and 'most trains'.

The RSSB terminology is in black and white - a DOO service is guaranteed to not have any additional staff on board, while a DCO service may have additional members of staff on board.

Hardly black and white when it contradicts the RSSB's own rule book! A DOO service conveying a cleaner and a trolley host is still a DOO service.

How often does this rule book get updated? Note as stated already the RSSB page was updated in the last week. I'm used to working with new technology where a book is often seen as out-of-date by the time it's printed and the most up-to-date information is available online.

The Rule Book has to be kept 'current'. It is the definitive source for railway staff. It's routinely updated twice a year by issuing new modules, four times a year by printing amendments in PONs and, if necessary, on a weekly basis through WONs. It can't be "out of date" - if it isn't amended, it hasn't changed.

 

[Carlisle]

No, DCO as originally conceived is the method used on SouthEastern High Speed services. It is driver only dispatch, but the train will never run without the second member of staff,

As far as I’m aware, by the rule book Southeaststern HSS services can operate DOO as a single set on HS1 and double sets on conventional routes , the current operating method used which you describe above was I believe agreed as TOC policy probably as part of the union agreement on introduction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, DCO as originally conceived is the method used on SouthEastern High Speed services. It is driver only dispatch, but the train will never run without the second member of staff, it is a conventional guarded train in all areas other than dispatch

And that method has a lot going for it on something like a branch line (let's say the Marston Vale) where the guard also has to do revenue, heavily reducing wasted time at stations (and if you use the Marston Vale you will see a lot of wasted time indeed - the aim really should be to get stations stops at that kind of place down well below 30 seconds unless assistance is required). Perhaps less so on the mainline when almost nobody pays on board, but driver release/guard dispatch can still make things smoother.

This probably also describes a significant majority of Northern's operation, particularly the Manchester suburbans where ticket office staffing is poor and fare-dodging rife.

It's also the method used on *all* the new tram networks that do have a second member of staff. (Those that don't are clearly "proper" DOO).

Conflating it with DOO is probably not overly helpful - but the DaFT have done that by calling a setup where the second method of staff could be absent and may not be safety trained (i.e. the Southern OBS type setup) the same thing, which it quite clearly is not.

 

[Bromley boy]

No I'm not. Unlike you I'm able to read what things actually say not what I want them to say.

Rather than just accepting whatever definition I am given and trotting it out as gospel, I like to apply a little critical thought and analysis to the underlying concepts being described, espescially when definitions are subject to change (perhaps that’s where you’re going wrong!?).

As you admit the RSSB has previously stated that DCO essentially = DOO. It has apparently retreated from that position. What has actually changed (other than a couple of years of industrial disputes). I’ll ask you again, why do you think the RSSB is now describing the same thing differently?

If your employer said to ASLEF they may award pay rises in the next 12 months - would you be happy? I expect not because that's not a guarantee that you will get a pay rise, they might as well not say anything until they know the exact situation.

You’re quite right I wouldn’t. Why? Because being told I may get a pay rise is fundamentally different from a guarantee that I will get one.

If you can appreciate that distinction, surely you can see that your below statement is flawed:

from a passenger's prospective there's no real difference between a guard operated service and a DOO/DCO service which has a second member of staff on board throughout.

The point is that a guarded service offers a guarantee that there will be a second member of staff aboard. Passengers going from a guarded service to a DOO/DCO service are losing the guarantee of a second person aboard, so there is a real difference. That difference being that there may well no longer be a second member of staff on board throughout.

The RSSB terminology is in black and white - a DOO service is guaranteed to not have any additional staff on board, while a DCO service may have additional members of staff on board.

This exposes the RSSB’s definition as so broad as to be meaningless. Using my previous example, a roving cleaner boarded one of my services today (as they do most days). The trains I drive are DOO (according to drivers, TOC management etc.) but according to the above definition become DCO while cleaners, revenue, REOs, drivers passing back to base etc. are aboard.

This means precisely nothing to the passengers.

How often does this rule book get updated? Note as stated already the RSSB page was updated in the last week. I'm used to working with new technology where a book is often seen as out-of-date by the time it's printed and the most up-to-date information is available online.

Very often.

It doesn’t need to be updated in this regard as it already distinguishes between guarded and DO trains, with “DCO” trains clearly falling into the latter category.

 

[Bromley boy]

As far as I’m aware, by the rule book Southeaststern HSS services can operate DOO as a single set on HS1 and double sets on conventional routes , the current operating method used which you describe above was I believe agreed as TOC policy probably as part of the union agreement on introduction.

I believe this is correct.

There are also good operational reasons for keeping OBSs on board the Javelins. Each Javelin journey involves some travel on HS1, many journeys (the “high speed rounders”) begin and end on HS1. Relying on OBSs meeting their trains at Ashford/Ebbsfleet or wherever would create inherent unreliability: in the event they were displaced for any reason the train would be unable to proceed onto HS1 and would block the line (if they’re unavailable at the start of the journey the train can simply be cancelled and won’t end up blocking the line somewhere).

As I understand it the OBS undertake revenue duties so are by no means redundant during the portion of the journey over the classic network.

 

[Bromley boy]

Conflating it with DOO is probably not overly helpful - but the DaFT have done that by calling a setup where the second method of staff could be absent and may not be safety trained (i.e. the Southern OBS type setup) the same thing, which it quite clearly is not.

It’s also nonsensical to describe a DOO service as a service which is guaranteed not to have a second staff member aboard, as the RSSB now seems to be doing, despite previously having described DOO and DCO as being largely interchangeable terms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s also nonsensical to describe a DOO service as a service which is guaranteed not to have a second staff member aboard, as the RSSB now seems to be doing, despite previously having described DOO and DCO as being largely interchangeable terms.

To me the logical breakdown would be:

DOO = a service which generally does not have a second member of operational staff on board (i.e. not just a cleaner or trolley person)
DCO = a service where the driver operates doors and dispatch but a second member of operational staff is always on board or the train gets cancelled
DGO / Guarded = a service where a guard is present and as a minimum instructs the driver when to close the doors (and the driver does so "blind" under said instruction), but more typically controls door closure and often operation directly.

I reckon. Maybe there needs to be one more between DOO and DCO - a service where there is *normally* a second member of operational staff i.e. an OBS but the train is permitted to run without them.

 

[Bromley boy]

To me the logical breakdown would be:

DOO = a service which generally does not have a second member of operational staff on board (i.e. not just a cleaner or trolley person)
DCO = a service where the driver operates doors and dispatch but a second member of operational staff is always on board or the train gets cancelled
DGO / Guarded = a service where a guard is present and as a minimum instructs the driver when to close the doors (and the driver does so "blind" under said instruction), but more typically controls door closure and often operation directly.

I reckon. Maybe there needs to be one more between DOO and DCO - a service where there is *normally* a second member of operational staff i.e. an OBS but the train is permitted to run without them.

I would agree with that all of that.

Along with many on here, my issue is with the conflation of DOO/DCO (with both terms having the very different meanings you have outlined above).

I also reject the notion that it is somehow less misleading to tell passengers that their (previously guarded) train is DCO when, in fact, it is DOO, with a second staff member possible/likely but not guaranteed to be present.

 

[northwichcat]

You’re quite right I wouldn’t. Why? Because being told I may get a pay rise is fundamentally different from a guarantee that I will get one.

If you can appreciate that distinction, surely you can see that your below statement is flawed:

It isn't flawed as I was only talking about services where there is a second member of staff on board.

The point is that a guarded service offers a guarantee that there will be a second member of staff aboard. Passengers going from a guarded service to a DOO/DCO service are losing the guarantee of a second person aboard, so there is a real difference. That difference being that there may well no longer be a second member of staff on board throughout.

Using your logic that is flawed because passengers don't always see the guard on a service operated with a guard. Therefore, they only see a difference if the number of services where a member of staff walks through changes significantly.

I like to apply a little critical thought and analysis to the underlying concepts being described

But as we know your 'little critical thought and analysis' can mean you change of the meaning of what's written and you then end up telling anyone who doesn't agree that they are wrong.

 

[northwichcat]

To me the logical breakdown would be:

DOO = a service which generally does not have a second member of operational staff on board (i.e. not just a cleaner or trolley person)
DCO = a service where the driver operates doors and dispatch but a second member of operational staff is always on board or the train gets cancelled
DGO / Guarded = a service where a guard is present and as a minimum instructs the driver when to close the doors (and the driver does so "blind" under said instruction), but more typically controls door closure and often operation directly.

I reckon. Maybe there needs to be one more between DOO and DCO - a service where there is *normally* a second member of operational staff i.e. an OBS but the train is permitted to run without them.

That seems logical. However, people were arguing about what the official definitions are - it was said earlier the RSSB definition of DCO requires a guarantee of a second member of staff on board but the RSSB website says a DCO service 'may' have a second member of staff on board. Then there's others refusing to accept DCO as a term because it's not in their rulebook.

 

[Tomnick]

That seems logical. However, people were arguing about what the official definitions are - it was said earlier the RSSB definition of DCO requires a guarantee of a second member of staff on board but the RSSB website says a DCO service 'may' have a second member of staff on board. Then there's others refusing to accept DCO as a term because it's not in their rulebook.

"Their rulebook" is *the* rule book; the one that the RSSB manage. A DOO service *may* have a second member of staff on board under the definition of DOO in the rule book. It certainly isn't guaranteed that there won't be one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Their rulebook" is *the* rule book; the one that the RSSB manage. A DOO service *may* have a second member of staff on board under the definition of DOO in the rule book. It certainly isn't guaranteed that there won't be one.

Indeed, that would be rather bizarre. However said person will not be engaged in the operation of the train whether present or not (be they a cleaner, a ticket inspector or a guard travelling passenger to/from another service where one is provided).

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed, that would be rather bizarre. However said person will not be engaged in the operation of the train whether present or not (be they a cleaner, a ticket inspector or a guard travelling passenger to/from another service where one is provided).

...and that, in my book and in the Rule Book definition, doesn't change that it's a DOO service!

It seems that "DCO" is a broader, higher level term. DOO is a form of DCO but DCO isn't always DOO? I just can't shake the thought that it's a term invented purely to make DOO sound like something that it isn't, though - or rather to make it sound like it isn't something that it is.

 

[Bromley boy]

It isn't flawed as I was only talking about services where there is a second member of staff on board.

But the point I was making was that there’s a fundamental difference between a guarantee of a second person on board (guarded/DCO in the Javelin sense) versus a chance of there being a second person aboard (DOO/DCO in the general DOO sense that the RSSB now seems to be using it?).

Using your logic that is flawed because passengers don't always see the guard on a service operated with a guard. Therefore, they only see a difference if the number of services where a member of staff walks through changes significantly.

If there is a second person on board who isn’t doing their job properly that’s a performance management issue.

The fact is that a DOO service is less likely to have second person on board than a guarded service. Removing the requirement for a guaranteed second person on board is never going to increase the number of services with a visible staff presence, but may very well reduce it, if that suits the TOC.

DOO for these purposes includes the GTR situation, where a second person is rostered but isn’t required for the train to run.

You earlier stated as follows:

That's precisely why driver controlled operation is the term which passengers should hear. It's only the unions which have been talking about driver only, even the RSSB refers to DOO as archaic terminology.

This is clearly nonsense as up until very recently the RSSB itself equated DOO with DCO. Furthermore the NR rulebook still refers to DO versus guarded trains.

I have asked you twice, and will now ask for a third time: why do you think the RSSB has suddenly retreated from it’s previous statement that DCO = DOO?

DCO as a term has not been properly defined, we have seen (1) what it apparently now means in the GTR sense (second person rostered, not guaranteed), versus (2) what it means in the the SE Javelin sense (second person required for the train to run).

Can you not see why (1) is fundamentally different to (2) and why it’s therefore misleading of the RSSB to use DCO, as originally understood, when describing situation (1)?

But as we know your 'little critical thought and analysis' can mean you change of the meaning of what's written and you then end up telling anyone who doesn't agree that they are wrong.

We will have to agree to disagree on this .

 

[Bromley boy]

That seems logical. However, people were arguing about what the official definitions are - it was said earlier the RSSB definition of DCO requires a guarantee of a second member of staff on board but the RSSB website says a DCO service 'may' have a second member of staff on board. Then there's others refusing to accept DCO as a term because it's not in their rulebook.

Can you point to an official definition of DCO anywhere?

 

[northwichcat]

Can you point to an official definition of DCO anywhere?

The RMT constantly tell us the dispute is about passenger safety. If a passenger looks for a definition of DCO anywhere there's one on the RSSB website - is the RSSB not a good source? As for why they have changed it, the railways are changing - DOO used to mean the driver using mirrors, a guard was someone who ensured manual doors were properly shut prior to departure - if railway practices change surely terminology and/or definitions of terms should be changed as well.

Regarding the RMT telling us the dispute is about passenger safety (which we all know isn't the primary reason) - as a passenger I feel the likes of Andy Burnham and Tim Farron are doing an excellent job of standing up for passengers and even Farron is a more powerful figure than anyone in the RMT - so the RMT should let the politicians who care about the railways stand up for the passengers.

 

[footprints]

The RMT now have someone dressed up as a chicken wearing a Chris Grayling mask parading about in Manchester. As if it wasn't hard enough to take them seriously already!

 

[B&I]

The RMT now have someone dressed up as a chicken wearing a Chris Grayling mask parading about in Manchester. As if it wasn't hard enough to take them seriously already!

A chicken, masked or not, would make a better transport sec than Grayling, and would.probably have a lower-pitched voice

 

[B&I]

I very much doubt it. It would, in my view, be unacceptable both from a performance point of view (it won't be quick!) and for the risk of posing a serious distraction to the driver.

The fact that something is unacceptable to any reasonable person is no reason for it not to happen on Northern Rail

 

[B&I]

Link to RSSB talking about DCO (sometimes referred to as DOO) has already been provided in this thread.

Talk to some of the people who use the train at Northwich station if you want to know what some GMB members think of the RMT strikes (probably best done not wearing TOC uniform.) Possible takeover deals at one business and the probable relocation of another means they do have more immediate concerns about their long term job futures.

So are these people blaming this exclusively on the strikes, or are they taking into account the disruption caused by Northern's inability to run a reliable service on non-strike days as well ?

 

[B&I]

(which I suspect has come about because they envy the relatively secure employment enjoyed by railstaff and would like to see it reduced).

There is a very obvious streak of that on here. 'My job's insecure, so everyone else's should be as well'. There is an obvious alternative to this way of thinking

 

[northwichcat]

So are these people blaming this exclusively on the strikes, or are they taking into account the disruption caused by Northern's inability to run a reliable service on non-strike days as well ?

On the fact that they can't always work their contracted hours on strike days, which includes some early starts and late finishes, due to the limited hours of operation of the emergency timetable. It should be remembered the RMT don't like TOCs running services with managers acting as guards on strike days and start calling for the practice to be banned the second one makes a mistake. They're quite happy to see no-one being able to get to work if they don't get what they want.

On the whole on strike days there's a lot less lot time between stations on the services which do run - probably down to the second person on board not trying to do both the doors and revenue duties.

 

[northwichcat]

There is a very obvious streak of that on here. 'My job's insecure, so everyone else's should be as well'. There is an obvious alternative to this way of thinking

So a minimum of 9 years of guaranteed employment is an insecure job in your opinion?

 

[B&I]

On the fact that they can't always work their contracted hours on strike days, which includes some early starts and late finishes. It should be remembered the RMT don't like TOCs running services with managers acting as guards on strike days and start calling for the practice to be banned the second one makes a mistake.

Really? There are passengers on your train who are complaining specifically about services ending early on strike days, but not.complaining about other days when they run fitfully, if at all? Next thing you'll be telling us that they were complaining specifically about the RMT objecting to train managers acting as guards

 

[B&I]

So a minimum of 9 years of guaranteed employment is an insecure job in your opinion?

As the young people say, 'triggered'

 

[northwichcat]

Really? There are passengers on your train who are complaining specifically about services ending early on strike days, but not.complaining about other days when they run fitfully, if at all? Next thing you'll be telling us that they were complaining specifically about the RMT objecting to train managers acting as guards

Is it really a surprise?

Strike day:
- Beg manager to let you start late/finish early or colleagues to cover some of your hours
- Lose up to a few hours pay as a result
- No compensation

Delay/cancellation:
- If in morning a delay/cancellation causes you to arrive late, either finish late or lose up to 1 hour's pay. However, possible to avoid in some circumstances by keeping an eye on Journey Check/NRE and being ready to leave for an earlier train if necessary.
- If in evening arrive home late (if last train is cancelled TOC has to arrange to get you home another way.)
- In either case a delay of over 30 minutes entitles you to compensation.

Would you prefer the first scenario over the second?

 

[driver_m]

Regarding the RMT telling us the dispute is about passenger safety (which we all know isn't the primary reason) - as a passenger I feel the likes of Andy Burnham and Tim Farron are doing an excellent job of standing up for passengers and even Farron is a more powerful figure than anyone in the RMT - so the RMT should let the politicians who care about the railways stand up for the passengers.

Wrong. That's your opinion. Don't speak for me or anyone else. It is about safety according to both Unions and I don't disagree with either of them.

 

[Tomnick]

The RMT constantly tell us the dispute is about passenger safety. If a passenger looks for a definition of DCO anywhere there's one on the RSSB website - is the RSSB not a good source? As for why they have changed it, the railways are changing - DOO used to mean the driver using mirrors, a guard was someone who ensured manual doors were properly shut prior to departure - if railway practices change surely terminology and/or definitions of terms should be changed as well.

It's a contradictory mess. To summarise, then:

Driver controlled operation (DCO)
The train driver is responsible for door operation and determining that it is safe to start the train, although other auxiliary members of staff may be provided on the train.

Driver only operation (DOO)
The train driver is responsible for door operation and determining that it is safe to start the train, and is the only member of staff on the train.

In DOO mode, the train driver may still interact with platform staff or indicators.

With them being similar, some people use the terms DCO and DOO interchangeably, but we make the distinction here for the purposes of our analysis and research.

(https://www.rssb.co.uk/Pages/driver-controlled-operation.aspx)

So DOO is a form of DCO, but DCO isn't necessarily DOO and they're pretty much the same thing anyway? A train with just the driver is DOO until another driver (travelling 'pass') or a cleaner or a fitter happens to get on, then it's no longer DOO? It makes absolutely no sense.

They *haven't* changed it in the Rule Book, which is as good a source as you can get when it comes to the operation of the railway...

Meanwhile...

Driver Controlled Operation (DCO)
The issue of safety relating to the interface between the platform and train and the safe dispatch of trains is an area of focus for the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and the industry.

Driver Controlled Operation of passenger trains (DCO), sometimes referred to as Driver Only Operation, is where the train driver is in control of the opening and closing of the train's doors.

(http://orr.gov.uk/rail/health-and-safety/health-and-safety-strategy/driver-controlled-operation-dco)

So *they* think it's the same thing, then? DCO is DOO under some more colourful branding? That sounds more credible to me...

 

[Robertj21a]

Wrong. That's your opinion. Don't speak for me or anyone else. It is about safety according to both Unions and I don't disagree with either of them.

I certainly hope that it's all, and only, about safety - as it should be.

However, the cynic in me says that it will get resolved eventually by a pay or benefits increase. Presumably, you would not agree ?

 

[B&I]

Is it really a surprise?

Strike day:
- Beg manager to let you start late/finish early or colleagues to cover some of your hours
- Lose up to a few hours pay as a result
- No compensation

Delay/cancellation:
- If in morning a delay/cancellation causes you to arrive late, either finish late or lose up to 1 hour's pay. However, possible to avoid in some circumstances by keeping an eye on Journey Check/NRE and being ready to leave for an earlier train if necessary.
- If in evening arrive home late (if last train is cancelled TOC has to arrange to get you home another way.)
- In either case a delay of over 30 minutes entitles you to compensation.

Would you prefer the first scenario over the second?

Arrive 1 hour late on non-strike day? Optimistic.

Are you saying that the men on the Cheshire equivalent of the Clapham Omnibus had this level of detailed knowledge about disruption to rail services and their various causes ?