Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

The TOCs still want the flexibility to run services when that 2nd person is not available for one reason or the other so that they dont have to cancel trains (thanks northern this morning - taxi company's love you) but others dont want that so is that a fourth version no one has added?

Why does it need a fourth version. Driver + Guard = Non-driving member of staff guaranteed, DCO = Non-driving member of staff expected but not guaranteed. Why a fourth version for that but not one for Driver + Guard + AFC?

 

[northwichcat]

I can safely tell you that wifi is mostly absent on our trains!!!

And I can safely assure you that there aren't yet any DCO Northern Connect services or any OBS' - it was the future OBS role that another poster claimed would have down time.

 

[Moonshot]

There is a high profile campaign by GMP particularly on this Metrolink line due to the number of crimes and incidents between Monsall and Shaw. It has however been highlighted by passengers that there has been a huge rise in anti social behaviour on this route since it was a heavy rail line. This has been a gradual increase despite introduction of full CCTV coverage and help points as people have been able to get away with things, incidents have become more serious. The lack of a second person on board may have contributed to this as there hasn't been a similar increase in anti social behaviour on the heavy rail network.

A lot more services and a lot more passengers as well on this line. In the old days of heavy rail , it was a difficult route for guards as well, it had more than it's fair share of assaults etc

 

[northwichcat]

Or raise tickets 3.4 percent and keep a guard on every train instead. Oh and the industrial action would be over.

Fares have gone up above or at inflation every year for a long time and the same is also true of crew salaries so logically pay cuts for crews should be implemented first and only if after that's been implemented should further fare rises be even considered. After all if fare rises put off passengers there might be service cuts and then both drivers and guards might find themselves being made redundant because they are surplus to requirements.

 

[northwichcat]

Breaking news, RMT have agreed to attend talks under ACAS, just been on local news

Mentioned by @scrapy a few hours ago. Although also mentioned is they intend to carry on striking, which is unprecedented behaviour from a union that's supposed to be in talks.

 

[Bromley boy]

logically pay cuts for crews should be implemented

You’d love that wouldn’t you, green eyes.

 

[pt_mad]

I thought the RMT was usually happy to attend any talks ?

Mick Cash then goes on to state that the RMT wants to have a safety critical guard on every train...............so we're back to square one each time. It will be interesting to see how this is any different.

What else would we expect head of the guards union to say? Of course this is what they want. They want to protect every members job and terms of future members. And i gather this is what their members would expect of them.

 

[Moonshot]

Fares have gone up above or at inflation every year for a long time and the same is also true of crew salaries so logically pay cuts for crews should be implemented first and only if after that's been implemented should further fare rises be even considered. After all if fare rises put off passengers there might be service cuts and then both drivers and guards might find themselves being made redundant because they are surplus to requirements.

Fares have gone up every year for the last 20 years, and so have passenger numbers. So it doesn't seem to me that highes fares actually put people off train travel.

 

[northwichcat]

Fares have gone up every year for the last 20 years, and so have passenger numbers. So it doesn't seem to me that highes fares actually put people off train travel.

Fares have generally risen by an inflation linked formula every year, where there have been bigger rises (like at some PTE stations) passenger numbers have stagnated in the last few years. @pt_mad seems to suggest an additional 3.4% should be added in to 'save the guards' which could well reverse that trend.

 

[pt_mad]

How about this, logically if Northern offer ASLEF members a basic pay rise of 15k in year one, rising to 25k in year 5, and this is just a completely random example to make a point. Let's say that happened, the TOC are essentially getting someone to do all the guards previous operational duties, and lower the chance of a shortage of train crew leading to cancellations, all for the yearly price of less than a dispatcher. If the rise in year one was only 15k on the basic drivers salary then the TOC would be handing the guards operational duties to the driver for £8.25 an hour extra for the driver. Not much more than minimum wage. If the TOC can run without the guard and have those duties covered for a price of £8.25 or £12 or £14 an hour then that works superbly for them surely?

But from a driver's point of view, you may have your salary increased by the price of a dispatcher over 5 years, if you're lucky, but you take on double the risk of incident and double the liability as far as I can see. And theres more risk than a dispatcher has. Drivers used to risk SPADs, now you risk serious dispatch incidents but your pay isn't likely to be increased by the amount of a trained guard's salary is it? Seems to work in the tocs favour financially that doesn't it?

 

[northwichcat]

How about this, logically if Northern offer ASLEF members a basic pay rise of 15k in year one, rising to 25k in year 5, and this is just a completely random example to make a point. Let's say that happened, the TOC are essentially getting someone to do all the guards previous operational duties, and lower the chance of a shortage of train crew leading to cancellations, all for the yearly price of less than a dispatcher. If the rise in year one was only 15k on the basic drivers salary then the TOC would be handing the guards operational duties to the driver for £8.25 an hour extra for the driver. Not much more than minimum wage. If the TOC can run without the guard and have those duties covered for a price of £8.25 or £12 or £14 an hour then that works superbly for them surely?

Bit from a driver's point of view, you may have your salary increased by the price of a dispatcher over 5 years, if you're lucky, bit you take on double the risk of incident and double the liability as far as I can see. You used to risk SPADs, then you risk serious dispatch incidents bit your pay isn't likely to be increased by the amount of a trained guard's salary is it? Seems to work in the tocs favour financially that doesn't it?

So is the driver going through and checking and selling tickets while driving and assisting disabled passengers? If not the driver is only doing a bit of the guard's role and another solution needs to be found to the other part whether it's a non-operational second member of staff, more RPIs, more TVMs and ticket barriers, platform staff or level boarding.

Doesn't really work in the TOCs favour when it's the government expecting TOCs to do more for less to reduce taxpayer subsidy (in the case of Northern), to get a higher premium returned to the state (in the case of Southern) or to get new trains without a huge government grant (in the case of Merseyrail.) However, until Network Rail reduce their overheads and deliver projects on time and on budget we (the public) won't see any benefit from TOCs doing more for less.

 

[pt_mad]

So is the driver going through and checking and selling tickets while driving and assisting disabled passengers? If not the driver is only doing a bit of the guard's role and another solution needs to be found to the other part whether it's a non-operational second member of staff, more RPIs, more TVMs and ticket barriers, platform staff or level boarding.

Doesn't really work in the TOCs favour when it's the government expecting TOCs to do more for less to reduce taxpayer subsidy (in the case of Northern), to get a higher premium returned to the state (in the case of Southern) or to get new trains without a huge government grant (in the case of Merseyrail.) However, until Network Rail reduce their overheads and deliver projects on time and on budget we (the public) won't see any benefit from TOCs doing more for less.

Nope, the driver isn't doing revenue duties. But I said they will take on all the operational duties which the guard used to have which were required for the train to run. Don't forget, in DOO the second member ain't needed. So for the train to run, let's offer ASLEF 15k rise for year one, 9 grand less than a typical platform staff, and we get all the old guard operational tasks done, and we dont rely on a second member of staff being available. The driver would essentially be taking on the duties of an 'operational guard' like those on MerseyRail. Win for the TOC. However the driver takes on a load of extra duties including the risk of prison from any fatal dispatch incident for a rise of potentially something around the minimum wage to begin with...

Potentially ASLEF could hang on and demand a payrise equal to that of a guard's salary otherwise they won't go near DOO on any franchise which doesn't currently have it?

What option would Northern have but to cooperate or counter offer something close?

 

[northwichcat]

Don't forget, in DOO the second member ain't needed.

But you're forgetting the rest of the guard's role can't just be discarded, something needs to replace the revenue part of the role and that will cost money.

So for the train to run, let's offer ASLEF 15k rise for year one, 9 grand less than a typical platform staff, and we get all the old guard operational tasks done, and we dont rely on a second member of staff being available. The driver would essentially be taking on the duties of an 'operational guard' like those on MerseyRail. Win for the TOC. However the driver takes on a load of extra duties including the risk of prison from any fatal dispatch incident for a rise of potentially something around the minimum wage to begin with...

Potentially ASLEF could hang on and demand a payrise equal to that of a guard's salary otherwise they won't go near DOO on any franchise which doesn't currently have it?

Your argument is flawed. How many minutes per hour will the driver spend opening and closing doors and dispatching trains? Let's look at Chester to Warrington to Manchester part of the soon to start Chester to Leeds route that'll take just under an hour and most trains will only call at Warrington between Chester and Manchester, so in one hour you open the doors three times, close them three times and dispatch the train 3 times. Let's say it's 5 minutes spent doing those duties during those 60 minutes using your £15k suggestion/demand that's £8.25 for doing additional duties during 5 minutes when you are being paid to work or equivalent to almost £100/hour extra (given there's 55 minutes when you won't be touching the door buttons.) You see how outrageous it would be for ASLEF to demand that?

 

[pt_mad]

But you're forgetting the rest of the guard's role can't just be discarded, something needs to replace the revenue part of the role and that will cost money.



Your argument is flawed. How many minutes per hour will the driver spend opening and closing doors and dispatching trains? Let's look at Chester to Warrington to Manchester part of the soon to start Chester to Leeds route that'll take just under an hour and most trains will only call at Warrington between Chester and Manchester, so in one hour you open the doors three times, close them three times and dispatch the train 3 times. Let's say it's 5 minutes spent doing those duties during those 60 minutes using your £15k suggestion/demand that's £8.25 for doing additional duties during 5 minutes when you are being paid to work or equivalent to almost £100/hour extra (given there's 55 minutes when you won't be touching the door buttons.) You see how outrageous it would be for ASLEF to demand that?

I'm not condoning it believe me. I'm a supporter of the guard. I'm making the point that there are potentially financial reasons for this which work for the TOC on a long term basis, where they get what could be interpreted as 'better value' for money as they can run a train from the station without the second member of staff needing to be there or on duty, for an increase in drivers pay much less than the cost of the traditional operational guard.

As you say, many guards have other duties. But the driver is going to have to take on all their old operational duties, if the train is to run without them .That is completely inevitable. And there are some tocs out there such as MerseyRail and others which have non-commercial guards, which I alluded to earlier .These are guards who only do operational duties and not revenue. So whatever their salary, I bet it's more than 15k a year or 25k a year. So if the drivers wage rise for DOO was any less than that then the toc get the train out of the station and running for cheaper than now, if DOO without guarantee of second member is agreed.

You mentioned that drivers will only be opening and closing doors for a small part of their time. Of course. But it will be for the exact same period of times which a guard operating on the same route does right now, and they're paid well for it. Plus, as I say, the other guards duties, such as helping passengers in an emergency, evacuation single handedly, emergency protection, contacting controls if needed and stationary and making onboard announcements from the cab if anything goes wrong. All the traditional operational guard tasks.

If any TOC can get a that off one person and give it to another for the hourly increase of £10 an hour they surely arent going to do badly out of it long term.

Or are we saying we believe there are no financial advantages for Northern if they manage to implement some form of true DOO?

 

[Killingworth]

There are a lot of cross currents now in play. Northern have 478 stations (at my last count) the vast majority of which are unmanned, and even those that are will be limited in times of operation. Most stations used by Northern trains are ungated (including York and Sheffield). Some onboard presence must be provided on almost all routes to protect revenue - normally.

If there's one person in a ticket office at somewhere like Brinnington, well out of contact with the platforms below, that's little help to most passengers getting on or off trains, although in theory they should. When I last stopped there it was open Monday-Friday 6:30-20:50 but that seems to have been reduced to 06:45-13:20 - or even closed altogether? My own station has twice the passenger numbers and is unmanned, but 2 revenue protection people lurk beside the entry gate from 6.30 - 10.00 on 3 days a week. They have no role in helping passengers on or off trains, have limited protection under a large conifer and get wet in the rain with the rest of us. They have very limited access to train running information. There are, of course, no toilets on the station!

Go back 60 years and most stations were manned and used tickets could be collected leaving the station. Memory says that wasn't happening at my old station, but we bought tickets before travelling as a matter of routine. Tickets were sold for prams, bikes, tandems, and dogs. Platform tickets! That mostly stopped as part of the Beeching era changes. Think of the outcry if those charges were reintoduced - but how easy would it be to police their use without onboard staff?

It may be feasible to do without onboard staff, sometimes, but revenue will be very low on many lines if they aren't there normally. There must be points when a judgement call needs to be made. No onboard staff present at time of departure and after waiting a few minutes to resolve 1. Cancel the train and inconvenience all the passengers on that train, plus probably all those on a return service, and having a train and driver in the wrong position. 2. Run the train ECS and hope to pick up an onboard member along the route to allow a reduced service. 3. Run the train true DOO and forego revenue and risk a disabled passenger having difficulty, or an incident occurring.

Cancelling the train on a service running every 10-15 minutes with bus services as alternatives is rather different from one that only runs every 1 or 2 hours with no buses at all. Interest declared, my line has a stopping service with gaps of 1 - 2 hours. Not at all keen on running through Cowburn and Totley tunnels without OBS, but.....?

However the full DOO option isn't possible at present anyway because it appears the current units aren't equipped to do it!

Thin edge of wedge! Precedent! Creeping DOO! This can go on for ever. We'll be going round in circles until the end of this franchise unless common sense and trust can be established - neither of which is very apparent just yet.

Or do we just shut Northern down totally every Saturday until the end of the franchise so we all know exactly where we are?

 

[387star]

I am not sure the promised PTS/dispatch competency has been implemented for the new OBS role

Surely Aslef need to see any agreements are adhered to if they look to do a similar deal with Northern

 

[scrapy]

Mentioned by @scrapy a few hours ago. Although also mentioned is they intend to carry on striking, which is unprecedented behaviour from a union that's supposed to be in talks.

The RMTs view is that the way Northern approached the last set of talks was also unprecedented. The RMT are waiting to see if Northern approach the talks at ACAS any differently. Union officials actually came in for quite a lot of stick off members for calling off the last round of strikes earlier in the Summer when nothing came of the talks.

 

[muz379]

I am sure that once the required 'pieces of silver' are offered the 'safety' issue and concern for the public will be forgotten by the union. Not saying DOO is right or wrong though.

Just to confirm , the RMT negotiating team are not looking for any pieces of silver . There is no discussion around more money or anything like that in relation to this dispute .

But if you're talking passenger physical safety in that manner, you'll gain more from a small team of burly security guards on the problem trains than from one guard on the train all day. One of the arguments for DOO is that staffing can be more specialised and more targetted.

Problem is that trouble does not just always occurr on the problem trains . Ive had the predictable trouble on late night trains on Fridays and Saturdays . But then you also get the Monday morning commuter service when someone who has been on a week long bender gets on and causes problems . Of course targeting security presence in this way will work . How do we deploy first aid presence or assistance for disabled people . Before you know it you will have a team of st johns ambulance , security guards and assistance staff at every station . Easier to just have someone on the train who has the required skills and competencies to deal with whatever situation occurs on board .

i was on a metrolink tram the other saturday travelling from Oldham to Rochdale on what was the old heavy rail line operated by Northern. Of course its DOO nowadays from a passengers point of view, but I couldnt help notice the numbers of BTP hopping on and off at regular intervals. This also happens on the regular rail services locally.

It wont be BTP on metrolink not their jurisdiction
That line has to be fair been made a priority for GMP . But it wont last its a temporary measure there are not the resources .

Genuine question.. Will a guard get involved (try to stop) with an argument or fight between people on the train. I am assuming they will not put themselves into any harms way or potential harm.

In many cases I have stopped arguments before they have escalated into physical altercations . I have also got between people having a physical altercation at times . Obviously if there is a large number of people brawling on the train I cannot stop this by myself but I can summon the police asap stopping at a station we would otherwise be passing if necessary . And when something like that occurs I always try my best to clear other people not involved from the area and make a mental note of the main aggressors for when the police arrive . The other things like informing control also help a great deal . Basically in that situation the driver can inform the signaler I can request police and inform control that way the information gets to control quicker so they can act on it . Passengers on other trains that might be delayed can be informed quicker .

 

[Bromley boy]

So is the driver going through and checking and selling tickets while driving and assisting disabled passengers?

If not the driver is only doing a bit of the guard's role and another solution needs to be found to the other part whether it's a non-operational second member of staff, more RPIs, more TVMs and ticket barriers, platform staff or level boarding.

The big expert on here as always. The great “I am”, clearly you’re the guru re. railway jobs...

Remind us all how much time you’ve spent in the railway industry?!

You’re keen enough to tell us all how solutions need to be found... Answer me this: have you ever driven a train or been a guard on one?!

 

[northwichcat]

You mentioned that drivers will only be opening and closing doors for a small part of their time. Of course. But it will be for the exact same period of times which a guard operating on the same route does right now, and they're paid well for it. Plus, as I say, the other guards duties, such as helping passengers in an emergency, evacuation single handedly, emergency protection, contacting controls if needed and stationary and making onboard announcements from the cab if anything goes wrong. All the traditional operational guard tasks.

It's been argued by many that one of the reasons why the crews are well paid is the requirement to work unsociable hours. If the drivers' salary already includes an 'working unsociable hours' allowance then why do they need a second 'working unsociable hours' allowance if their hours remain the same?

Also if ASLEF members get 'DCO allowance' then would they prefer some members to get it and only work DCO services or for everyone to get it and to drive a mix of DCO and guarded services? If the idea is for everyone to get then giving everyone 2/3rds of a guard's salary as a 'DCO allowance' would result in the staffing costs going through the roof, opposed to the TOC making a saving.

If any TOC can get a that off one person and give it to another for the hourly increase of £10 an hour they surely arent going to do badly out of it long term.

Or are we saying we believe there are no financial advantages for Northern if they manage to implement some form of true DOO?

Like I said it's the government who want to reduce the subsidy at the same time as requiring an enhancement to services. The reduction of the operating cost per service is needed so that extra services can be afforded on the level of subsidy the government are willing to provide. It's almost certain Arriva Rail North will perform worse financially than Abellio/Serco Northern did even if they had implemented the DCO requirement without the unions calling any industrial action. Abellio/Serco Northern took advantage of the 'no growth' requirement while Arriva Rail North have to fix the damage caused by that 'no growth' requirement.

 

[Clip]

Why does it need a fourth version. Driver + Guard = Non-driving member of staff guaranteed, DCO = Non-driving member of staff expected but not guaranteed. Why a fourth version for that but not one for Driver + Guard + AFC?

Because it wasnt one that you had included in your post

 

[muz379]

But tickets rise every year anyway. The industrial action would be over if there is either a second ballot, or ASLEF negotiate a decent deal for drivers to run services on their own.

Interesting result in the 6 month ballot at SWR . 6 months with extensive action making a massive dent in pay packets . And yet we see increased turnout and increased proportion voting for strike action be interesting to see what happens at the next ballot in 6 months . Really think that casts significant doubt over the view that a second ballot at northern would end the dispute .

As for ASLEF making a deal , that wouldn't stop the action either . It didn't at southern . And arguably action at northern would still have an effect for time to come depending on how DOO is rolled out at Northern .

Also if ASLEF members get 'DCO allowance' then would they prefer some members to get it and only work DCO services or for everyone to get it and to drive a mix of DCO and guarded services? If the idea is for everyone to get then giving everyone 2/3rds of a guard's salary as a 'DCO allowance' would result in the staffing costs going through the roof, opposed to the TOC making a saving.

I dont think it would make any sense to buy a DOO agreement with some drivers , only to have to further negotiate at a later date . When ASLEF could be under different leadership/have a different full time officer at the TOC or the members having seen issues with the initial roll out could want to play hard ball . There are already 3 sets of T's & C's at the TOC . Unions are never keen on different sets of T's & C's for people doing the same job because it can breed contempt among the membership . And obviously harmonisation presents an opportunity to cherry pick the best T's & C's so leads to an uplift of everyone's . I cannot see that they would want to further muddy the waters by having 3 sets of T's and C's and then potentially subsets of those with some drivers contracted to DCO and others not . It would also increase complexity in planning and rostering on the companies side and could possibly lead to driver shortages just from not having enough drivers on the right conditions available to drive certain trains .

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting result in the 6 month ballot at SWR . 6 months with extensive action making a massive dent in pay packets . And yet we see increased turnout and increased proportion voting for strike action be interesting to see what happens at the next ballot in 6 months . Really think that casts significant doubt over the view that a second ballot at northern would end the dispute .

As for ASLEF making a deal , that wouldn't stop the action either . It didn't at southern . And arguably action at northern would still have an effect for time to come depending on how DOO is rolled out at Northern .

What's the exact situation at SWR? Many people are seeing the DOO disputes as all the same - they are not. Merseyrail planned to get rid of the guard grade, Northern plan to keep it and have guaranteed all guards will remain on the guard grade with annual pay reviews, while Southern planned making all guards redundant and advertising new OBS roles. The guards at Northern were given a much better starting position than the ones at Merseyrail and Southern. I have no idea what's going on at SWR which is why I've asked the question.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting result in the 6 month ballot at SWR . 6 months with extensive action making a massive dent in pay packets . And yet we see increased turnout and increased proportion voting for strike action be interesting to see what happens at the next ballot in 6 months . Really think that casts significant doubt over the view that a second ballot at northern would end the dispute .

As for ASLEF making a deal , that wouldn't stop the action either . It didn't at southern . And arguably action at northern would still have an effect for time to come depending on how DOO is rolled out at Northern .

The difference with Southern was that they had the ability to near enough just switch DOO on and with that near wipe out the effect of the strikes, as the rolling stock all had the facility from new. Northern don't, nor do SWR - there would be a huge amount of preparatory work to do, e.g. installation of cameras and repositioning of door buttons on stock that was built for guard operation only. And in the meantime the strikes continue to have an effect.

 

[hwl]

The difference with Southern was that they had the ability to near enough just switch DOO on and with that near wipe out the effect of the strikes, as the rolling stock all had the facility from new. Northern don't, nor do SWR - there would be a huge amount of preparatory work to do, e.g. installation of cameras and repositioning of door buttons on stock that was built for guard operation only. And in the meantime the strikes continue to have an effect.

Cameras - SWR would be on the new 701 operated services only i.e. Metro and Windsor lines, to avoid all the stock modification issues.

 

[muz379]

What's the exact situation at SWR? Many people are seeing the DOO disputes as all the same - they are not. Merseyrail planned to get rid of the guard grade, Northern plan to keep it and have guaranteed all guards will remain on the guard grade with annual pay reviews, while Southern planned making all guards redundant and advertising new OBS roles. The guards at Northern were given a much better starting position than the ones at Merseyrail and Southern. I have no idea what's going on at SWR which is why I've asked the question.

My understanding of the dispute at SWR is that out of all of the disputes it is closest to the situation at northern . With there being some suggestion of extension of DOO on suburban services when new stock arrives .RMT has asked for a guarantee of a guard on every train . Which to my understanding has not been given by SWR . My understanding at SWR is also that the changes are only in relation to the suburban services with no suggestion of any changes to staffing on long distance services . This is the opposite to Northern but the situation with regards to still requiring some complement of guards to work trains is the same .

I am afraid I do not know what guarantee of jobs or pay has been made to SWR employees involved inthis dispute as I am not employed there or involved in that dispute .

 

[pt_mad]

It's been argued by many that one of the reasons why the crews are well paid is the requirement to work unsociable hours. If the drivers' salary already includes an 'working unsociable hours' allowance then why do they need a second 'working unsociable hours' allowance if their hours remain the same?

Also if ASLEF members get 'DCO allowance' then would they prefer some members to get it and only work DCO services or for everyone to get it and to drive a mix of DCO and guarded services? If the idea is for everyone to get then giving everyone 2/3rds of a guard's salary as a 'DCO allowance' would result in the staffing costs going through the roof, opposed to the TOC making a saving.




Like I said it's the government who want to reduce the subsidy at the same time as requiring an enhancement to services. The reduction of the operating cost per service is needed so that extra services can be afforded on the level of subsidy the government are willing to provide. It's almost certain Arriva Rail North will perform worse financially than Abellio/Serco Northern did even if they had implemented the DCO requirement without the unions calling any industrial action. Abellio/Serco Northern took advantage of the 'no growth' requirement while Arriva Rail North have to fix the damage caused by that 'no growth' requirement.

The guard's salary is not what it is due to unsociable hours as far as I can see. There are cleaners on the railways working under the control of Tocs on late shifts and dawn start shifts for minimum wage.

As far as I can see, it is mainly the safety critical element of the guards role which accounts for the salary. There are customer service hosts all over the place, and barrier staff on next to nothing across the railways. These are not particularly secure roles in that replacements can easily be trained up and staff aren't essential for the operation to be able to run. The value and cost of a guard is for the safety critical element imo. Pass this to the drivers when they don't necessarily want it and may not have asked for it if it wasn't put on them, and you are going to have to pay the added value to the driver instead. And they take on the risk of dispatch incidents that the guard used to have .Bearing in mind many drivers have never dispatched a train with passengers on board by themselves in their whole careers, and the TOC may suddenly be dictating that they will soon have a whole shedload of extra responsibility put on them because they wish so.

 

[northwichcat]

The guard's salary is not what it is due to unsociable hours as far as I can see. There are cleaners on the railways working under the control of Tocs on late shifts and dawn start shifts for minimum wage.

As far as I can see, it is mainly the safety critical element of the guards role which accounts for the salary. There are customer service hosts all over the place, and barrier staff on next to nothing across the railways. These are not particularly secure roles in that replacements can easily be trained up and staff aren't essential for the operation to be able to run. The value and cost of a guard is for the safety critical element imo. Pass this to the drivers when they don't necessarily want it and may not have asked for it if it wasn't put on them, and you are going to have to pay the added value to the driver instead. And they take on the risk of dispatch incidents that the guard used to have .Bearing in mind many drivers have never dispatched a train with passengers on board by themselves in their whole careers, and the TOC may suddenly be dictating that they will soon have a whole shedload of extra responsibility put on them because they wish so.

Unsociable hours is usually one of the main reasons given on here if anyone questions why train crew salaries are so high.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Bearing in mind many drivers have never dispatched a train with passengers on board by themselves in their whole careers, and the TOC may suddenly be dictating that they will soon have a whole shedload of extra responsibility put on them because they wish so.

They weren't too fussed back when BR did it.

 

[pt_mad]

They weren't too fussed back when BR did it.

And some would say that may have been a critical error at the time but that's a matter of individual opinion of course. And I'm not sure the DOO rollout was as wide then as is proposed now, or was proposed originally if all these Tocs who have resisted had given in, such as GWR intercity routes and if the Welsh government hadn't resisted.
Add to that, back in the 80s I don't think anyone had been convicted to prison for a dispatch incident like they have now. At the time they seemed happy with mirrors to dispatch in a lot of places and also thought smoking on duty was also a good idea across the railway.

We've also seen the global financial crisis and the country seems to be very anti job losses and anti deskilling of quality jobs in general type feeling these days and rightly so thank goodness.