Arriva Rail North DOO

[CaptainHaddock]

The question of seat reservations has been dealt with by other posters, but it seems that you are not quite clear what DOO means. Driver Only Operation means that the Operation (in the railway sense of movement) of the train is entirely under the control of the driver - that is anything to do with starting, motion, stopping, opening and closing of the doors. It does NOT mean that there are no other members of railway staff on the train - but the presence of these staff is not essential for the train to run. It DOES mean that these additional staff are not involved in the opening and closing of the doors and the dispatch of the train. Recently there is a tendency to refer to DOO with an additional member of staff on the train as DCO - Driver Controlled Operation.

Yes, it's surprising how many members of the public have been hoodwinked by the RMT into believing that DOO will mean there'll no longer be a guard or any form of assistance on the train. If the public understood that the dispute is about who operates the doors rather than keeping the guard on the train, I'm sure the strikers would get a lot less sympathy.

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes, it's surprising how many members of the public have been hoodwinked by the RMT into believing that DOO will mean there'll no longer be a guard or any form of assistance on the train. If the public understood that the dispute is about who operates the doors rather than keeping the guard on the train, I'm sure the strikers would get a lot less sympathy.

I think the public just assume (rightly or wrongly) that it's just 'another dispute about money'. The RMT, and many rail staff, keep emphasising how important it is for a guard to control the doors - all of which is totally lost on 95% of the travelling public who don't really understand the significance. For others, it's assumed to be just another ruse from RMT to keep jobs regardless.

 

[furnessvale]

Looks to me like the strikes will go on forever.
Perhaps the RMT should publish dates up to the May 19 timetable change and beyond so they can be incorporated into the timetables.
K

Doubtful. At some stage the government will wake up to the fact it is shovelling shed loads of money into a transport system that carries 5% of passenger journeys in the UK as a whole, and most of them are London commuters.

At that stage it will not only be guards in the dole queue but drivers, station staff and many others.

 

[Tomnick]

You're barking up the wrong tree. Guards put operational duties first and customer service duties second, on a DOO service additional staff put customer service duties first. Therefore, if you're on a DOO service with an OBS you should find it easier to find a member of staff to assist you. Of course it needs to be ensured TOCs produce a roster which has a second member of staff on every service and it doesn't 'accidentally' include people who are on holiday.

It’s a bit of a simplistic view of how rostering works. The planning function will produce diagrams that should (as per the franchise agreement?) provide a second member of staff for every train. It’s then up to the rostering function to cover X number of turns with Y number of employees, usually with a base roster that doesn’t account for annual leave but has spare capacity to drop into the vacancies. The problems start when the number of vacancies on the base roster plus the number off on leave plus the number off sick (etc.) exceeds the spare capacity. Then, you have to start paying overtime, possibly dangling juicy carrots to tempt them to come in for a horrible Saturday late turn. Given how short-staffed they are at present, I’d imagine they’ll be in that position frequently. What incentive is there to pay overtime at flat rate, let alone carrot dangling rates, when they could just leave the work uncovered with no immediate financial implications?

But in the event of genuine staff shortages due to things like illness, there are safety issues with leaving passengers at stations for an additional 30/60 minutes. That person who might commit assault is more of a threat at a rural station with one other passenger, then they are on a train with numerous people on board - guard or no guard.

Quite right, but as above - the number of such occurrences is inevitably going to be significantly smaller than the number of trains that will run without a second member of staff under the current proposals.

Yes, it's surprising how many members of the public have been hoodwinked by the RMT into believing that DOO will mean there'll no longer be a guard or any form of assistance on the train. If the public understood that the dispute is about who operates the doors rather than keeping the guard on the train, I'm sure the strikers would get a lot less sympathy.

It is NOT just about who operates the doors. The presence or otherwise of a fully rules and route competent guard impacts much more widely than that on the train operation. These proposals also introduce the possibility of trains running with no second member of staff on the train, with no apparent safeguards to prevent it becoming routine.

 

[Starmill]

I think the public just assume (rightly or wrongly) that it's just 'another dispute about money'.

They absolutely do. If they go onto the Northern website there is no evidence that it's about anything else. It's silent completely on the cause of the industrial dispute.

 

[Robertj21a]

It’s a bit of a simplistic view of how rostering works. The planning function will produce diagrams that should (as per the franchise agreement?) provide a second member of staff for every train. It’s then up to the rostering function to cover X number of turns with Y number of employees, usually with a base roster that doesn’t account for annual leave but has spare capacity to drop into the vacancies. The problems start when the number of vacancies on the base roster plus the number off on leave plus the number off sick (etc.) exceeds the spare capacity. Then, you have to start paying overtime, possibly dangling juicy carrots to tempt them to come in for a horrible Saturday late turn. Given how short-staffed they are at present, I’d imagine they’ll be in that position frequently. What incentive is there to pay overtime at flat rate, let alone carrot dangling rates, when they could just leave the work uncovered with no immediate financial implications?


Quite right, but as above - the number of such occurrences is inevitably going to be significantly smaller than the number of trains that will run without a second member of staff under the current proposals.


It is NOT just about who operates the doors. The presence or otherwise of a fully rules and route competent guard impacts much more widely than that on the train operation. These proposals also introduce the possibility of trains running with no second member of staff on the train, with no apparent safeguards to prevent it becoming routine.

On the other hand I don't recall seeing any flexibility from the RMT that would suggest they would ever accept *any* train - even in 'exceptional circumstances' operating without a second member of staff.

 

[Starmill]

On the other hand I don't recall seeing any flexibility from the RMT that would suggest they would ever accept *any* train - even in 'exceptional circumstances' operating without a second member of staff.

Why would they? Isn't preventing this the raison d'etre of this dispute?

 

[Tomnick]

On the other hand I don't recall seeing any flexibility from the RMT that would suggest they would ever accept *any* train - even in 'exceptional circumstances' operating without a second member of staff.

Two things really.

They probably don’t trust the DfT’s intentions. “Exceptional circumstances” could well be the thin end of the wedge - it’s easier to do away with a grade altogether once you can run trains without them. It’s also open to abuse - how does a driver, faced with taking a train out with no second member of staff, know whether there was ever a second member of staff booked to work it?

Secondly, “exceptional circumstances” often goes hand-in-hand with disruption, the time when many passengers need the help most.

 

[Robertj21a]

Surely, if this dispute was really about safety then no rail staff would ever work such trains. The fact that trains are running without a guard responsible for the doors

Why would they? Isn't preventing this the raison d'etre of this dispute?

Quite. It would be nice to think that even the RMT might understand 'exceptional circumstances' (and tie it up so that it can't be abused) - but no. That's when you begin to fully realise that this whole business isn't about safety, doors, FatCats, PTI or anything other than money - and hanging on to jobs for ever and a day (regardless of real need).

 

[Robertj21a]

Two things really.

They probably don’t trust the DfT’s intentions. “Exceptional circumstances” could well be the thin end of the wedge - it’s easier to do away with a grade altogether once you can run trains without them. It’s also open to abuse - how does a driver, faced with taking a train out with no second member of staff, know whether there was ever a second member of staff booked to work it?

Secondly, “exceptional circumstances” often goes hand-in-hand with disruption, the time when many passengers need the help most.

Well nobody trusts anybody, but that's nothing new. Staff/RMT don't trust the management and I guess the management know only too well that the RMT will never be satisfied with any solution unless it keeps every single member of staff, regardless of real need.

If passengers want help at a time of disruption it would seem that the Southern OBS is ideal.

 

[Tomnick]

Well nobody trusts anybody, but that's nothing new. Staff/RMT don't trust the management and I guess the management know only too well that the RMT will never be satisfied with any solution unless it keeps every single member of staff, regardless of real need.

If passengers want help at a time of disruption it would seem that the Southern OBS is ideal.

...until the disruption means that the booked OBS is delayed on the previous working (as often happens) and there’s no spare OBS to cover the next bit (why would there be?).

 

[coppercapped]

SNIPPED
It is NOT just about who operates the doors. The presence or otherwise of a fully rules and route competent guard impacts much more widely than that on the train operation. These proposals also introduce the possibility of trains running with no second member of staff on the train, with no apparent safeguards to prevent it becoming routine.

As around one in three of all train services running in GB are already Driver Only Operated I really don't understand your comment

The presence or otherwise of a fully rules and route competent guard impacts much more widely than that on the train operation.

as it obviously doesn't. Trains run, people get from home to work and back again. People don't seem to be dying or being injured in droves because of the absence of a second person on the train stepping out at stops to make sure nobody has stolen the platform.
The main issue as raised in these forums seems to be about assistance to passengers, especially those disabled in one form or another. This is undeniably an issue - but solutions can be found which are not predicated on the presence of a guard with route competence.

 

[Tomnick]

Regardless, the difference between a Guard’s competency and an OBS’s competency is greater than just “doors”.

(and, as lighthearted as you make it sound, that’s not exactly trivial when you consider the various reports of passengers being dragged to serious injury/death)

 

[coppercapped]

Regardless, the difference between a Guard’s competency and an OBS’s competency is greater than just “doors”.

(and, as lighthearted as you make it sound, that’s not exactly trivial when you consider the various reports of passengers being dragged to serious injury/death)

If I recall correctly that also happens on trains with guards.

All life is a risk. The question is whether the level of risk is acceptable to the population at large.

In the view of the 1.37 billion people who use the London Underground each year which is purely DOO, the level of risk is clearly acceptable. Compared to most of the surface railway the perceived levels of risk are much higher with its narrow platforms, sometimes the very dense numbers of people and the restricted access and egress. Half of it is in tunnels which is not a natural environment - yet people still use it.

Some 1.7 billion passenger journeys are made by people using National Rail every year. Of these roughly 600 million are already made on DOO trains.

I fail to understand why is there such a storm in a teacup about extension of DOO to some of the Northern network.

 

[Killingworth]

Regardless, the difference between a Guard’s competency and an OBS’s competency is greater than just “doors”.

(and, as lighthearted as you make it sound, that’s not exactly trivial when you consider the various reports of passengers being dragged to serious injury/death)

However, a train that has been rostered to carry a guard, conductor or OBS who for any reason isn't available currently won't run? If it's the last train of the day and that member of crew is missing the train may have to run ECS to wherever it needs to be at the end of the day?

Seems silly to operate an empty train, leaving perhaps only 5 or 6 passengers at various points along the route? OK lets let them travel, this once. So the thin edge is inserted. Within 12 months that service would be operated driver only 2 or 3 times a week - and before long it's accepted as full DOO. Probably no accidents, if all goes well. Probably?

I'm afraid there aren't easy half measures because most of us with any length of work experience know what happens next. If you're in management you want to push it as far as you can. That lightly loaded last train may be OK once in a while. The rammed full train at 17.30 may not be. Yet it's been done elsewhere for decades!

Now bringing in a specific example, the last train from Manchester to Sheffield due to stop at Hathersage and Grindleford. It's usually lightly loaded. It's often late due to a variety of problems built up during the day. It runs through a lot of cuttings in open country and two long tunnels. It's running with only a driver, stopping all stations. No, it doesn't hit an alien or Dr Who but a fallen tree in the same place and the driver is just as incapacitated. There is no mobile signal in the cutting and on the embankments in and around the woods between Hathersage and Grindleford. Passengers are on their own to find their way along the tracks to one of the unmanned stations. Some may know which way is best. The woods are a bad option, even in daylight for those who've ever walked or worked in there! (It's where Network Rail was going to build a loop for the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme until they found how difficult it would be for both construction and access.)

It's thousands of special situations such as this across the north that are at the heart of this dispute. The RMT waves the shroud of a possible Grenfell scale disaster. In 50 years we all hope it won't happen, but it's the nature of accidents that they do happen, somewhere, and with unpredictable results. Even when one does happen it's by no means certain that a fully trained guard would cope better than an OBS - or even members of the public left to use their initiative! But clearly they should.

Management of risk is not, and never can be, a totally precise science! Accounting for the most obvious and the most unlikely risks will never be totally agreed, so this dispute may indeed go on for ever. Encouraging thought, isn't it? We'll just have to use our cars - vehicles that are a lot less safe than taking a train.

 

[Robertj21a]

However, a train that has been rostered to carry a guard, conductor or OBS who for any reason isn't available currently won't run? If it's the last train of the day and that member of crew is missing the train may have to run ECS to wherever it needs to be at the end of the day?

Seems silly to operate an empty train, leaving perhaps only 5 or 6 passengers at various points along the route? OK lets let them travel, this once. So the thin edge is inserted. Within 12 months that service would be operated driver only 2 or 3 times a week - and before long it's accepted as full DOO. Probably no accidents, if all goes well. Probably?

I'm afraid there aren't easy half measures because most of us with any length of work experience know what happens next. If you're in management you want to push it as far as you can. That lightly loaded last train may be OK once in a while. The rammed full train at 17.30 may not be. Yet it's been done elsewhere for decades!

Now bringing in a specific example, the last train from Manchester to Sheffield due to stop at Hathersage and Grindleford. It's usually lightly loaded. It's often late due to a variety of problems built up during the day. It runs through a lot of cuttings in open country and two long tunnels. It's running with only a driver, stopping all stations. No, it doesn't hit an alien or Dr Who but a fallen tree in the same place and the driver is just as incapacitated. There is no mobile signal in the cutting and on the embankments in and around the woods between Hathersage and Grindleford. Passengers are on their own to find their way along the tracks to one of the unmanned stations. Some may know which way is best. The woods are a bad option, even in daylight for those who've ever walked or worked in there! (It's where Network Rail was going to build a loop for the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme until they found how difficult it would be for both construction and access.)

It's thousands of special situations such as this across the north that are at the heart of this dispute. The RMT waves the shroud of a possible Grenfell scale disaster. In 50 years we all hope it won't happen, but it's the nature of accidents that they do happen, somewhere, and with unpredictable results. Even when one does happen it's by no means certain that a fully trained guard would cope better than an OBS - or even members of the public left to use their initiative! But clearly they should.

Management of risk is not, and never can be, a totally precise science! Accounting for the most obvious and the most unlikely risks will never be totally agreed, so this dispute may indeed go on for ever. Encouraging thought, isn't it? We'll just have to use our cars - vehicles that are a lot less safe than taking a train.

It doesn't need to be how you portray it. That 'thin edge' is quite an understandable concern but if the 'exceptional circumstance' results in, say, a £5,000 fine on the TOC it might stop them trying to use it too often.

As you say, management of risk is not an exact science. It's certainly quite likely that some terrible incident will still occur whether there are 1, 2, 3 or 57 staff on board. However, in many cases the one person operating the train (DOO) will be able to handle the majority of incidents - just as they do at present on a vast number of trains across the country.
As far as I can see, there's actually little hard evidence that the presence of a guard adds very much at all to the safety/PTI debate. Even with a thread like this, with over 5,000 postings, there's been very few examples of where a guard makes a significant difference - more a 'nice to have' for the drivers.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that the management has no intention of moving from their long-stated position and I think it's also a reasonable assumption that the small % of the British public who actually use the trains are disinterested in the arguments - they'll just assume it's a Union still ranting about something while the rest of the world has moved on.
As I've said before, if the management aren't going to budge, and the RMT aren't either, then we'll still be here in another year or two !

 

[Killingworth]

It doesn't need to be how you portray it. That 'thin edge' is quite an understandable concern but if the 'exceptional circumstance' results in, say, a £5,000 fine on the TOC it might stop them trying to use it too often.

As you say, management of risk is not an exact science. It's certainly quite likely that some terrible incident will still occur whether there are 1, 2, 3 or 57 staff on board. However, in many cases the one person operating the train (DOO) will be able to handle the majority of incidents - just as they do at present on a vast number of trains across the country.
As far as I can see, there's actually little hard evidence that the presence of a guard adds very much at all to the safety/PTI debate. Even with a thread like this, with over 5,000 postings, there's been very few examples of where a guard makes a significant difference - more a 'nice to have' for the drivers.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that the management has no intention of moving from their long-stated position and I think it's also a reasonable assumption that the small % of the British public who actually use the trains are disinterested in the arguments - they'll just assume it's a Union still ranting about something while the rest of the world has moved on.
As I've said before, if the management aren't going to budge, and the RMT aren't either, then we'll still be here in another year or two !

Quite

 

[HowardGWR]

Quite

But not if a deal is struck with drivers. ISTM that this is the possible game changer in waiting.

 

[Smidster]

Seems silly to operate an empty train, leaving perhaps only 5 or 6 passengers at various points along the route? OK lets let them travel, this once. So the thin edge is inserted. Within 12 months that service would be operated driver only 2 or 3 times a week - and before long it's accepted as full DOO. Probably no accidents, if all goes well. Probably?

I'm afraid there aren't easy half measures because most of us with any length of work experience know what happens next. If you're in management you want to push it as far as you can. That lightly loaded last train may be OK once in a while. The rammed full train at 17.30 may not be. Yet it's been done elsewhere for decades!
.

Maybe I am being naive but I do think that a train run completely DOO will be a pretty rare occurrence.

Firstly I am not sure I agree with the claim that you "push it as far as possible" - For sure business looks to be as efficient as possible but I don't believe that it would ever willingly compromise safety as the reputational risk from any incident are just too big.

Secondly if there is one thing that TOCs love it is money and they know that the best way to extract as much money as possible from passengers is to make sure that you have the on-board person who is completely centered on doing that side of the role instead of running off every few minutes to open and close the doors.

Maybe I am wrong and they don't care about fares on many lines / the risks of accidents as long as they can slightly reduce headcount but I just don't see it. Nor have I seen the compelling evidence that shows that the current mode of operation is the only safe way of running the operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But not if a deal is struck with drivers. ISTM that this is the possible game changer in waiting.

The problem is that Northern can't say "right, DOO tomorrow" and kill the strikes dead in one by rendering all the guards redundant, which is what GTR Southern could do because all their stock and most of their routes were DOO capable and the drivers were willing to be bought out.

 

[Starmill]

The problem is that Northern can't say "right, DOO tomorrow"

Quite. We are talking a matter of a few short months now though until new rolling stock is going to be required in passenger service.

Unlikely that the company will want to have that on the same terms that current stock works on, isn't it? So for a relatively lengthy period, both old and new methods of working would be planned. Thus, crunch time for somebody.

 

[coppercapped]

However, a train that has been rostered to carry a guard, conductor or OBS who for any reason isn't available currently won't run? If it's the last train of the day and that member of crew is missing the train may have to run ECS to wherever it needs to be at the end of the day?

Seems silly to operate an empty train, leaving perhaps only 5 or 6 passengers at various points along the route? OK lets let them travel, this once. So the thin edge is inserted. Within 12 months that service would be operated driver only 2 or 3 times a week - and before long it's accepted as full DOO. Probably no accidents, if all goes well. Probably?

I'm afraid there aren't easy half measures because most of us with any length of work experience know what happens next. If you're in management you want to push it as far as you can. That lightly loaded last train may be OK once in a while. The rammed full train at 17.30 may not be. Yet it's been done elsewhere for decades!

Now bringing in a specific example, the last train from Manchester to Sheffield due to stop at Hathersage and Grindleford. It's usually lightly loaded. It's often late due to a variety of problems built up during the day. It runs through a lot of cuttings in open country and two long tunnels. It's running with only a driver, stopping all stations. No, it doesn't hit an alien or Dr Who but a fallen tree in the same place and the driver is just as incapacitated. There is no mobile signal in the cutting and on the embankments in and around the woods between Hathersage and Grindleford. Passengers are on their own to find their way along the tracks to one of the unmanned stations. Some may know which way is best. The woods are a bad option, even in daylight for those who've ever walked or worked in there! (It's where Network Rail was going to build a loop for the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme until they found how difficult it would be for both construction and access.)

It's thousands of special situations such as this across the north that are at the heart of this dispute. The RMT waves the shroud of a possible Grenfell scale disaster. In 50 years we all hope it won't happen, but it's the nature of accidents that they do happen, somewhere, and with unpredictable results. Even when one does happen it's by no means certain that a fully trained guard would cope better than an OBS - or even members of the public left to use their initiative! But clearly they should.

Management of risk is not, and never can be, a totally precise science! Accounting for the most obvious and the most unlikely risks will never be totally agreed, so this dispute may indeed go on for ever. Encouraging thought, isn't it? We'll just have to use our cars - vehicles that are a lot less safe than taking a train.

If a guard or conductor is rostered for a train and, for whatever reason, they don't show up at the point of departure then that train will be cancelled - even if it is the last one of the day.
If an OBS fails to show then the train can still run - which may be very important if it is the last train of the day.

This is much better in the overall scheme of things than leaving people stranded late at night.

As for the thin end of the wedge - this argument was used when Southern imposed OBS working on its trains. And what has happened? Southern are still recruiting people for the OBS role because it makes good commercial sense to have somebody on the train to attend to the customers.

There is no reason to assume that a DOO train will only have the driver on board, even under the circumstances you describe. And if DOO comes to these deep cuttings and long tunnels there is no reason to suspect that the radio links won't be improved to fill in the gaps in coverage. All sorts of kit is available for such purposes - it just needs to be installed.

 

[Killingworth]

If a guard or conductor is rostered for a train and, for whatever reason, they don't show up at the point of departure then that train will be cancelled - even if it is the last one of the day.
If an OBS fails to show then the train can still run - which may be very important if it is the last train of the day.

This is much better in the overall scheme of things than leaving people stranded late at night.

As for the thin end of the wedge - this argument was used when Southern imposed OBS working on its trains. And what has happened? Southern are still recruiting people for the OBS role because it makes good commercial sense to have somebody on the train to attend to the customers.

There is no reason to assume that a DOO train will only have the driver on board, even under the circumstances you describe. And if DOO comes to these deep cuttings and long tunnels there is no reason to suspect that the radio links won't be improved to fill in the gaps in coverage. All sorts of kit is available for such purposes - it just needs to be installed.

As a retired manager and former national union committee chairman, but now only a rail passenger, I wish I could get their heads together before that 2% of national journeys made by rail becomes nearer 1% - which it probably is anyway in Northern land!

 

[mde]

Looks to me like the strikes will go on forever.
Perhaps the RMT should publish dates up to the May 19 timetable change and beyond so they can be incorporated into the timetables.
K

That would be helping the company/DfT to plan a long term contingency, which, I'm sure the RMT have absolutely no intent in doing…

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. We are talking a matter of a few short months now though until new rolling stock is going to be required in passenger service.

Unlikely that the company will want to have that on the same terms that current stock works on, isn't it? So for a relatively lengthy period, both old and new methods of working would be planned. Thus, crunch time for somebody.

One presumes that the new stock will, for flexibility, be able to be operated traditionally with a guard, though possibly with driver release. Making it DOO only would limit future flexibility.

 

[Starmill]

One presumes that the new stock will, for flexibility, be able to be operated traditionally with a guard, though possibly with driver release. Making it DOO only would limit future flexibility.

Naturally.
However, would the company set it in service with guards? To do so would be tacit admission that they don't physically need to make changes.

Then again... we don't really know what the changes are yet do we. The company haven't told anyone?

 

[Kite159]

One presumes that the new stock will, for flexibility, be able to be operated traditionally with a guard, though possibly with driver release. Making it DOO only would limit future flexibility.

Remember even driver release crosses the line with the RMT if the last couple press releases are to be believed.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Remember even driver release crosses the line with the RMT if the last couple press releases are to be believed.

Driver release will be the norm at the other big TOC in the north of England, on all it's new fleets, even the push pull sets.

Guard will still close the doors however.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember even driver release crosses the line with the RMT if the last couple press releases are to be believed.

I'd be happy for the Company to go hard line on that, to be honest, as I think that is as ridiculous as it was when the Class 175s had to be modified to guard release when those were first introduced. I can see absolutely no sensible argument whatsoever against driver release and support it for the entirety of the UK network, the only exception being where local door is used at very short platforms. It has massive advantages in terms of revenue protection and in terms of general speed of operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Driver release will be the norm at the other big TOC in the north of England, on all it's new fleets, even the push pull sets.

Guard will still close the doors however.

And it is already the case on VTWC, XC, and was on Southern prior to the DOO move.