Arriva Rail North DOO

[Robertj21a]

He is the DfT. He's pretty much the top man, far more than a mere representative conveying someone else's policy. A subtle difference maybe, but he didn't apologise for his comments, only for the offence caused by them (unsurprising, considering that he referred to LUL drivers as "muppets").


The union's position has been clear for some time, yes, but it's the DfT who have pushed them into a position where a ballot is inevitable, and Peter Wilkinson's comments show that he was not only fully aware that his chosen course of action would result in extensive and disruptive industrial action, but that he seemed to be relishing the prospect. It seems clear to me that this is about "breaking the unions" far more than it's about introducing a DCO concept with few benefits.


If "safe" is a conclusion resulting from a risk assessment process that has an element of human error in it (as it must) and that the risk of human error is increased (as I'm sure that it must be), then when it goes wrong you can be certain that the focus is going to be on the human who made the error. Maybe this strand of the argument is more relevant to ASLEF, but it's perfectly reasonable for them to "bleat" about something that could put one of their members in prison or, at least, through a lengthy court case.

We've had this debate a number of times before (either on this, or the Southern thread ?). An independent assessment was that the presence of a guard actually made little difference. In any event, as you know, I was talking about the RMT, not ASLEF, so it's not much use trying to muddy the waters.

As others have since said, I honestly doubt that the government was attempting to 'break the unions'. I'm not even sure what that would have actually meant at the time. However, it would not be a surprise to learn that the government was frustrated at the attitude of certain unions [notably the RMT I guess] who seem totally unable to move on from their 1980s position. Even you must be able to see that the RMT represents, nowadays, a union that is considered to be a 'dinosaur', further dragged down by poor management and even worse communication.

 

[coppercapped]

The ASLEF/RMT joint campaign against DOO begun before that speech, during the GWR dispute. The speech whilst stupidly inflammatory was largely irrelevant as the red lines backed by a willingness to ballot if necessary had already been announced by the unions prior to it .

The sequence and timings of the statements put out by the various parties support your position.

The joint RMT/ASLEF statement about the extension of DOO/DCO was published on 27 November 2015:

We are completely opposed to Driver Only Operation and its forms,including Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) and Driver Door Operation(DDO), throughout the network. We firmly believe this method of operation is less safe for passengers and the workforce and our unions will not agree to the extension of DOO or DCO /DDO under any circumstances. This includes recent proposals for DOO by Great Western in respect of the new IEP trains and the government's proposals for DCO for the next Northern Rail franchise.

Wilkinson's speech/talk the following year was the predictable reaction to the Unions' statement - possibly not in the (alleged) language but certainly as confirmation of the DfT's position.

(However I like the correct use of the word 'believe' which my dictionary defines as 'acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof').

 

[absolutelymilk]

If the 331s/195s come into service in December, will they be immediately cleared to run DOO (e.g. during any strikes)?

 

[pemma]

If the 331s/195s come into service in December, will they be immediately cleared to run DOO (e.g. during any strikes)?

I think the plan is to introduce them with guards early next year and to introduce DCO once they are more plentiful in supply. In the short term there's a high chance of a 15x or 319 having to fill in for one and as everyone keeps saying ASLEF haven't been approached about working DCO yet.

 

[Tomnick]

If there's no guard or no second member of staff on the train & the train turns up at an unstaffed station & a wheel chair passenger wants to get on does it mean the driver as to put the ramp down which will delay the train.....

No, the industry's position thus far is that drivers don't put ramps down and therefore the wheelchair user will be left behind, as has happened on Southern in a number of reported cases (yes, I know there's many problems with provision of assistance generally).

I there is a CCTV monitor in the drivers cab & there's an out break of trouble the driver looking at the CCTV to see whats going on & goes passed a signal at red the thought at what might happen are unbearable....

The CCTV monitors used for DOO dispatch on the national network turn off as soon as the driver takes power or as soon as the train reaches a certain (low) speed, and I can't imagine that images of the train's interior would be routinely used (if even available to the driver) anyway, so that scenario certainly shouldn't arise. I can't see how there isn't an increased SPAD risk (SASSPAD and SOYSPAD) with the increased workload and distraction during the dispatch process though. At the moment, you have at least two pairs of eyes checking the starting signal...

How is that of any relevance to the dispute or this thread? Guards are not God like creations who see and hear everything on a train and if they do see something if they say one thing and someone else says something else then the guard's/staff member's account will be dismissed unless there's further evidence.

They do surely act as a deterrent though.

We've had this debate a number of times before (either on this, or the Southern thread ?). An independent assessment was that the presence of a guard actually made little difference. In any event, as you know, I was talking about the RMT, not ASLEF, so it's not much use trying to muddy the waters.

As others have since said, I honestly doubt that the government was attempting to 'break the unions'. I'm not even sure what that would have actually meant at the time. However, it would not be a surprise to learn that the government was frustrated at the attitude of certain unions [notably the RMT I guess] who seem totally unable to move on from their 1980s position. Even you must be able to see that the RMT represents, nowadays, a union that is considered to be a 'dinosaur', further dragged down by poor management and even worse communication.

"Little" seems to be the crucial word. There's no doubt that the involvement of a Guard does make *some* difference to the risk profile. I still don't understand why you wouldn't want the safety benefits, no matter how small, of the second member of staff dispatching the train if they're on it (and checking each platform) anyway. I know, though, that it'd make a big difference to my workload as a driver and, in turn and since I'm not infallible, the risk of me making a mistake.

I do agree that the RMT's public communication is terrible.

If the 331s/195s come into service in December, will they be immediately cleared to run DOO (e.g. during any strikes)?

Not without ASLEF's agreement, no.

 

[HowardGWR]

The railway trade unions would have been opposed to privatisation, but it still happened didn't it? The railway owners were completely opposed to nationalisation in 1947 but it still happened.
While one can have respect for a position taken by anyone, if their opponents are determined and have the resurces to win their aim, then it can happen.
As an outsider, I just don't see that the RMT (or ASLEF for that matter) have the means of resisting DCO on Northern eventually, if the management and owner are determined that it will happen.

 

[Robertj21a]

"Little" seems to be the crucial word. There's no doubt that the involvement of a Guard does make *some* difference to the risk profile. I still don't understand why you wouldn't want the safety benefits, no matter how small, of the second member of staff dispatching the train if they're on it (and checking each platform) anyway. I know, though, that it'd make a big difference to my workload as a driver and, in turn and since I'm not infallible, the risk of me making a mistake.

I do agree that the RMT's public communication is terrible.

.

I think 'little' was just my comment, if I recall correctly the report said 'No' - or even, in some circumstances, the presence of a guard could actually make matters worse. I don't have the report to hand but I'm sure there are many on here to shout me down if I'm incorrect........ (can anyone come up with that report anyway ?)

 

[boing_uk]

Okay I think there are quite a few missing points in this whole argument regarding guards.

Places like Mill Hill (Lancs), Pleasure Beach etc are never going to get DOO or DCO equipment in any of our lifetimes - technology itself will move on beyond that before that happens. DCO will probably only be reserved for the "semi fast" type services anyway so is there REALLY going to be an impact on the guards role?

And yes, I would rather my train run between principal stations without a guard if absolutely necessary, if only to get passengers either nearly to their primary destination for onward connection by other means.

But I think in-train technology, live cctv, AI image analysis and a whole host of other things including live communication between passenger compartments and a control centre will become way more commonplace before the guards will see the chop on Northern. Drivers will become "train captains" or "operators" before then, with the infrastructure doing the actual driving, door operation etc, with on-board staff doing the "people" work.

 

[Tomnick]

I think 'little' was just my comment, if I recall correctly the report said 'No' - or even, in some circumstances, the presence of a guard could actually make matters worse. I don't have the report to hand but I'm sure there are many on here to shout me down if I'm incorrect........ (can anyone come up with that report anyway ?)

No, you're right, it did say that (or words to that effect). It didn't reference any other work or provide any sort of evidence, though, and contradicts another report released earlier (which said that each of thirteen - I think - undesired outcomes were more likely to be realised under DOO, or words to that effect again). It suggested that that conclusion relied on "correct procedures [being] followed", presumably sidestepping the fact that the risk of human error provides various opportunities to inadvertently deviate from correct procedures (e.g. not noticing someone trapped in the doors). I just can't - at all - see how the presence of a Guard, supposedly on the grounds of potential "miscommunication" can make things worse.

https://www.rssb.co.uk/News/Pages/RSSB research projects find no increased safety risk from DOO.aspx

https://abcommuters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rssb-report-on-doo.pdf

 

[Robertj21a]

No, you're right, it did say that (or words to that effect). It didn't reference any other work or provide any sort of evidence, though, and contradicts another report released earlier (which said that each of thirteen - I think - undesired outcomes were more likely to be realised under DOO, or words to that effect again). It suggested that that conclusion relied on "correct procedures [being] followed", presumably sidestepping the fact that the risk of human error provides various opportunities to inadvertently deviate from correct procedures (e.g. not noticing someone trapped in the doors). I just can't - at all - see how the presence of a Guard, supposedly on the grounds of potential "miscommunication" can make things worse.

https://www.rssb.co.uk/News/Pages/RSSB research projects find no increased safety risk from DOO.aspx

https://abcommuters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rssb-report-on-doo.pdf

Thanks for that. It's good to have a 'sensible' discussion on here for once.......

I think that, on balance, the difference between having a guard, or not, has not really been proven to anyone's satisfaction. That suggests that the differences perceived are so slim that they can probably be discounted as any sort of critical issue in the debate.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks for that. It's good to have a 'sensible' discussion on here for once.......

I think that, on balance, the difference between having a guard, or not, has not really been proven to anyone's satisfaction. That suggests that the differences perceived are so slim that they can probably be discounted as any sort of critical issue in the debate.

It’s such a complex problem that I don’t suppose anyone will ever “prove” the issue either way. I’ve seen previous few stats relating to incidents that have actually happened - the rest consists of theoretical exercises and risk assessments which are all too easy to use to justify a preferred approach rather than selecting the most appropriate solution. The fact that the vast majority (over 80%) of dispatch related incidents investigated by the RAIB involved DOO trains must say something though. There’s probably no way of quantifying the number of accidents that are averted by the guard’s presence either. The risk profile must be different for every type of train and every route, so comparisons are difficult and probably meaningless.

I just object to those who claim that DOO is no less safe - even slightly - or even safer than operation with a guard, because it doesn’t make sense. I object to the RSSB’s carefully-worded claim that it is, because that doesn’t make sense either. I still don’t know what this “miscommunication” is. I’d love to know what the true objective is here. If it’s about destaffing, then the DfT should be more honest about it. If it isn’t, then what *is* it about?

 

[Robertj21a]

It’s such a complex problem that I don’t suppose anyone will ever “prove” the issue either way. I’ve seen previous few stats relating to incidents that have actually happened - the rest consists of theoretical exercises and risk assessments which are all too easy to use to justify a preferred approach rather than selecting the most appropriate solution. The fact that the vast majority (over 80%) of dispatch related incidents investigated by the RAIB involved DOO trains must say something though. There’s probably no way of quantifying the number of accidents that are averted by the guard’s presence either. The risk profile must be different for every type of train and every route, so comparisons are difficult and probably meaningless.

I just object to those who claim that DOO is no less safe - even slightly - or even safer than operation with a guard, because it doesn’t make sense. I object to the RSSB’s carefully-worded claim that it is, because that doesn’t make sense either. I still don’t know what this “miscommunication” is. I’d love to know what the true objective is here. If it’s about destaffing, then the DfT should be more honest about it. If it isn’t, then what *is* it about?

I know we're all fairly confused (not helped by similar disputes at other TOCs) but I had never assumed that the key issue was de-staffing as such - more a desire for greater flexibility of existing staff so that they weren't necessarily restricted to always being 'just a guard' - on a train that 'must have a guard'. In many other industries nowadays you'd probably not have such a tight job description which, coupled with a 'dinosaur' union results in so little flexibility. I assume that a more flexible workforce is the true aim.

While I understand the reluctance of the RMT to accept even the slightest change in their 'two safety critical staff' approach to everything it still seems a bit ridiculous to other people. Drivers operate the doors on many routes, including the busiest ones across London, so that's really not a very strong argument in itself. I realise that the PTI is the critical concern but even here there seems to be a total reluctance by the RMT to even consider any modern technology that may prove suitable.

The other key issue seems to be the ability to operate trains without an 'OBS' in exceptional circumstances. Not only can those circumstances be tied up tightly (as has been the case at Southern) but there could also be a sizeable fine for any service so operated - that would soon stop any wayward TOC.

My frustration with all of this is that the RMT has a standard, blanket, approach to everything. They make themselves look silly and utterly out of touch with the real world.

 

[Confused52]

It’s such a complex problem that I don’t suppose anyone will ever “prove” the issue either way. I’ve seen previous few stats relating to incidents that have actually happened - the rest consists of theoretical exercises and risk assessments which are all too easy to use to justify a preferred approach rather than selecting the most appropriate solution. The fact that the vast majority (over 80%) of dispatch related incidents investigated by the RAIB involved DOO trains must say something though. There’s probably no way of quantifying the number of accidents that are averted by the guard’s presence either. The risk profile must be different for every type of train and every route, so comparisons are difficult and probably meaningless.

I just object to those who claim that DOO is no less safe - even slightly - or even safer than operation with a guard, because it doesn’t make sense. I object to the RSSB’s carefully-worded claim that it is, because that doesn’t make sense either. I still don’t know what this “miscommunication” is. I’d love to know what the true objective is here. If it’s about destaffing, then the DfT should be more honest about it. If it isn’t, then what *is* it about?

You have almost got to an answer but then let it slip away. I would suggest the principal consideration is the significance of the difference which can be found either way. It is small compared to the other risks associated with operation a rail service, that is what the RSSB report identifies. Next consider how much could reasonably be afforded to remove the risk of that magnitude, that is the difference caused by DCO/DOO. The cost of a life in a railway setting is £1.55 million (Dft WebTAG data). So if the probability is so small that it will not save a life every year you cannot afford to spend even £1.5 million on removing the risk in each year. Normally the cost is a capital expense but in this case it is the recurring operational expense of employing a guard on the extra trains run for Northern Connect which were not already run before with a guard.

If the cost of guards on those trains exceeds the cost of the risk annually the guards should not be afforded. So it doesn't matter which is more or less risky, what matters is if the public purse, both subsidy and farebox, should be expected to pay for removing the risk. Neither life nor the railway will ever be risk free.

 

[beavercreek]

The railway trade unions would have been opposed to privatisation, but it still happened didn't it? The railway owners were completely opposed to nationalisation in 1947 but it still happened.
While one can have respect for a position taken by anyone, if their opponents are determined and have the resurces to win their aim, then it can happen.
As an outsider, I just don't see that the RMT (or ASLEF for that matter) have the means of resisting DCO on Northern eventually, if the management and owner are determined that it will happen.

You think that any TOC or even the government have more control than the UKs strongest union?

 

[Carlisle]

Places like Mill Hill (Lancs), Pleasure Beach etc are never going to get DOO or DCO equipment in any of our lifetimes - technology itself will move on beyond that before that happens.

Given the new trains will have body side cameras, the only main requirement for DCO at those locations will be adequate station lighting which may currently exist or could be upgraded in a matter of months

 

[Robertj21a]

You think that any TOC or even the government have more control than the UKs strongest union?

??? - yes, of course.

It's unions like the RMT that get to a point where they believe their own self-importance even though, in reality, they have little real power nowadays. You only have to look at the miners and Scargill to see what happens when you take on the government. Quite rightly, the government will win.

Given that those people travelling by train, and those employed on the railways, will still make up only a small minority of the UK electorate I think it's very clear which way this dispute will go if the RMT attempt to take on the government. Perhaps they should try it - the disputes would soon finish !

 

[yorksrob]

You have almost got to an answer but then let it slip away. I would suggest the principal consideration is the significance of the difference which can be found either way. It is small compared to the other risks associated with operation a rail service, that is what the RSSB report identifies. Next consider how much could reasonably be afforded to remove the risk of that magnitude, that is the difference caused by DCO/DOO. The cost of a life in a railway setting is £1.55 million (Dft WebTAG data). So if the probability is so small that it will not save a life every year you cannot afford to spend even £1.5 million on removing the risk in each year. Normally the cost is a capital expense but in this case it is the recurring operational expense of employing a guard on the extra trains run for Northern Connect which were not already run before with a guard.

If the cost of guards on those trains exceeds the cost of the risk annually the guards should not be afforded. So it doesn't matter which is more or less risky, what matters is if the public purse, both subsidy and farebox, should be expected to pay for removing the risk. Neither life nor the railway will ever be risk free.

I don't think these highly theoretical arguments add very much to the discussion. The fact remains that the second person on trains on a franchise like Northern will be vital to revenue retention, so hypothising their effect on safety alone is meaningless.

 

[Confused52]

I don't think these highly theoretical arguments add very much to the discussion. The fact remains that the second person on trains on a franchise like Northern will be vital to revenue retention, so hypothising their effect on safety alone is meaningless.

It is not meant to be the answer to everything. I was just responding to Tomnick who is trying to find an absolute fact about which method bears the slightly higher risk. I was trying to show that the answer to the question is irrelevant. I absolutely understand your point but to make progress we have to see why the discussion goes round in circles and try and understand that the facts, however interesting, aren't what the dispute is about.

 

[yorksrob]

It is not meant to be the answer to everything. I was just responding to Tomnick who is trying to find an absolute fact about which method bears the slightly higher risk. I was trying to show that the answer to the question is irrelevant. I absolutely understand your point but to make progress we have to see why the discussion goes round in circles and try and understand that the facts, however interesting, aren't what the dispute is about.

The reason why the discussion goes round in circles is that there is a perfectly sensible solution for Northern - a second person on every service dedicated to customer assistance while the driver operates the train.

That is what passengers want. That is what will happen on a network like Northern. Yet National organisations are choosing to use the Northern regional railway as a battleground.

 

[Bookd]

These long running disputes seem to be more about political issues than railways.
There is a crossover to the similar SWR dispute, where the issue that some trains, in the London metro area (that have not yet been built) could be capable of running without guards although the company say that this will not be done except in contingency.
In that case the lines which could possibly be affected at some time in the future tend to be the least disrupted by strikes - the most militant depots are those on the south coast whose workings would not be affected by the new trains in any event.
It is purely a matter of RMT trying to cause disruption for the sake of it to show who they think should be in charge.
(And I do support retention of guards!)

 

[woodmally]

This is what I just cannot understand, how a small group of people is allowed to mess up thousands of peoples weekends. The arrogance of the RMT leaders who think they have public support is most bizarre. What more do they expect to gain since they already have promise of jobs. Get back to work please starting next week.

There is no logic sadly. The RMT operate the same way they did in the 70s. The first reaction in any situation is to strike. They often say on here that

The sequence and timings of the statements put out by the various parties support your position.

The joint RMT/ASLEF statement about the extension of DOO/DCO was published on 27 November 2015:

Wilkinson's speech/talk the following year was the predictable reaction to the Unions' statement - possibly not in the (alleged) language but certainly as confirmation of the DfT's position.

(However I like the correct use of the word 'believe' which my dictionary defines as 'acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof').

So if Aslef and RMT are both opposed to DOO then why? A) Doesnt Aslef go on strike now with the RMT OR if Aslef are biding their time do the RMT not wait for Aslef to go on strike and have a combined strike action?

 

[Killingworth]

I'm afraid a look at RMT's website news page immediately suggests confrontation rather than reconciliation; https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/

A picture of men at a table, all with raised clenched fists in support of Brother Frederick, may have been toned down since yesterday, replaced by a train. Strike action is threatened before a tribunal can take place on a charge which any good union representative should get withdrawn if the facts are indeed as stated. Suspension is an awful situation and I have great sympathy for Frederick, but not for such a defence strategy.

A new forum member suggested that we might attend an RMT open meeting, to which TfN have been invited. I'd love to, but the invitation was couched in such terms of contempt for any who might not be 100% behind their cause that I can't see the point. If that's how RMT negotiate I'm not at all surprised we're getting nowhere.

 

[gazzaa2]

Why does it have to be Saturdays exclusively for these strikes?

 

[DaveB10780]

I'm afraid a look at RMT's website news page immediately suggests confrontation rather than reconciliation; https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/

That pages sums it up for me. All news is about confrontation, no positive news about good things done for members whatsoever. Until this union get a leadership who can change their thinking to "How can I get some of these issues solved by discussion" little progress will be made. They seem to spend every waking hour trying to justify their existence by organising yet another dispute. They do their members a great disservice. Strikes should be the last resort for genuine disputes not the first for everything.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why does it have to be Saturdays exclusively for these strikes?

That has not always been the chosen strike day on the Arriva Rail North dispute, but what it did bring to my mind were the lyrics of the song "Never on Sunday" that being the ripe old age that I am seems only like yesterday when Melina Mercouri won the Academy Award in 1960 for the Best Original Song in a Foreign Film, with one line saying....
"But never, never, on a Sunday, because that's my day of rest".....

 

[SC43090]

Why does it have to be Saturdays exclusively for these strikes?

There are a number of reasons why Saturdays have been picked....

(1) Northern seem to be able to operate only around 30 per cent of services.... When the strikes where on weekdays it was around the 50 / 60 per cent mark they operated

(2) On weekends they cannot get the management staff like they can on weekdays

(3) Staff don't have to put up with all the idiots on Saturday evenings, Which over the last 10 years or so as got so bad...... Iv'e seen it at ground level at places like Leeds, Sheffield, Doncaster, Carlisle, Newcastle, York.....

SC43090

 

[The Box Photter]

There is no logic sadly. The RMT operate the same way they did in the 70s. The first reaction in any situation is to strike. They often say on here that

So if Aslef and RMT are both opposed to DOO then why? A) Doesnt Aslef go on strike now with the RMT OR if Aslef are biding their time do the RMT not wait for Aslef to go on strike and have a combined strike action?

Because the only organisation ASLEF hate more than the government/TOC management is the RMT. They won't coordinate action on principle.

 

[JohnB57]

That has not always been the chosen strike day on the Arriva Rail North dispute, but what it did bring to my mind were the lyrics of the song "Never on Sunday" that being the ripe old age that I am seems only like yesterday when Melina Mercouri won the Academy Award in 1960 for the Best Original Song in a Foreign Film, with one line saying....
"But never, never, on a Sunday, because that's my day of rest".....

Off topic and apropos of very little, so apologies for the pedantry Paul, the original Greek version - the one that won the Academy Award - didn’t actually contain those lyrics.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Off topic and apropos of very little, so apologies for the pedantry Paul, the original Greek version - the one that won the Academy Award - didn’t actually contain those lyrics.

After such an admonishment, I took the honourable course of striking-through my posting. Incidentally, I was a Classics scholar for the six years that I spent at St Bede's College, Manchester from 1956 onward until studying Mathematics at Manchester University, so Greek is not unknown to me, but you will note that my posting did refer to the English lyrics sung by Melina Mercouri.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa....to use the Latin that was the other Classics language I studied.

 

[Tomnick]

I know we're all fairly confused (not helped by similar disputes at other TOCs) but I had never assumed that the key issue was de-staffing as such - more a desire for greater flexibility of existing staff so that they weren't necessarily restricted to always being 'just a guard' - on a train that 'must have a guard'. In many other industries nowadays you'd probably not have such a tight job description which, coupled with a 'dinosaur' union results in so little flexibility. I assume that a more flexible workforce is the true aim.

While I understand the reluctance of the RMT to accept even the slightest change in their 'two safety critical staff' approach to everything it still seems a bit ridiculous to other people. Drivers operate the doors on many routes, including the busiest ones across London, so that's really not a very strong argument in itself. I realise that the PTI is the critical concern but even here there seems to be a total reluctance by the RMT to even consider any modern technology that may prove suitable.

The other key issue seems to be the ability to operate trains without an 'OBS' in exceptional circumstances. Not only can those circumstances be tied up tightly (as has been the case at Southern) but there could also be a sizeable fine for any service so operated - that would soon stop any wayward TOC.

My frustration with all of this is that the RMT has a standard, blanket, approach to everything. They make themselves look silly and utterly out of touch with the real world.

The benefits of achieving "greater flexibility" alone seem so small that a dispute of this magnitude far outweighs them, though! The guards at our place pretty much all sign pretty much everywhere, even the new ones - and that's a big route card. Trains are very rarely cancelled for the lack of a guard. It just doesn't make sense - like a hugely disruptive solution looking for a problem.

This is against the backdrop of the RSSB report referred to in my previous reply to you, where destaffing is a pretty consistent theme as well as confirmation that there's not really a lot to be saved (financially) by just 'downgrading' guards.

SDG assumes that NSCOS receive a substantially lesser salary than guards, £20,000 versus £35,000, and a further £5,000 saving in employment costs, while drivers receive a 5% increase to compensate for their additional duties. The TOCs consulted felt this is an overestimation, indicating a salary difference of approximately £5,000 with savings on guards’ salaries being reduced by the compensation given to drivers (ScR, 2014).

The extent of the salary savings that can be made depends on the operating regime selected for each route, and the method chosen to reduce and/or replace staff. Possible operating regimes are to have a second NSCOS member of staff on board all trains, to have one on 50% of trains, or to run all trains with the driver as the only staff member, with occasional revenue protection staff on board. There are additional costs and benefits associated with the choice of regime.

SDG have shown that the best solution, in pure economic terms, is to make all guards compulsorily redundant and to run trains with mostly single person operation, with occasional ticket checks. This results in a large salary saving from a reduction in staff levels. In the short term, there may be losses due to potential industrial action. From an operational point of view, there may be financial drawbacks to single person operation, these impacts are discussed further below.

If compulsory redundancies are felt to be unacceptable, an alternative approach is natural wastage, replacing guards with NSCOS in a phased approach. If guards are to be retained, then it is cost efficient to give them an alternative role, using them as a second on-board staff member, dealing with customer relations and revenue protection. There would be few savings in the short term, but savings would increase over time. As guards leave, they would be replaced with NSCOS on lower salaries. An operator might choose not to replace the guards, and to run some trains with the driver only. This could be done in phases, or a one-off change in operating regime once staffing levels had reduced.

At the current levels of guard turnover, it is estimated that with natural wastage and no compulsory redundancies, staffing levels for guards would halve within 9 years. At that point, it would be cost-effective to switch to an operational regime with NSCOS on fewer trains. This would improve the 20-year NPV from £0.7 billion to £1.1 billion.

A substantial fine for trains operated without a second member of staff would be one way of making sure that TOCs make an effort, but this isn't something that's currently proposed as far as I know, and I don't know how it'd realistically be enforced either. The latter could also apply to "exceptional circumstances" clauses - how does a driver, on the platform with his train due out in a couple of minutes, know that the "exceptional circumstances" explanation being given to them by Control, for the lack of an OBS, is genuine? He has no way of knowing whether the named OBS from another depot (for example) went sick fifteen minutes earlier or whether they've been off sick for weeks and rosters just couldn't cover the turn.

Safety at the PTI is something that I'd expect ASLEF to be making lots of noise about in due course. The fight to come, for them, is more about protecting their members' interests in that respect. The RMT, ultimately, are trying to protect their members' jobs and the safety argument is (quite reasonably) a way of justifying their jobs rather than one that will directly impact on their members - if that makes sense.

And yes, I agree that the RMT make themselves look very silly sometimes!