• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Arriva Rail North DOO

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,827
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.
The difficulty is how you assess how many lives you expect to be lost as a result of DOO implementation. It's a wholly theoretical exercise (yes, I know that's the basis for determining spending on projects in a lot of cases). Remember, though, that we're supposedly just talking about the additional cost of employing safety-critical guards (and maintaining their competency etc.) over the cost of employing someone who isn't safety-critical, which is a much lower cost to have to justify.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,489
What I can’t understand is what is in it for Arriva. Back in the days when the regional news used to cover the strikes, that Geordie women who was the spokesperson used to just say something about them modernising the railways. It was never been mentioned that it’s in the franchise agreement set by the government.

Many people think it is all Arriva’s doing, and they should be stripped of the franchise, yet Arriva don’t seem to mind their reputation being ruined for something that wasn’t even their decision.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
I'm afraid a look at RMT's website news page immediately suggests confrontation rather than reconciliation; https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/
.
True. but the main problem is that until the recent DOO strikes begun that strategy had proved very successful for their TOC and LU membersip over a long period, explaining why the strikes may still be fairly well supported

This style appears to have been far less effective in other fully privatised industries where RMT represents workers, presumably that’s down to competition and being easier to just shut down if industrial relations deteriorate really badly for a very lengthy period.
 
Last edited:

Confused52

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2018
Messages
256
The difficulty is how you assess how many lives you expect to be lost as a result of DOO implementation. It's a wholly theoretical exercise (yes, I know that's the basis for determining spending on projects in a lot of cases). Remember, though, that we're supposedly just talking about the additional cost of employing safety-critical guards (and maintaining their competency etc.) over the cost of employing someone who isn't safety-critical, which is a much lower cost to have to justify.
I fear that is the debate if you only see the RMT side of the dispute. If you look at the DfT side then there needs to be flexibility to run without a guard on SUITABLE routes in the event that a guard is not available. The thin edge of the wedge argument is often used against the TOCs but the reality is that it works both ways and the need for a guaranteed safety critical guard is, as everyone knows, a major plank of the RMT's power. That so many acquiesce to a possible union abuse whilst railing against that by the TOC shows a user bias on this site which is not clearly in the passenger's favour.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
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.




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!

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.




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!

We're making good progress, but not quite on the same wavelength.....

My interpretation of flexibility would be far wider than what you are suggesting. I wasn't thinking of just more routes for a guard to do, I would assume that Arriva would be looking for the recognition that guards can also do certain station/ticket duties and work more in a pure customer facing/OBS role as and when required. They need to use all their staff as cost effectively as possible and a guard on every train (regardless of circumstances) seems quite inefficient to me.
I'm not sure but I thought the arrangements at Scotrail (?) already levied a fine on the TOC if specific conditions were not met.
 
Last edited:

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
They do surely act as a deterrent though.

@SC43090's argument was if an incident happened on a guarded service, the guard would turn up in court and give evidence leading to a conviction while on a DOO service CCTV would be used and the conviction, which is why I objected to it. He needs to rethink his whole argument as many of the reasons given for retaining the guard relate to having a visible staffing presence, which is easier to have if the second person of staff has fewer duties.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
What I can’t understand is what is in it for Arriva. Back in the days when the regional news used to cover the strikes, that Geordie women who was the spokesperson used to just say something about them modernising the railways. It was never been mentioned that it’s in the franchise agreement set by the government.

The Geordie woman you mention was Sharon Keith who was quietly moved to another position in the Arriva Group due to the area of the franchise she was responsible for being the area worst affected by the May 2018 timetable change.
 

coxxy

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2013
Messages
295
The Geordie woman you mention was Sharon Keith who was quietly moved to another position in the Arriva Group due to the area of the franchise she was responsible for being the area worst affected by the May 2018 timetable change.
Pretty sure the move was announced long before the May Timetable change to be fair
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
The Geordie woman you mention was Sharon Keith who was quietly moved to another position in the Arriva Group due to the area of the franchise she was responsible for being the area worst affected by the May 2018 timetable change.
Shame as staff I knew claimed she was one of the more approachable members of senior management
 

marcouk2

Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
189
What I can’t understand is what is in it for Arriva. Back in the days when the regional news used to cover the strikes, that Geordie women who was the spokesperson used to just say something about them modernising the railways. It was never been mentioned that it’s in the franchise agreement set by the government.

Many people think it is all Arriva’s doing, and they should be stripped of the franchise, yet Arriva don’t seem to mind their reputation being ruined for something that wasn’t even their decision.

Because regardless of which way it ends up they need the DfT on their side, either they get the franchise agreement changed so needing the DfTs to agree to that or they push on with it and end up with ASLEF striking as well and need the DfT to back them up when no Northern services run at all on strike days.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,827
I fear that is the debate if you only see the RMT side of the dispute. If you look at the DfT side then there needs to be flexibility to run without a guard on SUITABLE routes in the event that a guard is not available. The thin edge of the wedge argument is often used against the TOCs but the reality is that it works both ways and the need for a guaranteed safety critical guard is, as everyone knows, a major plank of the RMT's power. That so many acquiesce to a possible union abuse whilst railing against that by the TOC shows a user bias on this site which is not clearly in the passenger's favour.
I agree that there's a benefit to having more flexibility. However, that benefit is going to be small in most cases - as I've said, the number of trains cancelled for the lack of a guard is tiny at properly-staffed TOCs. Far more trains have been cancelled as a result of this industrial action than would've been cancelled in - probably - my lifetime otherwise. Where I work, most guards sign everywhere that the depot goes (an extensive route card) very quickly - yes, there's a relatively small cost to that route learning, of course, but it's nowhere near as big a constraint as drivers' route knowledge (where very few sign everywhere and many don't even sign all routes in their link).

We're making good progress, but not quite on the same wavelength.....

My interpretation of flexibility would be far wider than what you are suggesting. I wasn't thinking of just more routes for a guard to do, I would assume that Arriva would be looking for the recognition that guards can also do certain station/ticket duties and work more in a pure customer facing/OBS role as and when required. They need to use all their staff as cost effectively as possible and a guard on every train (regardless of circumstances) seems quite inefficient to me.
I'm not sure but I thought the arrangements at Scotrail (?) already levied a fine on the TOC if specific conditions were not met.
Maybe. I've already said that there's perhaps a better (or less worse...) case for DOO on suburban routes with a more intensive service, where it's more efficient to staff stations from start to finish, but Northern seem not to be going down that road.

My understanding of the Strathclyde agreement is that the TOC is only fined if an inspector boards a train and finds that there's no TE (or it fails any of the other criteria), which is better than nothing at least.
 

absolutelymilk

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2015
Messages
1,239
I agree that there's a benefit to having more flexibility. However, that benefit is going to be small in most cases - as I've said, the number of trains cancelled for the lack of a guard is tiny at properly-staffed TOCs.

Presumably Northern would have to employ fewer spare conductors if they knew that a guard falling ill/being delayed on another service wouldn't mean a cancellation? i.e. currently they employ enough guards to cover all diagrams, plus a number spare (no idea what number, any ideas?) for cover, whereas there is no reason for them to pay for guards to be used as spares. It also means that they could cope with sudden increases in supply and demand for guards, e.g. if there is a bug going round, or if there are more services following a timetable change.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,827
Presumably Northern would have to employ fewer spare conductors if they knew that a guard falling ill/being delayed on another service wouldn't mean a cancellation? i.e. currently they employ enough guards to cover all diagrams, plus a number spare (no idea what number, any ideas?) for cover, whereas there is no reason for them to pay for guards to be used as spares. It also means that they could cope with sudden increases in supply and demand for guards, e.g. if there is a bug going round, or if there are more services following a timetable change.
Well, they wouldn't have to employ so many if they weren't really that bothered about providing a second member of staff on every service that should have one. They don't employ enough as it is though, so there's a reliance on overtime to some extent to cover work - so straight away, you're probably going to have services uncovered (why would you pay overtime, possibly at an enhanced rate, to cover work that doesn't really need covering?). Yes, they will (or should!) have some sort of service recovery provision for things going amiss on the day (as opposed to general spare capacity, which is intended primarily to cover annual leave, sickness and other things that take folk off the roster, as opposed to things going amiss on the day) -but surely disruption is when passengers would value a staff presence on the train more than any other time?
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,576
It is pretty clear (actually abundantly obvious) that continued IA at present intensity will not win this dispute for the RMT. They need another tactic or another position. Northern will simply continue to ignore the IA and perhaps devise ways to attempt to mitigate it.
 

trainophile

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2010
Messages
6,186
Location
Wherever I lay my hat
So if someone buys a ticket for Saturday on Northern, which are still on sale, and the train is cancelled or disrupted so they miss an onward connection, will Northern refund the relevant tickets? And delay repay for the overall lateness of arrival at final destination?
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,787
Location
West Riding
So if someone buys a ticket for Saturday on Northern, which are still on sale, and the train is cancelled or disrupted so they miss an onward connection, will Northern refund the relevant tickets? And delay repay for the overall lateness of arrival at final destination?

I don't think so. There is a pre-announced strike timetable which replaces the usual one.
 

woodmally

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2018
Messages
210
It is pretty clear (actually abundantly obvious) that continued IA at present intensity will not win this dispute for the RMT. They need another tactic or another position. Northern will simply continue to ignore the IA and perhaps devise ways to attempt to mitigate it.
I agree the chance that RMT have is continuous strike action till its resolved. However the members wont want it and/or afford it. The only other way is if Aslef are brought on board but as a poster said earlier they dont have any truck with the RMT. And the other option ie waiting for Aslef to strike is not going to happen now as they wont temporarily back down.
 

Wychwood93

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2018
Messages
634
Location
Burton. Dorset.
Well, they wouldn't have to employ so many if they weren't really that bothered about providing a second member of staff on every service that should have one. They don't employ enough as it is though, so there's a reliance on overtime to some extent to cover work - so straight away, you're probably going to have services uncovered (why would you pay overtime, possibly at an enhanced rate, to cover work that doesn't really need covering?). Yes, they will (or should!) have some sort of service recovery provision for things going amiss on the day (as opposed to general spare capacity, which is intended primarily to cover annual leave, sickness and other things that take folk off the roster, as opposed to things going amiss on the day) -but surely disruption is when passengers would value a staff presence on the train more than any other time?
During disruption all PAX want is a rough idea of what is going on. Very, very unlikely nowadays to have a member of staff go through the train to answer questions. Hopefully they will have already done the p.a bit. As with LU, the latter could be done by the driver. In other circumstances a full and standing train could have one member of on-board staff per coach and you still would not see them! Apologies to those that go the final mile - and there are a lot who do. As former staff I have more of an appreciation of what is happening than many/most of the PAX and generally take a slightly different view.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,827
During disruption all PAX want is a rough idea of what is going on. Very, very unlikely nowadays to have a member of staff go through the train to answer questions. Hopefully they will have already done the p.a bit. As with LU, the latter could be done by the driver. In other circumstances a full and standing train could have one member of on-board staff per coach and you still would not see them! Apologies to those that go the final mile - and there are a lot who do. As former staff I have more of an appreciation of what is happening than many/most of the PAX and generally take a slightly different view.
If the guard's not going through the train to answer questions when it's all going wrong, then why are they being allowed to get away with that? The driver's unlikely to be making PA announcements when they're trying to fix the train or dealing with degraded working. Of course it's always going to be a struggle on a full and standing train, but that doesn't mean that the Guard's useless.
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,509
Northern will simply continue to ignore the IA and perhaps devise ways to attempt to mitigate it.

This is true, I suspect Northern management are now aware the Saturday strikes are to continue indefinitely so can look to plan in advance. Problem is, if the RMT were to suspend strikes, even just for the Christmas period, it gives the impression they are backing down so they need to continue until a break from deadlock is reached. From reading the press releases of both the RMT and Northern, they both state they are available for talks, so it shouldn't be that hard to arrange some meetings
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,576
so it shouldn't be that hard to arrange some meetings

Both sides always say they want to talk in strikes, both sides then always say they won't talk while the other side insists on preconditions. The ball is in the RMT's court because Northern are sitting it out.
 

Wychwood93

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2018
Messages
634
Location
Burton. Dorset.
If the guard's not going through the train to answer questions when it's all going wrong, then why are they being allowed to get away with that? The driver's unlikely to be making PA announcements when they're trying to fix the train or dealing with degraded working. Of course it's always going to be a struggle on a full and standing train, but that doesn't mean that the Guard's useless.
I did not say a guard, or perhaps an OBS, was useless - more that, in many cases, it depends on the individual. All staff are trained the same way, which does not mean they will act/react in the same way. Human nature.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
This is true, I suspect Northern management are now aware the Saturday strikes are to continue indefinitely so can look to plan in advance. Problem is, if the RMT were to suspend strikes, even just for the Christmas period, it gives the impression they are backing down so they need to continue until a break from deadlock is reached. From reading the press releases of both the RMT and Northern, they both state they are available for talks, so it shouldn't be that hard to arrange some meetings

As I said earlier, they've backed themselves into a corner where they have to continue striking to save face.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,787
Location
West Riding
So it's safe to assume that a Northern train for Saturday 1st December currently showing on any booking website will actually run?

No absolutely not. They publish the amended timetable in the week running up to the Saturday strike day. You are better assuming there are no trains.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,827
I did not say a guard, or perhaps an OBS, was useless - more that, in many cases, it depends on the individual. All staff are trained the same way, which does not mean they will act/react in the same way. Human nature.
I suppose so. Either way, someone who is there is generally going to be more use than someone who isn’t!
 

trainophile

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2010
Messages
6,186
Location
Wherever I lay my hat
No absolutely not. They publish the amended timetable in the week running up to the Saturday strike day. You are better assuming there are no trains.

Which makes a mockery of trying to plan a journey further than a week ahead, if anything Northern is involved. By the time they release the revised timetables, all the Advance tickets on connecting services will have gone.

I have had to change my plans and spend a Friday night in Lancaster as I couldn't be sure of getting there from Morecambe on the Saturday morning. As it is I got the last "cheap" Lancaster to Crewe ticket on the train I wanted. There will be people in a similar situation who don't realise that they may hit a problem when they try to travel. At the very least they should publish their cancellations a few weeks ahead.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,787
Location
West Riding
Which makes a mockery of trying to plan a journey further than a week ahead, if anything Northern is involved. By the time they release the revised timetables, all the Advance tickets on connecting services will have gone.

I have had to change my plans to spend a Friday night in Lancaster as I couldn't be sure of getting there from Morecambe on the Saturday morning. As it is I got the last "cheap" Lancaster to Crewe ticket on the train I wanted. There will be people in a similar situation who don't realise that they may hit a problem when they try to travel. At the very least they should publish their cancellations a few weeks ahead.

I agree completely. You are lucky though. There are plentiful taxi, bus and even walking opportunities between Morecambe and Lancaster. Imagine living somewhere isolated and entirely reliant on Northern rail.
 

Wychwood93

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2018
Messages
634
Location
Burton. Dorset.
Which makes a mockery of trying to plan a journey further than a week ahead, if anything Northern is involved. By the time they release the revised timetables, all the Advance tickets on connecting services will have gone.

I have had to change my plans and spend a Friday night in Lancaster as I couldn't be sure of getting there from Morecambe on the Saturday morning. As it is I got the last "cheap" Lancaster to Crewe ticket on the train I wanted. There will be people in a similar situation who don't realise that they may hit a problem when they try to travel. At the very least they should publish their cancellations a few weeks ahead.
The latter very hard to do. Here in SWR world the strike for the 10th November was called off towards the end of last week - many customers may, having gathered there was one, have made alternative plans and ended up more inconvenienced only to hear the strike was off. It works both ways. The RMT could, god forbid, use this as an alternative strategy and really, what's the word? - annoy folk. I knew I would not swear!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top