Arriva Rail North DOO

[Confused52]

We have gone beyond automating routine tasks which can be just as easily done by computers, to this whacky notion that everything can be better done by cimputers, no.matyer how.much the job currently depends on human thought, reasoning, creativity, imagination or any of the other qualities that AI cannot replicate. The 'efficiency gains' made as a result (ie the lower employment costs after sacking lots of people,) are not passed on to consumers, but instead used to make a small number of people wealthy. Meanwhile, the number of people underemployed, or in jobs providing no economic benefits to themselves or others but whoch conveniently keep them off the unemployment statistics, grow steadily, we end up with the worst productivity statistics in the developed world, and society disintegrates as fewer and fewer people have even the most basic economic stake in it. Something is going rather badly wrong, and a blind faith in the wonderfulness of technology cannot disguise this.

Your comments about computers will in time relate more to drivers than other traincrew. As I understand it the current DCO needs for technology are related to video which needs to be viewed by a human because interpretation is needed. The later stages of automated train control remove the need for drivers and reduce the probability of human error in that function but will not remove the need for despatch by thinking humans if the process is not to be slowed right down. For example better trap and drag protection would require passengers to be further away from train doors and despatch would have to wait until automation detects that they have moved. So my view is that there is a place for humans on every train but it is not clear what other functions they will perform. However the DCO proposal to maintain second members of staff where that is the best way and not just reduce numbers to improve profit, which would be clawed back if they made it, do not represent a significant challenge to employment. Rather they challenge the unfettered power of the RMT to shadow manage the TOC and I don't believe that if the general public understood this was the real issue there would be any support at all for the RMT other than from left wing commentators.

The concerns about prosecutions can be limited by recording video shown in the cab and not permitting other video evidence from station cameras as they could not be seen by drivers. Then if the decision looks correct based on what the driver can see alone there would be no fault. I don't expect any such discussions to be in the public domain in the current climate.

When there is only one person needed to do the despatch will he be called a driver or a guard, I doubt it. DLR is the closest thing to where we are headed but the speed is still very slow and not worthy all this disruption.

 

[pt_mad]

It's similar on Sheffield Supertram. The conductors remaining in the saloon all the time and not having door/dispatch duties means they get a clear view of those getting on and off at each stop.

True. But it's efficiency to the point that they often don't even have to say tickets please, they just walk towards someone, make eye contact and the person says 24 hours please or whatever they want. As soon as you get in you know they'll be over within seconds or minutes if it's standing room.

They don't seem to hang about to give travel advice either, they are checking as many people as fast as possible as if they'd have failed if even one or two went a stop without being checked.

 

[pt_mad]

When Blackpool trams first started there would have been no option of paying by card and I'm not sure they would have ever accepted cheques guaranteed by bank cards.

Definitely.

I think conductors were basically safety critical when on the old trams pre the late 2010s although can anyone confirm this?

 

[142Pilot]

For the billionth time, the Speach occurred after the anti DOO strike campaign begun, yes extremely daft but meaningless

Not meaningless at all.

It showed the mindset of the head honchos.

So it's reasonable for guards to think that once the strikes are over and doo is accepted that the next step will be for them to be made redundant.

How can you honestly expect them to trust the DfT/TOC's when people at the head of the organisation have called for them to be crushed.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes. I wish we had some of the redacted information about exactly what they agreed on the subsidy profile in terms of what money goes where, and exactly how they were going to get to that position vis a vis on-board and station staff (many of whom are still employed by Carlisle Security with minimal training and apparently no railway specific knowledge).

Have you a quotable source that confirms the actual Carlisle Security type and time period of training that you state as "minimal".

Some of the contracted RPIs who are regularly based at the same smaller stations actually do a good job. In some cases not just checking tickets but correctly advising passengers on Advance tickets about what to do if their train is delayed/cancelled, assisting passengers with mobility issues and in some cases even preventing a guard dispatching a train early (that's happened a few times with the off-pattern 11:55 Chester to Manchester which unlike most services is supposed to sit at Northwich for 3 minutes.) The ones at big stations like Piccadilly and Victoria are very different though, especially with the complexity of the evening peak restrictions.

 

[B&I]

Not meaningless at all.

It showed the mindset of the head honchos.

So it's reasonable for guards to think that once the strikes are over and doo is accepted that the next step will be for them to be made redundant.

How can you honestly expect them to trust the DfT/TOC's when people at the head of the organisation have called for them to be crushed.

You might call it the mask slipping. There is only one direction that certain politicians and their enablers in the civil service want to take employment conditions in this country, ans it amazes me that more people don't see this

 

[B&I]

Your comments about computers will in time relate more to drivers than other traincrew. As I understand it the current DCO needs for technology are related to video which needs to be viewed by a human because interpretation is needed. The later stages of automated train control remove the need for drivers and reduce the probability of human error in that function but will not remove the need for despatch by thinking humans if the process is not to be slowed right down. For example better trap and drag protection would require passengers to be further away from train doors and despatch would have to wait until automation detects that they have moved. So my view is that there is a place for humans on every train but it is not clear what other functions they will perform. However the DCO proposal to maintain second members of staff where that is the best way and not just reduce numbers to improve profit, which would be clawed back if they made it, do not represent a significant challenge to employment. Rather they challenge the unfettered power of the RMT to shadow manage the TOC and I don't believe that if the general public understood this was the real issue there would be any support at all for the RMT other than from left wing commentators.

The concerns about prosecutions can be limited by recording video shown in the cab and not permitting other video evidence from station cameras as they could not be seen by drivers. Then if the decision looks correct based on what the driver can see alone there would be no fault. I don't expect any such discussions to be in the public domain in the current climate.

When there is only one person needed to do the despatch will he be called a driver or a guard, I doubt it. DLR is the closest thing to where we are headed but the speed is still very slow and not worthy all this disruption.

I jave no problem with technology assisting humans and a better overall outcome arising, which is what should happen if additional cameras and safety systems are used as you describe. I have a lot of problems with humans being displaced in the hubristic belief that technology automatically does the job better

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely.

I think conductors were basically safety critical when on the old trams pre the late 2010s although can anyone confirm this?

Correct. They also had to operate the doors as these were manually operated. So basically all a bit like a Routemaster.

They have long had DOO (OPO) trams based on bus bodywork, though, those were operated like buses with tickets from the driver and tended to be used in winter. They looked rather like a Pacer with fairings over the wheels.

 

[Carlisle]

Makes you wonder though, if the RMT didn't put up such resistance, would they have achieved the second member of staff guarantee in the franchises they already have? .

Judging by what’s been posted on here over the last year or two, the deals at GWR and Scotrail involving guards retaining door controls only really happened due to an ASLEF threat to ballot over DOO if drivers were asked to close them, otherwise they’d have been virtually identical to the recently signed GA deal

 

[pt_mad]

I jave no problem with technology assisting humans and a better overall outcome arising, which is what should happen if additional cameras and safety systems are used as you describe. I have a lot of problems with humans being displaced in the hubristic belief that technology automatically does the job better

And one thing a computer or a camera can't do by itself is read a human. It can't read their expressions or their hesitancy or their behaviour. Humans are better at reading that. Probably another reason why driverless cars are having problems, because computer says ''person on a pavement, proceed at road speed', when in reality the person's behaviour might show another person that they are thinking about crossing the road before you get there.

 

[pt_mad]

.
They have long had DOO (OPO) trams based on bus bodywork, though, those were operated like buses with tickets from the driver and tended to be used in winter. They looked rather like a Pacer with fairings over the wheels.

Was the KitKat one, one of those?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And one thing a computer or a camera can't do by itself is read a human. It can't read their expressions or their hesitancy or their behaviour. Humans are better at reading that. Probably another reason why driverless cars are having problems, because computer says ''person on a pavement, proceed at road speed', when in reality the person's behaviour might show another person that they are thinking about crossing the road before you get there.

Of course, what a computer won't do is make mistakes in the same way.

I think that's one thing that needs educating to people. People will still die under the wheels of automated cars, but there will be fewer deaths. They will just be different. Same with trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Was the KitKat one, one of those?

There were a few variants and they've worn various liveries in their time. If you Google "Blackpool OPO tram" there are many pictures out there.

 

[Tractor2018]

There is only one direction that certain politicians and their enablers in the civil service want to take employment conditions in this country

Yes.

ans it amazes me that more people don't see this

It doesn't amaze me though. I see enough of people to realise the average understanding and comprehension they're capable of. Sadly, we are where we are.

 

[PR1Berske]

I don't think any senior NHS staff member has come out and declared war on its staff.

Or written proposals on how to reduce staff numbers.

You are not making a reasonable comparison.

If I search "Arriva" and "war on staff", how many results am I likely to find?

 

[142Pilot]

If I search "Arriva" and "war on staff", how many results am I likely to find?

Again, are you comparing Arriva Rail North to the NHS?

To make a fair comparison ARN is like a Health Trust. The rail industry complete is like the NHS for this comparison.

One of the DfTs head men stated it. It's a matter of fact - unless you believe that the strike action on ARN is in complete isolation.

 

[Tomnick]

Technology won't destroy all the jobs. It will change the need for some jobs to be done in the same way, and some jobs will no longer be needed at all. However, new technologies come along all the time and large businesses, or small entrepreneurs, latch on to a new need from the consumer - and offer fresh services to meet that need. Staff who are flexible in their outlook can thrive in the new environment.
Unfortunately, hardly any of this 'real world' is ever visible in the rail industry, hence we have numerous staff who rebel at every possible change to their status quo. In all probability, they're just scared of what may happen to them personally (a totally understandable concern) - and it suits the RMT to fan the flames of concern even more, rather than acting like the caring, professional, organisation that their members probably want.

What's happening here isn't really an advance in technology, though, and certainly not technology reducing workload and making jobs easier. The workload remains pretty much the same overall, just with more of it piled onto the driver.

The concerns about prosecutions can be limited by recording video shown in the cab and not permitting other video evidence from station cameras as they could not be seen by drivers. Then if the decision looks correct based on what the driver can see alone there would be no fault. I don't expect any such discussions to be in the public domain in the current climate.

It's all very nice in the ideal world with a good dose of hindsight, and I'd hope that any good defence would be along those lines to get any charges against the driver thrown out straight away. The CPS's decision to take Martin Zee, the Merseyrail guard, to court following that incident where the elderly ladies injured themselves by trotting across the platform - becoming visible only after the dispatch process had started - and bouncing off the closing doors leaves me unconvinced though. In that case, as you might know, they spent many hours dissecting his actions to the millisecond, with the prosecution determined to show - somehow - that it was his fault. Yes, they found him not guilty in the end, but I can't imagine what he went through in the months leading up to it, and through the trial itself.

My even greater concern, though, is what happens if the driver's decision isn't correct, because it's often far from an ideal world and you don't have the benefit of hindsight when you're there in the moment. Whether it's involving dispatch or otherwise, none of us are infallible and the recent incident involving a controlled evacuation at Peckham Rye shows just how easy it is to make a silly mistake, or to miss something that's obvious in the courtroom when you know exactly what you're looking for, when you're under a lot of pressure - as that driver at Peckham Rye was, totally overwhelmed by the workload.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether it's involving dispatch or otherwise, none of us are infallible and the recent incident involving a controlled evacuation at Peckham Rye shows just how easy it is to make a silly mistake, or to miss something that's obvious in the courtroom when you know exactly what you're looking for, when you're under a lot of pressure - as that driver at Peckham Rye was, totally overwhelmed by the workload.

Do train drivers and guards carry written checklists for emergency and routine situations like exist for pretty much everything in airline practice?

If not, should these perhaps be introduced? They have been proven over time to work very well in ensuring things are not forgotten, even in situations that are much more pressuring than any train driver or guard will ever likely be in (e.g. "we're going to hit the ground in 5 minutes if we can't work this out").

Indeed, I am a big fan of Cockpit Resource Management concepts in any safety critical situation.

 

[Carlisle]

Not meaningless at all.

It showed the mindset of the head honchos.

So it's reasonable for guards to think that once the strikes are over and doo is accepted that the next step will be for them to be made redundant.

How can you honestly expect them to trust the DfT/TOC's when people at the head of the organisation have called for them to be crushed.

No redundancies were ever proposed on any TOCs in recent DOO disputes aside from a few temporary positions on Merseyrail not being renewed, it’s a national & strategic RMT campaign to save the guards grade in it current form, mostly to benefit the future power of the union rather than any individual members currently loosing their wages

 

[Tomnick]

Do train drivers and guards carry written checklists for emergency and routine situations like exist for pretty much everything in airline practice?

If not, should these perhaps be introduced? They have been proven over time to work very well in ensuring things are not forgotten, even in situations that are much more pressuring than any train driver or guard will ever likely be in (e.g. "we're going to hit the ground in 5 minutes if we can't work this out").

Indeed, I am a big fan of Cockpit Resource Management concepts in any safety critical situation.

No, they don’t - I’ve never heard of anything like that at any TOC other than a few prompts on stickers. It’s not a bad idea, though, but I’m not sure whether it’d work as effectively on a DOO(P) train as it would on an airline. The emergency actions are pretty well rehearsed in the classroom and during rules refreshers. The airline lot, whilst having the pressure of a definite timescale after which they’re going to interact painfully with the ground, have the benefit of a relatively distraction-free environment to put those routines into practice though, whereas the DOO(P) driver has the unpredictable behaviour of the travelling public to deal with, potentially alone, with them banging on the cab door or throwing out the sort of abuse that would never be tolerated on an airline whilst he’s in the saloon trying to fault-find and liaise with maintenance control all at once - I just don’t know how you could write a rigid procedure to deal with that!

I don’t think it’s either practical or beneficial for routine stuff like train dispatch, although there is of course a lot to be said for a methodical approach to checking, e.g., the platform/train interface - I’m not sure how far the TOCs take it, but Network Rail were doing a lot of work on non-technical skills with the similar repetitive process of checking CCTV crossings when I was there, encouraging routines like a figure-of-eight sweep and pointing at the monitors and all that. I’m all for that, but I also know how easy it is to let your attention to be drawn to the group of idiots that you feel you need to keep a close eye on, and away from the subtle obstruction in the background...

 

[Starmill]

You, and others, appear to have a misconception about what is included in a Franchise Agreement.

What money goes where is not included, just the payments they are going to make to DfT. Nor are there any details about staff - at best there will be commitments on some aspects that the DfT (and TfN in this case) thought were worth contractualising.

There are some very suspicious redacted sections. Regardless, if there were no imperative to reduce propitiational staff costs, there would be absolutely no point in having this dispute...

Of course people could claim the dispute is actually about getting improvements to dwell times, customer service or revenue protection, but you don't torpedo your service for 40 days fighting for those.

 

[Carlisle]

Of course people could claim the dispute is actually about getting improvements to dwell times, customer service or revenue protection, but you don't torpedo your service for 40 days fighting for those.

So what alternative would you suggest? I can only think of either abandoning any changes indefinitely until closures or drastic cuts are proposed, or sacking those refusing to sign me contracts or tougher anti strike laws, are there any more ?

 

[Starmill]

So what alternative would you suggest? I can only think of either abandoning any changes indefinitely until closures are proposed or ultimately sacking those refusing to sign me contracts or tougher anti strike laws, are there any more ?

I posted about the problem, not the solutions. I would suggest that there are a great deal of reasons why the cost of the railway is too high, and that staff numbers aren't really a particularly big deal. The level that some salaries are set at, and the infrastructure costs are more significant.

The gains over any franchise lifetime from the three points I mentioned are trivial by comparison with the losses as a result of almost 40 strike days.

 

[B&I]

If technological change is desirable, and not just inevitable (and I can see the argument in this particular context if the technology works), could the longer-term answer to the deadlock between this and job security be creating a path for people currently emoloyed in jobs like guards to move on to the new jobs which will be needed ?

I don't see any of that happening at present. Instead, I see a government, and a senior civil service who think in the same terms, using TOCs to push forward.a costs-cutting, de-manning, de-skilling agenda. What's in that for the guards to support, when no-one's providing any upside* for them ?

*Before someone reminds me about the no redundancies before 2025 promise, assuming that's an upside compared to a permanent guarantee of a continued role, what force of law does this carry ? And if the franchise collapses earlier, which is far from impossible, what then ?

 

[Carlisle]

The level that some salaries are set at, and the infrastructure costs are more significant.
.

If there’s a way to just cut rail industry salaries without triggering at the very least equally destructive industrial action , I’ve not yet heard of it,

its maybe possible to streamline a few management positions, but that’ll likley have been tried already and won’t save much more .

 

[Confused52]

Sorry if this has been discussed before and I realise it would have been better in the closed Crisis Talks thread. I was looking at FOI requests on the DfT and found this link to a parliamentary question/answer https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ts/written-question/Commons/2016-01-05/21124/

What I found significant is the clear reduction in subsidy quoted between FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20 of £282 million down to £247 million as nominal figures. The assumptions included 2000 extra services and more capacity for growth. Clearly the figure even adjusted for inflation will remove any profit from the franchise even if they are compensated for net strike losses. The DCO dispute will simply add to the losses but the scene is set and the amount of money they need to save will go up as the dispute drags on so it will surely mean that there will be an end to the guarantee for guards as soon as the new stock is available if it continues to drag on.

 

[Mag_seven]

There is only one direction that certain politicians and their enablers in the civil service want to take employment conditions in this country, ans it amazes me that more people don't see this

Made all the easier by being outside the protection of EU Employment laws - now remind me, what was the RMT's position on Brexit?

 

[B&I]

Made all the easier by being outside the protection of EU Employment laws - now remind me, what was the RMT's position on Brexit?

Quite. 'Lexitsm' has to be one of the most moronic political ideas of recent times. I never could find anyone to explain to me how this freedom to build a worker's paradise could be exercised if 'BlueKIP' and its corporate backers, having got the useful idiots of the various out factions to do their dirty work, remained in charge of the country

 

[B&I]

Sorry if this has been discussed before and I realise it would have been better in the closed Crisis Talks thread. I was looking at FOI requests on the DfT and found this link to a parliamentary question/answer https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ts/written-question/Commons/2016-01-05/21124/

What I found significant is the clear reduction in subsidy quoted between FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20 of £282 million down to £247 million as nominal figures. The assumptions included 2000 extra services and more capacity for growth. Clearly the figure even adjusted for inflation will remove any profit from the franchise even if they are compensated for net strike losses. The DCO dispute will simply add to the losses but the scene is set and the amount of money they need to save will go up as the dispute drags on so it will surely mean that there will be an end to the guarantee for guards as soon as the new stock is available if it continues to drag on.

Here's a whacky notion. Maybe franchises which aren't profitable could be state-run, and the government could do its own dirtt work

 

[Robertj21a]

If technological change is desirable, and not just inevitable (and I can see the argument in this particular context if the technology works), could the longer-term answer to the deadlock between this and job security be creating a path for people currently emoloyed in jobs like guards to move on to the new jobs which will be needed ?

I don't see any of that happening at present. Instead, I see a government, and a senior civil service who think in the same terms, using TOCs to push forward.a costs-cutting, de-manning, de-skilling agenda. What's in that for the guards to support, when no-one's providing any upside* for them ?

*Before someone reminds me about the no redundancies before 2025 promise, assuming that's an upside compared to a permanent guarantee of a continued role, what force of law does this carry ? And if the franchise collapses earlier, which is far from impossible, what then ?

Surely, a path from existing guard positions to new roles is exactly the sort of thing that will be developed by TOCs (hopefully in conjunction with unions) as part of any agreement, and future T's and C's. That's what would happen in other industries and it would be nice to think that even the RMT might see the common sense in at least attempting to show some enthusiasm/co-operation.

At present, with an unnecessary dispute on their hands, and the RMT refusing to co-operate on just about anything, I doubt that any TOC is going to explain what might be possible in future. What's the point when they get nothing in return ?

I'm still not really sure that the ordinary RMT members realise what a dead-end they are being put in by their leaders.