Northern writing to ACAS requesting independent inquiry

[Intermodal]

@ainsworth74 if you're going to have a safety critical guard then it makes no sense to have the driver doing dispatch at all, even if there are dispatchers provided. Drivers would have to be fully dispatched trained just to 'take the tip', as whoever takes said tip is still responsible for a full train safety check (as far as they can see) according to the rules. Any guard will still be on the platform at stops that you propose they do not dispatch in case customers need assistance anyway so they may as well just dispatch the thing instead of standing there like a lemon.

Driver open is very reasonable, though.

 

[yorksrob]

So with dispatchers becoming rarer, the option of least resistance becomes DO/GC. An option that requires no more staff than are already required, offers operational benefits by allowing guards to attend to passengers while the doors are opened and may just be acceptable to a demoralised workforce who might otherwise be prepared to strike indefinately.

We just need those in charge to agree to it.

 

[Bantamzen]

I must admit part of me wonders if there wouldn't be some strategic mileage for the RMT to make two specific concessions that would represent a show of good faith (always handy) and represent something actually reasonably substantial but without fundamentally caving in or undermining their members. I'm thinking that:

1) The RMT should agree to driver door release (on suitably equipped stock). I personally think this is the best method of operation and I do think it's relatively hard to argue against the benefits of not being tied to someone who might get stuck selling tickets or fighting through throngs of people. The overwhelming majority of times that doors aren't released for a while after arrival have been because the guard is busy doing revenue and out of position. It also gives a massive chunk of the DfT/Northern "modernisation" agenda to them. I suppose there is a safety argument to be made for releasing doors it's always felt tenuous.

2) Where dispatchers are provided then drivers can close the doors and take the right away from the dispatchers without guards intervention (where not available guards would remain responsible for closing doors/giving the right away). It's always seemed to me that having dispatchers is the safest form of handling dispatching a train so you struggle to make an argument that it isn't as safe as having a guard do it. I know there's an argument about watching the train out of the platform ready to give one on the bell but a) on modern stock with no opening windows in most positions it's almost impossible to actually do this effectively and b) there's no reason you couldn't still have guards do that. It's a compromise that gives the DfT/Northern a bit of their "modernisation" without compromising safety.

The above doesn't really harm the RMT's position in any fundamental way. I can't think of a single route that could go DOO under those two conditions and I'm struggling to think of any that could be easily converted to be DOO whilst meeting those conditions for instance we're not going to be seeing dispatchers at Littleborough, Greenbank or South Milford anytime soon (let alone Ulleskelf or Chathill! ).

But whilst it doesn't harm their position it does give in on one factor (number 1) that I think is hard to argue against without just being "we've always done it this way!" about it and gives in some ground (number 2) but without giving up the whole shooting match.

Also helps allay any accusations that the RMT are being unreasonable and obstructionist as they could then happily point to the fact that they've given ground and perhaps it's time for the other side to do so...

Doubtlessly I'm missing something fundamental in an industrial relations dispute like this but it seems a like an easy win to me!

This is exactly the sort of thing that needs putting into any inquiry if it ever takes place! If it does offer the chance for third parties such as rail user groups to have an input, I'd honestly suggest trying to formalise this idea and get it at least talked about through some means and onto the table. Its by far the most thought through suggestion, and whilst it may have been thought about from all stakeholders it perhaps needs to be brought up independently to get it into the discussions.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks for all the comments so far. I just dreamt it up on the back of a napkin and expected it to be utterly torn to shreds rather than gently poked and prodded

One thing I would say is that I have no expectation that such a proposal would meet with much warmth or likelihood of adoption from the DfT/Northern. My main thought/goal was that it would be a way for the RMT to move things on from where we are now, show good faith and put the ball somewhat back into the DfT/Northern's court. Right now it's quite easy for them to point to the RMT and go "look at the intransigent and dinosaur like Union demands that nothing can ever change!" and, to be fair, they do have a point. My idea was that by making some tactical concessions that don't fundamentally undermine their position they regain some measure of the "morale high ground", move the dispute on a few steps and strategically might help them get somewhere other than never ending strike land.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Across the country, the process of removing staff dispatch arrangements seems to be slowly going on. Who this is good for remains to be seen.

Dispatchers do seem to be a very UK thing. Across Europe it is mostly done by the guard or driver depending if DOO or not. There are odd exceptions but the only ones that spring to mind are Hamburg Hbf (due to very poor sightlines - the dispatcher basically dispatches using a set of platform mounted DOO cameras and does not look at the train while doing so) and what used to be the case on U- and S-Bahnen (which have been DOO for years), a man in an elevated glass hut for a good platform view, which was replaced in almost all cases by cameras and regular DOO.

 

[Bantamzen]

Thanks for all the comments so far. I just dreamt it up on the back of a napkin and expected it to be utterly torn to shreds rather than gently poked and prodded

One thing I would say is that I have no expectation that such a proposal would meet with much warmth or likelihood of adoption from the DfT/Northern. My main thought/goal was that it would be a way for the RMT to move things on from where we are now, show good faith and put the ball somewhat back into the DfT/Northern's court. Right now it's quite easy for them to point to the RMT and go "look at the intransigent and dinosaur like Union demands that nothing can ever change!" and, to be fair, they do have a point. My idea was that by making some tactical concessions that don't fundamentally undermine their position they regain some measure of the "morale high ground", move the dispute on a few steps and strategically might help them get somewhere other than never ending strike land.

The DfT would probably not be keen, I'm not so sure about Arriva as it does offer a half-way house solution if the RMT took an interest. That's the problem with this dispute, its fractured into a real Mexican stand-off with the three parties all having different motivations for their current positions & as a result probably have different points of wriggle room. But who knows, maybe it would be the spark that started a meaningful discussion towards a resolution. At this point anything that gets it going would be welcome.

 

[scrapy]

Northern have told the RMT outright that driver open/guard close would not be acceptable under their franchise requirement for DCO so it seems pointless discussing it. If it was this dispute would have been over 2 years ago. Their position is that the second person has to have no involvement in the operation of the train and the train can run without them.

 

[Bantamzen]

Northern have told the RMT outright that driver open/guard close would not be acceptable under their franchise requirement for DCO so it seems pointless discussing it. If it was this dispute would have been over 2 years ago.

At this point nothing should be ruled out for at least discussion, especially where that potential solution lies somewhere between the differing positions.

 

[dgl]

..but, that's not what the DFT/government want. The government see it as an easy way to (in the end) sack a load of people under the guises of "flexibility/saving money" and unfortunately some people are falling for it.
The problem is who do/will the government get rid of next?

 

[Bantamzen]

..but, that's not what the DFT/government want. The government see it as an easy way to (in the end) sack a load of people under the guises of "flexibility/saving money" and unfortunately some people are falling for it.
The problem is who do/will the government get rid of next?

No it isn't, you're right there. However if TOCs start pushing back and saying that they would be looking for some compromise the government's position weakens. Whether that will be enough to force the DfT to change it's franchise position is another matter, but it is a route to explore. This government weakens by the day & if the Brexit rebels start to jump ship as many have threatened, they could be faced with an all out crisis (and possible general election) and really ought not to have the time or inclination to continue their battle with RMT.

 

[Killingworth]

It's better to talk. DO seems a no brainer and should have been standard since slam door trains were replaced. A small gain, but to save significant costs and/or increase revenue more is needed and that's not being acknowledged enough. What more?

How are savings to be made if we have a single 153 on a rural line with unreliable or non existent TVMs and unreliable mobile phone coverage? Ask the question again on a commuter line with 8 coach trains from staffed stations. Add in Northern's mixed collection of elderly patched up rolling stock and basic stations, with staff on different historic contracts. One size can't fit all.

This can't be resolved easily and that needs better recognition outside forums like this. Picket lines and missing trains, for whatever reason, make it harder to resolve.

Standard fleets of new trains on brand new lines through purpose built stations might fit some of the text book solutions offered, but we aren't going to have that, ever, on Northern's patch mixing with other operators with similar issues.

Currently we're in a lose/lose position. There seems no end in sight, but there always is, eventually. Let the parties get talking, to each other. All our ranting isn't getting us anywhere.

 

[Bikeman78]

Just a couple of thoughts:

1) As far as I can see, the 1611 Skipton is formed of a unit which has been stabled in the platform at Bradford all day. The unit to form the 1630 Leeds is due in from Skipton at 1610/1611 so the 1611 Skipton must have been loaded and ready to go when this happened. Allow 5 minutes to clear the arriving train, another 5 to transfer people and you're still looking at the 1611 leaving 10 minutes late, getting to Shipley just as Platform 5 is occupied by the 1604 Skipton-Bradford.

2) The platforms at Saltaire are fairly narrow and the unit would be occupying the main line while it was cleared.

3) I would guess passengers are unlikely to respond favourably to the impression of favouritism, particularly when there are likely to be many more for Bingley and Keighley than Skipton.

I understand what you mean about swapping the passengers at Bradford but 10 minutes late is still better than 20 late. It would have been 10 late if the plan to shunt the unit had worked.

The concept of missing out stops but still carrying passengers works fine on other TOCs, so I don't see why it would be a problem on the Skipton line. Some routes they will let you travel to the terminus and then get off on the way back if that is faster.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

There is no way the entire North will be able to go completely DOO ever not unless they pump in a fair few million pounds meaning staffing every station or making every station and train accessible without any human intervention, all the trains having bodyside cameras and even with this you will still need to have a fair few mobile staff from a revenue protection point of view otherwise it will simply become a free for all. The targets are only getting harder to meet which is what GTR have found. The Southern DCO area and Gatwick Express obviously has staff on every train, and Great Northern have always had a large amount of revenue staff because of the nature of their network and Thameslink whilst the Bedpan route is easy to manage as it's a staffed network with barriers at every station they still have a fair few staff patrolling on trains. From a workers point of view DOO is not as bad as they make it out to be, a big flaw in the McNultuly report was the cost savings which were massively overstated, there is not a big saving in terms of labour and infrastructure savings as Revenue staff are on a not dissimilar wage to Guards which various TOCs pointed out and the requirements for DOO running are not the easiest to fulfil you have to upgrade lighting, radio systems, maintain cameras on train or on the platform, provide more dispatchers where necessary in most cases especially where there isn't CD/RA, pay drivers more etc

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is a real pity that Northern took a conservative option and ordered conventional stock rather than low-floor with gap-bridging ramps. Had they done the latter, there would have been the gain that any OBS could have spent their whole time dealing with passengers, as it would remove the need for passenger assistance as well as a massive safety gain.

Without that, it might as well be driver open, guard close if the OBS is going to have to go to a door at each station anyway.

 

[Killingworth]

I opened this thread but fear it's approaching time for closure. Nothing new, unless the mere 3 weeks announced for the latest round of strikes can be taken as a less bad sign. It reminds me of taking the children by car on holiday. "Are we nearly there yet?" Just over the next hill, then the next, and round the corner. If only someone today had a map.

Can we fast forward to 2030/40 and look back to see how it was resolved? Just forgotten history by then, nobody will care.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

To be honest if I were Northern I'd have run out of patience with the RMT a long time ago. If the guards don't want to work Saturdays, fine. Get agency or contract staff in on zero hours to cover guard duties at the weekend, to cover not just strike days but Sundays which are dependent at present on getting existing staff to work overtime. Northern already use contracted out or agency staff for revenue protection duties on stations, so they must have some good connections already.

And if the RMT object to the use of contracted/agency staff, what action could they take that could be worse than what they're already doing? All out indefinite strikes? Fine, if that's what it takes to bring this dispute to an end, bring it on.

 

[DarloRich]

To be honest if I were Northern I'd have run out of patience with the RMT a long time ago. If the guards don't want to work Saturdays, fine. Get agency or contract staff in on zero hours to cover guard duties at the weekend, to cover not just strike days but Sundays which are dependent at present on getting existing staff to work overtime. Northern already use contracted out or agency staff for revenue protection duties on stations, so they must have some good connections already.

And if the RMT object to the use of contracted/agency staff, what action could they take that could be worse than what they're already doing? All out indefinite strikes? Fine, if that's what it takes to bring this dispute to an end, bring it on.

nothing like a bit of black leg labour

I am not sure that is going to work tbh. I am not sure it is possible to "cover" guard duties in the way you suggest.

 

[talltim]

Where do you get guard trained contract/agency staff from?

 

[Starmill]

Thanks for all the comments so far. I just dreamt it up on the back of a napkin and expected it to be utterly torn to shreds rather than gently poked and prodded

If all of the criticisms of the idea that have been posted were absolute, then surely there would be zero benefit in paying for the provision of platform dispatch staff anywhere, and we could cut them all, save money and suffer no loss of safety.

Staff dispatch was abolished at Manchester Airport a couple of years ago. As a result it's now far more difficult to find any staff at platform level. There are gateline/ticket office staff but you have to go upstairs to reach them, as they're a long way from the platforms. Who this is better for remains to be seen.

Platform staff are provided at St Pancras Thameslink usually, but in my experience it would be better if they weren't. They always blow their whistle but don't dispatch the train. This results in people thinking they've missed the train, but then realising they actually haven't and throwing themselves into the doors. The last time I was there thr platform staff were blowing their whistles and shouting at people to stand back while the driver was announcing the train's revised calling pattern. It was obvious that the driver wasn't ready to go and indeed they didn't close the doors for 45 seconds or so after people had been shouted at for approaching the train doors. I imagine that the large number of people who got on that train after being shouted and whistled at will be much less likely to take heed of such warnings in future.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Where do you get guard trained contract/agency staff from?

You don't - you hire them then train them up. If Northern can train office staff and middle managers to perform guard duties on strike days, it surely can't take that long?

 

[Starmill]

DOO ever not unless they pump in a fair few million pounds meaning staffing every station or making every station and train accessible without any human intervention,

There are a number of cases already where there are no staff at the station and no staff onboard the train. Presumably disabled people never need to travel to these locations...

 

[DarloRich]

You don't - you hire them then train them up. If Northern can train office staff and middle managers to perform guard duties on strike days, it surely can't take that long?

An interesting idea but not one that is either practical or designed to deescalate the tension.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An interesting idea but not one that is either practical or designed to deescalate the tension.

I'm now firmly of the belief that the only way out will be for one side or the other to escalate it further to the point that the other side can't tolerate, forcing it to a head.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Platform staff are provided at St Pancras Thameslink usually, but in my experience it would be better if they weren't. They always blow their whistle but don't dispatch the train. This results in people thinking they've missed the train, but then realising they actually haven't and throwing themselves into the doors. The last time I was there thr platform staff were blowing their whistles and shouting at people to stand back while the driver was announcing the train's revised calling pattern. It was obvious that the driver wasn't ready to go and indeed they didn't close the doors for 45 seconds or so after people had been shouted at for approaching the train doors. I imagine that the large number of people who got on that train after being shouted and whistled at will be much less likely to take heed of such warnings in future.

This seems to be a north/south divide thing. At Clapham Jn they are blown near continuously and it's just a means of hurrying people up.

 

[Llanigraham]

To be honest if I were Northern I'd have run out of patience with the RMT a long time ago. If the guards don't want to work Saturdays, fine. Get agency or contract staff in on zero hours to cover guard duties at the weekend, to cover not just strike days but Sundays which are dependent at present on getting existing staff to work overtime. Northern already use contracted out or agency staff for revenue protection duties on stations, so they must have some good connections already.

And if the RMT object to the use of contracted/agency staff, what action could they take that could be worse than what they're already doing? All out indefinite strikes? Fine, if that's what it takes to bring this dispute to an end, bring it on.

How long does it take to train a guard?

 

[talltim]

This seems to be a north/south divide thing. At Clapham Jn they are blown near continuously and it's just a means of hurrying people up.

Are you talking north and south of the river?

 

[Eccles1983]

To be honest if I were Northern I'd have run out of patience with the RMT a long time ago. If the guards don't want to work Saturdays, fine. Get agency or contract staff in on zero hours to cover guard duties at the weekend, to cover not just strike days but Sundays which are dependent at present on getting existing staff to work overtime. Northern already use contracted out or agency staff for revenue protection duties on stations, so they must have some good connections already.

And if the RMT object to the use of contracted/agency staff, what action could they take that could be worse than what they're already doing? All out indefinite strikes? Fine, if that's what it takes to bring this dispute to an end, bring it on.

A few points.

Who would do such a job? Considering the medical and other policies that have to be adhered to. Added to the fact that it would require a full course - office staff at the minute sign one traction on one limited route. Then you have to remain competent in said knowledge and rules. And working weekends only you get to deal with the delightful inebriated clientele. And then they would be absolutely ignored by Drivers. And you can bet that one little mistake would result in the service being cancelled and the blackleg guard removed from it. I know I would.

All this on a zero hours contract? Yeah I can see the queues forming now outside the stations trying to get on this wonderful opportunity.

The numbers required to do this at the weekend would be astronomical. Not only in increased wages but amount of people required. Then add in the uniforms, pension contributions.....

 

[mde]

To be honest if I were Northern I'd have run out of patience with the RMT a long time ago. If the guards don't want to work Saturdays, fine. Get agency or contract staff in on zero hours to cover guard duties at the weekend, to cover not just strike days but Sundays which are dependent at present on getting existing staff to work overtime. Northern already use contracted out or agency staff for revenue protection duties on stations, so they must have some good connections already.

they wouldn’t be able to use agency staff to replace a striking worker (see section 7(1) of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003), but… theoretically they might be able to contract workers in directly if they were willing to spend the sums required to train and employ them.

I’m sure they’d want robust legal advice before doing such a thing though, since, trade unions tend to have good lawyers.

 

[Starmill]

How long does it take to train a guard?

It has been reported on here time and time again that it only takes a week or so to train a contingency guard.

Were those reports incorrect?

 

[Intermodal]

It has been reported on here time and time again that it only takes a week or so to train a contingency guard.

Were those reports incorrect?

I have seen contingency guards trained and it certainly took more than a week. Maybe it depends on the previous competence of the person. I am sure a passed driver with existing route and traction knowledge could be trained in a week but a member of office staff could not.