• 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!

Northern's Problems in the North West

Status
Not open for further replies.

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
Nobody bans RDW, unless they're in dispute? There was an agreement? It was dependant on both parties complying with the agreement, as most agreements are? The company haven't - so there's obviously no agreement between the two parties to enable RDW?
Ok I understand, but the resultant disagreement in this case gives ASLEF the power to impose what amounts to a de facto overtime ban, when in almost any other industry an official dispute/ballot procedure would need to be undertaken first.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tractor2018

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
125
Ok I understand, but the resultant disagreement in this case gives ASLEF the power to impose what amounts to a de facto overtime ban, when in almost any other industry an official dispute/ballot procedure would need to be undertaken first.

Ok. That kinda makes sense.

Firstly though, ASLEF are being given that 'power', as you put it, because the company have failed on promises they made to enable RDW - in other words, they've cheated. They've said yeah, we'll do this, to shore up shortcomings in their management? And they haven't followed through.

Secondly, the advantage of these agreements is the benefit to everyone concerned - the company, employees, and believe it or not passengers. If you didn't have these agreements as an option, it would be similar to other industries, like you point out. Having them means you don't need to go into full-blown dispute - then things would be even worse for passengers.

So in other words, it's a means of getting things done without going into dispute. That's got to be good, right?

If the company isn't going to follow through on promises, they shouldn't be entering into agreements. But they do. To grab short term benefits. With no intention of honouring them.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
Ok. That kinda makes sense.

Firstly though, ASLEF are being given that 'power', as you put it, because the company have failed on promises they made to enable RDW - in other words, they've cheated. They've said yeah, we'll do this, to shore up shortcomings in their management? And they haven't followed through.

Secondly, the advantage of these agreements is the benefit to everyone concerned - the company, employees, and believe it or not passengers. If you didn't have these agreements as an option, it would be similar to other industries, like you point out. Having them means you don't need to go into full-blown dispute - then things would be even worse for passengers.

So in other words, it's a means of getting things done without going into dispute. That's got to be good, right?

If the company isn't going to follow through on promises, they shouldn't be entering into agreements. But they do. To grab short term benefits. With no intention of honouring them.
Ok cheers ,i appreciate the explanation .
 

Tractor2018

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
125
Ok cheers ,i appreciate the explanation .

You're welcome.

One last thing. RDW agreements are only available as negotiating tools as the companies run their operations under compliment - to save money and increase profits. If they employed as many people as they are meant to RDW agreements would be a thing of the past.

So who really has the power?

ASLEF? Or could the TOCs employ as many people as they're meant to, and take that negotiating tool away from the union?
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
You're welcome.

One last thing. RDW agreements are only available as negotiating tools as the companies run their operations under compliment - to save money and increase profits. If they employed as many people as they are meant to RDW agreements would be a thing of the past.

So who really has the power?

ASLEF? Or could the TOCs employ as many people as they're meant to, and take that negotiating tool away from the union?

If they planned to employ more staff they wouldn't have won the franchise, or if they had there would be more subsidy, which is wanted neither by the Treasury or the public, for different reasons. Anything that costs money must be specified in the franchise agreement, especially on Northern, where pretty much anything extra will lose money. Is it true the DfT actually limits the number of staff they can employ anyway?

If anyone in the industry wants to abolish these practices they need to persuade the Treasury that it's a priority for scarce public funds.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
If they planned to employ more staff they wouldn't have won the franchise, or if they had there would be more subsidy, which is wanted neither by the Treasury or the public, for different reasons. Anything that costs money must be specified in the franchise agreement, especially on Northern, where pretty much anything extra will lose money. Is it true the DfT actually limits the number of staff they can employ anyway?

If anyone in the industry wants to abolish these practices they need to persuade the Treasury that it's a priority for scarce public funds.

DfT say how much the maximum they can spend on staffing costs. However, things will have got complicated given the plan to introduce one set of additional services in December 2017 and one set of additional services in December 2019 didn't go ahead.
 

Tractor2018

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
125
If they planned to employ more staff they wouldn't have won the franchise

So their bid envisaged running the franchise with the current number of staff.......and consequent cancellations? And the DfT thought that was appropriate?

Regarding the predicament for local passengers and workers - I know next to nothing about the situation, other than experiencing a few cancellations in the Preston area recently.

I've got a good idea of the ins and outs of RDW agreements though, and I DO know how many drivers they are under compliment - and I can't imagine that being an acceptable level for anyone concerned, even for the DfT to award the franchise in the first place, like you suggest.
 

Loop & Link

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2015
Messages
515
Ok, have Arriva completely banned RDW since the agreement ended? if so the resultant problems are pretty much all their fault, if they haven’t but most drivers that would normally work some overtime are collectively turning it all down on advice from their union then it’s really a dispute in all but name .

I still think you’re missing the point.

You can’t work overtime that isn’t there, it’s not as if the RPC are asking drivers, do you want to work your rest day, and the driver in return says no, I can’t as we are banned by ASLEF from doing so.

Sunday’s are a different story, and are overtime that can be worked, and you’ll find probably less trains are cancelled on a Sunday as more drivers want to make themselves available.
 

Bovverboy

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
1,930
I still think you’re missing the point.

You can’t work overtime that isn’t there, it’s not as if the RPC are asking drivers, do you want to work your rest day, and the driver in return says no, I can’t as we are banned by ASLEF from doing so.

Sunday’s are a different story, and are overtime that can be worked, and you’ll find probably less trains are cancelled on a Sunday as more drivers want to make themselves available.

Well I'm certainly missing the point, I'm as confused as ever. Are you saying that if there is a driver duty to cover, it's up to ATN to decide whether it wants to pay a driver to work a rest day, or whether to simply cancel the relevant services?
Or are you saying that ATN can't ask drivers to work rest days, since there isn't an RDW agreement in place?
 

Loop & Link

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2015
Messages
515
Well I'm certainly missing the point, I'm as confused as ever. Are you saying that if there is a driver duty to cover, it's up to ATN to decide whether it wants to pay a driver to work a rest day, or whether to simply cancel the relevant services?
Or are you saying that ATN can't ask drivers to work rest days, since there isn't an RDW agreement in place?

The latter, as mentioned there’s no RDW agreement in place so ARN can’t and won’t ask drivers to work rest days to cover the train service.
 

WCMLaddict

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2012
Messages
417
That’s not entirely true Loop & Link.

Northern could ask drivers to work on their rest day without an agreement. That would break different agreements...
Drivers on Southern worked rest days for over 10 years without agreement between union and company.
It bit them in the a*** during recent dispute when Southern took them to court claiming that because it was a working practice for so many years, drivers can’t just now refuse working them all and certain amount of rest day work was expected from drivers.
Believe it or not, company won.
 

Loop & Link

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2015
Messages
515
That’s not entirely true Loop & Link.

Northern could ask drivers to work on their rest day without an agreement. That would break different agreements...
Drivers on Southern worked rest days for over 10 years without agreement between union and company.
It bit them in the a*** during recent dispute when Southern took them to court claiming that because it was a working practice for so many years, drivers can’t just now refuse working them all and certain amount of rest day work was expected from drivers.
Believe it or not, company won.

Yes, I get your point, however is there any evidence that this is the case and rest days offered by the RPC are being turned down because there’s no such agreement?
 

Tractor2018

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
125
Well I'm certainly missing the point, I'm as confused as ever. Are you saying that if there is a driver duty to cover, it's up to ATN to decide whether it wants to pay a driver to work a rest day, or whether to simply cancel the relevant services?
Or are you saying that ATN can't ask drivers to work rest days, since there isn't an RDW agreement in place?

Is the Sundays mentioned by Loop causing your confusion?

Remember they're not covered by RDW agreement, so can be worked regardless.

Just confirming.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
That’s not entirely true Loop & Link.

Northern could ask drivers to work on their rest day without an agreement. That would break different agreements...
Drivers on Southern worked rest days for over 10 years without agreement between union and company.
It bit them in the a*** during recent dispute when Southern took them to court claiming that because it was a working practice for so many years, drivers can’t just now refuse working them all and certain amount of rest day work was expected from drivers.
Believe it or not, company won.

It's not a question of 'Believe it or not......', - any practice accepted as routine for such a lengthy period should most certainly be treated as a general acceptance of the situation (by all parties).
 

WCMLaddict

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2012
Messages
417
Yes, I get your point, however is there any evidence that this is the case and rest days offered by the RPC are being turned down because there’s no such agreement?

It’s not the case at Northern at all.
All I was saying is that Northern could theoretically try asking drivers without the RDWA.
At the end of the day RDWA is only an agreement that sets out conditions of working on your day off, that’s all.
 

WCMLaddict

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2012
Messages
417
It's not a question of 'Believe it or not......', - any practice accepted as routine for such a lengthy period should most certainly be treated as a general acceptance of the situation (by all parties).
I completely accept that.
My “believe it or not” comment comes from my experience of seeing people’s reaction to me telling them about the previous situation at Southern.
I couldn’t believe they worked them without an agreement as that would be unthinkable in pretty much any other TOC.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I completely accept that.
My “believe it or not” comment comes from my experience of seeing people’s reaction to me telling them about the previous situation at Southern.
I couldn’t believe they worked them without an agreement as that would be unthinkable in pretty much any other TOC.

Suggests to me that there was a good deal of respect by all parties to the arrangements at Southern. Perhaps that's how it should be done elsewhere......
 

Bovverboy

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
1,930
Suggests to me that there was a good deal of respect by all parties to the arrangements at Southern. Perhaps that's how it should be done elsewhere......

Well that seems to have gone if Southern have got to taking their drivers to court..

As to the court decision, if the drivers decided to adopt a policy of no rest day working, or even restricted rest day working, that would constitute industrial action and as such subject to legislation accordingly.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
Well that seems to have gone if Southern have got to taking their drivers to court..

As to the court decision, if the drivers decided to adopt a policy of no rest day working, or even restricted rest day working, that would constitute industrial action and as such subject to legislation accordingly.

It depends; if they are "working to contract" (i.e. declining additional shifts) any action will fall as that would not meet the definition of industrial action; any case would have to prove that the drivers were failing to honour their contracts without good cause.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Suggests to me that there was a good deal of respect by all parties to the arrangements at Southern. Perhaps that's how it should be done elsewhere......

A respect that was completely undone by Peter Wilkinson's infamous Croydon speech. And of course employees across the industry also understood the implications leading to the obviously poor industrial relations visible at so many TOCs. Politicians and their civil servants really should leave railway decisions to railway people. That means Franchise agreements should deal with required outputs without dictating to TOCs how to achieve them beyond the overall restrictions inherent in the price/premium agreed at the award. Sadly the franchising system is gradually becoming ever more prescriptive giving us the worst of both worlds ie public services being run for private gain with often little regard for the ethos of public service but also with heavy handed political interference.
 

abbo1234

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2013
Messages
89
Sat on the 19.41 Airport train at Blackpool North along with about 20 others yesterday, only to be thrown off after about 15 minutes due to no driver.

Why let us all on in the first place?
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
Politicians and their civil servants really should leave railway decisions to railway people. That means Franchise agreements should deal with required outputs without dictating to TOCs how to achieve them beyond the overall restrictions inherent in the price/premium agreed at the award. Sadly the franchising system is gradually becoming ever more prescriptive giving us the worst of both worlds ie public services being run for private gain with often little regard for the ethos of public service but also with heavy handed political interference.
The TOCs had quite a lot of freedom in the early days of privatisation and it was a shambles. A small number were good, some were adequate and several were appalling.

I don’t want to turn this thread into a DOO discussion but many people point to the DfT as the people behind the push for DOO. They are, but all the bidders for the franchise are aware of it and should formulate a strategy to implement it.

What is Arriva’s strategy? Just let the guards strike until it somehow magically fizzles out? A pre-pubescent could come up with a more effective one.
 

hassaanhc

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2014
Messages
2,206
Location
Southall
That does presently seem to be an issue, but I'm sure it's possible to enter shorter connections for specific destinations (I can't remember where I've seen it before but I'm certain I have) so this should be fixable.

TBH I think they should advertise them as through trains even if there is the oddity that they are through trains only in one direction. Station signage could be used to explain why.
They could reduce the minimum interchange time between two Northern services at Preston. That's what they did at Sutton to get round the above issue. The minimum interchange time there is normally 4 minutes but if changing between two TL services it is 0 minutes (!)
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
The TOCs had quite a lot of freedom in the early days of privatisation and it was a shambles. A small number were good, some were adequate and several were appalling.

I don’t want to turn this thread into a DOO discussion but many people point to the DfT as the people behind the push for DOO. They are, but all the bidders for the franchise are aware of it and should formulate a strategy to implement it.

What is Arriva’s strategy? Just let the guards strike until it somehow magically fizzles out? A pre-pubescent could come up with a more effective one.

Shambles is overstating things. Yes there were some poor operators in the early days but arguably the scope for poor delivery remains today. The issue, as I suggested, is a lack of focus on outputs. One of the biggest weaknesses of franchising is that franchisees are carrying very little risk while still being able to reap their rewards. This method of (quasi) privatisation perhaps makes it difficult to avoid as the over-riding imperative has been to prevent TOCs completely failing in a short period of time and therefore there are few meaningful penalties that can be applied to under-performing TOCs. In short the industry lacks incentives to do anything more than the minimum specified by politicians/civil servants who are mostly too remote from the action to understand the possible consequences of their decisions so they focus on what they think they do know which is the numbers on their spreadsheets.

The current difficulties with Northern are not directly related to DOO but to Northern's apparent unwillingness to resolve the issues around drivers' RDW. But the DfT are also culpable as they are as keen as the TOCs to keep staffing levels down and rely on RDW to fill the gaps. This is not a strategy that will ever deliver long term reliability regardless of whether or not DOO is introduced. I would add that where DOO has been introduced it is because politicians want(ed) it, not because railway managers do. That tells its own story.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
Its very simple.

If Northern started to offer RdW without agreement it would trigger an immediate dispute with ASLEF. And the company really doesnt want that fight.

Also, any driver working Rest days without authority from ASLEF would be fined at best, but more than likely expelled from the union for undermining it.

They could always leave the union. But not many fancy the current management tactics of the company without union backing.
 

Red Devil

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
249
Allow me to clarify. We're not asked by rosters to work our rest days outside of any rest day agreement and don't know any driver who would. Drivers are sometimes asked to stop on and paid 12hrs but that's their choice some do, most don't.
This is not a deliberate policy by ASLEF to hold the company to ransom. It's the simple fact RDW agreement ended and the present situation is the result.
 

driver_m

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
2,248
Suggests to me that there was a good deal of respect by all parties to the arrangements at Southern. Perhaps that's how it should be done elsewhere......
I wouldn't use the word respect, more like free for all, and as WCMLaddict has said, unthinkable at pretty much everywhere else. Ultimately it boils down to the company not employing enough drivers. We've had an agreement in place at ours for many years now, and you get some work every possible hour allowed, some won't work at all, some pick and choose, and some will do the odd one or two for various reasons. One point that no one has mentioned so far though on any of these threads involving various driver issues, is whether the TOC's/FOC's are planning now to replace the vast number of drivers who were all taken on in the mid to late 80's. If you think it's bad now, wait til those drivers all start retiring en masse. You'll see then, which companies have thought about this, and those which think it's someone else's problem for another time.
 

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,204
You're welcome.

One last thing. RDW agreements are only available as negotiating tools as the companies run their operations under compliment - to save money and increase profits. If they employed as many people as they are meant to RDW agreements would be a thing of the past.

So who really has the power?

ASLEF? Or could the TOCs employ as many people as they're meant to, and take that negotiating tool away from the union?

Whilst the problems in this case are being exacerbated by some depots being under compliment . There is the fact that even if all depots had a full compliment the only way to go about new route or traction training(of which there is a lot of at the moment and in the near future) without running massively above compliment the rest of the time is to use RDW .So this does to some degree give ASLEF some negotiating power in the current franchise as they can slow down training or cause issues with running a train plan in conjunction with training . During the last franchise there was a long period of time with no RDW agreement just because the company did not need it , however this franchise has lots of service improvements that are going to need lots of drivers to be trained on new routes and traction

With that in mind given the amount of training that is coming up for new routes and new (to northern) traction you would think that negotiating a new RDW agreement after expiry of the last would have been an A1 priority . AIUI Northern had already been granted an extension of the last agreement by ASLEF with certain conditions attached which then did not get met hence no further extension .


Sat on the 19.41 Airport train at Blackpool North along with about 20 others yesterday, only to be thrown off after about 15 minutes due to no driver.

Why let us all on in the first place?
Guard or station staff probably did not find out that there was no driver until departure time when control would have been told no driver had turned up .
 

Tractor2018

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
125
Whilst the problems in this case are being exacerbated by some depots being under compliment . There is the fact that even if all depots had a full compliment the only way to go about new route or traction training(of which there is a lot of at the moment and in the near future) without running massively above compliment the rest of the time is to use RDW .So this does to some degree give ASLEF some negotiating power in the current franchise as they can slow down training or cause issues with running a train plan in conjunction with training . During the last franchise there was a long period of time with no RDW agreement just because the company did not need it , however this franchise has lots of service improvements that are going to need lots of drivers to be trained on new routes and traction

With that in mind given the amount of training that is coming up for new routes and new (to northern) traction you would think that negotiating a new RDW agreement after expiry of the last would have been an A1 priority . AIUI Northern had already been granted an extension of the last agreement by ASLEF with certain conditions attached which then did not get met hence no further extension .

Thanks Muz. Interesting.

I understand about the traction.

Regarding the route training though - it's not roads that Northern hadn't had before is it, it's reassignment of portions of routes to depots which haven't had those bits on their diagrams before? For example, I dont know , Barrow extending from a previous extremity of Preston now being required to go as far as Manchester. Just locations plucked out the sky as an example. Just curious.
 

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,204
Thanks Muz. Interesting.

I understand about the traction.

Regarding the route training though - it's not roads that Northern hadn't had before is it, it's reassignment of portions of routes to depots which haven't had those bits on their diagrams before? For example, I dont know , Barrow extending from a previous extremity of Preston now being required to go as far as Manchester. Just locations plucked out the sky as an example. Just curious.

The route training that I mainly refer to at the moment is Preston - Blackpool North . Whilst the route was one that was travelled over before by drivers , the route has massively changed , with speed restrictions , signals and station layouts being massively altered . For this reason drivers require trips under instruction over the route to learn the new layout .

in some cases whilst northern already operates over routes as you said it might be that drivers from a depot that did not previously sign the route will now be working over it as well meaning drivers have to learn that route .

Drivers at depots are also divided up into links , and only certain links sign certain routes . However if a more intensive service is needed to operate over certain routes as is also scheduled to occur during this franchise on many lines there might then be the requirement for more drivers at certain depots to be trained up on that route .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top