Arriva Rail North DOO

[driver_m]

Re. the last few points. I will reiterate what I said. This is a phoney war which will only get serious when the drivers get asked. Much as RMT want to take the lead on this, only the drivers have the means to stop this. Until they get formally asked, the current strikes are just achieving very little. But you can't bring in DOO with out them agreeing. No matter what the DfT say, or Northern, or anyone on here. It's not an inevitability at all just because it's what the DfT wants. This govt has been susceptible to public pressure since the coalition and is pathetic in its weakness at times. Certainly ain't no Thatcher in them. Can I also nail this job for life talk, it is a red herring. Absolutely no one believes that on the railway. You're only ever one screw up away from losing it all, management is notoriously insecure, and automation and deskilling are constant threats. I know my job description will change beyond recognition once HS2 comes. Its how it's approached and handled that will determine how good or bad it is.

But back to Northern. When are the drivers getting asked about DOO?

 

[Carlisle]

Re. the last few points. I will reiterate what I said. This is a phoney war which will only get serious when the drivers get asked. Much as RMT want to take the lead on this, only the drivers have the means to stop this. Until they get formally asked, the current strikes are just achieving very little. But you can't bring in DOO with out them agreeing. No matter what the DfT say, or Northern, or anyone on here. It's not an inevitability at all just because it's what the DfT wants.

Do you anticipate the drivers on SWR, GA and Merseyrail refusing to entertain closing of train doors and balloting for strike action instead ? if not its doubtful northern will be any different and the only real question remaining will be whether a second staff member wil ultimately be guaranteed on every train

 

[driver_m]

Do you anticipate the drivers on SWR, GA and Merseyrail refusing to entertain closing of train doors and balloting for strike action instead ? if not its doubtful northern will be any different and the only real question remaining will be whether a second staff member wil ultimately be guaranteed on every train

Not about closing the doors. That's dumbing down the arguement. We open/close them on VT as do XC yet neither of us are DOO. I'm not going into yet more reasons whys and why nots, but Northern and Merseyrail have no bits of DOO unlike other companies where it's partially existed and used as a way of justifying it. It's an alien way of working up here, and there's also been previous refusals. A lot of people who claim it's inevitable conveniently forget that Bletchley depot refused to entertain it in the 80s. Southern eventually keeled over but I think those two in particular will be nearly impossible to convince.

 

[Andyh82]

An example of how the public is misimformed

A passenger today was telling his friends how the strike is about driver only operation, there will be no other staff on any Northern train and if a disabled person wants to travel, the driver will have to leave their cab to deploy the ramp.

They also think it’s all Arriva’s doing, and someone else should be brought in who’d do a better job.

 

[B&I]

An example of how the public is misimformed

A passenger today was telling his friends how the strike is about driver only operation, there will be no other staff on any Northern train and if a disabled person wants to travel, the driver will have to leave their cab to deploy the ramp.

That could happen, if trains are permitted to run without a second staff member

 

[Tomnick]

That could happen, if trains are permitted to run without a second staff member

I very much doubt it. It would, in my view, be unacceptable both from a performance point of view (it won't be quick!) and for the risk of posing a serious distraction to the driver.

 

[pemma]

An example of how the public is misimformed

A passenger today was telling his friends how the strike is about driver only operation, there will be no other staff on any Northern train and if a disabled person wants to travel, the driver will have to leave their cab to deploy the ramp.

They also think it’s all Arriva’s doing, and someone else should be brought in who’d do a better job.

That's precisely why driver controlled operation is the term which passengers should hear. It's only the unions which have been talking about driver only, even the RSSB refers to DOO as archaic terminology.

Arriva could be equally misleading and say there were no guards on any services when they took over the franchise - because old Northern called the second member of staff conductors not guards.

 

[pemma]

Do you anticipate the drivers on SWR, GA and Merseyrail refusing to entertain closing of train doors and balloting for strike action instead ? if not its doubtful northern will be any different and the only real question remaining will be whether a second staff member wil ultimately be guaranteed on every train

Because of the strikes there's an ever increasing number of passengers who don't have a problem with services running without guards if the guards don't turn up for work e.g. during strike action. I've heard there's some very angry people in the GMB who genuinely have an uncertain future and the rail strikes are making things much worse for them as they can't even work as many hours as they are being given.

 

[Dave1987]

That's precisely why driver controlled operation is the term which passengers should hear. It's only the unions which have been talking about driver only, even the RSSB refers to DOO as archaic terminology.

Arriva could be equally misleading and say there were no guards on any services when they took over the franchise - because old Northern called the second member of staff conductors not guards.

If a guard is not guaranteed it’s DOO. If a driver cannot rely on having a guard to assist them then it’s DOO. So DOO is the term used.

 

[Carlisle]

If a guard is not guaranteed it’s DOO. If a driver cannot rely on having a guard to assist them then it’s DOO. So DOO is the term used.

Not always, on the vast majority of Southern (non metro) and Strathclyde services, drivers have the option of requesting assistance from the OBS or TE if the need arises.

 

[Dave1987]

Not always, on the vast majority of Southern (non metro) and Strathclyde services, drivers have the option of requesting assistance from the OBS or TE if the need arises.

How if one isn’t present? If you cannot rely on one being present you are essentially DOO.

 

[ComUtoR]

even the RSSB refers to DOO as archaic terminology.

The RSSB themselves recently stated the differences between each method of operation. The report was linked on the forum. If there is NO OTHER PERSON ON BOARD it is DOO with another member of staff it is considered DCO as the Driver operates the doors etc but the second member of staff is still retained on board.

Driver-and-conductor operated
The conductor – or guard - is responsible for closing the doors and determining that it is safe to start the train. The conductor is normally responsible for releasing the doors as well.

Driver controlled operation (DCO)
The train driver is responsible for door operation and determining that it is safe to start the train, although other auxiliary members of staff may be provided on the train.

Driver only operation (DOO)
The train driver is responsible for door operation and determining that it is safe to start the train, and is the only member of staff on the train

My TOC runs all 3 versions. It is very clear which is which.

 

[Bromley boy]

If a guard is not guaranteed it’s DOO. If a driver cannot rely on having a guard to assist them then it’s DOO. So DOO is the term used.

Indeed.

It’s complete and under rubbish to refer to DCO and the only people are do so are TOCs or those with an agenda. The distinction in the rulebook is between DO and guarded trains.

The trains I drive are DOO and there is never a second person rostered to be aboard. I suppose certain people on here would insist on calling them DCO because there might be the occasional roving cleaner on board - utter nonsense.

 

[Carlisle]

The trains I drive are DOO and there is never a second person rostered to be aboard. I suppose certain people on here would insist on calling them DCO because there might be the occasional roving cleaner on board - utter nonsense.

I can’t see anyone arguing that’s anything other than DOO , Isn’t DCO supposed to have a second person on almost every service with drivers informed in advance on the odd occasion they’re not onboard.

 

[driver_m]

Not always, on the vast majority of Southern (non metro) and Strathclyde services, drivers have the option of requesting assistance from the OBS or TE if the need arises.

Is that in the same way that BTP will magically turn up if we need them as well? As you can gather there is an element of sarcasm in my point.

 

[Carlisle]

A very small number of BTP officers will be responsible for probably 100+ route miles, whereas the train operations i quoted provide a second staff member on almost every service.

 

[All Line Rover]

Guards are cheaper to employ than drivers. Ticket examiners even more so. If a TOC can arrange its rotas to ensure that scheduled services are not missing drivers, why can't the same TOC arrange its rotas to ensure that scheduled services are not missing guards or ticket examiners, thus allowing that TOC, such as Arriva, to offer a commitment that all services will have guards or ticket examiners present?

 

[the sniper]

even the RSSB refers to DOO as archaic terminology.

I've heard there's some very angry people in the GMB

[citation needed]

I can’t see anyone arguing that’s anything other than DOO , Isn’t DCO supposed to have a second person on almost every service with drivers informed in advance on the odd occasion they’re not onboard.

'DCO' has been largely undefined for the convenience of the DfT and TOCs pushing it as a concept. Like jcollins says, it's "the term which passengers should hear". It's a PR exercise. The only thing it is under the Rule Book is DOO. The new RSSB interpretation merely says "other auxiliary members of staff may be provided on a train". It doesn't define their role or how often they need to be onboard, be it random or rostered, or define whether the driver be aware of their presence... They may be there, they may not.

 

[Robertj21a]

[citation needed]



'DCO' has been largely undefined for the convenience of the DfT and TOCs pushing it as a concept. Like jcollins says, it's "the term which passengers should hear". It's a PR exercise. The only thing it is under the Rule Book is DOO. The new RSSB interpretation merely says "other auxiliary members of staff may be provided on a train". It doesn't define their role or how often they need to be onboard, be it random or rostered, or define whether the driver be aware of their presence... They may be there, they may not.

Sounds like the Rule Book needs updating.

 

[pemma]

[citation needed].

Link to RSSB talking about DCO (sometimes referred to as DOO) has already been provided in this thread.

Talk to some of the people who use the train at Northwich station if you want to know what some GMB members think of the RMT strikes (probably best done not wearing TOC uniform.) Possible takeover deals at one business and the probable relocation of another means they do have more immediate concerns about their long term job futures.

 

[Tomnick]

Guards are cheaper to employ than drivers. Ticket examiners even more so. If a TOC can arrange its rotas to ensure that scheduled services are not missing drivers, why can't the same TOC arrange its rotas to ensure that scheduled services are not missing guards or ticket examiners, thus allowing that TOC, such as Arriva, to offer a commitment that all services will have guards or ticket examiners present?

“Ensuring that scheduled services are not missing drivers” (and guards), though, invariably involves overtime payments to some extent at some time. If there’s no absolute requirement for a guard or ticket examiner to be present, what incentive is there for the TOC to pay overtime to ensure that *every* service is covered? Taking it a step further, what incentive is there for them to fill vacancies in a timely manner when they can just leave lines empty and work uncovered with no consequences? They can commit to ensuring that every train has a second member of staff planned, but that’s different to committing to ensuring that every train has a second member of staff.

Sounds like the Rule Book needs updating.

Why? Operationally, there is either a second safety-critical member of staff on the train who has some responsibility for the safe operation of the train, or there isn’t. The presence of a ticket examiner or “on board supervisor” in the current form is operationally irrelevant, so the Rule Book term of “driver only” is correct.

 

[Domh245]

I can’t see anyone arguing that’s anything other than DOO , Isn’t DCO supposed to have a second person on almost every service with drivers informed in advance on the odd occasion they’re not onboard.

No, DCO as originally conceived is the method used on SouthEastern High Speed services. It is driver only dispatch, but the train will never run without the second member of staff, it is a conventional guarded train in all areas other than dispatch. What you describe with "supposed to have a second member of staff onboard" is DOO - there may well be a second member of staff rostered onboard, but if it can run without the second member of staff at all, it is DOO.

Northern were required to implement "DCO" but the wording of the franchise agreement implies that they should be able to run without a second member of staff onboard, that isn't DCO no matter what people say. DCO sounds better than DOO but they are fundamentally different and trying to conflate the two is simply obfuscation

 

[Bromley boy]

Northern were required to implement "DCO" but the wording of the franchise agreement implies that they should be able to run without a second member of staff onboard, that isn't DCO no matter what people say. DCO sounds better than DOO but they are fundamentally different and trying to conflate the two is simply obfuscation

Precisely.

Mealy-mouthed nonsense used only by the TOCs and those, including one or two posters on here, with a pro-DOO obsession (which I suspect has come about because they envy the relatively secure employment enjoyed by railstaff and would like to see it reduced).

 

[pemma]

Northern were required to implement "DCO" but the wording of the franchise agreement implies that they should be able to run without a second member of staff onboard, that isn't DCO no matter what people say. DCO sounds better than DOO but they are fundamentally different and trying to conflate the two is simply obfuscation

Say you have a route which is A-B-C, where some trains run from A to C and others only operate between A and B. The trains from A-B only operate as DOO and trains from A-B-C usually have guards on throughout. If due to a shortage of guards the operator decides to have guards only doing the B-C section, does that mean the service from A-B-C is classed as a DOO service even when there's a guard on board for the whole journey? If not your logic doesn't add up and in the situation you describe the service would be a DCO service and only become a DOO service if the second member of staff is unavailable.

 

[pemma]

Link to RSSB talking about DCO (sometimes referred to as DOO) has already been provided in this thread.

My TOC runs all 3 versions. It is very clear which is which.

Just checked and they've removed the DCO article from 20/07/2017 which effectively stated DOO is an alternative name for DCO. However, note on the new article (which I note is dated 19/06/2018 so is less than a week old) they say may not will have staff in addition to the driver.

Driver controlled operation (DCO)
The train driver is responsible for door operation and determining that it is safe to start the train, although other auxiliary members of staff may be provided on the train.

which suggests in the RSSB's view @Domh245 is wrong and a train is still DCO even if a booked second member of staff doesn't show up and the train runs without one or if the auxiliary members of staff are ticket inspectors who hop on and off the train, rather than stay on it throughout.

The wording suggests in the RSSB's view a train is only now considered DOO if the driver is the only member of staff and no non-driving members of staff will be on the train while it's in motion.

 

[Domh245]

Say you have a route which is A-B-C, where some trains run from A to C and others only operate between A and B. The trains from A-B only operate as DOO and trains from A-B-C usually have guards on throughout. If due to a shortage of guards the operator decides to have guards only doing the B-C section, does that mean the service from A-B-C is classed as a DOO service even when there's a guard on board for the whole journey? If not your logic doesn't add up and in the situation you describe the service would be a DCO service and only become a DOO service if the second member of staff is unavailable.

In that case, the train's operating characteristics would change at B to change between DOO and not (denoted by a 'D' in the timetable) as used to happen with a few old Southern services (and might still do although I'm not sure). That is on the assumption of course that the rolling stock is the same and the A-B-C train would be allowed to run DOO over A-B. I'm not really sure about the practicality of changes to operating characteristics partway through a route if not done through the WTT, but I'm sure it's feasible.

 

[Tomnick]

Say you have a route which is A-B-C, where some trains run from A to C and others only operate between A and B. The trains from A-B only operate as DOO and trains from A-B-C usually have guards on throughout. If due to a shortage of guards the operator decides to have guards only doing the B-C section, does that mean the service from A-B-C is classed as a DOO service even when there's a guard on board for the whole journey? If not your logic doesn't add up and in the situation you describe the service would be a DCO service and only become a DOO service if the second member of staff is unavailable.

No. The service from A-B-C will operate as a DOO service from A-B in that scenario. If it’s being worked conventionally by a Guard, it is neither DOO nor DCO.

Just checked and they've removed the DCO article from 20/07/2017 which effectively stated DOO is an alternative name for DCO. However, note on the new article (which I note is dated 19/06/2018 so is less than a week old) they say may not will.



which suggests in the RSSB's view @Domh245 is wrong and a train is still DCO even if a booked second member of staff doesn't show up and the train runs without one or if the auxiliary members of staff are ticket inspectors who hop on and off the train, rather than stay on it throughout.

The wording suggests in the RSSB's view a train is only now considered DOO if the driver is the only member of staff and no non-driving members of staff will be on the train while it's in motion.

The Rule Book, which is an RSSB production of course, refers solely to “driver only”, which means a train on which the driver is the only safety-critical member of staff with any responsibility for the safe operation of the train. You can have a hundred ticket examiners on it, it’s still DOO.

I don’t see how DOO can just be shrugged off as an “alternative name for DCO”. The former is a long established term; I’d never heard of the latter until the DfT wanted to invent something to pretend that DOO is something that it isn’t.

 

[Bromley boy]

Just checked and they've removed the DCO article from 20/07/2017 which effectively stated DOO is an alternative name for DCO.
.

So what does that tell you? The RSSB has admitted that DCO is the same as DOO. Why do you think that article might have been removed? What has changed?

The wording suggests in the RSSB's view a train is only now considered DOO if the driver is the only member of staff and no non-driving members of staff will be on the train while it's in motion.

You really are struggling aren’t you.

By that definition the DOO train I was just driving was DCO when a cleaner jumped on between two stations. It’s utterly meaningless to distinguish between DCO and DOO. In either case only one member of staff is required for the train to run.

The only meaningful distinction (as per the the rulebook) is between DO and guarded trains.

Most people who know anything about the subject are fully aware of this.

 

[pemma]

The Rule Book, which is an RSSB production of course, refers solely to “driver only”, which means a train on which the driver is the only safety-critical member of staff with any responsibility for the safe operation of the train. You can have a hundred ticket examiners on it, it’s still DOO.

I don’t see how DOO can just be shrugged off as an “alternative name for DCO”. The former is a long established term; I’d never heard of the latter until the DfT wanted to invent something to pretend that DOO is something that it isn’t.

From the driver's prospective I can understand there's no real difference between a DOO and a DCO service. However, from a passenger's prospective there's no real difference between a guard operated service and a DOO/DCO service which has a second member of staff on board throughout. While I think DfT have made a lot of bad decisions, referring to DCO not DOO is 100% correct from the passenger's prospective for the reasons given by @Andyh82

You really are struggling aren’t you.

No I'm not. Unlike you I'm able to read what things actually say not what I want them to say. If your employer said to ASLEF they may award pay rises in the next 12 months - would you be happy? I expect not because that's not a guarantee that you will get a pay rise, they might as well not say anything until they know the exact situation. The RSSB terminology is in black and white - a DOO service is guaranteed to not have any additional staff on board, while a DCO service may have additional members of staff on board.

The only meaningful distinction (as per the the rulebook) is between DO and guarded trains.

How often does this rule book get updated? Note as stated already the RSSB page was updated in the last week. I'm used to working with new technology where a book is often seen as out-of-date by the time it's printed and the most up-to-date information is available online.

 

[ComUtoR]

which suggests in the RSSB's view @Domh245 is wrong and a train is still DCO even if a booked second member of staff doesn't show up and the train runs without one or if the auxiliary members of staff are ticket inspectors who hop on and off the train, rather than stay on it throughout.

The wording suggests in the RSSB's view a train is only now considered DOO if the driver is the only member of staff and no non-driving members of staff will be on the train while it's in motion.

DCO - Other memeber of staff on board.
DOO - No members of staff on board.

If the service is booked as DCO and a second member of staff is booked and stays on the train it is DCO. The problem is that should that second member leave the train or fails to show then it then runs as DOO. DOO must be agreed for DCO to work as planned. This is the entire crux of the problem between the RMT and the DfT.

DCO could work if the second member of staff is mandatory and the service can never be worked as DOO. The Driver can then do the doors and the member of staff can then provide revenue and customer service.

From the driver's prospective I can understand there's no real difference between a DOO and a DCO service.

Not quite. I would happily drive DCO. I would 100% prefer it over DOO. Having that second member of staff on board can really make a difference to me and the passengers. The additional crux of the matter is the nature of the second member of staff. Do they have the ability to assist when the brown stuff hits the spinny thing ?

However, from a passenger's prospective there's no real difference between a guard operated service and a DOO/DCO service which has a second member of staff on board throughout.

Precisely. Which is why the DfT need DOO to be introduced at the same time.

While I think DfT have made a lot of bad decisions, referring to DCO not DOO is 100% correct from the passenger's prospective for the reasons given by @Andyh82

Did you really believe the DfT were being 100% honest ?

How often does this rule book get updated? Note as stated already the RSSB page was updated in the last week. I'm used to working with new technology where a book is often seen as out-of-date by the time it's printed and the most up-to-date information is available online.

They could update it at any time. There is set times per year but we can get a rule book update whenever they want. They just issue it internally. The rule book has been digitial for a few years now. I haven't had a printed copy since 2009(ish) I'v worked DOO since I started. It has always been just the Driver and nobody else.