Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

Well I was comparing them to the 185's.

If it hadn't been for the Chiltern and Network Rail fiascos it's likely 185s would have remained on that route until brand new EMUs were available and could run via Bolton even with the route transferring to Northern.

 

[Tomnick]

If the RMT are striking for reasons of “passengers safety” . Can some official from that Union explain why they agree to Driver Only Operations back in 1982 for the St Pancras to Bedford Line . Plus lots of other area agreements since ?

I’m no longer a member of that Union, let alone an official, but the culture (within the industry and outside it) was very different in 1982. Nowadays, the railway and particularly its frontline staff are expected to take responsibility for the actions of the travelling public, a significant minority of whom do some very silly things. I quite like not being in prison, and I don’t want to end up there because I’ve made a single mistake whilst simultaneously trying to drive a train and babysit those attempting to travel on it.

This sounds a bit like somebody scrabbling around looking for problems to highlight. Given that many OBS on Southern have been working for about 12 months now, do you have any evidence of any real problems ?

No, it sounds like someone who does the job wondering how it’s supposed to work when it’s all kicking off and then a set of doors three coaches back won’t close. Is it because they’re faulty or is it because an OBS is necessarily interfering with the dispatch process so that they don’t get left behind? Why introduce the confusion when you can just have that person dispatch the train once they’ve dealt with what they need to deal with, or once they’ve checked and established that there’s nothing to deal with?

 

[northwichcat]

Passengers finding the last train from Manchester to Blackpool is at about quarter past 7, reducing the place from a place you stay at all night to a place you ignore. The cost to leisure travel must be immense.

There is the option of taking the 22:00 Blackpool to London coach as far as Preston and then a second coach to Manchester but it'll take around 2 hours in total, so probably not the best idea for a family intending to see the illuminations.

 

[LOL The Irony]

There is the option of taking the 22:00 Blackpool to London coach as far as Preston and then a second coach to Manchester but it'll take around 2 hours in total, so probably not the best idea for a family intending to see the illuminations.

Or driving but you (obviously) need a car for that...

 

[387star]

...and there you have the beginnings of a confusing, and potentially dangerous, situation. Driver tries to dispatch, unaware that the OBS has keyed in somewhere along the train. Does this give any indication to the driver on new-ish trains? If not, presumably the driver’s just going to be left wondering why there’s a set of doors that won’t close if the OBS isn’t immediately visible. What if the set of doors that the OBS goes to isn’t near the wheelchair space? It just sounds like a real mess.

AFAIK the driver knows a OBS has keyed in via mitrac and you can not gain interlock either

 

[northwichcat]

No, it sounds like someone who does the job wondering how it’s supposed to work when it’s all kicking off and then a set of doors three coaches back won’t close. Is it because they’re faulty or is it because an OBS is necessarily interfering with the dispatch process so that they don’t get left behind? Why introduce the confusion when you can just have that person dispatch the train once they’ve dealt with what they need to deal with, or once they’ve checked and established that there’s nothing to deal with?

In an age when you can written documents sent half away round the world in seconds, why can't railway companies address a way of getting on board staff to communicate with one another without someone having to go to the rear cab to pick up a phone or the front cab and talk to the driver in person?

 

[Carlisle]

The conductors in particular go from a guaranteed continued job as a guard with TPE to being thrown into the Northern DCO/DOO uncertainty.

Is a guaranteed salary level and employment for at least another decade, and quite possibly for significantly longer than that really such a bad deal ? considering I’ve just seen a copy of todays Metro headlining Debenhams to close 50 stores .

 

[Tomnick]

In an age when you can written documents sent half away round the world in seconds, why can't railway companies address a way of getting on board staff to communicate with one another without someone having to go to the rear cab to pick up a phone or the front cab and talk to the driver in person?

They probably could. Some trains have handsets at intermediate positions. What’s the point of introducing even that extra layer of communication when you can just have the person who’s dealing with stuff on the platform dispatch the train themselves once they’ve finished dealing with stuff on the platform?

 

[Tomnick]

AFAIK the driver knows a OBS has keyed in via mitrac and you can not gain interlock either

Thanks, I wasn’t sure whether it’d give some specific indication that someone had keyed in somewhere. Loss of interlock on its own isn’t particularly helpful!

 

[a_c_skinner]

You. Have. To. Do. This. Anyway.

Yes, it was explained better and more politely higher up, though by that logic DOO is actually impossible, which it isn't. Plainly.

 

[Robertj21a]

I’m no longer a member of that Union, let alone an official, but the culture (within the industry and outside it) was very different in 1982. Nowadays, the railway and particularly its frontline staff are expected to take responsibility for the actions of the travelling public, a significant minority of whom do some very silly things. I quite like not being in prison, and I don’t want to end up there because I’ve made a single mistake whilst simultaneously trying to drive a train and babysit those attempting to travel on it.

No, it sounds like someone who does the job wondering how it’s supposed to work when it’s all kicking off and then a set of doors three coaches back won’t close. Is it because they’re faulty or is it because an OBS is necessarily interfering with the dispatch process so that they don’t get left behind? Why introduce the confusion when you can just have that person dispatch the train once they’ve dealt with what they need to deal with, or once they’ve checked and established that there’s nothing to deal with?

Which only tells me that you need to better understand how the OBS arrangements work on Southern, rather than default to assuming it's going to have problems.
I understand why other rail staff/guards might not like the OBS role but let's at least keep to facts.

 

[Kite159]

Or driving but you (obviously) need a car for that...

I suspect a few families who would have used the train to see the lights at Blackpool have decided to use their own cars due to wanting to get back home after dark.

Or decided not to bother seeing the lights at Blackpool this year on a Saturday.

 

[yorksrob]

The RMT also know what the Northern franchise agreement says so they know they could offer that knowing that it'll be rejected but it would be good for their PR.

At this stage, I'm more interested in what each side has committed to.

I'm already angry with the Goverment for imposing a less compromising agreement on Northern than other TOC's. I want to know whether I should be angry with the RMT for being less compromising on Northern than other TOC's.

 

[Tomnick]

Yes, it was explained better and more politely higher up, though by that logic DOO is actually impossible, which it isn't. Plainly.

DOO isn’t impossible. It’s not very good for anyone wanting to travel who can’t board the train without help though. That’s had to be addressed under this new form of DOO (“DCO”), which results in this rather daft arrangement.

Which only tells me that you need to better understand how the OBS arrangements work on Southern, rather than default to assuming it's going to have problems.
I understand why other rail staff/guards might not like the OBS role but let's at least keep to facts.

I’m trying to understand it. So far, I understand that the driver will be largely unaware of the OBS’s intentions until he starts the dispatch process and wonders why a set of doors won’t close, although this might be accompanied by some indication on the TMS. Am I correct? If so, how is this preferable to having the person who’s keyed in at a local door just dispatch the train from that panel and remove any possible confusion?

 

[Bletchleyite]

DOO isn’t impossible. It’s not very good for anyone wanting to travel who can’t board the train without help though. That’s had to be addressed under this new form of DOO (“DCO”), which results in this rather daft arrangement.

Another option is level boarding with the gap bridged. As I've said elsewhere I personally believe PRM-TSI should have mandated this for all new stock.

 

[CN75]

DOO isn’t impossible. It’s not very good for anyone wanting to travel who can’t board the train without help though. That’s had to be addressed under this new form of DOO (“DCO”), which results in this rather daft arrangement.

I’m trying to understand it. So far, I understand that the driver will be largely unaware of the OBS’s intentions until he starts the dispatch process and wonders why a set of doors won’t close, although this might be accompanied by some indication on the TMS. Am I correct? If so, how is this preferable to having the person who’s keyed in at a local door just dispatch the train from that panel and remove any possible confusion?

As soon as dispatch is involved the person needs route knowledge, and assessment on that route, and safety-critical training and all the other historic aspects of guards. None of this serves any purpose to passengers or is necessary these days when the driver is operationally in charge. If the person is restricted to this route or that route, they are not truly flexible. If the driver cannot dispatch a train without them being present, ‘exceptional circumstances’ clauses, however tightly they are written and controlled, can never work to keep trains moving in ‘exceptional circumstances’. It is basically saying the platform checking duties are entirely customer focused and not essential to train movement. Putting safety responsibilities in simply stacks the odds against the employers and in favour of the power of the RMT to prevent the train service running, so why would they look to compromise on that?

How much by fluke or design it is unclear, but Southern’s operating model could be held up as an industry benchmark for achieving operational performance improvement while considerably benefitting the actual conductors who were affected and are now better paid OBS. Perhaps the amazingly apathetic response from the government and the media to the South Western strikes is because the changes they propose have been shown to work well on a neighbouring train operator.

 

[Tomnick]

As soon as dispatch is involved the person needs route knowledge, and assessment on that route, and safety-critical training and all the other historic aspects of guards. None of this serves any purpose to passengers or is necessary these days when the driver is operationally in charge. If the person is restricted to this route or that route, they are not truly flexible. If the driver cannot dispatch a train without them being present, ‘exceptional circumstances’ clauses, however tightly they are written and controlled, can never work to keep trains moving in ‘exceptional circumstances’. It is basically saying the platform checking duties are entirely customer focused and not essential to train movement. Putting safety responsibilities in simply stacks the odds against the employers and in favour of the power of the RMT to prevent the train service running, so why would they look to compromise on that?

How much by fluke or design it is unclear, but Southern’s operating model could be held up as an industry benchmark for achieving operational performance improvement while considerably benefitting the actual conductors who were affected and are now better paid OBS. Perhaps the amazingly apathetic response from the government and the media to the South Western strikes is because the changes they propose have been shown to work well on a neighbouring train operator.

At the risk of going around in circles, there is definitely at least some benefit to having a second member of staff with rules and route knowledge. I accept that that removes some flexibility. I'd also note that the GA 'deal', as I understand it, has the second member of staff not routinely carrying out dispatch duties but doing so occasionally in order to maintain competence, so I don't see why an "exceptional circumstances" clause couldn't be constructed along similar lines.

 

[Halifaxlad]

At the risk of going around in circles

I think that what the RMT is now doing!

 

[Mag_seven]

At the risk of going around in circles, there is definitely at least some benefit to having a second member of staff with rules and route knowledge.

I travel on loads of very busy suburban trains in Europe (indeed I am on one now) and there is no second member of staff. I don't feel unsafe in the slightest.

 

[Tomnick]

I travel on loads of very busy suburban trains in Europe (indeed I am on one now) and there is no second member of staff. I don't feel unsafe in the slightest.

Maybe you don’t feel unsafe, but undoubtedly you are less safe - to some extent - than you would be with a guard working the train too.

 

[scrapy]

How did they decide which guards moved to Northern and which remained with TPE? I noticed TPE guards who worked Manchester Airport to Blackpool services also worked the western part of North/South TPE.

Blackpool and Barrow crews TUPEd to Northern although some who'd already requested got transfers to Preston before end of franchise. Manchester Airport crews remained with TPE. Manchester Airport portion of Blackpools/Barrow work now covered mainly by Wigan.

 

[Confused52]

Maybe you don’t feel unsafe, but undoubtedly you are less safe - to some extent - than you would be with a guard working the train too.

There's the rub. How much less safe is it in practice? The awful answer to that question is only useful if it morphs into "How many extra people will die on the Northern Franchise each year if you don't adopt the system you propose?". That is what you need for the Benefit Cost analysis using the Green Book and the Dft WebTAG method. How does the benefit measure up against the cost? I think the rather good insights you provided earlier show that the answer for Northern Connect service which only stop perhaps at staffed stations is the model you should look at because it generates a totally different answer to services with mainly unstaffed calls.

One of the major problems that sends this debate round and round is the insistence on one size fits all and it being the same as another franchise too. It isn't the all the same and it isn't all operations so where the compromise and resolution of this dispute will be found is some where else with targeted changes. They clearly need to save enough money to safely pay for the extra connect services and stop the government subsidy going up even further. The insistence that you can never have too many safety measures and there is only one mode of operation no matter how much it costs is quite unreasonable to most people without a vested interest.

 

[XDM]

Maybe you don’t feel unsafe, but undoubtedly you are less safe - to some extent - than you would be with a guard working the train too.

Where is your evidence?

There is none. It is just your opinion & with respect what is that worth?
The research here & abroad shows that DOO is often safer then Guard operation & certainly as safe.

Controlling doors from the comfort of a warm cab is also better than jumping up & down in the pouring rain.
Most ex Southern Guards are much happier with the way they work now.
Many drivers (not all) privately agree DOO makes the job more fulfilling & more interesting.

 

[Robertj21a]

Maybe you don’t feel unsafe, but undoubtedly you are less safe - to some extent - than you would be with a guard working the train too.

I thought it had been agreed previously that there was no evidence to support this theory ?

 

[yorksrob]

One of the major problems that sends this debate round and round is the insistence on one size fits all and it being the same as another franchise too. It isn't the all the same and it isn't all operations so where the compromise and resolution of this dispute will be found is some where else with targeted changes. They clearly need to save enough money to safely pay for the extra connect services and stop the government subsidy going up even further. The insistence that you can never have too many safety measures and there is only one mode of operation no matter how much it costs is quite unreasonable to most people without a vested interest.

But the compromise elsewhere seems to involve a guaranteed second person on board, something that would be more effective on the Northern network at protecting revenue, than in South Eastern commuterland, where a larger proportion of stations are staffed.

Any reasonable Northern passenger should demand that a compromise found elsewhere should be extended here. We're sick and tired of National vested interests using our railway as an ideological battle ground.

 

[74A]

I’m trying to understand it. So far, I understand that the driver will be largely unaware of the OBS’s intentions until he starts the dispatch process and wonders why a set of doors won’t close, although this might be accompanied by some indication on the TMS. Am I correct? If so, how is this preferable to having the person who’s keyed in at a local door just dispatch the train from that panel and remove any possible confusion?

Because there is a time penalty of between 10 and 20 seconds per stop if you do this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because there is a time penalty of between 10 and 20 seconds per stop if you do this.

As I noted above, you'd lose the confusion and still gain the time if the "guard" had to give a bell code meaning "ready to dispatch", equivalent to a dispatcher doing so at a station with staffed dispatch, then the driver dealt with closing up and going. This would also allow the "guard" to take his time to get to the doors if he felt this necessary without any risk of the driver just closing up and going anyway.

 

[PR1Berske]

Maybe you don’t feel unsafe, but undoubtedly you are less safe - to some extent - than you would be with a guard working the train too.

But I could argue, "to be safer than now, you'll need a guard in every carriage," and that's ridiculous. There will have to be a compromise, something in the middle, to get out of this impasse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I could argue, "to be safer than now, you'll need a guard in every carriage," and that's ridiculous. There will have to be a compromise, something in the middle, to get out of this impasse.

This is why I think railway safety spending is increasingly a poor use of money when people die on the roads every day, and people die on the railway when using it correctly[1] what, once every 10 years?

[1] I am not counting people who misuse the railway deliberately or otherwise.

 

[Robertj21a]

This is why I think railway safety spending is increasingly a poor use of money when people die on the roads every day, and people die on the railway when using it correctly[1] what, once every 10 years?

[1] I am not counting people who misuse the railway deliberately or otherwise.

We are indeed very fortunate in having developed an extremely safe railway network. Much praise and recognition should be given to all those who enabled this to be the situation that we now enjoy. It should not, however, be used as some indicator that the status quo must be set in tablets of stone, just because the RMT is desperate to retain members.