Arriva Rail North DOO

[pemma]

As I don't think it'll be too long until we see increases in fare evasion, increases to physical assaults on guards / gateline staff and potentially seeing some stations being shut completely because of already ongoing problems that are separate from the strikes, since most people in the north will feel ripped off and quite literally taken for a ride.

One person is trying to crowdfund a passenger's revolt where passengers taking part will refuse to buy tickets and the crowdfunding will be used to fund any fines Northern try to impose. I believe they are trying to get solicitors on board.

 

[pemma]

It wouldn't bother me either. It's about time the RMT admitted that they couldn't give a toss about passenger safety, the dispute is purely and simply about saving their jobs, jobs which the public are increasingly realising are unnecessary and superfluous.

But it isn't. Their long term employment is safe, they are trying to retain the role and maintain the current situation where a RMT strike doesn't result in most trains running anyway.

 

[Carlisle]

The RMT were happy to proceed only on the basis that they attended to receive ARNs capitulation,

That’s probably the most accurate and concise summing up the events over the last few days that I’ve read anywhere so far

 

[Wombat]

Having done surveys with passengers and seen the results of ones done by Transport Focus what they want most is a visible staff presence. The majority would also rather board a train with just a driver on board than spend 60 minutes at an unstaffed station due to a train being cancelled because there's no second person.

Sounds about right. I would love to see the survey that shows the majority of passengers opposing DOO. If I were to ask the following two questions:

1) Do you want a second person on board to provide passenger assistance?
2) In exceptional circumstances when a second person is not available, do you want the train to run without the second person instead of it being cancelled?

...does anyone honestly expect anything other than a large "Yes" majority for both questions?

 

[underbank]

Sounds about right. I would love to see the survey that shows the majority of passengers opposing DOO. If I were to ask the following two questions:

1) Do you want a second person on board to provide passenger assistance?
2) In exceptional circumstances when a second person is not available, do you want the train to run without the second person instead of it being cancelled?

...does anyone honestly expect anything other than a large "Yes" majority for both questions?

I agree as far as that goes, but there's also a cost dimension. If you offered everyone the choice of a gold unicorn with every ticket, they'd say yes, but if you then said the cost of train fares would rise, the answers would be very different.

 

[nidave]

Question are any of the guards first aid trained?
(Might have missed this before)

 

[pt_mad]

Sounds about right. I would love to see the survey that shows the majority of passengers opposing DOO. If I were to ask the following two questions:

1) Do you want a second person on board to provide passenger assistance?
2) In exceptional circumstances when a second person is not available, do you want the train to run without the second person instead of it being cancelled?

...does anyone honestly expect anything other than a large "Yes" majority for both questions?

Although are passengers picturing a train on a Sunday daytime afternoon that gets cancelled where they feel totally safe without staff and would rather the train just run? If we were talking around Leeds Bradford suburban areas late at night how many would rather wait and travel with second staff member? Vulnerable customers probably would. Or ones who feel unsafe or fear crime. And the fear of crime can be really daunting sometimes.

 

[superkev]

Sounds about right. I would love to see the survey that shows the majority of passengers opposing DOO. If I were to ask the following two questions:

1) Do you want a second person on board to provide passenger assistance?
2) In exceptional circumstances when a second person is not available, do you want the train to run without the second person instead of it being cancelled?

...does anyone honestly expect anything other than a large "Yes" majority for both questions?

Of course the public would say yes but what about a 3rd question as to how much there prepared to pay.
There was a similar argument about bus conductors and I don't see many of them anymore.
I've read today (Can't remember where) the Merseyrail deal will cost £7million presumably needing higher fares and pushing people into there cars.
K

 

[superkev]

Although are passengers picturing a train on a Sunday daytime afternoon that gets cancelled where they feel totally safe without staff and would rather the train just run? If we were talking around Leeds Bradford suburban areas late at night how many would rather wait and travel with second staff member? Vulnerable customers probably would. Or ones who feel unsafe or fear crime. And the fear of crime can be really daunting sometimes.

Yes we are too tolerant of yobs and drunks but guards are not paid as bouncers and are instructed to lock themselves in the back cab if there's trouble. Better to employ some large French style policemen with white sticks. Personal view.
K

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes we are too tolerant of yobs and drunks but guards are not paid as bouncers and are instructed to lock themselves in the back cab if there's trouble. Better to employ some large French style policemen with white sticks. Personal view.
K

Indeed. Picture the scene. Trains comes in. Doors open. Our nervous passenger gets on and sits near other sensible people and away from any yobbish element. Doors close (nervous passenger at this point hasn't a clue whether there is an OBS, guard or anyone else doing the doors).

People on this thread keep on sketching scenarios without thinking through but simply grasping at any straw that comes mentally their way. How on earth do the late night services manage on all those hundreds of trains and tubes every night that have operated DOO for the last thirty years or more?

 

[Eccles1983]

Easy.

A tube station is a mere 2-3 mins away, with platform staff.

You could get on a train up here and have the first stop over 15-20 minutes away. That's a long time for stuff to happen in the coach, and even when you arrive you will find no one on the platform who can help.

That's the biggest difference. On the tube you are minutes away from help.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

If they have agreed to a second person on every train then surely at least one of the requirements has been met. That 'second person' comes with a heavy caveat. One of which is being consistently forgotten.

But they haven't agreed to a second person on the train at all. TfN may have expressed the fact that it doesn't want to the second person removed, but Arriva still did not commit to guaranteeing that second person, irrespective of what that person actually does.

Talks break down. No change in the company proposals that were put to the RMT in August. ARN are "Not" committing to a second person ON "All" trains. The talks never even got onto safety critical competencies or platform train interface procedures. Just got off the blower to one of the RMT reps. Northern say they need clarity on DfT/TfN statements last week and haven't had time to get the detail since the statements from both parties last week.

 

[pt_mad]

Indeed. Picture the scene. Trains comes in. Doors open. Our nervous passenger gets on and sits near other sensible people and away from any yobbish element. Doors close (nervous passenger at this point hasn't a clue whether there is an OBS, guard or anyone else doing the doors).

People on this thread keep on sketching scenarios without thinking through but simply grasping at any straw that comes mentally their way. How on earth do the late night services manage on all those hundreds of trains and tubes every night that have operated DOO for the last thirty years or more?

I presume they manage, but with some incidences of crime. The service will 'manage' as long as the train runs. Doesn't mean to say it's passengers will be safe from crime however.

 

[Carlisle]

But they haven't agreed to a second person on the train at all. .

I think you’ll find they did, ok it’s still up for negotiation what training the role requires and whether there should be exceptional circumstances when trains could run without one, but the RMT would rather we just ignore all that, in order to justify further strikes.

 

[syorksdeano]

Question are any of the guards first aid trained?
(Might have missed this before)

I believe so. I would be very surprised if they are not

 

[pt_mad]

If it's desired that the second member of staff should be around within the passenger saloons, and the DFT want an end to riding in the rear cab, why don't the relevent parties come to an agreement where the guard can remain safety critical but must dispatch from a saloon and the rear cab is no longer for guard use? Two problems with this are 1. It's safer to observe the train out of the platform from a droplight cab window than a saloon, 2. There is no safe refuge place for the guard to go if they become they target of crime, abuse, violence or anti social behaviour due to being staff and inspecting tickets etc.

Nothing you could do to tackle the saloon being insuperior to a droplight window, but the trains could be specified to include a guards office within the saloon. Like some Virgin stock has. So that the guard has a safe place but is within the passenger part of the train at all times.

 

[Killingworth]

If it's desired that the second member of staff should be around within the passenger saloons, and the DFT want an end to riding in the rear cab, why don't the relevent parties come to an agreement where the guard can remain safety critical but must dispatch from a saloon and the rear cab is no longer for guard use? Two problems with this are 1. It's safer to observe the train out of the platform from a droplight cab window than a saloon, 2. There is no safe refuge place for the guard to go if they become they target of crime, abuse, violence or anti social behaviour due to being staff and inspecting tickets etc.

Nothing you could do to tackle the saloon being insuperior to a droplight window, but the trains could be specified to include a guards office within the saloon. Like some Virgin stock has. So that the guard has a safe place but is within the passenger part of the train at all times.

But many carriages aren't patrolled now because there's no connection between two units. From a passenger safety point of view they are DOO, although a worried passenger can get off and change units at the next station.

 

[Carlisle]

If it's desired that the second member of staff should be around within the passenger saloons, and the DFT want an end to riding in the rear cab, why don't the relevent parties come to an agreement where the guard can remain safety critical but must dispatch from a saloon .

utilising today’s technology drivers can safely dispatch trains therefore guards/OBS can concentrate mainly on passenger issues

 

[MCSHF007]

Unless I've been misinformed guards in this area (South/West Yorkshire) are encouraged (maybe even instructed) to remain in the back cab on may late night trains for safety reasons. Strangely the same trains are allowed to run conveying customers (and those passengers who choose not to become customers). Where is the oft-trumpeted (by the fat cat basket-case RMT bosses) benefit re passenger security and reassurance in these situations? The trains concerned may as well run D.O.O.

 

[yorkie]

But many carriages aren't patrolled now because there's no connection between two units. From a passenger safety point of view they are DOO, although a worried passenger can get off and change units at the next station.

The "safety" aspect mentioned by the RMT is nothing to do with whether or not there is a visible staff presence. RMT's argument appears to be that the trains in Glasgow with visible staff are not safe but late evening TPE trains which mostly have no visible staff presence are safe.

Don't forget DOO means driver only operation; a train with a non-commercial Guard not doing tickets or a Guard who chooses to remain in the cab or a Guard in the other unit is not DOO (from any point of view), while a train that is driver only operated but has staff (e.g. TE/OBM/OBS) constantly patrolling the train is DOO.

 

[pt_mad]

But many carriages aren't patrolled now because there's no connection between two units. From a passenger safety point of view they are DOO, although a worried passenger can get off and change units at the next station.

utilising today’s technology drivers can safely dispatch trains therefore guards/OBS can concentrate mainly on passenger issues

I'm simply trying to address any reason why the DFT or the TOC may have wanted an end to current guard operation. If the DFT gripes were tackled then surely the guard could remain safety critical and therefore the dispute and disruption would be over?

The only obvious reason I can see why they would want to go through all this just to bring an end to the current status quo and bring in OBS is because they think the guard is not visible enough? But at the same time we have read a claim that guards on some routes are instructed to remain in the rear cab for safety reasons. So what safety will an OBS have for their whole shift in the passenger saloon without a guard's office?

If the reason for preferring OBS is simply to take guards out of the rear cab then couldn't this be done in other ways whilst allowing the guard to keep their safety critical accreditation so bringing the dispute to a fast end with no further pain or cost?

Some are saying well who will pay? Well if OBS is an equally valued role as a guard,as many are debating, then won't the cost be the same? Unless the plan is to plan some trains without an OBS/guard/second member to save money?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where is the oft-trumpeted (by the fat cat basket-case RMT bosses) benefit re passenger security and reassurance in these situations?

"Fat cat" and "Basket-case" used together in a sentence...

You are the RMT press release writer and I claim the £10....

 

[pemma]

Question are any of the guards first aid trained?
(Might have missed this before)

I believe so. I would be very surprised if they are not

Been mentioned before that generally only TOCs who serve hot food on board like Virgin and GWR give on board staff full first aid training and that's really to cover employee health and safety laws, not passenger safety.

The requirement for full first aid training for guards on local services in the north was apparently dropped a long time ago and the RMT didn't raise any major objections.

 

[leedslad82]

Although are passengers picturing a train on a Sunday daytime afternoon that gets cancelled where they feel totally safe without staff and would rather the train just run? If we were talking around Leeds Bradford suburban areas late at night how many would rather wait and travel with second staff member? Vulnerable customers probably would. Or ones who feel unsafe or fear crime. And the fear of crime can be really daunting sometimes.

To be honest from my experience loving in the Leeds area we don't have second people available for passenger assistance now. At least 75% of the time especially when it's dark the second member of staff never leaves the rear cab except to open the doors

 

[Killingworth]

The "safety" aspect mentioned by the RMT is nothing to do with whether or not there is a visible staff presence. RMT's argument appears to be that the trains in Glasgow with visible staff are not safe but late evening TPE trains which mostly have no visible staff presence are safe.

Don't forget DOO means driver only operation; a train with a non-commercial Guard not doing tickets or a Guard who chooses to remain in the cab or a Guard in the other unit is not DOO (from any point of view), while a train that is driver only operated but has staff (e.g. TE/OBM/OBS) constantly patrolling the train is DOO.

And there's the point, we're deep in the DOO DOO on this. Poor passengers are being encouraged by RMT to think having a guard aboard will give them greater personal security. That benefit is marginal. In my experience the number of later trains of all operators which are patrolled is low, but when two or more units are being operated without interconnection it's impossible anyway.

Of course having a second staff member on the train is safer and more reassuring in case of operational incidents. Like when a relative was aboard a late train that hit a person and the driver was totally traumatised, stranded in the darkness for hours who knows where, he unable to leave the toilet for long periods. The lady train manager, XC, was superb arranging free teas and coffees for passengers and totally took control of the situation.

By their nature no two incidents will be the same but having that second person available has to be a bonus. Their level of training and normal duties are what needs to be resolved.

 

[HowardGWR]

"Fat cat" and "Basket-case" used together in a sentence...

You are the RMT press release writer and I claim the £10....

Whoosh! Read again Paul. You totally missed his joke. Mick Cash and his like get a very generous salary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe so. I would be very surprised if they are not

Be surprised, then. No such requirement of rail staff, which is something I find very poor.

 

[pemma]

Although are passengers picturing a train on a Sunday daytime afternoon that gets cancelled where they feel totally safe without staff and would rather the train just run? If we were talking around Leeds Bradford suburban areas late at night how many would rather wait and travel with second staff member? Vulnerable customers probably would. Or ones who feel unsafe or fear crime. And the fear of crime can be really daunting sometimes.

How safe are passengers on the stations, especially if there are no staff and not many people around? Would a lone passenger feel safer on a platform where the only other people around are a large group of hooded teenagers or on a train where there are lots of people in addition to the hooded teenagers? Also would they be safer spending 30/60 minutes at a station with no visible staff presence than 15/30 minutes on a train with no visible staff presence?

 

[nidave]

Been mentioned before that generally only TOCs who serve hot food on board like Virgin and GWR give on board staff full first aid training and that's really to cover employee health and safety laws, not passenger safety.

The requirement for full first aid training for guards on local services in the north was apparently dropped a long time ago and the RMT didn't raise any major objections.

This is a joke right... Thought the guard was there for passenger safety - If they cant preform basic emergency aid what does "passenger safety" mean then ?
The 2nd person - don't give a stuff if they touch the doors or not -should have basic emergency aid training. Makes the 2nd person pretty much useless in my opinion and this should be thing that people are going on about rather than who opens the doors.

 

[pemma]

This is a joke right... Thought the guard was there for passenger safety - If they cant preform basic emergency aid what does "passenger safety" mean then ?
The 2nd person - don't give a stuff if they touch the doors or not -should have basic emergency aid training. Makes the 2nd person pretty much useless in my opinion and this should be thing that people are going on about rather than who opens the doors.

I'm just repeating what others have posted on here before. Like I've said previously I think it's ludicrous an office in a fixed place with 20 employees has a designated first aider but apparently a moving train with hundreds of passengers on board doesn't need one. What makes it even more ludicrous is many buildings have more than one company based in them so the workplace requirement is effectively equivalent to a pair of 150/1 needing 2 x designated first aiders.