Arriva Rail North DOO

[Starmill]

By that warped logic no changes should ever be made in case the RMT kick off. Your proposals will just encourage them even more!

I'm not sure yorksrob has proposals, he just wants to be able to use his trains again perhaps at close to any cost. It's something that those on ScotRail, Greater Anglia and Merseyrail now enjoy, but not us.

 

[yorksrob]

The increase in efficiency tends to reduce subsidy rather than fares. Don't fall for the RMTs propaganda.

The Strathclyde model is more efficient, as staff spend more time collecting fares.


By that warped logic no changes should ever be made in case the RMT kick off. Your proposals will just encourage them even more!

Actually that's an untrue representation of my position. I think that driver open/guard close offers significant benefits over the present way of working and believe that Northern should change to this, and if the RMT dig in their heels over this, then fight.

I'm sure the Strathclyde model has its benefits, but absolutely nothing over and above driver open/guard close worth enduring industrial action over.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure yorksrob has proposals, he just wants to be able to use his trains again perhaps at close to any cost. It's something that those on ScotRail, Greater Anglia and Merseyrail now enjoy, but not us.

This a fair point. Why should we have to endure the long term inconvenience of an ideological battle when the passengers of Scotrail, Greater Anglia and Merseyrail don't. Why is my time and money available for someone else to sacrifice and not theirs.

 

[yorkie]

Actually that's an untrue representation of my position. I think that driver open/guard close offers significant benefits over the present way of working and believe that Northern should change to this, and if the RMT dig in their heels over this, then fight.

I'm sure the Strathclyde model has its benefits, but absolutely nothing over and above driver open/guard close worth enduring industrial action over.

I disagree. The second person should be freed up to do revenue and customer service, and if there are circumstances in which no second person is available the train shouldn't be cancelled.

The majority of rail passenger journeys in Britain are on DOO services.

To refuse to expand this more efficient way of working due to fears of RMT action is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The RMT are wrong and the vast majority people can see this. It's bizarre how people argue against the way most passenger journeys are made. The RMT are anti rail and anti customer. They shouldn't be pandered to.

 

[Tomnick]

I disagree. The second person should be freed up to do revenue and customer service, and if there are circumstances in which no second person is available the train shouldn't be cancelled.

The majority of rail passenger journeys in Britain are on DOO services.

To refuse to expand this more efficient way of working due to fears of RMT action is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The RMT are wrong and the vast majority people can see this. It's bizarre how people argue against the way most passenger journeys are made. The RMT are anti rail and anti customer. They shouldn't be pandered to.

We’ve already established that Southern’s OBSs are required to position themselves at a set of doors to observe the platform at each station (a precedent that I’m certain would have to be followed for any new DOO implementation), so there is absolutely no “revenue and customer service” benefit to be achieved by relieving them of dispatch duties.

It is true that implementing DOO would eliminate a relatively minuscule number of cancellations. In order to achieve this, a relatively huge number of cancellations have occurred, with many more to follow. Is it really worth it?

 

[syorksdeano]

Northern keep saying its a franchise agreement, but what about these failed promises

 

[Dave1987]

When they could get away with it they didn't ban strikes on the railways. The Government cannot just decide that it doesn't like something and ban it when it is a contractual arrangement entered into by both parties unless there is an imbalance of negotiating power that is being applied or it is not in the public interest. That just isn't true for the gig economy unless it is causing significant loss of tax and NI revenue. The test does apply for curbing rail union power because there is clearly an imbalance when services continue to need to be run, the workforce has to be TUPEd to a successor company and the workforce is clearly disadvantaging the puplic. So the only action in 2017 affecting the railway unions was to bring into force section 3, amongst others, of the 2016 Trade Union Act requiring a higher threshold which the RMT saw coming and avoided in the case of Northern, The Government only bans things it just doesn't like in socialist states. Free societies don't work the way you suggest.

As Dr Liam Fox said very recently about a certain vote, it’s all about arithmetic. The hard right Tories know they would never get a ban on strikes, collective bargaining or unions themselves through Parliament. Since 2010 the Tories have always been kept in check by coalition, a very slim majority or a minority Government. If they ever do get a thumping great majority and can discount the votes against by the handful of moderate Tory MPs I’m sure they would try and get a ban on unions/strikes/collective bargaining through Parliament. Thankfully the Tories are on a self destruction course so we might get another GE soon and preferably another Coalition Government of some sort.

 

[muz379]

I have only once had a train door closed on me when it shouldn't have been, and it was an SWR service at Clapham Junction with a Guard, so this argument holds no water as far as I'm concerned. I've taken many DOO trains, and not had that. So this suggestion that a Guard avoids this is wrong because I know my experience proves otherwise.

The fact is DOO has been around for over 30 years and our railways are far safer than almost any other mode of transport.

As for people making it difficult for others to get on, how is one Guard going to prevent that on a 12 car train? It happens every Saturday night at York , and all those trains have Guards.

Recycling the same arguements achieves nothing but if people keep making them I'm going to have to keep rebutting them. I'd rather not have to bother!

Except you have not really provided a rebuttal . What Gems was actually talking about is the dwell times and the culture around trying to get them as low as possible posing the question of do we just close the door in peoples faces just to get minimal dwell times? , you have not even remotely addressed that .He was also addressing the idea that whilst in Theory dwell times can be reduced , in practice it simply never manifests itself as we have seen repeatedly

Yes we get it a guard or a driver doing the doors could close the doors on someone when they look but dont see (a commonly recorded phenomena when repeatedly carrying out the same task),genuinely dont see , just dont simply look , or make an assumption about the speed someone is going to go through the doors . There is no less risk of this regardless of who is doing the doors .Although I know myself when working shorter formations it is possible to see into the train through the doors to assist in identifying when everyone has finished alighting ,something i fairly regularly do with 142's because of the unobvious location of the open button for passengers .

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm afraid we will have to disagree. If someone want's to do battle with the RMT, let them do it elsewhere. Why do I have to endure a non-existant train service over what a second person does, where even the local transport authority TfN acknowledges that there should be a second person on all trains.

If a local transport authority decides that they don't need a second person on all trains, let them have the arguments and suffer the strikes, not me.

You have to endure a non-existent train service because that's how RMT minds work. The problems could be solved in days if they were to accept that a bit of flexibility would help everybody. It's not as if any jobs will be lost - and their arguments about safety etc are really about retaining union membership numbers.

 

[Robertj21a]

As Dr Liam Fox said very recently about a certain vote, it’s all about arithmetic. The hard right Tories know they would never get a ban on strikes, collective bargaining or unions themselves through Parliament. Since 2010 the Tories have always been kept in check by coalition, a very slim majority or a minority Government. If they ever do get a thumping great majority and can discount the votes against by the handful of moderate Tory MPs I’m sure they would try and get a ban on unions/strikes/collective bargaining through Parliament. Thankfully the Tories are on a self destruction course so we might get another GE soon and preferably another Coalition Government of some sort.

Dave

A serious point - I know you like to veer off into politics whenever you see the opportunity (and I'll also get back on topic after this post!) but I honestly don't believe that any credible government, including the Tories, will want to attempt any form of ban on unions or strikes. We all know that the various laws have been tightened up over the years and, for most of the people, most of the time, it now works well. It's only really topical at the moment because the RMT is taking action over a number of areas of the country (albeit it actually affects only a small % of the population - and some guys on a Rail Forum.......).

.

 

[a_c_skinner]

It's not as if any jobs will be lost

What would be lost would be the union's ability to stop trains running by withdrawing guards' labour. In the light of this, and pursuant to their members interests, which includes retaining their influence in future collective bargaining this dispute goes on. It isn't about a bit of flexibility and modest changes to operating it is about the RMT's ability to hit services as part of any future dispute.

My personal (but irrelevant) position is that trains should have a second person in a customer facing role.

 

[yorksrob]

You have to endure a non-existent train service because that's how RMT minds work. The problems could be solved in days if they were to accept that a bit of flexibility would help everybody. It's not as if any jobs will be lost - and their arguments about safety etc are really about retaining union membership numbers.

Indeed. A little bit of flexibility will help everybody. It helped Scotrail passengers and it helped Greater Anglia passengers. Let the DfT show some flexibility up here and hopefully the RMT will show flexibility by moving to driver open/guard close as well.

 

[Robertj21a]

Indeed. A little bit of flexibility will help everybody. It helped Scotrail passengers and it helped Greater Anglia passengers. Let the DfT show some flexibility up here and hopefully the RMT will show flexibility by moving to driver open/guard close as well.

As I've said many times before, the Southern OBS appears to be one of the best solutions. Just changing to driver open/guard close is helpful, but is only what has been occurring elsewhere for decades - so it's no real change for the RMT.

 

[Killingworth]

We have a railway system that remains so much in the 19th century that it's almost impossible to move forward. If we can't even sort out who opens the ***** doors how are we ever to see a modern transport system? I, and most other potential rail users, despair - and will have to travel into the Peak District by car today.

 

[yorksrob]

As I've said many times before, the Southern OBS appears to be one of the best solutions. Just changing to driver open/guard close is helpful, but is only what has been occurring elsewhere for decades - so it's no real change for the RMT.

If changing to driver open/guard close is what's been occurring elsewhere for decades, why on earth bother changing it. What meagre benefits the OBS system might provide in no way justify the upheaval.

If the DfT are so desperate to introduce such a system, they should have done it when the trains were equipped to do so. They didn't, so they should back down and get the trains running pronto.

 

[Meerkat]

What meagre benefits the OBS system might provide in no way justify the upheaval.

The move to OBS is not causing the upheaval. The RMT’s Luddite tendency is causing the upheaval.

 

[HH]

Except you have not really provided a rebuttal . What Gems was actually talking about is the dwell times and the culture around trying to get them as low as possible posing the question of do we just close the door in peoples faces just to get minimal dwell times? , you have not even remotely addressed that .He was also addressing the idea that whilst in Theory dwell times can be reduced , in practice it simply never manifests itself as we have seen repeatedly

Not my area of expertise, but I've been told by performance experts that time savings have been demonstrated. They are often not as large as claimed by those introducing DCO, but many of the reasons given for why they wouldn't be effective in practice already happen - that's why you get small delays against the timetable. However, there's very little difference between DCO and DOGC.

 

[yorksrob]

The move to OBS is not causing the upheaval. The RMT’s Luddite tendency is causing the upheaval.

I simply couldn't give a damn.

All I care about is that driver open/guard close has been accepted in other areas and works.

 

[74A]

LOL. It is all in the minds of the accountants and others who think they know it all, but know nothing.

Lets all play with seconds, of course what happens when those seconds are up, do we just shut the doors on anyone left on the platform yet to board? Do we carry the elderly who are a bit slow to get off to the next stop and hope they are quicker. What about wheelchairs, bikes, and great aunt Gerty with the wooden leg.
What about the driver who is rustling around in his bag for a snack whilst at the station? What about doors that are slow to close? Or people who insist on congregating around the doors blocking others from getting on?

You see the trouble with many posters here is this. You mean well, but the railway to you is all working timetables and what should happen. You need to add the human factor, and the problem with arguments about dwell times is the human factor has been stripped away.

I don't know wether you are simply not understanding my post or choosing to ignore it appeal to the DOO is unsafe brigade "because I say so". Im only talking about the time wasted while the guard closes the doors looks up and down gets on closes their local door gives 2 on the buzzer driver gives 2 back as opposed to DOO where driver closes the doors and goes.

All the things you mention applies whoever closes the doors. I accept on the 2 and 4 car train you usually work you can probably look down the train see if anyone is being slow to get off and wait. However when you start getting to 6, 8 and 10 coach train you can't do that. You release the doors wait a suitable amount of time then close them again.

RMT clearly accept that there are performance benefits are they have agreed that drivers will close door on both Anglia and Merseyrail.

 

[yorkie]

I don't know wether you are simply not understanding my post or choosing to ignore it appeal to the DOO is unsafe brigade "because I say so".

The RMT and their supporters do enjoy hyperbole; it's surprising when they are not using hyperbole.

The move to OBS is not causing the upheaval. The RMT’s Luddite tendency is causing the upheaval.

Absolutely. I'd be furious if my union behaved like the RMT.

What would be lost would be the union's ability to stop trains running by withdrawing guards' labour. In the light of this, and pursuant to their members interests, which includes retaining their influence in future collective bargaining this dispute goes on. It isn't about a bit of flexibility and modest changes to operating it is about the RMT's ability to hit services as part of any future dispute.

My personal (but irrelevant) position is that trains should have a second person in a customer facing role.

Indeed, it's more about preserving their future ability to be disruptive than any actual issues. They should be more honest about this. As they are being dishonest, it comes down to people like us to expose the RMT and their untruths and hyperbole.

 

[pemma]

If the DfT are so desperate to introduce such a system, they should have done it when the trains were equipped to do so. They didn't, so they should back down and get the trains running pronto.

Not sure what you're implying there. With Northern the plan was to introduce new trains (which allow DCO) in 2019 and to introduce DCO in 2019. If the plan was to introduce new trains from 2019-2025 and to introduce network wide DCO from 2025 then the argument in 2025 would be 'the new trains have had guards since they were introduced and cost-cutting TOC/government wants to now get rid of them.'

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure what you're implying there. With Northern the plan was to introduce new trains (which allow DCO) in 2019 and to introduce DCO in 2019. If the plan was to introduce new trains from 2019-2025 and to introduce network wide DCO from 2025 then the argument in 2025 would be 'the new trains have had guards since they were introduced and cost-cutting TOC/government wants to now get rid of them.'

But in that circumstance they could switch to DCO anyway, so longwinded industrial action would be pointless.

 

[Robertj21a]

But in that circumstance they could switch to DCO anyway, so longwinded industrial action would be pointless.

.

It's pointless at present !

What has the RMT achieved after 40 days of strikes ?
.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Northern keep saying its a franchise agreement, but what about these failed promises

Surely they'res a difference between NOT delivering something and delivering something a bit late?

I would be very interested to know what FA conditions Northern aren't going to deliver?

Interestingly they seeked permission from the DFT to ammend the FA so that they weren't required to put Ticket Gates at Halifax Station, as this was blocked by Network Rail and therefore out of their control.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed. A little bit of flexibility will help everybody. It helped Scotrail passengers and it helped Greater Anglia passengers. Let the DfT show some flexibility up here and hopefully the RMT will show flexibility by moving to driver open/guard close as well.

I note your wording above seems to positively commit the DfT to flexibility but then you then use the word "hopefully" when then mentioning flexibility by the RMT, which seems that you do not want the RMT to be bound by the same logic.

 

[yorksrob]

.

It's pointless at present !

What has the RMT achieved after 40 days of strikes ?
.

I mean pointless in that the RMT wouldn't be able to stop the trains from running - unlike now.

 

[yorksrob]

I note your wording above seems to positively commit the DfT to flexibility but then you then use the word "hopefully" when then mentioning flexibility by the RMT, which seems that you do not want the RMT to be bound by the same logic.

No, I think the RMT should definitely accept such an arrangement. I used "hopefully" because I don't think the RMT could be forced to accept it under the current legal framework.

 

[coppercapped]

Indeed. A little bit of flexibility will help everybody. It helped Scotrail passengers and it helped Greater Anglia passengers. Let the DfT show some flexibility up here and hopefully the RMT will show flexibility by moving to driver open/guard close as well.

The basic issue is that a trades union is trying to dictate to a company how that company may run its business.

This is unacceptable - and the RMT is out on a limb. It is attempting to do what no other trades union in the country is attempting.

The other country I know most about is Germany and there the trades unions understand the legal, social and political framework in which they operate - and although they are diligent in protecting and advancing their members' interests they do not try to specify the ways by which the company is run. I know - I was a member of the IG Metall for many years. There is no reason whatsoever - apart from personal intransigence and a distorted view of the world[1] - for the RMT to hold the position it does.

There is a strong moral, economic, social and political need for effective trades unions operating within the law to act as a countervailing force to less than reasonable employers - and there are more of those than one might first think. But this does not mean being pig-headedly intransigent. The political right wing always has a tendency to want to clip the wings of the trades unions, or even ban them depending on the degree of 'rightness'. The danger that Cash does not see is that the continuing strikes will move the boundary of wanting to limit trades unions further towards the centre of the political spectrum. When it becomes mainstream then the position is really worrying.

Effective trades unions are part and parcel of our democratic system - their existence must not be put into question. Democracy does not only exist in politics but is the very warp and weft of our lives.

[1] The language used in its press releases demonstrate this. They show no understanding of the wider world and are aimed only at its own members and supporters. It's an identical attitude to that shown by Donald Trump who's every utterance is designed to appeal to his power base regardless of the effect it has on the rest of the world.

 

[pemma]

I mean pointless in that the RMT wouldn't be able to stop the trains from running - unlike now.

The ASLEF/Southern agreement is that services can run without the booked second member of staff under certain circumstances but industrial action is not included. Although, I suppose you could say if the agreement is the second person doesn't have to be trained to do doors, dispatch etc. then it would be easier to get office based staff to cover.

 

[Robertj21a]

The basic issue is that a trades union is trying to dictate to a company how that company may run its business.

This is unacceptable - and the RMT is out on a limb. It is attempting to do what no other trades union in the country is attempting.

The other country I know most about is Germany and there the trades unions understand the legal, social and political framework in which they operate - and although they are diligent in protecting and advancing their members' interests they do not try to specify the ways by which the company is run. I know - I was a member of the IG Metall for many years. There is no reason whatsoever - apart from personal intransigence and a distorted view of the world[1] - for the RMT to hold the position it does.

There is a strong moral, economic, social and political need for effective trades unions operating within the law to act as a countervailing force to less than reasonable employers - and there are more of those than one might first think. But this does not mean being pig-headedly intransigent. The political right wing always has a tendency to want to clip the wings of the trades unions, or even ban them depending on the degree of 'rightness'. The danger that Cash does not see is that the continuing strikes will move the boundary of wanting to limit trades unions further towards the centre of the political spectrum. When it becomes mainstream then the position is really worrying.

Effective trades unions are part and parcel of our democratic system - their existence must not be put into question. Democracy does not only exist in politics but is the very warp and weft of our lives.

[1] The language used in its press releases demonstrate this. They show no understanding of the wider world and are aimed only at its own members and supporters. It's an identical attitude to that shown by Donald Trump who's every utterance is designed to appeal to his power base regardless of the effect it has on the rest of the world.

Excellent. A good summary, thanks for that.