Arriva Rail North DOO

[northwichcat]

We ain't talking until two questions have been answered

I thought the RMT had asked Arriva "Are you planning to have two members of staff on every service?" to which Arriva said "Yes" Then the RMT went back on a later date asking for confirmation about there being a guard on every service to which Arriva said they couldn't give that guarantee.

 

[Andrew32]

We can't guarantee that at this present time was the answer given so not a definitive no or a definite yes either.

 

[FordFocus]

I've read the past few pages of this thread, nothing of real substance (as expected) so I'll try and steer it into another direction.....

What are the technological and operational restrictions that would prevent DOO been brought it in at Northern? It's a brand new DOO scheme so isn't an extension of an existing scheme that uses platform CCTV cameras, mirrors or look back dispatch procedures with past requirements mostly from BR days that were less stringent on safety. Having been involved in a DOO 'workshop' recently the requirements for DOO seem to get more stricter. The ORR recent 6 point report they released have put a few more items that semi addresses union concerns over the PTI. This is going to put the cost of the DOO schemes up by a bit.

I'm thinking inadequate platform infrastructure and management of passengers on busier platforms at some key stations would cause issues.

 

[Anvil1984]

I thought the RMT had asked Arriva "Are you planning to have two members of staff on every service?" to which Arriva said "Yes" Then the RMT went back on a later date asking for confirmation about there being a guard on every service to which Arriva said they couldn't give that guarantee.

Northern have just sent a FAQ to their staff pretty much stating that they are planning on running services without planned members of staff (not even a RPA or OBS) and instead maybe placing them on stations

Before the ballot for industrial action, we shared some early thinking with the RMT, which is based on three service groups: Northern Connect, Regional and Metropolitan Suburban. For Northern Connect and Regional services, our initial thinking is that we would staff these services with a second person, to focus on customer service and collecting revenue.

Within the Metropolitan Suburban areas, we've shared early thoughts on collecting revenue, customer service and accessibility, which could involve colleagues on board some trains and on stations

 

[Tetchytyke]

What are the technological and operational restrictions that would prevent DOO been brought it in at Northern?

Probably not very many, really. Converting the older stock to run DOO is probably prohibitively expensive, but if the new stock has the cab monitors and decent CCTV then very little. Most of the trains are significantly smaller than trains that run DOO in the south east, so you don't even have that issue.

Platform management wouldn't even be that much of an issue, at the big stations and stations with a big curve/gap (e.g. Shipley) you'd have a despatcher. Other than that, I can't see many operational reasons why you couldn't have DOO, unless they do something stupid like try and run the S&C or Tyne Valley as DOO.

Most passengers think driver only operation and the driver being the only member of staff on board a train are the same thing.

At the risk of repeating oneself yet again, that is because DOO/DCO is the same thing as the only member of safety staff on board being a driver. Even in Strathclyde the Ticket Examiner has no safety responsibilities. And that's really why passengers want a visible staff presence- they want someone there to sort it when things go wrong. A ticket examiner is no use when the poo hits the fan because they have no power and no responsibility.

You may agree with drivers being in sole charge, or you may not, but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that DCO is anything other than getting rid of safety staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Platform management wouldn't even be that much of an issue, at the big stations and stations with a big curve/gap (e.g. Shipley) you'd have a despatcher. Other than that, I can't see many operational reasons why you couldn't have DOO, unless they do something stupid like try and run the S&C or Tyne Valley as DOO.

You could have the doors driver-controlled on either of those, and indeed because ticketing is all done on board that would have some advantages. However, given the risks of the S&C (landslips etc) and the difficulty getting help to the train I would want a mandatory second safety-trained member of staff on board. Conwy Valley probably similar.

 

[craigybagel]

I've read the past few pages of this thread, nothing of real substance (as expected) so I'll try and steer it into another direction.....

What are the technological and operational restrictions that would prevent DOO been brought it in at Northern? It's a brand new DOO scheme so isn't an extension of an existing scheme that uses platform CCTV cameras, mirrors or look back dispatch procedures with past requirements mostly from BR days that were less stringent on safety. Having been involved in a DOO 'workshop' recently the requirements for DOO seem to get more stricter. The ORR recent 6 point report they released have put a few more items that semi addresses union concerns over the PTI. This is going to put the cost of the DOO schemes up by a bit.

I'm thinking inadequate platform infrastructure and management of passengers on busier platforms at some key stations would cause issues.

Signaling requirements for a start. GSM-R has helped massively since DOO wasn't permitted under NRN but AFAIK it's also not permitted on Absolute Block routes and there is still quite a lot of that in the North.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You could have the doors driver-controlled on either of those, and indeed because ticketing is all done on board that would have some advantages. However, given the risks of the S&C (landslips etc) and the difficulty getting help to the train I would want a mandatory second safety-trained member of staff on board.

That's my point.

The financial case for going DOO probably makes most sense on the rural lines. But these rural lines are where you really need the second safety-critical member of staff; the Ais Gill crash of 1995 (even with the mistakes made by the late guard) proved that much. The S&C, the Little North Western, the Esk Valley, they're all incredibly difficult to get access to. I wouldn't want to be on a train with only one member of safety staff on board up on the Cumbrian fells in winter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's my point.

The financial case for going DOO probably makes most sense on the rural lines. But these rural lines are where you really need the second safety-critical member of staff; the Ais Gill crash of 1995 (even with the mistakes made by the late guard) proved that much. The S&C, the Little North Western, the Esk Valley, they're all incredibly difficult to get access to. I wouldn't want to be on a train with only one member of safety staff on board up on the Cumbrian fells in winter.

Agreed. But there are others. I wouldn't, for example, have any issue with rural DOO on the likes of Ormskirk-Preston, Kirkby-Wigan, Southport-Wigan or any similar routes (though you'd need to go for TVMs and PFs to avoid fare dodging).

 

[northwichcat]

Revised train timetables for Friday now online. Replacement bus timetables to follow.

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/industrial-action

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Agreed. But there are others. I wouldn't, for example, have any issue with rural DOO on the likes of Ormskirk-Preston, Kirkby-Wigan, Southport-Wigan or any similar routes (though you'd need to go for TVMs and PFs to avoid fare dodging).

Still AB at Parbold so you can forget that one!

 

[kingqueen]

I dont think that Northern are really doing anything other than being a puppet for the DFT in this area . And in future franchises if the infrastructure upgrades that are needed take place the DFT will be looking to extend DCO and whichever franchise owner is in place then will be puppet for round two of the battle .

At the risk of discussing DOO/DCO in general; I would like to know why the Government is pushing DCO/DOO in concession and franchise agreements, and why in Northern in general.

I can understand why TOCs might want it, to save money and make logistics easier. But why the Government? Does it save them money in some way, e.g. subsidies? Did TOCs ask for it to be put into the agreement? Or does it chime with some Government policy or belief system?

And why Northern in particular? Have the Government said why they want 50% DCO/DOO in this franchise in particular?

I'd love to know, and as yet I've not managed to find this information. My apologies if I'm being inept; I'd be very grateful for being pointed to any existing post that explains this.

Thanks



Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because it's cheaper!

 

[Puffing Devil]

Revised train timetables for Friday now online. Replacement bus timetables to follow.

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/industrial-action

Does anyone know if ATW will be calling additionally on the Crewe-Picadilly, as per the last strike?

Answer from ATW
Yes (Hope this helps someone)

 

[northwichcat]

And why Northern in particular? Have the Government said why they want 50% DCO/DOO in this franchise in particular?

They've not justified the percentage but the reasons given were that from the consultation it was noted many passengers boarding at unstaffed stations were not given an opportunity to buy a ticket and that a number of passengers say there isn't a visible staff presence of the trains they travel on. So you could say the conductors who choose to remain in the rear cab, rather than go out and sell tickets and provide a visible staff presence, are partly responsible for the inclusion of DCO.

Of course the would be the option of TVMs at all stations or a ticket seller on the train as well as a guard but as Neil Williams has said DCO is a cheaper option.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

At the risk of discussing DOO/DCO in general; I would like to know why the Government is pushing DCO/DOO in concession and franchise agreements, and why in Northern in general.

I can understand why TOCs might want it, to save money and make logistics easier. But why the Government? Does it save them money in some way, e.g. subsidies? Did TOCs ask for it to be put into the agreement? Or does it chime with some Government policy or belief system?

And why Northern in particular? Have the Government said why they want 50% DCO/DOO in this franchise in particular?....

I can't give you a definitive answer, and I doubt you'd get one even if we had the right person to ask, but in my opinion it is everything to do with cost and revenue.

People spending more time charging the most they can for fares on the train means Northern get more money because that's where they get their profit from. But Northern also has one of, if not the highest subsidy from Government and so a reduction in the cost of the franchise (by raising fares and cutting costs) can reduce subsidy, which is of benefit to the Government.

Northern's staff FAQs have potentially given us some of the answers they have previously been unwilling to give, such as using existing guards to staff stations (possibly to answer the question of "more staffed stations"), and reducing the use of guards on trains according to whether the service is a connect/regional service (revenue and customer service only) or Local (revenue, customer service and "accessibility" on "some" services), adding that the role of the 'second person' could "potentially include emergency evacuation".

 

[Tetchytyke]

And why Northern in particular? Have the Government said why they want 50% DCO/DOO in this franchise in particular?

Two main reasons: DCO is cheaper (and Northern is heavily subsidised) and because the guard grade is heavily unionised and their union is the RMT.

The fact it is cheaper is the main driver: the McNulty Report was largely ignored at the time, but it said exactly what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it. But never underestimate the desire to give the RMT a bloody nose.

Anyone who says that DCO is the same as having a guard, and that it's just an argument about who closes the doors, is either an idiot or they're deliberately trying to deceive you.

As for the guff about "passengers welcoming the changes", well, who the hell is going to answer "no" if asked if they want to see more staff on board trains and at stations? The RDG and DfT would get a very different answer if they asked "do you want your safety-trained qualified guard replaced by an unqualified bloke with a card reader and a roll of receipt paper?". So they don't ask that.

 

[455driver]

You could have the doors driver-controlled on either of those, and indeed because ticketing is all done on board that would have some advantages. However, given the risks of the S&C (landslips etc) and the difficulty getting help to the train I would want a mandatory second safety-trained member of staff on board. Conwy Valley probably similar.

You wont get it, those routes will go DOO just like all the others, it might be 50% DOO now but that will only increase at the next franchise changeover time.

In case you havent noticed, Southern sent all their OBS a letter telling them they had to go to the doors before the train arrives at every station and look out to see if anyone needs their assistance which makes a mockery of the main point of the role which is dealing with people on board.

Whatever is proposed there will only be the driver on board within 10 years unless something is sorted out re disabled access.

 

[lejog]

Still AB at Parbold so you can forget that one!

DOO on Absolute Block sections have been discussed previously in this thread, with people giving examples e.g. Chiltern where there has been DOO on AB track. Also this was posted:

There is no absolute prohibition on DOO on Absolute Block lines.

which implies there may be some restrictions, but I haven't seen any details.

 

[FordFocus]

DOO on Absolute Block sections have been discussed previously in this thread, with people giving examples e.g. Chiltern where there has been DOO on AB track. Also this was posted:



which implies there may be some restrictions, but I haven't seen any details.

Where is there DOO on Absolute Block lines? The only place on Chiltern was Banbury South SB which was abolished last year but that controlled the station limits before TCB towards the south.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for the guff about "passengers welcoming the changes", well, who the hell is going to answer "no" if asked if they want to see more staff on board trains and at stations? The RDG and DfT would get a very different answer if they asked "do you want your safety-trained qualified guard replaced by an unqualified bloke with a card reader and a roll of receipt paper?". So they don't ask that.

But also ask them "would you like lower fares", "would you like fares not to go up as much" or "would you like to pay less tax to be spent on rail subsidy" and you may get a different answer again.

 

[craigybagel]

But also ask them "would you like lower fares", "would you like fares not to go up as much" or "would you like to pay less tax to be spent on rail subsidy" and you may get a different answer again.

Indeed. Can you name a time when DOO has resulted in lower fares?

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed. Can you name a time when DOO has resulted in lower fares?

TfL contactless fares are a lot cheaper on average than the paper ticket fares. Would the cheaper fares be available even if staffing levels had been maintained?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. Can you name a time when DOO has resulted in lower fares?

It is impossible to actually quantify that, but reduced cost will be passed on in some way (either as lower fares or lower subsidy and therefore taxes), particularly back in BR days when it wasn't about profit.

The Government won't let it just go on TOC profits.

 

[Robertj21a]

It is impossible to actually quantify that, but reduced cost will be passed on in some way (either as lower fares or lower subsidy and therefore taxes), particularly back in BR days when it wasn't about profit.

The Government won't let it just go on TOC profits.

Good point. Too easily overlooked by those who go on a rant about TOC profits/foreign owners etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good point. Too easily overlooked by those who go on a rant about TOC profits/foreign owners etc.

TOC profit margins are tiny overall compared with the profits the same companies make on commercial bus operation.

Take that issue out (as the Government as I say won't let them keep the spoils), and cutting costs is going to benefit at least some of the public financially, be it the farepayer or the taxpayer, or it may benefit the passenger in terms of investment in other areas like rolling stock, service increases, improved maintenance or whatever.

It's impossible to quantify down to "your ticket will be 10p cheaper" or "you'll get £10 more annual tax allowance" because the concepts of public spending are just too cloudy, but it's inconceivable that it won't benefit the public in some way or other.

 

[northwichcat]

Granada Reports talking to Bolton passengers claim they are favour of guards because disabled passengers need help to get on and off and because they want someone to keep them informed when things go wrong. One passenger did comment that he was in favour of the railways becoming most cost-effective.

As has been said before passengers don't understand the plan.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Granada Reports talking to Bolton passengers claim they are favour of guards because disabled passengers need help to get on and off and because they want someone to keep them informed when things go wrong. One passenger did comment that he was in favour of the railways becoming most cost-effective.

As has been said before passengers don't understand the plan.

I think they understand more than you think. Once that GUARANTEE is taken away companies can do almost what they like. The public are not stupid.

 

[northwichcat]

I think they understand more than you think. Once that GUARANTEE is taken away companies can do almost what they like. The public are not stupid.

The public aren't stupid so will make a logical presumption that 'driver only' means just that, not a customer service person replacing someone with safety training. While the union doesn't like the term DCO, introducing it was a clever move by DfT as to the public that suggests the driver is in charge not the driver is the only staff member on board. Although, unfortunately the media are saying what the RMT tell them to say and Northern are only giving very vague responses (probably as instructed to by DfT.)

 

[Stow]

Granada Reports talking to Bolton passengers claim they are favour of guards because disabled passengers need help to get on and off and because they want someone to keep them informed when things go wrong. One passenger did comment that he was in favour of the railways becoming most cost-effective.

As has been said before passengers don't understand the plan.

The DfT could always permit the TOC to retain guards and raise fares above inflation or keep the fares down and implement the current plan. This could then be consulted with the public, the outcome which ever way it went, would then have support.