Arriva Rail North DOO

[Bletchleyite]

To me that sounds like he was saying he didn't think trains with just a driver on board would happen, opposed to driver only operation.

Indeed, "someone on the train with a ticket machine" can do that job far, far more efficiently if they don't have to do the doors than if they do.

Several of the modern tram systems have some kind of conductor, none of whom operate doors.

 

[Andyh82]

Another laughable RMT press release, why do they have to use all the over the top language “Attacks” “German owned” “demand” “eye watering” etc etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another laughable RMT press release, why do they have to use all the over the top language “Attacks” “German owned” “demand” “eye watering” etc etc.

I agree, this kind of 1980s-style drivel does not further their cause.

 

[johntea]

Transdev now offering free bus travel between Leeds and Harrogate during the strikes if you have a rail ticket...although I think it is a clever marketing ploy for the 36 rather than just being generous!

 

[scrapy]

If the RMT won't discuss which services are suitable for DCO/DOO operation with Northern then how do they know how many services would operate without a guard? There's a lot of different ways 50% of passenger mileage can be achieved - one return working between Manchester Airport and Windermere would incur a greater number of passenger miles than 4 return workings between Manchester and Rose Hill Marple.

When the company sat down with the unions at the start of the dispute they gave the union reps a network map and said we want to consult what routes should be DCO. They gave them a highlighter pen and asked them to highlight the 50% of the routes they thought should be DCO. Of course the union reps didn't highlight any (if they did they'd be saying they agreed to DCO). The management claimed at this point they had no idea what routes would be DCO and it was up to the unions to come up with a proposal.

As we know the 50% DCO is based on passenger mileage not routes covered so wasn't really an attempt to come to a solution, more a game playing exercise to see if the RMT would pick any routes out. From what im told there hasn't actually been a serious attempt by the company either to discuss what routes could be DCO and no proposal has ever put to the RMT to discuss. I also find it hard to believe that in late 2016 Arriva had no idea whatsoever which routes it intended to operate DCO.

I agree with Eccles1983 that it is surely the company's job to come up with proposals and then discuss them with the unions.

From what I'm hearing the RMT are willing to make concessions including giving up full door control (both release and closing) on 50% of mileage the understanding that there is a fully safety trained guard (including PTS) on every train and they have full route knowledge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From what I'm hearing the RMT are willing to make concessions including giving up full door control (both release and closing) on 50% of mileage the understanding that there is a fully safety trained guard (including PTS) on every train and they have full route knowledge.

While that doesn't offer the financial benefits, there would be a very good case for doing that operationally particularly on rural lines, though the difficulty is that the DOO-capable stock isn't going to go on the rural lines.

 

[pemma]

When the company sat down with the unions at the start of the dispute they gave the union reps a network map and said we want to consult what routes should be DCO. They gave them a highlighter pen and asked them to highlight the 50% of the routes they thought should be DCO. Of course the union reps didn't highlight any (if they did they'd be saying they agreed to DCO). The management claimed at this point they had no idea what routes would be DCO and it was up to the unions to come up with a proposal.

As we know the 50% DCO is based on passenger mileage not routes covered so wasn't really an attempt to come to a solution, more a game playing exercise to see if the RMT would pick any routes out. From what im told there hasn't actually been a serious attempt by the company either to discuss what routes could be DCO and no proposal has ever put to the RMT to discuss. I also find it hard to believe that in late 2016 Arriva had no idea whatsoever which routes it intended to operate DCO.

While we know it'll be routes which become DCO will get the 195s and 331s, given all the 158s will be refurbished to 'Connect standard' and there's some flexibility as to which Manchester and Liverpool area routes get 331s and which get 319s it's probably not as set in stone as it might appear as first glance. However, I don't think either side are being 100% open and honest so the claim they have 'no idea' was probably a TOC tactic because they anticipated what the union tactic would be.

 

[FordFocus]

Have Northern decided what routes the 195s and 331s are operating on yet? If not then picking 50% passenger mileage is pointless until they've finalised the plan of the only DOO capable stock they are receiving. I accept that electrification delays has meant slight changes.

 

[pemma]

Have Northern decided what routes the 195s and 331s are operating on yet? If not then picking 50% passenger mileage is pointless until they've finalised the plan of the only DOO capable stock they are receiving. I accept that electrification delays has meant slight changes.

A recent tweet from Northern said the first routes to get new trains would be Chester-Leeds, Manchester Airport-Windermere and Manchester Airport-Blackpool. When people responded asking about other routes the responses from Northern indicated other routes were still tbc. However, Northern haven't said all services on those routes will be operated by new trains and while it would be controversial they could introduce the new trains and then move them to other routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A recent tweet from Northern said the first routes to get new trains would be Chester-Leeds, Manchester Airport-Windermere and Manchester Airport-Blackpool. When people responded asking about other routes the responses from Northern indicated other routes were still tbc. However, Northern haven't said all services on those routes will be operated by new trains and while it would be controversial they could introduce the new trains and then move them to other routes.

Isn't it essentially going to be the case that all trains operated by the new stock will be DOO (possibly with an OBS type person on board), and none with existing stock as they do not have the facility to be operated DOO?

 

[pemma]

Isn't it essentially going to be the case that all trains operated by the new stock will be DOO (possibly with an OBS type person on board), and none with existing stock as they do not have the facility to be operated DOO?

From what I've heard both the 195s and 331s will have the facility to be operated with or without a guard. There are also the options for part of routes to be DOO or for routes to be DOO between certain times of the day possibly Leeds-Chester being DOO but the services which run to Ellesmere Port instead or which make calls between Warrington Bank Quay and Chester having a guard west of Warrington, alternatively possibly Manchester Airport to Blackpool being DOO but the last train having a guard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the last train having a guard.

Like with Merseyrail, though, if the reason for this is antisocial behaviour, a couple of "rent a thug" security guards would probably be better than, and cost the same as, a single railway guard.

 

[Loop & Link]

The thing is you call these security staff “rent-a-thug” but surely it would be better to have someone more professional, patrolling such trains!

You are advocating actually having more staff for such trains (ok probably zero-hours, minimum wage) which I don’t understand when you may as well keep the member of staff that’s already doing the job!

I’d love there to be some sort of compromise overall, even for me, the issue of the doors should fall by the wayside, it’s a non-issue as far as I’m concerned but a second member of safety-critical staff performing customer service duties would be ideal for me. I will get the usual disagreements on this, but the usefulness of that second person is something I see daily, had a guard contact me over lost property that someone had approached them over and we both worked together to successfully reunite the owner with it, small things like that but it would be a shame to lose this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is you call these security staff “rent-a-thug” but surely it would be better to have someone more professional, patrolling such trains!

You are advocating actually having more staff for such trains (ok probably zero-hours, minimum wage) which I don’t understand when you may as well keep the member of staff that’s already doing the job!

The problem with this is that the existing member of staff may on their own not feel in a position to leave the cab due to their own safety.

I’d love there to be some sort of compromise overall, even for me, the issue of the doors should fall by the wayside, it’s a non-issue as far as I’m concerned but a second member of safety-critical staff performing customer service duties would be ideal for me. I will get the usual disagreements on this, but the usefulness of that second person is something I see daily, had a guard contact me over lost property that someone had approached them over and we both worked together to successfully reunite the owner with it, small things like that but it would be a shame to lose this.

I think this - a kind of super-OBS - may prove a sensible outcome for Northern, particularly given the amount of on-board fare collection that is done. The irony, however, is that the services most in need of this kind of concept (the rural branches and some Manchester suburbans where fare dodging is rife and TVMs would be vandalised within hours of being installed) are the ones that won't get it as they will continue to use ex-BR stock without cameras. Though it might well be feasible to retrofit ex-BR stock for driver open, guard close, and I would fully support that change being implemented across the entire national network (except where it wasn't viable to modify how SDO worked for it).

 

[whitrope69]

I often hear selective quotes that 30% of the network is already DOO/DCO, the industry has had DOO since 1985 blah blah blah. However it cannot be overlooked that the rail industry is very different and much busier than those early schemes and therefore probably not a direct comparison to what has gone before. I whole heartedly agree with Loop & Link that we need a second competent person on each Northern service and retrospectively applied to every train including those which are currently DOO. Who has control of the doors is a secondary issue to that of passenger safety.

 

[Loop & Link]

It is nice to be in agreement (for once)! @Bletchleyite

I’ve said before, it’s no secret i’m Anti-DOO but, I think there’s a successful compromise to be made, if the TOC’s and RMT work together, and make concessions, if the RMT are still clinging onto the “doors” issue, it’s a waste of time! There are many, many things a second person on the train can be utilised in doing!

 

[Robertj21a]

It is nice to be in agreement (for once)! @Bletchleyite

I’ve said before, it’s no secret i’m Anti-DOO but, I think there’s a successful compromise to be made, if the TOC’s and RMT work together, and make concessions, if the RMT are still clinging onto the “doors” issue, it’s a waste of time! There are many, many things a second person on the train can be utilised in doing!

The RMT has been banging on about Doors - Fat Cats - Tories - Germans - being 'attacked' and just about everything under the sun. I doubt that their stance will change until the ordinary membership oust some of those at the top

 

[Bletchleyite]

The RMT has been banging on about Doors - Fat Cats - Tories - Germans - being 'attacked' and just about everything under the sun. I doubt that their stance will change until the ordinary membership oust some of those at the top

Quite. There is a sensible debate to be had here, but the RMT by and large appear not to be engaging in it.

 

[LowLevel]

It is nice to be in agreement (for once)! @Bletchleyite

I’ve said before, it’s no secret i’m Anti-DOO but, I think there’s a successful compromise to be made, if the TOC’s and RMT work together, and make concessions, if the RMT are still clinging onto the “doors” issue, it’s a waste of time! There are many, many things a second person on the train can be utilised in doing!

So long as you accept that in actual fact a certain quantity of the guard's job on Northern (and basically most other former Regional Railways routes) following the removal of station staff over the last 60 years actually is platform based and really with people moving up and down to get on and off and the crew member needing to visit the platform at every stop to see what's what anyway, these much banged on about extra minutes with the passengers are going to turn out to be neglible

 

[IanXC]

From what I'm hearing the RMT are willing to make concessions including giving up full door control (both release and closing) on 50% of mileage the understanding that there is a fully safety trained guard (including PTS) on every train and they have full route knowledge.

That might suggest agreement is not that far off. It would be a very strange situation if the agreement the DfT have allowed Southern to reach with ASLEF was not acceptable on Northern.

 

[Carlisle]

That might suggest agreement is not that far off. It would be a very strange situation if the agreement the DfT have allowed Southern to reach with ASLEF was not acceptable on Northern.

A fully route/pts trained guard (not operating doors) on every train or its cancelled is going to be considerably less flexible even than the Southern OBS system (doesn’t require detailed route knowledge and train can run completely DOO under certain conditions) so probably wouldn’t be acceptable to the DFT

 

[IanXC]

A fully route/pts trained guard (not operating doors) on every train or its cancelled is going to be considerably less flexible even than the Southern OBS system (doesn’t need detailed route knowledge and train can run completely DOO under certain conditions) so probably wouldn’t be acceptable to the DFT

They are at least not diametrically opposed though!

 

[Robertj21a]

That might suggest agreement is not that far off. It would be a very strange situation if the agreement the DfT have allowed Southern to reach with ASLEF was not acceptable on Northern.

But surely, that's not what Southern agreed with ASLEF ?

 

[IanXC]

But surely, that's not what Southern agreed with ASLEF ?

Its not the same, but take a read, its not on the same page, but its at least in the same library.

Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

 

[Carlisle]

They are at least not diametrically opposed though!

Yes, If the will was there on all sides, I’m sure something fairly close to the Southern deal could solve all the current DOO disputes tomorrow.

 

[pompeyfan]

Yes, If the will was there on all sides, I’m sure something fairly close to the Southern deal could solve all the current DOO disputes tomorrow.

Disagree, RMT will continue to oppose any train that runs in passenger service without a 2nd member of crew, for the fear that something may happen on that service, and also for fear that the government then has the ability to go back on that agreement whenever it wants to.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I’m sure something fairly close to the Southern deal could solve all the current DOO disputes tomorrow.

Except the Southern dispute which goes on. Unfathomably. I do agree the solution will be along those lines. Except perhaps Merseyrail, which looks more like London Underground to many.

 

[Carlisle]

Except the Southern dispute which goes on. Unfathomably. I do agree the solution will be along those lines. Except perhaps Merseyrail, which looks more like London Underground to many.

i agree

 

[ivanhoe]

Is there a norm on European Railways in respect of DOO or is it a mixed bag?

 

[agbrs_Jack]

If a lot of services don't run for whatever reason safety will be a concern. Maybe XC stopping more services at Congleton would reduce safety concerns as passengers wouldn't all have to crowd on to the same peak time service which usually stops there?

No-one seems concerned about Arriva buses being full to maximum capacity due to carrying rail passengers as well.

I know this is an old post but I've had some 'interesting' conversations with northern via Twitter DMs regarding extra XC stops at Congleton on strike days.

There's the same process every time;
1. Not our problem, ask CrossCountry (In a polite and understanding way to be fair)
*Upon asking XC they say; 'Not our problem, northern need to ask us.' (Which I believe is correct)
2. We'll pass this to our train planning team. (I thank them and wait)
3. After no response from them I chase it up and get; 'This has not been possible'
when i ask why I get 'Requests for extra calls have been rejected by the planning team.'

Then the strike day comes around and I see many ATW and EM making additional calls.
Most frustrating is ATW making additional calls at Sandbach - Which isn't served by ATW at all...

This happens every time - I was at Congleton station for 10 minutes to pick up some tickets last strike day and I had to turn away 4 groups of people because they had no idea (no info - no staff) - Ridiculous!