Arriva Rail North DOO

[Dave1987]

Like I said already my opinion of train driver salaries was the same when I was in full time employment as it is now. I'm not one of those people who doesn't care about unemployed people unless they are unemployed or who thinks employed people can be screwed over because they are unemployed.

Higher salaries attract high numbers of very good quality candidates. If you artificially lower the salary then you will almost certainly get vast numbers of drivers quitting the industry. Also the numbers and quality of the applicants would drop considerably. Many extremely skilled people are being attracted to the railways and train driving because of the decent salaries. I think in your blind hatred you fail to understand the core concepts of why salaries are what they are. I doubt you actually understand the challenges that a driver has to deal with as part of their job.

 

[AlterEgo]

Given I know hotels have been fully booked months in advance of the last Friday before Christmas, it's quite absurd to think you could book a hotel a few days in advance when a strike is announced so you don't need to travel if the RMT are willing to consider strikes on such a date (which we know they are from their previous record.) Even if you find one of the few remaining rooms anywhere near the place required it'll cost a fortune at such short notice. It seems the one thing that isn't allowed in this thread is thinking logically. For an example re-read your own post - why the hell would it my fault that the RMT would call a strike on a specific date intended to cause maximum disruption?

@Bletchleyite has already beaten me to the punch and said everything I’d have said.

 

[theblackwatch]

Can I remind people of the subject of this thread. I have deleted some off topic messages.

 

[Tomnick]

OK let's say your right. RMT have tried that argument and the government are refusing to listen. What next continue strike action and alienate more passengers and lose money or better still accept DOO and when an accident happens contribute to the investigation. If your right he accident investigator will rule that a second critical guard is necessary. I know no one wants an accident to happen but its the only way to convince the government of your argument. Reality is this won't happen as its not about safety is it. Also they have guaranteed the role of guard in a new capacity so what's wrong with that?

If only it was that simple! The risk is relative. DOO isn't "dangerous", but I'd argue that the risks are generally greater than with conventional operation. That's acceptable in all walks of life - a higher risk can often be justified by cost savings, and there really is a "price on a life" for that sort of assessment. Passengers are certainly unlikely to directly see the benefits of the cost savings achieved - why should they accept being put at greater risk?

They have "guaranteed" jobs and current rates of pay for all current guards. That's not the same as guaranteeing the role itself, staffing levels generally or a presence on anything like every train that currently has one.

Are there any statistics on how many incidents similar to those detailed above have occurred since DOO was introduced on the network in 1983? The RMT needs to come up with some headline numbers.

I don't know if there are any suitable statistics. All I can point to is the frequency of RAIB investigations involving train dispatch. Over 80% involved DOO trains, despite such trains only making up around 30%-40% of the total. That seems significant. Even then, as with statistics that are occasionally released by TOCs (such as London Overground) to strengthen their case, it's difficult to make a fair comparison - in London Overground's case, the argument was that there were far fewer incidents (per passenger km or whatever it was) on the DOO ELL than there were on the (then, with guards) NLL...but, of course, there are all sorts of other factors at play, such as the age of the infrastructure, tightly curved platform, passenger numbers, risks associated with the types of trains, all sorts of things.

 

[Carlisle]

Higher salaries attract high numbers of very good quality candidates. If you artificially lower the salary then you will almost certainly get vast numbers of drivers quitting the industry. Also the numbers and quality of the applicants would drop considerably. Many extremely skilled people are being attracted to the railways and train driving because of the decent salaries. I think in your blind hatred you fail to understand the core concepts of why salaries are what they are. I doubt you actually understand the challenges that a driver has to deal with as part of their job.

Train driving is a niche profession, yes highly responsable and deserving a decent salary but as TOCs have very limited training capacity and it costs a small fortune over at least a year, its probably had the effect of increasing salaries higher than they might have been in the push for what they consider the best (or lowest risk of failure) recruits, don’t forget turnover was extremely low throughout BR times despite very poor wages and much longer qualifying periods before receiving a full drivers salary in comparison with today, and I wouldn’t be surprised if similar situations existed (probably some still do) on most of the worlds railways.

 

[the sniper]

Read what I said - I said most people can but they don't have to. Can the store manager in a supermarket justify why they are paid more than the cleaner in the same store? Of course they can. Arguing they can't would be ridiculous. What about the store manager of the supermarket earning more than a train cleaner? Of course they can. What about the store manager earning more than a station ticket office clerk? Again they can. What about the train driver earning more than the store manager? Harder to justify and it seems train drivers don't even want to bother trying. Then what about jobs which pay more than the store manager but less than a train driver?

This seems like a silly exercise... How can a store manager justify being paid more than the cleaner! Far more people would like to be a store manager than a cleaner, cleaning up vomit or poop... The cleaner should get more money!

Maybe we should measure store manager worth against train driver worth by considering how many people each can kill in one incident through negligence, mistakes or a lapse in concentration...? Which has the greatest opportunity to personally cause the biggest implications for their employer/industry? You could start by considering the financial implications and personal disruptive impact on many thousands of lives that can result from just the aftermath of having a harmless SPAD in the wrong place on the rail network during the morning peak... If the store manager suffers a lapse in concentration, pulls into his personal parking space at 8am and bumps into a bollard at 4mph it's inconsequential. Do that with a train at Kings Cross at the end of a night shift and all hell breaks loose...

Or maybe we shouldn't bother with this as it's a waste of time and off topic.

 

[ComUtoR]

Read what I said - I said most people can but they don't have to. Can the store manager in a supermarket justify why they are paid more than the cleaner in the same store? Of course they can. Arguing they can't would be ridiculous. What about the store manager of the supermarket earning more than a train cleaner? Of course they can. What about the store manager earning more than a station ticket office clerk? Again they can. What about the train driver earning more than the store manager? Harder to justify and it seems train drivers don't even want to bother trying. Then what about jobs which pay more than the store manager but less than a train driver?

You really don't have a clue.

As someone who has done both jobs mentioned here. I was a Retail Store Manager and I'm currently a Train Diver. I can assure you that driving a train certainly commands more remuneration on so many levels.

There is also a vast difference in skills. Comparing the two is pointless. You are also forgetting that there are many levels of 'Store Manager' The Manager of my local Tesco Metro store gets a good £10k more than me but other Store Managers get paid a pittance.

Basic retail managers vary quite considerably. I worked in 2 different sectors and saw a wide variety of salaries. Supermarket are very management heavy with extensive tiered systems with General Store Managers topping the scale and pushing north of £100k. There are various routes into retail management and many of the higher end stores offer various graduate programs; especially as their Managers tend to be a bit more qualified and have a fair bit of oversight and considerably more responsibility. The lower end and mainstream retail stores pay a pittance and the route up the ladder considerably easier. I started as a Stockroom boy and ended up in charge of a team of 60 and a two floor, champion store. I've seen salaries as little as £13k to £200k. I was working 70hr weeks as a Manager with little recognition and very little pay. I could have gone higher up the ladder but choose to leave the sector.

As a Train Driver my skills are more physical and mental. I do less hours but there are obscenely unsociable (note the time posted) I am responsible for the safety of 4/500+ people on a trip and a single mistake can cost lives. It weighs heavily. I am also in a job where I can potentially kill someone and my first week on the job a colleague killed a teenager who decided to sit on a foot crossing in the middle of the night. I also went through extensive training and assessments. Whilst that could be compared to a Graduate program neither job needs any previous qualification and can be wholly vocational. As a Train Driver I am also 100% pretty much all the time. I have very little downtime. I eat and pee when I am scheduled to do so. As a Manager I sat about in an office, downing tea like it was going out of business. Train driving is very constrained in what you are allowed to do.

The jobs are very different. I feel that I have much more responsibility as a Train Driver. I work a lot less hours than I ever did in retail but I have a lot less flexibility. Retail didn't pay and it would have taken a bit more dedication to push up to higher management and the beauty of being a Driver is that I get paid for what I do and that the way in which we are so constrained by the DRI and T&Cs etc means that I cannot be taken for a ride. It's been said before on this forum that Managers are expected to put in the hours for no reward and no overtime. Retail has some serious sharp practice. Train driving has less opportunity that retail and a decent Retail Manager can turn their hand to pretty much anything in their store which allows lateral movement within the sector. As a Driver I am almost limited to just being a Driver for the rest of my career; which in all honesty is something that many of us crave.

As to a job that paid more than a Store Manager but less than a Train Driver. I went from Manager to Multi-drop Driver. Multi-drop paid more

 

[northwichcat]

This seems like a silly exercise... How can a store manager justify being paid more than the cleaner! Far more people would like to be a store manager than a cleaner, cleaning up vomit or poop... The cleaner should get more money!

Maybe we should measure store manager worth against train driver worth by considering how many people each can kill in one incident through negligence, mistakes or a lapse in concentration...? Which has the greatest opportunity to personally cause the biggest implications for their employer/industry? You could start by considering the financial implications and personal disruptive impact on many thousands of lives that can result from just the aftermath of having a harmless SPAD in the wrong place on the rail network during the morning peak... If the store manager suffers a lapse in concentration, pulls into his personal parking space at 8am and bumps into a bollard at 4mph it's inconsequential. Do that with a train at Kings Cross at the end of a night shift and all hell breaks loose...

Or maybe we shouldn't bother with this as it's a waste of time and off topic.

So by your logic a train cleaner should be paid more than a guard and a guard should be paid more than a driver. After all who wants to deal with angry passengers or clean toilets on a cold train in the middle of the night when they could be sitting in a warm cab and left to get on with a nice job?

 

[northwichcat]

There's nothing more daft than getting wound up by other people's wage. It doesn't matter.

It's also a fair point, I think, that the driver's wage was agreed based on their current role whether you think it's deserved or not. Consequently any increase in responsibility or change in that role can reasonably contain negotiation for extra remuneration. The job pays what it does.

I could be a train driver, I would imagine. There's never any lack of drivers, managers and so on asking why I haven't done it already. The answer is I like the challenge of dealing with people and running my train.

If the idealised world of jcollins and Chris Grayling comes to pass and my role is reduced to walking up and down a train all day every day checking tickets someone has already bought on their phone, answering the odd question and deploying the wheelchair ramp while not being allowed to sit down or drink a cup of tea I might change my view. But as it stands the driver's money isn't enough to make me want to do that job.

I've posted on here loads of times I think the booked second member of staff on Northern services should have PTS training but I have no problem with drivers doing the doors. Yet again people who resist any form of change resort to making things up. As much as I hate Grayling I think some train crew members on here are much better at telling porkies.

 

[LowLevel]

I've posted on here loads of times I think the booked second member of staff on Northern services should have PTS training but I have no problem with drivers doing the doors. Yet again people who resist any form of change resort to making things up. As much as I hate Grayling I think some train crew members on here are much better at telling porkies.

I wish I could understand why people are obsessed with PTS training. It's a basic 2 day course. It doesn't cover train evacuation, route knowledge and so on. What's needed is a bespoke training package and generally speaking being a guard provides that. I can't think of anything in my training that I would like to strip out.

 

[pompeyfan]

I wish I could understand why people are obsessed with PTS training. It's a basic 2 day course. It doesn't cover train evacuation, route knowledge and so on. What's needed is a bespoke training package and generally speaking being a guard provides that. I can't think of anything in my training that I would like to strip out.

If the DfT are serious in what they say, and the new OBS role is here to static What about keeping all guards training as is, including dispatch?

Going back to cabin crew, are LCC airlines actually that poorly paid? That puts them below the national minimum wage to potentially be on a 2am flight to a party island full of idiots.... I can’t see people sticking with that.

 

[northwichcat]

I wish I could understand why people are obsessed with PTS training. It's a basic 2 day course. It doesn't cover train evacuation, route knowledge and so on. What's needed is a bespoke training package and generally speaking being a guard provides that. I can't think of anything in my training that I would like to strip out.

Having not done it I don't know exactly what it involves but it seems the RMT think that a second member of staff with PTS training is the most important thing. Apparently guards don't have to do first aid training, which I think is stupid given a small office in a fixed place must have a trained first aider but a moving train doesn't need one.

 

[LowLevel]

Having not done it I don't know exactly what it involves but it seems the RMT think that a second member of staff with PTS training is the most important thing. Apparently guards don't have to do first aid training, which I think is stupid given a small office in a fixed place must have a trained first aider but a moving train doesn't need one.

I agree. Our train managers do have first aid training (which is sensible as they have kitchens on their trains) but people who don't work services with hot catering don't. Station supervisors used to but they don't either now. I've had a few medical incidences to deal with and luckily I used to work for the NHS who gave all staff a degree of basic medical training so I've just cracked on with it. However not every one has that confidence.

 

[theblackwatch]

Due to people continuing to go off topic by using this thread to discuss salaries in relation to other jobs, I have deleted a few posts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. Our train managers do have first aid training (which is sensible as they have kitchens on their trains) but people who don't work services with hot catering don't. Station supervisors used to but they don't either now. I've had a few medical incidences to deal with and luckily I used to work for the NHS who gave all staff a degree of basic medical training so I've just cracked on with it. However not every one has that confidence.

Agreed. I would go so far as to require by law that where staff deal with customers (in any context) the immediate attendance of a trained First Aider must be possible. On a train that means the traincrew.

 

[Robertj21a]

Agreed. I would go so far as to require by law that where staff deal with customers (in any context) the immediate attendance of a trained First Aider must be possible. On a train that means the traincrew.

Does that include buses and taxis ?

 

[muz379]

I wish I could understand why people are obsessed with PTS training. It's a basic 2 day course. It doesn't cover train evacuation, route knowledge and so on. What's needed is a bespoke training package and generally speaking being a guard provides that. I can't think of anything in my training that I would like to strip out.

Completely agree with this . PTS training with no route knowledge and no training in actions to take in the event that an uncontrolled evacuation occurs or an emergency evacuation is required is pointless. Your route knowledge tells you about location specific hazards, who the controlling signaller is and under what rules the line is signalled which is very important when dealing with an emergency evacuation . Even PWAY gangs have to have a location brief before they start work .

The thing is once you have designed a system so that the second member of train crew can be taught and tested periodically on their route knowledge , taught and tested periodically on their knowledge about emergency evacuations you might as well teach and test them on dispatching trains as well .

Apparently guards don't have to do first aid training, which I think is stupid given a small office in a fixed place must have a trained first aider but a moving train doesn't need one.

I agree , but this is what happens when you let planners and accountants take over . It would cost too much in their eyes to release all guards for 3 days to attend a first aid course and a yearly refresher .

 

[gavin]

Next round of 24hr strikes announced for May 9th

 

[northwichcat]

Next round of 24hr strikes announced for May 9th

I notice it one day of strike action against Northern and Anglia in May, while multiple days against SWR. There's a rumour posted on wnxx that one Northern depot said if the RMT called 3 or more days of strikes between their pay days again that they wouldn't take part.

 

[driver_m]

I've not looked at this thread for a while. Looks like the same hamsters are spinning the same wheels in the cage. So what I will do is ask a question. When are the drivers of northern expecting to get asked to change their t&C's to do DOO/get DOO imposed on them, now that the new trains are on the way and the 319s are established in service?

 

[northwichcat]

now that the new trains are on the way and the 319s are established in service?

I thought 319s, like Sprinters and 333s, would only run with guards because they don't have DOO cameras and Northern aren't installing the platform based DOO equipment which 319s would require.

 

[driver_m]

I thought 319s, like Sprinters and 333s, would only run with guards because they don't have DOO cameras and Northern aren't installing the platform based DOO equipment which 319s would require.

That's not answering the question, I just stated the 319s are now in service. Anyone able to answer the question instead of trying to divert it?

 

[Domh245]

That's not answering the question, I just stated the 319s are now in service. Anyone able to answer the question instead of trying to divert it?

Why mention the 319s at all then? They aren't DOO operated at Northern, nor are they intended to be. It'd be like asking if SWR are going to start talking to the RMT about their plans now that they've stickered up most of their train fleet - it's completely irrelevant.

 

[driver_m]

Because they intended to use it on some 319 routes when it was first mooted, that's why.

 

[northwichcat]

That's not answering the question, I just stated the 319s are now in service. Anyone able to answer the question instead of trying to divert it?

I quoted part of the post because it sounded like you were suggesting 319s would run as DOO and given they are in passenger service DOO could start immediately with more DOO when Civities enter service, opposed to DOO not being able to start until at least when the Civities enter service.

To be honest, I think you've asked a question which you probably know has no definite answer as I don't think Northern have even met with ASLEF to discuss DOO, the only reason there's a dispute is because the RMT know it's in the franchise agreement so wanted to start industrial action against it at the earliest opportunity.

 

[driver_m]

I'll ask the question again. When are the drivers getting it out to them to do DOO?

 

[northwichcat]

Because they intended to use it on some 319 routes when it was first mooted, that's why.

The 319 routes are changing in May and will change again before the December 2019 timetable change, so it sounds like you may have added 2 and 2 and got 5.

 

[Chester1]

That's not answering the question, I just stated the 319s are now in service. Anyone able to answer the question instead of trying to divert it?

No one can answer fully because we don't know when Northern plan to introduce it. They could start it when the 195s and 331s start to enter service this December or when the franchise spec says they have to by December 2019. If its the former they will force the issue soon, if its the latter then they don't need to do anything for another year or so. None of the current units will run DOO.

 

[LowLevel]

I've not looked at this thread for a while. Looks like the same hamsters are spinning the same wheels in the cage. So what I will do is ask a question. When are the drivers of northern expecting to get asked to change their t&C's to do DOO/get DOO imposed on them, now that the new trains are on the way and the 319s are established in service?

As late as humanly possible. They don't want a lengthy draw out debate with ASLEF. Months yet most likely if not into next year.

 

[driver_m]

Intriguing responses. Very intriguing. Especially after some of the conversations I've had with Northern staff.