Source?
I bet you wondered how I knew...
Source?
100% is the ultimate aim, within the life of the franchise.
I don't think anyone should be in any doubt about what DfT are after here. I don't know what Arriva bid, but if I were in their shoes I'd have been looking to make the following savings from DCO in order to help win the franchise:
1. Reduce the cover ratio as I can still run the train if the Guard goes missing;
2. Consider whether the Guard needs to be on the service throughout its entire journey, given that I have ticket barriers at many stations; and
3. Consider, taking into account footfall, whether further routes could also be part-covered; these last two could save diagrams on some routes, due to less "downtime".
None of these are huge changes and could be introduced gradually, just like the DCO, and therefore there would be no compulsory redundancies. This would save 30%+ of the staff, easily, and is what DfT are looking for.
What the DFT are really after is this (despite them not actually saying it directly) complete DOO with the Guard grade illuminated with the resulting members of staff out of the company, the illumination of rail unions firstly the RMT. The ultimate aim of the dft is complete casualisation of the rail industry.
Can you tell me if DCO is the same as DOO and if it isnt what are the differences?
What the DFT are really after is this (despite them not actually saying it directly) complete DOO with the Guard grade eliminated with the resulting members of staff out of the company, the ellimination of rail unions firstly the RMT. The ultimate aim of the dft is complete casualisation of the rail industry
Prove your assertion that dft want complete casualisation of drivers. There is no evidence & it is nonesensical. The rail industry led by DFT do want full DOO as in other advanced countries, but your wierd comment about illumination of the RMT is RMT drivel & more nonsense.
It would seem that DCO is a term to describe DOO where there may be a second member of staff on board (who isn't critical to the operation of the train). This isn't what Cross Country has, since they require a guard for dispatch.Theoretically DOO is Driver Only, whereas DCO is Driver-controlled. DOO is therefore like you see on Thameslink, whereas DCO is like you see on Cross Country. However there are shades of grey in areas where the DfT would say it's DCO and the RMT would say DOO. It's a bit like potatoe/pottato... The main issue is whether you need a safety critical second man on board - as long as that's the case your guard has powerful leverage in negotiations; if it goes then he's more of a ticket examiner (like in much of ScotRail).
Elimination is spelt like this. The DfT don't want guards, they want ticket examiners or train managers, depending on the service. There will still be staff on many services, but less and less well paid in many cases. That's very definitely their vision.
100% is the ultimate aim, within the life of the franchise.
I don't think anyone should be in any doubt about what DfT are after here. I don't know what Arriva bid, but if I were in their shoes I'd have been looking to make the following savings from DCO in order to help win the franchise:
1. Reduce the cover ratio as I can still run the train if the Guard goes missing;
2. Consider whether the Guard needs to be on the service throughout its entire journey, given that I have ticket barriers at many stations; and
3. Consider, taking into account footfall, whether further routes could also be part-covered; these last two could save diagrams on some routes, due to less "downtime".
None of these are huge changes and could be introduced gradually, just like the DCO, and therefore there would be no compulsory redundancies. This would save 30%+ of the staff, easily, and is what DfT are looking for.
The Franchise Agreement specifies that Northern have to submit a staff plan with 100% of trains having a second member of staff and also to provide "all reasonable endeavours" for a second member to be present on all trains. This certainly rules out your proposals 2&3, and bearing in mind the legal definition of "all reasonable endeavours" (see post #104) Northern's scope for implementing 1 is limited.
I doubt they will.
The guard grade is history.
Prove your assertion that dft want complete casualisation of drivers. There is no evidence & it is nonesensical. The rail industry led by DFT do want full DOO as in other advanced countries, but your wierd comment about illumination of the RMT is RMT drivel & more nonsense.
Can you tell me if DCO is the same as DOO and if it isnt what are the differences?
What the DFT are really after is this (despite them not actually saying it directly) complete DOO with the Guard grade eliminated with the resulting members of staff out of the company, the ellimination of rail unions firstly the RMT. The ultimate aim of the dft is complete casualisation of the rail industry
Theoretically DOO is Driver Only, whereas DCO is Driver-controlled. DOO is therefore like you see on Thameslink, whereas DCO is like you see on Cross Country. However there are shades of grey in areas where the DfT would say it's DCO and the RMT would say DOO. It's a bit like potatoe/pottato... The main issue is whether you need a safety critical second man on board - as long as that's the case your guard has powerful leverage in negotiations; if it goes then he's more of a ticket examiner (like in much of ScotRail).
Elimination is spelt like this. The DfT don't want guards, they want ticket examiners or train managers, depending on the service. There will still be staff on many services, but less and less well paid in many cases. That's very definitely their vision.
It would seem that DCO is a term to describe DOO where there may be a second member of staff on board (who isn't critical to the operation of the train). This isn't what Cross Country has, since they require a guard for dispatch.
So you claim to be in possession of commercially confidential information about the scope of DCO operation, but seem to be unaware of information in the public domain about the second staff member?
The Franchise Agreement specifies that Northern have to submit a staff plan with 100% of trains having a second member of staff and also to provide "all reasonable endeavours" for a second member to be actually present on all trains. This certainly rules out your proposals 2&3, and bearing in mind the legal definition of "all reasonable endeavours" (see post #104) Northern's scope for implementing 1 is limited.
As far as I know, DOO in other countries (Germany, Switzerland) is based on a different approach concerning the role and the responsibility of the driver. So the comparison doesn't work.The rail industry led by DFT do want full DOO as in other advanced countries, ....
And I don't see anywhere where it actually says that Northern have to have 100% of trains having a second member of staff at all. I know what the franchise agreement says, and I know how people are interpreting it, but the devil is in the detail, and the detail has been redacted. It says there is a list of DCO services where a second member of staff should be planned for. My reasoning is that by the fact that there is a list saying which DCO services have to plan to have another member of staff, then there is an opposite list which are the DCO services which do not need to have another staff member. I know others disagree with that interpretation, but it does not say categorically that there has to be 100% coverage and until such time as the redacted parts of that section of the franchise become public, then I shall remain highly sceptical.
Where in accordance with paragraph 18.1 , a Passenger Service is operated as Driver Controlled Operation the Franchisee shall, in preparing the train crew diagram relating to such Passenger Service plan for an additional Franchise Employee (that is, in addition to the driver) to be present on such Passenger Service for the purposes of customer service and/or revenue control.
So why won't people accept it? As soon as TCB and continuous brakes were introduced that was the end of the Guard in the traditional role.
I bet you wondered how I knew...
Theoretically DOO is Driver Only, whereas DCO is Driver-controlled. DOO is therefore like you see on Thameslink, whereas DCO is like you see on Cross Country. However there are shades of grey in areas where the DfT would say it's DCO and the RMT would say DOO. It's a bit like potatoe/pottato...
The fight is to retain Guards in the current role.
The assertion a few posts back that DFT want casualisation of the driver grade is backed by no evidence at all & is just a poster's attempt to frighten drivers. One of the rulings after the West Coast Rail Company dreadful SPAD at Wootton Bassett was that they must stop using zero hour contracts for their drivers. It is unfair of 313 to frighten drivers with the spectre of casualisation. It would be a nightmare to manage any big railway like Arriva north with a casual driver work force. And it would quite rightly be opposed by ASLEF. Guards,or OBS staff,or despatchers like 313,might well be casualised to a minor extent. But drivers are at the core if the railway. Please drivers be assured that casualisation of your jobs is not on the agenda. It is scaremongering. If someone,or 313,could point to a tiny hint of it in any DFT document or speech or the Arrive North franchise documents I would eat 313's hat.
You must be Chris Grayling then.
So how is this 100% DOO going to be achieved. Are they going to fit DOO equipment to diesel trains that will be 40 years old when the franchise ends? Has there be a revision to replace all Sprinters with brand new stock post-2019?
DOO can only be implemented on continuously track circuited lines signalled under TCB I believe - so that's a lot of the Northern network out;
The question of whether Northern's sprinter fleet can even be upgraded to DCO has been asked before on this thread, but remains unanswered.
Northern seem to be struggling with upgrades to stock and infrastructure to which they are committed (Sprinter refurbishment and platform lengthening), taking on extra work for 100% DCO doesn't make that much sense to me.
I apologise; I misunderstood what I was told, it's only a particular 'Business Unit' that will have to go 100% DCO this Franchise.
The assertion a few posts back that DFT want casualisation of the driver grade is backed by no evidence at all & is just a poster's attempt to frighten drivers. One of the rulings after the West Coast Rail Company dreadful SPAD at Wooton Bassett was that they must stop using zero hour contracts for their drivers. It is unfair of 313 to frighten drivers with the spectre of casualisation. It would be a nightmare to manage any big railway like Arriva north with a casual driver work force. And it would quite rightly be opposed by ASLEF. Guards,or OBS staff,or despatchers like 313,might well be casualised to a minor extent. But drivers are at the core if the railway. Please drivers be assured that casualisation of your jobs is not on the agenda. It is scaremongering. If someone,or 313,could point to a tiny hint of it in any DFT document or speech or the Arrive North franchise documents I would eat 313's hat.
DB Cargo are shedding 300 drivers to compete. There other factors mainly with collapse of coal but the numbers of casual drivers are increasing.
DB Cargo are shedding 300 drivers to compete. There other factors mainly with collapse of coal but the numbers of casual drivers are increasing.
I appreciate people don't want DOO but of Northern's routes which ones could be converted to DOO?
I thought lack of Track Circuit Block signalling prevented DOO to start with so presumably thats all routes across the Pennine Chain served by Northern out of the question for a start?
The Northern Connect services with the new rolling stock I presume then
I appreciate people don't want DOO but of Northern's routes which ones could be converted to DOO?
I thought lack of Track Circuit Block signalling prevented DOO to start with so presumably thats all routes across the Pennine Chain served by Northern out of the question for a start?
DB Cargo are shedding 300 drivers to SURVIVE. DB's coal,steel & oil traffic has collapsed. It is a catastrophe,no way DB's fault & due to external factors. I have asked a colleague & been told Colas do NOT use zero hour contracts for their drivers,although it is second hand info. There is no plan to make any TOC passenger drivers zero hours.