Arriva Rail North DOO

[HH]

Source?

I bet you wondered how I knew...

 

[313103]

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.

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

 

[XDM]

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.

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.

 

[HH]

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.

 

[43074]

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.

The only organisation who 'want' DOO in the industry appears to be the DfT, and that's only because they care more about money and politics than they do the safety of the railway. The DfT are more of a liability to the industry than anything or anyone else, they seem willing to destroy it at all costs.

Operationally speaking there is no difference between DOO and DCO, the fluffy all singing and dancing customer service people are only there so there are no job losses in the short term which make for better press releases, long term there will be no-one and that is most definitely the DfT's aim.

 

[NSEFAN]

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.

 

[lejog]

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.

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.

 

[HH]

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.

You're correct; there is limited scope for enacting these savings within the scope of the current franchise agreement.

 

[Phil.]

I doubt they will.

The guard grade is history.

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.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its just a repeat of the way the unions fought tooth and nail to try and maintain a second man in the Drivers cab on the 125 saying it was unsafe to go over 100mph with just one driver.

 

[bb21]

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.

I don't think his assertion is far from what the DfT (and the government, whoever is in power) ultimately aspire to. That much most people can quite easily see. Asking for proof of something like this is a bit daft. No government will be stupid enough to put that on paper, but that doesn't mean it is not obvious what their intentions are.

How far they go down that route and take the fight is a huge unknown.

As for pros and cons of DOO, whether it's a sign of advancement or backwardness, please keep it in that dedicated thread.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

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.

DCO is the same as DOO. There is no difference. The definition of DCO in the Northern franchise agreement is exactly the same as DOO. What Cross Country has is not DCO, CrossCountry has crew operation as a Guard is required. The use of the term DCO came about during the Northern franchise process to try and pull the wool over people's eyes and make them believe it is something it isn't. It does not mean, for example, that there has to be somebody else on the train at all.

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.

 

[bahnause]

The rail industry led by DFT do want full DOO as in other advanced countries, ....

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.

 

[lejog]

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.

I really do not want to repeat this argument, but your supposition that there is a list of DCO services which do not need to have another staff member (which you admit you have no hard evidence for) is clearly ruled out by what is unequivocally stated before the redacted list.

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.

Para 18.1 is the timetable for the introduction of DCO. No ifs or buts, the train crew diagrams for DCO services shall include a second member of staff. Your supposed list, if it existed, would immediately contradict this.

 

[BestWestern]

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.

The fight is to retain Guards in the current role. Nobody is asking for gold pocket watches and mandatory beards. How much focus was there on PTI risk when TCB and continuous brakes were first introduced, do you think? Read about some recent accidents and near misses before you swallow the idea that a second crew member able to deal with emergencies is redundant.

 

[pemma]

I bet you wondered how I knew...

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?

 

[XDM]

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.

 

[pemma]

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...

So having a second member of staff available to help a disabled passenger board at an unstaffed station is the same as not having one? The RMT come up with some real garbage some time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The fight is to retain Guards in the current role.

And yet the RMT ignores that while Northern will introduce DCO they will introduce a significant number of additional services and that all TPE services will have guards (even the new additional services.) If the number 1 priority for the RMT is keeping their members in the same job role then surely the first point of call is to find out the number of guards both franchises expect to require on 1st January 2020 and compare that with the number currently employed.

 

[HowardGWR]

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.

See first emboldening. Put that right for you. Don't worry, many do it. It takes but a moment to google it (and Okehampton and Newton Abbot and ..........). It's what I do for all those strange northern places.
See my second emboldening. I didn't realise that you were in charge of all driver contracts for all the TOCs in the UK, or possibly that you are the official spokesman for ATOC?

 

[lejog]

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?

The question of whether Northern's sprinter fleet can even be upgraded to DCO has been asked before on this thread, but remains unanswered. Also there there was an earlier claim that signalling would limit DCO introduction.

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;

So come on those who claim to have sources that Northern are to move towards 100% DCO, educate us. Can 30 year old Sprinters be upgraded for DCO and is it economically feasible to do so? Is DCO even possible on the sections of the network without TCB signalling?

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.

 

[pemma]

The question of whether Northern's sprinter fleet can even be upgraded to DCO has been asked before on this thread, but remains unanswered.

I imagine it could be done for a price but whether it can be done for it's economically viable, given the age of the trains, is a different question.

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.

Agreed. If there is any plan for 100% DCO I imagine it's nothing more than a DfT proposal for a future Northern franchise opposed to a contract between DfT and Arriva for the current franchise.

 

[HH]

I apologise; I misunderstood what I was told, it's only a particular 'Business Unit' that will have to go 100% DCO this Franchise.

 

[FordFocus]

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 Northern Connect services with the new rolling stock I presume then

DCO... DOO tis the same thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Whilst it may not have come into passenger services, freight services has suffered from creeping casualisation. Think Colas, West Coast and Rail Ops Group now providing zero hour contract drivers. DB Cargo are shedding 300 drivers to compete. There other factors mainly with collapse of coal but the numbers of casual drivers are increasing.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

DB Cargo are shedding 300 drivers to compete. There other factors mainly with collapse of coal but the numbers of casual drivers are increasing.

Will these DB Cargo drivers that you mention be in a situation where they can easily relocate to TOCs said to be in need of drivers?

 

[XDM]

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 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.

 

[Class 170101]

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?

 

[Domh245]

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?

If I had to assign routes for DOO, the more logical choices would be Manchester Piccadilly - Glossop/Hadfield/Manchester Airport/Wilmslow (possibly also Stoke/Crewe as well) and the West Yorkshire metro services. They are all fairly comparable to the bread and butter DOO operations around London.

 

[HH]

The Northern Connect services with the new rolling stock I presume then

Actually no. I don't pretend to understand the logic. As it's not 100% until 2023 I presume new stock must be involved though.

 

[lejog]

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?

As I asked this morning. The Calder Valley line is currently in the middle of a signalling upgrade, so I would expect will be converted to 100% TCB by the time the Northern Connect services start.

 

[BestWestern]

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.

Many would disagree with you, and would point to the increasing level of work being taken from DB by other operators (the massive expansion of Colas being an example frequently given), and question the degree to which EWS/DB have fought to remain competitive and guard their position as the industry leader over the years. The suggested blind faith in the core traffic of coal and steel and the belief that anything else wasn't worth the trouble, along with a questionable approach to efficient rolling stock management, would seem to have brought the downfall that some predicted.