Arriva Rail North DOO

[hairyhandedfool]

The third point needs clarification. If it's a case of trains could have just a driver on board then even if there's no staff shortage then the RMT could claim Northern plan to break the franchise agreement. Although, conversely agreeing to a Scotrail type deal would also be a breach of the franchise agreement....

I'll prove some quotes here, but finding further briefings on the staff website is not entirely easy, infact I don't think they could have made it harder if they tried, and of course there is a certain amount of, how should I say, sugar coating.



"RMT is not prepared to move away from wanting guarantees of a second employee on all trains and the safety competence they will hold, which is something we cannot offer."



"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."



"After some lengthy discussion, this proposal was not acceptable to RMT because Northern is not able to guarantee a second person on every single train in future. It is this condition from the RMT that is getting in the way of us being able to hold talks."



"We want to agree to a second person on many trains, just not all, as we want to explore staffing options, with RMT, where there may not be a need for a second person on-board."

....If I was a guard I want to know more about the second to last point. It'd be one thing working 60% of services as a guard and 40% as a 'second member of staff', it would be another thing working 100% of services as a 'second member of staff.' For clarification I mean some trained guards no longer working as guards, not Northern moving to 100% DCO.

I think there may well be a separation of grades here, it'd probably make life easier for the company. Then gradually Guards can be whittled down and some sort of OBS grade gradually increased to pick up the slack.

 

[Moonshot]

I'll prove some quotes here, but finding further briefings on the staff website is not entirely easy, infact I don't think they could have made it harder if they tried, and of course there is a certain amount of, how should I say, sugar coating.



"RMT is not prepared to move away from wanting guarantees of a second employee on all trains and the safety competence they will hold, which is something we cannot offer."



"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."



"After some lengthy discussion, this proposal was not acceptable to RMT because Northern is not able to guarantee a second person on every single train in future. It is this condition from the RMT that is getting in the way of us being able to hold talks."



"We want to agree to a second person on many trains, just not all, as we want to explore staffing options, with RMT, where there may not be a need for a second person on-board."



I think there may well be a separation of grades here, it'd probably make life easier for the company. Then gradually Guards can be whittled down and some sort of OBS grade gradually increased to pick up the slack.

What really shouldnt happen long term is the cancellation of a service because of the abscence of a guard or whatever the role is called in the future.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

What really shouldnt happen long term is the cancellation of a service because of the abscence of a guard or whatever the role is called in the future.

Oh I agree, in an ideal world, but I don't think getting rid of Guards is the way to deal with that issue. If the train companies (for which I can really only comment on one) didn't waste so much money of irrelevant "managers", and excessive "directors", they could probably afford more Guards which would reduce the problem, it might even allow for more revenue to be taken.

 

[Moonshot]

Oh I agree, in an ideal world, but I don't think getting rid of Guards is the way to deal with that issue. If the train companies (for which I can really only comment on one) didn't waste so much money of irrelevant "managers", and excessive "directors", they could probably afford more Guards which would reduce the problem, it might even allow for more revenue to be taken.

Currently it requires 2 staff for a service to run. The driver is fundamental to that happening....the guard isnt...thats the reality. Having customer facing staff to reduce revenue loss ( you already mentioned Northern are missing revenue targets ) would seem a rational thing to do. What does happen now is that sometimes you can find 3 staff on board ...driver, guard and a fare collector only.

The waste on managers and the like is not really relevant here...though I agree there is some deadwood in the system

 

[LowLevel]

It's all well and good in the very very short term but what about in 5 years time when the publically declared intention is to have done away with the tangerine ticket if at all possible? Bereft of their safety responsibility to clean up the dying years of cash you're suddenly going to find it very hard to justify a comparatively large number of revenue and customer service staff on a decent wage.

It's very rare to see an NS conductor for example actually selling many tickets now they've gone on to OV-Chipkaart smartcards.

It'll be perfectly fine and rational for a few years - except that as the revenue duties reduce the safety ones won't come back.

 

[Moonshot]

It's all well and good in the very very short term but what about in 5 years time when the publically declared intention is to have done away with the tangerine ticket if at all possible? Bereft of their safety responsibility to clean up the dying years of cash you're suddenly going to find it very hard to justify a comparatively large number of revenue and customer service staff on a decent wage.

It's very rare to see an NS conductor for example actually selling many tickets now they've gone on to OV-Chipkaart smartcards.

It'll be perfectly fine and rational for a few years - except that as the revenue duties reduce the safety ones won't come back.

5 years ago nobody knew that Arriva North would be taking on significant numbers of drivers and guards today !! A lot can happen in 5 years.....including intoducing technology which replaces safety critical tasks.....detonators being one of them.

 

[Robertj21a]

Oh I agree, in an ideal world, but I don't think getting rid of Guards is the way to deal with that issue. If the train companies (for which I can really only comment on one) didn't waste so much money of irrelevant "managers", and excessive "directors", they could probably afford more Guards which would reduce the problem, it might even allow for more revenue to be taken.

They are 'irrelevant managers and excessive directors' only in your personal view, where you may not be fully aware of their tasks and responsibilities. The company clearly feels that they are needed.
Surely, they're not arguing about the cost of guards as such, their point is that they simply aren't needed on *every* train ?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

They are 'irrelevant managers and excessive directors' only in your personal view,...

Quite possibly.

where you may not be fully aware of their tasks and responsibilities....

Probably, though I doubt they add much that is 'new'.

The company clearly feels that they are needed....

Clearly, though when you can't, offhand, think of many weekly vacancy lists since the start of the franchise (16 months ago now) that doesn't have a £40K+ manager vacancy on it, it might seem to be getting a bit out of hand.

Surely, they're not arguing about the cost of guards as such, their point is that they simply aren't needed on *every* train ?

Erm.... You don't actually believe that last part do you?.... Care to name one Northern route which has full ticketing facilities and revenue protection at every station call? There certainly can't be many.

 

[313103]

Surely, they're not arguing about the cost of guards as such, their point is that they simply aren't needed on *every* train ?

Even a person that is as thick as i am, knows it is ALL about cost and if they aint needed on every train, why have them at all?

The idea is to bring DOO in slowly tell the Guards they are ok, no need to worry, once its in it will spread like wildfire with the company at every stage (along with members of this group) saying well we have got it working successfully on route a-b, so we will introduce it on route c-d and so on and so on 'i dont know what your issues are'! just like the arguments played out on the Southern dispute thread.

 

[Robertj21a]

Probably, though I doubt they add much that is 'new'.



Erm.... You don't actually believe that last part do you?.... Care to name one Northern route which has full ticketing facilities and revenue protection at every station call? There certainly can't be many.

They are probably not there to provide 'new', senior management/directors are there to ensure compliance, direction, strategy etc etc

I don't claim to know the Northern routes. You'll need to explain to me why every station has to have full ticketing facilities and revenue protection - my gut reaction tells me that there are alternative solutions.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I don't claim to know the Northern routes. You'll need to explain to me why every station has to have full ticketing facilities and revenue protection - my gut reaction tells me that there are alternative solutions.

Alternative solutions? I'm sure we're all ears!

In the meantime tell me how you deal with a passenger whose disability is such that they can barely say the name of their destination and hand over their purse to the guard to do the monetary necessities. When you make ticketing dependent on technology the only way such people can travel independently is to be granted completely free travel at all times. Now that might well be seen as the right way forward regardless of DOO or ticketing technology but I won't be holding my breath waiting for it. And in some areas if you start to do away with the on-board staff presence completely then you will soon find that travel is free at all times for everyone. There are enough such problems now without creating more in the future.

Some of the younger technophiles may dream of a future when most of life's activities can be achieved without having to interact with another real person but when it comes to delivering good customer service it's face-to-face contact that does the job best. If we were serious about improving customer service on our railways we would be talking about increasing the number of front-line staff, not doing away with them.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

They are probably not there to provide 'new', senior management/directors are there to ensure compliance, direction, strategy etc etc....

Based on some of the job titles, I'm not so sure that's true, but I think we will have to agree to disagree here.

.... You'll need to explain to me why every station has to have full ticketing facilities and revenue protection - my gut reaction tells me that there are alternative solutions.

Person 1 arrives at Station A, there is a card only TVM, they don't have a bank card, but do have enough cash to pay the fare. They board a train without a ticket, there is no guard or revenue person on board. They leave the train at Station B and find there is no facilities to purchase a ticket.

Person 2 arrives at Station A, the same card only TVM is present, but they have no intention of buying a ticket if they can avoid it. They board a train without a ticket, there is no guard or revenue person on board. They leave the train at Station C, with full revenue barrier in operation, and claim to have travelled from Station B.

Person 3 arrives at Station C, the fully manned station, and buys a ticket to station D, also fully manned, costing a pound or two. They head through the barrier, board a train (travelling in the opposite direction) and travel to Station A, with just the card only TVM and no-one to check tickets.

Person 4 joins the train at Station C, having already travelled from another station with no ticketing facilities at all. They get off the train at Station D and join the queue of people waiting at the barrier to buy a ticket.

But even if we assume all station have full facilities there is always 'doughnutting' and similar activities. Now I'm not saying Guards are perfect, but they are much better than nothing at all.

 

[AngelicUpstart]

Based on some of the job titles, I'm not so sure that's true, but I think we will have to agree to disagree here.



Person 1 arrives at Station A, there is a card only TVM, they don't have a bank card, but do have enough cash to pay the fare. They board a train without a ticket, there is no guard or revenue person on board. They leave the train at Station B and find there is no facilities to purchase a ticket.

Person 2 arrives at Station A, the same card only TVM is present, but they have no intention of buying a ticket if they can avoid it. They board a train without a ticket, there is no guard or revenue person on board. They leave the train at Station C, with full revenue barrier in operation, and claim to have travelled from Station B.

Person 3 arrives at Station C, the fully manned station, and buys a ticket to station D, also fully manned, costing a pound or two. They head through the barrier, board a train (travelling in the opposite direction) and travel to Station A, with just the card only TVM and no-one to check tickets.

Person 4 joins the train at Station C, having already travelled from another station with no ticketing facilities at all. They get off the train at Station D and join the queue of people waiting at the barrier to buy a ticket.

But even if we assume all station have full facilities there is always 'doughnutting' and similar activities. Now I'm not saying Guards are perfect, but they are much better than nothing at all.

All of which already happens far too often on trains with guards whose job includes revenue collection. The guards will often comment that they didn't have the time to do a revenue sweep because they were too busy doing the doors. So a second person with revenue responsibility but no control of the doors is surely a more sensible solution that all stations with ticket offices and barriers and thousands of additional staff!

 

[craigybagel]

Currently it requires 2 staff for a service to run. The driver is fundamental to that happening....the guard isnt...thats the reality. Having customer facing staff to reduce revenue loss ( you already mentioned Northern are missing revenue targets ) would seem a rational thing to do. What does happen now is that sometimes you can find 3 staff on board ...driver, guard and a fare collector only.

The waste on managers and the like is not really relevant here...though I agree there is some deadwood in the system

If you think your own job is so pointless then why don't you resign? After all, all you seem to do is talk the whole role down....

 

[LowLevel]

All of which already happens far too often on trains with guards whose job includes revenue collection. The guards will often comment that they didn't have the time to do a revenue sweep because they were too busy doing the doors. So a second person with revenue responsibility but no control of the doors is surely a more sensible solution that all stations with ticket offices and barriers and thousands of additional staff!

But why does this also have to entail almost total removal of all the other guard's responsibilities and what happens in the future when suddenly the current high demand on time for revenue duties is reduced?

As I say - it's a great idea for the railway of the next couple of years and bears next to no relevance to the proposed railway beyond that.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

All of which already happens far too often on trains with guards whose job includes revenue collection. The guards will often comment that they didn't have the time to do a revenue sweep because they were too busy doing the doors. So a second person with revenue responsibility but no control of the doors is surely a more sensible solution that all stations with ticket offices and barriers and thousands of additional staff!

Northern have already indicated they want some trains with no second person at all and that was the point I was addressing here.

EDIT: In addition I should add, that where a second person is provided by Northern, it would, apparently, be part of their job to assist, what's the latest PC wording?, persons with additional requirements. So they'd have to go to the doors at every stop anyway. If they are going to do that, why not atleast let them close the doors? That way the driver can safely know the second person is still onboard when the train goes.

Why isn't this acceptable? Because the company and the DfT can't slowly get rid of them, that's why.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's perhaps notable in the above context that while some of the modern tram systems have or have had conductors on every tram, on none of the systems do the conductors operate the doors.

 

[LowLevel]

It's perhaps notable in the above context that while some of the modern tram systems have or have had conductors on every tram, on none of the systems do the conductors operate the doors.

I suppose that depends which camp you put the DLR in

 

[Moonshot]

If you think your own job is so pointless then why don't you resign? After all, all you seem to do is talk the whole role down....

Why would I resign ? I m getting paid a basic £27k or so for working a 4 day week ? Its a great job for time off, and the work isnt difficult....a 35 hour week isnt all working trains. I fully expect to be doing this role in 10 years time. I do accept however that the role may well have to adapt to become a far more customer facing role, a common complaint from passengers ( who are the most important element of the whole shooting match ) is that they want staff visibilty on trains.

 

[northwichcat]

EDIT: In addition I should add, that where a second person is provided by Northern, it would, apparently, be part of their job to assist, what's the latest PC wording?, persons with additional requirements. So they'd have to go to the doors at every stop anyway. If they are going to do that, why not atleast let them close the doors? That way the driver can safely know the second person is still onboard when the train goes.

Would the assistance vary depending on the station called at? On one service I was on the station staff at Stockport assisted a wheelchair bound passenger on to the train and then the station staff at Manchester Piccadilly assisted him off without any guard involvement. At other stations (both staffed and unstaffed) the guard is involved in assisting disabled passengers get on and off the train. Could it be the plan for the 'second member of on board staff' to go to the doors at stations without platform staff but not at stations with platform staff?

 

[Moonshot]

Would the assistance vary depending on the station called at? On one service I was on the station staff at Stockport assisted a wheelchair bound passenger on to the train and then the station staff at Manchester Piccadilly assisted him off without any guard involvement. At other stations (both staffed and unstaffed) the guard is involved in assisting disabled passengers get on and off the train. Could it be the plan for the 'second member of on board staff' to go to the doors at stations without platform staff but not at stations with platform staff?

Thats a possibiity......I also note that as part of the Bolton revamp, RA indicators are being installed on platform signals, though they are not being commissioned for a while.

 

[northwichcat]

Person 1 arrives at Station A, there is a card only TVM, they don't have a bank card, but do have enough cash to pay the fare. They board a train without a ticket, there is no guard or revenue person on board. They leave the train at Station B and find there is no facilities to purchase a ticket.

Person 2 arrives at Station A, the same card only TVM is present, but they have no intention of buying a ticket if they can avoid it. They board a train without a ticket, there is no guard or revenue person on board. They leave the train at Station C, with full revenue barrier in operation, and claim to have travelled from Station B.

Person 3 arrives at Station C, the fully manned station, and buys a ticket to station D, also fully manned, costing a pound or two. They head through the barrier, board a train (travelling in the opposite direction) and travel to Station A, with just the card only TVM and no-one to check tickets.

Person 4 joins the train at Station C, having already travelled from another station with no ticketing facilities at all. They get off the train at Station D and join the queue of people waiting at the barrier to buy a ticket.

But even if we assume all station have full facilities there is always 'doughnutting' and similar activities. Now I'm not saying Guards are perfect, but they are much better than nothing at all.

If a pound shop found out on average 5 items per hour were being stolen by shoplifters, then that information alone wouldn't provide a good case for employing a security cost who would cost more than £5 an hour. It's possible train operators think using the same logic e.g. ensuring every person ending their journey at Manchester Piccadilly has paid is more cost effective than providing a cash and card TVM at a station like Ashley.

 

[313103]

Why would I resign ? I m getting paid a basic £27k or so for working a 4 day week ? Its a great job for time off, and the work isnt difficult....a 35 hour week isnt all working trains. I fully expect to be doing this role in 10 years time. I do accept however that the role may well have to adapt to become a far more customer facing role, a common complaint from passengers ( who are the most important element of the whole shooting match ) is that they want staff visibilty on trains.

Wow i do love your optimism, You are currently getting paid a basic of £27,000 that is good however once your safety critical duties are withdrawn do not expect to get a annual salary pay increase. Once you are out of your role as Guard you get new terms and conditions and whilst they cannot reduce your current income the company will say you are not safety critical so the role is not going to get a pay increase until others who were not Guards in your grade catch up to you.

4 day week will go because that is the agreement on your now former role, the new role may not have the same rostering parameters you currently have as a Guard. So a 4 day week is not guaranteed. A 35 hour is protected so no issue there. I keep hearing on hear that the railways are not a job creation scheme so i think you are wildly optimistic to be doing exactly the same job as you do now in 10 years time, even those former guards who stayed on in customer facing roles on London Overground are having wide scale changes being made to their terms and conditions despite them being in the role only 4 years.

I would seriously consider for you to look at what other companies have done since DOO has been introduced in areas that were previously Guard operated and ask the staff on the ground, i think you will find it isn't as rosy as the picture you and others paint.

 

[Moonshot]

If a pound shop found out on average 5 items per hour were being stolen by shoplifters, then that information alone wouldn't provide a good case for employing a security cost who would cost more than £5 an hour. It's possible train operators think using the same logic e.g. ensuring every person ending their journey at Manchester Piccadilly has paid is more cost effective than providing a cash and card TVM at a station like Ashley.

The actual figure for non collected fare revenue across the network is estimated to be around £34 million per year......that really is food for thought!!

 

[Moonshot]

Wow i do love your optimism, You are currently getting paid a basic of £27,000 that is good however once your safety critical duties are withdrawn do not expect to get a annual salary pay increase. Once you are out of your role as Guard you get new terms and conditions and whilst they cannot reduce your current income the company will say you are not safety critical so the role is not going to get a pay increase until others who were not Guards in your grade catch up to you.

4 day week will go because that is the agreement on your now former role, the new role may not have the same rostering parameters you currently have as a Guard. So a 4 day week is not guaranteed. A 35 hour is protected so no issue there. I keep hearing on hear that the railways are not a job creation scheme so i think you are wildly optimistic to be doing exactly the same job as you do now in 10 years time, even those former guards who stayed on in customer facing roles on London Overground are having wide scale changes being made to their terms and conditions despite them being in the role only 4 years.

I would seriously consider for you to look at what other companies have done since DOO has been introduced in areas that were previously Guard operated and ask the staff on the ground, i think you will find it isn't as rosy as the picture you and others paint.

50% of services will not be DOO......thats part of the franchise terms. I m not worried at all.

 

[northwichcat]

50% of services will not be DOO......thats part of the franchise terms. I m not worried at all.

It's at least 50% of mileage that will be DCO, which means converting semi-fast services is the easiest way of reaching that figure and retaining as many guards in guard roles as possible. However, that agreement is only valid until 2025 and if, for some reason, Arriva are stripped of the franchise then that figure could change sooner than 2025. That's something the unions seem to forget with the Southern dispute - a replacement franchise could be let on even worse terms.

 

[Sprinter153]

50% of services will not be DOO......thats part of the franchise terms. I m not worried at all.

From my reading of the agreement, at least 50% of passenger train mileage per reporting period will need to be DOO. At least.

I don't think they'll stop at 50% out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[northwichcat]

From my reading of the agreement, at least 50% of passenger train mileage per reporting period will need to be DOO. At least.

I don't think they'll stop at 50% out of the goodness of their hearts.

Going much over 50% may not be possible unless there's significant changes to the fleet plan e.g. I doubt anyone is going to want to fund making the 150s suitable for DOO.

 

[Moonshot]

From my reading of the agreement, at least 50% of passenger train mileage per reporting period will need to be DOO. At least.

I don't think they'll stop at 50% out of the goodness of their hearts.

In thoery 100% of services could have doors opened and closed by technology rather than the driver or guard.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Would the assistance vary depending on the station called at? On one service I was on the station staff at Stockport assisted a wheelchair bound passenger on to the train and then the station staff at Manchester Piccadilly assisted him off without any guard involvement. At other stations (both staffed and unstaffed) the guard is involved in assisting disabled passengers get on and off the train. Could it be the plan for the 'second member of on board staff' to go to the doors at stations without platform staff but not at stations with platform staff?

At stations that have the staff to do it, yeah, there's a possibility that the train crew won't need to help, but what about where there isn't? Do the revenue staff stop selling or checking tickets to help out? What happens where the station is unmanned?

If a pound shop found out on average 5 items per hour were being stolen by shoplifters, then that information alone wouldn't provide a good case for employing a security cost who would cost more than £5 an hour. It's possible train operators think using the same logic e.g. ensuring every person ending their journey at Manchester Piccadilly has paid is more cost effective than providing a cash and card TVM at a station like Ashley.

Whilst a pound shop might think that way, and it might be logical, I don't think the railway is in the same league, even if you use the, probably too low, 'official' figures.

.... Once you are out of your role as Guard you get new terms and conditions and whilst they cannot reduce your current income the company will say you are not safety critical so the role is not going to get a pay increase until others who were not Guards in your grade catch up to you....

Whilst I agree with a lot of the rest of your post I must pick this up. One of the supposed guarantees was a basic pay rise in line with other employees. This, however, will just be on the basic pay and, in all likelihood, sales commission and extras will probably disappear, overtime might even change to 'time served' rather than any sort of enhanced rate, Sundays being part of the working week could be put in if it isn't there already, etc, etc.

50% of services will not be DOO......thats part of the franchise terms. I m not worried at all.

I believe the franchise stipulates a minimum (mileage) of DCO rather than the other way round, so in all likelihood, that's less than 50% of non-DCO.