Arriva Rail North DOO

[387star]

It’s rather different to that since the TL core will require a qualified driver at the controls throughout, even when ATO goes live. I’m sure you’re fully aware of that, despite that somewhat loaded comment.

I know you and others on here aspire to minimal staffing and “guard only operation” autonomous trains. Let’s see how that goes over the next few decades given that even the tube isn’t approaching driverless yet and unlikely to for quite some time. Many years, in fact. HS2 hasn’t even been built yet, but will still have drivers (and hopefully a second person on board, even if only an OBS or similar) ...

I suspect you and I, as 30 somethings now, will both be geriatric, or 6 feet under by the time autonomous mainline trains are in mainstream use. Should I remain in this job long term I fully expect to be able to take an autonomous car to work in future (not that I want one of those) in order to drive a train under ATO or, most likely, still manually.

Mark my words .

Haha excellent post

 

[Robertj21a]

I can’t argue at all with any of that. You’ve got it spot on, however, as I’ve said before, the moment the RMT officially recognise the OBS grade, they give the DfT sufficient rope to hang themselves. The DfT will say to them “you’ve accepted OBS on X franchise, you’ve got no reason to accept it on Y, Z and A franchises”

That said there is no coming back from the setup on Southern for the RMT and it’s members.

Plus, as I have said many times, there is no evidence of any demand for Union recognition from those OBS more recently recruited externally (many of whom may have never been members of any union)

 

[Bromley boy]

Plus, as I have said many times, there is no evidence of any demand for Union recognition from those OBS more recently recruited externally (many of whom may have never been members of any union)

You do seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet about this point. I’m not exactly sure what evidence you expect.

I am a member of rail staff, not previously in a union, who joined aslef upon joining the railway because the benefits of doing so are very obvious.

I know dozens of people who have also joined the railway from “off the street” and have joined a union for the first time. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone in an operational railway role who isn’t in a union and I know scores of operarional rail staff.

Therefore there’s absolutely no reason to imagine that newly recruited OBSs wouldn’t also join a union if it were possible to do so, (so long as they could see benefits to doing so if course) and it is remiss of the RMT not to offer them this in my view.

I take the point others have made that there are difficulties accepting the role while in dispute elsewhere - I wonder if there’s some way they recognise it “under protest”, so to speak.

 

[Robertj21a]

You do seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet about this point. I’m not exactly sure what evidence you expect.

I am a member of rail staff, not previously in a union, who joined aslef upon joining the railway because the benefits of doing so are very obvious.

I know dozens of people who have also joined the railway from “off the street” and have joined a union for the first time. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone in an operational railway role who isn’t in a union and I know scores of operarional rail staff.

Therefore there’s absolutely no reason to imagine that newly recruited OBSs wouldn’t also join a union if it were possible to do so, (so long as they could see benefits to doing so if course) and it is remiss of the RMT not to offer them this in my view.

I take the point others have made that there are difficulties accepting the role while in dispute elsewhere - I wonder if there’s some way they recognise it “under protest”, so to speak.

I accept my 'bee in bonnet' but only keep repeating it as others on here keep making an assumption that the new OBS actually want to be in a union !

 

[FlashingYellows]

Aren’t you rather simplistically comparing a government underwriten TOC employee, to one in the commercial sector who clearly has to take account of their respective competition before embarking on a lengthy dispute, if they want to guarantee the same job at the end of it .

Noticeable that you reply ignoring the other points made. Very few outside of the railway are able to address the problems DOO throws up, sure they'll shout but it's used elsewhere, but time and time again fail to answer the issues raised by those expected to work these services and continually ignore the experience of those who have for many years. I truly don't know how some people can continue to bang their heads against the wall with this topic, but fair play to those who try...

As for Aslef accepting it, Southern took a couple of goes and that's somewhere it was already in place, I wouldn't fancy the chances of a successful vote on any proposal Aslef may manage to put forward, if of course they can get that far.

 

[northwichcat]

Noticeable that you reply ignoring the other points made. Very few outside of the railway are able to address the problems DOO throws up, sure they'll shout but it's used elsewhere, but time and time again fail to answer the issues raised by those expected to work these services and continually ignore the experience of those who have for many years. I truly don't know how some people can continue to bang their heads against the wall with this topic, but fair play to those who try...

As for Aslef accepting it, Southern took a couple of goes and that's somewhere it was already in place, I wouldn't fancy the chances of a successful vote on any proposal Aslef may manage to put forward, if of course they can get that far.

Surely as ASLEF, Northern and DfT are all aware of how the Southern dispute played out it should be easier for all sides to come to agreement.

 

[Robertj21a]

Noticeable that you reply ignoring the other points made. Very few outside of the railway are able to address the problems DOO throws up, sure they'll shout but it's used elsewhere, but time and time again fail to answer the issues raised by those expected to work these services and continually ignore the experience of those who have for many years. I truly don't know how some people can continue to bang their heads against the wall with this topic, but fair play to those who try...

As for Aslef accepting it, Southern took a couple of goes and that's somewhere it was already in place, I wouldn't fancy the chances of a successful vote on any proposal Aslef may manage to put forward, if of course they can get that far.

I guess you feel that ASLEF won't agree under any circumstances and no amount of money would change their mind ?

Excellent, there's not many who would hold out with such a principled stance......

 

[FlashingYellows]

Surely as ASLEF, Northern and DfT are all aware of how the Southern dispute played out it should be easier for all sides to come to agreement.

Comparing apples to oranges, the situations are very different. I may be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if it played out the same way.

 

[FlashingYellows]

I guess you feel that ASLEF won't agree under any circumstances and no amount of money would change their mind ?

Excellent, there's not many who would hold out with such a principled stance......

What is the figure? 28.5% over 5 years as on Southern who already had DOO? With RPI running at around 4% that's only a 8.5% increase for something which currently doesn't exist and vastly degrades the job, does it really take principle to see through that? If money is the only attraction, there's plenty of TOCs locally already offering that and lets not forget that this forum never fails to tell drivers how well they're already paid.

I can't say what ASLEF could put forward, given they're against it and the membership appears almost unanimous, I find it really difficult to see an acceptable proposal, I may well be wrong.

The questions of operational difficulties staff on here continually highlight still remain unanswered, but that's come to be expected.

 

[northwichcat]

Comparing apples to oranges, the situations are very different. I may be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if it played out the same way.

While I accept the disputes are different there TOCs can learn from what Southern did or didn't do and ASLEF can learn from what TOCs are and aren't willing to accept as compromises.

 

[woodmally]

Comparing apples to oranges, the situations are very different. I may be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if it played out the same way.

What is the difference then between the north and the south. I dont see it myself.

 

[woodmally]

The DfT also say that this is about modernising the Railway, it’s not, it’s about smashing the unions, it’s about trying to increase profits and it’s about sticking two fingers up to disabled people along the way.

DCO is all well and good while the 2nd member of staff is able to make the train, but the moment disruption occurs the passengers are on their own, at the time they need someone the most.

Also, does it not make you feel more comfortable that there’s someone there to assist the driver in the multitude of incidents that happen, with suitable training to deal with most events? An OBS is currently just a ticket sales person that can (just about) check connections on their smart phone. I know multiple guards that have got down to the track to deal with all manner of incidents.

Ok lets say your right. The strikes are not working and they are not going to bring about a repeal of DOO. As for what would happen if such an event occured. Well they would have to be an investigation and if you are correct that a second crew member is needed then the investigators will recommend it and they will get the guard restored. However what you need to remember though is that Northern have agreed to the second member of staff being retained but in a new role. So its still unlikely such an event would occur where passengers are on their own.

 

[Bromley boy]

While I accept the disputes are different there TOCs can learn from what Southern did or didn't do and ASLEF can learn from what TOCs are and aren't willing to accept as compromises.

GTR are a very different operation to Northern, many GTR metro depots are entirely DOO already. A lot of (most?) mainline GTR drivers may have driven DOO metro services at some point in the past so there may be more of a cultural acceptance of DOO from the drivers’ perspectives down south.

Are any northern services currently DOO?

 

[cactustwirly]

GTR are a very different operation to Northern, many GTR metro depots are entirely DOO already. A lot of (most?) mainline GTR drivers may have driven DOO metro services at some point in the past so there may be more of a cultural acceptance of DOO from the drivers’ perspectives down south.

Are any northern services currently DOO?

No, all Driver & Guard operated.

 

[woodmally]

GTR are a very different operation to Northern, many GTR metro depots are entirely DOO already. A lot of (most?) mainline GTR drivers may have driven DOO metro services at some point in the past so there may be more of a cultural acceptance of DOO from the drivers’ perspectives down south.

Are any northern services currently DOO?

Your right none of Northern are DOO I believe.

 

[pompeyfan]

Ok lets say your right. The strikes are not working and they are not going to bring about a repeal of DOO. As for what would happen if such an event occured. Well they would have to be an investigation and if you are correct that a second crew member is needed then the investigators will recommend it and they will get the guard restored. However what you need to remember though is that Northern have agreed to the second member of staff being retained but in a new role. So its still unlikely such an event would occur where passengers are on their own.

Northern are proposing exactly the same setup as southern, a 2nd member of staff ROSTERED to each train, that means to say that if there is disruption or short notice sickness their control team want to run the service DOO.

Northern are being very quiet as to what competencies these 2nd crew members will hold.

You also didn’t answer the question as to if the training of a guard makes you feel safer in the event of any number of issues that can happen on the network.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern are proposing exactly the same setup as southern, a 2nd member of staff ROSTERED to each train, that means to say that if there is disruption or short notice sickness their control team want to run the service DOO.

If the driver is in charge of the doors and dispatch the service is DOO regardless of how many other staff members are on board, which is why the RMT talking about DOO services is misleading as the public want a visible staff presence opposed to caring who is in charge of the doors and it would be possible to increase on board staffing levels at the same time as introducing DOO.

 

[Robertj21a]

If the driver is in charge of the doors and dispatch the service is DOO regardless of how many other staff members are on board, which is why the RMT talking about DOO services is misleading as the public want a visible staff presence opposed to caring who is in charge of the doors and it would be possible to increase on board staffing levels at the same time as introducing DOO.

The sooner everybody gets away from this blinking DOORS issue the better. If there's a safety concern then fine, let's identify what that is - but the media (and others) just harp on about doors, doors, doors. The general public don't care about who operates the doors !

 

[pompeyfan]

If the driver is in charge of the doors and dispatch the service is DOO regardless of how many other staff members are on board, which is why the RMT talking about DOO services is misleading as the public want a visible staff presence opposed to caring who is in charge of the doors and it would be possible to increase on board staffing levels at the same time as introducing DOO.

The sooner everybody gets away from this blinking DOORS issue the better. If there's a safety concern then fine, let's identify what that is - but the media (and others) just harp on about doors, doors, doors. The general public don't care about who operates the doors !

You’re both preaching to the converted, I know exactly what DOO/DCO entails, the arguments for and against, and I remain solely in the camp of guard operated passenger services.

 

[Bromley boy]

If the driver is in charge of the doors and dispatch the service is DOO regardless of how many other staff members are on board, which is why the RMT talking about DOO services is misleading as the public want a visible staff presence opposed to caring who is in charge of the doors and it would be possible to increase on board staffing levels at the same time as introducing DOO.

Your first point (emboldened) point above is quite correct and I would therefore disagree that the RMT is being misleading in referring to the correct, rulebook sense of a DO (driver only operated) train where the only member of staff required for the train to run is the driver.

It would be possible to increase staffing levels on a DOO train, but it would also be possible to reduce them. The RMT is therefore quite correct that the only way to guarantee the presence of a second member of onboard staff is requiring their presence in order for the train to run.

During the GTR dispute the far more misleading “DCO” term was invented to refer to a DOO train with a rostered second member of staff when fact the train could run with just the driver on board.

 

[woodmally]

You’re both preaching to the converted, I know exactly what DOO/DCO entails, the arguments for and against, and I remain solely in the camp of guard operated passenger services.

But they (Northern) have agreed to keep the guard on but in a new role. So why is it still an issue? They are not getting rid of the guards. They will still be there. Also the concern RMT have for us about our safety is missleading. If it was just about safety then they would realise this argument was lost and allow it to happen. And then when an accident happens (if they are right it will) comment to the accident investigator and the guards will be reinstated.

 

[northwichcat]

Your first point (emboldened) point above is quite correct and I would therefore disagree that the RMT is being misleading in referring to the correct, rulebook sense of a DO (driver only operated) train where the only member of staff required for the train to run is the driver.

It would be possible to increase staffing levels on a DOO train, but it would also be possible to reduce them. The RMT is therefore quite correct that the only way to guarantee the presence of a second member of onboard staff is requiring their presence in order for the train to run.

During the GTR dispute the far more misleading “DCO” term was invented to refer to a DOO train with a rostered second member of staff when fact the train could run with just the driver on board.

Why is it misleading? 'Driver controlled operation' implies the driver is in charge of the operation to the average passenger. If they said 'Driver plus OBS operation' and then didn't provide the OBS then it would be misleading.

 

[Bromley boy]

Why is it misleading? 'Driver controlled operation' implies the driver is in charge of the operation to the average passenger. If they said 'Driver plus OBS operation' and then didn't provide the OBS then it would be misleading.

Because, as you have yourself stated, DCO = DOO.

What DCO actually means is that there is no longer a guaranteed staff presence.

It’s therefore misleading to passengers who want an increased visible staff presence, particularly when most DOO trains in the U.K. have only a driver aboard.

 

[pompeyfan]

But they (Northern) have agreed to keep the guard on but in a new role. So why is it still an issue? They are not getting rid of the guards. They will still be there. Also the concern RMT have for us about our safety is missleading. If it was just about safety then they would realise this argument was lost and allow it to happen. And then when an accident happens (if they are right it will) comment to the accident investigator and the guards will be reinstated.

It’s an issue for me because there will still be trains running around without this 2nd member of staff when operationally convenient. It’s also an issue for me that the various companies haven’t stated what exact training these new roles will have. If they were guaranteeing a 2nd crew member on every train with full guards training many believe this issue would be put to bed across the country.

 

[northwichcat]

Because, as you have yourself stated, DCO = DOO.

What DCO actually means is that there is no longer a guaranteed staff presence.

It’s therefore misleading to passengers who want an increased visible staff presence, particularly when most DOO trains in the U.K. have only a driver aboard.

Some guard operated services don't have a visual staff presence so passengers aren't guaranteed to get what they want on most services - guard operated, DCO or DOO.

 

[Robertj21a]

It’s an issue for me because there will still be trains running around without this 2nd member of staff when operationally convenient. It’s also an issue for me that the various companies haven’t stated what exact training these new roles will have. If they were guaranteeing a 2nd crew member on every train with full guards training many believe this issue would be put to bed across the country.

??? - surely, '....if they were guaranteeing a 2nd crew member on every train with full guards training.......' - aren't we just back to where we have been for years ? Of course the issue would be put to bed as nothing would change !!

 

[pompeyfan]

Some guard operated services don't have a visual staff presence so passengers aren't guaranteed to get what they want on most services - guard operated, DCO or DOO.

If that’s true then that’s a management issue surely?

Either way, they’re still there if you need them, even if you do have to go and knock the back cab on a 2 car diesel.

 

[pompeyfan]

??? - surely, '....if they were guaranteeing a 2nd crew member on every train with full guards training.......' - aren't we just back to where we have been for years ? Of course the issue would be put to bed as nothing would change !!

You are indeed correct. But the rest of my post is still valid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

??? - surely, '....if they were guaranteeing a 2nd crew member on every train with full guards training.......' - aren't we just back to where we have been for years ? Of course the issue would be put to bed as nothing would change !!

There are operational arguments for driver door control (or at the very least driver release). It can speed things up quite a bit where revenue is done on board on services with frequent stops.

Indeed, as I've said before I would favour a progressive switch to driver release, guard close with ASDO (automatic selective door operation) on all guard-operated trains throughout the UK.

 

[Robertj21a]

You are indeed correct. But the rest of my post is still valid.

So, you feel the problems would go away if nobody made any changes.........