Arriva Rail North DOO

[Bromley boy]

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 the guards aren’t doing their job properly, perhaps, but that’s a seperate issue (as I’m sure you well know).

But that doesn’t alter the fact that you’re more likely to get a visible staff presence on a train with a guaranteed second member of staff aboard than on a DOO train.

 

[Bromley boy]

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

Well how many £tens of millions of public money would have been saved in GTR land if things had simply been left alone?!

Soon to be repeated up north.

 

[Bromley boy]

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.

Yes agreed.

It’s done that way on my TOC’s mainliners (which I drove for a period as a trainee). Driver releases and simply waits for the doors to close and 2 on the bell.

 

[woodmally]

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.

OK I didn't answer because actually it's irrelevant what I think for this reason. It's happening regardless of what RMT want. The government won't change its mind. Northern are contractually obliged to implement it and passengers have no power. RMT can only change it if they have sustained strike action every day till its resolved which they cannot afford. So it doesn't matter what I think it won't happen. As for do I feel safe then yes I do. It's safe on the tube with DOO. Do you think the bullet train in Japan has a man or woman running to the end to control the doors. Modern technology means the rail network can monitor if there is an emergency and out in place emergency measures.

 

[Wychwood93]

OK I didn't answer because actually it's irrelevant what I think for this reason. It's happening regardless of what RMT want. The government won't change its mind. Northern are contractually obliged to implement it and passengers have no power. RMT can only change it if they have sustained strike action every day till its resolved which they cannot afford. So it doesn't matter what I think it won't happen. As for do I feel safe then yes I do. It's safe on the tube with DOO. Do you think the bullet train in Japan has a man or woman running to the end to control the doors. Modern technology means the rail network can monitor if there is an emergency and out in place emergency measures.

At the risk of being shouted at, with TVM in France (and indeed HS1) a TGV can chug along quite cheerfully without a driver - customers do, however, prefer to see a chap up there in the pointy bit. It could, perhaps, be the inflatable co-pilot in Airplane, who knows? Even on a long distance Lille/Narbonne there have been odd occasions when I have seen no on-board staff at all, although I know they are there somewhere.

Bromley boy's "It’s done that way on my TOC’s mainliners (which I drove for a period as a trainee). Driver releases and simply waits for the doors to close and 2 on the bell." That surely makes real sense - with XC, certainly down my way, the bells are more like morse code with quite often a significant number of seconds (10+ at times) before anything happens, and then another sequence of 'dings' - ding-ding and away is better.

 

[pemma]

If the guards aren’t doing their job properly, perhaps, but that’s a seperate issue (as I’m sure you well know).

But that doesn’t alter the fact that you’re more likely to get a visible staff presence on a train with a guaranteed second member of staff aboard than on a DOO train.

I didn't say guards aren't doing their jobs properly. Northern require the guard to be in the rear unit when there's 2 units being used and they aren't corridor linked. Surely from a safety point of view that's sensible as each unit has a member of staff on board. However, unless there's an AFC on board it means those on the front unit will not see a member of staff while on board the train. While if there is an AFC on board the passengers on the unit with the AFC have the most visible staff presence.

 

[pemma]

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.

Or get off the train at the next station and board the other portion.

 

[scrapy]

Do you think the bullet train in Japan has a man or woman running to the end to control the doors. Modern technology means the rail network can monitor if there is an emergency and out in place emergency measures.

They are hardly comparable to a DOO train in the UK as they do have other staff onboard. They also have multiple dispatchers at all stations, and platform edge gates . They also have had fatalities and injuries during dispatch. A dispatcher at the end of the platform with a red flag can also stop the train if necessary.

 

[CN75]

Northern have not been proposing to keep a second member of staff on the trains they convert to DOO. They are planning to move guards from those routes onto the stations to help passengers (including ones who need ramps to get on or off) and do ticket machine and checking duties. This arrangement is what Arriva offered to the DfT to bring in with the new trains running DOO. It’s in the franchise agreement, and this is the reason Northern and the RMT can’t get anywhere negotiating.

 

[pompeyfan]

Northern have not been proposing to keep a second member of staff on the trains they convert to DOO. They are planning to move guards from those routes onto the stations to help passengers (including ones who need ramps to get on or off) and do ticket machine and checking duties. This arrangement is what Arriva offered to the DfT to bring in with the new trains running DOO. It’s in the franchise agreement, and this is the reason Northern and the RMT can’t get anywhere negotiating.

Are you certain? I thought that was initially Merseyrail but happy to be corrected if you can link evidence.

 

[CN75]

Are you certain? I thought that was initially Merseyrail but happy to be corrected if you can link evidence.

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/strike

Eg

Will Northern’s stations be as safe when you make staff changes?
Our plans will see staff more visible and available than ever before on trains and at stations. We want to keep a second person on many of our services and, at some locations, we may choose to staff the station to give better customer support. We are investing in people and systems to make the railway even safer; for example, we now have 55 Travel Safe Officers who work on trains and at stations to help prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That surely makes real sense - with XC, certainly down my way, the bells are more like morse code with quite often a significant number of seconds (10+ at times) before anything happens, and then another sequence of 'dings' - ding-ding and away is better.

I never quite understood the bizarre setup on the Voyagers. The Pendolinos have driver open, guard close but have conventional guard panels with close buttons.

 

[pompeyfan]

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/strike

Eg

Will Northern’s stations be as safe when you make staff changes?
Our plans will see staff more visible and available than ever before on trains and at stations. We want to keep a second person on many of our services and, at some locations, we may choose to staff the station to give better customer support. We are investing in people and systems to make the railway even safer; for example, we now have 55 Travel Safe Officers who work on trains and at stations to help prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour.

I read that as extra employment on stations, as well as moving Conductors to OBS’

 

[158752]

I'm not too sure where it explicitly states former train guards/conductors will be the ones deployed in the role on stations. My personal thoughts on the matter are that contracted out staff would most likely be the ones taking on those roles, akin to how the most recent tranche of station ticket gatelines are staffed by Carlisle Support Services staff wearing Northern customer services branded uniform. Ultimately this method allows Northern to achieve it's cost reductions through direct TOC headcount slimming inline with the governments agenda.

 

[virgintrain1]

I never quite understood the bizarre setup on the Voyagers. The Pendolinos have driver open, guard close but have conventional guard panels with close buttons.

The TMs on voaygers only have the passcom panel with a buzzer and a microphone so have to give a 1-2 buzzer code to ask driver to press door close and then he repeats a 1-2 and closes doors. Then when TM door shut 2 2.

 

[Robertj21a]

The TMs on voaygers only have the passcom panel with a buzzer and a microphone so have to give a 1-2 buzzer code to ask driver to press door close and then he repeats a 1-2 and closes doors. Then when TM door shut 2 2.

So, whether we like the terms or not, isn't that effectively a DOO, with OBS.......

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, whether we like the terms or not, isn't that effectively a DOO, with OBS.......

No, because the guard is safety critical, the driver cannot depart on his own, and there are no DOO monitors nor any other facility for dispatching DOO either on the train nor at most stations they serve, nor were there ever going to be.

It's guarded operation, just bizarrely cack-handed to save the 50p or so a close button would have cost.

There are other odd routes that use the ten-bell system, I think either GWR or Chiltern 16x in some locations.

 

[pemma]

Northern have not been proposing to keep a second member of staff on the trains they convert to DOO. They are planning to move guards from those routes onto the stations to help passengers (including ones who need ramps to get on or off) and do ticket machine and checking duties. This arrangement is what Arriva offered to the DfT to bring in with the new trains running DOO. It’s in the franchise agreement, and this is the reason Northern and the RMT can’t get anywhere negotiating.

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/strike

Eg

Will Northern’s stations be as safe when you make staff changes?
Our plans will see staff more visible and available than ever before on trains and at stations. We want to keep a second person on many of our services and, at some locations, we may choose to staff the station to give better customer support. We are investing in people and systems to make the railway even safer; for example, we now have 55 Travel Safe Officers who work on trains and at stations to help prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour.

What you say and what you've quoted is very different. I'm yet to see any evidence that someone employed as a guard might finish up becoming platform staff (which is what you said they are planning to do.) Also your quote from Northern says they want to keep a second person on many of their services and you say they are not proposing to have a second member of staff on DOO services.

 

[pemma]

I read that as extra employment on stations, as well as moving Conductors to OBS’

If the change happens at the December 2019 timetable change (when extra services are set to be added in and when the franchise agreement requires it to happen) my guess is a number of new people will be employed in a new role (I don't think Northern have confirmed OBS will be their job title) and the existing conductors might end up working some DOO services in a role similar to when they act as an AFC on a service, alongside some where they work in their traditional role.

Northern can actually use the fact some of their crews leave for other operators for better Ts&Cs to their advantage in a way which Southern couldn't.

 

[CN75]

I read that as extra employment on stations, as well as moving Conductors to OBS’

It’s the public summary of discussions to date but the plan being proposed is to move some of the guards to station jobs and some of them to continue on older trains as guards. To make that possible, the trains need to be fitted with cameras for train dispatch (the new trains), or the new station staff have to be dispatch trained to see DOO trains away - which could be any train.

Northern’s theory is they improve their revenue protection versus having a person on a train, speed up their short distance trains, cut delays and guarantee the disabled access at the affected stations stays by making these changes, all while keeping the current guards in new jobs. The city areas of lines with higher passenger numbers would be the obvious places to make these changes for the biggest customer service advantage. Once this has happened, most of the agency-based station staff can be dispensed with and replaced with the Northern ex-guards, which saves money and in theory improves the quality of the station staff.

Northern offered the RMT involvement in putting these plans into effect (what routes and how the new jobs would work) at the beginning of the dispute. The RMT don’t want to negotiate on those terms and Arriva can’t negotate outside the delivery contract it has signed with the DfT, the DfT covers all of the industrial action costs, and so it all rolls on and on. The next showdown will be when (or if) ASLEF begin to have a dispute over DOO. However, their power to prevent the changes is more limited than railway staff often believe.

 

[Carlisle]

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

Not true,all sides and opinions have been discussed to death on at least one of either the Southern, northern Merseyrail, GA or SWR DOO threads or even 2/3 years previously on the GWR & Scotrail dispute threads if your interested in reading through them, however your posts suggest your minds firmly made up anyway.

 

[pemma]

However, their power to prevent the changes is more limited than railway staff often believe.

Very much the case, especially in the case of the RMT. If a TOC agreed DOO terms with ASLEF then there is absolutely nothing the RMT can do if the TOC decides all services will be DOO and the guards are all redundant, other than ensuring the TOC follows redundancy procedures correctly and helping members find alternative employment. I guess Mick Cash is well aware of that which is why the RMT starts asking for a guarantee of a guard on every train on the 1st day of a franchise, so they can enter in to disputes at the earliest possible opportunity. Northern have apparently guaranteed all guards will retain employment until beyond 2025 and that they won't be moved to a lower pay grade but they can't offer guarantees beyond the franchise length unless DfT sanction it.

 

[Robertj21a]

No, because the guard is safety critical, the driver cannot depart on his own, and there are no DOO monitors nor any other facility for dispatching DOO either on the train nor at most stations they serve, nor were there ever going to be.

It's guarded operation, just bizarrely cack-handed to save the 50p or so a close button would have cost.

There are other odd routes that use the ten-bell system, I think either GWR or Chiltern 16x in some locations.

It's still fairly close......

 

[Domh245]

It's still fairly close......

Not really in the slightest. The Voyager system is similar to DCO as used on the Javelins (before various bodies started playing around with definitions) in that the train won't go unless it's got the second safety critical member of staff on board. It isn't marked 'D' in timetables, there is always at least a second member of staff on board, (and unlike Javelin DCO) the driver isn't solely responsible for the dispatch process - they merely close the doors. Trying to claim otherwise is being deliberately obtuse

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Do remember as well we're talking about a limited number of services operating under the 'Northern Connect' branding. I don't see why they cannot just gurantee a Conductor job and T&Cs for all those employed in a Conductor role at the start date of the dispute. Surely there will be enough work to go round.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not really in the slightest. The Voyager system is similar to DCO as used on the Javelins (before various bodies started playing around with definitions) in that the train won't go unless it's got the second safety critical member of staff on board. It isn't marked 'D' in timetables, there is always at least a second member of staff on board, (and unlike Javelin DCO) the driver isn't solely responsible for the dispatch process - they merely close the doors. Trying to claim otherwise is being deliberately obtuse

I think I’m right in saying the Javelins are an example of a DOO train (driver does the doors and dispatches from in-cab monitors) which also cannot run without a second person aboard due to HS1 rules. Since all Javelin journeys include running on HS1 they remain on board throughout.

Re the definitions, they have indeed been played around with. How people can accuse the RMT for being misleading by using a correct rulebook definition, when we all know full well that DCO is a mealy-mouthed way of making DOO sound more than it is, is beyond me.

 

[muz379]

However, unless there's an AFC on board it means those on the front unit will not see a member of staff while on board the train. While if there is an AFC on board the passengers on the unit with the AFC have the most visible staff presence.

Passengers in the unit with the AFC should have the most visible staff presence .

Funny how you always like to tell us that guards never leave the back cab . But the lower paid , less qualified AFC's could not possibly be guilty of such .

Besides It has already been done to death , but an increased staff presence for those in the unit with the guard could be encouraged with the installation of intermediate door control . The GWR 150's I notice have had their intermediate door controls sealed so Northern guards cannot use them . This would come with no opposition form the union .

 

[pemma]

Passengers in the unit with the AFC should have the most visible staff presence .

Funny how you always like to tell us that guards never leave the back cab . But the lower paid , less qualified AFC's could not possibly be guilty of such .

Besides It has already been done to death , but an increased staff presence for those in the unit with the guard could be encouraged with the installation of intermediate door control . The GWR 150's I notice have had their intermediate door controls sealed so Northern guards cannot use them . This would come with no opposition form the union .

There some guards who seem to avoid walking through the train at all, while there are also some that walk through occasionally meaning if you make a short journey you might not see them walk through and then there are some guards who walk through all the time. I thought the AFCs who occasionally appear are actually spare guards, so they aren't any less qualified. Indeed, once when I was on 2 x 142s it was the AFC who fixed a problem with a set of doors that kept jamming.

One of the problems with a visibility point of view is when you have a staff member basing themselves where they cannot be seen they are automatically less visible even if they do walk through. Simple solution to that would be to bar staff from the rear cab except under exceptional circumstances e.g. if someone threatens the staff member with violence.

 

[Domh245]

I think I’m right in saying the Javelins are an example of a DOO train (driver does the doors and dispatches from in-cab monitors) which also cannot run without a second person aboard due to HS1 rules. Since all Javelin journeys include running on HS1 they remain on board throughout.

Re the definitions, they have indeed been played around with. How people can accuse the RMT for being misleading by using a correct rulebook definition, when we all know full well that DCO is a mealy-mouthed way of making DOO sound more than it is, is beyond me.

Indeed - Javelins require a second member of safety critical staff (OBM) onboard for the High Speed sections, but the driver is responsible for dispatch. It isn't DOO in the conventional sense, but it isn't true guarded operation either, which is why it was known as DCO (driver controlled operation) or DOD (driver only dispatch) - they wouldn't run with the Driver only.

They are DO under rule book module SS1, but not anything else

 

[muz379]

There some guards who seem to avoid walking through the train at all, while there are also some that walk through occasionally meaning if you make a short journey you might not see them walk through and then there are some guards who walk through all the time. I thought the AFCs who occasionally appear are actually spare guards, so they aren't any less qualified. Indeed, once when I was on 2 x 142s it was the AFC who fixed a problem with a set of doors that kept jamming.

And those that seem to avoid walking through the train should be dealt with through the already established procedures for doing so . This has been done to death . I would not defend anybody who constantly sat in the back cab for no good reason .

There is a separate grade of RPA's . These have no safety critical training and are only trained in revenue . They are the people I assumed you meant with the use of term AFC .

I dont know about the depots that work trains you work but for the depots I know there are no longer AFC turns . These used to be turns when a spare guard would go out with revenue equipment and carry out revenue protection duties on double sets comprised of incompatible units. Personally from a service delivery point of view I think it makes more sense to have spare guards sat at depots ready to be utilized to work trains . I have not even seen AFC turns used for guards who are restricted from carrying out safety critical duties either on medical or competence grounds which could be done .

One of the problems with a visibility point of view is when you have a staff member basing themselves where they cannot be seen they are automatically less visible even if they do walk through. Simple solution to that would be to bar staff from the rear cab except under exceptional circumstances e.g. if someone threatens the staff member with violence.

Which is why I would advocate for door controls to be fitted at intermediate doors in the saloon . At least then even when carrying out dispatch duties the conductor will still be visible to people in that carriage. This would make it so much easier for guards to collect revenue on the many lines with unstaffed stations , and remain visible whilst also dispatching the train . Lets face it , its unlikely some of the older stock is going to be converted for DOO . Why not make this step anyway ? it makes sense .On some stock it is impossible to base yourself in a visible location whilst doing the doors , I would like that to change .

I would not disagree with baring use of the back cab apart from in a few situations . When I am working I always try and patrol the train , the only situations that I would return to the back cab would be to fix a fault with my revenue equipment , to contact control / the driver / shift manager , I am being or have been threatened / assaulted or when a train is so overcrowded I could not get through it .