Northern writing to ACAS requesting independent inquiry

[Bletchleyite]

As Ormskirk - Preston has already been mentioned; off peak there wouldn't be a huge amount in it if a bus ran Ormskirk - Preston non-stop but there simply aren't the passenger numbers on that line to run a non-stop bus and an all stations bus.

I'm not sure I agree. Two buses are operated when the Marston Vale gets bustituted, and passenger numbers on that are far below the typical loadings on Ormskirk-Preston these days. And running buses is cheaper than running a train.

Realistically, if you bustitute Ormskirk-Preston on a planned basis, the service that makes sense is of a service Ormskirk-Burscough-Rufford-Preston and another one between Croston and Preston only (or even just have acceptance on existing local bus services as I'm pretty sure Stagey already run something). If you stop on the A59 rather than going to the actual stations, it doesn't add more than 30 seconds per stop or so, which if it's planned you can do as there's time to publicise it. Almost nobody is making local journeys on the line - almost everyone is travelling to/from one end or the other (or all the way through).

However, it'll still take more than half an hour, and far more in the peak.

 

[yorksrob]

Do they only want a *train* or do they just want a guaranteed service to get them from A to B, even if it's a bus ?

People who pay for a train ticket will want a train. In extremis, some may put up with an RRB where there is a good reason.

"Good reason" includes essential engineering works, maintenance etc. It does not include someone in London deciding to have a never ending row with the workforce over an obscure operating procedure.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I'm not sure I agree. Two buses are operated when the Marston Vale gets bustituted, and passenger numbers on that are far below the typical loadings on Ormskirk-Preston these days. And running buses is cheaper than running a train.

Realistically, if you bustitute Ormskirk-Preston on a planned basis, the service that makes sense is of a service Ormskirk-Burscough-Rufford-Preston and another one between Croston and Preston only (or even just have acceptance on existing local bus services as I'm pretty sure Stagey already run something). If you stop on the A59 rather than going to the actual stations, it doesn't add more than 30 seconds per stop or so, which if it's planned you can do as there's time to publicise it. Almost nobody is making local journeys on the line - almost everyone is travelling to/from one end or the other (or all the way through).

However, it'll still take more than half an hour, and far more in the peak.

You can’t compare what happens during planned engineering works with what would happen if the TOC chose to replace trains with busses. Network Rail pays during engineering works. When the Blackpool North line was closed last year there were far more busses at Preston just for Blackpool passengers than there are on strike days for Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool, Barrow, Ormskirk and Colne passengers combined.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can’t compare what happens during planned engineering works with what would happen if the TOC chose to replace trains with busses. Network Rail pays during engineering works. When the Blackpool North line was closed last year there were far more busses at Preston just for Blackpool passengers than there are on strike days for Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool, Barrow, Ormskirk and Colne passengers combined.

I'm sure there were, but that's Northern's choice which they are making because it is the most profitable one, because the DfT are paying them not to run anything.

 

[talltim]

Ignore all you like.

I've had enough of having to live without a functioning train service every Saturday, just so other people can get all excited about fighting meaningless ideological battles from the 1980's over something which will have no meaningful effect on the train service.

Have your ideological battle on your own line.

Are you saying that to the DfT or RMT? It could be either.

 

[ainsworth74]

Are you saying that to the DfT or RMT? It could be either.

Seems like both to me!

 

[weastebusdepot]

Really? Could you give us some examples of RRBs that are comparable to train journey times?

Glasgow Queen Street to Perth over the last three weekends. The direct RRB service was only two minutes longer than the advertised train services.

During the Ayr Station hotel related shutdown, Stranraer-Girvan on a direct RRB was quicker than via Barrhill on the train with all the stops for token exchange procedures.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Glasgow Queen Street to Perth over the last three weekends. The direct RRB service was only two minutes longer than the advertised train services.

During the Ayr Station hotel related shutdown, Stranraer-Girvan on a direct RRB was quicker than via Barrhill on the train with all the stops for token exchange procedures.

Are there any in Northernland?

 

[Robertj21a]

Are there any in Northernland?

Does it have to be faster ? - perhaps many people would value reliability over losing, say, 10-15 mins on the journey ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does it have to be faster ? - perhaps many people would value reliability over losing, say, 10-15 mins on the journey ?

The issue isn't so much branch-line reliability. Isn't it more about sacrificing a few branch lines to buses in the short term such that there are enough staff to operate the mainlines reliably? A bit like ATW did due to stock shortages?

But then isn't the main reliability issue (the staff-related one anyway rather than the one related to idiotic diagramming) Sundays? And most branches aren't operated on Sundays.

 

[weastebusdepot]

Are there any in Northernland?

The Saturday night/Sunday morning 0030 Manchester Piccadilly to Bolton/Preston/Blackpool North service (otherwise known as "The p***head special") might have come close, but that is a service that has fallen victim to the Saturday disputes... though I doubt any staff/contractors involved in its operation will mourn its passing.

The idea of sacrificing branch line services to keep the main lines open assumes train crew can easily be picked up and moved around on a map. However they don't all have route knowledge of every line on the network, and also the time taken to travel from the booking on point to the train and back might negate the benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Saturday night/Sunday morning 0030 Manchester Piccadilly to Bolton/Preston/Blackpool North service (otherwise known as "The p***head special") might have come close, but that is a service that has fallen victim to the Saturday disputes... though I doubt any staff/contractors involved in its operation will mourn its passing.

The idea of sacrificing branch line services to keep the main lines open assumes train crew can easily be picked up and moved around on a map. However they don't all have route knowledge of every line on the network, and also the time taken to travel from the booking on point to the train and back might negate the benefits.

It's also of note that most of the quiet Northern "branches" aren't in fact dead-end branches but rather secondary through routes. For instance, in previous strikes pre-Northern it's not been unknown for Ormskirk-Preston to operate but Liverpool-Preston via Wigan not to, as to offer a reasonable service on the former you require only one unit and crew, with people changing to Merseyrail for a fair chunk of the journey.

 

[yorksrob]

Are you saying that to the DfT or RMT? It could be either.

In truth both.

However as the DfT are proposing to change the status quo, its up to them to explain why DCO justifies all this disruption, particularly as they are apparently keeping a second person on the trains anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In truth both.

However as the DfT are proposing to change the status quo, its up to them to explain why DCO justifies all this disruption, particularly as they are apparently keeping a second person on the trains anyway.

Well, quite. If they plan on keeping a second person, let's just have driver release/guard close and let's get back to work and stop this charade.

 

[Killingworth]

Time was when the Hope Valley 2 hourly stopping service from Sheffield went to New Mills before turning back after a rest in the sidings, providing a connection into the Piccadilly stopping service. East and west side crews may have exchanged pleasantries but neither probably knew the other's route.

Recently I spoke to an incoming guard at Sheffield. Late as usual, but not by much, he was eager to get us all out for a quick turn around and off. Several hadn't paid by then and offered him their fares. He just wanted to get to the other end of the train. He was totally unaware that Sheffield was an ungated station. If he had it may not have made any difference but it made me wonder what exactly is learned in route knowledge?

 

[LowLevel]

Time was when the Hope Valley 2 hourly stopping service from Sheffield went to New Mills before turning back after a rest in the sidings, providing a connection into the Piccadilly stopping service. East and west side crews may have exchanged pleasantries but neither probably knew the other's route.

Recently I spoke to an incoming guard at Sheffield. Late as usual, but not by much, he was eager to get us all out for a quick turn around and off. Several hadn't paid by then and offered him their fares. He just wanted to get to the other end of the train. He was totally unaware that Sheffield was an ungated station. If he had it may not have made any difference but it made me wonder what exactly is learned in route knowledge?

He will be well aware Sheffield is ungated. The TOC however would crucify any guard causing delay to a turnaround because they were busy selling tickets rather than vacating the cab to allow the driver to prepare for departure and get themselves into position. Once you get in to the terminus if you've a quick turnaround you have to stop and change focus from revenue duties which effectively cease to become your priority issue.

 

[ainsworth74]

I must admit part of me wonders if there wouldn't be some strategic mileage for the RMT to make two specific concessions that would represent a show of good faith (always handy) and represent something actually reasonably substantial but without fundamentally caving in or undermining their members. I'm thinking that:

1) The RMT should agree to driver door release (on suitably equipped stock). I personally think this is the best method of operation and I do think it's relatively hard to argue against the benefits of not being tied to someone who might get stuck selling tickets or fighting through throngs of people. The overwhelming majority of times that doors aren't released for a while after arrival have been because the guard is busy doing revenue and out of position. It also gives a massive chunk of the DfT/Northern "modernisation" agenda to them. I suppose there is a safety argument to be made for releasing doors it's always felt tenuous.

2) Where dispatchers are provided then drivers can close the doors and take the right away from the dispatchers without guards intervention (where not available guards would remain responsible for closing doors/giving the right away). It's always seemed to me that having dispatchers is the safest form of handling dispatching a train so you struggle to make an argument that it isn't as safe as having a guard do it. I know there's an argument about watching the train out of the platform ready to give one on the bell but a) on modern stock with no opening windows in most positions it's almost impossible to actually do this effectively and b) there's no reason you couldn't still have guards do that. It's a compromise that gives the DfT/Northern a bit of their "modernisation" without compromising safety.

The above doesn't really harm the RMT's position in any fundamental way. I can't think of a single route that could go DOO under those two conditions and I'm struggling to think of any that could be easily converted to be DOO whilst meeting those conditions for instance we're not going to be seeing dispatchers at Littleborough, Greenbank or South Milford anytime soon (let alone Ulleskelf or Chathill! ).

But whilst it doesn't harm their position it does give in on one factor (number 1) that I think is hard to argue against without just being "we've always done it this way!" about it and gives in some ground (number 2) but without giving up the whole shooting match.

Also helps allay any accusations that the RMT are being unreasonable and obstructionist as they could then happily point to the fact that they've given ground and perhaps it's time for the other side to do so...

Doubtlessly I'm missing something fundamental in an industrial relations dispute like this but it seems a like an easy win to me!

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit part of me wonders if there wouldn't be some strategic mileage for the RMT to make two specific concessions that would represent a show of good faith (always handy) and represent something actually reasonably substantial but without fundamentally caving in or undermining their members. I'm thinking that:

1) The RMT should agree to driver door release (on suitably equipped stock). I personally think this is the best method of operation and I do think it's relatively hard to argue against the benefits of not being tied to someone who might get stuck selling tickets or fighting through throngs of people. The overwhelming majority of times that doors aren't released for a while after arrival have been because the guard is busy doing revenue and out of position. It also gives a massive chunk of the DfT/Northern "modernisation" agenda to them. I suppose there is a safety argument to be made for releasing doors it's always felt tenuous.

2) Where dispatchers are provided then drivers can close the doors and take the right away from the dispatchers without guards intervention (where not available guards would remain responsible for closing doors/giving the right away). It's always seemed to me that having dispatchers is the safest form of handling dispatching a train so you struggle to make an argument that it isn't as safe as having a guard do it. I know there's an argument about watching the train out of the platform ready to give one on the bell but a) on modern stock with no opening windows in most positions it's almost impossible to actually do this effectively and b) there's no reason you couldn't still have guards do that. It's a compromise that gives the DfT/Northern a bit of their "modernisation" without compromising safety.

The above doesn't really harm the RMT's position in any fundamental way. I can't think of a single route that could go DOO under those two conditions and I'm struggling to think of any that could be easily converted to be DOO whilst meeting those conditions for instance we're not going to be seeing dispatchers at Littleborough, Greenbank or South Milford anytime soon (let alone Ulleskelf or Chathill! ).

But whilst it doesn't harm their position it does give in on one factor (number 1) that I think is hard to argue against without just being "we've always done it this way!" about it and gives in some ground (number 2) but without giving up the whole shooting match.

Also helps allay any accusations that the RMT are being unreasonable and obstructionist as they could then happily point to the fact that they've given ground and perhaps it's time for the other side to do so...

Doubtlessly I'm missing something fundamental in an industrial relations dispute like this but it seems a like an easy win to me!

This is precisely the sort of compromise that should have been reached a year ago.

 

[alangla]

Glasgow Queen Street to Perth over the last three weekends. The direct RRB service was only two minutes longer than the advertised train services.

During the Ayr Station hotel related shutdown, Stranraer-Girvan on a direct RRB was quicker than via Barrhill on the train with all the stops for token exchange procedures.

When the WHL north of Crianlarich or the Far North are bustituted the direct RRBs would need to be going backwards to be as slow as the train. Different story south of Crianlarich or on one of the far north RRBs that serves intermediate stops, but they usually split at Helmsdale or Lairg anyway

 

[Meerkat]

This is precisely the sort of compromise that should have been reached a year ago.

Does it require route knowledge for the guards though?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is precisely the sort of compromise that should have been reached a year ago.

It's a very interesting option. Instead of having a close button at every door, could the guard act as a dispatcher and give the tip to the driver? I suppose that's basically the 10-bell approach used on Voyagers and some other normally DOO DMUs.

FWIW, the guard would be in a better position, on most stock, to see a PTI incident not from a small door window but able to look out along a row of saloon windows.

 

[Killingworth]

This is precisely the sort of compromise that should have been reached a year ago.

It should certainly have been openly laid before a negotiating meeting and considered as one point to be agreed or rejected. Move on to the next. Build from there.

 

[ainsworth74]

Does it require route knowledge for the guards though?

In my mind they'd have to be safety critical with full competence otherwise it would be imposisble to run trains! Take, for example, a Northern service from Leeds to Doncaster calls at:

• Leeds
• Outwood
• Wakefield Westgate
• Sandal & Agbrigg
• Fitzwilliam
• South Emsall
• Adwick
• Bentley
• Doncaster

Of those stations dispatchers are only available at Leeds, Wakefield, and Doncaster. So with my suggestion the only way that service runs is with a safety critical guard as otherwise it would be unable to call at any of the other stations! But equally you're not going to employ and deploy dispatchers to all those intermediate stations that don't currently have them. But you do use them and have the driver close the doors and take the right away from where they're provided and the guard is, realistically, unnecessary to the safe dispatch of the train.

 

[Meerkat]

Sounds like you added risk AND cost!

 

[ainsworth74]

Sounds like you added risk AND cost!

Eh? You'll need to expand sorry.

 

[Meerkat]

You have to keep guards as is plus train the drivers and dispatchers.
And having variable dispatch adds complication and the chance of unfortunate confusion (I am assuming relatively few stations have dispatchers at present)

 

[Bletchleyite]

And having variable dispatch adds complication and the chance of unfortunate confusion (I am assuming relatively few stations have dispatchers at present)

Depends how you do it. If you have it so the driver either goes on 10 bells or CD/RA, there can't really be any confusion, surely?

Though that said there isn't necessarily a lot to gain from this approach that driver open, guard close doesn't also do. And as you say there is the training issue.

 

[Starmill]

To follow on from @ainsworth74 's point, in my view, it makes far more sense for staff dispatch to be organised at locations like Manchester Airport, York, Warrington Central, Sheffield, Newcastle and so on and so on where currently this doesn't happen. I feel this could bring benefits for punctuality and customer assistance on Northern services at these stations. Revisiting the procedures, at each platform to speed things up (so for example avoiding having the R indicator or TRTS located a long way away from the ideal position on each platform) and to reduce risk with new risk assessments could be done very well in cooperation with the Union as this has happened before elsewhere. In the future, a way for platform staff to stop the train could be developed, or they could still signal to the guard. Most locations where there would be a benefit to this already have plenty of staff all day from one TOC or another who could be requested by Northern. Some stations also have their own staff in attendance as it is, but there's no staff dispatch provision. If there is a genuine concern about PTI/ customer safety and assistance with boarding and alighting then this is clearly the best way forward. We have the bizarre situation at the moment where EMT have staff dispatch for their 153 at Doncaster but 3/4 coach Northern trains and 5 coach Grand Central trains do not. The move has been in the opposite direction though in recent years.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It's worth remembering that McNulty recommended getting rid of (all) dispatchers as well as guards. Unlikely DfT will run with this one.

 

[Starmill]

Across the country, the process of removing staff dispatch arrangements seems to be slowly going on. Who this is good for remains to be seen.