Northern Rail , what now for the Guard ?

[wigwamman]

Considering the Arriva Northern franchise announcement , is there still a role for the Guard in a conventional sense ? I can see Skipton, Leeds and Doncaster depots suffering on the east in terms of the Guard grade and Liverpool , Piccadilly , Wigan and Blackpool on the west. I've heard that the Dft are prepared to try and "tough" out any strikes that may arise from threatened job losses or role changes. It's going to be a difficult few month's and years for the staff and passengers I fear.

 

[northwichcat]

The MD of Arriva Trains UK said in a TV interview yesterday that no existing Northern Rail staff will lose their jobs. He wasn't asked if more fully qualified guards would be recruited to cover the additional services though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It could well be a process of natural attrition. There is no way 15x are going to be converted to DOO, so even if the new units are planned to be DOO it would be a gradual running down of the guard's grade through retirement etc and no further recruitment.

This assumes the bid even contains any DOO.

 

[wigwamman]

The bid has to contain a minimum of 50% Doo/Dco to meet the ITT. If Arriva hadn't committed to that , they wouldn't have won the franchise

 

[DaiGog]

The pledge to extend staffing hours of various stations certainly smells like DOO to me, perhaps not immediately, but a few years down the line. Maybe even next franchise before it happens on any scale.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bid has to contain a minimum of 50% Doo/Dco to meet the ITT. If Arriva hadn't committed to that , they wouldn't have won the franchise

DCO and DOO are two different things, though. DCO could retain all the Guards as Glasgow-style revenue staff.

(I comment not on the virtues or otherwise of doing this, as I don't want to turn this into another DOO thread, just on the possible facts)

 

[wigwamman]

Fair comment Neil. The difference between DOO and DCO is a subtle but significant one. FOr one an RPA is paid significantly less than a Guard and also as a grade carries no industrial strength. I understand change will happen but wondered if there are my crumbs of comfort in all this for existing Guards , LHCS apart.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understand change will happen but wondered if there are my crumbs of comfort in all this for existing Guards , LHCS apart.

I would say Classes 15x are the comfort for existing Guards; they are not going away and I would be amazed to see them converted to DOO or any variant thereof.

Anyone wanting a job as a Guard may be disappointed, of course, as I could see a recruitment ban looming.

 

[notadriver]

Having a guard is safer than not having on board the train at all times.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Long term my grade will go but not as soon as people may think. DOO will cost a hell of a lot to implement and cause a hell of a lit of industrial unrest. DCO will problem be the 1st step but until we have a pretty standard set of units on diesel routes I can't see that happening in the near future. Every guard has given 6 on the buzzer many times to drivers due to the diversity of stock. It will happen but not for a while and certainly not the whole Northern Network.

 

[northwichcat]

Tony Miles said he understood one bidder stated at least one bidder that they wouldn't run any services without a conductor on board even if they were required to make the driver release and close the doors. We don't know who that bidder was at present it may have been Arriva but then it may not have been. Arriva have apparently said they'll be no contracted revenue roles so if that's true it'll mean STM won't have a contract after next April and they'll be no non-franchise employees on trains.

 

[wigwamman]

I agree to an extent, to be fair I hear the Union are about to present the company a document with their own idea of what a Conductor/Guard should be trained on and to what standard. I welcome this If it's true as it would show the Union to be demonstrating staffs value rather than just saying a blanket no to new proposals.

 

[northwichcat]

The pledge to extend staffing hours of various stations certainly smells like DOO to me, perhaps not immediately, but a few years down the line. Maybe even next franchise before it happens on any scale.

Arriva will have a franchise commitment to plan to run all services with a minimum of 2 members of franchise staff on board. The unanswered questions are really:
1. Would they run services with 1 member of staff if a staff shortage occurs or cancel them?
2. What will the second member of staff be qualified to do?
3. What routes will DCO occur on?
4. What times of day will DCO occur? (It doesn't have to be from first train to last train - it might be Arriva have said it's not safe to implement on late services.)

 

[wigwamman]

I think if you look at the proposed new orders that have been suggested . DCO will occur where new DMU and EMU trains are planned to run. Notably , Chat Moss, Calder Valley, Cheshire lines , Leeds- Nottingham, Lincoln-Nottingham, Sheffield - Scarborough, MIA- Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere?

 

[northwichcat]

I think if you look at the proposed new orders that have been suggested . DCO will occur where new DMU and EMU trains are planned to run. Notably , Chat Moss, Calder Valley, Cheshire lines , Leeds- Nottingham, Lincoln-Nottingham, Sheffield - Scarborough, MIA- Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere?

I think you mean Lincoln-Leeds.

Leeds-Illkley/Skipton is supposed to get brand new EMUs as well, as is Manchester to Hadfield. It's unclear at present what will run Leeds-Doncaster and the current class 323 routes apart from Hadfield.

 

[The Ham]

Having a guard is safer than not having on board the train at all times.

I would agree that having a guard is probably safer (although given the low levels of incidents it is not possible to Prove it either way) than the train only having one member of staff (driver) on board. However, there are a few steps down from having a traditional guard to that point. As such there would be ways of a TOC doing away with the traditional guard role (i.e. recruitment ban for that post) whilst still having two members of staff on board.

That then leads to the question; how far will the drivers be willing to support traditional guards in the form of industrial action if there were still to be a second member of train staff on board and there is a benefit to them provided if they have benefits offered in exchange for not striking?

If the TOC gets the level of training required and job role for the second member right (i.e. the drives accept it and existing guards are also financially encouraged into accepting it in exchange for no strikes happening) then there could be a weakening of the role without too much hiatus. Of course if they get it wrong then things could get interesting.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As a passenger, I will fully support any industrial action taken by guards in the event of an attempt to introduce DOO. Perhaps a "fare-strike" would make management see sense, too...?

 

[notadriver]

Assuming there always has to be a second person on board, what would be the benefit of taking away responsibilities they already have as guards ?

 

[northwichcat]

Assuming there always has to be a second person on board, what would be the benefit of taking away responsibilities they already have as guards ?

Spending more time on revenue duties and giving a more visible on board staff presence.

 

[driver_m]

ASLEF also has to agree to DCO or DOO and that isn't likely to happen following the recent joint statement with the RMT. It'll be interesting to see how trying to introduce DO/DCO happens.

 

[8J]

Fit more door control panels in the train then? Simple answer and would allow more revenue duties to take place. Also to reduce dwell times the guards could operate the doors in the "merseyrail" way with local doors open before trains stopping and giving the RTS before the local door closes. These are all seconds that are saved in DOO

 

[The Ham]

Assuming there always has to be a second person on board, what would be the benefit of taking away responsibilities they already have as guards ?

It depends on the level of training, less training means lower pay and less lost days doing training courses.

For instance an onboard cleaner could be classed as a second person on board but they wouldn't be able to do a lot of things a traditional guard could.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fit more door control panels in the train then? Simple answer and would allow more revenue duties to take place. Also to reduce dwell times the guards could operate the doors in the "merseyrail" way with local doors open before trains stopping and giving the RTS before the local door closes. These are all seconds that are saved in DOO

Which could be the reason for the extra new units over and above the ITT.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Merseyrail approach can only be used with units with sliding staff doors which are not shared with passengers, as a plug door is out of gauge so has to have interlock, as does any door shared with a passenger. I don't think any units with that type of dedicated staff door have been built since the Class 150/2 in the mid 1980s.

Even with that approach, the fitting of hustle alarms caused the Ormskirk-Liverpool running time to need 2 minutes adding - every second counts on stopping services!

 

[notadriver]

Spending more time on revenue duties and giving a more visible on board staff presence.

Taking other responsibilities away doesn't guarantee those things. I know from personal experience.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It depends on the level of training, less training means lower pay and less lost days doing training courses.



For instance an onboard cleaner could be classed as a second person on board but they wouldn't be able to do a lot of things a traditional guard could.

A cleaner would not be classed as a second person. They would have to be capable of assisting the driver when needed which means extra training which means extra money.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Assuming there always has to be a second person on board, what would be the benefit of taking away responsibilities they already have as guards ?

For the train operators at least:
1 - Less responsibilities = less pay.
2 - If the second member of staffs role can be reduced to a "nice to have but not essential" like revenue checks and customer service, then it leads the way for the second member of staff to be dropped totally in the future.

Obviously not good from a staff or passenger point of view, but for the train companies they must be loving the prospect of not having to pay decent wages to a second member of staff!

 

[Tetchytyke]

A cleaner would not be classed as a second person. They would have to be capable of assisting the driver when needed which means extra training which means extra money.

As I said on the other thread, the Glasgow DOO trains have a second person on board. Their role is entirely customer facing. The train can operate without them (though there is a contractual penalty payable to Transport Scotland if it does) and they have no safety responsibilities. They are paid significantly less than what a guard would be paid.

The second person doesn't have to have any safety responsibilities if the services are converted to DOO.

 

[notadriver]

As I said on the other thread, the Glasgow DOO trains have a second person on board. Their role is entirely customer facing. The train can operate without them (though there is a contractual penalty payable to Transport Scotland if it does) and they have no safety responsibilities. They are paid significantly less than what a guard would be paid.



The second person doesn't have to have any safety responsibilities if the services are converted to DOO.

I'm fully aware of the Glasgow DOO model thank you. But I'm sure northern drivers won't accept that form of operation.

The Javelins have an on board manager who are paid more than traditional conductor guards but not safety critical. They have to be on board every train so I see little advantage in them not doing the doors like a traditional guard does.

 

[LowLevel]

Fit more door control panels in the train then? Simple answer and would allow more revenue duties to take place. Also to reduce dwell times the guards could operate the doors in the "merseyrail" way with local doors open before trains stopping and giving the RTS before the local door closes. These are all seconds that are saved in DOO

As of this week's new rulebook introduction the Merseyrail method of working is banned by the RSSB.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As of this week's new rulebook introduction the Merseyrail method of working is banned by the RSSB.

Best put another 2 minutes on Ormskirk-Liverpool, then. It's odd how that method of working is universally used throughout mainland Europe, even at passenger doors, and people don't seem to be falling out all over the place.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm fully aware of the Glasgow DOO model thank you. But I'm sure northern drivers won't accept that form of operation.

I'm sure you are

If Northern drivers don't agree to DOO then there will have to be a guard.

If Northern drivers do agree to DOO, or they are forced into DOO, then the promised "second person" doesn't have to be able to do anything other than stamp a ticket.

My point was that talk of safety duties is a bit irrelevant. Under DOO they won't have any, and without DOO they'll just have to stay as guards.

Obviously I'd hate to see DOO, but I think it will be imposed (with a few sweeteners to divide the workforce).