Northern Rail , what now for the Guard ?

[driver_m]

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).

I don't see how they can force it through tbh. Attitudes to DO have massively changed since James St. Even trying the tried and tested money probably wouldn't work.

 

[northwichcat]

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.

Northern drivers will be asked to agree to DCO not DOO. Why can't they agree to DCO on condition that the second person is at least trained to do safety related tasks?

Arriva have to introduce DCO by 1st January 2020, so if talks with the union fail I imagine all that will happen is it will be postponed, just like the Night Tube.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Northern drivers will be asked to agree to DCO not DOO. Why can't they agree to DCO on condition that the second person is at least trained to do safety related tasks?

Arguing between DCO and DOO is arguing about semantics, nothing more and nothing less. Neither involve the existence of a guard, which is the whole point given that the aim is McNulty-style penny pinching.

Changing the terminology to DCO and waffling about "second members of staff" is nothing more than polishing turds.

As for whether the second person on the train will have a safety criticial role, this is what Rail North said:

There will be a gradual introduction of Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) on parts of the Northern franchise, with the driver being responsible for all safety aspects of the train, including operating the train doors. This will free up the second member of staff on board to focus on customer service – including by helping those with mobility impairments or other disabilities – selling and checking tickets and providing a sense of security.

Given them a safety critical role will not be on the cards, because the only motivation is saving cash. Safety critical roles mean more responsibility, which means a higher wage.

The revenue collectors can be given a day's training on how to use a Magic Marker and an Advantix and be sent on their merry way.

I don't see how they can force it through tbh. Attitudes to DO have massively changed since James St. Even trying the tried and tested money probably wouldn't work.

It's fairly easy to force it through: change the drivers' job descriptions due to business need and make all the guards redundant. That's what LOROL did. The unions were powerless to stop them.

The only weapon the union has is strike action, and I'm sure there will be enough drivers prepared to take the shilling to undermine any strike in the long-term (and that isn't a criticism of drivers, please don't take it that way).

 

[47802]

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...?

And I as a passenger would support the Government in toughing it out in order to get DCO/DOO introduced.

If the Unions have evidence that the above operations are or will be unacceptably unsafe then they should present evidence to the Rail Regulator etc.

If not then it be introduced where appropriate, restructuring including safety critical operation happens in many industries I don't see why the railway industry should be any different or be some kind of Job creation scheme for its employees.

No doubt if was left purely to Unions we would probably still have a secondman in the cab of every train.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the Unions have evidence that the above operations are or will be unacceptably unsafe then they should present evidence to the Rail Regulator etc.

And if you think the Office of Rail Regulation- a Government QUANGO- would give a flying **** you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the bravery of Stuart Wilson, killed saving passengers' lives at Ais Gill in 1995, but coming from Shipley I am.

But hey, the beancounters say its safe so you're going to support them instead!

 

[Crossover]

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.

I understand the 333's that are existing on that route already could be used DOO immediately. The guard cannot despatch from the back cab (I had wondered why the guards were always out in the saloon, even at Leeds, so asked someone who works them) as the door controls aren't set up for guard operation, but for the driver. 321/9's and 322's may be similar

 

[47802]

And if you think the Office of Rail Regulation- a Government QUANGO- would give a flying **** you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the bravery of Stuart Wilson, killed saving passengers' lives at Ais Gill in 1995, but coming from Shipley I am.

But hey, the beancounters say its safe so you're going to support them instead!

Indeed at the end of the day safety is a balance between risk and cost, it would likely be a lot safer if everybody drove everywhere the roads at 30mph but the cost to the country in slower journey time would be massive.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

And I as a passenger would support the Government in toughing it out in order to get DCO/DOO introduced.

If the Unions have evidence that the above operations are or will be unacceptably unsafe then they should present evidence to the Rail Regulator etc.

If not then it be introduced where appropriate, restructuring including safety critical operation happens in many industries I don't see why the railway industry should be any different or be some kind of Job creation scheme for its employees.

No doubt if was left purely to Unions we would probably still have a secondman in the cab of every train.

"First they came for the guards, but I was not a guard, so I did nothing..."

 

[HH]

Indeed at the end of the day safety is a balance between risk and cost, it would likely be a lot safer if everybody drove everywhere the roads at 30mph but the cost to the country in slower journey time would be massive.

This, I'm afraid, is the nub of the matter. Life has a value, and that value is not infinite.

Politicians are quite used to making judgements about how much a life is worth; otherwise how could they send young people off to war over weapons that don't exist?

 

[absolutelymilk]

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the bravery of Stuart Wilson, killed saving passengers' lives at Ais Gill in 1995, but coming from Shipley I am.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to door operation - assuming they keep a second staff member aboard the train once DOO/DCO is introduced

 

[northwichcat]

Arguing between DCO and DOO is arguing about semantics, nothing more and nothing less. Neither involve the existence of a guard, which is the whole point given that the aim is McNulty-style penny pinching.

To the passenger it makes a big difference if there's someone on board other than the driver so claiming having a member of staff who isn't releasing the doors, is the same as him/her not being there sounds stupid.

 

[LowLevel]

And I as a passenger would support the Government in toughing it out in order to get DCO/DOO introduced.

If the Unions have evidence that the above operations are or will be unacceptably unsafe then they should present evidence to the Rail Regulator etc.

If not then it be introduced where appropriate, restructuring including safety critical operation happens in many industries I don't see why the railway industry should be any different or be some kind of Job creation scheme for its employees.

No doubt if was left purely to Unions we would probably still have a secondman in the cab of every train.

Just as long as, if we lose, should someone be hurt or killed in an incident and the presence of a second person (fully trained guard) where withdrawn would be shown to have mitigated it, those who've pushed for and signed off the introduction of DOO/DCO end up in court and hopefully lose their freedom as well. If you're willing to sanction the removal of safety controls you should be personally liable for any consequences.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Just as long as, if we lose, should someone be hurt or killed in an incident and the presence of a second person (fully trained guard) where withdrawn would be shown to have mitigated it, those who've pushed for and signed off the introduction of DOO/DCO end up in court and hopefully lose their freedom as well. If you're willing to sanction the removal of safety controls you should be personally liable for any consequences.

This goes back to the whole argument of how safe do the railways need to be? For some reason a death on the railway is treated as much more serious than a death on the roads or from other causes.

If we invested the money gained from DOO/DCO (and possibly had a few extra deaths every decade) into road safety (where thousands of people die every year) or into the NHS, especially in mental health and suicide prevention then there would be a net gain of many lives.

You might think that it is penny-pinching to argue that money comes before safety, but while there are more worthy things to spend the money on then it is a reasonable argument to say that this isn't always true.

 

[Starmill]

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

So is having two guards.

 

[wigwamman]

I agree with Arctic Troll to a degree. I think the Toc's are gearing up for a fight on this issue and are alongside the Dft determined to win. Redundancy for ex BR staff though will be a very expensive process. How many of the Toc's current 1000 (ish) Guards can realistically expect to stay as Guards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with Arctic Troll to a degree. I think the Toc's are gearing up for a fight on this issue and are alongside the Dft determined to win. Redundancy for ex BR staff though will be a very expensive process. How many of the Toc's current 1000 (ish) Guards can realistically expect to stay as Guards.

As the new stock won't be here tomorrow and I wouldn't expect any of the 15x to be converted to DOO/DCO, I imagine all of them. If a recruitment block was imposed, natural attrition (retirement, people moving on etc) would probably reduce it substantially, then any remaining could be moved to other roles. Some might choose to be drivers, others could perhaps be on-board inspectors on the Glasgow model but on their original pay scale.

That does leave the safety issue of course, but provided it was done as above I don't see why there should be any personal grievance.

 

[wigwamman]

I meant retained as conventional Guards , not transfered or promoted into other roles or a downgraded position in term's of responsibility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I meant retained as conventional Guards , not transfered or promoted into other roles or a downgraded position in term's of responsibility.

Ah. In that case it'll be as many as they require to work the Class 15x that will remain, I'd imagine.

 

[Robertj21a]

If they have no intention of using conventional guards longer term then it would seem rather ridiculous to recruit any/many more after the franchise starts. As others have said, natural attrition will resolve most of the issues arising.

That's how most businesses would handle that type of situation - and there's no reason why it should be very different on the railways.

 

[The Ham]

So is having two guards.

It could be argued that trains would be much safer for passengers if there was a member of staff for each passenger to stop passengers from doing stupid things.

The problem is, even going from the extremes (automatic trains with limit staff akin to DLR through to a member of staff per set of doors) the number of incidents are VERY low, as such it is difficult to prove one way or the other which is really safer as one incent can skew the results one way or the other.

As I have pointed out before TfL have stats that show that DOO trains have a lower rate of incidents that those operated with guards.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure how that's relevant to door operation - assuming they keep a second staff member aboard the train once DOO/DCO is introduced

As I have repeatedly said, the "second member of staff" will not have any safety responsibilities at all. This is a stated aim of the DCO proposal. The driver will be responsible for all aspects of safety on the train, including placing detonators and evacuating the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I have pointed out before TfL have stats that show that DOO trains have a lower rate of incidents that those operated with guards.

Could you provide a link to those statistics please?

I agree that it is very difficult to quantify which is "safer", as operational incidents are so rare and so different that it is almost impossible to attribute statistical relevance to any of them.

However I think it stands to reason that having two people on a train with a safety responsibility is better than only having one. Of course ten would be safer again, but there is always a balancing act. My opinion is that DOO/DCO (they're the same thing) pushes the balance too far towards penny-pinching.

 

[LowLevel]

Reported operational incidents indeed. Unmanned stations with one person involved in incidents requires a)the person to realise they've made a mistake and b) to actually report it. A significant helper along to point a) is someone regrettably being hurt as a result of said mistake and hopefully bringing it to your attention before being dragged to their death or significant disablement.

 

[Clip]

As I have pointed out before TfL have stats that show that DOO trains have a lower rate of incidents that those operated with guards.

I cant find these stats however there is this report http://content.tfl.gov.uk/sasp-20150707-part-1-item05-quarterly-reports-q4-2014-15.pdf from last summer which states there has been an increase of PTI incidents and higher LTI for staff but I cant find anything that shows they are safer then with guards.

And how would TfL quantify this? By using TOCs data as they don't have any guards over their network.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm not sure if this is co-inicidence or not, but there were a few people in suits being shown the rear cab of the 15:32 Leeds-Ilkley just now....

Anyway I know DOO/DCO is likely to creep in under Arriva and the new stock, but the nature of many current Northern stations are different certainly from those further south where DOO operates. Aside from not wanting guards to lose pay or jobs, revenue loss as a result of either no or low paid revenue staff is a concern to me. We are going to have already got 281 more reasons to further increase fares, we don't need even more fare dodging going on to pressure fares even more.

 

[The Ham]

Could you provide a link to those statistics please?

I agree that it is very difficult to quantify which is "safer", as operational incidents are so rare and so different that it is almost impossible to attribute statistical relevance to any of them.

However I think it stands to reason that having two people on a train with a safety responsibility is better than only having one. Of course ten would be safer again, but there is always a balancing act. My opinion is that DOO/DCO (they're the same thing) pushes the balance too far towards penny-pinching.

Details can be found here:

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/ne..._union_vows_to_fight_driver_only_trains_plan/

Jonathan Fox, Acting Director of TfL London Rail, said: "We do not believe that the new system will have any impact on safety.

"On the East London Line, which uses driver only operation, the rate of door incidents is one for every 7 million passengers.

"This compares to the section of the network which currently uses conductors, where the rate of door incidents is one for every 4 million passengers."

 

[Tetchytyke]

As I suspected, they are comparing apples with oranges, with the intention of showing DOO to be safer as part of the campaign to sack the guards.

There should be fewer PTIs on the ELLX given that the ELLX stations have been designed to the most modern standards to minimise gaps between trains and platforms.

I would be fascinated to see how the PTI rate changed after the NLL changed over to DOO...

 

[Clip]

As I suspected, they are comparing apples with oranges, with the intention of showing DOO to be safer as part of the campaign to sack the guards.

There should be fewer PTIs on the ELLX given that the ELLX stations have been designed to the most modern standards to minimise gaps between trains and platforms.

I would be fascinated to see how the PTI rate changed after the NLL changed over to DOO...

Not only that but there really isn't that many Southern services on the stoppers that have guards so how on earth has he come to that conclusion.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not only that but there really isn't that many Southern services on the stoppers that have guards so how on earth has he come to that conclusion.

The article dates from just before LOROL got rid of the guards on the NLL.

I think he came to that conclusion by comparing the PTI rate on the ELLX (which always ran DOO) with the PTI rate on the NLL (which didn't). Obviously the rate on the ELLX will be lower, as the stations are more modern with reduced gaps between platforms and trains.

It was a mighty convenient conclusion during a "consultation" to fire the guards...

 

[Jonfun]

As I have repeatedly said, the "second member of staff" will not have any safety responsibilities at all. This is a stated aim of the DCO proposal. The driver will be responsible for all aspects of safety on the train, including placing detonators and evacuating the train.

Then that isn't DCO. It's DOO.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Then that isn't DCO. It's DOO.

You're getting it!

The stated aim of DCO is that the second member of staff will not have safety critical responsibilities. They will be there for revenue and customer service. I have quoted Rail North who have made this abundantly clear; they should know.

DCO is the same as DOO (at least the Strathclyde version), it just has a different name to disguise what it actually is.

I know DafT are trying gamely to pretend it is no different to how drivers open and close the doors on 220/221s, but it is. There will be no guard, there will be no second person with safety responsibility. The second person will be there to stamp tickets and possibly use the wheelchair ramp; nothing else.