Northern Rail , what now for the Guard ?

[Clip]

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...

Ahh ok good spot.

 

[FordFocus]

ASLEF and RMT won't agree to it. That comes from both GS and a press release a couple of weeks ago. So that's that for me.

I see absolutely no benefit to DCO at all.

Driver operates doors, increased workload so requires more pay = Increased cost to TOC
Modifications to Rolling Stock = Increased cost to TOC
Industrial Action, loss of revenue = Increased cost to TOC
Infrastructure needed if DOO monitors required = Increased cost to TOC

 

[pemma]

Driver operates doors, increased workload so requires more pay = Increased cost to TOC
Modifications to Rolling Stock = Increased cost to TOC

New rolling stock will likely be specified to allow for DCO so no cost there and as mentioned by someone else the 333s already allow for either DOO or guard operation. If Northern get more 319s it'll cost them to modify them for guard operation.

 

[455driver]

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

Unfortunately for 'them' the drivers are fully aware of the situation (despite the rhetoric and propaganda) and are not doing nothing, they are fully supporting their colleague in this dispute, ASLEF have been told what to do by their members and they are doing it, unless 'they' can come up with some magic offer (immunity from prosecution when some drunk moron ends up having their legs chopped off because they tried to get on the train when it was already moving would be a start) DOO/DCO/woteva will never be acceptable to the driving grade!

There isn't any point in offering lots of money for the drivers to accept DOO because the tax man will take 40% of it for a start plus there is the little problem of having to take on the responsibility for the PTI!

As for LOROL, that had been agreed years ago and is why ASLEFs hands were tied, a mistake they will not be repeating in the future!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

And there lies the problem, how long is that second person guaranteed to be on board?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

They would never come to that conclusion, I can guarantee that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

Jonfun finally wakes up to what we have been telling him for months!

DCO is DOO, just doing it in two steps instead of one!

 

[Moonshot]

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.

Absolutely agree with my colleague here......the 6 on the buzzer has increased somewhat since more and more 4 car diesel trains have appeared. Drivers are increasingly finding themselves having to put the train on a " sixpence " at a station with a small platform.

 

[SPADTrap]

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.

Why? Interested to know your motivations for this?

 

[absolutelymilk]

Why? Interested to know your motivations for this?

Because the millions it would save could be better spent elsewhere - either within the rail industry or to reduce subsidies and then spend it elsewhere

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because the millions it would save could be better spent elsewhere - either within the rail industry or to reduce subsidies and then spend it elsewhere

Whatver it is you and McNulty have been smoking, I want some

 

[bluenoxid]

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

I think they first came for the secondman

Arriva will fight it out with the guards and the drivers. I expect a lot of talking but would not be surprised if the first strikes are next winter

I will be surprised if millions are saved. Installing and maintaining the kit for this kind of operation costs money

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Because the millions it would save could be better spent elsewhere - either within the rail industry or to reduce subsidies and then spend it elsewhere

And what planet do you live on?

 

[absolutelymilk]

And what planet do you live on?

Talking about the whole UK network, not just Northern here. If 500 guards changed to lower paid jobs, earning £5,000 less a year, then that is £2.5 million to be saved

 

[craigybagel]

Talking about the whole UK network, not just Northern here. If 500 guards changed to lower paid jobs, earning £5,000 less a year, then that is £2.5 million to be saved

Which will be wiped out in about a day by industrial action.

Of course, you could get those kind of savings by fitting intermediate guards panels to Northern Stock, and putting a bit of effort into diagramming so services worked by units in multiple have corridors, so the guard is actually able to carry out revenue duties effectively - without opening up the massive can of worms that is DOO.

 

[TheEdge]

Talking about the whole UK network, not just Northern here. If 500 guards changed to lower paid jobs, earning £5,000 less a year, then that is £2.5 million to be saved

Two points.

Firstly in railway terms £2.5m is small change, it would go absolutely nowhere close to even being able to consider saying that there was even the tiniest offset against the similar overheads to enable DOO.

Secondly. Glad to see you have absolutely no compassion for people this would actually impact on. Would you take an £x,000 paycut lying down, especially when said paycut also makes your job and you expendable?

 

[absolutelymilk]

Which will be wiped out in about a day by industrial action.

Of course, you could get those kind of savings by fitting intermediate guards panels to Northern Stock, and putting a bit of effort into diagramming so services worked by units in multiple have corridors, so the guard is actually able to carry out revenue duties effectively - without opening up the massive can of worms that is DOO.

Well hopefully it wouldn't come to that!

 

[craigybagel]

Well hopefully it wouldn't come to that!

It will. Even before the joint statement with ASLEF last week you'd be able to guarantee RMT would call guards out on strike if Northern tried to implement DOO - You only have to look at the doomed strikes at London Overground as recent proof. The fact that ASLEF are on board has only made it even more likely it'd happen.

 

[gorilladan]

Talking about the whole UK network, not just Northern here. If 500 guards changed to lower paid jobs, earning £5,000 less a year, then that is £2.5 million to be saved

How do you propose to incentivise Train Drivers to take on the added responsibilities of door control & the can of worms that is PTI ?
The only incentive available is, wait for it, by offering the drivers more money. The very thing you expect to save by introducing DOO.
It is not possible to persuade drivers to take on door duties without the persuasion costing more than any alleged DOO cost savings.

DOO is dead-in-the-water, it won't happen. Train drivers are acutely aware of how valuable the Guards are & will fight tooth & nail to retain them.
Take a trip out on any late night Northern train on any Friday or Saturday & you'll see lots of very drunken people, many are almost incapable of speech, let alone being responsible for their own safety. Guards are vital to keep people safe at the PTI.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Take a trip out on any late night Northern train on any Friday or Saturday & you'll see lots of very drunken people, many are almost incapable of speech, let alone being responsible for their own safety. Guards are vital to keep people safe at the PTI.

I'm not convinced it wouldn't be better to have a couple of security guards on board each train (or indeed, perhaps better, BTP) rather than a railway guard?

 

[gorilladan]

I'm not convinced it wouldn't be better to have a couple of security guards on board each train (or indeed, perhaps better, BTP) rather than a railway guard?

And these extra people will be doing exactly what at the platform train interface ? Opening doors when it's safe to do so ? Perhaps closing doors ? Sounds suspiciously like the role of the Guard !
Guards protect the PTI such that people don't die or get legs ripped off by heavy moving machinery.
Security guards et al are not safety trained, when present on trains they aim to maintain public order & assist the Guard in the safe transport of passengers to their destination. They do not protect the PTI except in the very general sense of maintaining order.
Keep the Guard & Keep it Safe - might send that to Aslef

 

[ComUtoR]

It isn't just a blanket saving due to reduction in wage costs if staff transfer to a new role.

Changing to a new role does not specifically require a reduction in wages. In fact what often happens is that you retain your salary in the new role for a certain period or forgo pay rises until those already in the grade catch up. It will depend on your terms and conditions.

Redundancy needs to be factored in.
Remuneration for the Drivers needs to be factored in.
DOO infrastructure installation and maintenance.
Rolling stock modifications cost.

I think a list of costs were already posted. Chuck in training for the switch to a new role, potential new uniforms. The new role may also require a higher staffing level.

We are DOO but now we have both revenue and enforcement. I would imagine that the REO department is a significant cost. I could go into more detail but no one listens.

Staff costs are controllable and many of the other costs listed can be taken up by other departments.

Any belief that whatever savings are made by the TOC will be passed onto the passenger is laughable at best. While it may lead to a reduction in the subsidy it still doesn't get passed on. The reduction pays for DOO infrastructure. If anything, it is another money-go-round.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Security guards et al are not safety trained.

Where on earth did you find this information from about Security Officers not being safety trained. Those who work in retail and on door security, who have the orange stripe on the right-hand side of their accredited badges for example, do indeed have opportunities for this as part of their training, which is more intensive than the training requirements for the basic entry level who have a blue stripe at the right-hand side of their accredited badges.

 

[the sniper]

Where on earth did you find this information from about Security Officers not being safety trained. Those who work in retail and on door security, who have the orange stripe on the right-hand side of their accredited badges for example, do indeed have opportunities for this as part of their training, which is more intensive than the training requirements for the basic entry level who have a blue stripe at the right-hand side of their accredited badges.

You cut out the rest of his post which makes it fairly clear he was referring to 'safety trained' in the operational railway sense. Most security guards on the railway I've met have absolutely no knowledge of railway rules or procedures. Not even basic stuff like knowing how or when you might have to call the signaller in an emergency...

 

[The Ham]

If northern are to end up with a more uniform fleet then the extra cost of drivers could be (in part) be offset by savings in training of staff to not have to be trained in how to drive, repair etc so many different train types.

People talk of natural wastage of guards, the same is also true of drivers, so over time any new drivers have a clause in their contacts which states that they are required to operate trains as DOO and it wouldn't take long before one or two routes were able to be operated by staff employed since the change in contract.

Of course there is also the threat to drivers that those who will not agree will only be trained to drive pacers. If I were a driver that might be enough (at least after one winter) to drop my support for the guards.

 

[notadriver]

If northern are to end up with a more uniform fleet then the extra cost of drivers could be (in part) be offset by savings in training of staff to not have to be trained in how to drive, repair etc so many different train types.



People talk of natural wastage of guards, the same is also true of drivers, so over time any new drivers have a clause in their contacts which states that they are required to operate trains as DOO and it wouldn't take long before one or two routes were able to be operated by staff employed since the change in contract.



Of course there is also the threat to drivers that those who will not agree will only be trained to drive pacers. If I were a driver that might be enough (at least after one winter) to drop my support for the guards.

I think you underestimate the power that drivers have on the railway. Any change to contracts, new entrants or existing or anything to force acception of DOO will be met with fierce resistance. All it would take is an overtime ban (never mind an an actual stoppage) and Northern services would be crippled.

 

[gorilladan]

Where on earth did you find this information from about Security Officers not being safety trained. Those who work in retail and on door security, who have the orange stripe on the right-hand side of their accredited badges for example, do indeed have opportunities for this as part of their training, which is more intensive than the training requirements for the basic entry level who have a blue stripe at the right-hand side of their accredited badges.

Elucidate please & show me any Northern Security Staff member who is PTS trained, qualified to operate doors & keep the PTI secure ? Obviously, they don't exist. If you read my posting & not just the edited quote you would note the point I was making.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Which will be wiped out in about a day by industrial action.

Of course, you could get those kind of savings by fitting intermediate guards panels to Northern Stock, and putting a bit of effort into diagramming so services worked by units in multiple have corridors, so the guard is actually able to carry out revenue duties effectively - without opening up the massive can of worms that is DOO.

That was a lower limit as I can't find figures for how many guards there are currently operating, I suspect there are rather more than 500 but say the natural wastage due to retirement was 500 over the course of two or three years.

If there are savings to be made by doing that then of course that should be done, but that is a separate issue.

Glad to see you have absolutely no compassion for people this would actually impact on. Would you take an £x,000 paycut lying down, especially when said paycut also makes your job and you expendable?

Again no one has argued (on this forum or openly at least) for this to happen to current guards, I would support this happening to new stock and then letting retirement and guards moving away or getting to do the rest so that no one loses out.

 

[notadriver]

Just as an aside I find the platform staff very helpful where provided. They notice things like bodyside indicator lights flashing or failing to extinguish and will offer their assistance where possible in a way that security officers can't.

 

[SPADTrap]

Because the millions it would save could be better spent elsewhere - either within the rail industry or to reduce subsidies and then spend it elsewhere

I thought that would be one of the motivations. Some wonder about with their eyes closed :cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just as an aside I find the platform staff very helpful where provided. They notice things like bodyside indicator lights flashing or failing to extinguish and will offer their assistance where possible in a way that security officers can't.

I too find platform staff extremely helpful and vital! At my company we self dispatch with one class of EMU despite the platforms being equipped with CD/RA equipment, seeing the platform staff in your in cab CCTV is both comforting and professional on their part, I'm not sure if they have to 'see the train in and out' despite having no role within the dispatch process, seems like a worrying middle ground if you ask me but I have no say in that. Full respect to anyone responsibility for the PTI, recent events have certainly changed perceptions in my place I know that much.

 

[reb0118]

As I said on the other thread, the Glasgow DOO trains have a second person on board [but] the train can operate without them (though there is a contractual penalty payable to Transport Scotland if it does)

Only if they are caught by the SQUIRE inspectors - and there are very few of them to cover the whole of Scotland! Most incidences of single manning go unreported in my experience.

 

[gtr driver]

Just as an aside I find the platform staff very helpful where provided. They notice things like bodyside indicator lights flashing or failing to extinguish and will offer their assistance where possible in a way that security officers can't.

I'm glad to hear that. I expect they're on every platform from the Cumbrian coast, along the Morecambe-Skipton line, on every windswept Settle-Carlisle halt and carrying luggage along the Tyne Valley? A luxury not even guaranteed in the inner city suburbs of London if you're not part of TfL. Down here DOO, DCO, call it what what you like, means, you are on your lonesome. Never mind, we're probably never more than 2 minutes from the next station. That will be some comfort when the brick that came through the front window that killed me instantly leaves ten cars of rush hour punters free to egress the doors and have a bracing walk along the juice rail, assuming they don't get hit by another train first. No guard = raises risks whatever the stats say. Aside from the the niceties of a person to ask when you need help, aside from the horrendous possibilities of dispatch issues, the scenario above is my nightmare on every train I operate alone.

 

[notadriver]

GTR driver i wasn't in any way suggesting platform staff should mean it's ok to run without a guard, but just that platform staff are a lot more useful than security / RPO staff.