Northern Rail , what now for the Guard ?

[FordFocus]

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.

Specified for DOO, it's the same as DCO. DCO is a dressed up term that the train has to run with a second person onboard. It's DOO in operational sense.

This DOO project will cost Northern a bomb for minimal benefits.. Like I mentioned before, guards will retain their wage, driver will need an increase as it's an increase in responsibilities, the new equipment, the cost of industrial action.. List is endless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Glad someone has mentioned security staff on here. My experience of the vast majority of subcontracted railway security staff.

- They aren't PTS trained
- They aren't customer service trained
- They have minimal knowledge of the railway and send people on the wrong trains
- They usually hold a second job of door staff in bars and clubs so are zero hour
- They go missing when there is trouble, several stories to back that up.


Nowhere near suitable to replace a fully qualified guard.

 

[OxtedL]

Let's not let this degenerate further into another DOO debate thread, I think we should try to return to discussion on if or how the new Northern franchise will see it implemented.

We've all seen all the mud-slinging before, and it is an emotive issue because it affects peoples livelihoods. The thread will be much more useful if it can establish what is going on rather than if it just repeats the same arguments again, with everyone trying to have the last word.

 

[pemma]

Let's not let this degenerate further into another DOO debate thread, I think we should try to return to discussion on if or how the new Northern franchise will see it implemented.

We've all seen all the mud-slinging before, and it is an emotive issue because it affects peoples livelihoods. The thread will be much more useful if it can establish what is going on rather than if it just repeats the same arguments again, with everyone trying to have the last word.

Looking back at the thread title I have to say I agree. The thread title is "what now for the guard?" not will drivers get a pay rise or will DCO cost the franchise more. Arriva (and the other bidders) will have been well aware of any costs involved and any savings they can make when the bids were submitted. As far as I'm aware we don't know anything beyond the Arriva UK MD saying no current members of Northern Rail staff will lose their jobs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

Go back to my posting where I show the difference in the amount of full training that can cope with events where face-to-face dealings with the general public at large. Those with the orange strip at the right hand of their accredited security badge have to take...and pass...a far more intensive training course.

What really offended me in the posting was that you imply that some people who work in the railway industry apparently have no difficulty in understanding and then putting it into effect the safety training they receive, but someone in security who has worked in a field of dealing with the public would not have the intelligence to be able to take any such related safety training and be able to put it into effect.

 

[the sniper]

Pretend DCO isn't happening. There are new trains which make the driver's job easier, will they accept a pay cut because their job has been made easier? No, of course not. (I don't know for certain that their job will be made easier but I would hope that new trains would have more benefits for drivers than trains designed in the early 1980s.)

I'm afraid I don't buy into this idea. For example, a 350 is considered by many Drivers I know to be more complicated to deal with than a 323. Something like a 323 is fairly rudimentary in comparison to a 350. With a 350, like all new stock, you also bring in the TMS, the computer, which throws up a new set of challenges.

Go back to my posting where I show the difference in the amount of full training that can cope with events where face-to-face dealings with the general public at large. Those with the orange strip at the right hand of their accredited security badge have to take...and pass...a far more intensive training course.

What really offended me in the posting was that you imply that some people who work in the railway industry apparently have no difficulty in understanding and then putting it into effect the safety training they receive, but someone in security who has worked in a field of dealing with the public would not have the intelligence to be able to take any such related safety training and be able to put it into effect.

Again surely the first line of his post which you omitted loses the context of what he was saying. Yes obviously you can train a security guard or anybody else the duties of a Guard, but if you do, when does the security guard become a traditional railway Guard?

 

[455driver]

Anyone who thinks the implementation of DOO will reduce subsidy or ticket prices really needs to look at the amount of 'profit' the TOCs pay out to the shareholders now!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

The secondman was basically there to deal with the boiler (and learn the route and traction for when the driver was too p-ssed to drive ) but with the reduction in steam heat and the new boil in the bag way of training divers there was no need for the secondman in the cab, the guards role is still very much needed despite what some people would like us to believe.

 

[scrapy]

Looking back at the thread title I have to say I agree. The thread title is "what now for the guard?" not will drivers get a pay rise or will DCO cost the franchise more. Arriva (and the other bidders) will have been well aware of any costs involved and any savings they can make when the bids were submitted. As far as I'm aware we don't know anything beyond the Arriva UK MD saying no current members of Northern Rail staff will lose their jobs.

Has the Arriva UK MD said no current members of Northern Rail staff will lose their jobs?

If so I haven't heard this. I've heard him say all current members of Northern staff will transfer to the new franchise but this was guaranteed under TUPE anyhow. I haven't heard him rule out redundancies over the next few years as DOO or DCO is introduced.

 

[Carlisle]

But i would like to know how / why you think the drivers role has been made easier due to newer rolling stock being introduced ?

A few examples are
1) GSMR means probably having to leave/re enter the cab signicantly less times during a shift
2) Autocouplers mean it's rarely necessary these days to don gloves/coat and crawl around joining/splitting locos/units/ coaches
3)modern stock is far more reliable generally , less need to preform tasks like changing fuses/top up coolant etc than the older stock it replaced,
4)The abolition of non lockable slam door stock means on non DOO services there's less onus on the driver to look back after every stop , as incidents or problems are far less likely

 

[FordFocus]

In simple terms Northern drivers don't operate doors and won't have a pay cut in the event that the new trains come without any in cab DOO equipment, I've answered that a couple of times now along with many other posters . The new stock as explained is very likely going to be more complicated to operate and learn compared to a basic 14x or 15x. Depending on the manufacturer, the new trains can come with no TMS (LM 172s), partial TMS that advises faults or a full TMS that can control certain functions of the train. TOCs don't tend to give pay rises for a change in fleets. Northern drivers never got a change in pay when the 180s were there.

 

[Class 170101]

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?

Depends on who's life it is I would suggest. I doubt they would send their own children to war but would quite happily send someone else's

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

If the guards strike they just won't be invited back. the drivers however. However where would the drivers stand legally? They can't strike in a guards strike I believe - secondary action.

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.

They don't need to cover the whole of Scotland for DOO issues. This method only applies in Glasgow (plus I believe A2B to Edinburgh).

A few examples are
2) Autocouplers mean it's rarely necessary these days to don gloves/coat and crawl around joining/splitting locos/units/ coaches

Some depots can't couple these older engines up anymore.

 

[gtr driver]

A few examples are
1) GSMR means probably having to leave/re enter the cab signicantly less times during a shift
2) Autocouplers mean it's rarely necessary these days to don gloves/coat and crawl around joining/splitting locos/units/ coaches
3)modern stock is far more reliable generally , less need to preform tasks like changing fuses/top up coolant etc than the older stock it replaced,
4)The abolition of non lockable slam door stock means on non DOO services there's less onus on the driver to look back after every stop , as incidents or problems are far less likely

Driving modern stock is certainly cleaner and easier yes, but there are other considerations that didn't exist in the past. Like TPWS. Like a much heavier emphasis on not making mistakes. Like more intense rostering with short turnrounds and more time in the cab. Like having to deal with absolutely everything by yourself. All told much greater pressure. Sadly it's swings and roundabouts, not having to use a signal post telephone much doesn't make up for the rest that is increasingly piled on.

 

[driver_m]

If the guards strike they just won't be invited back. the drivers however. However where would the drivers stand legally? They can't strike in a guards strike I believe - secondary action.

The drivers would have to be asked as it is a change to their t&c's too. Therefore not agreeing would result in a ballot to strike potentially. If they coordinate those strikes. Then that's how they'd do it.

 

[Carlisle]

Driving modern stock is certainly cleaner and easier yes, but there are other considerations that didn't exist in the past. Like TPWS. Like a much heavier emphasis on not making mistakes. Like more intense rostering with short turnrounds and more time in the cab. Like having to deal with absolutely everything by yourself. All told much greater pressure. Sadly it's swings and roundabouts, not having to use a signal post telephone much doesn't make up for the rest that is increasingly piled on.

Yes I pretty much totally agree with you summing up there

 

[reb0118]

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.

They don't need to cover the whole of Scotland for DOO issues. This method only applies in Glasgow (plus I believe A2B to Edinburgh).

True, but whilst the SQUIRE inspector is in Thurso with a protractor measuring how squint a poster is he's not at Balloch making sure that there is a TE actually on the train. In any case AFAIAA we have up to 20 -25 mins. to check the SQUIRE inspector's pass on a DOO service before it is recorded as a fail and then there is a threshold of fails required before the actual fines kick in.

I have heard anecdotally, and have witnessed personally, that the extremities of the DOO network can go uncovered to concentrate on the core and that regularly TEs are pulled off rostered backshifts to cover the more lucrative dayshifts - it is also rare, but not unheard of, to see a SQUIRE inspector after 20:00 if not earlier.

Just like any other government sponsored enforcement regime there are not enough inspectors - be it trading standards, environmental health, or indeed SQUIRE.

 

[ComUtoR]

A few examples are
1) GSMR means probably having to leave/re enter the cab signicantly less times during a shift

Pardon ? How does a new radio mean you enter the cab any less ?

3)modern stock is far more reliable generally , less need to preform tasks like changing fuses/top up coolant etc than the older stock it replaced,

Compared to the number of MCB's that trip out and the number of electronics and relays that fail. The unit is still prepared and checked daily and cab prepared en route. As well as carrying out brake tests and setting up the cab.

4)The abolition of non lockable slam door stock means on non DOO services there's less onus on the driver to look back after every stop , as incidents or problems are far less likely

There is no proof either way of what is causing the number of incidents. As this is about the introduction of DCO/DOO and the Guard no longer doing the doors it is an INCREASE in the Drivers responsibilities. They are making the job harder.

Nothing you have said is remotely accurate. Conjecture at best.

 

[pemma]

But i would like to know how / why you think the drivers role has been made easier due to newer rolling stock being introduced ? You did suggest that right ?

I'm afraid I don't buy into this idea. For example, a 350 is considered by many Drivers I know to be more complicated to deal with than a 323. Something like a 323 is fairly rudimentary in comparison to a 350.

Like I've pointed out numerous times already that was a hypothetical example to illustrate the point one forum member was struggling to understand that if making your role harder entitles you to an automatic pay rise, does making your job easier mean you should get a pay cut?

If the reverse is true and older trains are easier to work then maybe he question I should have posed to FordFocus was should the drivers working the TPE Blackpool services have received a pay cut when 156s replaced 185s? I'm not saying the drivers should have got a pay cut, I'm using it as an example of why a change in what in you doesn't have to mean your pay changes.

 

[notadriver]

I've already answered that. TOCs do not differentiate between DOO and traditionally guarded trains. Drivers may get different pay for being in a HSS link in the same TOC but I can't think of any other examples.

Was it not true before pay was consolidated that there were extra payments for DOO train drivers ?

 

[FordFocus]

You know what I'm getting at and you're just wanting to argue the wording of the question rather than to give an answer. It seems you'll only answer a question if it comes from a qualified train driver or engineer.

In any industry most people don't want a pay cut or their hours cut because their job has been made easier. However, they also don't argue for a pay rise every time one of their responsibilities change. A promotion (which would get you a pay rise) normally involves a long list of new responsibilities not just the one.

I'm happy to answer any question from any background it's just that you won't let certain issues go despite many posts from different posters on the subject, now we've established that Northern drivers who don't work doors won't get a pay cut for not working doors, your now suggesting that if a driver is now driving a 156 instead of a more complicated 185 they should get a pay cut? Like I said TOCs don't pay you on what traction you drive and the complexity of that. ATW drivers are amongst the poorer paid in the industry and drive a variety of stock including 175s and loco hauled at some depots. XC are the best payers and most depots only drive Voyagers. So if XC went overnight to a very basic form of a traction, let say 158s should they should get a pay cut? Drivers never have a say in traction changes, so why should they get a pay cut?

 

[gorilladan]

Go back to my posting where I show the difference in the amount of full training that can cope with events where face-to-face dealings with the general public at large. Those with the orange strip at the right hand of their accredited security badge have to take...and pass...a far more intensive training course.

What really offended me in the posting was that you imply that some people who work in the railway industry apparently have no difficulty in understanding and then putting it into effect the safety training they receive, but someone in security who has worked in a field of dealing with the public would not have the intelligence to be able to take any such related safety training and be able to put it into effect.

I was not implying what you suggest & want that fact on record. I've re-read my original posting in full & can't see where I imply what you claim. I fully repudiate what you claim & do not wish to be associated with it in any way.

I want the retention of competently trained Guards on the Northern network & all the benefits they bring to the travelling public. I'm sure that Security Staff do a sterling job & in full accordance with their training & employer requirements but they are not railway Guards & do not receive the same training in PTS, Door operation, traction etc. The job roles are different, ergo, the training is different.
An experienced & knowledgable Guard is a highly-valuable asset to the TOC in many different ways. Some benefits are tangible but the intangible benefits they bring to the role are possibly more valuable.
I hope that the general public won't realise too late just how important the Guard is to the safe operation of the Northern network.

 

[deltic]

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!

with respect that is not the finding of the railway inspectorate's report into the Ais Gill accident http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_AisGill1995.pdf

 

[bb21]

I have taken the axe to the thread and gone back as far as my time will allow tonight.

While I appreciate that the thread will be closely tied in with discussions on DOO, and there will always be discussions about other related roles when discussions about a guard's job takes place, can we please try and keep more focus on the implications for guards instead of bickering and asking pointless hypothetical questions on scenarios that will never happen?

I have kept a few informative posts from some of the exchanges I removed where the quoted post replied to may have been removed, so some of the links may not work any more.

If I missed anything please let me know.

Thanks.

 

[Tetchytyke]

with respect that is not the finding of the railway inspectorate's report into the Ais Gill accident

I'm not sure where the Railway Inspectorate disagreed with what I said?

Mistakes were made laying the detonators, and he may not have died had they been set correctly. Although I cannot help but feel that the one person who got all the blame was the one person not there to defend themselves. It should also be noted that the driver was incapacitated as a result of the crash. It should also be noted that the passengers commended the late guard for his actions in getting them to safety.

His actions in getting the passengers to safety was not questioned.

There were clear issues arising from the privatisation of Railtrack and the separation of infrastructure operator and train operator. I still believe many of these were swept under the carpet for political reasons, as they were at Watford Junction, only to re-appear at later crashes.

I think the Ais Gill accident gives us plenty of food for thought about the implications of DCO/DOO for passenger safety on the rural lines Northern serve.

I also think the reports at Ais Gill and Watford Junction show just how little the railway regulators will actually care if people do die because of DCO/DOO. They went to extreme lengths to avoid blaming Railtrack, and by extension the idiots who created it, for those fatal accidents. It will be swept under the carpet, and the drivers will get the flack. I wouldn't want to be a driver with Arriva under the new regime, you know the TOC will do what DafT tell them to do and it'll be the drivers who get it in the neck.

 

[deltic]

I'm not sure where the Railway Inspectorate disagreed with what I said?

Mistakes were made laying the detonators, and he may not have died had they been set correctly. Although I cannot help but feel that the one person who got all the blame was the one person not there to defend themselves. It should also be noted that the driver was incapacitated as a result of the crash. It should also be noted that the passengers commended the late guard for his actions in getting them to safety.

His actions in getting the passengers to safety was not questioned.

.

I dont want to get into an argument about a fatal accident but the inspector does question his action - he says he can understand why he helped passengers move but states his primary responsibility was to stop the train

 

[Tetchytyke]

the inspector does question his action - he says he can understand why he helped passengers move but states his primary responsibility was to stop the train

I agree, there were issues with the way he didn't go and sort the detonators out. Although Crewe control told them "not to worry" and they took this to mean all trains were stopped. The fact that Crewe control, York control and the signallers were unable to contact each other due to the shambolic way Railtrack was created seems to have been glossed over by HMRI though, just as it was in the report for the fatal Watford Junction crash a year later.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I can't help but wonder why HMRI glossed over this, coming barely a year after an extremely controversial privatisation.

I also still don't see how the HMRI report disagrees with what I said- that the late Mr Wilson died getting his passengers to safety.

As I said in my intial post on Ais Gill, if anyone thinks the ORR would criticise DOO should the worst happen then they're living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point was around DOO and the important role guards play, though. If the train had been DOO the situation would have been worse- the driver was incapacitated (hence why the guard had to do the dets) and there would have been no guard to get passengers to safety. The idea of trains with only one (railway) safety-trained crew member operating on remote railway lines fills me with horror.

 

[JamesT]

The fact that Crewe control, York control and the signallers were unable to contact each other due to the shambolic way Railtrack was created seems to have been glossed over by HMRI though, just as it was in the report for the fatal Watford Junction crash a year later.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I can't help but wonder why HMRI glossed over this, coming barely a year after an extremely controversial privatisation.

I don't suppose you could expand on this? From my reading of the report, especially paragraph 53, the setup hadn't changed from BR days. So I fail to see how the privatisation made any difference.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Read the bits about York and Crewe controls not knowing how to communicate with each other because of the split into Railtrack, and the bits about how RRNE control no longer had any way of getting in touch with either of the Railtrack control centres.

Paragraphs 65-71 should have been damming.

It was a similar catalogue of errors at Watford Junction the following year, where once again the driver copped all the flack* to divert attention from Railtrack failings. (*and yes, he deserved plenty of it)