Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[jon0844]

Is that not the role discription for a train guard duties as it stands ATM & to deal with "incidents" would these trolley hosts not have to have been given Safety Critical training.

Yes, but the guard won't have to do any train duties normally - and will concentrate on commercial interests to make the post viable, which in turn means they keep their job.

But if anything goes wrong, their extra training kicks in - and that's what justifies a higher salary.

You could argue that we have guards who are better positioned to deal with emergencies, yet we have very few emergencies. That will no doubt be used as an argument to get rid of them in the coming years, whereas my idea ensures they keep their job.

I accept some may not want to suddenly have to dish out food and drink (I recall SAS staff hating having to handle money when the airline decided to charge for food/drink on short-haul flights a few years ago) but if it's that or no job at all...

To clarify; I wouldn't expect any changes until we have new stock that is designed solely for DOO. Thus, existing jobs would be safe for quite a long time. It's staff in ticket offices most at risk in the short term, and even that won't happen overnight until we address a number of ticketing issues.

The quickest way to save money quickly is to review how much projects are costing. Staffing issues will take longer to deal with.

 

[blacknight]

Well how do they manage without a guard on FCC then?
As I understand it, classes 317/319/365/377 and maybe others operate perfectly safely under DOO.

Read RAIB report into DOO incident at Brentwood station & I would not go so far as to say operate perfectly safely.
DOO is a percentage game number passengers carried & journeys made, only in handful of cases do passengers end up either trapped in doors or between train & platform.

 

[jon0844]

A very good question that will only be answered when something, god forbid, goes badly wrong.

Even then, it will have to be decided whether the lack of a guard would have made much of a difference. If there was one guard on a 12-car 365, would it matter to many passengers?

We seem to have now got to the stage where passengers take their own action, often ignoring the requests of train staff, so if something does happen in the future there are going to be many factors to consider.

 

[DarloRich]

Even then, it will have to be decided whether the lack of a guard would have made much of a difference. If there was one guard on a 12-car 365, would it matter to many passengers?

We seem to have now got to the stage where passengers take their own action, often ignoring the requests of train staff, so if something does happen in the future there are going to be many factors to consider.

it might matter to the passengers if the following train runs into them because there was no one to protect the train. It could easily be the case that the poor driver is incapacitated (god forbid) and not in a posistion to undertake saftey duties. The passengers could be in a lot of trouble at that point

 

[blacknight]

With all this talk of destaffing trains, platforms & ticket offices just how are the disabled expected to get on & off. Surely this falls fowl of DDA unless driver is now expected to do passenger assists.

 

[Captain Chaos]

With all this talk of destaffing trains, platforms & ticket offices just how are the disabled expected to get on & off. Surely this falls fowl of DDA unless driver is now expected to do passenger assists.

That's an excellent point. I can't really see Driver's agreeing to doing ramp duties

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A very good question that will only be answered when something, god forbid, goes badly wrong.

Well it went quite badly wrong on a DOO 365 at Potters Bar, didn't it?

 

[LE Greys]

Well it went quite badly wrong on a DOO 365 at Potters Bar, didn't it?

That could have been a hell of a lot worse, nothing was coming the other way at the time and it happened at a station. Imagine if it had happened at the Holme crossovers directly into the path of another DOO service. Worst case scenario.

 

[DarloRich]

agreed - the investigation report does not make good reading.

I would rather have some one on board to deal with saftey critical duties in the event of an emergency.

 

[jon0844]

it might matter to the passengers if the following train runs into them because there was no one to protect the train.

Could that happen if the train doesn't pass the next signal? What would make the train behind catch up and hit it?

Now, a train coming the other way when a train has derailed may be a bigger problem - but would a guard be able to do much in such a situation?

I'm sure that newer trains will be able to relay live information about its status (think Airbus) so the second anything happens, someone NOT on the train will know about it - and systems could be in place to stop all other services nearby.

Technology would likely help most in future incidents, not the guard that MIGHT be more useful.

 

[blacknight]

Whats needed is some joined up thinking only couple of years ago DfT was requiring TOC's to install ticket gates at stations, which have to be staffed which leads to increase in staff & wage costs.
Also for ticket gates to operate correctly then ticket office as to be open otherwise ticketless passengers have to be let through as TVM's dont sell full range, so if ticket offices are closed is the next step to remove ticket gates from station to further drive down wage costs?
Still if anyone was caperble of joined up thinking they might of delayed announcement until after the Olympic Games.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The best thing to do is set up the process for full renationalisation

Only a matter of time before someone at DfT reinvents the wheel comes up with "great new idea" of Britains rail network being operated by single company.

 

[AlanFry1]

Only a matter of time before someone at DfT reinvents the wheel comes up with "great new idea" of Britains rail network being operated by single company.

Lets hope that is sooner rather than later

 

[PR1Berske]

Nationalisation would be a disaster, and you all know it.

The State paying for almost everything? New stock? New stations? Greater route expansions? Aye, and how much extra income tax would you like on those wages of yours?

There are some good, inventive suggestions from the DfT, many of which will doubtlessly be swamped by the vested interests in the union movement who are stuck in the 70s mindset that somehow certain services can only be done at high cost and low standards.

I can book train tickets on line, collect them from a machine at a station entrance, and get on/off a train without speaking to anyone. Why unions should be able to hold to ransom people like me who use the railways in this manner is a mystery.

There are issues and concerns with the way in which the DfT wants to take the railways, and I've no doubt there will be changes along the way from announcement to utilisation, but some of the old practices have to be put to rest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As usage goes up, wouldn't future improvements mean more trains running up north? If so, and the new trains become DOO, then wouldn't (or shouldn't) guards have the first refusal on training to become drivers?

This seems an attractive suggestion.

 

[AlanFry1]

Nationalisation would be a disaster, and you all know it.

The State paying for almost everything? New stock? New stations? Greater route expansions? Aye, and how much extra income tax would you like on those wages of yours?

There are some good, inventive suggestions from the DfT, many of which will doubtlessly be swamped by the vested interests in the union movement who are stuck in the 70s mindset that somehow certain services can only be done at high cost and low standards.

I can book train tickets on line, collect them from a machine at a station entrance, and get on/off a train without speaking to anyone. Why unions should be able to hold to ransom people like me who use the railways in this manner is a mystery.

There are issues and concerns with the way in which the DfT wants to take the railways, and I've no doubt there will be changes along the way from announcement to utilisation, but some of the old practices have to be put to rest.

Since the government have invested into the roads for so long at a loss, they can do to the railway, it should be considered a public service, even if means higer taxes and fares (or better still a crackdown on past and present tax evasion) we can invest hugely into the railway and Nationalise it, is better than the current model (whichis a total mess)

 

[blacknight]

Nationalisation would be a disaster, and you all know it.

Privitisation as been a roaring success then?

 

[Flamingo]

Flamingo with the greatest respect to you - and I do mean that do you not think that in order to safeguard jobs and to keep a second person on the train, that the guard should no longer consider checking tickets and customer service a secondary responsibility but the primary one?

Well, then all you need on a train is an ATE, not a guard.
- Then somebody will suggest giving them extra training, in first aid and immediate action in case of a fire.
- As a uniformed person on the train they will need to be capable of carrying out a train evacuation, and knowing when and where to do so.
- Then the logical thing is to give the ATE training in Personal Track Safety that in any emergency they could go on the track.
- Of course, if they are going to be going on the track, they will need route knowledge to do so safely.
- If they are going to be on the train, it would make sense to give them some knowledge of the mechanical make-up of the train, and how to fix the most common faults.
- It would be a good idea if they checked that all the doors were closing properly and nobody was in danger when the doors were opening and closing, especially on longer / unmanned platforms, and that they were able to see the dispatch staff when the train was leaving busy / manned platforms in case an emergency stop was required.

So after training them up with all that extra stuff over and above their ATE duties, they woud need extra pay for the extra responsibility.

In fact, they might even merit a new job title, as Assistant Ticketing Examiner doesn't really cover their roles.

How about calling them the Train Guard?

 

[blacknight]

There are some good, inventive suggestions from the DfT, many of which will doubtlessly be swamped by the vested interests in the union movement who are stuck in the 70s mindset that somehow certain services can only be done at high cost and low standards.

I can book train tickets on line, collect them from a machine at a station entrance, and get on/off a train without speaking to anyone. Why unions should be able to hold to ransom people like me who use the railways in this manner is a mystery.
There are issues and concerns with the way in which the DfT wants to take the railways, and I've no doubt there will be changes along the way from announcement to utilisation, but some of the old practices have to be put to rest.

Because its a workers right to withdraw his or hers labour if they wish to do so just like your choice to live a reclusive life style & not intergrate fully with society
So you by old practices are you planning on repeeling the Hidden Report which governs working hours of Safety Critical staff on the railway

 

[AlanFry1]

Privitisation as been a roaring success then?

No, it has been a 100% disaster

 

[PR1Berske]

No, it has been a 100% disaster

It has not.

I would hate to go back to a nationalised railway. No money, little investment, fewer services and crippled by Union bullies.

 

[AlanFry1]

It has not.

I would hate to go back to a nationalised railway. No money, little investment, fewer services and crippled by Union bullies.

I am talking about a nationalised railway with far more services and far more investment

 

[Flamingo]

I do have to laugh when I hear Unions saying "We want nationalisation". I have to say that I think railway staff in general, and certain grades in particular have done much better out of privatisation than they would have ever done out of a public-owned company. The current public sector pay freeze is just one example.

 

[blacknight]

I do have to laugh when I hear Unions saying "We want nationalisation". I have to say that I think railway staff in general, and certain grades in particular have done much better out of privatisation than they would have ever done out of a public-owned company. The current public sector pay freeze is just one example.

Large collection of ties badges & lanyards for starters

 

[PR1Berske]

I am talking about a nationalised railway with far more services and far more investment

At what cost?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do have to laugh when I hear Unions saying "We want nationalisation". I have to say that I think railway staff in general, and certain grades in particular have done much better out of privatisation than they would have ever done out of a public-owned company. The current public sector pay freeze is just one example.

Absolutely.

How many drivers on these forums would never go on strike again under "British Rail v2.0"?

 

[blacknight]

I would hate to go back to a nationalised railway. No money, little investment, fewer services and crippled by Union bullies.

Nice emblem though The Lion Wheel & Crown Puts some pride back in the job

 

[PR1Berske]

Exactly.

If the best thing about a state-run rail industry is a pretty logo, let's stick with what we've got

 

[Flamingo]

I'm not saying that a state-run railway would not be better for the country, just that the unions job is to look after it's members interests and they are better served under the current system, IMHO.

 

[blacknight]

Exactly.

If the best thing about a state-run rail industry is a pretty logo, let's stick with what we've got

Same thing applies to post privitisation TOC's

 

[yorksrob]

It seems to me that with a couple of noteable exceptions (the Evergreen projects and some of the open access operations in particular) the privatised railway has delivered very little that BR wasn't quietly getting on with already.

To those who say "what about all those extra passengers" I would ask, do you honestly believe that with a fifteen year period of economic growth, congestion on the roads and rising costs of motoring we wouldn't have seen a huge rise in passenger usage on the nationalized railway anyway ?

Now we have a railway that has been judged to be inefficient in comparison to it's European neighbours that is staring down the barrel of a gun in the form of cuts. This doesn't strike me as being a good position to be in.

 

[jon0844]

Would it have been cheaper to build new trains and stations (as well as modernising the network) if it was still fully under Government control?

Or would prices have risen, with staff being paid increasingly more money (great for the staff, obviously) and no need to worry because jobs would have been pretty secure?

 

[PR1Berske]

Would it have been cheaper to build new trains and stations (as well as modernising the network) if it was still fully under Government control?

Or would prices have risen, with staff being paid increasingly more money (great for the staff, obviously) and no need to worry because jobs would have been pretty secure?

A very good post.

I believe that there would be far fewer trains and stations under state control, as was the case in the dying years of the clapped out BR.

Under state control, especially under current economic uncertainty, the Government would not risk spending a penny on a new railway station.

Salaries for drivers, guards and other railway staff would be far more of a strain on the government's purse were Unions able to point to European salaries and ask "If them, why not us?" At what cost to income tax would higher salaries be?