Daily Mail: train cancelled whilst guard is in sainsburys...

[A-driver]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Hastings-cancelled-guard-gone-Sainsburys.html

Sorry, the 19.53 to Hastings is cancelled... because the guard has gone to Sainsbury's

• Rush hour service from London to Hastings was cancelled
• The reason given was that the guard could not be found
• He was later spotted in Sainsbury's, having his break
• Customers had a 'nightmare' and said fares were a 'rip-off'

A rush hour service from London to Hastings was cancelled on Tuesday because the guard could not be found.

He was later spotted in Sainsbury's, but refused to get on the train because he was having his break so the next train was cancelled.

Finally – and with three train loads of passengers on one train – the service departed, delaying commuters by at least an hour..

Here we go again...usual rubbish from the mail showing how little idea the journalist has in what they are actually writing about! Full of the usual stupid comments from people with equally no idea what they are on about.

Basically. The article is about a "rush hour" train (I don't count a 1953 train as rush hour but there we go...) being cancelled because the guard was in sainsburys. It's pretty clear from the article that he was delayed in on his last working and so his pnb was spoilt. He, quite rightly, refused to work the train until he had takin his minimum break (being that not doing so would be putting his job and infact freedom into danger).

 

[Greenback]

What a load of drivel. I am sure the woman who had come from Leeds never has any sort of a break in her non safety critical civil servant role, working constantly even while sat on the train.

Perhaps, though, the TOC shouldn't have said the staff had gone missing, and had been located in Siansbury's. It would have been enough to say they were waiting for a guard to arrive on an incoming service.

 

[A-driver]

Perhaps, though, the TOC shouldn't have said the staff had gone missing, and had been located in Siansbury's. It would have been enough to say they were waiting for a guard to arrive on an incoming service.

I agree with that. I have delayed dozens of trains whilst taking my break but never tell the punters that that is why I was late-I always tell them that the train I was working in arrived late - it's not false but didn't sound to passengers as bad as 'I was taking my break'.

It does make me angry that the daily mail can get away with publishing such stories though. Villifing the guard like that who did nothing wrong and was taking his REQUIRED (not entitled) break.

 

[Lockwood]

Being delayed at London Bridge is a "nightmare"?

 

[Greenback]

I agree with that. I have delayed dozens of trains whilst taking my break but never tell the punters that that is why I was late-I always tell them that the train I was working in arrived late - it's not false but didn't sound to passengers as bad as 'I was taking my break'.

Indeed, it's not lying, an incoming late train is the cause of the delay, as if a break is required at that point it must be taken.

It does make me angry that the daily mail can get away with publishing such stories though. Villifing the guard like that who did nothing wrong and was taking his REQUIRED (not entitled) break.

I think it's expecting a bit much of the Daily Mail to know anything about the railways and the legislation they operate under, to be honest.

 

[londiscape]

I think it's expecting a bit much of the Daily Mail to know anything about the railways and the legislation they operate under, to be honest.

Fixed that for you...

 

[Greenback]

Fixed that for you...

I was going to write that in the first place, but thought I'd give someone else the opportunity to have a laugh!

 

[WearEtraveler]

What is annoying as a passenger is the fact that we were sat at Tonbridge on that train for 50 minutes before it was terminated, the day before no trains ran after 7.00am and there were cancellations in the evening it personally took me 4 hours to get home.

 

[A-driver]

What is annoying as a passenger is the fact that we were sat at Tonbridge on that train for 50 minutes before it was terminated, the day before no trains ran after 7.00am and there were cancellations in the evening it personally took me 4 hours to get home.

Agreed that is annoying but it isn't in any way the fault of the guard and the fact he was in sainsburys is irrelevant.

 

[Greenback]

If a newspaper ran a story about the inadequacies of the service provider, rather than highlighting that an employee taking a legally required break chose to go to a shop during that break, it would be something.

No one can deny that being delayed and inconvenienced is annoying, it's happened to me often enough that I know it is, but the focus of the report is completely off target.

 

[tony6499]

If the guard had been badgered into cutting his break short and there had been an incident later down the line he would have been left to hang. One of the first questions of any inquiry are about the working hours of that day.

 

[Greenback]

Exactly.

 

[387star]

Appalling article and a disturbing world where people scorn those who are given breaks

However understandable frustration from passengers... Poor PR

 

[Minilad]

I wonder if the "journalist" ever takes breaks.

 

[BestWestern]

Very, very poor show on the part of whichever idiot decided it would be sensible to tell the public that, instead of using a proper explanation. The whereabouts of the Guard were not the cause of the delay, the late running previous service was where the resulting delay originated from.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Very, very poor show on the part of whichever idiot decided it would be sensible to tell the public that, instead of using a proper explanation. The whereabouts of the Guard were not the cause of the delay, the late running previous service was where the resulting delay originated from.

Yes, this was my first thought as well. Even the catch-all "operating incident" could've been used.

Reading the article comments makes me weep a little inside.

 

[Oswyntail]

Very, very poor show on the part of whichever idiot decided it would be sensible to tell the public that, instead of using a proper explanation. The whereabouts of the Guard were not the cause of the delay, the late running previous service was where the resulting delay originated from.

Exactly. Had what was reported been the case, it would have been newsworthy, and the DM right to report it (yes, even the DM!). I hope the idiot responsible is put on the naughty chair very firmly.

 

[mad_rich]

Hmm. There are two halves to every story.

I fully understand employees' rights to take the breaks to which they are entitled, and the breaks which are required for safe working, and I would support them in not bowing to commercial or customer pressure to work without a break.

But (genuine question here) does the guard have any discretion to skip or shorten their break? If so, could or should he do so? And should the company find ways of flexible working so that three train-loads of passengers aren't delayed by an hour for the sake of one man over a point of order?

I can imagine the passengers on the train feeling rather fed-up and picturing the guard (correctly or not) as some unionised jobsworth determined to take his entitlement and to hell with the passengers. That doesn't make for happiness.

Plenty of people in other industries - aviation and medicine to name two relevant examples - find themselves needing to work unexpectedly and at personal inconvenience in response to changing situations. So why not this guy?

 

[drbdrb]

I wonder if the "journalist" ever takes breaks.

I would expect that they do.

However I also expect that they are flexible in when they take them, and if it was a choice between taking a break at a time that would cause inconvenience to hundreds of people or delaying it, they would take the sensible approach.

But I suspect that is not what you wanted to hear.

 

[Minilad]

I would expect that they do.

However I also expect that they are flexible in when they take them, and if it was a choice between taking a break at a time that would cause inconvenience to hundreds of people or delaying it, they would take the sensible approach.

But I suspect that is not what you wanted to hear.

And you probably don't want to hear that breaks are not taken "at a time to cause inconvenience to hundreds of people" They are taken at times to comply with the law

 

[richw]

Hmm. There are two halves to every story.

I fully understand employees' rights to take the breaks to which they are entitled, and the breaks which are required for safe working, and I would support them in not bowing to commercial or customer pressure to work without a break.

But (genuine question here) does the guard have any discretion to skip or shorten their break? If so, could or should he do so? And should the company find ways of flexible working so that three train-loads of passengers aren't delayed by an hour for the sake of one man over a point of order?

I can imagine the passengers on the train feeling rather fed-up and picturing the guard (correctly or not) as some unionised jobsworth determined to take his entitlement and to hell with the passengers. That doesn't make for happiness.

Plenty of people in other industries - aviation and medicine to name two relevant examples - find themselves needing to work unexpectedly and at personal inconvenience in response to changing situations. So why not this guy?

Due to it being a safety critical role, the breaks are a legal requirement with no discretion to shorten below minimum timings set out, much the same as those of a HGV driver for example.

 

[transmanche]

If the guard had skipped his rest break and there was an accident on the journey (e.g, passenger getting stuck in a closing door and dragged to their death), I'm sure the Daily Mail would be the first to complain that safety regulations had been breached and calling for the guard (and the TOC) to be prosecuted.

 

[najaB]

Plenty of people in other industries - aviation and medicine to name two relevant examples - find themselves needing to work unexpectedly and at personal inconvenience in response to changing situations. So why not this guy?

If you look at aircraft accident reports, crew fatigue is cited as a contributing factor in a disturbingly large proportion of accidents. Skipping mandatory rest breaks is rarely a good idea - while the odds are that nothing will happen in any given instance, sooner or later it will catch up with you.

 

[mad_rich]

Due to it being a safety critical role, the breaks are a legal requirement with no discretion to shorten below minimum timings set out, much the same as those of a HGV driver for example.

I don't know much about HGV driving, but I just googled "HGV hours discretion" and it seems that the requirements are actually quite flexible.

http://www.transportsfriend.org/hours/rest.html

45 minutes every 4.5 hours, but you can split that under certain circumstances.

11 hours rest every 24 hours, but you can split it (although then the requirement rises to 12 hours). And you can reduce that 11 to 9 occasionally.

Etc. etc.

That's what I'm getting at. Is there any flexibility in the railway requirements? And if not, why not? I don't mean work 72 hours straight so you're seeing double and throwing babies off trains in a sleep-deprived fugue. I mean a bit of flexibility.

And the answer 'because it's dangerous' doesn't really make sense to me. Everything's 'dangerous' to some extent. (Presumably everything would be safer if we doubled the amount of rest required and halved the working hours, and put defibrillators in every carriage and reduced the speed on the East Coast Mainine to 20mph and.....) But we don't. We find a balance between acceptable risk and convenience.

Sorry. It sounds like I've got the bit between my teeth and I'm campaigning for something or other! I'm not. I just find the "Safety, Guv. Innit" argument not wholly convincing.

 

[SPADTrap]

I don't know much about HGV driving, but I just googled "HGV hours discretion" and it seems that the requirements are actually quite flexible.

http://www.transportsfriend.org/hours/rest.html

45 minutes every 4.5 hours, but you can split that under certain circumstances.

11 hours rest every 24 hours, but you can split it (although then the requirement rises to 12 hours). And you can reduce that 11 to 9 occasionally.

Etc. etc.

That's what I'm getting at. Is there any flexibility in the railway requirements? And if not, why not? I don't mean work 72 hours straight so you're seeing double and throwing babies off trains in a sleep-deprived fugue. I mean a bit of flexibility.

And the answer 'because it's dangerous' doesn't really make sense to me. Everything's 'dangerous' to some extent. (Presumably everything would be safer if we doubled the amount of rest required and halved the working hours, and put defibrillators in every carriage and reduced the speed on the East Coast Mainine to 20mph and.....) But we don't. We find a balance between acceptable risk and convenience.

Sorry. It sounds like I've got the bit between my teeth and I'm campaigning for something or other! I'm not. I just find the "Safety, Guv. Innit" argument not wholly convincing.

Where to start!!!

 

[GatwickDepress]

Hmm. There are two halves to every story.

I fully understand employees' rights to take the breaks to which they are entitled, and the breaks which are required for safe working, and I would support them in not bowing to commercial or customer pressure to work without a break.

But (genuine question here) does the guard have any discretion to skip or shorten their break? If so, could or should he do so? And should the company find ways of flexible working so that three train-loads of passengers aren't delayed by an hour for the sake of one man over a point of order?

I can imagine the passengers on the train feeling rather fed-up and picturing the guard (correctly or not) as some unionised jobsworth determined to take his entitlement and to hell with the passengers. That doesn't make for happiness.

Plenty of people in other industries - aviation and medicine to name two relevant examples - find themselves needing to work unexpectedly and at personal inconvenience in response to changing situations. So why not this guy?

It's unfair to compare medicine to the railway. The railway's safety rules aim to avoid incidents, medical staff deal with the results of an incident which can be critical. They're completely different kettles of fish!

Nobody will die on a train if a guard is on his or her break.

 

[LateThanNever]

Hmm. There are two halves to every story.

I fully understand employees' rights to take the breaks to which they are entitled, and the breaks which are required for safe working, and I would support them in not bowing to commercial or customer pressure to work without a break.

But (genuine question here) does the guard have any discretion to skip or shorten their break? If so, could or should he do so? And should the company find ways of flexible working so that three train-loads of passengers aren't delayed by an hour for the sake of one man over a point of order?

I can imagine the passengers on the train feeling rather fed-up and picturing the guard (correctly or not) as some unionised jobsworth determined to take his entitlement and to hell with the passengers. That doesn't make for happiness.

Plenty of people in other industries - aviation and medicine to name two relevant examples - find themselves needing to work unexpectedly and at personal inconvenience in response to changing situations. So why not this guy?

Quite - some doctors now even think they don't get the proper experience because their hours are so controlled.

Comparing the regulations with regard to HGV drivers is also wide of the mark. Used to work in the industry and these were regulations imposed by the EU - in spite of the fact that the UK had a better accident record than every single member of the EU at the time. They are also even now realistically unenforceable without lots of discretion, which the UK police are generally good at - unless you choose to upset them! It's give and take. And it would be much more encouraging if railway employees and their management had the same idea. If 'we' are customers and not passengers then please may we be treated as paying the piper - we do more and more - and therefore calling the tune!

Breaks can then be used with discretion. I've never taken a break in Sainsbury's but having, very occasionally been there I'd rather be at work! No way is being in Sainsbury a real or proper break in any case.

 

[najaB]

I just find the "Safety, Guv. Innit" argument not wholly convincing.

I don't the specifics of the rules around rest breaks for train crews, but if there are mandated safety standards I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of violating those standards because "customers would complain".

I don't know if you're familiar with the concept, but if you aren't then I'd advise that you spend some time Googling* "normalisation of risk". It's how very clever people and organisations end up making very stupid decisions. And it all starts with "I know the rules say this, but..."

*Other search engines are available.

 

[RPM]

I find the public comments more frightening than the actual article. It is hard to believe that barely two and a half years after the Georgia Varley incident some ignoramus can make a comment like:

More likely the guard was one of Bob Crow's union shirkers. Must be hard work stepping out of the train every time it pulls into a station and waving a green flag. I am sure the train must have toilet, catering or snack facilities on board and the bloke is not incapable of making himself a packed lunch. London to Hastings must be an epic journey of a least a couple of hours.

Incredible that people have so little idea of what a guard's job entails.

 

[mad_rich]

I'd advise that you spend some time Googling* "normalisation of risk".

Fascinating. Thank you. Reading about it now.