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

[najaB]

You obviously cannot go on for ever, but should make every effort to get the passenger to the destination in a timely manner - not via Sainsbury's...

I think you'll find that the train crew's primary job is to safely operate the train in accordance with all applicable rules. If that means that the passengers are late getting to their destination, then so be it. Using your logic, the driver would have been perfectly justified in ignoring any posted speed restrictions on the line and using his judgement as to what was a safe speed to drive.

 

[LateThanNever]

I think you'll find that the train crew's primary job is to safely operate the train in accordance with all applicable rules. If that means that the passengers are late getting to their destination, then so be it. Using your logic, the driver would have been perfectly justified in ignoring any posted speed restrictions on the line and using his judgement as to what was a safe speed to drive.

Certainly not, speed limits are real limits on the railway and not discretionary, unlike blanket road limits where you may get let off..

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

Of course, but there should be discretion in order to give the best possible service to those who pay them for that service - that is both the taxpayer who has made the law (but I doubt with strict liability- so allowing discretion- and the passenger who desires solely to get to their destination in the most expeditious and timely way possible for the fare.

Where I work we are flexible in order to keep trains running without compromising on our breaks.Our train crew resource manager are mostly ex train crew and are good people and we do our best to help them out.This involves things like switching to another turn after you've had your delayed break,perhaps finishing later.Don't mind that because you've had a chance to recharge your batteries,quite important,especially if you've got up in the middle of the night.

I also think passengers desire to get to their destinations without being taken there by fatigued train crew.

 

[Llanigraham]

Veuillez m'excuser de vous avez tellement endommagé mais une réponse raisonnée serait beaucoup plus instructive.

I presume that you answering in French is supposed to make the rest of us inferior in some way?

Do you understand what "mandatory breaks" means?
Do you know the Laws guards and drivers work under?
Do you realise the consequences of their breaking these Laws?

 

[najaB]

Certainly not, speed limits are real limits on the railway and not discretionary...

Why is one mandatory rule 'real' while another one is not?

 

[tony6499]

Of course if there were spare crews available then the train could have gone on time but one of the benefits of privatisation was cutting staff levels to the bare minimum

 

[petersi]

Of course, but there should be discretion in order to give the best possible service to those who pay them for that service - that is both the taxpayer who has made the law (but I doubt with strict liability- so allowing discretion- and the passenger who desires solely to get to their destination in the most expeditious and timely way possible for the fare.

As a passenger I disagree with you. These rules are there to protect both safety of employee and staff. They ensure that employs are protected from management pressure.

The most important operation aspect of the railway is safety of both staff and employees.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[DT611]

Dear, dear, you - or perhaps much more importantly your seemingly useless management want to try running your own business or working in social or emergency services. It's called intelligent discretion. None of you is underpaid and I speak as someone with train driving in my family. After all even HGV's have special provisions in an emergency, and they have little signalling and don't run on rails so are generally more demanding/exhausting!
You obviously cannot go on for ever, but should make every effort to get the passenger to the destination in a timely manner - not via Sainsbury's...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Perhaps in the past but since ATW?P this is a bit out of date!

irrelevant i'm afraid, rules are rules, if they don't abide by them and something happens or a manager or other relevant person finds out they will be out of a job, thats how it is i'm afraid

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

Of course if there were spare crews available then the train could have gone on time but one of the benefits of privatisation was cutting staff levels to the bare minimum

Agreed.I would also add there is far less "slack" in modern diagrams.Also a driver and guard used to stay together all day but that is no longer the case.When things are running well all this means extra efficiency but when things go wrong it means extra disruption.

 

[455driver]

LateThanNever, you keep going on (and on and on) about discretion during emergencies etc but fail to say how a few people being late home is an emergency!

Why dont you try answering some of the questions directed at you instead of wibbling on about the same old (incorrect) nonsense!

 

[LateThanNever]

Where I work we are flexible in order to keep trains running without compromising on our breaks.Our train crew resource manager are mostly ex train crew and are good people and we do our best to help them out.This involves things like switching to another turn after you've had your delayed break,perhaps finishing later.Don't mind that because you've had a chance to recharge your batteries,quite important,especially if you've got up in the middle of the night.

I also think passengers desire to get to their destinations without being taken there by fatigued train crew.

Broadly agree but from most passengers point of view they require a good service and the breaks have not been found to provide a better service. As far as I'm aware the only research has been don on road driving and there it was found that the most likely accident is likely to occur in the first 10 minutes of driving so breaks are actually more problematic than solutional. It is the unions that think otherwise and they have unsurprisingly persuaded the EU...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed.I would also add there is far less "slack" in modern diagrams.Also a driver and guard used to stay together all day but that is no longer the case.When things are running well all this means extra efficiency but when things go wrong it means extra disruption.

Ah there is perhaps the nub of the problem..

 

[LateThanNever]

LateThanNever, you keep going on (and on and on) about discretion during emergencies etc but fail to say how a few people being late home is an emergency!

Why dont you try answering some of the questions directed at you instead of wibbling on about the same old (incorrect) nonsense!

Not emergencies just discretion - do you have any?

 

[A-driver]

Broadly agree but from most passengers point of view they require a good service and the breaks have not been found to provide a better service. As far as I'm aware the only research has been don on road driving and there it was found that the most likely accident is likely to occur in the first 10 minutes of driving so breaks are actually more problematic than solutional. It is the unions that think otherwise and they have unsurprisingly persuaded the EU...

Go away. Simply stop posting here and go away. I'm really sorry to be so harsh but when every other poster is against you and telling you that you are wrong and don't have a clue what you are on about you need to stop posting

I'm not sure if you are deliberately trolling, are being silly or just rather thick but please stop it. Yet again this is another INCORRECT POST!

Well documented railway research shows that the majority of incidents occur after a driver has been driving for 3.5hours. Forget arguments about road driving as it is irrelevant.

 

[LateThanNever]

irrelevant i'm afraid, rules are rules, if they don't abide by them and something happens or a manager or other relevant person finds out they will be out of a job, thats how it is i'm afraid

That, regrettably, is a terrible failure of privatisation.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That, regrettably, is a terrible failure of privatisation.

No just the modern world.

 

[A-driver]

That, regrettably, is a terrible failure of privatisation.

No it isn't. It was the same under BR.

STOP POSTING INCORRECT INFO AS IF IT WERE FACT.

 

[Tomnick]

Broadly agree but from most passengers point of view they require a good service and the breaks have not been found to provide a better service.

Could you clarify this point?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

irrelevant i'm afraid, rules are rules, if they don't abide by them and something happens or a manager or other relevant person finds out they will be out of a job, thats how it is i'm afraid

In response to 'LateThanNever' who quoted the above - it's not just about being out of a job (whether that's a failure of privatisation or otherwise) but also about the possibility being responsible for loss of life, facing manslaughter charges etc.

 

[LateThanNever]

Go away. Simply stop posting here and go away. I'm really sorry to be so harsh but when every other poster is against you and telling you that you are wrong and don't have a clue what you are on about you need to stop posting

I'm not sure if you are deliberately trolling, are being silly or just rather thick but please stop it. Yet again this is another INCORRECT POST!

Well documented railway research shows that the majority of incidents occur after a driver has been driving for 3.5hours. Forget arguments about road driving as it is irrelevant.

Really? You'd rather I were silent. Even though I suspect as a taxpayer I may pay part of your wages? Have you heard of freedom of speech?!!
Perhaps you'd give me the source of 3.5 hours 'incidents' (whatever they are)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No just the modern world.

Same difference...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No it isn't. It was the same under BR.

STOP POSTING INCORRECT INFO AS IF IT WERE FACT.

Fine if that's the case they organised in a far better way. So it is in effect a problem of privatisation!

 

[EM2]

It is the unions that think otherwise and they have unsurprisingly persuaded the EU...

No, it was Anthony Hidden after the Clapham Junction crash that thought otherwise.

 

[DT611]

Of course, but there should be discretion in order to give the best possible service to those who pay them for that service - that is both the taxpayer who has made the law (but I doubt with strict liability- so allowing discretion- and the passenger who desires solely to get to their destination in the most expeditious and timely way possible for the fare.

discretion- in relation to such breaks in relation to the railway isn't allowed under EU law

 

[Greenback]

Really? You'd rather I were silent. Even though I suspect as a taxpayer I may pay part of your wages? Have you heard of freedom of speech?!!
Perhaps you'd give me the source of 3.5 hours 'incidents' (whatever they are)

I find it rather ironic that you ask for sources when you fail to provide any for your own statements.

Fine if that's the case they organised in a far better way. So it is in effect a problem of privatisation!

No, it was Hidden, on safety grounds after Clapham. Perhaps you should do some research.

 

[jon0844]

Really? You'd rather I were silent. Even though I suspect as a taxpayer I may pay part of your wages? Have you heard of freedom of speech?!!

Ever heard of the right to remain silent?

I think your postings have proved the need for people to take a break. I think yours is well overdue!

 

[GadgetMan]

Of course, but there should be discretion in order to give the best possible service to those who pay them for that service.

Discretion was already shown by the Guard as he/she worked the train to its destination and delayed taking his/her break. Inflexibility would've meant delaying/cancelling the train in the middle of nowhere to take their break at the exact diagrammed time.

I work on board trains. My break isn't always at my home depot so taking a pack lunch with me means carrying it around all day along with all the other kit we have to carry. Unlike static office workers we don't have the luxury of a kitchen/fridge we can leave our food in.

I plan my meals around my diagrammed break location. I may be booked a break at station A which has retails outlets (like Sainsbury's) around that I can buy my lunch from. If my train is delayed into station A, yes I maybe able to work my next train to station B and have my break there instead. But if there is nowhere to go and buy my lunch/drinks from then what good would that delayed (more convenient to passengers) break be to me?

As mentioned by others, a lot of diagrams are that tight that you'd not get a break at any point in the diagram if you got delayed by 30-40 mins early on in your day and you continued to chase your tail for the convenience of passengers.

 

[LateThanNever]

Could you clarify this point?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In response to 'LateThanNever' who quoted the above - it's not just about being out of a job (whether that's a failure of privatisation or otherwise) but also about the possibility being responsible for loss of life, facing manslaughter charges etc.

The clarification is just that road drivers have been found to be more likely to have accidents in the first few minutes of driving and there have be no deaths on the railway - delighted to say - for I think the last 3 years, so, as when the railway goes wrong we go on the roads think it is incumbent on the railway to buck up!

 

[A-driver]

Really? You'd rather I were silent. Even though I suspect as a taxpayer I may pay part of your wages? Have you heard of freedom of speech?!!

Perhaps you'd give me the source of 3.5 hours 'incidents' (whatever they are)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




Same difference...

Your taxes and ticket money may pay my wages but it dosnt mean you can make decisions on how I do my job and what rules I work to when you clearly don't know the first thing about railway operations fatigue management on the railways or have the slightest bit of experience doing the job.

You have freedom of speech when it comes to opinions, not when it comes to posting rubbish as if it were fact which is what you are doing. Hardly any of what you have posted on this thread has an ounce of fact or correct info to it. Most of it is utter gibberish and shows a complete lack of understanding in what the rest of us are discussing!

Please have an opinion, I may disagree with it but at least if you back it up with facts then we can have a grown up discussion about it without rather than every post you make being an ill informed rant which is just wrong meaning that we have to keep correcting you!

As for the 3.5 hour thing, short of scanning in numerous fatigue booklets and posters given out and pinned up at work I can't really find a source without trawling through the internet and I'm not willing to do that. I tell you it is 3.5 hours from my knowledge and as a fact. I see no reason to back up anything I say on here to someone like you who feels it ok to make so many factually inaccurate posts and then continuously argue when challenged.

Do your own research as y clearly need to.

And I'm sorry for coming across so badly to you, I don't mean it personally and I'm sorry if it offends you or others on here but I simply can not sit back and let you attack myself and my colleagues when you are backing up your arguments with lies and incorrect info. It's not fair. Unasked earlier if I would prefer the forum was only populated by staff and experts. I don't think that at all, but those who don't fully understand the topics being discussed need to be careful not to present their opinions as fact when they are wrong!

 

[DT611]

That, regrettably, is a terrible failure of privatisation.

i'm not privatizations biggest fan but i don't buy that these rules wouldn't have existed if BR was still in existance, i doubt they would even have spair staff these days either

 

[Greenback]

LateThanNever, I hope the message is getting through to you...

 

[DT611]

Could you clarify this point?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In response to 'LateThanNever' who quoted the above - it's not just about being out of a job (whether that's a failure of privatisation or otherwise) but also about the possibility being responsible for loss of life, facing manslaughter charges etc.

agree but even that should have been obvious to latethennever, but by the sounds of it its not

 

[dcsprior]

You have freedom of speech when it comes to opinions, not when it comes to posting rubbish as if it were fact which is what you are doing. Hardly any of what you have posted on this thread has an ounce of fact or correct info to it. Most of it is utter gibberish and shows a complete lack of understanding in what the rest of us are discussing!

Surely this is entirely appropriate though, given that the thread title begins "Daily Mail:"

 

[bb21]

Even though I suspect as a taxpayer I may pay part of your wages?

When people trot that line out it is most likely that they have lost the argument, because this point has everything to do with nothing, and nothing to do with everything.