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

[Greenback]

Diagramming cannot cater for significant disruption, but it should cater for minor delays. These computer produced diagrams are mathematically efficient, but need to pass a common sense test as well. Unfortunately some directors see the cost savings and look no further. A good diagrammer will build a bit of slack where possible, but I fear people are putting more faith in the computer and diagrammers skills are being eroded.

The computer is cheaper. It's all about money these days.

Most journalists don't like this and more than you or I do. Most sub editors won't agree with sensationalist headlines or misleading pull quotes.

But it's now part of the job. It's to get clicks, which boosts ad revenue. And the strictly separate lines of editorial vs advertising have become crossed as journalists are expected to be thinking about monetisation.

This is why I wish people would stop saying they won't pay for news and expect it for free. Soon all our news will be in the form of BuzzFeed top 10s, clicking for new ads to read each number in turn. Text mostly ripped off and photos lifted from goodness knows where. Only this week Getty has made loads of pictures free, so now photographers also stand to lose out too.

Interesting points there. And this sort of blurring of the lines applies in other occupations too. It seems that most people have to be more aware than ever of revenue streams and costs to the business no matter what job they do.

Similarly, people expect more and more for free these days, so dumbing down is inevitable.

 

[Squaddie]

I'm amazed that such a small matter has been blown out of all proportions by the Daily Wail. A train being cancelled & passengers having to wait an hour for the next is hardly Earth shattering news.

It's not earth-shattering, but neither is there really any excuse for it. I would have thought that ensuring that staff can take their breaks while maintaining a scheduled train service should be one of the most basic requirements of running a railway. Once again, the railway's "customers" (as they like to call us) take second place to operational convenience.

As I see it, this thread is nothing more than the mirror image of the comments beneath the story in the Daily Mail: on one side we have one of the most reviled newspapers in the country and on the other an industry that is one of the most disliked and least trusted in the country (only the banks and, possibly, the energy companies are hated more). And the unpleasant tone of the comments beneath the Daily Mail story has easily been equalled by the nastiness shown in this thread towards those who disagree with the industry insiders.

 

[tony6499]

Diagramming cannot cater for significant disruption, but it should cater for minor delays. These computer produced diagrams are mathematically efficient, but need to pass a common sense test as well. Unfortunately some directors see the cost savings and look no further. A good diagrammer will build a bit of slack where possible, but I fear people are putting more faith in the computer and diagrammers skills are being eroded.

Very true, having done train crew diagrams in the past we always knew which trains were dodgy in timekeeping so always built slack in so it wouldn't cause a knock on effect with breaks etc.

Now it's more or less done by computer and they obviously have no local knowledge so you can get a driver arriving on a train, berthing it and then minimum walking time to 'pass' to his next working. A minute or 2 late arrival and this is scuppered but to the computer it works fine.

 

[Greenback]

It's not earth-shattering, but neither is there really any excuse for it. I would have thought that ensuring that staff can take their breaks while maintaining a scheduled train service should be one of the most basic requirements of running a railway. Once again, the railway's "customers" (as they like to call us) take second place to operational convenience.

As has been discussed, diagrams are designed to allow for occasional delays, but not serious disruption. The cost of having sufficient spare crew sitting around to cover every eventuality has been mentioned. There has to be a balance between the two extremes. Perhaps the railway could do better, but it's difficult to see how the customers can come first without a great deal of additional expense.

As I see it, this thread is nothing more than the mirror image of the comments beneath the story in the Daily Mail: on one side we have one of the most reviled newspapers in the country and on the other an industry that is one of the most disliked and least trusted in the country (only the banks and, possibly, the energy companies are hated more). And the unpleasant tone of the comments beneath the Daily Mail story has easily been equalled by the nastiness shown in this thread towards those who disagree with the industry insiders.

Please report any posts that you have concerns over.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's not earth-shattering, but neither is there really any excuse for it. I would have thought that ensuring that staff can take their breaks while maintaining a scheduled train service should be one of the most basic requirements of running a railway. Once again, the railway's "customers" (as they like to call us) take second place to operational convenience.

And most of the the time this does happen, it's only on occasions that things go wrong & staff / units fall behind & out of position. It happens. Personally I always have a backup up plan in case of disruption, be it an alternative route or form of transport, or where it is not possible just knowing where there is somewhere I can hole up until the next service. I've been subject to much longer delays than an hour, and yet have never felt the desire to have newspaper articles written about it. The only reason it even made the newspapers was the sensationalism of the guard daring to be in a supermarket (even though it was probably to complete the mundane task of buying a sandwich). The style of the articles, and the subsequent plaintive cries of the commuters in crisis is totally overkill. What next, a story about a flight delayed because the pilot had to visit the loo & missed his take-off slot...?

As I see it, this thread is nothing more than the mirror image of the comments beneath the story in the Daily Mail: on one side we have one of the most reviled newspapers in the country and on the other an industry that is one of the most disliked and least trusted in the country (only the banks and, possibly, the energy companies are hated more). And the unpleasant tone of the comments beneath the Daily Mail story has easily been equalled by the nastiness shown in this thread towards those who disagree with the industry insiders.

Really? Whilst the media love to demonise the rail unions, making them out to be the source of all evil in the universe, I would say that in terms of industries that are disliked the railways are far down that list. And they are most certainly not even in the same league as the financial sector, energy companies etc. Some people might get annoyed, and some more vocal ones might dedicate their lives to trolling the Facebook / Twitter pages of the TOCs, but most people probably don't give it a thought from one day to the next.

 

[najaB]

Once again, the railway's "customers" (as they like to call us) take second place to operational convenience.

From where I sit (as a passenger/customer) it isn't about operational convenience, it's about money.

It's not operationally convenient to the TOC to have trains run late but, as long as they can get the delay to 'stick' somewhere else, it is cheaper than having staff on reserve. Having an extra crew on standby is a cost, a train that's delayed due to a red signal actually 'makes' them money.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Problems arise when staff are booked a minimum pnb at a location where cover is minimal at best, if a turn can only be done with a minimum pnb at least have that pnb at a traincrew depot where there is a greater chance of someone else being able to take over the duty if things go wrong.

Furthermore I will add my voice to the list of those who will not compromise my pnb at the whim of the train service. The primary reason for me being on the train is for the safety of passengers, I'm not prepared to cut corners on that.

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

When I started in the mid 80s guards weren't entitled to a pnb.We got the same break as the driver as we stayed together as one crew all day but if things went wrong you often had no break at all.We worked what are now called heritage DMUs which had no toilets.The guard's van used to have a small "pie heater.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Safety 1st - Convenience 2nd every time. We have our Pnb's for a reason and I ill never compromise safety...Ever!

 

[Monty]

To echo what Matt Taylor and ANorthernGuard has said I can't stress how important it is that traincrew (both driver and guard) do not skip, cut short or delay their PNB whatsoever.

At end of the day the Mail has written an article that appeals to its demographic, all papers do this and like others have said it's been driven by commercial interests rather than the duty to report news truthfully and honestly. Perhaps it's time papers had disclaimers stating "articles published with may have been altered from their original source and embellished for the purpose of melodrama, inciting hatrid, creating fear, evil schemes and for commercial reasons."

 

[LowLevel]

When I started in the mid 80s guards weren't entitled to a pnb.We got the same break as the driver as we stayed together as one crew all day but if things went wrong you often had no break at all.We worked what are now called heritage DMUs which had no toilets.The guard's van used to have a small "pie heater.

Superb little ovens they are when they work properly - the MetCam DMU I work on from time to time on my heritage railway has one and I once decided to reheat a doner kebab in it when working some evening specials for one reason or another - it swiftly stunk out the whole train much to the equal jealousy and irritation of the passengers and my driver - not made that error again!

Sadly the units in the dayjob (variety of BR Sprinters) don't have such a facility

Taking your break is important - sometimes you just can't take it again at any point in your shift, there's no time to do it without cancelling or delaying another train so it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I think you'll find the general irritation in this thread is caused by initially politely pointing out the reasons for this, only to be repeatedly told by someone, no matter what you say, who isn't exactly an expert in the field that this is silly and the rules should be changed because of a selection of other scenarios with no relevance with the old chestnut 'bad customer service' being trotted out. It's far worse customer service to cock up when it matters and kill the customer

 

[Flamingo]

It's not earth-shattering, but neither is there really any excuse for it. I would have thought that ensuring that staff can take their breaks while maintaining a scheduled train service should be one of the most basic requirements of running a railway. Once again, the railway's "customers" (as they like to call us) take second place to operational convenience.

As I see it, this thread is nothing more than the mirror image of the comments beneath the story in the Daily Mail: on one side we have one of the most reviled newspapers in the country and on the other an industry that is one of the most disliked and least trusted in the country (only the banks and, possibly, the energy companies are hated more). And the unpleasant tone of the comments beneath the Daily Mail story has easily been equalled by the nastiness shown in this thread towards those who disagree with the industry insiders.

You know, it's posts (and threads) like this one that really make me question why any rail staff contribute to this forum.

I'll remember that I'm employed in one of the most hated industries in the country the next time I'm asked to work over my day because there is flooding, or I get on a train with no customer host because they are displaced & there is no 1st class trolley, or get a phone-call asking me to come in at two hours notice as somebody has gone off sick, or a passenger asks to use my mobile as they need to make an urgent call, and think "**** them, why should I bother, they all hate me anyway".

Obviously there is nothing we can do to satisfy people, so at this stage why bother trying?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

You know, it's posts (and threads) like this one that really make me question why any rail staff contribute to this forum.

I'll remember that I'm employed in one of the most hated industries in the country the next time I'm asked to work over my day because there is flooding, or I get on a train with no customer host because they are displaced & there is no 1st class trolley, or get a phone-call asking me to come in at two hours notice as somebody has gone off sick, or a passenger asks to use my mobile as they need to make an urgent call, and think "**** them, why should I bother, they all hate me anyway".

Obviously there is nothing we can do to satisfy people, so at this stage why bother trying?

I grin and bear it m8. Luckily we work in an industry where 99% of us stick together and help each other out. A lot of people will never have that comaraderie where they work

 

[bramling]

It's not earth-shattering, but neither is there really any excuse for it. I would have thought that ensuring that staff can take their breaks while maintaining a scheduled train service should be one of the most basic requirements of running a railway. Once again, the railway's "customers" (as they like to call us) take second place to operational convenience.

As I see it, this thread is nothing more than the mirror image of the comments beneath the story in the Daily Mail: on one side we have one of the most reviled newspapers in the country and on the other an industry that is one of the most disliked and least trusted in the country (only the banks and, possibly, the energy companies are hated more). And the unpleasant tone of the comments beneath the Daily Mail story has easily been equalled by the nastiness shown in this thread towards those who disagree with the industry insiders.

I wouldn't say the rail industry is one of the most disliked. Generally most people make journeys on a daily basis without anything bad happening, indeed on my daily journeys it is nearly always other passengers that cause far more annoyance in one way or another. When things do go wrong, sometimes expectations are not always met - sometimes the railway is at fault, other times it's fair to say expectations are unrealistic.

Regarding staff breaks, I'd support the comments made by others, the break is there primarily for safety reasons. It's particularly important in an industry where staff work shifts, and therefore cannot rest or eat at regular times. I would rather not travel on a train where the crew have been up since 0300 and not had a proper meal in that time! To an extent the industry can make contingencies, like having extra staff available, but that costs money which will ultimately be paid for by the taxpayer or farepayer, and then we introduce another issue where the Daily Mail will be reporting about a "messroom full of idle rail staff sitting around doing nothing" when the job is running smoothly, which of course is most of the time!

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

I wouldn't say the rail industry is one of the most disliked. Generally most people make journeys on a daily basis without anything bad happening, indeed on my daily journeys it is nearly always other passengers that cause far more annoyance in one way or another. When things do go wrong, sometimes expectations are not always met - sometimes the railway is at fault, other times it's fair to say expectations are unrealistic.

Regarding staff breaks, I'd support the comments made by others, the break is there primarily for safety reasons. It's particularly important in an industry where staff work shifts, and therefore cannot rest or eat at regular times. I would rather not travel on a train where the crew have been up since 0300 and not had a proper meal in that time! To an extent the industry can make contingencies, like having extra staff available, but that costs money which will ultimately be paid for by the taxpayer or farepayer, and then we introduce another issue where the Daily Mail will be reporting about a "messroom full of idle rail staff sitting around doing nothing" when the job is running smoothly, which of course is most of the time!

Great post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another point I'd like to make is that train crew show flexibility every day.It's not uncommon to get a phone call asking you to come in early or change shift to help keep services running.Sometimes you don't feel like doing it but our roster section are good people and you do it to help them out and to keep passengers moving.I would say to those critics of train crew on this thread that you have travelled on many trains that are running and on time because of the unselfish actions of train crew like the examples I describe.You just didn't know about it.

Sometimes though it's just not possible to juggle things around and delays occur.The breaks we get are vital,especially given the bashing our body clocks get.They are there for very good reason.

 

[ivanhoe]

Unfortunately, Industries which are public facing tend to get more 'treatment' from the British Media. Watch any regional news programme any evening and the NHS and railways are always subject to sloppy journalism,particularly with the BBC. You may ask the question why? Its always easy to research a story in those areas and both producers and editors can find easy headlines.

As posters have stated, there is rarely a right to respond with reasons why. In my experience as a passenger, I rarely come across bad attitudes from front line staff. Most passengers are ignorant of the workings of the railway but most will agree that safety is of paramount importance and if it results in inconvenience occasionally, then so be it.

There's an old saying that paper never refuses ink!

 

[Oswyntail]

You know, it's posts (and threads) like this one that really make me question why any rail staff contribute to this forum.

I'll remember that I'm employed in one of the most hated industries in the country the next time I'm asked to work over my day because there is flooding, or I get on a train with no customer host because they are displaced & there is no 1st class trolley, or get a phone-call asking me to come in at two hours notice as somebody has gone off sick, or a passenger asks to use my mobile as they need to make an urgent call, and think "**** them, why should I bother, they all hate me anyway".

Obviously there is nothing we can do to satisfy people, so at this stage why bother trying?

I think everyone appreciates that - I know I do. And I don't think anyone who knows about the rules and safety is (or should be) criticising the guard. To me, the main point of the incident is that those who should have been keeping the passengers informed - presumably administrators of some sort - didn't, or did so in a way to pass the buck to someone who did nothing wrong. Sadly, this happens a lot in many industries, and shouldn't.
Incidentally, I wonder if the thread would have been as angry if no one had mentioned the DM. There is a lot of (perhaps justified, perhaps not) kneejerk reaction to that paper. And kneejerks rarely make sense.

 

[hassaanhc]

I wouldn't say the rail industry is one of the most disliked. Generally most people make journeys on a daily basis without anything bad happening, indeed on my daily journeys it is nearly always other passengers that cause far more annoyance in one way or another. When things do go wrong, sometimes expectations are not always met - sometimes the railway is at fault, other times it's fair to say expectations are unrealistic.

Hit the nail on the head . Sadly that is the case with a certain type of rail user, they demand 100% performance all of the time, start having a go at staff (whether face to face or on Twitter feeds) at the slightest delay in service or announcements, and dismiss any reasons as the TOC deliberately causing issues for passengers such as short trains. Or that TOCs taking 4 digit sums from passengers each year to line their pockets and not wanting to extend trains/improve frequencies/insert improvement of choice. Or rant about how privatisation has made things worse. Unfortunately it was just this type of demanding passenger (that usually have a certain type of ticket paid upfront for a lengthy period of travel) who happened to be affected or just comment their own distorted views. I guess it is human nature to remember negative experiences more than positive ones, but some people need to think :roll:
My personal experiences with rail travel are mostly good, almost all are around the London area and I haven't been affected by issues a lot, but I didn't use rail services very often until a few months ago and even then I only use NR twice a week at most. Although I do understand that those that spend more time on the railway are more likely to get caught up in some sort of disruption! I'd rather have a safe but delayed journey over one that is on time but has an incident take place where passengers are injured or worse, after all it takes one mistake...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, and I will say that it wasn't a good idea to announce the exact location of the whereabouts of the guard!

 

[Minilad]

Having waded through this I would just like to ask is there anything worse than someone saying "I pay your wages" To me that just displays a level of arrogance and an "i'm better than you" attitude

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is that increased staffing costs compared to pre privatisation (just look how much better drivers are paid than they used to be) have militated against providing slack in driver/guard diagramming to allow flexibility.

Having a messroom with people sitting around just-in-case is rather more expensive than it used to be.

 

[Flamingo]

I think everyone appreciates that - I know I do. And I don't think anyone who knows about the rules and safety is (or should be) criticising the guard. To me, the main point of the incident is that those who should have been keeping the passengers informed - presumably administrators of some sort - didn't, or did so in a way to pass the buck to someone who did nothing wrong. Sadly, this happens a lot in many industries, and shouldn't.
Incidentally, I wonder if the thread would have been as angry if no one had mentioned the DM. There is a lot of (perhaps justified, perhaps not) kneejerk reaction to that paper. And kneejerks rarely make sense.

Thank you. I was crabby when I made that post - I hadn't had my break yet!

 

[Tomnick]

The problem is that increased staffing costs compared to pre privatisation (just look how much better drivers are paid than they used to be) have militated against providing slack in driver/guard diagramming to allow flexibility.

Having a messroom with people sitting around just-in-case is rather more expensive than it used to be.

On the other hand, the increase in pay is partly as a result of the increased productivity expected of traincrew - it features quite often in pay deals.

 

[Squaddie]

You know, it's posts (and threads) like this one that really make me question why any rail staff contribute to this forum.

I'll remember that I'm employed in one of the most hated industries in the country the next time I'm asked to work over my day because there is flooding, or I get on a train with no customer host because they are displaced & there is no 1st class trolley, or get a phone-call asking me to come in at two hours notice as somebody has gone off sick, or a passenger asks to use my mobile as they need to make an urgent call, and think "**** them, why should I bother, they all hate me anyway".

Obviously there is nothing we can do to satisfy people, so at this stage why bother trying?

I think you misunderstand my post.

Obviously, there are many people working in the rail industry - probably the vast majority - who are hard-working and conscientious and do their best to provide a good service for the customer. Just as there are many good and decent people working for banks and energy companies.

But, as with banks and energy companies, I really don't think anyone can deny that the industry itself (in the UK) has a terrible reputation for quality, service and value for money. And not just in the Daily Mail - just look at the tone of any newspaper article following a fare increase or bout of weather-related disruption.

I'm afraid you just have to accept, as I do (I work for a major bank), that your employer is disliked and possibly even hated by the majority of its customers.

 

[455driver]

On the other hand, the increase in pay is partly as a result of the increased productivity expected of traincrew - it features quite often in pay deals.

I have looked at some diagrams from 1987 (he wouldnt let me keep them though ) and drivers are well over twice as productive now as they were then. But lets not let the facts get in the way of of a good moan about traincrew though!

But then again, as I only saw a few diagrams this is probably just anecdotal and is not representative of the thousands of diagrams worked by many other traincrew throughout the Country so please ignore it!

Not aimed at you Tomnick, more agreeing with you.

 

[A-driver]

The problem is that increased staffing costs compared to pre privatisation (just look how much better drivers are paid than they used to be) have militated against providing slack in driver/guard diagramming to allow flexibility.

Having a messroom with people sitting around just-in-case is rather more expensive than it used to be.

We arnt paid much more really. Yes the headline salary is higher but productivity is through the roof compared to br days and BR staff got far more enhancements in pay than we do (weekend, mileage, DOO etc etc).

Simply it's that BR wasn't run for profit. TOCs are and so cutting back staffing to the bone increases profit.

 

[bystander]

I'll just chuck some petrol on the fire here. I'm a high speed services driver and I stand by any member of staff's absolute right to take their break when it's diagrammed, but I do object when people throw around inaccuracies - such as that old chestnut that drivers', guards', or any other rail staff's breaks are mandated by law and as such cannot be moved or altered.

They are not. They just aren't.

See this somewhat key phrase from the Office of Rail Regulation (clue in the name, there, that they may know what they are on about):

"Hours of work, working patterns and other conditions of service are matters for agreement between employers and staff, but it is vital that working patterns are designed to reduce risks from fatigue, so far as is reasonably practicable."

(http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...search/worker-safety/working-patterns-fatigue)

There we have it. Or rather, we don't (have the legislation, that is).

See also the wording in the "Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations (ROGS)" (http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/health-and-safety/regulation-and-certification/rogs) -

"2: Set standards and design working patterns:
Identify, set and keep to appropriate standards and good practice for working hours and working patterns. The working-time restrictions set out by law are not enough on their own.
3: Limit the times when workers go beyond the standards:
Make sure workers only go beyond the standards in exceptional circumstances. A good way of doing this is to record the times this happens to help build a profile."

Well that's my understanding of the legislative framework anyway, and it sure don't say in so many words that you have to have a break of any sort for any length of turn. Of course if I've missed some entire strand of legislation that helps us out and does mandate such things, then please feel free to let me know.

I despise the Daily Mail, Metro et al and their reactionary, ill-informed and just wrong mischief-making, make no mistake.

Regards,

B

 

[EM2]

... drivers', guards', or any other rail staff's breaks are mandated by law and as such cannot be moved or altered.

They are not. They just aren't.

So what's this then?

"2: Set standards and design working patterns:
Identify, set and keep to appropriate standards and good practice for working hours and working patterns. The working-time restrictions set out by law are not enough on their own.

https://www.gov.uk/rest-breaks-work

Workers have the right to one uninterrupted 20 minute rest break during their working day (this could be a tea or lunch break), if they work more than 6 hours a day.

Employers can say when employees take rest breaks during work time as long as:

• the break is taken in one go somewhere in the middle of the day (not at the beginning or end)
• workers are allowed to spend it away from their desk or workstation (ie away from where they actually work)

 

[richw]

EM2's post is applicable to every single worker in England (and probably the rest of the UK) and not just rail workers.

 

[bystander]

EM2's post is applicable to every single worker in England (and probably the rest of the UK) and not just rail workers.

Quite. Thanks.

Just to clarify, this debate is nothing at all to do with the Working Time Regulations (1998) which do indeed say "A worker is entitled to an uninterrupted break of 20 minutes when daily working time is more than six hours. It should be a break in working time and should not be taken either at the start, or at the end, of a working day." Complying with that is not at issue and that requirement has nothing to say on the safety debate or moving the break or anything like that. It's the adherence to diagrammed break times, to (no longer binding) Hidden recommendations, and the illegality (which it absolutely is not, in fact) of moving or curtailing those diagrammed breaks that is the point.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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?

No they have to take a break after a certain continuous time on duty (or as soon as they get off the train should it be greater than that). It's a similar thing to a lorry driver. After a certain number of hours they have to take a short break before finishing their work day.