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

[samxool]

I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.

Not sure why you say only people on 100k a year. I work in the city for 27k, and can also be expected to work well beyond my agreed hours for zero overtime pay. I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?
I use trains a lot, and besides opening and closing doors, they usually spend 99% of their time with their nose buried in a newspaper, which is a break by most other people's standards. I know I don't work in the railway industry, but I find it particularly galling to be stranded somewhere for an hour because the guard has gone shopping. Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first. And I reject any health and safety arguments over this, as it is the guard we are talking, not the driver, who needs to concentrate on what is ahead of him. If there are any legitimate health and safety reasons, I would like to hear them. I've only scanned the last couple pages, and I've not seen any made.

 

[A-driver]

Not sure why you say only people on 100k a year. I work in the city for 27k, and can also be expected to work well beyond my agreed hours for zero overtime pay. I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?

I use trains a lot, and besides opening and closing doors, they usually spend 99% of their time with their nose buried in a newspaper, which is a break by most other people's standards. I know I don't work in the railway industry, but I find it particularly galling to be stranded somewhere for an hour because the guard has gone shopping. Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first. And I reject any health and safety arguments over this, as it is the guard we are talking, not the driver, who needs to concentrate on what is ahead of him. If there are any legitimate health and safety reasons, I would like to hear them. I've only scanned the last couple pages, and I've not seen any made.

The first part of your last sentence pretty much sums your post up. Why are you trying to post something like this when this thread has discussed all of this to death? Are you just trying to inflame things?

Now read the entire thread before commenting as the points you raise have already been answered.

 

[bunnahabhain]

I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?
I use trains a lot, and besides opening and closing doors, they usually spend 99% of their time with their nose buried in a newspaper, which is a break by most other people's standards. I know I don't work in the railway industry, but I find it particularly galling to be stranded somewhere for an hour because the guard has gone shopping. Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first. And I reject any health and safety arguments over this, as it is the guard we are talking, not the driver, who needs to concentrate on what is ahead of him. If there are any legitimate health and safety reasons, I would like to hear them. I've only scanned the last couple pages, and I've not seen any made.

Okay, so your issue is that you pay x amount and expect the train to run on time regardless of Traincrew breaks. So if you actually actually stop and think for a second you'll realise that to ensure a return on investors money, traincrew resources are so much on a shoestring now that you are lucky if you have 1 person on service recovery in some places.

Don't blame the individual, blame the shareholders.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?
I use trains a lot, and besides opening and closing doors, they usually spend 99% of their time with their nose buried in a newspaper, which is a break by most other people's standards. I know I don't work in the railway industry, but I find it particularly galling to be stranded somewhere for an hour because the guard has gone shopping. Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first. And I reject any health and safety arguments over this, as it is the guard we are talking, not the driver, who needs to concentrate on what is ahead of him. If there are any legitimate health and safety reasons, I would like to hear them. I've only scanned the last couple pages, and I've not seen any made.

Okay, so your issue is that you pay x amount and expect the train to run on time regardless of Traincrew breaks. So if you actually actually stop and think for a second you'll realise that to ensure a return on investors money, traincrew resources are so much on a shoestring now that you are lucky if you have 1 person on service recovery in some places.

Don't blame the individual, blame the shareholders.

 

[NSEFAN]

Not sure why you say only people on 100k a year. I work in the city for 27k, and can also be expected to work well beyond my agreed hours for zero overtime pay. I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?

I use trains a lot, and besides opening and closing doors, they usually spend 99% of their time with their nose buried in a newspaper, which is a break by most other people's standards. I know I don't work in the railway industry, but I find it particularly galling to be stranded somewhere for an hour because the guard has gone shopping. Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first. And I reject any health and safety arguments over this, as it is the guard we are talking, not the driver, who needs to concentrate on what is ahead of him. If there are any legitimate health and safety reasons, I would like to hear them. I've only scanned the last couple pages, and I've not seen any made.

Train dispatch is just as safety critical as driving. Opening and closing doors may seem easy enough, but people have died when correct procedure has been neglected. If you want proof of this, take a look at the Liverpool St James incident.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer that all safety critical staff are sufficiently rested and alert before running trains. The fact there are not enough staff to cope during delays is another issue, but it's unfair to blame the guard for taking a break which he is required to take under the rules.

 

[KA4C]

I think that the point that the train drivers in this thread miss (and I'm not staff bashing here) that the typical commuter with a £100k a year job in the city is used to working through breaks/staying late on a night when the needs of the job demand it.

Drivers/guards rarely display this work ethic - partly because of legislation and partly for union rules.

What you are missing is that if this person who works in the city makes a mistake, through having low blood sugar due to not eating properly, loss of concentration due to dehydration or fatigue through working without a break they throw their mistake in the bin or press the delete button

Lack of work ethic by taking a break eh?

Oh and by the way, management won't expect them to work through breaks either, one of the first questions post incident, when was break due, was break taken


And you say you are not staff bashing

 

[BestWestern]

"...Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first..."

Oh dear...

No; what comes first is train crews running the railways safely. For reasons which really are quite obvious.

 

[infobleep]

Whilst the Daily Mail story is rubbish, it's been published so can't be ignored. After all, one guard not taking a train should only need to cause the cancellation of one train not two. So clearly other factors were in play.

Moving forward South Eastern needs to look at what happened that evening, see if they can learn anything in terms of overall staffing and perhaps report some findings so passengers are reassured that they do take train running seriously.

I'm certain they do but if they say nothing people will doubt that they do.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Tomnick]

After all, one guard not taking a train should only need to cause the cancellation of one train not two. So clearly other factors were in play.

One service was cancelled (actually only part cancelled) from Tunbridge to Robertsbridge as there was no guard to work it. That meant that there was no train, no driver and definitely no guard to work back from Robertsbridge - so, as a direct result, a second service was (part) cancelled.

 

[infobleep]

So where does the three train loads of passengers come from? Or have I misread something.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Tomnick]

Ah, sorry, thought you meant as a direct result of the guard's PNB. Yes, there'd been quite a bit of disruption earlier on (which also explains the guard's PNB) so the previous train could have been cancelled as a result of whatever had driven the job up the wall to begin with!

 

[Greenback]

There is little flexibility or spare capacity in the duty rosters. Once things start to go wrong, there will be delays and cancellations as no TOC wants to pay for a lot of staff to be sitting around in case something happens. This is the negative side to the greater productivity that train crews now deliver.

Diagrams are usaulyl quite complex with a lot of interworking between trains and routes, rather than being self contained to one route as used to be the norm many years ago.

I don't think South Eastern need to learn anything, they know full well what they are doing. It is all about profit, there is a trade off between the cost of delays and cancellations, the cost of spare staff, and they will always make decisions based on the bottom line.

 

[Minilad]

Last week my lack of work ethic involved me getting up at 0200. This week my lack of work ethic will see me get home around 00.30-0100
Some of the comments in this thread really do show a total lack of understanding of what train crew do. How they do it. And, importantly, the "work ethic" they have. To suggest someone doesn't have a work ethic because they take a break is utterly dumbfounding to me

 

[Greenback]

Last week my lack of work ethic involved me getting up at 0200. This week my lack of work ethic will see me get home around 00.30-0100
Some of the comments in this thread really do show a total lack of understanding of what train crew do. How they do it. And, importantly, the "work ethic" they have. To suggest someone doesn't have a work ethic because they take a break is utterly dumbfounding to me

In fairness to 34D I think he was trying to say that the passengers don't have the same work ethic.

 

[Silv1983]

Not sure why you say only people on 100k a year. I work in the city for 27k, and can also be expected to work well beyond my agreed hours for zero overtime pay. I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?

You need a good union mate so you're stopped being treated like a b**ch..

This is 21st Century London... not Dhaka.

 

[LowLevel]

Not sure why you say only people on 100k a year. I work in the city for 27k, and can also be expected to work well beyond my agreed hours for zero overtime pay. I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?
I use trains a lot, and besides opening and closing doors, they usually spend 99% of their time with their nose buried in a newspaper, which is a break by most other people's standards. I know I don't work in the railway industry, but I find it particularly galling to be stranded somewhere for an hour because the guard has gone shopping. Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first. And I reject any health and safety arguments over this, as it is the guard we are talking, not the driver, who needs to concentrate on what is ahead of him. If there are any legitimate health and safety reasons, I would like to hear them. I've only scanned the last couple pages, and I've not seen any made.

As you say, you don't work in the industry, so you don't appreciate it. If the fact that lives have been lost due to the inattentiveness/failure to perform correctly of the train guard isn't a reasonable health and safety argument, I'm not sure what is. I've dispatched tens of thousands of trains. It's not till you've had a long day that you realise how draining it is trying to concentrate on those crucial little elements that repeat over and over in slightly different ways, until something happens and you're in zombie repetitive mode needing to react. Sometimes you do get chill out time with a paper, others you're constantly doing station duties or tickets and don't sit down for hours.

Coats caught in doors, silly things like that will kill you if you're dragged under a train.

On one class of train I work (153 DMU), you see people putting their hands in the doors to hold them for their mates? These doors don't have obstacle detection, if I don't stop them closing when muppets try that then it will break the bones in their hands. Less easy to spot if you're tired.

Finally, if you're really unlucky and your train hits an obstacle on the line (cement mixer, lorry, fallen bridge) and your drivers legs are smashed to smithereens or worse, he's dead in the cab, who do you think is responsible for reacting and dealing with the incident? Once again, that's your guard.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

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

The WTD does not apply to every single worker in England. It doesn't apply to my work - we are meant to get a 45 minute break (30mins unpaid, 15mins paid) in a 12 hour shift to be given to us any time from the 4th hour to the finish before the 10th hour. Rarely do we actually get a break - more often than not it's 11.5 hours straight work (if you don't get a break, you go home 30mins early as it's unpaid), eating and going to the loo when you can.

This isn't an 'I've got it so much worse than rail staff so they can shut up post' - rail staff have got it relatively good in terms of breaks, so fair play to them and by all means use them.

 

[Tracky]

Last week my lack of work ethic involved me getting up at 0200. This week my lack of work ethic will see me get home around 00.30-0100
Some of the comments in this thread really do show a total lack of understanding of what train crew do. How they do it. And, importantly, the "work ethic" they have. To suggest someone doesn't have a work ethic because they take a break is utterly dumbfounding to me

The work ethic of traincrew at my place also meant no trains were cancelled or delayed due to staff failing to get to work in last years snow. Struggling in when teachers and office workers could not...

During normal circumstances most traincrew regard their personal timekeeping far better than people in many other walks of life.

 

[fowler9]

Not sure why you say only people on 100k a year. I work in the city for 27k, and can also be expected to work well beyond my agreed hours for zero overtime pay. I understand why drivers need scheduled breaks, but guards?
I use trains a lot, and besides opening and closing doors, they usually spend 99% of their time with their nose buried in a newspaper, which is a break by most other people's standards. I know I don't work in the railway industry, but I find it particularly galling to be stranded somewhere for an hour because the guard has gone shopping. Surely the passengers have paid good money to travel from a to b, and that should come first. And I reject any health and safety arguments over this, as it is the guard we are talking, not the driver, who needs to concentrate on what is ahead of him. If there are any legitimate health and safety reasons, I would like to hear them. I've only scanned the last couple pages, and I've not seen any made.

That is a pretty incredible misunderstanding of how the railways and public transport in general works. It is really pretty safe because people follow rules and don't just do what they fancy like motorists.

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

That is a pretty incredible misunderstanding of how the railways and public transport in general works. It is really pretty safe because people follow rules and don't just do what they fancy like motorists.

Absolutely spot on.As a guard working diagrams that often include more than 100 stops in a shift I see very little of the back cab let alone a newspaper.If the poster you quoted hasn't picked up on the health and safety implications of guards taking their breaks then he displays a lack of attention to detail that would no doubt concern his employer and could possibly prove fatal if he worked in the rail industry.

Perhaps I'm being unkind,he may have missed things in the thread because of fatigue due to working through his breaks.

 

[fowler9]

Absolutely spot on.As a guard working diagrams that often include more than 100 stops in a shift I see very little of the back cab let alone a newspaper.If the poster you quoted hasn't picked up on the health and safety implications of guards taking their breaks then he displays a lack of attention to detail that would no doubt concern his employer and could possibly prove fatal if he worked in the rail industry.

Perhaps I'm being unkind,he may have missed things in the thread because of fatigue due to working through his breaks.

I think a decent number of people working in the city missed a number of things possibly due to fatigue which led to a financial collapse and the current state of the country. To be fair they probably also think that all cabin crew on planes do is sell scratch cards and pass out drinks so what chance do you have with their opinion on guards.

 

[infobleep]

Here is an example of learning. Train company decides to improve reliability of train services by changing the timings on the timetable.

No one is perfect so why can't one continuously learn from general day to day working of a railway and emergency timetable changes and alterations.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Greenback]

Here is an example of learning. Train company decides to improve reliability of train services by changing the timings on the timetable.

No one is perfect so why can't one continuously learn from general day to day working of a railway and emergency timetable changes and alterations.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Where's the learning? Most companies make changes designed to improve their business. If they don't they are more likely to fail. Sometimes, like with Woolworths, even making changes will not work of those changes are too little, too late.

Railway companies are no different to other private companies in that they are constantly seeking to maximise profits for their shareholders. That is the prime motive, but it may not be consistent with paying for extra members of spare staff, or aless intensive use of their stock.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Railway companies are no different to other private companies in that they are constantly seeking to maximise profits for their shareholders. That is the prime motive, but it may not be consistent with paying for extra members of spare staff, or aless intensive use of their stock.

And there lies one of the problems we currently have with our railway network in this country. Quite often it just doesn't make financial sense to spend the money to offer a better service.

 

[Greenback]

And there lies one of the problems we currently have with our railway network in this country. Quite often it just doesn't make financial sense to spend the money to offer a better service.

Indeed, a better service rarely means a more profitable one.

Sometimes, I think people expect trains to be operated as if they were a public service rather than a private industry (although the latter is not in the truest sense). By which, people expect that providing a good service to the passenger hould be the primary goal, much like it was under BR. At least in the early days anyway.

The irony is that the running of a public service meant that economies were not always made where they could have been, a lot of trains continued to run at tiems that didn't really cater for the local travel flows, but continued because they had always run.

The very sort of commercial focus that was intended to be brought in by BR's various organisational restructurings and eventually privatisation, has led to the current situation where the staffing plan cannot cope with anything more than the most minor disruption.

The only way for things to change is for fares to rise even higher, which the majority would find unacceptable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see that the member of the rail staff in the OP was visiting Sainsbury's. Do any ever visit Waitrose....or even Fortnum and Mason..

 

[EM2]

There are a number of St Pancras International staff that visit Fortnum & Mason...

 

[bunnahabhain]

I see that the member of the rail staff in the OP was visiting Sainsbury's. Do any ever visit Waitrose....or even Fortnum and Mason..

Yes thank you!

 

[infobleep]

I've worked for very small firms before and we would always learn after something happened that we'd prefer not to happen.

Perhaps in this case the emergency changes ran as planned in such emergencies.

Recently the 18.23 from London Waterloo to Basingstoke was running 20 mins late so they cancelled the Surbiton stop. A week later it was delayed by 20 minutes and they didn't cancel the Surbiton stop. There is no right or wrong answers but surely they might review which action taken worked best in order to try and implement the more helpful one in future. Perhaps neither made any difference. If so I'd prefer them not to cancel the stop. That's learning.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[infobleep]

Where's the learning? Most companies make changes designed to improve their business. If they don't they are more likely to fail..

They do but apart from guesstimates you can only make changes based in previous experience and therefore surely that means you are learning.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Greenback]

They do but apart from guesstimates you can only make changes based in previous experience and therefore surely that means you are learning.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Yes, in that sense learning is continuous, which is what I was trying to say. The business will always be trying to manage things better, but the primary objective is to save money/increase profits and not necessarily to improve the life of passengers. If the two do conicide, that would be a bonus!

This is why it might be decided not to stop a service at one station one day, but the final decision is different on another day. It will always be down to an analysis as to which option is financially the least worse taking into account all of the circumstances, some of which would not be obvious to passengers on the ground. I dare say they won't always get it right either.

The reason I asked 'Where's the learning' is because it wasn't clear from your post if you were intending to link to a specific incident and had forgotten to do so! Sorry if I wasn't clear.