Keep Safety Critical Guards on Trains ePetition

[Dave1987]

Let's put it this way, I like the cross country way of working between guard and driver.

 

[Bill Stanier]

A Safety Critical job is exactly what it says on the tin. The job is critical to safety. This encompasses pretty much everyone on the railway that works on the operational side, including Despatchers, Signalmen, Guards, Drivers etc etc. I believe (although someone will probably be along in a minute to tell me different, coz that is pretty much the only thing people like to do on this forum!!!) that people that hold a SC role most be certified for PTS also.
All "Guards" or "Train Managers" or "Senior Conductors" or whatever nomenclature is used by the various TOC's will be classed as Safety Critical, and should also be conversant with the Rule Book, and certified for PTS.

That doesn't tell the person who asked the question ("what is a safety critical guard") what a safety critical guard is, compared to a 'non safety critical' guard. In other words, it doesn't tell us the case for signing this petition.. or not.

So far there's nothing to differentiate it from the a job protection call for other rail workers to sign, a bit like the spurious need for a 'second man' that used to be considered by the unions as 'safety critical' in diesel and electric train cabs. It wasn't. It was a union attempt at providing a 'non job' just to keep people employed.

If the OP wants this petition signed, they should explain why. There may be a perfectly good reason to sign, but I haven't seen it explained yet in this thread. Until it is, how can the OP expect anyone not personally aware of the issues to sign it?

 

[LateThanNever]

Let's put it this way, I like the cross country way of working between guard and driver.

Me too. But that seems to mean ( I'm no expert) that the guard is safety trained for the railway which is what I ? we want! IE knows what he's on about if things go wrong and can take control even in the worst circumstances...

 

[muz379]

If the OP wants this petition signed, they should explain why. There may be a perfectly good reason to sign, but I haven't seen it explained yet in this thread. Until it is, how can the OP expect anyone not personally aware of the issues to sign it?

The OP made it quite clear that this wasn't intended as a discussion about DOO and keeping guards on trains , there is another thread for that purpose if you want to talk about why this is the same as the call to defend the second man or whatever .

the purpose of this thread was to make people who dont support DOO aware of the petition that they could sign

If you dont support keeping guards on the train dont sign the petition if you do then sign it . Simple really .

I just want to ask a favour! Could all those that believe in keeping Safety Critical guards (Like Myself) on trains please sign this ePetition

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/66647

I don't want this to turn into the age old debate I am just asking that people who do want to keep Guards on trains sign it.

 

[Bill Stanier]

The OP made it quite clear that this wasn't intended as a discussion about DOO and keeping guards on trains , there is another thread for that purpose if you want to talk about why this is the same as the call to defend the second man or whatever .

the purpose of this thread was to make people who dont support DOO aware of the petition that they could sign

If you dont support keeping guards on the train dont sign the petition if you do then sign it . Simple really .

Listen up and wind your neck in! I didn't go down that road at all! I asked for clarification of what this thread is about!

My point is the OP did NOT explain what the petition is about. Neither he, nor the petition, mentions DOO.

Are you saying the petition is about having guards on trains or having no guards at all on trains? If so, that's not what the OP said. He said it was about keeping safety critical guards on trains. As layman, that sounds like do we keep safety critical guards, or do we have instead none safety critical guards (whatever they might be - untrained conductors, maybe).

If he just meant 'guards as we know them or no guards at all', he should have said so! DOO, in other words. I'd have known what he meant then!

And that was my point! Clarification of what the petition (and therefore the thread) is about!

Please read posts with more care in future before diving in fists flying!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Listen up and wind your neck in! I didn't go down that road at all! I asked for clarification of what this thread is about!

My point is the OP did NOT explain what the petition is about. Neither he, nor the petition, mentions DOO.

Are you saying the petition is about having guards on trains or having no guards at all on trains? If so, that's not what the OP said. He said it was about keeping safety critical guards on trains. As layman, that sounds like do we keep safety critical guards, or do we have instead none safety critical guards (whatever they might be - untrained conductors, maybe).

If he just meant 'guards as we know them or no guards at all', he should have said so! DOO, in other words. I'd have known what he meant then!

And that was my point! Clarification of what the petition (and therefore the thread) is about!

Please read posts with more care in future before diving in fists flying!

Keep Safety Critical Conductors On The Train At Northern Rail & Transpennine Express

Responsible department: Department for Transport

The recently issues consultation documents on the future of rail services in the North of England proposes The removal of Safety Critical Conductors (Train Guards) from the current Northern Rail Franchise and leaves the option open to a new operator to do the spake with the current Transpennine Express Franchise.

It is important that Safety Critical Conductors are retained on trains services on both franchises. They provide a effective security presence on board trains for all passengers, carrying out "emergency protection" on running lines in the event of a incident; further taking on the emergency protection duties of the driver should they become incapacitated in the unfortunate event of a incident.

Safety Critical Conductors also hold the required knowledge to summons assistance and help in times of trouble.

We want Safety Critical Conductors to be retained on both franchises.

thats says it all really and that is all I want people to read and make their decisions from nothing else.

 

[Bill Stanier]

Keep Safety Critical Conductors On The Train At Northern Rail & Transpennine Express

Responsible department: Department for Transport

The recently issues consultation documents on the future of rail services in the North of England proposes The removal of Safety Critical Conductors (Train Guards) from the current Northern Rail Franchise and leaves the option open to a new operator to do the spake with the current Transpennine Express Franchise.

It is important that Safety Critical Conductors are retained on trains services on both franchises. They provide a effective security presence on board trains for all passengers, carrying out "emergency protection" on running lines in the event of a incident; further taking on the emergency protection duties of the driver should they become incapacitated in the unfortunate event of a incident.

Safety Critical Conductors also hold the required knowledge to summons assistance and help in times of trouble.

We want Safety Critical Conductors to be retained on both franchises.

thats says it all really and that is all I want people to read and make their decisions from nothing else.

Sorry Northern, but it's confusing. Its wording makes its meaning unclear.

It says 'Keep Safety Critical Guards on trains', and explains why it's important to retain 'safety critical guards', but the point I made in my previous post is the petition is unclear because it keeps referring to 'safety critical guards' implying the alternative is 'none-safety critical guards'.

If it just said 'retain guards on trains' rather than implement DOO that would be clear!

 

[muz379]

Listen up and wind your neck in! I didn't go down that road at all! I asked for clarification of what this thread is about!

My point is the OP did NOT explain what the petition is about. Neither he, nor the petition, mentions DOO.

Are you saying the petition is about having guards on trains or having no guards at all on trains? If so, that's not what the OP said. He said it was about keeping safety critical guards on trains. As layman, that sounds like do we keep safety critical guards, or do we have instead none safety critical guards (whatever they might be - untrained conductors, maybe).

If he just meant 'guards as we know them or no guards at all', he should have said so! DOO, in other words. I'd have known what he meant then!

And that was my point! Clarification of what the petition (and therefore the thread) is about!

Please read posts with more care in future before diving in fists flying!

Listen up yourself , the exact detail of the petition you would have been signing was on the petition itself if you had cared to click the link and take a moment to read it . Most other people managed it without a problem like I said its simple read the petition and then sign depending on if you agree or disagree with what the person who has written the petition is saying .No need for the attitude over something so simple really

If you dont like/or agree with how the petition is worded take it up with the person that wrote it or dont sign it .

 

[Bill Stanier]

If you dont like/or agree with how the petition is worded take it up with the person that wrote it or dont sign it .

That's exactly what I did about the OP! One can only decide whether to sign it or not once one knows what it's asking one to sign for!

 

[Carlisle]

Sorry Northern, but it's confusing. Its wording makes its meaning unclear.

It says 'Keep Safety Critical Guards on trains', and explains why it's important to retain 'safety critical guards', but the point I made in my previous post is the petition is unclear because it keeps referring to 'safety critical guards' implying the alternative is 'none-safety critical guards'.

If it just said 'retain guards on trains' rather than implement DOO that would be clear!

I would guess it would probably end up something like traditional guards remaining on a fair number of services , non safety critical(similar to SPT) guards on some or all electrified routes and some services running with only the driver (either due to staff shortage or complete DOO )

 

[overtonchris]

Signed. All the best to those potentially effected...(including staff / passengers etc. etc.)

 

[Bill Stanier]

I would guess it would probably end up something like traditional guards remaining on a fair number of services , non safety critical(similar to SPT) guards on some or all electrified routes and some services running with only the driver (either due to staff shortage or complete DOO )

Ah! So it is a choice between safety critical and non-safety critical guards? Or is it a choice between having a guard and not having one at all?

See what I mean? Confusing, innit!

 

[Tomnick]

As far as the Rule Book is concerned, the Guard is a safety-critical role (Conductor, Senior Conductor, Train Manager and so on being mere job titles, irrelevant in terms of safety responsibilities). The choice will probably be between needing a Guard (without whom the train can't operate in passenger service), being assured that 'someone' (at best, a revenue chappy, or at worst, a minimum wage agency bod with minimal training) will be provided unless there's no-one available (providing a brilliant opportunity for TOCs to save themselves a few pennies by leaving turns uncovered, if there's no penalty for running without one) or completely destaffing them with only an occasional revenue protection appearance.

 

[notadriver]

And heres my confusion. A Javelin cannot operate in passenger service without an on board manager and yet they are not a safety critical guard in the traditional sense. Are the lines getting blurred?

 

[313103]

It is quite clear as a former Safety Critical Guard, you either have one or you have none!

It is not asking for Non safety critical Guards (as such do not exist anyway), it is asking to keep Safety Critical Guards on all trains and to me that is plain. Why would you put down something on a petition that does not exist?

I will be honest and say I cant see anything wrong in what is written on the petition its as clear as daylight, but then that's me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And heres my confusion. A Javelin cannot operate in passenger service without an on board manager and yet they are not a safety critical guard in the traditional sense. Are the lines getting blurred?

Its a bloody posh word from the company, these members of staff are basically glorified ticket collectors (and I am not belittling that role either), hence why they not safety critically trained, in the event of a incident the driver will deal with it.

What is causing the issue of this getting blurred, is all the companies that Have Guards calling them anything and everything but Guards, and this is done deliberately to miss direct new employees, HR, and Managers by giving them fancy names and generally watering down the grade.

The rule book is still very clear on this issue, They are still called 'Guards'.
No matter this company calls them and what that company calls them.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Signed.

 

[Paul1977]

A problem with that article, it quotes from the consultation but omits the bit saying "On the Northern franchise, we expect to require bidders to set out how DOO may be introduced onto suitable services" and then starts talking about DOO being introduced on parliamentary services and lines with request stops which are obviously the least suitable candidates for DOO. It also talks about the Manchester-Huddersfield stopper which has had a lot of publicity in local media regarding proposals to replace it with 2 x Manchester-Leeds semi-fasts operated by TPE, so not a good example of a line to pick.

Signed

Paul
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I just want to ask a favour! Could all those that believe in keeping Safety Critical guards (Like Myself) on trains please sign this ePetition

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/66647

I don't want this to turn into the age old debate I am just asking that people who do want to keep Guards on trains sign it.

Many Thanks

ANG

Mods' note: please respect ANorthernGuard's request, and use the Should we have DOO? thread instead, if you wish to debate the pros & cons of DOO

Signed

Paul1977

 

[driver_m]

Signed

 

[Greenback]

I've deleted a lot of posts which are off topic in this thread.

Arguments and discussion about DOO, airline staff, coaches and anything else should be made elsewhere.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I've deleted a lot of posts which are off topic in this thread.

Arguments and discussion about DOO, airline staff, coaches and anything else should be made elsewhere.

Thanks Greenbank

 

[bonelorry]

Signed.

 

[hidden]

Signed

 

[bnm]

Not signed.

I don't wish to put my name to a petition that is so poorly worded and littered with spelling and grammar mistakes.