Yes. Why would it not be?
Then you can't expect to convince others while withholding important parts of your evidence.
You said that safety cases were ignored. Are you withdrawing that (clearly false) accusation?
No, that is not what I said. I challenged you on your assertion that "
trains run more promptly with driver operated doors" and it doesn't matter what people on here think.
You don't understand that better performance and better customer service generate more passenger satisfaction? Or you don't understand that more passenger satisfaction leads to more revenue?
Any evidence that this is what has been happening / not happening?
Reading back and thinking about your claim a little more, I am not entirely convinced that this is necessarily the case, ie. driver dispatch leading to higher passenger satisfaction. The issue seems far less clear cut as you made out even if one would expect this to be broadly true. Speaking from experience, on several occasions, I have had doors shut on me despite only being a couple of steps away because the driver could not see me, together with a few other passengers, running down the stairs, hence angry customers especially when a connection was missed due to an earlier late-running service and the perception that the door was deliberately shut in front of them. I have also had experience on parallel services with guards who could see passengers running down the stairs and waited a couple of extra seconds despite dispatchers already having blown his whistle. Obviously a direct comparison is not possible, but not all schedules are water tight, and guards would be able to use their own professional judgement to decide whether waiting a few more seconds to allow some late-running passengers on, sometimes through the local door, would impact on progress further down the line, whereas with driver dispatch, no chance. Of course guards might not let these passengers on, but that again is no worse than no guard. Even if the train ended up 1 or 2 minutes late, it is not a given that those already onboard would be annoyed with those who made the train having a positive experience instead of a negative experience.
Tell me and I'll try to write an idiot's guide.
There is no need for this, is there? Is it a crime now to ask you to explain your assertions further, or is everyone expected to know everything you know? :roll:
You don't understand a lot do you? Firstly, when you deal with safety critical staff you need more spares. Safety critical staff also have extra training. Often with safety critical guards you have full crew working, which leads to less efficient diagrams. Tell me which of these you don't understand.
Yes, onboard staff may need less training, but then who takes on those extra responsibilities? Would those taking on these extra responsibilities not require a comparable level of increase in remuneration?
Fine, the lack of need for full crew working may save some money, but to what extent? Also how much saving can be expected from the reduction in spare crew? What level of spare crewing are FGW proposing? No, I don't know the answer otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to elaborate.
How many guards currently sit around in the messrooms purely as spares? I get the impression from other topics that very few.
No, I don't know the intricacies of all parts of railway operation. Why should I when I have experts like you to explain to me how it all works? I am just looking at these issues using common sense and a bystander's logic trying to make sense of all these developments.
But hang on a minute. "Safety competent"? Are they going to be "safety critical" or not? What is "safety competent"?
You don't understand logical fallacies either I see. While it's possible that a guard might see a driver error and correct it and vice versa, it's clearly possible that he might not see it or not correct it.
... which means the situation is no worse than there not being a guard.
We have Merseyrail as a good example.
The guard made an error. There is nothing to suggest that driver would be less likely to make such an error. It just so happened that unfortunately it was the guard that made the error and not the driver on this occasion. I see that the driver did nothing to prevent the situation escalating, and how could he have realistically given that he was not watching the platform?
Had the mistake been made by the driver, the guard could have stopped it. He might not have, but in that case it is no worse than there being no guard.
So having a guard can only be safer.
I don't think I am the one who doesn't understand logical fallacy.
We also have the recent TPE case. In both the driver did nothing. In either case, if the driver had been responsible would the mistake have been made?
See above.
