Airdrie-Bathgate: Bob Crowe's being idiotic again

[Metroland]

Where does the staff reductions end? After all with ATO drivers could be dispensed, then take it a stage further and controllers, till ultimatley you have a complete system without any staff, utopia from a shreholders point of view when everything is running fine, but what happens when there are problems , goes the TOC phone up the job centre and ask for staff because there is an emergency? Hardly.
All trains should have at least 2 staff , a driver and a guard, they are there for a reason.
I dont believe that the gaurd should just sit in the rear cab , they should make their pressence known on the train and operate the doors plus assist passengers, however revenue protection should be a seperate member of staff.
As for all those in favour of minal staff , how would you feel if it was your job being taken away and you had 2 options , redundancy or wage cut?
Support your railways , dont help by cutting them.

I don't think anyone is in favour of cuts as such, but in the real world the railways have to compete with other forms of transport, and they have to do so cost effectively. If they don't do so, there will be job losses anyway. Changes in technology will undoubtedly mean more automation in all forms for transport, depending how cost effective it is.

 

[O L Leigh]

According to posts made by strathclyde SR staff on other fora, they are still trained to protect and evacuate trains in the event of an incident.

But what does that mean?

Are they PTS qualified? If their train jumps the tracks, would they be out there with clips protecting the train while the driver calls up the box? Precisely what is their role and what duties could they be expected to carry out? This really does need some clarification.

Quite honestly these TE's are either guards or they are not. If they are not guards, why are they being expected to carry out the duties of a guard? Likewise, if they are expected to carry out the duties of a guard, they should be called a guard, receive a guard's rate of pay and the train should be worked according to the Rules for there being a guard. If anything, what appears to be some crazy sort of halfway house between guard and revenue would give greater justification for Comrade Bob's objections, as FScR are appearing to fully staff their trains but their customers are being fobbed off with a "plastic guard". This is a horrible "fudge" and the unions are right to object to it.

O L Leigh

 

[Tom C]

As a regular passenger on an (ex-)SPT DOO route, I have never been on a train without a ticket examiner.

Even though that's a very good thing, which SPTE should be proud of, it still isn't a safety requirement for that member of staff to be on that train and it is only through the requirements of SPTE (which I would presume fund services in the Strathclyde area) that those Revenue staff are there at all as it certainly isn't the case on FCC or FGW nor was it on FGE to see that level of staffing apart from trains booked with a guard.

 

[AlexS]

Although to be fair the rulebook does cover that if necessary anybody can go on or about the lineside PTS or not in an emergency situation to reduce or remove the risk to life.

I'm sure I could protect a mainline train if I really needed to, however I'd rather hope that I didn't have to as it probably wouldn't be that pleasant a situation if it became necessary for a passenger to do it. I think it was Clapham or Purley or something like that where a magazine editor carried out the train protection. The book does state that if an emergency occurs you should make yourself known to the staff in charge and as I've signed for bits of the RSSB book I probably would do.

At the end of the day you can either play it by chance that the driver would have someone to support them if they needed it, or you can introduce the extra body to make it much more likely.

Which is why I support having train guards.

 

[O L Leigh]

The situation is that the Rule Book divides certain tasks between the driver and the guard (where one is provided). What you are referring to about stepping into the breach in an emergency is not quite the same thing. It would appear that FScR are expecting their TE's to carry out this role as part of their duties. However, if the situation really is as it appears, these are tasks that the Rule Book divides between driver and guard only.

My objection is that a TE is not a guard and therefore shouldn't be assigned these tasks. However, if FScR feel that an additional member of staff is required to fulfil these functions, they should be putting real guards on these trains and not TE's.

O L Leigh

 

[Tom C]

If you are relying on them having the knowledge because they used to be guards but no new entrants are getting this training, you will gradually lose this as these former guards retire, leave the railway or get jobs elsewhere.

As I mentioned earlier, when I became an RPI under Thameslink I was trained how to lay track circuit clips however I don't even know where they are kept on a 377.

To show you how little training we receive now, we got a map issued showing the various panel numbers in case of emergency. However this was "knocked up" from a public map so it excludes East Croydon to Streatham South Junction which is served by two trains a day from Selhurst and also used on Brighton to Bedford via Tulse Hill runs, it excludes Sutton to Norwood Junction/Selhurst which is a common diversionary route at weekends and it also excludes Haywards Heath to Lewes to Brighton which used to be an emergency diversionary route.

If anything, what appears to be some crazy sort of halfway house between guard and revenue would give greater justification for Comrade Bob's objections, as FScR are appearing to fully staff their trains but their customers are being fobbed off with a "plastic guard". This is a horrible "fudge" and the unions are right to object to it.

I totally agree

It is admirable that SPTE wants staff on every train but they are either guards or they are not. If they are then as mentioned they should assume the full duties of a guard. The rule book doesn't (or at least didn't) have this grey area for someone who isn't a guard yet has partial training. They also surely cannot be called guards (or even a replacement) if they are not an essential member of train crew. I cannot see how you can say that every train has a member of revenue staff but can operate without one and compare them to a guard.

 

[djw1981]

The situation is that the Rule Book divides certain tasks between the driver and the guard (where one is provided). What you are referring to about stepping into the breach in an emergency is not quite the same thing. It would appear that FScR are expecting their TE's to carry out this role as part of their duties. However, if the situation really is as it appears, these are tasks that the Rule Book divides between driver and guard only.

My objection is that a TE is not a guard and therefore shouldn't be assigned these tasks. However, if FScR feel that an additional member of staff is required to fulfil these functions, they should be putting real guards on these trains and not TE's.

O L Leigh

FScR could not do that on their existing DOO routes because of the franchise agreement with Transport Scotland - thus Transport Scotland as franchiser of teh route would have to agree. And that seems unlikely.

 

[O L Leigh]

Please stop talking in riddles.

FScR cannot do what because of their franchise agreement?

O L Leigh

 

[djw1981]

Your final sentence regarded putting guards back on trains. To do so would be a change of the contracted services, and thus Transport Scotland would need to agree. As in the case of extending the DOO - Transport Scotland are standing full square behind FiSR because they control the purse strings.

Given the commensurate increase in costs, and the current financial climate they are unlikely to thus blaming FsR is disingenuous, since they can only act within their Franchise manager (Transport Scotland) instructions.

 

[O L Leigh]

Then Transport Scotland have it wrong. All a TE will do is to ensure compliance with ticketing regulations and protect the income of the operator. I can see why this is so important to SPTE because ensuring full compliance means that they have to fork out less themselves.

Just to be entirely clear, my objection is twofold. Firstly it is over the suggestion that having a TE onboard ensures safety, which I believe I have expounded on at adequate length already. The second, and more alarming, is that these TE's are being trained to carry out at least some of the tasks of a guard. I can see why the TOC wants to do this because they can placate the unions, introduce a form of DOO at a fraction of the cost and have some of the safety functions of a guard replicated on the cheap. However, these are reasons why such a move should be opposed.

It bears repeating that a TE is not a guard and that the role is not recognised in the Rules, it does not represent the same level of safety that a driver + guard traincrew represents and that if a TE is going to take on even some of the roles of the guard why not just have a proper guard. Transport Scotland is not, or at least should not be, a tyrant. If it sets a minimum standard then there is nothing to prevent the TOC exceeding it. So if Transport Scotland want TE's there should be nothing to prevent FScR using proper guards as it meets and exceeds the standard required. I have no problem with a TE just carrying out revenue protection duties, but I am extremely alarmed if their duties extend beyond this.

It all boils down to precisely what the tasks are of the TE's. I fear that FScR is trying the old smoke and mirrors trick by pretending that the TE's are as good as guards when in reality all they are doing is playing fast and loose with the Rules. A train is either DOO (with or without revenue) or it is a fully staffed train with a guard. The Rules do not allow for any other possibility.

O L Leigh

 

[90019]

It bears repeating that a TE is not a guard and that the role is not recognised in the Rules, it does not represent the same level of safety that a driver + guard traincrew represents and that if a TE is going to take on even some of the roles of the guard why not just have a proper guard.

Why exactly?

Why is the fact the driver's opening and shutting the doors instead of him making the train less safe? :?

 

[O L Leigh]

*Bangs head on desk*

You have read the rest of the thread leading up to this point, haven't you...? The issue isn't about who opens and closes the doors.

O L Leigh

 

[90019]

*Bangs head on desk*

You have read the rest of the thread leading up to this point, haven't you...? The issue isn't about who opens and closes the doors.

O L Leigh

I have read through it (albeit not all in the past few minutes), and the gist of it that I've been able to pick up on from it is that SPT have trains running to Airdrie that have revenue protection on it trained to deal with emergencies as a guard would, but not operating the doors, and some people are objecting to this being used all the way through to Edinburgh when the Airdrie-Bathgate link opens.

Maybe I've missed something, maybe I'm just forgetting things (which isn't unusual), but that's what I've got from it.

 

[O L Leigh]

Maybe I've missed something, maybe I'm just forgetting things (which isn't unusual), but that's what I've got from it.

I think perhaps you might have.

If revenue can do what a guard does, why are they not guards? If they are guards, why are the trains being operated as DOO? Surely they are either revenue or guards, because they can't be both. The Rules don't allow for this duality.

So can we all agree to stop pretending that a TE adds anything to the safety of a train service over and above that already provided by DOO.

O L Leigh

 

[68000]

GSM-R is introducing a whole new way of dealing with emergencies ie drivers will be able to stop trains in the area by pressing a button in the cab [current rules]. This will take time to be rolled out to all trains and when it does, the safety argument of guards will reduce somewhat especially when the DSD is also connected to GSM-R and alarm will go to the signaller after a preset time period.

The Airdrie to Edinburgh route will be commissioned with GSM-R and all the EMUs are now operational with GSM-R

 

[O L Leigh]

GSM-R is introducing a whole new way of dealing with emergencies ie drivers will be able to stop trains in the area by pressing a button in the cab [current rules]. This will take time to be rolled out to all trains and when it does, the safety argument of guards will reduce somewhat especially when the DSD is also connected to GSM-R and alarm will go to the signaller after a preset time period.

The DSD is already linked to the CSR in precisely the way you describe.

GSM-R will not affect the current rules for dealing with a train emergency. If there is no immediate contact with the signaller there is still the requirement to lay full detonator protection. The only difference that I can see is that initiating an emergency call automatically alerts all other trains in the area thereby saving the signaller either a general call or sending "STOP" messages to individual trains. It's just a new communication system but otherwise just more of the same.

O L Leigh

 

[68000]

The DSD is already linked to the CSR in precisely the way you describe.

Not in Scotland

GSM-R will not affect the current rules for dealing with a train emergency. If there is no immediate contact with the signaller there is still the requirement to lay full detonator protection. The only difference that I can see is that initiating an emergency call automatically alerts all other trains in the area thereby saving the signaller either a general call or sending "STOP" messages to individual trains. It's just a new communication system but otherwise just more of the same.

I don't know if the current rules are to be changed but what I do know is that every train in a pre-determined area will get an emergency stop within 2 seconds of the button in the cab being pressed [with current GSM-R rules]. The emergency facility is also available in every cab on the train.

This protects the train much more effectively than getting staff to walk on the ballast and lay protection.

 

[Mojo]

Just a question, in the case of Potters Bar, the derailed coach was blocking the fast lines and AIUI there was a train heading Southbound that had it not been stopped, would have crashed into the derailed coach. Being a DOO train, would the driver have had an "Emergency" button that would have contacted the signaller to arrange for other trains to have been stopped? I know the two are not mutually exclusive (I'm sure you can have this radio and guards), but had the train NOT been DOO, is there a chance the accident could have been worse (as neither the guard nor driver could have walked the distance to lay detonators)?

 

[O L Leigh]

Sorry, Scotland is already running DOO services without the safeguard of a DSD alarm...? So how will the signaller know if a driver has fallen off the perch? My God, that's a shocking revelation. I'll need to do some checking, but I'm pretty certain that this feature should be used wherever DOO services operate. It's one of the reasons why CSR is used.

One thing about the railway is that safety is not, can not and should never be assumed. The introduction of axle counters on the WCML has not altered the Rules regarding incidents, so traincrew are still required to put down clips even though this will have no effect. I cannot see that GSM-R will change this. It cannot be assumed that the system is working or that the driver has not been incapacitated and has not pressed the emergency call button.

No, we shall all still be racing around with clips, dets and flags.

Just a question, in the case of Potters Bar, the derailed coach was blocking the fast lines and AIUI there was a train heading Southbound that had it not been stopped, would have crashed into the derailed coach. Being a DOO train, would the driver have had an "Emergency" button that would have contacted the signaller to arrange for other trains to have been stopped?

There is an emergency call button on the CSR that connects you directly to the controlling signaller. I expect the driver would have hit it the moment he knew the train was in trouble and alerted the signaller.

I know the two are not mutually exclusive (I'm sure you can have this radio and guards), but had the train NOT been DOO, is there a chance the accident could have been worse (as neither the guard nor driver could have walked the distance to lay detonators)?

The other existing radio system is NRN that also has an emergency call feature. Failing that, any member of traincrew could have called the box by phone and made an emergency call that way.

O L Leigh

 

[scrapy]

I believe there have been a few instances of drivers releasing the doors on the wrong side of the train. Whilst i'm not aware of any injuries when this has happened there is the potential for them. Whilst this is very rare it only takes a short lapse in concentration.

When a guard releases the doors he if not going to release them on the wrong side when he is going to step onto the platform, and he has to be stood on the side of the platform to release them.

 

[me123]

I've read the evidence, and I still side with Scotrail on this one. In this case, the cheapest option makes the most sense. DOO is simply not feasible on the North Clyde Line due to the close proximity of stations (less than two minutes), and the ticket examiners do a good job as is.

Of course, Scotrail is required to have a second staff member on every train. Sure, it doesn't always happen. But, as I've said above, I've never known there to be no TE onboard. And even if they couldn't find one due to illness, I'm sure passengers would rather the train runs.

 

[O L Leigh]

But then, and I hope you'll forgive my bluntness, you're not rail staff and are therefore not fully au fait with the issues.

Sorry.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

Just a question, in the case of Potters Bar, the derailed coach was blocking the fast lines and AIUI there was a train heading Southbound that had it not been stopped, would have crashed into the derailed coach. Being a DOO train, would the driver have had an "Emergency" button that would have contacted the signaller to arrange for other trains to have been stopped?

Yes, and then other trains can be stopped with DOO emergency broadcast plus signal replacement (IE pulling out pre-set routes or switching signals to emergency 'on'), assuming routes are set on adjoining lines anyway.

I know the two are not mutually exclusive (I'm sure you can have this radio and guards), but had the train NOT been DOO, is there a chance the accident could have been worse (as neither the guard nor driver could have walked the distance to lay detonators)?

Possibly. Traditionally with a non DOO you would rely on Signal post telephones, NRN or mobile phones - though the railway is introducing its own system.

In the case of Potters bar, multiple track circuits were put down and I believe a remote interlocking comms failure. This would would have set off alarms and alerted anyone to the situation anyway, but most signalliers watch the progress of trains continually on signalling panels for the most part, except when maybe going away from controlled areas to fringe boxes with a clear run.

If passengers trains are involved, most passengers ring the emergency services anyway, sometimes quicker than the railway authorities and this also comes straight back through to control centres probably quicker (via emergency phones) than someone running braking distance (a mile or more) down the line and placing full detonator protection.

 

[royaloak]

Of course, Scot-rail is required to have a second staff member on every train. Sure, it doesn't always happen. But, as I've said above, I've never known there to be no TE on-board. And even if they couldn't find one due to illness, I'm sure passengers would rather the train runs.

I am sorry but it is either a requirement or it isn't, if Scot-rail are REQUIRED to have a second staff member on board then how come it doesn't always happen.

If its a REQUIREMENT then it is required, so the train cannot run without 2 staff members on board, or its DESIRABLE and doesn't need 2 staff members on to run, which is it?

This is a very dodgy situation to get into because once this method of working gets rolled out the guards role will diminish (into TEs) and then the number of TEs will be reduced to save costs, end result DOO by the backdoor,and by the time people realise it will be too late. Oh I think the TEs on Scot-rail do a great job, but the role of a TE is not (fully) safety critical and people need to realise the difference between being ABLE to carry out safety critical jobs and being TRAINED to do it, very different I think you will agree.

Pedant mode>- if you know it doesnt always happen, but you have never known there to be no TE on board, does that mean there wasn't a driver? -<pedant mode
dont take the last bit too serious

 

[djw1981]

I predict this getting messy.

If the new track opens with a Guard and thus we have the anomaly of a Driver + DOO + TE from Helensburgh=-Airdrie and then a Driver + Guard from Airdrie; then I can see local people saying why is this line so special compared to the other Strathclyde lines and either:
a) public pressure (perhaps supported by a Union media campaign whenever any incidents occur on these trains, whether a Guiard would have helped or not) to reinstate Guards across Strathclyde or
b) transport agency disquiet about the idea and repeated attempts to bring in DOO. Given Transport is delegated to Holyrood, I am not sure if TS or ORR/RSSB have the final say.

Bringing back Guards would cost the Transport agency a fair whack, and given the current financial climate, they will fight it tooth claw and using every underhand legal technique in the books.

If it opens as DOO, I can imagine it will only be after a protracted period of industrial unrest with the passengers losing out.

 

[me123]

I am sorry but it is either a requirement or it isn't, if Scot-rail are REQUIRED to have a second staff member on board then how come it doesn't always happen.

It's required as part of the franchise, indeed it's the only one in the UK where it's required. But, if circumstances dictate (staff shortage) they can run the odd train without a ticket examiner in exceptional circumstances.[1] As they've said here, it's rare (as I keep saying, I'm a regular traveller and I've never known of this to happen). They're required to have them on all trains, but the franchise seems to allow the train to run in these exceptional circumstances. Consequently every train must be rostered for two-man operation.

And, by the way, I mean I've always had my ticket inspected or seen the TE as the train pulls into/leaves the station. To the best of my knowledge. I think if there wasn't a driver, then I would notice for some reason or another :roll:

But then, and I hope you'll forgive my bluntness, you're not rail staff and are therefore not fully au fait with the issues.

Sorry.

O L Leigh

So does that mean that I can't comment? Because, if it does, then the whole forum should be disbanded :roll:

Sources: [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8401609.stm

 

[royaloak]

It's required as part of the franchise, indeed it's the only one in the UK where it's required.

No it isn't SWT have to have a GUARD on all trains, no guard train don't go! What about Northern, arriva Wales, East coast, Virgin West Coast?
Interesting read-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8401609.stm

Me thinks Scot-rail have said too much especially about "exceptional circumstances", what do they claim is exceptional. Lots of basic errors from the "spokesman".

 

[me123]

See my source. If my source is wrong, I take no responsibility.

Regardless, the Scotrail agreement makes a lot more sense to me. It ensures cancellations are kept to a minimum for passengers.

 

[First ScotRail]

I've read the evidence, and I still side with Scotrail on this one. In this case, the cheapest option makes the most sense. DOO is simply not feasible on the North Clyde Line due to the close proximity of stations (less than two minutes), and the ticket examiners do a good job as is.

Of course, Scotrail is required to have a second staff member on every train. Sure, it doesn't always happen. But, as I've said above, I've never known there to be no TE onboard. And even if they couldn't find one due to illness, I'm sure passengers would rather the train runs.

I agree with you on this, Crowe is doing nothing but stirring! ScotRail is a damn good company which is showing how partnership and privitisation is working for the customers and he doesn't like this, my personal opinion of course.

DOO would make sense on the route to EDB. Its an extension to the electric network which is already DOO operated so...Also no jobs will be going, staff from EDB will be moved to another depot if they wish or another solution.

I cant see this getting messey, I think RMT and First will sort it.

 

[me123]

I cant see this getting messey, I think RMT and First will sort it.

If Elaine Smith MSP's motion gets through, this won't be messy. I imagine Scotrail will have little option but to abolish any DOO on this route.

S3M-5202 Elaine Smith: Safety First—That the Parliament welcomes the new rail service between Glasgow and Edinburgh via the Airdrie to Bathgate route and the continued electrification of the railway in Scotland; is alarmed, however, that proposals to remove the guards from this service and introduce driver only operation (DOO) are coupled with the reopening of this route; is deeply concerned that this will increase safety risks because passengers will not benefit from the protection of having a guard responsible for the safe running of the train, including controlling the doors and emergencies such as driver incapacity, failure of train safety systems and derailments; further shares the view of the STUC Women’s Conference that the proposed introduction of DOO on the service demonstrates that the safety concerns of women passengers have not been adequately addressed; is further concerned that this decision breaches previous assurances to the trade unions that there would be no extension of DOO in Scotland and believes that this could be the thin end of the wedge leading to the removal of guards on other routes; considers that retaining the guards would cost less than the salary of First ScotRail’s highest-paid director and less than 5% of the company’s most recent post-tax profits, and therefore urges the Scottish Government and First ScotRail to put safety and passengers before profit and keep guards on these services.

I have no idea when they will vote for this, or who would support it. Thus far, only Labour MSPs are officially backing this. Labour have a strong hold in the Scottish Parliament, so they would only need relatively little support to push this through; Lib Dems or Tories +1 more member would suffice assuming Labour unanimously vote for this (and we all know they will, given the trade union support...)