Guards and what they sign - more flexibility?

[Philip]

Do you think guards should be allowed to work all types of rolling stock and routes, not as a general rule, but in the scenario where a service would otherwise be delayed or cancelled because there is no guard available to take the train forward who signs the particular type of rolling stock and route?

I fully agree with the driver only working a train if he/she signs the stock and route, but could there be more flexibility with guards? I'm not suggesting a free-for-all situation, but if it prevents a delay or cancellation, particularly at stations where there is normally a booked crew change but the replacement guard isn't around or is running late, could the railway be more flexible in allowing guards who are spare but might not sign the route or traction involved, to work the train until a guard who does sign the route and train becomes available?

 

[JonathanH]

Sounds like a recipe for introducing 'on board supervisors' instead of guards. The moment that a guards role is diminished such that they don't gave to understand and 'sign' the rolling stock, that gives rise to them not having a safety critical role in respect of the rolling stock. Even more so if they also don't have to sign the route.

I don't think the unions will accept your idea. This is precisely what they are striking about at the moment.

 

[Neptune]

Do you think guards should be allowed to work all types of rolling stock and routes, not as a general rule, but in the scenario where a service would otherwise be delayed or cancelled because there is no guard available to take the train forward who signs the particular type of rolling stock and route?

I fully agree with the driver only working a train if he/she signs the stock and route, but could there be more flexibility with guards? I'm not suggesting a free-for-all situation, but if it prevents a delay or cancellation, particularly at stations where there is normally a booked crew change but the replacement guard isn't around or is running late, could the railway be more flexible in allowing guards who are spare but might not sign the route or traction involved, to work the train until a guard who does sign the route and train becomes available?

This post shows both little regard for the role of the guard and their safety responsibilities to the public and for the future role of the guard. You‘re simply reopening the DOO debate. Things on here are sensitive enough with the strikes without reopening this old debate.

For the record how many cancellations due to lack of guard can you show us over say the last 12 months across the entire country as you seem to think it’s such a major problem so as to dilute railway safety?

 

[Philip]

Sounds like a recipe for introducing 'on board supervisors' instead of guards. The moment that a guards role is diminished such that they don't gave to understand and 'sign' the rolling stock, that gives rise to them not having a safety critical role in respect of the rolling stock. Even more so if they also don't have to sign the route.

I don't think the unions will accept your idea. This is precisely what they are striking about at the moment.

They're striking about door operations principally, not necessarily the rules about signing stock and routes. I think there could be more flexibility with rolling stick especially, maybe less so with routes as they need familiarity with the platforms and signals etc.

 

[JonathanH]

They're striking about door operations principally

No they aren't. They are striking about continuing to have a safety critical role. Doors is simply the most recognisable part of that.

There are places with 'ten bells dispatch' where guards don't do even do doors but they still have a safety critical role.

Saying that guards are striking over doors is like saying that ticket office staff are striking about being able to sit on a chair all day.

 

[Neptune]

No they aren't. They are striking about continuing to have a safety critical role. Doors is simply the most recognisable part of that.

Yes an unsurprising total lack of understanding of the guards role just to create another ‘great’ speculative idea so I’m going to unwatch before I get drawn in.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Early in privatisation it was not unknown for a guard or driver to be loaned to another TOC to prevent a cancellation. Of course that person signed both route and traction as well.

 

[skyhigh]

Do you think guards should be allowed to work all types of rolling stock and routes, not as a general rule, but in the scenario where a service would otherwise be delayed or cancelled because there is no guard available to take the train forward who signs the particular type of rolling stock and route?

Do you think any staff should be allowed to work all ticket offices, not as a general rule, but in the scenario where a ticket office would otherwise be closed because there is no trained booking office staff available to open it?

I think there could be more flexibility with rolling stick especially

I'm sorry, but you do not have a clue and this comment proves it spectacularly.

Unsurprising total lack of understanding of the guards role just to create another ‘great’ speculative idea so I’m going to unwatch before I get drawn in.

Amazing isn't it, someone who clearly hasn't seen much of the railway outside of their ticket office trying to show they know better than anyone else. If Philip posted some of these 'ideas' on the Employee group he'd be laughed off the page.

 

[Neptune]

Do you think any staff should be allowed to work all ticket offices, not as a general rule, but in the scenario where a ticket office would otherwise be closed because there is no trained booking office staff available to open it?


I'm sorry, but you do not have a clue and this comment proves it spectacularly.


Amazing isn't it, someone who clearly hasn't seen much of the railway outside of their ticket office trying to show they know better than anyone else. If Philip posted some of these 'ideas' on the Employee group he'd be laughed off the page.

I striked for nearly 2 years to defend the role of the guard.

Just because I’ve left the role doesn’t mean to say I don’t still support them. Shame others who don’t have a clue can’t do the same because they’ll be calling out for support when they come for booking offices.

 

[Philip]

Do you think any staff should be allowed to work all ticket offices, not as a general rule, but in the scenario where a ticket office would otherwise be closed because there is no trained booking office staff available to open it?


I'm sorry, but you do not have a clue and this comment proves it spectacularly.


Amazing isn't it, someone who clearly hasn't seen much of the railway outside of their ticket office trying to show they know better than anyone else. If Philip posted some of these 'ideas' on the Employee group he'd be laughed off the page.

I'm not going to rise to the bait about ticket offices as this thread isn't about them.

I'd like to hear a good reason why a guard who is on a spare day couldn't be given a half-hour run-through of a train that they don't work and sign just so that they have a reasonable level of familiarity about where the buttons are and the basic operations of the train, so that in future they could work the train if absolutely necessary without being clueless about how the train works? This would be more efficient in helping more trains run on time, without needing to put the guard through a more expensive and time consuming full traction-learning course. A guard on a spare turn could also travel on a service over a route which they don't sign to have a look at the platforms and signals and get a basic idea of the route if they're needed on a one-off basis. I don't see this as compromising safety, but rather improving flexibility and efficiency.

 

[PupCuff]

Trains in themselves are ultimately quite a complex bit of equipment. It's okay showing someone the buttons, I would say I'm "knowing the buttons" level of familiar with all the rolling stock at my TOC, but being competent to actually operate a given traction is a step over that, it's as much knowing how it isn't meant to work as much as how it does work. For instance, what would indicate a fault with a particular system? How would I deal with x problem if it occurred? Is that flashing red light important or does it just tell me I have my door key in?

"Ask the driver" isn't always a suitable option because there are on occasion on-train systems they don't get training on (eg at some TOCs Drivers don't have anything to do with SDO systems, it's down to the conductor to know how that works and use it correctly).

 

[Neptune]

I'm not going to rise to the bait about ticket offices as this thread isn't about them.

No but guards are fair game because diluting the role is what you seem to be saying (traction knowledge is far more than buttons and route knowledge is far more than platforms and signals)?

I'd like to hear a good reason why a guard who is on a spare day couldn't be given a half-hour run-through of a train that they don't work and sign just so that they have a reasonable level of familiarity about where the buttons are and the basic operations of the train, so that in future they could work the train if absolutely necessary without being clueless about how the train works? This would be more efficient in helping more trains run on time, without needing to put the guard through a more expensive and time consuming full traction-learning course. A guard on a spare turn could also travel on a service over a route which they don't sign to have a look at the platforms and signals and get a basic idea of the route if they're needed on a one-off basis. I don't see this as compromising safety, but rather improving flexibility and efficiency.

You’re just showing here how little you know about the role of the guard. May I suggest someone has a half day to learn how to work a booking office (for the record I know what it consists of, especially those who are also dispatch trained which I suppose could take half an hour by your reckoning)?

 

[LowLevel]

I'm not going to rise to the bait about ticket offices as this thread isn't about them.

I'd like to hear a good reason why a guard who is on a spare day couldn't be given a half-hour run-through of a train that they don't work and sign just so that they have a reasonable level of familiarity about where the buttons are and the basic operations of the train, so that in future they could work the train if absolutely necessary without being clueless about how the train works? This would be more efficient in helping more trains run on time, without needing to put the guard through a more expensive and time consuming full traction-learning course. A guard on a spare turn could also travel on a service over a route which they don't sign to have a look at the platforms and signals and get a basic idea of the route if they're needed on a one-off basis. I don't see this as compromising safety, but rather improving flexibility and efficiency.

What planet are you on?

Does a half hour run through cover where the extinguishers are, how the door systems work, where the emergency kit is and what is in it, how a train management system if provided works and so on? How the fire systems and pass coms work? There's a reason traction training takes a bit of time and it's because trains are not always intuitive and even crews who don't operate the doors usually have rather more than a 30 minute run through of their on board environment.

On a class 158 for example you had 2 cocks in a toilet cupboard. One isolated the water to the flush. The other isolated the air supply to the train doors. Knocking a valve located at floor level in the cab of a 156 will open the train door it applies to immediately whether you're doing 75 mph or at a stand.

Who takes the blame if I just pop out for a nosey, decide all is well and I'm happy with a hundred mile route, cock something up and it all goes wrong? "Never mind, they were just trying to help" is worth nothing on the railway.

You don't see it as compromising safety, but you're also wrong and luckily your opinion has no bearing on the matter.

 

[Philip]

I know more about the role of the guard than you might think. I also heard a story in a training school about non-railway staff taking control of driving a locomotive in the 1980s so the driver could perform another task. Half an hour might not be long enough to faniliarise with a train but I think you know what I'm getting at.

 

[skyhigh]

I know more about the role of the guard than you might think.

Go on, list all the experience you've had as a guard, please.

I also heard a story in a training school about non-railway staff taking control of driving a locomotive in the 1980s so the driver could perform another task.

Oh excellent, we should aspire to 1980s 'let's hope it doesn't go wrong' levels of safety.

Half an hour might not be long enough to faniliarise with a train but I think you know what I'm getting at.

Seeing as you know about the guard role, what is a conversion course?

 

[Neptune]

I know more about the role of the guard than you might think. I also heard a story in a training school about non-railway staff taking control of driving a locomotive in the 1980s so the driver could perform another task. Half an hour might not be long enough to faniliarise with a train but I think you know what I'm getting at.

Have you ever heard of the phrase ‘quit while you’re behind’?

 

[Philip]

What planet are you on?

Does a half hour run through cover where the extinguishers are, how the door systems work, where the emergency kit is and what is in it, how a train management system if provided works and so on? How the fire systems and pass coms work? There's a reason traction training takes a bit of time and it's because trains are not always intuitive and even crews who don't operate the doors usually have rather more than a 30 minute run through of their on board environment.

On a class 158 for example you had 2 cocks in a toilet cupboard. One isolated the water to the flush. The other isolated the air supply to the train doors. Knocking a valve located at floor level in the cab of a 156 will open the train door it applies to immediately whether you're doing 75 mph or at a stand.

Who takes the blame if I just pop out for a nosey, decide all is well and I'm happy with a hundred mile route, cock something up and it all goes wrong? "Never mind, they were just trying to help" is worth nothing on the railway.

You don't see it as compromising safety, but you're also wrong and luckily your opinion has no bearing on the matter.

Fair enough, these are at least well reasoned explanations about how much you need to know about the onboard equipment.

My initial question was based around whether the benefit of more trains being able to run and run on time by a more flexible guard role, in the example I've suggested, would outweigh a small reduction in safety standards, on rare occasions where a train has to wait until a guard is available who signs the route and traction. Comparison with ticket offices is invalid and for the record many ticket office staff are willing to accept a more flexible role and do occasionally work elsewhere even if their role is static.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2023 ==

Trains in themselves are ultimately quite a complex bit of equipment. It's okay showing someone the buttons, I would say I'm "knowing the buttons" level of familiar with all the rolling stock at my TOC, but being competent to actually operate a given traction is a step over that, it's as much knowing how it isn't meant to work as much as how it does work. For instance, what would indicate a fault with a particular system? How would I deal with x problem if it occurred? Is that flashing red light important or does it just tell me I have my door key in?

"Ask the driver" isn't always a suitable option because there are on occasion on-train systems they don't get training on (eg at some TOCs Drivers don't have anything to do with SDO systems, it's down to the conductor to know how that works and use it correctly).

 

[JonathanH]

My initial question was based around whether the benefit of more trains being able to run and run on time by a more flexible guard role, in the example I've suggested, would outweigh a small reduction in safety standards, on rare occasions where a train has to wait until a guard is available who signs the route and traction.

How often, in your view, is this an issue? Are there many instances of a guard being available, but not able to work a train that doesn't have a guard? Can you cite an experience you have had where this is the case?

Ironically, one time when it would appear to be likely to happen is when a new fleet is being introduced, and the guard hasn't had their relevant training to work that new fleet - eg TfW introduction of 197s. It would seem a bit odd to expect them to be able to work the new unit before they have had the relevant training, given they are due to have it in the future. Kind of negates the point of that training.

 

[Ashley Hill]

My initial question was based around whether the benefit of more trains being able to run and run on time by a more flexible guard role, in the example I've suggested, would outweigh a small reduction in safety standards, on rare occasions where a train has to wait until a guard is available who signs the route and traction.

A quick half hour look around and a sheet of A4 paper does not make a person competent. Competency has to be proven and maintained. I doubt XC would let me loose on a Voyager to Derby with the sort of training you’re suggesting,and it wouldn’t stand up in court should there be an incident.

Have you ever heard of the phrase ‘quit while you’re behind’?

This!

 

[Philip]

How often, in your view, is this an issue? Are there many instances of a guard being available, but not able to work a train that doesn't have a guard? Can you cite an experience you have had where this is the case?

Ironically, one time when it would appear to be likely to happen is when a new fleet is being introduced, and the guard hasn't had their relevant training to work that new fleet - eg TfW introduction of 197s. It would seem a bit odd to expect them to be able to work the new unit before they have had the relevant training, given they are due to have it in the future. Kind of negates the point of that training.

It has happened quite a bit at Oxford Road/Piccadilly in the past, particularly with the Alderley Edge-Southport and Airport/Hazel Grove-Blackpool as you have Piccadilly guards working the train as far as Oxford Road and then a Victoria guard being required to take it onwards towards Bolton, because Piccadilly guards don't sign north of Castlefield Jn. There have been quite a few instances of the train being held or cancelled at Oxford Road because the Victoria guard wasn't available or was late.

 

[JonathanH]

It has happened quite a bit at Oxford Road/Piccadilly in the past, particularly with the Alderley Edge-Southport and Airport/Hazel Grove-Blackpool as you have Piccadilly guards working the train as far as Oxford Road and then a Victoria guard being required to take it onwards towards Bolton, because Piccadilly guards don't sign north of Castlefield Jn. There have been quite a few instances of the train being held or cancelled at Oxford Road because the Victoria guard wasn't available or was late.

OK, but was a relief guard available at that time, where the only issue was that they didn't sign the stock?

 

[Philip]

A quick half hour look around and a sheet of A4 paper does not make a person competent. Competency has to be proven and maintained. I doubt XC would let me loose on a Voyager to Derby with the sort of training you’re suggesting,and it wouldn’t stand up in court should there be an incident.

This!

But is safety compromised so much that it makes it worth inconveniencing passengers by cancelling the train, or should there be a more pragmatic approach?

 

[Ashley Hill]

But is safety compromised so much that it makes it worth inconveniencing passengers by cancelling the train, or should there be a more pragmatic approach?

If I opened the doors on the wrong side through poor training and someone fell out I’d say they were pretty inconvenienced.

 

[Philip]

OK, but was a relief guard available at that time, where the only issue was that they didn't sign the stock?

There are usually some guards spare at Piccadilly and so if there was advance notice that no Victoria guard was available or was running half an hour late on an inbound from Leeds for example, then it's a 10 minute walk or 2 minute train journey for the spare Piccadilly guard to reach the affected train at Oxford Road and take it forward.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2023 ==

If I opened the doors on the wrong side through poor training and someone fell out I’d say they were pretty inconvenienced.

This is what annoys me here, you're using a melodramatic example to try and prove safety would be compromised too much. I think the average non-railway employed passenger would know which side to open the doors at a station - suggesting poor training could lead to opening on the wrong side is a nonsense.

 

[Ashley Hill]

suggesting poor training could lead to opening on the wrong side is a nonsense.

It happens you know and traincrew get disciplined when it does.

 

[warwickshire]

No they aren't. They are striking about continuing to have a safety critical role. Doors is simply the most recognisable part of that.

There are places with 'ten bells dispatch' where guards don't do even do doors but they still have a safety critical role.

Saying that guards are striking over doors is like saying that ticket office staff are striking about being able to sit on a chair all day.

How about Abeillo Greater Anglia. More than sure the guards have lost the doors on 720 Clacton etc and the mainline and regional services. But keep safety rules etc and route. And train cannot run without them. However very much of a concern here for safety, before Abeillo Anglia might remove them. Hope not.
Very much hope they remain. How on earth did that get agreed to in first place. Just Hope Abeillo Anglia don't force it through and other Tocs might be stupid enough to try themselves.

 

[O L Leigh]

It is sometimes the case that a guard who signs the traction but not the route will be route conducted by one who signs the route but not the traction, but this requires one of each to be available at the same time. It’s normally used for planned substitutions, such as XC Cl170s on Manchester services or Voyagers on trips to Leicester, Nottingham or Cardiff, rather than in-service disruption such as an incoming guard being delayed.

I don’t need to add too much to what’s already been said about the original suggestion except to say that guards that sign different traction are not going to carry the same equipment. Door keys, for example, are not going to be the same between different traction types. The complexity of trains has already been touched on, but this will include the location of door control panels and the way in which selective door opening works, which is quite important.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This is what annoys me here, you're using a melodramatic example to try and prove safety would be compromised too much. I think the average non-railway employed passenger would know which side to open the doors at a station - suggesting poor training could lead to opening on the wrong side is a nonsense.

I'm afraid this demonstrates that you really don't understand the realities of safety critical operation. You can ask just about any guard who works through Salford Crescent and they will tell you that at some point they have done a double take when unexpectedly routed onto the opposite side of the platform to normal. It's precisely because route training is so rigorous that said guards knew to confirm exactly where they were before actually releasing the doors. Then ask DOO drivers how close they have come to a wrong side release. Again the meticulous approach to route knowledge is what gets staff to do the right thing thereby keeping passengers safe. Perhaps you should read a history book about the General Strike of 1926 when the use of wannabe substitute train drivers was quickly stopped due to their complete inability to actually do the job without the requisite training and experience.

Safety clearly is not the highest priority for you. That approach doesn't cut it in actual train operation. Where else in our lives do you think safety standards should be relaxed/worsened? Do you really think convenience should trump safety?

 

[the sniper]

This is what annoys me here, you're using a melodramatic example to try and prove safety would be compromised too much. I think the average non-railway employed passenger would know which side to open the doors at a station - suggesting poor training could lead to opening on the wrong side is a nonsense.

Tell me you've never worked a train without telling me you've never worked a train. It might not make sense to you, but that doesn't make it a nonsense. I'm not sure how something that is known to happen occasionally even under the current system can be considered a 'melodramatic example', when it would only be more likely under your degraded/'pragmatic' approach.

 

[Neptune]

Philip. You really need to listen to people. You are fighting a losing battle here (it was lost before you started to be fair).

If you work for the railway you will know that a rigorous safety culture comes first, second and last and there is no place for a casual attitude to safety (bringing up something which happened in the 80’s as a ‘good’ example proves that). If you don’t know that then maybe you’re in the wrong industry whether you’re safety crit or not.

Peddling Daily Mailesque lines that doors are all safety critical duties are is also offensive to those in the role, and shows real ignorance from someone in the industry.

The whole purpose of this thread smacks of at best, someone ignorant of the safety aspects of the guards role or at worst, jealous of the guards role and wants to degrade it publicly.

Either way it is an awful idea which will thankfully never see the light of day.