Guards and what they sign - more flexibility?

[Philip]

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.

It's nothing personal to me, not jealous of guards in any way as I wouldn't enjoy the job, and not sure why you assume otherwise. However, I've heard non-railway working people question whether certain aspects of guard duties and training is over excessive on the safety aspect when compared with how it potentially affects passenger convenience, so I'm asking what people think here - whether a more pragmatic approach could be applied in the future without reducing safety standards too much. There have been some well-reasoned points but I think the example of opening the doors on the wrong side is not a good one for putting forward the case for a full training course - a double take could happen even after being given the most intensive training course possible.

 

[LowLevel]

It's nothing personal to me, not jealous of guards in any way as I wouldn't enjoy the job, and not sure why you assume otherwise. However, I've heard non-railway working people question whether certain aspects of guard duties and training is over excessive on the safety aspect when compared with how it potentially affects passenger convenience, so I'm asking what people think here - whether a more pragmatic approach could be applied in the future without reducing safety standards too much. There have been some well-reasoned points but I think the example of opening the doors on the wrong side is not a good one for putting forward the case for a full training course - a double take could happen even after being given the most intensive training course possible.

The existence of the full training course is the justification for the full training course. What elements would you omit? It isn't done for fun. You're operating a piece of complicated machinery full of largely clueless other humans who go into either survival or child mode as sooj as they cross the railway threshold and you don't need to be wandering around thinking "where the bloody hell is "xyz"?" when it's gone wrong, as they do. "Sorry folks, I can't get on with starting to plan to evacuate you from the fire that's taking hold under coach C, the driver is on the phone to the signalbox and I can't remember which cupboard and coach the ladder and other kit is in".

I quite often have a giggle at your daft ideas (for which I'm sort of sorry, given you're clearly serious when you post them) but as a theoretically professional railway worker this one is just bizarre.

I'm not submitting my opinion on the matter to your personal judgement, because as I mentioned before you've never given any indication on this forum that you actually have any sensible personal judgement to offer.

Even contingency guards have to have a proper traction course.

 

[Philip]

The existence of the full training course is the justification for the full training course. What elements would you omit? It isn't done for fun. You're operating a piece of complicated machinery full of largely clueless other humans who go into either survival or child mode as sooj as they cross the railway threshold and you don't need to be wandering around thinking "where the bloody hell is "xyz"?" when it's gone wrong, as they do. "Sorry folks, I can't get on with starting to plan to evacuate you from the fire that's taking hold under coach C, the driver is on the phone to the signalbox and I can't remember which cupboard and coach the ladder and other kit is in".

I quite often have a giggle at your daft ideas (for which I'm sort of sorry, given you're clearly serious when you post them) but as a theoretically professional railway worker this one is just bizarre.

I'm not submitting my opinion on the matter to your personal judgement, because as I mentioned before you've never given any indication on this forum that you actually have any sensible personal judgement to offer.

Even contingency guards have to have a proper traction course.

I'm asking the question rather than suggesting it should happen as this is the speculative section and I quite like asking about 'out of the box' ideas. The idea of non-safety critical ticket inspectors rather than guards has been floated by DfT in recent times - I'm not offering my own opinion on this idea but do you think these ticket inspectors would be any more familiar with the traction and route than a guard would be who didn't sign them? Again, I'm not saying I support the idea of ticket inspectors, but rather defending my initial question as the DfT have basically been considering similar ideas.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm asking the question rather than suggesting it should happen as this is the speculative section. The idea of non-safety critical ticket inspectors rather than guards has been floated by DfT in recent times - I'm not offering my own opinion on this idea but do you think these ticket inspectors would be any more familiar with the traction and route than a guard would be who didn't sign them? Again, I'm not saying I support the idea of ticket inspectors, but rather defending my initial question as the DfT have basically been considering similar ideas.

Crucially the ticket inspectors wouldn't be operating the train and the driver has additional training to compensate. Where these roles do exist the balance of training is considered and adjusted accordingly but even non safety critical on board staff tend to have at least some briefing and training on the trains they work on board.

It is little different to chucking someone into a signalbox they don't sign, saying have a play for half an hour and get on with it. BR used to do that with inspectors/managers and it was gotten rid of following a number of incidents.

 

[43066]

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.

Yet it still happens…

With all due respect it’s clear that you have a poor understanding of safety critical railway roles, as several knowledgeable posters have pointed out. There would be far more incidents of this type if the training was watered down as you appear to be suggesting. Then of course route knowledge includes the requirement to know where assistance equipment is, location specific issues such as awkwardly sighted signals, knowing which way signals send you etc. None of the required route/traction knowledge could be taught in half an hour or learned individually by going for a wander while spare (and guards don’t sit spare that much!).

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

I’d call that excellent advice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2023 ==

Again, I'm not saying I support the idea of ticket inspectors, but rather defending my initial question as the DfT have basically been considering similar ideas.

Only in certain locations. The DfT know perfectly well that in many areas of the network the investment required to remove safety critical guards isn’t going to be forthcoming anytime soon, hence the dropping of DOO from the RMT “offer”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only in certain locations. The DfT know perfectly well that in many areas of the network the investment required to remove safety critical guards isn’t going to be forthcoming anytime soon, hence the dropping of DOO from the RMT “offer”.

The "offer" wasn't to allow an immediate switch to DOO but rather to remove objections to a progressive move that way. It was also potentially a deliberate poisoner...

 

[43066]

The "offer" wasn't to allow an immediate switch to DOO but rather to remove objections to a progressive move that way. It was also potentially a deliberate poisoner...

It was, as you say, almost certainly intended as a poisoner, but the DfT are fully aware that guards aren’t going anytime soon, so there’s also little benefit for them in pushing it.

I don’t think I’ve seen any suggestion that training for remaining safety critical guards should be watered down, as implied upthread.

 

[Neptune]

However, I've heard non-railway working people question whether certain aspects of guard duties and training is over excessive on the safety aspect when compared with how it potentially affects passenger convenience,

So you take what non-railway people think of safety critical training above that of railway people, especially those who’ve been through it themselves.

The passengers would have been severely inconvenienced during my emergency evacuation situation many years ago as some of them would most likely have ended up with life changing injuries or worse if I hadn’t had the proper training on safety critical situations. I‘m sure you don’t care about that though, because of your ‘brilliant ideas’ stemming from what ‘non-railway people’ think.

so I'm asking what people think here - whether a more pragmatic approach could be applied in the future without reducing safety standards too much.

So as a ‘railway professional’, that you think it’s acceptable that standards can be reduced at all is nothing short of appalling.

Notice how nobody else has said that this is a good idea yet?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So as a ‘railway professional’, that you think it’s acceptable that standards can be reduced at all is nothing short of appalling.

I personally think too much has been spent on railway safety, and that some downgrading is acceptable. The reason is that road travel is nowhere near as safe. We should consider the transport network as a whole with regard to safety spending, and this is almost certain to come up with the conclusion that more lives are saved by adding cheap capacity and lower fares so people travel by rail instead of car.

To me the last big worthwhile improvement was TPWS. Beyond that it's all chasing very minor improvements.

 

[43066]

I personally think too much has been spent on railway safety, and that some downgrading is acceptable. The reason is that road travel is nowhere near as safe. We should consider the transport network as a whole with regard to safety spending, and this is almost certain to come up with the conclusion that more lives are saved by adding cheap capacity and lower fares so people travel by rail instead of car.

To me the last big worthwhile improvement was TPWS. Beyond that it's all chasing very minor improvements.

That’s a valid argument for not spending huge amounts on (say) network wide ETCS just because of safety, but not really for stripping away training and making the current arrangements less safe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s a valid argument for not spending huge amounts on (say) network wide ETCS just because of safety, but not really for stripping away training and making the current arrangements less safe.

It can be an argument for the latter if it saves a significant amount of money. I'm wary of bringing up those three little letters that cause so much furore, but that's an example

 

[43066]

It can be an argument for the latter if it saves a significant amount of money. I'm wary of bringing up those three little letters that cause so much furore, but that's an example

Ha, yes indeed. But the difference with the three little letters is that the guard (assuming they’re retained) becomes non safety critical, and safety standards aren’t really eroded because their responsibility is entirely taken by the driver using (hopefully) appropriate dispatch equipment.

Both keeping safety critical guards and reducing their training would be the worst of all worlds, and would be unlikely to save significant amounts - their training isn’t that long to begin with compared to drivers and, once you’re competent over a route/traction, you will retain that so long as you work it regularly. It’s also pretty rare for trains to be cancelled just for having no guard (as opposed to no train and/or no driver) so the “convenience” argument doesn’t really hold water either.

 

[Neptune]

I personally think too much has been spent on railway safety, and that some downgrading is acceptable. The reason is that road travel is nowhere near as safe. We should consider the transport network as a whole with regard to safety spending, and this is almost certain to come up with the conclusion that more lives are saved by adding cheap capacity and lower fares so people travel by rail instead of car.

To me the last big worthwhile improvement was TPWS. Beyond that it's all chasing very minor improvements.

The bad idea of reducing guards safety training is what is being discussed here (something which will neither save money or time).

Why are you diverting it off in a different direction by suggesting reducing rail safety in general by comparing it to road safety. Almost sounds like you fancy a race to the bottom.

 

[Philip]

Just in case anyone read a previous post and was offended, this was a colleague fooling around. I quite enjoy these 'out of the box' debates and arguing the case for/against them strongly.

 

[L401CJF]

I'm a guard, I couldn't just jump on another type of train and work it. Yes I could probably suss out the doors, but when it develops a fault, toilet fails, doors jam open, somebody pulls a passcom, call for aid, egress, the list goes on.. how am I supposed to know how to fault find/reset etc?

What if for whatever reason degraded working is required. Example EBS in use with units in multiple and I am required to lock the rear unit out of use then be prepared to apply the parking brake should the units separate? I dont know where it is located. What if there's a fire onboard - how do I isolate vestibule doors/lock the carriage to prevent it spreading? What type of fire extinguishers does that unit have and where are they located? How to I isolate the air conditioning?

Then we get onto route knowledge.. I jump on a train on a route I don't sign. I need to make an emergency call, I am unable to contact the driver so I have to assume control of the situation. How do I know where I am? Am I on the up or the down line? Is it absolute block or Track circuit block? Whats the max line speed? Is it bi-directional? Who is the controlling signaller for this area? "This is an emergency call, I don't know who I should be speaking to or where I am or which line(s) are blocked"

A fire breaks out onboard, I need to stop the train - but are we near any tunnels or viaducts? I wouldn't know as I've never been here before.

The list goes on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why are you diverting it off in a different direction by suggesting reducing rail safety in general by comparing it to road safety. Almost sounds like you fancy a race to the bottom.

My post explained why I have this view and why I am happy for rail safety to be considered critically as to whether the money would save more lives elsewhere.

 

[Neptune]

My post explained why I have this view and why I am happy for rail safety to be considered critically as to whether the money would save more lives elsewhere.

Which is dragging the thread off from the original premise. A ludicrous idea to make the railway inherently unsafe by allowing safety critical staff to work a train affectively untrained.

There are plenty of threads of how the railway can save money elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is dragging the thread off from the original premise. A ludicrous idea to make the railway inherently unsafe by allowing safety critical staff to work a train affectively untrained.

I'll remove the personal insult, but I think @43066 did have a point, namely that the specific idea mooted probably isn't that sensible, but it's not dissimilar to pseudo-DOO concepts like DOO-with-OBS and the Strathclyde Agreement (you remove responsibilities to remove training), and as I've said on previous threads on the matter I do support these concepts provided management is good so the best value is obtained from the OBSs by them always being in the passenger accommodation and actively helping people.

In short I think DOO is safe enough, ergo any form of degraded guard operation must also by definition be safe enough too, because it's safer than "single manned" DOO.

 

[Philip]

Which is dragging the thread off from the original premise. A ludicrous idea to make the railway inherently unsafe by allowing safety critical staff to work a train affectively untrained.

There are plenty of threads of how the railway can save money elsewhere, it’s almost like you have little opinion on the subject in this thread but fancied joining yet another thread just for the sake of it.

The premise of the thread was how any reduction in training standards weighed up against potentially improving the reliability and efficiency of the service - helping less trains to be cancelled and more to run on time by having greater guard flexibility. And also how much this would affect safety standards. Clearly things like complex signals at self-dispatch stations and the example of the door opening valve on 156s which could accidentally be triggered by someone not knowing, are valid concerns.

 

[43066]

I'll remove the personal insult, but I think @43066 did have a point

Just to clarify, there wasn’t meant to be one from me!

In short I think DOO is safe enough, ergo any form of degraded guard operation must also by definition be safe enough too, because it's safer than "single manned" DOO.

I don’t think it necessarily follows that it would be safer if it led to significantly more dispatches against red signals, wrong side releases (or the scenario where a contingency guard managed to end up in the rear unit of a ten car train, with no gangway, of which only the front four carriages were platformed). Okay we all know these incidents aren’t likely to be dangerous in the absolute sense (some others such as train evacuations might be), but they cause massive inconvenience when they do occur.

In short, we have proper guarded operation with fully trained and competent guards, or do DOO properly. I don’t think even the DfT has suggested otherwise, which to me suggests that @Philip ’s “half way house” idea has no legs at all, even with a hard nosed focus on costs.

 

[Ashley Hill]

This just sounds like the original poster is looking for an excuse to work on trains and lines that are beyond their current competency.

 

[skyhigh]

Clearly things like complex signals at self-dispatch stations and the example of the door opening valve on 156s which could accidentally be triggered by someone not knowing, are valid concerns.

Seeing as you'd like 'valid concerns', how about these.

Traction:
Access/egress to the unit
Door operating - something like a 195 is very different to a 150
Location of emergency equipment
How to isolate doors
How to lock/reset/rescue passengers from toilets
How to contact the driver/make a PA/use the autoannouncer
Emergency situations - stopping engines, deploying the fire system
BILs - what do they mean, what causes them to light up
When the buzzer is active
Where ramp is and how to use it
...and about 10 things more I can think of

Routes:
Type of signalling
Signal box (in case of emergency contact)
Platform lengths
Local instructions (i.e. don't dispatch if the starter signal is yellow)
Routing at stations
Level access
Ticket office locations and opening hours
...and again lots more.

I don't agree with it but I can understand the argument for DOO. Your idea of some sort of halfway house where you can take a train you're not trained on when something goes wrong is honestly bonkers.

You seem to be suggesting you're in some sort of 'neutral' position just interested in other people's opinions but when someone says it's a bad idea you take offence and double down on it which clearly shows you think it's a good idea. You have been told by several knowledgeable people it's a bad idea and yet you still persist. Quite frankly it is insulting to the grade of guard.

Just to reiterate, when you work a train you alone are responsible. If you sign to say "I know enough about this train to work it safely" and end up injuring or killing someone it is you who will be in court. A guard would have to be an idiot to agree to work an unfamiliar train with a half hour brief.

I note you claimed that you "know more about guarding than we might think", yet have chosen to ignore me asking what experience you have. I think that speaks volumes.

 

[Philip]

I note you claimed that you "know more about guarding than we might think", yet have chosen to ignore me asking what experience you have. I think that speaks volumes.

I did about 6 weeks of guard training some years ago which did include some onboard and depot experience. I apologise if the nature of this thread is insulting to the role of guard as this wasn't the intention, but to be fair a lot of the reasons you have listed above would only be known to a fully trained guard or driver.

 

[skyhigh]

I did about 6 weeks of guard training some years ago which did include some onboard and depot experience. I apologise if the nature of this thread is insulting to the role of guard as this wasn't the intention, but to be fair a lot of the reasons you have listed above would only be known to a fully trained guard or driver.

If you'd suggested that core traction training be widened to all stock that might visit routes operated by a depot, rather than link specific traction, I'd fully have been in favour of that. Or potentially increasing the length of time until a traction refresher is required depending on how confident a guard feels operating that traction.

But a quick brief and off you go really isn't a practical option, and as a driver I wouldn't feel comfortable taking a train with a 'half hour Harry' as my guard. Potentially the driver might have to go off and do emergency protection leaving the guard on the train alone with the passengers, so it isn't even the case that they will always have a fully trained driver on hand for help if there's something they don't know.

 

[6Gman]

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.

It's either a safety-critical role or it isn't.

If it IS safety-critical I want the staff fully competent, not "well, I had a run this way a few weeks ago so I think I'd probably be ok".

 

[Neptune]

I apologise if the nature of this thread is insulting to the role of guard

Exceedingly. Just imagine you’d suggested the same for a driver, well it’s exactly the same just with different training lengths.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I did about 6 weeks of guard training some years ago which did include some onboard and depot experience.

Nobody does only half the guards' course just for fun. The drop-out rate for guards is fairly low but it does happen. Now when it's due to something significant in their personal circumstances the trainee will almost invariably be accommodated on a later course. But by your own admission this happened some years ago so I can only conclude you were failed off the course. Must have been tough to take. Yet you still managed to get a job on the railway so all's well as ends well, yes?

I apologise if the nature of this thread is insulting to the role of guard as this wasn't the intention, but to be fair a lot of the reasons you have listed above would only be known to a fully trained guard or driver.

There's an explanation for those reasons being known to fully trained crew. It's not just the efficiency of everyday operations but also the maintenance of passenger safety during degraded operations or outright emergency. It's sometimes said that the railway rule book is written in blood as some safety lessons were learned only after tragic accidents. And the railway looks back in time to ensure those lessons are indeed learned while striving to keep improving in the future. Some rules can be relaxed when appropriate changes in staffing or development of suitable technology allows. But ultimately the railway relies very much on people being both competent and professional. Training is an important part of that.

As for trains being cancelled due to shortage of traincrew even outside of DOO areas you'll likely find more trains cancelled for no driver than no guard. Very often that is because the rules on duty times are stricter for drivers so during operational disruption drivers are far more likely to be "timed out" than guards. Perhaps that's another area of safety regulation you would like to see diluted too. And even when the situation you started this whole discussion with arises much of the current backlog in training derives from the social distancing measures which applied during the pandemic. The timing was particularly unfortunate for Northern as it happened just as much new rolling stock was being delivered.

As I see it the best way out of the training deficit is to actually increase the numbers employed and accept that parts of the railway need to be technically overstaffed for a few years to allow the training backlog to be cleared. No chance of that with the current government.

 

[43066]

But by your own admission this happened some years ago so I can only conclude you were failed off the course. Must have been tough to take. Yet you still managed to get a job on the railway so all's well as ends well, yes?

It’s interesting how when people have an obvious beef with a particular grade, as I believe this thread demonstrates, there is often a backstory like this…

 

[Philip]

It’s interesting how when people have an obvious beef with a particular grade, as I believe this thread demonstrates, there is often a backstory like this…

Nobody does only half the guards' course just for fun. The drop-out rate for guards is fairly low but it does happen. Now when it's due to something significant in their personal circumstances the trainee will almost invariably be accommodated on a later course. But by your own admission this happened some years ago so I can only conclude you were failed off the course. Must have been tough to take. Yet you still managed to get a job on the railway so all's well as ends well, yes?


There's an explanation for those reasons being known to fully trained crew. It's not just the efficiency of everyday operations but also the maintenance of passenger safety during degraded operations or outright emergency. It's sometimes said that the railway rule book is written in blood as some safety lessons were learned only after tragic accidents. And the railway looks back in time to ensure those lessons are indeed learned while striving to keep improving in the future. Some rules can be relaxed when appropriate changes in staffing or development of suitable technology allows. But ultimately the railway relies very much on people being both competent and professional. Training is an important part of that.

As for trains being cancelled due to shortage of traincrew even outside of DOO areas you'll likely find more trains cancelled for no driver than no guard. Very often that is because the rules on duty times are stricter for drivers so during operational disruption drivers are far more likely to be "timed out" than guards. Perhaps that's another area of safety regulation you would like to see diluted too. And even when the situation you started this whole discussion with arises much of the current backlog in training derives from the social distancing measures which applied during the pandemic. The timing was particularly unfortunate for Northern as it happened just as much new rolling stock was being delivered.

As I see it the best way out of the training deficit is to actually increase the numbers employed and accept that parts of the railway need to be technically overstaffed for a few years to allow the training backlog to be cleared. No chance of that with the current government.

I have no particular beef with guards other than when some of them direct passengers to the booking office over a an issue which is something they could deal with. I feel some of them are rather indifferent towards the future of ticket offices and the role that we play which is ironic given how keen they are to preserve their own roles. I'm glad I didn't make it through the training as the role wouldn't have been suitable for me, so there's no resentment on that score.

This is a case of looking at ways to improve efficiency; I concede that my initial idea was the wrong one, but as mentioned up thread why not have guards learn all the routes and traction which branch out of the depot or city they work from, in their training?

 

[skyhigh]

This is a case of looking at ways to improve efficiency; I concede that my initial idea was the wrong one, but as mentioned up thread why not have guards learn all the routes and traction which branch out of the depot or city they work from, in their training?

There's good reason not to learn every route (initially, at least). You just end up with newbies covering miles and miles without really knowing any of it properly. When you have a massive route card you struggle to get enough work over it to maintain competence particularly where frequency is low or other depots also work the route. This is why generally even in top link you don't sign every single route your depot works.

I think the answer is there is a balance. Some operators, such as TPE, have gone too far cutting route cards. But too many routes also isn't ideal.

I feel some of them are rather indifferent towards the future of ticket offices and the role that we play which is ironic given how keen they are to preserve their own roles.

Perhaps you should reflect how you come across, as you sounded very much like "stuff the guards, they don't need their training". Pot calling the kettle black here, I feel. I would also suggest the vast majority of guards are strongly in favour of retaining booking offices.