Guards on SWR eight coach Class 450 trains locking the connecting doors between units.

[stadler]

I always notice on the eight coach 450s that the Guards very often lock the connecting doors between units. It is very common on eight coach 450s for them to simply lock the connecting doors meaning that passengers can not walk between units. I would say they do this on around 50% of eight coach 450s that i travel on. For example yesterday on both of the 450s i travelled on (both Weybridge services) the Guards had locked out the connecting doors between units of the middle cabs area they were in. It is very annoying as it means that passengers can not walk between units. Often if you are in a rush it is helpful to walk to a certain part of the train so you can be near the station entrance.

I notice it only seems to be the Metro Guards (Non Commercial Guards) on the shorter distance routes that do this on the 450s. I find that the Commercial Guards on the longer distance routes very rarely do so. It seems to be a Metro Guards thing.

I know on the 455s and 458s this is standard practice as the cabs are not set up to have passengers walking through. But on the 450s they are designed to allow passengers to walk between units. There is no reason i can think of why the Guard can not be in the middle cabs area while passengers are still able to walk through.

The only other place i have seen this done is on the LNWR 350s where some Guards will lock out the doors too to prevent passengers walking through. But other than that you never see this elsewhere. I have never known of a Guard on SE 375 or SN 377 to lock out the connecting doors and i have travelled on thousands of them over the past two decades.

I just wanted to ask if anyone knows if there is actually any reason why these Guards often do this? Are they simply doing it so that they can have the whole middle cab areas to themselves without the passengers walking through and disturbing them? If so do SWR actually allow their Guards to do this or is it one of those things where they are not supposed to do it but get away with it anyway? Or is there another reason for always locking out these doors between units?

 

[Turtle]

I always notice on the eight coach 450s that the Guards very often lock the connecting doors between units. It is very common on eight coach 450s for them to simply lock the connecting doors meaning that passengers can not walk between units. I would say they do this on around 50% of eight coach 450s that i travel on. For example yesterday on both of the 450s i travelled on (both Weybridge services) the Guards had locked out the connecting doors between units of the middle cabs area they were in. It is very annoying as it means that passengers can not walk between units. Often if you are in a rush it is helpful to walk to a certain part of the train so you can be near the station entrance.

I notice it only seems to be the Metro Guards (Non Commercial Guards) on the shorter distance routes that do this on the 450s. I find that the Commercial Guards on the longer distance routes very rarely do so. It seems to be a Metro Guards thing.

I know on the 455s and 458s this is standard practice as the cabs are not set up to have passengers walking through. But on the 450s they are designed to allow passengers to walk between units. There is no reason i can think of why the Guard can not be in the middle cabs area while passengers are still able to walk through.

The only other place i have seen this done is on the LNWR 350s where some Guards will lock out the doors too to prevent passengers walking through. But other than that you never see this elsewhere. I have never known of a Guard on SE 375 or SN 377 to lock out the connecting doors and i have travelled on thousands of them over the past two decades.

I just wanted to ask if anyone knows if there is actually any reason why these Guards often do this? Are they simply doing it so that they can have the whole middle cab areas to themselves without the passengers walking through and disturbing them? If so do SWR actually allow their Guards to do this or is it one of those things where they are not supposed to do it but get away with it anyway? Or is there another reason for always locking out these doors between units?

Interesting post. On the face of it this practice does not make sense and could be potentially hazardous in an emergency, say evacuation, scenario. Might it be one of these localised railway "traditions" which have become an embedded practice?

 

[bramling]

Interesting post. On the face of it this practice does not make sense and could be potentially hazardous in an emergency, say evacuation, scenario. Might it be one of these localised railway "traditions" which have become an embedded practice?

I wouldn’t say it’s hazardous, as there’s plenty of trains which run round in multiple without gangway connections. Indeed there are also examples over history where they have been provided but fallen into disuse - either temporarily or permanently (GN 317s, GN 387s both temporary, 318s, SN 455s permanently). When this has happened it doesn’t really seem to have caused a problem.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Interesting post. On the face of it this practice does not make sense and could be potentially hazardous in an emergency, say evacuation, scenario. Might it be one of these localised railway "traditions" which have become an embedded practice?

How would it be any more hazardous than having two non-gangway units coupled together, as happens all over the railway?

 

[swt_passenger]

This seems a generalisation, as far as the subject line initially reads. I‘ve never seen this happen on mainline 450 or 444 services. I think it’s only something done on certain routes near London, eg Weybridge as mentioned. Does it date from when 458 gangways were staff only?

 

[7Sonofa7Son]

I just wanted to ask if anyone knows if there is actually any reason why these Guards often do this? Are they simply doing it so that they can have the whole middle cab areas to themselves without the passengers walking through and disturbing them? If so do SWR actually allow their Guards to do this or is it one of those things where they are not supposed to do it but get away with it anyway? Or is there another reason for always locking out these doors between units?

No, this is pretty much the reason. They're not walking their train like they're supposed to be and they're opening up the middle cab because it's too cramped on the driving side which is where they're sitting. SWR doesn't allow them to do this, it's very much an indication of the individual guard. The decent Guards (metro and commercial) walk the train on all their routes, Weybridge included. In most cases it's not hazardous to lock out the middle but there isn't really a good reason for it, especially on a 450.

The 455s are different because there isn't a way to allow the passengers to walk through without having access to the driving cab.

 

[TheHovisKid]

How would it be any more hazardous than having two non-gangway units coupled together, as happens all over the railway?

Nor quite....

That would be like saying in the 1960s, that there was no difference between isolating the AWS and working train not yet fitted with it.

In this case, actively locking it could, if something did happen, include an emenmentvif personal liability.

Taunton, anyone, if locking internal doors is a thing?

 

[Kite159]

The only other place i have seen this done is on the LNWR 350s where some Guards will lock out the doors too to prevent passengers walking through

I've had this a couple times, on a service from Birmingham to London change of guard at Northampton and the first thing the new guard did was lock out the gangway doors even though the rear unit didn't have any working toilets. Also on a southbound train from Crewe, as soon as the train departed Atherstone the gangway doors were locked out of use. Both times the guard hid away, how dare those pesky passengers distract them.

As for SWR I've had it a couple of times, a bit annoying as one coach could be busy but you are unable to walk through for a quieter coach

 

[davews]

Which line are you talking about? I regularly use Reading branch 450s, usually sitting in coach 4 or 5, and can never remember the corridor door being locked.

 

[Busman]

This will cause controversy but I'm afraid my belief is that some guards don't want be customer facing even though they are in a customer facing role.

This age old worn out argument about guards 'being seen' for safety is complete bull, I very rarely see guards walk through the train, more often or not they are locked away in a cab never to be seen.

 

[WAB]

This will cause controversy but I'm afraid my belief is that some guards don't want be customer facing even though they are in a customer facing role.

This age old worn out argument about guards 'being seen' for safety is complete bull, I very rarely see guards walk through the train, more often or not they are locked away in a cab never to be seen.

On this forum, these behaviours are complained about fairly often. WMT’s Bletchley depot and Metro guards on SWR seem to be particular issues, suggesting cultural problems. A manager at one of those TOCs who shall remain nameless said they wished they could make them DOO so that the guard-turned-OBS would have no choice but to be customer-focused - no excuses for hiding in a cab.

DOO arguments have been repeated time and time again and I’ll try not to repeat them, but I think this locking of gangway doors is symptomatic of a disregard of the customer and of the apparently crucial role of the guard for looking after the passengers. Perhaps they need to be sent up north to see how the job should be done!

 

[infobleep]

This reminds me of the former 17:39 and 18:40 fast Surbiton to Woking services, Monday to Friday. The guards would rarely make any announcements if the trains were late, which could be useful for some passengers or if not at least an acknowledgement of the delay. It was as if they were so use to delays, it didn't matter.
For both trains there was a 5-minute connection to a train to Portsmouth. An official connection.

If the platform changed, you wouldn't be told as by the time your late train got in, staff at Woking were no longer announcing the platform change, even thiugh you might have tome to make a connection if you knew.

I don't remember the gangways being locked often it at all, but often the guards would be in their cabs.

 

[Towers]

On this forum, these behaviours are complained about fairly often. WMT’s Bletchley depot and Metro guards on SWR seem to be particular issues, suggesting cultural problems. A manager at one of those TOCs who shall remain nameless said they wished they could make them DOO so that the guard-turned-OBS would have no choice but to be customer-focused - no excuses for hiding in a cab.

DOO arguments have been repeated time and time again and I’ll try not to repeat them, but I think this locking of gangway doors is symptomatic of a disregard of the customer and of the apparently crucial role of the guard for looking after the passengers. Perhaps they need to be sent up north to see how the job should be done!

SWR’s Metro guards were formerly known as “Non-Commercial” guards, and therein lies the cultural issue to which you allude - no ticket checks, no reason to walk through the train (blatantly not the case, of course). The fact that these guards are on a lower payscale than their Commercial guard colleagues (who do check tickets) may or may not reinforce the attitude that it isn’t their job to go and face their passengers.

Regardless, locking centre gangway doors when it is completely unecessary is a bizarre way to go about things.

 

[bramling]

On this forum, these behaviours are complained about fairly often. WMT’s Bletchley depot and Metro guards on SWR seem to be particular issues, suggesting cultural problems. A manager at one of those TOCs who shall remain nameless said they wished they could make them DOO so that the guard-turned-OBS would have no choice but to be customer-focused - no excuses for hiding in a cab.

DOO arguments have been repeated time and time again and I’ll try not to repeat them, but I think this locking of gangway doors is symptomatic of a disregard of the customer and of the apparently crucial role of the guard for looking after the passengers. Perhaps they need to be sent up north to see how the job should be done!

Am I the only person who, from an end-user point of view, doesn’t really care if the guard “hides” in a cab?

Their main role is of course to maintain the safe operation of the train, particularly in relation to dispatch and in an emergency, and doing revenue duties where required. As long as they are competent in carrying out those activities, I don’t really give a stuff if the guard spends time in a cab.

To be honest there are some guards who are a bit over-the-top when it comes to constantly walking up and down the train, to the point where it can become irritating.

As to locking gangways, again given that many trains don’t have these at all between units, it doesn’t really bother me. I don’t begrudge guards giving themselves a place of safety to work from.

 

[infobleep]

Am I the only person who, from an end-user point of view, doesn’t really care if the guard “hides” in a cab?

Their main role is of course to maintain the safe operation of the train, particularly in relation to dispatch and in an emergency, and doing revenue duties where required. As long as they are competent in carrying out those activities, I don’t really give a stuff if the guard spends time in a cab.

To be honest there are some guards who are a bit over-the-top when it comes to constantly walking up and down the train, to the point where it can become irritating.

As to locking gangways, again given that many trains don’t have these at all between units, it doesn’t really bother me. I don’t begrudge guards giving themselves a place of safety to work from.

What is the point of gangways if they aren't used?

 

[Starmill]

Am I the only person who, from an end-user point of view, doesn’t really care if the guard “hides” in a cab?

Their main role is of course to maintain the safe operation of the train, particularly in relation to dispatch and in an emergency, and doing revenue duties where required. As long as they are competent in carrying out those activities, I don’t really give a stuff if the guard spends time in a cab.

To be honest there are some guards who are a bit over-the-top when it comes to constantly walking up and down the train, to the point where it can become irritating.

As to locking gangways, again given that many trains don’t have these at all between units, it doesn’t really bother me. I don’t begrudge guards giving themselves a place of safety to work from.

This isn't really the case. It's nothing to do with me so I don't have strong views on it at all, but the company view it that the Metro Guard's main job after safely working the train is in-person customer service. It's certainly not revenue protection, and in any case Metro Guards only have a minor role in that. It's far more difficult to provide customer care from inside a cab. For me personally, I generally don't need any help, so them choosing to provide less of this isn't my problem, but that is the company view. Also, it's always safe to work from a 450 cab where there's enough visibility of the platform, so there's no effect on that from the corridor being locked or not.

 

[bramling]

What is the point of gangways if they aren't used?

Having spent much of my life using non-gangwayed DOO 365s, personally I don’t really care much for gangways. And given that the 317s on the same route spent periods with their gangways out of use, nobody seeming to bat an eyelid, I suspect most passengers don’t really care much either.

Indeed as previously mentioned there are several fleets where they have ended up being completely removed, including the sister SN 455s. So clearly TOCs also feel their value is overstated.

 

[Towers]

Having spent much of my life using non-gangwayed DOO 365s, personally I don’t really care much for gangways. And given that the 317s on the same route spent periods with their gangways out of use, nobody seeming to bat an eyelid, I suspect most passengers don’t really care much either.

Indeed as previously mentioned there are several fleets where they have ended up being completely removed, including the sister SN 455s. So clearly TOCs also feel their value is overstated.

The SN 455 gangways were removed as part of a project to install cab aircon, I believe? There is a clear benefit, both to customers and staff, of having the ability to pass through the full length of a train, hence the overwhelming majority of gangway fitted stock being operated with the gangways in use when running in multiple!

 

[bramling]

The SN 455 gangways were removed as part of a project to install cab aircon, I believe? There is a clear benefit, both to customers and staff, of having the ability to pass through the full length of a train, hence the overwhelming majority of gangway fitted stock being operated with the gangways in use when running in multiple!

Why is the benefit seen to be so clear-cut? I spent the best part of 25 years using 365s, without ever finding the lack of gangways a hindrance in any way at all. If we look at the Southeastern division, none of their Metro stock has a gangway, and indeed SWT procured non-gangwayed metro stock in the form of the class 707s. In fact, if one looks round London most metro stock in use over recent generations doesn't / hasn't had them. The class 450, 455 and 458 seem to be the exception in having them.

 

[infobleep]

The SN 455 gangways were removed as part of a project to install cab aircon, I believe? There is a clear benefit, both to customers and staff, of having the ability to pass through the full length of a train, hence the overwhelming majority of gangway fitted stock being operated with the gangways in use when running in multiple!

Does this mean the 455s used by SWR are not fitted with air con?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2024 ==

Why is the benefit seen to be so clear-cut? I spent the best part of 25 years using 365s, without ever finding the lack of gangways a hindrance in any way at all. If we look at the Southeastern division, none of their Metro stock has a gangway, and indeed SWT procured non-gangwayed metro stock in the form of the class 707s. In fact, if one looks round London most metro in use over recent generations doesn't / hasn't had them. The class 450, 455 and 458 seem to be outliers in having them.

Without gangways, I sometimes find myself getting off at intermediate stations, to swotch units, to get closer to where I need to be for my exit.

Also a lack of a gangway on class 802s means people don't always get to see the refreshment trolly as it may be in the other 5 coaches. That's on Great Western Railway.

Why add gangways to rolling stock only to not then use them?

 

[bramling]

Without gangways, I sometimes find myself getting off at intermediate stations, to swotch units, to get closer to where I need to be for my exit.

But you don’t *need* to be closer to where the exit is, and if you really *want* to be then there’s always the option to join the relevant part of the train when boarding. I spent 25 years doing exactly that with the 365s, so it’s quite possible. I never found it an issue or inconvenience in the slightest. Clearly most of the remainder of London’s population using metro services have done same over the years, given how few fleets have had gangways between units.

Also a lack of a gangway on class 802s means people don't always get to see the refreshment trolly as it may be in the other 5 coaches. That's on Great Western Railway.

This is a completely different situation. I wouldn’t advocate not having them on long-distance services.

Why add gangways to rolling stock only to not then use them?

In most cases, metro stock *hasn’t* had them added. Indeed it’s unclear why the class 455 is something of an exception. In the case of the class 450 they would clearly have been necessary for some of the longer-distance services these trains primarily work. So why shouldn’t the guard have a slightly better working environment at the expense of something which clearly isn’t very necessary on metro services?

 

[WAB]

As to locking gangways, again given that many trains don’t have these at all between units, it doesn’t really bother me. I don’t begrudge guards giving themselves a place of safety to work from.

How many cabs do these guards need? Incidentally, they’re much better off than a lot of station staff.

Their main role is of course to maintain the safe operation of the train, particularly in relation to dispatch and in an emergency, and doing revenue duties where required. As long as they are competent in carrying out those activities, I don’t really give a stuff if the guard spends time in a cab.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that guards should never step foot in the cab at all? However, if you asked the public why they want to keep the guard, many of the responses would be about the things they do when not holed up in a cab i.e. patrolling the train, deterring ASB, offering the opportunity to ask questions etc. This public need is not satisfied by locking gangway doors and hiding in cabs for long periods.

The customer care role is part of the job for all passenger jobs. This pivot away from primarily safety-related duties was implemented in BR days.

Here are some quotes from a SWR Metro guard job description that I have on file:

• You will be an ambassador for SWR and must strive to exceed our customers' expectations.

• Guards must be visible throughout journeys, proactively helping our customers, ensuring that everyone has a great & safe journey.

Enjoy interacting with customers and colleagues while going over and above to provide a great customer experience.

Again, this is not compatible with hiding in cabs and locking gangway doors.

 

[DDB]

I regard patrolling thier train so they know what is going on on their train is a important safety function of the guard. They should be acting as an anti social behaviour deterrent, checking if any passengers need assistance or reassurance and if the things in the passenger cabin like displays and any automated announcements are working properly.

 

[Starmill]

I regard patrolling thier train so they know what is going on on their train is a important safety function of the guard. They should be acting as an anti social behaviour deterrent, checking if any passengers need assistance or reassurance and if the things in the passenger cabin like displays and any automated announcements are working properly.

More importantly, the company regard patrolling the train wherever possible as a core duty of the guard also. It's a key reason for retaining their role too.

 

[infobleep]

But you don’t *need* to be closer to where the exit is, and if you really *want* to be then there’s always the option to join the relevant part of the train when boarding. I spent 25 years doing exactly that with the 365s, so it’s quite possible. I never found it an issue or inconvenience in the slightest. Clearly most of the remainder of London’s population using metro services have done same over the years, given how few fleets have had gangways between units.

If I was on a late running bus and I got onto the platform at the point the train is in, I'm not going to walk down the platform to the right section.

In most cases, metro stock *hasn’t* had them added. Indeed it’s unclear why the class 455 is something of an exception. In the case of the class 450 they would clearly have been necessary for some of the longer-distance services these trains primarily work. So why shouldn’t the guard have a slightly better working environment at the expense of something which clearly isn’t very necessary on metro services?

Well one could argue, why shouldn't the guards on the longer services have a slightly better working environment and the gangways close.

A 50 minite journey from Guildford to Clapham Junction isn't short and that would be on a metro service. There isn't fast services at all times of the day and if you need to be somewhere at a certain time, or the last fast service is cancelled, you might have no choice but to get a metro service.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Why is the benefit seen to be so clear-cut? I spent the best part of 25 years using 365s, without ever finding the lack of gangways a hindrance in any way at all. If we look at the Southeastern division, none of their Metro stock has a gangway, and indeed SWT procured non-gangwayed metro stock in the form of the class 707s. In fact, if one looks round London most metro stock in use over recent generations doesn't / hasn't had them. The class 450, 455 and 458 seem to be the exception in having them.

A couple of reasons in our neck of the woods, one is boarding a busy 8 coach train at a bay or terminal - allows people to distribute through the train at Kings Cross or Cambridge (many of which were always four coach until the demise of the 365s - which didn't need them obviously when only 4 car) as not everyone will have time to run down to the front unit to board.

Secondly and related, distributing into the train from short platforms on boarding and more importantly, being able to move forward into the right unit to alight if arriving at, say Meldreth.

 

[Transilien]

Why were gangways built into the class 455’s and 458's if they were only going to ever to be used by the guard? In my opinion most of the benefits of gangways are for distributing passengers through a train so it dosen't get too crowded. A guard can just move between units when the train is stopped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why were gangways built into the class 455’s and 458's if they were only going to ever to be used by the guard? In my opinion most of the benefits of gangways are for distributing passengers through a train so it dosen't get too crowded. A guard can just move between units when the train is stopped.

Staff access to the other part of the train is important for emergencies. But they weren't only designed to be used by the guard, that was decided later (I think after some incidents?)

The 455 is basically the same as a 150/2 and they are used on those.

 

[Transilien]

How do other franchises get along fine with running un-gangwayed stock safely? This situation also seems even more strange if the 150/2 can have passengers use the gangways without any problems.

 

[Towers]

Staff access to the other part of the train is important for emergencies. But they weren't only designed to be used by the guard, that was decided later (I think after some incidents?)

The 455 is basically the same as a 150/2 and they are used on those.

I’d be interested as to what the incidents might have been. There is absolutely no safety issue with inter-unit gangways, and no reason why they shouldn’t be used for passenger access as intended. I’m not familiar with the specifics of the 455s, but if as suggested above they’re the same as other MK3 based units, which would seem logical, then they’ll be designed for public access and it’s difficult to see why a decision should have been taken not to use them as such.