No, I'm not suggesting safety measures be abandoned, but its generally agreed the Hatfield disruption was over the top and the result of Railtrack not knowing the state of it's assets. So from that point of view, it was the railway's fault.
Your logic baffles me.
Yes there were issues over Railtrack's familiarity with the infrastructure, maintenance and suchlike. With the benefit of hindsight the reaction probably was more severe than perhaps the situation merited. But then it's probably better to be too cautious than not cautious enough, especially when you're dealing with a problem whose severity and extent is not fully known.
What I don't understand is the link you are making to road deaths. Yes the post-Hatfield disruption caused an increase in road traffic together with a proportionate increase in road deaths. But how was this the railways fault? I can certainly see the chain you have followed to arrive at an explanation of the increase in road deaths, but I don't see how it blame or culpability follows the same chain. The decision for people to get into their cars rests with the individual, whatever the motivation behind it.
Emergency protection is only carried out when the signaller cannot be contacted/cannot afford signal protection. Even then, stoppages are noticed and acted upon in most occasions.
Yes I am aware. However, we were talking about a specific incident resulting in large-scale destruction of the infrastructure including the signalling equipment.
However, protection with clips would still be required on any obstructed line and on your own line if there is reason to believe that the train is not operating the track circuits, even if the train can be protected by signals. This is the guard's responsibility in the first instance (M1 2.1(b)) and can be done while the driver tries to raise the box.
If full detonator protection is required, the guard and driver can agree that either the guard stays put and deals with the passengers or assists the driver in laying protection. This latter provision would certainly be of benefit if the train was spread across a junction.
This is not the same as road transport, where there is nobody monitoring the overall situation. You might as well say all motorways should be closed in fog/falling snow.
The parallel doesn't stand up. The situation is monitored, especially on the motorway and trunk road network, and procedures are put in place to deal with things like poor weather and collisions.
As I said, to my knowledge no lives have been lost since the introduction of DOO operated trains, as a result of. Clearly it is desirable to have more people on trains in order to act in these situations, and given a choice many drivers would prefer guards - although it is worth noting that drivers were paid extra for DOO responsibility in BR days. The point I'm making is not having a guard, the risk is so small its certainly scaremongering to suggest the railway is unsafe without them, especially when it is in safe operation elsewhere.
We're never going to have 100% safe transport systems, but at the same time, its not worth spending so much money on such a small risk that people are put off from using one mode, in favour of a less safe one where they are more likely to be killed or seriously injured. That isn't good risk appraisal.
I've excised your references to road transport for the reason listed above.
However, I agree that a guard's additional skills and competences are a nice luxury to have. But the question is at what point does the erosion of standards become a threat?
Not so very long back we had a dead train in the tunnel at Stansted. Everything had tripped and the unit was totally without any power whatsoever. Therefore, because the driver could not use the CSR, he had to get out and use one of the lineside phones. As a consequence of this action it was discovered that something like only 3 out of 18 phones were operational (a situation that has since been fixed). The attitude of one of the local managers was that it didn't matter because the chances of something like that actually happening were vanishingly small, so what is the problem? Well, the problem is that if there is even a vanishingly small possibility that it could happen there have to be systems and procedures in place to deal with them.
I know that the above isn't specifically relevant to the discussion about guards, but it illustrates the point. We are fortunate that the situation exists (and has done for some considerable time) that the the need to use emergency procedures is very rare. However, these sorts of incidents can and do happen.
If you think DOO trains are unsafe, you are obliged under the Health and Safety legislation to tell your manager and not drive any more trains. I will suggest you won't do this, because they have been properly risk assessed and as I say, there is no quantifiable risk. I certainly never did anything I thought was unsafe, and there are certainly occasions for exercising that right. If Bob Crow wants to protect jobs, that's perfectly valid, and all the points made about wanting a guard on trains is more desirable than not in an ideal world. I don't think anyone disagrees - but at least be honest about it rather than telling the gullible public that they are risking life and limb getting on a train and pricing the railway out of the transport system which will ultimately results in less job creation.
I don't, as well you know.
The point I am arguing is that having guards on trains increases safety rather than saying that guards make trains safe but taking them off makes them unsafe. Safe, safer, safest; that sort of thing.
BUt you are applying your DOO conditions to Strathclyde/Scot-rail - teh Strathclyce Manning Agreement in existence since the introduction oif cl318 IIRC means that the additional staff member is trained to carry out the train protection duties with the exception of operating the doors.
OK, so what is this thread about...? It seems to me that the wider issues and implications of DOO are firmly on the table.
Besides, while revenue may have some training in train evac they are not competent to carry out the duties of the guard in the event of a train accident, fire or accidental division. These would fall to the driver who would instruct revenue what they are required to do. They won't get down and lay clips and they wouldn't be expected to apply the relevant rules in the event that a driver is incapacitated.
O L Leigh
