ASLEF votes for protection against far right

[TOCDriver]

What about the captain of a ferry or an aircraft ? They don't always have contact with passengers in the same way a bus driver does and yet despite having their equivalent of a guard/TM on board (On board ship crew or cabin crew in a plane) they have the ultimate decision about who gets to travel and who doesn't.

So hypothetical situation. Virgin train is packed with loud football supporters. On the way home they pull the PassCom and shout obscenities at the driver via the passcom. PassCom is reset, driver reports incident but a few minutes later the same thing happens. TM/Guard just wants to get them home as they are just a bit 'excited'. Driver wants them off as the repeated PassCom activations are disturbing their concentration. Does TMs decision overrule the drivers ?

Yes it does because the TM is just that; the train manager. If it's a technical issue, then the driver is the deciding factor and he would be the overall authority as far as I'm concerned. If the train can get from A to B technically sound, then that's all that should concern the driver - passenger issues should be left to the TM who can constantly monitor the situation. Any reasonable and responsible TM wouldn't just 'want to get them home' They would be on to control and have the police meet them at the next station

 

[notadriver]

Where is that in the rule book please? TM is just a fancy name for Guard and they are not operationally responsible for the train.

 

[TOCDriver]

Where is that in the rule book please? TM is just a fancy name for Guard and they are not operationally responsible for the train.

I think you need to read what I have said in a bit more detail and digest it.

 

[notadriver]

You posted twice. My first answer was to your first reply. By the way have you ever been a guard / TM?

 

[AlexS]

Where is that in the rule book please? TM is just a fancy name for Guard and they are not operationally responsible for the train.

Refer yourself back to module TW1 chap, the very first section.

Where a guard is provided, they are responsible for the safety of the passengers on board the train.

The driver only takes on responsibility for the safety of the passengers on board the train if the train is DOO(P).

The driver is responsible for the overall safety and protection of the train itself, a role that was asset stripped from guards as a cost saving.

Therefore the guard is responsible regarding general passenger safety issues, and the driver is responsible for the actual safe working and operation of the train, and is in charge in an emergency situation in terms of ensuring protection and the overall safety of the train.

If the passcom is being pulled repeatedly then you need to be contacting the BTP regardless really, which is up to the guard to sort out - the guard is required by the rulebook to co-operate with the driver so if this was occurring you would expect them to do something about it.

 

[notadriver]

Exactly - is required to cooperate with the driver and thus does not overrule the driver in my example.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Exactly - is required to cooperate with the driver and thus does not overrule the driver in my example.

On crew operated trains the guard and driver need to co-operate at all times. If the driver decides not to drive the train goes nowhere, if the guard decides not to operate the doors of give the bell/buzzer the train goes nowhere.

They wouild need to justify why they are not fulfilling their role but either guard or driver can refuse to carry out their duties if they believe it impinges on the Health & Safety of themselves or passengers.

 

[BestWestern]

Gents, must we reduce ourselves to a Driver vs Guard big willy contest, really?! Clearly, where a train has a train crew rather than just a Driver, then that crew need to work together, regardless of the situation. Put bluntly, a train isn't going to move if the Guard doesn't give the buzzer, and neither is it going to move if the Driver doesn't drive it! In the case of either crew member being unhappy to continue the journey, they simply need to advise their control centre and the panel of the situation, and provided they have a valid reason the train will continue no further.

In my experience, teamwork still prevails. I'd like to think it will remain that way for the forseeable.

 

[TOCDriver]

Gents, must we reduce ourselves to a Driver vs Guard big willy contest, really?! Clearly, where a train has a train crew rather than just a Driver, then that crew need to work together, regardless of the situation. Put bluntly, a train isn't going to move if the Guard doesn't give the buzzer, and neither is it going to move if the Driver doesn't drive it! In the case of either crew member being unhappy to continue the journey, they simply need to advise their control centre and the panel of the situation, and provided they have a valid reason the train will continue no further.

In my experience, teamwork still prevails. I'd like to think it will remain that way for the forseeable.

Exactly correct. I don't want to get myself too involved in these forum discussions because there are a lot of silly nit-picking arguements that go on, this being a classic example.

 

[TDK]

The driver is responsible for the overall safety and protection of the train itself, a role that was asset stripped from guards as a cost saving.

However if the behaviour of passengers are putting the running of the train at risk then it is the drivers responsibility as per the rule book?

 

[TOCDriver]

However if the behaviour of passengers are putting the running of the train at risk then it is the drivers responsibility as per the rule book?

How does the driver know that in a 390 or a loco? At the end of the day, it's all about teamwork and common sense and responsibilities to the safe functioning of that train are shared between us

 

[313103]

Where is that in the rule book please? TM is just a fancy name for Guard and they are not operationally responsible for the train.

Define your term 'they are not operationally responsible for the train' please.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
However to get back to on topic, what has this got to do with ASLE&F banning far right groups on trains?
Seems to be another Rail uk forums going off on a tangent and discussing things that don't really aply to the original nature of the subject matter.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Yes, absolutely correct. Truth is it's about a union wanting to ban a group because they don't agree with the other group's politics. If it was truly about groups causing trouble there'd hardly be a football supporter's train anywhere. Travelling on any train out of London in the evening following a football match is having to endure drunken rowdy swearing groups of yobs. Thus far I've yet to endure the same from any groups of right wing thugs - or left wing ones come to that.

 

[A-driver]

Yes, absolutely correct. Truth is it's about a union wanting to ban a group because they don't agree with the other group's politics. If it was truly about groups causing trouble there'd hardly be a football supporter's train anywhere. Travelling on any train out of London in the evening following a football match is having to endure drunken rowdy swearing groups of yobs. Thus far I've yet to endure the same from any groups of right wing thugs - or left wing ones come to that.

You have missed the point. They arnt looking to ban those groups from travelling. They are looking to protect members who may feel intimidated by working trains with those groups on board and I can't see how that can be argued with.

If a Muslim driver has to go back and reset a passcom or train fault in a coach full a large number of ignorant, ill informed and drunk EDL members then they will be put in a possibly humiliating, difficult and perhaps dangerous position that they shouldn't find themselves in.

 

[notadriver]

Define your term 'they are not operationally responsible for the train' please.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
However to get back to on topic, what has this got to do with ASLE&F banning far right groups on trains?
Seems to be another Rail uk forums going off on a tangent and discussing things that don't really aply to the original nature of the subject matter.

I've been told the passengers are nothing to do with the driver and its up to the guard by various people in this thread. Operationally responsible - meaning the driver has the final say on whether the train proceeds or doesn't.

 

[Tomnick]

Operationally responsible - meaning the driver has the final say on whether the train proceeds or doesn't.

So the Driver can overrule the Guard's decision to refuse to take the train forward?

 

[notadriver]

So the Driver can overrule the Guard's decision to refuse to take the train forward?

The passengers would be detrained and the train would proceed as empty coaching stock.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

You have missed the point. They arnt looking to ban those groups from travelling. They are looking to protect members who may feel intimidated by working trains with those groups on board and I can't see how that can be argued with.

If a Muslim driver has to go back and reset a passcom or train fault in a coach full a large number of ignorant, ill informed and drunk EDL members then they will be put in a possibly humiliating, difficult and perhaps dangerous position that they shouldn't find themselves in.

And if a poor white boy has to go back and re-set the passcom when a group of drunken/drugged black youths are on the train...........

It's a can of worms that a union is opening here.

 

[A-driver]

And if a poor white boy has to go back and re-set the passcom when a group of drunken/drugged black youths are on the train...........

It's a can of worms that a union is opening here.

If that group of black youths are out with the intention of racial discrimination and intimidating white people then the same should apply but I don't know of any organisations like the EDL but with black/Muslim/other ethnic minority membership.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

This do you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rcsG-u2GtZE#t=27s

 

[A-driver]

This do you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rcsG-u2GtZE#t=27s

They arnt organised in the same way that the EDL is. 'Muslim patrol' are just a group of people who go around looking for trouble in their own communities. The EDL travel about organising 'rallies' in other areas and use the train to get there.

But if there were parallel organisations which targeted white people then I see no reason why they wouldn't be targeted in the same way.

 

[Sadsmileyface]

What about far left groups?

Masses of them, swarming the platforms, soberly demanding inclusion for all?

 

[313103]

I've been told the passengers are nothing to do with the driver and its up to the guard by various people in this thread. Operationally responsible - meaning the driver has the final say on whether the train proceeds or doesn't.

You have been told :roll: Enough said then!

 

[notadriver]

You have been told :roll: Enough said then!

No because its not black or white and the NLL trains you work on could dispense with guards overnight.

 

[AlexS]

Quality, nice to see support for your fellow railwaymen is strong in this boil in the bag wonder driver - that said you'd have been a fine member of the groups who sold their guards down the spout for a few more pounds in the pay packet in the 80s!

I've had a few disagreements with him on this forum but that's probably the most flagrant disregard for a fellow professional and their job role I've seen in quite some time - congratulations.

Get yerself back to driving buses chap.

 

[notadriver]

I'm backing down on this one : I did not mean to denigrate a guards role on trains. I think they are invaluable; I was just very niggled by 313103's response. I think you telling me to give up my job is uncalled for however.

 

[313103]

I'm backing down on this one : I did not mean to denigrate a guards role on trains. I think they are invaluable; I was just very niggled by 313103's response. I think you telling me to give up my job is uncalled for however.

And I was niggled by your 'Driver has all the power and the Guard has none' viewpoint.

I know how easy it is for role to be got rid of, I was on the railway when it all started in 1984. So I have been living under darken skies since then, and already had to move on from one location to another as a result of DOO. If they did bring in DOO it would be my problem to deal with again and not something you should be worried about.

90% of the population of this country think Guards don't exist anyway.

 

[AlexS]

I'm backing down on this one : I did not mean to denigrate a guards role on trains. I think they are invaluable; I was just very niggled by 313103's response. I think you telling me to give up my job is uncalled for however.

There's lots of niggling going on as I was very niggled by yours and freely admit the last part of my post was a bit of a kidney punch - as you've been the bigger man I shall retract it!

 

[notadriver]

There's lots of niggling going on as I was very niggled by yours and freely admit the last part of my post was a bit of a kidney punch - as you've been the bigger man I shall retract it!

Thanks mate. There's no substitute for a good guard and I think any troublesome passengers might be better behaved with one on board.