Bemusing: Kings Cross gateline closed to exit

[saismee]

I agree. Although you have inadvertently made the case for removing these roles altogether; if the railway can't afford sensible people there's little benefit in having lots of less useful ones hanging around. As demonstrated in the OP, they wouldn't be much help in an actual emergency. The Elizabeth line is particularly bad for this; you could remove 50% of its many gateline and platform staff overnight and it would make no difference whatsoever to customer service or safe operations. Spend the money better!

They need gatelines shut to keep honest people honest. It doesn't really matter who is there to keep it "safe," as long as there is someone. People have mentioned the concept of roving staff, but this directly goes against all of the training I have been given for gateline - you cannot move more than 5 seconds away from the gates while they are shut. As for EL staff, they absolutely need them during overcrowding. I have seen some insane overcrowding (Farringdon) and there still wasn't enough staff.

 

[Craig1122]

I agree. Although you have inadvertently made the case for removing these roles altogether; if the railway can't afford sensible people there's little benefit in having lots of less useful ones hanging around. As demonstrated in the OP, they wouldn't be much help in an actual emergency. The Elizabeth line is particularly bad for this; you could remove 50% of its many gateline and platform staff overnight and it would make no difference whatsoever to customer service or safe operations. Spend the money better!

Since I started on the railway the headcount of station staff seems to have increased exponentially. Unfortunately the use of agency staff means the usefulness of those staff has gone in the opposite direction. Mainly because most of them are agency with little interest/motivation in the job. It's also meant you can't cross cover as each individual task is carried out by a separate entity. I've long advocated that the railway should follow the Aldi/Lidl route of paying more but expecting more including covering multiple roles where appropriate.

 

[TUC]

Since I started on the railway the headcount of station staff seems to have increased exponentially. Unfortunately the use of agency staff means the usefulness of those staff has gone in the opposite direction. Mainly because most of them are agency with little interest/motivation in the job. It's also meant you can't cross cover as each individual task is carried out by a separate entity. I've long advocated that the railway should follow the Aldi/Lidl route of paying more but expecting more including covering multiple roles where appropriate.

Very much agree.

 

[saismee]

Since I started on the railway the headcount of station staff seems to have increased exponentially. Unfortunately the use of agency staff means the usefulness of those staff has gone in the opposite direction. Mainly because most of them are agency with little interest/motivation in the job. It's also meant you can't cross cover as each individual task is carried out by a separate entity. I've long advocated that the railway should follow the Aldi/Lidl route of paying more but expecting more including covering multiple roles where appropriate.

You're a little mistaken with agency work as a lot of them can also cover passenger assistance and other various customer service roles. I don't think safety-critical roles are covered though, but these often have spares ready anyway.

But yes, agency staff can be unreliable or poor, primarily as they may be unfamiliar with layout of the station or the service pattern/lines available. It isn't too bad when agency staff are paired with a TOC staff member though, and some agency staff I have met are absolutely fantastic at their jobs.

 

[35B]

Since I started on the railway the headcount of station staff seems to have increased exponentially. Unfortunately the use of agency staff means the usefulness of those staff has gone in the opposite direction. Mainly because most of them are agency with little interest/motivation in the job. It's also meant you can't cross cover as each individual task is carried out by a separate entity. I've long advocated that the railway should follow the Aldi/Lidl route of paying more but expecting more including covering multiple roles where appropriate.

Possibly, but the credibility of directly employed staff hasn't always been great either.

 

[Craig1122]

Possibly, but the credibility of directly employed staff hasn't always been great either.

Agreed, hence my part about "expecting more". I'd add other stuff about development and career options but that would be very much veering off topic!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2025 ==

You're a little mistaken with agency work as a lot of them can also cover passenger assistance and other various customer service roles. I don't think safety-critical roles are covered though, but these often have spares ready anyway.

I've certainly seen agency covering train despatch down south. The usual thing I've seen though is separate agency staff covering crowd control, gateline, security and cleaning etc. They're clearly separate contracts with different employers so the odds of cross cover in this situation is pretty much zero.

 

[Class 170101]

I've long advocated that the railway should follow the Aldi/Lidl route of paying more but expecting more including covering multiple roles where appropriate.

Think you might have a RMT union issue there if you tried that.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I approached the exit-only barrier at Kings Cross heading for my train recently, flashed my pass and they happily let me through so I thanked them politely. If you're nice they're often nice back.