Class 350 guards.

[Pumbaa]

The Crewe guards tend to be the best. If they're Bletchley/Northampton, the only time time you'll see them is when they're booking off.

 

[BestWestern]

Im in favour of that. It eliminates the (in my opinion) pointless task of the guard having to observe the train in the platform before releasing the doors.

I don't know how easily accessible the door release controls are on the cab bulkhead sitting down though. I think they are directly behind the driver. Open to correction on that though.

The Guard checking that the train is platformed is an additional safety procedure, and incidentally one which cannot be replicated on unstaffed stations with a DOO service. The need for it is perhaps more apparent in areas which see varying formations on the same services over the same route, when a Driver can quite easily pull up short (I've had it happen to me, as I'm sure have many of my colleagues). This ties in with the Guard being responsible for the safety of passengers and the Driver concerning him/herself with the movement of the train.

This is of course a perpetual debate which we will probably never see the back of, but I would always argue that doors are much safer when operated by a Guard, who is actually out of the train and able to see within his own line of sight what is happening. A Driver stopping short has little opportunity to realise his mistake if he is hitting the release buttons the moment his train comes to a stop. Likewise, the lack of any local door procedure makes wrong side release incidents much more likely. For the record, I'm also firmly in favour of Guards being required to observe a platform upon departure. Again, some may think it pointless but there have been incidents which could have been prevented by this.

On a different note, did somebody mention earlier that LM's 350s were originally intended for SWT? I didn't know that, how did it come about?!

 

[Pumbaa]

For the record, I'm also firmly in favour of Guards being required to observe a platform upon departure. Again, some may think it pointless but there have been incidents which could have been prevented by this.

On a different note, did somebody mention earlier that LM's 350s were originally intended for SWT? I didn't know that, how did it come about?!

So am I. And besides, other TOCs manage driver-released doors on all sorts of services.

The 350/1s were originally 450s, but the order got cut short of the original. The SRA then decided to send them to Central, who shared them with Silverlink. Hence the /1s have 3rd rail gear.

And then afterwards the 450 order was then taken back up and an extra 27 450s procured. I know it's not often we thank botched procurements, but maybe this occasion we should be thankful!

 

[Lrd]

Hence the /1s have 3rd rail gear.

The actual shoes have been removed though haven't they? The rest of the stuff is there, just no shoes. Think this happened just after they stopped being used for Southern's Milton Keynes to South Croydon route and went back to LM.

Also, iirc the SWT order was originally for a few 5 Car 450's but they decided against this.

 

[Pumbaa]

The actual shoes have been removed though haven't they? The rest of the stuff is there, just no shoes. Think this happened just after they stopped being used for Southern's Milton Keynes to South Croydon route and went back to LM.

The shoes were just stored in a cupboard at Northampton from when they arrived. Not needed at all.

350110 - 350119 had the shoes refitted and kept them through the hire period in a common pool. 120 - 130 had them fitted as needed if they were required to fill in for a few days.

Now they're all back in the cupboard.

 

[Matt Taylor]

The actual shoes have been removed though haven't they? The rest of the stuff is there, just no shoes. Think this happened just after they stopped being used for Southern's Milton Keynes to South Croydon route and went back to LM.

Also, iirc the SWT order was originally for a few 5 Car 450's but they decided against this.

SWT had little say in the matter. The original order was for 450001-450100 as 4 car sets plus 450201-450232 as 5 car sets (for the Windsor lines). The Dft failed to agree to the required platform lengthening so the 450/2s were cancelled with 40 cars becoming 450101-450110 and the remaining order becoming 350101-350130.

 

[BestWestern]

SWT had little say in the matter. The original order was for 450001-450100 as 4 car sets plus 450201-450232 as 5 car sets (for the Windsor lines). The Dft failed to agree to the required platform lengthening so the 450/2s were cancelled with 40 cars becoming 450101-450110 and the remaining order becoming 350101-350130.

So were SWT intending to withdraw 455s?

 

[swt_passenger]

So were SWT intending to withdraw 455s?

No - the original SWT 450 order was entirely to replace Mk 1 stock and was for 100 x 4 car and 32 x 5 car. The SRA, (as it was then, ie not the DfT) would not fund the necessary platform alterations because they could not agree with the predicted increase in usage.

As mentioned above, the 32 x 5 car units were then re-worked into 40 x 4 car units, as contracts had been signed with Siemens. So they were not fully reallocated, as SWT were allowed to retain 10 as 4 car 450s. Later on as numbers of passengers kept growing SWT were then allowed by DfT to order 17 more 4 car 450s.

Hence the original 132 units asked for ended up as 127 units but all 4 car. Don't forget there are 90 x 4 car 455s in use, as far as I can recall there has never been any suggestions that they would be replaced...

 

[Matt Taylor]

The SRA, (as it was then, ie not the DfT) would not fund the necessary platform alterations because they could not agree with the predicted increase in usage.

And what is happening now? Platforms are being extended for ten car trains. We could have had these trains years ago had the SRA/Dft not been so petty.

 

[branchline]

As a Bletchley guard I find some of this thread quite Offensive. How would you feel if someone who doesn't work in the same industry as you made comments about your skills and ability in your role on a public forum.

I also find it shocking that in these times of high unemployment some people would suggest that getting rid of a whole railway grade and switching to DOO just to save a few seconds of dwell time....

 

[Pumbaa]

I also find it shocking that in these times of high unemployment some people would suggest that getting rid of a whole railway grade and switching to DOO just to save a few seconds of dwell time....

That was never suggested. What was suggested was giving door release control to the driver, as many TOCs and stock operate in this fashion.

 

[js47604]

That was never suggested. What was suggested was giving door release control to the driver, as many TOCs and stock operate in this fashion.

There's already a quote on this thread that retaining guards is "employing for employings sake" etc so to say there has been no suggestion of removing guards is massively misleading to say the least.

 

[Fincra5]

In my opinion the only trains that should be DOO are Metro workings. I don't feel DOO on inter-urban and even suburban services is quite as safe as when there is a guard. Its also a massive pain when a passcom goes off and the driver has to shut down the train to go and reset it.

 

[BestWestern]

In my opinion the only trains that should be DOO are Metro workings. I don't feel DOO on inter-urban and even suburban services is quite as safe as when there is a guard. Its also a massive pain when a passcom goes off and the driver has to shut down the train to go and reset it.

There are many very good reasons, both customer service and safety related, for retaining a Guard on every train. Even with the advent of massively advanced signalling and control systems, having only one person down on the ground, who has multiple duties to carry out in an emergency situation before even getting anywhere near the passengers, is a very poor compromise. In a less serious situation it can lead to a very poor customer experience, in a more severe circumstance it could be the difference between a relatively controlled situation and absolute chaos.

A trainload of the travelling public may be able to look after themselves when it goes smoothly, but we know from experience that this won't be the case in an emergency. Particularly in the current paranoid climate, panic can spread almost instantaneously resulting in frightening consequences. When things do go bad there is a complex list of things which must be done, and dealing with the potentially hundreds of frightened, irrational passengers is not particularly close to the top of that list. A train is a very substantial undertaking to be in charge of, and it is perfectly reasonable - and plain common sense - to share that responsibility between two people, both of whom can carry out different and perfectly valid roles while it's going right, and both of whom can do what needs to be done when things go wrong.

 

[Nym]

As a Bletchley guard I find some of this thread quite Offensive. How would you feel if someone who doesn't work in the same industry as you made comments about your skills and ability in your role on a public forum.

I also find it shocking that in these times of high unemployment some people would suggest that getting rid of a whole railway grade and switching to DOO just to save a few seconds of dwell time....

You're not the only trade that gets slagged off on this forum, don't worry about it...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Do any trains have a remote door release capability?
It would solve the problem of waiting for the guard to reach a set of door controls.
On stoppers one of the most irritating things is waiting for the conductor to open the doors, just because he happens to be busy selling a complicated ticket at the time the train stops (it must be an awkward judgement to make).
On 158s I've lost count of the times I've been told to move while the guard fiddles with the door controls.
Remote control works fine on my car - why not trains?

 

[Nym]

Because ORR and HSE Regulations state there must be hard wired control, and your car's central locking isn't safety critical, nor do you need to be stood there to open/close them

 

[Lrd]

Guards also need to ensure the train is fully on the platform before releasing all doors.

 

[Matt Taylor]

And on average there is an eight to ten second gap between the train stopping and the doors being released on Class 450s, the only way to get around this is to work from the cab and use an open window to check the train is safely on the platform-but that only really works on sunny days or if there is a curve that goes in your favour.

 

[Schnellzug]

So am I. And besides, other TOCs manage driver-released doors on all sorts of services.

The 350/1s were originally 450s, but the order got cut short of the original. The SRA then decided to send them to Central, who shared them with Silverlink. Hence the /1s have 3rd rail gear.

And then afterwards the 450 order was then taken back up and an extra 27 450s procured. I know it's not often we thank botched procurements, but maybe this occasion we should be thankful!

Is that why 450 coach numbers are all over the place, then? Oh yes, looking them up, 350/1s seem to carry straight on from 450110. Well, you learn something every day.

 

[Wolf_359]

The Crewe guards tend to be the best. If they're Bletchley/Northampton, the only time time you'll see them is when they're booking off.

As a Bletchley guard I find this offensive. I check tickets on every train I work & am never sat in the cab reading a paper. You have generalised on a massive scale, there are a minority of guards who do stay in the cab for the entire journey, but on the whole the guards do the job they are employed to do.

There are certain practicalities to take into account E.G> 12 car formation at Berkhamstead, you try checking that all 12 coaches are in the platform when the monitors are not working. This means there are slight delays to a door release whilst checks are made.

From a personal view point I would love to have the guards office in operation, as when the 350/1's are in multiple formations you have half a cab to stow your gear in. It would also make life easier for checking tickets.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm sorry if any of you were offended, but it's a free debate and I'm just airing my opinions. I'm obviously not in any position where my opinions matter, but I would suggest that it's probably a prime example of the modern curse of people being too quick to use the word "offence" (or the even worse modern curse of people actually being offended by people's opinions they don't agree with) when they actually mean "disagree with". We're all adults and can discuss matters as such, and I fully respect your obvious position on the matter. I tried to convey this in my original post, and apologise if I didn't make this sufficiently clear.

As for checking the train is in platforms...it's not exactly like platforms and trains expand and contract randomly...they're the same length unless they get modified! If You're at the marker for the length of train you're driving, then surely it's in the platform?

 

[vikingdriver]

As for checking the train is in platforms...it's not exactly like platforms and trains expand and contract randomly...they're the same length unless they get modified! If You're at the marker for the length of train you're driving, then surely it's in the platform?

Assumption is the mother of all f**k ups. Always check. If you are driving and are at the marker for the length of train that is one thing, if you are at a marker for the train you think you are driving or working as a guard, that is another!

 

[notadriver]

Assumption is the mother of all f**k ups. Always check. If you are driving and are at the marker for the length of train that is one thing, if you are at a marker for the train you think you are driving or working as a guard, that is another!

Post deleted.

 

[vikingdriver]

Post deleted.

That the train is fully accomodated in the platform before playing with the doors?

 

[Matt Taylor]

How can you be sure that the driver has stopped at the right mark, or that the driver has not double checked how many coaches he has. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

It's called 'belt and braces'.

 

[causton]

Indeed... move too far and you'll have the driver opening the doors! Oh, he could close them as well! And then... why would you need a guard, instead have a couple of RPIs to standarounddoingnothingIMEANcatchoutinnocentpeopleIMEAN... generate revenue?

It's a slippery slope!

 

[slick]

I travel on the london midland class 350 alot and i noticed this sort of guards area by the first class area.But the guard uses the back cab so is this a guards compartment and if so why dont they use it.Thanks.
http://s1190.photobucket.com/albums/z449/houndog1372/?action=view&current=TRAINS047.jpg

Regarding the original post, as an ex dispatcher I can tell you its merely a storage cupboard which can only be opened using a carriage key, When I was at the company the only thing these compartments were used for was the secure transportation of lost property between stations, and also for the on train hosts on the Crewe services to put their belongings and equipment in. Hope this helps. Times may have changed though.

 

[Wolf_359]

It is not right to generalise & say that all the guards at a particular depot never do their job. So by saying that they do causes offence to the Guards that do the job properly.

You also have to take into account that from Rugby southwards the trains are generally quite busy, just because you don't see the guard in your part of the train does not mean he has not been checking tickets, he may well have got held up dealing with a customer etc.

 

[Pumbaa]

It can't be that much of an issue, if intercity TOCs do it, and commuter TOCs, with routes that don't have DOO. I am playing devils advocate; I don't want to see full DOO, never have never will! But I am always astounded by the "it can't ever be done differently" attitude that some rail staff possess. Jobs and responsibilities change - fact. The railway is not exempt.

Thankfully most of the staff on here are reasonable and debate well.