Guards and what they sign - more flexibility?

[zwk500]

This is a case of looking at ways to improve efficiency; I concede that my initial idea was the wrong one, but as mentioned up thread why not have guards learn all the routes and traction which branch out of the depot or city they work from, in their training?

I personally would support an expansion of the routes Drivers and Guards sign (and stock where applicable) but it does carry with it an elevated training requirement and the costs of route retention. Any expansion of route/stock signing would need to be properly trained though, because disruption is the absolute last time you want somebody unfamiliar with a line or train trying to muddle their way through.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This is a case of looking at ways to improve efficiency; I concede that my initial idea was the wrong one, but as mentioned up thread why not have guards learn all the routes and traction which branch out of the depot or city they work from, in their training?

Now you're asking a much more reasonable question. In practice there are many answers and @skyhigh has mentioned some of them. Another factor is simply time. When a new recruit has passed out the question is how long before they can become fully productive by taking their place in a suitable link. Different depots will have different arrangements depending both on the size of the depot (ie numbers of staff) and the size of the depot's overall route coverage. For the largest depots it's very difficult to have everyone signing everywhere and it isn't normally attempted unless the route coverage is very simple. So the work is divided between links with no link covering more than a proportion of the total route coverage. New starters thus learn just those routes needed for their first link thereby limiting how much time is needed on route learning after passing out. Equally smaller depots may have just a single link but will also have fewer routes to cover.

There are also other factors some of which date back to steam age practices. In general terms the link system is gradually being simplified but larger depots will inevitably retain multiple links.

Traction is another matter. At Northern for example the fleet was very settled for many years and the traction knowledge gained during training was mostly sufficient for a long time. But more recently there have been many changes especially the replacement of Pacers and electrification in the northwest. In some cases depots have had to almost start from scratch as regards traction knowledge meaning a large need for traction training. This takes time to complete and the pandemic has been a severe obstacle to completing this. As mentioned above the emphasis on new starters is on getting them productive. So just at the moment there are a lot of holes in people's traction cards and it will be some time before this is rectified.

 

[43066]

I feel some of them are rather indifferent towards the future of ticket offices and the role that we play which is ironic given how keen they are to preserve their own roles. I'm glad I didn't make it through the training as the role wouldn't have been suitable for me, so there's no resentment on that score.

I think that’s harsh. Most guards I’ve spoken to aren’t keen on ticket office closures because they don’t want to see colleagues potentially losing their jobs, albeit many acknowledge that change in this area is inevitable and likely overdue. The hope is that the union will ensure many of those displaced with either be repurposed or given voluntary redundancy.

Hopefully from the response (or should I say flaming) you received from those in the know, you can now see how badly your earlier comments came across. I am not a guard but I can see how your earlier messages on this thread would have severely rankled, especially at a time when many people on the railway are worried about the future. It isn’t great to see staff turning on each other, at a time when we should be pulling together (and there are some prolific posters on here, in non operational railway grades who despise operational staff, who shall remain nameless, but we know who they are).

This is a case of looking at ways to improve efficiency; I concede that my initial idea was the wrong one,

I’m glad you can concede that, and you deserve some kudos for doing so, to be fair. Many wouldn’t.

I personally would support an expansion of the routes Drivers and Guards sign (and stock where applicable) but it does carry with it an elevated training requirement and the costs of route retention. Any expansion of route/stock signing would need to be properly trained though, because disruption is the absolute last time you want somebody unfamiliar with a line or train trying to muddle their way through.

I think the “in vogue” view has long been to reduce route knowledge. Clearly there are some locations and TOCs where that has gone too far (TPE), but others, such as Thameslink, where it has made operational sense, albeit reducing flexibility in extremis.

 

[zwk500]

I think the “in vogue” view has long been to reduce route knowledge. Clearly there are some locations and TOCs where that has gone too far (TPE), but others such as Thameslink where it has made operational sense.

It has, and for short-sighted reasons (to me): to save costs on training and knowledge retention. TOCs like Thameslink are more understandable, given how their diagrams and patterns work, but even then there are some decisions about not signing shunt moves or similar that are rare to need but come in very handy when they are needed and have been cut to avoid the costs associated in training them.

 

[Neptune]

I have no particular beef with guards other than when some of them direct passengers to the booking office over a an issue which is something they could deal with. I feel some of them are rather indifferent towards the future of ticket offices and the role that we play which is ironic given how keen they are to preserve their own roles. I'm glad I didn't make it through the training as the role wouldn't have been suitable for me, so there's no resentment on that score.

I think you’ll find it’s the opposite. No need to keep having a go at guards now we know the reason this thread exists.

This is a case of looking at ways to improve efficiency; I concede that my initial idea was the wrong one, but as mentioned up thread why not have guards learn all the routes and traction which branch out of the depot or city they work from, in their training?

Perhaps so but some routes such as Leeds - Goole/Blackpool/Nottingham/Carlisle or Sheffield - York/Cleethorpes don’t have enough work for the entire depot to stay competent so are only signed by specific links. Route retention is not something to be taken lightly.

 

[Philip]

There's good reason not to learn every route (initially, at least). You just end up with newbies covering miles and miles without really knowing any of it properly. When you have a massive route card you struggle to get enough work over it to maintain competence particularly where frequency is low or other depots also work the route. This is why generally even in top link you don't sign every single route your depot works.

I think the answer is there is a balance. Some operators, such as TPE, have gone too far cutting route cards. But too many routes also isn't ideal.


Perhaps you should reflect how you come across, as you sounded very much like "stuff the guards, they don't need their training". Pot calling the kettle black here, I feel. I would also suggest the vast majority of guards are strongly in favour of retaining booking offices.

I feel I should clarify that this idea was in no way to try and reduce the role of the guard or a push towards DOO, even if that's the way it's come across. I'm very much in favour of guards staying on trains in a safety critical role, but I have worked at a place in the past where traincrew changes happen and so have experienced the problem in question quite a few times, so I'm exploring ways how this can be improved.

I think that’s harsh. Most guards I’ve spoken to aren’t keen on ticket office closures because they don’t want to see colleagues potentially losing their jobs, albeit many acknowledge that change in this area is inevitable and likely overdue. The hope is that the union will ensure many of those displaced with either be repurposed or given voluntary redundancy.

Hopefully from the response (or should I say flaming) you received from those in the know, you can now see how badly your earlier comments came across. I am not a guard but I can see how your earlier messages on this thread would have severely rankled, especially at a time when many people on the railway are worried about the future. It isn’t great to see staff turning on each other, at a time when we should be pulling together (and there are some prolific posters on here, in non operational railway grades who despise operational staff, who shall remain nameless, but we know who they are).

Perhaps 'some guards' is a bit harsh and a 'minority' would be more accurate. The majority of ticket office staff are prepared to accept a compromise where the role is based more outside than behind a desk, inevitably many will be closed. It's the diminishing of the role itself, rather than just closing some offices, in favour of 'online' methods (by a vocal minority) which is irritating.

 

[Neptune]

I have worked at a place in the past where traincrew changes happen and so have experienced the problem in question quite a few times, so I'm exploring ways how this can be improved.

Looking at Northern’s logs everyday it’s not even once a month for there to be no guard available due to lack of traction/route knowledge (and yes it would always go in the daily logs). You have to cost that up against the additional road learning and potential route retention issues that would inevitably arise causing guards to lose a productive day route reviewing.

 

[6Gman]

There's good reason not to learn every route (initially, at least). You just end up with newbies covering miles and miles without really knowing any of it properly. When you have a massive route card you struggle to get enough work over it to maintain competence particularly where frequency is low or other depots also work the route. This is why generally even in top link you don't sign every single route your depot works.

I think the answer is there is a balance. Some operators, such as TPE, have gone too far cutting route cards. But too many routes also isn't ideal.

Fully agree with this explanation.

Some years ago I was "depot editor" for Nottingham depot. At that time we had quite a number of guards who had transferred in from Derby. Generally the ex-Derby guards signed Matlock, but didn't sign Skegness. The "native" guards (again, generally) signed Skeggy but didn't sign Matlock. So we didn't mix the two on a single diagram. It caused a very small degree of inflexibility but saved an awful lot of route learning! As @skyhigh says, it's about striking the right balance.