Must staff identify themselves on demand?

[Undiscovered]

Knowing which train a member of staff is working is not usually sufficient.

It is. Complaints have found me with just the "1015 from intermediate station". Usually regarding why I didn't hold an already late train for someone to unload their luggage from their car, when the next service is 5mins behind me.

It is written in our company rules that anyone who works a service they're not booked to, eg cuts out a colleague or a trainer and trainee relieve a conductor enroute, must have authorisation from the relevant TrainCrew manager beforehand.

 

[HowardGWR]

Regularly? Why so many complaints?

Preston Guilds are "regular".

 

[Horizon22]

Why not? The TOC knows exactly who is working each train and they can easily identify who the driver/guard was.

I agree - its incredibly easy to find out who is working a particular train, even days or weeks previously (probably the limit is the period in question).

As for requiring to be identified, generally yes if it is relevant (i.e the staff member is on shift). It would be common curteousy to do so anyway - for crew this is normally just first name, TOC and if its some issue with the service (positive or negative), either the "#### train from X to Y", or the headcode might be helpful. Managers interesting normally have first name & surname on their badges.

 

[bramling]

It is. Complaints have found me with just the "1015 from intermediate station". Usually regarding why I didn't hold an already late train for someone to unload their luggage from their car, when the next service is 5mins behind me.

It is written in our company rules that anyone who works a service they're not booked to, eg cuts out a colleague or a trainer and trainee relieve a conductor enroute, must have authorisation from the relevant TrainCrew manager beforehand.

This does rely on the relevant manager recording the change. They *should*, but things in life which should happen don’t always in practice.

Hence why many train crews keep a journal of exactly what they’ve worked, in case they get pulled up for an incident which wasn’t their own.

 

[Undiscovered]

This does rely on the relevant manager recording the change. They *should*, but things in life which should happen don’t always in practice.

Hence why many train crews keep a journal of exactly what they’ve worked, in case they get pulled up for an incident which wasn’t their own.

Absolutely.
All calls to and from our Service/Crew managers are recorded, so you can say it wasn't me, I had the authority to be relieved. I certainly keep a record of what I've worked, and who relieves me for this very reason, as you say, things don't often get entered.
Interestingly, I'm led to believe that if I phone control, it automatically brings up who I am, my diagram and current working, automatically.

 

[Horizon22]

Absolutely.
All calls to and from our Service/Crew managers are recorded, so you can say it wasn't me, I had the authority to be relieved. I certainly keep a record of what I've worked, and who relieves me for this very reason, as you say, things don't often get entered.
Interestingly, I'm led to believe that if I phone control, it automatically brings up who I am, my diagram and current working, automatically.

Definitely agree about recorded calls with Control, but not sure you'd automatically know who it was unless your contact no. has previously been plugged into the phone concetrator contact book and/or syncs up with crew allocation software - your TOC might be more advanced than others though in this regard!

 

[bramling]

Definitely agree about recorded calls with Control, but not sure you'd automatically know who it was unless your contact no. has previously been plugged into the phone concetrator contact book and/or syncs up with crew allocation software - your TOC might be more advanced than others though in this regard!

Not everywhere is advanced. There’s still places where allocations are recorded with pencil and paper!

Managers shouldn’t be slapdash about it, as in the event of an incident it wouldn’t reflect well at all if they can’t identify a crew, or it turns out they’ve given the wrong details. It happens though.

 

[Towers]

Definitely agree about recorded calls with Control, but not sure you'd automatically know who it was unless your contact no. has previously been plugged into the phone concetrator contact book and/or syncs up with crew allocation software - your TOC might be more advanced than others though in this regard!

Some of the kit issued to traincrew is pretty sophisticated these days; phones & tablets with full MS Office suites etc available. There are also standalone products in use for things like competence management and assessments, issuing notices, and rostering and allocations. I certainly am aware of control centres where the staff know who is calling before they pick up, and indeed can prioritise whose calls they answer if necessary.

 

[Horizon22]

Some of the kit issued to traincrew is pretty sophisticated these days; phones & tablets with full MS Office suites etc available. There are also standalone products in use for things like competence management and assessments, issuing notices, and rostering and allocations. I certainly am aware of control centres where the staff know who is calling before they pick up, and indeed can prioritise whose calls they answer if necessary.

Oh I don't disagree with regards to the software & hardware available and allows things to go very smoothly but I guess there's just some variance around what is going on and when - like @bramling said sometimes the old-fashioned methods are the quickest and best - shocking how many scraps of paper end up being banded around a control room sometimes!

 

[Jim the Jim]

A passenger complaint about "the guard on the 0909 from X" might not necessarily allow the guard to be identified if there's a change of crew and the complainant doesn't say where the train was at the time of the incident they're complaining about (indeed in some cases they might not even know). And at major stations with lots of staff I imagine it's quite probable that some staff members cannot be uniquely identified by first name alone.

 

[Towers]

A passenger complaint about "the guard on the 0909 from X" might not necessarily allow the guard to be identified if there's a change of crew and the complainant doesn't say where the train was at the time of the incident they're complaining about (indeed in some cases they might not even know). And at major stations with lots of staff I imagine it's quite probable that some staff members cannot be uniquely identified by first name alone.

It very likely would; the TOC will know who the booked colleague was, and if for some reason they weren't where they were scheduled to be, then they would obviously pass on this information when asked about the alleged problem. They would almost certainly know who it was who had relieved them, even at a large TOC it's unusual for a completely unknown colleague to take over a train, and certainly not common for the booked staff member to then just disappear without calling it through.

Let's not forget also that huge swathes of the railway, parts both moving and static, are now covered by CCTV. The number of occasions where a complaint was unable to be investigated simply because nobody knows who was working the train must be very small indeed.

 

[Llanigraham]

This does need to be rethought in the social media nutcase age. Employers should be giving advice about online protection from these people. I wear a name badge in my non railway public facing role. I have a Facebook account. But unless you know me personally you'll never find it. It's not difficult to set up your privacy to do this, but it's not the default level.

Perhaps there should be a system in place where you can choose to work under a "stage name". As long as your employer knows which name belongs to who, what does it matter if your name badge says "Homer Simpson" on it?

That is exactly what happens with friends in the Civil Service who are "public facing"

 

[Deafdoggie]

This isn't true. There's no requirement for a police officer to provide their name, however they must provide a number (it being visible satisfies this, the rank is also visible). As an example, the traffic officer on Police Interceptors this week who, entirely legally, declined to provide his name for an 'auditor' who was filming/ interfering in an arrest.

When attending on police business they MUST introduce themselves. i.e. I'm sergeant Deafdoggie and this is constable mpthomson. However, they're not obliged to give there names for TV programmes or other non-police business. Failure for them to do this is very serious indeed. Anybody involved in a police investigation will know the name(s) of the officers they dealt with. Weather a witness or a suspect or any other involvement.

 

[357]

I find many people underestimate the importance of recording who is on what train.

Imagine if there is a crash where a driver or guard is killed, the police go and tell the wrong family they have lost a loved one, and another family is told that their loved one is ok and how relieved they are until they get the delayed knock on the door.

 

[wobman]

I find many people underestimate the importance of recording who is on what train.

Imagine if there is a crash where a driver or guard is killed, the police go and tell the wrong family they have lost a loved one, and another family is told that their loved one is ok and how relieved they are until they get the delayed knock on the door.

Tocs have accurate systems in place that record all of that data, how else would traincrew be alloted to diagrams and services. My toc has Gemini it has what traincrew are on each service and unit allocations.

 

[43066]

I find many people underestimate the importance of recording who is on what train.

Imagine if there is a crash where a driver or guard is killed, the police go and tell the wrong family they have lost a loved one, and another family is told that their loved one is ok and how relieved they are until they get the delayed knock on the door.

The chances of that happening are virtually non existent, partly because it’s thankfully so vanishingly rare for staff or passengers to lose their lives on the railway. The TOC knows who is driving each train. If you do a fiddle with another driver and don’t notify control you’re in *big* trouble if you get caught. And of course if another driver takes me off part of a journey and then trips TPWS grids it’s in my interests for my employer to know I wasn’t driving the train at the time.

 

[bramling]

A passenger complaint about "the guard on the 0909 from X" might not necessarily allow the guard to be identified if there's a change of crew and the complainant doesn't say where the train was at the time of the incident they're complaining about (indeed in some cases they might not even know). And at major stations with lots of staff I imagine it's quite probable that some staff members cannot be uniquely identified by first name alone.

If the complainant can’t be bothered to provide enough information to identify their complaint then really it probably isn’t worth wasting too much time over.

A *lot* of time is spent investigating complaints and especially allegations where safety is involved, and in a lot of cases when CCTV is reviewed it turns out there is no trace of any incident either at all or at the time/place stated. Is the time spent on all this a good use of farepayer / taxpayer money? I’d suggest it isn’t, especially when a very hefty proportion of complaints end up coming down to “didn’t happen at all”, “what actually happened was vastly different from what the complainant alleged”, or “unrealistic expectations”.

With smartphones email and social media it’s a little too easy for people to make complaints these days. In times past when people had to go to the bother of typing a letter and paying to post it, there was a greater likelihood that the time wasters wouldn’t bother.

 

[XAM2175]

Is the time spent on all this a good use of farepayer / taxpayer money? I’d suggest it isn’t, especially when a very hefty proportion of complaints end up coming down to “didn’t happen at all”, “what actually happened was vastly different from what the complainant alleged”, or “unrealistic expectations”.

I'd rather ten time-wasting complaints be investigated unnecessarily than one genuine complaint be ignored because it was "too easy" to make it.

 

[bramling]

I'd rather ten time-wasting complaints be investigated unnecessarily than one genuine complaint be ignored because it was "too easy" to make it.

This is all very well if the cost of investigating them is negligible, however it isn’t. In fact for some complaints the cost will be very substantial, especially if there’s a safety allegation in there.

Something as simple as “the doors closed on me and now my arms hurts” requires a considerable input of resources.

 

[AM9]

Whilst I understand the reluctance of many public-facing railway staff to give some positively identifying name or number, in the event of interaction with a member of the public that genuinely feels to have been inappropriately treated, a flat refusal my result in the person pulling their mobile phone out and taking a picture which they can attach to any subsequent correspondence with the TOC. Once taken, there would be no way that the subject of the picture could demand that it was deleted unless they summoned the police or their management, (and even then there would be no gaurantee of it being deleted). So, either way, the complainant would have identified the person enough for the TOC the deal with the complaint.
Those who think that a refusal to give any information just makes the problem go away should consider the possible consequences of such a strategy.

 

[bramling]

Whilst I understand the reluctance of many public-facing railway staff to give some positively identifying name or number, in the event of interaction with a member of the public that genuinely feels to have been inappropriately treated, a flat refusal my result in the person pulling their mobile phone out and taking a picture which they can attach to any subsequent correspondence with the TOC. Once taken, there would be no way that the subject of the picture could demand that it was deleted unless they summoned the police or their management, (and even then there would be no gaurantee of it being deleted). So, either way, the complainant would have identified the person enough for the TOC the deal with the complaint.
Those who think that a refusal to give any information just makes the problem go away should consider the possible consequences of such a strategy.

Im not sure this is quite the issue, as in most cases nowadays there’s likely to be CCTV, so if someone really needs to be identified then there will be ways and means. CCTV coverage and quality has tended to increase roughly in line with the growth in camera phones.

However taking a photo of someone isn’t likely to lead to the person taking the photo being able to deduce details about the member of staff via social media, which can be done with the person’s name, especially if it’s a more distinctive name. This is what I suspect people are more bothered about (though by the same token in a lot of cases people perhaps shouldn’t have so much info on social media).

As for walking away, if someone sticks a camera in the face then the member of staff can quite happily walk away, and subsequent compliant or otherwise the passenger still won’t have got what they wanted!

 

[AM9]

Im not sure this is quite the issue, as in most cases nowadays there’s likely to be CCTV, so if someone really needs to be identified then there will be ways and means. CCTV coverage and quality has tended to increase roughly in line with the growth in camera phones.

However taking a photo of someone isn’t likely to lead to the person taking the photo being able to deduce details about the member of staff via social media, which can be done with the person’s name, especially if it’s a more distinctive name. This is what I suspect people are more bothered about (though by the same token in a lot of cases people perhaps shouldn’t have so much info on social media).

As for walking away, if someone sticks a camera in the face then the member of staff can quite happily walk away, and subsequent compliant or otherwise the passenger still won’t have got what they wanted!

They would have at least some evidence of whoever's behaviour they wish to bring the TOC's attention to when the individual refuses a prfectly reasonable request. As far as 'sticks a camera in the face' activities go most would be a little more discreet.

 

[bramling]

They would have at least some evidence of whoever's behaviour they wish to bring the TOC's attention to when the individual refuses a prfectly reasonable request. As far as 'sticks a camera in the face' activities go most would be a little more discreet.

Yes the most vocal will be those for whom a tantrum is their default response when they don’t get their own way.

Most people are mature enough to realise that when things don’t go to plan it’s unlikely to be the fault of the member of staff who happens to be nearby, or likewise within that member of staff’s gift to resolve. For those who aren’t, taking photos, demanding names, jumping up and down, screaming or whatever are unlikely to get them what they want, and may prove counter-productive!

Perhaps the dumbest people of all are those who launch into a tirade against someone who isn’t even a member of staff. Yes, it happens.

 

[43066]

a flat refusal my result in the person pulling their mobile phone out and taking a picture which they can attach to any subsequent correspondence with the TOC. Once taken, there would be no way that the subject of the picture could demand that it was deleted unless they summoned the police or their management, (and even then there would be no gaurantee of it being deleted).

You say that, but (I’m told) if you snatch their phone off them and lob it off Blackfriars Bridge into the river Thames, it won’t be recovered. The TOC won’t care enough to recover the CCTV footage either.

So, either way, the complainant would have identified the person enough for the TOC the deal with the complaint.
Those who think that a refusal to give any information just makes the problem go away should consider the possible consequences of such a strategy.

As a TOC employee I will never give you my name under any circumstances. Any problems stemming from that will be entirely yours - especially if you kick off at me on a train I’m about to drive.

If it’s my train back to London you will be in luck. If not, it won’t move one single, solitary inch snd I’ll be in a cab home, even if it’s 200+ miles.

 

[357]

Tocs have accurate systems in place that record all of that data, how else would traincrew be alloted to diagrams and services. My toc has Gemini it has what traincrew are on each service and unit allocations.

And how many times does someone get cut out and not notify control?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2021 ==

The chances of that happening are virtually non existent, partly because it’s thankfully so vanishingly rare for staff or passengers to lose their lives on the railway. The TOC knows who is driving each train. If you do a fiddle with another driver and don’t notify control you’re in *big* trouble if you get caught. And of course if another driver takes me off part of a journey and then trips TPWS grids it’s in my interests for my employer to know I wasn’t driving the train at the time.

Exactly. But I know many people who never bother to notify anyone. That was my point.

It is thankfully rare to have any serious incidents, I was using a worst case scenario, but my other half gets a screenshot of my diagram at the start of each day so she knows what I'm doing, and if I get cut out I tell control.

 

[AM9]

You say that, but (I’m told) if you snatch their phone off them and lob it off Blackfriars Bridge into the river Thames, it won’t be recovered. The TOC won’t care enough to recover the CCTV footage either.



As a TOC employee I will never give you my name under any circumstances. Any problems stemming from that will be entirely yours - especially if you kick off at me on a train I’m about to drive.

If it’s my train back to London you will be in luck. If not, it won’t move one single, solitary inch snd I’ll be in a cab home, even if it’s 200+ miles.

Wow! I thought that the issues here were that passengers were the aggressive ones that needed controlling. I'm very unlikely to interact with a driver, - especially at BFR, but I would be concerned if the railway is staffed by people with such aggressive attitudes as that is in responsible roles like driving.
Refusing to give any form of identification in a customer interaction would be the initial 'kicking off' to use your turn of phrase. Actions such as you suggest, (maybe just for effect in this thread), could lead to a charge of assault and or criminal damage, and given an assessment of the whole event, I doubt that a court would regard the taking of a picture sufficient to unambiguously identify the employee as justification for such a violent response. Would it be worth risking one's job?

 

[wobman]

And how many times does someone get cut out and not notify control?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2021 ==


Exactly. But I know many people who never bother to notify anyone. That was my point.

It is thankfully rare to have any serious incidents, I was using a worst case scenario, but my other half gets a screenshot of my diagram at the start of each day so she knows what I'm doing, and if I get cut out I tell control.

Cut out ? I think we call that a scoop, that very very rarely happens nowadays at our toc. It's the persons responsibility to contact their control to inform them if that happens. But the toc would know who was meant to be on the job anyway from genius, so that's the first person they contact them.

 

[Deafdoggie]

You say that, but (I’m told) if you snatch their phone off them and lob it off Blackfriars Bridge into the river Thames, it won’t be recovered. The TOC won’t care enough to recover the CCTV footage either.



As a TOC employee I will never give you my name under any circumstances. Any problems stemming from that will be entirely yours - especially if you kick off at me on a train I’m about to drive.

If it’s my train back to London you will be in luck. If not, it won’t move one single, solitary inch snd I’ll be in a cab home, even if it’s 200+ miles.

And that sums up the railways attitude to its customers quite nicely. Yet some people remain perplexed as to why people don't travel by train and buy a car.

 

[Monty]

This isn't true. There's no requirement for a police officer to provide their name, however they must provide a number (it being visible satisfies this, the rank is also visible). As an example, the traffic officer on Police Interceptors this week who, entirely legally, declined to provide his name for an 'auditor' who was filming/ interfering in an arrest.

Scarily my wife who works for Hampshire Constabulary as a civilian communications staff has told me all 999 and 101 call handlers must use their -full- name when either a member of the public asks for it or any other official forms of communication.

Its crazy in this day and age where it is so easy to 'dox' someone, first name (or a pseudonym tbh) plus her collar number should be more than enough.

Likewise the on the railway as a guard a first name and a train ID (or duty number) should be all anyone needs. Customers by all means have the right to complain if they are not happy with the service or how they have been treated but they do not need to know something like a Surname which in this digital age is quite a intimate thing to know.

 

[Scott1]

And that sums up the railways attitude to its customers quite nicely. Yet some people remain perplexed as to why people don't travel by train and buy a car.

No all it sums up is that the railway, like all industries, is staffed by people who are all different. This thread is full of staff who have given different answers to each other.