What a load of nonsense.

[Greenback]

That may well be the case (and obviously is,as I've read the relevant postings) but I don't have to agree or like it !!!

True.liking the term is not compulsory!

Which is exactly what I argued at the meetings held to finalise the Trainmans concept in late 1987/early 1988,only to be told by the "higher ups" that times change and that the term "Guard" would no longer be in use or be acceptable after October 1988.
What a long time ago that seems now.

It does, and I'm sure a lot of the bright ideas from those days, including the trainman concept, are now obsolete, like Customer Action Teams. The Rule Book, in contrast, remains relatively constant!

 

[Holly]

... . A single, sensible term for the people who do the same job, regardless of the train, is far more logical. Guard fits the bill just fine.

Totally.

I know that, as a member of the travelling public, I would be a lot more respectful of (and willing to take commands from) a person in a uniform that includes a hat with a nice enamelled badge that reads either GUARD or DRIVER. (Or for that matter STATIONMASTER, SIGNALMAN or FIREMAN )

Much more so than any conductor, train manager, trainman, inspector or what have you.

As has been said before they don't call you a passenger because doing that creates an obligation to take you somewhere; calling you a customer only creates an obligation to take your money.

 

[Schnellzug]

Bring back Stationmasters, without a doubt. There are Station Managers, I know, but they're just not the same as the one with the hat and the watch on a chain who made sure that everything got away on time.

And bring back the Fat Controller too, while I'm at it.

 

[SS4]

Bring back Stationmasters, without a doubt. There are Station Managers, I know, but they're just not the same as the one with the hat and the watch on a chain who made sure that everything got away on time.

And bring back the Fat Controller too, while I'm at it.

I always remember one episode where Thomas derails and knocks down the wall of a house. The woman inside is more concerned with her breakfast than a gaping hole in the wall
Stationmaster just sounds that much more powerful than station manager and powerful terms instil confidence in the travelling public as long as they're reasonably competent.

I'd use both customer and passenger. Passenger from when you enter the platform until you step off the train and customer at other times

 

[HYPODERMIC]

I'm afraid I'm going to step into the firing line a little bit here and stick up for "Conductor" being used in place of "Guard".

Firstly, I agree with earlier comments that the proliferation and duplication of titles is silly and only confuses the passenger. So, yes, I agree, there should be some simplification and standards imposed, for the sake of the passenger.

...which is exactly why I would avoid using the term "guard"! Don't get me wrong - as someone who understands the duties of guards, personally I prefer it to "conductor" - but I'd bet that your average passenger doesn't really know what a guard is. I'd also bet that said average passenger would refer to a guard as "the conductor" or the "ticket inspector".

What is a guard? A security guard? Revenue guard? The term doesn't make any intuitive sense. A conductor, though, conducts the operation of the train; ticket inspections, starting and stopping signals, coordinating with the driver, closing and opening doors. Conductor, unlike guard, is a clear and well-known term that the public are familiar with. Even the ghastly "Train Manager" title is less esoteric than "guard".

If we're clarifying jobs for the sake of the passenger, then conductor is the best word for the job. Well-known, liked, intuitive and meaningful.

I have no problem with restoring the title of "Station Master" for this reason; already decently known and as clear as "Station Manager", perhaps better for sounding so authoritative.

 

[Hydro]

I have no problem with restoring the title of "Station Master" for this reason; already decently known and as clear as "Station Manager", perhaps better for sounding so authoritative.

For some reason, institutions don't like having authoritative names for grades. Having a job title with "manager" in it is the current fashion.

The fire brigade (sorry, service) moved from rank based to more corporate based grades - Leading Firefighter to Crew Manager for example. In fact, everyone above the "rank" of Firefighter actually has "manager" in their job title.

Not much cop for retaining an air of authority.

 

[Oswyntail]

I'm sure this topic has been covered at least once before:roll: There will always be the crusties who say because a term was in use in Victorian England it should be used now (naming no names!); and there will be the chavs who laugh and don't care what others ov used in the past. What really matters is that there is a clear, consistent vocabulary that is used to communicate well, not only with those already in the know, but also those using the system for the first time. If there is a consistent function across TOCs, it should be called the same thing. If the function is to collect unpaid fares, it should not be called "Revenue Protection"; if an operative does not conduct, she should not be a "conductor". It should not be beyond the wit of man to agree on standard terms - but unfortunately it is:roll:

 

[Bungle73]

I'm afraid I'm going to step into the firing line a little bit here and stick up for "Conductor" being used in place of "Guard".

Firstly, I agree with earlier comments that the proliferation and duplication of titles is silly and only confuses the passenger. So, yes, I agree, there should be some simplification and standards imposed, for the sake of the passenger.

...which is exactly why I would avoid using the term "guard"! Don't get me wrong - as someone who understands the duties of guards, personally I prefer it to "conductor" - but I'd bet that your average passenger doesn't really know what a guard is. I'd also bet that said average passenger would refer to a guard as "the conductor" or the "ticket inspector".

What is a guard? A security guard? Revenue guard? The term doesn't make any intuitive sense. A conductor, though, conducts the operation of the train; ticket inspections, starting and stopping signals, coordinating with the driver, closing and opening doors. Conductor, unlike guard, is a clear and well-known term that the public are familiar with. Even the ghastly "Train Manager" title is less esoteric than "guard".

If we're clarifying jobs for the sake of the passenger, then conductor is the best word for the job. Well-known, liked, intuitive and meaningful.

I have no problem with restoring the title of "Station Master" for this reason; already decently known and as clear as "Station Manager", perhaps better for sounding so authoritative.

"Guard" is a term that's been used on the railways since they started, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows what one is. The only reason passengers might refer to a "conductor" is because it's a term that's been bandied around in the last few years. I'm sure to most people the term "conductor" means to them someone like a bus conductor, whose primary responsibility is to sell tickets.

 

[WestCoast]

"Guard" is a term that's been used on the railways since they started, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows what one is. The only reason passengers might refer to a "conductor" is because it's a term that's been bandied around in the last few years. I'm sure to most people the term "conductor" means to them someone like a bus conductor, whose primary responsibility is to sell tickets.

A Conductor is a term that has been around for a very long time. It was used on trams and buses over 100 years ago. Members of the public seem to know what it means and what the job entails. It shouldn't be compared to 'train manager'.

I can't see anything wrong with it. A 'guard' in the general sense could mean lots of things, most people would probably think of a 'security guard'.

 

[Bungle73]

A Conductor is a term that has been around for a very long time. It was used on trams and buses over 100 years ago. Members of the public seem to know what it means and what the job entails.

It wasn't used on the railways until recently though....at least I never heard it as a passenger.

It shouldn't be compared to 'train manager'.

OK so what's the difference then?

I can't see anything wrong with it. A 'guard' in the general sense could mean lots of things, most people would probably think of a 'security guard'.

What's wrong with it is that no one knows what you're talking about when you refer to a "conductor". Everyone knows what we're talking about when we refer to a guard though.

 

[WestCoast]

I have no problem with the use of guard, but I really don't see what is SO bad about using 'conductor'....

OK so what's the difference then?

That 'train manager' sounds corporate and very modern. A conductor is a traditional transport term to mean someone that has a presence onboard public transport with a safety role. They may inspect/sell tickets.

From the online dictionary (which is very basic);

Conductor - A person in charge of a train, tram, or other public conveyance, who collects fares and sells tickets.

I can see why TOCs favour 'conductor' over 'guard'. Nowadays they want everything to sound 'customer friendly' and perhaps 'guard' doesn't fit that image, even if it is the traditional term for the role.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Some musicians can be so fragile and in need of care and attention that when they go out, they may be accompanied by a Guard. But once they're back in the Rehearsal Room or Concert Hall, then they'd better keep a close eye on the Conductor.

I do hope they never confuse the two.

 

[WestCoast]

Some musicians can be so fragile and in need of care and attention that when they go out, they may be accompanied by a Guard. But once they're back in the Rehearsal Room or Concert Hall, then they'd better keep a close eye on the Conductor.

I do hope they never confuse the two.

Well, in order to eliminate any possible confusion, the only solution is to always use train manager. I am sure that would go down well with the traditionalists...

 

[Old Timer]

The terms "Conductor" and "Senior Conductor" appeared with the implementation of the InterCity TOU in the late 1980s.


Senior Conductor was the title given to Guards who workd with Intercity and with this came more clearly defined commercial responsibilities and authorities, as well as for the first time, taking on responsibility for the On-Board Services staff, who previously had worked for RailFare and latterly ICOBS.


Conductor was the new name for the previous Paytrain, or Commercial Guard and was the title used for all Guards working on other passenger services.


Prior to this, a Depot could ( and indeed did at times) send any form of Guard to work an InterCity or local train as long as they knew the route. This meant that a business train in the worst case could be operated with a freight Guard who had been given no training in dealing with passengers or in Commercial ticketing matters.


The whole point of the change was allied to the setting up of individual passenger TOUs and the differing levels and standards of training that each Business Unit intended to operate with.


The term Train Manager is presumably a more modern term intended to represent an improvement on Senior Conductor and portray an specific image to the travelling public - principally that the TM is the man who is ultimate charge on the train as people are often insistent upon seeing a "manager" when they do not get what they want.

 

[SS4]

Is a superconductor a conductor who puts up no resistance?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Is a semiconductor a conductor who puts up no resistance?

Did you reach that conclusion by Induction?

 

[Schnellzug]

So were there ever any Junior Conductors under the Senior Conductor? i just hope there was never any mishaps involving overhead wires in which they needed to test the conductivity of a Conductor.

 

[Nym]

Nah, a semiconductor is one who changes what he does depending on his environment

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The grade of Senior Conductor was put in under Inter City to engender a stronger quality image and higher customer (sorry - passenger focus) , to very good effect.

Seriously , there were some Inter City services worked under archaic manning agreements where freight guards used to be incharge , until a more focused management turned up.

Can you imagine (with no disrespect) a guard who had worked oil or coal MGR trains dong the same job as fully customer trained snr conductor being comfortable with dealing with the complexities of ticket arrangements and all the personal care issues ?

Check out the Modern Railways articles on this in the 1980's ......interesting reading.

 

[SS4]

Nah, a semiconductor is one who changes what he does depending on his environment

I swear I meant superconductor

 

[whhistle]

Oh thank you, how very kind you are, boring and pointless but kind.

But back to pax, thanks ALOT for the explainations to what it means. I see it quite alot in train reports etc, I guess it's still better than using the term customers!

Actually, it's useful as people who cannot remember that "a" and "lot" are two different words (to me) are seen as un-educated. Therefore their opinion will not matter to me and I will simply skim over their posts. It also shows the maturity of yourself. Even after someone corrects you, you still get it wrong making it even worse for your posts.

The same goes for people who don't use punctuation properly or type everything in one paragraph - ugh!

However. . .
I can't stand the term "customers". While I realise the railways are run as a business therefore people who use the business are looked at as "customers" but I still hate it. The term "passengers" is much more appropriate.

"Accommodation" is another term I don't like. I'm not staying there overnight, there's no bed. Although I guess the dictionary definition does describe it right. It still sounds strange to me though.

I get annoyed with the use of superfluous adjectives by London Underground announcers. What used to be just "engineering works" now have to be qualified as either "planned" or "essential". Not necessary, really....

Although I can understand it is part of "the same message" stuff. So you look on the website and see "essential engineering work", the announcers are saying the same message, rather than something slightly (Chinese whisper-ish) different.
The same message from the same song sheet is much better and will be more prominent over the next few years.

There was a member of "Train Presentation" staff emptying the bins on the train I was on today.

Ha ha, that is just like "Train Manager" and "Environmental Cleanliness Manager" or whatever for a dustbin man.

That annoys me as well. Probably would be best to say "trains are running as scheduled" (or "as timetabled")

But then that sounds a bit more complicated, rather than a "good service". It might be better to just say "trains are currently running on time".

My own bugbear of railway communication is when a station display says PLEASE STAND CLEAR, the next train is not in public use, and then a half-full fast train goes through. It clearly is in public use, but just doesn't happen to stop there.

Perhaps. While the term isn't exactly correct (you're right, the train is in public use), is there another term you would suggest to use that gets the message across to idiots who still try and get on it? Someone I know suggested "not for public use by passengers at xxx" might be better to say.

for·ward
adverb Also, forwards.
1. toward or at a place, point, or time in advance

Forward would technically be the correct word to use as you are going towards a place. Forward doesn't have to mean in the same direction as you were originally travelling. Saying that though, it's not something I like to hear.

What about the infamous one at Plymouth that automatically triggers when using the stairs? "Please use the handrail and take care using the stairs".

I always want to write to the station manager thanking FGW for installing this equipment, as its advice has eliminated the injuries I suffer when I normally cartwheel down the stairs whilst juggling fire.

Ha ha, let us know the response that you get yes?

 

[Old Timer]

What about the infamous one at Plymouth that automatically triggers when using the stairs? "Please use the handrail and take care using the stairs".

I always want to write to the station manager thanking FGW for installing this equipment, as its advice has eliminated the injuries I suffer when I normally cartwheel down the stairs whilst juggling fire.

Actually falls on stairs and escalators are quite common accidents at stations. Just look at the TfL Statistics. They can also have more far reaching consequences than a simply fall on a level surface.

A number of Companies I work for, including one very large International mining Company, follow the Dupont safety system and insist that everyone holds the handrails when using stairs. This is a Contractual requirement on employees and is backed up by discipline. In the case of visitors it is emphasised very strongly, and visitors receive only one warning before they are removed from the building for 24 hours.

Trust me when I say that this is applied rigourously.

 

[jon0844]

I've witnessed people falling on steps many times, so I now use the handrail even when I'm not moving fast or the ground isn't slippery etc.

I did run for a tube once, at Blackfriars, and slipped which resulted in a loud crack and a nicely sprained ankle (luckily nothing worse, but still off work for a week). My plans for the evening were cut short, as it meant sitting in A&E (only to be pretty much kicked out in 5 minutes by the doctor after waiting 2-3 hours) and then, unable to walk, a £100 taxi ride home to Hatfield!

I haven't sued TfL for not having posters telling me not to run though! As an aside, while I recovered, I soon discovered how hard it can be to use public transport when (temporarily) disabled. Likewise, I appreciated where work had been done to improve accessibility, which some people may have considered a waste of time.

 

[Schnellzug]

Actually falls on stairs and escalators are quite common accidents at stations. Just look at the TfL Statistics. They can also have more far reaching consequences than a simply fall on a level surface.

A number of Companies I work for, including one very large International mining Company, follow the Dupont safety system and insist that everyone holds the handrails when using stairs. This is a Contractual requirement on employees and is backed up by discipline. In the case of visitors it is emphasised very strongly, and visitors receive only one warning before they are removed from the building for 24 hours.

Trust me when I say that this is applied rigourously.

Oh, they really need an lol smilie here. What do the Safety people do? stand at the top of the stairs and monitor everyone going up & down and tell them to Go back and Start Again if they're not holding the Handrail? i don't know who Dupont might be, but he must've made a nice tidy sum out of his Safety System, or out of the mega-corporations silly enough to buy it.

 

[Old Timer]

Oh, they really need an lol smilie here. What do the Safety people do? stand at the top of the stairs and monitor everyone going up & down and tell them to Go back and Start Again if they're not holding the Handrail? i don't know who Dupont might be, but he must've made a nice tidy sum out of his Safety System, or out of the mega-corporations silly enough to buy it.

There is absoluutely no need for me to reply to your response, you have done everything needed yourself.

 

[tbtc]

"if you think health and safety is expensive try having an accident"

Commonly attributed to Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou

 

[jopsuk]

Oh, they really need an lol smilie here. What do the Safety people do? stand at the top of the stairs and monitor everyone going up & down and tell them to Go back and Start Again if they're not holding the Handrail? i don't know who Dupont might be, but he must've made a nice tidy sum out of his Safety System, or out of the mega-corporations silly enough to buy it.

Better to stay quiet and let people think you're an idiot, than open your mouth* and put it beyond doubt.

DuPont ARE a mega corporation. One of the biggest.

We had a trip accident on the stairs at work last year. Without going into details, the result involved several weeks off work and surgery to repair the damage.

 

[Bungle73]

He's right. Disciplining employees for walking down the stairs without holding the handrail? Chucking visitors out for doing the same? Do they hold your d*ck while you take a p*iss too? Quite honestly I've never heard of such nonsense. :roll:

 

[Old Timer]

He's right. Disciplining employees for walking down the stairs without holding the handrail? Chucking visitors out for doing the same? Do they hold your d*ck while you take a p*iss too? Quite honestly I've never heard of such nonsense. :roll:

Then maybe your exposure to life and experience is not as great as the Dupont people then ?

Do you really believe large International Companies are going to implement safety requirements and procedures simply for the sake of it ? :roll:

More and more it is recognised that safety is actually an attitude of mind, and you my friend have just failed the test.

A colleague of mine fell down his stairs at home and ended up with a permanent deformation of the lower leg as a result. He was also off work for many months and now walks with a limp.

 

[pendolino]

Maybe DuPont would be better concentrating on the more hazardous aspects of their business, rather than implementing a policy on holding handrails which seems way beyond what is 'reasonably practicable' to ensure the safety of its employees and visitors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you really believe large International Companies are going to implement safety requirements and procedures simply for the sake of it ? :roll:

Well, yes, quite possibly, because as is often the case with large organisations, health and safety at a local level in is often the responsibility (as an add-on to their main role) of someone without adequate training/knowledge/experience in risk assessment and mitigation.