Drivers aren't paid to press a few buttons to make a train move. They're paid to deal with things when they go wrong, with the lives of potentially almost two thousand people in their hands.
A guard is surely the same? Even if they are doing nothing, it's what they could do that earns them the salary.
I'm amazed nobody gets that. Do they think airline pilots should be paid minimum wage as these days a plane can fly itself? Or just let someone off the street give it a go because, well how hard can it be?
This argument is true in the sense a guard is useful in a hypothetical emergency, but when trains on virtually identical tracks all around the South East on similar trains do not require someone ‘doing nothing’, having one on SWR is indefensible. Guards doing ‘as much as they can’ is what ultimately justifies them being on the trains.
The old job of opening the doors is dead and it is time to move on, and the RMT have accepted this now at other companies. SWR guards are working trains from cabs on a daily basis for no good reason which is why the public are turning on them for being pointless.
According to the latest RSSB report though, passengers are more at risk on guard operated services than on DOO. The RSSB actually said all trains should either be DOO or OBS style, as long as the OBS is trained to make a REC.
The theory is that the fewer operational decision makers are involved, the lower the risk of miscommunication. Because the risk of injury is by far now highest at the platform for passengers, the theory is that having only the driver involved in dispatch is safest as there is less chance of a misunderstanding. Modern train CCTV systems can now give as good a view to the driver in the cab as a guard could on a platform and on some trains (long trains or curved platforms) CCTV is usually safer as there is a constant view of the platform until the train moves. A guard has to go back to the train, close the door etc. and during that time there could be an increase in risk of a passenger incident at the platform which went unseen. This is the RSSB theory.
The risk rate for non platform based incidents that affect passengers is so low on any train that there is no real effect on passenger safety. The chances of the driver being incapacitated and nobody besides the guard being quickly aware are as good as nil because of the technology improvements in the last twenty years on the railway. Every train in the UK has a radio system that can stop trains dead in seconds nowadays, which makes the old emergency protection arrangements largely redundant. This is why the minimum training requirement is making a REC.
The benefits of having a guard on board for passengers are heavily weighted towards tasks that have no operational effect on safety nowadays, as long as the train concerned has a CCTV system. Times have moved very quickly.
It is easy to forget how good the SWR offer on the table is: every train keeps a guard except in emergencies where the guard can’t be supplied last minute. It’s a strong offer when the alternatives could have been proposed genuine DOO conversion with staffing on the platforms where needed, etc.
Any negotiation that doesn’t allow to run a train without a guard when the guard is not available for an unplanned reason will not work for SWR. The RMT handing over door control etc. does nothing to make the service more reliable in those circumstances as the train still requires a guard to run.
I'm not at the top bracket of wages in guard terms and suffice to say with the way things are at the minute I think my wages are well earned. My managers seem to agree, my passengers were extremely grateful for my presence as were my colleagues at the front and I can't ask much more than that really.