Guard 'ignored red light and refused to let passengers off'

[CarterUSM]

Unfortunately metroland, the department of transport do not cut the budget in scotland due to the railways being a devolved matter. Transport scotland determine the budget with the assent of the executive. They did however act as the agent on behalf of the executive at the last franchise agreement. There would be more influence in network rails budget from the department of transport though, I grant you. I have also found out first hand about budget cuts as you have sagely forseen with the cancellation of the Glasgow airport link and the waverley route start date forever getting further and further away, not to mention the debacle that is the edinburgh tram project. Ho ho ho, I cannot stop chuckling every time I read about that one especially. I also apologise if I seem curt as it is certainly not my intention either. I will agree it is about money from a budgetry point of view, but not from a union one, and that is coming from someone who finds the RMT a little lacking in constructive debate at the best of times.

 

[O L Leigh]

Err, hang about... the guard was hospitalised... it was the COSS with the HGV on site who called the signaller.

Yes I know that. In the part of my post which you quoted I did say that the signaller already knew about the incident.

The point I was making was that it could have played out very differently had the situation been slightly different. Had it been a fallen tree blocking all lines rather than a bridge and the train been a DOO service rather than a fully-manned service, there would have been no-one to alert the signaller or carry out protection of the line. I simply cited this as an example of an incident where a line was obstructed and the provision of a guard meant that there was someone available to carry out protection of the line following the driver becoming incapacitated.

Don't forget that the first person to arrive at the accident is the driver, and we sit right up in the crumple zone. Under these conditions I think it's not unreasonable to provide a guard.

And this is my point. DOO is safe enough, but I firmly believe that the true safety of DOO has yet to be tested. We've been lucky in the past, but that's solely down to the safety record of the railways as a whole.

So, okay, ignoring that particular incident... we have a DOO train where the driver is incapacitated either by a brick through the windscreen or a derailment and lets assume that there are no other rail staff on board and the train comes to a stand.

How long is it that the train is allowed to stand before something is regarded as being "amiss"?

I don't know if there is a specific timescale set down in the Rules, but I would expect it to be a not inconsiderable number of minutes. In the case of an emergency involving a line blockage this could be too long to prevent another train coming and joining the fun. I'd like to think that they'd spot it quickly enough and make the correct decision, especially if it's my train spread all over, but I'm experienced enough to know that safety matters must never be assumed. This is why the Rules require the first action is to put clips on all obstructed lines because it immediately safeguards the immediate area.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

Unfortunately metroland, the department of transport do not cut the budget in scotland due to the railways being a devolved matter. Transport scotland determine the budget with the assent of the executive. They did however act as the agent on behalf of the executive at the last franchise agreement. There would be more influence in network rails budget from the department of transport though, I grant you. I have also found out first hand about budget cuts as you have sagely forseen with the cancellation of the Glasgow airport link and the waverley route start date forever getting further and further away, not to mention the debacle that is the edinburgh tram project. Ho ho ho, I cannot stop chuckling every time I read about that one especially. I also apologise if I seem curt as it is certainly not my intention either. I will agree it is about money from a budgetry point of view, but not from a union one, and that is coming from someone who finds the RMT a little lacking in constructive debate at the best of times.

Well yep, talking the Scottish situation, the money (which is believe is 75% of the cost of the network) is paid for by Transport Scotland, which is under pressure to cut its budget (hence the scrapping of GARL) by Westminster.

Of course I'm talking generally.

Now nobody wants to see cuts, but it's highly unlikely Rail is going to be immune, so reality has to be faced. In many other industries people are having to take pay cuts, reduce their hours, increase productivity and so on and so forth.

The RMT's answer to all this is to strike, which is fine while they have the public on their side. But this cannot be guaranteed, especially when most others people's standard of living is going down, their are huge cuts to higher education, social care so on and so forth.

So what's the plan B? How will the railways save money, without draconian measures such cutting huge parts of the network or massive reductions in service or job cuts?

 

[CarterUSM]

I think it is a hobsons choice in the current economic climate. To reduce investment in new lines, upgrade current routes etc could be regarded as a missed oppurtunity, to reduce safety which is exactly what this particular strike is about is scandalous. All those who withdraw their labour face losing quite a sum of pay from the strike days if they go ahead which made me shiver, I kid you not! I also recall a proposal to cut maintenance staff by a thousand or so recently, that makes me positively oscillate! These are the sort of cuts that must be perceived as unacceptable. There is certainly no easy answer here and i'm not overly against privatisation but a lot of hard currency leaves the railways altogether into the pockets of these companies, I can't help thinking what BR could've done with the past 15-20 years of investment. Interestingly, the sum of money the scottish executive was putting forward for the Garl was a significantly low amount compared to network rails input, I believe though cannot confirm for sure, around 80 million or so, and it's a very hot potato up here still, there's a vicious push by various councils, chambers of commerce and the wider business community in scotland completely against the cancellation, with various newspapers demanding it's re-instatement. We will see what happens sooner or later though. Apologies for going over old ground that has been discussed elsewhere too.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I am a Guard with another company and I can see both sides of the Guard / DOO argument, especially in relation to operation of doors on suburban services. However, it should be the case that there MUST be at least 2 fully qualified members of staff on each train. This second person should be a Guard, and it should be that the train cannot run without both a driver and Guard. However, I an not averse to local rules and instructions whereby the driver operates the doors on certain sections of line, thus freeing up the Guard to perform other duties.

This would ensure the same presence of on board staff as now, if not better as a train cannot run without a Guard. But it would also ensure the safety of passengers in the event of any operating incident. I have worked in a DOO area and had to attend a nasty fatality once. It was an 8 car DOO peak time train, crammed full of folk with only one driver. Due to the messy nature of the incident the driver was in complete shock and unable to perform some basic functions. When I arrived on the scene not only was the driver a wreck, but the passengers were all set for breaking out of the train as there were no announcements from the driver. Likewise protecting the line took longer than necessary. Now this is no reflection on the driver, but had a Guard been on board he could have protected the line, comforted the driver and informed passengers - thus preventing all sorts of further problems.

Give a company an inch and they will take a mile!

 

[GB]

So, okay, ignoring that particular incident... we have a DOO train where the driver is incapacitated either by a brick through the windscreen or a derailment and lets assume that there are no other rail staff on board and the train comes to a stand.

How long is it that the train is allowed to stand before something is regarded as being "amiss"?

Unless someone reports it either to the signaller or control the signaller would have no reason to think its an emergency if all his indications are correct.

If he could not make contact with the train either via his own channels or via the TOC/FOCs then the next train would be requested to take a look.

 

[boing_uk]

I don't know if there is a specific timescale set down in the Rules, but I would expect it to be a not inconsiderable number of minutes. In the case of an emergency involving a line blockage this could be too long to prevent another train coming and joining the fun. I'd like to think that they'd spot it quickly enough and make the correct decision, especially if it's my train spread all over, but I'm experienced enough to know that safety matters must never be assumed. This is why the Rules require the first action is to put clips on all obstructed lines because it immediately safeguards the immediate area.

Absolutely. For my part I am glad that there are other members of staff on board trains; however again as a traveller, I also dont like being inconvenienced because of a "guards strike" or somesuch. I do think that in those situations the practicalities of not having a guard can be sometimes overplayed.

Another question though... there are sections of line where the signalling is operated by axle counters rather than track circuits, are there not? In these situations, how does one protect an adjoining line? Or are TC's still used and the axle counters are there as the primary means of signal actuation?

 

[Metroland]

Well apart from the 'train long time in section' rules. Trains being a long time in section invokes SGI 22

If an unusually long time passes after a train has entered a
section, you must try to contact the driver to find out the cause. If
necessary, you must arrange for Operations Control to do this.

• stop each train on any adjacent line travelling towards the
overdue train
• tell the driver of each train the circumstances regarding the
overdue train
• instruct the driver, that when the signal is cleared, to proceed at
caution and to be prepared to stop short of any obstruction
• tell the driver to report what has happened with the overdue train
• signal each train normally.

The only time I can see a DOO train being dangerous is if:

There is a derailment where the driver is killed/badly injured and does not hit emergency on his DOO (most would approaching an obstruction). No passenger or onboard staff ring 999 or contact their operations control AND the train is fouling an adjacent line and has not destroyed lineside equipment or shunted track circuits AND this in happens in a very short time frame as to not to invoke SGI22.

I would further add it's not just signalling staff that watch the progress of trains: TOC and NR control also do and have indications showing trains long time in sections, as do many managers, station staff and so on. Trains long time in section often result in calls to the controlling signal box.

Guards are normally employed on absolute block line in any case. In which case track circuit clips are useless and they must run braking distance (over 1 mile, which would take at least 5-10 minutes at best) in order to place emergency detonator protection assuming they cannot contact their operations control/or signalling.

This is why I find this idea of taking away safety critical staff a red herring. Unless you have a deep understanding of railway operations (most people do not) its an easy accusation to make that somehow there is a big safety issue.

The reality is, even non-safety critical (which means staff unable to go on the lineside and use track circuit clips/place detonator protection) would ring 999/their ops control, do what they could anyway to stop approaching trains. Even IF all that fails AND SGI 22 is not invoked the chances of a major mishap are minuscule, and other mishaps such as level crossings or vandalism pose a far greater safety risk.

Most of the fretting is unions trying to protect jobs (fair enough) or drivers that do not have as complete understanding as they think they do - which is actually surprising common. It is a complete mystery to most of them what goes on inside signalling centres/ops control, nor do they have any understanding of the signalling regulations as they are not taught them or get involved with them.

Another question though... there are sections of line where the signalling is operated by axle counters rather than track circuits, are there not? In these situations, how does one protect an adjoining line? Or are TC's still used and the axle counters are there as the primary means of signal actuation?

GSM mobile phones/lineside phones/full detonator protection/NRN. Same as on Absolute block lines.

 

[CarterUSM]

An excellent post there metroland, I would certainly tend to agree with the view that vandalism and level crossings pose a real threat and, given the safety record of the railways over the past 200 years I suppose statistically the risk of a serious accident could be described as miniscule. But it is a risk nonetheless and it should never be underestimated. There are too many variables at play to chance it in my view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am becoming aware that I am beginning to sound like a militant left winger, I can assure everyone that this is not the case!

 

[Metroland]

It depends if you take the view the money is well spent. It's not that I am against the point of view guards are a good thing, but let's be realistic about the 'safety issues' that are involved. There is far too much scaremongering that goes on about safety in order to protect jobs. Unions protecting jobs is perfectly laudable, but some of these safety related scares rely on creating a perception of risk. The sort of thing certain tabloid newspapers do to sell newspapers. This works where the general public do not fully understand all the issues (the same as I or they do not understand all the issues in say power plants or hospitals) and as I have alluded to even some staff do not have quite the understanding perhaps they should do. This may not be their fault, it is industry policy to educate people within their roles, not about other people's roles. This was highlighted in the Ladbroke Grove inquiry. There is much mythology among certain groups of staff about what happens in other departments, and this shows a cultural inertia. Staff should be developed to understand other roles, business, safety, and the network beyond their immediate patch.

Safety systems and jobs to protect every eventuality is a good aim, but how realistic is it? This is fair enough while there money is available, but what happens when rail is made so expensive it forces people onto the less safe roads either through higher ticket prices, less services or even line closures? Is rail a special case over other forms of transport, despite having a far better safety record in general, apart from airlines where the safety record is about equal? Is the money better spent on saving lives in the NHS, or giving pensioners money to heat their homes, instead of on rail?

These are real life debates and reality, the RMT does not want to engage in at times, and it not helpful to the long term viability of rail or creating new jobs.

Where possible I think additional on train staff should be provided, but DOO is safe enough, and the lack of incidents since it's induction over 20 years ago is testament to that. It doesn't mean accidents cannot happen, but we will never get rid of accidents on the railways or within any other aspect of life. We can just go for 'safe enough', anything else is not reality.

 

[CarterUSM]

I agree wholeheartedly about going with safe enough, but the current working style is indeed that and I see no need to change it on account of costings that hardly break the bank. Around 300,000 pounds a year I believe, which is less than the salary of most if not all TOC's Managing directors. It's also a bit rich of them to scream for efficiency in order to maximise profit whilst sounding off a safety first policy. Your point about being aware of other departments roles is very apt however, I think in recent years this is being addressed, certainly at my TOC, be it with a job swap or mixed grade safety briefings as well as the chance to put questions to representives of other departments in person or by newsletter. A greater understanding of the railways structure, especially with regards to staff, can only be welcomed.

 

[Helvellyn]

On SWT inner suburbans the non-commercial guard is there to press buttons and read a newspaper (or worse, as this story demonstrates). They don't tend to venture out of the back cabs. A proper guard assists passengers and does revenue, as you say.

Incidently, do the services with non commercial guards on SWT also have a ticket inspector/TE/ATE or just anybody checking and selling tickets?

Nope. Once a blue moon RPIs may get on. Consequently the trains are less safe for passengers to be on. Oh well, at least the guard can read his paper and be paid a reasonable wage to do so, so at least Bob's happy.

That's a very big tar brush you're using there yorkie. Why does a proper Guard assist passengers and do revenue? Commercial Guards do revenue on SWT. Both Guards and Commercial Guards assist passengers, patrol trains, operate the doors (including Selective Door Operation at short platforms), etc. At an unstaffed station the Guard can assist passengers getting on/off, including deploying the wheelchair ramp if necessary. The whistle is a useful thing for hurrying passengers along, to keep the train to time. Just have a Ticket Examiner on there instead, and they won't be helping dispatch trains, nor looking out for wheelchair passengers, etc at every station. The Guard has a safety role, but also a very big performance and customer service one too.

RPIs/RPAs are also about a lot more often than once in a blue moon - but the lack of them on a train doesn't make it less safe for passengers. If anything, the fact there is someone on every SWT train besides the Driver makes it more safe.

I for one have made trips on various TOCs, including long distance ones, where I've never seen anyone walking through the train. So this anti-Guard bashing wears a bit thin.

 

[Greeny]

I would be interested to understand what is "sensationalist" about the short report that was written as to me it appears to be factual, quoting most of it from the Court proceedings.

Likewise OT.

G
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unless someone reports it either to the signaller or control the signaller would have no reason to think its an emergency if all his indications are correct.

If he could not make contact with the train either via his own channels or via the TOC/FOCs then the next train would be requested to take a look.

If a train was an "unusually long time in section" then a Signalman would be expected to use train Signalling Regulations to find out why. Unless, of course, that is another procedure which has been ditched by idiots with the philosophy of "we'll worry about it when it happens" - just like DOO.

G

 

[313103]

So you want to know what i consider sensationalist....... Ok what about this;
'A drunken train Guard signalled his driver to go through a red light and refused to open the doors to let passengers off or on during a terrifying journey between Waterloo and Kingston'

Was the train being driven at excessive speed? NO!
Was the train being driven in a reckless manner? NO!
Was the passengers life's ever in danger? NO!
Would the passengers left on the platform be aware of what was going on? Highly Unlikely!
Did the train go through a Red Light? NO!
So quantify Terrifying?

Now if train doors have not opened and the signal is given to the driver why wasnt the pass comm used? Not sure if it was a 455 which if it was the train would stop straight away or a 450 in which case it would alert the driver anyway.

'Travellers hammered on the drivers door to alert him after the doors failed to open to open at Barnes' See above comment!

'Eventually at Mortlake he investigated'. Well he couldnt stop at any other station as Mortlake was the next station anyway!

'a commuter phoned Police and Officers were waiting when the train pulled into Wimbledon' Now that maybe fact however why wasnt the Guard taken off at Mortlake when the driver went back to investigate he would have surely known the state the Guard was in. Why again was the train allowed to continue all the way onto Wimbledon some 12 stations further down the line passing the very busy Richmond, busy Twickenham and Kingston? Now that would be terrifying knowing that the Guard who had operated the train in a eratic way was still in charge!

'was found slumped over his controls' Now pardon me what controls are we talking about? His Number one key? Highly dangerous that is! Are the door controls flat down on a desk hence the slumped over the controls comment or are they on a panel that requires staff to stand in order to operate the controls? That would be quite a feat to be slumped over door controls that are quite high up and most are at face level!

However i am probably looking at this in rose tinted spectacles with a pair of blinkers on.

 

[SWT Driver]

I find it quite odd in the fact that this train is pretty much certain to be a Waterloo-Waterloo circular service, which calls at all the shops all along the route!

Also appears to be some confusion on which way the train was going, as one moment Mortlake is before Kingston, the next it's after Kingston. Which is it? I can be both depending which way round you're going.

There are no door controls on the driving desks anymore they were removed during the refurbishment, so if he slumped over the controls the worst thing that's likely to happen is that he'll knock the brake handle into emergency or hit the horn lever!

If he were to have slumped over the door controls of a 455, then the train would have to be in deep trouble either on its end or rolled over, it wasn't so it's clap trap.

 

[yorkie]

That's a very big tar brush you're using there yorkie. Why does a proper Guard assist passengers and do revenue? Commercial Guards do revenue on SWT. Both Guards and Commercial Guards assist passengers, patrol trains, operate the doors (including Selective Door Operation at short platforms), etc. At an unstaffed station the Guard can assist passengers getting on/off, including deploying the wheelchair ramp if necessary. The whistle is a useful thing for hurrying passengers along, to keep the train to time. Just have a Ticket Examiner on there instead, and they won't be helping dispatch trains, nor looking out for wheelchair passengers, etc at every station. The Guard has a safety role, but also a very big performance and customer service one too.

RPIs/RPAs are also about a lot more often than once in a blue moon - but the lack of them on a train doesn't make it less safe for passengers. If anything, the fact there is someone on every SWT train besides the Driver makes it more safe.

I for one have made trips on various TOCs, including long distance ones, where I've never seen anyone walking through the train. So this anti-Guard bashing wears a bit thin.

I've travelled on several suburban SWT trains and never seen any sign of a guard. I can't say these non-commercial guards never appear, but I can say I've never seen it. Yet in Glasgow you constantly see the member of staff, whatever you want to call them. Yes, the trains at night on SWT are, I believe, less safe than they are in Glasgow because of the difference in staff presence. It's not a case of being 'anti-guard', although of course it suits your argument to claim that. I am anti-non-commercial guard, and I am against guards doing door duties when it is more suitable for the driver to do it, as that causes delay to passengers.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

I recently travelled on a SWT suburban service down to Horsley and I was quite surprised to find a commercial guard on board doing ticket checks, nice guy quite cheerful, I must admit I didn't know that there were so many interchange points on route because as soon as he walked into the coach quite a few people wanted to get off in a hurry.

 

[CarterUSM]

For clarification, in Glasgow guards/conductors work on the diesels and 322 and ticket examiners(revenue ONLY staff) work on the 314's 318's 320's and 334's.

 

[68000]

I open the doors every day on my commute into work and I am a passenger on the trains!!

This whole thing from the RMT is scaremongering at its best and the RMT membership in ScotRail have bought it hook, line and sinker. The world is moving on and those dinosaurs need to move with it otherwise they will always be remembered as the guys who hide in the back cab from issues.

 

[royaloak]

I recently travelled on a SWT suburban service down to Horsley and I was quite surprised to find a commercial guard on board doing ticket checks, nice guy quite cheerful, I must admit I didn't know that there were so many interchange points on route because as soon as he walked into the coach quite a few people wanted to get off in a hurry.

A few of the trips are covered by commercial guards so as to keep their route knowledge up, like the comment about interchange points, very good

I open the doors every day on my commute into work and I am a passenger on the trains!!

Okay, the guard ENERGISES the door buttons to enable you to open the door :roll:

 

[313103]

I open the doors every day on my commute into work and I am a passenger on the trains!!

This whole thing from the RMT is scaremongering at its best and the RMT membership in ScotRail have bought it hook, line and sinker. The world is moving on and those dinosaurs need to move with it otherwise they will always be remembered as the guys who hide in the back cab from issues.

Well if it is not scarmongering my dear friend then that means the status quo will remain in place, and nothing will change will it? But you see i do a scaremongering thing now the guys wont be remembered for hiding in the back cabs, they will be remembered for having no job! Because at the end of the day change is all about reducing costs, and apart from hiking fares the only other way they can cut costs is by cutting the staff.

Or am i missing something (like my my fellow colleagues on scotrail no less)? Perhaps i still have those rose tinted spectacles on!

Man has lived on the planet for but a tiny fraction on this world of ours and look at the mess he has made of it, Yet the Dinosaurs lived for thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years. So you tell me who will be the most successful at the end. Man or Dinosaur?

 

[Mojo]

Now if train doors have not opened and the signal is given to the driver why wasnt the pass comm used? Not sure if it was a 455 which if it was the train would stop straight away or a 450 in which case it would alert the driver anyway.

Maybe the train passengers had read a post on this forum whereby certain members said that use of passcomm where the doors haven't opened is wrong, and they will be prosecuted for misuse

 

[O L Leigh]

Ah, but how long does a train have to be in the section before it is considered to have been there for an "unusually long period"?

There's an awful lot of if's, but's and maybe's in some of the supposedly well-informed posts. I'd like to have the confidence to trust that these hold true if I'm quietly bleeding to death with my train spread across a junction but, as I have said before, safety cannot be assumed. Yes there are quite a few factors that would have to coincide in order to generate a risk, but can anyone assure me that such a coincidence cannot happen? Until such time as the required reassurance can be offered, I would like the safeguard of being able to get down and put clips on all obstructed lines or, in the event that I am incapacitated, someone else could perform such a service for me.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

An unusually long time is just a time longer than it normally takes, plus a few minutes, in general.

Nobody can ever give complete assurances on safety on any transport system. You might as well not bother travelling anywhere at all if you are not willing to take some risk. Certainly do not bother driving, walking or cycling to work.

Track circuit clips are of course no good on lines with axle counters (that's most of the WCML for a start, quite a bit of the Chiltern lines, Bournemouth area, Cotswold line, Golden Valley line, Dawlish sea wall to use a few examples) or absolute block lines - that's huge parts of East Anglia, Kent, Lincolnshire, Cornwall, Worcestershire, Central Scotland, the Settle and Carlisle, NE coast, most secondary lines in the Midlands and North, to use a few examples.

Track circuit clips are also a poor method of protection in any case as they can not be guaranteed to work circuit track circuits and radio/phones can be far quicker in many circumstances. Non safety critical staff can make those phone calls and passengers do and can ring 999. Having a guard does not guarantee he/she will not be injured as well.

Nevertheless, I strongly suspect anything I say will not assure the doubters, despite the facts and statistics generally not being on their side and money spent in other areas (such as eliminating level crossings) may save more lives.

A guard is generally a relic of the 19th century, and while we have much 19th century signalling about that still requires guards, there is an extremely marginal to non-existent case on modern lines with modern signalling, backed up by radio and phone communications that could only be dreamed of the 1800s.

 

[yorkie]

Nobody can ever give complete assurances on safety on any transport system. You might as well not bother travelling anywhere at all if you are not willing to take some risk. Certainly do not bother driving, walking or cycling to work.
.

Indeed. If the RMT applied equal standards, then you'd have to close the entire road network. Every driver of any HVG, truck, lorry, etc would have to have someone with them, just in case. Gary Hart should have had someone with him to ensure he didn't fall asleep. In fact, everyone going anywhere by car should be accompanied by a minder, to be safe. DOO cars must be abolished immediately, as no-one can guarantee their safety. Can the required reassurances be offered? No? Well then it has to be done. Also can assurances be given that pedestrians will be safe in the event of car crashes? No? Then safety barriers must be erected immediately. In fact we should all stay at home and not travel anywhere until safety can be guaranteed.

As for crossing a driveway....
[youtube]d4n-amRJeyw[/youtube]

 

[boing_uk]

Gary Hart should have had someone with him to ensure he didn't fall asleep.

If I may, I will take umbrance with that statement. Having not only worked with Gary but also having sat with him after the accident (I remember that morning VERY well), what was said in court was not entirely accurate. And Eli and the kids never really recovered from the stigma.

Yes, his sleep hours may not have been "normal" by anyones standards, but this was a guy who routinely was a 4hrs sleep per night guy. Its the life that comes from running your own civil's/groundworks business. I travelled in that 110 many a time.

Anyone who knows the back story still suspects the trailer. However it was all reasonably destroyed in the collision.

I will gladly defend the man to say that (not a miscarriage of justice) the finger of ultimate blame was pointed in the wrong direction on this occasion.

 

[CarterUSM]

Radio and phones may be far quicker, but it is still no sure thing that signal protection can be provided, which is no use if your lying foul of an adjacent running line never mind spread over a junction. I get the feeling there is a slight anti guard agenda on here and i'm not sure why, god forbid you actually had to rely on one to protect the line or train! Why is it wrong to have two safety critical staff instead of one? This just cannot be allowed to become only a cost issue. I have all the operational responsibility of my role, and secondary I check and sell tickets, that is a modernisation of the role and I think also a satisfactory one. Also, yorkie, please do not lower yourself to comparing the road and rail network as a safety analogy, your comments and views are welcome but you are better than that. No offence intended of course.

 

[mumrar]

Anyone who knows the back story still suspects the trailer.

I believe it was the weight carried and the speed at which it had been carried.

I will gladly defend the man to say that (not a miscarriage of justice) the finger of ultimate blame was pointed in the wrong direction on this occasion.

Well I know that the family, friends and colleagues of all in the accident never got over the effects of the accident. Unless you're an investigating officer, how can you present an impartial view on the accident having known the party blamed? This is not the place to claim that any legal proceedings were in fact incorrect. Like you I cannot be impartial, as one of the railwaymen killed by Gary Harts actions (I have a legal judgement to back up that statement) was a former colleague of mine. Before this turns in to a very heated topic, it should be ended now.

 

[Metroland]

The beauty of DOO is it doesn't have to be signal protection. This is the advantage of cab secure radio which is normally installed as part of DOO operations. You can make emergency broadcasts to trains in a certain area to stop, you can send stop to specific trains, you can also make announcements to passengers or connect anyone with a phone to the PA system. You can also put a driver straight through to anyone he wishes (say a maintenance fitter during a problem) with the system.

Traditionally signals have been used as protection, but its not to say they *have* to be used on their own. Indeed, very often its quicker and safer to send 'stop' to a driver (which is a question of typing in the headcode and hitting the stop key) because using just signals you would be waiting for the driver to be in sight of it, which might be too late if it's protecting a junction.

Are you are really arguing that a system such as absolute block, where there are no track circuits outside station limits by and large, which relies on signalmen looking out for tail lamps, where there is no cab secure radio and the guard has to run a mile up the line to stop any trains is safer?

No, it's not an anti-guard statement, it's a statement of fact. Having used DOO cab secure radio myself, I know accidents where prevented with the system. The guard is purely there to 'guard' the train in event of stoppages or accidents - such as going to the signalbox to remind the signalman his train is sat outside the box. All harping back to Victorian methods of train signalling - which yes, does still exist on large parts of the network.

I think the comparison with road is valid. The roads are able to reduce their costs far more because they don't have these stringent safety requirements - some necessary, some the result of outdated working practices. As I've said before, if you applied the same to the roads as the railways, we'd be banning HGVs mixing with cars tomorrow.

Why is this important? Well it allows the roads to undercut the railways. It allows more investment to go to roads, which are less safe, it allows traffic both freight and passengers to be taken away - which has the effect of creating more accidents NOT less.

Come the budget, in order to save money (unless we want to go the same way as Greece), the government might decide it does not want to fund half the network because costs have got out of hand, or services should be curtailed? How does this help anyone?

It's all very well being high and mighty and imposing costs to protect against every eventuality, but some of us are looking beyond our own noses and are looking at the big picture. It's a shame the RMT can't do this in order to protect it's own members jobs and go on a campaign for better road safety, to bring the roads to rail standards, rather than imposing costs on the rail network in the name of a perception based ideological war!

 

[CarterUSM]

Absolutely not. I would track circuit the whole network tomorrow if it were possible! Granted, CSR is a fine system, and GSM-R looks as if it will do a great job when fully introduced also. I suppose, as has been pointed out, the chances of collisions, de-railments,fires, driver incapacity and the like are miniscule also, compared to the benefits these systems bring overall. But who protects the train in these circumstances if they fail and the driver cannot? Not the ticket collector, that's for sure. Meanwhile, I wholeheartedly agree with the views on the RMT, they could gain far more respect and goodwill if they conducted themselves with a little more candour, they can come across as boorish, defensive and insulting, and that is just in the one sentence.