Daily Mail: train cancelled whilst guard is in sainsburys...

455driver · 10 Mar 2014

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I see that the member of the rail staff in the OP was visiting Sainsbury's. Do any ever visit Waitrose....or even Fortnum and Mason..

I do frequent Marks & Spencers on occasion, normally for their meal deals or egg custard tarts.

This has nothing to do with me preferring their food but does have something to do with me being a lazy sod who doesnt want to walk too far!

RailUK Forums

PG · 10 Mar 2014

infobleep said:
So where does the three train loads of passengers come from? Or have I misread something.

AFAIK due to earlier disruption the job had gone up the wall,
so from London Bridge the :

1923 cancelled
1953 terminated at Tonbridge (due to unavailability of the Guard as he was correctly taking a PNB)

Passengers then used the 2059 from Tonbridge to Hastings
(which would have been the 2023 from London Bridge except it was cancelled between London Bridge and Tonbridge).
Therefore between Tonbridge and Hastings
it had passengers from the 1923 and 1953 plus the passengers that were intending to use it anyway between Tonbridge and Hastings.
ie three train loads

Slight flaw in that logic is that had the 2023 run through from London Bridge then I'd say it was three train loads. As is I'd go with 2+ train loads but that's conveniently overlooked by the Daily Wail

Geezertronic · 10 Mar 2014

WelshBluebird said:
And there lies one of the problems we currently have with our railway network in this country. Quite often it just doesn't make financial sense to spend the money to offer a better service.

The same can be said for almost any service, even bus services. It's certainly not a problem that is unique to the railway network

jon0844 · 10 Mar 2014

455driver said:
I do frequent Marks & Spencers on occasion, normally for their meal deals or egg custard tarts.

This has nothing to do with me preferring their food but does have something to do with me being a lazy sod who doesnt want to walk too far!

Outrageous. Typically overpaid member of rail staff shopping at a store that some people could only dream of. I bet you really smile at others around you when sinking your teeth into one of those delicious middle-classed custard tarts! Admit it!

Who cares that M&S is on the station platform? You're just using that as a convenient excuse. You should be setting an example by finding the nearest Aldi or Lidl, or a pound store (97/98/99p stores acceptable too)....!

infobleep · 10 Mar 2014

I imagine the only time the Daily Mail don't overlook something is if it enhances the story in a negative way.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

infobleep · 10 Mar 2014

Greenback said:
The reason I asked 'Where's the learning' is because it wasn't clear from your post if you were intending to link to a specific incident and had forgotten to do so! Sorry if I wasn't clear.

No need to apologise. I like a good discussion on the railways. I'll never claim to always be clear.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

drbdrb · 10 Mar 2014

LowLevel said:
Finally, if you're really unlucky and your train hits an obstacle on the line (cement mixer, lorry, fallen bridge) and your drivers legs are smashed to smithereens or worse, he's dead in the cab, who do you think is responsible for reacting and dealing with the incident? Once again, that's your guard.

So FCC and their drivers who accepted extra money to do away with guards are placing all their customers in danger.

So when does the HSE court case start to deal with this reckless behaviour?

Or perhaps you were exaggerating.

455driver · 10 Mar 2014

jonmorris0844 said:
Outrageous. Typically overpaid member of rail staff shopping at a store that some people could only dream of. I bet you really smile at others around you when sinking your teeth into one of those delicious middle-classed custard tarts! Admit it!

Now in my defence your Honour, I have to admit I do enjoy their Egg custard tarts, they do actually taste better than 'lesser' stores offerings!

jonmorris0844 said:
Who cares that M&S is on the station platform? You're just using that as a convenient excuse.

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds I may incriminate myself! :lol:

jonmorris0844 said:
You should be setting an example by finding the nearest Aldi or Lidl, or a pound store (97/98/99p stores acceptable too)....!

I do shop at Aldi, fruit and veg is fruit and veg plus some of their tinned oferings are as good as the posher stores, now they are stocking a few branded items (Heinz are the company for baked beans

) I am buying more and more from them.

Just because I am now in a job that pays a very good wage doesnt mean I will spend money unnecessarily (the other half does call me a tight git), plus I need all my money for the important stuff like model trains! :lol:

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

drbdrb said:
So FCC and their drivers who accepted extra money to do away with guards are placing all their customers in danger.

DOO trains are safe and all the lovers of it can link to hundreds of examples where not having a guard on board has made no difference.

Trains with 2 safety critacal members of staff on board (in certain circumstances) are safer and better from a customer care (CC) point of view, the driver can get on with fixing the train and the guard can do all the CC stuff, if the driver is incapacitated then the guard will come into their own, etc etc.

DOO is safe, crew working is safer!

Oh I will never accept DOO no matter how much money they offer me!

HSTEd · 10 Mar 2014

But then a crew of three is even safer than a crew of two and so on.

Why not have no passengers and fill the train entirely with crew!

infobleep · 10 Mar 2014

Perhaps they should bring back second man. I would never want to be a driver purely because one is on their own for long periods of time. That in my opinion takes a certain type of mind set and concentration.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

LateThanNever · 10 Mar 2014

bystander said:
I'll just chuck some petrol on the fire here. I'm a high speed services driver and I stand by any member of staff's absolute right to take their break when it's diagrammed, but I do object when people throw around inaccuracies - such as that old chestnut that drivers', guards', or any other rail staff's breaks are mandated by law and as such cannot be moved or altered.

They are not. They just aren't.

See this somewhat key phrase from the Office of Rail Regulation (clue in the name, there, that they may know what they are on about):

"Hours of work, working patterns and other conditions of service are matters for agreement between employers and staff, but it is vital that working patterns are designed to reduce risks from fatigue, so far as is reasonably practicable."

(http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...search/worker-safety/working-patterns-fatigue)

There we have it. Or rather, we don't (have the legislation, that is).

See also the wording in the "Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations (ROGS)" (http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/health-and-safety/regulation-and-certification/rogs) -

"2: Set standards and design working patterns:
Identify, set and keep to appropriate standards and good practice for working hours and working patterns. The working-time restrictions set out by law are not enough on their own.
3: Limit the times when workers go beyond the standards:
Make sure workers only go beyond the standards in exceptional circumstances. A good way of doing this is to record the times this happens to help build a profile."

Well that's my understanding of the legislative framework anyway, and it sure don't say in so many words that you have to have a break of any sort for any length of turn. Of course if I've missed some entire strand of legislation that helps us out and does mandate such things, then please feel free to let me know.

I despise the Daily Mail, Metro et al and their reactionary, ill-informed and just wrong mischief-making, make no mistake.

Regards,

B

Very interesting.
As far as I can discover there is no evidence that breaks prevent fatigue (and in consequence improve safety) - a break including sleep, yes, but not breaks as such. There is established evidence that digesting food impairs concentration. There is evidence from America that road accidents are more likely to occur when you begin driving, which seems to suggest that numerous breaks increase risk, and which is presumably transferable.
So in fact the evidence is for the length of shift and times of duty to be able to achieve proper sleep between them that are the safety critical requirements.
So the Daily Wail, whilst never knowingly understating the case would, unless the train operators have their own evidence, seem to have a point.

Xenophon PCDGS · 10 Mar 2014

infobleep said:
Perhaps they should bring back second man.

Complete, no doubt, with a trusty shovel, fireirons and fire prickers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

455driver said:
I do frequent Marks & Spencers on occasion, normally for their meal deals or egg custard tarts.

Now I know for certain that you are indeed a man of taste, as I had always suspected. Their egg custard tarts are the finest that money can buy....

455driver · 10 Mar 2014

HSTEd said:
But then a crew of three is even safer than a crew of two and so on.

Because of the Laws of deminishing returns and the Laws of probability!

One crew member is the minimum possible at the moment (also the cheapest), 2 crew members give you a safety net if one crew member is incapacitated. 3 crew members would only be useful if the other 2 were both incapacitated which is highly unlikely to happen.

HSTEd said:
Why not have no passengers and fill the train entirely with crew!

They already do on some trains!
They are called freight trains! :lol:

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

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Their egg custard tarts are the finest that money can buy....

Thank you Paul, you are making me feel hungry and I am on nights so cant get to Marks! :lol:

Tomnick · 10 Mar 2014

drbdrb said:
So FCC and their drivers who accepted extra money to do away with guards are placing all their customers in danger.

So when does the HSE court case start to deal with this reckless behaviour?

Or perhaps you were exaggerating.

I don't think it was an exaggeration. I'm with 455driver in that I don't think DOO's particularly safe...but then what is entirely safe? I'd accept that DOO is safer on some routes than others - so on a TCB (track circuit block - with continuous train detection) line with full radio (CSR or GSM-R) coverage and reasonable emergency access to the line, any such incident could be better dealt with than on an absolute block line with radio blackspots and limited access in a deeply rural area. Remember that most DOO routes have required a fair bit of investment to ensure that the infrastructure's up to scratch. Where a guard is required, they might be the only means (on an absolute block section, in a tunnel with no NRN coverage) by which an oncoming train can be stopped...

LateThanNever said:
Very interesting.
As far as I can discover there is no evidence that breaks prevent fatigue (and in consequence improve safety) - a break including sleep, yes, but not breaks as such. There is established evidence that digesting food impairs concentration. There is evidence from America that road accidents are more likely to occur when you begin driving, which seems to suggest that numerous breaks increase risk, and which is presumably transferable.
So in fact the evidence is for the length of shift and times of duty to be able to achieve proper sleep between them that are the safety critical requirements.
So the Daily Wail, whilst never knowingly understating the case would, unless the train operators have their own evidence, seem to have a point.

So now you're suggesting that traincrew go for anything between eight and, in some cases, twelve hours without eating (in case it impairs their concentration) or coming away from the work environment in any way? Personally, from experience (signalling, not traincrew), I find it hard-going after several hours of working virtually continuously (barely time to pop to the 'outhouse', let alone contemplate sorting anything substantial to eat) and I'm well ready for a break between trains when that's finally possible. That's after waking up not long after 0300 to be at work by 0500. Sod the 'evidence' - I know I'd be at risk of making a serious error after twelve hours without being able to take even a short break in those circumstances.

PG · 10 Mar 2014

455driver said:
DOO is safe, crew working is safer!

Oh I will never accept DOO no matter how much money they offer me!

Agreed

...and what if the 'offer' is DOO or your P45!

455driver · 10 Mar 2014

PG said:
Agreed

...and what if the 'offer' is DOO or your P45!

In that case who is going to drive the (DOO) train?

If it was imposed then I would have to do it, but given the choice, no thank you!

transmanche · 10 Mar 2014

LateThanNever said:
As far as I can discover there is no evidence that breaks prevent fatigue (and in consequence improve safety) - a break including sleep, yes, but not breaks as such.

There's a DfT-sponsored study into Fatigue and Road Safety which makes interesting reading.

Firstly it points out the difference between fatigue and sleepiness. (The former being defined as 'a gradual and cumulative process associated with a loss of efﬁciency, and a disinclination for any kind of effort. And it being noted that "fatigue increases as time-on-task progresses, for example, during a period of driving or exercise".)

It also includes a few examples of situations where actually taking a break is an important part of fatigue reduction:

An American study comparing drivers involved in road accidents with control drivers using the same stretch of road, at the same time-of-day a week later (Cummings et al., 2001) asked about counter-measures drivers had used during the trip. The study found that crash risk was signiﬁcantly less for drivers who had used a highway rest stop, had drunk coffee or tea within the last two hours, or had listened to the radio while driving. Interestingly, consumption of caffeinated soft drinks had a negative impact on crash risk rate, perhaps because drivers consuming soft drinks were able to do so without taking a
break from driving.

So some people took a break and had a caffeinated drink - which had a positive impact on the crash risk rate. Whereas others had a caffeinated drink but did not take a break - which had a negative impact on the crash risk rate.

From my own experience of driving motor vehicles and undertaking repetitive office-based tasks, I know and understand the benefit of taking a 20-30 min break from the task at hand - and how it improves concentration levels when restarting that task after the break.

PG · 10 Mar 2014

455driver said:
In that case who is going to drive the (DOO) train?

I like it! Didn't think of that one did I? :lol:

Bantamzen · 10 Mar 2014

LateThanNever said:
Very interesting.
As far as I can discover there is no evidence that breaks prevent fatigue (and in consequence improve safety) - a break including sleep, yes, but not breaks as such. There is established evidence that digesting food impairs concentration. There is evidence from America that road accidents are more likely to occur when you begin driving, which seems to suggest that numerous breaks increase risk, and which is presumably transferable.
So in fact the evidence is for the length of shift and times of duty to be able to achieve proper sleep between them that are the safety critical requirements.
So the Daily Wail, whilst never knowingly understating the case would, unless the train operators have their own evidence, seem to have a point.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm someone who works in IT and often works long hours & I can safely put my hand on my heart and say that long periods of work without a break, or a meal will almost always result in mistakes. I see it all the time, I've done it myself. Perhaps the evidence you've seen contradicts this, but then America isn't exactly a country with the finest record on working conditions. Maybe you want to look up how companies like Walmart operate in the US? There's a flip side to your evidence, and it isn't good reading.

And let's consider car driving for example, can you honestly say that it's a good idea to drive for many hours non-stop without a food or comfort break? The reason there are so many signs on motorways and other major routes telling you to "Take a break" is because fatigue has caused accidents, and has lead to loss of life. So is it really any different for train crews? Well actually yes, because they are responsible for sometimes hundreds of people on their services, so any accidents could be so much worse than on the roads. Therefore the Daily Wail really doesn't have a point, it simply wants to agitate it's rather easily lead readership into another "hate everybody for everything" state of mind.

PG · 10 Mar 2014

LateThanNever said:
As far as I can discover there is no evidence that breaks prevent fatigue (and in consequence improve safety) - a break including sleep, yes, but not breaks as such.

My quick google search brings up this :
The Effects of Fatigue and Sleepiness on Nurse Performance and Patient Safety, Ann E. Rogers, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N., associate professor, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, and the Center for Sleep and Respiratory Neurobiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Studies have shown that short breaks not only improve performance and reduce subjective fatigue,127130 they are effective in controlling the accumulation of risk associated with prolonged task performance (e.g., 2 hours sustained work)131, 132
127.Rosekind MR, Co EL, Gregory KB, et al. Crew factors in flight operations XIII: a survey of fatigue factors in corporate/executive aviation operations. Technical Memorandum No. Vol. 108839. Moffitt Field, CA: NASA; Ames Research Center; 2000.
128.Galinsky T, Swanson N, Sauter S, et al. A field study of supplementary rest breaks for data-entry operators. Ergonomics. 2000 May;43(5):62238. [PubMed]
129.Neri DF, Oyung RL, Colletti LM, et al. Controlled breaks as a fatigue countermeasure on the flight deck. Aviat Space Envir Med. 2002;73(7):65464. [PubMed]
130.Henning RA, Jacques P, Kissel GV, et al. Frequent short rest breaks from computer work: effects on productivity. Ergonomics. 1997 Jan;40(1):7891. [PubMed]
131.Tucker P, Folkard S, Macdonald I. Rest breaks and accident risk. Lancet. 2003 Feb;361(9358):680. [PubMed]
132.Tucker P. The impact of rest breaks on accident risk, fatigue and performance: a review. 2003;17(2):12327

Xenophon PCDGS · 10 Mar 2014

Do National Express ever experience such a matter as the title of this thread implies, as some of their routes are quite long ?

richw · 10 Mar 2014

ralphchadkirk said:
The WTD does not apply to every single worker in England. It doesn't apply to my work - we are meant to get a 45 minute break (30mins unpaid, 15mins paid) in a 12 hour shift to be given to us any time from the 4th hour to the finish before the 10th hour. Rarely do we actually get a break - more often than not it's 11.5 hours straight work (if you don't get a break, you go home 30mins early as it's unpaid), eating and going to the loo when you can.

This isn't an 'I've got it so much worse than rail staff so they can shut up post' - rail staff have got it relatively good in terms of breaks, so fair play to them and by all means use them.

I assume you work for one of the emergency services, military, in a signal box or an industry with your own stricter regulations which I've dismissed from your comment about your hours, as these are the only excluded industries, unless you sign to waive your rights.

Deerfold · 10 Mar 2014

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Do National Express ever experience such a matter as the title of this thread implies, as some of their routes are quite long ?

I had an unscheduled stop of 30 minutes at Leicester Forest East when travelling with Megabus last year - we were due a driver change but the replacement driver had arrived late on another service and we had to wait for them to have their break. Whilst I don't think anyone was overjoyed all the passengers seemed to accept this as reasonable.

infobleep · 10 Mar 2014

Deerfold said:
I had an unscheduled stop of 30 minutes at Leicester Forest East when travelling with Megabus last year - we were due a driver change but the replacement driver had arrived late on another service and we had to wait for them to have their break. Whilst I don't think anyone was overjoyed all the passengers seemed to accept this as reasonable.

Where the reasons why explained to you in a reasonable and understandable way.

Where the reasons explained to passengers of the cancelled train in a reasonable and understandable way. Some passengers wouldn't consider any explanation reasonable of course.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Deerfold · 10 Mar 2014

infobleep said:
Where the reasons why explained to you in a reasonable and understandable way.

They were, yes.

infobleep said:
Where the reasons explained to passengers of the cancelled train in a reasonable and understandable way. Some passengers wouldn't consider any explanation reasonable of course.

We don't know. I suspect they may have simply been told a guard was unavailable and so they went to Sainsbury's and were shocked to see a guard in there.

infobleep · 10 Mar 2014

Well if they were not given a good and reasonable explanation, no wonder the story got into the Daily Mail.

An explanation isn't a bad thing in my opinion.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

dcsprior · 10 Mar 2014

Out of interest, is there something similar to a tachograph which drivers/guards have to use to record their working hours to ensure they're not working more than is safe?

455driver said:
DOO is safe, crew working is safer!

Whereabouts relative to these two options would having a second member of staff who wasn't a guard (and whose breaks presumably wouldn't have to be protected on H&S grounds - meaning the TOC could offer to pay the member of staff overtime to work through their break) be?

For instance, I believe services such as the Edinburgh-Glasgow QS Low-Level via Airdre & Bathgate have a driver and a member of staff doing customer-service and ticketing. Would you consider these just as safe as a driver & guard, almost as safe, barely better than DOO, or only as safe as DOO? (I mean only from a safety PoV)

transmanche · 10 Mar 2014

infobleep said:
Where the reasons why explained to you in a reasonable and understandable way.

Where the reasons explained to passengers of the cancelled train in a reasonable and understandable way. Some passengers wouldn't consider any explanation reasonable of course.

The explanation given is only part of the story as to whether a person considers it 'reasonable' or not; to that they will add what they can see and how they can relate it all to what they know.

For example, if you're on a coach you can see how long the driver has been driving your coach and if you're at a service station in the middle of the night, it's fairly obvious that you're stuck until a replacement driver arrives - so you can surmise there's no spare driver available. You can be given a reasonably accurate estimate of when you'll get going again and you'll be able to use all the facilities of the service station to get a drink/snack, use the loo etc whilst you wait.

But if you're on a train at the start of its journey you don't have the same level information to enable you to judge the reasonableness of the situation. You don't know how long the crew has been working before they take your train out. If it's a big station you might wonder why there aren't relief crew available. And you know you'll then be competing for space with other passengers on the next service.

455driver · 10 Mar 2014

Thank you for selectively quoting me and missing out the safety critical part alluded to earlier in my post! :roll:

dcsprior said:
For instance, I believe services such as the Edinburgh-Glasgow QS Low-Level via Airdrie & Bathgate have a driver and a member of staff doing customer-service and ticketing. Would you consider these just as safe as a driver & guard, almost as safe, barely better than DOO, or only as safe as DOO? (I mean only from a safety PoV)

The only way to improve safety over DOO is to have 2 fully safety critical staff on board, the ticket examiners on the A&B are no more useful in an emergency than any other passenger.

I am not taking anything away from the job they do but they are not safety critical and so cannot go trackside or anything like that. Although they are supposed to help out to evacuate the train etc they are not formally trained in it and for me it is a copout, If I am not trained in something then I wont be doing it because if anything goes wrong who will be in the firing line? Where there is blame there is a claim!

dcsprior · 10 Mar 2014

455driver said:
Thank you for selectively quoting me and missing out the safety critical part alluded to earlier in my post! :roll:

Apologies, I hadn't meant to alter the meaning of what I quoted

Daily Mail: train cancelled whilst guard is in sainsburys...

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member