• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

1st May Northern passengers told to all travel in the front carriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
On a train, the customers are in one place for significant amounts of time between stops. That place should not be where the guard is also located.

I don't follow this. If it's a long distance limited stop service e.g. Manchester to London then the guard would only have to emerge to do the doors around 4 times during a journey lasting over 2 hours, so even if someone is on the train for the entire journey they'll only be a few minutes of them being in close contact with the guard. On the other hand if the train is making lots of stops then it's more likely the same seat would be occupied by different passengers on the same journey, so it's a bit more like the supermarket example where the exposure will be with lots of different people for a short time.

If the guard didn't have a staff only cab to retreat to then it might be a different matter.

When I travelled from Manchester Piccadilly to Windermere I found there were crews changed 3 times en route, with one appearing to only do the Manchester Airport to Manchester Oxford Road portion of the journey. I don't know if that still happens but if it does it will certainly reduce the amount of contact time between the guard and any passengers making longer journeys.

Access still has to be given to the toilet on request unless the unit is coupled to another gangwayed unit. Passengers should not be allowed to queue for the toilet.

Last year Northern were saying they aren't making hand santiser available on stations or on trains but were encouraged passengers to:
a) Wash their hands more frequently using existing facilities available at stations and on trains.
b) Inform a member of staff if the toilet has no soap available.

I'm a bit confused how a passenger is supposed to do that if the guard is separated from the passengers and the toilet might be cordoned off.

The passenger human is choosing to take the risk by travelling on public transport and probably only will only be doing this once or twice during the day. The guard human is doing this for every stop and with shifts lasting hours.

So if a passenger has no car they are choosing to go to work but a guard is forced to work?

Another way of looking at it is crews often don't have to travel to work on trains with other people, so any potential exposure is only during their shifts, while the passengers on the trains might be exposed to others both on the train and while at work.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Agreed, it doesn't allow much flexibility. It's fair enough having a policy (in normal times) for guards to use the saloon controls but to allow them to use cabs in busy periods or during pandemics is sensible.

I suspect because they were designed with DOO in mind the flexibility wasn't that important.

Yes, definitely an oversight. I think on 150's guards can open from the guard vestibule ?
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Since when has a Health and Safety Rep on Northern been able to ignore passengers health and safety, that rep is in fantasy land, and should return his/her wages if that is their moral stance.
Heath & Safety rep is a union post and unions represent the workers, not the passengers.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
We are not in lockdown now.

Plus if someone was classed as 'extremely vulnerable' they should have been offered both courses of a vaccine by now so if a guard was classed as 'extremely vulnerable' they are likely to now be less vulnerable than the under 40s who have not yet received a first dose of the vaccine.

Heath & Safety rep is a union post and unions represent the workers, not the passengers.

Employers are responsible for H&S regardless of whether there is a trade union or not, so there will be a paid employee who has H&S in his/her job description.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
The passenger human is choosing to take the risk by travelling on public transport and probably only will only be doing this once or twice during the day. The guard human is doing this for every stop and with shifts lasting hours.
I see. So would it be acceptable to expose passenger humans to asbestos fibres on the basis they have made the choice to travel? Or to not have the seats bolted down in the passenger saloon so if there's a crash they get thrown around to kill and maim people, but that would be OK because the passengers have chosen to travel?
I’m pretty sure earlier studies have shown risk of catching the virus and it’s effects depend on how much exposure a person has had. The guard human will have many more potential exposures during the day.
Yes. And those studies show very few cases associated with any mode of public transport. In fact repeated air samples and swabbing of surfaces on the London Underground have failed to find any COVID virions.
Most people catch COVID in the home or in healthcare settings.

It's absolutely nonsensical to suggest it's somehow unsafe for railway staff to have to share the passenger compartment for a few minutes per hour, especially now that disease prevalence is so low. You'd be very unlucky to have even a single infected person on the entire train right now!
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
You are all reminded that whatever you do on social media is not something that concerns us, however the forum cannot condone online bullying so please keep any such suggestions off this forum. Thank you.
 

Table 52

Member
Joined
5 May 2006
Messages
211
You are all reminded that whatever you do on social media is not something that concerns us, however the forum cannot condone online bullying so please keep any such suggestions off this forum. Thank you.
Awwww, what did I miss?
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
This is absolute nonsense. I travel on Northern services most weekdays and guards are now regularly checking passengers' tickets onboard.

Why should it be up to guard if he/she is entitled to an entire carriage and does not wish to undertake ticketing duties? If they have a certain condition or do not feel secure working in a passenger facing environment due to Covid then Northern should offer to redeploy them in another setting.

And as have others have said, what about the passengers' well-being? Reserving a carriage for one guard is fine providing it's safe for passengers elsewhere on the train. But in reality this means potentially dozens or passengers to share one carriage where social distancing is not possible.
 

Table 52

Member
Joined
5 May 2006
Messages
211
I see. So would it be acceptable to expose passenger humans to asbestos fibres on the basis they have made the choice to travel? Or to not have the seats bolted down in the passenger saloon so if there's a crash they get thrown around to kill and maim people, but that would be OK because the passengers have chosen to travel?

Hypothetically, in a situation where H&S law was more lax and the passenger knew in advance that there may be asbestos fibres and flying seats, but still chose to travel then yes, that’s ok. But if an employer ordered someone into such a dangerous situation, that’s not ok.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Hypothetically, in a situation where H&S law was more lax and the passenger knew in advance that there may be asbestos fibres and flying seats, but still chose to travel then yes, that’s ok. But if an employer ordered someone into such a dangerous situation, that’s not ok.
That isn't the world we live in though.
It's absolutely absurd that some guards are behaving in this way. They are no more entitled to safety than the travelling public.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Hypothetically, in a situation where H&S law was more lax and the passenger knew in advance that there may be asbestos fibres and flying seats, but still chose to travel then yes, that’s ok. But if an employer ordered someone into such a dangerous situation, that’s not ok.

A vehicle not fit for public use can't be put into use. If they announced at a station that there are loose seats flying around on the train and these might hit you in the head resulting in death, then it wouldn't exempt them from being taken to court for manslaughter or being sued for loss of earnings by someone who was injured but survived.

Many airlines decided to keep a few rows at the back of a plane empty and then if someone starts showing symptoms which could be COVID mid-flight they are moved to that area. What are train operators doing in such circumstances? If they won't let someone showing symptoms relocate to an empty part of the train (because it's reserved for the guard only) then could they be liable if another passenger catches COVID while on the train and it causes death? I don't know the answer to that but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened that a good solicitor (in terms of legal knowledge) would take the case to court to test the system.
 

Table 52

Member
Joined
5 May 2006
Messages
211
That isn't the world we live in though.
It's absolutely absurd that some guards are behaving in this way. They are no more entitled to safety than the travelling public.
But the public, travelling or otherwise DO have the same entitlement to safety AT WORK. That’s why there’s plastic screens in shops, table service in pubs and social distancing in office environments.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Interesting comment about office environments. In all of the offices I've been to recently, there's been no "social distancing" bar some people not shaking hands and absolutely no masks or plastic screens. Pleasing to see people just cracking on with normality now the public health crisis has passed.
The screens etc in shops are to "protect" both staff and punters aren't they?
I really don't see any justification for guards needing a whole carriage as well as the rear cab to themselves. If things are that dangerous then we should shut the railway.
 

sportzbar

Member
Joined
11 May 2014
Messages
140
That isn't the world we live in though.
It's absolutely absurd that some guards are behaving in this way. They are no more entitled to safety than the travelling public.
I agree with you that some guards are behaving in a certain way (and many are at much less risk than some of their colleagues), but it is their workspace and they are entitled to a safe working environment as agreed through all relevant parties. This is the main point. They have two choices. Work within the Covid guidelines or invoke worksafe.

In the Covid guidelines they have to (in some cases they may feel they don't have to), cordon off areas of the train. That creates a safe workspace within the train. It maybe inconvenient to the travelling public but the guard didn't design the layout of some particular trains. So in this respect, as it is their place of work and under H&S laws and guidelines then yes, they are more entitled to safety than the traveling public. As a passenger on a busy train this does suck. But don't blame the guard. It's their workspace

Now, if I was to come into your workspace and dictate to you what I thought was wrong with the systems in place (as dictated by your company) and pointed out that the safe systems you had in place gave you better protection than me, would you feel put out? Because that is, to me what you are saying.

There is a second option. And that is the guard invokes worksafe, the train is cancelled and now everyone is unhappy. Yes it's a crappy situation (word on the rails is that the restrictions onboard will be relaxing soon) but don't blame the guard for doing their job.....
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Now, if I was to come into your workspace and dictate to you what I thought was wrong with the systems in place (as dictated by your company) and pointed out that the safe systems you had in place gave you better protection than me, would you feel put out?

If I worked for a company which had a questionable system in place then I would welcome a customer giving a negative opinion on the system because most companies listen to customers more than staff because if you annoy the customers and they go away then there's no money to pay the staff.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,675
Location
Sheffield
This is absolute nonsense. I travel on Northern services most weekdays and guards are now regularly checking passengers' tickets onboard.
Absolutely agree with this. Don’t knock Northern guards in the Sheffield area: I would estimate my ticket is checked 90%. Trans-Pennine about 50% (though to be fair, the guard may be in the wrong half of the train) and on three XC journeys 0%.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
There have been a number of suggestions that "due to Health and Safety" it's necessary to protect employees by cordoning off an area of the train for their sole use, yet it's OK to put the public at greater risk in doing so.

This is utter nonsense.

Under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers have a duty:
to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees

However, employers equally have a duty under section 3(1) of the Act:
to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Neither duty takes precedence, and thus it is farcical to justify putting the public at greater risk by saying it protects employees.

Health and safety is about minimising the overall risk, and sometimes, as in this case, that means making trade-offs.

Clearly, the overall risk is minimised most effectively if you let everyone spread out throughout the entirety of the train. The slightly increased risk to the guard is more than offset by the reduced risk to the much greater number of passengers.

If the aim of the game were really to minimise overall risk, operational methods would be modified to ensure that guards could operate from the cab, or in fact trains would be run without guards at all. After all, fewer people having to go to work and mix with others means less risk!

If the unions were really interested in protecting their members' health and safety, they would do everything in their power to enable this.

Of course, back in the real world, just imagine the kind of industrial action that would result from actually putting employees' health and safety first in that way...
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
There have been a number of suggestions that "due to Health and Safety" it's necessary to protect employees by cordoning off an area of the train for their sole use, yet it's OK to put the public at greater risk in doing so.

This is utter nonsense.

Under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers have a duty:


However, employers equally have a duty under section 3(1) of the Act:


Neither duty takes precedence, and thus it is farcical to justify putting the public at greater risk by saying it protects employees.

Health and safety is about minimising the overall risk, and sometimes, as in this case, that means making trade-offs.

Clearly, the overall risk is minimised most effectively if you let everyone spread out throughout the entirety of the train. The slightly increased risk to the guard is more than offset by the reduced risk to the much greater number of passengers.

If the aim of the game were really to minimise overall risk, operational methods would be modified to ensure that guards could operate from the cab, or in fact trains would be run without guards at all. After all, fewer people having to go to work and mix with others means less risk!

If the unions were really interested in protecting their members' health and safety, they would do everything in their power to enable this.

Of course, back in the real world, just imagine the kind of industrial action that would result from actually putting employees' health and safety first in that way...
Indeed. And by virtue of the fact that the guard spends 99% of their time either in the rear cab or on a platform, of all the people on the train, only the driver is at less risk.
 

bengley

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,840
I tend to agree.

The guard deserves protection but not at the cost of half of the capacity of the train. Most other TOCs don't seem to have anything this drastic in place.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
If the aim of the game were really to minimise overall risk, operational methods would be modified to ensure that guards could operate from the cab, or in fact trains would be run without guards at all. After all, fewer people having to go to work and mix with others means less risk!

If the unions were really interested in protecting their members' health and safety, they would do everything in their power to enable this.

Of course, back in the real world, just imagine the kind of industrial action that would result from actually putting employees' health and safety first in that way...

That's something many employers have had to take into consideration, making some adjustments to who does what until things return to normal. For instance, if an office has adopted a work from home policy and the person who normally deals with the post lives 20 miles away and gets the train into work, can the person who lives around the corner and can walk to the office deal with it instead?

Absolutely agree with this. Don’t knock Northern guards in the Sheffield area: I would estimate my ticket is checked 90%. Trans-Pennine about 50% (though to be fair, the guard may be in the wrong half of the train) and on three XC journeys 0%.

On the odd occasion I've used Northern services in Yorkshire I've found ticket checks to be quite frequent. With some Northern guards based at Manchester they seem to do one check just after the train has left Manchester, even though almost everyone will have had to produce a ticket prior to boarding, which makes it seem more like they are doing a customer service role to ensure no-one has boarded the wrong train and if they have then to advise them what to do next. Of course not all guards are consistent and even though I mentioned some Manchester based guards just doing one check mainly of people who have already been checked, there are some who under normal circumstances rarely spend any time in the rear cab and when they aren't checking tickets they are checking other things are safe and satisfactory in the saloon.
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,081
Can someone please explain to me how a risk assessment can be signed off that says guard should have 2m or 1m+ but other humans on the train can be packed into one carriage even if they are virtually touching.

I don’t get a risk assessment that is selective to one person but not the next person. Where does it say that in any Health and Safety policy?

Since when has a Health and Safety Rep on Northern been able to ignore passengers health and safety, that rep is in fantasy land, and should return his/her wages if that is their moral stance.
The information has come from a health and safety rep. That health and safety rep had no say in the procedure. The procedure has come from management and signed of by a director.

I tend to agree.

The guard deserves protection but not at the cost of half of the capacity of the train. Most other TOCs don't seem to have anything this drastic in place.
Do any other TOCs have stock that requires the guard to pass through 2/3 of a carriage to reach door controls?
 

bengley

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,840
The information has come from a health and safety rep. That health and safety rep had no say in the procedure. The procedure has come from management and signed of by a director.


Do any other TOCs have stock that requires the guard to pass through 2/3 of a carriage to reach door controls?
Avanti
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,081
I tend to agree.

The guard deserves protection but not at the cost of half of the capacity of the train. Most other TOCs don't seem to have anything this drastic in place.
Again to not protect an employee is a breach of the health and safety at work act. Government guidance to transport operators states 1m plus. It doesn't state that this can be done away with for passenger comfort or to increase capacity. It does allow operators to reduce capacity for passengers if necessary to achieve this. Government guidance for passengers states that capacity is reduced and leaves the onus for safety on the passengers to decide if a train is too crowded or not and to wait for the next one if it is

Avanti say they limit the number boarding and reservations are advised. Maybe if Northern could limit passenger numbers through compulsory seat reservations and only let others on if space in the same way buses do and have 'train full do not board' on the PIS I'm sure that would be popular. I've also seen large numbers of seats cordened off in coach C. They also stop far less frequently than Northern.

Many airlines decided to keep a few rows at the back of a plane empty and then if someone starts showing symptoms which could be COVID mid-flight they are moved to that area. What are train operators doing in such circumstances? If they won't let someone showing symptoms relocate to an empty part of the train (because it's reserved for the guard only) then could they be liable if another passenger catches COVID while on the train and it causes death? I don't know the answer to that but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened that a good solicitor (in terms of legal knowledge) would take the case to court to test the system.
Northerns services generally have short distances between stops. If someone is showing symptoms then they should not join the train. In the unlikely event they develop symptoms between stops then they should leave the train at the earliest opportunity (stopping at an unbooked station if appropriate) with appropriate measures put in place for their welfare even if this causes delays. It's very different to a plane which could be hours from an airport. On short haul flights airlines do not generally do this.
 
Last edited:

185143

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2013
Messages
4,486
The information has come from a health and safety rep. That health and safety rep had no say in the procedure. The procedure has come from management and signed of by a director.


Do any other TOCs have stock that requires the guard to pass through 2/3 of a carriage to reach door controls?
Northern and 170s!
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
This is absolute nonsense. I travel on Northern services most weekdays and guards are now regularly checking passengers' tickets onboard.
I was going to say the same thing. Plenty of Northern guards are checking and selling tickets.

Interesting comment about office environments. In all of the offices I've been to recently, there's been no "social distancing" bar some people not shaking hands and absolutely no masks or plastic screens. Pleasing to see people just cracking on with normality now the public health crisis has passed.
Likewise in my office. The vast majority of people across all age ranges are behaving the same as they did before Covid now.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Northerns services generally have short distances between stops. If someone is showing symptoms then they should not join the train. In the unlikely event they develop symptoms between stops then they should leave the train at the earliest opportunity (stopping at an unbooked station if appropriate) with appropriate measures put in place for their welfare even if this causes delays. It's very different to a plane which could be hours from an airport. On short haul flights airlines do not generally do this.

It's also very different because most flights are now only taking passengers who have had a PCR test in the 48 hours before travelling and that has returned a negative result. One of my relatives who works with vulnerable people has regular PCR tests, one week last year he got a positive result despite feeling fine and a few days later he was so ill he couldn't even get out of bed. The PCR testing will likely prevent most instances of someone developing symptoms while on a flight, the empty rows of seats is just an insurance policy to protect other passengers if they worst happens.

You say the passenger showing symptoms should be removed from the train straight away, so hypothetically a passenger who lives in Lancaster who is travelling back home from Manchester and starts showing symptoms just after the train has left Wigan you think the train should be stopped at Leyland so the infected passenger can be removed. However, unless that passenger is so sick that the guard has arranged for an ambulance to meet the train, what happens to the passenger next? They need to get back home to self-isolate so throwing them off the train is likely just going to get up in a taxi driver getting infected, when if they had remained on a train and were isolated from the other passengers they are less likely to pass the virus on to others. Even if an ambulance has been arranged it might be the ambulance workers can't remove the passenger until they've done certain checks.

Do any other TOCs have stock that requires the guard to pass through 2/3 of a carriage to reach door controls?

Are there not instances where guards have to walk through entire carriages to release doors if the train is longer than the platform it's stopping at?
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Are there not instances where guards have to walk through entire carriages to release doors if the train is longer than the platform it's stopping at?
I wonder how they cope at somewhere like Manea, where it's "front door only", and the guard has to operate the door that is being used.
It does seem like we're largely back to normal save for some reason treating shops, transport and hospitality as somehow special or more dangerous. But people spend far less time in these places than in workplaces.

The nonsense can't end soon enough.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
I wonder how they cope at somewhere like Manea, where it's "front door only", and the guard has to operate the door that is being used.
It does seem like we're largely back to normal save for some reason treating shops, transport and hospitality as somehow special or more dangerous. But people spend far less time in these places than in workplaces.

The nonsense can't end soon enough.

Unless they happen to be your workplace.... :lol:

I am a train guard on 15x and 170s and spend most of my time in the train checking and selling tickets and operating the doors. Funnily enough none of our trains have ever had any seats cordoned off though, although at times of highest transmission we had revenue duties withdrawn and if we wanted we could cordon off the back set of doors. We were always walking through to do Local Door stations too while for example TfW were being stupid and not stopping.

The thing that disappointed me most about the Rail Industry Coronavirus Forum was that I assumed it would lead to common good practice between TOCs. Instead individual H&S sections at TOCs and trade union representatives came up with loads of wildly different ways of doing things.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
Instead individual H&S sections at TOCs and trade union representatives came up with loads of wildly different ways of doing things.
Exactly. Even allowing for variances in methods of operation (dispatch locations etc.) there is simply no way that TfW's wildly excessive caution is justified, and that every other operator with local door ops is acting dangerously and irresponsibly. If nothing else you'd have expected the unions to kick up a fuss about it otherwise!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top