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

[68000]

. However, having a second member of staff on board adds a layer of safety that CSR/GSM-R does not fully compensate for. As I have said elsewhere online it's simply by comparison. Safe, safer, safest; that sort of thing.

O L Leigh

What do you propose to do if that extra layer puts a scheme into the uneconomic bracket and the scheme gets cancelled?

 

[O L Leigh]

According to figures I have seen quoted in an RMT e-mail relating to the Airdrie-Bathgate route, the annual cost of providing 32 guards is approximately 0.1% of the total budget for opening the line. This figure was agreed by the Scottish Transport Minister who allegedly went on to say that, in the context of the overall cost of the project, this additional cost was "irrelevant".

Any suggestion that this action resulted in the threatened cancellation of the GARL project is incorrect. This was cancelled by the Scottish Finance Minister as part of public sector spending cuts even before the RMT had moved to ballot it's members.

I'm really not convinced that the additional cost of guards is prohibitive or result in project cancellations. As a proportion of the overall cost it is vanishingly small.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

Well the cost of the guards (over ticket collectors) is an additional £300,000 per annum plus a one off charge of over £1 million to modify controls to allow guards to operate doors. If the cost of the project and returns are budgeted over 40 years, this represents £13 million extra for one line. When you take lots of lines into account over the country, such as on SWT, this adds up to serious money.

GARL was cancelled because of transport budget cuts generally, nothing to do with this strike.

DOO was approved and looked at country wide by expert rail safety groups such as the RSSB and RAIB.

The RMT's attitude?

'We did not accept it. We told the Minister that we have no confidence whatsoever in the RSSB or the RAIB and most importantly in any Risk Assessment method whatsoever.'.

HMRI commissioned a generic quantified risk assessment into DOO in 2000. DOO is slightly safer than having a Guard on a train, it concluded.

RSSB looked at the issue in 2001 and concluded: 'That there is no case for the current DO operations to revert back to operating
with a Guard'

===

DOO is a significant industrial relations issue, and there are differing
views about whether it is as safe as operating with a Guard. This
dichotomy is reflected in the findings of the analysis undertaken during
the review. For example, passenger assault and staff assault appear
to be more prevalent in DOO than in non-DOO for one of the operators
whose incident data has been examined in detail, but the opposite is
true for another operator. It is concluded that such discrepancies
reflect significant circumstantial factors, and not DOO issues as such.
However, it is easy to see how such examples can give rise to
opposing views on DOO.

For safety issues relating to the platform/train interface, assault, arson
and train surfing, the analysis is based on an examination of the
incident record, in an attempt to establish the evidence and minimise
conjecture. This strategy has proven only partially successful, due to
significant limitations in the data available, and the need to ensure a
like for like comparison. In the main it has only been possible to
determine that there are probably not large differences in the relevant
incident rates between DOO and non-DOO. It is thus concluded that at
present, the evidence does not suggest that either DOO or non-DOO is
generically safer than the other. There are however, numerous factors
which may affect safety in either mode of operation, and it is
considered that the thoroughness of a train operator’s on-going review
of his operating arrangements is more critical than whether the
operation is DO or non-DO. This applies equally to the interface with
the Infrastructure Controller, including such matters as the positioning
of signals at platforms, the arrangements for maintaining platform
equipment, and completeness of CSR coverage.

As regards the risks from major train accidents, the analysis concludes
that the risk from derailment is lower in DOO than in non-DOO, due to
the benefits of CSR. In the event of a collision or train fire, there is
some benefit from CSR, but the benefit of having a Guard present is
greater. Overall, the risk from major train accidents appears to be
marginally higher in DOO than in non-DOO, but the difference is not
significant bearing in mind the uncertainties. If the anticipated benefits
from the ongoing TPWS project are factored in, the situation is
reversed: the risk appears to be marginally lower in DOO than in non-
DOO.


http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/driver.pdf

How on earth can you negotiate with such people, what is Bob Crow's qualifications exactly, he was a track worker?

 

[CarterUSM]

There should not be any negotiation. This contravenes the 2001 agreement signed by the then franchise holder national express and the RMT that there would be no extension to DOO.

 

[Metroland]

It's a new franchise, and we are facing a public spending squeeze, of course there should be negotiation.

 

[royaloak]

So do it as cheaply as possible and sod the quality.
When you are buying anything new do you always go for the cheapest option or do you find the best compromise on price and quality?

 

[Metroland]

Of course I don't always go for the cheapest option. I'm arguing that having guards (IE the sort that sit in the back cab operating doors) over ticket collectors on DOO lines does not represent good value for money, and there is no reason for a strike. I'm yet to see any good evidence to the contrary, despite the rhetoric to the opposite from the usual suspects.

 

[CarterUSM]

Well perhaps the company should have initiated that, or more likely they think they can just ignore it and impose their will with impunity. Regulation 5a of the TUPE regulations stipulates that any collective agreement made by or on behalf of the transferor(national express) or by the trade union recognised by them in respect of any transferring employees that is in force immediately before the transfer shall have effect after the transfer insofar as it applies to any relevant employees, just as it had been made in or on behalf of the transferee(firstgroup) with the union.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't understand, metroland, who the type of guards who 'sit in the back and operate the doors are'? You will find they collect revenue also. And bathgate to edinburgh is not a DOO line, nor has it ever been.

 

[Metroland]

Well I haven't any more time to debate this issue any longer, people reading this are independent minded enough to make up their own minds, and I think once again it give a little insight into the railway and just why things move at snails pace and why there is so many industrial breakdowns, costs and militancy.

 

[royaloak]

Well we are arguing to keep guards that do the doors, are trained in safety critical situations AND do revenue and customer service, of course you like to go for the lowest common denominator as it suits your argument!

 

[TW7]

Easier option, take away franchises from money grabbers like Stagecoach....the money might actually be invested into the TOC'S

 

[royaloak]

Of course if the franchisees didn't have to spend up to £5 million on the bid in the first place there would be more money for the important stuff, but such are the joys of ridiculously short franchises, at least it keeps the solicitors in ferraris.

 

[reb0118]

The trains are already wired up for guard control. All that is required is control panels to be inserted into the passenger saloons to allow door control from other than a driving cab. £1.4 M for that - mmm - methinks someone is telling tall stories.

This is the usual gross exaggeration of costs to frighten gullible politicians & members of the public

 

[CarterUSM]

Yes reb0118, I mentioned that earlier on in the thread, 1.4 million to carry out that work seems a touch excessive to say the least. The information they carry on their website about the dispute maintains that it is about; 'who opens and shuts the doors'. I find that explanation not only misleading but also disrespectful to me, my colleagues and the public. Lowest common denominator stuff.

 

[313103]

Well I haven't any more time to debate this issue any longer, people reading this are independent minded enough to make up their own minds, and I think once again it give a little insight into the railway and just why things move at snails pace and why there is so many industrial breakdowns, costs and militancy.

Just a pity that you have given up the ghost especially as i am one of the usual suspects that you depicted on a earlier post.

I suppose if the trade unions were not around do you think we would have a safe or safer railway?

What i find most interesting is that everyone who doesnt work in the rail industry, thinks the standards should be at the level they work in, so if its totally unregulated with tripe conditions and tripe pay that is what they believe railway workers should put up with.

What is the unions role to protect members and their jobs or to negotiate members jobs away?

This appears to the common consensus on here for those not in the industry.

If the company i work for decided that there will be an extenstion of DOO to all services i wouldnt mind one bit, for a start my pension will be frozen, i would be able to claim all those benefits therefore putting a bit more burden on the state, i will keep my staff travel pass not that i use it much nand i will be free to do what i want to do.

I recently stood down as a Company Council rep for the Conductors in my company, the main reason being is that the majority of the conductors thought i wasnt militant enough, that i was to cosy to Management, that i was doing backhanded deals to sell them out. One even said we should go back to the rigid 40 hour week. These were not your typical left wing loonies, some were even right wing. Yet all i did was secure their job until 2014 (nature of the franchise agreements) and got them their biggest ever pay rise since ive been on the job and i started in 1980 during the midst of the worse economic climate.

 

[O L Leigh]

As regards the risks from major train accidents, the analysis concludes
that the risk from derailment is lower in DOO than in non-DOO, due to
the benefits of CSR. In the event of a collision or train fire, there is
some benefit from CSR, but the benefit of having a Guard present is
greater. Overall, the risk from major train accidents appears to be
marginally higher in DOO than in non-DOO, but the difference is not
significant bearing in mind the uncertainties. If the anticipated benefits
from the ongoing TPWS project are factored in, the situation is
reversed: the risk appears to be marginally lower in DOO than in non-
DOO.

Now even I am confused. Just what is the RSSB saying?

Major train accidents is the area that concerns me the most, so this section interests me the most. However, I don't really understand the points the RSSB is attempting to make here.

Firstly, I agree that a DOO service poses a lesser risk in the event of a derailment, but only with the following caveats. 1) The derailment doesn't occur in a CSR blackspot, and 2) that the front of the train does not hit an obstruction like a bridge or OLE stanchion thereby squashing the driver flat. In this instance a DOO service poses a greater risk.

However, I am not sure what these "uncertainties" are that the RSSB claim make the difference between DOO and full-manning insignificant.

But what really strikes me as odd is the inference that TPWS is more effective on DOO services than fully-manned services. This I really do not understand. All services have TPWS, so why should it be more effective on one type of service than another?

As I said above, I don't really think the RSSB is the right body to be carrying out this sort of research because it is too close to the DfT. Plus I'm not convinced about their record of decisions (including sanctioning the removal of emergency hammers and fire extinguishers from the passenger saloons, and most items of emergency equipment from the cupboards). However, what really seems to be happening here is that the RSSB are just trying to walk the line between the TOC's and the unions without upsetting either. Consequently we get what looks like a fairly meaningless "fudge".

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

I am only not continuing, because we all seem to be going round in circles and don't seem to be getting any further. It gets to the point when you are labouring a point that it just antagonises the 'other side'

I'm not sure if some of the comments above were aimed at me, please don't make the mistake that I do not know how unions or the rail industry work. I worked for the industry in a number of positions, including signal box supervisor, grade 8 signaller among others (which I won't give away because it starts to identify me). I have been a member of both the TSSA and RMT. I have also been on strike myself.

I think some of the work unions do is excellent. Do I think the railways would be less safe at this current time without them? No, that's down to the professionalism of staff. Do I think staff have no protection? No, we have extensive labour laws.

In the past, there was a case for joint action to secure better conditions, but these days the case is far more marginal, with so many things enshrined in law.

Why do I appear to be taking such a hard line? Because with various external concerns (such as congestion, the public generally against road and airport expansion, passenger and freight growth among others) the railways at this current time have it on a plate - for the first time in a generation or more.

I think industrial action by the RMT at in *some* circumstances is entirely inappropriate. Wage grabs at times of economic hardship when fares are going up, are poor taste. Striking over flimsy safety arguments serves to make things more expensive or over matters that should be settled other ways (such as sackings).

This is not a black and white issue. I am well aware of the poor management inside the industry and the belligerence. I am also well aware of safety concerns, I have been to many inquiries myself, including public ones. But I am also aware of the methods of the unions too. And without question, in the RMT's case, it is politically motivated. You only have to read their blurb to understand that. For example, on the issue of the Scottish DOO, they are talking about director salaries and shareholders getting dividends. What do they want, the directors to be paid the same as station staff, and the investors to get no return on their investment? When you put savings into a bank, you expect to get interest back. When you invest in a pension you expect to get some sort of growth so you can live on it. Certainly RMT members do. Most pension schemes, are share investments, have they frequently forget to point this out, painting a picture its all going to a rich old man in a mansion. Likewise when you give capital to a company to invest (in the form of shares) you want some return on it.

And don't get me wrong, I'm against excesses on every area. Like many, I'm pig sick of greedy people (like Bankers, some MPs and so on) milking the system for all its worth, and it's left to joe public to pick up the bill. I have criticisms of capitalism as well, like we all do. It's not a perfect system.

Some of their action does huge amounts of damage to anyone that wants to invest in the railways or use them (especially freight operators) - both public and private - and the result of that is less jobs, not more.

 

[yorkie]

Isn't there much more chance of a road vehicle coming off the road, and the driver being incapacitated, than there is of this happening to a train?

Also there are no systems to protect other road users or pedestrians, therefore all road vehicles should have a 2nd driver, right?

Or is it a case of the pro-safety at any cost lobby ensuring that the railways are as unaffordable as possible, thus driving traffic onto the roads and ensuring closures and cutbacks take place when the budget is cut, and these people don't actually care about overall safety as they live in a bubble where rail travel has to be totally safe and if it isn't they'd prefer passengers and freight to use less safe modes of transport?

As usual people apply ridiculously strict standards to rail, this is making rail unaffordable. This does not increase overall safety as less safe modes are used instead.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There are a number of differences between driving a car or bus, and driving a train. Let's take a coach as an example. Maximum of 80 people on it? Going a maximum of 70mph? Compare that to a train with 3,4,5,600 people on, going 125mph. See the difference Yorkie? Railways have to be safe.

 

[Metroland]

What about a motorway carrying 6,000 people an hour in either direction, and 1000s of tonnes of freight at speeds of up to 100mph in practice in fog, snow, when drivers are tired, stressed, on drugs, drunk, on the phone, with differing maintenance standards and driving skills, often with no tests for years, or relative inexperience, when a mistake by one of them can end in a pile up?

Perhaps would should double man all cars, and ban the trucks because of crash potential?

Of course railways should be safe, but not to the extent when they cannot complete and are closed down because of safety concerns?

DOO has over a 20 year accident free history. I am still waiting for the evidence that is unsafe, data, and the qualifications of the people stating this? So far we have had none.

 

[Dolive22]

I think it's less the number of people and the speed that make rail different from road, more the fact that the roads operate on the most restrictive basis trains ever run on. A car or lorry is meant to be able to stop within the distance the driver can see (with certain exceptions). A train only runs that slow when the signaller suspects the line is blocked. That is why it is vital to know whether a train has derailed and obstructed another line.

 

[yorkie]

There are a number of differences between driving a car or bus, and driving a train. Let's take a coach as an example. Maximum of 80 people on it? Going a maximum of 70mph? Compare that to a train with 3,4,5,600 people on, going 125mph. See the difference Yorkie? Railways have to be safe.

There's no actual logical argument to your post. Yes, railways should be safe, but they are very safe and we should focus on preventing incidents more than anything else. Yes there are many differences between driving a road vehicle and a train, and surely you should realise that the chances of a road vehicle coming off the road are far higher than a train derailing? So all the fuss over what happens if a train derails, we are talking about a very small possibility, and by their logic that a train must have a guard 'just in case' then you need to have guards on ECS movements, freight trains etc. and by that logic given that there is more chance of a road vehicle coming off the road you'd need an extra person on every truck, lorry or HGV, right?

 

[Dolive22]

I think the difference between freight and passenger is that going in to the back of a freight train is a danger to the driver of the second train and anyone in the front cars of the second train if it is a passenger train. Going in to the back of a passenger train could kill a hundred people. A derailed passenger train also puts potentially hundreds of untrained people on the line.

Railways are very safe, in fact for the last year I checked figures for more people were killed by being run over by pedal bikes than were killed as a passenger on the railway, excluding people who comitted suicide.

The difference between the road and the railway is that most of the time when I'm driving a car I have to be ready to stop within my own sight, while a train could be doing 125 mph and could take 2 miles to stop, which is why some trains get two signals warning of having to stop.

 

[Metroland]

I think it's less the number of people and the speed that make rail different from road, more the fact that the roads operate on the most restrictive basis trains ever run on. A car or lorry is meant to be able to stop within the distance the driver can see (with certain exceptions). A train only runs that slow when the signaller suspects the line is blocked. That is why it is vital to know whether a train has derailed and obstructed another line.

It's unlikely that cars can stop running into each other during a pile up on a motorway, or even during normal running. Shunts on motorways are extremely common.

As it's been pointed out, DOO trains are safer during a derailment in any case because of the advantages of CSR. Or do you think guards running a mile up the track is more technically advanced and safer?

 

[Dolive22]

My preference would be for a guard to run up the track and place detonators (after clipping the neighbouring line) while the driver uses CSR and tells the passengers to stay onboard/evacute as appropriate. If the train derails in to a bridge or an OHLE pole comes through the cab and kills the driver, at least one person who has spent more time on rules than on food hygiene is onboard. The same applies if two trains go head to head.

As it happens I am no friend of the RMT, and would make striking a lot harder if it was up to me, but I would like to have a guard. I am alright without one, and I don't think I have been on a train with a guard in years, but it would be safer with. In the 21st century it shouldn't have to be a choice between speech communication with the signaller and a second member of staff on board.

 

[Metroland]

Proves you are out of your depth. There is no requirement to place full detonator protection or use track circuit clips once the signaller has been contacted by ANY member of train crew.

Rule book section M

You must carry out emergency protection described in sections 4.5
to 4.12 if:

• the signaller cannot provide signal protection, or
• you have not been able to contact the signaller direct.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There's no actual logical argument to your post. Yes, railways should be safe, but they are very safe and we should focus on preventing incidents more than anything else. Yes there are many differences between driving a road vehicle and a train, and surely you should realise that the chances of a road vehicle coming off the road are far higher than a train derailing? So all the fuss over what happens if a train derails, we are talking about a very small possibility, and by their logic that a train must have a guard 'just in case' then you need to have guards on ECS movements, freight trains etc. and by that logic given that there is more chance of a road vehicle coming off the road you'd need an extra person on every truck, lorry or HGV, right?

Because while railways are safer than road travel there is a much bigger chance of a larger loss of life in a railway incident. When a train derails there has to be an investigation to make sure the same thing cannot happen again. There is less scope doing the same thing on roads because of the sheer volume, kind, and skill of drivers.

If, by your logic, there should be a 2nd person in the car, should road drivers be subject to the same assessments, tests and medicals as train drivers?

We have guards on passenger trains "just in case" for the passengers safety. There aren't passengers on ECS or freights.

 

[Metroland]

Poor logic again. But there's nothing to stop freight trains derailing or ECS derailing and becoming an obstruction is there? Plus is there really a much bigger chance of loss of life, there have been many motorway pile ups that have killed far more people than train crashes?

 

[Dolive22]

OK, I'm out of my depth.

I would still be safer if the driver was incapacitated, or this equipment was disabled. Even if he survives the accident, the CSR might not.

If both the driver and the CSR survive, the guard is a rules trained, Safety critical, PTS holding, drug tested, responsible member of staff to deal with the passengers.

There is also the advantage that, when the train isn't rammed, they can patrol, discouraging bad behaviour, doing tickets (they could be trained as an RPI if neccessary) and making people feel safer. When it is packed, there are plenty of people to prevent flashing, mugging etc. and there should be enough people to warrant ticket offices.

And if the driver does the doors, the guard can concentrate on other duties, while still being capable of dealing with an emergency. (some) Other on train staff just aren't up to the job in an emergency. One Customer Host was unable to pull the passenger alarm.

 

[Metroland]

Wrong again, ANY member of train crew can go on the track in the case of emergency or make emergency calls on radio/NRN/phones or indeed members of the public.

On lines were DOO is not operating, the guard HAS to go up the track and leave passengers to their own devices in order to protect the train if the signaller cannot be contacted - and with no CSR there is more chance of that.