ralphchadkirk
Established Member
In an incident. Singular. I'm sure if you added up all the deaths you would decide that cars should be banned immediately.
-
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!
Guard 'ignored red light and refused to let passengers off'
- Thread starter yorkie
- Start date
- Status
In an incident. Singular. I'm sure if you added up all the deaths you would decide that cars should be banned immediately.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Possibly, possibly not. On the day of the Hatfield crash a lorry on the nearby A1 killed a whole family in a car when it ran into it.
Yes if we applied the same conditions to the roads, all road traffic would be suspended immediately.
Yes if we applied the same conditions to the roads, all road traffic would be suspended immediately.
Matroland, that is why I want both CSR and a guard.
I know any staff can go on the track in an emergency, but that doesn't help if no one other than the driver is onboard, and it doesn't help much with some of the staff in customer service roles. There's nothing wrong with them not being extensively trained in handling emergencies, as long as they aren't expected to deal with an emergency alone.
I know any staff can go on the track in an emergency, but that doesn't help if no one other than the driver is onboard, and it doesn't help much with some of the staff in customer service roles. There's nothing wrong with them not being extensively trained in handling emergencies, as long as they aren't expected to deal with an emergency alone.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
But the scope of the loss of life changes - 400 people in a train - 4 people in a car.
@Dolive21.
This is a myth, Guards are not extensively trained any more so to handle emergencies any more than ticket collectors or drivers, and signallers for that matter. There is no training for emergencies, at all.
What staff are train in is the rule book, and the main difference between a guard and a ticket collector is rule book section M which you obviously do not understand because you are taking about having guards and CSR.
@raphchardkirk
Nonsense, modern train crashes tend to kill no more than motorway pile ups. Even if the days of wooden coaches and chain couplings with no brakes, train crashes didn't kill 400 people.
This is a myth, Guards are not extensively trained any more so to handle emergencies any more than ticket collectors or drivers, and signallers for that matter. There is no training for emergencies, at all.
What staff are train in is the rule book, and the main difference between a guard and a ticket collector is rule book section M which you obviously do not understand because you are taking about having guards and CSR.
@raphchardkirk
Nonsense, modern train crashes tend to kill no more than motorway pile ups. Even if the days of wooden coaches and chain couplings with no brakes, train crashes didn't kill 400 people.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
I relise that, that is why I said SCOPE.
Please no not make empty claims about scope, when you know full well that there is very little risk with modern trains of that sort of fatality rate, and there is more scope overall on the roads for deaths per passenger KM.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
So why don't we suspend all road traffic and make people travel by train?
OK. Assuming you are right about guards (which I have little choice but to do as you evidently know more about them than me), there are still considerable advantages to passengers to having a member of staff on board who isn't driving. I would like to see that person trained to deal with emergencies by, for example, being able to contact control or the signaller, knowing where they are and how to report that, whether to evacuate the passengers on to the track, how to do that safely, knowing first aid (which would be very useful on a train full of people anyway), METHANE/CHALETS etc. I thought that guards were that.
Even without them, the railway will still be much safer than any other mode of transport, with the possible exception of air. But it would be better and safer with them.
Even without them, the railway will still be much safer than any other mode of transport, with the possible exception of air. But it would be better and safer with them.
I thought I did. My understanding was that guards were more extensively trained, had some responsibility for safety, including in many cases opening and closing doors as well as being sent back in the very rare cases where a train needed to be protected by means other than a signal or a radio call to all trains. I understood ticket collectors only dealt with revenue and any passenger issues that had to be dealt with there and then.
Nearly right, the main difference is train protection duties, and train dispatch - because DOO door mirrors and monitors are not provided on guard operated lines. Else its more or less exactly the same. Both have to have passenger care, train evacuation, first aid training.
Train protection duties are contained in rule book section M
This part of rule book section M can be read here
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Boo...nts and Extreme Weather/GERT8000-M1 Iss 1.pdf
Train dispatch can be read here
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Rule Book Modules/TW - Train Working/GERT8000-TW1 Iss 8.pdf
On the train protection issue, do you think DOO operations will full track circuiting and Cab secure radio is safer, or partial track circuiting and train protection more reliant on an inferior cab radio system and guys running up the track, even on 125mph trains with flags and explosives?
Yes I know some lines that have guards are fully track circuited, but many are not.
On train dispatch, do you think its safer to start trains when the guy with his hand on the throttle is ready, or another third party?
Train protection duties are contained in rule book section M
This part of rule book section M can be read here
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Boo...nts and Extreme Weather/GERT8000-M1 Iss 1.pdf
Train dispatch can be read here
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Rule Book Modules/TW - Train Working/GERT8000-TW1 Iss 8.pdf
On the train protection issue, do you think DOO operations will full track circuiting and Cab secure radio is safer, or partial track circuiting and train protection more reliant on an inferior cab radio system and guys running up the track, even on 125mph trains with flags and explosives?
Yes I know some lines that have guards are fully track circuited, but many are not.
On train dispatch, do you think its safer to start trains when the guy with his hand on the throttle is ready, or another third party?
Last edited:
CarterUSM
Established Member
I was trained in emergency evacuation by my TOC, a whole day of it too on a spare unit at a depot. Not to mention doing my fire training in a pair of old mark 3 coaches, one filled with smoke and the other without, as well as firing every extinguisher we use.
CarterUSM
Established Member
Ticket collectors don't get hands on training in emergency evacuation though. It's a case of, 'keep them away from running lines and infrastructure'. 'Them' being passengers.
They do understand evacuation procedures though and on many trains these days (I'm thinking first Great western) there is a leaflet on every seat. In actuality, during crashes, the passengers don't tend to take much notice of any staff, and tend to ring 999 and get out as fast as they can anyway.
There is slight advantages of having guards with fires, there are disadvantages when it comes to train protection.
There is slight advantages of having guards with fires, there are disadvantages when it comes to train protection.
DOO lines: Full track circuiting, cab secure radio with built in features such as ability to send stop messengers by radio and make emergency broadcasts. Drivers can have stop messages sent at any point, rather than be wholly reliant on signals.
Non DOO lines can include lines with no track circuits for many miles. There is no requirement to have full track circuiting. Train protection is reliant currently on NRN, signal post telephones (which may not be for many miles), lineside phones (ditto) consumer mobile phones or guards/drivers running up the line flags and detonators.
The RAIB report concluded, in general, for train protection with DOO is safer. My experience also tells me that too.
Non DOO lines can include lines with no track circuits for many miles. There is no requirement to have full track circuiting. Train protection is reliant currently on NRN, signal post telephones (which may not be for many miles), lineside phones (ditto) consumer mobile phones or guards/drivers running up the line flags and detonators.
The RAIB report concluded, in general, for train protection with DOO is safer. My experience also tells me that too.
My assumption was that the safety duties were Protection, Dispatch and passenger related duties after an accident such as actually going with the passengers off the train (if not needed to protect the train), possibly walking down the train to check everyone is out, first aid, making sure people stay on the train if that is safer.
In most companies, fire training for most staff is limited to getting out. In some firms, some people are trained in the use of extinguishers. First aid is limited to a person with a one day course for many workplaces, and the highest level required is a 3 day course (they shortened it from 4 last year).
GB, I think the Protection benefit comes from having CSR. My preferred option would be CSR whoever is onboard, and for that matter all lines to the higher DOO standard. But my preferred options can be very expensive.
Now I have been set straight, I don't see anything wrong with a ticket collector replacing a guard, so long as they are trained for evacuation, it is safe for the driver to do the doors and the safety authorities are satisfied that protection by waving light/red light/detonators isn't neccessary.
My preference, subject to safety issues, is for the doors to be done by the driver, leaving the second crew member to be at any point in the train as neccessary.
In most companies, fire training for most staff is limited to getting out. In some firms, some people are trained in the use of extinguishers. First aid is limited to a person with a one day course for many workplaces, and the highest level required is a 3 day course (they shortened it from 4 last year).
GB, I think the Protection benefit comes from having CSR. My preferred option would be CSR whoever is onboard, and for that matter all lines to the higher DOO standard. But my preferred options can be very expensive.
Now I have been set straight, I don't see anything wrong with a ticket collector replacing a guard, so long as they are trained for evacuation, it is safe for the driver to do the doors and the safety authorities are satisfied that protection by waving light/red light/detonators isn't neccessary.
My preference, subject to safety issues, is for the doors to be done by the driver, leaving the second crew member to be at any point in the train as neccessary.
There are a number of lines and services that operate with full track circuiting and CSR etc etc but also carry a guard. What disadvantage does the guard bring in this instance?
As far as I can see, in the valuable few seconds it can take for the driver to send an emergency message, the signaller to recieve and acknowledge it, the signaller then to send out an emergency stop broadcast to applicable trains and again for drivers of said trains to *receive it and take action, the guard can be out on the track with his flag and dets as a fail safe....
*and there is no certainty that the message will get through either in time or at all.
In that instance, the main disadvantage is cost, because there are not many advantages in having guards because there would be no need for emergency train protection once the signaller has been informed. The guard comes from an era when telephones weren't even invented, let alone radio and mobile phones and full track circuiting.
As you know with all comms messages they need to be confirmed to be understood as well.
If you think there are advantages, please demonstrate with statistics and instances.
Obviously guards need to be maintained where there is no DOO monitors/mirrors and other DOO requirements like CSR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is it? Say I have a limited budget, would a good use of money be to spend that on guards or other risks, such as vandalism or level crossings which pose more danger? Or perhaps open new lines which are safer than roads?
Caterus Paribus, as I was taught it in Economics, means all other things being equal, that is excluding the other effectes that in practice would be the result of something. There may well be better ways to spend the money that would be spent on guards, but it is still the case that guards are safer than no guards, assuming the same equipment is provided.
My position is more or less that guards are beneficial, but may not be the best use of resources.
My position is more or less that guards are beneficial, but may not be the best use of resources.
What evidence have you got to demonstrate having guards is better than not having guards? Or do you take the RMT's position, and will not except any evidence or risk assessments.
Interestingly, ASLEF have accepted DOO is fine on the Bathgate route.
Interestingly, ASLEF have accepted DOO is fine on the Bathgate route.
royaloak
Established Member
Only because it means more money for the drivers!
ASLEF are only interested in the drivers and would sell all other Railstaff for a penny in the drivers wages.
The guard is available to deal with the passengers, to protect the train in the unlikely event and to raise the alarm correctly as described in G1 if the driver is incapacitated.
Perhaps my position is not clear. I am not saying always have guards. All I am saying is that, on two trains with the same equipment on track with the same equipment, the one with the guard is safer, if only marginally on the modern railway with 125 mph running, mobile phones and radios. I am not saying that it is neccessary for them all to carry guards. There are many things that would make trains safer, including ATP, but we don't do all of them.
Perhaps my position is not clear. I am not saying always have guards. All I am saying is that, on two trains with the same equipment on track with the same equipment, the one with the guard is safer, if only marginally on the modern railway with 125 mph running, mobile phones and radios. I am not saying that it is neccessary for them all to carry guards. There are many things that would make trains safer, including ATP, but we don't do all of them.
@Royaloak Well that may be true. I always find it interesting that the unions talk about profit v safety, apart from when it comes to their own members remuneration on some issues.
Not that I think ASLEF are wrong, because I don't think it is a safety issue. I think its a job/salary issue with the RMT. And it's notable those that disagree, have not been able to demonstrate otherwise.
@Dolibe21, But ticket collectors and other passengers can also deal with passengers? And all the evidence is, even if it was just a driver only train, with even no ticket staff, there is no difference in safety overall. Please see the RAIB report.
Not that I think ASLEF are wrong, because I don't think it is a safety issue. I think its a job/salary issue with the RMT. And it's notable those that disagree, have not been able to demonstrate otherwise.
@Dolibe21, But ticket collectors and other passengers can also deal with passengers? And all the evidence is, even if it was just a driver only train, with even no ticket staff, there is no difference in safety overall. Please see the RAIB report.
- Status