Aha! So you admit that there's nothing wrong with having a ticket inspector (like in the SPT area) instead of a guard! Brilliant, that's what I've been arguing all along. Glad you agree
-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
O L Leigh
Established Member
Tom B: Because it goes back to what I have said previously.
Either a person is a guard or they are not. If they are trained to carry out the role of a guard then that is what they are. The Rules do not recognise any other role or title and does not empower any other person to carry out those responsibilities.
Yorkie: That is not the same thing. FScR's TE's are just RPI's by another name. They have no more training, responsibilities nor anything else.
O L Leigh
Either a person is a guard or they are not. If they are trained to carry out the role of a guard then that is what they are. The Rules do not recognise any other role or title and does not empower any other person to carry out those responsibilities.
Yorkie: That is not the same thing. FScR's TE's are just RPI's by another name. They have no more training, responsibilities nor anything else.
O L Leigh
Agreed!
I'll pre-empt the counter argument to this...
Ah yes but all trains should have olympic sprinters as guards, they should therefore be able to run up the track in less than 3 minutes and place detonators on the track. A HST needs about 2 miles to stop, so the guards would be trained to run at record breaking speeds in order to place detonators at appropriate positions. Something must be done, this is something, so it must proceed. If it is not done 400 people will die. Bla bla bla ...
Yes, guards should be provided with stab proof vests and stun guns, that would solve that one
And yes PTS training would also solve it, presumably so he could open the doors, get the victim on to the track and close the door on the attacker, and then escort the victim to safety In reality this 'safety at any cost in case of bizarre situations' idea is flawed and the RMT are actually just after making the railways less affordable in order to line their members own pockets. The result of making railways less affordable will be modal shift toward less safe modes of transport. Why does the RMT want this?!
90019
Established Member
And this cannot be changed because...?
CarterUSM
Established Member
I seen the letters page the past few days and I was actually surprised by the comments, though certainly encouraged also. I have had passengers ask me about the dispute and whether it really is about 'who opens and shuts the doors', it seems the general public are not swallowing that one either. We'll see what happens anyway, the company are pretty confident about running 100 per cent services on many lines with their strike breaker reserve who have had 5 days to learn the role, not counting whatever route they are going over. Notwithstanding, I do genuinely hope there are no serious incidents.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Less affordable yorkie? Are you under the impression that any savings will be passed on to fare paying passengers? An admirable thought if a little
laughable.
The dispute is not pay related either, so it's nothing to do with lining my pockets?!?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Less affordable yorkie? Are you under the impression that any savings will be passed on to fare paying passengers? An admirable thought if a little
laughable.
The dispute is not pay related either, so it's nothing to do with lining my pockets?!?!
Last edited:
PTS training, now there's a joke. They charge £125 for these courses, to learn a small section of the rule book. I did mine in less than and hour sat in the corner of a signal box with my signalling manager in BR days
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Boo...eneral Responsibilities/GERT8000-G2 Iss 1.pdf
It's all in there. If you can answer 20-30 of the questions, similar to the following, you would most probably be entitled to one of these magical PTS cards.
1. When are you on or near the line?
2. What is the cess, four foot, six foot, 10 foot?
3. Where would you find a refuge?
4. What is an authorised walking route?
5. What would be your position of safety if the linespeed is 110mph?
6. If your duties require you to go on the line, what must you do if a train approaches?
7. If your duties require you to go on the line, what must your wear?
8. What hazards must you find out about before you go on or near the line?
9. What must you do when a train approaches?
10. A signal has a yellow diamond and black cross, what does this mean?
Frankly everyone should have one, but the £125 charge for the course, and the extra pay for the knowledge tends to get in the way.
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Boo...eneral Responsibilities/GERT8000-G2 Iss 1.pdf
It's all in there. If you can answer 20-30 of the questions, similar to the following, you would most probably be entitled to one of these magical PTS cards.
1. When are you on or near the line?
2. What is the cess, four foot, six foot, 10 foot?
3. Where would you find a refuge?
4. What is an authorised walking route?
5. What would be your position of safety if the linespeed is 110mph?
6. If your duties require you to go on the line, what must you do if a train approaches?
7. If your duties require you to go on the line, what must your wear?
8. What hazards must you find out about before you go on or near the line?
9. What must you do when a train approaches?
10. A signal has a yellow diamond and black cross, what does this mean?
Frankly everyone should have one, but the £125 charge for the course, and the extra pay for the knowledge tends to get in the way.
Last edited:
At the end of the day, it comes down to risk management and the mitigation of those risks identified.
What is not mentioned about those accidents in the 90's or indeed the early 00's is that mobile phones were not quite as prolific as they are now. Indeed, how many people do you know who have an iPhone or one of the many other smartphones out there? Most people I know have GPS maps on them, so they know exactly where they are.
Admittedly, not everyone has them; but plenty of people do.
Take the airline industry - it used to be that you had to have more than two engines to fly more than 90 minutes away from a landing site. For many aircraft that is now 180 minute or even more with just two engines.
Now, four or even three engines are better than two, but the costs are more for more engines you have. Therefore, aircraft manufacturers have gone to great lengths to improve the reliability of their aircraft such that two engines are good enough.
And that is the point about having or not having guards. Its safe enough for most situations.
When was the last time a driver was incapacitated that didnt involve the lineside equipment being damaged? Or any of the safety features on the train not activating.
If we were really serious about safety to the nth degree, then each passenger would be in some kind of protective self contained suit, the train would travel at no more than 10mph and there would be staff in each carriage. All road vehicles would have more than one person in at all times and would be in constant communication with a control room and have data recorders fitted. All aircraft would have four or more engines, passengers would be in fireproof flight suits with parachutes flying no higher than 14000ft and no more than 30 mins from a landing site.
But no. There is a trade off between cost, convenience and safety. As reliability and safety facilities improve, the greater risks you can take as they have been mitigated to some degree.
There are plenty of safety systems in place to prevent an in service train from running away, from being struck my another train and on-track safety systems for accident prevention in most forseeable circumstances.
In my mind, as has been stated by some others, the guard is there purely as a throwback as it would still take time for a guard to discover what is going on and make any protection that is necessary. By which time a train could already have struck the errant train, but also by which time a passenger is more than likely to have called the emergency services by themselves.
My own commuter service could quite happily operate as DOO if the necessaries are in place to mitigate it - I certainly wouldnt have a problem with it and I do not beleive it would make my journey any less safe than it already is. Its as safe as it can pricticably be. In all honesty, DOO would generally speed up my journey as the damn guard is usually dispensing tickets when they should be opening doors.
As for passenger safety, what protection does a single person at the back of the train offer in all reality? If a violent incident breaks out, the train continues on, the police are called and the train stops at the nearest convenient place for the police to have a go. Or other passengers get involved.
As one guard I overheard outside the station having a fag the other day saying to a colleague discussing other colleagues and violent customers "I say to 'em "you can he me mate and I'll go down like a sack of sh*t, but I'll get at least two weeks off and compensation" so Im not bothered about it in the least, 'coz its a money spinner and he cant see that". Now, whether thats true or not for that guards TOC I dont know, but in the case of a violent customer what use is that?
If the guard goes down like a sack of soft stuff, I want my journey home late at night to continue to its destination and not be kicked off the train at the next station because the train cant run without a guard.
(BTW, that is not meant to put my wellbeing above that of another person, my standpoint there is that the driver isnt incapacitated, the train is still running, so once the guard is taken care of and the culprit dealt with, get me home on my train please).
And I think most passengers would agree that most services could for all intents and purposes just be DOO.
What is not mentioned about those accidents in the 90's or indeed the early 00's is that mobile phones were not quite as prolific as they are now. Indeed, how many people do you know who have an iPhone or one of the many other smartphones out there? Most people I know have GPS maps on them, so they know exactly where they are.
Admittedly, not everyone has them; but plenty of people do.
Take the airline industry - it used to be that you had to have more than two engines to fly more than 90 minutes away from a landing site. For many aircraft that is now 180 minute or even more with just two engines.
Now, four or even three engines are better than two, but the costs are more for more engines you have. Therefore, aircraft manufacturers have gone to great lengths to improve the reliability of their aircraft such that two engines are good enough.
And that is the point about having or not having guards. Its safe enough for most situations.
When was the last time a driver was incapacitated that didnt involve the lineside equipment being damaged? Or any of the safety features on the train not activating.
If we were really serious about safety to the nth degree, then each passenger would be in some kind of protective self contained suit, the train would travel at no more than 10mph and there would be staff in each carriage. All road vehicles would have more than one person in at all times and would be in constant communication with a control room and have data recorders fitted. All aircraft would have four or more engines, passengers would be in fireproof flight suits with parachutes flying no higher than 14000ft and no more than 30 mins from a landing site.
But no. There is a trade off between cost, convenience and safety. As reliability and safety facilities improve, the greater risks you can take as they have been mitigated to some degree.
There are plenty of safety systems in place to prevent an in service train from running away, from being struck my another train and on-track safety systems for accident prevention in most forseeable circumstances.
In my mind, as has been stated by some others, the guard is there purely as a throwback as it would still take time for a guard to discover what is going on and make any protection that is necessary. By which time a train could already have struck the errant train, but also by which time a passenger is more than likely to have called the emergency services by themselves.
My own commuter service could quite happily operate as DOO if the necessaries are in place to mitigate it - I certainly wouldnt have a problem with it and I do not beleive it would make my journey any less safe than it already is. Its as safe as it can pricticably be. In all honesty, DOO would generally speed up my journey as the damn guard is usually dispensing tickets when they should be opening doors.
As for passenger safety, what protection does a single person at the back of the train offer in all reality? If a violent incident breaks out, the train continues on, the police are called and the train stops at the nearest convenient place for the police to have a go. Or other passengers get involved.
As one guard I overheard outside the station having a fag the other day saying to a colleague discussing other colleagues and violent customers "I say to 'em "you can he me mate and I'll go down like a sack of sh*t, but I'll get at least two weeks off and compensation" so Im not bothered about it in the least, 'coz its a money spinner and he cant see that". Now, whether thats true or not for that guards TOC I dont know, but in the case of a violent customer what use is that?
If the guard goes down like a sack of soft stuff, I want my journey home late at night to continue to its destination and not be kicked off the train at the next station because the train cant run without a guard.
(BTW, that is not meant to put my wellbeing above that of another person, my standpoint there is that the driver isnt incapacitated, the train is still running, so once the guard is taken care of and the culprit dealt with, get me home on my train please).
And I think most passengers would agree that most services could for all intents and purposes just be DOO.
Tom B
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Messages
- 4,602
Precisely my point.
*waits for answer about railway group standards, union terms and conditions, machinery of negotiation, sixteen different rule books including the tokenless block regulations on the Whitby branch and the pink pages, culminating in an all out strike as a threat to other guards jobs*
You should go to an inquiry, it's far more fun than this, there are endless debates of the vagaries of the rule books, various agreements, who did what, what was done in 1938 and 'grey areas'. Honestly kids, I'd stick with Hornby.
You should go to an inquiry, it's far more fun than this, there are endless debates of the vagaries of the rule books, various agreements, who did what, what was done in 1938 and 'grey areas'. Honestly kids, I'd stick with Hornby.
CarterUSM
Established Member
Hmmmn, a few people think that this is about who opens and closes the doors on a multiple unit. This is not the case for reasons stated earlier throughout the thread. I will tell you why the suggestion that taking away door operation from the guard and giving ticket examiners the duties of a guard except door operation will not happen. Cost. Simple. A private company is just not going to pay out an extra 4000 odd quid a year per ticket examiner of which there are around 6-700(estimate). As for taking door operation of of guards, I can see benefits, but only in relation to revenue duties which are secondary anyway though I must say, it really is bad form to be ticketing when platform tickets have to be carried out, and there is no need for any delay. The only instance in normal service when revenue duties should under no circumstances be carried out is when the EBS has been raised, thus rendering pass coms inoperative, amongst other things. In this instance the passengers must know where the guard can be contacted in the event the train has to be stopped in an emergency.
313103
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,595
I dont care of what anything Aslef have to say on this matter, they are the preferable 'white man speak with folk tongue' brigade and very rarely listen to what their own membership want, let anyone else.
I dont care what Tocs think of DOO either, they are always going to fall out with RMT on this issue, and will pally up with Aslef to get one over on RMT.
However it would appear that If we did away with the RMT and did away with Guards the whole world would be a brighter and for some more importantly a cheaper place.
The point is 90019 & Tom B if you was losing your job you would understand.
I dont care what Tocs think of DOO either, they are always going to fall out with RMT on this issue, and will pally up with Aslef to get one over on RMT.
However it would appear that If we did away with the RMT and did away with Guards the whole world would be a brighter and for some more importantly a cheaper place.
The point is 90019 & Tom B if you was losing your job you would understand.
Although nobody is losing their job over this issue...
I remember when I was a small lad, on the TV, there was a strike about single manning of trains. Must have been early 80s or something? I don't think it's something the unions have ever been able to swallow, they see it is a threat to jobs, whatever evidence is put in front of them.
Back in the day, all trains were double manned. The so-called 'second man', who essentially replaced the fireman from steam days. This situation persisted on all trains to the 80s and on high speed trains until the 90s.
Trains with no guards were first proposed in Scotland and on the Bedpan line out of St Pancras in the mid 80s, which was met with a massive strike.
Really all this came about under BR, as it was forced to reduce operating costs. Nowadays the unions argue about private companies, like nationalisation was some panacea. In actual fact, every since the 1950s there have been regular strikes on the railways over cost reductions in the face of competition from roads.
Meanwhile hard pressed passengers are looking forward to ticket price reductions...
I remember when I was a small lad, on the TV, there was a strike about single manning of trains. Must have been early 80s or something? I don't think it's something the unions have ever been able to swallow, they see it is a threat to jobs, whatever evidence is put in front of them.
Back in the day, all trains were double manned. The so-called 'second man', who essentially replaced the fireman from steam days. This situation persisted on all trains to the 80s and on high speed trains until the 90s.
Trains with no guards were first proposed in Scotland and on the Bedpan line out of St Pancras in the mid 80s, which was met with a massive strike.
Really all this came about under BR, as it was forced to reduce operating costs. Nowadays the unions argue about private companies, like nationalisation was some panacea. In actual fact, every since the 1950s there have been regular strikes on the railways over cost reductions in the face of competition from roads.
Meanwhile hard pressed passengers are looking forward to ticket price reductions...
CarterUSM
Established Member
I'm in agreement there 313103, i'm not particularly enamoured with ASLEF, nor would it seem are many of it's scotrail members these days with regards to conditions lost. I've incidently been told by older hands that in the 80's when DOO eventually came in the drivers had accepted around 8 pounds a day for DOO duties. A disgustingly low amount in my eyes, even for the time. Not sure of the accuracy however. You're correct metroland, no-one is losing their job in the sense of salary recieved, but I believe we will lose our role if this action is not successful, which I will be very glum about, cue all future electrification being DOO, in fact, I think if the company prevail, i'm of the opinion the service between glasgow central-north berwick will be lost to us too. Anyway, as metroland said earlier, I don't think we'll agree here, though i've very much enjoyed the debate, most posters have provided well thought out, constructive and informative comments for both sides of the argument, and I have no ill feeling towards any of them at all. If I could put my side across half as well i'd be very satisfied. Why don't we call it a day for now, and see how things go? No point in going over the same points endlessly.
royaloak
Established Member
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
I think you got the questions right Royaloak, only got to pay now!
O L Leigh
Established Member
For the sake of what...? So that you can have someone on board a supposedly fully-manned service who isn't quite a guard and can't quite discharge all of the guard's responsibilities?
We're not talking about a small change here. The Rules only recognise two types of operation; fully-manned and DOO.
O L Leigh
Pay them below minimum wage?
Tom B @ 23.46, I think I suggested that several pages ago. I suggested they be the existing guard and be called guard, although if they want to cut back the safety effect would be the same if it was someone trained to guard standards for everything but the doors, called something else and paid less.
Royaloak @ 04.11, aren't 6 & 7 pretty much right? Admittedly 7 only when you are too close to the line. Come to think of it, 8 is pretty accurate in some places.
Barn, I think that is the extra cost of a guard over whatever Scotrail says will replace them.
Royaloak @ 04.11, aren't 6 & 7 pretty much right? Admittedly 7 only when you are too close to the line. Come to think of it, 8 is pretty accurate in some places.
Barn, I think that is the extra cost of a guard over whatever Scotrail says will replace them.
Failed Unit
Established Member
That is an valient way of fighting but many people have lost their jobs due to improvements in technology / outsourcing. It isn't right it however is a fact of life. Look at all the factory people that lost their jobs to robots, bus conductors that have gone due to driver only operation, call centre operators who's jobs have gone overseas.
I have yet to see a convincing arguement why DOO is not safe from the RMT. I want to see the gaurds leave routes as much as the next person, in fact I live on a route where it would be more expensive to remove them.
That aside the main arguement I see is the gaurd is there to protect the train if the driver is disabled.
1. Who does this on a freight train which has could have dangerous cargo?
2. On busy mainlines how exactly does the gaurd protect the train. I am meaning this in the sense that they must get to a point ahead of the problem which the train going the other direction would be able to break from. Lets say this is 1 mile for the sake of arguement, this takes about 15 minutes to walk and 1 minute for a train to cover. On many routes with DOO the frequency is greater than this.
If the RMT were arguing that the gaurd would use their route knowledge to walk to the nearest signal and phone the signalling centre this would be a credible arguement, but trying to cover a breaking distance to stop a train quicker than one coming at say 100mph is going really convince people that the gaurd is adding to safety.
313103 credit to you that you are honest enough to say that don't want the gaurd to be removed to keep you job safe. That is a very good reason to be against something and if you (gaurds) succeed in doing this good on you, many people in other industries will look on in envy!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think the court would probably side with First on this one as it was nearly 10 years ago. Unfortuanetly these days nothing lasts forever and first would argue they have already extended DOO with no objections when the larkhill line opened. I know from bitter experience that large companies do what they like and there is nothing that the employee can do about it. You may win a tribuneral but that doesn't get your job back and the company probably factors into a few tribunerals going against them when they make the choice.
It's the difference in pay and other costs between ticket collectors and fully fledged guards..
313103
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,595
I am quite aware of DOO having been on the railway since 1980, i was at the time a Aslef member and a Drivers Assistant at St Pancras, i was one of very few Aslef members to oppose the Bedpan DOO introduction. In fact i was told by a leading Aslef official who went on to be its General Secretary that he doesn't care if the Guards lose their jobs (which they did) his members would be getting £8.86 for doing the extra duties. His next role would be to oversee the eradication of the Drivers Assistant. However i was most disconcerted when the then leadership of the NUR allowed this to take place under Sid Weighell.
Later in my career i moved to Marylebone as a Guard and left Aslef and joined the then NUR now under the leadership of Jimmy Knapp and during his leadership he oversaw massive rail industry closures with a loss of some 100,000 employees. All this in order to balance the books, in a rail market competing against road and air.
It was also that during this period i would be directly affected by DOO operation, on 06 January 1993 i worked my last train on the Chiltern Line (ironically a ballast train at Wembley Stadium) the best part of my career now over. I had to move on and ended up at Willesden where i still am (just) wandering when TfL will decide to dispense with me.
Therefore you will understand why i am opposed to DOO, the one thing that people keep saying is that their has never been an accident involving DOO trains, we seem to have forgotten about the worse british rail accident of recent memory 'Ladbroke Grove', what i want to know is how did passengers get out of the rear of the class 165? A off duty driver Manager just happened to be there, a person i knew and this virtually brought his career to an end.
Getting rid of me should be based on the railway being safer without me not based on my £24,000 pa salary! Now let see how many people agree with me on that last sentence.
Later in my career i moved to Marylebone as a Guard and left Aslef and joined the then NUR now under the leadership of Jimmy Knapp and during his leadership he oversaw massive rail industry closures with a loss of some 100,000 employees. All this in order to balance the books, in a rail market competing against road and air.
It was also that during this period i would be directly affected by DOO operation, on 06 January 1993 i worked my last train on the Chiltern Line (ironically a ballast train at Wembley Stadium) the best part of my career now over. I had to move on and ended up at Willesden where i still am (just) wandering when TfL will decide to dispense with me.
Therefore you will understand why i am opposed to DOO, the one thing that people keep saying is that their has never been an accident involving DOO trains, we seem to have forgotten about the worse british rail accident of recent memory 'Ladbroke Grove', what i want to know is how did passengers get out of the rear of the class 165? A off duty driver Manager just happened to be there, a person i knew and this virtually brought his career to an end.
Getting rid of me should be based on the railway being safer without me not based on my £24,000 pa salary! Now let see how many people agree with me on that last sentence.
Having only dipped in to this thread, forgive me if this has been covered before. It seems to me that a lot of the debate is along the "sheep or goats" line, one or the other, with two entrenched groups fiercely protecting that division. As OL Leigh says, the rules only recognise two types of service. Now I am sorry, but that seems to be typical of so many threads on this board (particularly those regarding fares and routing :roll. If the rules get in the way, they are bad rules and should be dropped. In this case, there are: a set of safety imperatives that have to be carried out; a set of driving tasks (obviously, but should be included under consideration); a set of commercial tasks (revenue protection); and a set of customer-oriented tasks. There are also: a set of employer issues; a set of employee issues; and a set of customer issues. (Too often, the customer-oriented tasks and issues are ignored, IMHO, but they are the main reason for running the railway after all). It should not be beyond the wit of man to put all these in a melting pot and come up with job definitions that satisfy everyone. But it does mean dropping the entrenched "drivers are the only ones allowed to do this, guards the only ones allowed to do that" sheep and goats approach.
. If the rules get in the way, they are bad rules and should be dropped. In this case, there are: a set of safety imperatives that have to be carried out; a set of driving tasks (obviously, but should be included under consideration); a set of commercial tasks (revenue protection); and a set of customer-oriented tasks. There are also: a set of employer issues; a set of employee issues; and a set of customer issues. (Too often, the customer-oriented tasks and issues are ignored, IMHO, but they are the main reason for running the railway after all). It should not be beyond the wit of man to put all these in a melting pot and come up with job definitions that satisfy everyone. But it does mean dropping the entrenched "drivers are the only ones allowed to do this, guards the only ones allowed to do that" sheep and goats approach.Failed Unit
Established Member
A last a reason that someone with my low brain capacity can understand. I know people will have just broken windows, used the emergency door release, but I can just see the media outcry now.
DOO train hits a tree and kills driver, passenger opens door release and walks down the track to get hit by a train going in the opposite direction. How could that happen, etc etc. I do recall once on a failed unit the only thing stopping people getting out an walking to the next station about 1 mile away was the gaurd, the treat of calling the police was good enough (along with them saying that he would be liable if they were hit by a train as the other line was still open) and we had been there for 3 hours at that point and the station was only 1 mile away.
It should be, but unfortunately in this world we live in would be how many people will die as a result of no guards been on the trains? Would paying compensation to the relatives be less than employing gaurds? If the answer to question B is yes then DOO will be bulldozed through.
CarterUSM
Established Member
I agree with you 100 per cent 313103. Couldn't have put it better.
royaloak
Established Member
Anyone remember the FGW HST that dropped its fuel tank and the fuel caught fire, the only casualty was a bloke who panicked, smashed the window and jumped out right infront of a HST going in the opposite direction. Now imagine if 100 people did it because the driver was dealing with the emergency situation and there was no guard to stop everyone else doing the same thing!
A drivers responsibility is the safety of the TRAIN, a guards is the safety of the PASSENGERS.
A drivers responsibility is the safety of the TRAIN, a guards is the safety of the PASSENGERS.
I'll just at this stage at another nugget of info into the cauldron: Before the Ladbroke Grove tragedy, there was the Maidenhead HST fire. Several people jumped from the train onto the track (via windows they broke) unfortunately one was mowed down by the HST coming on the main line in the other direction and was tragedy killed.
So, I'm sorry to say, I don't think the argument that guards prevent passengers getting out and getting hit by other trains holds any water.
Going onto the subject of rules: actually this is what the majority of railway work is about, problems like this and how the rules apply, what is done in certain instances and problem solving. It's quite true there are good rules and there are bad rules, but the rule books (of which there are many) are written with nearly 200 years of operating experience behind them. Very often when rule book amendments are proposed (and there are frequent amendments) there is a cry of foul play or downright objection.
I'll give you an example.
After the Ladbroke Grove accident the railways were paranoid about SPADs. In some areas, it was proposed at certain key junctions to work double block. Perfectly sensible you might think? The problem was, it was left to signallers to use reminder appliances adhere to this rule. Many objections were tabled, because more of the responsibility of the observance of signals was placed in the signallers hands, rather than the drivers. If anything was to go wrong (say the signaller forget to work double block and there was an accident) more of the blame would be shifted toward the signaller. Signallers argued that it was down the the signalling engineers to propose sensible interlocking if the junctions were deemed as unsafe, and it was a driver training issue, and why should they carry more responsibility?
So you can see the conflicting problems you can get into, just by minor changes, even if they are for the best of reasons.
*EDIT* Beat me to it Royaloak.
So, I'm sorry to say, I don't think the argument that guards prevent passengers getting out and getting hit by other trains holds any water.
Going onto the subject of rules: actually this is what the majority of railway work is about, problems like this and how the rules apply, what is done in certain instances and problem solving. It's quite true there are good rules and there are bad rules, but the rule books (of which there are many) are written with nearly 200 years of operating experience behind them. Very often when rule book amendments are proposed (and there are frequent amendments) there is a cry of foul play or downright objection.
I'll give you an example.
After the Ladbroke Grove accident the railways were paranoid about SPADs. In some areas, it was proposed at certain key junctions to work double block. Perfectly sensible you might think? The problem was, it was left to signallers to use reminder appliances adhere to this rule. Many objections were tabled, because more of the responsibility of the observance of signals was placed in the signallers hands, rather than the drivers. If anything was to go wrong (say the signaller forget to work double block and there was an accident) more of the blame would be shifted toward the signaller. Signallers argued that it was down the the signalling engineers to propose sensible interlocking if the junctions were deemed as unsafe, and it was a driver training issue, and why should they carry more responsibility?
So you can see the conflicting problems you can get into, just by minor changes, even if they are for the best of reasons.
*EDIT* Beat me to it Royaloak.
Failed Unit
Established Member
I agree Royal oak, but unfortuanetly today the world revolves about money not what is best for the user. Look at all these banks that have outsourced their call centres to India, saved them loads of money but the service has got worse as a result (only losing customers would reverse thier choice as they don't care about poor customer service).
As I said on the railway if DOO was every bulldozed through incidents like that would be looked at as hard stats. How many accidents do we have per year? How many deaths would the gaurd on board prevent? How many of these deaths would we need to pay compensation for (I am sure in your HST example passenger stupidy would result in no payment). We can save £1M with not have gaurds but it in will only cost us £500k in injury claims after accidents. Lets do it then. :cry:
Yes, I'm afraid that's how H&S management works. Lives are given a value, on the railways it is about £10 million, on the roads the value is just £100,000. It's just the amount of money you are prepared to spend to save one life. The rail figure is considerably higher, because there is far more media outcry over train accidents than road crashes.
- Status