More Daily Mail Madness ...

[tsr]

Train Drivers are much, much more involved in the direct input of passenger safety than a Guard on a 377/375 who is basically a passenger once the doors have been closed.

Except if there is an emergency situation, when often the driver cannot leave the cab to assist (and as we know, there are sometimes emergencies).

 

[BestWestern]

moonrakerz don't be amazed at the sense of 'entitlement' and also childishness that pervades this forum among quite a few rail workers and presumably, by extension, the railway.

(which just shows it IS an issue and calling it 'trolling' or sniggering behind your hand just because you don't like it won't wash).

Can anyone put hand on heart and say for sure that that guard HAD to have that break when he did and hold up the train as he did...by law? If he did have to do that by law, then there is something wrong with the rostering of staff that a compulsory break strands a train like that. If he didn't have to do what he did, he has an appalling customer service attitude. I'd love to know the true answer.

You are trolling, as you always do. Why you continue to post on here baffles me as much as it does most members, perhaps you are one of those unfortunate types who needs the 'outlet' for whatever reason. There is most certainly 'childishness' on here on a regular basis, you contribute most of it.

Anyway, to address your (deliberately inflammatory) 'points' - the article states that train services had already been disrupted, so the chances are the crew on this service had been delayed somewhere. No staff member is ever rostered a PNB in a manner which would intentionally 'strand a train', but sometimes the aforementioned disruption means that - shock horror- a train arrives somewhere late. I know, incredible isn't it?! And when this happens, sometimes the only option is for the next departure worked by the affected crew members to be delayed whilst a required break is taken. And yes, there is a sense of 'entitlement' - railway staff are 'entitled' to stop for a bite to eat and a crap during a ten hour shift just the same as workers empoyed in any other role, is that really such an outrageous thng? Or does nobody else, in offices or shops or factories or anywhere else, have a lunch break any more during the working day?! I wonder if an incident occurred and it became known that a fatigued crew member had caused it, whether the same paper would find that perfectly acceptable?

Did you ever actually work in the airline industry? Do pilots and air crew never have to take a mandatory break between flights? If a flight is delayed, does that break just go out of the window along with any commitment to safety? Are they all up there whizzing around in zomby mode half asleep?!

On a more sensible note, for the more sensible posters, it does sound as though one golden rule was broken here. That is NEVER tell the passengers that a train is delayed because somebody is 'having their dinner' or use the term 'meal break'. Always explain that it is a mandatory rest period and it's for their safety as much as for anybody else's benefit!

 

[AlterEgo]

It was the Daily Mirror that originally ran the story.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Train Drivers are much, much more involved in the direct input of passenger safety than a Guard on a 377/375 who is basically a passenger once the doors have been closed.

Tell that to the Merseyrail guard who has been charged with manslaughter after a girl died as he dispatched his train.

(Not casting aspersions or wishing to prejudice that case)...If safety critical staff make mistakes, they can kill you. It really is that simple. It's a fact.

 

[BestWestern]

Tell that to the Merseyrail guard who has been charged with manslaughter after a girl died as he dispatched his train.

(Not casting aspersions or wishing to prejudice that case)...If safety critical staff make mistakes, they can kill you. It really is that simple. It's a fact.

Well said. 'Nuff said. End of.

 

[HH]

A woeful and deliberately misleading comparison. Ticket office staff at Alton Towers do not have a legally-mandated requirement to have a break.

Um, yes they do. Anyone working a shift of over 6 hours must have a break. The only groups that have a legal requirement to more than this are (to paraphrase) HGV drivers and under 18s. The ticket seller at Alton Towers has exactly the same legal protection (for that is what it is) as a guard.

Whether the law ought to be changed is another matter, but please get the law right before you start quoting it.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Um, yes they do. Anyone working a shift of over 6 hours must have a break. The only groups that have a legal requirement to more than this are (to paraphrase) HGV drivers and under 18s. The ticket seller at Alton Towers has exactly the same legal protection (for that is what it is) as a guard.

Whether the law ought to be changed is another matter, but please get the law right before you start quoting it.

I agree people should get the law right. Which is why you need to look at more than just the EU Working Time Directive.

Regulation 25, The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006:

Every controller of safety critical work shall have in place arrangements to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that a safety critical worker under his management, supervision or control does not carry out safety critical work in circumstances where he is so fatigued or where he would be liable to become so fatigued that his health or safety or the health or safety of other persons on a transport system could be significantly affected.

Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) place general duties on employers to reduce risks so far as is reasonably practicable, including risks from staff fatigue. Section 7 requires employees to co-operate with their employer by for instance ensuring they are adequately rested to do their work safely, and by reporting any concerns about fatigue promptly to their employer

From an ORR document entitled Managing Rail Staff Fatigue

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) require employers to assess risks arising from their operations, including risks from staff fatigue, and to put in place effective arrangements for the planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of these controls

From the same document.

Therefore whilst the legislation does not place a requirement on the length of break or when they are taken (apart from 20mins in 6 hours), they require that appropriate rest is taken to ensure staff are not fatigued. PNB's are used, amongst other things, to ensure staff are not fatigued and will be part of the controls implemented to combat fatigue and are therefore legally required.

 

[TDK]

Train Drivers are much, much more involved in the direct input of passenger safety than a Guard on a 377/375 who is basically a passenger once the doors have been closed.

Maybe but without the guard in a non DOO area the train will not run so I would say they are just as important as the driver - I do both DOO and work with a guard and I am somewhat more contented when I pick up a guard where the DOO goes to dual operation

 

[KA4C]

It's best to know the facts before you start quoting 'elf & safety.

Priceless! I've been managing this stuff for over twenty years

I think you'll find that train operators are required to have processes in place to ensure that SCW are not carrying out such work when fatigued. Fatigue is not only a result of lack of sleep or too many hours at work, it can also be caused by lack of food or drink, hence all the summer "keep hydrated" briefs that are done. Oddly enough I have only just concluded an incident investigation where micro-sleep due to lack of a meal break on a shift was the direct causation

 

[Domeyhead]

The outpouring of bile against me was predictable - the hair splitting dissection of what I wrote to look for the needle's eye was revealing - such as the immediate knee jerk rush to the sanctuary of blind data instead of argued principle from those such as XCdriver. This is not about rules it is about communication, because I know perhaps even better than you XCD that there is a broad spectrum of attitude among on-train staff that training alone cannot eradicate. Because it is in the application of such petty minutiae that any sensible working breaks down. The problem as demonstrated here is that it is impossible to prescribe safety, even if you double the size of the rulebook. Taking a break is of course necessary if only for the comfort of staff involved and is not the issue, but prescribing a mandatory break that does not allow the individual to excercise any discretion is not doing anything to improve safety -and it should be obvious to a rational person that individual fatigue or need varies from person to person and is unrelated to any set break time. Does the rule book insist on so many hours sleep the night before a shift? What I objected to in my note is the casual stupid way some posters on here regard passengers. The rulebook may prescribe a duty of care - unfortunately it does not prescribe a duty of consideration. That is down to the individual and as we can see clearly on here, some staff don't even seem to understand the basics. Having to teach the need for basic communication with customers in class is pretty much an admission of failure and I'd say some on here were probably not paying attention anyway.

 

[BestWestern]

There may be a valid point that some flexibility could be used where breaks are concerned, however that goes straight out of the window as soon as you consider the need to have set shifts to a set working day. Unless you have the whole working day on a 'see what happens' basis, you will always have to have breaks installed at set points. It's also worth pointing out that many breaks are set at the last permissible point and are of the shortest permissible time. They aren't there so the staff can have a jolly, whether passengers and inflammatory journalists choose to see it that way or not.

 

[Minilad]

The outpouring of bile against me was predictable - the hair splitting dissection of what I wrote to look for the needle's eye was revealing - such as the immediate knee jerk rush to the sanctuary of blind data instead of argued principle from those such as XCdriver. This is not about rules it is about communication, because I know perhaps even better than you XCD that there is a broad spectrum of attitude among on-train staff that training alone cannot eradicate. Because it is in the application of such petty minutiae that any sensible working breaks down. The problem as demonstrated here is that it is impossible to prescribe safety, even if you double the size of the rulebook. Taking a break is of course necessary if only for the comfort of staff involved and is not the issue, but prescribing a mandatory break that does not allow the individual to excercise any discretion is not doing anything to improve safety -and it should be obvious to a rational person that individual fatigue or need varies from person to person and is unrelated to any set break time. Does the rule book insist on so many hours sleep the night before a shift? What I objected to in my note is the casual stupid way some posters on here regard passengers. The rulebook may prescribe a duty of care - unfortunately it does not prescribe a duty of consideration. That is down to the individual and as we can see clearly on here, some staff don't even seem to understand the basics. Having to teach the need for basic communication with customers in class is pretty much an admission of failure and I'd say some on here were probably not paying attention anyway.

You may know more than me about staff attitudes towards passengers. Although seeing as I spend all my working life with said staff I know perfectly well what attitudes prevail. I know much more than you about the way the railway runs, and has to run.
Of course breaks have to be at set times. How do you think you would be able to roster work if crew took breaks when they felt tired rather than when they are able. There are lots of considerations to be taken when scheduling breaks.
I can assure you that on many occasions crew do use discretion at times of disruption. On many occasions I have taken a break out of course to keep the wheels moving and I am sure the vast majority of crew would do the same. Remember disruption isn't something that can be planned for and train crew don't like it as much as any passenger. The trouble is the regulations clearly state that breaks must be taken after a certain amount of hours work have been done. So you don't know if the guard in this case had already forgone his booked break and was now in the situation where if he didn't take the break he would be in breach of the regulations. Which if he did so would be setting himself up for disciplinary action against him if something happened.
The argument about information will run and run. Yes sometimes things could be communicated a little better. Sometime too much information can complicate things further. I will always tell a passenger as much as they need to know. To go any further sometimes can make matters worse as I have found out a few times. Of course some passengers you can never please no matter what you tell them as they feel the world revolves around them.
The railway frequently has to make difficult operating decisions that passengers don't always understand or feel need to be made but I can assure you these things don't happen for the hell of it.
Please realise that working at the coal face so to speak can be very stressful at times of disruption and staff are only human they feel frustrated too. But to suggest we should all forgo breaks is quite frankly ridiculous as I can assure you driving a train especially when things are going wrong can take it out of you. Surely you would want a refreshed and alert driver driving your train rather than an angry frustrated hungry thirsty one.
And please don't equate driving a train with answering e-mails and phones. That just demeans your argument greatly

 

[hairyhandedfool]

As far as I can see Domeyhead, you have only said one thing of note, that everyone experiences fatigue differently, but look at all the safety critical jobs across all industries, they all have defined breaks which are NOTHING to do with the abilities or fatigue levels of the people involved.

The railways work to a timetable, which means a member of staff can't pick when they have a break, and if you understood how the railway rosters work you would see that a generic PNB/CEB is required in the shifts. It can't simply be worked out each day to suit each person.

I believe the rulebook and the law has everybody's interests at heart because safety comes before performance. Passengers maybe 30 minutes late getting home, but, as the saying goes, better late than never.

It has already been established that lack of communication was not a factor here, the passengers were told the train would be late and why it would be late.

As for your point about staff not getting enough sleep, let me put that to bed for you. When a member of staff signs on for duty, they agree that they are starting the day fit to complete the day's work. It is the member of staff who are responsible for turning up fit for duty or reporting themselves as unfit. Signing on for duty when they are not fit to do the work is a disciplinary offence and safety critical staff would be putting themselves in line for a P45. I do not believe this is confined to the railway industry either.

 

[Ascot]

That's not a bad term of contract, I take it you have to take the lunch break at that specific time as well? For example if you have to work a return trip <1hr gap + published lunch> another return trip <1hr gap, working> then a quick local, the first return got mega delayed you have to take a minimum break then instead of choosing to take it at the next gap? Or is it as simple as "the crew must have their lunch at that time as it reduces stress levels or gives even distribution of the day"?

If only desk jockeys are so protected to take a minimum break without thinking of work.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If there was that situation, the member of staff would work the first train to the point where he had been due a break (unless there is a sufficiently long delay). At this point he could have the minimum entitled break (which may not be the same as the rostered break) before the next part of the work, and so on. The TOC may decide they have another member of staff who is in a position to work the train and could choose to use them to minimise delay, but this is not always possible.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I find this whole affair laughable, no one (except the Guard and his Control) know how far into his shift he was, like has been said previously you have to have a break after a set amount of time (In Safety Critical Duties it is I believe 6 Hours), fair enough the wording of the announcements could have been better, however no matter what way you put it, Train delayed due to Traincrew having a break will never go down with people who just want to go home, the bile against the Traincrew/TOC concerned is just plain stupid, No TOC's have plenty of spare men nowadays (something to do with cost effectiveness ) and from what I can gather with the disruption that day the Guard could easily have been near or over the 6 hours, Like the majority of Traincrew if we have an early break in our shift but something goes wrong AND we have time later on we will work through our set break and take it later (as long as not 6 hours) we can only be as flexible as the rules allow, and make no mistake I work within the rules, if it occasionally causes disruption so be it but somethings just cannot be helped.

 

[Ascot]

If there was that situation, <space saver> but this is not always possible.

I find this whole affair laughable, <space saver> cannot be helped.

Good to hear there is flexibility in this. I was under the impression, from select above posts, that it was black or white only.

 

[KA4C]

prescribing a mandatory break that does not allow the individual to excercise any discretion is not doing anything to improve safety -and it should be obvious to a rational person that individual fatigue or need varies from person to person and is unrelated to any set break time.

Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the subject. You believe that railway ops staff should take a break when they feel they need it, not when prescribed?

So how do you intend to integrate that with the diagrams that railway staff must work to. Does a driver working a train from A to C stop and take a break at B because that is when he feels that he needs it?

You are long on criticism and very short of realistic alternatives

You claim to have an extended knowledge of ops staff, their attitudes and how they work, perhaps you would like to share with the rest of us where you gain such knowledge

Perhaps you would also like to add some detail to your previous theories, as I requested earlier and as you have ignored

 

[HH]

Therefore whilst the legislation does not place a requirement on the length of break or when they are taken (apart from 20mins in 6 hours), they require that appropriate rest is taken to ensure staff are not fatigued. PNB's are used, amongst other things, to ensure staff are not fatigued and will be part of the controls implemented to combat fatigue and are therefore legally required.

I think that should be appropriate measures, which would include taking breaks. In any case, the regulations do not lay down any specific break of a particular length or at a particular point.

 

[KA4C]

I think that should be appropriate measures, which would include taking breaks. In any case, the regulations do not lay down any specific break of a particular length or at a particular point.

That is because the actual timing and length of a break must be related to the type of work carried out and this varies between companies, which is why this is a matter for negotiation between management and staff reps

 

[HH]

Priceless! I've been managing this stuff for over twenty years

I think you'll find that train operators are required to have processes in place to ensure that SCW are not carrying out such work when fatigued. Fatigue is not only a result of lack of sleep or too many hours at work, it can also be caused by lack of food or drink, hence all the summer "keep hydrated" briefs that are done. Oddly enough I have only just concluded an incident investigation where micro-sleep due to lack of a meal break on a shift was the direct causation

Indeed they are, but there is no specific legal requirement to take a break other than that which I already quoted. Of course generally safety critical rail workers have agreements that guarantee rather more than the minimum, and they often get more than that.

I've no doubt in this particular case the guard was more than due his break, and it was correct for him to do so. Still, his legal entitlement is no more than the man at Alton Towers. His contractual entitlement though is likely to be rather more.

 

[Minilad]

I think that should be appropriate measures, which would include taking breaks. In any case, the regulations do not lay down any specific break of a particular length or at a particular point.

But they do lay down specific break lengths within specific time frames

 

[KA4C]

Indeed they are, but there is no specific legal requirement to take a break other than that which I already quoted. Of course generally safety critical rail workers have agreements that guarantee rather more than the minimum, and they often get more than that.

I've no doubt in this particular case the guard was more than due his break, and it was correct for him to do so. Still, his legal entitlement is no more than the man at Alton Towers.

I have never stated that there is a specific legal requirement other than you have stated, my post above explains how these things are agreed

 

[455driver]

All guards are entitled to a break (PNB), if they dont take that break and there is an incident (whether the guards fault or not) guess who will get the blame (because they are fatigued).

I wonder how people would feel if a bus driver didnt have the required break (after 5 and a half hours driving) but worked a school special (on overtime), crashed the bus and injured some of the kids.
I bet the Daily Mail would have a slightly different out look.

This is a complete non story wrapped up to sound like a militant worker out to delay people unnecessarily.
As for another poster (supposedly an ex pilot) bleating on about "the militant railway workers", I bet he always took his (legally required) breaks!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think that should be appropriate measures, which would include taking breaks. In any case, the regulations do not lay down any specific break of a particular length or at a particular point.

There is nothing in law that says a guard's break must be 30 minutes every three hours for example. You are thinking far too simplistically about it. The law requires that the company write and implement a fatigue management plan, and then follow it. To not follow it would be illegal, and would draw the wrath of the ORR. If their plan says the guard must have a break for 30 minutes every three hours, then every three hours the guard must have a break.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for another poster (supposedly an ex pilot) bleating on about "the militant railway workers", I bet he always took his (legally required) breaks!

I'm more of the opinion that he's one of the Sunday-afternoon-at-the-local-airfield type pilots

 

[Domeyhead]

You may know more than me about staff attitudes towards passengers. Although seeing as I spend all my working life with said staff I know perfectly well what attitudes prevail. I know much more than you about the way the railway runs, and has to run.
Of course breaks have to be at set times. How do you think you would be able to roster work if crew took breaks when they felt tired rather than when they are able. There are lots of considerations to be taken when scheduling breaks.
I can assure you that on many occasions crew do use discretion at times of disruption. On many occasions I have taken a break out of course to keep the wheels moving and I am sure the vast majority of crew would do the same. Remember disruption isn't something that can be planned for and train crew don't like it as much as any passenger. The trouble is the regulations clearly state that breaks must be taken after a certain amount of hours work have been done. So you don't know if the guard in this case had already forgone his booked break and was now in the situation where if he didn't take the break he would be in breach of the regulations. Which if he did so would be setting himself up for disciplinary action against him if something happened.
The argument about information will run and run. Yes sometimes things could be communicated a little better. Sometime too much information can complicate things further. I will always tell a passenger as much as they need to know. To go any further sometimes can make matters worse as I have found out a few times. Of course some passengers you can never please no matter what you tell them as they feel the world revolves around them.
The railway frequently has to make difficult operating decisions that passengers don't always understand or feel need to be made but I can assure you these things don't happen for the hell of it.
Please realise that working at the coal face so to speak can be very stressful at times of disruption and staff are only human they feel frustrated too. But to suggest we should all forgo breaks is quite frankly ridiculous as I can assure you driving a train especially when things are going wrong can take it out of you. Surely you would want a refreshed and alert driver driving your train rather than an angry frustrated hungry thirsty one.
And please don't equate driving a train with answering e-mails and phones. That just demeans your argument greatly

Good response XCD . I don't have any issue with that.

 

[Domeyhead]

Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the subject. You believe that railway ops staff should take a break when they feel they need it, not when prescribed?

So how do you intend to integrate that with the diagrams that railway staff must work to. Does a driver working a train from A to C stop and take a break at B because that is when he feels that he needs it?

You are long on criticism and very short of realistic alternatives

You claim to have an extended knowledge of ops staff, their attitudes and how they work, perhaps you would like to share with the rest of us where you gain such knowledge

Perhaps you would also like to add some detail to your previous theories, as I requested earlier and as you have ignored

Not what I said, and again, not what I said. I criticised the lack of communication of a situation that needed explaining and then the attitude of posters on here who spoke in terms little short of contempt for the travelling public, but you would prefer instead to indulge in a pointless fact-fest, or seek refuge in the petty tit for tat exchange of petty point scoring over minor data. The break to which staff are entitled is enshrined in law - never mind the rule book, as I am sure you know, but in law it is an entitlement not a right that can be traded or exchanged for some other benefit. I don;t recall ever advocating some random pattern of break taking mid journey as you infer, so I don't have to answer your non-point. My criticism was and is directed at anyone who shows contempt or lack or respect for travellers, who may have many causes to depend on the railway and can hardly be expected to know what is happening. If they are incovenienced they deserve to be told why. So let's just stick with that simple matter of courtesy eh? My knowledge of the law is neither here nor there but like all commuters on a regular journey the workings of the railway, operations and practice become familiar over time including the need for rest breaks so a Mastermind session on the Rule Book with you in the chair is not germane to the issue/

 

[HH]

There is nothing in law that says a guard's break must be 30 minutes every three hours for example. You are thinking far too simplistically about it.

Not at all, I never thought such a thing because I understand the rostering process very well. And that means I know the position and length of break are not purely, or even mostly, down to safety considerations.

 

[KA4C]

Not what I said, and again, not what I said

Really?

but prescribing a mandatory break that does not allow the individual to excercise any discretion is not doing anything to improve safety -and it should be obvious to a rational person that individual fatigue or need varies from person to person and is unrelated to any set break time.

It must just be what you posted that I find confusing, then

 

[GB]

My criticism was and is directed at anyone who shows contempt or lack or respect for travellers, who may have many causes to depend on the railway and can hardly be expected to know what is happening. If they are incovenienced they deserve to be told why. So let's just stick with that simple matter of courtesy eh? /

They were told exactly why they were being delayed were they not? It was the passengers remarks and comments that sparked this off.

As far as I am concerned respect and courtesy is a two way street.

 

[ex-railwayman]

Sounds more like an "entitlement" than a "requirement". Can't the railway company factor meal breaks into a shift?
Really, if anything, it sounds like office politics.

Not at all young man, the Offices, Shops & Railway Premises Act of 1963 was an Act of Parliament that EVERYONE on the Railway had to adhere to, irrespective of their position, or, work environment. ALL staff from locomotive drivers, guards, fitters, right across to cashiers, booking office clerks and Regional Managers, had to follow the law. Nowadays, even though quite a bit of the OSRP Act has been swallowed up into more modern Acts of Parliament, the health and safety aspect today still has to be followed to the letter, especially, even more so now that guards have added responsibilities and their job titles have changed to Train Managers, etc, since I was staff. So, it isn't an entitlement as you describe, but, a requirement of law. From memory we were allowed a 15 minute break between the 3rd & 5th working hour, so, if you worked an 8 hour shift your break from duty requirement was 30 minutes, which you could take at any time if you worked in an office, that was more flexible, but, for drivers and guards, it was rostered into their shift pattern and was taken when they could walk away from any rolling stock to a depot canteen, station platform staff room, etc, etc, I assume today's railway TOC's make provision for staff to engage in a proper break away from their ''mobile office'', at a time that suits them and Management, but, obviously not to the customer's liking, as per this Daily Mail article.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.