More Daily Mail Madness ...

[KA4C]

As it is, apparently, to the Daily Mail as well.

Which is why I'm looking for a definitive answer as to whether the break was unavoidable or not, rather than interested opinion.

If the guard was not entitled to his break, he would have been instructed to work the train, had he refused, he would be on discipline for refusing to follow an instruction

It must be pretty clear to most reading this that the break was unavoidable. That SET have not stated that the guard was wrong and is being dealt with, rather that he was taking his break suggests, at least to those in the business, that he was perfectly entitled to his break, as per his T & C's which, as I have already explained, is how break periods are decided

To be honest, it is the Daily Mail, SET would not be able to do right for doing wrong, if the guard takes his break, he is delaying customers, if he doesn't then SET would be accused of running an unsafe railway

It also appears that the railway was disrupted that day (was it the lightening strike on the TP hut day?). it may be that the guards previous working was running late and so his meal break was late, it may be that he had volunteered to cover the train, vice a displaced guard, by working overtime, but wanted something to eat and drink first

It sounds to me like SET were to upfront and honest here and were trying to minimise delays. In future, perhaps their guards should have their break away from the train, out of sight, in the messroom, thereby accruing more delay to the service and with just a "train being delayed awaiting member of train crew" announcement

It may also be that the "guard" was, in fact, a driver, volunteering to guard the train on overtime, which is why he did not do commercial duties

 

[moonrakerz]

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.

The guard in this case MAY have just been bloody minded - there are plenty of other threads/posts on this site showing that there are plenty of railway staff who are not the paragons of virtue that we all would like them to be.

On the question of law :- If his break was a legally enforced one, why not tell the passengers ? It isn't really that difficult...........
Your point about rostering doesn't really hold water, I'm afraid; on a flight to Stuttgart my aircraft went u/s at Heathrow, being a big airline BA managed to find another aircraft, but by the time it had been prepared and moved to our terminal our crew had run out of hours. They could have taken us to Stuttgart, but they couldn't have brought the return flight back.
Another crew was found and we eventually left nearly 3 hrs late. BUT - the whole way through this incident everyone waiting for this flight knew exactly what was happening. There was nowt wrong with the rostering - it just went wrong - s*** happens !
Railways do seem to be singularly bad at telling their passengers what is going on.

Apart from which - why get worked up about anything that the Daily Mail prints ?

 

[Minilad]

Railways do seem to be singularly bad at telling their passengers what is going on.

It seems to me in this case they were told what was going on. Just chose to rant about it anyway. As indeed do a lot of passengers when given explanations. But lets just keep blaming the staff for anything that goes wrong eh.

 

[KA4C]

there are plenty of other threads/posts on this site showing that there are plenty of railway staff who are not the paragons of virtue that we all would like them to be.

Just as there are posts from certain self righteous, know it all, railway enthusiasts who appear to have it in for railway staff and who think that they have all of the answers, or just criticise for the sake of it.

 

[Minilad]

I like railway staff that are not paragons of virtue. But I also like self righteous know it all enthusiasts. Which is better. Only one way to find out. FIIIIIIGHT

 

[TDK]

It interests me with some posters on here that they want solid evidence for blame - shame the Mail doesn't do the same-

As for law - if by any chance the guard did not take their break and it should have been taken then an incident occurs the guard will be responsible for that incident and could end up in court and jail so it could be deemed as law.

The guard was out of sync with their roster and therefore late running by the looks of it and had to take their break - simple explanation. Sometimes companies do not think before announcing delays.

I was once late running and had a 6 minute turnround at Victoria on a busy packed commuter train - walking along the train I was hurled abuse by passengers to find out that the station announcer had announced that "I am sorry but the 17.15 Connex South Central service will be delayed by 15 minutes due to the driver being late. This was unprofessional and unthoughtful of the announcer or the person who instructed them - so many complaints could be avoided if the correct information was delivered to the customer - as for blame, well you cannot blame anyone really if it was caused by earlier disruption due to the weather.

 

[D1009]

I'm saying what's obvious; you have an 'opinion' as to what happened, the DM has an 'opinion' as to what happened. Both are worthless without us knowing the facts!

The difference is that the opinions expressed on here are based on inside knowledge of the railway, in other words informed opinion. If you don't like reading informed opinion, then read the Daily Mail instead.

 

[175001]

I ask again... Does anyone know, for sure (opinions are worthless) whether this guard HAD to take his break at THAT time? Until we know that, we can not come to an objective conclusion.

Like many have pointed out to you on here, if he/she is booked a PNB on a Docket at a specific place between specific trains, then he/she will take that PNB at that particular station. End of story.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I'm not; in the slightest..........



The guard in this case MAY have just been bloody minded - there are plenty of other threads/posts on this site showing that there are plenty of railway staff who are not the paragons of virtue that we all would like them to be.

On the question of law :- If his break was a legally enforced one, why not tell the passengers ? It isn't really that difficult...........
Your point about rostering doesn't really hold water, I'm afraid; on a flight to Stuttgart my aircraft went u/s at Heathrow, being a big airline BA managed to find another aircraft, but by the time it had been prepared and moved to our terminal our crew had run out of hours. They could have taken us to Stuttgart, but they couldn't have brought the return flight back.
Another crew was found and we eventually left nearly 3 hrs late. BUT - the whole way through this incident everyone waiting for this flight knew exactly what was happening. There was nowt wrong with the rostering - it just went wrong - s*** happens !

There have been plenty of reports in CHIRP about pressure to work beyond their statutory hours being put on flight and cabin crew by airlines. None of that is communicated to pax.

 

[Domeyhead]

I'm sure they (the commuters) would be the first to complain if an email interrupted their lunch hour.

That comment just shows how divorced you are from the reality of the work many of the long suffering passengers do. First like most of the "goldfish starers" I work long hours without a break and emails, calls and meetings do not recognise breaks - because there are none. WHen you see commuters talking on their phones many are still working and it is hard and stressful though you seem to know nothing about it. What I find annoying is that some (not many I'm pleased to say) TOC workers love to hide behind rules which would make their their own lives intolerable if everyone else behaved in the same way. Of course I accept that train staff are entitled to a break but if it the break is taken on a train that commuters were expecting to depart at a certain time and no explanation is given then the staff don't deserve sympathy or understanding because they aren't giving any. It is obvious that if (say) any of the staff here took their familiy to Alton Towers for the day only to find that they were held in an entrance queue for an hour with no explanation because of the staff's break conditions they would be pretty angry and p*ssed off - and rightly so, so they need to recognise that inconveniencing people with no explanation is not acceptable. Listening to some of the smug complacent comments about "commuters" on here as though they were so many cattle shows that some of the contempt from commuters is well justified - and don;t make the mistake of thinking that experienced commuters don;t understand a lot of the rules and regulations that some staff hide behind, and that Bob Crow loves to exploit - it's attitude that counts and some people on here need a reality check or a slap, and perhaps both.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....On the question of law :- If his break was a legally enforced one, why not tell the passengers ? It isn't really that difficult...........

Did you read the article.....

....Frustrated passengers were told by an employee of rail operator Southeastern .... that although a driver was on board the train it could not leave without the guard.

When asked what the guard was doing, commuters .... were told ‘he’s having his nosh’ and couldn’t start his shift until he had finished his dinner break....

Seems they were told.

....Your point about rostering doesn't really hold water, I'm afraid; on a flight to Stuttgart my aircraft went u/s at Heathrow, being a big airline BA managed to find another aircraft, but by the time it had been prepared and moved to our terminal our crew had run out of hours. They could have taken us to Stuttgart, but they couldn't have brought the return flight back.
Another crew was found and we eventually left nearly 3 hrs late. BUT - the whole way through this incident everyone waiting for this flight knew exactly what was happening. There was nowt wrong with the rostering - it just went wrong - s*** happens !
Railways do seem to be singularly bad at telling their passengers what is going on....

Guard arrived late due to an earlier delayed train (caused by lightning strikes). He had his PNB, which he was entitled to. After lunch the train got moving 30 minutes down. BUT - the whole way through this incident everyone waiting for this train knew exactly what was happening. There was nowt wrong with the rostering - it just went wrong - s*** happens!

Papers seem to be particularly bad at reporting anything to do with the railway.

....Apart from which - why get worked up about anything that the Daily Mail prints ?

Good question. we all know it is the media creating a story to get people worked up, just look at the title for the article.

More 'elf and safety nonsense: Train delayed for 30 minutes so the guard could eat his DINNER

• Employee enjoyed chicken salad sandwich and crisps while commuters waited
• Rail operator Southeastern says staff are 'required to take mandatory breaks'

 

[SS4]

That comment just shows how divorced you are from the reality of the work many of the long suffering passengers do. First like most of the "goldfish starers" I work long hours without a break and emails, calls and meetings do not recognise breaks - because there are none. WHen you see commuters talking on their phones many are still working and it is hard and stressful though you seem to know nothing about it. What I find annoying is that some (not many I'm pleased to say) TOC workers love to hide behind rules which would make their their own lives intolerable if everyone else behaved in the same way. Of course I accept that train staff are entitled to a break but if it the break is taken on a train that commuters were expecting to depart at a certain time and no explanation is given then the staff don't deserve sympathy or understanding because they aren't giving any. It is obvious that if (say) any of the staff here took their familiy to Alton Towers for the day only to find that they were held in an entrance queue for an hour with no explanation because of the staff's break conditions they would be pretty angry and p*ssed off - and rightly so, so they need to recognise that inconveniencing people with no explanation is not acceptable. Listening to some of the smug complacent comments about "commuters" on here as though they were so many cattle shows that some of the contempt from commuters is well justified - and don;t make the mistake of thinking that experienced commuters don;t understand a lot of the rules and regulations that some staff hide behind, and that Bob Crow loves to exploit - it's attitude that counts and some people on here need a reality check or a slap, and perhaps both.

Is that the green eyed monster I see behind you? Or simply because your conditions suck then everybody's conditions must suck.

 

[DarloRich]

Is that the green eyed monster I see behind you? Or simply because your conditions suck then everybody's conditions must suck.

that is often the problem - the race to the bottom.

I have no protection from my employer so no one shall have protection from thier employer.

 

[ainsworth74]

Seems they were told.

Only that the guard was having his dinner/a break, not that he was taking that break as required by the rules that govern rail staff in a safety critical positions due to the hours he'd worked so far. I think this is where the issue started, if the commuters had been told something along the lines of: "there is a driver but the only guard available has to take a break for the next thirty minutes because otherwise he'll be violating various rules laid down for the safe operation of the railway" then it would have been much harder for the DM to spin this in the way that it has.

 

[SS4]

Only that the guard was having his dinner/a break, not that he was taking that break as required by the rules that govern rail staff in a safety critical positions due to the hours he'd worked so far. I think this is where the issue started, if the commuters had been told something along the lines of: "there is a driver but the only guard available has to take a break for the next thirty minutes because otherwise he'll be violating various rules laid down for the safe operation of the railway" then it would have been much harder for the DM to spin this in the way that it has.

I wouldn't bet on it. As has been said DM journalists are much more intelligent than their articles would suggest they are. They've probably been told to increase controversy and put across ludicrous implications.

 

[ainsworth74]

I wouldn't bet on it. As has been said DM journalists are much more intelligent than their articles would suggest they are. They've probably been told to increase controversy and put across ludicrous implications.

I'm sure that's also true but at least the railway wouldn't have been as open to the easy goal that the DM have scored here.

 

[KA4C]

. What I find annoying is that some (not many I'm pleased to say) TOC workers [I]love to hide behind rules[/I] - and don;t make the mistake of thinking that experienced commuters don;t understand a lot of [I]the rules and regulations that some staff hide behind[/I], .

By which you have thereby demonstrated that you, indeed, do not understand the rules and requirements to which rail workers are required to adhere, as you believe that, by applying the rules which, (as staff) they have not made, but which they are required to abide by and which have been created for safety reasons, staff are on some sort of work avoidance scheme. you might care to note that the member of staff concerned in the OP did, in fact, work the train and by taking his break, was probably finished later than he would have been had he worked on.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm sure that's also true but at least the railway wouldn't have been as open to the easy goal that the DM have scored here.

I wouldn't bet on that either. If the DM wanted a story they'd print one. The title implies it was anti-H&S, but it's clearly anti-railway. I suspect the only difference would be that instead of the article being 'Train delayed while guard eats dinner' it would be 'Train delayed while guard puts his feet up'.

 

[KA4C]

I wouldn't bet on that either. If the DM wanted a story they'd print one. The title implies it was anti-H&S, but it's clearly anti-railway. I suspect the only difference would be that instead of the article being 'Train delayed while guard eats dinner' it would be 'Train delayed while guard puts his feet up'.

Nail firmly on head!

 

[Stephen55a1960]

I wouldn't bet on that either. If the DM wanted a story they'd print one. The title implies it was anti-H&S, but it's clearly anti-railway. I suspect the only difference would be that instead of the article being 'Train delayed while guard eats dinner' it would be 'Train delayed while guard puts his feet up'.

Didn't the same "paper" publish a "story," about a FGW HST driver reading "allegedly" a newspaper, coming out of a tunnel? It transpired the train wasn't moving; but was stationary, at signals beyond the tunnel. :roll:

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I do recall that story, though I can't remember what the outcome was.

 

[D1009]

They've probably been told to increase controversy and put across ludicrous implications.

Not TOLD to, that's their job on what was probably a slow news day, a) fill space, b) write something their misguided readership wants to read.

 

[KA4C]

I do recall that story, though I can't remember what the outcome was.

Driver was originally suspended and then dismissed as a result of the photo

On appeal, the disciplinary charge was withdrawn

It could not be proved that the driver was reading the paper whilst driving the train. The driver had a very justifiable explanation for the view, in the 200th of a second (or whatever) of his actions, that was published

There was no evidence other than the photo

Photographer got his thirty pieces of silver, though

 

[Minilad]

That comment just shows how divorced you are from the reality of the work many of the long suffering passengers do. First like most of the "goldfish starers" I work long hours without a break and emails, calls and meetings do not recognise breaks - because there are none. WHen you see commuters talking on their phones many are still working and it is hard and stressful though you seem to know nothing about it. What I find annoying is that some (not many I'm pleased to say) TOC workers love to hide behind rules which would make their their own lives intolerable if everyone else behaved in the same way. Of course I accept that train staff are entitled to a break but if it the break is taken on a train that commuters were expecting to depart at a certain time and no explanation is given then the staff don't deserve sympathy or understanding because they aren't giving any. It is obvious that if (say) any of the staff here took their familiy to Alton Towers for the day only to find that they were held in an entrance queue for an hour with no explanation because of the staff's break conditions they would be pretty angry and p*ssed off - and rightly so, so they need to recognise that inconveniencing people with no explanation is not acceptable. Listening to some of the smug complacent comments about "commuters" on here as though they were so many cattle shows that some of the contempt from commuters is well justified - and don;t make the mistake of thinking that experienced commuters don;t understand a lot of the rules and regulations that some staff hide behind, and that Bob Crow loves to exploit - it's attitude that counts and some people on here need a reality check or a slap, and perhaps both.

I really don't know where to begin with this post.
But I feel compelled to award you the whole internet as it is possibly one of the must stunning posts I have ever read.
Congratulations. And I think the final part of your post sums up more about you than the idiotic things you have written ever could

 

[KA4C]

Well. perhaps Domeyhead could give us a few examples, from his extensive knowledge of railway operation, of rules that staff are merely "hiding behind"

In other words, rules which staff are applying which, in his opinion, they should ignore

Perhaps he could also enlighten us as to the reasoning behind his suggestions

I'm sure that railway staff on here could all learn something from his extensive experience in such matters

 

[GB]

First like most of the "goldfish starers" I work long hours without a break and emails, calls and meetings do not recognise breaks - because there are none.

Who's fault is that? Rail staff should adopt poorer working conditions to suit others should they?

What I find annoying is that some (not many I'm pleased to say) TOC workers love to hide behind rules which would make their their own lives intolerable if everyone else behaved in the same way.

Which rules do you think staff are hiding behind?

Of course I accept that train staff are entitled to a break but if it the break is taken on a train that commuters were expecting to depart at a certain time and no explanation is given then the staff don't deserve sympathy or understanding because they aren't giving any.

Sorry I don't follow...

It is obvious that if (say) any of the staff here took their familiy to Alton Towers for the day only to find that they were held in an entrance queue for an hour with no explanation because of the staff's break conditions they would be pretty angry and p*ssed off - and rightly so, so they need to recognise that inconveniencing people with no explanation is not acceptable.

Not quite the same situation is it....but then you know that don't you.

Listening to some of the smug complacent comments about "commuters" on here as though they were so many cattle shows that some of the contempt from commuters is well justified - and don;t make the mistake of thinking that experienced commuters don;t understand a lot of the rules and regulations that some staff hide behind, and that Bob Crow loves to exploit - it's attitude that counts and some people on here need a reality check or a slap, and perhaps both.

Now that is priceless! Your raging at staff for apparently not knowing what you commuters go through each day without knowing what staff go through. Double standards much?

 

[HH]

Come on guys. The PNBs that staff get are benefits (because they are PAID) that have been fought for by the staff and Unions. Sure they played the safety card to get them, but the LAW only requires one rest break of 20 minutes if you work over a 6 hour shift (unless you are under 18 or drive an HGV).

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

P.S. Was this what is known as "The Roll of the Guard"?

 

[Minilad]

Come on guys. The PNBs that staff get are benefits (because they are PAID) that have been fought for by the staff and Unions. Sure they played the safety card to get them, but the LAW only requires one rest break of 20 minutes if you work over a 6 hour shift (unless you are under 18 or drive an HGV).

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

P.S. Was this what is known as "The Roll of the Guard"?

Well I have just had a quick skim through the thread and I can't see anywhere where the length of the break was stated. Just the fact that a break is a legal requirement. But the fact is a break is required by law

 

[AlterEgo]

It is obvious that if (say) any of the staff here took their familiy to Alton Towers for the day only to find that they were held in an entrance queue for an hour with no explanation because of the staff's break conditions they would be pretty angry and p*ssed off - and rightly so, so they need to recognise that inconveniencing people with no explanation is not acceptable.

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

A better comparison would be for a member of rail staff to be told they and their family won't be flying to Orlando for DisneyLand for a couple of hours as the pilots need their break. They're taking their break as their flight was delayed inbound. They need the break because if they make a mistake, they will kill you.

I would be more than happy with that explanation. You seem to misunderstand that if a guard or driver makes a mistake through tiredness, they can kill people.

This is serious business.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Didn't the same "paper" publish a "story," about a FGW HST driver reading "allegedly" a newspaper, coming out of a tunnel? It transpired the train wasn't moving; but was stationary, at signals beyond the tunnel. :roll:

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

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

A better comparison would be for a member of rail staff to be told they and their family won't be flying to Orlando for DisneyLand for a couple of hours as the pilots need their break. They're taking their break as their flight was delayed inbound. They need the break because if they make a mistake, they will kill you.

I would be more than happy with that explanation. You seem to misunderstand that if a guard or driver makes a mistake through tiredness, they can kill people.

This is serious business.

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.