Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by scrapy, 6 Feb 2019.
I said excuse, I agree it's not valid. But one given all the same.
A PTS trained OBS, simple
A PTS trained OBS. We have them already, they're called Guards.
Are you saying that the ~30% of trains that operate without a second member of staff are in some way unsafe?
I don't know - do you? Perhaps you could tell me how many of those c.30% of single manned trains run in rural, isolated areas with poor communications? How many run in towns and cities?
My gut feel is that two properly safety trained people on the train is better than one. I couldn't care less who presses a door button. I do care that when a train hits a tractor on a level crossing in the middle of nowhere, damaging the train and incapacitating the driver that there is someone trained to protect the train, summon help and liaise with the rescue services.
Perhaps you aren't bothered about that.
No to mention the huge number of ordinary people who have lost the ability to easily access their own means of employment due to the action of far better paid rail staff.
So you don't actually know.
finally we see honesty from you! Why not just admit your views on railway staff and their pay. Your jealousy and envy is palpable. it borders on hatred.
dear me. No response to questions. Do you know? I doubt it as you clearly don't understand the role of a guard.
Not absolutely unsafe, but definitely less safe. You can see that through the relative frequency of passengers being ‘trapped and dragged’ (door control being particularly relevant here) and incidents such as the emergency evacuation minus electrical isolation at Peckham Rye - where the driver, alone, was completely overwhelmed by the workload - and assorted uncontrolled evacuations. You probably can’t see the increased likelihood of SPADs through the increased workload and distractions of the dispatch process, but I’m sure that it’s there. It doesn’t take much to imagine the consequences of a train hitting a tree in the middle of nowhere either, partially derailed foul of the adjacent line and smashing the cab (and the driver) up but no serious injuries otherwise - who’s going to stop the job before the approaching train on that obstructed adjacent line arrives at speed and makes things a hundred times worse?
It's a point I made on the original thread and I was slapped down. Hard working families on less money than guards were stopped from going to work because of the strikes. I almost missed out on a shift because of it, and I'm just on A Band 2 wage in a hospital.
It's a valid observation to make. Guards do earn a lot of money and the strike did cause severe inconvenience to people who earned far less.
This is not, for me a step to "And therefore the strikes were illegitimate". I am not anti-Union. My issue was the RMT coming across as absolutely fault free, shining and perfect, raging against everybody else as though only the Union way is the right way. Something has to give in any dispute, there has to be comprise.
You can pick out various scenarios where a Guard may assist, but the question is does this occur often enough to matter. You cannot remove absolutely all risk, so it's a matter of whether the proposed method is safe enough. The RSSB reckon it is, they've done the analysis. https://www.rssb.co.uk/DCOContent/safety-of-driver-controlled-cperation-june-2018.pdf
Has anyone else done similar analysis, or is it just extrapolating from a few newsworthy incidents? (The plural of anecdote is not data).
We can flip that argument and see how flying in the 60s and 70s with no TCAS was an acceptable thing until a few midair collisions meant that it got brought in. Was flying safe then? Yes. Statistically it still was. Would you want to fly though without it now though? Or go on a flight back in time in the 70s knowing your plane hasn't got TCAS. Statistically yes. Of course you would. But knowing what COULD happen. Who knows. End of the day stats can prove everything and nothing. It's all about opinions. Some feel we can manage without a guard, some don't. I prefer to have one, some obviously don't. We can all argue it till we're blue in the face but it won't change this particular decision for now that Northern are keeping guards and that makes me and a lot of people happier. Not victorious, gloaty. No just happier and safer.
The increased risk has to be set against the benefits achieved to see whether it’s worthwhile, though. The cost savings are small if there’s a genuine commitment to maintaining current staffing levels (or indeed an absolute guarantee of a second person on every train). The only other stated benefits are a tiny increase in reliability (if trains can run without a second person) and a decrease in dwell time (which can equally be achieved by the driver just releasing the doors). If there is to be a second person on the train anyway, there is virtually no benefit to *not* having them dispatch the train themselves, to justify the increased risk, no matter how slight that is.
The RSSB’s conclusion in that link is unsupported by references or any other evidence, and appears to contradict some of their other work that quickly disappeared from public view...
(Edit - sorry, the RSSB link isn’t the one that I thought it was, and is rather more balanced, but my other comments still stand!)
SWRs way of using guards is a beacon of how to get the benefits, but isn't even near universal. South of Northampton you rarely see one.
Honestly? No, I'm not, not from the point of view of my own position. I know where the egress is and a broad enough view of the risks not to get squashed, and that using the egress is a last resort.
A DOO train is massively safer than driving. Anyone who says that it is not safe enough for them should not use any form of road transport, even walking, unless the fear is of attack in which case what they want is a BTP officer, not a guard.
All this talk of winners & losers, nobody has really gained from this dispute, and I include both passengers & businesses that have suffered with drops in footfall in all this. It really isn't about winning or losing any more, just about all sides reaching an agreement that they can all live with so that some semblance of normality on Saturdays can be restored. Only time will tell what the long term impact is, a big loss of passenger base is in nobody's interest so let's hope the moves made by all sides are enough to allow a final agreement to be made without any further escalation of the dispute action.
You are aware I'm sure that the ‘trapped and dragged’ figures were broadly the same with and without a second staff member. (Most units do not allow any view of the outside of the train up in Northern land). Whereas the Driver can look back out of his (or her) window along the unit, and a Conductor can't from the dispatch position of a closed door.
The actual role of the Guard, or the role the Unions tried to put across and failed.
I.e, to reassure the passengers, and keep them informed?
No. Over 80% of those serious enough to warrant an RAIB investigation involved DOO trains, and that’s with such trains making up maybe 40% of the total? I would be interested in seeing the ‘trap and drag’ figures adjusted to reflect, e.g., passenger mileage or number of station stops to give a more accurate picture though.
The driver can often (not always, and newer trains tend to remove the opportunity altogether) look back along the train as it departs, whether there’s a guard or not. It’s a useful ‘last resort’ check. He might not be able to see the full length of the train, though. Conversely, the guard might not be able to look along the train but he will be in a much better position to react to other cues, such as shouts of alarm from onlookers. That’s all about damage limitation at that stage, though. The guard’s in a far better position to manage the risk before it develops, by being able to dispatch from different positions along the train to get the best view according to risks specific to each station, and by having a much better view of the wider context to identify possible risks such as a late passenger running down the steps. The driver can see very little outside the narrow dispatch corridor.
Following privatisation and at least one serious incident onboard their trains SWTs initial plans were for suburban guards to assume an OBS type role on their 455s and only after failure to obtain union agreement were they forced fit guards door controls throughout the trains
I am certainly not saying the RMT are free of fault. Far from it. I have said since day one that sensible, mature, adult, compromise is required from both sides. My personal view is that this a completely unnecessary and politically motivated dispute.
BTW - of course the union will express their case as they only option. Just as the DfT have. That isnt the issue. Not talking and not having the desire or ability to agree a compromise are the issues.
I am not sure that is the argument!
However while you and I may be comfortable escaping in an emergency are you competent to contact the signal box and tell them of the issue? Are you competent to lay track circuit clips and protect the train? Are you competent to evacuate the train and get everyone off safely. No, me neither. That's the issue for me - without proper training an OBS is just a bloke in a happy to help tabbard.
For the final time: The primary role of the guard is to secure the safety of the train. It is clear you don't and won't accept this so it is pointless to try to discuss this further.
( subject to a suitable agreement guards will remain for now )
It also seems to be making some people on this forum a lot less happy, for reasons I'm really struggling to understand.
I can't see why you're "struggling".
It's very simple, the Union says that trains without Guards are in some way unsafe.
Traveling on a train makes passengers FEEL unsafe apparently, yet many Guards feel they can ignore the passenger facing roll, and the revenue one too.
I’ve corrected the above for you, and previously explained and justified why I believe the unions are correct to suggest that trains without guards are *less safe*.
Despite evidence to the contrary.
Where is this evidence to the contrary, please? There is little doubt that DOO is less safe, to some extent. That’s different to being “unsafe”, whatever you want that to mean.
You are inventing things now. Please stop.
Sorry, but stop lying.
The Unions have said many times what I have posted:
Unless you suddenly have become a mod', please stop editing my posts to try and pretend you are saying something different.
Many is the same as some for example.
what on earth are you one about? As i have said, and will say for a final time, the role of guard is to secure the safety of the train. The pamphlet linked in the article you offered as "evidence" indicates there are 35 safety critical areas to keep the railway and travelling public safe. The guard also does many of the things show in that pamphlet in addition to those safety critical duties.
You see those additional tasks as the primary responsibility of the role. They aren't. The safety critical tasks are. Breaking up a fight is superb customer service. It is not safety critical. Dealing with flashers is not safety critical.
This really isnt a difficult concept.