Petition for Guards

[bob hope]

Saw this elsewhere - worth a re-post:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106343

 

[dquebec]

There's nothing to say that the staff on the train need to be guards though? I support Driver Only working, as long as there is an Inspector or similar on board the train to deal with customer service and ticketing.

 

[bob hope]

So don't sign it..........

I prefer a fully trained member of staff that is capable of dealing with safety issues to be onboard.

I also want the driver to concentrate on driving - not having to worry about what is happening with a set of doors / passengers that are playing up 6 carriages behind him.

 

[8J]

So don't sign it..........

I prefer a fully trained member of staff that is capable of dealing with safety issues to be onboard.

I also want the driver to concentrate on driving - not having to worry about what is happening with a set of doors / passengers that are playing up 6 carriages behind him.

+1 and signed

 

[trentside]

+1 and signed

Another +1.

No doubt the usual suspects will be along soon to tell us why we're so unnecessary!

 

[northwichcat]

The aim of the petition is unclear. The title says about keeping guards on the train but the description talks about crime on late night services but many guards post on here they stay in the rear cab on late services to make sure they are safe.

 

[bob hope]

The aim is of the petition is clear - keep the guard on the train.

Even if the guard is in the cab - at least there is someone there to run to.

Would you prefer the driver to try and deal with a passenger incident between stations or a fully trained guard?
Who's going to be able to assist you quicker? The driver has to bring the train to a stand, contact the signaller and secure the cab - the guard doesn't.

Trains are safer places with guards onboard. Simple as that.

 

[Bellbell]

The aim of the petition is unclear. The title says about keeping guards on the train but the description talks about crime on late night services but many guards post on here they stay in the rear cab on late services to make sure they are safe.

No, the aim of the petition is not clouded by what's posted here. You've linked two things which are not linked.

 

[trentside]

No, the aim of the petition is not clouded by what's posted here. You've linked two things which are not linked.

For some reason, certain posters here are not in favour of the safety critical role of the guard. They also don't appreciate that for a number of us who post here that this is OUR job and it means a lot to us to protect our role and responsibilities. When you're just sat behind a screen it's very easy to forget that this is people's livelihoods we're talking about!

 

[WatcherZero]

Like the safety critical role of there being a second man in the drivers cab on any train exceeding 100 mph?
Wasn't at all about the unions trying to protect a position made redundant by advancing technology.

 

[bb21]

Can we not have another thread on DOO please? If anyone wants to have such a discussion, please do so on one of the many existing threads. Thank you.

 

[bob hope]

Can we not have another thread on DOO please? If anyone wants to have such a discussion, please do so on one of the many existing threads. Thank you.

So how do you intend to keep this important discussion regarding the ever looming threat to passenger safety and to the guards livelihood at the forefront of peoples minds?

Do you intend to make this petition or others with the same aim a sticky?

 

[Llanigraham]

Not signed.
Wording is too general.
No proper explanation of the problem or the need.
Poorly executed.

Unfortunately many of the petitions there suffer the same problem

 

[bb21]

So how do you intend to keep this important discussion regarding the ever looming threat to passenger safety and to the guards livelihood at the forefront of peoples minds?

Do you intend to make this petition or others with the same aim a sticky?

I am not prepared to get into a discussion about forum moderation policies in public. If you have any questions regarding that, please speak to any member of forum staff.

Please keep this thread about the petition itself and related queries. As I explained earlier, there are plenty of threads discussing the pros and cons of DOO so anyone wishing to do so will need to use one of those.

 

[trainophile]

Signed, Facebooked and emailed my MP.

As a frequent lone female traveller, I value the presence of a Guard highly.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Signature added.

 

[Bodiddly]

With the ongoing trial Martin Zee is having to endure, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole concept of train dispatch will have to be scrutinised, no matter the outcome.

 

[northwichcat]

No, the aim of the petition is not clouded by what's posted here. You've linked two things which are not linked.

Provision of guards on trains a stipulation for all new operator contracts.

There is a growing incidence of certain crimes on British trains that are not reflected In other EU countries, where guards on trains are the norm. There is a feeling of vulnerability when travelling at night and at weekends. Public safety should be paramount.

While figures show that 'reported' crime is showing a decrease, year on year, sexual offences are at a record high. At no place in the Office Of Rail Regulation on line policy is any mention made of any plans to address this. Health and Safety regulations are employee focussed rather than reflecting passenger requirements.

The title and first paragraph suggest a guard is imperative, but the second paragraph (which is hidden when you first view the page) details problems which need suitable members of staff on board, not necessarily guards. A BTP officer on every service would prevent the problems described. I think the person writing the description didn't think about what they were writing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For some reason, certain posters here are not in favour of the safety critical role of the guard. They also don't appreciate that for a number of us who post here that this is OUR job and it means a lot to us to protect our role and responsibilities. When you're just sat behind a screen it's very easy to forget that this is people's livelihoods we're talking about!

The description on the petition seems to suggest the guard's role is provide a security presence on late services. If you didn't know the role of the guard from that description you would think that guards didn't exist on late Northern and TPE services, as the only place you normally see them is going to release the doors and on the platform while the doors are open. When BBC reporters went out in Manchester and asked the public about safety and security on late trains, multiple people said they thought guards had gone from trains a long time ago and been replaced by ticket inspectors.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's a very poorly-written and vague petition. I might still sign it as I fully support the provision of a properly-trained second staff member on trains, but the petition as it stands does the cause little good, and may fail because of its flaws.

 

[SPADTrap]

There's nothing to say that the staff on the train need to be guards though? I support Driver Only working, as long as there is an Inspector or similar on board the train to deal with customer service and ticketing.

Interesting. And I'm not being funny but genuinely interested, why?

 

[Bellbell]

The title and first paragraph suggest a guard is imperative, but the second paragraph (which is hidden when you first view the page) details problems which need suitable members of staff on board, not necessarily guards. A BTP officer on every service would prevent the problems described. I think the person writing the description didn't think about what they were writing.

I don't necessarily disagree that the wording could have been clearer/the logic of the argument could have been better expressed but your post suggests that the aim of the petition is unclear because guards post on this forum saying they don't do revenue at night. My (pedantic) point is that the clarity or otherwise of the petition is nothing to do with what's posted on an internet forum.

The aim of the petition is unclear. The title says about keeping guards on the train but the description talks about crime on late night services but many guards post on here they stay in the rear cab on late services to make sure they are safe.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I am embarressed by some of these posts on here. No the wording isnt brilliant but it is obvious what the petition is for. Judy when was the last time you were on a last train out of Knutsford? If we had a bit of security we would go out more often. I really do hate it when opinions have no basis in real life.

 

[trainophile]

I am now in an email exchange with my MP's secretary, as a result of my asking him to support the retention of guards. It's a bit embarrassing as I don't really know all the details, e.g. possible timescales, and which TOCs are in imminent danger of losing their guards.

At least he will probably look at it though, so I'm glad I did it.

 

[sheff1]

No the wording isnt brilliant but it is obvious what the petition is for.

It might be obvious to people on here, but to someone unfamiliar with railway terminology a "guard" could be assumed to mean a security guard, especially as the body of the petition is talking about "crime". The reference to guards on trains in other EU countries could also cause confusion as people may well be aware of the security guards who undertake high profile patrols on urban rail systems in countries such as Spain, whilst believing 'railway guards' on trains are only there to check tickets. Confusion will only be heightened by the practice of operators here referring to onboard staff by a whole host of names - conductor, senior conductor, train manager, customer host etc.

The petition also mentions "certain crimes", but the only crime mentioned later is "sexual offences". If the intention of the petition is believed to be achieving reduction/eradication of sexual offences on trains many, even those familiar with railway terminology, may feel that dedicated security guards are the answer rather than someone whose prime responsibility is the safe operation of the train.

I fully support the retention / reinstatement of fully trained railway staff (in addition to the driver) on board all trains with a remit of ensuring safety. I am also in favour of those staff being supported by security staff in hotspot locations. Unfortunately this petition is not asking for either in a clear manner.

 

[sarahj]

I am now in an email exchange with my MP's secretary, as a result of my asking him to support the retention of guards. It's a bit embarrassing as I don't really know all the details, e.g. possible timescales, and which TOCs are in imminent danger of losing their guards.

At least he will probably look at it though, so I'm glad I did it.

Waving at you, hopefully not drowning in June.

 

[northwichcat]

when was the last time you were on a last train out of Knutsford? If we had a bit of security we would go out more often. I really do hate it when opinions have no basis in real life.

In which direction? Going towards Manchester - never. Going towards Chester - occasionally. I also find whether the guards remain in the cab depends on late services depends who the guard is opposed to what type of passengers are on the service. You can have a slim build 25 year old doing a ticket inspection when there are obviously some people on board who have had too much to drink, then you can have an older guard who looks like they would more than capable of breaking up a fight remaining in the cab on a late service in the mid-week when most of the passengers are pensioners and no-one appears intoxicated.

Anyway regardless of that the petition implies the guard provides a security presence for passengers and makes their journey safer particularly on late services. I don't see how that is the case when guards are less visible on late services than day services. Whether one person alone can provide that is debatable and like I've said already it's perhaps not a guard you need to provide that role as someone like a BTP officer would be better trained for that role.

 

[kevin5025]

If there was an accident, a train would be safer with two members of staff than one. There is a possibility of injury, so the more people on the ground to deal with an incident, the better. A 150 seat airliner has to have three cabin crew, and that is entirely for safety reasons. For the passenger, they want someone who is going to look after their personal safety, and from many threads on here, that is not regarded as the role of the guard. Yes, I want staff on the train, but I would prefer it was staff who are trained, and employed to keep the passengers safe - ie crime, as well as rail safety. I would rather the budget for guards went into BTP on the condition that trains were patrolled as a matter of course, and that specialist officers were also trained in the role of guard. Yes, it is radical, but, the exisiting role of guard doesn't appear to be providing what passengers need, with much of the original basis for the role having disapeared in our multiple unit railway. Returning to airlines, cabin crew are employed and trained to additionally look after the personal safety of passengers too, including dealing with anti social behaviour. It isn't fun, and there needs to be proper training and support given to staff, as well as legal powers. Perhaps the issue is that the role of guard isn't comprehensive enough so that everyone knows its value?

 

[323235]

Do you really think that the pay of a guard would pay for an appropriate number of BTP to patrol trains as a matter of course? Even if they did the likelihood is that more crime processing would take place and therefore more backend processing which would reduce the intended visibility and would not significantly increase it.

What Government budget do BTP officers come out of?

If there was an accident, a train would be safer with two members of staff than one. There is a possibility of injury, so the more people on the ground to deal with an incident, the better. A 150 seat airliner has to have three cabin crew, and that is entirely for safety reasons. For the passenger, they want someone who is going to look after their personal safety, and from many threads on here, that is not regarded as the role of the guard. Yes, I want staff on the train, but I would prefer it was staff who are trained, and employed to keep the passengers safe - ie crime, as well as rail safety. I would rather the budget for guards went into BTP on the condition that trains were patrolled as a matter of course, and that specialist officers were also trained in the role of guard. Yes, it is radical, but, the exisiting role of guard doesn't appear to be providing what passengers need, with much of the original basis for the role having disapeared in our multiple unit railway. Returning to airlines, cabin crew are employed and trained to additionally look after the personal safety of passengers too, including dealing with anti social behaviour. It isn't fun, and there needs to be proper training and support given to staff, as well as legal powers. Perhaps the issue is that the role of guard isn't comprehensive enough so that everyone knows its value?

 

[BestWestern]

The aim of the petition is unclear. The title says about keeping guards on the train but the description talks about crime on late night services but many guards post on here they stay in the rear cab on late services to make sure they are safe.

That's not quite true is it....?! Many Guards may choose not to conduct revenue duties if they feel it is likely to cause significant issues, but that doesn't mean they lock themselves away and don't patrol the train. It is perfectly possible to maintain a good visible presence on board without conducting ticket checks. Indeed, I would suggest being able to make that judgement is a standard part of a good Guard's skillset.

 

[kevin5025]

Do you really think that the pay of a guard would pay for an appropriate number of BTP to patrol trains as a matter of course? Even if they did the likelihood is that more crime processing would take place and therefore more backend processing which would reduce the intended visibility and would not significantly increase it.

What Government budget do BTP officers come out of?

Love the cheeky way people speak on here, like others are really stupid :roll:. Anyway, here are the figures. Starting salary of a police officer 16k, conductor 17k. After training 22k (approx) for the conductor, plus ticket commission, and 21k for the police officer, but it does rise over the years. Police Community Support Officers don't have such a high salary after a few years. So, assuming I can count, yes, I think we would get a resonable number of officers from the amount spent on guards. Of course, what i propose is a new role - officer with guards training, so presumably it could get its own pay scale.
You have a good point, more crime being processed would reduce visability. But the point is that a DOO train does not need a police officer, nor ticket inspector, a train with a guard does require that member of staff. If more crimes were being processed, that is a good thing - hopefully it would reduce crime over time. Who knows if it would work, but we need to be thinking of options.