Staff Uniforms

[driver_m]

I don't really know why TOCs change or introduce their uniforms and keep having ties even now when most of the business community have ditched them. It's perfectly acceptable to wear an open top button and suit jacket these days.

VTWC did this with their last but one uniform issue and I thought it was very modern. Just grey shirts and grey trousers in the heat and no ties. Their latest issue is for polo necks to be worn on weekends and bank hols by train managers. Formal wear for in the week.

Half of industry wear polo necks now so why every TOC doesn't offer one I'm not sure. Most of Jaguar Land rover wear them and it's no circus or school trip there.

Also, I feel like a full suit is inappropriate at weekends. Most of the traveling public are leisure travelers at the weekend a d are in very casual wear. Staff then look over dressed and can also be made to feel more vulenrable to p-taking on a Saturday night on late night services full of drunk party goers who have a guard looking like a porter from the grand hotel complete with waistcoat.

Why make staff look over dressed at the weekends especially evenings, it just gives people who don't like rail staff another thing to make fun of them for because they have their top button done up and their clip on tie and suit on when dealing with the last arrival from the party strip when everyone else is dressed in a relaxed casual fashion? It's just going to make the staff stand out a mile and look anything but trendy while everyone else is. Ive had many a time a group of lads all laughing and jeering, and wearing a school uniform type thing makes you feel like you don't fit the environment on a Saturday night, and myself and others have had pointing and remarks such as staff look like characters from Harry Potter. I'd feel more comfortable in front of customers in a polo neck on late night weekends. Removing ties would be a start.

Also note a lot of uniform issue ladies with cravat type things which allow for top buttons to be left undone. However many uniforms issue the man a clip on tie only and they can't wear an open top button. This is uncomfortable and doesn't seem very fair. Also a lot of office environments allow ladies to wear dresses so things in the business environment definitely seem to be getting more informal but not the railway for some reason?

We can wear the polo when we want, though other OB staff cant. I do think it's strange though how a tie is still part of the uniform at ours (VT) though, given Beardie's long standing loathing of them. Seems that bad old habits die hard, even with people's attitude to uniform.

 

[tsr]

I tend to find it is far easier to deal with customers when I look smart with shirt, tie and (when it’s cool enough) a suit jacket, than when I am in a hi-vis jacket and not wearing a tie. It seems that looking businesslike and recognisable as someone at work is something that really helps when trying to resolve tricky situations. This particularly applies with uniform, but looking smarter when out of uniform is also a bonus.

Customers do seem to get a lot more agitated when they come across someone wandering around a platform with an untucked and half-unbuttoned shirt and a half-eaten burger in their hand. They don’t really care if they happen to be a driver, or platform staff, or a guard on their break, or whatever. In fact, there’s something to be said for driver uniforms actually being turned around to be the smartest of all. Customers pretty much universally expect that as someone in charge of a train (and paid a fair amount to be there too), the driver will know a fair bit and should be able to help with a certain amount. Even if they can’t, an apology from someone sympathetic and smartly-dressed goes a long way. It’s just about building mutual respect. Naturally there do need to be enforced uniform and customer service behaviour standards. Hard to do at places where morale is rock-bottom, but ever more important to help improve on that.

I do agree with the points about light-coloured, synthetic uniform shirts causing problems. It’s unsightly and not a hard problem to overcome at all. If you’re sitting in a ticket office (where lots of this stuff seems to be tested) it’s fine, but if you’re on a platform splitting and attaching coaches, or onboard a train with dodgy/no air con, you’ll get black oil/grease marks on the sleeves (trains are grubby places) and sweat patches under the arms - yuk!

There are plenty of reasonably-priced breathable fabrics out there, not to mention easy solutions like underarm mesh / vent holes, colour contrasting fabrics for areas which need to be darker, you name it really.

Unfortunately every recent uniform jacket I’ve ever worn has been way too warm or just not breathable, including stuff of dubious origin yet labelled with one particular well-respected outdoor brand - and as such I find they are unusable in all but freezing weather. This is in stark contrast to a few years back, when the uniform jackets I had were so poorly made that they offered no conceivable insulation or waterproofing, and the company hi-vis vest (not an insulated one either) added noticeable warmth. Between a rock and a hard place on that one, it seems!

 

[Eccles1983]

So much for inclusion.

So those who are overweight cannot drive a train because they dont suit an out dated uniform expectation.

Lovely, I suppose you dont like seeing women drivers either as its not how it used to be.

Utter nonsense. The uniform should be practical, and appropriate to the role. Me sitting in a cab all day and having to wear a tie or shirt makes no sense. The only time passengers see me is when I am changing ends, or walking to the mess room. Where as it is more practical to wear cargo trousers and a polo for carrying keys/docket. Also if I need to work on the train a shirt attracts oil and other.

 

[Domh245]

If TOCs want people to wear smart uniforms and passengers want to see staff in smart uniforms then uniform shaped - ie height to weight ratios - have to be considered when employing staff. It doesn't matter what the style or quality of the suit is, a porker will always be a porker.

Other than the fact that approach would you get in a lot of trouble with discrimination law, a fitted suit on a larger person will always look better than an ill-fitting suit on a slim person. This chap is clearly on the larger side, but his suit fits him very well and he looks very smart. This man however (it is difficult to gauge how slim he is) looks a bit like I did on the first day of secondary school, everything was a few sizes too large (although I grew into and then back out of it) and he doesn't look particularly smart at all. Obviously tailoring each member of staff's uniform is completely impractical but it's a far more sensible proposal than hiring people based on their waist size!

Even the infamous "absolute unit" who is about as wide as he is tall looks reasonably smart in his suit, although it could do with a bit of widening around the chest!

 

[High Dyke]

... Personally I don’t really buy the idea of dressing people in polo shirts - dress people like they’re on a school trip and people will start behaving like it. However others no doubt take a different view. Again, London Underground happens to be a current example of an operator who has created a bad uniform.

That's just a personal preference. However I must ask my manager if I can obtain a Hi-viz Orange shirt, not a polo type shirt, for my job. I personally don't wear proper shirts very often, but a smart corporate polo shirt gives a sense of identity and looks smart - on most people.

Equally some of my colleagues have not requested any corporate uniform. Though I do agree it does give a bad impression when someone turns up to work a signal box in shorts and Hawaiian shirt.

 

[driver_m]

Even the infamous "absolute unit" who is about as wide as he is tall looks reasonably smart in his suit, although it could do with a bit of widening around the chest!

"Absolute unit" .I love that description.

 

[Domh245]

"Absolute unit" .I love that description.

Would you say that you are in awe? :P

 

[whhistle]

I do think it's strange though how a tie is still part of the uniform at ours (VT) though, given Beardie's long standing loathing of them.

I always thought it was drivers who thrusted this through though.
If the tie wasn't part of the uniform, a Union tie was not permitted either, and that wasn't agreeable.

 

[ComUtoR]

I always thought it was drivers who thrusted this through though.
If the tie wasn't part of the uniform, a Union tie was not permitted either, and that wasn't agreeable.

Even when we had tie; Union ties were still a rarity. It was more the case of people not wearing them.

 

[driver_m]

I always thought it was drivers who thrusted this through though.
If the tie wasn't part of the uniform, a Union tie was not permitted either, and that wasn't agreeable.

Nothing to do with drivers. The last uniform we had didnt have any ties at all for any grade. This time they've been reintroduced as an option for all grades. I thought they'd been consigned to the bin for good. What the union tie has to do with all this I don't know....

 

[adamello]

Other than the fact that approach would you get in a lot of trouble with discrimination law, a fitted suit on a larger person will always look better than an ill-fitting suit on a slim person. This chap is clearly on the larger side, but his suit fits him very well and he looks very smart. This man however (it is difficult to gauge how slim he is) looks a bit like I did on the first day of secondary school, everything was a few sizes too large (although I grew into and then back out of it) and he doesn't look particularly smart at all. Obviously tailoring each member of staff's uniform is completely impractical but it's a far more sensible proposal than hiring people based on their waist size!

Even the infamous "absolute unit" who is about as wide as he is tall looks reasonably smart in his suit, although it could do with a bit of widening around the chest!

This goes back to my earlier Post

 

[Indigo Soup]

Have to agree with that. So many people are wearing it [Hi-Vis] these days, it's lost it's impact.

My employer - not in the rail sector, though there are some similarities - has decreed that hi-vis must be worn at all times on site. Including walking from the car park to the office. For a significant number of staff, the only time they need hi-vis is walking from the car park to the office.

So far as uniform is concerned, I'm all in favour of a corporate image for staff who interact with the public. What that is, I'm happy to let design consultants who know about such things decide, though I'd be surprised if looking like Ruritanian border guards is the answer. But whatever the answer, it needs to be flexible and practical - staff shouldn't be required to wear jackets and ties in hot weather, or to wear very smart tailored trousers when climbing in and out of cabs, for instance.

Also, and on an aside, whoever came up with the concept of branded PPE should be shot. A former employer had a policy that only yellow hi-vis should be worn, as orange hi-vis clashed with the corporate colour scheme!

 

[Journeyman]

Hi Viz should be completely binned unless you are actually working in a role where you need to be wearing it for real H&S reasons.

Agreed. It's actually a security risk. People assume that people wearing hi-vis are doing something official, and they never get challenged.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I always thought it was drivers who thrusted this through though.
If the tie wasn't part of the uniform, a Union tie was not permitted either, and that wasn't agreeable.

What a random comment. Do you have any evidence to back up that bizzare claim?

 

[EM2]

Agreed. It's actually a security risk. People assume that people wearing hi-vis are doing something official, and they never get challenged.

Any member of staff who assumes that someone wearing hi-viz should be where they are, and doesn't check, is almost certainly going to find themselves answering some rather uncomfortable questions.

 

[Bromley boy]

Agreed. It's actually a security risk. People assume that people wearing hi-vis are doing something official, and they never get challenged.

There has been an emphasis on this at my TOC recently. Apparently cable thieves are known to wear orange so we are now urged to look for company branded hi-vi and ask for IDs, even from people dressed in uniform.

There are also sad-acts who are not TOC employees who dress up in yellow hi-vi and start wandering around on platforms blowing whistles and giving instructions to passengers (why!?). Platform staff at my depot had to ask one such person to leave recently, under threat of the police being called.

 

[GB]

Any member of staff who assumes that someone wearing hi-viz should be where they are, and doesn't check, is almost certainly going to find themselves answering some rather uncomfortable questions.

Trouble is where do you draw the line. Do you question/report absolutely everyone you see in HV out on the track? There are so many contractor companies these days who also use non descript vans its not quite that black and white.

 

[EM2]

Trouble is where do you draw the line. Do you question/report absolutely everyone you see in HV out on the track? There are so many contractor companies these days who also use non descript vans its not quite that black and white.

If their HV isn't company marked, then yes. As I understand it, that's always been the case (well, since external contractors became common, anyway).

 

[Bromley boy]

If their HV isn't company marked, then yes. As I understand it, that's always been the case (well, since external contractors became common, anyway).

Virtually no chance of drivers reporting this, in practice, as they’re usually too far away to see what they’re wearing clearly. A driver’s main focus is on ensuring p-way acknowledge the warning horn and then focussing on driving/signals.

If they don’t acknowledge that should be reported, of course (although they don’t always acknowledge when they should).

It’s more likely that genuine track workers might come across people on or near the line in Hi-Vi they are unaware of and challenge them (I believe NR can confirm immediately whether workers should be in any particular location).

 

[Indigo Soup]

The issue around hi-vis clothing and security doesn't just apply to staff on the line. If I were to put on my hi-vis and go down to my local station (on a DOO line) there's a good chance that I could attempt to gain access to locked buildings (or even cabs) without being challenged by passengers, and could give people instructions (say, to trespass on the line) and have a reasonable chance of them being followed. A lot of the public see someone in hi-vis and assume that they have authority because of it.

 

[Highlandspring]

It’s more likely that genuine track workers might come across people on or near the line in Hi-Vi they are unaware of and challenge them (I believe NR can confirm immediately whether workers should be in any particular location).

Immediately definitely not, 'eventually' yes.

 

[pt_mad]

Any member of staff who assumes that someone wearing hi-viz should be where they are, and doesn't check, is almost certainly going to find themselves answering some rather uncomfortable questions.

You say that, but say station staff or drivers for that matter see two fully hi-vized workers in orange 150 yards off the end of a platform. And they are raising one arm when trains hoot them. Its very unlikely this would arouse suspicion I would say and yet they could have bought this stuff of the market and be up to no good. They could easily turn to face the train on approach so that the driver couldn't see the the back of the vests etc, and wouldn't realise they were unbranded.

And besides that not all track workers wear Network Rail branded gear. Whats to stop someone printing their own orange gear with xxRail Contractor Group Ltd on the back. Whos to say it would be questioned straight away if they were line side and raised one arm as trains approached?

 

[pt_mad]

If their HV isn't company marked, then yes. As I understand it, that's always been the case (well, since external contractors became common, anyway).

Company marked yes but do you recognise every rail contractor company out there? They could be SES or Murphy or whoever else or just Northwide Rail Contractors Ltd on the back?

I've known people in charge of possessions on Saturday nights turn up, open compounds, quite legitimately, in full orange but in their own personal or company unmarked car and nobody bats an eyelid as they have keys for the gate and are in hi viz gear. Because drivers and station staff (unconnected to compounds nearby) would not necessarily know who was due at the compound and it wouldn't be in their remit to check up. If they have keys and it looks legit it wouldn't come under a toc station to check who entered a nearby compound as long as everything appeared normal.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

(The above post suggesting shorts and Hawaiian shirt does not sound bad in the hit weather.)

I personally do not like fleeces, polo shirts or sweatshirts for work or school uniforms, I do like long or short sleeve shirts, with a tie, (although not in this weather), long trousers or shorts and a wool pullover.

 

[whhistle]

What a random comment. Do you have any evidence to back up that bizzare claim?

Nope.
I thought this is why Virgin West Coasts' last uniform had ties brought in at the last moment (they were plain red, and somewhat limited edition). Happy to be corrected, but hardly bizzare. I've experienced cancelled services because the driver wasn't allowed to wear his union tie.

The last uniform we had didnt have any ties at all for any grade.

If you're VTWC, there was a shiny red one for the last uniform. But granted, it was pretty rare and have no idea how/what grades had it or why. If I find a photo, I'll send it to you.
But I agree, I am surprised they made a comeback.

I guess the problem with too much customisation is the public image. If one person has a tie (for example) and someone doesn't, the customer may think the person without a tie can't be bothered, and no manager cares either. I'm not saying that's my opinion, just the idea that was put forward for why there wasn't more customisation with uniforms.

 

[driver_m]

That's the current uniform they're wearing on that picture you've sent, not the previous one. (Looks like lile a slightly modernised salvation army uniform for those who've not seen the current uniform) There weren't any ties at all on the previous uniform for anyone. We've never had any issue with wearing union ties and in the time ive been at VT, we've been allowed to wear them. I suppose it's nice to be given an option of what to wear, Northern I think have something similar now with shirt or polo.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Nope.
I thought this is why Virgin West Coasts' last uniform had ties brought in at the last moment (they were plain red, and somewhat limited edition). Happy to be corrected, but hardly bizzare. I've experienced cancelled services because the driver wasn't allowed to wear his union tie.



If you're VTWC, there was a shiny red one for the last uniform. But granted, it was pretty rare and have no idea how/what grades had it or why. If I find a photo, I'll send it to you.
But I agree, I am surprised they made a comeback.

I guess the problem with too much customisation is the public image. If one person has a tie (for example) and someone doesn't, the customer may think the person without a tie can't be bothered, and no manager cares either. I'm not saying that's my opinion, just the idea that was put forward for why there wasn't more customisation with uniforms.

How would you know your service had been cancelled because the Driver couldn't wear their ASLEF tie?

 

[EM2]

...it wouldn't be in their remit to check up. If they have keys and it looks legit it wouldn't come under a toc station to check who entered a nearby compound as long as everything appeared normal.

I'm talking about when it is in their remit. When someone is wandering around a station, for example, with a HVV on but crucially, no ID, then alarm bells should be ringing very loudly.

 

[aylesbury]

I had to wear a uniform for the last ten years I worked it wasn't very good but it stopped my own clothes being ruined plus toe tector boots made for safety. It meant our customers saw us as smart professional workers plus we had to keep our vehicles clean inside and out all contributed to a good feeling plus the company cleaned them for us. I like to see staff in the public view looking smart as scruffy people do not give you much of a feeling they do not care about their job.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Personally I think the only neccesary part of a uniform is the top which should be clearly identifiable as a member of staff. Everything else doesn't matter in my opinion. If someone was wearing shorts and trainers that wouldn't bother me.

They may not bother you but the company lawyers would not be too happy for claims from staff suffering injuries due to their inappropriate footwear. The uniforms are not just about appearance - although a smart uniform gives the public the impression that the company actually gives a damn. A rag bag Fred Karno's Army style wouldn't really inspire confidence. How would you rate an airline if you saw an unkempt pilot in flip flops and a shell suit heading in to the cockpit?