Guards on trains

I quite agree. Yesterday we were on the train from Glasgow to Carlisle. My DH and I witnessed a man walking up and down the train picking things up. He looked shifty, and appeared to be looking for unattended property. He walked passed up three times. We didn't report him as we were about to get off. If we'd gone any further, I would have mentioned it to the guard.

I think the driver already has untold pressure on him just driving the train safely without having to worry about the guards duties and closing the doors as well.
Trouble is because its already approved and standard practice on a lot of lines they will have the devils own job to get a different outcome than the bosses want.

No. Presumably trisher you live near Liverpool where the trains are being disrupted on Northern Rail(?) and or Mersey Rail(?) from today. See if you feel the same way in 11 months time. I live in the south where although not directly affected by the Southern Rail strike which has been going on for nearly a year frequently hear about the chaos their action is causing. I am with the thousands of commuters there who are sick to death of this strike action/going sick at the drop of a hat to maximise the disruption to the paying passengers. My thoughts are with those who have given up jobs in despair at the spent hours getting there and home, the businesses in the area losing money as their customers fail to reach them, of the house owners seeing their houses drop in value. So this strike is about safety is it? Sure it is not about militant unions doing their utmost to create havoc for their own ends or a Rail company, Govea Thameslink, who have not got a clue about how to run a rail network, or a government minister who does not know how to solve the situation. There won't be a need for guards if there aren't any trains.

Whilst I feel concerned about safety on our trains I don't think a strike is the answer. It turns the very people they want to support them away from the railway itself. Surely they want passengers to come over on to their side? A strike such as the one that's gone on in the south has caused chaos for the wrong people. From personal experience I've learned that Ministers don't understand the needs of Jo/sephine Public nor those of the worker. Getting the travelling public on side is more likely to be productive. Alienating them won't do anything.

I support the strike, assuming it is done for the right reasons.
I go on long journeys by train. One guard or more is essential.

The rail companies are of course trying to 'spin' this as being militant Trade Unionism, but the evidence is that guards on trains have saved lives and that some stations are completely unsuitable for single man trains (curved platforms make it impossible for the driver to see what is happening as he starts the train. I suppose all that will convince some people is a serious accident, a violent incident or even a death.

A friend and I met in a town between where both of us live. We both travelled by train. My friend is nervous about trains and had a sort of panic attack when it was time to go home. I don't know what would have happened if the train guard had not taken her under his wing, so yes, I do support them. Sometimes I think that ministers and managers imagine that every passenger is young and sprightly, which is often not the case.
People need to feel that train journey should be a safe and pleasant experience, or they will not use them. So in the same way that there will be no jobs if there are no trains, there will be no profitable rail businesses without customers

I really believe it is sheer madness to get rid of guards. How can that be safe ?

Sorry Trisher but apart from some anecdotal evidence which is never reliable the evidence is the opposite of what you say - the independent rail regulator has been quite clear in saying that guard free trains are safe. The rail companies are happy to discuss details with the unions, which would include guarantees of specific staffing at problem stations of the type you mention. The strikes are about jobs, and only jobs. Having said that, I can well understand why the unions will fight tooth and nail to keep those jobs. My feeling is that there must be a compromise that will guarantee no job losses now or later (I.e. Won't let the rail companies simply refuse to fill jobs when people leave or retire) and at the same time makes sure the staff are used for whatever roles are the most helpful to passengers.

Mmm who to believe? The government appointed civil servants who say statistically it is safe or the experienced staff on the ground who really know what is happening.

I believe the experienced staff rather than the government appointed civil servants. As an older woman travelling alone, I'd feel much happier with a guard who isn't also driving the train. I do believe the train drivers have enough responsibility and its impossible for them to ensure passenger safety, other than in the role of driver.
I'd extend this argument to include bus conductors. Another anecdote, which I'm sure can be easily dismissed but my then high school children were on a bus on the way home from school, when a drug user attempted to hijack the bus, threaten the driver and passengers by waving a used syringe around. Luckily some of the children had mobile phones so the police were called.
I'd also like to see Park Attendants back.
Librarians to stamp the books and chat, rather than library users doing this themselves with no chat.
I could go on and I'm sure so could others.
I know we live in the age of austerity but it seems we know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Yes, I support the strike.

Don't think it's the age of austerity, more due to the self-service everything called 'progress'.

I woukd definitely bring back petrol attendants at garages, wasn't it great when you just leaned out of the window and said 'fill it up please.'

Mhmm who to believe, the unions whose jobs are on the line or the people whose job it is to ensure safety on the railways? Tough one.

So you think the company who wants to increase it's profits is more trustworthy than the people who work on the trains. If someone is taken ill on a train it's the guard's responsibility to deal with it. What happens if that becomes the driver's responsibility? Does he/she stop the train to go back to see the sick passenger? If so, what happens to all the other trains on the line as a stationary train means that all trains have to stop? How will the driver know that something is happening in the coaches behind? The driver's job is to drive the train. The guards job is to take care of the train and the passengers. The two roles are so different I don't see how they can be combined. Perhaps someone who supports the company's plans could enlighten me.

Can somebody explain to me why this is a problem now?

I could follow the argument if Driver Only Trains were not already in existence in the UK.

Sorry VQ but this is all just conjecture on your part. There are many guard free trains already and there have been for years. They have had no more safety issues than any other trains. I have no particular trust in the rail companies. But I have no doubt whatsoever that the unions are focusing on imaginary safety as an issue because they don't think the public will support strikes to protect jobs that aren't needed anymore. But to be clear I absolutely think we need all those people working on the railways but not necessarily as guards on every train. Some trains might, for example, benefit from more than one guard at night if passengers on that route, perhaps late at night, wer considered to be at significant risk. But on other trains there will be no need for a guard at all.

It's a problem for the reasons set out above.

Our trains are the most expensive and the most overcrowded in Europe. Train companies are more interested in increasing profits than the comfort and safety of the travelling public.

No it isn't. It's a problem because the unions are waking up to the fact that there are a lot of jobs at risk.

Driver Only Trains are used in many countries, including the UK .
I am not being obtuse but I do think this is ' not ' as is being promoted a 'safety issue'.

If it is all to do with ' safety ' why have they been used for so long in the UK?

Genuine question.

the independent rail regulator has been quite clear in saying that guard free trains are safe

What evidence did they use to come to this conclusion? Do you know, Fitzy?

Maizie - evidence at the end of these links.

www.shponline.co.uk/southern-rail-orr-concludes-driver-only-operation-is-safe/

orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/health-and-safety/guidance-and-research/driver-only-operation-doo

So what matters to Southern Rail and the ORR is in fact a legal requirement and statistics, not the comfort, safety and experiences of their passengers. I have posted in my OP about my experiences on our city's metro system. I use it regularly and have encountered most problems in the early evening. There is CCTV on the train and sometimes the driver will intervene if things are bad and I have changed carriages. The point is the journeys seldom last more than 40 mins and stations are only a few minutes or apart, so it is easy to move or leave the train. On longer journeys this is not possible. I suppose when there have been some really serious incidents which show up in the statistics the ORR will acknowledge the problem. What a pity we need to go through such things.