Guards on trains

Would you have an airplane without cabin crew ?

Travelled on a Southern Region train recently and the guard was a young, slight female. I cannot imagine how she would have coped with a crowd of unruly teenagers - and one man, however beefy, could find himself in trouble with half a dozen young men who have had too much to drink. If we have guards on trains then the fares will go up. Whatever logistics we apply about profits, our transport system being so expensive comparatively etc. etc., we all know that having guards on our system would mean higher fares.

^ we all know that having guards on our system would mean higher fares.^

I don't see that that is true at all. It could equally (and probable be more likely to) mean that paying guards means there is less money for inflated higher managemment salaries and dividend to shareholders.

Two "jumpers" in one day here a couple of weeks ago. If you had ever been on a train and felt the wheels pass over a body you would be very thankful for a guard. When we blame unions those of us who've worked our socks off all our working lives remember that unions paved the way for our civilised benefits such as paid holidays etc. Pity our children and grandchildren as we had the best of times. What is happening to our society and why are we letting it happen. It is not progress it is greed and corruption.

Hear, hear blueskies !

You are now getting close to the truth bkueskies. It's all about jobs not safety. But as I keep saying, the train companies are willing to compromise on jobs if the unions will be flexible about what the staff do. They need to get real - technology is changing the job market, and as has been proved time and time again, you can't stop progress.

If I can get where I want in the UK by coach then even though it means longer travelling time I feel much safer than being a female alone on a train.

We do need to get real Fitzy54. Why are you so obsessed with the job market? What sort of society do you want? Maybe we should all study social anthropology at school and we would understand all could have a better life not just the greedy some. There is enough to go round in this world of ours. So lucky that we are not living in the Sudan--is that what you want? We can do better than that. We don't need to blame other working people when we are sitting comfortably. I wonder where you are coming from.

Long haul trains will still have guards but they'll be responsible for customer service. So, we are talking about a change in job title and responsibilities for more customer service not about making guards redundant.

What's not to like provided the train's engineer/driver has full visibility of the doors?

If you read my posts properly you would see just where I'm coming from. We don't need all those currently employed as guard to do their current job, or at least we won't when the new technology is fully up and running. But we absolutely do need all those people working for the railway companies helping customers in various different ways, depending on the circumstances. Everybody still in work, no drop in pay or prospects, more and better help for customers, and no reduction- hopefully and increase- in safety.

Blueskies I should have also said that to the extent I am obsessed with the job market it's because we have a wall of technology about to hit it (as if we haven't had enough already) and people who think we can ignore it, or fight against it, are deluding themselves. It's absolutely for the sake of the very people you are concerned about that we all need to get very obsessive about the job market.

I'm with you Trisher, waiting on unmanned rural stations is scary enough (I hate being spat at by bored kids tho a fist thrust in your face can be alarming), stuck in a train with no guard is even worse.

Fitz54 when someone invents something that can deal with teenagers climbing around carriages, blasting music and using language that made me uncomfortable (and I am not referring to the odd bad word but to explicit references to sexual acts in graphic terms) I will be perfectly happy to have driver only trains. I have already said I was lucky I could easily move to another carriage, a longer journey between stations would have left me feeling very uncomfortable. Passenger comfort and safety should be a first consideration and not the last.

That is a sad vision of our future, Fitzy54. Technology should work for us not the other way round. Challenges can be difficult but we need to think about the good of all and especially for our children and grandchildren. We are running out of road and I prefer not to listen to the selfishness of those with vested interest and power but hope for the possibility of a better and kinder world.

There are single manned trains but they tend to have fewer carriages. As they make station platforms longer and add more carriages we need a guard on the trains with more carriages.

I was abused verbally terribly on a train by a woman and two men who were drunk... in front of my granddaughter! There were no guards apparent for me to complain to, it was a very long and awful journey I am definitely not in favour of guard free trains

Blueskies I think I was describing a better future. We just have to be ready for it.
Trisher there may well be a case for on board guards on some trains. If so let's have them. There may be a need at some stations for platform staff. Let's have them as well. But the evidence is that guards in their current roles across the board is not the right way to go. Why would you want someone controlling train doors when the driver can do it, rather than helping customers on the platform or elsewhere in tha station where they are really needed?

Controlling train doors is just part of a role not the entire job. The person who controls the doors also monitors the platform, checks the train during journeys and ensures the safety of people boarding and leaving. They don't JUST close the doors. Why would you deny the other tasks they do? Of course drivers can control the doors and indeed on our system they do with appropriate warnings, but they do not stop people misbehaving on the trains and as I said and repeat these are short journeys with close stops, even so it can be stressful. I wouldn't want to have the same situation on longer journeys and I actually trust the people doing the job to decide when such a thing is appropriate, with additional input from the passengers. Not the people who stand to make more money from cutting staff.

Trisher I agree with much of what you say but I afraid I don't trust the unions here. I trust the Regulator and think the unions need to start negotiating sensibly rather than just insisting nothing changes

I live near to Gerrards Cross which is on the Chiltern Line which runs (and has done for years) without guards. Automation is easy and safe.

I live near Brighton (which is now commuter belt) and I so feel for those ridiculously disrupted by the action on a twice daily basis. But the gripe is with the gov't who sanctioned the conditions of the franchise, and I understand set them up to fail. I have used the London rail often, and I really do appreciate having a guard/conductor person.

Fitzy. Do you have a vested interest in this subject?

Lilyflower. How many carriages do they have? How often does the train stop? Do the trains run into the evening/through the night?

I suppose if you believe the statistics and reports you could side with the regulator but I haven't reported any of the occasions when I felt uncomfortable and I don't suppose most people do, which is why I think we have to rely on the people who are working on the trains and who know what is actually happening. They realise that situations arise which need someone just to keep an eye on things and keep up safety standards and passenger comfort. Unfortunately statistics tend only to change when there are serious incidents to report and that is something we should want to prevent.

No vested interest Ankers. Don't understand why you ask?