Guards on trains

Good post Rigby46.

As for driver only - there are huge huge differences between different types of train routes and services

A small, say 5 small carriage train that stops every 5 minutes is in not so much need of a guard[whether on the platform or on the train], as a many carriage train which has a buffet car, and does 30 or 40 minutes at least between stations. It may also run late into the evening at at night.

Which is a different type of train and route to a heavily used commuter one.

POGS yes it might! I believe in putting my actions where my mouth is!! That is why I believe in boycotting goods/shops/ companies etc. if I disagree with their practices. Politics are personal to me. It costs me a lot!

i live in a town that is served by a Southern service. Every single commuter will tell you that the impact of the strikes is as nothing compared to the day to day disgrace that is Southern's sorry excuse for a train service. Southern has more cancellations than any other service ( not counting any trains lost through strikes). The reason is the useless company that runs Southern and the terms of the franchise whereby Southern pick up the government money to run the service and the Government get the revenue from ticket sales - ergo, why should Southern care if revenue falls through cancellations and refunds or because we use another line if one is available? It's madness I say madness.

As for driver only - there are huge huge differences between different types of train routes and services. Certainly down here, trains are getting longer - Waterloo Station is having half its platforms lengthened in the summer to be able to accommodate even longer commuter trains - the safety issues at especially commuter times are huge - there is a real issue for example, at Clapham Junction now with only 10 carriage trains and the curve of the platform making visibility for the driver already problematic without a guard/conductor. If you don't commute on over crowded trains, you have absolutely no idea of the safety issues posed by driver only trains. And that's before we even start on the impact this will have on disabled passengers needing assistance which at the moment guards regularly provide - and have had to do increasingly as more and more stations have no staff outside of key hours. But hey why let the facts get in the way of government propaganda and a good rant at the unions?

The rail companies are not saying staffing should reduce, simply that the guards move to a more flexible role. So Pen, they would have more time to do things like give your DGS a blank ticket. Very important job! The unions don't believe that the companies will really retain staffing levels. That, I agree, must be a danger. The unions should be more flexible, but definitely need cast iron guarantees on staffing levels.

So does that mean you would/will/do refuse to travel on Driver Only Trains that are running in the UK already?

I want to feel safe when I am on a platform and when I am travelling on a train.

If there are no railway staff around on platforms/ ticket offices/on trains who is reponsible for monitoring the safety of passengers? The driver is , of course, as he is responsible for geting the train from A to B safely.but he cannot deal with passengers. And who would give myDGS a blank ticket when we travel? it is all about human contact.

I was on the train directly behind the crash just outside Clapham Junction in 1988. It was a worrying time for everyone on the train and we were not in any danger but having railway guards was helpful and calming.

I have a photo of my local station in about 1920 (we live in the stationmaster's house) and there is the stationmaster and 10 other employees. We live in a small Surrey town which then would have been a separate village (we have merged!) & now it has a high commuter rate as we are on the Waterloo/Portsmouth line. We now only have one person at the station 6:30 until 12:30 p.m!
No wonder unemployment is a problem. I bet many of the lads in the photo all left school at 12/14 with a basic education. but they had a job and some self respect.

I also think some posters may be talking about Southern Rail, or Southern Rail in particular, when others may not be, again myself included.

I am not sure now if that was the link I read earlier Fitzy, I dont think it was. But yes, the one I read was about guards closing doors.

Which does not seem to be what some posters were posting about above, myself included.

Ankers the issues may not be exactly the same with every rail company (I've not looked at them all) but on southern it's essentially about who is responsible for closing the train doors. This link is quite helpful.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37752660

Is this meant to be something people are not aware of?

And there are different sorts of train journies.

There are ones where the train stops at train stations every 5 minutes. And ones where the next station is not for 45 minutes and the next one 20 minutes after that.

Are we talking about guards travelling on the train, or guards who blow the whistle on the platform so that the driver knows it is safe to leave.

I thought we were talking about the first, but having googled earlier this evening, it looked to be more or totally about the second.

Trisher your dismissive summary of what looks to me like a very thorough review of the safety aspects of driver only trains hardly does it justice. In any event, I'll say for the third time that better use of existing staff is what is needed to deal with issues like the one you mention. There are guards all over the system doing unnecessary jobs and gaps elsewhere where more staff are needed. The unions should be negotiating with that in mind if they are really concerned about safety. It's currently all about jobs.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'