Guards on trains

No dont think guards are necessary or add to rail safety They were interviewing a H and S person the other day who says there is plenty of evidence to support this view

Luckily I rarely travel by train but I feel more secure with a guard on board who knows where the defibulator is & how to use it. Also is there to ensure passenger safety. However on these rare occasions I have yet to see a guard walking through train so how are we to know how to call a guard if necessary? Maybe if we knew how many trains are already being run by driver only we could make informed decisions.

Ooh, you could be right joan.
I wonder what the passengers on the actual three routes are thinking.
It doesnt seem that Southern route passengers are happy about it on the whole, but maybe the passengers on the other routes are.

I suspect the rail regulator's view of "safe" trains relates to how they operate, driving, opening doors etc rather than what we think of as safety ie someone you can call on if there are a rowdy or abusive passengers. I think having only the driver is a recipe for disaster and will certainly support any action that maintains more staff. That's aside from the issue of providing jobs for people.

They are civil servants - the unions say this means they are not independent. However they don't report in to a ministry so are pretty much independent in my book. In terms of guarantees, I don't see why redeployed guards should be any more vulnerable to being dismissed than they are now. They will still have their union behind them, the same legal protection etc.

Thank you for that.
I looked up the Office for Rail Regulators or whatever it is called, and it comes up under Gov UK. So presumably the government pays their wages?

I personally dont trust that the guards will all get different jobs. Or what might happen is, yes they do for a bit, and then 6 months later?

I am getting annoyed with technology.

Ankers - i have absolutely no vested interest. I generally trust reports by Regulators when they appear thorough. It's the Regulators job to look into safety and that's what they have done. Unlike the companies, the Govt. and the unions they don't have a vested interest, except in ensuring safe railways. All the others have clear conflicts.
What I want is for nobody to lose their job. And I do believe that it's possible to do a deal in which that happens. If the unions try, but don't get the guarantees they need, whether they be around proven safety issues (e.g. I think they have said that the company proposals don't include adequate training), then they can truly justify industrial action.
Blueskies - I agree. Sounds terrible. Exactly why we (including the rail companies and unions) need to properly think through and discuss how to avoid it. The answer certainly isn't the old style employment demarcation.

Oh, I asked about whether you had a vested interest because
a. that might explain some of your posts
b. I have learnt on here, that it can be that a regular poster doesnt post in the way that you think they are going to , and it can turn out to be that they have a vested interest in some way[a family member doing or having done that job for instance].
There is a c. I think, but I have forgotten it!

I also dont understand you when you say that we all have to get very obsessive about the job market, but yet you want to redeploy guards.
Do you rally think that they will just move around jobs, and no jobs will be lost?

Fitzy. Strange to trust a regulator when you dont know them[you have no vested interest so you cant].

blueskies, your post made me gasp. I didn't know an MP had suggested we work for our retirement pension, I thought I'd done that from age 17 onwards. You are of course right in suggesting that it's unlikely the minority would support the majority if given a choice. That's why we need a welfare state isn't it.

Imagine a society where ninety per cent of the population lose their jobs and are unemployed. Would the ten per cent support them Fitz? Not in this political climate. There would be food banks in place of Marks and Spencer and people living and dying on every street pavement. One member of this government has even suggested that pensioners should work to earn their retirement pension. ( I wouldn't be surprised if he were to demand smaller pensioners climb up chimneys).

Trisher if I see any serious research/emreview that calls into question what the Regulator says I would happily change my mind. But their report looks pretty comprehensive to me. In any event as I keep on saying I am all for guards where it can be seen that one is needed.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.