Train strike - who's at it?

[blairdin]

It looks like the RMT are faced by a train operating company that refuses to cave to their demands or tactics.

 

Scotrail are saying the majority of trains already are driver operated, no job losses, no wage cuts, no demotions, no changes to conditions.

 

So, why should I back the RMT when I'm sat on the bypass fuming for an hour going to work tomorrow instead of a twenty minute train ride?

[Sawdust Caesar]

It looks like the RMT are faced by a train operating company that refuses to cave to their demands or tactics.

 

Scotrail are saying the majority of trains already are driver operated, no job losses, no wage cuts, no demotions, no changes to conditions.

 

So, why should I back the RMT when I'm sat on the bypass fuming for an hour going to work tomorrow instead of a twenty minute train ride?

Do you mean driver only operated trains?

[William H. Bonney]

Do you mean driver only operated trains?

Yeah, on electric trains the driver operates the doors. I'm fully behind them striking.

[IronJambo]

It looks like the RMT are faced by a train operating company that refuses to cave to their demands or tactics.

 

Scotrail are saying the majority of trains already are driver operated, no job losses, no wage cuts, no demotions, no changes to conditions.

 

So, why should I back the RMT when I'm sat on the bypass fuming for an hour going to work tomorrow instead of a twenty minute train ride?

Because they want to take guards off routes that currently have guards on them. This compromises your safety. Keep the guard on the train!

[In Absentia]

Because they want to take guards off routes that currently have guards on them. This compromises your safety. Keep the guard on the train!

How does it compromise safety?

[IronJambo]

How does it compromise safety?

It means the only person on the train that can save your arse is the driver.

 

Let's say a train hits a fallen tree and is derailed, with the trunk going through the windscreen and killing the driver.

 

If there's no guard, who's going to protect the train and prevent a 2nd accident? The guard is the person that's going to lay track circuit clips (which will give the presence of a train and stop another train crashing into it)and make an emergency call to the correct person. The guards the one that will run along the tracks and lay provision to stop any other train that may be in the vicinity (past a signal).

 

The guard also contributes towards safe despatch on platforms. Something like 90-95% of accidents in the train platform interface occur under doo operation.

[Jaap's Sigh]

It means the only person on the train that can save your arse is the driver.

 

Let's say a train hits a fallen tree and is derailed, with the trunk going through the windscreen and killing the driver.

 

If there's no guard, who's going to protect the train and prevent a 2nd accident? The guard is the person that's going to lay track circuit clips (which will give the presence of a train and stop another train crashing into it)and make an emergency call to the correct person. The guards the one that will run along the tracks and lay provision to stop any other train that may be in the vicinity (past a signal).

 

The guard also contributes towards safe despatch on platforms. Something like 90-95% of accidents in the train platform interface occur under doo operation.

This man knows his onions.

 

Keep the guard on the train.

[jamboinglasgow]

Maybe the unions might want to try and win punters over a better way then to call a strike and then not really publicising their concerns leaving many annoyed passengers who dont understand whats happening. This thread is the first time I have actually seen any explanation for a strike.

[Malinga the Swinga]

This man knows his onions.

Keep the guard on the train.

The guard is still on the train. Only change is that the driver presses button that closes train door, whilst the guard wanders up and down punching tickets. Ridiculous dispute by a union that refuses to adapt to new century.

[IronJambo]

The guard is still on the train. Only change is that the driver presses button that closes train door, whilst the guard wanders up and down punching tickets. Ridiculous dispute by a union that refuses to adapt to new century.

As far as I was aware they want to extend DCO AND DOO. You don't want either. DCO will downgrade the guard and the eventuality is that the guard won't have safety critical training. That means that the guard is just a Muppet doing customer service and checking tickets. Then a while later the guard will disappear, and easily because the union will have no bargaining power left.

 

This battle is going on throughout the whole of Britain and if the unions lose then the railways will be less safe everywhere as it'll break them.

 

We have very safe railways here, and the downgrading of the guard is the start of a slippery slope. Don't be fooled by Scotrails propaganda.

[merlot15]

The guard is still on the train. Only change is that the driver presses button that closes train door, whilst the guard wanders up and down punching tickets. Ridiculous dispute by a union that refuses to adapt to new century.

When was the last time you were on a train;)  Seriously, if you have ever witnessed a scrum of passengers desperately wanting to get home, trying to board an already packed train I can't see how a driver would know when to safely press the button.  Short of doing what the guard currently does by getting on to the platform and walking its length and saying enough.  The guard at the moment does this then lets the driver know when it's safe to move on after he/she has pressed the button. 

[Restonbabe]

I'm all for safety really I am

Striking isn't the way forward.

 

Scotrail as a Company need to remain competitive as well as being safe.

 

It doesn't help that the railway is still mostly Victorian in most of scotland.

 

I think both Scotrail along with network rail and the union need to decide in the short term that guards are necessary with a view longer term for driver only trains providing the infrastructure is fully modernised and adequate.

 

Weither in a Scottish climate that is deemed safe on all routes is subject to debate however majority of major routes it can be safely done right now.

 

Edinburgh to Glasgow, Edinburgh to Aberdeen, borders railway, Fife circle. Glasgow City ad a whole. All can be driverless trains.

 

It's the public that want that safe guard however do the public want cheaper fares or paramount safety.

[3fingersreid]

It means the only person on the train that can save your arse is the driver.

 

Let's say a train hits a fallen tree and is derailed, with the trunk going through the windscreen and killing the driver.

 

If there's no guard, who's going to protect the train and prevent a 2nd accident? The guard is the person that's going to lay track circuit clips (which will give the presence of a train and stop another train crashing into it)and make an emergency call to the correct person. The guards the one that will run along the tracks and lay provision to stop any other train that may be in the vicinity (past a signal).

 

The guard also contributes towards safe despatch on platforms. Something like 90-95% of accidents in the train platform interface occur under doo operation.

Very well put , safety first at all times

[Jaap's Sigh]

The guard is still on the train. Only change is that the driver presses button that closes train door, whilst the guard wanders up and down punching tickets. Ridiculous dispute by a union that refuses to adapt to new century.

Nope, who checks that it is safe to close before the button is pressed? Driver becomes incapacitated, who protects the opposite line? If an evacuation onto the line is required is the ticket examiner trained in Personal Track Safety? - Nope.

Does a ticket examiner know the names of the junctions, know the difference between the up and down lines or who the controlling signaller is for the area (very basic route knowledge)? Nope.

 

Looks like it's a bit more than who pushes a button.

[Boris]

It's the public that want that safe guard however do the public want cheaper fares or paramount safety.

Both please.

 

Nationalise the railways.

[IronJambo]

I'm all for safety really I am

Striking isn't the way forward.

 

Scotrail as a Company need to remain competitive as well as being safe.

 

It doesn't help that the railway is still mostly Victorian in most of scotland.

 

I think both Scotrail along with network rail and the union need to decide in the short term that guards are necessary with a view longer term for driver only trains providing the infrastructure is fully modernised and adequate.

 

Weither in a Scottish climate that is deemed safe on all routes is subject to debate however majority of major routes it can be safely done right now.

 

Edinburgh to Glasgow, Edinburgh to Aberdeen, borders railway, Fife circle. Glasgow City ad a whole. All can be driverless trains.

 

It's the public that want that safe guard however do the public want cheaper fares or paramount safety.

They don't need to compromise safety to make profit. DOO is a compromise on safety. That's your safety, in case you don't realise.

 

First group used to make between ?10m and ?15m in profit per year from that franchise without axing the guards.

 

Edit: don't be stupid and naive enough to think that getting rid of guards will bring fares down. That's just lunacy.

[blairdin]

Maybe the unions might want to try and win punters over a better way then to call a strike and then not really publicising their concerns leaving many annoyed passengers who dont understand whats happening. This thread is the first time I have actually seen any explanation for a strike.

This.

 

To be honest, until I'd read some of the excellent contributions on this thread I was struggling to understand the issue. It felt like a union stranded in a stone age way of working, rebelling against the introduction of modern trains that take away some of the work of the guard.

 

Striking is not the answer, but for the first time I get it.

[Darren]

Something like 90-95% of accidents in the train platform interface...

 

Does this mean getting off the train?

[3fingersreid]

I'm all for safety really I am

Striking isn't the way forward.

 

Scotrail as a Company need to remain competitive as well as being safe.

 

It doesn't help that the railway is still mostly Victorian in most of scotland.

 

I think both Scotrail along with network rail and the union need to decide in the short term that guards are necessary with a view longer term for driver only trains providing the infrastructure is fully modernised and adequate.

 

Weither in a Scottish climate that is deemed safe on all routes is subject to debate however majority of major routes it can be safely done right now.

 

Edinburgh to Glasgow, Edinburgh to Aberdeen, borders railway, Fife circle. Glasgow City ad a whole. All can be driverless trains.

 

It's the public that want that safe guard however do the public want cheaper fares or paramount safety.

Driverless trains ,this is probably an argument / discussion for its own thread ,but will the day come there are no jobs done by humans , specifically traditional blue collar jobs ?

All in the name of profit for shareholders mind ,so that'll keep a few people happy , never mind the people that can't get a job .

[IronJambo]

Does this mean getting off the train?

Boarding/unboarding and the general dispatch procedure. Folk falling between the train and the platform(nothing the guard can do about this, but a guard has a better chance of spotting it then a driver). Trap and drag incidents like this: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-dragged-along-platform-at-station-in-london-after-train-doors-trap-her-hands-a3131351.html

 

Drivers have got enough to pay attention to with the track ahead, we don't need more services where their attention is split.

 

The driver in the above case no longer has a job and is apparently facing criminal charges. Not completely to do with the incident.

[jamboinglasgow]

Driverless trains ,this is probably an argument / discussion for its own thread ,but will the day come there are no jobs done by humans , specifically traditional blue collar jobs ?

All in the name of profit for shareholders mind ,so that'll keep a few people happy , never mind the people that can't get a job .

 

There is an argument for that, but its not a dead end, new technology can create new industries with new jobs. A lot people saw computers as ending a lot of jobs, but look at how big the IT sector is now which sprung up from increased use of computers.

[Bridge of Djoum]

The guard is still on the train. Only change is that the driver presses button that closes train door, whilst the guard wanders up and down punching tickets. Ridiculous dispute by a union that refuses to adapt to new century.

Haha.

 

As ill-informed as usual.

[3fingersreid]

There is an argument for that, but its not a dead end, new technology can create new industries with new jobs. A lot people saw computers as ending a lot of jobs, but look at how big the IT sector is now which sprung up from increased use of computers.

Whilst I agree that the growth of computers has indeed given employment to many in IT , and I'm delighted it has , there is in my opinion the need to have manual jobs , (albeit I appreciate that train drivers don't feed the engine coal anymore , ) for people to do as well as the technological side of employment

For me not only is the train strike about safety it's also about saving jobs and I'm glad there are still a union or two capable of standing up for what they believe in .

Not everyone is suited for college or uni some folk ars better suited to more physical work , and that's not implying they're not bright , far from it . I had the pleasure of learning a hell of a lot from fellow workers male and female in the printing industry a trade now all but dead in Scotland along with a few others

[Helzibob]

Thanks everyone for explaining. I commute by train every day and as far as I know there are no guards on my route. Can anyone explain why that is? I've noticed them on other trains/routes signalling and closing doors etc but I'm fairly certain we only ever have ticket examiners on my route and not guards.

[benny]

Thanks everyone for explaining. I commute by train every day and as far as I know there are no guards on my route. Can anyone explain why that is? I've noticed them on other trains/routes signalling and closing doors etc but I'm fairly certain we only ever have ticket examiners on my route and not guards.

Diesel sets have guards,most electrics ticket collectors.

North Berwick I think are the only electrics with guards.

Better all round if every train has a guard in charge of the train.

[Helzibob]

Diesel sets have guards,most electrics ticket collectors.

North Berwick I think are the only electrics with guards.

Better all round if every train has a guard in charge of the train.

Thanks for that benny. I wondered if it was because my route was electric, seems like it is.

 

I've been travelling by train for over 2 years and I'm still shocked by the prices. My 30 minute journey costs me ?175 a month or ?45 a week. At least during the football season I get a bit more value for money using it to come in for games at weekends.

[blairdin]

There's a few lads on here that seem to know their stuff, so can I chuck another question in.

 

Scotrail are saying over 50% of trains are driver operated, so where should the line be drawn? When the new electric trains come in how long does a route have to be to for driver only to be an absolute no no?

[IronJambo]

There's a few lads on here that seem to know their stuff, so can I chuck another question in.

 

Scotrail are saying over 50% of trains are driver operated, so where should the line be drawn? When the new electric trains come in how long does a route have to be to for driver only to be an absolute no no?

In all honesty and in my opinion the line should be drawn where it is. There shouldn't be an extension of DOO anywhere, no matter the route, distance, or type of train. ASLEF (drivers union) and RMT are strongly opposed to any extension of DOO.

[Dazo]

It means the only person on the train that can save your arse is the driver.

 

Let's say a train hits a fallen tree and is derailed, with the trunk going through the windscreen and killing the driver.

 

If there's no guard, who's going to protect the train and prevent a 2nd accident? The guard is the person that's going to lay track circuit clips (which will give the presence of a train and stop another train crashing into it)and make an emergency call to the correct person. The guards the one that will run along the tracks and lay provision to stop any other train that may be in the vicinity (past a signal).

 

The guard also contributes towards safe despatch on platforms. Something like 90-95% of accidents in the train platform interface occur under doo operation.

This seems a bizarre example for backing the strike. How many times has this actually happened ? I'm also curious to the percentages of incidents that are directly responsible due to driver only trains as I've no idea. Scaremongering isn't a legitimate reason to go on or back a strike.

[benny]

In all honesty and in my opinion the line should be drawn where it is. There shouldn't be an extension of DOO anywhere, no matter the route, distance, or type of train. ASLEF (drivers union) and RMT are strongly opposed to any extension of DOO.

Agree.

Cannot stress enough how an important job the guard does.

A lot more to opening doors.

[redm]

This seems a bizarre example for backing the strike. How many times has this actually happened ? I'm also curious to the percentages of incidents that are directly responsible due to driver only trains as I've no idea. Scaremongering isn't a legitimate reason to go on or back a strike.

I don't think it's scaremongering. Sounds to me like he's trying to describe how an accident can easily become a tragedy in that type of environment.

 

This thread has been really informative. Thanks to the train folk for taking the time to explain it all.

[Heres Rixxy]

I don't think it's scaremongering. Sounds to me like he's trying to describe how an accident can easily become a tragedy in that type of environment.

 

This thread has been really informative. Thanks to the train folk for taking the time to explain it all.

It's easy to make "what about if" scenarios work to your argument though.

 

What about if the money saved from guard wages was spent on track maintenance which in turn avoids the accident in the first place?

 

I'm generally against striking. It seems the lowest form of debate.

[3fingersreid]

It's easy to make "what about if" scenarios work to your argument though.

 

What about if the money saved from guard wages was spent on track maintenance which in turn avoids the accident in the first place?

 

I'm generally against striking. It seems the lowest form of debate.

The money saved from removing a guard wouldn't be reinvested it would be added to the profit pot

In this situation what would you have the unions do rather than strike?

[John Findlay]

It's easy to make "what about if" scenarios work to your argument though.

 

What about if the money saved from guard wages was spent on track maintenance which in turn avoids the accident in the first place?

 

I'm generally against striking. It seems the lowest form of debate.

There is millions spent on track maintenance as it is.

Biggest hotspot for accidents is train stations. You cannot legislate for the stupidity of the travelling public.

I personally have been involved in one RAIB enquiry. Rail Accident Investigation Board. It is not nice. This was due to two guys being intoxicated and falling under a train as it came into the platform. Train wad only doing 5mph. It was moving so RAIB involved. How the two guys were not seriously injured was their sheer good luck. Guards and station staff may not prevent every accident but, what they can do is preventing it becoming a more devastating accident. The reason you may not think there are many is because the guard/conductor are there in the first place. Prevention is always better than cure.

[Dazo]

I don't think it's scaremongering. Sounds to me like he's trying to describe how an accident can easily become a tragedy in that type of environment.

 

This thread has been really informative. Thanks to the train folk for taking the time to explain it all.

Yeah I get that but surely the example has to be realistic. I'm not saying it isn't but just seems a bizarre set of circumstances to back his stance. Not only has this tree derailed the train but it has also managed to flip up go through the windscreen and kill the driver. I get trees can get blown down onto tracks but if this actually happened I'm confident the systems they have in place would prevent any secondary accidents happen that a guard could prevent. To me it sounds like scaremongering.

[Dazo]

There is millions spent on track maintenance as it is.

Biggest hotspot for accidents is train stations. You cannot legislate for the stupidity of the travelling public.

I personally have been involved in one RAIB enquiry. Rail Accident Investigation Board. It is not nice. This was due to two guys being intoxicated and falling under a train as it came into the platform. Train wad only doing 5mph. It was moving so RAIB involved. How the two guys were not seriously injured was their sheer good luck. Guards and station staff may not prevent every accident but, what they can do is preventing it becoming a more devastating accident. The reason you may not think there are many is because the guard/conductor are there in the first place. Prevention is always better than cure.

What could a guard do to prevent your example ?

[John Findlay]

What could a guard do to prevent your example ?

Guard gets told. Informs driver. Driver then understands why the signal is remaining at red. Guard doesn't prevent but helps in it not esculating. Teamwork involved.

[John Findlay]

Yeah I get that but surely the example has to be realistic. I'm not saying it isn't but just seems a bizarre set of circumstances to back his stance. Not only has this tree derailed the train but it has also managed to flip up go through the windscreen and kill the driver. I get trees can get blown down onto tracks but if this actually happened I'm confident the systems they have in place would prevent any secondary accidents happen that a guard could prevent. To me it sounds like scaremongering.

Let's hope you are never involved in a train accident.

[IronJambo]

This seems a bizarre example for backing the strike. How many times has this actually happened ? I'm also curious to the percentages of incidents that are directly responsible due to driver only trains as I've no idea. Scaremongering isn't a legitimate reason to go on or back a strike.

It's not scaremongering, it's real life.

 

This happened last month, and the guard took care of business whilst the driver didn't even know there was a fire.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-36321344

 

I also know of two other incidents of fires in recent times with similar outcomes.

[IronJambo]

Yeah I get that but surely the example has to be realistic. I'm not saying it isn't but just seems a bizarre set of circumstances to back his stance. Not only has this tree derailed the train but it has also managed to flip up go through the windscreen and kill the driver. I get trees can get blown down onto tracks but if this actually happened I'm confident the systems they have in place would prevent any secondary accidents happen that a guard could prevent. To me it sounds like scaremongering.

No death and no derailment but I'm not just making up scenarios that don't have a chance of happening. It's only unrealistic to you because you don't hear about it.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294613/Miracle-escape-train-driver-120mph-express-struck-falling-tree.html

 

http://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/local-news/1832327/south-west-train-hits-fallen-tree/

 

And here's a train derailed by a tree and 14 dead. Albeit in California. http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Commuter-train-derails-in-Niles-Canyon-6876223.php

[IronJambo]

Yeah I get that but surely the example has to be realistic. I'm not saying it isn't but just seems a bizarre set of circumstances to back his stance. Not only has this tree derailed the train but it has also managed to flip up go through the windscreen and kill the driver. I get trees can get blown down onto tracks but if this actually happened I'm confident the systems they have in place would prevent any secondary accidents happen that a guard could prevent. To me it sounds like scaremongering.

Apologies for quoting you again. The systems in place fall down in a full derailment when track circuits are used. The wheels of the train making contact with the line creates a circuit which shows it's presence, ie. It puts the signal behind at red and the signaller can see the train on the screen. In a full derailment the wheels are no longer making contact which turns the signal back as the circuit thinks you've moved onto the next one. That means your train that is occupying the track and possibly others next to it is a ghost and a huge hazardous object to other trains. The only thing that can change that is human intervention from the scene.

[Ribble]

Not forgetting that the guards provide a valuable service in assisting the disabled and elderly boarding and disembarking trains. A ticket examiner without the required safety training cannot for example assist someone in a wheelchair, if they did then they stand to face disciplinary action.

 

Seen this 1st hand a couple of weeks ago at Livi North where passengers had to assist a disabled passenger off the train.

[Haken]

I was on the Minlgavie (or Helensburgh, can't remember) train last year heading from Edinburgh to Livingston North when the train hit a car that had been left on the line, just east of Uphall Station.  While there were, thankfully, no fatalities, and only minor injuries, it was fairly scary stuff when it happened.  I imagine it left a lot of people thinking, 'What if...?'.  So I'm all in favour for there being some form of proper resilience, staff-wise, on the trains.  Trains are getting longer, and therefore busier, so there has to be some thought given to the staff/passenger ratio.  There has to be a limit to what a driver equipped with some CCTV can accomplish.

 

On another note, just get it sorted.  Train travel isn't cheap in this country and the people who suffer most whenever there's a dispute are the customers.  It seems to happen frequently these days.  Add to that the difficulties encountered when it's too cold, too wet, too windy and - rarely - too hot, coupled with signalling problems and trouble with points, the customer can be left wondering what the hell their money is being spent on.  I offer this mini-rant from an uninformed customer's perspective.

[Dazo]

Guard gets told. Informs driver. Driver then understands why the signal is remaining at red. Guard doesn't prevent but helps in it not esculating. Teamwork involved.

So the person on the train checking the tickets can't inform the driver ? Apart from the fact the train was coming into the station so who on the train is telling the guard ?

[Dazo]

No death and no derailment but I'm not just making up scenarios that don't have a chance of happening. It's only unrealistic to you because you don't hear about it.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294613/Miracle-escape-train-driver-120mph-express-struck-falling-tree.html

 

http://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/local-news/1832327/south-west-train-hits-fallen-tree/

 

And here's a train derailed by a tree and 14 dead. Albeit in California. http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Commuter-train-derails-in-Niles-Canyon-6876223.php

your examples don't really back up your point of needing a guard on the train do they ? I'm not saying your making anything up you're not proving your point about guards either

[IronJambo]

So the person on the train checking the tickets can't inform the driver ? Apart from the fact the train was coming into the station so who on the train is telling the guard

A ticket examiner would be on the train and wouldn't be involved in the dispatch procedure, and would therefore be unaware of the problem. The first thing a guard would actually do would be to pull the passcom to prevent the train from being able to move.

[IronJambo]

your examples don't really back up your point of needing a guard on the train do they ? I'm not saying your making anything up you're not proving your point about guards either

I'm quite clearly wasting my time here if you can't grasp the simple things I'm putting across. 

[Dazo]

Apologies for quoting you again. The systems in place fall down in a full derailment when track circuits are used. The wheels of the train making contact with the line creates a circuit which shows it's presence, ie. It puts the signal behind at red and the signaller can see the train on the screen. In a full derailment the wheels are no longer making contact which turns the signal back as the circuit thinks you've moved onto the next one. That means your train that is occupying the track and possibly others next to it is a ghost and a huge hazardous object to other trains. The only thing that can change that is human intervention from the scene.

Are you saying in a derailment the track signal indicating the train as moved on from one signal but does not report reaching the other nothing can be done or can only be reported by someone on the train ? There is no one remotely tracking the trains ?

[Dazo]

I'm quite clearly wasting my time here if you can't grasp the simple things I'm putting across.

I can grasp it clearly but it's your opinion and one many people disagree with. Don't get all stroppy because I don't agree with it or you can't explain what difference a guard would have made to your poor examples.

[John Findlay]

Are you saying in a derailment the track signal indicating the train as moved on from one signal but does not report reaching the other nothing can be done or can only be reported by someone on the train ? There is no one remotely tracking the trains ?

Yes the signaller remotely tracks the train. However he/she cannot physically see said train. So when a train doesn't reach the next point he/she is expecting until told by someone. They would only be guessing what has occurred. Not disimiliar to an aeroplane dropping off radar. The air traffic controller knows where the plane should be but really has no idea why it isn't. They can guess but don't know until they are told by a third party or other irrefutable proof is obtained.