IronJambo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 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 ? The train disappears. No alarms, no flashing lights, no pager messages, no messages in the sky. Unless the signaller is really on the ball or sees it flash off his screen then nobody else would know. When the train is late past a certain point someone at route information may become aware and then they'll try contacting the guard. This wouldn't be a timely reaction to an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 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.You accused me of scaremongering and suggested it was unrealistic for a tree to go through a windscreen of a train and I have you an example. I gave you an example of a very recent fire that a guard took care of before the driver even knew about it. I gave examples of a fair few things which back upa present guard making a train safer but you tell me the examples are irrelevant. I don't mind answering questions about this but there's no point if you're just going to skim by worth your mind blinkered and already made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 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. Sat at a signal outside a station for over ten minutes once. When the driver finally got through to the signaller he was told that he wasn't on his screen and he didn't even know he was there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabienleclerq Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'd like to pipe up with the guards are first aiders too, my mate is a guard and has helped people on a few occasions potentially saving lives. Im 100% behind the strikers here, they are striking about public safety not personal gain. Scotrail wont be investing any money saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Sat at a signal outside a station for over ten minutes once. When the driver finally got through to the signaller he was told that he wasn't on his screen and he didn't even know he was there! Always expect the unexpected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 The train disappears. No alarms, no flashing lights, no pager messages, no messages in the sky. Unless the signaller is really on the ball or sees it flash off his screen then nobody else would know. When the train is late past a certain point someone at route information may become aware and then they'll try contacting the guard. This wouldn't be a timely reaction to an accident. In that case it's ridiculous that if a train doesn't report passing it's next signal the trains behind aren't halted. That being the case I think the issue of a guard being on the train is the least of the safety concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 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. I couldn't have given a flying feck ... until I read this. Onions - he kens them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 In that case it's ridiculous that if a train doesn't report passing it's next signal the trains behind aren't halted. That being the case I think the issue of a guard being on the train is the least of the safety concerns. Just how many user names do you have i8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 You accused me of scaremongering and suggested it was unrealistic for a tree to go through a windscreen of a train and I have you an example. I gave you an example of a very recent fire that a guard took care of before the driver even knew about it. I gave examples of a fair few things which back upa present guard making a train safer but you tell me the examples are irrelevant. I don't mind answering questions about this but there's no point if you're just going to skim by worth your mind blinkered and already made up. It is scaremongering imo when you put forward an unlikely scenario to make your point. You have overstated the importance of the guards role imo. You have insinuated a guard and only a guard can make a difference in regards to safety. I personally think in the case of an emergency a ticket collector would have the knowledge of who to contact in such cases. The body in charge of rail safety don't seem to have an issue with driver only trains. The current 59% of driver only trains seem to run in a safe and timely manner. Scotrail have guaranteed no job loses or changes to conditions for the term of their franchise, something else you alluded to. I'm coming from an unbiased perspective and really won't lose any sleep either way. No way you can say the same. As I said scaremongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 It is scaremongering imo when you put forward an unlikely scenario to make your point. You have overstated the importance of the guards role imo. You have insinuated a guard and only a guard can make a difference in regards to safety. I personally think in the case of an emergency a ticket collector would have the knowledge of who to contact in such cases. The body in charge of rail safety don't seem to have an issue with driver only trains. The current 59% of driver only trains seem to run in a safe and timely manner. Scotrail have guaranteed no job loses or changes to conditions for the term of their franchise, something else you alluded to. I'm coming from an unbiased perspective and really won't lose any sleep either way. No way you can say the same. As I said scaremongering. You are coming across as Phil Verster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 It is scaremongering imo when you put forward an unlikely scenario to make your point. You have overstated the importance of the guards role imo. You have insinuated a guard and only a guard can make a difference in regards to safety. I personally think in the case of an emergency a ticket collector would have the knowledge of who to contact in such cases. The body in charge of rail safety don't seem to have an issue with driver only trains. The current 59% of driver only trains seem to run in a safe and timely manner. Scotrail have guaranteed no job loses or changes to conditions for the term of their franchise, something else you alluded to. I'm coming from an unbiased perspective and really won't lose any sleep either way. No way you can say the same. As I said scaremongering. I showed you examples to show you the scenario I depicted could be very real. A Ticket Examiner would be just as clueless as yourself in an emergency situation(useless at no fault of their own). As stated before, they have no training for these situations. Scotrail guaranteeing no job losses matters not a jot to me or those striking. They're striking on grounds of safety. Think about that for a minute. The people that do the job are giving up their wages when the company have guaranteed they won't be laid off. They have no financial gain, only loss. They just want a day off do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 So why did the unions agree to the current level of doo if it was so unsafe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 So why did the unions agree to the current level of doo if it was so unsafe? Only the unions can answer that. I'd hazard a guess it was negotiated away for something else many many years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if it mostly dates back to privatisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchy frog Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I know at least two guards (one of them a union rep) who frequent this website and I am very surprised they haven't waded in with their take on the subject yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 If this is really a safety issues, then the unions would be better lobbying government for some legislation. Their argument is pretty poor if over half of journeys are already working this way and have done for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 If this is really a safety issues, then the unions would be better lobbying government for some legislation. Their argument is pretty poor if over half of journeys are already working this way and have done for years. The fight is with the government, but it's being carried out through train companies. Have a search for the Mcnulty report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Payton Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 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. This system seems remarkably weak with the obvious risks you and Dazo have already pointed out. Obviously the guard makes it safer, but what if they are also injured in the initial incident? Do you know how long we've been relying on this type of system (i.e when was it introduced as the best emergency alerting process)? Could it not be enhanced/ replaced with the use of GPS to monitor progress of the trains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heart of lothian Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 All safety on the railway is down to cost, there are many systems which could be installed which would save lives but not enough to be deemed cost effective. (From Government/Train operating company point of view). The Guard also double checks signals for the driver before closing doors which provides an extra level of safety. Ticket examiners cant do this as they do not have any route knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 This system seems remarkably weak with the obvious risks you and Dazo have already pointed out. Obviously the guard makes it safer, but what if they are also injured in the initial incident? Do you know how long we've been relying on this type of system (i.e when was it introduced as the best emergency alerting process)? Could it not be enhanced/ replaced with the use of GPS to monitor progress of the trains? It's not the only system at use. We still have ancient systems where a bloke sits in a small box and pulls a lever. We also still use token systems. Then we have axle counters that track trains in and out of sections. None of them are perfect. I think there are more modern variations but they're rare outside of new lines. GPS is being used for selective door opening on short platforms on modern trains but not much else I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 The fight is with the government, but it's being carried out through train companies. Have a search for the Mcnulty report. The report is 5 years old and you could argue that it is industry that has failed to implement all the recommendations. Not sure of the relevance to the current industrial action though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Seemingly leaked document from Scotrail top brass stating that a big plus to DOO would be that it would help prevent future Union strike action as it would only require 1 safety trained member of staff to operate a train rather than 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Seemingly leaked document from Scotrail top brass stating that a big plus to DOO would be that it would help prevent future Union strike action as it would only require 1 safety trained member of staff to operate a train rather than 2.They could prevent future strike action by not being dicks. For those that think that strike action is the wrong way to go about things, you should realise that the union will have been having talks with scotrail well before they even balloted for strike. They will then have balloted and asked their members for a strike vote, hoping the strike mandate would be enough leverage on its own. Strike is the last thing that anyone wants. It won't happen overnight but the workers will win this fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4 Part B Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I didn't know the reason behind the strike until reading this thread. Going by this thread, there are guards on 41% to 50% of trains, Scotrail want to reduce this further. The union position is guards are needed to ensure safety, Scotrail I assume disagree. Are the union currently or planning to campaign to have guards installed on 100% of trains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 They could prevent future strike action by not being dicks. For those that think that strike action is the wrong way to go about things, you should realise that the union will have been having talks with scotrail well before they even balloted for strike. They will then have balloted and asked their members for a strike vote, hoping the strike mandate would be enough leverage on its own. Strike is the last thing that anyone wants. It won't happen overnight but the workers will win this fight. And the best of luck to the workers in that fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Only the unions can answer that. I'd hazard a guess it was negotiated away for something else many many years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if it mostly dates back to privatisation. So presumably the benefits of the deal outweighed thier safety principles. What does that tell me about this dispute i wonder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 So presumably the benefits of the deal outweighed thier safety principles. What does that tell me about this dispute i wonder...I think that's a bit presumptuous. The privatisation of the railways was(and still is) complicated and fragmented. A very small example would be that the Great Western network was formed of three franchises that had people doing similar but slightly different types of jobs and all on different payscales. Your talking 3 different types of revenue staff, and as far as DOO goes it's only allowed in one very small part of the network because of what was in place before. Trains that run DOO from reading and Oxford to Paddington are moving West within the franchise but will have a guard on them when they move. It very well could be the case that the current DOO in Scotrail was in place before privatisation and would be almost impossible to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Impossible to change? So not a safety thing at all then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Impossible to change? So not a safety thing at all then? You're asking people to close the door after the horse has bolted. Guards would have no influence on it either, it would be have to be drivers led by aslef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gershwin Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Because they want to take guards off routes that currently have guards on them. This compromises your safety. Keep the guard on the train! That's the misconception. They don't. There will still be a conductor on the trains, it's just that the other 41% of trains that aren't DOO are to be operated this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 who will check the tickets too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 That's the misconception. They don't. There will still be a conductor on the trains, it's just that the other 41% of trains that aren't DOO are to be operated this way. This article clearly states they are extending DOO operations. That means that some current routes that have a guard, won't have a guard in the future. It also says a 2nd person will be scheduled on board. This could be anyone, and it won't be anyone that's safety critical. The wording from Scotrail also tells us that if that 2nd person isn't available (sick, on holiday, in McDonald's, taking a dump?) then the train will go without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gershwin Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 This article clearly states they are extending DOO operations. That means that some current routes that have a guard, won't have a guard in the future. . Re: your second sentence...The statements from ScotRail suggest otherwise. Someone is lying here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Re: your second sentence...The statements from ScotRail suggest otherwise. Someone is lying here!!! Nobody is lying. Scotrail have been very careful and deliberately misleading with the language they've used. From Scotrail's very own personal page: "The RMT have been saying that the strike is about driver-only trains. It is not. There would still be a second person scheduled to be on services following the introduction of the faster, longer, greener trains from late next year." https://www.scotrail.co.uk/node/286928 "A second person" is not a conductor/guard. It's a ticket examiner at best. The other point of note from the quote is "scheduled". That means they will diagram a ticket examiner to be on the train but if there isn't one available then the train will go without them. Ticket examiner's are mostly not on the trains they should be as they're usually hiding behind corners selling tickets. These trains will mostly be running with just a driver. Even with a ticket examiner it's a Driver Only Operation. The only lie I can see there is that Scotrail seem to be pretending it isn't about DOO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I see there is a strike again on Monday and Thursday next week - any chance they might be called off or will they definitely be going ahead? Annoying for those of us who rely on it to get to work etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I see there is a strike again on Monday and Thursday next week - any chance they might be called off or will they definitely be going ahead? Annoying for those of us who rely on it to get to work etc At the moment no chance. Both sides have their heels well dug in. Strike dates are as follows: 10th and 11th July 14th, 16th and 17th July. That's Sun,Mon, Thu, Sat and Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I see there is a strike again on Monday and Thursday next week - any chance they might be called off or will they definitely be going ahead? Annoying for those of us who rely on it to get to work etc Just think how annoyed you'd be if you were giving up 5 days pay to help maintain the safety of people you don't know and they didn't even appreciate it. I genuinely hope you get to work at a decent time but please try and think about the bigger picture during your inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Just think how annoyed you'd be if you were giving up 5 days pay to help maintain the safety of people you don't know and they didn't even appreciate it. I genuinely hope you get to work at a decent time but please try and think about the bigger picture during your inconvenience. Why can't they put on more buses? And what about this statement: We think this strike is totally unnecessary. The RMT say we're planning on having driver-only trains. We are not. We will always schedule a second person on trains to serve our customers. They say it's about safety. It is not. Today, 59% of our customers travel on a train where the doors are safely opened and closed by the driver. The body in charge of regulating safety on the UK rail network ? the ORR ? say this is a safe way of working. And we've guaranteed all our conductors will keep their job, pay and conditions. https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/rmt-dragging-scotland-needless-damaging-strike-scotrail-md Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theshed Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Why can't they put on more buses? And what about this statement: We think this strike is totally unnecessary. The RMT say we're planning on having driver-only trains. We are not. We will always schedule a second person on trains to serve our customers. They say it's about safety. It is not. Today, 59% of our customers travel on a train where the doors are safely opened and closed by the driver. The body in charge of regulating safety on the UK rail network ? the ORR ? say this is a safe way of working. And we've guaranteed all our conductors will keep their job, pay and conditions. https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/rmt-dragging-scotland-needless-damaging-strike-scotrail-md Can't be that safe though as guy got dragged under a train last month on driver only train and lost an arm or a leg, sorry can't mind Scotrail won't go about telling people that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaap's Sigh Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Can't be that safe though as guy got dragged under a train last month on driver only train and lost an arm or a leg, sorry can't mind Scotrail won't go about telling people that I fully support the guards and what they are striking for. I personally would prefer a guard operating doors on trains rather than drivers carrying out these duties. However, the incident you are referring to (dumbarton east) where a man lost his arm as a result of falling under a train, would have happened on a train with a guard as well. The train was already moving off the platform when the man went down. Not much a guard can do about it at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Can't be that safe though as guy got dragged under a train last month on driver only train and lost an arm or a leg, sorry can't mind Scotrail won't go about telling people that Tragic but a bit anecdotal. There must be stats around comparing both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Why can't they put on more buses? And what about this statement: We think this strike is totally unnecessary. The RMT say we're planning on having driver-only trains. We are not. We will always schedule a second person on trains to serve our customers. They say it's about safety. It is not. Today, 59% of our customers travel on a train where the doors are safely opened and closed by the driver. The body in charge of regulating safety on the UK rail network ? the ORR ? say this is a safe way of working. And we've guaranteed all our conductors will keep their job, pay and conditions. https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/rmt-dragging-scotland-needless-damaging-strike-scotrail-md See my last post from 28 June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 The train was already moving off the platform when the man went down. Not much a guard can do about it at that point. That depends on whether the guard can see out the train properly or not. The driver can't see behind on the platform once moving The guard can stop the train if they can see something's going wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Strike Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 That depends on whether the guard can see out the train properly or not. The driver can't see behind on the platform once moving The guard can stop the train if they can see something's going wrong.And the guard could possibly have spotted the potential for an incident when standing on the platform before closing the local door and giving the driver the 2 buzzes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 If the practice is unsafe, why does the regulator allow it and why are the 59% of current services (by passenger number) running with this approach? If the RMT is seriously saying this is a safety issue, then their argument should be with the regulator, not the operator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 If the practice is unsafe, why does the regulator allow it and why are the 59% of current services (by passenger number) running with this approach? If the RMT is seriously saying this is a safety issue, then their argument should be with the regulator, not the operator. How does the RMT, who's members don't work for the regulator go about fighting the regulator? I think you know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 If the practice is unsafe, why does the regulator allow it and why are the 59% of current services (by passenger number) running with this approach? If the RMT is seriously saying this is a safety issue, then their argument should be with the regulator, not the operator. It's only unsafe when they fancy a strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 It's only unsafe when they fancy a strike. Strikes cause stress, financial worry, and can come between families. Nobody ever fancies a strike you crazy fool. Champagne socialists aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Another strike this weekend.. Is this likely to be the last of the strikes? If not, when will the next ones be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 How does the RMT, who's members don't work for the regulator go about fighting the regulator? I think you know the answer. I do know the answer and it isn't localised strike action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Is that the end of the strikes now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.