Non: Train Strike

Someone commented on one of the news stories that it's supposed to be a public service, not a political football to be kicked around. I agree.

They should run the trains without them and when everything runs fine (see: just as **************** as it usually is) we can fire them for being such arrogant, inconsiderate twerps.
 
simonhpieman said:
Someone commented on one of the news stories that it's supposed to be a public service, not a political football to be kicked around. I agree.

They should run the trains without them and when everything runs fine (see: just as **** as it usually is) we can fire them for being such arrogant, inconsiderate twerps.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true capitalist, until it affects you.
Unfortunately, knowing as little as you do, it's illegal as it stands to run a train without a guard.

Ask victims of the Clapham, Ladbroke Grove or Southall disasters or people who have been attacked on trains or involved with fires onboard trains if they want guards on board. The media won't let you know it, shhh, but the majority of the public back the striking guards just as they did on the southern rail dispute. But hey, it doesn't make good right wing news.
 
West Moors Cherry said:
Spoken like a true capitalist, until it affects you.
Unfortunately, knowing as little as you do, it's illegal as it stands to run a train without a guard.

Ask victims of the Clapham, Ladbroke Grove or Southall disasters or people who have been attacked on trains or involved with fires onboard trains if they want guards on board. The media won't let you know it, shhh, but the majority of the public back the striking guards just as they did on the southern rail dispute. But hey, it doesn't make good right wing news.
Click to expand...
Do you work for SWT and are you a union member?
 
My only comment is making a misery for people wishing to travel to see family and friends at Christmas really sucks
 
West Moors Cherry said:
Spoken like a true capitalist, until it affects you.
Unfortunately, knowing as little as you do, it's illegal as it stands to run a train without a guard.

Ask victims of the Clapham, Ladbroke Grove or Southall disasters or people who have been attacked on trains or involved with fires onboard trains if they want guards on board. The media won't let you know it, shhh, but the majority of the public back the striking guards just as they did on the southern rail dispute. But hey, it doesn't make good right wing news.
Click to expand...
What, the public back essentially an entire month of strikes?

And what percentage of that public are regular users who attempt to travel regularly on the already pitiful service?

And what about the literally tens of thousands of Southwestern services that have run since 2017 without a guard?
 
simonhpieman said:
What, the public back essentially an entire month of strikes?

And what percentage of that public are regular users who attempt to travel regularly on the already pitiful service?

And what about the literally tens of thousands of Southwestern services that have run since 2017 without a guard?
Click to expand...

I think (happy to be corrected) that thameslink trains don’t have a guard either
 
simonhpieman said:
What, the public back essentially an entire month of strikes?

And what percentage of that public are regular users who attempt to travel regularly on the already pitiful service?

And what about the literally tens of thousands of Southwestern services that have run since 2017 without a guard?
Click to expand...

I don't know about the public backing these particular strikes but the majority back having a guard on a train.

I have to state the facts again here, not one SWR train service has run since 2017 without a guard, it is against the law to do so. This is what the train company want to change within the contracts of the staff so that they can dispense with thousands of jobs and increase profits on an already lucrative contract. The guards are currently employed as safety critical meaning they can deal with fires, evacuations, accidents, etc.
The company is seeking to change the contracts so that they no longer have to be safety critical and in turn they can apply to be a Driver only operated train company which the government will immediately grant. They can then run trains without any guards and do away with a few thousand jobs. Their proposal is to re-employ the guards in a non-essential customer service based role. For now.

What you are referring to is on strike days, managers working trains as guards so that a half baked skeleton service can operate.

I know it is annoying for all of us and creates problems, but they are losing a lot of money for this right over Christmas in order to protect their jobs and families, so maybe looking at the bigger picture sometimes and looking at the facts would help!

They are not striking over pay, uniforms or any such media spin. They are striking purely over the fact their jobs, which are essential to safety, will not exist if SWR have their way.
 
Last edited:
AFCBade said:
I think (happy to be corrected) that thameslink trains don’t have a guard either
Click to expand...

London does have some DOO services as do other parts of the country. And they have the technology in place to do it. Also we're not talking about a 4 coach 50mph stopping service here either. This, as anyone will tell you who has had the misfortune to travel on, are 10 car 100mph trains out of Bournemouth already full and standing with a multitude of passenger issues including wheelchair users that require ramps to get on and off the trains, blind passengers, elderly, etc, etc, that are not plugged into their laptop or phone and actually need help. There's also the security issue as well.

I've never seen a time in my 20 years in the industry where their role is needed more, not less.
 
simonhpieman said:
Someone commented on one of the news stories that it's supposed to be a public service, not a political football to be kicked around. I agree.

They should run the trains without them and when everything runs fine (see: just as **** as it usually is) we can fire them for being such arrogant, inconsiderate twerps.
Click to expand...
You are Tobias Ellwood and I claim my £5!
 
OLDSKOOL said:
And have cheap budgets and unrealistic tariffs driving freight back on the roads ?
No ta .
Click to expand...
Nick,
I can't let you get away with that complete bollox.
It was privatisation of British Rail that forced the closure of the Red Star parcel service that drove loads more freight back on the roads.
Where do you get your fanciful notion that re-nationalisation will put up tariffs and force more freight on to the roads?
Not that you care anyway; if trains and buses were completely free at the point of use it wouldn't drive you out of your car and off the roads!
 
As a wheelchair user who often uses the trains, I am really grateful that guards are on board to make sure we can get on and off at the right place. I've no doubt some will blame guards for the poor services provided by the Franchises, as they do with doctors for the NHS.

Rail franchises seem only to make money for a few, so lets bring them all back under state control.
 
Been on the train back from London to Christchurch when it gets back late in the evening. No station staff to help anyone that may need it, but the guard always gets off onto the platform to see if any helps needed and everything is ok.

Is a train with just a driver going to cover that sort of problem?

There is announcement just after the journey starts if anybody needs help the guard mentions which carriage she/he is in or to speak to her/him on there way through checking tickets.

How can a driver only train cover the duties that the guard provides?

It’s all about saving money, but if it costs a few bob more and the safety of the passengers is covered with a human face nearby who they can contact, so be it.

Latest technology against the human touch isn’t always the best thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

;