Great Western Coffee Shop

This may seem like a really stupid question, but what exactly is the role of the dispatcher (the person with the table tennis bat) at larger stations?  It is something that I've always wondered but never worked out.

The reason I ask is that not all stations have them, so I assume the guard does their job at smaller stations.  What do they do that the guard can't do?  Also, what is the purpose of the table tennis bat thing?  And does the table tennis bat thing actually have a name?

 'Train despatcher', platform staff, customer service assistant, used to be called porters many moons ago.

 

At busy stations the dispatcher(s) assists the guard by closing doors (on slam door stock), or advising the guard when it is safe to close power operated doors. The dispatch bat/dispatch baton depending on how posh you are is used to give the "tip" to the guard that station duties are complete. According to the rule book this "all right" signal can also be given by raising one arm above the head*, although generally the bat is used because it's much more visible on a busy platform. The whistle itself is not a formal part of the "all right" handsignal, but is widely used both to attract the guard's attention if necessary and also to alert everyone present that the train is about to leave.

On a long train with a curved platform it can be difficult for the guard to see all of the doors at once, so having dispatch staff to assist saves the guard having to walk the full length of the train checking doors and therefore also saves time. When dispatching as HST, the dispatchers will first make sure all of the doors are properly closed, with the handles horizontal, then signal to the guard with the dispatch bat that it is OK to engage the secondary door locking. They will then carry out a second check of the doors, making sure they're correctly closed and that all of the orange lights have extinguished, before signalling once more to the guard who will then, as long as they are satisfied everything is in order, give the "right away" signal to the driver.

With driver-only trains at major stations (e.g. Reading) dispatchers will signal to the driver with a dispatch bat that is is safe to close the doors, then show a green flag once they have checked that all doors are closed and noone is trapped. In other places (e.g. Oxford) the platform starting signal has "CD" (close doors) and "RA" (right away) indicators that are operated by the platform staff in place of handsignals. White lights and green lights are used at night in place of dispatch bats and green flags respectively (although some of the more recent dispatch bats have built in handlamp signals).

Finally, dispatch staff together with guards and drivers are responsible for checking the platform starting signal (where there is one - often there will be a repeater that illuminates on the platform showing "OFF" when the signal is clear if it's not readily visible from the platform). This is designed to avoid so-called "ding ding and away" SPADs, where a train starts from a statio platform against a red signal.

Incidentally, should the need ever arise, a guard is fully competent to dispatch their own train from any station without the assistance of a dispatcher. However, as alluded to above, this will take extra time (imagine the implications of each HST running through Reading platform 4 sitting there for an extra minute or so...). Quite apart from the punctuality implications, I can't see the unions being too impressed by any attempt to reduce the role of dispatchers. dispatchers

*Apparently in days gone by staff would often use a rolled up newspaper instead of a dispatch bat, although I have no idea how true this story is!

Incorrect... Dispatcher/Platform Staff used to be called "Chargemen" in the "Good old days".

Porters carried bags for passengers, and there are none of those on the Railway anymore.

(ETA:  There are plenty of platform staff that will happily assist with baggage where appropriate.)

And yet, when I did agency work for FGW at BRI a couple of years ago, I was told by a couple of the permanent Service Delivery Assistants and Customer Service Assistants that I shouldn't help passengers with luggage as I wasn't paid to do that. They also told me that the RMT had told SDA/CSA's not to carry luggage, unless and until it was negotiated into contract terms.

Needless to say I ignored these old timers and helped out whenever I could. If I'm employed to offer Customer Service then that's what'll do.

..and put your back out humping some of the monstorous bags/cases people seem to take on trains these days.....

Without wishing to stereotype, you should see some of the bags that Americans manage to drag onto planes as "hand luggage" (two monstrous bags each, naturally). Said individuals can then get quite shirty when it turns out that either they're too big to fit in the overhead bins, or they're already full because lots of other people have been up to the same trick!

I caught a BA flight from the States last summer where the ground staff were strictly enforcing the carry-on size limits, much to the chagrin of a long line of irate American passengers.

 It seems to me some stations have different conditions.
 If you go to Totnes some early evenings, the same 'dispatcher' will ;-
 
 Sell you the ticket.
 Give you the train information.
 Help you on the train, if you need it.
 Then dispatch the train.

 What do the union make of that ?

 If Scotrail get their way, it's all down to the driver,

 http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=132163

I know we have done this before, but I am still to hear a decent argument against DOO using modern stock on track circuited lines.

In order for rail to be competitive in an age of significant financial pressure everyone needs to make sure operating costs are kept down. This is a brand new line so its not as if they are proposing to get rid of anyone by introducing DOO.

Well, I know where you're coming from - the savings are obviously a benefit, but having DOO on the suburban routes out of Paddington does have its drawbacks:

1) Revenue is affected as the locals can easily buy a ticket from Paddington to Acton Main Line to get through the barriers and then travel all the way to Burnham (or wherever) safe in the knowledge that they are most unlikely to get caught - in other examples, say Twyford to West Drayton, there are no barriers so no need to buy a ticket.

2) 1st Class ends up looking like a ghetto on some late trains as there is nobody to police it and ensure that people in 1st class have 1st class tickets. That same set might end up doing a Cotswold Line service the next morning, so no wonder there are complaints about the state of the trains.

3) With no presence in the train, there can be an intimidating atmosphere - especially for lone females late at night - which again will affect revenue as some potential journeys will not be made.

4) Vandalism and graffiti is much easier to get away with.  CCTV now installed on the Turbos has helped cut this back quite significantly, but is of no use in the toilets.

5) There can be no doubt that safety would be affected in the event of a big emergency as one driver trying to deal with hundreds of passengers and ensure an incident is dealt with properly is impossible.  A recent turbo engine fire near Hayes is a prime example as people panicked when smoke started to enter the train, the driver stopped and contacted the signallers to request the fire brigade, during which time several passengers pulled the emergency egress and jumped onto the tracks - fortunately nobody was hit by anything the other way as it was at an area where the main and relief lines were a small distance apart.  Had there been a guard there, the situation would have been easier to control as he/she could have dealt with controlling the passengers, whilst the driver assessed the fire, made the train safe and dealt with calling the emergency services etc.  I'm not saying dealing with panicking passengers would be easy - but two people in charge would no doubt fare much better than one!

couldnt agree with you more Industry insider....anyone who possibly thinks  widespread DOO will lead to cheaper fares in the world of the privatised railway is somewhat mistaken, the fares arent any cheaper on existing doo routes now so why would anything change
Most Drivers would rather safely drive there train free from worrying about whats going on in the back, knowing there is someone else there to deal with customer related incidents.
i know of 2 sexual assaults on females that have taken place on FGW services late at night within the last 6 months, both times a guard has been present and done the necessary things to get the offenders arrested.

in answer to your question henry there are about 3 grades of dispatch staff who have different job specifications according to where they work.

Almost completely agree with you Insider. 

Your arguements convince me that it is better to have two members of staff on a train than just one.  However, that is not quite the same thing as saying that the driver shouldn't be permitted to control the doors and dispatch the train leaving the second member of staff to control/look after the passengers.  The Scotrail proposal for their new service includes DOO, but not single manning of trains.  The trains would be staffed by a driver and a ticket examiner.

There have been many complaints on this board about the invisability of guards on trains and lack of ticket checks / throwing scrotes out of FC etc.  The arguments put forward in defence of the guards are usually along the lines of pointing out the guard's safety critical role and the fact that he may be busy with dispatch etc.  If the driver and/or platform staff dealt with that stuff, the second member of staff could concentrate on passenger facing duties and still be avilable and trained to do assist in evacuation and train protection in a serious emergency.   

I realise that DOO is difficult to implement on lightly used routes and requires extra platform equipment, but the fact that the RMT have resisted allowing the driver to open the doors (with the guard closing them) reveals to be that the resistance to DOO is at least in part driven by self interest rather than safety concerns.

Scotrail are proposing having a second person on the trains - just that they will be employed in a customer facing role, rather than operating the doors. So if anything revenue protection is improved as there is no need to stop checking tickets for station work. This method has been in use in the Strathclyde area for over 20 years, and the A to B services will simply be Strathclyde electric services extended to Edinburgh.

I've seen Scotrail quote that they need 130 extra staff to operate the service, so this is certainly not about preserving jobs.  
  

The 130 new staff include drivers, ticket examiners, administrators and matainence staff for the new depot at Bathgate, if guards were to be provided on these trains instead of TEs, it would add an annual cost of less than the salary of the MD of ScotRail.
ScotRail argue that the cost of altering the design of the now in production class 380s would be around ^1.4m. From a totally personal view I would argue that because every train Siemens have built for the UK previously (to my knowledge) have had guard's door controls, it probably cost them to have the designs altered to start with.
To say this is a completely new line is also a misnomer, it's a reopening line that was closed during the Beeching cuts. The vast majority of the route that's is at the Eastern end where guards currently operate, the smaller proportion is at the Western end from Glasgow to Drumgelloch where ticket examiners operate. (I'm guessing Airdrie to Bathgate had a better ring to it). The provision of DOO trains would therefore remove the guard already present for the journey from Edinburgh to Bathgate. ScotRail aren't stopping here either, they've already announced four class 380s for the line to North Berwick, currently operated by guards. The reason the strike action gained so much from support is that those working in depots  elsewhere know this is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
As far as safety is concerned lets remember that in the event of a collision or derailment it is highly likely that the driver is unavailable. Looking back to the Ladbrook Grove crash of just over ten years ago, the driver of the HST and Turbo were both killed and it was the guard of the HST who made an emergency call and two members of Virgin Trains staff travelling on the HST who protected the line.
In the event of an on-board incident with a group of rowdy or violent passengers a DOO train could carry on to wherever it may be going with a TE knocked unconscious, wheras with a guard it would get as far as the next station.
I'm sure many of you would have a different view but I know which I'd rather travel on.
Also noone has mentioned yet that ScotRail have frogmarched managers and office staff onto a one week guards training course to enable them to operate '9 out of 10' services on strike days rather than the usual six, let alone time for any route learning or practical on-train experience and that to me is just reckless.

Do the Strathclyde ticket examiners know how to protect a train?  If not, why not?

I know that the analogy is imperfect but airlines employ cabin crew primarily to assist in passenger evacuation in an emergency.  It is an important safety critical role and cabin crew are trained and assessed on it to a reasonabily high standard and in an emergency they can and do make a difference and have saved lives.  But, in a normal flight all of their attention is focussed on customer service.  Surely this demonstrates that having customer facing staff focussed completely on the passengers does not preclude those same staff being available to deal with an emergency be it rowdy passenegrs or a crash.  (the analogy is imprefect becaus ethe cabin crew do open and close the doors)

Because they are DOO

I take your point, but as someone else eluded to, it's the tip of the iceberg scenario.  Even if Scotrail were going to provide revenue protection for every train so that there was somebody else other than the driver, would they cancel the train if nobody was available due to sickness, etc?  If they would still run the train "because it's perfectly safe to do so as it's a DOO service" then it's no surprise that the likes of the RMT are very concerned that soon afterwards that would lead to it becoming commonplace not to have anybody on board except the driver.

The RMT will continue to fight tooth and nail against any move that either reduces the number of staff, or reduces the role of their staff - whether it's in essence a perfectly sensible solution to saving money, or a more underhand tactic by TOC's management.  The lack of trust in this particular example is evidence that there is a long way to go before that situation changes!

Going back to the role of the dispatcher, at least two stations I know of have resident, or at least regular, unofficial dispatchers. The young chap at Chippenham wanders along the platform shouting the list of station stops (just ahead of the announcement, like an echo in reverse) and the gentleman at Bath Spa even wears a home-made bib with "dispatcher" written on in felt tip pen. I assume this has been agreed to by the station staff and it all seems rather harmless really, but I'd imagine there are places where it's caused problems - probably the same places where photographers have been escorted from the premises.

Even if Scotrail were going to provide revenue protection for every train so that there was somebody else other than the driver, would they cancel the train if nobody was available due to sickness, etc?  If they would still run the train "because it's perfectly safe to do so as it's a DOO service" then it's no surprise that the likes of the RMT are very concerned that soon afterwards that would lead to it becoming commonplace not to have anybody on board except the driver.


Except that the terms of the franchise require them to have a second person on the train. So they may choose to run an occasional service DOO rather than cancel it, but they are certainly not going to plan for it, or for it to be the thin end of the wedge.

Well, if it's in the terms of the franchise then that's good enough for me.  Sadly not for the RMT though!

If that is true and they cannot protect a train then that is wrong.

Are you sure it is correct though?  I would have thought that all on train staff (including buffet staff, revenue protection people, customer hosts, whatever) should have some basic training to enable them to use the PA system, put on a Hi Viz and evacuate a train without getting their passengers run over, communicate with the signaller, and know how to use safety equipment like detonators and fire extinguishers?

The only staff that have Personal Track Safety (PTS) on FGW are Drivers, Guards and Station Dispatchers. ALl other on train staff go through basic train evacuation as part of their initial training but that is it.

Back in the days of Thames Trains they put the revenue grades though the PTS course but when First took over this was stopped. Most of the Revenue staff would like to get this back so that they could help out in an emergency  but FGW will not pay for the recurrent training.

Thanks for the info.  This seems to me to be a better example of a TOC putting profit above safety than what Scotrail is proposing.

FGW Dispatchers do not have PTS. The only station staff with PTS are likely to be managers who have on call responsibility. Dispatchers are instructed to stay off the track, except in dire emergency.

The reason for this, and for Revenue staff not having PTS, is that it would be used so infrequently that there would be question marks about the competency of these staff. The basic rule is that, unless you practice your competency, you will lose it. For example, safety critical staff who are off sick for, say, four weeks, must have a competency assessment on their return to work before being allowed to do their safety critical task.

Staff that used their PTS training once in a blue moon could be putting themselves and others at risk.

It's not just a case of knowing how to put track circuit clips and detonators down and evacuating passengers, it's also detailed route knowledge so you know exactly which signaller to call, exactly where you are to help with finding a safe place to evacuate passengers to and which direction you can reasonably expect the next train to be coming from.

Thanks for the responses - makes absolute sense now.

I've noticed that Southern do DOO on some of their services.  I believe the Electrostars have cameras by the doors which can be viewed by the driver - so the driver can operate the doors at all stations.

How does a Guard opening and closing doors keep his competancy in evacuation and train protection up to scratch?

Presumably through regular training and re-training.  Would probably be too expensive to do this with all staff.

Protection and evacuation is covered during regular competance assessments which each guard is required to pass regularly to remain active in the role.
I actually think most passengers would be quite surprised in what information a guard is required to know and retain, with regards to route knowledge, theoretical rules/ traction information as well as retail and ticketing.

But would presumably cost exactly the same to put a TPE rather than a Guard through.

I am all for retaining guards on trains (or at least someone with the training and competance of a guard).  It still seems antiquated to me though to have that person open and close the doors.  And something is wrong if the only way to retain a safety-competent second person on a train is to give them the job of opening and closing the doors.  But I supose oif you give the driver those roles you need extra platform equipment which will only pay for itself if you get rid of the guards (either compleetly or replace them with someone cheaper)

 

Tim ..i think you might find that on a lot of modern stock, the Driver opens the doors on arrival at the platform and closes them when signalled to do so by the guard...i belive this is the system employed on AXC Voyagers

Correct.

One thing that might not have been mentioned... if Drivers are being given more responsibilities (ie. responsibility for doors), I am pretty sure more responsibilities = more salary.  TOCs may save on paying a Ticket Examiner less on the train, but if it means paying the driver more plus the required equipment at stations, then I don't see the financial benefit at all.

As DG said, correct, also the case on FGW turbos when operated with a guard, I think with Southern on their electrostars the driver opens doors but the guard has their own door close buttons thru the train.
On a Voyager throughout the dispatch procedure there is a live audio link to the driver whenever the guards key is turned using the same speaker/mic as the passcomm.

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8522204.stm):

Headline is immediately contradicted in the first line of the story!

My reading is that up to 10% of services will be affected. Maybe small beer and I'm all for TOC's sticking it to Commie Bob, but 1 in 10 trains not running is still a significant disruption, particularly if your usual service is one of the 10% affected.

Ok thanks.  I didn't know that.  Just seems more sensible to me because the driver is more likely to be near a button than the guard.

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8524378.stm):

I'm afraid that if the second person is a T/E they will not be trained in safety procedures so will not be able to help out only perhaps in the most basic of ways...that is the whole point of having a guard on the train! The conductor is an amalgamation of the old guard and ticket inspector combined - the ticket examiner on a doo train will only do tickets - they have no knowledge of the route, how to stop the train in an emergency, or how to lay track circuit clips or detonators, they are not trained on the routes so possibly would not even know where they were or where the nearest help would be in the case of an emergency.  If they are trained to do this then they WILL be a guard!!!!!!!!!!

DOO has been operating safely for over 20 years.  The RMT would be better campaigning for the Strathclyde arrangement where a TE is on the train.  That would be better for passengers and RMT would get more members.  The reason DOO has not extended much in the last 10 years is because of privatisation.  IF the railway had not been privatised then DOO would be much more widespread than now.  Huge area of the network are already DOO.

All of Thames link, most of South Eastern, Southern, , Chiltern, Great Western Thames Valley and all Scotrailservices around Glasgow.  Face it we are not going to go back to having Guards on trains.

I notice that the areas that you have advised DOO operates are all highly built up areas and in those areas at least if no guard then help shouldn't be too far away but no way should services which have long areas of open countryside and often unstaffed stations operate with no guard...but why do you think it would be better to have DOO.....would you not feel safer with a trained guard on board.

There must be some pretty isolated areas between Bedford and Brighton.

And between Hungerford and Bedwyn, Heyford and Kings Sutton etc....

There are miles and miles of open and often mountainous countryside in Scotland and unstaffed stations and sparse population so believe me when I say that passengers would be far better off having a trained guard on board than a ticket examiner should the driver be incapacitated!

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that having a guard on board trains is a bad idea, and I've said before that somebody else other than the driver with some sort of safety/emergency training would be of great help should something bad happen.

But it's wrong to suggest that Glasgow to Edinburgh via Aidrie and Bathgate is mountainous and isolated which is the route this thread is discussing.  The most 'isolated' section between Airdie and Bathgate mostly runs parallel to the A89 for example, so we're not exactly talking about being stuck in the Cairngorms here!

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8556255.stm):

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8565102.stm):

Am I the only one that thinks that sounds a bit contradicting?  The fact that no-one opened a door means they got away with it... not that "no-one was put at risk"  ::)

There are FGW managers who are currently working as Guards on ScotRail on strike days.

That is why I quote such items, Donkey Guard - to contribute to the debate on these issues, here on the forum.

C.  ;)

FGW managers working as guards on ScotRail on strike days? Goodness, that's a long way to go to keep the trains running.

I was up in Edinburgh on Saturday to support my ex-colleagues, the staff brought in to run the trains were being kept well away from all other staff in the first class lounge with muffins and kitkats aplenty to keep them going. The train crew supervisors were not let into the secret of who was working what train, having to telephone managers to issue instructions to 'acting conductors'.
How a door could be released on the wrong side at GLQ is beyond me, every sevrice can be accommodated on the platform so obviously the staff working the trains after a 'comprehensive' 7 day guards course should know they need to be on the platform before releasing train doors!

Sticking my neck out here, I know, but isn't that a bit of a storm in a teacup? From the arguments above you would think that any slam door stock without CDL was a complete death trap, seeing as it's entirely possible for pax to open doors on the "off-side" there too. I know there are plenty of numpties out there but I'd wager that even the Great British Public had more sense than to actually open the doors on the wrong side of the train and take a flying leap, even if they were released!

Latest on the Scottish Dispute - and...............  don't shoot the messenger, I know how "twitchy" some people on here get when the word "Union" is mentioned in any post!!




ON THE eve of direct talks with Scottish Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson tomorrow over the dispute concerning safety issues and the axing of the Guard on Scotrail^s new Airdrie-Bathgate line, RMT have written to the Minister today seeking clarification on four critical points:


The failure to produce any risk assessments from either First Scotrail or Transport Scotland on the proposed Driver Only Operation mode for the new route despite repeated assertions from Scotrail that they consider the plans to axe the Guards on the service to be safe. The failure to produce the full correspondence between First Scotrail and Transport Scotland regarding the decision of management and the Scottish Government to opt for Driver Only Operation on the new route despite being aware that the decision is in breach of an agreement between the company and RMT and despite assurances from Alex Salmond that these documents would be made available to the union. Repeated breaches of the franchise agreement over the running of trains in the Strathclyde area without a second member of staff on board, effectively allowing First Scotrail to bring in Driver Only Operation via the backdoor contrary to explicit contractual agreements with the Scottish Government. Justification for the running of so-called ^training courses^ for a strike-breaking force pulled in from all corners of the UK on strike days on Scotrail and the publication of all documentation relating to the validation and risk assessment of these courses as safe practice.

RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said:


^Despite all the spin and hot air from ScotRail it remains the case that the dispute on their services, and the third day of strike action over the weekend, are all about the company compromising safety by axing the Guards in order to save money. In our letter to the Minister today we are bringing the focus back on to the safety critical points at the heart of the dispute and the misinformation that has been churned out by the company as fact.


^First Scotrail are prepared to ride roughshod over the terms of their contract with the Scottish Government, rip up existing agreements with the unions dating back to 2001 and ignore the overwhelming safety case against Driver Only Operation simply to save ^300,000 that they can add to ^18 million that they paid out in dividends to shareholders last year.


^We are fighting for passenger and staff safety on Scottish railways and we will be pressing Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson in talks tomorrow to issue a clear instruction to Scotrail to abide by existing agreements and the contractual commitments that they signed up to when they took on this franchise.^

Um... is this not a new line with a new service? How exactly are guards being axed? You can't axe something that wasn't there in the first place.

Think Bathgate to Edinburgh has guards and it wont on the new service. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Um... is this not a new line with a new service? How exactly are guards being axed? You can't axe something that wasn't there in the first place.

 If you read the paragraph properly you will see their was an agreement dated back in 2001 that Scotrail would keep Conductors on trains. Personally I would hate to see guards axed from any services, but if Scotrail want to 'axe' this role then perhaps common sense would had told them to go through the correct negotiating procedure. Both sides sign up to these procedures, so Scot rail have no excuse.
 I suppose that is the cost driven society we are now in, where safety is compromised by finance.
 It's all O.K. till something goes wrong.

Yes correct

Well, nothing major has gone wrong, that can be attributed to DOO, on the multitude DOO services in operation across many other parts of the rail network. Yes, it's nice to have the additional staff member, but just remember who pays for them - not the TOC, not the union - guess who?

If DOO has proved safe elsewhere them I'm all for it being used on new lines - anything to lower the cost of rail reopenings should be welcome.

  I think it is rather niave to think any 'savings' made by First Group would be invested into the railway system.

  Bearing in mind the franchise agreement FGW are commited to, makes you wonder how FGW will 'save' money ?

 

There will be a second person on the train, in accordance with the franchise requirements. They just won't open and close the doors.

Given the significant (over a hundred?) net number of new jobs for drivers and conductors/train managers/revenue protection staff (or whatever you want to call the second person), I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for the Union's position. The trains become an extension of the current electric service from Glasgow to Airdrie, and will operate to exactly the same standards.

 

The net number of new jobs would be exactly the same, the figure quoted is for drivers, maintenance staff, cleaners, administrators and ticket examiners at the new depot at Bathgate. The number of tickets examiners is about thirty and these would be new guards if guards were to operate on the route.