|
Jim
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2008, 15:18:12 » |
|
Why don't MTLS▸ choose to do their fare strike on the Monday!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cheers Jim  AG's most famous quote "It'll be better next week" |
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2008, 16:44:27 » |
|
[/quote]It would appear to the average punter that the guard is just there to check tickets (but thats another story...), the Guards role is to be in charge of the train, the ultimate safety role that they carry is the ability to "protect the train" in an incident, if a train derails on a double track for example, then the derailed train might be straddling the other line, the guard must run ahead with detenators and track circuit clips and protect the other line so another train doesn't smash into the derailed train, the guard is also then responsible for getting the passengers to safety out of what could be a lot of twisted remains, if it happened to you then you would feel far safer by having someone to lead you who has been trained in such scenarios. The ex Thames trains services between Reading and Pad however are DOO▸ (Driver Operated Only), this can only happen where mirrors/monitors are in use at the ends of the platforms so that the driver can see the whole length of the train in order to operate the doors safely, as on normal trains the guard is responsible for operating the doors and safe dispatch.
[/quote]
The GUARD IS IN CHARGE OF HIS TRAIN
Train drivers only move the train after obtaining the Signal from the Guard.
Driver Only Operation (DOO) only came in after bitter strikes that could have finished Britains Railway altogether, that's what the TORY GOVERNMENT promised.
Vacman is almost right about the Guard going ahead to "Protect the Train" in an Incident, that is the duty of the Driver, the guard goes to the rear to protect the train.
This is essential as the train may be derailed all wheels, this would CLEAR the section and AUTOMATIC signals would clear allowing the next train forward, and a train can soon pick up speed, and trains take some stopping.
The unions were dead against DOO being brought in, it's a bit much to ask the Driver to protect both front and rear of the train.
Moreover in a Crash the Driver often comes of WORST, and if the Driver is unable too, who protects a DOO train?
Some think the Unions have too much Power, I'd say the Government had too much power when they brought in DOO.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2008, 17:07:15 » |
|
An interseting note on DOO▸ is that the HMRI▸ will now not consider any future DOO schemes, so in effect they are admitting that it's unsafe! there are only a couple of operators that use this system.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Conner
|
|
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2008, 20:45:52 » |
|
In the Ladbroke Grove crash didn't the 165 involved catch fire?
Would a guard of helped?
I think so.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oooooo
|
|
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2008, 23:54:11 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dog box
|
|
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2008, 08:16:09 » |
|
In the Ladbroke Grove crash didn't the 165 involved catch fire?
Would a guard of helped?
I think so.
Correct me if i am wrong.....But at Ladbroke Grove on the 165 was there not a guard who happened to be road learning in the back cab at the time??? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All postings reflect my own personal views and opinions and are not intended to be, nor should be taken as official statements of first great western or first group policy
|
|
|
|
Conner
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2008, 08:57:54 » |
|
In the Ladbroke Grove crash didn't the 165 involved catch fire?
Would a guard of helped?
I think so.
Correct me if i am wrong.....But at Ladbroke Grove on the 165 was there not a guard who happened to be road learning in the back cab at the time??? I have no idea. Would have been very lucky though for the passengers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2008, 10:49:36 » |
|
I think we should make clear what the link says : 11 January 2008 20:00 Update
Guards' dispute update
Following constructive discussions held today regarding the guards' dispute, significant progress has been made.
First Great Western has given the RMT▸ negotiating team the commitment they were seeking, particularly in relation to managers working trains. As a result, further talks have been agreed for next week to discuss the other issues in dispute.
The RMT Negotiating Team have recommended to their Executive Committee that the strike action planned for 20 to 21 January 2008 be suspended.
Further updates will be provided.
Andrew Haines
Chief Operating Officer
First Great Western Here is an RMT link. http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/01/fgw_guards_dispute.html#more |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 11:06:44 by Lee Fletcher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2008, 11:37:25 » |
|
In the Ladbroke Grove crash didn't the 165 involved catch fire?
Would a guard of helped?
I think so.
Driver Only Operation, has a missing Safety Item (the Guard) and is now not extended because of ruling from HMRI▸ , Ladbroke Grove happened because of Missing Safety Item (Catch Points), and whilst we could go into alsorts of reasons why Ladbroke Grove occured, the big issue is that the Track Layout lacked Catch Points. To prevent another Ladbroke Grove trains and conflict areas of track have been fitted with TPWS▸ , a Safety System which has cost an Estimated ^300 million per life it will save. Now how many lives could the NHS Save if that money had gone to Hospitals |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2008, 11:50:57 » |
|
In the Ladbroke Grove crash didn't the 165 involved catch fire?
Would a guard of helped?
I think so.
Driver Only Operation, has a missing Safety Item (the Guard) and is now not extended because of ruling from HMRI▸ , Ladbroke Grove happened because of Missing Safety Item (Catch Points), and whilst we could go into alsorts of reasons why Ladbroke Grove occured, the big issue is that the Track Layout lacked Catch Points. To prevent another Ladbroke Grove trains and conflict areas of track have been fitted with TPWS▸ , a Safety System which has cost an Estimated ^300 million per life it will save. Now how many lives could the NHS Save if that money had gone to Hospitals TPWS is one of the most common sense piece of safety equiptment ever designed, as it physicly wont let a train SPAD▸ etc. You cannot put a price on human life! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2008, 11:55:45 » |
|
In the Ladbroke Grove crash didn't the 165 involved catch fire?
Would a guard of helped?
I think so.
Driver Only Operation, has a missing Safety Item (the Guard) and is now not extended because of ruling from HMRI▸ , Ladbroke Grove happened because of Missing Safety Item (Catch Points), and whilst we could go into alsorts of reasons why Ladbroke Grove occured, the big issue is that the Track Layout lacked Catch Points. To prevent another Ladbroke Grove trains and conflict areas of track have been fitted with TPWS▸ , a Safety System which has cost an Estimated ^300 million per life it will save. Now how many lives could the NHS Save if that money had gone to Hospitals TPWS is one of the most common sense piece of safety equiptment ever designed, as it physicly wont let a train SPAD▸ etc. You cannot put a price on human life! If the TPWS was over-ridden for some reason then it could SPAD although under operational conditions its an ecxellent piece of kit! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2008, 12:02:51 » |
|
You can put a price on human life, and until funding for public services is infinite, some decisions have to be made (and are made) as to whether the costs of safety improvements, medicines, treatments, etc justify the benefit.
Such decisions are inevitably very complex, and can have interesting side effects. The general consensus seems to be that a higher cost per life is justified for rail safety than road schemes, partly because of the inevitable public outcry at every death. However, as it's the passenger that ends up paying, this can have the effect of pushing more people onto roads and thus increasing road deaths.
TPWS▸ is generally acknowldeged to have been a very effective system at reducing risk on the railway, although it would not have had any effect at Hatfield, Selby, Potters Bar, Graygrigg, or Ufton Nervett. And of course, if the Turbos had been fitted with APT▸ then Ladbroke Grove would not have happened either.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2008, 12:08:48 » |
|
If TPWS▸ had been fitted at the time of Ladbrook grove then it may not have happened!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2008, 13:14:38 » |
|
If TPWS▸ had been fitted at the time of Ladbrook grove then it may not have happened!
If TPWS was fitted at the time of Ladbrook Grove it WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. Had the Paddington Area had catch points, Ladbooke Grove wouldn't have happened |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
