National Rail Awards 2015

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Who's to say the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)/FGW^▸ (First Great Western) made mistakes? Unions aren't always right, they just protect jobs/their own income from membership. Regardless of whether buffets are required

[JayMac]

Industrial action took place in the west and at Landore in the recent past.

I'm not denying there are good aspects of FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway). There has however been much that is wrong recently.

[paul7575]

...but in that case FirstGW have failed to stand up to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) or haven't noticed DfT's mistakes).

Under what realistic circumstances can any TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 'stand up to' the DfT?   

Paul

[Rhydgaled]

...but in that case FirstGW have failed to stand up to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) or haven't noticed DfT's mistakes).

Under what realistic circumstances can any TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 'stand up to' the DfT? Paul

Well, in this case, the franchise bidders were supposed to have input into the details of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) fleets for each area, and it sounds like the Virgin Trains East Coast (VTEC) fleet will have some differences (including, if the lack of industrial action on that franchise is any indication), buffets and guards.

Who's to say the DfT/FGW^▸ (First Great Western) made mistakes? Unions aren't always right, they just protect jobs/their own income from membership. Regardless of whether buffets are required

Well, I've no idea whether removing buffets is a mistake, but trying to remove the mandatory passenger-facing staff (guards) is a big mistake if you ask me. Requiring call-for-aid buttons but not staff to answer the call is, in my opinion, worthy of the expression 'shooting yourself in the foot'. Certainly, if you want your staff on side the plan to allow trains to run without guards has already been shown to be a big mistake. I also think the mix of 5-car and 9-car sets which has been ordered is a mistake (should be fewer fives and more nines, again like the VTEC fleet where every one of the current trains will be replaced by a 9-car 800/801 unit), but we'll have to wait and see if I'm proved right on that one.

[John R]

but trying to remove the mandatory passenger-facing staff (guards) is a big mistake if you ask me. Requiring call-for-aid buttons but not staff to answer the call is, in my opinion, worthy of the expression 'shooting yourself in the foot'. Certainly, if you want your staff on side the plan to allow trains to run without guards has already been shown to be a big mistake.

Remember that every HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) will have a train manager on board - they just won't be responsible for the doors any more. The original proposal to run a service without a TM^‡(resolve) in an emergency appears to have been conceded early on in the negotiations. The example given was that say, during a period of disruption, the TM due to take a service out of Paddington was seriously delayed on an inbound service, then he could alight at Reading and pick up his westbound service there.  Seems reasonably sensible to me, but apparently not acceptable and now conceded.

[ChrisB]

Call-for-aid buttons? Now you're making it up! (Or provide a link to any evidence)

[Rhydgaled]

but trying to remove the mandatory passenger-facing staff (guards) is a big mistake if you ask me. Requiring call-for-aid buttons but not staff to answer the call is, in my opinion, worthy of the expression 'shooting yourself in the foot'. Certainly, if you want your staff on side the plan to allow trains to run without guards has already been shown to be a big mistake.

Remember that every HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) will have a train manager on board - they just won't be responsible for the doors any more. The original proposal to run a service without a TM^‡(resolve) in an emergency appears to have been conceded early on in the negotiations. The example given was that say, during a period of disruption, the TM due to take a service out of Paddington was seriously delayed on an inbound service, then he could alight at Reading and pick up his westbound service there. Seems reasonably sensible to me, but apparently not acceptable and now conceded.

I was aware that every HSS was supposed to have a TM diagrammed, but that the train would be allowed to run without one. I wasn't aware they'd conceded that, but if a TM is now mandatory on every train that's a slight reassurance.

Call-for-aid buttons? Now you're making it up! (Or provide a link to any evidence)

Call-for-aid buttons are required on all trains from Jan 1st 2020, I'm not making it up. As far as I can tell, there is however no requirement to actually have a member of staff to respond to it, with I think is daft.

Call-for-aid buttons are required by both RVAR and PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) TSI, for example this regulation refering to wheelchair spaces:

RVAR Regulation 16(1)(e)
the space shall be fitted with a device which shall:
(i) enable a disabled person in a wheelchair to communicate with a person who is in a position to take appropriate action in an emergency;   
(ii) be placed within reach of a person in a reference wheelchair;
(iii) be operable by the palm of a person's hand; and
(iv) not require a force greater than 30 newtons for operation.

There is also a requirement for two call-for-aid buttons in each wheelchair-accessible toilet. The above is quoted from a DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) spreadsheet regarding the level of compliance currently acheived by class 158 units download here (.xls)

[ChrisB]

Only in the space provided for the disabled. Yes you are right

[IndustryInsider]

'Call for aid' will be responded to by the driver I'd have thought?  Like they do now on the 180s/Turbos.

[Rhydgaled]

'Call for aid' will be responded to by the driver I'd have thought?  Like they do now on the 180s/Turbos.

Depends on your definition of 'appropriate action' I suppose, and the form of emergency the call-for-aid buttons are intended to help with. Certainly, if the only member of staff is the driver any physical assistance would have to wait until the next station stop if all the button allows is the ability to speak to the driver.

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, in many ways the driver is the best person to speak to - able to contact the emergency services the quickest (via the signaller) and able to make the best decision on where to stop the train to allow help to be provided.  In other ways, not so, as they might not be able to respond as quickly physically to a situation if that's what's needed - say a person is trapped in the toilet, or the lights have gone out in a carriage.

Either way you look at it, having a call-for-aid that's dealt with immediately or at the next station is better for the passengers than having no call-for-aid at all, surely?  And it certainly won't be a case of not having a member of staff responsible for dealing with them.