Do train drivers assist disabled passengers?

[whole diary]

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Just listened to an item on Radio 4’s You and Yours (at 18:15 mins) in which someone was making a case to retain guards on trains (specifically SR^‡(resolve)) in order to assist disabled people get on and off trains. 

No surprise in that as the disability lobby is quite strong, but what did surprise me is the assertion by Edward Welsh (from 25:40 mins) from the Railway Delivery Group that the Train Driver would be ready and willing to assist someone to get off his train if necessary. 

Since when has this been part of a Driver’s duties?  AFAIAA they are not trained to assist disabled passengers.  And what would be the process for him/her to make train safe, get out of and secure the cab, walk along platform, find a ramp, assist passenger, put ramp back, go back to cab, etc – and of course deal with the “Please Explain” a few days later because of the station overtime. 

Can we assume that Mr Welsh was wrong?

[Tim]

a driver might "assist" in the sense of speak to someone out of their window or not pull away until a disabled passenger has been helped on board, but I would also have  thought that they are (quite rightly) not going to leave their cab except under unusual circumstances (ie they might leave their cab and help a disabled person off the train in an emergency)

So the truth of the statement depends on what you mean by "assist"

Someone with better knowledge than me will be along in a moment, I am sure.  I honestly don't know what a driver on a DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) service would do if a passenger pulled the alarm.  Would they go in search of the alarm activation like a guard does?

[ChrisB]

yes, in my experience of being on a DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) train (Chiltern) when that is pulled, they do.

[Rhydgaled]

yes, in my experience of being on a DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) train (Chiltern) when that is pulled, they do.

If the passenger alarm stops the train, then the driver is no-longer busy driving so I suppose can go and talk to the passengers. Bu what about the 'call for aid' button inside the accessible toilet(s) (and perhaps near the wheelchair space(s))?

My view is that guards can provide useful customer service (eg. printing a new itinary for passengers who have missed connections), and should be kept (but I don't see a problem with drivers unlocking the doors at stations rather than having to wait for the guard to reach a door control panel).

[LiskeardRich]

yes, in my experience of being on a DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) train (Chiltern) when that is pulled, they do.

If the passenger alarm stops the train, then the driver is no-longer busy driving so I suppose can go and talk to the passengers. Bu what about the 'call for aid' button inside the accessible toilet(s) (and perhaps near the wheelchair space(s))?

My view is that guards can provide useful customer service (eg. printing a new itinary for passengers who have missed connections), and should be kept (but I don't see a problem with drivers unlocking the doors at stations rather than having to wait for the guard to reach a door control panel).

So to provide disabled assistance, print new itineraries etc why do we need a guard? Why not save money and have a lower paid customer service assistant?

[ChrisB]

Because they might just be useful in emergency evacuations if they retained their safety case?

[LiskeardRich]

Why couldn't a customer assistant help evacuate, following instruction from driver?

[ChrisB]

cos it'd take longer, with driver's time instructing guard, rather than acting together & independently, wherever might be needed. This is what GTE want to do, hence no loss of pay or privs.

[trainer]

The more I read about the arguments around DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) the more I come to the opposite conclusion to the one I started out with. IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) DOO can work satisfactorily on suburban services where most if not all stations are staffed: there seems to be evidence for that.  However, on longer distance routes that pass through rural areas and unstaffed stations it seems to me that a safety trained member of staff seems to be essential to help in an emergency.

In 40 years I have never needed the Fire and Rescue service personally, but on the day I need them they will be there and not cut because so few people have called them in my area (I am, of course, making an assumption). Likewise, on the day the safety training of the second person is needed everyone will be grateful. Add to that the arguments about disabled access, the 'reassurance' factor which encourages travel for some who would otherwise avoid it, and the revenue protection function that could/should be performed and I am now persuaded that DOO is a Bad Thing in many respects.

There will be cost implications, but doing safety on the cheap has generally proved to be an expensive mistake. Asking a driver to leave the cab for anything unconnected with their specific duty a risk that need not be taken.

I think they could operate the doors though.

[Tim]

Why couldn't a customer assistant help evacuate, following instruction from driver?

or because a driver might have been killed or knocked out what with being sat at the sharp end.

There is of course no reason why a customer assistant can't receive the same level of safety training as a guard.

There is no law that says that everybody holding a safety critical role needs to be paid a high wage.  Or that that fact that they are in a safety critical role prevents them from offering customer assistance, selling tea or whatever on the 99.99% of the time when their safety training isn't needed. 

BA^» (British Airways - about) have multiple "fleets" of cabin crew.  Those who are well paid and were taken on under old T&Cs and newer intakes who are very poorly paid.  Both sets of cabin crew have the same safety role and training. 
 

[chrisr_75]

In 40 years I have never needed the Fire and Rescue service personally, but on the day I need them they will be there and not cut because so few people have called them in my area (I am, of course, making an assumption).

However, there are cuts/changes being made to this service. The huge reduction in open fireplaces in houses has lead to an equally huge reduction in house fires, which was always one of the main purposes of the fire brigades. The subtle name change from fire brigade to fire and rescue service is another indicator - they attend more road collisions than fires these days, their training, skill sets and equipment will have changed to reflect this. Why shouldn't the role of train guard change with the times and different needs placed upon that role?

[Billhere]

In the event of an emergency affecting the safety of the line the Driver is required to go and protect other lines by walking along the line and placing detonators on lines coming towards his train. If he has time he has to do the same at the back of the train.That is after he has spoken to the Signaller and told him of the circumstances.

As for an emergency a recent safety video we saw dealt with a fire on a train where the Driver was advised of a fire by a passenger and he went back to deal with it. In the meantime passengers panicked, forced open the doors, jumped out onto an open line and one got struck by a train in the opposite direction.

One man, two actions required. Good case for additional staff on the train.

Disability issues, different kettle of fish. There is a thread on here presently about a wheelchair passenger wanting to travel to an unsuitable station.

Scenario. Train stops, Driver goes back, Driver says this isn't a suitable station, argument ensues, passenger insists, Driver gets passenger out, train leaves (with delay), passenger is now stranded on an unmanned station without means of exiting, complaints to the local paper.

Can't win mate.

Trains have been DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) in the Thames Valley since about 1994, I don't know what the problem rate has been but very low I should imagine. There is a system in place, it seems to work. It would be difficult in more rural areas

In favour of Driver assisting - no.

[chrisr_75]

As for an emergency a recent safety video we saw dealt with a fire on a train where the Driver was advised of a fire by a passenger and he went back to deal with it. In the meantime passengers panicked, forced open the doors, jumped out onto an open line and one got struck by a train in the opposite direction.

One man, two actions required. Good case for additional staff on the train.

I can't honestly see how a single guard could possibly protect every door on a train in such circumstances and prevent people exiting, especially on a packed commuter train and/or where there is a fire/smoke, that is very very unpleasant and can also escalate very very quickly.

Disability issues, different kettle of fish. There is a thread on here presently about a wheelchair passenger wanting to travel to an unsuitable station.

Scenario. Train stops, Driver goes back, Driver says this isn't a suitable station, argument ensues, passenger insists, Driver gets passenger out, train leaves (with delay), passenger is now stranded on an unmanned station without means of exiting, complaints to the local paper.

Can't win mate.

You are completely mis-reporting this story as presented in the local paper. The lady in question wanted to travel to Slough (fully accessible/suitable station) but no one helped her off the train and she was over carried to the next station, Burnham, where staff kicked up a fuss. Also no mention of a driver, just 'staff'.

[trainer]

Why shouldn't the role of train guard change with the times and different needs placed upon that role?

Absolutely right.  But the issue seems to be that the rail companies and DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) want to abolish the second person's safety role altogether not just modify it.

[plymothian]

I can't honestly see how a single guard could possibly protect every door on a train in such circumstances and prevent people exiting, especially on a packed commuter train and/or where there is a fire/smoke, that is very very unpleasant and can also escalate very very quickly.

Of course they can't, that's not humanly possible; but the presence of a member of staff to firmly and authoritatively tell people what to do and then react to unpredictable behaviour is better.  The driver can deal with communication/incident, the guard deals with the fallout.

I've been on a train that was slowly filling with smoke (turned out to be dragging brakes); the people in the affected carriage were looking concerned and panicky until the appearance of the guard; the driver having no idea what was happening on his train.