Hi everybody.
Much has been made in this thread in regard to the safety aspect of drivers operating train doors as against the conductor carrying out the duty. The foregoing has been at the heart of a long and bitter industrial dispute which has severely impacted on long suffering rail passengers and dragged down the already poor reputation of Britain's railways to a new all time low.
As someone who has worked for many years in industrial safety by way of the UK road transport industry, I have to state that I am amazed at the way the dispute has been handled by both the representative unions, Network Rail and the train operating companies.
The basis of all industrial safety is adequate and sufficient risk assessment. Therefore, anyone has to believe that risk assessment was carried out prior to ether the train operating companies or Network Rail declaring that it is safe for drivers to operate the train doors. The foregoing therefore begs the question why those risk assessments (as far as I am aware) have not been released into the the public domain for all to judge fully the hazards, circumstance and working practices assessed.
In the above, it also begs the question as to why the unions involved in the dispute have not demanded that the risk assessments are placed in the public domain, or placed those documents before the UK public themselves. The assessments if they have been carried out in compliance with The Health & Safety at Work Act and encompassing legislation should be able to prove in a comprehensive manner whether the procedure for drivers operating the train doors can be carried out as a sufficiently safe working practise.
I like all others can only at present judge the dispute by what has been reported in the press and other media. That press and media has carried reports advising that only one generic risk assessment was carried out for all rail stations on the network, as against others advising that detailed individual numeric site assessments have been carried out at all stations on southern where the dispute is currently centered.
Whatever the true facts are in regard to the above it is imperative in my humble opinion that those facts are brought into the open and placed before all rail users affected by the dispute almost on a daily basis at present. It seems to have been forgotten that many using the railways do so not because of a love of rail but for the reason that there is little or no alternative to rail for their daily commute or business travel.
Demands are growing that all persons should be able to have a choice in their daily travel and therefore a large investment should be made into the roads infrastructure. The UK government now seems to be responding to those demands, therefore I would strongly advise that all those involved in this dispute “get it settled” and quickly before support and investment in rail by government is withdrawn and placed elsewhere.
Bill
Much has been made in this thread in regard to the safety aspect of drivers operating train doors as against the conductor carrying out the duty. The foregoing has been at the heart of a long and bitter industrial dispute which has severely impacted on long suffering rail passengers and dragged down the already poor reputation of Britain's railways to a new all time low.
As someone who has worked for many years in industrial safety by way of the UK road transport industry, I have to state that I am amazed at the way the dispute has been handled by both the representative unions, Network Rail and the train operating companies.
The basis of all industrial safety is adequate and sufficient risk assessment. Therefore, anyone has to believe that risk assessment was carried out prior to ether the train operating companies or Network Rail declaring that it is safe for drivers to operate the train doors. The foregoing therefore begs the question why those risk assessments (as far as I am aware) have not been released into the the public domain for all to judge fully the hazards, circumstance and working practices assessed.
In the above, it also begs the question as to why the unions involved in the dispute have not demanded that the risk assessments are placed in the public domain, or placed those documents before the UK public themselves. The assessments if they have been carried out in compliance with The Health & Safety at Work Act and encompassing legislation should be able to prove in a comprehensive manner whether the procedure for drivers operating the train doors can be carried out as a sufficiently safe working practise.
I like all others can only at present judge the dispute by what has been reported in the press and other media. That press and media has carried reports advising that only one generic risk assessment was carried out for all rail stations on the network, as against others advising that detailed individual numeric site assessments have been carried out at all stations on southern where the dispute is currently centered.
Whatever the true facts are in regard to the above it is imperative in my humble opinion that those facts are brought into the open and placed before all rail users affected by the dispute almost on a daily basis at present. It seems to have been forgotten that many using the railways do so not because of a love of rail but for the reason that there is little or no alternative to rail for their daily commute or business travel.
Demands are growing that all persons should be able to have a choice in their daily travel and therefore a large investment should be made into the roads infrastructure. The UK government now seems to be responding to those demands, therefore I would strongly advise that all those involved in this dispute “get it settled” and quickly before support and investment in rail by government is withdrawn and placed elsewhere.
Bill
Last edited: