More Daily Mail Madness ...

[Legzr1]

Before we start beating each other up again and sniggering at the Captain or whoever, put yourself in commuters shoes. They don't know any better or that a PNB is a requirement. All they see is a member of staff who, it could be argued, could have a break in his cab. They don't understand it's a 'safety critical role'.

It's getting worse and worse on here each day.

You honestly believe the character you've mentioned isn't aware of PNB requirements?

 

[andyfrommk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139413/Train-delayed-hour-guard-eat-DINNER.html

The article has been changed to say the delay was only 30 minutes.

 

[starrymarkb]

They recently attacked a bus driver for taking tacho logged break and not letting passengers on the bus during a layover...

 

[David]

Mr Bird, an advertising worker from Maidstone, added: 'You would have thought the guard could have just eaten his chicken sandwich on board the train rather than sitting tucked away in an office somewhere.

That's the bit that annoys me. Most people know that workers in transported related roles are required to take breaks every so often, but expect them do break the law and carry on regardless.

Anyway, what's the betting that all those who complain the most, make sure they take all the breaks they are entitled to?

 

[O L Leigh]

It is bad PR, mind you. "Normals" don't understand all the in's and out's of rail operation and can't be expected to know why a PNB is important. All they needed to was to announce that a member of traincrew was unavailable. There was no need to expand on this by telling them that the guard was still on his break.

And don't forget that the media is staffed by "normals", so they will always get the wrong end of the stick.

O L Leigh

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Because they haven't got a rostered PNB then per chance?

I refer to your post number 11 Sir.

 

[Hydro]

I refer to your post number 11 Sir.

What's that got to do with anything? It is possible to work more than one train before having a break, if the hours permit.

 

[CosherB]

I note that a lot of vitriol was poured on Captain Speaking before someone actually condescended to actually answer his question.

If it was a legal requirement, rather than someone being "bloody minded", why didn't someone say so ? OR - was it easier, and more fun, to wind-up people trying to get home.

At times I wonder how many noms-de-plume Bob Crow uses on this site ..........................

However, I digress and we've been here before (which just shows it IS an issue and calling it 'trolling' or sniggering behind your hand just because you don't like it won't wash).

Can anyone put hand on heart and say for sure that that guard HAD to have that break when he did and hold up the train as he did...by law? If he did have to do that by law, then there is something wrong with the rostering of staff that a compulsory break strands a train like that. If he didn't have to do what he did, he has an appalling customer service attitude. I'd love to know the true answer.

 

[ainsworth74]

If he did have to do that by law, then there is something wrong with the rostering of staff that a compulsory break strands a train like that.

Disruption earlier in the day probably meant that staff were out of position so having to do the best they could within the rules set down. Normally there would either be a different guard available to take it out or this one would have been able to take his PNB earlier so as to avoid delaying this service.

Come on Captain you can't honestly believe that he just stuffed a bunch of passengers for half an hour for the hell of it?

 

[Tomnick]

As I understand it, PNBs aren't required by law (are they influenced by the Hidden recommendations?), but the agreements that govern them are generally strictly adhered to. Given that most companies would happily hang a Driver (or Guard) out to dry for any sort of error on their part, their lack of flexibility is understandable!

In this case, the train left "almost an hour" late, and there's reference to heavy delays owing to lightning strikes. That suggests that the Guard was already late for his booked PNB, and we don't know whether he'd already agreed to (for example) work an additional trip before taking it. He's got to take it at some point - we don't know when he was booked to though!

 

[KA4C]

Can anyone put hand on heart and say for sure that that guard HAD to have that break when he did and hold up the train as he did...by law? If he did have to do that by law, then there is something wrong with the rostering of staff that a compulsory break strands a train like that. If he didn't have to do what he did, he has an appalling customer service attitude. I'd love to know the true answer.

The break would be required to be taken within a certain time frame within a shift. It is important that staff take their meal breaks on time, we are aware of the dangers of not eating and drinking enough during a shift (low blood sugar levels / dehydration causing loss of concentration). I'd rather see a train delayed than involved in an incident. I expect my staff to take their meal breaks

This is not childishness (at least not to those who understand the issues)

 

[Matt Taylor]

You can roster things as much as you want, but when the service falls apart for whatever reason you end up with crew taking their pnb at times when they would normally be working a train. If my train gets delayed on the way then so does my pnb, and if that results in a train being delayed or cancelled then so be it. I will not take less than the legally required break just to keep a train on time, if something goes wrong the first question asked of me will be 'Did you take the correct pnb time?' and if not it will be my head on the block.

No thanks.

 

[CosherB]

Come on Captain you can't honestly believe that he just stuffed a bunch of passengers for half an hour for the hell of it?

I sincerely hope not. It'd be good to have confirmation, though.....

 

[MattRobinson]

Surely the issue here is that railway workers should be rostered to take their required breaks when it won't affect the trains running on time? If that had happened, everything would be fine (but it didn't for some reason. Presumably exceptional circumstances?).

What do you do if your train was delayed for a long time and you have to take a break?

 

[Matt Taylor]

That's what I just explained.:roll:

 

[D1009]

Surely the issue here is that railway workers should be rostered to take their required breaks when it won't affect the trains running on time? If that had happened, everything would be fine (but it didn't for some reason. Presumably exceptional circumstances?).

The article says trains were disrupted all around the south east by lightning strikes. It's fairly obvious to me what happened.

 

[CosherB]

It's fairly obvious to me what happened.

As it is, apparently, to the Daily Mail as well.

Which is why I'm looking for a definitive answer as to whether the break was unavoidable or not, rather than interested opinion.

 

[cuccir]

This really ****es me off. I don't work in the railway industry, but I don't want staff tired, hungry, or working beyond what they are leagaly allowed to do. I don't care if he wants to work longer, these laws are there to keep people safe and to avoid exploitation.

On the other hand, it probably shouldn't reach this situation. If it's a one off, it's forgiveable but unfortunate. If it's regular - and I've not idea whether or not it is because this article, being crap, doesn't explore this interesting and pertinent aspect - then it is a problem and that stage the company could rightly be criticised for poor organisation. As is pointed out above, it's not discussed whether or not the break was avoidable.

I think the underlying point is that it's terrible journalism. It leaves us not knowing whether this guard has acted properly, or selfishly, or whether the company has been unlucky, or has mismanaged their roster. It's gone for a sensational headline and eye-grabbing, superficial scandal, over exploring whether or not there is a problem here.

 

[D1009]

As it is, apparently, to the Daily Mail as well.

Which is why I'm looking for a definitive answer as to whether the break was unavoidable or not, rather than interested opinion.

So you're saying the Daily Mail is always right until proved wrong ?

 

[Tracky]

Who thinks Chris Kent, the guy who wrote the (very poor) article was one of those waiting on the platform, mouth wide open at the news?

 

[Darandio]

one of those waiting on the platform, mouth wide open at the news?

Drooling at the sandwich perhaps?

 

[Stephen55a1960]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139413/Train-delayed-hour-guard-eat-DINNER.html

I truly despair - does anyone admit to having an account with this quality paper so they can be put right !

I had to remind myself that today is May 4th 2012 and not April Fool's Day! Another non story from the DM!!

 

[WelshBluebird]

You could do that here if you like. The article says a train was delayed because the guard was having a meal break. If that's true, it shows a dreadful service ethic. If it's not true, can you tell us what really happened?

Staff HAVE to have their breaks.
There is no ifs or buts about it.
It is the same in other industries like buses and haulage etc etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the issue here is that railway workers should be rostered to take their required breaks when it won't affect the trains running on time? If that had happened, everything would be fine (but it didn't for some reason. Presumably exceptional circumstances?).

What do you do if your train was delayed for a long time and you have to take a break?

It probably was timetabled to be like that.
But as already said, the disruption that was occurring probably messed that up.

 

[CosherB]

So you're saying the Daily Mail is always right until proved wrong ?

Or that you are always right until proved wrong?

I'm saying neither of those!

I'm saying what's obvious; you have an 'opinion' as to what happened, the DM has an 'opinion' as to what happened. Both are worthless without us knowing the facts!

I'm amazed I need to point that out! (Actually, having been around here for a while... I'm not).

I ask again... Does anyone know, for sure (opinions are worthless) whether this guard HAD to take his break at THAT time? Until we know that, we can not come to an objective conclusion.

 

[GadgetMan]

Which is why it is always best to announce along the lines of 'the train is being delayed waiting for a member of traincrew coming in on a late running train'. Absolutely no need to mention PNBs to passengers as it will only wind them up more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I ask again... Does anyone know, for sure (opinions are worthless) whether this guard HAD to take his break at THAT time? Until we know that, we can not come to an objective conclusion.

PNB is accounted for on a driver/guard's diagram. The PNB will be 'sandwiched' between 2 trains on the diagram and will tell you how long you are allocated, usually between 20 and 40 minutes.

Yes we DO have to take our PNB according to the diagram. Some of us do at times of disruption shorten our breaks or take them later or miss them altogether. However, should you then go on to make an operational error, your head would automatically end up on the chopping board. For that reason many staff are understandably reluctant to put their jobs on the line.

 

[CosherB]

Which is why it is always best to announce along the lines of 'the train is being delayed waiting for a member of traincrew coming in on a late running train'. Absolutely no need to mention PNBs to passengers as it will only wind them up more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


PNB is accounted for on a driver/guard's diagram. The PNB will be 'sandwiched' between 2 trains on the diagram and will tell you how long you are allocated, usually between 20 and 40 minutes.

Yes we DO have to take our PNB according to the diagram. Some of us do at times of disruption shorten our breaks or take them later or miss them altogether. However, should you then go on to make an operational error, your head would automatically end up on the chopping board. For that reason many staff are understandably reluctant to put their jobs on the line.

I understand that, and I wouldn't expect the guard to 'put his job on the line' like that (why should he?). But what were the facts here? Did this guard, according to law (or his terms of employment) have to do what he did? If so, he's blameless but maybe his management isn't. If not, he is far from blameless.

 

[466.networkers]

Right ...

So on the day where most the signalling in London and Kent was KOed by Mother Nature
A single train was delayed by less than an hour cos a member of crew was on his required PNB?

This is NEWS?

What about the hundreds of trains that didn't run or if they did were hours late?

The DM should be closed, useless reporting as per usual.
Rather read The Sun to be perfectly honest!

 

[GadgetMan]

Did this guard, according to law (or his terms of employment) have to do what he did? If so, he's blameless but maybe his management isn't. If not, he is far from blameless.

Seeing as his employers have defended his actions, I would say that he was working according to his terms of employment. Without access to his job card and delays to the trains he worked that day none of us can be any more specific.

Editted to add;

Do we have to take our PNB? Well we don't have a gun held to our head but it IS a requirement. Control will happily let you continue working trains if you volunteer to shorten/miss your PNB. All calls are recorded so it is best to cover your back on the phone call for any future investigations. I usually make a point of mentioning something along the lines of; I'm booked 40 mins, but will only need 10 mins to refill my water bottle, and pop to the loo as I had a meal earlier.

I don't expect all staff to miss out on PNBs, I am quite fortunate as the diagrams at my depot only seem to have between 40-60% work content with a lot of sitting around in between. So if I was ever involved in an incident after foregoing a PNB, I could try and use the defence that I had already taken care of my Personal Needs in earlier free time as that suited me better and therefore PNB or the lack of had no bearing on the incident.

 

[jon0844]

Fair point but its very likley the Daily Mail knew it was a legal requirement yet still ran the story making them just as bad.

Of course. They're not stupid. Everything they do is to seemingly designed to spark controversy, which generates traffic. It's not about the stories, but how many comments they get.. all adding to the page views, and upping the unique users as people get outraged and share the links on forums/Facebook/Twitter etc.

We all fall for it time and time again.

Sure, some journalists do get things wrong. Even the BBC gets stuff wrong, and you'll catch the odd typo or worse, but I think the Daily Mail loves to twist stories when it knows the truth. Only if they're likely to get into trouble will they pull the story and pretend it never existed. Getting them to update a story or make a correction is incredibly rare (and I mean actually highlighting the change, not a subtle change that they hope people won't notice).

That's the bit that annoys me. Most people know that workers in transported related roles are required to take breaks every so often, but expect them do break the law and carry on regardless.

An advertising worker is probably like a lot of people working in offices where you're almost expected to work during your lunch hour. Such is life in many office jobs these days.

But, even though I chose to work through a lot of my lunch hours (was never forced to, but I was happy to eat at my desk and surf the net or chat to colleagues), I'd never expect it from certain professions.

How can people be so up themselves that they can't see different jobs have different responsibilities and rules? I bet an office worker doesn't have many safety roles to perform, except perhaps having volunteered to be a fire marshall or having attended a basic first aid course, and forgotten what to do in both after about 10 minutes!

And don't forget that the media is staffed by "normals", so they will always get the wrong end of the stick.

They shouldn't though. I pride myself on establishing the facts, and if the journalist concerned got a proper explanation from the train company, a decision can be made to balance the article (and that probably means a less sensational headline) or even to drop the story.

Sadly, editors want big stories and there's clear pressure to embellish stories and twist facts. That's not the same as a general ignorance.

Journalism is only going to get worse as time goes on. Nobody wants to pay for news, so good journalists will retire and be replaced by interns and those who will write anything to keep a job, with editors under pressure to supply high traffic numbers to advertisers - who will control the media by providing the only revenue stream. Rupert Murdoch was spot on when he said papers will be killed by the Internet, but a lot of people don't realise that the free stuff online and on our iPads won't be the same quality.

Even blogs, which can allow anyone to speak the truth if they want to, are easily open to abuse and bias. And many people seem unable to tell one from the other.

 

[Minilad]

I ask again... Does anyone know, for sure (opinions are worthless) whether this guard HAD to take his break at THAT time? Until we know that, we can not come to an objective conclusion.

Come on Captain. You know full well the only way we could ever know for sure is if the guard came on here and gave his story. That is unlikely to happen. What we can do though is give an informed guess as to what happened.
We know there was widespread disruption that day. That would indicate stock and staff out of position. We know, from the article, that the TOC supported the guard by making a statement about the requirement to have a break. Those of us in the industry know that if this guard did not have a right to a break but had delayed the train for nearly an hour just for the hell of it then he would be in a fair bit of trouble. A Form 1 would be winging its way to him and in all likelihood a suspension to boot. So taking those three things into consideration my informed guess would be that he did have to take the break.

It amazes me to think that people out there believe that train crew go around delaying trains on purpose, just for the hell of it. You do of course realise that when a train is late it means there is a likelihood that the crew maybe late finishing work. Train crew don't like finishing late.

Back to the point about breaks. I take it then that you are in favour of train crew not having breaks if it means the customers are inconvenienced in any way. So from that I can infer that you think its OK to compromise the safe operation of the railway in order to give good customer service. I happen to disagree with you there. I think safety comes first no matter what.
This day and age with diagrams being lengthened and made much more intensive it is getting more and more vital for the correct breaks to be taken.

Just as an example here is an actual drivers diagram for my depot.
You take the 1230 from Birmingham to Cardiff and the 1445 return. That is 4hrs 15min in the seat. You arrive at Birmingham at 1645 and then have a flat 40 min break before taking out the 1733 Birmingham to Reading and back on the 1940 from Reading. Are you suggesting that if that Cardiff train is delayed is should forgo my break and take out the 1733 Reading on time. Well I'm sorry but that is not going to happen. If the companies want these intensive diagrams then they have to accept if things go wrong they are leaving themselves open to crew taking their required breaks.

I would prefer a safe railway being operated by fully refreshed and alert train crew than one where crew are badgered into missing breaks so passengers are not inconvenienced by a few minutes