I think in the event that the train was formed of an unusually long formation the guard would obviously engage that somehow in their mind, otherwise a safety incident would be likely even if they did step onto the platform. But importantly the point was more that the guard can choose to step off the train and then return to the panel if they wish to on a case-by-case basis. Indeed most guards who have to release doors already do so, except where the company policy is that they mustn't.
Plenty of guards releasing doors on long trains in the southeast, nothing particularly unusual about that.
The problem, from a safety management point of view, with a policy of “if you think you need to” is that eventually, inevitably, it WILL be the cause of people not checking - because they know they don’t have to, and because in general humans are lazy. This is why the railway, and other safety critical industries, by and large operate with policies based on doing things routinely and on a mandatory basis rather than letting people make their own decisions about how many layers of safety are required. It makes a lot of sense, and it’s a better way of doing things.
That may be true but it is also true that guards are also posted missing on those types of services. The key here is BTP enforcement, not TE or guard enforcement
Very true. However, as much as it isn’t ideal, a mandatory second member of crew will at least still be there, somewhere, and will be able to liaise with the required agencies in the event of something kicking off. A missing, optional TE etc is of little help if they’re not even on board.