Great Western Coffee Shop

This statement has been mentioned in the SDO thread and i thought that prehaps it would warrant discussion, prehaps the people who think this would like to give us all a few hard facts and evidence as to where this has been the case.
Do they really think first management are instructiing staff to cut corners where safety is concerned? or do they think the Staff have a casual attitude to safety?
Safety is an always will be paramount on the Railway even if it causes delays, in my experience First are one of the best Tocs with very high standards and no member of staff iknow would ever work in a manner which is not safe.
and to the person who mentioned why some train managers walk the length of the train checking doors at un manned platforms and some dont, remember this ......my doors my arse!!

Speaking personally, I cannot say that I have ever felt unsafe / seen safety knowingly compromised in the persuit of profit by FGW.  But I would agree with "passengers third" in some circumstances; the "bottom line" certainly comes ahead of providing trains at appropriate times in our TransWilts neck of the woods.

Profits and safety are not mutually exclusive. Unsafe practices have repercussions in terms of direct losses, compensation, consequential loss, business interruption and reputational damage, in addition to the human factors. In the case of a railway operator, I would imagine that they would put their operating licence and safety case acceptance at risk if they knowingly cut corners, and would therefore lose their business completely. I, personally, have never felt unsafe using our railways.


That person might have been me - it was a genuine, nosy question from a passenger (I have no agenda), so perhaps you could expand on your answer (which I confess I didn't quite understand ;)). Is it simply that some are more cautious than others, or maybe are still getting accustomed to the new arrangements?

The issue with the doors is down to having a door on the catch, which would mean it is not securely closed.

This is a safety issue, and can have consequences for any of the staff involved in the dispatch of that service.

So for a TM having to check himself, that would be why, he needs to cover himself.

quite right Ollie.....Doors on catch cause paperwork, stopping out of course, contacting signal man, checking line for people who might have fell out, locking doors out of use, and the old favorite delays

I must say that First seem to take safety very seriously, there is a First motto that appears on nearly every piece of paperwork we recieve from them and it says "if you cannot do it safely, DON'T DO IT!"

Or the other moto: "SafetyFIRST"

First Buses put Profit First, Safety Second, otherwise how else can you explain all the First Group Buses that get ORDERED OFF THE ROAD by vehicle examiners.

Like Father, Like Son.

First Bus, First Great Western it's the same top management!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really like First don't you Smokey  ;)

As i've said in a previous post, along with a colleague from FGW, FGW seem to take safety very seriously, more so than Wessex, are you actually in a position to comment on FGW's safety policy? do you work for them?

First Group RUIN my life!!!!

How do they do that then?

That seems unlikely...

Have they killed anyone close to you?
Have they ran off with your wife?
Have they threatend to kill you?

I don't think so.

Me thinks smokey should get out more!!

I seem to remeber you saying that before.  ;D :D 8) ::)

Smokey this post is totally irrelevant, they may well cause you grief.......... .but First Bus and FGW are totally different companies and like vacman says are you in a position to comment on FGWs safety policy? I can and i will
I can assure you that any safety critical member of FGW staff WILL NOT do something if they consider it unsafe and the relevant procedures are in place to enable this to happen

profit first, safety second, uumm!     
[/quote]As i've said in a previous post, along with a colleague from FGW, FGW seem to take safety very seriously, more so than Wessex
[/quote]

Wessex took SAFETY VERY SERIOUSLY !! and ALL ex-Wessex staff still do!!! don't get me started on this...

Time is money !! and when a service is made into a profit hungry company as happened at privitisation pressure is put on every element of the operation to account for its self. If TOC's were not fined so readily for minute by minute delays many of which caused by passengers...

Having worked at a number of Train Operating Companies, I can easily say that the safety culture at First Great Western is far far superior than at many others Whether this is a result of tightening standards after Southall and Paddington, I couldn't say, but I can safely say that the traincrew at First Great Western have much more rigourous assessments than at many other companies. Staff who aren't up to scratch are taken off frontline duties and retrained and monitored much more closely than at other places.

I can say without question that I have complete confidence in those in safety critical grades, be they guards, drivers or standards managers at Great Western. I couldn't say the same about other operators where although the vast majority of the staff do their duties competantly, there are some which are quite frankly a worry!

Bear in mind that in the most recent Ufton Nervet incident, the surviving traincrew performed all their duties competantly, and were praised by passengers and managers alike. The guards who were on that train still work for the company as guards, of which at least one of them is a mentor / trainer guard for new entrants.

Indeed. Also on occasions where trains have been platformed but passengers can't get on till the last minute, or leave late from starting stations, in many cases it is where staff have a tight turnaround and are performing their safety duties. Guards will be doing preperation duties, checking the hammers, and safety equipment is in place, checking the locomotives, performing brake continuity tests, inspecting the  outside of the train, and physical connections between the carriages are secure. Equally drivers will be testing safety equipment in the cabs, performing brake tests, checking communication equipment is working properly and so on. All this takes time. It might appear the guard and driver are ambling slowly up and down the platform, and wasting time having a chat, indeed without knowing the reasons might be frustrating for the passenger, but it is a requirement that both have the required paperwork and both have briefed each other on any restrictions that might be involved when running the train safely.

Wrong again. The one thing I get peed off with is the red tape surrounding safety. I  far as I am concerned the management take saftey far too seriously. I am not saying anyone in the industry that First are in should turn a blind eye to safety but this lot take it to far!

I'm sure that the staff and management are very safety conscious.....which is a very good thing!  The only main area which I think compromises safety is the overcrowding of carriages as this results in many passengers standing in the aisles and doorways.  There's no such thing as standing room on coaches and aeroplanes.  I feel that trains should be the same.

You are right that safety is our number one priority when working a train, and FGW are very hot on this, and rightly so. The example you raise of overcrowded trains, is a massive problem which for some reason is not acted upon by the TOC's. There apparently is no law or legislation relating to how many passengers can be crammed into a train, and it is left to the conductor/train managers discretion(normally the conductor, as you rarely see an HST formed of 1 coach!). The only problem is when a single 153 arrives at Bristol TM or Exeter Central at 1720, how does the guard try to stop hundreds of people boarding, who just want to get home from work/college etc? You just try and get as many on as you can, squeeze yourself in, apologise to the passengers left behind, and hope nothing happens on the journey as there is no way you can get through the train! As for the profit first thing, in this scenario, you cannot physically check or sell tickets, so it's probably 'profit second, safety second'!

The other option is to refuse to move the train until you feel it is safe to do so, i.e. remove passengers until all of the train is accessible to the guard. This rarely happens as it normally just causes a lot more problems :-\

I'M GETTING STICK HERE FOR MY VIEW ON FGW AND SAFETY,
SURELY I'M ENTITLED TO MY VIEW,

ANOTHER POINT IS EVERY BODY IS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS
I'M WELL AWARE OF THE SAFE OPERATION OF TRAINS, BUT THERES MORE TO RAILWAYS THAN RUNNING TRAINS AND MY SAFETY CONCERNS ARE NOT DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH TRAINS, FAR FROM IT.

awww, did someone get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? ;)

Don't think so I've had a brillant day, it's not been a bad week at all.

Your view is total rubbish though, the safety standards are second to none. If profits were more important HSTs WOULD NOT have laminated glass!!!

Have your view but i've seen no concrete evidence of your POV

It's his POV, you don't need evidence to have a view!

I'm not sure whether it's an "either / or" type decision here.  An increased expenditure on safety leads to a reduction in compensation payments when things go wrong - in other words, it's an investment. And a company which didn't give an appropriately very high position to safety would soon see its customer numbers hit when it was realised that they hadn't done everything in their powers to lessen the dangers.

You are very much entitled to your point of view Smokey and your posts are welcome here. I apologise if my above 'tongue in cheek comment' caused any offense as it wasn't meant to and certainly wasn't to give you any stick.

Okay smokey, I've seen what you say.........now:

1. I probably spend in total more time on FGW trains than anyone other than staff (does anyone here do 2:20 in each direction most days?)

2. I use, arguably, the most unreliable line in the FGW network

3. Even when train run on time, the stock used for a LONG DISTANCE journey is often debatable

4. Anything up to 20 minutes late is regarded as on time by most commuters on my line

Even given that, I cannot say FGW ruin my life.

Maybe some persepective is in order

My issue is only with safety measures that are only needed to cater for the morons of the world.  Safety that is needed for danger = fine.

Safety needed because someone MIGHT fail to engage brain before acting = not fine.

It is more a comment on society in general but WHEN did we stop ultimately begin responsible for our own fate?

When we started to adopt the US approach of a compensation culture, no win no fee lawyers, and all the related practices that have become commonplace these days. 

What?  Smokey, in a good mood?  Surely not!   :o  ;)

I work for 'em. They tend to ruin my working life most days!

They pay the bills every four weeks though!  ;)

Whereas I pay them for my priviledge

I'm going to shock some people here, train crew mostly, but I'm going to side with Smokey on the issue of safety.

I don't deny that safety is first with train movements, but at the station I work at, we used to have a Small BR maintenance team (3 men) who looked after just about anything and everything for 50 miles up & down the line, this team were well know to all the staff from booking offices, to station staff, the permanent way (track workers), the signal box and signal maintenance teams.

Today we get hundreds of different contractors from all over the place, we don't know most of them, that in it's self raises a question of security, they have access to all sorts of rooms.

Train crews might be surprised to learn that contractors working at stations do not need pts, as work on platforms is
not deemed on or near the line.

Station staff don't require PTS either.

For the benefit of forum readers, could you give an explanation of what PTS is?

Personal Track Safety, it's a competence card for working on the track, allows you to walk on the track etc. Not sure why you would need one for working on a platform?? If thats the case than all passengers should have one!

Sometimes, 'safety first' goes to far: today's 0841 Barnstaple to Exmouth left about 30 people behind at Barnstaple (and, presumably, every other station to Exeter) because they couldn't fit any more people into a two-car 142.

However, they would have comfortably fitted (and relieved the standing passengers) in the empty two-car 142 that was attached to it, but that was locked out of use because of the short platforms at Eggesford...

You need a Driving licence to drive a car, you don't need one to be a passenger in the car.

I would suggest all contractors working on the Railway should hold PTS, it's also a good way to check out Contractors for Drug & Alcohol abuse.

Note: PTS is the basic safety requirement to work on or around the track, however even then PTS holders can not work alone, PTS allow the holder to work under direction of a COSS (controller of site safety) who oversees the safe operation of work.

This is much of the subject of safety that worries me, In "Railnews" the rail industry newpaper, there was a report about contractors installing a cable on a bridge over Railway lines at a Station.
They were using a ladder in the running lines and when asked where the COSS was there were blank looks, these men didn't have PTS, and were working Safely as they had checked the time table and there were no trains due.

I'm sure if you check the train times at Melksham there's Likely to be NO train due.

Now if a Ladder or scaffold is hit by a fast moving train at a station that is busy how many passengers could be killed?

See where I'm coming from, I'm not having a go at Train crew, they are real professionals, trained with safety first in mind, contractors can just come to a station to work, unsupervised and without any formal training, working often to Profit First, Safety Last.

I can't understand with bigger franchises why more maintenance isn't done in house.

Oh dear, that's the type of crass stupidity that gives the railway a bad name. And with two hours before the next train as well. Was any transport put on for them, or did they just go back home?

What was wrong with walking through the train at Umberleigh and ensuring that anyone who wanted to get off at Eggesford moved to the front two coaches. Of course, I know the answer, the rules don't allow it, and no employee of FGW would dare breach a safety rule, and I don't blame them.  So I'm not criticising the staff one bit. Fare collection must have been interesting too, and as for the thought of an hour in crushed standing conditions on a 142.... yuck!

The trouble is, it was worse having the second train attached at all, as it would just have wound passengers up no end. If 2x142s are not permitted to stop at Eggesford then why were they even attached at all?      

If it was hit head on, then just the person who might have been using at the time, as it'd get taken straight over the top in most cases....

So, None.

Plus, the speed limit is what through a station, 10 these days? Giving the driver ample time to see it, and stop...

Some thing Else, I haven't been up the Barnstaple branch since the 6 car DEMU made a special visit, but if I remember Eggesford correctly the Down platform is short but the Up (Exeter) platform is longer, I would think a 4 car 142 would be platformed at Eggesford.
So is it a case that because the Dowm platform IS short a 4 car UP train can't call even thourgh it fits.

An observation, 8+2 HST's can not call at stations between Plymouth and Penzance, because of short platforms if the SDO is U/S, yet when 8+2HSTs call in Truro Down platform all coaches are platformed, so why the BAN?
FGW saying their drivers can't stop in the right place? I find HST drivers are spot on for stopping.

IF!!!! That's a big word, line speed thourgh some platforms is 125 mph.

Last incident I know of that had a scaffold stuck by a train killed 3 I think.

WISE WORDS OF A TRACK GANG SUPERVISOR ,

IF IT CAN HAPPEN, IT WILL HAPPEN

It certainly wasn't the train crew - they called Swindon for permission to unlock the other carriages, but were told not to.


They were already attached; apparently it takes longer to uncouple them at Exeter than to lock the back half out of use at Exeter (and then unlock the back half and lock the front half again at Barnstaple).

how many drivers actually go 125 through those platforms? More than likely none.

The reason Truro is classed as a short platform is because of the signal at the end of each platform, if any of them are "on" then the train has to stop a certain distance from it, and this distance then means that on the "up" coach A is just off the platform and on the "down" the rear door of coach H is off the platform.

Sorry, Shazz  :-[ , but to be fair, at Nailsea and Backwell, for example, the non-stopping trains go through at anything up to 125mph.  The station's on a slight curve, too, so there's no way they could see and stop in time if there was anything like a ladder or scaffolding on the track.

On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone actually doing any maintenance work at Nailsea ...  ::)

Nailsea linespeed is 100mph I believe

Thanks, d_m!  Maybe it just feels like they're going through at 125, when I'm hiding in the perspex shelter from the wind, rain and turbulence!

However, whether it's 125 or 100, even when I'm on the platform, I'm sometimes surprised at how quickly they appear.  As I wrote earlier, there's no way they could stop in time if Bob the Builder had left his ladder on the track!

No sure why there would be a ladder on the track unless there was some kind of engineering possesion!!!

Thanks, Smokey!  A similar observation in a similar vein from me, if I may?  Why do they insist on using SDO, for the front three carriages only, when the five car 0846 Cross Country to Newcastle / Bristol Temple Meads stops at Nailsea and Backwell?  All five cars are very comfortably 'platformed' ( ;D ) so why not open all of the doors???  It just means the commuters waiting by the ticket machine / shelter have to walk up the platform towards the front of the train, get on, and then walk back down the length of the train to find a seat, because this sort of nonsense has apparently been happening at previous local stations?  Yes, Nailsea and Yatton have 'short' platforms - but not that short!

Some HST guards don't seem to bother with SDO, at Totnes today on the up I witnessed all doors unlocked, even though A is always platformed it is still LOOU

Yes, fair comment, d_m, it was a figure of speech!  However, I was thinking of a non-PTS contractor who is more likely to leave ladders, planks or scaffolding lying about on the platform, to the temptation of 'bunking off' schoolboys to throw onto the track, for example?

I agree with Smokey; in terms of safety, it's better to have some structured control over trackside maintenance work, rather than 'let's just get a local contractor in'!

Chris.......Nailsea is in fact 4 coaches on under SDO with the first door of D on the slope, and the whole place what there is of it was repainted by FGWs own painters last October.
The use of  Contractors for Railway work should be stopped ,and this work should be undertaken by the TOcs or Network Rail using directly employed staff who are subject to the same rigorus rules regards drugs, alcohol,competance

It used to be 5 coaches platformed at Nailsea, but with SDO the front power car needs to be platformed for bike access, so reduces the number of coaches to 4. This isn't an issue for a Voyager as there is no separate power car, hence all 5 coaches fit.

Just to throw in my ten pence, I feel much safer getting the train to work everyday than the alternative - strapping myself into my car and attempting to survive the roads between Newton Abbot and Exeter - it's not the roads, but the other drivers!

At least when I get on the train, I am in the care of staff who are, hopefully, trained appropriately and within equipment which is maintained according to schedules.  If I drive I am just at the mercy of any number of complete idiots, some of which will be driving without a license and without any insurance and possibly in cars which are not maintained as they should be.

Does this help put it into perspective?

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/scompare.jpg)

Perhaps it's safety first, and profit first as well?

(That's data from "Railwatch" (http://www.railwatch.org.uk/) - the magazine of RailFuture. (http://www.railfuture.org.uk/tiki-page.php?pageName=RailFuture))

Some with Westbury, Up P2/3, however A is off the platform

Who does?

Hmmm .. ferries seem a bit dodgy: think I'll take the Eurostar!  ;)

Reviewing the situation, thats a very useful graph, but how come everyone I meet tells tells FLYING is the safest form of travel, Raill wins on both graphs.

Time for Rail companies to  spread the word.