Great Western Coffee Shop

From The BBC (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200609-how-face-masks-affect-our-communication) a long article, including


We have excellent customer facing staff for the most part (the vast majority). Is the wearing of facemarks going to make it very much more difficult for them to best offer friendly advice, and / or to judge passenger's reaction to that advice?

Silly question I have not seen answered - will staff have to wear masks too?

Edit to correct subject line spelling

Yes.

Network Rail instructed all its staff, 2 weeks ago, when travelling on public transport and on station either for duty or commuting purposes to wear face coverings.

Many of the customer facing staff on stations wear clear visors but the mouth and nose mask is an option.

Face coverings are going to be the norm in many activities for many month to come.

Facemarks. Change to attitudes (passengers and staff) on public transport?

I thought this would be about a very different subject.

Oops

I believe drivers won't have to wear them in cabs (where they will be in a non-public area and alone), but will have to do so if walking through or sitting in the train.  Other on-train staff will need to wear them at all times.

Out and about today, I’d estimate around 20% of passengers and 5% of staff are wearing masks. I can’t see a massive shift by Monday somehow.

Well, there will be a massive shift on the staff percentage (only when on train in public areas mind you), and I think there will be a significant shift in the passenger percentage.  It won't be 100% as there will be a few that won't and will be able to avoid the risk of a telling off from the BTP, but of course if it's only 80-90% then that in itself will help stop the spread of the virus to some degree.

Has anything been issued yet about how people who fall legitimately into the category of not being able to wear a face covering such those with breathing difficulties can be identified so they aren't constantly challenged about not wearing one?

I'm surprised we haven't heard from Bruvver Cash on this yet? Surely it's worth a strike ballot? Or at least a pay rise to reflect the additional effort of putting on/taking off a mask?

Just made my first train journey since early March.
Pershore to Evesham to collect the Car after repair (I took it in yesterday and walked back) 2 pasengers on at Pershore and 2 off
about the same at Evesham but there where about 10 joining a train towards Worcester.
There where 2 cars in the car park at Evesham 1 left as I walked out towards the garage.
I wore a mask but did not see anyone else wearing one.
The Guard did not offer to sell me a ticket but I had an E ticket on my phone anyway.
Ticket Machine still not installed at Pershore.

But we have:-

RMT Press Office:
RMT responds to Government and Rail Delivery Group on face masks this morning
RMT general secretary Mick Cash said:

“There is a real danger that the Government and the Rail Delivery Group are sending out a signal that as long as you cover your face you are safe to ‎head back onto the tubes and trains regardless of whether you are an essential worker making an essential journey. That risks a surge in passengers as we saw last weekend with the principles of social distancing blown apart with huge risks to staff and passengers alike.

“It's also clear that the Government and industry bosses are expecting our members to police this policy. That will put over-stretched rail workers right in the front line once again and will leave them at risk of being abused, assaulted and spat at by aggressive passengers refusing to comply. This policy must be properly risk assessed with staff fully protected.

“If this policy had been introduced sooner and the principle of covering your face established earlier some of these risks our members now face could have been avoided.

So Bruvver Cash wants the railway to continue to run with as few passengers as possible, whilst all his members, many on trains simply because the RMT has fiercely resisted proposals to do away with their roles, carry on being fully paid whilst providing a service to almost nobody.  Good job NHS staff and other key workers didn't have the same attitude at the height of the pandemic. 


 

This reminds me of an old joke from the 1980s:-

Arthur Scargill and the Pope were out fishing, In a boat. And the Pope fell in.

He shouted "Arthur, Arthur, save me!!"

So Arthur Scargill got out of the boat, walked across the water, picked the Pope up and put him back in the boat.

Next Morning's headlines in the Mail "ARTHUR SCARGILL CAN'T SWIM"

;)

You'd genuinely think it was a parody wouldn't you? Or perhaps a Monty Python sketch?

How are the plans going for a strike over volunteers helping out at busy stations?

I believe DfT are funding roving "security" staff whilst not having enforcement powers will advise people to wear face coverings


 

It should be remembered that the Unions have been calling for staff and passengers to wear face coverings for months; and have been working with senior managers in the industry on the implementation of this Government policy.  The Government announcement was not a surprise to the industry   

From the community / volunteer grapevine, I have not heard any whispers of looking for volunteers for this role, nor anything from the Community Rail Network (*) and I would make an educated guess that the DfT funded staff are an alternative.

* - There is updated guidance from the Community Rail Network in an email of yesterday - I will be fully reading that today, updating pages, sharing as appropriate - so I might have missed something, but it was certainly not a headline call.. There are quite a number of volunteers across the UK, especially at smaller stations, and there's a start to some being able to go resume some limited activities - but it would be a very interesting step for the Community Rail Network to promote for volunteers (or paid staff such as CROs) from within their members to this customer advice role.

Graham, the Community Rail Network is involved in the "Journey Makers" scheme.  This is from the Community Rail Network guidance note -

"Please note that Community Rail Network is also involved in the national ‘Journey Makers’ scheme deploying volunteers as marshals at some transport interchanges. We will contact members directly if there are relevant volunteer opportunities through this scheme in your area"

The full guidance note is here.  https://communityrail.org.uk/coronavirus-guidance-2/

Much appreciate that, thanks, Richard ... noting my earlier comment "to read in detail later today" to yesterday's advice.

It would be something of a stretch just yet to describe Melksham as a "transport interchange", so I don't expect MRUG will be contacted.

Thanks Graham.  Yes, I did note that you were going to read the guidance note in detail later today but just thought I'd nip in and highlight the bit about "Journey Makers" and volunteers.

Edit to clarify quoting - Grahame

Taking a slightly different angle - station security.

When I visited a control room, it was sometimes necessary to identify an individual possibly for some misdemeanour such as fare bilking or anti social behaviour.  With everyone covering their faces, is this going to lead to cases of mistaken identity and the potential negative fall out on social media etc.  "I was stopped by an officious BT policeman when I was doing nothing wrong etc..."

There is some validity in the first paragraph of the RMT statement. The various Government announcements about easing the "lockdown" give a very mixed message. Effectively they're saying that if you're a car user you can go where you want but if not you're still trapped in your local area.

Edit to clarify quoting - Grahame

I had a passenger today, thank me for not wearing a mask as he is deaf and couldn’t communicate with the previous driver who was wearing a mask (today’s policy is drivers must not wear masks whilst driving, I don’t know whether that changes next week)
I have a full 6mm Perspex screen across my cab so a mask isn’t doing a lot whilst I’m in the cab.

I agree that the messaging is as you say. However, remember that we are still in a public health emergency, so some of the government messaging may be unpalatable, and may seem unfair, but if it saves lives and drives the infection rate down then it is not unreasonable. When the first easing of the lockdown was announced, the messaging could best be phrased as this.

"We're now loosening the restriction for exercise to enable you to travel further, but only if you can get there without increasing the amount of contact with other people as that is too much of a risk, so not by public transport, which should remain for key workers who need to travel as safely as we can make it."  Did that cause unfairness? Yes, possibly, although one's right to pop down to Durdle Door for a walk, sunbathe or base jump, is not a human right in my mind, particularly in the current situation.

The imposition of masks from Monday is a recognition that public transport does need to be opened up to more people going forward, and they are one way of minimising risk. I think that's a good thing. Though I still think we should all be restricting unnecessary journeys rather more than would appear to be the case, so won't be popping down to Barry Island for an ice cream or over the bridge to Cribbs Causeway for some retail therapy at the earliest possible opportunity.  (Actually Barry Island still isn't allowed, so maybe read Weston instead.)       

The Statutory Instrument bringing this into force has been published:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020  (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/592/pdfs/uksi_20200592_en.pdf)

Employees of the operator of the relevant public transport service are exempt from wearing them under the law, as are the police, PCSOs, "emergency responders", and "relevant officials", although I daresay they could have their own working requirements.

In force for 12 months, reviewed in six.

There's a practical problem though - if you do have a medical condition which makes face masks unsuitable, of which asthma is I would imagine the commonest, how do you make this known?

There has been an unfortunate tendency for some to react precipitously in the face of what they perceive as breaches of guidelines or regulations, without giving those at whom they are directing their behaviour the chance to explain - attacks on NHS staff going to work being an example . The reality is that asthmatics will avoid public transport as a result. This may be unavoidable, but should not be overlooked as an unintended result of this measure.

I think there's practical problems with most of the emergency legislation brought in to deal with the pandemic national emergency.  For me it comes down to it being for the greater good and we have to accept that in a small number of cases there might be people who either don't abide by it or are potentially negatively affected by it. 

If it becomes more than a minor problem, perhaps the rail/bus operators could issue exemption cards for those who will be affected, as some do now for similar conditions?

The advice is, if you are that critically ill or have such chronic condition then you should not travel on public transport

I believe 800321 is entering service tomorrow in ‘face mask’ livery.  A clever idea!

The text of the regulations does allow, and define, a reasonable excuse:

The section on "enforcement" does not contain the word "excuse" in that sense, so the point about who decides what's reasonable and how that might be applied consistently remains.

I would expect the enforcing officer will have some discretion, the fine is by way of a fixed penalty which will have an appeal process

Eh? Why are employees exempt?

It’s said to be dangerous to drive in a mask, for various reasons .
Also where an operator is following guidance we are behind a 6mm Perspex screen, which is more effective than a 1mm fabric mask

Effective communication, Many passengers need to lip read

It should be noted that whilst the law makes them exempt, GWR policy (and probably most/all other TOC's) requires all staff to wear masks in public areas. 

Specifically:

'All colleagues, contractors and tenants should wear face coverings when they are at work in stations and on train (where there is no physical barrier between customers and colleagues/contractors/tenants), unless they are exempted from wearing coverings for medical reasons.

Face coverings will be expected to be worn by all colleagues:

* when in a train carriage whether workings (including travelling pass) or travelling to work
* on station platforms
* on station concourses
* information points/booking offices without a glass or Perspex barrier
* travelling in road transport such as taxis/buses/coaches.

General use of face coverings will not be expected to be worn by colleagues:

* when behind glass or Perspex barrier such as in a booking office/information point when social distancing can be achieved
* in train cabs - front, mid or rear when on own
* in offices and mess rooms away from customer view
* where there is a medical restriction that prevents wearing face coverings
* in non-customer facing locations such as siding and maintenance depots including walking routes."

Totally appropriate (IMHO) for staff rules to be handled through and set by the rail industry profession (with medical advise of course) and not set in law by our MPs in parliament.

From The Grimsby Telegraph (https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/only-key-workers-should-use-4226085)


That (highlighted) strikes me actually as a tightening of conditions - my understanding was / is that public transport can be used at present by:
* key workers (but only to / from / in process of their key work)
* people who have to use public transport to reach essential shops
* people who are traveling on medical grounds - for example to or from their doctors's
* people travelling to escape domestic abuse.

Has Manual Cortes picked up on something I missed that tightened the rules, is he trying to reduce use by overstating the limits, or did some of his words get lost on the way up to sunny Grimsby and back?

I don't believe he's picked up on something you missed. He has, as so many people have been prone to do, misinterpreted the situation.

As we have discussed on here before, "essential travel" does not necessarily equate to "key workers only." If it did, for example, then we wouldn't have local town bus services running off peak only. Whilst I suspect that using a train service to get to the shops for those who can't drive or don't have access to a car is limited, there may well be examples around the country.

In addition we have now been told that we can have "family hubs." I heard story on the radio over the weekend about a woman who was planning to go from Kent (I think) to Stockport to see her sister for the first time in months. She was planning to go by train, presumably because she didn't have access to a car.

Some of my older readers may remember the comedian Billy Burden who always ended his act with: "I must be off. 'Tis a long walk to Dorset" It's an even longer bloody walk from Kent to Stockport...

(https://i.ibb.co/zGkDDbf/15922231339560.jpg)

Ah yes, the BigNoseFamily.   Some competition in the nasals there!

This is turning into another (English) government fiasco.  I catch a through train from Taunton to Cardiff with various other passengers making the same trip with me (socially distanced of course).  Put my mask on.  Once through the Severn Tunnel the English law no longer applies and I can take the mask off.  I'm still with the same passengers, so how has wearing a mask lowered the risk?  I can understand it on a packed commuter train where you are likely to be standing (literally) 'face to face' but.......

END OF WHINGE ::) :P

When England’s government announced the compulsory face masks they said it was because social distancing isn’t possible on public transport. Yet all but one large bus operator has reduced capacity on their vehicles, and display bus full on the front when it hits that number, and then doesn’t pick any more up until 1 off 1 on applies.
If the companies are still enforcing social distancing so strongly then social distancing is possible, and therefore disregards the governments explanation for the ruling as false.

The ruling will not be reviewed for 6 months!

Having seen that Easyjey started flights today and with no social distancing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53049338 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53049338); how is it that social distancing isn't required on planes but is on trains and buses?

It seems to me that it can have little to do with any medical/scientific reason and more to do with the financial support from the DfT for trains and buses have but planes don't i.e. he who pays the piper calls the tunes.

I understand the current cost of running all these empty trains is almost £600m a month, what happens when the Treasury says we are not going to pay that anymore?

NR have the same requirements for ALL staff and contractors when travelling on trains and on stations this applies for commuting and business.

Whilst railways staff have exceptions under the law these have been put in place to allow staff flexibility to carryout their duties without the fear of prosecution or being reported to the media by a member of the public.  The exemptions under the law were agreed with the Government by the employers and Trade Unions.

Some very good points raised above regarding cross-border travel and social distancing measures already being taken by public transport operators. These go to confirm the conclusion I have slowly been reaching that this measure, like 14-day quarantine on arrival in the country, has a minimal impact on virus control and a lot more to do with the government trying to create the illusion that it has got a grip on the situation.

I have been on two buses today, both operated by Optare Solos, seating capacity around 35. As usual, I tend to sit in the first seat in the raised section towards the back. This morning the 44B Chippenham town service had two other passengers, and elderly couple known to me, and they sat in the front seat (which is often taped off those days but not on this bus). Journey time was about 4 minutes.

This afternoon I took the 92 Malmesbury-bound service from Chippenham bus station to the Ambulance Centre in Malmesbury road, journey time about 8 minutes. There was only me on the bus.

On both buses the windows were open so, presumably, if I had been inadvertently leaving virus spores behind they would have been dispersed within a few minutes if not seconds.

I did of course dutifully wear my mask, all 59 pence worth of it from B&M,

To me this is an example of the utter pointlessness of blanket rules. Other views may of course be available.

I understand, from a commercial pilot (not Easyjet), that the air circulation in passenger planes is from ceiling to floor rather than horizontally and to standards which actually exceed those applicable to an operating theatre. That might be an exaggeration, I don't know, but certainly they have safer air circulation, in this regard, than buses and trains, or cars for that matter.

I think we''re all falling into a trap set by our own human psychology (but helped by the lack of coherent explanations of why we're doing these things). We all think automatically that fairness and uniformity of behaviour matter, because they matter to us. However, if you are a virus they really don't have any importance.

We all, I presume, have the collective aim (corresponding to the public policy objective) of keeping infection levels going down not up. So, if we see someone else having a high level of contacts with others (for any reason at all), and thus offering viruses a lot of opportunity to jump hosts, what should we do? Rationally, we should try harder to reduce our own level of contacts to compensate. After all, the population-wide factors that matter are (roughly) fraction of people who are infectious and not isolated times the number of people they come across who can be infected times the "closeness" (defined in the virus's own terms). But our brains don't work that way.

I saw one reflection of this a few days ago, with managers from the shops now opening complaining that their rules are much stricter than the ones supermarkets have always applied. Well, tough. There is a primary requirement to maintain the throughput of the big shops where we get most of our food and other basic needs, but only a secondary one even to buy the kids new shoes. We have a choice where we allocate the extra contacts we reckon we can now safely allow ourselves, and that choice can quite reasonably be biased by practical considerations.

It is less confusing to us the travelling public to have a sleight and simple rule of if you travel on public transport you wear a face covering.  It would be very messy and open to interpretation to say if you are x distance from another passenger and if the windows are open

I agree in principle but my major query for both face naskes and 14-day quarantine for arriving international passengers is "why now?" If it is now safer to sit on a bus with a face mask why wasn't safer when 800 people a day were dying of the disease?

I have not for an issue with with wearing a mask as such but, if the real reason is to build public confidence in public transport back up (which would in my mind be a nore logical reason) then why can't we be told? Is Dominoc Cummings afraid that people will take as much notice of the rules as he does if they're told the truth?

Agreed I think it's just too late and now unnecessary.  On the bus today, wearing a mask,  I was 20ft away from the only other person on board, the driver.  For the other few dozen times over the past 12 weeks,  no mask, just don't see the point. As an aside, I was on the bus to collect my new car, so until the pubs open - no more buses!

I think I'd put it the other way round. Not "why now?" but "why so late?"

Although it could be argued the Government were trying to preserve the supplies of disposable masks for the NHS and Care Homes.


Or.


Because the level of infection increased very quickly the science lead to lockdown as the only way to control the infection.


I'm sure any future enquiry and historians will draw conclusions

Also, in the vast majority of bus, tram and train journeys since late March, social distancing has been easy - on the trains, often its been a case of having a carriage to yourself.

Now the passenger numbers are rising, albeit slowly, that starts to become more difficult.  I would suggest mandatory face coverings makes it easier to justify reducing the 2m rule to 1m.

Most of the decisions taken can be argued either way.

The change in the law has made quite a difference.

On my travels today, I reckon 80-90% of passengers were complying with the law and wearing a mask/face covering, and the number of staff complying with GWR policy (as set out earlier in the thread) was pretty much 100%.

I've just had a very unexpected stay in hospital where face masks are supposed to be compulsory but its not legally enforceable. While many of the doctors were sceptical (if we were having masks then should have been back in March) the general thought was why public transport had a legal change but hospitals didn't as there were far more vulnerable people in the latter.

Probably about 60% take up by the public but near 100% by staff.

A pedant would note, why is a facemask not required for an employee behind a glass or Perspex screen, but by inference IS required behind a screen made from some other brand of transparent acrylic ?
Is Perspex so much safer than alternative brands of very similar products.
And what about polycarbonate ? which IS safer if attack by yobs is feared, but is the same as other cheaper materials for infection control.

More pedantry. I thought Perspex was a trade name of ICI, which has not existed for many years. Or should it be lower case as ijn hoover the vacuum cleaner, as opposed to upper case for the company?

Perspex International attempt to cling on to the trademark by always using Perspex® in their own literature, but it is a battle lost in the court of public usage I think, in the same way that Petrol® was by the 1930s. Although there are other generic terms such as plexiglass.

I'd noticed "plexiglass" being used a bit more here recently, rather than the usual "perspex", and assumed it was down to ignorance (of the established British name now become generic in usage). However, it might be due to being more careful about trademarks these days. I'd always thought Plexiglass was also registered, in the USA, but despite it being used (as Plexiglass®) by several US suppliers of the stuff, that ought to be Plexiglas®. Exactly who invented, made, and sold what and registered its name first (in Germany, Britain, or the USA) appears to be disputed.

Chemically it is Poly(methyl methacrylate)  or PMMA.  Perspex and Plexiglas are just two of several trade names. 

Genuine question, and not one intended to stir up any racial controversy or whatever. A few years ago when the term "face coverings" was generally used to convey the hijab, burka or niqab, there were "burka bans" in place in certain situations. I'm not sure whether it was enforced here (in banks, for example?) but I do distinctly remember reading that in Holland there was a specific law passed banning face coverings on public transport.

Now that wearing a face covering is being openingly encouraged, is any distinction being made over what form that face covering should be? If I were to walk onto a train wearing a black balaclava and carrying a bag marked "swag," for example, would the staff merely smile and nod and say well done for following the rules?

NL and FR had, presumably have, such laws, and maybe a couple of other countries, but not UK. But certainly it raises social/legal/cultural questions about types of face coverings, attitudes to them and reasons for these attitudes. Being encouraged to cover our faces with a bandanna especially!

Anyway, I'm going to hoover my perspex before xeroxing some documents to put in my filofax. Then I'm going to google that story about smuggling heroin in a petrol tank, and as it's a hot day I'll drink a glass of coke.

It's only when talking with people with their mouths covered that I realise just how much I rely on lipreading these days, and I know I get visual indicators from people's facial expressions too.   Gets harder the less indicators there are, and that must apply to staff too.

If you really are carrying a bag marked "Swag" is an excellent pointer towards a sense of humour in spite of the current big issues and I suspect they would smile at you (even if you could not see the smile) and say 'well done'.   Without a bag marked "swag" it might be a different scenario.

I'm noting that in 10 days this thread had run up to about 60 posts ... hot topic!

75% of bus passengers wearing facemasks in Manchester but only 50% in 'the West of England'. Interesting variation. Perhaps people are more likely to comply in urban areas, which is pretty much all of Grtr Manchester, compared to WoE?
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/first-bus-stagecoach-respond-only-4241753

I had a passenger Earlier  wearing a hat and covering. All I could see was his eyes, This must increase security risk as we can’t identify anyone! I wonder if criminals will use face coverings to their advantage (not necessarily on public transport but anywhere)

I suspect most of the idiots rioting recently would have worn one anyway, but I guess it does give them an alibi, as well as a reason to wear it to and from the scene of the crime without looking suspicions.

It possibly saves them being identified (or misidentified) by the Met's image recognition software. Did I see 96% error rate quoted somewhere?

Face masks do not necessarily prevent identification.  This story https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/17/facile_recognition_feds/  describes how the FBI identified a rioter from a tattoo in one picture, a T shirt in another and comments on the T shirt left on a review.

More advanced facial recognition relies on bone structure and is not affected by masks, glasses and so on, but so far it require you to stand still at close range. Suitable for border and building control but not for identifying rioters, or even bus passengers.