Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• Philip Russell , carlisle

  The railway companies only have themselves to blame for this type of action happening 30 years after the first doo train ran .Instead of negotiating change with the unions shortly after privatisation like many other forward looking industries might have done ,most have simply chosen to avoid any threat of strikes by not challenging the unions at all ,which over time has strengthened their power .

• Harry London, London

  Slightly dismayed by some of the opinions on this thread. I have worked in places with no unions and I have also had jobs with a union representation, and without doubt I am better off and have better terms and conditions when there is a union. Why is that a bad thing Audrey of Kent? As for the cost of rail fares. Most of Europe run a cheaper system than the UK and they still have unions, and most are state owned. If your think you are being overcharged Claydon of Norwich, why blame the workers and not the way the railways system is privatised and how it actually costs the government more now than BR ever did. In effect government subsidies means the railway is still "nationalised" but now there are private companies syphoning off profits.How is that the fault of unions? How is earning less than the average London salary "bloated"? Lastly: there is a question of safety. Do the math. One person on a train locked on the front cab and unable to respond in a timely manner to an incident...because they have to drive the train....or having an extra person inside the train to deal with drunks, passengers taken ill, acts of violence, accidents etc.

• Audrey Bullen, meopham kent

  All union officials only look after themselves - they are all champagne socialists. Get rid of all of them. Maggie Thatcher had the right idea!!

• Steve Zodiac, Dinas Cross

  I have to concur that in an age of proven Driver Only Operation, widespread use of CCTV and other improvements which may go with it, the role of the guard can appear to be surplus to requirements.
  
  Any possible customer service or safety benefits are lost anyway if the guard elects to confine themselves to the cab of the train. The RMT would have more of a case if members of the travelling public felt strongly about this. If Mr. Crow wants to prove that his members are valuable then perhaps he would do well to remind them that (sadly) a job is a privilege not a right and that they should do it well and with pride (as, it should be pointed out, some of them do). I enjoy a journey a lot more when I am given "service with a smile" and if I felt that more guards contributed to that then I would have no problem in defending their worth. As it is, I don't see much evidence of them anyway and would rather the money was saved.

• James Palma, london

  In all of the years I have used the overground to commute to and from work I have NEVER had any dealings with the guard or seen anyone having dealings with them. In general they sit in the back cab of the train.
  
  WHilst it is sad that people may lose their jobs, as a tax and fare payer, I want value for money. Does that mean saving costs on staffing where staffing is not actually required or where it could be cut back? yes.

• Steve Alston, Crewe

  A guard received a commendation for stopping a rape at one train company in 2003. Arriva Trains Northern mentioned that the positive and swift intervention stopped the incident, and led to the apprehension of the offender.
  
  Had this been a southern or Scottish driver-only company who have no guards on many services, it would have probably continued, especially as they frequently don't put "ticket examiners" or "revenue staff" etc on a high number of services due to understaffing.
  
  In modern times, First Transpennine Express sent the wrong message by sacking that exact same guard who intervened in a very similar situation claiming it was 'potentially violent and breached risked assessments' whilst unsurprisingly, BT Police stated the absolute opposite, praising his actions.
  
  You have to ask yourself, if this was your daughter, wife, kids etc, would you be so quick to send guards down the road?

• claydon william, Norwich Norfolk

  ..........General secretary Bob Crow said: “RMT have sent out a clear message in the nine to one vote for both strike action and action short of a strike on London Overground over the appalling, cash-driven...........
  =========================================================
  
  "cash driven" eh Bob ?........
  
  Much like your bloated salary, pension and puffed-up union benefits Mr 'Fat Cat' Crow; which at the last reckoning in 2011 came to an eye watering £146,000 pa (including expenses and benefits).
  
  If this guy actually believed in his own politics, he would be accepting a salary of no more than average income, and giving up his council owned home to poor families that actually need it.
  
  We should be resisting every utterance Mr.Crow comes up with, and drag him and his union kicking and screaming into the modern eras. Highly paid guards are becoming less and less necessary with modern trains and technology, we have to make the railway much cheaper to operate for everyones benefit, and redirect staff resources toward customer interfacing roles.
  
  

• Lutz, London

  There is no need for a guard with current safety systems, ad all that this initiative is doing is bring London Overground into the 21st century. One other point; the removal of the guard would allow the introduction Customer facing staff as on the DLR.

• claydon william, Norwich Norfolk

  This is exactly the reason why LOROL should not be taking over any other London suburban routes.
  
  @ Malcolm, Milton Keynes. The RMT are rarely if ever right IMO.. They are only truly interested in justifying and protecting the bloated salaries of their members in the railway industry that hugely contribute towards making the railway and its fares so hugely expensive,
  
  As a rail traveller who has had his travels so often blighted by the militancy and industrial bribery of Mr.Crow and his members, I do not agree with them that guards are inexorably integral to train safety.
  
  The DLR has proved that driverless trains are a practicality, and overtones by TfL that future underground services could be driverless, are driving RMT strategy right now,
  
  This has nothing to do with safety; its all about job protection

• James, Leicester

  Removing guards from trains is a backwards step, and as a fare paying passenger I am sick of seeing fares going up and up, whilst the service deteriorates.
  
  DOO ensures that first class and quiet coaches are abused, not to mention the outright fare evasion, vandalism and unpleasant behaviour is a lot more prevelent, and my experience of lines in and around London, smoking of drugs let alone cigarettes openly in carriages is the norm once rush hour is over.
  
  Additionally customer service on DOO trains is non existent, other than the odd useless PA announcement 45 minutes into something going wrong. For that I don't blame the drivers as no doubt they aren't allowed to use mobile phones to find out anything, and probably have a stack of other duties we aren't aware of.
  
  If we are going to see a 50% reduction in on train staff, perhaps us passengers should be due a 50% reduction in our fares to make up for it? No doubt instead we'll just see more of G4S or some other incompetent outfit manning our railways on the cheap...

• Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

  When Mayor Boris opened Kens overground he boasted of stations with ticket offices open all hours and of guards on trains !
  
  While the argument re ticket offices is complicated by sakes via Oyster the role of Guards is surely much clearer given the section he wants to remove them from contains one of the worlds oldest tunnels with stations that are actually highly dangerous given the narrow platforms they have.
  
  It also seems perverse that Boris wants to remove guards from trains and even talks of driverless tubes and yet wastes hundreds of millions on buses that need platform guards whose only job is to stop passengers falling off . So how more passengers need help on trains that often have large gaps to platforms ?!
  
  Odd thing is Borimasters introduced on route 38 now often operate with rear door closed since the 24 went over to full operation with these buses and so this either makes a nonsense of their basic reason for introduction or doors open unattended thus proving useful for fare dodgers!
  
  On local London news tonight the RMT raised the issue as one of safety regarding introduction of DOO and its worth mentioning the recent announcement re upgrade of this route for longer trains will surely result in less safe stations while the work is undertaken.
  
  (Ps A heatwave is forecast for August bank holiday !)

• Malcolm, Milton Keynes

  RMT are right. Removing Guards will have significant safety implications. On all other lines where the driver gets a good view of the platform train interface, safety at the platform train interface has improved.
  
  RMT discovered for a short while that they could play a safety card and they would get public support. That policy is now a busted flush, and it's about time they got round the table and discussed with LOROL how those staff may be deployed to the benefit of the staff themselves and LOROL's customers

• Lorentz, London

  There must be a bank holiday coming up! With every bank holiday in the UK, you can be sure of two things; 1 that it is going to rain, and 2 that the RMT will be on strike somewhere in the country.
  
  Also, I am not sure where they get the idea that the guard is critical to passenger safety; in most cases passenger safety is provided by the signal and control systems.