Letters: I would travel without train guard to keep service running

SIR – After two years of disruption I read that the RMT union is once more to ballot its members for industrial action over the question of guards on trains.

I believe that most people are strongly in favour of guards on trains – as am I.

However, may I ask this question?

The rail company says it will roster a guard for each train and seek a replacement if that guard becomes unavailable on the day.

However, if a replacement cannot be found, the company says the train should operate regardless.

The RMT position appears to be that without a guard, the train should be cancelled. This is irrespective of any inconvenience caused to passengers.

This will clearly put the union in a strong position to disrupt services simply by instructing guards, for example, to call in sick on the day.

The RMT says travelling without a guard endangers public safety and is certainly not the preferred option.

The rail company is clearly unwilling to agree to this. It would give the rail union an excellent opportunity to disrupt services with a minimum of effort.

The union also claims that the rail companies are driven solely by cost savings and profit. The companies, however say that they will continue to roster guards on every train.

I must confess to harbouring two suspicions, i.e. (1) that the rail unions have dug themselves into a hole and cannot see a way out, after two years, without losing face and being able to justify the cost of the strike action to members; and (2) that they have a political sub-agenda to make the railways unworkable. This is in the hope that the public will look more favourably in future on the question of renationalisation should it arise.

This is, of course, only my opinion.

Put simply, I would prefer to travel on a train without a guard if necessary and however undesirable, rather than have the service cancelled at the last minute.

I shall be interested to hear the views of others.

Mr N. Maton,

Christchurch