West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I'm afraid they do need instructions! We don't have GW locks on the GWSR but as @Robin White says, it's still amusing to watch folk press the door stops to open the doors. Or attempting to leave a carriage being flummoxed by the closed door and closed window. The former is only occasionally for next but the latter all the time as a TTI. If we did have GW locks it would be even harder, and I don't blame those that do giving written instructions!

As for being locked in, I agree with you I'm not keen, but I'm sure there are some good and specific reasons for this. I'm still tempted to being my own carriage key with me next time, but somehow I don't think I'd be too popular if I did that...

 

I always carry a (GWR) carriage key with me in case of emergency situations.

 

Actually, they often do need instruction or help. Some who come to MD booking office admit to never having been on a train before. How many domestic doors require you open them from the other side of where you are standing ?? Unless they see someone else lowering the window to open the door, it is not intuitive, and there have been cases of a train being signalled off by the guard just as a passenger finally twigged what to do and started to alight. We did have little sheets advising how to do this, for issue to passengers - they may well still be available, but a busy clerk won't always remember to issue them.

 

Not strictly true, three of them have Electric Train Heating capability, but lets not start that debate again!

Ian R

 

Well, David, I can understand the logic - just surprised.
I just can't imagine handing a piece of paper to a passenger & saying "..... & here's how to open the door"!

BTW - Did you ever get the Edmondson type you were looking for?

 

Some do

 

I'm afraid I don't have any love for them for I saw them replacing steam on the WSR and many other Western Region previously steam hauled trains . Must admit though it was interesting seeing what the driver got up to initially .

Paul . K

 

The following has been sent to me by an impeccable source. It seems this has been published on the WSR Staff site this evening as an amendment to the staff rules.


“ 10. BLOGGING, INSTANT MESSAGING AND USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

10.1 Company IT equipment, facilities and accounts must not be used for activities such as blogging,

instant messaging and postings on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube etc. without

the express permission of the General Manager.

10.2 Staff members must not use personal IT equipment for social media activities during their

rostered working hours without the express permission of the General Manager.

10.3 Postings on social media sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube, internet forums etc.) using

personal IT equipment and/or personal accounts must not directly refer to nor directly insult or

demean the Company or any member of it's staff, directors, customers or clients. Neither must it

breach any anti-harassment, defamation or discrimination legislation.

10.4 Failure to comply with any of the above will result in disciplinary action.”


I am assuming that this is correct but please feel free to refute or confirm it if I am wrong Have I read this wrongly, or am I right in thinking tha
t this means that ANY post by a volunteer that directly refers to the Company, or any member of its staff, Directors, clients or customers, whether that reference
is good or bad, is now a disciplinary offence?

This sounds like an edict from the STASI in pre-unification East Germany than from the WSR.

 

It's pretty much a standard entry in a lot of organisation's Ts & Cs of employment; it's nothing unique to the WSR. I worked for a large retail company and they introduced similar staff rules many, many years ago.

 

I advise on social media policies regularly.

Three points

(1) The more restrictive such policies are (like this one) the less likely courts are to enforce them or to support their use by companies in steps such as disciplinary proceedings.

(2) This policy appears to be intended to apply as much to volunteers as to employed staff and may therefore set the tone for Company - volunteer relations.

(3) Statements that anything ‘will’ result in disciplinary proceedings shows a restriction on decision making and reduces the enforceability of such a policy.

Note: This comment should not be taken to refer directly to any particular Railway in Somerset.

Robin

 

I disagree. We are talking of an organisation primarily staffed by volunteers. The terms are far too draconian. More like the bad old days of the WSRA than today. The PLC have nothing to fear if they are open and aboveboard. Those who remember the excesses of the STASI will know that their policy was to divide people. That is emphatically not what we need on One Railway.

 

I would ask you to read 10.3 in detail “must not directly refer to” with reference to private people using their own private equipment as it seems they may have private opinions which may not be welcome. The policy covers all volunteers and staff, so anybody even mentioning a Railway in The West of Somerset will be entered into disciplinary. Looking at other clauses in the same policy many other issues seem to appear. They set out situations where most staff members have to break this policy daily for various reasons and 10.4 states that they will be placed into disciplinary. Notice I now have to say a Railway in the West of Somerset as I’m a volunteer on a certain railway in order for me not to be ‘sacked’ and have my hobby removed from my use.

I would ask everybody to go back and look at my post 9474 on page 474 and read it in conjunction with this and draw some conclusions. More cultural work needed urgently by a certain PLC comrade.

 

As I said at the time bravo. I am sure you will get a lot of support.

 

Is this a precise, verbatim transcription of the original text? If so, it contains a grammatical error that I would suggest makes it unenforceable as it does not make any sense. There is a very apposite saying that forum rules prevent me from repeating.

In any event, I have to agree that seems draconian. Does this mean that a post making a glowing tribute to the work being done by the West Somerset Railway (which I can say as I am not a volunteer/staff member) would result in disciplinary action being take against the poster? Absurd if that is the case.

 

Is the 'express permission of the General Manager' written or verbal?

 

AFAIK it is a direct cut and paste. I suppose nobody will confirm this as they risk disciplinary action if they do.

 

It is far better to keep people in the tent and pointing* out than to have people outside the tent pointing inwards.

* replacing pointing with another word beginning with the same letter is optional.

Right, I'm off to do a steam heat turn on the lovely wee Barclay "pug". That's one term I do miss as an ex-pat Scot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pug_(steam_locomotive)

 

I think you just broke the rules!

 

How about something like:

10. BLOGGING, INSTANT MESSAGING AND USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

10.1 Company IT equipment, facilities and accounts must not be used for activities such as blogging,instant messaging and postings on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube etc. withoutthe express permission of the General Manager.

10.2 DELETED

10.3 The Company acknowledge that use of social media can be a force for good, passing on knowledge of Railway events or occurrences and forming a venue for healthy debate about Railway affairs. However, the Company expects staff and volunteers to make responsible use of social media.

In particular, social media must not be used to insult or knowingly promulgate false information about the Company or any member of it's staff, volunteers customers or clients. Neither must such use knowingly breach any anti-harassment, defamation, DATA PROTECTION or discrimination legislation.

10.4 Failure to comply with any of the above MAY result in disciplinary action.

Clause 10.2 about permission from GM deleted. That clause (repeated below) has a further difficulty. It isn’t restricted to Railway matters. So if a volunteer who happens to be a barrister contributes to a Post by a friend or a Legal discussion group or the gardening club while on their meal break during a guard’s turn without having received the GM’s permission, they have committed a disciplinary offence and MUST (‘will’) be disciplined for it.

Old Clause 10.2:

10.2 Staff members must not use personal IT equipment for social media activities during their rostered working hours without the express permission of the General Manager.

Whoever the GM may be, he is either going to be very busy, or very lonely, in future.

 

I quite agree. It does beg the question of what it is in the water that gives rise to yet more arguments.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk