Does it really make sense to replace guards on our trains with technology?

I FAIL to see how ‘technology’ can do away with train guards because of the multiple functions guards perform which cannot be properly replaced. Guards have always been a vital part of our secondary national security infrastructure and are in the front line of detecting and preventing cross-country criminal movement. The true worth of their observations and reports, which are passed on to the authorities, is never acknowledged for security reasons. Over the decades, train guards have stopped terrorists in their tracks and had them hauled off trains by police. If we lose guards, who

even in wartime were in ‘a reserved occupation’, we lose an important layer in the fabric of our nation. The public rely heavily on guards for information relating to departures, destinations and safety, and assistance in boarding. It is doubtful that the driver can see everything going on at all stations. The new proposals make an often lonely and stressful job for train drivers even more so. If the communication cord is pulled in a train, a guard will currently check out the emergency to see whether it merits asking the driver to stop. How this will be dealt with should the driver be the only responsible person on the train is anyone’s guess. WENDY NEVARD, new romney, kent. SPANISH practices are alive and well. The dispute over guards on trains in scotland centred on whether the train driver instead of the guard should open the doors of new trains, due to enter service soon. Under a deal hammered out over months, the driver will open the doors - but a guard will control their closing. Jaw-droppingly, we paying passengers are expected to swallow the nonsense that this expensive doublejobbing fix is a win-win. Technology means drivers could safely operate the doors.