JR East replace title of 'train conductor' with just 'crew'

[bill937ca]

But a public announcement on 4 April by Japan Railways East (JR East), the company running one of the country’s largest public railway networks, has shaken staff members with a new change. Specifically, the job titles of “train conductor” or “train drivers” will be abolished, to be replaced with general roles of “crew” and “crew leaders”.

 

https://japantoday.com/category/business/jr-east-replace-title-of-train-conductor-with-just-crew?

[Kiha66]

I wonder what the driver of this is.  I suspect its either a way to keep from paying more for engineers vs other train crew, or a lead up to automation of some lines.

[katoftw]

Well most haven't been a conductor for some time.  The title is incorrect for most roles these days.

[ben_issacs]

Folks, 

But which one will be the 'Crew Leader'?

In British practice, what in Japan was called a 'Conductor' was called a 'Guard', and it was he who was in charge of the train, and it was he, who by waving a red or green flag or lantern, told the driver to go or stop.

But, this role seems only to have applied at stations, on the road the driver largely made the stop and go decisions based on the signalling  system.

So, who is really in charge of the train?

 In this new rating, the 'Crew Leader' would be the ex 'Conductor' and the 'Crew' would be the ex 'Driver', although it might be intended to be the other way around!

And  both titles should be prefixed by 'Train', otherwise they sound like parents taking part in the school yard clean up!

Regards, 

Bill, 

Melbourne 

 

 

[katoftw]

The driver is in charge.  The guard/conductor just control the platform duties.

 

As for the article.  It is light on real details.  It make mention that the whole scenario is light on details from JR East.  It is just a guessing game at this point in time what they really mean.

[Sheffie]

I feel like there’s been a trend for decades now to commoditize everyone and reduce everything to the most generic term. Passengers on a train become customers, food becomes product, and so on. I’m hoping it’s for a better reason than making it easy for CEOs and marketing people to move from one company to another without having to change the way they speak or think. But I don’t see one. 

[marknewton]

6 hours ago, katoftw said:

The driver is in charge.  The guard/conductor just control the platform duties.

 

Until the guard completes their platform work and gives the driver the right-of-way, they’re in charge.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

[Socimi]

11 hours ago, bill937ca said:

But a public announcement on 4 April by Japan Railways East (JR East), the company running one of the country’s largest public railway networks, has shaken staff members with a new change. Specifically, the job titles of “train conductor” or “train drivers” will be abolished, to be replaced with general roles of “crew” and “crew leaders”.

 

https://japantoday.com/category/business/jr-east-replace-title-of-train-conductor-with-just-crew?

 

Replacing "conductor" and "driver" with the generic "crew" and "crew leaders" is useless, stupid and nonsensical, as  mixing the two duties will only partilally solve the personnel shortage,  at a high cost of decreased security and increased confusion.

 

Furthemore, i'm puzzled by "with this also comes the removal of in-house tests currently mandatory for all conductors" .

A conductor's work is not to just open and close the doors and make station announcments. They must be know the saftey systems, what to do in case of a medical emergency, fire and so on...  It's a work that cannot be banalized.

Eliminating tests for conductors means multiple accidents only waiting to happen.

 

The rather interesting thing, is that to mitigate staff shortages JR East could very simply, promote itself more to the thousands of railway enthusiasts in the Greater Tokyo Area, given that they will be quite happy to go to work for a railway company.

 

Besides that, if i'm not wrong, "train crew" was already a term used by JR East in the 1990s and early 2000s; it meant all of those who  worked on a train (driver, conductor, shopping cart ladies...) and drivers and conductor actually wore a patch on their uniforms (usually carried on the right shoulders) with that written.

 

7 hours ago, ben_issacs said:

Folks, 

But which one will be the 'Crew Leader'?

In British practice, what in Japan was called a 'Conductor' was called a 'Guard', and it was he who was in charge of the train, and it was he, who by waving a red or green flag or lantern, told the driver to go or stop.

But, this role seems only to have applied at stations, on the road the driver largely made the stop and go decisions based on the signalling  system.

So, who is really in charge of the train?

 In this new rating, the 'Crew Leader' would be the ex 'Conductor' and the 'Crew' would be the ex 'Driver', although it might be intended to be the other way around!

And  both titles should be prefixed by 'Train', otherwise they sound like parents taking part in the school yard clean up!

Regards, 

Bill, 

Melbourne 

 

 

 

I think it depends on the country.

For example, here in italy the driver is called "macchinista" (motorman) while the conductor is the "capotreno" (wich literally means "train chief").

The capotreno is the one in charge of the passengers and the station/platform duties (closing and checking doors, giving the signal to depart...), while the macchinista is in charge of the rolling stock and the driving duties. Both are equally responsible for the service's time-keeping in their respective duties.

 

1 hour ago, Sheffie said:

I feel like there’s been a trend for decades now to commoditize everyone and reduce everything to the most generic term. Passengers on a train become customers, food becomes product, and so on. I’m hoping it’s for a better reason than making it easy for CEOs and marketing people to move from one company to another without having to change the way they speak or think. But I don’t see one. 

 

I think (or atleast i hope) it's rather to ease on recruiting and reducing (the costs of) "training" new administrative personnel (accountants, lawyers et cetera).

This has a rather dangerous side effect:  thinking that a railway company works exactly like any other company, so they won't be able to judge correctly the situations they will be facing, thus making the wrong decisions most of the time.