Southern have explicitly told guards that are trained in safety procedures that when they become OBS's on Jan 1st, they are never to use the safety procedures, as they aren't covered by insurance, and if they attempted to help, they'd be no legal protection from company.

I'm gonna be vague here on purpose, as I don't want to offend any of the people involved.

A few years ago on a rural route, a train driver killed a middle aged man in front of his wife and daughter on a farm crossing. It wasn't suicide, the guy stepped out on track, while being distracted. That train driver had to comfort the mans wife and child while guard arranged emergency services (the man didn't die on impact). Without that guard, the wife and daughter would have been left alone with their husband/dad as he slowly died from massive injuries.

The train driver never drove a train again after that night.

I don't think it's acceptable but am unsure as to what other option they have. Strikes are usually last course of action when talks have either not been engaged with or not been successful.

They believe passenger safety is a real issue and aren't willing to put that at risk. The talks or non talks have failed. What else could they possibly do?

For me, the failing is with southern management for not engaging and with government for letting this happen. Have to look at cause and effect and not blame those who are merely reacting

Fatalities on the railway are a common problem. In my time we had some particular nasty ones, including a mother jumping in front of a train while holding a child.

Yeah, I get that - what I was suggesting is that it seems that the unions accept it's safe on certain lengths of train, but not on the longer ones (I get that argument). On my "arse end of nowhere" line we have a few 8 or 12 car trains in peak times - many of the off peak or shuttle services are 4 or even 2 cars, so why will the union not allow those to be DOO? They seem to be demanding a guarantee there will always be a guard on all services, which I just don't understand.

I accept trust is in issue - in all directions.

Unions don't trust the companies, the companies don't trust the unions, and the suffering public don't trust either of them. The problem is a "boy who cried wolf" one - pretty much every dispute in my 30+ years of rail commuting has had the word "safety" thrown in at some point, so surely you can understand why commuters find it hard to take on face value when they are told "yes, the claim that reducing ticket office staff would impact safety was bullsh*t, but this time we really mean it".

I see the safety issues with this one and am leaning on that side of the argument, but the unions would tell me it's all because of a Jedi mind trick if they thought that would help their cause (as would Southern). Commuters are merely pawns in these games.

I predate the franchises! I remember British Rail, and don't forget this is an RMT/ASLEF action, and they certainly HAVE had action (train and tube)