• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TPE unusual station duties process observed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eric

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
594
Location
West Yorkshire
On a TPE service to Manchester Airport and everytime we stop the driver gets out of the front cab and walks the full length of the train before opening the doors.

I didn't know TPE had started doing driver only services, unless this is a one off due to no conductor?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It would not be permitted for TPE to be running DOO trains. There will be another explanation, but it seems a bit odd. Is the guard perhaps sitting in the front cab for some reason?
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,791
Location
Glasgow
On a TPE service to Manchester Airport and everytime we stop the driver gets out of the front cab and walks the full length of the train before opening the doors.

I didn't know TPE had started doing driver only services, unless this is a one off due to no conductor?

I'm pretty sure TPEx have no DOO services, maybe there was a door fault of some description? Sounds intriguing anyway
 

Matt Taylor

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2008
Messages
2,339
Location
Portsmouth
I would suggest that the guard may have been required to travel in the front cab due to a failure of a safety system or to inspect the line, but I understand that door operation has to be done from the rear cab.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,431
I would suggest that the guard may have been required to travel in the front cab due to a failure of a safety system or to inspect the line, but I understand that door operation has to be done from the rear cab.

That seems a rational explanation.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,499
Is it worth asking how the OP observed the Driver walking 'the full length of the train before opening the doors', if they were inside said train, which was presumably a unit that didn't have any windows that could be opened?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I would suggest that the guard may have been required to travel in the front cab due to a failure of a safety system or to inspect the line, but I understand that door operation has to be done from the rear cab.

This was the sort of explanation I had in mind as a possibility.

Is it worth asking how the OP observed the Driver walking 'the full length of the train before opening the doors', if they were inside said train, which was presumably a unit that didn't have any windows that could be opened?

I think someone (who clearly wasn't the driver but most probably was the guard) getting out of the cab and walking the length of his coach (which he could see) followed by a pause that tallied with the time taken to walk to the back of the train, then the doors releasing, would be a reasonably conclusive piece of evidence that this was occurring.
 

Loop & Link

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2015
Messages
515
This was the sort of explanation I had in mind as a possibility.



I think someone (who clearly wasn't the driver but most probably was the guard) getting out of the cab and walking the length of his coach (which he could see) followed by a pause that tallied with the time taken to walk to the back of the train, then the doors releasing, would be a reasonably conclusive piece of evidence that this was occurring.

Well the OP said it was the driver, he must have saw a name badge, or even asked him - “Are you the driver?” to come to the conclusion.

Amyway, unless either traincrew come on here, we’ll never know.
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
Sounds like the Traction interlock switch (TIS) was isolated so the Guard would have to manually check all doors were closed before continuing.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Sounds like the Traction interlock switch (TIS) was isolated so the Guard would have to manually check all doors were closed before continuing.

That wouldn't cause a delay in initially releasing the doors though, or require the Guard to be sitting up front!
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,092
Could it be that the guard was just slow releasing the doors or had deliberately kept the doors closed awaiting RPI/police assistance. By which time the driver had changed ends.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Which is a despicable practice that should be banned. There's no reason to make law-abiding, paying passengers miss tight connections (for which they won't even be able to claim compensation, since the railway only records time the train "arrives" not when passengers are allowed off) for the sake of ensuring some miscreant doesn't "escape".

It's also fairly pointless, because the miscreant (or anybody else) can just pull the egress.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Well the OP said it was the driver, he must have saw a name badge, or even asked him - “Are you the driver?” to come to the conclusion.

Amyway, unless either traincrew come on here, we’ll never know.

We don't know if that's a presumption or a fact. It's possible the OP mistook the guard for a driver because he got off at the front. Maybe there was also an AFC on board meaning the guard didn't do revenue and the person who did wasn't the guard?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,604
Which is a despicable practice that should be banned. There's no reason to make law-abiding, paying passengers miss tight connections (for which they won't even be able to claim compensation, since the railway only records time the train "arrives" not when passengers are allowed off) for the sake of ensuring some miscreant doesn't "escape".

It really depends what they've done. My train was once impounded for over 50 minutes by a score of police officers following an on-board riot one Saturday evening. I wasn't arguing. There's a line to be drawn between a ticketing issue and something more serious and if it's something more serious then I'm not really fussed about the consequential inconvenience.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It really depends what they've done. My train was once impounded for over 50 minutes by a score of police officers following an on-board riot one Saturday evening. I wasn't arguing. There's a line to be drawn between a ticketing issue and something more serious and if it's something more serious then I'm not really fussed about the consequential inconvenience.

I'd probably agree there. It really needs to be paralleled roughly with what would happen elsewhere in society off the railway. If, say, Police would hold people in a pub after a fight there for a period of time, they would probably be reasonable doing it on a train as well. But if someone nicked a packet of sweets (~= fare-dodged a couple of stops) it would be over the top.
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,092
It really depends what they've done. My train was once impounded for over 50 minutes by a score of police officers following an on-board riot one Saturday evening. I wasn't arguing. There's a line to be drawn between a ticketing issue and something more serious and if it's something more serious then I'm not really fussed about the consequential inconvenience.
Exactly if the police are on the phone and only moments away they will sometimes request this. I've been on a train where this has happened when when a person in charge of a child was massively under the influence. The guard waited a minute at the most until they could see BTP on the platform. That was on TPE also.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
It's also fairly pointless, because the miscreant (or anybody else) can just pull the egress.

I tend to find that about 50% of the people who are daft enough to do something needing BTP attendance are also not intelligent enough to work out what an emergency egress handle does... so you have a good chance of containing them.

(Didn't someone once smash the window of a Virgin train service to escape after doing something brutal onboard - rather than use the egress? I seem to remember it might have been something really quite nasty like murder or attempted murder.)

The main problem, however, is that the longer you lock somebody into a metal box, the more likely they are to lash out at all and sundry (not just staff) and cause danger to entirely innocent bystanders. Once somebody really kicks off on a train, you have precious little space to do anything about it, other than release them. If they're properly frustrated with a member of staff or have a grudge about the railway, you can release them and they may actually still end up hanging around the station and get nicked whenever some form of police attendance appears.

I'd probably agree there. It really needs to be paralleled roughly with what would happen elsewhere in society off the railway. If, say, Police would hold people in a pub after a fight there for a period of time, they would probably be reasonable doing it on a train as well. But if someone nicked a packet of sweets (~= fare-dodged a couple of stops) it would be over the top.

Exactly if the police are on the phone and only moments away they will sometimes request this. I've been on a train where this has happened when when a person in charge of a child was massively under the influence. The guard waited a minute at the most until they could see BTP on the platform. That was on TPE also.

It always strikes me that anybody on here who has had the BTP respond so quickly that they are "only moments away" is very lucky indeed!

From numerous experiences recently, including at very major stations, 9 out of 10 times they'll be 50 miles away and can't even get to the train on a blue light run with half an hour's notice. The more serious incidents have had to be passed to local police forces.

When BTP do turn up, I have found they're invariably courteous and helpful and do tend to get the job done quickly, but holding a train with its doors locked, waiting for them to turn up, is definitely likely to result in complaints from otherwise civilised passengers who've been caught up in the issue.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
I tend to find that about 50% of the people who are daft enough to do something needing BTP attendance are also not intelligent enough to work out what an emergency egress handle does... so you have a good chance of containing them.

(Didn't someone once smash the window of a Virgin train service to escape after doing something brutal onboard - rather than use the egress? I seem to remember it might have been something really quite nasty like murder or attempted murder.)

......

When BTP do turn up, I have found they're invariably courteous and helpful and do tend to get the job done quickly, but holding a train with its doors locked, waiting for them to turn up, is definitely likely to result in complaints from otherwise civilised passengers who've been caught up in the issue.

Knife attack at Oxenholme rings a bell?

There have (allegedly) been instances of crew coming very close to being prosecuted for false imprisonment as a result of refusing to release train doors. I'm also aware, worryingly, of crew who will still do it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Knife attack at Oxenholme rings a bell?

There have (allegedly) been instances of crew coming very close to being prosecuted for false imprisonment as a result of refusing to release train doors.

Is someone actually going to be prosecuted for that given that the egress could be used?

If I was being held on a train in a platform (so no trespass offence, just the rather more minor one of pulling a handle not intended for passenger use at that time) with a violent attacker who had already been seen to attack another passenger and was not subdued I'd pull it. Personal safety takes precedence over catching the offender, I'm afraid.

And when getting onto simple matters of revenue, the time of the 100+ others on board is more important than whether one person might have paid or not. Fortunately, some TOCs realise this, e.g. by opening barriers at very busy times as is normal practice at Euston.
 
Last edited:

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,851
Location
St Neots
Knife attack at Oxenholme rings a bell?

There have (allegedly) been instances of crew coming very close to being prosecuted for false imprisonment as a result of refusing to release train doors. I'm also aware, worryingly, of crew who will still do it.

Easy way around that (if feasible) is to hold the train outside the station rather than in the platform.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Easy way around that (if feasible) is to hold the train outside the station rather than in the platform.

Absolutely, as has always been the advice. Having said that, with the current trend for hitting the nearest egress and skipping across running lines that advice may well change!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Absolutely, as has always been the advice. Having said that, with the current trend for hitting the nearest egress and skipping across running lines that advice may well change!

Against a gunman or knifeman I absolutely would pull the egress, look both ways and run off across a field.

I would rather have to stand up in court and defend a charge of trespass than be dead.
 

cambsy

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2011
Messages
899
The incident on the virgin XC Voyager, if memory correct, was there was a domestic incident, violence etc, and a passenger intervened and got stabbed to death for his helping, then the assailant went berserk, smashed doors etc, as the TM tried to lock him in, think they got him in the end, cant remember his sentence, maybe someone else can shed more light on it.
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,092
Knife attack at Oxenholme rings a bell?

There have (allegedly) been instances of crew coming very close to being prosecuted for false imprisonment as a result of refusing to release train doors. I'm also aware, worryingly, of crew who will still do it.
I very much doubt any such prosecution would stand up in court unless they had physically locked the doors meaning that the emergency door releases are inoperative. Or they've physically locked someone in a toilet.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,679
Location
Another planet...
I think sometimes those of us who know how to behave on public transport underestimate just how many "miscreants" train crew have to deal with.

Earlier today I boarded a TPE service at Dewsbury (the 1350 to Piccadilly) where having allowed folks to disembark before boarding in the front doors of the middle carriage of 3, I was barged out of the way of a (presumably) drunkard who was being kicked off by the guard. Said drunkard was holding a lidless coffee cup of an unidentified liquid and proceeded to tip a large amount of said liquid all over the place as he exited the carriage (He missed me, just, but managed to hit the guard, another passenger, and the floor of the vestibule).
I don't know if he was ticketless or was just thrown off for being disruptive, but it's a real shame that staff have to deal with this sort of thing even on a Wednesday afternoon.

There are all kinds of reasons why the normal way of working might be suspended (defective unit, disruptive passengers) and it is a PITA if it delays us, but being train crew is not an easy job it seems. They usually can't vet people before they board!
 

Cumberlandkev

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2011
Messages
39
Location
Penrith
The incident on the virgin XC Voyager, if memory correct, was there was a domestic incident, violence etc, and a passenger intervened and got stabbed to death for his helping, then the assailant went berserk, smashed doors etc, as the TM tried to lock him in, think they got him in the end, cant remember his sentence, maybe someone else can shed more light on it.

Thomas Lee Woods. 21 yrs imprisonment.
 

Eric

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
594
Location
West Yorkshire
That seems a rational explanation.

I may be wrong, but it definitely appeared to be the driver.

Why else would he walk up and down the train before opening the doors?

I was sat in the front carriage, so had a good enough view. I've never seen this operation before.
 

BMIFlyer

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2017
Messages
723
I would suggest that the guard may have been required to travel in the front cab due to a failure of a safety system....

This mostly no longer applies, as per the rule book.

The only time a guard can sit in the leading cab is for failure of the vigilance system, or to help the driver examine the line, or for any specific reason given by control, such as a broken windscreen obscuring the drivers view, or where permission has been sought due to the driver having an incident (for example a near miss and said driver feels shaken up).

Usually when a safety system is isolated, the train is terminated at an appropriate station, say Leeds, Huddersfield, Selby, etc and wouldn't continue the full length of its journey (and carry on picking up / dropping off passengers).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top