Then you would be VERY wrong!
Apologies - should have read "...has a little understanding..."
Then you would be VERY wrong!
What has failed to be mentioned is the reason why Control made the request. I take into consideration the other, quite valid, points by the way. If nobody is aware of this then........ Perhaps the BTP/Police were aware that there happened to be somebody on the train that needed to remain on there???
You cannot lock passengers on a mainline train with no emergency egress just so the police can arrest someone.
For someone who purports to be interested in railways, your lack of historic knowledge is surprising!
It's 3 of them!
Apologies - should have read "...has a little understanding..."
Then you would be VERY wrong!
For someone who purports to be interested in railways, your lack of historic knowledge is surprising!
It's 3 of them!
Historic knowledge is a wonderful thing.
Such as knowing that a train with locked doors was a major contribution to one of the worst rail disasters in the UK, 80 deaths and over 200 injuries in Armagh in 1889.
I know much regulation was written following that incident including block working and continuous train brakes being made compulsory for passenger railways. I am not sure if locking passenger cars was also banned by legislation at that time also but the practice was heavily criticised and considered unacceptable.
I see no reason why the practice should be considered any less acceptable today and I would take issue with being locked on any railway carriage, heritage or not.
And again you would be wrong.
Yes I was a signalman, but I am also a volunteer on a local NG railway, and all I am doing is pointing out that on the 3 NG railways I mentioned the approved method of working is to lock all doors on trains.Llanigraham, aren't you a signalman? Would have thought that questioning the rule knowledge of any rail staff is putting yourself on dodgy ground, but a group of people who are known for being hot on the rules, then it is a particularly bad idea to question them!! Farleigh. I'd stop digging lol!
Historic knowledge is a wonderful thing.
Such as knowing that a train with locked doors was a major contribution to one of the worst rail disasters in the UK, 80 deaths and over 200 injuries in Armagh in 1889.
I know much regulation was written following that incident including block working and continuous train brakes being made compulsory for passenger railways. I am not sure if locking passenger cars was also banned by legislation at that time also but the practice was heavily criticised and considered unacceptable.
I see no reason why the practice should be considered any less acceptable today and I would take issue with being locked on any railway carriage, heritage or not.
What else would you expect!?So much speculation over something that doesn't really have much fact or truth in it.
Yes I was a signalman, but I am also a volunteer on a local NG railway, and all I am doing is pointing out that on the 3 NG railways I mentioned the approved method of working is to lock all doors on trains.
I am not questioning anyone.
What I am suggesting is that some people on here have made a too generalised statement, should do some research first and should not attempt to disagree or ridicule someone who has experience of other places or systems.
Farleigh, apology accepted.
Then I suggest you make a formal complaint to the ORR as that is their Approved Method of Working on the 3 railways I have mentioned. I suggest that they are far more qualified to make that decision than you.
the approved method of working is to lock all doors on trains.
Who on earth thought THAT was a sensible piece of design?!
I'm still surprised they don't have an emergency unlocking feature though.
Do they perhaps have window hammers?
No idea, you would hope they might but if they don't have any form egress then they probably don't have hammers either.
Well, I thought that perhaps one might explain the other being allowed!
I'm still surprised they don't have an emergency unlocking feature though.
The doors are locked before the train leaves the stations by the Guard walking down the train with a T Key.
And has been said several times, the operating system used on these lines has been approved by the ORR, so I fail to understand why some people are unable to accept that they are happy with it.
Perhaps some of you need to come over here and see just how professionally these lines are run. Hopefully you might all learn something.
Not unusual at my place either.Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that.
At my place out version of “control” routinely instructs staff to take actions that would breach the rule book. The staff need to stand up for themselves and refuse to carry out these instructions.
Guess who will get the blame if someone is injured or killed.
Without knowing the full specifics, l I would hope something similar would happen here
Sounds like someone in control is only thinking about the immediate situation. I suppose they were hoping to avoid a Lewisham style mass uncontrolled evacuation which would have meant more people to clear off the tracks before service resumed.
I can almost envisage the raib, btp, cps and court transcripts now, all incredulous that this was ordered or was actually done.
On the Lewisham stranding thread, I asked a question whether any of the command chain for incidents within Network Rail / TOC route control functions, perhaps in a senior position, who might perhaps have a job title like "Senior Operating Officer", is empowered to consider and if necessary sign off waivers to elements of the operating rules? However no one commented on the question and given the discussion in this thread so far around rules, it seemed to be a good place to ask again.
I am not seeking to comment on whether the actions reported in this thread would have been appropriate if accurate, but to establish whether there is a formal process for a officially recognised competent person to issue waivers to the National Rail rule book in specific circumstances. Such a process does exist on at least some of the other non-heritage UK rail networks.
The rule book is inviolable
The rule book is inviolable and the rules within exist for very sound reasons, it can’t be tampered around with just on a whim, no matter what OTT title the tamperer has.
Plus lead responsibility lies with the signaller (or in certain situations the electrical controller) on Network Rail infrastructure and an effective group of signallers and controllers on duty during an incident will work together to find a solution within the rule book, or if one isn’t available, to do the best for the passengers on the train. Unfortunately some quasi-Messianic figure authorising rules violations in such a situation will likely result in injury or death sooner or later
Zs1 indeed....I do agree with your principle that manual overrides have a habit of causing people to die (Zs1, anybody?), and the Rule Book has been around long enough that it does manage to cover most situations, but how does that work if it's something the Rule Book doesn't actually deal with?