underbank
Established Member
I really don’t understand why some people seem to feel that a ban should be the first resort. Yes it’s a viable option, and one which might be necessary should nothing else meaningfully deal with the problem, however I don’t feel we are at that point (yet).
And if we’re going to ban a few things which cause problems, can we do something to prevent various types of sports fans from travelling en masse, please, and while we’re at it ground all evening services which many users treat as a toilet!
And how about banning pubs and clubs from opening on a Friday night because of the damage/mess/harm/fights/injuries caused by drunken revellers? Any action has to be proportional. You can't eliminate ALL risks, there has to be a balance.
I'd be more interested in looking at how trespassers got onto the line, given how we've been spending millions over the past couple of decades on fencing - has it been damaged in these specific places or has it been installed badly or are there still places without fencing? Surely Network Rails' first priority has to be to make these specific access points safe by repairing/installing the fencing. (Obviously irrelevant for crossings etc, but perhaps they should install CCTV on all crossings?). As for stations, how about the TOCs consider crowd control when recruiting, i.e. don't employ short/thin people with quiet voices - make it part of the job and recruit accordingly so station staff have more of a "presence" to help them be more assertive to stop people crowding before it gets out of hand.
At the end of the day, some elements of Joe Public will always be pillocks, whether they're facebook selfie merchants or professional lifetime trainspotters. The railway as a whole has to deal with that. You can't just "ban everything"!