I noticed that earlier this week. Took a 333 to Menston and another back to Leeds. On the way out it kept announcing "the next station is Guiseley" on a three minute loop. Similar story on the way back. It would be infuriating if stuck on board for ages. There must be a way for the guard to switch it off.Also if I have to listen to the cheery chap auto-announcing that "The next station is Leeds" for a significant period of time longer I may go slightly insane and just start burbling it to myself.
Railways do seem to be an easy target for this sort of behaviour. I'm wondering how the police would react if a similar incident occurred at an airport.Firstly. I don't think it is appropriate to comment on the guy who got himself into the situation he did. I rather doubt in his mind the thought, "I'll bring the entire county and beyond to a grinding halt" ever figured. Rumour circulated that he was tempted down by being offered a McDonalds, if that is true, he must have been a very tormented soul indeed.
My issue is with Northern's lack of response to it's train crews. Never in my life have I seen such a massive logistical issue dealt with by such an appalling lack of response. There is something very wrong when you have to rely on 'Open Train Times' to figure out what is happening, and where you are heading. 'Open Train Times' has become my best friend, and most reliable source of information. Northern control has become a sad joke. They have to do better.
Railways do seem to be an easy target for this sort of behaviour. I'm wondering how the police would react if a similar incident occurred at an airport.
I hope so. Some of the comments here and elsewhere do not give me confidence there would be a consistent response.For somewhere like Apperley Bridge I would imagine that crews would contact control to arrange road transport?
I noticed that earlier this week. Took a 333 to Menston and another back to Leeds. On the way out it kept announcing "the next station is Guiseley" on a three minute loop. Similar story on the way back. It would be infuriating if stuck on board for ages. There must be a way for the guard to switch it off.
There have been a number of instances of people potentially with Mental health issues who have been charged with offences relating to roads disruption, there were a couple reported in the Manchester local newspaper last month who caused Motorways to be closed, one was charged with causing a public nuisance and the other charged with being a excluded traffic on a Motorway.Surely they wouldn't charge someone if they were in a mental health crisis sounds more like he must have been a protestor
It certainly shouldn't happen, but we have such a weird attitude to mental health in this country that I am sadly not surprised.Seems strange that we were all led to believe it was a potential suicide situation. Hes appeared in court today and In full, he pleaded guilty to 'Obstructing an engine or carriage by using the railway by an unlawful act / wilful omission / neglect'
Surely they wouldn't charge someone if they were in a mental health crisis sounds more like he must have been a protestor
Because dealing with that kind of situation the last thing you need is thousands of public gawpers, and potentially hecklers, making the poor guy feel even worse than he already must have been. Get everyone out, turn off the announcements, create as calm a situation as possible, and take as much time as needed to resolve the situation positively. There are always alternatives for journeys (buses, taxis, etc.) and I'm sure in extremis staff will have done everything they could to help, but saving the guys life comes first.
Reiterate all that. As regards 'hecklers', if that sort of thing becomes common then, to nip it in the bud, an arrest or two (plenty of laws/public order offences to choose from) with maximum publicity and an appearance before the local beaks would work wonders: even better, a Community Service Order penalty to work with the vulnerable.Quoted because there's no Like button on here. The last sentence is spot on.
Quoted because there's no Like button on here. The last sentence is spot on.
....
My issue is with Northern's lack of response to it's train crews. Never in my life have I seen such a massive logistical issue dealt with by such an appalling lack of response. There is something very wrong when you have to rely on 'Open Train Times' to figure out what is happening, and where you are heading. 'Open Train Times' has become my best friend, and most reliable source of information. Northern control has become a sad joke. They have to do better.
...
So from my point of view things generally worked. Except Northern's end which seemed inept.
The Leeds-side of the operation is managed from York ROC, where the operations floor is split into:In what way should Northern have done it better?
Although I am not aware of Northern Control staffing arrangements, I suspect there were probably 5 or 6 people attempting to sort this out and deal with a large number of train crew who want to bail out as soon as the brown stuff starts flying.
Losing access to Leeds station in the morning peak is not an easy situation to solve irrespective of what the contingency plan says should happen.
Maybe the volume of incoming calls prevented outgoing communication ? A problem I have found when attempting to deal with (smaller scale) incidents
Guard can’t do anything about it. On a 333 it is only programable from the cab with the drivers key in. Must have had the handset off the cradle so they couldn’t hear it themselves!I noticed that earlier this week. Took a 333 to Menston and another back to Leeds. On the way out it kept announcing "the next station is Guiseley" on a three minute loop. Similar story on the way back. It would be infuriating if stuck on board for ages. There must be a way for the guard to switch it off.
In a slightly Deja vu moment this morning a topless man was spotted by an LNER driver on the tracks near Headingley, eventually he was bought on board the LNER train and then dropped off at Headingley and met by a police van
It could have ended up much worse had it not been for the excellent observation of the LNER driver I imagine!
saving the guys life comes first.
Well I’m not sure saving the guy’s life should necessarily come first. He’s put himself in harm’s way and should be expected to face the possible consequences. It might not be someone suffering depression ( and the Police felt he was well enough to appear in court).What if it was someone on drink/drugs, a climate (or anything else) protester or someone making a political point (e.g. pro or anti Brexit) ? Why should they be allowed to cause so much disruption? What if he had several days’ supply of food and drink and couldn’t be talked down-do you let the disruption drag on?
Shouldn’t the well-being of ordinary railway passengers come first? What if someone on one of the stuck trains had had a heart attack and died because the emergency services couldn’t reach him on time? Or similarly a woman had gone into early childbirth?
The first priority should be to get trapped passengers off trains. Then run a service as close as you can to the timetable without putting anyone else at risk
Mental health difficulties are an illness. In this case, a severe, life threatening illness which needed urgent, life saving intervention in just the same way a person having a heart attack needs urgent intervention to survive. That intervention necessarily includes creating the right environment.Well I’m not sure saving the guy’s life should necessarily come first. He’s put himself in harm’s way and should be expected to face the possible consequences. It might not be someone suffering depression ( and the Police felt he was well enough to appear in court).What if it was someone on drink/drugs, a climate (or anything else) protester or someone making a political point (e.g. pro or anti Brexit) ? Why should they be allowed to cause so much disruption? What if he had several days’ supply of food and drink and couldn’t be talked down-do you let the disruption drag on?
Shouldn’t the well-being of ordinary railway passengers come first? What if someone on one of the stuck trains had had a heart attack and died because the emergency services couldn’t reach him on time? Or similarly a woman had gone into early childbirth?
The first priority should be to get trapped passengers off trains. Then run a service as close as you can to the timetable without putting anyone else at risk
Well I’m not sure saving the guy’s life should necessarily come first. He’s put himself in harm’s way and should be expected to face the possible consequences. It might not be someone suffering depression ( and the Police felt he was well enough to appear in court).What if it was someone on drink/drugs, a climate (or anything else) protester or someone making a political point (e.g. pro or anti Brexit) ? Why should they be allowed to cause so much disruption? What if he had several days’ supply of food and drink and couldn’t be talked down-do you let the disruption drag on?
Shouldn’t the well-being of ordinary railway passengers come first? What if someone on one of the stuck trains had had a heart attack and died because the emergency services couldn’t reach him on time? Or similarly a woman had gone into early childbirth?
The first priority should be to get trapped passengers off trains. Then run a service as close as you can to the timetable without putting anyone else at risk
Absolutely. Assume the worst, and deal with the situation accordingly. I don't see any other option. Where I have a problem with the actions of the authorities in many cases like this one, though, is once it's been determined that the person involved is in the situation they are because they are unwell.I guess the authorities have to assume the worst, that the person is capable of causing harm to themselves and also to others. After that danger is removed is the time to assess whether they need treatment for mental illness or charging with any offence.
Section 136 shouldn't be needed in the case of prolonged incidents like the one here. A properly resourced NHS would be able to send a trained doctor, and an AMHP (social worker, nurse, psychologist, or occupational therapist trained in the mental health act) to make a better assessment and, if there is no other safe option, detain the person under Section 4.Do BTP use section 136 in these circumstances?
Unfortunately, the "not our problem" stance adopted by many police forces criminalises those who have done nothing wrong other than to be suffering from an illness. This can mean that, when someone recovers - as most do from even serious mental ill health - their future prospects in terms of career, university, travel, etc. can be severely restricted through absolutely no fault of their own.
And this is before we even begin to consider the availability of a suitable 'place of safety' for someone detained under s136. The lack of mental health beds mean these patients often end up in crowded A&E departments or, worse, police cells; neither of which are anywhere even near appropriate.
If they were so pressed for time and resources, you would have thought that they would jump at the chance not to have to go to court and prosecute someone and pass them into the NHS instead? I don't doubt that resources and funding are an issue for the police, but in these cases I am pretty convinced this is deliberate statistic-boosting by the police. These are easy convictions that make their stats look good, and screw the fact that they're destroying people's lives in the process.but is that not down to time pressure brought about by lack of resources? The police are so stretched they do not have the time to do anything other than process and pass on people.