A Conductor's lot is sometimes not a happy one!

[Mugby]

Returning from Nottingham to Derby this evening, I was intending to get the 18.41 XC Birmingham service but it was rather well loaded and was a couple of minutes late.
I noticed on the boards that the 18.20 EMT service to Matlock hadn't yet gone and was expected to depart at 18.50 so I thought I'd get that instead. Somewhat strangely it was being shown as first stop Derby, also not stopping at Whatstandwell, Cromford or Matlock Bath, probably because it was late.

It was on Platform 4B and the conductor made an announcement (albeit not too audible) before leaving that it was first stop Derby. When he came round to check tickets, there were several people who wanted Beeston and Attenborough and they were none too happy when he told them they would have to go to Derby.

Approaching Attenborough, we had caught up with the XC service which had stopped at Beeston and guess what; we were brought to a stand in Attenborough platform. One rather strident woman was shouting at the conductor 'I demand you open the door NOW!' (it was a single Cl.153) The conductor was trying to explain it wasn't a station stop, just a signal check but she and the rest wouldn't accept it and seemed to think the hapless conductor had gone mad!
The woman then pulled the pass-com, the driver contacted the conductor and told him he may as well open the door and let them off. About ten people left the train not believing a word the conductor had said and thinking it was all pure belligerence.

On arrival at Derby, the conductor then had to explain that the train would not be stopping at Whatstandwell, Cromford or Matlock Bath and passengers for those stations should stay on the train to Matlock because it would be all stops on the way back!

You have to feel for the conductor when circumstances conspire to make them look completely foolish in front of a train load of passengers!

 

[Qwerty133]

Sounds like EMT didn't really think it through about missing the stops at Whatstandwell Cromford and Matlock Bath, and to be honest I'm surprised that the conductor didn't disregard controls instructions, as they'd be unable to find out, due to the lack of recording data on the branch. Not calling would take about 2 mins off the journey time, also being 30 mins late I'm surprised that they didn't call on the way, and not on the way back as they'd have got to Whatstandwell literally 2 minutes before it should have got there going the other way, so passengers travelling towards Derby could've double backed to Matlock, as I've been allowed to in the past when the train was 30 ish mins late.
As for the issue at Attenborough, the driver was silly to tell the conductor to open the doors, as it tells passengers that breaking the rules would get them what they want.

 

[306024]

Control may not always make the best decisions in hindsight, but as for advocating disregarding their instructions, that is an interesting proposal, not one that would enhance your career if discovered.

As for calling the driver silly for appearing to apply common sense (would you want to have this irate woman on board) well it would have been interesting to see your reaction in a similar situation.

 

[455driver]

Sounds like EMT didn't really think it through about missing the stops at Whatstandwell Cromford and Matlock Bath, and to be honest I'm surprised that the conductor didn't disregard controls instructions, as they'd be unable to find out, due to the lack of recording data on the branch. Not calling would take about 2 mins off the journey time, also being 30 mins late I'm surprised that they didn't call on the way, and not on the way back as they'd have got to Whatstandwell literally 2 minutes before it should have got there going the other way, so passengers travelling towards Derby could've double backed to Matlock, as I've been allowed to in the past when the train was 30 ish mins late.
As for the issue at Attenborough, the driver was silly to tell the conductor to open the doors, as it tells passengers that breaking the rules would get them what they want.

What if they do a routine download and see the interlock being broken?

 

[scotsman]

What if they do a routine download and see the interlock being broken?

Might well have happened if the driver had gone out to the signal anyway?

 

[Qwerty133]

What if they do a routine download and see the interlock being broken?

Do control really have so little trust of train crew to do that kind of thing?

 

[TOCDriver]

As for the issue at Attenborough, the driver was silly to tell the conductor to open the doors, as it tells passengers that breaking the rules would get them what they want.

I'm surprised the driver did this on TM / Guard managed services since the TM / Guard has overall responsibility for passenger management of the train. The driver has no authority whatsoever to suggest this (unless it's a safety critical event).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Sounds like EMT didn't really think it through about missing the stops at Whatstandwell Cromford and Matlock Bath, and to be honest I'm surprised that the conductor didn't disregard controls instructions, as they'd be unable to find out, due to the lack of recording data on the branch. Not calling would take about 2 mins off the journey time, also being 30 mins late I'm surprised that they didn't call on the way, and not on the way back as they'd have got to Whatstandwell literally 2 minutes before it should have got there going the other way, so passengers travelling towards Derby could've double backed to Matlock, as I've been allowed to in the past when the train was 30 ish mins late....

I imagine it was a decision based on potential Delay Repay claims (guess how long the delay has to be for that) and fines for delay minutes. I assume EMT were in line to foot the bill on this one......

....As for the issue at Attenborough, the driver was silly to tell the conductor to open the doors, as it tells passengers that breaking the rules would get them what they want.

Realistically, the staff had three options:

• Let them off the train.
• Get the police to escort them off the train when they continue to pull the pass comm, delaying the train even further.
• Cancel the service and turf everyone off for the same reason. Causing much complaint and more delay

Bear in mind that if the police turned up and got the passenger to do what the passenger wants to do anyway (get off the train), they'd probably remind the staff that they have wasted their time and let the passenger go 'with a warning'.

Yes it looks like they are giving in, but it is the lesser of three evils.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What if they do a routine download and see the interlock being broken?

The crew would have a 'please explain' possibly followed by tea and biscuits while they explain they were in a no-win situation and chose the best option at the time (or they could try to cover it up which seems like a pointless thing to do here).

 

[hassaanhc]

Bit of a tough situation. One would hope common sense prevails and passengers are allowed to leave as they were meant to stop there but calling pattern changed. However management might not share the same view and take a hard line on that as it effectively breaches some rules. One of those where you'd lose in the court of public opinion, can you imagine the headlines?!
They're not the only ones having such issues, SWT had the same twice on Thursday and once on Saturday where a 455+455 stopped at Virginia Water for 9 mins but according to rules the doors could not be released. I'm sure common sense did prevail there and guard used saloon door as local to dispatch, otherwise I'd have seen something on Twitter about it

 

[Tomnick]

I'm surprised the driver did this on TM / Guard managed services since the TM / Guard has overall responsibility for passenger management of the train. The driver has no authority whatsoever to suggest this (unless it's a safety critical event).

No, but the guard surely can't do it without the driver's authority, as it's not a booked stop? Seems fair for the driver to observe that they'll be detained there for long enough to the guard to do his stuff and advise the guard accordingly. As long as it's all within the rules, it's a sensible course of action even if it's technically contradicting Control's instructions (but not to the detriment of what they were trying to achieve).

 

[hassaanhc]

I imagine it was a decision based on potential Delay Repay claims (guess how long the delay has to be for that) and fines for delay minutes. I assume EMT were in line to foot the bill on this one......



Realistically, the staff had three options:

• Let them off the train.
• Get the police to escort them off the train when they continue to pull the pass comm, delaying the train even further.
• Cancel the service and turf everyone off for the same reason. Causing much complaint and more delay

Bear in mind that if the police turned up and got the passenger to do what the passenger wants to do anyway (get off the train), they'd probably remind the staff that they have wasted their time and let the passenger go 'with a warning'.

Yes it looks like they are giving in, but it is the lesser of three evils.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The crew would have a 'please explain' possibly followed by tea and biscuits while they explain they were in a no-win situation and chose the best option at the time (or they could try to cover it up which seems like a pointless thing to do here).

Covering up not a good idea I think, say the guard said they opened saloon door to dispatch and pax pushed past, then cctv would be checked and that would be found to not be true. Remember honesty is the best policy and all that

 

[Qwerty133]

I imagine it was a decision based on potential Delay Repay claims (guess how long the delay has to be for that) and fines for delay minutes. I assume EMT were in line to foot the bill on this one

Real time trains doesn't give a reason for the delay, but the NRE app says 'Delay on a previous journey', which is simply not true for the train which had been sat at P4 for over half an hour by 18:20 according to RTT. Guessing that a member of crew had come in on 1L13 and needed a break, as that's the only thing that would make that make sense. 1L13 was the about the same down the whole journey from Liverpool, and it's incoming from Norwich got delayed near Dore South junction and further delayed near Chinley north Jn, but nothing seemed to be in front of it.
Also interesting to note, if it did end up skipping the stops between Ambergate and Matlock it made up exactly 1 single minute.

 

[GadgetMan]

I'm surprised the driver did this on TM / Guard managed services since the TM / Guard has overall responsibility for passenger management of the train. The driver has no authority whatsoever to suggest this (unless it's a safety critical event).

Yes it's the Guard's train. But we all work as a team, nothing wrong with a Driver making a 'suggestion' or as I see it offering the Guard another option to diffuse the situation.

 

[Mugby]

It was indeed sat at Pl.4 when I entered the station at around 18.30. The crew arrived just minutes before it departed.

When I wrote my account, I completely forgot that there may have been passengers waiting at Whatstandwell, Cromford and Matlock Bath to travel to Matlock!

 

[TOCDriver]

Yes it's the Guard's train. But we all work as a team, nothing wrong with a Driver making a 'suggestion' or as I see it offering the Guard another option to diffuse the situation.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with working as a team ( when the situation arises) but on my train the driver is too busy concentrating on his job and the road ahead without supervising the guard and his management of passengers. If the guard requires assistance and advice, then I shall give it. But I will not start throwing my weight around or sticking my nose into their business if he / she doesn't.

 

[BestWestern]

In that situation the most sensible option would indeed be to release the doors (or more likely just a singe local door) and allow passengers to alight. If the train has come to a stand in the platform anyhow then I see no reason to not to, and control need not be involved. A quick conversation with the Driver, and the Guard simply offloads said pax and then dispatches the train as normal when the signal clears. No time lost, happier passengers and avoidance of potential conflict. Sometimes control simply don't need to be involved, in spite of the current mentality that the responsibility of the train crew should be watered down to the point where any and every decision needs to involve a telephone call. If they don't *need* to know, don't bother them with it! We have a similar ethos among many of our more proactive chaps, often deployed in this very scenario - the system used is that you don't phone control and ask, you do it and then phone control and tell them. Works much better!

 

[455driver]

No, but the guard surely can't do it without the driver's authority, as it's not a booked stop? Seems fair for the driver to observe that they'll be detained there for long enough to the guard to do his stuff and advise the guard accordingly. As long as it's all within the rules, it's a sensible course of action even if it's technically contradicting Control's instructions (but not to the detriment of what they were trying to achieve).

Indeed, probably find it was a joint decision between the traincrew with nobody 'telling' the other one what to do.

I have another word for 'control' but its best not aired on a family forum!

 

[Tomnick]

I have another word for 'control' but its best not aired on a family forum!

Same here, of course! I very quickly learnt to either wait until after the event and tell them what I'd done or, for things that need a wider overview, tell them what I want to do and ask them if they've got any objections. It's no use simply asking them what to do, unless you're prepared for a long wait. That said, we have got some brilliant controllers - others, perhaps through no fault of their own, haven't got such a good understanding of the finer details of the area.

I'm reminded of a fairly long and detailed conversation that I had with Control last week. It slowly went, on their part, from "I'm trying to find a path for an extra train" to "can you find a path for an extra train?" with the added bonus of "run other trains early if you need to". To be fair, it made life much easier for everyone, and got the job sorted much more quickly!

 

[bb21]

Surely I can't be the only one to feel that in this case, especially with the amended calling pattern and just a single 153 with a faulty speaker, the guard would have been better off announcing it in the carriage prior to departure.

Saves much of the potential grief. Of course, that is assuming that the train is not overly full.

 

[High Dyke]

Do control really have so little trust of train crew to do that kind of thing?

I wouldn't put it passed them to check...

 

[Qwerty133]

Same here, of course! I very quickly learnt to either wait until after the event and tell them what I'd done or, for things that need a wider overview, tell them what I want to do and ask them if they've got any objections. It's no use simply asking them what to do, unless you're prepared for a long wait. That said, we have got some brilliant controllers - others, perhaps through no fault of their own, haven't got such a good understanding of the finer details of the area.

I'm reminded of a fairly long and detailed conversation that I had with Control last week. It slowly went, on their part, from "I'm trying to find a path for an extra train" to "can you find a path for an extra train?" with the added bonus of "run other trains early if you need to". To be fair, it made life much easier for everyone, and got the job sorted much more quickly!

I'm hoping that it was freight trains they said you could send early.

 

[Tomnick]

I'm hoping that it was freight trains they said you could send early.

As it happens, on this occasion, it was - but, earlier in the year, I made my own regulating decision to run a passenger train 17 minutes early. I can't see a problem* with that!

* - it was diverted, and had a shedload of pathing allowance approaching a junction on the diversionary route to allow two trains to run on the 'main' line first, with another four in fairly (given the length of one of the sections on a Sunday) quick succession to follow from both directions at the junction. The first train off the main was a few minutes late - I had a margin to keep the diverted passenger running early (and, most importantly, await time at its next advertised stop - I know that's what you're getting at), so did just that rather than trying to fit it into a non-existant margin on its booked path!

 

[455driver]

Surely I can't be the only one to feel that in this case, especially with the amended calling pattern and just a single 153 with a faulty speaker, the guard would have been better off announcing it in the carriage prior to departure.

Saves much of the potential grief. Of course, that is assuming that the train is not overly full.

All well and good if the guard knows the speaker is faulty!
There is no way of knowing if the speakers are working or what sort of volume they are kicking out if the guard is in the cab doing the announcements.