BTP and PTS

[O L Leigh]

It's rather a shame the thread had to go and get spoiled, as I would have liked the right of reply.

----

Originally Posted by O L Leigh
The problem is that whether or not BTP or the civil Police are PTS, the need to wait for a MOM removes the distinction. There should be no need for all regular beat officers to be passed PTS competent if they are going to be walked out by a MOM who would be able to fulfil the role of COSS just the same as BTP officers are currently having to do.

Originally Posted by the sniper
Pardon my ignorance, but is PTS not required to go trackside is you're accompanied by someone who's PTS certified acting as a COSS then, even on open lines where trains are still passing under caution?

I forgot to say before, but I understand that the BTP's PC's are still allowed to walk around sidings without a NR MOM, so the PTS certification does still does still get used.

To take your first point, of course that is permitted. When I was still under training for my PTS we were wandering around the ECML outside Hornsey Depot while trains were passing at linespeed, never mind any of this namby-pamby "at caution" malarky. We weren't yet PTS competent and were under the care of an instructor who was fulfilling the role of COSS. It's also how dignitories and members of the press are dealt with when there is a need to access a lineside location.

Originally Posted by O L Leigh
I think you may also be guilty of overstating the difference in laws.

Originally Posted by the sniper
I think that was OT rather then myself?

Was it? My apologies. I must confess that I only skimmed most of the thread because of the amount of daft arguments so I didn't pick up on all that.

Originally Posted by O L Leigh
Mind you, a more joined-up approach to policing would help with building up a more coherent picture of criminal behaviour. After all, someone who steals cabling from the railways is likely to have stolen cabling from other places too.

Originally Posted by the sniper
But it could equally make it less joined up, as from what I've read most people who steal railway cabling are perpetual railway offenders, as stealing railway cabling becomes their speciality. For example, imagine that there were a spate of railway cable thefts between Birmingham and Nottingham, instead of them all falling into the jurisdiction of the BTP, they could be split between up to 5 forces. Surely it's easier for just one specialist force to deal with it?

Maybe. Maybe not. In some circumstances that would be correct but not in others. It strikes me that we'll never reach a definitive conclusion to this because it will depend on factors determined by patterns of criminal behaviour that can change over time.

O L Leigh

**EDIT**

Why won't the thread title stay all caps?

 

[Old Timer]

I think this BT Police PTS situation needs a little clarification.

Firstly PTS only allows an Individual to walk along the line. It does not allow two or more people to walk together. In this case either a COSS is appointed or they separate by 60feet.

A group (which is two or more people WALKING or working) must be under the control of a COSS and a Site Warden or Lookoutman appointed.

Very few MOMs are competent to act as a COSS although Network Rail seem to think that the various competencies do not apply to their staff - hence the number of (increasing) incidents and injuries. Before anyone can go onto the line with trains running, a Site Warden or Lookoutman must be appointed, must be in the correct position and the system MUST be tested by a train FIRST.

COSSes are required to undergo continual assessment - unless that is another Network Rail requirement that they only apply to Contractors ? I certainly knew of no arrangements for MOMs to have these assessments done. Without them their COSS Competence should lapse.

I would imagine it is for this reason (initial training followed by continual assessment in the duties) that BT Police now require to be accompanied. Truly the Railway Industry in the UK has lost the whole plot.

In an emergency any member of staff may go onto the line to protect life or prevent danger arising.

Regarding the overstating of Laws.
For the sake of clarity, Railway byelaws and Legislation confers greater rights to BT Police Officers and indeed Railways Staff than it does "ordinary" Police.

I am not sure who made the comment but I do find it irritating for those who do not have the knowledge to start commenting on the accuracy of my posts on the basis of what they THINK is the case. I was trained (along with the various other course attendees over the years) by a BT Police Inspector from Leeds many years ago on Railway Legislation and our powers. Principal Railway Legislation has basically remained unchanged.

 

[Stigy]

BTP Police Officer's do have PTS...Was that what the question was?

 

[First class]

BTP Police Officer's do have PTS...Was that what the question was?

The Liverpool officers do not have PTS. I had this discussion yesterday with a couple of them.

They ARE trained in general safety, (how to obtain an isolation, e.g. via 170), and are familiar with the 507 and 508 emergency equipment and evacuation technique.

 

[Stigy]

The Liverpool officers do not have PTS. I had this discussion yesterday with a couple of them.

They ARE trained in general safety, (how to obtain an isolation, e.g. via 170), and are familiar with the 507 and 508 emergency equipment and evacuation technique.

I stand corrected then. The BTP officers I have worked with all had PTS, maybe it's not the same everywhere then? This was in the London South area.

 

[First class]

They should respond to a FOI request.

 

[the sniper]

To take your first point, of course that is permitted. When I was still under training for my PTS we were wandering around the ECML outside Hornsey Depot while trains were passing at linespeed, never mind any of this namby-pamby "at caution" malarky. We weren't yet PTS competent and were under the care of an instructor who was fulfilling the role of COSS. It's also how dignitories and members of the press are dealt with when there is a need to access a lineside location.

Ah, seems obvious when you say it. Thanks for the info.

Maybe. Maybe not. In some circumstances that would be correct but not in others. It strikes me that we'll never reach a definitive conclusion to this because it will depend on factors determined by patterns of criminal behaviour that can change over time.

I agree, but seeing as the BTP's existence isn't being called into question by the powers that be (at least in public) and no moves are being made to investigate a merger (the only recent review decided against a merger with a HO force), I think we have to assume that the BTP is safe at least until the end of the 2012 Olympics. If they continue to deliver reductions in railway crime figures, surely you've got to presume their continued existence is relatively safe, especially if they don't raise their fee?

I would imagine it is for this reason (initial training followed by continual assessment in the duties) that BT Police now require to be accompanied. Truly the Railway Industry in the UK has lost the whole plot.

Interesting, thanks OT.

BTP Police Officer's do have PTS...Was that what the question was?

The Liverpool officers do not have PTS. I had this discussion yesterday with a couple of them.

As I said in the last thread, from what I've been told, most BTP PC's have PTS, but a minority don't. I wouldn't be surprised if this was down to a lack of funds or the BTP (or NR) policy that their PC's can't go on mainlines without NR.

 

[GB]

I would have thought that any PTS certifications the BTP have would be similar to that of train crew where by it is part of thier initial training and on going rules rather than the Sentinel programme? If this is the case then the cost outlay shouldn't be too high?

 

[CarterUSM]

I would have thought that any PTS certifications the BTP have would be similar to that of train crew where by it is part of thier initial training and on going rules rather than the Sentinel programme? If this is the case then the cost outlay shouldn't be too high?

I was thinking that myself, and am surprised if it isn't the case.

 

[Old Timer]

I would have thought that any PTS certifications the BTP have would be similar to that of train crew where by it is part of thier initial training and on going rules rather than the Sentinel programme? If this is the case then the cost outlay shouldn't be too high?

Traincrew PTS does not confer authority to set up protection of themselves or work groups.

It is simply a basic PTS designed to ensure their safety when walking on the line and when dealing with an incident to a train.

The rules that apply to protecting staff on the outside of stationary trains are not appropriate for the protection of staff on the track.

Staff working on the track fall under the Sentinel competence database scheme, which requires use of all of the Competencies to be regularly assessed and documented.

More than one person going onto the line requires complicated protocols to be implemented and a series of documents to be produced and completed before that happens.

 

[GB]

Traincrew PTS does not confer authority to set up protection of themselves or work groups.

I don't believe I said otherwise, at least it was not ment to be inferred that way.

It is simply a basic PTS designed to ensure their safety when walking on the line and when dealing with an incident to a train.

I agree and do not dispute that, however would the BTP not fall under this catagory also? (hence my original post)

 

[Old Timer]

...I agree and do not dispute that, however would the BTP not fall under this catagory also? (hence my original post)

PTS only confers the ability to walk along the railway.

In the case of BTP they would be going onto the track for different reasons, also they would probably be in groups as well.

The Rule Book is clear that anything other than walking alone is in effect work, and thus requires either a COSS or an IWA qualification.

PTS does not even allow you to take photos because that is classified as work.

Personally I think the whole PTS/COSS, etc is a complete and unworkable shambles. If it was not then people would not continue to be struck by trains or involved in incidents and near misses.

The PTS system represents the interface of the conflict between running trains and maintaining performance, and providing for the safety of staff.

It provides neither, is complicated and is based on a premise that is unworkable, that being that all trains must be stopped.

After that it becomes a litany of means of avoiding that one single premise.

It is accepted that PTS cannot work as intended, so we have introduced complication and dubiety into it. In many ways it can be read with different intrepretations and because of that it becomes confusing to the ordinary person. People can thus read it in different ways in such a manner as to suit their own particular needs. Bulliying supervisors and managers know this and interpret it in a way that suits them.

Network Rail Maintenance pay scant regards to it, which is why so many of their people are involved in incidents, Projects staff simply "issue" dispensations or derogations to the bits that are difficult or cause delay or cost money on the basis that the Project Director is some sort of demi-God who has overarching authority. They dont and they cannot derogate or authorise ANY form of derogation or non-compliance against the Rule Book. This is yet to be tested in Court - please note YET. Unfortunately they act as if THEY own the Rule Book. They dont. The day WILL come when this is put to the test and I fully expect a senior Network Rail Projects Director or Manager to find themselves on the losing end of a Criminal Prosecution.

Unfortunately RSSB are too weak and lacking in backbone to challenge the obvious rule breaking that Network Rail carry out on a daily basis, and HMRI are too busy nit-picking the precise wording of TOC safety documentation to even see what is obvious to anyone who has their feet on the ballast.

Even when RAIB produced a Report that literally shouted out "Look at all these continued failures to manage properly" and highlighted this as a major cause of the incident, HMRI did not act.

This was probably because of the very cushy, (and soon to be subject to Criminal investigation) relationship between certain key senior staff and the then Government.