Class 317 - breaking in to rear cab?

[LE Greys]

OK, this is another rule I'll admit I've broken in the past. It was a 317, and I had only recently progressed to my YPR (so several years ago). The saloon door was wide open and I stayed in the vestibule section, so maybe 'bent' would be a better description. A very interesting view of Cambridge to Baldock, with everything disappearing backwards. I shut the door when I got off.

 

[O L Leigh]

PEP-derived EMUs are different to Cl317s because there is no gangway between units in multiple, therefore there is no public access into the vestibules at each end. The doors in the cab fronts are there purely to permit evacuation in tight clearances (e.g. single bore tunnels).

O L Leigh

 

[transportphoto]

150 280 which is currently with Greater Anglia on loan from ATW - the internal door which leads from the behind the cab area to the passenger saloon is always unlocked, the first time I travelled on it there were no notices saying 'private' other than a Keep Clear sign, on the approach to the terminus I walked through the door and stood at the single exterior door with my finger on the door open, not until I realised it hadn't been released where as the rest had, I moved back into the passenger saloon to alight. There were no signs telling me that the door was for staff use only.

TP

 

[BestWestern]

I would've thought a more concerted effort to block the cabs from the public would be sought, given the risk of vandalism to the cab or disruption from 'accidental' button pressing. Its certainly the case up here.

Even cabs with a solid lock doesn't stop determined passengers who think the cab is a lavatory though, despite the handle and lack of bright, eye-catching buttons, and the "Do not enter" signs!

I thoroughly agree. It is laughable how easily the cabs on many/most older units could be accessed by anybody half intent on getting in. Most TOCs appear to feel that so long as the door isn't flapping open in the breeze, it's 'secure'. It doesn't matter how easily the lock could be forced, just so long as it works. It's very concerning that such a rich target for terrorism and criminal activity is so poorly protected. Despite all the training DVD's telling us we have to be vigilant, it appears that if it costs money to make things secure we can manage without

As for the commuting woman with her frequent cab rides, why has nobody who has found her had the intelligence to call the police and have the key removed from her person? A prosecution would also be wise.

 

[bronzeonion]

I once saw a 377 with its middle secondmans area unlocked

 

[whhistle]

Maybe someone should start placing fake bombs in these areas.
This will be the only way the TOC will do anything about it :roll:

 

[ChristopherJ]

I walked between the gangway of a 317/5 and a 317/8 yesterday and it's quite astounding just how much of the cab is visible to users.

For me was was a pleasure to have a view inside the cab (317 cabs aren't exactly a technological marvel ) but it wouldn't take a lot of effort for the most determined to break in to the cab. It's mainly surrounded by glass - effortless to break with the on board fire extinguisher or an hammer!

 

[150222]

I know of a woman who commutes peterbourgh to London on 317s and has been caught by drivers passing in the back cab (which is allowed) and has a br1 key she bought on eBay so just let's herself in, switches the heatning and lights on and has a comfy ride on her own in the back cab! Unless a passing driver forces her out!

I'm sorry I find this somewhat unbelievable and far fetched to say the least.

I don't get this.
A)What do you mean being in the back cab is allowed? (It isn't)
B)How can a passing driver turf her out of the back cab?
C)Why hasn't she been stopped?
D) What if a 321 turns up?

 

[A-driver]

I don't get this.
A)What do you mean being in the back cab is allowed? (It isn't)
B)How can a passing driver turf her out of the back cab?
C)Why hasn't she been stopped?
D) What if a 321 turns up?

A-drivers are allowed to pass in the back cab-on some companies they are allowed in the front cab to.
B-a passing driver gets in and sees her and tells her to get out.
C-I only know of 2 drivers who have seen her-So not sure how often she gets in. I also doubt the drivers who caught her bothered reporting it. I doubt I would to be perfectly honest.
D-dunno-you are looking a bit too deeply into this!

 

[150222]

A-drivers are allowed to pass in the back cab-on some companies they are allowed in the front cab to.
B-a passing driver gets in and sees her and tells her to get out.
C-I only know of 2 drivers who have seen her-So not sure how often she gets in. I also doubt the drivers who caught her bothered reporting it. I doubt I would to be perfectly honest.
D-dunno-you are looking a bit too deeply into this!

So it means drivers travelling passenger, I thought it meant drivers of passing trains. Oh and I was joking on the last bit.

 

[BestWestern]

A-drivers are allowed to pass in the back cab-on some companies they are allowed in the front cab to.
B-a passing driver gets in and sees her and tells her to get out.
C-I only know of 2 drivers who have seen her-So not sure how often she gets in. I also doubt the drivers who caught her bothered reporting it. I doubt I would to be perfectly honest.
D-dunno-you are looking a bit too deeply into this!

You're seriously not bothered if random members of the public are sat in one the cabs of a train you're driving? Hmm....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe someone should start placing fake bombs in these areas.
This will be the only way the TOC will do anything about it :roll:

Might help to be honest. Seems to do the trick when one of the tabloids smuggles one into an airport or wherever. Though I doubt whether anybody would notice it, it'd probably take a week or so!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

150 280 which is currently with Greater Anglia on loan from ATW - the internal door which leads from the behind the cab area to the passenger saloon is always unlocked, the first time I travelled on it there were no notices saying 'private' other than a Keep Clear sign, on the approach to the terminus I walked through the door and stood at the single exterior door with my finger on the door open, not until I realised it hadn't been released where as the rest had, I moved back into the passenger saloon to alight. There were no signs telling me that the door was for staff use only.

TP

150/2's are a bit of a strange one. The area behind the cabs is a vestibule and so a public part of the train, but at the leading end the external doors are 'switched out' when the Driver has his key in the desk. It should be possible to manually lock the saloon door from the cab side with a BR1 key, which would then obviously seal off the area, but I don't know of any Drivers who do that at our shack. The same exterior doors at the other end of the train will work as normal, but whether those doors are public or private seems to be a bit of a grey area. ATW tend to put a discreet 'staff access' notice on the outside, whereas FGW leave them the same colour as the bodyside, rather than painting them pink like the other doors, but don't actually designate them as non-public. I personally try to discourage people from boarding there, as you can then end up with a vestibule full of standees, which is not helpful when you're trying to do the doors!

 

[A-driver]

In all honesty what can I do about passengers travelling in the back cab besides chuck them out? You really would have the train delayed in the middle of the rush hour to wait for the police to come and give them a slap on the wrist at most?!

I'm a train driver, I have no power to detain anyone etc so if they just walk off whilst waiting for the police then what can I do? And I have seen the police catch people in middle cabs at London bridge before. They don't arrest or caution, just talk to them long enough to hold them up and make them late for work. There are worse crimes out there and whilst they shouldn't be there in all honesty what is a commuter going to do in there?! They arnt gonna start mucking about with the brakes or anything as they just want to get to work.

 

[talltim]

Its been a good few years (20 or so!) since I commuted by 317 on the Bedpan line, but I'm sure the end doors were passenger doors too. I certainly don't remember signs as posted up thread. I do remember thinking it was cool being able to see the speedo in the cab on coupled units.

 

[jon0844]

They arnt gonna start mucking about with the brakes or anything as they just want to get to work.

While that is almost certainly true, if other passengers see that it's obviously possible to get in without being heavily punished, what's to say we won't see other people getting in as a dare and to start messing around with controls?

 

[BestWestern]

While that is almost certainly true, if other passengers see that it's obviously possible to get in without being heavily punished, what's to say we won't see other people getting in as a dare and to start messing around with controls?

Yup, that's the problem. There is also the issue of terrorism etc and railway security, and I would fully expect the Police to be very firm with anybody they caught deliberately accessing non-public areas of a train. I would have thought that a call to the BTP to at least have the key removed from the person would be an obvious thing to do. Sure they might not hang around, but once you've 'evicted' them and are on the move they can meet you at the other end!?

 

[jon0844]

I do wonder why BTP don't take this seriously. Is it just because modern society seems to think it's a bit harsh to punish anyone? We think that people are jobsworths if they follow the rules?

When did we forget that punishing people sends out a message to serve as a deterrent. Simply let people off and you're just creating a generation of people with the mindset that there's no harm breaking the rules... as 'what's the worst that can happen?'. And if you are unlucky to get punished, you set up a blog/facebook page/write to Daily Mail and get sympathy instead of being told to 'man up and accept the consequences'.

 

[A-driver]

Whilst passengers shouldn't be in cabs in reality what is the worst they can do? Throw the emergency break in so the train stops and cause a delay? Let's face it there isn't much more they can do. There are far worse crimes out there.

 

[jon0844]

I don't really want to be on a train that does an emergency stop for anything other than emergency. I could do without bags, people or bikes falling on me.

Yes there are worse crimes out there, but I don't see that as particularly relevant.

 

[Eng274]

Whilst passengers shouldn't be in cabs in reality what is the worst they can do? Throw the emergency break in so the train stops and cause a delay? Let's face it there isn't much more they can do. There are far worse crimes out there.

Well the less socially adequate morons might see it as an easy target for vandalism; breaking levers, smashing the place up, making the cab totally unusable.

When a vandalised unit gets to the terminus, how does it change direction if the rear forming the front cab's unusable? Only way is to stick a multi-only on the vandalised end and get it back to the depot, which is a pitiful waste of resources (a driver plus a spare unit). I wouldn't want a TOC to lose PPM through cancellations and short-forms because a unit had to be taken off its diagram to get the vandalised unit out of the way.

 

[A-driver]

Well the less socially adequate morons might see it as an easy target for vandalism; breaking levers, smashing the place up, making the cab totally unusable.

When a vandalised unit gets to the terminus, how does it change direction if the rear forming the front cab's unusable? Only way is to stick a multi-only on the vandalised end and get it back to the depot, which is a pitiful waste of resources (a driver plus a spare unit). I wouldn't want a TOC to lose PPM because a unit had to be taken off its diagram to get the vandalised unit out of the way.

We are not talking vandals and criminals here, we are talking commuters, those going to work who resent the fact they pay extortionate fares to stand in sardine can conditions. Those who just want to get to work, who don't wish to cause damage or cause delays. In my experience these are the people I have found or heard others say they have found in rear cabs and that I have been referring to I this thread.

as for vandals, terrorists, criminals etc lets face it all the locks in the world won't be much of a deterrent and I think if you are planning on carrying out terrorism or vandalism etc you won't be particularly bothered about being arrested by the police for travelling in an unauthorised area..."do you want to go and smash up a train cab tonight? I'm bored of just smashing up the passenger bits"..."nah, we can't do that, we may get into trouble for travelling in the cab of a train..."

Given the choice of the already stretched resources of the BTP coming to talk to someone who has travelled in the rear cab (which will never lead to a prosecution, a police caution would be very most we could hope for) or the BTP going to stop a group of youths sticking breeze blocks on a line or stopping an attack by some drunk on a colleague of mine I know what I would prefer to see them do!

 

[jon0844]

Why assume that by coming to deal with someone sitting in the cab of a train they're suddenly going to be missing out dealing with youths putting breeze blocks on the line?

If BTP are so short of staff that they're having to ignore certain problems, they should be fighting for more money and resources - not just giving up on doing their job.

Of course, we seem to have a mix of opinions as to how under-resourced they are, compared to the reports from staff about how they'll just refuse to come out to many things - thus undermining staff. If you're a driver, you might want them to come out to deal with the breeze blocks, but what about your colleagues being given the grief on the other side of the door on your train?

RPIs will go after people in first class without a FC ticket, so I find it hard to believe that anyone should get the impression that buying a key and upgrading to the rear (or middle) cab is acceptable. If word got around, you'd soon find that there will end up with a few people trying it - and as they fill up the cab, it will increase the chances of something being pressed that shouldn't.

 

[Aictos]

We are not talking vandals and criminals here, we are talking commuters, those going to work who resent the fact they pay extortionate fares to stand in sardine can conditions. Those who just want to get to work, who don't wish to cause damage or cause delays. In my experience these are the people I have found or heard others say they have found in rear cabs and that I have been referring to I this thread.

as for vandals, terrorists, criminals etc lets face it all the locks in the world won't be much of a deterrent and I think if you are planning on carrying out terrorism or vandalism etc you won't be particularly bothered about being arrested by the police for travelling in an unauthorised area..."do you want to go and smash up a train cab tonight? I'm bored of just smashing up the passenger bits"..."nah, we can't do that, we may get into trouble for travelling in the cab of a train..."

Given the choice of the already stretched resources of the BTP coming to talk to someone who has travelled in the rear cab (which will never lead to a prosecution, a police caution would be very most we could hope for) or the BTP going to stop a group of youths sticking breeze blocks on a line or stopping an attack by some drunk on a colleague of mine I know what I would prefer to see them do!

So all that being said, it's okay for any Tom, Dick or Harry to make themselves at home in a cab not in use then?

Silly Me, :roll:

End of the day, it doesn't matter who you are as if you're not meant to be in that area then you shouldn't be using said area!

No grey areas at all, it's black and white!

 

[jon0844]

I thought even staff had to ask permission or show a cab pass? Why do they need to bother if ordinary people like me can pop in? If all I'm going to get is a slap on the wrist, I think I might just give it a try.

Maybe someone should do it during the Olympics (or just before) and invite a journo from a newspaper to snap away. Nice easy story right there. Bet BTP would suddenly take things a lot more seriously.

 

[A-driver]

I think you are mis-understanding my point. It's not ok for the public to use the back cabs but those that do are not there to cause damage etc and very few people will think of going in there. Those that do will be fine to leave if asked to by staff as they know they are not allowed in there. Getting the police involved is far too much of an overeaction.

As for staff in the back cabs, it is allowed for drivers or conductors to use the out of use cabs if they are on duty or going to/from work in uniform on a busy train and they let the driver know they are there-no cab pass needed. It's better that they are in there out of the way than standing in the train taking up space that fare paying punters could use.

 

[prod_pep]

Regarding paired sets of 1972-design (313/4/5, 507/8), it was definitely permitted for passengers to use the inner cabs when the 313s, 314s and 508s were new. I assume the same was true of the Great Eastern Class 315s, but don't think it was ever allowed on the 507s.

Plenty of additional standing space and one tip-up seat was available in the two inner cab vestibules. It wasn't a practice that lasted particularly long, I believe.

 

[BestWestern]

The issue here for me is that these people have gone out and intentionally acquired the key to enter parts of the railway which are very obviously off limits on a regular basis. It's not just that the door was open or unlocked and they saw an opportunity to grab a comfy seat, they are going onto railway property equipped with tools to commit an offence. That is serious, however much it might be easier to turn a blind eye and deny all knowledge. Going equipped would be exactly what a terrorist planting a device might do, and I would make the obvious point that since they are unlikely to wear a badge with 'Terrorist' written on it, what makes you so very confident that the people you catch are just plain old commuters rather than potential security threats trying to blend in?! I can see your point, and I'm not an over-reactionary jobsworth, but your attitude towards it plays right into the hands of those who are responsible for the current security threat to the railway being classed as 'Severe' or 'Substantial'. I'm fairly sure your employer, Transec and anybody else with an interest in it, would prefer it to be dealt with in the proper way!

 

[jon0844]

Those that do will be fine to leave if asked to by staff as they know they are not allowed in there.

Without being punished, they clearly know the worst that can happen is being asked to leave. So, no deterrent whatsoever.

If that was all that was ever going to happen, I'd do it all the time too. Why not? There's zero risk - and chances are you're not going to get caught very often.

 

[A-driver]

Perhaps I'm not being clear with this as it seems I'm being misunderstood.

I am not saying it is fine to ride in the back cabs. I am saying that it is fairly rare and not something the police will do much about as its hardly likely to be in the public interests to prosecute and go through all the work and time and so a slap on the wrist is the most that will happen.

As for terrorism that is completely different. Terrorists have managed to blow up and hijack planes despite the huge amount spent on airport security. I'm pretty sure they can find a way to get into a cab if they really wanted to. They are hardly likely to be put off by the risk of being arrested by the police are they?!

 

[jon0844]

I guess comparing a commuter to a terrorist is probably not relevant here, but I doubt the general public or the national newspapers would see much of a difference.

A train operator needs to put its feet down hard on people who ignore the rules. If that doesn't happen, people will push a little harder to see what else they can get away with.

By all means start with a polite warning, then get progressively tough.

I also disagree about it not being in the public interest. I think the public (especially other passengers) would feel uncomfortable knowing anyone can get into a cab so easily. They'll consist of people who will think the worst and not accept that the likelihood is simply that someone will sit quietly to merely get to work without standing.

Anyway, I'm not going to change your opinion and you're not going to change mine - so let's leave it at that!

 

[A-driver]

I can certainly see where you are coming from but I just can't see what damage anyone could actually do in the rear cab, none of the controls are live or anything and as for terrorists they could just as easily hide something in a toilet or under a seat etc as break into the rear cab.