Disruptive Passengers Procedure.

[Cornish Pasty]

Yesterday morning I had the misfortune to be on a packed service where the guard was dealing with what was described as disruptive passengers.

3 individuals were sat in first class seemingly without tickets.

The guard decided that the train would go nowhere until the individuals left the train.

After some minutes the driver came to the carriage and suggested to the guard that there were hundreds of innocent passengers being delayed as a result.
Maybe we could proceed and have BTP meet the train at the next station.

This was finally decided as the best course of action and on announcing this to the carriage the individuals left the train.

How is it decided what is the correct course of action to deal with this sort of situation?

I said to the guard that the delay had caused me to miss my connection but that I did not envy their situation.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Ultimately it's up to the guard, but control and managers will be unhappy if the delay minutes accumulate. This type of guard will normally have previous form for getting into bother with customers over tickets. If it was a genuine one-off from them, other than writing a report, nobody would be too concerned.

Wasting your time with BTP, and no traincrew should even suggest that they'll be met at the next station or otherwise mentioned/threatened - as they won't turn up, and you end up looking like a prat.

Less so in the south of the UK, but I've known other passengers take it upon themselves to remove the disruptive passengers with some force, quite quickly, once there's any indication that there's going to be a delay!

 

[Signal_Box]

Yesterday morning I had the misfortune to be on a packed service where the guard was dealing with what was described as disruptive passengers.

3 individuals were sat in first class seemingly without tickets.

The guard decided that the train would go nowhere until the individuals left the train.

After some minutes the driver came to the carriage and suggested to the guard that there were hundreds of innocent passengers being delayed as a result.
Maybe we could proceed and have BTP meet the train at the next station.

This was finally decided as the best course of action and on announcing this to the carriage the individuals left the train.

How is it decided what is the correct course of action to deal with this sort of situation?

I said to the guard that the delay had caused me to miss my connection but that I did not envy their situation.

Nice of the driver to undermine their colleague in front of passengers.

 

[al78]

Nice of the driver to undermine their colleague in front of passengers.

The driver was correct though. Refusing to move the train externalises the consequences of the antagonists to everyone on the train, hence why it is an unenviable situation for the authorities concerned.

 

[bramling]

Nice of the driver to undermine their colleague in front of passengers.

It may well be the case that the driver took a more rational view of the situation, especially after having been in contact with the signaller and/or control.

There are guards who take the view that “I’m getting paid to be here, we can be here all day for all I care”, but such a view isn’t particularly professional, especially if they’re doing it on a regular basis. It does tend to be the self-same individuals who get embroiled in these disputes.

Having said that, I do agree that calling for BTP is essentially useless, and it isn’t easy for guards to deal with situations on their own.

 

[Oldgaloot]

If calling for BTP is essentially useless in a situation such as this, in what circumstances will they turn up and do something?

 

[bramling]

If calling for BTP is essentially useless in a situation such as this, in what circumstances will they turn up and do something?

Essentially when and if they have resources available. So there’s more likelihood at major stations where BTP are based. But otherwise it’s a lottery, even if there’s a definite commitment to attend they can still be re-directed away if something more important arises. A ticketing dispute will generally be very low on the list of priorities.

 

[43066]

Not sure that would qualify as “disruptive” - it’s just people trying it on. I generally agree with @Tazi Hupefi. Some guards will make an issue over this kind of thing and it generally causes more trouble than it’s worth.

Obviously that’s behaviour right at the mild end of the spectrum. A completely different approach would be appropriate if people were violent, showing signs of mental instability etc., and the crew would be justified in calling the police and not moving the train forward until they had been removed. It’s better to confine problems like that to stations, if possible. What you really want to avoid is an issue happening “in the middle of nowhere”.

Wasting your time with BTP, and no traincrew should even suggest that they'll be met at the next station or otherwise mentioned/threatened - as they won't turn up, and you end up looking like a prat.

Of course the miscreants in question won’t know that, so it can work as a threat, and it sounds like it did in the OP’s example. If the next stop is a London terminal there’s a reasonable chance of them being met, to be fair.

Nice of the driver to undermine their colleague in front of passengers.

Maybe they just wanted to get back to the depot/go home!

There are guards who take the view that “I’m getting paid to be here, we can be here all day for all I care”, but such a view isn’t particularly professional, especially if they’re doing it on a regular basis. It does tend to be the self-same individuals who get embroiled in these disputes.

Agreed.

 

[12LDA28C]

The driver was correct though. Refusing to move the train externalises the consequences of the antagonists to everyone on the train, hence why it is an unenviable situation for the authorities concerned.

Was the driver correct? I've been on DOO trains where the driver has been made aware of troublemakers on the train and gone back to challenge them, refusing to move the train until they got off. That tends to focus the minds of other passengers in the vicinity which usually yields swift results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Less so in the south of the UK, but I've known other passengers take it upon themselves to remove the disruptive passengers with some force, quite quickly, once there's any indication that there's going to be a delay!

This is quite widely done on buses and is sometimes known as the "newspaper method" - stop the engine, get the paper out and wait for someone to remove the errant passenger for you.

 

[jamesst]

Was the driver correct? I've been on DOO trains where the driver has been made aware of troublemakers on the train and gone back to challenge them, refusing to move the train until they got off. That tends to focus the minds of other passengers in the vicinity which usually yields swift results.

If you refuse to move the train for misbehaving passengers other passengers can and often do turn on you, ignoring the people causing the delay. Believe me I say this from experience.

 

[bramling]

This is quite widely done on buses and is sometimes known as the "newspaper method" - stop the engine, get the paper out and wait for someone to remove the errant passenger for you.

That might have worked well in the days when there wasn’t CCTV coverage, but for railway staff it is now potentially risky.

 

[DMckduck]

Part of why half the time you don't see onboard staff bothering with ticket checks, shows that in the end nothing really can be done. So why bother trying to enforce it

 

[michael8]

When I worked at a big pool as a lifeguard, if there was a group of rowdy people who needed kicking out for whatever reason (bad behaviour, etc), a common technique was for the manager to "clear the pool" ie. blow the whistle and get everybody else to leave, in theory so that the group of troublemakers would be left alone in the pool. Since most people knew the ongoing drama with the troublemakers, as soon as the call was made to clear the pool, "people power" usually got the troublemakers out pretty quickly ! !

 

[43066]

That might have worked well in the days when there wasn’t CCTV coverage, but for railway staff it is now potentially risky.

If traincrew are unhappy with passenger conduct it should never be an issue to refuse further passage, and to refuse to continue with the service if necessary.

CCTV just means you can’t rough them up anymore, which used to be regular practice, according to some old hands .

That’s probably no bad thing for all concerned!

 

[michael8]

This is quite widely done on buses and is sometimes known as the "newspaper method" - stop the engine, get the paper out and wait for someone to remove the errant passenger for you.

Ahh it's called the newspaper method ! never knew that.

 

[Horizon22]

This is quite widely done on buses and is sometimes known as the "newspaper method" - stop the engine, get the paper out and wait for someone to remove the errant passenger for you.

I've known guards to also apply the "peer pressure" approach before too; challenge them, suggest/threaten the train is going nowhere, make a PA stating that due to disruptive passengers the train will not be moving etc.

It's very much a judgment call based on the circumstances and indivduals present as to whether they feel it is going to work - if you've got some of the 'finest' members of society they might just call your bluff, and you are then heavily reliant on other passengers calling them out which they might not feel comfortable doing.

As others have said BTP are not necessarily going to be readily available, unless the situation had for whatever reason turned to violence/assault (and even then it isn't guaranteed). Sometimes the best point of call is submit a report, revenue protection can then check if it appears to be repeat offenders and if so try and sting them.

Part of why half the time you don't see onboard staff bothering with ticket checks, shows that in the end nothing really can be done. So why bother trying to enforce it

The majority of people will however pay whilst challenged, just some sections of society are there to cause low-level trouble and agression and probably get a kick out of it and their behaviour is unlikely to be isolated to trains/fares.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not a pleasant situation for train crew. I think some passengers forget this side and just union bash or other etc.

 

[duffield]

I think the BTP threat can be quite effective, the miscreants will often not want to risk it (particularly as they are unlikely to know how probable a BTP appearance is), and BTP do at least *sometimes* turn up for ticketing issues.

A few years ago there was an idiotic type who got on the London to Nottingham service, and sat in 1st with no ticket at all. The staff tried to engage with him, he refused so they attempted to issue a penalty fare and he just blanked them. So we arrived at Nottingham, the doors didn't open for several minutes, then two huge BTP officers turned up and after he refused to "accompany" them willingly, they literally frog-marched him away (very efficiently).

The really idiotic thing? He got on at *Beeston*, a six-minute ride from Nottingham; if he'd just sat in standard instead of 1st for six minutes, he wouldn't even have been checked, and could have then left Nottingham station via the unbarriered side exit!

 

[liamf656]

Funnily enough I had a conflict resolution course today. It's worth saying that if they're regulars and they're well known, the consequences will catch up to them anyway. It's not worth causing conflict for the sake of a few tickets. That said, if the accused are already being aggressive or the guard believes that someone's safety could be at risk, that'll be a different story

It also depends on where the train is because if its out in the sticks then it'll be difficult to just refuse to move the train as you won't get BTP or revenue protection, and it could make the accused become aggressive, not to mention everyone else onboard. There's also the fact that delay minutes from the incident would cost more to the TOC than the loss of revenue in the ticket.

It's easier for BTP or revenue protection to join the service at larger stations or near to the TOCs traincrew depot if the guard needs assistance with tickets, and it's common practice on those services

 

[Krokodil]

Was the driver correct? I've been on DOO trains where the driver has been made aware of troublemakers on the train and gone back to challenge them, refusing to move the train until they got off. That tends to focus the minds of other passengers in the vicinity which usually yields swift results.

On guarded trains the threat "this train is going nowhere until..." does carry extra weight when the driver is stood alongside the guard. All bar the hardest of scallies tend to shift at that point.

I think the BTP threat can be quite effective, the miscreants will often not want to risk it (particularly as they are unlikely to know how probable a BTP appearance is), and BTP do at least *sometimes* turn up for ticketing issues.

Some places you know that you're more likely to get a response than others. Somewhere where they're stationed may well have a couple of officers or PCSOs doing paperwork who can pop downstairs to meet an incoming train. Wales is generally better for this as the WG funds some extra PCSOs.

I did have a regular one-stop fare evader emerge from the toilet to see his stop fly past (silly anomalies in otherwise standard timetables do have their uses sometimes). "Me card doesn't work" etc. So I told him that I would see if the police might meet the train at the next station (somewhere which had officers based there but they weren't known for being particularly proactive). Sent the text and just as we slowed down for the station there was a knock on the cab door. Guess who was standing there with a tenner in his hand. After we left I got a reply from BTP that they were unable to get officers out at this short notice. Never mind, he's paid now!

 

[winks]

I think the BTP threat can be quite effective, the miscreants will often not want to risk it (particularly as they are unlikely to know how probable a BTP appearance is), and BTP do at least *sometimes* turn up for ticketing issues.

A few years ago there was an idiotic type who got on the London to Nottingham service, and sat in 1st with no ticket at all. The staff tried to engage with him, he refused so they attempted to issue a penalty fare and he just blanked them. So we arrived at Nottingham, the doors didn't open for several minutes, then two huge BTP officers turned up and after he refused to "accompany" them willingly, they literally frog-marched him away (very efficiently).

I would agree the threat of BTP meeting them at the next stop (knowing the doors will be locked ) is quite effective but the most used one I’ve seen on SWR is “if there is a off duty police officer on board please can they assist the guard in Coach X”

 

[muz379]

Can be one of those damned if you do and damned if you dont situations challenging fare evaders .

On the one hand , everyone else on the train at least upto that point in your inspection has paid the correct fare , and I suspect therefore a number of them will be unhappy with the idea that someone who has not paid just gets a free ride .

But on the other hand challenging it in this way causes delay , potentially not just to passengers on your train either.

Generally I think you should avoid stopping the job for someone that is evading the fare if that is the only thing they are doing ,report it using as much detail as possible and patterns then can be identified and revenue protection resources deployed .

I only ever really used to ask people to leave the train if they were doing other more anti social stuff like smoking , or being abusive to myself or other passengers . Id always try and deal with situations like that at a staffed station if I could so there were extra staff on hand .

It may well be the case that the driver took a more rational view of the situation, especially after having been in contact with the signaller and/or control.

I think even if that is the case , don't come into the carriage and interject into that situation to say that , ask the guard to have a word on the platform or something . Be like a guard announcing to a train full of passengers that a station stop was missed because the driver just 'forgot' or announcing that the driver had just had a SPAD or some other such incident .

 

[Turtle]

Ultimately it's up to the guard, but control and managers will be unhappy if the delay minutes accumulate. This type of guard will normally have previous form for getting into bother with customers over tickets. If it was a genuine one-off from them, other than writing a report, nobody would be too concerned.

Wasting your time with BTP, and no traincrew should even suggest that they'll be met at the next station or otherwise mentioned/threatened - as they won't turn up, and you end up looking like a prat.

Less so in the south of the UK, but I've known other passengers take it upon themselves to remove the disruptive passengers with some force, quite quickly, once there's any indication that there's going to be a delay!

I recall an incident like that many years ago at Gatwick Airport where a single disruptive individual was grabbed by three blokes and forcefully pushed off the train. The guard then quickly closed the doors and we proceeded to London leaving the ejectee shouting impotently at the moving train.

 

[Krokodil]

The Scotrail "yer no got a ticket" incident is the stuff of legend

 

[DMckduck]

Be like a guard announcing to a train full of passengers that a station stop was missed because the driver just 'forgot' or announcing that the driver had just had a SPAD or some other such incident .

What exactly would you expect said guard to announce after a fail to call? You can't just say nothing or make something up on the spot that can then be challenged surely?

 

[Starmill]

It's very, very difficult to deal with this behaviour in a way that's actually effective unfortunately. You do get it in all walks of life though nowadays. At least ignorant, obstinate, ticketless passengers on trains don't usually endanger others, unlike, say, many people who routinely drive well over the speed limit.

 

[bramling]

If traincrew are unhappy with passenger conduct it should never be an issue to refuse further passage, and to refuse to continue with the service if necessary.

CCTV just means you can’t rough them up anymore, which used to be regular practice, according to some old hands .

That’s probably no bad thing for all concerned!

I was more thinking about if a third party gets involved and someone ends up getting “roughed up”. Even assertively directing someone off a train could well result in an assault charge, and it isn’t a good look for the guard if they are seen to have endorsed or encouraged this - much as many people might secretly approve.

The ScotRail incident was in many ways a textbook example of how not to handle such a situation, and in the London area could have turned pretty nasty.

 

[Starmill]

If calling for BTP is essentially useless in a situation such as this, in what circumstances will they turn up and do something?

If there's a danger to life or limb and you call 999 they're still very likely to respond.

 

[MetalMicky]

If a BTP response is extremely unlikely, then why does the BTP have an ongoing campaign inviting passengers to report live disruptive problems by texting 61016? Does anyone have any info on what they do with these texts? They’re just raising false hopes surely.