-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Grimsby train worker sacked, TPE South staff plan strike.
- Thread starter GrimsbyPacer
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No it would not. If they took reasonable action to prevent it and all procedure was followed then the only fault is the train surfer. On investigation the outcome would most likely be that various mitigation steps be taken to prevent future action. The TOC gets absolved of blame because they had already taken reasonable measures. If the lad had died because of the TOC's actions then criminal charges would be filed.
Take the James Street incident. The Guard is now in prison and "recommendations" were made by the RAIB.
Welcome to the railway. It isn't all pleasant.
Last edited:
Call me an old cynic, but I have to wonder whether the guard's justification for not stopping the train was thought up after the accident. After all the train was going very slowly; it seems far more likely that not stopping the train would have consequences.
As for the split second decision - that's why you have the rules; you don't have to think.
I feel sorry for the guard, but anyone that makes a major cock-up in their job is up for the sack. This is essentially a PR exercise by RMT to their members; they know that TPE cannot reverse their decision - what message about safety rules would that send out?
As for the split second decision - that's why you have the rules; you don't have to think.
I feel sorry for the guard, but anyone that makes a major cock-up in their job is up for the sack. This is essentially a PR exercise by RMT to their members; they know that TPE cannot reverse their decision - what message about safety rules would that send out?
You could well be right but what type of job can the conductor hope to do in the future. Being a conductor on a train is not the most physical of jobs and it is likely anything he tries is going to be physical and will not pay as good a wage as he got at Transpennine. His future looks bleak and all because a stupid lad decided to have a bit of fun.
The lad was stupid and it doesn't feel right that he gets away scot free, while the conductor makes one mistake and loses his job. The problem is the alternative. Young people do stupid stuff - I know I did. As a parent you hope if they do do something stupid a responsible adult will stop them paying the ultimate price.
I get irritated by the health and safety rules here sometimes, but then I go abroad and there it often seems there is a complete disregard for the safety of others. On balance I'd rather have things erring on the side of caution, and that means following the rules. If the rules are found wanting they will be changed, but I don't think they were wrong here. The train should have been stopped.
As a member of the public who has never worked on the Rail network this is my veiw of the present situation. I live in Grimsby so know the train station very well and can picture the event that happened without being there to witness it. Let's pretend I was there on the station seeing someone off and this lad was there about to perform his silly prank as the train comes in from Cleethorpes. He gets on the step as the train is about to pull out and the conductor presses the red button to stop the train and orders the lad off and he gets off, but then after the conductor has given the signal to the driver to go the lad jumps on again and the train is moving at a slow 7 miles per hour and the conductor has put hid head out of the window and sees the lad on the step. After what would have been 10 seconds or so he would have jumped off at the end of the platform and as the coach with the conductor in passes spits at him, I Don't know if the conductor said anything but that does not matter. The train then carries on out of the station to it's destination and the lad leaves having sustained no injury. As an ordinary member of the public I would have thought of this as a non event and would not have given it any more thought and to see that the conductor had lost his job after this non event I would have thought that at first it must have been April Fools day. I am glad I do not have a job on the trains as their are obviously too many rules to follow and I would have a job following all of them to the letter.
Minilad
Established Member
Then it's the railways good fortune that you don't have a job on the railway. The railway runs on rules. They are there for a very good reason, mostly because of other accidents, This isn't some perfect world. We follow the rules because they are there for good reason. There is no debate about that
It takes a fraction of a second to fall. The assumption for him to get off may appear to be a correct one but the risk that something else ay happen is not one the railway can take.
Lets say after 3 second the Driver takes full power and the unit lurches forward suddenly and causes the kids to fall.
Lets say that after taking power the Driver blows the juice and the train arcs. The sudden noise and light/smoke causes the lad to flinch and lose his grip.
Lets us also assume that the young lad, full of bravado, decides that because the Conductor wasn't looking had in fact decided to ride the unit out the station as far as he could go. He makes it off the platform but...
Again the railways cannot afford to take the risk. Stopping the train puts an end to the incident and the unit can be moved safely. The youth in question may also be detained and dealt with accordingly which may act as a deterrent for others.
I cannot believe that anyone would prefer any other action by the TOC's than one of complete safety. Irrespective of the people that behave in such a manner.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
We all have trouble following them to the letter and there are times where you simply forget some. The issue becomes where there is a deliberate violation of the rules. The Conductor in this case appears to know that the rule exists but chose to ignore it. That deliberate act places the public in danger.
Again to very much reiterate. I would hope that TPE took all evidence into account before making the decision to remove him from duty.
GatwickDepress
Established Member
Honestly, no. I don't have a problem with trains being delayed if it means someone won't die. I think the person is a complete twunt, but then I hold the belief all life is sacred.
I've several times been on trains that were delayed because of someone being a prat. I didn't see anyone get upset with railway staff because they took care of it in the right way - which was the train not moving until the situation was sorted.
Of course no-one likes being delayed, but a death usually causes longer delays...
To whom are you referring ? Are you implying that its self righteous to believe in a safety first mantra ? Was the Conductor right to keep the service moving ?
I've had trains delayed and cancelled for many different reasons. Passengers/signals/engineering works and people going splat. I've had passengers f'ing and blinding at me during incidents that were cause by their own fault.
Passengers get up in arms and do the wrist tappy thing when a train is a minute late.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
Surely you can't be the same guy who posted on another thread advocating banning the "cowboys" WCR from the network because a train moved four feet without any idiots hanging on to it.
Fixed it
So right
GrimsbyPacer
Established Member
No, he got away with it.
Rules are primarily based on past experiences; sometimes things happen that don't exactly fit into the rules or would benefit from a more flexible approach.
Last year a 3-year old fell into the Mersey from a ferry. A crew member dived in and undoubtedly saved her life.
You may condemn him for breaking the rules, but not many would share your opinion, and he wasn't sacked for it.
Last year a 3-year old fell into the Mersey from a ferry. A crew member dived in and undoubtedly saved her life.
You may condemn him for breaking the rules, but not many would share your opinion, and he wasn't sacked for it.
Now there is the argument.How can it be correct to insist that the Guard is punished to the point of dismissal because it's the rules regardless of what people think might be morally correct.
Yet the law is not invoked in anyway on the person who caused the incident and set the chain of events into motion breaking the law at the same time putting himself in danger. There is the problem.
Tim R-T-C
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,143
There is a difference there. By jumping in he no more endangered the life of the child than if he had chosen not to. By disobeying the rules he put only his own life in further risk.
So it has no real similarly to the incident in question.
Last edited:
Why should he get away with it, is their any wonder people have no respect for the law when scum are let off scot free.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If someone who was a member of the public had grabbed the lad and held him down so he could not move would it have been alright then for the conductor to give the signal for the train to leave the station.
Because this is 'Great' Britain where the legal profession make millions looking after these 'vulnerable individuals' (or as I like to call them scum)!
The member of the public would have been arrested for assault, the scummer would have got lots of money in compensation and the member of the public would never get involved in any incidents in future no matter who was getting done over.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The WCR "cowboys" moving four feet is just the last in a long long line of incidents involving this bunch, but please dont let these well documented facts get in the way of your rant eh! :roll:
I am a firm believer in self responsibility, something which is alien to a lot of people it seems.
But the most important question would the conductor be allowed to give the signal to leave the station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What I don't get is why tresspassers and these so called surfers are regarded with so much importance, it's not as if they are making the rail companies any money and if anything they are helping them to lose money.What happened to this conductor would not have happened in any these Eastern European Countries and even though safety regulations are pretty lax I will bet their are still no more serious accidents there as their are here in the UK.
There is actually a huge difference....
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Railway_safety_statistics
(in terms of accidents or injuries per passenger mile, many countries have more than 10 times the rate of the UK)
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Have no fear that you are alone in holding to such a sentiment.
Probably not
They are not regarded of any importance.
From what I read through this thread you can almost make a clear distinction of two sets of viewpoints. The Staff on here talk about the Guards actions. What he should have done and what the rules are. Others talk about the surfer and his actions.
By having the thought that his actions were the cause it is certainly you that are giving him any importance.
PERSONALLY I wouldn't give this kid a second thought. I couldn't give a flying *&$^ about him and give him not a seconds consideration. I would give them no press or any of the attention they crave.
The rules, and the law, don't distinguish between idiots doing train surfing and any general member of the public who might have, for instance, gotten a piece of clothing trapped in a door. The guard has the same duty of care to both.
And really it is for the best if you think about it properly. Do we want Guards, or anyone else in the position of having a duty of care (e.g. Doctors) to start making moral decisions on whose life is worth looking after and whose not?
And really it is for the best if you think about it properly. Do we want Guards, or anyone else in the position of having a duty of care (e.g. Doctors) to start making moral decisions on whose life is worth looking after and whose not?
- Status