Guard 'ignored red light and refused to let passengers off'

[yorkie]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ight-and-refused-to-let-passengers-get-off.do

A drunken train guard signalled his driver to go through a red light and refused to open the doors to let passengers off or on during a terrifying journey between Waterloo and Kingston.

Travellers hammered on the driver's door to alert him after the doors failed to open at Barnes but he thought the noise was caused by Friday night revellers and carried on.

Eventually at Mortlake he investigated, a commuter phoned police and officers were waiting when the train pulled into Wimbledon.

Patrick Coyne, 40, was found passed out and slumped over his controls. “This was not normal practice for safety reasons,” prosecutor Anne Crossfield told Westminster magistrates. It took a minute to rouse him and he was disorientated. He was sacked by South West Trains.

In his bag were two cans of Budweiser and he admitted decanting half a bottle of vodka into two water bottles. Coyne told officers: “I must stop drinking.”

Ms Crossfield said at one stage in the journey the train arrived at St Margarets and the defendant gave the driver two signals to proceed to the next station but the driver could see that there was a red signal. “The defendant, after realising what he had done, apologised to the driver,” she said.

Coyne, of Merton Park, pleaded guilty to endangering the safety of a person conveyed by railway due to being over the alcohol limit. He will be sentenced later, probably at crown court.

Well done to the driver for being alert, and avoiding a 'ding-ding and away' incident.

Bob Crowe will be silent on this, he prefers staff to stay in cabs opening/closing doors, than for staff to be constantly patrolling the trains. But this wouldn't have happened on SPT, where the driver does the doors, avoiding delays, and there is another member of staff ensuring customer safety and checking tickets. Bob is opposed to this, perhaps some of his members are too worried about getting fit walking up and down the train checking tickets. I wonder if the guard in this case would have been opposed to checking tickets on the basis he'd not be able to have a drink. I think that some of the excuses used by Bob and others do not hold water.

These 'non-commercial' guards who just sit in back cabs, and doing the jobs that drivers do on other similar suburban lines, are not really the solution at all. Guards should be commercial, and for suburban routes the drivers should do the doors. I am opposed to one-man operation, but there is no point having a guard who just sits doing nothing between stops.

 

[Bellwater]

SPT? you mean Scotrail?

 

[HaxbyFur]

Its annoying to see that people like myself would give anything to have that guys job and he just ****es it up the wall, (no pun intended).

 

[yorkie]

SPT? you mean Scotrail?

I didn't say Scotrail because most of Scotrail covers rural routes and does have traditional guards. I specifically mentioned the SPT services (yes, Scotrail operate them) because they run services that are comparable to the inner-suburban workings that SWT operate, however their approach is completely different.

Instead of feeling unsafe, passengers feel much safer knowing that someone is patrolling the train at all times. All trains have 2 staff; one driver and one revenue officer. The drivers do the doors.

I am against one person operation such as on FCC and Chiltern, some East Anglia services, and many more...

It does seem odd that SWT have guards who do nothing between stops and only serve the function of doing doors on routes that, elsewhere in London and in other cities, have the drivers doing those duties.

Bob Crowe wants FSR guards to go on strike because of the Glasgow-Airdrie service being extended to Edinburgh, this means that the existing Bathgate-Edinburgh service will cease and that means the replacement of some guard duties with revenue duties. It's a nonsense argument, and a ridiculous strike.

This incident does Bob's arguments no favours at all.

Drivers don't need to be given ding-dings at suburban stations driving sliding door 455 stock, only to then realise that the signal is red. Drivers can work that out for themselves as they do on other lines. Fortunately this driver was 'on the ball'.

 

[O L Leigh]

This incident does Bob's arguments no favours at all.

One drunk guard does not undermine the principle of properly manned trains.

Just for the record, the unions will not defend the indefensible. Being drunk on duty is a clear case of gross misconduct and I'm fairly certain that no union would defend such actions.

O L Leigh

 

[yorkie]

One drunk guard does not undermine the principle of properly manned trains.

I'm not saying it does, and I am totally against what I see as under manning of trains by making them driver only with no other on-board staff.

On the contrary, I believe there should, in addition to a driver, be at least 1 member of staff who is accessible to passengers, able to help with queries, issue tickets and be of any other assistance that may be required.

 

[O L Leigh]

So which argument is being undermined? Or are you referring to the Airdrie-Bathgate service, because we had a long discussion about the introduction of DOO services on that line before Christmas.

Having looked further into the dispute I have to conclude that the RMT isn't far off the mark. The problem is that what you (or anyone else for that matter) considers to be "sensible" doesn't necessarily match up with the agreements between the unions and the TOC or even with the Rule Book.

O L Leigh

 

[merlodlliw]

One drunk guard does not undermine the principle of properly manned trains.

Just for the record, the unions will not defend the indefensible. Being drunk on duty is a clear case of gross misconduct and I'm fairly certain that no union would defend such actions.

O L Leigh

Correct no union should defend drunk on duty, we shall see what this Union does if he appeals against presumed dismissal?, also who booked the guard on, I realise its possible to get drunk after being booked on, luck there was no major
problem as a result to passengers.

 

[CarterUSM]

Slightly off topic, but a strike has been voted for with an 83 per cent yes vote from an 82 per cent turnout, you are correct O L Leigh, it's not often I agree with RMT, even being a member, but this dispute is not about jobs or money, it's primarily about safety and nothing more, though i've always thought they could get their point across in a less militant fashion. Back on topic, no union would back any drunken member of staff whatsoever. What he should have done was declared his problem to his employers, who would have given him assistance and a chance to get clean. I have no sympathy for him at all.

 

[Failed Unit]

Slightly off topic, but a strike has been voted for with an 83 per cent yes vote from an 82 per cent turnout, you are correct O L Leigh, it's not often I agree with RMT, even being a member, but this dispute is not about jobs or money, it's primarily about safety and nothing more, though i've always thought they could get their point across in a less militant fashion. Back on topic, no union would back any drunken member of staff whatsoever. What he should have done was declared his problem to his employers, who would have given him assistance and a chance to get clean. I have no sympathy for him at all.

Yes it is probably on another thread, but 3x 24 hour strikes,

Saturday 20th Feb
Monday 1st March
Saturday 13th March (Calculta cup day)

Scotrail seem confident that they will operate 90% of thier trains.

more details on www.scotrail.co.uk

 

[me123]

I'm not saying it does, and I am totally against what I see as under manning of trains by making them driver only with no other on-board staff.

On the contrary, I believe there should, in addition to a driver, be at least 1 member of staff who is accessible to passengers, able to help with queries, issue tickets and be of any other assistance that may be required.

It's odd for me to agree with Yorkie, but it's happening.

Guards operating the doors on the North Clyde Line would be absolutely farcical. Stops are too close to each other, a number of stations are unmanned and the resultant queues at Queen Street/Charing Cross for a ticket would be horrendous.

 

[Failed Unit]

It's odd for me to agree with Yorkie, but it's happening.

Guards operating the doors on the North Clyde Line would be absolutely farcical. Stops are too close to each other, a number of stations are unmanned and the resultant queues at Queen Street/Charing Cross for a ticket would be horrendous.

Not at Charing cross as there are no barriers most of the time so it would just be free travel But the point remains passengers prefer to see staff on the train rather than just opening and closing doors like on the North London line where free travel often happened. It is hard in this case to place the arguement when there have been no incidents to back up the case.

 

[LondonLarry]

Well done to the driver for being.../wiki/Ding-ding,_and_away"]ding-ding and away' incident.

The driver would be a complete idiot if he could see the signal at red and pulled out of the platform after heading the ding-ding!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bob Crowe will be silent on this, he prefers staff to stay in cabs opening/closing doors, than for staff to be constantly patrolling the trains. But this wouldn't have happened on SPT, where the driver does the doors, avoiding delays, and there is another member of staff ensuring customer safety and checking tickets. Bob is opposed to this, perhaps some of his members are too worried about getting fit walking up and down the train checking tickets. I wonder if the guard in this case would have been opposed to checking tickets on the basis he'd not be able to have a drink. I think that some of the excuses used by Bob and others do not hold water.

With the frequent stops on inner suburban routes, there's no way a guard could check tickets and operate doors, so the driver operating doors would be best with guard doing a customer service role, like c2c.

SWT would be pretty brave to change the guard's role on these types of services. Certain unions only require a member to sneeze before they ballot for strike acction....

 

[me123]

Not at Charing cross as there are no barriers most of the time so it would just be free travel But the point remains passengers prefer to see staff on the train rather than just opening and closing doors like on the North London line where free travel often happened. It is hard in this case to place the arguement when there have been no incidents to back up the case.

In the peaks, there's invariably "human barriers" at Charing Cross (Glasgow). BUt you can avoid them by using the lifts

There's also "human barriers" at Partick who are categorically useless, but that's another story...

 

[CarterUSM]

It has been a cause of accidents before, notably paisley gilmour st. Guards would not be re-introduced on the north clyde line. They would work between bathgate and edinburgh as they do now.

 

[Failed Unit]

It has been a cause of accidents before, notably paisley gilmour st. Guards would not be re-introduced on the north clyde line. They would work between bathgate and edinburgh as they do now.

Could you elebrate on the accident?

The issue is that if the 334 trains that will work between Edinburgh and Bathgate at the moment don't have controls for the guard to open the doors. A subset of the class would need to be modified. Given the number that would need to operate the entire service it would be a large subset. Scotrail are quoting 1.4million.

 

[Guard]

The reason Swt still have guards goes back to an old agreement about 455 coupling.

 

[CarterUSM]

My apologies, I thought it was a well known accident, it occured in april 1979 and caused the deaths of both drivers and 5 passengers. The 1940 glasgow central to wemyss bay collided with a special service from ayr to glasgow central just east of the station, the special service from ayr had been belled from signal P31 at danger. Though please note, at this time the signal didn't have to be cleared for the guard to give two bells. It was the sole responsibility of the driver to take the starting signal. After this accident the rules were changed so that the guard only gave the bells after the signal had been cleared.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, the class 334's currently have guards control panels in both cabs on the bulkhead.

 

[Failed Unit]

Also, the class 334's currently have guards control panels in both cabs on the bulkhead.

Didn't recall the accident, but isn't that the issue. The controls are in the cab but the gaurd can't see the platform when they operate them? On all MU's use the panel is by a door so the gaurd can shut the doors, look to see if any limbs are hanging out of doors (or all the orange lights are off) then close their door and away.

 

[CarterUSM]

They are on the cab bulkhead by each cab door, seperate of the cab desk controls. I'm a guard myself, and i'm more than conversant with the rules regarding train despatch from manned and unmanned stations. No disrespect intended of course.

 

[Tom C]

All trains have 2 staff; one driver and one revenue officer. The drivers do the doors.

We established in the previous thread that this isn't strictly true. Whilst it is rare to see a SPTE train without a second/third member of staff, there is nothing to prevent the train operating without a member of staff onboard which in no way replaces the duties of a guard.

Also there was a query about precisely what duties the onboard staff was due to carry out but nobody could actually substantiate what the SPTE's "revenue officer" actually does over and above carrying an Advantix machine. Clearly they are not that important as the train can operate without them and that is the simple reason why any extention to DOO (which is what this is) cannot be justified with these jack of all trade types.

 

[Failed Unit]

They are on the cab bulkhead by each cab door, seperate of the cab desk controls. I'm a guard myself, and i'm more than conversant with the rules regarding train despatch from manned and unmanned stations. No disrespect intended of course.

Sorry - Not trying to teach you to suck eggs. I am just not familiar with the 334 layout, I have been on them but not taken much notice.

Now I am confused however, if the controls on a 334 are in the same place as they would be on other Multiple units what is the issue. I am sure when Scotrail had the 150/2's the gaurd needed to return to a cab at each stop and some of the stops are close together on the fife circle. Where has this requirement to upgrade the 334's to work with gaurds come from?

http://www.scotrail.co.uk/content/rmt-votes-strike.html

 

[CarterUSM]

They are not called revenue officers and they don't work with for spt. They are ticket examiners and work for scotrail. I started the railway in this grade and the duties are revenue only. No operational duties are carried out and could not be carried out in any case. Only knowledge of the modular rule book they are required to know are parts of G1, and AC1. Mostly about safe distances and the names of overhead wires and their voltage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not a problem. The requirement issue is clouded, I wouldn't quite call it lies, but I think they are referring to putting door control panels at the passenger accomodation doors, per 158 style. We work the 322 also, and the door controls are on the cab bulk head only. No other panels.

 

[SWT Driver]

I'm afraid I don't have any sympathy for those who come to work under the influence of D&D and get caught.

 

[Failed Unit]

Not a problem. The requirement issue is clouded, I wouldn't quite call it lies, but I think they are referring to putting door control panels at the passenger accomodation doors, per 158 style. We work the 322 also, and the door controls are on the cab bulk head only. No other panels.

As always there is another side to the story!

So if guards remained in place on the Bathgate - Edinburgh section they would be able to work the train in the same way as the 150's that haven't been gone from the route that long either.

To be honest even if the only way to open and shut the doors was to walk to a cab, this isn't really going to make much difference in terms of staff presence to what we have now. when a 170 is on the route the checks often only take place between Uphall and Edinburgh Park. Likewise when 2x 334's are in multiple like they will be in the peak there will be visable presence in one set, just like when we have 2x 170 on the Edinburgh - Glasgow route now.

 

[CarterUSM]

Yes, that is correct, you wouldn't really see much of a difference. Though on a busy service you can still have a ticket examiner assisting anyway, this happens at glasgow central with morning peak services from east kilbride, kilmarnock, whifflet and paisley canal.

 

[HSTfan!!!]

I think a major flaw of the driver doing the doors is how the hell does the dispatched stop the train once the driver is out of sight should he need to? maybe I'm just being a little dull?

 

[SWT Driver]

Well on POD stock you have a thing called the Interlock Light, so if there's any obstruction in the doors the light doesn't come on & there's no traction available.

If there's an emergency then a pass-com will be operated, bringing the train to a halt, if like Southern you have in cab screens which receives the feeds from the bodyside cameras or for 455/456 operated services then you have the platform CCTV monitors to rely on.

 

[Mojo]

I think a major flaw of the driver doing the doors is how the hell does the dispatched stop the train once the driver is out of sight should he need to? maybe I'm just being a little dull?

The same way the dispatcher doesn't stop the train where the guard is near the front or where the guard can't see the dispatcher

 

[313103]

Yet another Anti Guard, Anti Bob CROW and anti RMT rant from Yorkie.

What Yorkie should do is understand that the union also takes a dim view of drinking whilst on duty, and whilst this individual may have been represented by the union, there would be nothing the representative could do other then tell the person that he may get criminal proceedings as well.

As for the PATROLLING the train perhaps he would like to come and join me on PATROLLING the 08.29 London Overground service from Stratford to Clapham Junction, where passengers are happy if they can get on it, pity those that have to wait on the platform because there is no space. Oh not just doing in a comfy pair of moccasins but i nice pair of heavy duty safety shoes with Steel toe cap and all.

Going back to the article i see it has been reported in sensationalist way with plenty of exaggerated claims and inaccuracies you would have thought it was comming from the Mail.................... Oh it has come from the Mails stable though

AS SWT driver as said i also have no sympathey for people under the influence whilst at work and that includes everyone.

With regard Carter USM comments on the Paisley Gilmour Street accident, both Driver and Guard were responsible for that. The Guard for giving the ready to start signal and the driver for moving the train after receiving the signal from the Guard against a red aspect. Not sure if alcohol was involved though. However i wasnt on the railways then and i think that it was after this accident that clear instructions were brought out regarding the bell /buzzer code. Such that it i have seen Guards sacked for giving two on the bell at a red signal.