LBC reporter checking on train drivers

[transmanche]

**knock knock knock** on the glass.

Scuse me drive, what time do we get into London?

Thanks but no thanks.

Does this happen on ICE3/Metro/various trams?

No. It's a spurious argument.

Great and then someone jumps in front of the train and you have 200 passengers putting claims for mental trauma - get real. Most units have front facing cameras fitted already that can be downloaded post incident.

Does this happen on ICE3/Metro/DLR/various trams?

No. It's a spurious argument.

Trams and LRVs travel at nowhere near the speed of heavy rail services.

50mph is faster than you get on many heavy rail services. ICE3s can travel faster than any train in the UK, other than a Eurostar.

Yet another spurious argument.

most passengers would find far more in the sideways view.

So why is it that when a forwards view is available to passengers, these are the first seats to be taken?

 

[Dave1987]

I would think the scene would be fairly similar, obviously depending on the speed of the train or tram.

I really cannot see why any such incident would be "all over the papers", after all it is no different to coach passengers witnessing a high speed motorway accident through the front windscreen.

Why shouldn't passengers want to look where the train is going? I can understand drivers wanting to keep their privacy but some of the arguments put forward are doing nothing to help that cause.

Train running ten minutes late, driver running on single yellows so driving at significantly reduced speed, comes round a corner and the next signal is at danger, goes over the magnet at 20mph. Then BANG BANG BANG on the glass from an irate passenger, "why are we going so slowly", driver distracted for a second then ....... TPWS brake demand light as he/she has failed to stop at the signal because they were distracted at a crucial point. In this country it would not work, people are not self disciplined enough to not try and distract the driver.

 

[jon0844]

IF (and it's a huge IF because I don't think it will happen) we had glass screens at the front of the train (behind the cab) to enable people to see out the front, I'd imagine it to be rather too thick to have people able to bang on it and ask the driver questions.

 

[transmanche]

Then BANG BANG BANG on the glass from an irate passenger, "why are we going so slowly", driver distracted for a second then ....... TPWS brake demand light as he/she has failed to stop at the signal because they were distracted at a crucial point. In this country it would not work, people are not self disciplined enough to not try and distract the driver.

Well it doesn't happen on T&W Metro, thus disproving your argument.

There seem to be so many spurious arguments made as to why it can't work/shouldn't be allowed/etc. All of them spurious and without foundation.

All we're left with is the argument that driver's don;t want to be watched at work. Which is as good an argument as any - but don't muddy the waters by desperately trying to come up with a spurious reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

It's just like when organisations come up with spurious 'health & safety' reasons for banning something.

 

[RPM]

There was a recent incident on Twitter where a passenger kicked up a big fuss claiming a train ignored a red signal at New Street and stopped just a few feet short of another train. He was still ranting about it despite several people posting links to explanations of permissive working and position light signals. I suspect giving pax a forward view would open the floodgates for more of this sort of thing.

They'll also be all sorts of ill informed, outraged complaints about drivers taking their hands of the wheel to drink tea or eat a sandwich. Or taking their eyes of the road to look at a piece of paper (schedule) etc. It's just too easy to sound off about trivial things now on social media - things that in the past would have been forgotten about by the end of the journey.

I'm pretty certain it is a only small minority of pax who would be interested in a forward view anyway. Some Chiltern drivers raise the blinds on the 121 units but I've noticed nobody bothering to grab the seats with the view, aside form the occasional obvious rail enthusiast.

 

[Dave1987]

Well it doesn't happen on T&W Metro, thus disproving your argument.

There seem to be so many spurious arguments made as to why it can't work/shouldn't be allowed/etc. All of them spurious and without foundation.

All we're left with is the argument that driver's don;t want to be watched at work. Which is as good an argument as any - but don't muddy the waters by desperately trying to come up with a spurious reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

It's just like when organisations come up with spurious 'health & safety' reasons for banning something.

They are not spurious they are serious arguments.

It won't happen anyway as ASLEF won't allow it thankfully.

 

[transmanche]

They are not spurious they are serious arguments.

It's a spurious argument when the reason for objection is shown to be completely false.

 

[A-driver]

Does this happen on ICE3/Metro/various trams?

No. It's a spurious argument.

Does this happen on ICE3/Metro/DLR/various trams?

No. It's a spurious argument.

50mph is faster than you get on many heavy rail services. ICE3s can travel faster than any train in the UK, other than a Eurostar.

Yet another spurious argument.

So why is it that when a forwards view is available to passengers, these are the first seats to be taken?

I think it's you who are getting worked up about this and I'm certainly not being 'paranoid' as you claimed.

It's rather obvious that this thread has descended into spotters wanting to see out the front of a train and trying to justify it (weakly) and break any argument against such a thing by simply ignoring the valid points put across by staff.

To be honest its rather classic of how this forum can get-drivers are trying to explain the reason for things and are being ignored as the enthusiasts don't like it. Sorry but bleat on about it as much as you like-you won't be getting cab view windows on mainline UK trains. Even if just for the reason that us drivers don't want it, that's as good enough reason as any and a far better reason against than anyone has yet given in the 'pro' argument. And as I say, even if the windows we installed most drivers would block them out with coats etc.

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[sheff1]

The various arguments against have ignored the fact that such windows were present for 40 odd years* on DMUs in the UK without, as far as I am aware, mass outbreaks of window banging and the like.

And just to be clear, I have no desire to see such windows return, but am just rather bemused at some of the knee-jerk reactions on here.

*I now await the usual response that past events are irrelevant as UK railway history only started in 1993 (or even 2009 according to some).

 

[transmanche]

I think it's you who are getting worked up about this.

Not al all. I just don't like it when people just make up nonsense to try and justify an argument.

It's rather obvious that this thread has descended into spotters wanting to see out the front of a train and trying to justify it (weakly) and break any argument against such a thing by simply ignoring the valid points put across by staff.

Not at all.

At pointed out repeatedly; it's not 'spotters' who make use of the front-view seats when they are available - and almost invariably they are the first seats to go.

As pointed out repeatedly; objections such as passengers will bang on the window, passengers can't be exposed to possibility of the train running over an animal/person, etc are shown to be spurious - as this just does not happen where front views are available.

TBH, it's not something that's important to me. I haven't demanded forward views. I just don't like it when people make up nonsense.

Sorry to disappoint you.

The only thing that's disappointed me is that fact you've been making stuff up in order to try and back-up your argument.

 

[A-driver]

TBH, it's not something that's important to me. I haven't demanded forward views. I just don't like it when people make up nonsense.

The only thing that's disappointed me is that fact you've been making stuff up in order to try and back-up your argument.

I haven't made anything up-can you provide quotes from my posts of what has been made up please?

This thread is about drivers phone usage. The idea was put out of windows so passengers could see the driver. Spotters have hijacked that idea as they want to see where the train is going. Simple.

And I'll wait for you to provide quotes of what I have made up as I don't like being accused of that kind of thing thank you. I'm not he be making up nonsense here...

 

[A-driver]

The various arguments against have ignored the fact that such windows were present for 40 odd years* on DMUs in the UK without, as far as I am aware, mass outbreaks of window banging and the like.
[/I]

Surely the fact that they stopped building trains with windows like that answers your question?

 

[jon0844]

I can't even remember when windows to look out the front came up, as I thought this thread was about an LBC reporter going out to look for drivers using their mobile phones, and coming back to say that none of them were. Which, to me, showed some good and honest journalism, as well as showing drivers to be professional.

The argument for having windows to see into the cab should perhaps be broken off into another thread?

 

[Darandio]

Well it doesn't happen on T&W Metro, thus disproving your argument.

Because although you can sit at the front, you cannot see the driver in the same way that you cannot see the driver in a Class 142, Class 156 etc.

I don't believe they bang on the doors of those units either?

 

[A-driver]

Because although you can sit at the front, you cannot see the driver in the same way that you cannot see the driver in a Class 142, Class 156 etc.

I don't believe they bang on the doors of those units either?

The point of the 'bang on the door' argument isn't to do with approaching red lights, going slowly etc, more to do with a train sitting there whilst the driver is going through his bag, reading manuals etc.

It's fine to do when no one can see you as they believe it sparrow the overall delay but it wouldn't go down well if a load of commuters being made late for work sit there watching the delay go on further whilst the driver appears to have a read of the instruction book etc.

Basically forward facing windows are un needed and so won't happen, just that some on here are having trouble understanding that! (Transmanche will be along soon to tell me that I have made that up no doubt...)

 

[transmanche]

I haven't made anything up-can you provide quotes from my posts of what has been made up please?

See posts #77, #89, #95 for exampled of where I have refuted your spurious arguments.

The idea was put out of windows so passengers could see the driver. Spotters have hijacked that idea as they want to see where the train is going.

I suggest you-re-read the thread from the start. I haven't seen anyone demanding that windows should be put in to watch the driver. I saw one person suggest they would like to see a forward view:

I wouldn't mind windows behind the cab, not for checking up on the driver but for the best view in the train!

Then much later:

We also have the issue of trains regularly vapourising a variety of nature's creations, ranging from flies and pigeons to cattle and human beings. It makes rather unpleasant viewing and is not something that people should be given front row seats for, or that TOCs should have to pay out compo claims for emotional distress for when people sue afterwards - we all know it would happen.

To which I responded:

Doesn't seem to be a problem on T&W Metro or DLR.

And it's at that point that you chipped in with:

What has the Tyne metro got to do with anything? It still isn't justification for having windows into cabs-just because they do dosnt mean the uk mainline needs it-again I ask what reason is there for it apart from to entertain children/enthusiasts etc? Can you provide any examples of incidents which would have been prevented if the public could see the driver?

I don't think anyone had argued that having windows into cabs was to 'prevent an incident'.

Since then it's been a cyclical argument with various spurious reasons given, with each of these being refuted in turn. Not because people are demanding a cab view (or even just a forward view) - but just to refute the spurious arguments. If you didn't keep making those spurious arguments, this thread would have ended ages ago...

 

[sheff1]

Surely the fact that they stopped building trains with windows like that answers your question?

I wan't aware I had asked a question , but will now. Are you saying they stopped building such trains because there were mass outbreaks of window banging and the like ?

 

[A-driver]

See posts #77, #89, #95 for exampled of where I have refuted your spurious arguments.

I suggest you-re-read the thread from the start. I haven't seen anyone demanding that windows should be put in to watch the driver. I saw one person suggest they would like to see a forward view:

​

Then much later:

​

To which I responded:

​

And it's at that point that you chipped in with:

​

I don't think anyone had argued that having windows into cabs was to 'prevent an incident'.

Since then it's been a cyclical argument with various spurious reasons given, with each of these being refuted in turn. Not because people are demanding a cab view (or even just a forward view) - but just to refute the spurious arguments. If you didn't keep making those spurious arguments, this thread would have ended ages ago...

Could you please provide details as to what is 'spurious' in those linked threads please? I have just read through them and can see nothing in them which I have said which is factually inaccurate.

Ok, so the thread is actually about having forward facing windows. But how do you do that without a window looking into the drivers cab (and don't say the Newcastle metro does as that's a different system and UK mainline trains require 2 seats in the cab plus need the driver to be able to reach both sides of the cab with opening doors or windows for things such as dispatch). Plus as new build trains have new technology (cab computers, in cab signalling etc) more and more space is needed to provide all the controls and monitors for the driver so cabs are spreading out more naturally anyway.

And ill ask again, please give an argument for installing such windows which isn't 'it would be fun to look where we are going'. Without such an argument is whole discussion is pretty pointless...

 

[theboywho]

It seems to me that there is a bit of a pompous attitude among certain ranks of railway employees - somewhat akin to the 'don't you know who I am?' attitude.

I would suggest that any person purporting to be a professional is not outside the realms of accountability. Therefore I cannot imagine why it would be such a problem for CCTV to be installed in a drivers cab.

 

[A-driver]

I wan't aware I had asked a question , but will now. Are you saying they stopped building such trains because there were mass outbreaks of window banging and the like ?

I didn't say they were did I? I stated that they stopped building trains like that. Weather that was just because it was pointless installing glass, weather it was down to driver preference or driver distraction or so,e other reason I don't know, but the fact remains that the decision was taken to remove those windows from future train designs.

 

[A-driver]

It seems to me that there is a bit of a pompous attitude among certain ranks of railway employees - somewhat akin to the 'don't you know who I am?' attitude.

I would suggest that any person purporting to be a professional is not outside the realms of accountability. Therefore I cannot imagine why it would be such a problem for CCTV to be installed in a drivers cab.

Well then read the thread properly and you will find out.

Unfortunately once again rail staff are trying to explain FACTS to spotters on here and the spotters, who believe they know everything as they have read it on google, refuse to listen to the experience the staff provide.

 

[Dave1987]

It seems to me that there is a bit of a pompous attitude among certain ranks of railway employees - somewhat akin to the 'don't you know who I am?' attitude.

I would suggest that any person purporting to be a professional is not outside the realms of accountability. Therefore I cannot imagine why it would be such a problem for CCTV to be installed in a drivers cab.

Seriously mate look into the history of the OTMR, as in the reasons it was first installed and what it is now used for and you would understand why ASLEF and most if not all drivers are opposed to in cab CCTV. I will give you a clue, the OTMR was first introduced as a incident investigation tool.

 

[transmanche]

Could you please provide details as to what is 'spurious' in those linked threads please? I have just read through them and can see nothing in them which I have said which is factually inaccurate.

The fact that you believe making a phone call to your wife whilst driving is no more dangerous than speaking to a signaller about a red signal for starters (read my earlier post as to why that's nonsense). But I'm not going to indulge you by repeating everything that I've said earlier.

and don't say the Newcastle metro does as that's a different system and UK mainline trains require 2 seats in the cab plus need the driver to be able to reach both sides of the cab with opening doors or windows for things such as dispatch.

I guess you're not aware that Tyne & Wear Metro runs on Network Rail tracks south of Pelaw Junction - mixing with Northern passenger services, Grand central ECS moves and a variety of freight workings between Pelaw Junction and Sunderland.

And ill ask again, please give an argument for installing such windows which isn't 'it would be fun to look where we are going'.

Why should I do that? As I have said repeatedly, I haven't been arguing that case at all. Merely responding to point out the flaws in your spurious arguments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well then read the thread properly and you will find out.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[Darandio]

The fact that you believe making a phone call to your wife whilst driving is no more dangerous than speaking to a signaller about a red signal for starters (read my earlier post as to why that's nonsense). But I'm not going to indulge you by repeating everything that I've said earlier.

Remind me again why the T&W Metro has anything to do with the thread?

Is it still the "you can sit up front but nobody distracts the driver" argument?

 

[A-driver]

The fact that you believe making a phone call to your wife whilst driving is no more dangerous than speaking to a signaller about a red signal for starters (read my earlier post as to why that's nonsense). But I'm not going to indulge you by repeating everything that I've said earlier.

I guess you're not aware that Tyne & Wear Metro runs on Network Rail tracks south of Pelaw Junction - mixing with Northern passenger services, Grand central ECS moves and a variety of freight workings between Pelaw Junction and Sunderland.

Why should I do that? As I have said repeatedly, I haven't been arguing that case at all. Merely responding to point out the flaws in your spurious arguments.

I stand by what I say about phone calls. Of course all your experience driving trains and working in that field makes you an expert...oh no wait, you have just read a bit in google but have no practice experience unlike those if us in here who actually do this for a living...

What difference does it make that the Newcastle metro runs on NR metals? I do know that but it's still a seperate entity with different procedures etc and the fact that they are built with no second mans seat and no access to the right hand window means that this is not needed on the system. It certainly is on mainline trains which is why the cabs are built how they are. You can't get rid of half the cab on a mainline train as it is needed too much and too often to remove. Simple fact.

Why are you bothering to argue if you don't care about this then? Seems a bit pointless. But you still haven't shown where my argument is spurious.

 

[A-driver]

Remind me again why the T&W Metro has anything to do with the thread?

I have been wondering that all along as well...

 

[BestWestern]

It seems to me that there is a bit of a pompous attitude among certain ranks of railway employees - somewhat akin to the 'don't you know who I am?' attitude.

I would suggest that any person purporting to be a professional is not outside the realms of accountability. Therefore I cannot imagine why it would be such a problem for CCTV to be installed in a drivers cab.

To put it in fairly blunt terms, there is a perception that 'the management' would end up using the footage for reasons not entirely in line with those offered to justify the initial installation, if you get my drift!? Essentially, people would feel that their superiors (I do hate that term!) would be in a position to download a few hours of a Driver sitting in his cab and watch every last move he made, whether it be picking his nose, farting like a trooper or merrily singing away to himself, just because they felt like it. Maybe they might dislike a certain individual and fancy seeing if they can catch him out doing something unflattering for example. More seriously than that, having a camera in a cab creates a culture of mistrust, as if to suggest that staff cannot be left alone to do their jobs without there being some means of checking up on them at any given moment. That is not a healthy working environment.

People like a bit of privacy, and having a camera staring you in the face all day long isn't very nice. Yes, lots of people work in shops and the like where there are cameras about, but they aren't generally installed in non-public areas. So far as I'm aware, even aircraft don't have CCTV in cockpits, just voice and data recorders. And let's face it, a couple of pilots and a bevvy of stewardesses are far more likely to be 'up to' something than a solitary train Driver locked away on his own! Anybody who has see 'that' AirFrance video will know what I mean

 

[transmanche]

I stand by what I say about phone calls. Of course all your experience driving trains and working in that field makes you an expert...oh no wait, you have just read a bit in google but have no practice experience unlike those if us in here who actually do this for a living...

It's nothing to do with driving trains! But I have read (and gave you links) to information on studies which proved that people who make telephone calls where they are likely to get 'emotionally involved' or caught up in domestic worries show impaired reactions similar to those who are above the legal alcohol limit for driving. But hey if you reckon being a train driver makes you an expert psychologist too, then you go for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why are you bothering to argue if you don't care about this then?

I have answered this question already.

What worries me about this thread is that you have clearly demonstrated an inability to comprehend written information. Even when it is repeated multiple times, it appears that you are unable to take the information on board. Bearing in mind the job that you do, that's quite disturbing.

 

[A-driver]

It's nothing to do with driving trains! But I have read (and gave you links) to information on studies which proved that people who make telephone calls where they are likely to get 'emotionally involved' or caught up in domestic worries show impaired reactions similar to those who are above the legal alcohol limit for driving. But hey if you reckon being a train driver makes you an expert psychologist too, then you go for it.

I'm not saying I'm an expert psycologist-are you one? Or have you just read something on google and decided that you are now an expert? Considering what you say above I suspect the latter. No doubt you will also find countless counter-arguments on google if you look.

Sorry, but you can't base your argument on what you read on google!

The amount of 'human factor' and distraction training drivers go through constantly combined with my practice real life (ie not 'read it on google') experience means I do have a fair idea what I am talking about.

 

[transmanche]

I'm not saying I'm an expert psycologist-are you one?

I don't need to be. I'm not the one refuting what countless expert psychologists have proven.