Prairie_5542
Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 274
Isn't this guy a 'security guard' for the railway and not actually railway staff?
Rules are there for protection of staff and others.
However, if someone has chosen to put himself at risk and disregard those rules, in the unusual circumstance where another person is in imminent and obvious danger, that should be his/her choice and a sensible employer should back the decision, albeit guardedly.
In this case, in my opinion C2C made a decision which they should have known would cause controversy and suspending the employee was premature.
I got that impression, but then he is an employee of C2C and member of the RMT, which casts doubt in my mind whether that is the caseIsn't this guy a 'security guard' for the railway and not actually railway staff?
I got that impression, but then he is an employee of C2C and member of the RMT, which casts doubt in my mind whether that is the case
Do we know he didn't do that? I've not seen any report on the matter either way. Although I think I saw somewhere that "the train pulled in shortly afterwards", which would suggest that it wasn't stopped...
Yeah and that would have been the same up until Major got hold of the railways as everyone would have had the same basic railway training. Some platform staff were even trained in point winding, handsignalling, bridge bash examination etc so, when something went wrong staff were on hand locally
However that was then, this is now, these days, with operators looking to save where they can and the increased use of agency staff, people only get trained for absolutely the minimum of what they need. That's today's railway for you
I was talking generally.
suspension should be considered as a neutral act - there should be no inferences drawn as to guilt or otherwise during the period of suspension.
What's amusing to me is that these rules are there to protect the staff. I won't go anywhere near the track without the signalman confirming that the lines are blocked. Trains are quick and I don't want to be hit by one. I'm sure 100 years ago management would positively encouraged jumping straight down onto the track. Good job we learn from our mistakes!
Management following the correct procedure to ascertain what happened. Yeah, that's absolutely crap.
He potentially got himself killed, but hey, that's his choice.
Thats's up to you, if I'd been there and I could see that no trains were approaching, and there is a clear view at Southend Vic, I'd have done exactly what these blokes did and asked questions later. If you'd rather just stand and watch on your head be it.
Just like those that helped after the pile up on Sheppey Bridge yesterday may have got themselves killed, but hey they didn't
In which case you'd have time to ring signaller and get a stop sent to all trains?
I'd have rung signaller first before acting, comes as an automatic action and something I've always done
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not the same is it? Railwaymen have procedures to follow that are there for a reason, if you don't follow them, you are likely to get suspended whilst the matter is investigated, this seems to be what has happened
Silly me, I don't have the signallers number stored on my mobile. As others have asked, what if this happened at an unstaffed station? What does Joe Public do then?
Thats's up to you, if I'd been there and I could see that no trains were approaching, and there is a clear view at Southend Vic, I'd have done exactly what these blokes did and asked questions later. If you'd rather just stand and watch on your head be it.
There are occasions when the rule book goes out of the window and common sense takes over, I would suggest that this is one such occasion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just like those that helped after the pile up on Sheppey Bridge yesterday may have got themselves killed, but hey they didn't
There are occasions when the rule book goes out of the window and common sense takes over, I would suggest that this is one such occasion.
It was Southend Central, not Victoria.
I'd like to think any sensible railwayman would have done the same, even if they then went onto the line without waiting for it to be blocked. I wonder how many of those, here and elsewhere, suggesting that it's right to stick two fingers up at the rules will one day find themselves being asked, in an interview, to describe a time that they dealt with an emergency? Saying that you jumped straight in with no regard for your own safety or that of others, and ignoring the established procedures to make the situation as safe as possible...probably not the best answer!!In which case you'd have time to ring signaller and get a stop sent to all trains?
I'd have rung signaller first before acting, comes as an automatic action and something I've always done
Phone on the station for staff? Joe Public are not the same as trained railway staff. The point is that the guy on on investigatory suspension (according to C2C in the article), nothing unusual about that and that doesn't infer guilt. at the moment it is a lot of fuss over nothing to be honest
in most circumstances going onto a railway line is no more dangerous than going onto a road where traffic may be travelling at high speed
Well in normal circumstances I wouldn't walk onto a railway line, I wouldn't walk onto a motorway either..............in an emergency it's rather different though
Except of course that cars doing 70 can stop pretty quickly compared to a train doing the same speed. Plus a car can always steer around you where possible. A train obviously can't. And a motorway has places you could run to get out the way like the central reservation and hard shoulder. If trapped between platforms (which are fairly high) and trains approach simultaneously on both lines you have nowhere to go.
But I'm sure your comments come from all the experience you have walking on railways and motorways and not just guesswork...
I can't argue with that but it goes without saying that if I did need to go onto a railway track in an emergency I would look first, just as I would if I was crossing a railway line by a foot crossing.
I can't argue with that but it goes without saying that if I did need to go onto a railway track in an emergency I would look first, just as I would if I was crossing a railway line by a foot crossing.
How would you know that you'd have sufficient time to 'escape', after the time at which you first sighted an approaching train, bearing in mind that you'd probably not see the train for a few seconds after it comes within your sighting distance?I can't argue with that but it goes without saying that if I did need to go onto a railway track in an emergency I would look first, just as I would if I was crossing a railway line by a foot crossing.
Isn't this guy a 'security guard' for the railway and not actually railway staff?
Even if that is the case, he should not have got onto the track until he has had confirmation that the block is in place and all trains are stopped.We dont have the full facts of this case so there may have been another member of staff who did alert the signaller while this other staff member got onto the track.
Southend station wheelchair fall: Was woman pushed on to track?
Transport police are investigating whether a woman in a wheelchair was pushed on to railway tracks.
The 71-year-old woman from Benfleet was at Southend Central station, Essex, with a friend on 28 August when her wheelchair rolled off the platform.
A railway worker who helped rescue her was suspended amid suggestions he may have breached safety regulations by going on to the track.
The woman suffered a fractured hip in the fall.
Det Con David Bishop of British Transport Police said the woman remained at Southend General Hospital.
He said police wanted to speak to anybody who may have seen the woman fall, or seen her in the moments leading up to the incident.
....continues