So, what's the alternative then. Have people go walking the tracks off their own back? stay on the train and hope the fire doesn't get worse? Or for the other incident, what will be will be?
Last edited:
-
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!
Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal
- Thread starter hornbyfan99
- Start date
- Status
So, what's the alternative then. Have people go walking the tracks off their own back? stay on the train and hope the fire doesn't get worse? Or for the other incident, what will be will be?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Wow two incidents in a day where the guard proved their worth and yet some on here still want to see the back of them! An evacuation because of a train fire and protection with dets needed in which some posters in this thread said they were confined to history books.
Apart from rumour both sides said they won't be commenting until the talks conclude.
Apart from rumour both sides said they won't be commenting until the talks conclude.
Yes without a guards hand to hold the public are incapable of walking along the tracks. Let's hope there was no more than a dozen passengers on that train! Any more and people will do their own thing anyhow.
So who guides these passengers to the nearest station or access point? Are the lines blocked? Is the ECO informed that the juice needs to be switched off?
Diesel line, so no juice to switch off. Pretty sure some passengers have knowledge of the line if they travel up and down it everyday ... I certainly would know my local routes and have had absolutely zero training ....And all this from someone who has regularly been called stupid ... so sure some of the passengers are clever so can cope even easier.
Why do we need to know if the line is blocked ... the public are more than capable of seeing trains coming ... they do it regularly where there are gated foot crossings without walking into the paths of trains.
Have you ever walked along an operational railway, or indeed any railway? (Public foot crossings don't count). I have, and I assure you that there are many, many places where no-one, not even the public, has an adequate view of approaching trains.
Do you really know your local routes to the extent of being able to identify the nearest access point?
Correct. The guard would have the knowledge of the route to insure we get to where we need to be safely.
I'm sure the odd couple of idiots will be stupid enough to do their own thing, but i should think a stern talking to would insure they don't do it again and will listen to rail staff in future.
I'm not railway staff but I'll never forget the tragedy where some self-evacuating from an HST that had crashed was subsequently struck by an up train on the adjacent track. Ladbroke Grove, was it?
Then there's the issue of knowing which way to run, if you do see or hear an approaching train. Tunnels, viaducts, cuttings...
Are you saying that the PTS training that most operational staff have to go through is pointless? You make it sound like walking down a live operational railway line is just like walking down the street! How would you know where to stand in places of limited clearance?
You underestimated the abilities of the general public so much I find it insulting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am sure I know them well enough to ensure my own safety. As long as I can get out ... nearest access point, 2nd nearest access point, unofficial fence to climb over ... it does not matter to me
I have knowledge of my line, which i have been traveling for 20 years. It means jot as i'm not rail staff.
Are you for real? You need to know if the line is blocked so you can get to where you need to be safely. so you see a hst coming at ful pelt for example, who do you think will be winning? It certainly won't be you. comparing walking on the tracks to being behind a gate at a foot crossing is more proof of what you are. You are embarrassing yourself.
In this example how does the guard supervise 800 passengers ... he can't ... and why does the train behind ignore the red lights ... not saying the training is pointless, but treating every member of the public as complete idiot's is completely stupid as well.
So how many people would have died or been injured in yesterday's train fire if there had been no guard. Probably none, but it is very nice to say the guard saved the day ... when in reality the outcome is likely to have been the if DOO operation.
Last edited:
How'd you know where your nearest access point is when you've lost situational awareness?
Let's say you're on a late-night HST from Paddington to Plymouth. It's dark and foggy and the train is stranded 'somewhere between Westbury and Taunton'.
There's no ambient light; no phone signal, and you can't even get an A-GPS fix. Google estimate you're somewhere in a 15-mile buffer around Cogload Junction. You've been wedged in like sardines thanks to Cornwall-bound commuters wedging the coaches, and haven't seen a window (let alone milepost, signal or level crossing) in half an hour.
As a member of the public i'm giving you the facts. I don't care if you find it insulting, they are facts. We do not have the relevant training to be going walking on an operational railway. End of.
Well it should matter to you, as if it goes wrong, people will have to clean you off the tracks afterwords. I hate to put that in such blunt terms but that is what can happen when people who think they know, but don't actually know go walking on an operational railway without super vision from those trained in the operations of said railway.
Well done. Now try it on a train that's on one of the centre lines on a multi-line formation, or in a tunnel, or on a viaduct.
Incidentally, did the passengers who thought they knew it all not consider the much safer option of a lateral evacuation into (initially, at least) adjacent unaffected vehicles?
What do you do if you come to an area of limited clearance in the meantime, one with virtually no visibility of approaching trains?
You get out of the path of an HST .... What other advice would a guard give you ... Just stand there and get hit? I really do not get your argument ... In both instances it is me and the guard using common sense. Your statement is pointless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Come on you know passengers are not allowed to be that clever.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And how many train crew are there on an intercity... normally more than one ... So example given is pointless ... No one has yet suggested DOO intercity services yet, at least not with any 2nd member of staff ... and probably more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Again you do underestimate yourself ... so how long will we have to wait on Southern for the bloody thirsty DOO carnage you are predicting .... chances are it is not going to happen ... End of.
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I really have no idea why you all keep replying to Astradyne.
It would be easier for everyone if you didn't.
It would be easier for everyone if you didn't.
What does a guard do with 800 passengers in such circumstances? A guard is not a superman, none of us are.
Last edited:
I'm now firmly convinced they're nothing more than a contrary troll just here to cause a reaction.
He starts by reassuring passengers and encouraging them to move to unaffected vehicles, rather than blindly evacuating onto the cess or an adjacent line. If an emergency evacuation is necessary, he can establish which lines the signalman has been able to protect or carry out emergency protection if necessary. He can use his route knowledge to determine, in the worst case scenarios, which line is the 'least worst' option - one might even be a siding (does your extensive knowledge cover details of running lines/sidings?). He can decide whether to direct passengers towards the nearest access point (which way is it?) or get them to a position of safety and instruct them to remain there until more robust arrangements can be made.
What is the average number of passengers in a road vehicle vers average number on a train?
agree.
I wonder if he is a rail enthusiast?... as any rail enthusiast would see the value of guards and conductors especially in an accident or evacuation situation.
Well done. yYou have come up with a long answer that completely fails to address the point originally raised.
Let's be honest most lines are simple double tracks so most of the rest is unlikely to occur. If you are unsure what is behind you walk to the front of the train so you have a big heavy piece of metal protecting you. So how am I now going to perish.
Last edited:
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
You've clearly never worked in any form of customer service! I don't think some people realise just how stupid they actually are, even when in the relative safety of being on a station platform, for instance.
cornishjohn
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 100
Perhaps guards should only be carried when we know there is going to be an incident :roll:
The thing is, the cat is already out of the bag. DOO is already allowed on a number of lines, so surely alternative procedures are already in place for such occurrences, or am I being terribly naive?
I am quite curious to know how often these days does a guard SUCCESSFULLY protect a train with detonators, by which I mean actually avert an escalating incident by stopping a second approaching train. By contrast, there was NOT time to place protection at e.g. the Watford tunnel collision last year.
I can see e.g. the merits of detonators warning a rescue loco, but even so, detonators are 19th century technology, introduced before a number of other communication methods became available.(GPS, VHF, mobile, GSM-R etc). As long as the replacement can be shown to be as safe there shouldn't be an issue.
I remember reading a guards memoirs in one of the mainstream magazines. The safety requirements of a rake of Mk I's or 4 wheeled coal wagons are very different from modern stock. One incident I recall is where he insisted a coach was removed from the train as he thought the suspension looked iffy. We don't seem to have that sort of incident these days.
If DOO is actually dangerous at particular locations this should be demonstrable. What we actually get is a lot of "proof by arm-waving". (The notion that the speaker must be right because they can wave their arms more vigorously than their opponent...)
If, say, monitors are genuinely unviewable I would hope to see much more working-to-rule going on.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
It seems to be the case that the guard was required to lay protection because the driver was unfit to do so.
While incidents like SPADs affect people in different ways, it's concerning that people are indirectly suggesting a driver was literally incapable of protecting the train in this scenario. Let's hope the driver never works for a FOC!
As an aside, surely the train was travelling under caution before it passed the red signal. What do most TOCs teach in terms of driving technique where you are under caution but in heavy fog? Is it line-of-sight driving (walking pace if need be), or something else?
While incidents like SPADs affect people in different ways, it's concerning that people are indirectly suggesting a driver was literally incapable of protecting the train in this scenario. Let's hope the driver never works for a FOC!
As an aside, surely the train was travelling under caution before it passed the red signal. What do most TOCs teach in terms of driving technique where you are under caution but in heavy fog? Is it line-of-sight driving (walking pace if need be), or something else?
In order to justify an investment or expenditure on safety, one has to look at the instance of the events one is try to prevent or ameliorate. The instances given by Ainsworth are just too rare to justify - on their own - carrying an extra official on every train. The chances of the possible double spad being prevented by detonators is just too seldom a likelihood, likewise a fire, which was dealt with anyway.
When compared with road, when thick fog will very likely result in a prang or multiple thereof, it just doesn't add up. Road travel is so relatively dangerous, one wonders why these rare rail incidents are even considered, when one considers how many lives and injuries could be saved by investment in road safety systems and regulations.
It is IMO, advisable to relativise these matters. They need careful statistic gathering and analysis.
When compared with road, when thick fog will very likely result in a prang or multiple thereof, it just doesn't add up. Road travel is so relatively dangerous, one wonders why these rare rail incidents are even considered, when one considers how many lives and injuries could be saved by investment in road safety systems and regulations.
It is IMO, advisable to relativise these matters. They need careful statistic gathering and analysis.
I deliberately didn't reply for a couple of hours but having read your responses to other posters it made for entertaining reading and I still see you won't even absorb any information laid out in factual posts by others.
- Status