I'm quite happy to PM the basic details to any rail staff, whose current role and background I can be sure of, but I'm not prepared to send details of the incident to all and sundry
-
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!
Staff attitude to PRIV Boxes and Dating them
- Thread starter Urban Gateline
- Start date
- Status
I'm quite happy to PM the basic details to any rail staff, whose current role and background I can be sure of, but I'm not prepared to send details of the incident to all and sundry
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
MattRobinson
Member
How can you reference an incident that nobody else on the forum appears to know about and about which you won't give the details out?
I have told you that there was one, you either accept that or not, that is your prerogative, but I am not in the habit of telling lies. I don't share full details of events that I become professionally aware of on a public forum. Not everyone will have heard of the event, as the report isn't in the public domain. As I said, I am quite happy to share the info with other genuine railwaymen, whose background I can be sure of. I have read the report and the circumstances of the event are utterly astounding
Well thats a matter of opinion. During a passenger train failure, one of my colleagues helped the guard attach the rescue loco and complete a brake test because he was unsure. Now that is not the guards fault as they obviously are not trained in such things.
On another occasion another colleague was able to accompany a driver following a near miss with a vehicle.
On a third occasion, another colleague was able to act as a competent person following isolation of the AWS equipment.
All three occasions allowed the guard to get on with his normal duties and got the trains moving quicker then it would have normally been.
MattRobinson
Member
(My bold)
The important word there is 'quicker'. They'd have got the train moving in at least the last two and in the first example, presumably the driver of the rescuing loco would be able to carry out a brake test? I'm not saying that they're not useful in an emergency, but how often will they actually be called upon to help? Quite honestly, I can't see any way that this can be seen as a good argument for free travel. But I must stress, once again, that I do agree with free travel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Then surely, you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place?
You are entitled to you view
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
I think it would be fair to point out that this so called 'good argument for free travel' was actually brought up by the question 'what do the train companies get out of it?' rather than any 'why should you have free travel?' questions.
Indeed.
What I said was
Quite, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. There was a various serious operating incident recently that involved a heritage railway member of staff doing something that he shouldn't have done and wasn't qualified to do, out on the big railway
That is a genuine statement. The report into the incident exists. What is sad is that some posters on here refuse to accept, at face value, that a statement is true, unless they are given chapter and verse, in other words, divulge the "gen". Even if I did that divulge that, those same posters would still not have heard of the incident, therefore would still refuse to believe it and so would be no further forward, it would be a pointless exercise.
I will back KA4C on this. While I have not read the report, there was an incident on the mainline involving heritage railway memeber. And if its the one I am thinking of it happened on 26/04/12. Thats all I will say on the matter other than just because its not in the public domain or staff members won't/can't talk about it, doesn't mean its any less true.
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
No, what they want is to be able to know what you are talking about. If you aren't prepared to talk about what you have mentioned then don't bother mentioning it in the first place. It doesn't really matter how true it is if you won't talk about it.
No, they want all the juicy gossip.
That says all you need to know, why can't you accept that at face value?
I was not referring to you specifically but all the staff which do offer free travel to other menbers, I only used your post because of the reference to the SCWID card.
Wrong, I told them what I was talking about, in as much as I can, the incident was relevant to the discussion in the thread at the time and the amount of info that I gave was sufficient, (causation of incident involved a person, who is a heritage railway volunteer, carrying out a task on the big railway, that, according to the evidence, he wasn't qualified to undertake, the incident was a serious operating incident). I am not going to name location, company involved and person involved. No more info is needed and beating me up will not elicit it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Absolutely, of course they do
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
You mention it as some sort of evidence to justify a point. It is an incident that no-one has heard of and you expect everyone to know what you are talking about and accept it. Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
Grow up.
Oh dear, oh dear
Perhaps you would like to explain why posting the details makes any sort of difference. If he were to post the details for all you know they could have been made up. Doesn't change the fact the incident happened and won't have changed the fact that the majority of people will not have heard of it.
- Status