Trespassers Leeds, 30/05/19

[Llama]

'Northern Control' has always been a contradiction in terms.

 

[Bikeman78]

Also if I have to listen to the cheery chap auto-announcing that "The next station is Leeds" for a significant period of time longer I may go slightly insane and just start burbling it to myself.

I noticed that earlier this week. Took a 333 to Menston and another back to Leeds. On the way out it kept announcing "the next station is Guiseley" on a three minute loop. Similar story on the way back. It would be infuriating if stuck on board for ages. There must be a way for the guard to switch it off.

 

[Bikeman78]

Firstly. I don't think it is appropriate to comment on the guy who got himself into the situation he did. I rather doubt in his mind the thought, "I'll bring the entire county and beyond to a grinding halt" ever figured. Rumour circulated that he was tempted down by being offered a McDonalds, if that is true, he must have been a very tormented soul indeed.

My issue is with Northern's lack of response to it's train crews. Never in my life have I seen such a massive logistical issue dealt with by such an appalling lack of response. There is something very wrong when you have to rely on 'Open Train Times' to figure out what is happening, and where you are heading. 'Open Train Times' has become my best friend, and most reliable source of information. Northern control has become a sad joke. They have to do better.

Railways do seem to be an easy target for this sort of behaviour. I'm wondering how the police would react if a similar incident occurred at an airport.

As regards train crew, I wouldn't want the job of trying to pick up the pieces after a three hour closure, no doubt with the phone ringing constantly.

 

[OneOffDave]

Railways do seem to be an easy target for this sort of behaviour. I'm wondering how the police would react if a similar incident occurred at an airport.

The existing physical security around airports makes this kind of event much less likely and there is less infrastructure for anyone to secure themselves to. Unless they were presenting an immediate threat to life, the response would be for a negotiated outcome rather than shooting the individuals concerned. This negotiation approach was taken when protesters from Plane Stupid occupied the runway at Heathrow in 2015. As the incursion took place into a secure area, the penalties are higher than they would be for trespassing on the railway

 

[TUC]

For somewhere like Apperley Bridge I would imagine that crews would contact control to arrange road transport?

I hope so. Some of the comments here and elsewhere do not give me confidence there would be a consistent response.

 

[johntea]

Northern seemed to have

I noticed that earlier this week. Took a 333 to Menston and another back to Leeds. On the way out it kept announcing "the next station is Guiseley" on a three minute loop. Similar story on the way back. It would be infuriating if stuck on board for ages. There must be a way for the guard to switch it off.

They’ve had that ‘problem’ since 2007 when I commuted to Shipley and back on a daily basis, so I wouldn’t go forgetting your headphones in a hurry!

In my opinion Northern and Arriva buses should have a permanent ticket acceptance deal in place so the bus is always there as a backup option for days such as yesterday but I’ll probably get shot down for suggesting such a thing

 

[rich r]

The Northern crew on my train (0650 Selby to Leeds, stopped in the Quarry Hill area) seemed very well informed and in contact with BTP and Network Rail. Every 10-15 minutes or so the guard would make an announcement with any new information he'd gathered. Maybe because we were so close to the station he had more sources of information made available, but I can't really fault their efforts. I'd have preferred if they turned the engines off as it was getting a bit hot and dieselly in the 144, but I'm sure there were reasons for keeping them on.

 

[leedslad82]

Seems strange that we were all led to believe it was a potential suicide situation. Hes appeared in court today and In full, he pleaded guilty to 'Obstructing an engine or carriage by using the railway by an unlawful act / wilful omission / neglect'

Surely they wouldn't charge someone if they were in a mental health crisis sounds more like he must have been a protestor

 

[Mojo]

Surely they wouldn't charge someone if they were in a mental health crisis sounds more like he must have been a protestor

There have been a number of instances of people potentially with Mental health issues who have been charged with offences relating to roads disruption, there were a couple reported in the Manchester local newspaper last month who caused Motorways to be closed, one was charged with causing a public nuisance and the other charged with being a excluded traffic on a Motorway.

 

[Mathew S]

Seems strange that we were all led to believe it was a potential suicide situation. Hes appeared in court today and In full, he pleaded guilty to 'Obstructing an engine or carriage by using the railway by an unlawful act / wilful omission / neglect'

Surely they wouldn't charge someone if they were in a mental health crisis sounds more like he must have been a protestor

It certainly shouldn't happen, but we have such a weird attitude to mental health in this country that I am sadly not surprised.

 

[6Gman]

Because dealing with that kind of situation the last thing you need is thousands of public gawpers, and potentially hecklers, making the poor guy feel even worse than he already must have been. Get everyone out, turn off the announcements, create as calm a situation as possible, and take as much time as needed to resolve the situation positively. There are always alternatives for journeys (buses, taxis, etc.) and I'm sure in extremis staff will have done everything they could to help, but saving the guys life comes first.

Quoted because there's no Like button on here. The last sentence is spot on.

 

[Busaholic]

Quoted because there's no Like button on here. The last sentence is spot on.

Reiterate all that. As regards 'hecklers', if that sort of thing becomes common then, to nip it in the bud, an arrest or two (plenty of laws/public order offences to choose from) with maximum publicity and an appearance before the local beaks would work wonders: even better, a Community Service Order penalty to work with the vulnerable.

 

[Saperstein]

Quoted because there's no Like button on here. The last sentence is spot on.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[45107]

....

My issue is with Northern's lack of response to it's train crews. Never in my life have I seen such a massive logistical issue dealt with by such an appalling lack of response. There is something very wrong when you have to rely on 'Open Train Times' to figure out what is happening, and where you are heading. 'Open Train Times' has become my best friend, and most reliable source of information. Northern control has become a sad joke. They have to do better.

...

So from my point of view things generally worked. Except Northern's end which seemed inept.

In what way should Northern have done it better?
Although I am not aware of Northern Control staffing arrangements, I suspect there were probably 5 or 6 people attempting to sort this out and deal with a large number of train crew who want to bail out as soon as the brown stuff starts flying.
Losing access to Leeds station in the morning peak is not an easy situation to solve irrespective of what the contingency plan says should happen.
Maybe the volume of incoming calls prevented outgoing communication ? A problem I have found when attempting to deal with (smaller scale) incidents.
Good to see you proactive and used OTT to see what was happening

 

[Dren Ahmeti]

In what way should Northern have done it better?
Although I am not aware of Northern Control staffing arrangements, I suspect there were probably 5 or 6 people attempting to sort this out and deal with a large number of train crew who want to bail out as soon as the brown stuff starts flying.
Losing access to Leeds station in the morning peak is not an easy situation to solve irrespective of what the contingency plan says should happen.
Maybe the volume of incoming calls prevented outgoing communication ? A problem I have found when attempting to deal with (smaller scale) incidents

The Leeds-side of the operation is managed from York ROC, where the operations floor is split into:
Network Rail’s operations (with Incident Officers, Train Running Supervisors etc)
and
Northern + other LNE TOC’s Control (with Route Control Managers, Train Service Managers etc) which have their own designated areas of the floor - they’re bigger than you think!

In situations like these, information is sparse as the situation on the ground is very fluid, and the painstaking way information is collated and disseminated on both the NR and TOC level is still very slow; no wonder OTT etc, offer a much better picture than what Control can give you.
However, I can assure you that every aspect of Ops works well between each other and the work dynamic is very well-maintained and functional.

In spite of them being (over)whelmed, 15 critical updates were sent in total to Drivers, Guards and other railway staff over a span of 5-7 hours.
That’s not including individual messages sent out to guards and the like.

Take a moment to just appreciate how busy everyone was!
Safety-critical steps (Emergency Shut-Offs, emergency service response and train platforming - especially important at Leeds due to the flow of TPE’s trains) are much more important than disseminating information to customers.
This is why you’ll only see information start to appear on Twitter etc, after the initial hit of this incident has passed.

This particular incident by itself caused 670 trains to be directly delayed by 9665 minutes, 293 full cancellations and 148 part cancellations.

 

[yorksrob]

My guard was pretty good at keeping us informed. Can't say I have any complaints.

 

[johntea]

In a slightly Deja vu moment this morning a topless man was spotted by an LNER driver on the tracks near Headingley, eventually he was bought on board the LNER train and then dropped off at Headingley and met by a police van

It could have ended up much worse had it not been for the excellent observation of the LNER driver I imagine!

 

[Neptune]

I noticed that earlier this week. Took a 333 to Menston and another back to Leeds. On the way out it kept announcing "the next station is Guiseley" on a three minute loop. Similar story on the way back. It would be infuriating if stuck on board for ages. There must be a way for the guard to switch it off.

Guard can’t do anything about it. On a 333 it is only programable from the cab with the drivers key in. Must have had the handset off the cradle so they couldn’t hear it themselves!

 

[jamesst]

In a slightly Deja vu moment this morning a topless man was spotted by an LNER driver on the tracks near Headingley, eventually he was bought on board the LNER train and then dropped off at Headingley and met by a police van

It could have ended up much worse had it not been for the excellent observation of the LNER driver I imagine!

The sheer amount of trespass incidents at my toc over the past few years has shot up. There seems to be a hell of a lot more troubled individuals out there, surely this can only be linked to continued cuts to mental health services

 

[Grumpy]

saving the guys life comes first.

Well I’m not sure saving the guy’s life should necessarily come first. He’s put himself in harm’s way and should be expected to face the possible consequences. It might not be someone suffering depression ( and the Police felt he was well enough to appear in court).What if it was someone on drink/drugs, a climate (or anything else) protester or someone making a political point (e.g. pro or anti Brexit) ? Why should they be allowed to cause so much disruption? What if he had several days’ supply of food and drink and couldn’t be talked down-do you let the disruption drag on?

Shouldn’t the well-being of ordinary railway passengers come first? What if someone on one of the stuck trains had had a heart attack and died because the emergency services couldn’t reach him on time? Or similarly a woman had gone into early childbirth?

The first priority should be to get trapped passengers off trains. Then run a service as close as you can to the timetable without putting anyone else at risk

 

[Bayum]

Well I’m not sure saving the guy’s life should necessarily come first. He’s put himself in harm’s way and should be expected to face the possible consequences. It might not be someone suffering depression ( and the Police felt he was well enough to appear in court).What if it was someone on drink/drugs, a climate (or anything else) protester or someone making a political point (e.g. pro or anti Brexit) ? Why should they be allowed to cause so much disruption? What if he had several days’ supply of food and drink and couldn’t be talked down-do you let the disruption drag on?

Shouldn’t the well-being of ordinary railway passengers come first? What if someone on one of the stuck trains had had a heart attack and died because the emergency services couldn’t reach him on time? Or similarly a woman had gone into early childbirth?

The first priority should be to get trapped passengers off trains. Then run a service as close as you can to the timetable without putting anyone else at risk

So where and when do you suppose emergency services should be involved? Detraining passengers with an individual acting out of the ordinary for whatever reason, and you want the trains to carry on as normal, for everything to stay in place and then the emergency services to somehow get into place whilst trains and passengers are here there and everywhere? Can you imagine the problems had the man touched one of the wires or been hit by a train because a response was delayed? Ever thought about how much more disruption a man hit by a train or electrocuted by OHLE can cause? I suggest you find out.

 

[Mathew S]

Well I’m not sure saving the guy’s life should necessarily come first. He’s put himself in harm’s way and should be expected to face the possible consequences. It might not be someone suffering depression ( and the Police felt he was well enough to appear in court).What if it was someone on drink/drugs, a climate (or anything else) protester or someone making a political point (e.g. pro or anti Brexit) ? Why should they be allowed to cause so much disruption? What if he had several days’ supply of food and drink and couldn’t be talked down-do you let the disruption drag on?

Shouldn’t the well-being of ordinary railway passengers come first? What if someone on one of the stuck trains had had a heart attack and died because the emergency services couldn’t reach him on time? Or similarly a woman had gone into early childbirth?

The first priority should be to get trapped passengers off trains. Then run a service as close as you can to the timetable without putting anyone else at risk

Mental health difficulties are an illness. In this case, a severe, life threatening illness which needed urgent, life saving intervention in just the same way a person having a heart attack needs urgent intervention to survive. That intervention necessarily includes creating the right environment.
Rule number one is you help the person in front of you. If that causes difficulties for other passengers, then that's a situation which can be dealt with if it happens.

As for the whys and wherefores of him appearing in court, this country has a worrying record of criminalising mental ill health. I don't know the ins and outs of this particular case, and even if I did I wouldn't comment. But, to put a person through the criminal justice process in circumstances of an attempted suicide is at best unhelpful, and at worst downright immoral.

 

[DarloRich]

Well I’m not sure saving the guy’s life should necessarily come first. He’s put himself in harm’s way and should be expected to face the possible consequences. It might not be someone suffering depression ( and the Police felt he was well enough to appear in court).What if it was someone on drink/drugs, a climate (or anything else) protester or someone making a political point (e.g. pro or anti Brexit) ? Why should they be allowed to cause so much disruption? What if he had several days’ supply of food and drink and couldn’t be talked down-do you let the disruption drag on?

Shouldn’t the well-being of ordinary railway passengers come first? What if someone on one of the stuck trains had had a heart attack and died because the emergency services couldn’t reach him on time? Or similarly a woman had gone into early childbirth?

The first priority should be to get trapped passengers off trains. Then run a service as close as you can to the timetable without putting anyone else at risk

sigh. A very poor posting.

 

[edwin_m]

I guess the authorities have to assume the worst, that the person is capable of causing harm to themselves and also to others. After that danger is removed is the time to assess whether they need treatment for mental illness or charging with any offence.

 

[Mathew S]

I guess the authorities have to assume the worst, that the person is capable of causing harm to themselves and also to others. After that danger is removed is the time to assess whether they need treatment for mental illness or charging with any offence.

Absolutely. Assume the worst, and deal with the situation accordingly. I don't see any other option. Where I have a problem with the actions of the authorities in many cases like this one, though, is once it's been determined that the person involved is in the situation they are because they are unwell.

Sadly, there is a growing body of evidence that some police forces (aided and abetted by the CPS) take the view that it is not their job to consider whether mental illness may by the cause of an incident, and would rather leap straight to prosecution. I fail to see how it can be in the public interest to prosecute someone who has only done what they did because they were suffering from an illness. For me, it is no different to prosecuting someone who suffers a heart attack on a station platform, and falls onto the tracks, for trespassing; something which, I hope, we can all agree would be ludicrous.

Unfortunately, the "not our problem" stance adopted by many police forces criminalises those who have done nothing wrong other than to be suffering from an illness. This can mean that, when someone recovers - as most do from even serious mental ill health - their future prospects in terms of career, university, travel, etc. can be severely restricted through absolutely no fault of their own.

Where a very serious offence has been committed (e.g. someone has been killed) by a person suffering from a mental illness, the courts have a role in authorising the detention of that person for treatment under the Mental Health Act. Quite rightly, the use of what is effectively a power of indefinite detention should be properly scrutinised. But, criminalising people because they are ill is, as far as I'm concerned, just cruel.

 

[Elecman]

Do BTP use section 136 in these circumstances?

 

[Mathew S]

Do BTP use section 136 in these circumstances?

Section 136 shouldn't be needed in the case of prolonged incidents like the one here. A properly resourced NHS would be able to send a trained doctor, and an AMHP (social worker, nurse, psychologist, or occupational therapist trained in the mental health act) to make a better assessment and, if there is no other safe option, detain the person under Section 4.
The idea of s136 is that it should be a last resort that the police can use in dire emergencies where instant intervention is needed and health service are not available. But, as always, resources are scarce and it's used far, far too much.
And this is before we even begin to consider the availability of a suitable 'place of safety' for someone detained under s136. The lack of mental health beds mean these patients often end up in crowded A&E departments or, worse, police cells; neither of which are anywhere even near appropriate.

 

[DarloRich]

Unfortunately, the "not our problem" stance adopted by many police forces criminalises those who have done nothing wrong other than to be suffering from an illness. This can mean that, when someone recovers - as most do from even serious mental ill health - their future prospects in terms of career, university, travel, etc. can be severely restricted through absolutely no fault of their own.

but is that not down to time pressure brought about by lack of resources? The police are so stretched they do not have the time to do anything other than process and pass on people.

 

[Saperstein]

And this is before we even begin to consider the availability of a suitable 'place of safety' for someone detained under s136. The lack of mental health beds mean these patients often end up in crowded A&E departments or, worse, police cells; neither of which are anywhere even near appropriate.

Indeed, only on Tuesday afternoon a woman was taken from Bache station, near Chester, by police to a “place of safety” after appearing distressed. Unfortunately, the same evening she was back and ended up under a Merseyrail EMU.

Newspaper report here:

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/new...hamLiveWhatsOn1&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter

I assume the “Place of safety” in this case was either not secure or she was discharged. Chester hospital A&E is only about 5-10 walk from Bache Station.

 

[Mathew S]

but is that not down to time pressure brought about by lack of resources? The police are so stretched they do not have the time to do anything other than process and pass on people.

If they were so pressed for time and resources, you would have thought that they would jump at the chance not to have to go to court and prosecute someone and pass them into the NHS instead? I don't doubt that resources and funding are an issue for the police, but in these cases I am pretty convinced this is deliberate statistic-boosting by the police. These are easy convictions that make their stats look good, and screw the fact that they're destroying people's lives in the process.