EM2
Established Member
This is what you're not getting. If you reasonably suspect that it is a bomb, then you don't approach it!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Unattended bags
- Thread starter Intermodal
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,609
You also blathered about whether I understood the drivers’ rulebook.
What patronising nonsense. I understand it pretty well, thanks.
Yourself?! Good grief! You’ve showed yourself up there.
EM2
Established Member
Again, I didn't.
I asked if you were happy to follow it.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Exactly!
But it appears Bromley Boy, and others, have totally failed to understand the HOT procedures.
My misunderstanding was from post #181 where you said you’d been trained to approach unattended bags. Is this before or after you’ve assessed it using HOT?
If I saw an unattended bag, I would apply a HOT assessment before deciding whether to get any closer to it.
EM2
Established Member
Maybe I should have said 'evaluate' rather than 'approach'. I was using 'approach' in the context of 'How would you approach this problem?'.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,609
I told you I was perfectly happy to follow it. It involvles no risk to myself. Which kind of suggests you missed my point entirely!?
You also said I had “immense difficulty in reading”. Thanks for your concern. I struggled my way to a law degree (not that it matters) but suffice it to say, reading has never been a particular issue for me.
Yourself?!
Please explain how I’ve misunderstood it.
EM2
Established Member
I said that you seem to have immense difficulty in reading. Going just by the number of things that you say that I've said tonight...
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,609
So, what did you mean when you said:
“I didn’t always work on stations” ??
So we have to established...
This is a load of utter nonsense. Have you ever worked on stations? I doubt it.
You’re p-way, so please don’t you dare start patronising people who actually drive trains, just because you wave at them when you get in the way and they blow up...
Most certainly dont criticise whether they should feel safe investigating a package or not...
Utter, utter, rubbish! As for asking whether I follow the rulebook... incredibdy patronising and impertinent of you, I must say.
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
I meant what I said. I didn't always work on stations.
I used to work on S&T. I left the railway. I came back. Now I work on stations.
I don't know what you have established...
At least two members of this forum have encountered me at work. Want to guess where?
Whereas making me out to be a liar isn't, of course.
Seems the member of staff did exactly the right thing here. The luggage did not obviously belong to anyone, otherwise the instance would not have occured. You had clearly seen the dispatcher was concerned about the luggage, but did not approach her and claim the luggage. She may have seen you look in her direction without responding or claiming the luggage which would lead her to believe the luggage wasn't yours.
After that it sounds from your description that announcements were put out about some unattended luggage, which you did not hear or respond to. So at this point the luggage appears unclaimed and abandoned. The staff would then presumably apply the HOT protocol, and having passed the questions it was then deemed reasonable to open the bags to inspect the contents. Sounds pretty much by the book from what you described.
You mentioned that she verbally assaulted you when you then claimed your luggage minutes later by asking you why you left your bags and asked you whether you'd heard of terrorism etc. Clearly you'd caused a situation by leaving your bags unattended and this caused staff to be alerted and possibly members of the public who may have heard the announcements or spotted the bags.
Can I also ask, from what I remember from my trips through Nuneaton many years ago and judging by the fact it was a VT service, isn't platform 3 the fast line and a through line as well? If so it begs the question why would you leave a stack of bags unsecured on a 125?mph platform where they can't obviously be recognised as yours and there is nothing to protect them from turbulence from passing trains. They could have ended up falling over, being an obstruction on the platform or falling towards the rails.
Further to that, how would you even hear warning announcements for approaching passing high speed trains with your noise cancelling headphones on nevermind take hold of your bags when such a train was approaching?
Also let's consider that had your luggage been left by you in error, which happens at stations fairly often, then your luggage would now be lost property. Presumably you'd like this lost property back and would hope that staff would notice it and take it in for safe keeping. And yet you seem to begrudge the same staff for inspecting your unidentified items?
All credit to rail staff if they take this action when I'm on the network i'd feel all the more safer.
If unattended luggage was left in an airport or a ferry terminal I suspect there would be quite a telling off.
Last edited:
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,609
Hmmm. Let me guess... Northfleet?!
So let me get my ducks in a row:
1. You earlier made out that your training regarding suspect packages was nothing to do with the railway (a lie, because you then revealed you’ve worked for SE/NR, as I suspected), despite my apparent difficulties with reading/comprehension...:
2. You now work for SE on the platforms. Fair play to you. You crack on.
In so doing, please don’t criticise me regarding my job as a driver, you have absolutey no concept of it, I can assure you...
3. You tried to compare laying dets with inspecting a suspect package (another absolute, barefaced lie, as anyone who works on the railway will attest)... You were totally wrong in doing so, and should be utterly ashamed of yourself, frankly.
None of which paints you in a particularly favourable light.
Now, you crack on with your security checks...
Nowhere near where I drive trains, thank goodness!
johnkingeu
Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2017
- Messages
- 38
Shouting at passengers is not in the protocol.
Having said that, I’m sure she was anxious about opening the bag. So understandable!
Having said that, I’m sure she was anxious about opening the bag. So understandable!
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Because no where in the HOT procedure does it say you have to approach the item.
I think you totally misunderstood the training.
And your aggressive retorts do not help.
Regarding headphones, particularly noise canceling ones, I just don't use them out on the street or even on public transport as I like to know what is going on around me. A recent example was walking through the city centre at night and hearing a bunch of scalls saying "we'll have that" as I walked past. I heard them pick up their pace, turned around and they scattered. I like to know what is going on around me. As regards leaving bags I left my small rucksack on a seat in a pub where I am a regular, there was nothing valuable in it and I can see the exit from the smoking area. An older couple gave me down the banks as they left the building just behind me, I kind of got their point but wondered why, if they thought I was suspicious, would they come up to my face and tell me off. I would never leave my bags on a station, in the airport or on a street. When I did accidentally do so I reported and got told off for reporting it.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,609
Well you’re certainly wrong there. Nothing aggressive about this retort, either,
From the gov.uk website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-threat#suspicious-items---guidance-for-staff
If the item is assessed to be unattended rather than suspicious, examine further before applying lost property procedures
However, if H-O-T leads you to believe the item is suspicious, apply the 4Cs
You’re pretty much supposed to approach it if it meets the “HOT” criteria - unless you can think of a different meaning for “examine further”???!
That’s fine for you, if you choose to accept it. Although, as a signaller, it’s unlikely to come up, to be fair, so very easy for you to say?!
If someone pulls a passcom on my train to report an abandoned bag, it will be that passenger who checks that bag, or the police.
EDIT: is it me who struggles to understand plain English here, or am I going mad?!
Last edited:
Is it known for sure she did shout? The description of events looks pretty much as you'd expect to happen. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything on a forum. The OP was clearly annoyed when typing the description of events ,and it's possible the description of her reaction has been exaggerated.
Throwing accusations is all too easy and it's important to be aware of the seriousness of what you are accusing a defined person of before making accusations of verbal assault. The OP then went on to say if he/she saw her the OP would apologise and make up. If OP felt they needed to apologise it suggests the member of staff was probably in the right and acted fairly.
If you left bags like that in parts of central London, ignored police inspections and then attempted to approach the items minutes later you'd probably have police shouting instructions at you and there would be no softly softly customer service skills. Actions do have consequences and just because someone is at work doesn't mean they can't question a customer on their unreasonable actions.
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
You've heard of commuting, right?
You inferred that my training wasn't railway-related. No lying here.
Wrong.
I have a number of friends who are drivers. I know what is involved. It's not for me.
Again, your inference.
*Shrug*
tsr
Established Member
My current responsibilities at work include security checks for suspect items, and I also hold competencies for emergency protection and assistance protection (activities which tend to involve dets), as well as a host of other things which could be dangerous to my passengers, myself, and staff under my control, if not done properly.
I have in the past been required to also monitor the security of venues other than the railway (chiefly airport and major event security). These have been both paid and voluntary roles.
Sometimes I have had to make very difficult and unpopular decisions about security which have been correct, but also the inconvenient ones. Other times, I have been able to assess something as perfectly safe when it has been deemed too dangerous by everyone else. None of these decisions have yet resulted in death or injury.
So, credentials aside...
The HOT procedure in its fullest form is actually "HOTT" - Hidden, Obvious, Typical, Threat. The latter "T" is very pertinent to today's society. It is why security notices are thrown at train crew and other railway staff, to ensure they are aware of whether or not there is a specific and credible threat to railway infrastructure. This "Threat" assessment should really be at the start of "HOT", but "THOT" sounds a bit stupid. If a threat is not briefed out, the general protocol of HOT needs to be followed.
In other words, bearing in mind the threat, or not, the HOT part can be applied. This can be done from quite some distance and can be coupled to other checks related to people in the surrounding environment, and how they are behaving. The HOT assessment is theoretically so quick that you can do it whilst asking around if anyone owns the unattended item. This should be done in tandem.
The phrase "if you see something which doesn't look right", broadcast to the general public at admittedly incredible frequency, is really the whole protocol without giving it an acronym. The gut feeling of people who work in the railway environment is likely to be more accurate as a second opinion, which is why people are not encouraged to go around pushing passenger alarms and jumping out of trains, without the situation being assessed properly. Some passengers have reported the equipment boxes fitted under train seats (the sort of things which hold safety equipment isolation switches/cocks) as suspicious before - it just goes to show that the passenger is, unfortunately, not always right!
I believe the unexploded bomb on the Jubilee Line not so long ago was at least partially detected by the train driver carrying out the HOTT procedures. The "bag for death" on the District Line wasn't, as far as I know, reported to staff and as such nobody checked it; had it been checked, a paint pot in an insulated bag would hopefully have at least led to a check to see if anyone owned it, and if nobody came forward, then it's not a typical thing to leave completely unattended (nobody will have popped to the loo on a Tube train, decorators tend to need their work equipment with them, etc. etc.), so... there you go!
If it's deemed suspicious it doesn't need to be touched unless you are specifically trained to do so.
As for detonators and the like...
There is an element of personal risk with any work on or near the line, especially when you could be confused (or injured) in the event of an emergency. In a third rail area, for example, a driver with a head injury might be confused but may still struggle out of their cab with the little yellow box of dets or track circuit clips, still try to put them on the line, and end up trying to clip them onto the third rail, which could have devastating consequences to them, as well as risking an impact still occurring from another train.
In reality, if you did actually have to do emergency protection, it would probably prove far more risky than assessing most suspect packages, even in the world of IS (or post-IS) threats and suchlike.
I haven't seen any evidence to directly compare the risk to a driver from incorrectly working on the line in an emergency, compared to the risk of getting too close to an item and it exploding before they could do the HOTT procedure. But both are so rare that every attempt should be made to both protect trains in failure or accidents, and also to assess anything which could be a suspect item. I believe both tasks are more likely to do some good than not.
As for whether drivers should be trained in assessing suspicious items - of course they should be - and many are, often now as part of their induction into a company, and/or as refresher training. A train driver may not work in the saloon, but they know their train inside out, how to get other staff to assist, and what typical passenger behaviour is like on the platform, which could dictate whether something carried is typical or suspicious or not.
One final point about HOTT. It is entirely correct to suggest that one benefit of these checks is to avoid unnecessary evacuations. Evacuations might seem like a failsafe last resort, but in reality they do not always result in a safer situation. Full evacuation of major transport premises generally causes so many crowd control issues - which in turn can result in stampedes, huge traffic control and safety issues in the surroundings, confusion and distress, and economic damage - that it should only be a last resort. Trains are even worse, if they're away from stations!
I have in the past been required to also monitor the security of venues other than the railway (chiefly airport and major event security). These have been both paid and voluntary roles.
Sometimes I have had to make very difficult and unpopular decisions about security which have been correct, but also the inconvenient ones. Other times, I have been able to assess something as perfectly safe when it has been deemed too dangerous by everyone else. None of these decisions have yet resulted in death or injury.
So, credentials aside...
The HOT procedure in its fullest form is actually "HOTT" - Hidden, Obvious, Typical, Threat. The latter "T" is very pertinent to today's society. It is why security notices are thrown at train crew and other railway staff, to ensure they are aware of whether or not there is a specific and credible threat to railway infrastructure. This "Threat" assessment should really be at the start of "HOT", but "THOT" sounds a bit stupid. If a threat is not briefed out, the general protocol of HOT needs to be followed.
In other words, bearing in mind the threat, or not, the HOT part can be applied. This can be done from quite some distance and can be coupled to other checks related to people in the surrounding environment, and how they are behaving. The HOT assessment is theoretically so quick that you can do it whilst asking around if anyone owns the unattended item. This should be done in tandem.
The phrase "if you see something which doesn't look right", broadcast to the general public at admittedly incredible frequency, is really the whole protocol without giving it an acronym. The gut feeling of people who work in the railway environment is likely to be more accurate as a second opinion, which is why people are not encouraged to go around pushing passenger alarms and jumping out of trains, without the situation being assessed properly. Some passengers have reported the equipment boxes fitted under train seats (the sort of things which hold safety equipment isolation switches/cocks) as suspicious before - it just goes to show that the passenger is, unfortunately, not always right!
I believe the unexploded bomb on the Jubilee Line not so long ago was at least partially detected by the train driver carrying out the HOTT procedures. The "bag for death" on the District Line wasn't, as far as I know, reported to staff and as such nobody checked it; had it been checked, a paint pot in an insulated bag would hopefully have at least led to a check to see if anyone owned it, and if nobody came forward, then it's not a typical thing to leave completely unattended (nobody will have popped to the loo on a Tube train, decorators tend to need their work equipment with them, etc. etc.), so... there you go!
If it's deemed suspicious it doesn't need to be touched unless you are specifically trained to do so.
As for detonators and the like...
There is an element of personal risk with any work on or near the line, especially when you could be confused (or injured) in the event of an emergency. In a third rail area, for example, a driver with a head injury might be confused but may still struggle out of their cab with the little yellow box of dets or track circuit clips, still try to put them on the line, and end up trying to clip them onto the third rail, which could have devastating consequences to them, as well as risking an impact still occurring from another train.
In reality, if you did actually have to do emergency protection, it would probably prove far more risky than assessing most suspect packages, even in the world of IS (or post-IS) threats and suchlike.
I haven't seen any evidence to directly compare the risk to a driver from incorrectly working on the line in an emergency, compared to the risk of getting too close to an item and it exploding before they could do the HOTT procedure. But both are so rare that every attempt should be made to both protect trains in failure or accidents, and also to assess anything which could be a suspect item. I believe both tasks are more likely to do some good than not.
As for whether drivers should be trained in assessing suspicious items - of course they should be - and many are, often now as part of their induction into a company, and/or as refresher training. A train driver may not work in the saloon, but they know their train inside out, how to get other staff to assist, and what typical passenger behaviour is like on the platform, which could dictate whether something carried is typical or suspicious or not.
One final point about HOTT. It is entirely correct to suggest that one benefit of these checks is to avoid unnecessary evacuations. Evacuations might seem like a failsafe last resort, but in reality they do not always result in a safer situation. Full evacuation of major transport premises generally causes so many crowd control issues - which in turn can result in stampedes, huge traffic control and safety issues in the surroundings, confusion and distress, and economic damage - that it should only be a last resort. Trains are even worse, if they're away from stations!
Llanigraham
On Moderation
I understand English perfectly, thank you.
It does NOT say you have to approach it.
Actually I'm a retired signaller, but what that has to do with it I do not know. If you read my earlier posting you will have read that I recently attended a training and scenario session for Senior Officials of Wales Rally GB with the head of West Midlands Police Anti-Terrorism Group where the HOT procedure was fully explained to us, and NO-WHERE were we told to approach the suspicious item. Quite the opposite in fact. I am much more inclined to believe the words of that gentleman than those of some train driver. He is the expert, not you!
And your posting above is aggressive.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
It isn't just platform staff that work at station.
As said, I will take the word of the expert on these matters over those of a train driver!
As said, I will take the word of the expert on these matters over those of a train driver!
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,609
You do that. As I say, you’re a retired signaller in Wales. It’s a thought exercise for
you.
I’m a DOO train driver in London (you know, where the terrorist attacks actually are)
Who might actually have to do this in practice...
So, who is the expert? It matters little to you, I guess.
EDIT: and, as per the guidance I quoted, can you explain how to "examine further" an item, if not by approaching it, please?
Last edited:
Shall we review the full quote from the document?
So if we take a hypothetical abandoned item, if HOT leads to be concerns about an item, then as above, do not follow "If the item is assessed to be unattended rather than suspicious, examine further before applying lost property procedures" but follow "However, if H-O-T leads you to believe the item is suspicious, apply the 4Cs" - step one of which is do not touch the item.
I think its clear that this thread has now run its course, and that there is little left to constructively discuss. Any rail staff with concerns about applying said principles should raise their concerns with their management or trade union health and safety rep.
- Status