What do you do if you see disruptive passengers or passengers smoking?

[DanNCL]

In that situation staff would be quite within their rights to extricate themselves from the situation and get to a position of safety (a locked back cab in the case of the guard).

They can’t be expected to do beyond calling the police to meet the train. At the end of the day staff are not security guards nor police officers.

Therefore the term “guard” seems misleading!

I wonder if that’s a reason why they say train manager instead?

It was a DOO service; the only member of staff on the train was the driver. It did however happen at a staffed station

Though on the topic of the responsibility of guards/train managers/whatever people want to call them; they have a responsibility to keep the passengers safe, not just themselves. If the guards are just going to hide in the rear cab and not do anything to assist, what is the point of having them? The station staff could also have done something to help; ie calling the police sooner than they did (the police were not called until 15 minutes after the incident started)

 

[Bromley boy]

It was a DOO service; the only member of staff on the train was the driver. It did however happen at a staffed station

Though on the topic of the responsibility of guards/train managers/whatever people want to call them; they have a responsibility to keep the passengers safe, not just themselves. If the guards are just going to hide in the rear cab and not do anything to assist, what is the point of having them? The station staff could also have done something to help; ie calling the police sooner than they did (the police were not called until 15 minutes after the incident started)

I think you misunderstand the role of a guard*.

They are there to dispatch the train and perform various duties (such as laying protection) in the event of an emergency situation leading to a train evacuation etc. These are the aspects of the role where they are responsible for passenger safety.

This responsibility is well defined and does not extend to guards protecting passengers from other passengers or require them to go around acting as bouncers, breaking up fights etc. They are also certainly not required to put passengers' safety ahead of their own.

*Commercial guards will sell tickets in addition to these safety critical duties. OBSs lack this safety critical status and are there just to provide customer service bit and possibly sell tickets.

 

[Wivenswold]

Maybe I should ask you the very same, ARE YOU SERIOUS? Nobody has died from vaping yet, how many have died through traditional smoke? So to say vaping is worse than normal smoke is just what those at the top want you to say.

Yes, I was thinking that too. Vaping can create a cloud of smelly mist but not smoke. I have a vape on trains occasionally but only when there's no-one around to notice. If someone asked me to stop I would.

I've had a crafty ciggy on an empty platform before too. Most platform staff don't mind so long as you're out of sight and not being obvious.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Vaping is antisocial- some of these horrible flavoured liquids smell worse than tobacco- but doesn't have the same health implications. It doesn't set off my asthma when someone does it.

Generally I stay out of other people's business. If someone is self-centred and borderline psychopathic enough to be smoking on a train, they don't often take kindly to being asked to stop. It's just not worth it. I have intervened when a vulnerable person was being affected though.

 

[thenorthern]

Regarding confronting people on the train it depends on the person, if I am in the Quiet Zone and there is a business man in a suit using a phone I might politely ask him to stop.

On another occasion though I was in the Quiet Zone and there were 3 lads who were using a lot of words beginning with F, C and S and were discussing drug deals. I went to find the train manager who checked them and arranged for British Transport Police to remove them at Preston. Naturally given the type of person they were and given that the had also mentioned knives I wasn't going to confront them.

 

[DanNCL]

I think you misunderstand the role of a guard*.

They are there to dispatch the train and perform various duties (such as laying protection) in the event of an emergency situation leading to a train evacuation etc. These are the aspects of the role where they are responsible for passenger safety.

This responsibility is well defined and does not extend to guards protecting passengers from other passengers or require them to go around acting as bouncers, breaking up fights etc. They are also certainly not required to put passengers' safety ahead of their own.

*Commercial guards will sell tickets in addition to these safety critical duties. OBSs lack this safety critical status and are there just to provide customer service bit and possibly sell tickets.

I never suggested that they should risk their safety; only that they should be protecting the passengers (dialling the police would be sufficient).

 

[Bromley boy]

I never suggested that they should risk their safety; only that they should be protecting the passengers (dialling the police would be sufficient).

That is what they would (hopefully) be doing while “hiding in the back cab”, as you put it.

In your DOO scenario it’s even more difficult.
I agree with you that the police should be called if things have really escalated, but even that isn’t always clear cut as it will often mean delaying the train until the police can attend, by which point the trouble makers may have long since scarpered.

What the railway could really do with is a better BTP presence at key hotspots but, as usual with these things, it comes down to money...

 

[furnessvale]

I think you misunderstand the role of a guard*.

They are there to dispatch the train and perform various duties (such as laying protection) in the event of an emergency situation leading to a train evacuation etc. These are the aspects of the role where they are responsible for passenger safety.

This responsibility is well defined and does not extend to guards protecting passengers from other passengers or require them to go around acting as bouncers, breaking up fights etc. They are also certainly not required to put passengers' safety ahead of their own.

*Commercial guards will sell tickets in addition to these safety critical duties. OBSs lack this safety critical status and are there just to provide customer service bit and possibly sell tickets.

Without delving into the rights and wrongs of the matter, it would appear that the one thing a member of the public would hope the presence of a guard would achieve, some measure of physical protection, is the one thing he/she will not get.

Perhaps it is as well that is not overpublicised.

 

[Llanigraham]

I've told station staff about a smoker on an enclosed platform. They put out a PA announcement addressing the person directly "this is an announcement for the gentleman on platform 6 in the green jacket and jeans smoking, yes you. It's illegal to smoke here. Stop" That did the trick. A bit of shaming, and no face to face showdown.

As for vaping, couldn't care less. Someone vaping is not doing me any harm. Don't know why it's banned.

Seen that done at Shrewsbury several times.

And the disruptive "lady" passenger on the ATW to Machy at Wolverhampton the other Saturday evening got the shock of her life when BTP turned up and threw her and her child off the train and out of the station, after she was abussive to the guard and other passengers.

 

[tellytype]

What do you do if you see them smoking? Why, you assume they are on fire & act accordingly by AFFFing them with the entire contents of the nearest extinguisher!

Plus they look festive for this season

 

[185143]

I've seen station staff make PA announcements a couple of times telling people off for smoking-the first time was at a Northern station in Merseyside, the passenger was genuinely unaware you couldn't smoke on the platform (as you can on Merseyrail's surface stations). The second time the passenger blatantly ignored it.

I've seen people with feet on seats on Merseyrail when byelaw enforcement officers board-I never say anything, wait for the guard to make an announcement warning people not to smoke, drink or put feet on seats (which rarely makes people move their feet) and wait for the officers to arrive!

I was once getting hassle from a bloke on the train claiming to be homeless and trying to get money out of me in exchange for illicit substances, who decided to follow me off the train. I told the station staff what had happened and he was promptly asked to leave the station or the Police would be called.

 

[Mathew S]

That’s hardly the same situation!

Considering I had risked life and limb challenging the bloke, I fully realise he was at fault. As an innocent bystandar I was also a “victim” of this situation.

But the fact remains if you get into a train in the state she was in, you are increasing your risks of being robbed or attacked. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with stating this simple fact (which is just common sense for the vast majority of people).

Totally agree. We all have an obligation to take reasonable care of ourselves, and that includes not getting so drunk we aren't able to stay safe. There's a difference between 'victim blaming' and pointing out that people need to take a bit of personal responsibility.

 

[LowLevel]

Without delving into the rights and wrongs of the matter, it would appear that the one thing a member of the public would hope the presence of a guard would achieve, some measure of physical protection, is the one thing he/she will not get.

Perhaps it is as well that is not overpublicised.

We will generally help if we can but we aren't trained to engage in physical combat with miscreants and nor do we have any weapons or armour apart from a shirt, waistcoat and jacket.

I don't withdraw from situations immediately but company instructions are always embodied in the conflict management procedure - IE you withdraw to a place of safety if threatened but can defend yourself if attacked. If you choose to try and be John Rambo and get battered it probably won't go well for you afterwards.

I've only physically intervened with people a few times and been backed up everytime but it requires careful judgement. The last time round I withdrew as required and he made a determined effort to access the cab (attempting to kick the wooden door in) where I had locked myself in with the driver and another colleague. Had he been successful in gaining access bearing in mind he was under the influence etc I was quite ready to hit him with the in cab fire extinguisher. Luckily it didn't come to that.

 

[furnessvale]

We will generally help if we can but we aren't trained to engage in physical combat with miscreants and nor do we have any weapons or armour apart from a shirt, waistcoat and jacket.

I don't withdraw from situations immediately but company instructions are always embodied in the conflict management procedure - IE you withdraw to a place of safety if threatened but can defend yourself if attacked. If you choose to try and be John Rambo and get battered it probably won't go well for you afterwards.

I've only physically intervened with people a few times and been backed up everytime but it requires careful judgement. The last time round I withdrew as required and he made a determined effort to access the cab (attempting to kick the wooden door in) where I had locked myself in with the driver and another colleague. Had he been successful in gaining access bearing in mind he was under the influence etc I was quite ready to hit him with the in cab fire extinguisher. Luckily it didn't come to that.

Fully agree with you.

I was thinking along the lines of the current DOO disputes. RMT make great play of the safety aspect of a guards role and ask for public support. Rightly or wrongly, the average Joe Public will not be thinking of running round placing detonators when the talk is of safety. He WILL be thinking of his own personal safety on a late train.

 

[matt_world2004]

If I am on duty I do not intervene because I have been told not to. When Off duty I am more likely to intervene

 

[Bromley boy]

Fully agree with you.

I was thinking along the lines of the current DOO disputes. RMT make great play of the safety aspect of a guards role and ask for public support. Rightly or wrongly, the average Joe Public will not be thinking of running round placing detonators when the talk is of safety. He WILL be thinking of his own personal safety on a late train.

Do most people expect that guards will physically intervene in an altercation? I'm not sure that they would.

I'd suggest the "safety" a guard provides is the reassurance of a uniformed figure of authority who has the capability to instruct people engaging in anti social activities to desist, act as a competent witness, call the police if necessary etc. The incident I relayed earlier on this thread happened on a DOO train. Had there been a staff presence on board that train, I'm not sure it would have happened.

Unfortunately the effectiveness of the guards' "authority" is probably much less than it was in years gone by. Many people in modern society, while knowing all their rights, have little respect for authority figures and are likely to respond to an instruction to stop smoking/drinking/fighting (delete as appropriate) by lashing out - at which point a guard has little choice but to retreat, or put themselves at risk of physical violence.

 

[Elecman]

What do you do if you see them smoking? Why, you assume they are on fire & act accordingly by AFFFing them with the entire contents of the nearest extinguisher!

Plus they look festive for this season

I have seen that done on a train a good few years ago by another member of the public

 

[trainophile]

Not all guards/train managers are male. Many are female and often slightly built. I would not expect one of them to physically intervene in a fight between maybe two 6' 18-stone blokes. Therefore in the interests of equality, neither should a male guard be expected to do so.

 

[al78]

Totally agree. We all have an obligation to take reasonable care of ourselves, and that includes not getting so drunk we aren't able to stay safe. There's a difference between 'victim blaming' and pointing out that people need to take a bit of personal responsibility.

Is someone is "drunk", but is capable of buying a rail ticket, walking to the correct platform, boarding the correct train and sitting in a seat, are they REALLY so drunk that they deserve what they get? We are talking about using a public service, not walking along a cliff edge at night.

When it comes to appealing to personal responsibility, there is a big difference between the everyday non-malicious threats, such as busy roads or sheer drops, and attacks from a malicious individual. How far do you expect people to go to protect themselves from the latter? Stay indoors behind locked doors after sunset? If someone boards a train and is very tired, and decides to have a sleep, is she asking for it if she wakes up to find someone groping her with his hand over her mouth? Perhaps she shouldn't have fallen asleep and should be fully alert at all times, just in case? It makes a mockery of the notion of the UK being a civilised society.

This is just a flavour of the just world fallacy in the end, the desire to believe the world is just and fair, and people who find themselves in unfortunate situations must have done something to deserve it. It might make you feel all warm anmd cosy inside, but that doesn't stop it being a fallacy.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/the-just-world-fallacy-could-explain-victim-blaming.html

The basic idea is simply that people tend to get what they have coming to them, in some sort of general moral sense. Reasonable people can differ on the extent to which this is the case, of course; the problem arises when people fall for the associated just-world fallacy, in which they attempt to explain terrible events by suggesting the victim must have done something to deserve their fate — despite lack of evidence and the fact that bad things happen to people randomly and for no reason, or as the result of human malevolence, all the time.

Over the years, psychologists have done some really interesting research isolating this form of bias.....

 

[Bromley boy]

Is someone is "drunk", but is capable of buying a rail ticket, walking to the correct platform, boarding the correct train and sitting in a seat, are they REALLY so drunk that they deserve what they get? We are talking about using a public service, not walking along a cliff edge at night.

Sorry but the above is disingenuous rubbish.

Nobody has said she would have "deserved what she got", that's a complete straw man. For goodness sake I'm the person who took on considerable personal risk to stop her from being robbed or quite possibly sexually assaulted. Do you really believe I'm now on here saying she would have deserved what she got?!

A little more personal responsibility on her behalf would have gone a long way and in this case prevented the situation from occurring. Pointing that out in no way detracts from the guilt of the perpetrator.

It's Christmas so I think I'll leave any further responses until after the festive season!

Seasons greetings one and all.

 

[yorkie]

This is just a flavour of the just world fallacy in the end, the desire to believe the world is just and fair, and people who find themselves in unfortunate situations must have done something to deserve it. It might make you feel all warm anmd cosy inside, but that doesn't stop it being a fallacy.

But surely there is a fine line between blaming victims and suggesting that people take reasonable precautions and apply common sense?

A couple of weeks ago someone asked for my assistance in trying to identify who had stolen his bike. Problem was, he had left it unlocked (in a shed which is kept locked, except at certain times when hundreds of people have access to it). Of course he is still a victim, and most of the time he would get away with leaving it unlocked in that shed. But, given that we know that we have some bad people in society (and our laws and legal system are woefully bad at dealing with them), it is foreseeable that sooner or later, he was going to become a victim.

The suggestion as to whether someone " capable of buying a rail ticket, walking to the correct platform, boarding the correct train and sitting in a seat, are they REALLY so drunk that they deserve what they get? " is the wrong question. Firstly, the person clearly does not "deserve" it, nor is anyone suggesting that they do. The other parts are exaggerated for effect. They may have purchased a return ticket before becoming drunk. They may have stumbled to the correct platform, and only got it right because they asked several people on the way. We don't really know. Nothing would make it deserved. But it is not totally unforeseeable that getting yourself ridiculously drunk may result in some bad consequences.

 

[J-2739]

Are you serious? Vaping is even worse than traditional cigarette smoke.

Tonnes of kids at our school vape and not one had died from it. Not saying I agree with vapes but its not as bad as smoking.

If I saw inappropriate behaviour on the train (or anywhere in public) I'll just walk away from it. You might add more fire to the situation by getting involved.

 

[yorkie]

Tonnes of kids at our school vape and not one had died from it. Not saying I agree with vapes but its not as bad as smoking.

But they wouldn't have died - yet - from smoking either, so I don't think this is foolproof logic.

 

[Darandio]

But they wouldn't have died - yet - from smoking either, so I don't think this is foolproof logic.

So let's just say vaping is believed to be safer than smoking cigarettes, have helped many many people stop smoking and don't contain the two most harmful elements in tobacco smoke which are tar and carbon monoxide.

If the NHS can promote it as a route to becoming smokefree, backed up by both independent studies and those from The Royal College of Physicians, thats good enough for me, i'll certainly take more notice of that than people shouting on a random forum that vaping is worse than smoking. It's certainly improved my quality of life.

 

[Mathew S]

Is someone is "drunk", but is capable of buying a rail ticket, walking to the correct platform, boarding the correct train and sitting in a seat, are they REALLY so drunk that they deserve what they get? We are talking about using a public service, not walking along a cliff edge at night.

When it comes to appealing to personal responsibility, there is a big difference between the everyday non-malicious threats, such as busy roads or sheer drops, and attacks from a malicious individual. How far do you expect people to go to protect themselves from the latter? Stay indoors behind locked doors after sunset? If someone boards a train and is very tired, and decides to have a sleep, is she asking for it if she wakes up to find someone groping her with his hand over her mouth? Perhaps she shouldn't have fallen asleep and should be fully alert at all times, just in case? It makes a mockery of the notion of the UK being a civilised society.

This is just a flavour of the just world fallacy in the end, the desire to believe the world is just and fair, and people who find themselves in unfortunate situations must have done something to deserve it. It might make you feel all warm anmd cosy inside, but that doesn't stop it being a fallacy.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/the-just-world-fallacy-could-explain-victim-blaming.html

That's unbelievably offensive. Nowhere did I say that anyone 'deserves what they get', nor would such a statement be true. That does not, however, detract from my statement that we all have a responsibility not to put ourselves at unnecessary risk by being reckless or irresponsible.

 

[sheff1]

I was wondering what you do if you come across disruptive or abusive passengers on trains or stations?

At a large station with many staff, and often a BTP presence, I always* report someone smoking or acting in a seriously disprutive manner. As far is I can recall, remedial action has always been taken.

At a single manned station I probably would not bother as there is little that the staff member could probably do, but in practice I have only encountered serious problems at larger stations anyway.

*unless doing so would cause me to miss my train.

 

[tsr]

I can only go on being a driver that drives a fairly new Siemens built train and there is certainly no smoke detection system installed in the toilets. Also, the bang up to date toilets being fitted in our older units do not have smoke detectors either.

Siemens 700s have very sensitive smoke detectors on the train which can detect all manner of stuff. Several have been set off by steam charters passing on an adjacent line on the BML, and as for smoking or vaping onboard or within about 6ft of the train, it’s a complete no-go!

Older ex-BR stock often has nothing to speak of when it comes to smoke detectors, but post-privatisation is very different. Bombardier Electrostars and Turbostars have various different types of smoke detectors and that definitely includes toilets on many variants. 377s are particularly vigilant - somebody set one off the other day by being very tall and quite literally just breathing too close to one...

 

[Dentonian]

So let's just say vaping is believed to be safer than smoking cigarettes, have helped many many people stop smoking and don't contain the two most harmful elements in tobacco smoke which are tar and carbon monoxide.

If the NHS can promote it as a route to becoming smokefree, backed up by both independent studies and those from The Royal College of Physicians, thats good enough for me, i'll certainly take more notice of that than people shouting on a random forum that vaping is worse than smoking. It's certainly improved my quality of life.

Its not just about the long term effects on health - including passive smoking - the point is that nicotene STINKS! It might be to do with mixing with plastics, but the most putrid, obnoxious smell in the world is people smoking on buses. Never seen it on trains - but a drunk did ask around the carriage once if it was all right to smoke - but had to put up with it every day for years going to work before the Health Act was implemented. And before any smart alec makes the obvious suggestion - the buses were Single deckers.
I'm absolutely amazed how well the Health Act is observed, given the vast majority of offenders were under 18. Since 2007, I have (touch wood) never smelt a cigarette on a single decker and only very rarely drifting down from the upper deck of a DD. It still remains a problem *in*side Bus Stations and on Rail Platforms, though.

 

[12CSVT]

One reason why railway staff should never be expected to intervene
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/stalbans/15789544.___Aggressive____man_headbutts_railway_worker/

A man headbutted a railway worker after they caught him smoking on the platform.

He reportedly became “aggressive” and began shouting at and threatening the member of staff as he approached him at St Albans Station at around 5.30pm on September 11.

 

[mikeg]

Once was sat next to some people (dress code halfway between 'chav' and 'village tramp') who proceeded to smoke weed ( I presume, but it looked unlike weed I'd seen before and nor was it tobacco) out of a small pipe on a 323. I asked them to stop, they didn't. I got up (to sarcastic cries of 'Oh my God...' and 'it's only weed' from those smoking) and informed the guard, who went down to have a word with them. They immediately desisted and what's more decided all of a sudden they would be getting off at the next station. They got off at the door from which the guard was operating and were reminded that smoking is not allowed anywhere on the Northern network, replying with an insincere 'Sorry mate'.

I wouldn't have expected the guard to act as a security guard, but him having a stern word with them did the trick. Fellow passenger said well done for telling and that I was brave to stand up for them but it's what I'd normally do anyway.

Guard said he knew they were up to no good from first meeting them. So did I and probably for the same reason - who pays on the train from Manchester Piccadilly with all its ticketing facilities other than those up to no good ?