Anti-social behaviour on DOO services - what can be done?

[RPI]

Bring back a guard, How trains should be run!

Simply having a guard will usually put off people from doing things like that, only the hardcore idiots will carry on and in that case the guard can easily arrange for BTP to be waiting at the next station.

Really? have you ever travelled on the valley lines or some of the west midlands routes on a friday night? the guards just sit at the back and pretend they havent seen anything, I used to be anti DOO but these days I reckon a lot (not all) but a lot of guards are simply button pushers who don't patrol the train, don't do tickets and don't give a **** and if that is the case then is there realy any benefit of having one? (Cat firmly placed amongst the pigeons)

 

[Flamingo]

Really? have you ever travelled on the valley lines or some of the west midlands routes on a friday night? the guards just sit at the back and pretend they havent seen anything, I used to be anti DOO but these days I reckon a lot (not all) but a lot of guards are simply button pushers who don't patrol the train, don't do tickets and don't give a **** and if that is the case then is there realy any benefit of having one? (Cat firmly placed amongst the pigeons)

The problem is, RPI, that management has made them that way. Too many managers look at incident forms and complaints as black marks against the guard involved and mark them down as troublemakers, rather than the result of them doing their job. If the guard stays in the cab, they won't have complaints from people who they charge tickets to, they won't get involved in anything that causes them to have to do incident forms, and they won't be called in for a "little chat" about their attitude.

Couple that with the same managers who work 7-3 and won't appear on the difficult trains, and the clever guard soon figures that their revenue will be at the depot average if they only do tickets for punters that "want" to buy them, and if they hide in the rear cab after it gets dark, well nobody is going to see them do it anyway, and once their name is not appearing on incident forms well, nobody in the company is going to care anyway.

 

[BestWestern]

Are you by any chance a non-smoker and if so would you suggest the reintroduction of smoking carriages would alleviate the problem ?

I'm a non smoker, and I would have to agree that smokers are generally an inherently selfish crowd so far as their habit goes. I genuinely believe that most of them probably don't realise this, they simply fail to recognise that something which is an integral part of their life is not always going to be part of other people's, because they see their habit as a vital necessity, and quite obviously most of them intentionally fail to acknowledge the huge amount of damage it does. There are of course the particularly irritating 'paranoid militant' bunch who immediately revert to aggressive criticism of anybody who has any issue with smoking, determined to uphold the honour of their habit while it slowly kills them. It's a rather bizarre situation when you think about it really.

As for your question, do you feel smoking coaches should be reintroduced? I wonder how many smokers would feel that it would be unfair on other passengers - who frequently have cause to move through a train, for a variety of reasons - and of course on board staff, particularly us poor old Guards, who would have to pass through the vile smokescreen numerous times each trip. And I wonder how many would put their own desperate need for a fag first and say 'sod em'?!

 

[ainsworth74]

Further to that how long would it be until an rammed train ends up with non-smokers either having to stand or sit in the smoking carriage? Or does it get 'desmokeified' if the train is overloaded?

 

[Butts]

Further to that how long would it be until an rammed train ends up with non-smokers either having to stand or sit in the smoking carriage? Or does it get 'desmokeified' if the train is overloaded?

Thats a rather misleading post if you don't mind me saying so. As a regular traveller I'm sure you are aware that Smoking Carriages were well patronised particularly in 1st Class when they still used to exist.

I can well remember fighting for a seat in the 1st Smoking Compartment between Waterloo and Southampton Parkway such was the excess of demand over supply.

On Intercity Trains you had the same situation, don't ANYONE try and pretend the smoking carriages were not full most of the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fine, take that view if you want to. i lost a friend to lung cancer who had never smoked and two otehrs close to me who did smoke through the same illness. I'm signing off this now as it has upset me. You seem to be a very selfish person.

My Mother died of Lung Cancer but this is not a battle of "top trumps", it's supposed to be a reasoned argument which you seem incapable of sustaining.

 

[transmanche]

On Intercity Trains you had the same situation, don't ANYONE try and pretend the smoking carriages were not full most of the time.

I do remember on a number of occasions on ICEC, when I had to sit in the smoking carriage as there were no other seats available. Only to have dozens of smokers traipsing in and out as they got their 'fix' and went back to their seat in a smoke-free carriage.

 

[Butts]

I'm a non smoker, and I would have to agree that smokers are generally an inherently selfish crowd so far as their habit goes. I genuinely believe that most of them probably don't realise this, they simply fail to recognise that something which is an integral part of their life is not always going to be part of other people's, because they see their habit as a vital necessity, and quite obviously most of them intentionally fail to acknowledge the huge amount of damage it does. There are of course the particularly irritating 'paranoid militant' bunch who immediately revert to aggressive criticism of anybody who has any issue with smoking, determined to uphold the honour of their habit while it slowly kills them. It's a rather bizarre situation when you think about it really.

As for your question, do you feel smoking coaches should be reintroduced? I wonder how many smokers would feel that it would be unfair on other passengers - who frequently have cause to move through a train, for a variety of reasons - and of course on board staff, particularly us poor old Guards, who would have to pass through the vile smokescreen numerous times each trip. And I wonder how many would put their own desperate need for a fag first and say 'sod em'?!

Jesus wept were you alive before 2006/2007 - how did we manage before ?

I am not a "paranoid militant" I would merely like an area to indulge in a perfectly legal habit (a seperate area so you are not subjected to passive smoking)

Are you convinced of the links between passive smoking and lung cancer - just remind me of the last successful prosecution for this in a UK Court - clue there hasn't been one as the evidence does not stand up to legal scrutiny.

Smoking kills 50% of those who indulge in it eventually saving you and other non-smokers billions of pounds in extra taxes and pensions. perhaps the £11 billion a year it raises in excise duty should be spent finding out why the other 50% survive - or at least the £5 or £6 Billion profit after the costs of treating smokers on the NHS is deducted
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do remember on a number of occasions on ICEC, when I had to sit in the smoking carriage as there were no other seats available. Only to have dozens of smokers traipsing in and out as they got their 'fix' and went back to their seat in a smoke-free carriage.

Were you not concerned about your health OR would you rather sit in a Smoking Carriage than stand in a Non Smoking one....

 

[transmanche]

Were you not concerned about your health OR would you rather sit in a Smoking Carriage than stand in a Non Smoking one....

I would rather that there was not a smoking carriage OR that smokers who want to use it, stay in it - freeing up seats in the non-smoking carriages.

 

[Butts]

I would rather that there was not a smoking carriage OR that smokers who want to use it, stay in it - freeing up seats in the non-smoking carriages.

I can't disagree with you on the second point to be fair - the Kitten backtracks ....

 

[BestWestern]

Jesus wept were you alive before 2006/2007 - how did we manage before ?

I am not a "paranoid militant" I would merely like an area to indulge in a perfectly legal habit (a seperate area so you are not subjected to passive smoking)

Are you convinced of the links between passive smoking and lung cancer - just remind me of the last successful prosecution for this in a UK Court - clue there hasn't been one as the evidence does not stand up to legal scrutiny.

Smoking kills 50% of those who indulge in it eventually saving you and other non-smokers billions of pounds in extra taxes and pensions. perhaps the £11 billion a year it raises in excise duty should be spent finding out why the other 50% survive - or at least the £5 or £6 Billion profit after the costs of treating smokers on the NHS is deducted

I didn't say you were among the militants, I was merely pointing out that they are out there. I suppose you'll be telling us next that dim witted pregnant teenagers who chain smoke their way through pregnancy are doing no damage either?

I don't think this is the place for a long drawn out smoking debate, and I'm not a smoking Nazi, really I'm not, I just find it offensive when I have to suffer it. Thankfully that isn't very often nowadays, which is good. But what we do know is that smoking is massively damaging to the human body, and I think the majority of people would agree that it isn't a particularly sensible thing to do if you give a damn about your health. The drifting nature of cigarette smoke means that it will, thanks to the basic laws of physics, also affect any others who happen to be within close range. Whilst we can have a long dispute about whether that is enough to cause damage passively, what is indisputable is that it stinks, it makes your clothes stink, it stains things a unsexy yellow colour and it's generally unpleasnt to those of us who don't spend half the day inhaling the it. That is reason enough for non-smokers to maintain the right not have it inflicted upon them by others who apparently quite like the stuff. Simples really!

 

[Butts]

I didn't say you were among the militants, I was merely pointing out that they are out there. I suppose you'll be telling us next that dim witted pregnant teenagers who chain smoke their way through pregnancy are doing no damage either?

I don't think this is the place for a long drawn out smoking debate, and I'm not a smoking Nazi, really I'm not, I just find it offensive when I have to suffer it. Thankfully that isn't very often nowadays, which is good. But what we do know is that smoking is massively damaging to the human body, and I think the majority of people would agree that it isn't a particularly sensible thing to do if you give a damn about your health. The drifting nature of cigarette smoke means that it will, thanks to the basic laws of physics, also affect any others who happen to be within close range. Whilst we can have a long dispute about whether that is enough to cause damage passively, what is indisputable is that it stinks, it makes your clothes stink, it stains things a unsexy yellow colour and it's generally unpleasnt to those of us who don't spend half the day inhaling the it. That is reason enough for non-smokers to maintain the right not have it inflicted upon them by others who apparently quite like the stuff. Simples really!

Well my Mother smoked when she had me .....answers a lot

Seriously you refer to teenage smokers who are pregnant et al , don't minsunderstand me I'm not suggesting that smoking is beneficial to your health. However I believe the claimed negative effects are channelled through as a certainty rather than a posssibilty (with regard to health) without much unfashionable close examination due to the nature of the product.

I can't disagree about the smell etc , but please let us have a small segregated area to indulge in our vice.

As a reasonable person would you object to people smoking on open areas of Platforms as they can in most parts of Scotland?

 

[jon0844]

And we wonder why some of the arguments for/against HS2 are crazy if this is what happens about smoking!

 

[BestWestern]

Well my Mother smoked when she had me .....answers a lot

Seriously you refer to teenage smokers who are pregnant et al , don't minsunderstand me I'm not suggesting that smoking is beneficial to your health. However I believe the claimed negative effects are channelled through as a certainty rather than a posssibilty (with regard to health) without much unfashionable close examination due to the nature of the product.

I can't disagree about the smell etc , but please let us have a small segregated area to indulge in our vice.

As a reasonable person would you object to people smoking on open areas of Platforms as they can in most parts of Scotland?

I have absolutely no problem with people smoking on open platforms. In my line of work I see it regularly, I've never felt the need to ask anybody to stop and would never intend to, unless they were doing it to the detriment of others. In my experience so far they never are, the nature of having a sneaky fag obviously bringing the need to be discreet. I don't really understand the need for such a tight law in that respect, though I do fully support it being banned in covered areas. I'm not 'anti-smoking' just for the sake of it, it is of course the choice of the individual, but it should always be done in a way that doesn't bother those who don't wish to join in!

 

[Mike395]

Whilst this topic is bound to generate healthy debate, please ensure that we don't drift too far from the topic at hand. Thanks.

In terms of the subject of smoking carriages, I would worry about the smell (especially - as this is the main issue with such carriages IMO) drifting into other areas of the train. Also, modern air conditioning, with non-openable windows means that smoke doesn't dissipate as quickly as it used to on older stock with droplights at the end of each coach or openable windows.

In addition, smoke inhalation in enclosed spaces is especially problematic for asthmatics etc, and how do you ensure that these people dont accidentally walk into a carriage full of smoke?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I dont think TOC's would want to foot the increased cleaning bill for a reintroduced smoking carriage either.

 

[GodAtum]

I consistently have trouble with anti-social behaviour in first class, mainly youths and schoolkids.

 

[Buttsy]

My Mother died of Lung Cancer but this is not a battle of "top trumps", it's supposed to be a reasoned argument which you seem incapable of sustaining.

The argument brought me to tears as I thought of loved ones and the pain they went through, that is why I left the discussion.

 

[Butts]

The argument brought me to tears as I thought of loved ones and the pain they went through, that is why I left the discussion.

Ok fair enough.

 

[jon0844]

There's no chance whatsoever of trains getting smoking areas reintroduced - and much as I'm not a fan of smoking, I don't think we should be associating smoking with anti social behaviour. As such, it's really not for this particular thread.

The person having a cheeky smoke on the platform, hidden behind the waiting room, is not the same type of person as the one on a train doing it mostly to show off and stick his/her finger up at authority - and other passengers.

 

[Butts]

Whilst this topic is bound to generate healthy debate, please ensure that we don't drift too far from the topic at hand. Thanks.

In terms of the subject of smoking carriages, I would worry about the smell (especially - as this is the main issue with such carriages IMO) drifting into other areas of the train. Also, modern air conditioning, with non-openable windows means that smoke doesn't dissipate as quickly as it used to on older stock with droplights at the end of each coach or openable windows.

In addition, smoke inhalation in enclosed spaces is especially problematic for asthmatics etc, and how do you ensure that these people dont accidentally walk into a carriage full of smoke?

With all due respect unless they are blind as well the signage would alert them. Perhaps it should be a huge skull and crossbones

How did they manage for the 150 years before the ban came in ??

Technology is available to restrict the circulation of the smoke - check modern Airport Smoking Lounges.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's no chance whatsoever of trains getting smoking areas reintroduced - and much as I'm not a fan of smoking, I don't think we should be associating smoking with anti social behaviour. As such, it's really not for this particular thread.

The person having a cheeky smoke on the platform, hidden behind the waiting room, is not the same type of person as the one on a train doing it mostly to show off and stick his/her finger up at authority - and other passengers.

Yes, but most people seem to think smoking on open platforms is not a problem, only Network Rail.

If people were able to have a smoke before boarding there is less chance they would do so onboard.

It seems to work ok in most Stations in Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I dont think TOC's would want to foot the increased cleaning bill for a reintroduced smoking carriage either.

You've hit in the nail on the head here, it's my belief this is the reason Network Rail banned smoking on open platforms which is an optional act not a mandatory one.

 

[jon0844]

I don't agree with people smoking on platforms and LOADS of people do at Hatfield, in full view of others (including staff and the people in the coffee shop), but it's not quite the same problem if they're away from me and in the open air.

Of course you can still smell it, but you're not breathing in the smoke. It's perhaps worse that they just dump their cigarette butt on the floor or flick it onto the track - which is rude.

I am not sure the stereotypical kid on the train, playing loud music and putting feet on the seats is the type of person who wouldn't do it if they'd had a quick fag before boarding. Chances are they did that too! There are plenty of people who act anti-social quite deliberately, probably as a cry for attention - good or bad.

 

[Butts]

I don't agree with people smoking on platforms and LOADS of people do at Hatfield, in full view of others (including staff and the people in the coffee shop), but it's not quite the same problem if they're away from me and in the open air.

Of course you can still smell it, but you're not breathing in the smoke. It's perhaps worse that they just dump their cigarette butt on the floor or flick it onto the track - which is rude.

I am not sure the stereotypical kid on the train, playing loud music and putting feet on the seats is the type of person who wouldn't do it if they'd had a quick fag before boarding. Chances are they did that too! There are plenty of people who act anti-social quite deliberately, probably as a cry for attention - good or bad.

The "open platform" rule is ludicrous hence the reason it is flouted- it's nothing to do with health reasons and everything to do with saving money

With regard to smoking on the Train I do not condone that in the absence of designated carriages or places. My own personal belief is that a facility should be provided on Long Distances particularly Sleepers.

 

[scotsman]

I am not sure the stereotypical kid on the train, playing loud music and putting feet on the seats is the type of person who wouldn't do it if they'd had a quick fag before boarding. Chances are they did that too! There are plenty of people who act anti-social quite deliberately, probably as a cry for attention - good or bad.

It's lucky not many live up to this stereotype.

 

[jon0844]

True, imagine the chaos then!

The fact is, these people stand out because most kids aren't like that.

But that's little consolation when you're lucky enough to meet one or more on your train!

 

[bailey65]

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't smoking on platforms banned because they are a workplace for rail staff and the ban covers smoking in workplaces open or enclosed.

 

[Butts]

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't smoking on platforms banned because they are a workplace for rail staff and the ban covers smoking in workplaces open or enclosed.

And in Scotland ???????????????????????????

Next you'll be telling me Hotels are banned from providing Smoking Bedrooms if they wish to.

The power of "ASH" in action !!

 

[RPI]

The problem is, RPI, that management has made them that way. Too many managers look at incident forms and complaints as black marks against the guard involved and mark them down as troublemakers, rather than the result of them doing their job. If the guard stays in the cab, they won't have complaints from people who they charge tickets to, they won't get involved in anything that causes them to have to do incident forms, and they won't be called in for a "little chat" about their attitude.

Couple that with the same managers who work 7-3 and won't appear on the difficult trains, and the clever guard soon figures that their revenue will be at the depot average if they only do tickets for punters that "want" to buy them, and if they hide in the rear cab after it gets dark, well nobody is going to see them do it anyway, and once their name is not appearing on incident forms well, nobody in the company is going to care anyway.

Maybe so, but it doesn't help the case for retaining guards in terms of McNulty. At one XC depot south of Brum the top earning guard had taken around £80k in a year with the lowest at £2k, so one had covered his wages and the other hadn't. McNulty would take one look at that and hey presto.

 

[Butts]

Maybe so, but it doesn't help the case for retaining guards in terms of McNulty. At one XC depot south of Brum the top earning guard had taken around £80k in a year with the lowest at £2k, so one had covered his wages and the other hadn't. McNulty would take one look at that and hey presto.

I almost misread that I thought the Guard was on 80K a year and was going to apply for a job

 

[island]

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't smoking on platforms banned because they are a workplace for rail staff and the ban covers smoking in workplaces open or enclosed.

You're wrong

The normal workplace smoking ban covers enclosed workplaces. A sign must be displayed, but the law still applies if one isn't. The railway byelaws say that smoking is banned on the railway where signage indicates this is so.

 

[Deerfold]

The "open platform" rule is ludicrous hence the reason it is flouted- it's nothing to do with health reasons and everything to do with saving money

With regard to smoking on the Train I do not condone that in the absence of designated carriages or places. My own personal belief is that a facility should be provided on Long Distances particularly Sleepers.

If you travel, as I do regularly from Keighley you'll generally find half a dozen people spread out along the platform smoking, making the smoke very difficult to avoid. I'm unfortunate in seeming to be very sensitive to cigarette smoke. Most smokers are unaware just how big an area their smoke covers if it's not windy. At least if you're not waiting for a train you have some chance of moving away from smokers outside.

As to how I managed before in smoky areas - with difficulty. The nightclub I used to visit most regularly had an outside area - I'd spend most of the night there - until the smoking ban came in and all the smokers moved out there and I moved inside.