Securing Private Areas on FCC EMUs

[jon0844]

Also I agree with the other post that says it is highly unlikely that FCC staff would leave multiple interior cab doors unlocked or that multiple locks were broken.

Besides CCTV possibly confirming the doors were shut, you'd think on the day of a sting they'd make damned sure they were closed. I'd even expect a plain clothed member of staff to be on the train to give advanced warning to be ready.

Given it would likely be a different set of carriages each day, if the problem related to the same service then the odds would really be stacked against you having an open door every day. Unless every door is broken and I don't need to go and board one to know that won't be the case.

 

[Qwerty133]

Sadly, I've just checked a well-known auction site and I can buy one of these keys for less than a fiver right now!!

( I have sent a message to that site management by the way. )

What did you search for to find it (I am not interested in buying one)

 

[Ediswan]

I'd be tempted to let it go to court. Most magistrates would take a very dim view of FCC's decision to prosecute these passengers rather than just asking them to move and shutting the door.

I wondered about that. Somehow I got the impression that courts don't like it when an organisation with the power to do so goes directly from appearing to tolerate a prohibited behaviour, to prosecution, without some kind of 'stop it now, or we will prosecute' warning. However, we don't know that FCC did not give a warning.

For clarity, I am NOT seeking to excuse the behaviour of the passengers.

 

[Dave1987]

Besides CCTV possibly confirming the doors were shut, you'd think on the day of a sting they'd make damned sure they were closed. I'd even expect a plain clothed member of staff to be on the train to give advanced warning to be ready.

Given it would likely be a different set of carriages each day, if the problem related to the same service then the odds would really be stacked against you having an open door every day. Unless every door is broken and I don't need to go and board one to know that won't be the case.

We have no way of knowing if it was a targeted sting operation by FCC of these particular services but if it was then it is clearly a persistant problem with these particular services. Considering that it is rare for the same unit to run on the same diagram for days on end, then unless FCC's entire fleet have broken locks on their vestibule doors or staff are in the habit of leaving them unlocked, both of which I doubt, then it would suggest some passengers have access to a 21 key and routinely open the door to the vestibule.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wondered about that. Somehow I got the impression that courts don't like it when an organisation with the power to do so goes directly from appearing to tolerate a prohibited behaviour, to prosecution, without some kind of 'stop it now, or we will prosecute' warning. However, we don't know that FCC did not give a warning.

For clarity, I am NOT seeking to excuse the behaviour of the passengers.

Indeed, the OP has commented that they knew it was wrong to be in there though. I they know this surely the current signage is adequate warning to passengers about not accupying this vestibule?

 

[Monty]

I wondered about that. Somehow I got the impression that courts don't like it when an organisation with the power to do so goes directly from appearing to tolerate a prohibited behaviour, to prosecution, without some kind of 'stop it now, or we will prosecute' warning. However, we don't know that FCC did not give a warning.

For clarity, I am NOT seeking to excuse the behaviour of the passengers.

I imagine FCC will argue that the trains safety could well have been compromised and that in this case examples need to be made to deter others from doing it. I don't really think magistrates can find fault with the company there.

 

[455driver]

What did you search for to find it (I am not interested in buying one)

BR1 key

 

[Clip]

Again you don't even need a T key,I used to do it all the time in my youth on the slam door stock to evade the gold caps!

 

[jon0844]

If it wasn't a sting, train crew may have spotted them earlier and alerted staff down the line. But if BTP were there, I'd say it was planned in advance and they were taking it seriously.

Perhaps those caught should just man up and own up instead of seeking a defence based on not being aware because of misplaced signs.

 

[Dave1987]

Again you don't even need a T key,I used to do it all the time in my youth on the slam door stock to evade the gold caps!

Im almost certain that to open the exterior door on the vestibule in question you need a T-key/carriage key.

 

[jon0844]

On a 317, I've seen people simply slide open the (external) door to board the section behind the cab (there's no specific button as there is inside, or it's lower down for driver use only), when the doors are unlocked of course.

I don't know about the 313s.

 

[Dave1987]

On a 317, I've seen people simply slide open the (external) door to board the section behind the cab (there's no specific button as there is inside, or it's lower down for driver use only), when the doors are unlocked of course.

I don't know about the 313s.

Im going to decline to comment as I dont think I should telling people how to access cabs

 

[Ferret]

On a 317, I've seen people simply slide open the (external) door to board the section behind the cab (there's no specific button as there is inside, or it's lower down for driver use only), when the doors are unlocked of course.

What the?! Well, no wonder FCC are having a purge in that case! It's obvious they have a security problem - and it's best they deal with it pronto.

 

[maniacmartin]

Sadly, I've just checked a well-known auction site and I can buy one of these keys for less than a fiver right now!!

( I have sent a message to that site management by the way. )

I don't think its illegal to own a T-key. As such why should they close the auction? I own all sorts of railway-related items despite not working in the industry

 

[jon0844]

You can use the area behind the cab on 317s as there's no access to the cab and the doors are often left open (in fact I think they're supposed to be when joined). That's the middle section, not the front cab when manned. I guess we could argue about the rear area though!

The problem on these is that the doors can't be locked open!

 

[455driver]

I don't think its illegal to own a T-key. As such why should they close the auction? I own all sorts of railway-related items despite not working in the industry

Its not a T key its a BR1/no1 key that is a railway specific item.

 

[Ferret]

I don't think its illegal to own a T-key. As such why should they close the auction? I own all sorts of railway-related items despite not working in the industry

It's a good point, I have to give you that. But, what about the security of the railway? The people selling these things are arguably breaking the law. I'm issued with a T-key etc as part of my duties, but those keys are not my possessions! Therefore, it's not for me to go onto ebay or whatever and sell my t-key, No 1 key, yadda yadda yadda - I'd expect a P45 and a Court appearance if I did that!

 

[jon0844]

Im going to decline to comment as I dont think I should telling people how to access cabs

I was talking about a different train here. The 317 doors are easily opened when unlocked using the handle. That's not (AFAIK) the case on a 313.

On a 321, 319 or 365 you'd actually be getting into the cab area. On a 365 the entry method is quite obvious as you can simply watch a driver opening the door!!

I realise you'll know this but I'm merely clarifying things, especially for those who may not read this thread from the start.

 

[broadgage]

I don't think its illegal to own a T-key. As such why should they close the auction? I own all sorts of railway-related items despite not working in the industry

Of course it is not illegal, I have several purchased from a reputable high street source.
These are widely used outside the rail industry including for securing shut windows in air conditioned premises.

To USE such a key on a train could reasonably be an offence, but simple possesion ? I think not.

And to return to the O/P I rather doubt that a court would convict some one for standing in the wrong part of the train if they found it open and apparently available for use.(provided that they had not already admitted they knew they should not)
For generations it has been customery to stand in the gaurds van or luggage van of an overcrowded train, and a resonable person would assume this still to be the case, for a somewhat similar area if unlocked and available.

If it could be proved in court that the person unlocked a locked door and went passed past a sign prohibiting access, then conviction would be reasonable.

If providing longer or more numerous trains is out of the question, then I think that FCC should admit defeat and allow this area to be used for standing. The driving cab should be locked and entry punishable, but standing in a rear or intermediate vestibule should be allowed.

I would go so far as to suggest that FCC should be grateful that customers are paying to stand in a vestibule, rather than prosecuting them for it.

 

[Dave1987]

Of course it is not illegal, I have several purchased from a reputable high street source.
These are widely used outside the rail industry including for securing shut windows in air conditioned premises.

To USE such a key on a train could reasonably be an offence, but simple possesion ? I think not.

And to return to the O/P I rather doubt that a court would convict some one for standing in the wrong part of the train if they found it open and apparently available for use.(provided that they had not already admitted they knew they should not)
For generations it has been customery to stand in the gaurds van or luggage van of an overcrowded train, and a resonable person would assume this still to be the case, for a somewhat similar area if unlocked and available.

If it could be proved in court that the person unlocked a locked door and went passed past a sign prohibiting access, then conviction would be reasonable.

If providing longer or more numerous trains is out of the question, then I think that FCC should admit defeat and allow this area to be used for standing. The driving cab should be locked and entry punishable, but standing in a rear or intermediate vestibule should be allowed.

I would go so far as to suggest that FCC should be grateful that customers are paying to stand in a vestibule, rather than prosecuting them for it.

Sorry but you are not understanding the point here. That vestibule is not for passenger use all because it has easy access to emergency equipment and the cab. Nowadays any crew area is strictly out of bounds to passengers. It's not really a case of ow the train is crowded so we will let the passengers into the crew areas. The cab is only lockable from the vestibule when the gangway connection is in use as the door that seals the gangway swings over to seal the cab when the gangway connection is in use. So it is not possible to lock out the cab from the vestibule unless using the gangway connection. The sliding lockable door the OP went through is the door that prevents access to the cab. Also the OP has admitted they knew it was wrong to go into that area.

 

[jon0844]

New rolling stock with less seats and open gangways will help, but for now you can't just go into private areas.

FCC (or the Rosco?) has a plan to open this area up but only after making them fixed six car trains and presumably removing/disabling/securely locking the cab equipment and other equipment that could be tampered with. Perhaps people shouldn't jump the gun!

 

[34D]

Sorry but you are not understanding the point here. That vestibule is not for passenger use all because it has easy access to emergency equipment and the cab. Nowadays any crew area is strictly out of bounds to passengers. It's not really a case of ow the train is crowded so we will let the passengers into the crew areas. The cab is only lockable from the vestibule when the gangway connection is in use as the door that seals the gangway swings over to seal the cab when the gangway connection is in use. So it is not possible to lock out the cab from the vestibule unless using the gangway connection. The sliding lockable door the OP went through is the door that prevents access to the cab. Also the OP has admitted they knew it was wrong to go into that area.

I don't think you're understanding properly:

On classes 317 and also 150/2, there is the passenger saloon, then a sliding door, then two single leaf side doors (in a short corridor that when this unit is leading is out of bounds). There is then another door, that can either be closed to be parallel with other internal doors, or moved through 90 degrees to close off the driving cab only.

When this cab is in the middle, this door is shut to close the driving position only, and the gangway door is opened to close-off the secondmans' position. The internal buttons (same as at the other passenger doors) will open these. On the FCC 317s the exteral buttons were plated over several years ago.

On 313 and 315, there is the passenger saloon, then a sliding door, then an L shaped area that includes a single leaf door on both sides and also inclides the secondmans' front window. There is then a drivers cab which is locked off again.

These people were in the L shaped area. When 313 and 315 were new, the rear/middle areas were routinely available for passenger standing.

On all the above, the exterior door can be opened from the outside with a bit of force.

Perhaps our class 455 friend can confirm their arrangements. I understand that the lack of some door or another on SWT is the reason why passengers cannot walk between 455 units.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

To own a key is not an offence.
In general tresspass law to open any lock with a key or any other means is a criminal offence.
If found in a private area, or carrying such key on the railway might take some explaining!!
Logically thinking if it was a planned sting they would have checked the doors were locked!
Maybe they took steps so as to identify the culprit that unlocked the door, and just prosecute that person. (Eg a member of staff on the train/ cctv)
The rest settle out of court.

 

[455driver]

Perhaps our class 455 friend can confirm their arrangements. I understand that the lack of some door or another on SWT is the reason why passengers cannot walk between 455 units.

Same arrangement as the 317s although the 455s dont have the "fly" door which seals off the second mans side, in fact the 317s followed the 455s off the production line which is why some 455s have bigger door windows than the other 455s and some 317s have smaller windows than the other 317s as I think some of the body shells (or probably some doors) were swapped over on the production line.

Thanks for calling me "friend" I was beginning to wonder if everyone hated drivers (and me in particular) on here!

 

[34D]

Same arrangement as the 317s although the 455s dont have the "fly" door which seals off the second mans side, in fact the 317s followed the 455s off the production line which is why some 455s have bigger door windows than the other 455s and some 317s have smaller windows than the other 317s as I think some of the body shells (or probably some doors) were swapped over on the production line.

Thanks for calling me "friend" I was beginning to wonder if everyone hated drivers (and me in particular) on here!

No silly!!

That's interesting about the bodyshells: to the outside observer, the class 455/8 (are these all Southern nowadays?) and class 317/1 (the ones FCC have and GA 317/5 I think) with the tiny opening top sections of window all look the same (believe these were all built before the following), and the 455/7 455/9 (both SWT) and 317/2 (originally 317349 onwards, all now with GA) both with 'normal' hoppa windows look the same.

If mods believe this is too off-topic please feel welcome to create a 'class 317 and 455 build history' thread.

 

[BestWestern]

Personally, I think it is crazy that "the railways" try to secure an area with a key/lump of metal that can be easily bought off the Internet, then have to rely on prosecution to enforce that security!

Why can't they just put proper locks in, secure locks with restricted blanks, serially numbered keys etc. Yes there is a cost, but if the area needs to be secure, so be it. As said in the thread it is only a matter of time before someone does something silly in a cab.

Absolutely spot on.

I'd agree with others here that the best tactic would have been to place a couple of plain clothes BTP on the train and tackle the offender who has the key. Shove in, nick him, cuff him, off at the next stop - that would surely send a rather stern message to his 'followers'. Mob handedly herding everybody out and taking details is probably still worthwhile though, as it's the best way of getting the message over that this practice in not acceptable. I doubt whether many prosecutions will successfully result, but I would think it's more about the message. Once it becomes common knowledge that if you're in there you just might get dragged off and booked, many will stop doing it I'm sure. Is there no CCTV on those units?

At the same time however, the TOC needs to do it's bit and better locks and clearer signage need to be placed on board.

 

[Clip]

Its ok saying change the locks but to what?


What is going to be easier in a time of emergency, whipping your key from its holder on your belt and its straight in the hole and open, or messing roundin your pockets for a bunch of keys, finding the right one then trying to get it in the hole properly when your hands are shaking because of the situation?

 

[trc666]

A fair few season ticket holders seem to think they are exempt from the railway byelaws - whether it's tailgating through (or simply wrenching open) ticket barriers because they're too lazy to take the ticket out the wallet, cycling on station concourses and platforms, taking full size bikes on to peak hour trains where banned and now getting in to non-public areas of trains. When is it going to stop?

 

[Tibbs]

Season ticket holders seem to think they are exempt from the railway byelaws - whether it's tailgating through (or simply wrenching open) ticket barriers because they're too lazy to take the ticket out the wallet, cycling on station concourses and platforms, taking full size bikes on to peak hour trains where banned and now getting in to non-public areas of trains. When is it going to stop?

Wow, generalise much?

I'm a season ticket holder and I've never done any of these these things.

Your point (whatever it is) is therefore invalid.

 

[jon0844]

The only thing I often did with my season ticket was walk through an open gate if I saw it.

Wrenching open a ticket barrier isn't easy and likely painful, but if I ever got caught out with the classic Oyster problem of the person in front not scanning successfully, so you accidentally let them through with your tap and the gates close on you, you have little choice but to push through. It's a form of tailgating that is totally unintentional, and happens all the time even though you can make sure to check the person in front tapped in/out okay by looking at the light.

 

[broadgage]

Season ticket holders seem to think they are exempt from the railway byelaws - whether it's tailgating through (or simply wrenching open) ticket barriers because they're too lazy to take the ticket out the wallet, cycling on station concourses and platforms, taking full size bikes on to peak hour trains where banned and now getting in to non-public areas of trains. When is it going to stop?

I dont think that such behaviour is exclusively by season ticket holders.
However on rush hour trains the majority of travelers probably hold season tickets, and it is therefore likey that the majority of wrong behaviour will also be by season ticket holders.