FCC fined £75k over "absolute shambles"

[A-driver]

The Rail Myths thread is a constant run of anti-passenger remarks, some very subtle, some blatant.

In that case you should be able to find plenty of examples to back up your silly accusations...so we are all waiting to hear some of them. I have looked through the myths thread and can't see any posts which suggest all rail staff (almost "to a man" ) see passengers as an annoyance and inconvenience or any suggesting the railway would be better without passengers which aren't clearly a joke.

So we still eagerly await your evidence, just pick 2 or 3 examples for now which back up your suggestion.

To be honest you are talking rubbish and making sweeping generalisations with nothing to back them up because you are yet another person who seems to visit this forum with the single aim of criticising rail staff.

So if the rail myths thread is a constant run of anti-passenger remarks, some of which are even blatant, then you won't have any trouble finding a few examples to back up your earlier post that pretty much all rail staff view passengers as an annoyance and inconvenience...

 

[PR1Berske]

The thread is full of snidey remarks -

Myth 48: Platform staff wait until just as you arrive on the platform to close the doors, and refuse to reopen them out of spite.

- and barely disguised insults against passenger attitudes to the railways.

 

[A-driver]

The thread is full of snidey remarks - - and barely disguised insults against passenger attitudes to the railways.

So give us some examples then! If you can't find any examples hen what you say just isn't trueM

And I can't see how that one you quoted shows how all rail staff find passengers annoying and an inconvenience...perhaps you could explain?

From what I can see in your quote there the staff member is pointing out that staff don't deliberately shut the doors in passengers faces, we shut doors when it's time to leave. And from that post there, it also states that we don't deliberately refuse to re open doors for late runners, it's often not practicle or in the case of platform staff or guard dispatch not actually possible except in an emergency. I can't see for a single second how that suggests that rail staff see passengers as an annoyance and inconvenience so please do explain and find some evidence to back up your trolling...

And you do realise that the myths thread is full of myths, so you can't take the posts not here literally, the poster of the myth is suggesting that the post is not correct, ie a myth. Just appears from that example that you believe that to be the true attitude of the staff.

 

[A-driver]

I think also that it should be said that no one in this thread has said FCC did any more than a poor job overall with this incident and no one has taken sides with FCC, what people have done is given an insight into the reality of the situation and how things actually happen, not what the tabloids tell you happen.

As for mentioning that "as a taxpayer and passenger we pay your wages" that is absolute rubbish and has no bearing whatsoever. As soon as someone says that on here it is obvious they have no argument and nothing useful or interesting to post.

I think it should be said that no staff on here are purposely anti passenger. We all post things which we have witnessed and which have wound us up etc but that certainly doesn't mean we are completely anti passenger. If you go to a similar forum for any industry you will see staff winging about customers in certain ways. There is nothing wrong with it, no industry sees 100% of staff and customer getting on. No rail staff honestly believe the railway would be better without passengers. When said it is only a joke, no different from teachers saying that the job would be far easier without the kids. They don't seriously mean they would prefer to come to work everyday and teach an empty class!

But what there certainly is on this forum is a small minority of trollers who seem to visit purely to vent their anti rail staff or anti rail union views. As soon as an opportunity arises they spout whatever rubbish they can think of to try and paint staff or unions in a bad light, often without any evidence or truth to their posting. You, "Pr1berske", have been doing that in this thread, both "mac" and "Steve ford" do that in other threads and it just brings threads down to arguments, takes them off topic and ends up with them being locked.

I'm sorry but I will not just let these stupid trolling comments pass unchallenged. Quite often they are offensive and insulting but pretty much always they are false and show a complete lack of understanding or knowledge. I see no reason why myself or my colleagues should be expected to sit back and let these stupid comments be read by others without facts being put out there.

You have made a sweeping generalisation that almost all rail staff on here are anti passenger and find them annoying and inconvenient. You are yet to back that up and let's face it, you can't. Simply because it isn't true.

As i say, I can't see where this vibe of staff v passenger exists on here as I can't really see it, I just constantly hear people go on about it. What is very obvious on this forum at present though is this constant anti staff/union trolling from the same few posters who clearly have nothing useful or interesting to say and are here for one reason only...to wind up staff.

 

[EM2]

The thread is full of snidey remarks - - and barely disguised insults against passenger attitudes to the railways.

The thing is, if you read Twitter comments to TOCs, many customers do believe that myth that was quoted to be true.

 

[kieron]

Of course had the FCC control room crystal ball have been working properly that day then they would have been able to predict the further complications and go for the emergency coupler option instead. But setting up an emergency coupler is a much longer and more involved job requiring additional staff rather than simply getting another 377 which can just drive onto the failed unit and within seconds you are good to go.

Except that we're discussing a real event here, and the interminable wait for a 377 to turn up was considered by the RAIB to be a causal factor in the incident.

The fact that a driver hurt her hand when trying to do things the "safer" way makes your comments seem particularly unfortunate to me.

Paragraphs 61 and 62 of the report discuss what happened to the proposal to use an emergency coupler in this incident.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps it would be helpful if TOC's like FCC were required to make to a provision for hired diesel loco's to drag failed units? In the case of FCC one loco could be based at Hornsey / Cricklewood and another at Hither Green. In the case of Hither Green, the cost of hiring the loco could be shared between South Eastern and FCC.

 

[swj99]

........I can't see where this vibe of staff v passenger exists on here as I can't really see it, I just constantly hear people go on about it. What is very obvious on this forum at present though is this constant anti staff/union trolling from the same few posters who clearly have nothing useful or interesting to say and are here for one reason only...to wind up staff.

I don't think there is a staff v passengers vibe, as such, but what does tend to happen, on internet forum discussions and real ones, is that there tends to be a divide which becomes visible, with people of one opinion on one side, and people with another opinion on the other. That's all well and good, in fact I think it's healthy for there to be different sides to the argument, and it would be boring and predictable if it was anything else. The problems tend to arise when those arguments stray into the territory of bickering, personal insults, handbagging, etc.
I personally have no problem with hearing a point of view that I don't agree with. It takes all sorts, as they say. But when things get personal, the topic gets derailed, things get heated, and people who were doing ok end up putting themselves in the wrong, not because of what they say, but how they say it, and the side arguments that are sometimes allowed to develop.

I am aware of the original definition of a troll, but I'm also aware that the definition seems to have changed slightly in recent years. Nowadays, the word troll seems be a label which is applied to someone who has a different viewpoint. As such, the word has far less validity than it once did.

When I was 25, I used to actually care very deeply about what other people thought, but more recently, I've ended up really not worrying about things like this anywhere near as much. I'll admit that once in a while, I catch myself being mildly bothered about whether other people agree with me or not, but then I remember that they will either agree, or they won't, and there's nothing I can do about it.

The philosophical approach works for me, and the basics of it are this. If you find yourself becoming emotionally attached to the question of whether someone has a different view to your own, sit down with a cup of tea, a beer, or whatever works for you, and remind yourself that it takes all sorts, and that it really doesn't matter how many other people agree with you. You can't control the uncontrollable. In terms of internet discussions, it means you can't win everyone round to your way of thinking, but if you try, you waste valuable emotional energy trying. Let them have their opinions, they'll have them anyway. The sun's still going to rise tomorrow regardless.