Is DCO (Driver Controlled Operation) inevitable across the whole network?

[Bletchleyite]

I often use last trains from Waterloo on the Windsor lines and have never felt threatened although some passengers may be merry. I am appalled by the descriptions of behavior often described on these forums in other areas.

It does seem that behaviour is significantly worse around the Northern cities than around London, certainly. Even during the day.

The Tube of an evening is full of drunkards, yet *actual* trouble seems to be relatively rare.

 

[NSEFAN]

In any event the National Conditions of Travel and the Railway Byelaws are quite clear about disorderly behaviour. In the cases in question is it not possible to deny access to both stations and trains to the unruly and drunk and nip the problem in the bud?

In some cases the police do their best to get the drunks onto the trains in order to disperse crowds. After all, people who are drunk aren't going to magically dissappear after being denied access to the train, so will either go back and drink more and get into a worse state, or loiter and cause problems locally.

 

[coppercapped]

With respect, any railway employees quoting ncoc and bylaws to some drunk people is more likely to agrravate the situation. Plenty of these people are happy to spit at and physically assault police officers, so railway employees don't stand much chance.

I am not suggesting that the NCoT or the Byelaws are quoted at the miscreants - it's just that the powers already exist to deny access to railway property to people behaving improperly. By the time these people are on the trains it's already too late - the other passengers will be affected.

I suspect that the problem arises mainly at a few stations in the centres of some larg(ish) towns and cities. The preventative action should be concentrated there.

 

[Eccles1983]

And where do you suggest the dozens of police officers required at each major station come from to enforce this?

Last time I checked there wasnt a box of btp cops ready to go. And the local forces after the have stopped laughing at the request will point out the lack of cops to do general policing duties.

 

[Bromley boy]

I am not suggesting that the NCoT or the Byelaws are quoted at the miscreants - it's just that the powers already exist to deny access to railway property to people behaving improperly. By the time these people are on the trains it's already too late - the other passengers will be affected.

I suspect that the problem arises mainly at a few stations in the centres of some larg(ish) towns and cities. The preventative action should be concentrated there.

This is a good point. I believe Mersey Rail take a zero tolerance approach and prevent intoxicated people from boarding, turning them away from stations.

Personally I would be in favour of such a policy being enforced at London terminals*. If people were denied access once or twice they might think more carefully in future about how much they have to drink before using public transport.

*obviously there would be a cost involved, and sigificant manpower required, which I suspect is why it isn’t done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a good point. I believe Mersey Rail take a zero tolerance approach and prevent intoxicated people from boarding, turning them away from stations.

Personally I would be in favour of such a policy being enforced at London terminals*. If people were denied access once or twice they might think more carefully in future about how much they have to drink before using public transport.

*obviously there would be a cost involved, and sigificant manpower required, which I suspect is why it isn’t done.

Thing is, that's tarring everyone with the same brush, and I do think it's over the top. I've boarded trains at Euston in various states of drunkenness, and I've tended just to find a seat and conk out for the journey. But then it does seem there is a significant difference from north to south in the kind of behaviours you tend to get - you just don't seem to get much trouble out of Euston at all, yet out of Lime St it can be really quite bad.

I do think we should as a society (not just the railway) come down hard on people who drink *and then cause trouble*, as drinking is no excuse for poor behaviour. But just because you've had a skinful and want to board, have a kip and get off when you get there (or do the taxi trade some favours when you miss your stop)?

 

[Bromley boy]

Thing is, that's tarring everyone with the same brush, and I do think it's over the top. I've boarded trains at Euston in various states of drunkenness, and I've tended just to find a seat and conk out for the journey. But then it does seem there is a significant difference from north to south in the kind of behaviours you tend to get - you just don't seem to get much trouble out of Euston at all, yet out of Lime St it can be really quite bad.

“Intoxicated” was perhaps a poor choice of words. It’s a question of degree of intoxication. I have no issue with people who can get themselves aboard, slump into a seat and quietly fall asleep (we’ve all done it!).

I meant people who are clearly unable to compose themselves: if you’re so drunk you wouldn’t be served in a bar and can barely stand up, you are far too drunk to be let anywhere near a train and should be refused travel, in my view.

I recently had platform staff tell me there was a drunk on my train who had fallen over several times on the platform, injuring themselves in the process, but had finally been persuaded on board and could I (a DOO driver) please watch out for them getting off at the next (unstaffed) station?

The answer was simply: “No I can’t and I won’t be moving the train until they’re removed.” Too much of a risk, I’m afraid.

Thankfully common sense was then restored. They were escorted off the train and out of the station by REOs.

 

[pt_mad]

There are two separate issues here:.....

• .......controlling unruly passengers and ensuring the security and safety of the other passengers.

If the issues on some late night trains in some areas are as bad as depicted, then it is unreasonable to expect a single person to master the situation and a security staff with Police powers should be present. I would add that I use late night trains from Paddington a couple of times a month and have never encountered such behaviour so is such behaviour confined to very specific areas?

In any event the National Conditions of Travel and the Railway Byelaws are quite clear about disorderly behaviour. In the cases in question is it not possible to deny access to both stations and trains to the unruly and drunk and nip the problem in the bud?

It is not possible or the duty of a guard to guarantee the security and safety of all passengers. It's their absolute duty to uphold the safe operation of the railway as far as their ability and role allows without exception, but it's impossible for them to be able to keep all passenger secure or safe. Hence there are thefts on trains, attacks and fights. They cannot intervene in violence and are risking their own safety and could change the course of events to the detriment of others if they do by getting directly or physically involved or by standing between parties. They are usually advised to retreat to safety and call for the police.
The railway can't guarantee the railway will be safe from crime at all times. They can promise to do their best to tackle anti social behaviour and to take action against crime, and prevention, but they cannot ensure the security of passengers as they can't choose who boards or ensure those people are safe or law abiding people. Just because we can't visibally see people who are drug dealers, or muggers, or thiefs, or violent people with a label over them, they are still traveling on our railways without us realising who they are. And we can't control their behaviour.

With respect, any railway employees quoting ncoc and bylaws to some drunk people is more likely to agrravate the situation. Plenty of these people are happy to spit at and physically assault police officers, so railway employees don't stand much chance.

I am quite surprised some people don't know about these drunk trains. Videos on YouTube have been know to feature incidences on these trains and some people have filmed attacks. From my experience certainly there are trains like this coming out of Manchester Liverpool Lime Street and Leeds on Saturday nights. And I am certain it's not confined there.

There was a programme on television called something like Britain's nightmare trains, this year. There was a video on there with a train full of drunks where someone kept putting a bagel on some guy's head and the whole train were singing and jeering 'hes got a bagel on his head' over and over. The bloke disposed of the bagel and someone kept putting another one on his head and it esculated because the bloke was obviously not happy about it. Nobody spoke up. The police came on at a station and spoke up to the whole carriage asking for information about what was going on and saying the train won't move until they find out. All passengers sat in silence and none of them gave any information to the police, just sat there looking down and looking guilty. They acted like the police were the enemy rather than trying to bring order. This is the sort of thing that goes on.

In some cases the police do their best to get the drunks onto the trains in order to disperse crowds. After all, people who are drunk aren't going to magically dissappear after being denied access to the train, so will either go back and drink more and get into a worse state, or loiter and cause problems locally.

I believe there is a direct bylaw which says that someone shouldn't be traveling if they are unfit through drugs or alcohol. Yet as pointed to above, it is rarely enforced and even police attendence will often result in a please let them travel if they promise to behave. Because if there's no evidence of a crime for arrest, the police will want them on their way home out of the way.

Factor two is if you have a station with lots of drunks after nights out, and you have say 4 officers and it's a massive station, they can't realistically stop more than one or two drunks at a time and use their powers to remove them. The laws make it possible, but resource doesn't, and then there's often a lack of evidence to arrest them over any serious crime.

Given violent crime figures have gone up quite steeply in recent years, it shouldn't be any surprise at all that these types of individuals travel and cause trouble. If there are violent individuals amongst us in society, why should we think they wouldn't be traveling amongst us on our trains? And if people don't have access to cars or are drinking, or going to the cities, they're even more likely to use the train. And they dont necessarily behave just because they're on a train. Big groups seem to egg each other on and give each other more of a confidence to misbehave when drunk. Certainly I've had personal insults thrown at me based on my appearance from groups which I doubt one person would have said unprovoked if they were travelling by themselves. And it makes you feel tiny as you can't call the police because someone said you were a fat heffer or made fun of the size of your backside in front of their mates.

 

[driver_m]

This is a good point. I believe Mersey Rail take a zero tolerance approach and prevent intoxicated people from boarding, turning them away from stations.

Personally I would be in favour of such a policy being enforced at London terminals*. If people were denied access once or twice they might think more carefully in future about how much they have to drink before using public transport.

*obviously there would be a cost involved, and sigificant manpower required, which I suspect is why it isn’t done.

In theory they do take the zero tolerance approach. In reality it doesn't always happen. As one of my colleagues described a drunk wearing only undies getting on at Rock Ferry and mangling some song. Still some work to do!

 

[Bletchleyite]

“Intoxicated” was perhaps a poor choice of words. It’s a question of degree of intoxication. I have no issue with people who can get themselves aboard, slump into a seat and quietly fall asleep (we’ve all done it!).

I meant people who are clearly unable to compose themselves: if you’re so drunk you wouldn’t be served in a bar and can barely stand up, you are far too drunk to be let anywhere near a train and should be refused travel, in my view.

Merseyrail seem to take this one further (too far), if those documentaries from a while back are anything to go by - they were refusing people who were nowhere near that state - certainly people who were less intoxicated than I was the last time I used the 0134 off Euston.

 

[coppercapped]

It is not possible or the duty of a guard to guarantee the security and safety of all passengers. It's their absolute duty to uphold the safe operation of the railway as far as their ability and role allows without exception, but it's impossible for them to be able to keep all passenger secure or safe. Hence there are thefts on trains, attacks and fights. They cannot intervene in violence and are risking their own safety and could change the course of events to the detriment of others if they do by getting directly or physically involved or by standing between parties. They are usually advised to retreat to safety and call for the police.
The railway can't guarantee the railway will be safe from crime at all times. They can promise to do their best to tackle anti social behaviour and to take action against crime, and prevention, but they cannot ensure the security of passengers as they can't choose who boards or ensure those people are safe or law abiding people. Just because we can't visibally see people who are drug dealers, or muggers, or thiefs, or violent people with a label over them, they are still traveling on our railways without us realising who they are. And we can't control their behaviour.


I am quite surprised some people don't know about these drunk trains. Videos on YouTube have been know to feature incidences on these trains and some people have filmed attacks. From my experience certainly there are trains like this coming out of Manchester Liverpool Lime Street and Leeds on Saturday nights. And I am certain it's not confined there.

There was a programme on television called something like Britain's nightmare trains, this year. There was a video on there with a train full of drunks where someone kept putting a bagel on some guy's head and the whole train were singing and jeering 'hes got a bagel on his head' over and over. The bloke disposed of the bagel and someone kept putting another one on his head and it esculated because the bloke was obviously not happy about it. Nobody spoke up. The police came on at a station and spoke up to the whole carriage asking for information about what was going on and saying the train won't move until they find out. All passengers sat in silence and none of them gave any information to the police, just sat there looking down and looking guilty. They acted like the police were the enemy rather than trying to bring order. This is the sort of thing that goes on.



I believe there is a direct bylaw which says that someone shouldn't be traveling if they are unfit through drugs or alcohol. Yet as pointed to above, it is rarely enforced and even police attendence will often result in a please let them travel if they promise to behave. Because if there's no evidence of a crime for arrest, the police will want them on their way home out of the way.

Factor two is if you have a station with lots of drunks after nights out, and you have say 4 officers and it's a massive station, they can't realistically stop more than one or two drunks at a time and use their powers to remove them. The laws make it possible, but resource doesn't, and then there's often a lack of evidence to arrest them over any serious crime.

Given violent crime figures have gone up quite steeply in recent years, it shouldn't be any surprise at all that these types of individuals travel and cause trouble. If there are violent individuals amongst us in society, why should we think they wouldn't be traveling amongst us on our trains? And if people don't have access to cars or are drinking, or going to the cities, they're even more likely to use the train. And they dont necessarily behave just because they're on a train. Big groups seem to egg each other on and give each other more of a confidence to misbehave when drunk. Certainly I've had personal insults thrown at me based on my appearance from groups which I doubt one person would have said unprovoked if they were travelling by themselves. And it makes you feel tiny as you can't call the police because someone said you were a fat heffer or made fun of the size of your backside in front of their mates.

I suggest that you read what I actually wrote and the context in which it was set before setting off on a rant.

The section that you selectively quoted was not referring to the safety and security of the passengers due to train operation, but ensuring their safety and security is not endangered by the actions of other passengers. I then wrote

then it is unreasonable to expect a single person to master the situation and a security staff with Police powers should be present.

If one is travelling by train one accepts that it is public and not private transport. But this is no excuse for not controlling misbehaviour which makes the travel experience for the normal passenger unpleasant.

One other general point. Why should posters here be aware that loutish behaviour is common on late night trains? As I said, I use late night trains a couple of times a month from London to Reading and have never seen any such behaviour. It is also absent on the Underground trains - at least on the ones I use. Admittedly there was some trouble about ten years ago on some late-night trains from Reading towards Guildford when rival groups of soldiers started fighting after a night out but this was avoided by making one train omit the stop serving one camp and the next train called at this stop and skipped the next.

If belligerent people are not allowed to enter railway stations then they will congregate in the streets outside. This will affect the local residents so with time pressure will be brought to bear on the Local Authorities' Licencing Committees to reduce the hours and numbers of drinking establishments in the vicinity of the stations to mitigate this nuisance. In the meantime, as always, the 'law abiding' majority will suffer from the behaviour of those who are unable to control themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If belligerent people are not allowed to enter railway stations then they will congregate in the streets outside. This will affect the local residents so with time pressure will be brought to bear on the Local Authorities' Licencing Committees to reduce the hours and numbers of drinking establishments in the vicinity of the stations to mitigate this nuisance. In the meantime, as always, the 'law abiding' majority will suffer from the behaviour of those who are unable to control themselves.

To some extent this is a symptom of a lack of on-the-ground policing. If there were enough officers and Police station cell capacity, we could simply arrest everyone who could even vaguely be seen as drunk *and disorderly* and chuck them in the cells overnight to sober up, just like we used to. Then charge them in the morning if they had actually committed an offence, or release them in shame if not.

But I do agree with your other point - it doesn't happen everywhere - it seems to be more of a provincial city thing than something that happens to excess in the South East. Most people on the 0010ish (Sat) or 0134 (every other day) off Euston are asleep, not smashing the train up.

 

[Robertj21a]

Is it my imagination or is there a North-South divide nowadays on those 'looking for a fight' on trains ?. It still seems quite common in the north but comparatively rare now in the south.
Perhaps it's beer vs shandy.......!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it my imagination or is there a North-South divide nowadays on those 'looking for a fight' on trains ?. It still seems quite common in the north but comparatively rare now in the south.
Perhaps it's beer vs shandy.......!!

Yes, I think there very much is. Despite London being a very young place these days, the Tube seems to carry drunk people evening in, evening out with little more than someone vomiting occasionally and...dare I say it...people talking to each other! And most suburban and commuter services are similarly reasonably behaved.

Up north and in the Midlands there does seem to be a lot more aggressive and drunk behaviour on trains. Which is not how it was when I was a kid, it seems to have developed much later (and not developed at all down South).

It might well relate to the economic prospects of people in the two locations...if your life is a series of minimum wage jobs with no prospects, getting properly "off your head" and throwing your weight around on a Friday night appeals a lot more than to a well-off commuter just having two or three after work then falling asleep on the stopper to Aylesbury to head back to his[1] million quid four bedroom detached in the Buckinghamshire countryside.

[1] It's almost never women that cause the actual issues, much as very drunk women can be quite "catty".

 

[pt_mad]

I suggest that your read what I actually wrote and the context in which it was set before setting off on a rant.

The section that you selectively quoted was not referring to the safety and security of the passengers due to train operation, but ensuring their safety and security is not endangered by the actions of other passengers. I then wrote



If one is travelling by train one accepts that it is public and not private transport. But this is no excuse for not controlling misbehaviour which makes the travel experience for the normal passenger unpleasant.

One other general point. Why should posters here be aware that loutish behaviour is common on late night trains? As I said, I use late night trains a couple of times a month from London to Reading and have never seen any such behaviour. It is also absent on the Underground trains - at least on the ones I use. Admittedly there was some trouble about ten years ago on some late-night trains from Reading towards Guildford when rival groups of soldiers started fighting after a night out but this was avoided by making one train omit the stop serving one camp and the next train called at this stop and skipped the next.

If belligerent people are not allowed to enter railway stations then they will congregate in the streets outside. This will affect the local residents so with time pressure will be brought to bear on the Local Authorities' Licencing Committees to reduce the hours and numbers of drinking establishments in the vicinity of the stations to mitigate this nuisance. In the meantime, as always, the 'law abiding' majority will suffer from the behaviour of those who are unable to control themselves.

Sorry it was not meant to come across as a rant, but I realise the voice of the person can't be heard in written text! My post was only replying to your point in the first paragraph. The rest wasn't aimed at you just the points about anti social behaviour in general.

I know you didn't mean ensure safety as in the safe operation of the railway. We can both agree that is absolutely the guards duty where there is one. My point was that with regards to ensuring the safety of other passengers, from each other, the railway cannot ensure this and doesn't claim to afaik? It's not that the guards duty is to actively protect the public from crime but they are ill equipped to do so, it's more that it's not in the guard's job remit anyway. Taking active steps to make the railway or the train as secure as possible will be part of their job, but attempting to ensure the safety of passengers from one another isn't and could never be, as it's practically impossible. They are limited to requesting that someone stops doing the thing they are doing wrong, and then calling the police as enforcement. If they are in danger they should retreat pending police attendence. Nothing else they can do to stop disorder, other than hold the train in the station once they're at a station. And potentially record what they see in writing as evidence.

To some extent this is a symptom of a lack of on-the-ground policing. If there were enough officers and Police station cell capacity, we could simply arrest everyone who could even vaguely be seen as drunk *and disorderly* and chuck them in the cells overnight to sober up, just like we used to. Then charge them in the morning if they had actually committed an offence, or release them in shame if not.

But I do agree with your other point - it doesn't happen everywhere - it seems to be more of a provincial city thing than something that happens to excess in the South East. Most people on the 0010ish (Sat) or 0134 (every other day) off Euston are asleep, not smashing the train up.

Perhaps those 'drunk tanks' that were being trialled would be a good way to help.

 

[LowLevel]

I suggest that your read what I actually wrote and the context in which it was set before setting off on a rant.

The section that you selectively quoted was not referring to the safety and security of the passengers due to train operation, but ensuring their safety and security is not endangered by the actions of other passengers. I then wrote



If one is travelling by train one accepts that it is public and not private transport. But this is no excuse for not controlling misbehaviour which makes the travel experience for the normal passenger unpleasant.

One other general point. Why should posters here be aware that loutish behaviour is common on late night trains? As I said, I use late night trains a couple of times a month from London to Reading and have never seen any such behaviour. It is also absent on the Underground trains - at least on the ones I use. Admittedly there was some trouble about ten years ago on some late-night trains from Reading towards Guildford when rival groups of soldiers started fighting after a night out but this was avoided by making one train omit the stop serving one camp and the next train called at this stop and skipped the next.

If belligerent people are not allowed to enter railway stations then they will congregate in the streets outside. This will affect the local residents so with time pressure will be brought to bear on the Local Authorities' Licencing Committees to reduce the hours and numbers of drinking establishments in the vicinity of the stations to mitigate this nuisance. In the meantime, as always, the 'law abiding' majority will suffer from the behaviour of those who are unable to control themselves.

How times change! Years ago BR and the military police worked together to deal with any troublesome soldiers - any misbehaviour used to result in a squad of red caps arriving to 'escort' the folk in question directly to jail

 

[coppercapped]

Sorry it was not meant to come across as a rant, but I realise the voice of the person can't be heard in written text! My post was only replying to your point in the first paragraph. The rest wasn't aimed at you just the points about anti social behaviour in general.

I know you didn't mean ensure safety as in the safe operation of the railway. We can both agree that is absolutely the guards duty where there is one. My point was that with regards to ensuring the safety of other passengers, from each other, the railway cannot ensure this and doesn't claim to afaik? It's not that the guards duty is to actively protect the public from crime but they are ill equipped to do so, it's more that it's not in the guard's job remit anyway. Taking active steps to make the railway or the train as secure as possible will be part of their job, but attempting to ensure the safety of passengers from one another isn't and could never be, as it's practically impossible. They are limited to requesting that someone stops doing the thing they are doing wrong, and then calling the police as enforcement. If they are in danger they should retreat pending police attendence. Nothing else they can do to stop disorder, other than hold the train in the station once they're at a station. And potentially record what they see in writing as evidence.




Perhaps those 'drunk tanks' that were being trialled would be a good way to help.

Accepted!

The solution to these problems does not, and cannot, lie solely with the railway. But it must take what steps it can to minimise the nuisance - unfortunately it seems from some of the posts in this thread that this is frequently not the case.

But the law enforcement issues are not directly connected to the extension of DOO/DCO - although there are links. In an earlier post I pointed out that the London Underground carries 1.1bn passengers a year - and judging by the posts above it does not have a great problem with badly behaving people although it is totally DOO or operates automatically with one on-board staff member in the case of the DLR. The rest of the railway system carries another 1.6bn people every year and the busiest sections are already DOO/DCO so taking the two sets of figures probably between two thirds to three quarters of ALL the 2.7bn passengers are already being carried in trains which are operated (started, stopped, doors opened and closed) by one person.

This implies that one person operation will spread as the majority of passengers either accept it or don't care and there is clearly no significant difference in the global safety record as long as the equipment used and the processes adopted are satisfactory. This does not mean that a second, or third or fourth, crew member will not be on the train and in areas where unsocial behaviour is common I hope that they will be. The more the merrier!

 

[pt_mad]

Could it be that the reason the London Underground feels so safe with DOO is because
1. the travelling time between stations is generally minimal. One or two minutes in the core, maybe less, and so its not like being cooped up in a locked tin can for 20 minutes where trouble can be started and nobody can escape? If trouble occurred the train would soon be in a station, halted if the driver or station staff were alerted, and people could get out.
2. The windows between two adjoining coaches, and doors, are so large that so much is visible throughout the train, even up to two coaches in front of you. This surely acts as a deterrent to criminals in that they hate good witness visibility and more witnesses to anything?
3. Services can be so busy that the number of possible witnesses to crime could be massive. Everyone is observing and people feel the natural order keeps things safe because so many people are watching? Different if you had a regional classic line train between two cities with only a large group of 10 with drink travelling together and you in one particular coach.
4. I'm not sure whether the driver has glass behind him/her or an opaque wall? If its transparent certainly this would act as a deterrent to crime also as the driver could potentially see back into the train if the train was at a stand?

 

[HowardGWR]

Anecdotally, from reading the ES and similar London news, I would have thought LU has as much crime in and around its services as anywhere else. The chief ones seem to be
a) sexual assault b) common assault, c) hate.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Can someone explain what has finally happened on Southern; has the RMT given up and now moved on to resisting DCO on the South-West

 

[Carlisle]

Merseyrail seem to take this one further (too far), .

Yes I’d say your right, as about a decade ago I merely asked two BTP officers parked at Maghull station if they knew where a particular road was, and ended up getting interrogated for a short while on where I was from and why I was there .

 

[coppercapped]

Could it be that the reason the London Underground feels so safe with DOO is because
1. the travelling time between stations is generally minimal. One or two minutes in the core, maybe less, and so its not like being cooped up in a locked tin can for 20 minutes where trouble can be started and nobody can escape? If trouble occurred the train would soon be in a station, halted if the driver or station staff were alerted, and people could get out.
2. The windows between two adjoining coaches, and doors, are so large that so much is visible throughout the train, even up to two coaches in front of you. This surely acts as a deterrent to criminals in that they hate good witness visibility and more witnesses to anything?
3. Services can be so busy that the number of possible witnesses to crime could be massive. Everyone is observing and people feel the natural order keeps things safe because so many people are watching? Different if you had a regional classic line train between two cities with only a large group of 10 with drink travelling together and you in one particular coach.
4. I'm not sure whether the driver has glass behind him/her or an opaque wall? If its transparent certainly this would act as a deterrent to crime also as the driver could potentially see back into the train if the train was at a stand?

When you write 'feels so safe with DOO' what exactly do you mean? Do you mean personal safety in the sense of misbehaviour by other passengers or do you mean safety in the sense of being injured or killed as a result of the trains' operation?

The ORR has recently published its annual report on railway safety which covers main line, Transport for London, tramways and so on. There are slight year to year fluctuations but generally risks are well controlled - although as always there is always room for improvement. DOO does not feature as a risk.

Regarding personal safety, both perceived and actual, on Underground trains it has been reported (though I can't find the reference at the moment) that the roads near some stations are more risky that the stations and trains themselves. I don't think your comments are generally applicable - some journeys to outlying stations such as Amersham, Uxbridge or Upminster can be quite long. TfL, and before it London Transport, has long tried to design crime out of the system by avoiding darl alleys and corners - certainly the open nature of modern stock, such as the S stock, helps towards this goal.

With 1.1bn journeys made on the Underground every year there will of course be problems - but generally the risks are well controlled. With the impending introduction of new trains with wide inter-coach connections some of the beneficial characteristics of Underground travel will be more widely spread throughout the country.