Mobility scooter on track - Thameslink 29/8

[Gloster]

So let’s stick to the rules whatever. Do you place a minimal risk to yourself higher than a possible risk to another? Once the train is stopped, as it appears to be here, it should be within the wit of anyone capable of standing that it is possible to get down on the track safely and stay with the casualty while safely keeping clear of the third rail. Even without a stopped train in sight it would be possible, although involving more care.

I am not suggesting blindly jumping on the track. I am suggesting that there are far too many hoops to jump through before going on the track in an emergency. A reasonable person should be able to go on the track once they know that the train has stopped and, once down there, keep clear of the juice rail.

No, I am not recommending moving him until the paramedics arrive, but an elderly man suddenly finding himself on his back on the track might panic, have a fit, try to crawl away across the third rail before it is off, struggle and fall, etc. I reckon that all these are more likely than a trained railway employee not taking reasonable prudence. The chances that going on the track will increase the number of casualties is infinitesimally small while doing nothing increases the chances of the casualty becoming more serious.

As regards talking to him from the station: if he is in a shaken state it may be more worrying to be shouted at from a distance than quietly close to. Note: I say shouting because this would probably be unavoidable for the staff.

 

[43066]

Do you place a minimal risk to yourself higher than a possible risk to another?

Absolutely.

Staff - especially non PTS trained staff - jumping onto the tracks is a very, very bad idea. They would more than likely face disciplinary action for doing so these days.

 

[norbitonflyer]

So let’s stick to the rules whatever. Do you place a minimal risk to yourself higher than a possible risk to another? Once the train is stopped, as it appears to be here, it should be within the wit of anyone capable of standing that it is possible to get down on the track safely and stay with the casualty while safely keeping clear of the third rail. Even without a stopped train in sight it would be possible, although involving more care.

The stopped train from which the photo is presumably taken is not on the track the casualty is lying on. A train approach from the other direction at any time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2024 ==

No, I am not recommending moving him until the paramedics arrive, but an elderly man suddenly finding himself on his back on the track might panic, have a fit, try to crawl away across the third rail before it is off, struggle and fall, etc.

That was definitely a concern of the people on the platform when I had the misfortune to fall off one in 3rd rail territory twenty years ago. My recollection when I came round is of lots of voices calling to me to climb out on the platform side (ie away from the live rail and any potential oncoming train - there was already a stationary train on the track I was lying on - I was underneath it). My first reaction to hearing them was reassurance that people knew I was there, and that the train was therefore unlikely to move.

 

[357]

Staff - especially non PTS trained staff - jumping onto the tracks is a very, very bad idea. They would more than likely face disciplinary action for doing so these days

Unfortunately this is due to the small minority of absolute idiots.

I've worked with many agency staff when I was on stations, especially STM Security staff, and there were some who seemingly struggled to dress themselves and barely had the IQ to string a sentence together or complete the signing in sheet.

 

[Jimini]

Unfortunately this is due to the small minority of absolute idiots.

I've worked with many agency staff when I was on stations, especially STM Security staff, and there were some who seemingly struggled to dress themselves and barely had the IQ to string a sentence together or complete the signing in sheet.

That geezer (Faletto?) and the shopping trolley on SWR land springs to mind!

 

[357]

That geezer (Faletto?) and the shopping trolley on SWR land springs to mind!

The TOC I used to work for had an incident at a very busy platform involving a member of staff jumping onto the track to retrieve a dropped holy book, amongst others.

 

[66701GBRF]

So let’s stick to the rules whatever. Do you place a minimal risk to yourself higher than a possible risk to another? Once the train is stopped, as it appears to be here, it should be within the wit of anyone capable of standing that it is possible to get down on the track safely and stay with the casualty while safely keeping clear of the third rail. Even without a stopped train in sight it would be possible, although involving more care.

I am not suggesting blindly jumping on the track. I am suggesting that there are far too many hoops to jump through before going on the track in an emergency. A reasonable person should be able to go on the track once they know that the train has stopped and, once down there, keep clear of the juice rail.

No, I am not recommending moving him until the paramedics arrive, but an elderly man suddenly finding himself on his back on the track might panic, have a fit, try to crawl away across the third rail before it is off, struggle and fall, etc. I reckon that all these are more likely than a trained railway employee not taking reasonable prudence. The chances that going on the track will increase the number of casualties is infinitesimally small while doing nothing increases the chances of the casualty becoming more serious.

As regards talking to him from the station: if he is in a shaken state it may be more worrying to be shouted at from a distance than quietly close to. Note: I say shouting because this would probably be unavoidable for the staff.

Are you going to pay peoples mortgages or put food on their plate when they get sacked for not following rules?

What you are suggesting are comfort measures, not critical life saving ones.

 

[Gloster]

That geezer (Faletto?) and the shopping trolley on SWR land springs to mind!

You mean at Lymington Town? He was a bit of an eccentric character, but he worked very hard and spent some of his own money to improve the station and produce a good image to the passengers. One occurrence that I heard on the ferry across to Yarmouth: two elderly women heading for the island got off at Town instead of Pier. As they would miss the ferry and their friend was waiting at Yarmouth, he quickly bundled them into his car and drove them round so that they caught the intended ferry. They were most impressed, although I know that he probably broke dozens of SWR’s rules.

The whole thing had a strong smell of stitch up: management wanting to get rid of someone who was too kind to the passengers (such a statement was reportedly said by a manager) and providing a public service, those disgusting words, rather than concentrating on improving the company’s profits. Whether the incident was anything as serious as it was made out to be by SWR can be doubted: he worked in the area for 19 (or possibly 29) years and can hardly have been unaware of the dangers of the juice rail or stupid enough to take risks.

Are you going to pay peoples mortgages or put food on their plate when they get sacked for not following rules?

What you are suggesting are comfort measures, not critical life saving ones.

You have rather made my point. The rules are too rigid, designed to give the company a legal get out, and staff too frightened to in any way bend them. So reasonable actions to maximise the help given to a probably injured person are not taken because staff are frightened they will be disciplined for doing so.

To take one of many hypothetical possibilities. The man might suddenly realise that he was on the track, started to struggle up, fallen over the still live third-rail or bashed his head on the rail and died. If there is someone on the track with him there is a greater chance of keeping him calm or holding him down. (There is only a small chance of this happening, but there are plenty of other things that could and it tots up.) Or is it more important that the staff can say, ‘We didn’t go on the track and help him because we are not the right grade or haven’t got the right certificates’? And so he died…

 

[43066]

You mean at Lymington Town? He was a bit of an eccentric character, but he worked very hard and spent some of his own money to improve the station and produce a good image to the passengers. One occurrence that I heard on the ferry across to Yarmouth: two elderly women heading for the island got off at Town instead of Pier. As they would miss the ferry and their friend was waiting at Yarmouth, he quickly bundled them into his car and drove them round so that they caught the intended ferry. They were most impressed, although I know that he probably broke dozens of SWR’s rules.

The whole thing had a strong smell of stitch up: management wanting to get rid of someone who was too kind to the passengers (such a statement was reportedly said by a manager) and providing a public service, those disgusting words, rather than concentrating on improving the company’s profits. Whether the incident was anything as serious as it was made out to be by SWR can be doubted: he worked in the area for 19 (or possibly 29) years and can hardly have been unaware of the dangers of the juice rail or stupid enough to take risks.

I’m not familiar with that particular incident at Lymington, but surely it’s obvious why someone who does things like giving passengers lifts in their own car is opening themselves and their employer up to all sorts of risks, so it’s no surprise they’d be viewed as a liability by management. What if they had been involved in a car accident (his insurance wouldn’t have paid out, and the employer would likely have been vicariously liable). What if some sort of allegation had been made against him? Actions we take at work, however well meaning, can have unintended consequences - sadly that’s the world we live in these days.

You have rather made my point. The rules are too rigid, designed to give the company a legal get out, and staff too frightened to in any way bend them. So reasonable actions to maximise the help given to a probably injured person are not taken because staff are frightened they will be disciplined for doing so.

To take one of many hypothetical possibilities. The man might suddenly realise that he was on the track, started to struggle up, fallen over the still live third-rail or bashed his head on the rail and died. If there is someone on the track with him there is a greater chance of keeping him calm or holding him down. (There is only a small chance of this happening, but there are plenty of other things that could and it tots up.) Or is it more important that the staff can say, ‘We didn’t go on the track and help him because we are not the right grade or haven’t got the right certificates’? And so he died…

I’d respectfully disagree that the rules are too rigid in this instance. The reasonable action for the staff to take is to make the situation safe by asking for an electrical switch off and a line block. Until that has happened nobody should be on the track. Nobody who isn’t PTS trained should be on the tracks at any point (I accept there’s a separate debate to be had over whether platform staff should be PTS trained).

 

[Mag_seven]

As this incident was some time ago its maybe time we left it there.

thanks all