Manchester 13/14 Shoutiness Spreading across the Pennines

[Merle Haggard]

On the occasions I have witnessed it, it has been fully justified. I’ve never been on a platform where it occurs that often. Manchester I don’t know particularly well but people are claiming it’s an issue at locations I’m very familiar with (Derby and Nottingham, on the similar thread in speculative discussion), where I know it isn’t. So that’s enough to convince me it’s being overstated.

I beg to differ

During the week when there were diversions via the Dore South Curve I caught the Liverpool train booked to depart at 09.44. (it originated at Norwich). The platform display showed it running on time; absolutely no mention of a 'next train terminates here' or 'next train not in service'.
Everyone was dutifully waiting behind the yellow line, but as the train approached a member of staff came running down the platform shouting repeatedly 'stand away, this train is out of service'. Continuing to shout, he ran towards people standing behind the yellow line, his hands waving them even further back. He then ran towards the front of the train and gave what used to be (maybe still is) the 'emergency stop' signal - both arms stretched vertically above the head - and the train stopped short. People got off it.. What happened then was - very little. With no great sense of urgency that train eventually reversed away, and after another delay an empty train arrived, the platform display adding to the expected time minute by minute until it changed to 'delayed' . The shouty staff man shouted no more. Was this our train? We were all well behind the yellow line. Would we be shouted at if we stepped towards it? No member of staff said a thing. Eventually people warily started to board it.
I wonder why the man shouted when there really wasn't any need to (everyone was behind the yellow line); but neither he or anyone else explained what was happening or apologised for the late start. It could lead to the opinion that shouting at people and waving arms was his job, not customer service.

Obviously a late running train that negotiates the Castlefield corridor and then the CLC route only experiences further delay and probably leaves a trail of delayed trains behind it; the arrival in Liverpool was 39' late. To be fair the conductor did explain and apologise; and the passengers experience was probably moderated by being able to claim 'delay-repay'; added to the 'delay minutes' for EMR to pay other operators it probably cost them a bit. But that's by-the-by.

 

[YoungJohnson]

Bottom line with all this stuff is that the British courts have decided that individual railway workers are legally liable for the welfare of passengers - even if they are being dangerous and stupid either through being complete morons / criminals or due to their own ignorance / mental health issues / or drugs and drinks.

At the end of the day staff and for that matter their management would rather overstep the mark and offend someone, than end up in jail for someone getting dragged under a train. At the end of the day unless staff verbally abuse or threaten or lay hands on someone, no amount of shouting will ever lead to any action against them. Where as even taking their eye off the ball momentarily they could find themselves at best with a formal warning, and at worse having a considerable spell in prison and losing their livelihood, home and pension.

Comparisons with Europe are not valid, unless we know what the laws are there regarding personal responsibility and staff culpability.

Wider British society is part of the issue, for better or worse we've created a society where the lowest paid / lowest grade or simply front line staff and their direct management carry the can for everything (see pretty much the fear police officers have of getting in trouble for enforcing the law and the Kaba case in particular), coupled with a culture of senior managerial classes throwing everyone under the bus to save their own bacon (see the Letby case as an example of consultants who raised concerns being attacked by their superiors or indeed the Post Office and the scandals with G4S and similar), a surveillance culture, and a culture of paranoia. Of course go far in the opposite direction and the alternative would be a "Wild West" with no proper oversight, no investigations, and people getting away with reckless behaviour or people's lives being put in danger too.

It is a trade off. People are going to want to protect themselves as much as possible from action taken against them if we put these (often well meaning) obstacles in their way, and the side effect can be a risk of overly officious or paranoid behaviour. No doubt if operators are told to "loosen up" over paranoia over the PTI, then the next time something happens, the member of staff or indeed their management will use that as a defence "we were instructed to stop being so forceful or to turn a blind eye", and those higher up - be it the DFT / RSSB / senior management aren't going to want to carry the can for that. I am sure a senior person who instructs that we "reign it in over PTI paranoia" and signs their name to it, won't enjoy being questioned in either court, by the police / RAIB or a select committee after something nasty happens.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bottom line with all this stuff is that the British courts have decided that individual railway workers are legally liable for the welfare of passengers - even if they are being dangerous and stupid either through being complete morons / criminals or due to their own ignorance / mental health issues / or drugs and drinks.

If they are grossly negligent, yes. If the guard in the case you were referring to had instead followed the rule book and instructions from his employer rather than giving the right away on a train with someone actually leaning on it (not just a bit close), the passenger would almost certainly not have died, and if they had then the guard would not have been responsible.

Indeed in the other case on the same TOC the guard was cleared because he did follow the rules.

 

[Skymonster]

I expect the amount of passengers finding it "deeply unpleasant" is absolutely miniscule. Most will simply accept that it is part of the noise of a busy railway station. It's hardly like they're using threatening and abusive language.

Well I find it deeply unpleasant - and I mean just hearing it being directed to others. I also think that a staff member wearing a HV who is loudly, repeatedly, and frequently shouting “stand back” can create a very threatening impression (not physically threatening, but threatening in terms of removed from the station, denied travel, etc.).

I’m dismayed that anyone on the railway thinks its OK to shout aggressively at a paying customer, except in cases where there is imminent, close to life-threatening danger. I don’t accept that walking down a platform beyond the yellow line when there’s no train moving, ready to depart or even in sight meets that criteria except on platforms where trains pass at high speed (so not at Man Picc, etc.). In pretty much every other service industry, shouting at customers in the manner I have witnessed a few rail staff do would lead to disciplinary action against the employee. Sadly the railway seems to be impervious to such accountability. As I said previously I believe there are ways and means, and using aggressive shouting as a routine (rather than as an extreme exception) isn’t one of them.

I am very much an advocate of using the railway among my colleagues and friends, albeit that I feel like a lone voice at times. When I hear it a staff member screaming at customers, the experience takes it down a notch or two. It adds up, alongside the other hackneyed negatives travelling by train is perceived to involve in some people’s minds.

 

[Krokodil]

If they are grossly negligent, yes. If the guard in the case you were referring to had instead followed the rule book and instructions from his employer rather than giving the right away on a train with someone actually leaning on it (not just a bit close), the passenger would almost certainly not have died, and if they had then the guard would not have been responsible.

You do realise that it could have happened to any of them? It wasn't one rogue guard, they all did the same thing at that station because of issues that management failed to address.

In the case of Hamilton Square, while the guard was eventually cleared (having done nothing wrong) he was still put through the stress of an unnecessary court case. Something most of us would sooner avoid.

 

[43066]

Bottom line with all this stuff is that the British courts have decided that individual railway workers are legally liable for the welfare of passengers - even if they are being dangerous and stupid either through being complete morons / criminals or due to their own ignorance / mental health issues / or drugs and drinks.

At the end of the day staff and for that matter their management would rather overstep the mark and offend someone, than end up in jail for someone getting dragged under a train. At the end of the day unless staff verbally abuse or threaten or lay hands on someone, no amount of shouting will ever lead to any action against them. Where as even taking their eye off the ball momentarily they could find themselves at best with a formal warning, and at worse having a considerable spell in prison and losing their livelihood, home and pension.

Comparisons with Europe are not valid, unless we know what the laws are there regarding personal responsibility and staff culpability.

Wider British society is part of the issue, for better or worse we've created a society where the lowest paid / lowest grade or simply front line staff and their direct management carry the can for everything (see pretty much the fear police officers have of getting in trouble for enforcing the law and the Kaba case in particular), coupled with a culture of senior managerial classes throwing everyone under the bus to save their own bacon (see the Letby case as an example of consultants who raised concerns being attacked by their superiors or indeed the Post Office and the scandals with G4S and similar), a surveillance culture, and a culture of paranoia. Of course go far in the opposite direction and the alternative would be a "Wild West" with no proper oversight, no investigations, and people getting away with reckless behaviour or people's lives being put in danger too.

It is a trade off. People are going to want to protect themselves as much as possible from action taken against them if we put these (often well meaning) obstacles in their way, and the side effect can be a risk of overly officious or paranoid behaviour. No doubt if operators are told to "loosen up" over paranoia over the PTI, then the next time something happens, the member of staff or indeed their management will use that as a defence "we were instructed to stop being so forceful or to turn a blind eye", and those higher up - be it the DFT / RSSB / senior management aren't going to want to carry the can for that. I am sure a senior person who instructs that we "reign it in over PTI paranoia" and signs their name to it, won't enjoy being questioned in either court, by the police / RAIB or a select committee after something nasty happens.

I think this post sums up the issues very well indeed.

Indeed in the other case on the same TOC the guard was cleared because he did follow the rules.

Yet, despite following the rules, he still ended up in court, facing a potential prison sentence. So is it any wonder staff are more cautious than they used to be?

 

[amahy]

UK railways for you: we have staff employed to shout at people and check your tickets every 5 minutes, but not enough staff to actually run the railway properly.

 

[185]

Just be glad you've not got the inaudible lady screaming on the handheld PA yet.

So Yorkshire doesn't feel left out, I'll get one sent over the Pennines right away

 

[renegademaster]

How on earth do pedestrians manage to safely use pavements, without yellow lines and people to shout at us if we stray too close to the kerb?

With hundreds of pedestrian deaths a year

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

I cringe at Hamburg HBF when a double set ICE departs on the curved platforms. Self despatch by the guards, no yellow line, people actually touching train with hands as it moves, but no shouting as there are no platform staff, and miraculously I’ve not seen any accidents.
This is the same in Austria, Belgium and Switzerland from what I’ve seenz

Would European courts jailed that Merseyrail guard if something with similar circumstances happend over there?

 

[Bikeman78]

With hundreds of pedestrian deaths a year

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==


Would European courts jailed that Merseyrail guard if something with similar circumstances happend over there?

Perhaps a Dutch/Belgian/German guard would make sure there was no one leaning against the side of the train before closing their own door and giving the right away. After that, they wouldn't be able to see what was happening on the platform.

 

[YoungJohnson]

If they are grossly negligent, yes. If the guard in the case you were referring to had instead followed the rule book and instructions from his employer rather than giving the right away on a train with someone actually leaning on it (not just a bit close), the passenger would almost certainly not have died, and if they had then the guard would not have been responsible.

Indeed in the other case on the same TOC the guard was cleared because he did follow the rules.

I suspect neither the Hamilton Square guard, the driver in the Hayes and Harlington incident, nor indeed the policeman who shot Chris Kaba relished going to trial, being suspended from work, and having their name, picture and personal details spread throughout the press and social media. Regardless of whether the rules were followed or not (or indeed if the rules are practical - DOO drivers have no mechanism for crowd control on platforms alone - hence perhaps the idea of speakers on the outside of multiple units should be mandatory). The only hope is the Hamilton Square incident has set a legal precedent so staff can never be taken to court now for following ORR approved rules, but I wouldn't be confident on that.

As for James Street - the summing up by the judge was very interesting as it means that guards and for that matter platform staff and more worryingly lone DOO drivers are almost certainly now legally liable for the personal welfare and personal safety for the passengers as well as the operational safety. The judge stated that the failings of the guard included failing to take into account her wellbeing and safeguarding her, aside from the operations side. So indeed the level of responsibility for passenger welfare is a lot wider than just "someone leaning on a train" - which was the last and final part of the James Street incident.

Now we can argue the rights and wrongs of this all, but like it or not, rail staff are in British law legally liable for such things - and they will put their job and liberty before the personal feelings of anyone who's behaving in a manner they consider reckless or not. And therefore the shouting will continue whether you or anyone else likes it or not, until perhaps platform doors are fitted. And then no doubt someone will get crushed by them, an operator will get sued or maybe a member of staff prosecuted for it. and then the cycle repeats....

 

[43066]

So Yorkshire doesn't feel left out, I'll get one sent over the Pennines right away

Sheffield doesn’t need any help .

Again, though, I’ve only ever see them do it where it’s fully justified by the frankly stupid behaviour of the people on the receiving end.

Perhaps a Dutch/Belgian/German guard would make sure there was no one leaning against the side of the train before closing their own door and giving the right away. After that, they wouldn't be able to see what was happening on the platform.

We’d really need to know what the potential liabilities are for PTI dispatch incidents under their respective legal systems to make a fair comparison.

Other European legal systems seem to take a more relaxed approach to railway safety generally, and place more emphasis on individual responsibility. I’d therefore imagine (although I don’t know for sure) that staff are less at risk of prosecution if they dispatch a train while someone is doing something silly and comes a cropper.

 

[xotGD]

With hundreds of pedestrian deaths a year

Due to a lack of yellow lines?

 

[renegademaster]

Due to a lack of yellow lines?

Quite a few accidents happen when a pedestrian trips on a kerb they was walking too close to and then falls under a car

 

[43066]

Due to a lack of yellow lines?

It isn’t a valid comparison because there isn’t a member of staff on the pavement tasked with keeping you safe. Therefore nobody is going to get the blame if you get hit by a passing car!

If railway staff could ask passengers to sign a waiver disclaiming all liability for death/injury there would be a lot less shouting! But that just isn’t how the legal system in this country works, unfortunately.

 

[Skymonster]

If railway staff could ask passengers to sign a waiver disclaiming all liability for death/injury there would be a lot less shouting

That’s utterly ridiculous and you know it. Railway staff are aware of the significant responsibilities they carry in their jobs and need to act accordingly. If they don’t like doing so they need to find another job. Even accepting what the job entails, it still doesn’t justify aggressively shouting at paying customers except in occasional circumstances where there is an extreme and immediate risk. I would like to see rail staff who unnecessarily overstep the mark brought to account and sacked if necessary.

 

[43066]

That’s utterly ridiculous and you know it. Railway staff are aware of the significant responsibilities they carry in their jobs and need to act accordingly. If they don’t like doing so they need to find another job. Even accepting what the job entails, it still doesn’t justify aggressively shouting at paying customers except in occasional circumstances where there is an extreme and immediate risk.

How is it “utterly ridiculous” - it’s a simple statement of fact? Perhaps you are unaware of how the legal aspects work, but they are as they are.

I think you’ll find the staff concerned are doing their jobs exactly as their employer requires them to, precisely because of those responsibilities. Whether you personally understand or agree with that has no bearing on the matter, and the approach won’t be changing. I’m not sure what difference buying a ticket makes to anything, or why you keep referring to it. There are plenty of paying customers who manage not to get shouted at.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

I would like to see rail staff who unnecessarily overstep the mark brought to account and sacked if necessary.

I’m sure you would, but no member of staff is ever going to be sacked for instructing people to stand back, where they consider it necessary to do so, in the interests of safety.

 

[GordonT]

If the shouty approach is a prerequisite of being seen to exercise duty of care responsibilities in relation to passenger safety to the fullest extent required by the legal system, why is it not invoked in comparable passenger environments throughout the rail network?

 

[Discuss223]

If the shouty approach is a prerequisite of being seen to exercise duty of care responsibilities in relation to passenger safety to the fullest extent required by the legal system, why is it not invoked in comparable passenger environments throughout the rail network?

There are no comparable passenger environments where it would be acceptable for staff to shout at a customer in such a manner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are no comparable passenger environments where it would be acceptable for staff to shout at a customer in such a manner.

It very much appears that US airline staff like to do so even in contexts where there is no safety issue, merely a business one. So there are parallels (in another industry notorious for poor customer service).

 

[PLY2AYS]

Out of curiosity, are there any examples people can think of; stations, companies, methods of working which are really effective?

Seems to be a lot of ‘what shouldn’t happen’ or ‘isn’t effective’ just curious as to whether there are any places that do well at keeping passengers behind the yellow line.

As a driver of DOO with a look-back method as my primary dispatch, the only method of drawing the attention of late passengers to stay clear and behind the yellow line is to shout!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of curiosity, are there any examples people can think of; stations, companies, methods of working which are really effective?

Seems to be a lot of ‘what shouldn’t happen’ or ‘isn’t effective’ just curious as to whether there are any places that do well at keeping passengers behind the yellow line.

As a driver of DOO with a look-back method, the only method of drawing late passengers attention is to shout to stay clear and behind the yellow line.

Replied in the speculative thread here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/potential-solutions-to-yellow-line-issue.280209/

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Bottom line with all this stuff is that the British courts have decided that individual railway workers are legally liable for the welfare of passengers - even if they are being dangerous and stupid either through being complete morons / criminals or due to their own ignorance / mental health issues / or drugs and drinks.

Have they? There are a few contentious cases that have been raised above, but it may be that people are getting payouts before going to court so as to avoid setting precedent, and what we're seeing is a result. H&S should be about minimising risks as far as is reasonably practicable and people taking personal responsibility for their own safety, not going to any lengths to remove all risk; this has been held up in court and at tribunals.

 

[43066]

Have they? There are a few contentious cases that have been raised above, but it may be that people are getting payouts before going to court so as to avoid setting precedent, and what we're seeing is a result.

In the criminal law sense, absolutely. And the Martin Zee case shows that the CPS can be somewhat overzealous when prosecuting. It’s shocking it ever got that far.

Payouts to injured parties would be more of a civil law matter.

 

[Discuss223]

Out of curiosity, are there any examples people can think of; stations, companies, methods of working which are really effective?

It's important to remember the original poster's scenario. He was NOT beyond the yellow line. He breached no rules of the station. The only thing I could think of for this situation would be a polite notice asking customers to keep inwards of the platform where possible. The railway does have a method of shouting where customers are over the yellow line and that's fine, it's a safety critical situation. The situation the OP described however is much a do about nothing. Not a particularly nice welcome to Leeds for customers who obey the safety regulations and stand behind the yellow line.

 

[Ghostbus]

The risk of repeated shouting such that it just becomes background noise seems obvious. Passengers become desensitised, and so when the time comes, a last minute urgent shouted warning of imminent danger is entirely ineffective. Not that it would be that effective, but that's what the line is for, the literal first line of defence, not the last line.

In an ideal world the law doesn't protect a manager who knows, or should have reasonably been aware, that this risk exists in the railway context. And it surely does. It also considers whether a mere employee was knowingly allowing this risky practice to occur without blowing the metaphorical whistle.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

In the criminal law sense, absolutely. And the Martin Zee case shows that the CPS can be somewhat overzealous when prosecuting. It’s shocking it ever got that far.

Payouts to injured parties would be more of a civil law matter.

It can be a civil matter, but often insurance companies will roll over and pay out rather than risk going to court, even with slam dunk cases - my Dad had one where the insurance wanted to roll over on a whiplash claim against him where the kid claimed for an accident that didn't happen, on a bus that wasn't Dad's, on a route he didn't operate, on a Saturday in the school holidays. Even the Doctor's report suggestes that I'd this family didn't stop wasting the GPs time they'd be struck off the practice list, but "it's cheaper to pay them off than fight it".

 

[sheff1]

If the shouty approach is a prerequisite of being seen to exercise duty of care responsibilities in relation to passenger safety to the fullest extent required by the legal system, why is it not invoked in comparable passenger environments throughout the rail network?

Good question which, as far as I can see, no one has addressed.
London Underground has been mentioned a few times - Many platforms on that system are far busier than Manchester Piccadilly p14 and trains are more frequent and arrive at higher speeds, yet I have never encountered one where the staff are continually shouting as they do in Manchester.

 

[43066]

It can be a civil matter, but often insurance companies will roll over and pay out rather than risk going to court, even with slam dunk cases - my Dad had one where the insurance wanted to roll over on a whiplash claim against him where the kid claimed for an accident that didn't happen, on a bus that wasn't Dad's, on a route he didn't operate, on a Saturday in the school holidays. Even the Doctor's report suggestes that I'd this family didn't stop wasting the GPs time they'd be struck off the practice list, but "it's cheaper to pay them off than fight it".

Agreed. Although, if your dad was driving a bus, presumably the claim was being made against his employer and their insurance. Even if he was negligent, his employer would be vicariously liable, which is another reason why front line staff are trained to be risk averse!

London Underground has been mentioned a few times - Many platforms on that system are far busier than Manchester Piccadilly p14 and trains are more frequent and arrive at higher speeds, yet I have never encountered one where the staff are continually shouting as they do in Manchester.

On LU the T-op is responsible for dispatch and they aren’t in a position to shout. As a very regular user, I regularly hear a chorus of “mindthedoorsmindthedoorsmindthedoors” through the tannoy from the platform staff, far more than I hear shouting on the mainline.

They do seem to operate to different safety standards, but there’ll no doubt be a case of a LU T-op being dragged into court at some point in the future, so I wonder whether that may change.

 

[Discuss223]

They do seem to operate to different safety standards, but there’ll no doubt going to be a case or an LU T-op being dragged into court at some point in the future, so I wonder whether that my change.

The crowding on the platforms on the London Underground, with no yellow lines and the third rail just feet away, combined with trains rushing in at around 30 miles per hour seems like an accident waiting to happen.