OT has given a very good, informed precis of the situation in which we find ourselves. The hand-wringing to which he refers is just the sort of thing that you yourself are guilty of.
You would have the railways do "something" merely to show that we have not lost control of a situation regardless of the sense of taking such action, the impact on those passengers directly affected and on the service as a whole and those who rely upon it. Getting people off trains is a matter of absolute last resort and is not entered into lightly, as I have already been at pains to explain.
"Something" Yes. Constant updates, status reports etc. Just something other than 'our engineers are working to fix the problem...'
I do realise that getting people of the train is the absolute last resort and the separate issues that will cause. I'm not a moron and I am not disputing this. Likewise, passengers abandoning a train is also the absolute last resort and not entered into lightly. Where we differ, is where the last resort begins.
Whether the railways talk about passenger welfare or service recovery the result is the same; the desire to get trains moving again as soon as possible. As a passenger I would hope that you can see that this benefits you as well, because trains kept at a stand for whatever reason is a bad thing for everyone concerned. All TOCs will have a "cut and run" policy which ensures that train failures are dealt with as quickly as possible so that time is not wasted on endless fault-finding where declaring a train failed gives a faster outcome. Where train services are affected by infrastructure problems there are options for degraded working, but these necessarily take longer to implement because safety must be ensured at all times. However, the railways gain nothing from having trains held at a stand for hour after hour. As I've said before, I have yet to be involved in any incident where I've been held for longer than 1.5 hours, and that includes being caught up with fatalities, bridge strikes and major signalling failures.
Ok I follow this. But my argument that passenger welfare and train recovery are not always the same thing still stands. Passenger comfort and patience levels are the ticking time bomb, not the procedural timescales.
No-one is being "forced off the train into a potentially hazardous environment". Once again, I have said previously that we would rather you stay put, even if you are in a potentially uncomfortable environment, so that we can sort out whatever the problem is and get you to a location where it is safe for you to disembark.
By forced, I am referring to conditions on board being intolerable.
I will recount two train failures I once endured, and in neither case did I bail.
The first one involved non-air conditioned mk2 stock, stranded on a very hot day in the hills between Carlisle and Lancaster. There were regular updates, about six other passengers in the coach, a breeze through window. I had a coffee, a pouch of golden virginia, a Guardian and time to kill at my destination. Abandoning the train couldn't have been further from my mind.
The next delay lasted not even twenty minutes, but it was a stifling hot day, a pacer so crowded that any slight movement might have constituted indecent assault, there was a baby screaming, an obnoxious drunk complaining loudly, no announcements or even sign of a guard, trains passing either side, a wasp in the cabin and someone had farted. Tempers were becoming frayed by the time we started moving, and I can't say how long it would have been before the first person cracked, but I doubt it would have been one hour, nevermind two.
As for the law, well I'm afraid you're just talking out the top of your head. The law is not there to ensure safety as well you know. You'd be perfectly safe standing in the middle of my back garden but that won't stop me calling the Police.
What I said is that laws are there to protect. People, and by extension, the interests of people.
But to bring this back on-topic, anyone bailing out of a train is indeed committing an offence of trespass on the railway. This is a criminal act no matter what the reason motivating it, therefore anyone taking this course of action is leaving themselves open to prosecution. Whether you like it or not, this is not a matter of life and death but of convenience. It's a human reaction to exceed the speed limits if you're late for an appointment but a traffic cop/gatso won't be impressed. You committed a criminal act, end of story. So why should trespass on the railway as a result of bailing out of a stranded train be any different?
You can't know that its not life or death until one day the worst happens. It can happen. People drop dead in the street during heatwaves, so what chance enclosed on a failed train, and when that day comes, the question will be asked. 'Why didn't someone just open the doors and get them out in the breeze. Its hypothetical for sure, but not inconceivable and it absolutely possible.
Not disputing that its tresspass, not much anyway. Just that when needs must...
Using the speed analogy though. What if you were speeding because your child had stopped breathing, would you adhere to the speed limit? Would you slow for the gatso and give way to a bus? No because sometimes you have to put your own needs first.
Or to return to the rail trespass. What if you were being chased by a rabid dog, or whatever, and your only escape was to scale a fence and enter railway land. Criminal action, therefore automatic prosecution? The law isn't absolute, and the stuffy uncomfortable train - deemed no longer bearable by those involved - is exception enough for me.
Don't misunderstand me. Its not a case of train stops, everyone off. Its the last resort for the passenger too.
[/QUOTE]
No...? Your posts certainly don't read that way. You seem to be making every excuse for them, so if you're not arguing that the advice of railstaff should be ignored what are you saying? Your argument seems to be lost in a fog of indecision and you are just selectively replying to posts as you see fit. I've tried engaging with you over and over but you simply refuse to address what I say.
You never met an official or person of supposed authority you thought was inept? You never been given advice by someone in a uniform you was know was untrue?
Actually. Should everyone always follow the advice of railstaff because they are well trained and are working in our best interest? Or should you ignore them and photograph the darned train anyway because you're breaking no law.
And yes, I am replying to posts selectively. The ones which are most at odds with own point of view, which \i don't believe is that extreme. My apologies, genuinely, if I miss yours. My circumstances are not ideal, I'm using a tiny device to type this and I'm surrounded by distractions. Its taken nearly three hours to get this far and no doubt something else will soon divert my attention. There are many pressures on my time and attention, and I do enjoy a good debate however, and I promise you I am not trolling.
In any case, who are you to tell me I don't know what I'm doing? That's effectively what you're saying by insinuating that you might lose confidence in me or my colleagues. Do you have that sort of devil-may-care attitude to other industries and areas of life or is it just the railways? Would you have this sort of argument with your GP or a Police Officer on the basis that what they tell you to do might be a little bit inconvenient or unpalatable?
I'm not telling you that you don't know what you're doing. Like anyone else, you get the benefit of doubt and the opportunity to demonstrate your incompetence in your own time. Not everyone is competent, or well intentioned. What you called devil-may-care, I call a healthy cynicism. Its not about whats inconvenient or impalpable, its about what rings true.
Would I challenge my GP or a police officer? Harold Shipman and Ian Tomlinson tell me that perhaps I should.
You may not like this very much, but no matter how well
Thanks
Nice dig
you respond to personal insults, I find your posts incredibly insulting. Not only that but, with your selective quoting and unwillingness to engage, you appear to be exhibiting all the behaviour of an internet troll. If you show a preparedness to listen and understand the railways perspective then I will be willing to reconsider my opinion of you, but you have failed to do that so far. Consequently I am coming to the end of my patience with you. You may consider that I am doing precisely the same, but you need to read my posts again and understand that I am motivated by the same concerns as you; passenger welfare and speedy incident resolution, both of which go hand in hand.
O L Leigh
I am listening to the railway perspective, and I'm telling you its not as important as the passenger perspective. The railway doesn't live or die by its regard for customers. No TOC will ever suffer a Ratners moment, and for this reason, it should never have been privatised. But thats a different argument, suffice to say, that no genuinely private organisation in a competitive market would leave its passengers stranded for hours.
I hope I have addressed all of your points, but like the union tie thing, I doubt we'll ever agree on this one.
