Should trains have CCTV fitted to monitor what’s happening in the cab?

[357]

It's almost like it was a made up strawman to argue against CCTV in the cabs?

It's really not. I can understand the desire for in cab CCTV - but I'm telling you myself that I've had to use the cab door or a bottle at times in my career and some of my older colleagues have to even more often than me. Yet you seem to think you've got proof I'm lying?

Literally what I said was that before in cab CCTV should be seriously considered, this issue needs resolving.

It's my personal opinion - as a train driver - based on my own experience of pissing in bottles and out the door while being told I'm on a good wage and should be grateful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2026 ==

I know what they were saying. They made an implication about managers spying on drivers while they poo'd, which isn't the case and won't ever be the case. It's pure scaremongering.

But wouldn't you feel better if (a) that possibility didn't exist or (b) you didn't need to be in that position anyway

 

[greatkingrat]

I'm not aware of any plans cockpits with CCTV in them, but almost all of them have voice recording systems - which would be able to identify mobile phone use, although wouldn't be as conclusive as CCTV evidence.

Voice recording would only pick up phone calls, it doesn't do anything about sending text messages/Whatsapps, internet browsing etc., which I suspect are more common than making phone calls.

 

[styles]

They made a point about managers spying on employees. Which happens by your own admission.

And they made a point that people have a right to privacy to poo or pick their nose.

The implication could be that if cab CCTV is introduced then drivers could then see people relieving themselves there with no other alternative. And then the argument was that we wouldn't need to be at that point if the other issues were dealt with first.

This is all getting horribly off topic don't you agree? Perhaps we should all put this part to bed and get back to the real focus of the report.

I don't agree, no.

The driver of this train was distracted by using their mobile phone. I see it as a perfectly reasonable measure to have CCTV in cabs to deter such behaviour. I think that's very on-topic.

If drivers are resorting to urinating while driving then the problem isn't CCTV or the lack thereof, and suggesting (which has been done) that we're going to spy on people urinating is unhelpful and a strawman, as no TOC, airline, union etc is proposing this as far as I'm aware.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2026 ==

It's really not. I can understand the desire for in cab CCTV - but I'm telling you myself that I've had to use the cab door or a bottle at times in my career and some of my older colleagues have to even more often than me. Yet you seem to think you've got proof I'm lying?

Literally what I said was that before in cab CCTV should be seriously considered, this issue needs resolving.

It's my personal opinion - as a train driver - based on my own experience of pissing in bottles and out the door while being told I'm on a good wage and should be grateful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2026 ==


But wouldn't you feel better if (a) that possibility didn't exist or (b) you didn't need to be in that position anyway

None of this appears to relate to CCTV - if you're finding yourself having to urinate into bottles during your shift, that's a standalone problem. What did your employer or trade union say about this when you raised it?

a) you shouldn't have to pee into bottles; but it's unrelated to CCTV
b) you shouldn't have to pee into bottles; but it's unrelated to CCTV

 

[Iskra]

Rather than CCTV, how about prosecutions in the cases where RAIB identify in-cab phone use? This may act as a deterrent?

 

[styles]

Rather than CCTV, how about prosecutions in the cases where RAIB identify in-cab phone use? This may act as a deterrent?

Potentially an option yes.

However it is worth remembering that most crime is deterred by the likelihood of getting caught rather than the potential sentence. This is why the death penalty fails to act as a deterrent for example, because the odds of being caught are the same and the potential outcomes are secondary to that.

If people thought their safety-critical role as a driver was being monitored, it would likely have a greater impact than merely extending the punishment to those who get caught.

 

[bramling]

Rather than CCTV, how about prosecutions in the cases where RAIB identify in-cab phone use? This may act as a deterrent?

In theory it's already possible to be prosecuted for this. Realistically this is only like to arise as a result of an incident, or in the less likely event that someone sees and reports - and evidence is able to be found.

I suspect in the scenario of a manager catching someone, many managers would be likely to go down the "my eyesight isn't as good as it was, so this goes no further, however I thought I saw you using a mobile phone, if I ever see this happen again..." approach. Unfortunately whilst this kick up the backside may be effective in many cases, in many cases it won't be.

 

[357]

If drivers are resorting to urinating while driving then the problem isn't CCTV or the lack thereof, and suggesting (which has been done) that we're going to spy on people urinating is unhelpful and a strawman, as no TOC, airline, union etc is proposing this as far as I'm aware.

Agreed - but I said that this problem should be solved before we install CCTV in cabs...

The problem is unrelated to CCTV - however wanting CCTV would mean the TOCs and FOCs would be forced to fix the issue.

That's what I said. I don't know or understand what your massive issue has been.

I never actually said I was against CCTV in cabs - just that it should be an auditable process as OTDR is already used by some managers to target drivers they don't like.

I'm just commenting based on reality and my own experiences.

 

[Cowley]

I’ve separated this topic off as it had taken over the other thread somewhat.

Could we make sure that we keep things polite though please.

Thanks!

 

[Russel]

I don't agree, no.

The driver of this train was distracted by using their mobile phone. I see it as a perfectly reasonable measure to have CCTV in cabs to deter such behaviour. I think that's very on-topic.

We're talking one incident out of thousands of train movements that happened that day, let's get a bit of perspective here.

 

[Krokodil]

and suggesting (which has been done) that we're going to spy on people urinating is unhelpful and a strawman, as no TOC, airline, union etc is proposing this as far as I'm aware.

If CCTV gets installed without something being done about poor facilities (an issue that ASLEF and the TUC have campaigned on for some years) then there will be a camera watching drivers urinate. Whatever the TOC intended to watch, that's what they'll get.

Rather than CCTV, how about prosecutions in the cases where RAIB identify in-cab phone use? This may act as a deterrent?

RAIB reports cannot be used for prosecution. In practice, dismissal should be a severe enough deterrent - so long as there's a reasonable threat of getting caught. The best way of doing this is for Driver Managers to get out of their offices and do spot checks at termini and relief points. As the driver exits the cab ask them to produce their phone - this should come out of their bag if that's the company's policy - and demonstrate that it was switched off.

 

[AB93]

We're talking one incident out of thousands of train movements that happened that day, let's get a bit of perspective here.

Should the RAIB not have investigated it, on that basis?

 

[Russel]

Should the RAIB not have investigated it, on that basis?

I didn't say that, or even imply it, did I...

My point was that the idea of a mass fitment of CCTV to cabs is something of a kneejerk reaction.

 

[bramling]

I didn't say that, or even imply it, did I...

My point was that the idea of a mass fitment of CCTV to cabs is something of a kneejerk reaction.

I agree it’s knee-jerk and not warranted, however that could well change if we keep seeing incidents where it’s found drivers have been doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.

 

[Stossgebet]

For an industry that seems to rely on a lot of rest day working and overtime, do we really want to create another reason for employees not to want to volunteer for extra hours at work?

You will never ever hear an announcement saying "this train is cancelled due to no driver wanting to work additional hours on cctv". But it will be another factor lost in amongst many others, that lead to trains being cancelled. Is cancelling trains safer for all concerned? And on the point of cancelations, are we to introduce another system in the cab, that means a train will be declared a failure if the system isn't working? Because of cctv becomes a mandatory safety system, then it has to be validated to be working every day... eitber that, or it isn't the safety system its advocates want it to be.

 

[Intellectual98]

mods note - split from this thread:

Near miss with an access ramp at Norwood Junction station (RAIB)

As per: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/near-miss-with-an-access-ramp-at-norwood-junction-station? Investigation into a near miss involving a manual access ramp at Norwood Junction station on the Windrush line, 1 July 2025. At around 09:52 on 1 July 2025, a train operated by Arriva Rail...

www.railforums.co.uk

I agree that the above examples are absurd.

But I work in an office, in healthcare, and CCTV covering me is completely normal and I wouldn't argue against it. It's a workplace, not a home, and it should be monitored as such.

Unfortunately I don't have the privilege of easy access to toilet facilities while in a train cab, unlike in an office. Therefore occasionally I need to urinate, or in emergencies even defecate, in the cabs. So no, I do not want CCTV in the cabs at all, unless every train comes with it's own separate driver toilet, then there will always be an occasion where personal needs may take priority for the safe journey of a train.

Unless the company would prefer a 20 minute delay while I find a staff station toilet mid route, we regularly only get scheduled toilet access after 3-4:15 hrs of driving.

As for the arguement that the CCTV would only be for post accident, well OTDR was but then it became regular downloads, now all the data can be viewed live and remotely. All our on train CCTV and OTDR recordings can be viewed live and remotely.

We have already had drivers around the country killed because they got out of the cabs to relieve themselves, it is not acceptable to be driving for 4+ hours with zero toilet access and CCTV on the only private area we have access too.

Considering we have had drivers being written up and given advice for only pressing a button for 1.9seconds instead of two seconds at my TOC, I have little doubt that if a dwell was 30 seconds too long at a station they would pull cab CCTV to check why.

 

[styles]

Unfortunately I don't have the privilege of easy access to toilet facilities while in a train cab, unlike in an office. Therefore occasionally I need to urinate, or in emergencies even defecate, in the cabs. So no, I do not want CCTV in the cabs at all, unless every train comes with it's own separate driver toilet, then there will always be an occasion where personal needs may take priority for the safe journey of a train.

Unless the company would prefer a 20 minute delay while I find a staff station toilet mid route, we regularly only get scheduled toilet access after 3-4:15 hrs of driving.

As for the arguement that the CCTV would only be for post accident, well OTDR was but then it became regular downloads, now all the data can be viewed live and remotely. All our on train CCTV and OTDR recordings can be viewed live and remotely.

We have already had drivers around the country killed because they got out of the cabs to relieve themselves, it is not acceptable to be driving for 4+ hours with zero toilet access and CCTV on the only private area we have access too.

Considering we have had drivers being written up and given advice for only pressing a button for 1.9seconds instead of two seconds at my TOC, I have little doubt that if a dwell was 30 seconds too long at a station they would pull cab CCTV to check why.

This is a great argument for proper rest facilities for drivers, not one against CCTV in cabs.

I assume you've locked for strike action over this lack of facilities? I'd join you on that.

 

[Harpo]

I agree it’s knee-jerk and not warranted, however that could well change if we keep seeing incidents where it’s found drivers have been doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.

If any driver wrong-doing has been ‘found’, it was discovered without any in-cab CCTV.

 

[jamesst]

At my toc each cab has forward facing cameras, everything i do is recorded on the otdr (basically a black box) and driver managers quite often appear with the speed gun and/or mobile phone detector.
Anything else is pretty much overkill as far as im concerned.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately I don't have the privilege of easy access to toilet facilities while in a train cab, unlike in an office. Therefore occasionally I need to urinate, or in emergencies even defecate, in the cabs. So no, I do not want CCTV in the cabs at all, unless every train comes with it's own separate driver toilet, then there will always be an occasion where personal needs may take priority for the safe journey of a train.

It's quite something that there's never been strikes about this sort of thing. It arguably seems more serious than many things that there are strikes about!

I'd fully support such strikes myself. Drivers should not be needing to urinate in bottles, and the idea of defecating in a cab...that's awful.

 

[spyinthesky]

I work in an unrelated workplace on a large site where CCTV is used for 2 purposes. 1. Security 2. Process Safety.
I am also led to believe that its intended use must be displayed.
The Process Safety cameras occasionally record Operators whilst they are working but have never been used (successfully)as evidence in a disciplinary matter due to the intended purpose.
An attempt was made to fit a security camera within the operations control room. This was eventually rejected due to this room being used by managers conducting disciplinary, return to work interviews and HR led discussions.
The camera has now been placed outside overlooking the entrance.

I think fitting them in cabs would require very difficult decisions as to their intended use and would be extremely difficult to pass this by the unions.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

At my toc each cab has forward facing cameras, everything i do is recorded on the otdr (basically a black box) and driver managers quite often appear with the speed gun and/or mobile phone detector.
Anything else is pretty much overkill as far as im concerned.

I assume that all traction on the mainline have FFCCTV and OTDRs fitted or are there any exceptions?

 

[martin2345uk]

I assume that all traction on the mainline have FFCCTV and OTDRs fitted or are there any exceptions?

Definitely not, FL’s 66s don’t have FFCCTV, I can’t speak for other FOCs but I’d be surprised. Also maybe not everyone’s definition of “mainline” but 373s and 374s don’t have it either.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

Definitely not, FL’s 66s don’t have FFCCTV, I can’t speak for other FOCs but I’d be surprised. Also maybe not everyone’s definition of “mainline” but 373s and 374s don’t have it either.

Thanks. How about OTDR’s, surely they must be a requirement now? (Albeit there will be varying quality of OTDRs depending on how old/new traction they are)

 

[martin2345uk]

Yeah I certainly don’t know any mainline traction without a data recorder! Though that doesnt mean there aren’t any

 

[bramling]

My union rep once said to me "we'd never ever let it happen - there'd be a complete breakdown in IR and there'd be strike after strike".

I’m not sure how sustainable that position would be if the industry decided to go for in-cab CCTV following a serious incident where it was proven to be caused by the driver doing something they shouldn’t like using a phone. Mutual trust goes both ways. That said, I’m not advocating cameras in cabs, I can’t see justification for it as things stand, however we need to stop seeing these incidents where drivers are found to be doing things they shouldn’t.

 

[Krokodil]

Thanks. How about OTDR’s, surely they must be a requirement now? (Albeit there will be varying quality of OTDRs depending on how old/new traction they are)

OTDRs became a requirement, I think dating back to the early 2000s. Obviously OTDRs installed in 2002 are far more primitive than those you'd find on a modern unit. For older units they have to be downloaded by plugging in a laptop and the data provided will be very simple, whereas newer units can be done remotely - almost live - and will contain an incredible level of detail.

 

[Harpo]

OTDRs became a requirement, I think dating back to the early 2000s. Obviously OTDRs installed in 2002 are far more primitive than those you'd find on a modern unit. For older units they have to be downloaded by plugging in a laptop and the data provided will be very simple, whereas newer units can be done remotely - almost live - and will contain an incredible level of detail.

Prior to about 1993(?) there was practically nothing available at all other than verbal evidence, making inquiries very difficult. It was a stroke of genius around that time when the replay in the first live mapping system was used to calculate speed from elapsed time versus distance (berth steps) to prove an overspeed, causing the driver to admit sleepiness.

 

[43096]

At my toc each cab has forward facing cameras, everything i do is recorded on the otdr (basically a black box) and driver managers quite often appear with the speed gun and/or mobile phone detector.
Anything else is pretty much overkill as far as im concerned.

Yet reading the Norwood Jct incident report, there is a substantial number of drivers who think it is OK to use a mobile phone while driving, and even more who don’t think they’d get caught. I”m afraid your colleagues are building themselves a good case for in-cab CCTV if they can’t be trusted.

 

[whoosh]

I have seen online, via a phone pointing at a computer monitor playing footage from a pan camera, of a pantograph ripping down the overheads mere hours after the event.

The USA media loves footage of bus drivers and train drivers (Washington Metro springs to mind) making mistakes and plastering it all over their click bait pages.

For these two reasons, I dont want any footage of me, as I know there is a serious risk of it being leaked all over the internet.

 

[berwicksfinest]

OK I'll chuck my two'penth,

Unfortunately my FOC are trialling this. My argument being :-

When Q-tron (black box) was installed. We were told "This is an entirely passive system, that would only be used in the event of an incident " ..... Guess what it is now used as part of our assessments and can be downloaded as an when manager wants.
So basically the trust has gone, what is the actual intention ??

Our FOC mentions for fatigue !! OK, surely rostering would be a better place to start ??? Humans get tired, currently Heatwave, neighbours enjoying the heat, and me being earlies, Yes i'm not going to be at my best...... So whats the answer. Stop earlies in summer months ??

Regards toilet facilities ..... What facilities, as mentioned previous, time in the chair and simple geography, its always porcelain available, if the cameras want to watch so be it, i have and will continue to stop if it becomes necessary.

Regards phones, if you are stupid enough to be caught on your phone whilst motoring then, you have no place up the front, I mean ASLEF can't really make any clearer.

But cameras well, somewhere to hang your HV i suppose