I had to crawl on my hands and knees to get off train, says disabled woman

[Bishops]

What a sorry and wholly avoidable situation to read. as well as the preceding pages to this one with people try ing to defend what happened.

No they do not.

Are you sure ?

GERT8000-SS2 Iss 2 - Shunting

Rule Book module GERT8000-SS2 sets out the requirements for train crew, shunters and signallers who have the responsibility for carrying out shunting duties. Issue two contains an amendment previously published in module AM (amendment No AM3/10). There are also new changes on instructions...

www.rssb.co.uk

A backward movement can be authorised where:

• The signalling system and local instructions permit it.
• The signaller has authorised the movement where required.
• The movement is carried out as a shunt or propelling movement in accordance with the applicable Rule Book requirements.
• Any platform, passenger, dispatch and train protection requirements are complied with.

 

[VP185]

I hope for their sake that nobody from GWR is reading the thread and able to link the username to a real name,

Why would that be?

I don't think it's the one who blundered into the thread with a made up story about what happened that they then drew conclusions from.

And there we go again, don’t believe an event, instantly dismiss it. My point is proven almost straight away.

 

[sprunt]

Why would that be?

Because their conduct in this thread reflects poorly on their employer.

And there we go again, don’t believe an event, instantly dismiss it. My point is proven almost straight away.

Why would I believe something that is obviously made up? Or are you claiming that you were present on the service in question?

 

[VP185]

What a sorry and wholly avoidable situation to read. as well as the preceding pages to this one with people try ing to defend what happened.

Are you sure ?

GERT8000-SS2 Iss 2 - Shunting

Rule Book module GERT8000-SS2 sets out the requirements for train crew, shunters and signallers who have the responsibility for carrying out shunting duties. Issue two contains an amendment previously published in module AM (amendment No AM3/10). There are also new changes on instructions...

www.rssb.co.uk

Yes I’m sure.

For a start you’re quoting a document that was withdrawn in 2013.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 16:22 ==

Because their conduct in this thread reflects poorly on their employer.

In what way specifically?

Why would I believe something that is obviously made up? Or are you claiming that you were present on the service in question?

Really. Again you’re just believing what you what! Anything that suits. You’re just continuing to prove my point

 

[sprunt]

In other words, staff knew they were in the wrong part of the train to alight (you wouldn't keep asking otherwise) and repeatedly asked them wether they want to move to a different portion of the train to alight at Bath. They refused to do this so were advised that they may be liable to purchase another ticket to get back from Bristol.

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

 

[Bishops]

Yes I’m sure.

For a start you’re quoting a document that was withdrawn in 2013.

So you are saying that there is now no rules for 'Shunting moves' whilst in a station? And trains never ever set back ?

 

[VP185]

So you are saying that there is now no rules for 'Shunting moves' whilst in a station? And trains never ever set back ?

There are, but none would cover this scenario and Control would never authorise. It carries to much risk in relation to incorrect door releases etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 16:32 ==

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

What evidence do you that this didn’t happen?
Would you expect staff to admit a mistake has been made, to then apologise, and then charge you to correct their mistake?

 

[bahnause]

There are, but none would cover this scenario and Control would never authorise. It carries to much risk in relation to incorrect door releases etc.

There are situations in which I would ask Control. And then there are situations, in which I inform Control about a measure taken by the train crew in coordination with the signaller according to the rulebook. This case would probably be the latter.

 

[sprunt]

What evidence do you that this didn’t happen?

Nice try, but you're the one who made the assertion. It's your job to prove it, not my job to disprove it.

 

[Starmill]

No they do not.

They do.

 

[VP185]

There are situations in which I would ask Control. And then there are situations, in which I inform Control about a measure taken by the train crew in coordination with the signaller according to the rulebook. This case would probably be the latter.

You can certainly ask Control, but they would refuse authorisation and again, that’s because of the risks involved in releasing incorrect doors.
It’s a bit different to overshooting a station and then getting permission to return back to the correct stopping position where doors can be released we normal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 16:39 ==

They do.

They don’t.

And it’ll be the same reason why we don’t stop at stations where the station door release pattern isn’t programmed into the train database. Too much risk involved.

 

[Starmill]

Being in possession of all the facts is a very simple concept but it seems to be extremely difficult for a lot of people to understand.

This assertion would be more persuasive if you had been aware of the location of the wheelchair spaces on these trains prior to telling another poster that they were wrong. Unfortunately, you were not.

You can certainly ask Control, but they would refuse authorisation and again, that’s because of the risks involved in releasing incorrect doors.
It’s a bit different to overshooting a station and then getting permission to return back to the correct stopping position where doors can be released we normal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 16:39 ==


They don’t.

You're mistaken.

 

[VP185]

This assertion would be more persuasive if you had been aware of the location of the wheelchair spaces on these trains prior to telling another poster that they were wrong. Unfortunately, you were not.

Fair enough. Our Hitachi sets obviously has a different layout.

You're mistaken.

I’m not mistaken.

 

[Wolfie]

But you don't wether an attempt was made to rectify the situation before or during the journey for which the customer simply refused.

We do know that GWR accepted responsibility for the incident and apologised. Does anyone believe that would have been the case in the event that there was any truth in the strawman you persist in pushing. A tip: when in hole stop digging.... GWR recognised that, why can't you?

 

[Starmill]

I’m not mistaken.

You are quite mistaken about several issues at play here.

 

[Wolfie]

At least one poster in this thread works for GWR. Can you spot them?

Named after a Perkins engine by any chance?

 

[VP185]

We do know that GWR accepted responsibility for the incident and apologised. Does anyone believe that would have been the case in the event that there was any truth in the strawman you persist in pushing. A tip: when in hole stop digging.... GWR recognised that, why can't you?

Because it can’t be proven either way. It’s effectively one persons word against another. So the only option GWR would be left with is to simply accept it and apologise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 16:53 ==

You are quite mistaken about several issues at play here.

I really aren’t mistaken.

 

[bahnause]

You can certainly ask Control, but they would refuse authorisation and again, that’s because of the risks involved in releasing incorrect doors.

Just how stupid and incompetent do we—or Control—think the train crew is, exactly? So stupid that we reject out of hand any solution to any problem that isn’t laid out in writing in a procedure? Wouldn’t it be Control’s job, in the event of a formation change that affects the availability of wheelchair spaces, to identify and resolve the problem before the train departs? And again: I wouldn't ask them if I had a solution to the problem that was allowed according to the rulebook. I'd just do it.

 

[Starmill]

Because it can’t be proven either way. It’s effectively one persons word against another. So the only option GWR would be left with is to simply accept it and apologise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 16:53 ==



I really aren’t mistaken.

All I can say is I really hope your role is non safety critical as I'm afraid you are a long way from correct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 17:08 ==

Just how stupid and incompetent do we—or Control—think the train crew is, exactly? So stupid that we reject out of hand any solution to any problem that isn’t laid out in writing in a procedure? Wouldn’t it be Control’s job, in the event of a formation change that affects the availability of wheelchair spaces, to identify and resolve the problem before the train departs? And again: I wouldn't ask them if I had a solution to the problem that was allowed according to the rulebook. I'd just do it.

Precisely. Also control offices regularly authorise individual doors to be released in locations they usually won't be released, even if not usually provided for by the normal methods of work, in exceptional circumstances such as this. So the point about extra risk arising from incorrect door release is wrong also.

 

[norbitonflyer]

If it's a 10-car train with only one carriage stopped beyond the platform, it would be max one carriage length she'd have had to crawl, possibly assisted by her parents. I could easily see her deciding it was the least worst option for her day.

Is that correct? I can't find the information for GWR, but LNER's website suggests only two doors in a 5-car set are compatible with the ramps

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/station_platforms_at_which_wheel/response/1593424/attach/html/3/Azuma%20Brief%20Accessibility%20v4.1.pdf.html

They are the inner end doors of the two end carriages. If GWR's units are the same, this is consistent with her assertion in the original article that she had to crawl through three carriages to reach the only other usable door.

 

[Chiltern 165]

Yes I’m sure.

For a start you’re quoting a document that was withdrawn in 2013.

You are incorrect.
That exact phrasing is still in Rule Book Module TW1 "Preparation and movement of trains". If you are in a safety critical role like you are claiming I would urgently advise you to do more rulebook revision, as you clearly do not know what it says.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 17:27 ==

I think the messages from certain individuals in this thread really highlight the attitudes the woman had to face. This sort of attitude is why many disabled passengers will do things like using emergency equipment or block doors.

If a railway is intent on not operating their fleet properly, they should suffer the consequences - having to draw forwards, having to spend large amounts of time arranging strange working.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’ve had a passenger report me for physical assaulting them, allegedly pushing them to the ground in an unprovoked attack causing significant injuries, for which photos were provided.
Now in this thread it would seem
everyone would agree I was guilty of that based on their complaint.

If your employer was quoted by the BBC saying they are sorry that you physically assaulted a passenger, after conducting an investigation, then yes, people would believe that you did indeed do that.

Fortunately the station had CCTV. What the guy failed to mention in his complaint is that he initially shoved me against the train, raised his fists, spat at me and then gave me another shove before walking to a station bench in a clearly intoxicated state. Shortly after we departed he stood up, stumbled around and then fell over.

Okay, but the fact that some passengers lie or exaggerate or engineer situations - something I can tell you I have experience of x1000 having investigated many, many complaints of this nature - does not mean thay every complaint about staff is unwarranted or groundless. I'm sorry you have had bad experiences but you cannot prejudge every passenger on that basis.

Oh, and I assume this complaint against you was investigated and the CCTV viewed, right? You didn't get fired because someone did their job and looked at the circumstances? Because in your view apparently GWR just doesn't bother, and writes wet little letters and sends money to anyone who cries.

And as a gentle but important point - you should know you can be identified based on the information you have chosen to post about yourself online, not least disclosing a very specific incident you were involved in. Assuming that was true of course, because why should anyone believe anything anyone says after all? For all you know I might have GWR's MD on WhatsApp.

 

[Falcon1200]

I wonder if the railway is like this as a whole, or if the staff who post on forums are unrepresentative. Because I've never (in the civil service, local government and the private sector) felt the need to defend my employer or industry.

I’d like to think most rail staff we have here will have seen quite quickly that the railway has messed up here and will be happy to accept and acknowledge that.

As a former railway employee, most of whose career was spent dealing with the things that go wrong, I do indeed defend the industry - When there are valid grounds to do so. But it was crystal clear from Post #1 of this thread that the railway was at fault, and a vulnerable passenger was put in a dreadful position.

 

[Trothy]

As a former* signaller and SSM, I would be more than happy to authorize a set back within a platform to avoid what eventually happened here.

The rulebook allows it, and having looked at the layout at Bath, there is a signal that would have to be passed at danger, but if there was a following train and it was stationary and held at the signal in rear it would be perfectly permissable.

*Former being 2 months ago, released due to ill health so not eons ago

 

[robbeech]

As a former* signaller and SSM, I would be more than happy to authorize a set back within a platform to avoid what eventually happened here.

The rulebook allows it, and having looked at the layout at Bath, there is a signal that would have to be passed at danger, but if there was a following train and it was stationary and held at the signal in rear it would be perfectly permissable.

*Former being 2 months ago, released due to ill health so not eons ago

If they were to implement a stop short and then draw forwards would you even need to be contacted? Would you expect to be contacted? Would you benefit from being contacted? Would you have actually preferred to have been contacted earlier so you could have put them into a different platform (i appreciate that isn't always possible and i suspect might have been difficult here but generally speaking)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 18:55 ==

Would you expect staff to admit a mistake has been made, to then apologise, and then charge you to correct their mistake?

Yes. It's a sad reality but the railway in 2026 leads me to say Yes, i would AT BEST be unsurprised by this and generally in some situations i'd expect it.

And it’ll be the same reason why we don’t stop at stations where the station door release pattern isn’t programmed into the train database. Too much risk involved.

What you'll be wanting there is better train crew then.

 

[Cowley]

I’m going to put a pause on things while everyone takes a moment to calm down.

I’d rather we avoid a pile on here and starting to turn into that, so let’s everyone cool off for a couple of hours.

Thanks