Are we hypocrites?

[Roylang]

Given some of the discussion that has gone on in other threads about the “breaking of rules” by railway staff it set me wondering about where we draw the line. As an enthusiast there are rules that I am glad to have seen broken and from which I have greatly benefitted. Others I would frown upon and be less happy. I think in general most enthusiasts are the same. So, are we hypocrites?

Let me give you some examples:

• I have, albeit a while ago, had several cab rides, on passenger trains on the main line. I have also had a ride in the cab of a freight train when a mate of mine was driving.
  
• On a journey though the channel tunnel on the shuttle, I was taken into the cab for the journey. Absolutely amazing experience and something that I will never forget. And to the obvious question – the engine headlights were on so, no, it was not just dark
  
• Recently, my four year old son was invited into the cab of a HST and sat in the drivers seat. The train was stopped at a station and was scheduled to depart in about five minutes.

From the first two I learned a great deal about the life of a driver (but obviously far from all), the last has made my son a life long railway fan.

So are we right to enjoy these instances where the rules may be bent or broken?

Roy

 

[GearJammer]

I think it depends on what the rule is, at the end of the day people that work in the rail industry (or any industry) know what the dangers are, they know what they can do and what they can't do and what rules can be bent/broken and what ones can't, i think its a shame that railway management can't/won't use discretion when enforceing rules and let there staff think for themselves, take your tunnel trip, i expect if the driver had been caught he would have been right in the s**t, despite the fact that no real harm has been done.

 

[O L Leigh]

I believe so, yes. But then I am feeling a bit grumpy at the moment anyway.

We are criticised for enforcing the rules and then criticised again when we don't follow them. Everyone seems to think they have a god-given right to an exemption and that it's OK to ask for the rules to be bent.

The risks to the driver from an unauthorised cab visitor are the same as (or possibly greater than) having the paper open. They both present a chance of distraction but, unlike a paper, you can't just put a cab visitor aside. Likewise, both would be treated with equal severity as a disciplinary matter as a driver should be doing neither of these things. You cannot applaud a driver exercising discretion by permitting someone unauthorised cab access and then villify him for having the paper open on his lap.

O L Leigh

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I believe so, yes. But then I am feeling a bit grumpy at the moment anyway.

We are criticised for enforcing the rules and then criticised again when we don't follow them. Everyone seems to think they have a god-given right to an exemption and that it's OK to ask for the rules to be bent.

The risks to the driver from an unauthorised cab visitor are the same (or possibly greater) than having the paper open. They both present a chance of distraction but, unlike a paper, you can't just put a cab visitor aside. Likewise, both would be treated with equal severity as a disciplinary matter as a driver should be doing neither of these things. You cannot applaud a driver exercising discretion by permitting someone unauthorised cab access and then villify him for having the paper open on his lap.

O L Leigh

Heck if Guards are not allowed in the cab (except for where it mentions in the Rulebook) why should anyone else, the Driver would be for the high jump

 

[b0b]

You cannot applaud a driver exercising discretion by permitting someone unauthorised cab access and then villify him for having the paper open on his lap.

but if you were in the cab, you could remind the driver it isnt the greatest idea in the world to be ogling page 3?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

but if you were in the cab, you could remind the driver it isnt the greatest idea in the world to be ogling page 3?

A person in the cab is a far greater distraction that glancing at a newspaper.

 

[passmore]

. You cannot applaud a driver exercising discretion by permitting someone unauthorised cab access and then villify him for having the paper open on his lap.

O L Leigh

I thought people in the cab of a train weren't allowed anyway?

Even if some do exercise discretion, I hardly think the driver in this case is being 'villified'. Its obvious the photographer should have thought twice before running to the gutter press with such a photo.
Anyone with common sense would realise there isn't a case at all of double standards here.

 

[O L Leigh]

Please go back and read my post in it's entirety. I believe I've been sufficiently clear.

O L Leigh

 

[passmore]

I'm not denying that the risks of having a paper open are the same as having someone in the cab, I am not a train driver therefore I am not in the position to judge whether the case of reading whilst on the move is right or wrong. That's up to the disciplinary board.
All I'm saying was that the photographer should've been a lot more discreet rather than potentially landing someone in hot water.

 

[Strat-tastic]

Back to the topic, if it's ok to break certain rules then should they be in the rule book to begin with? Maybe call them guidlines, or best practice.

Having said that, I've benefitted from a few very short cab rides myself. Nothing spectacular compared with experiences of some folk here, but a class 50 down the platform length at Brum NS was a rare treat to be savoured. Those were the days...

 

[michael769]

We are criticised for enforcing the rules and then criticised again when we don't follow them. Everyone seems to think they have a god-given right to an exemption and that it's OK to ask for the rules to be bent.

This is very true in so many walks of life. Human nature is that as soon as a rule get in someone's way the see it as a bad thing, and the persons enforcing it are bad people. But when a rule benefits someone they see it in a totally different light.

You cannot applaud a driver exercising discretion by permitting someone unauthorised cab access and then villify him for having the paper open on his lap.

Very true, the key to having rules supported and obeyed is by making them consistent and fair. At then end of the day you either ban all unnecessary and avoidable distractions for the driver, or allow them all - picking and choosing what to allow or otherwise based on peoples desires or convenience is not going to contribute to the safety of the railway.

 

[Rugd1022]

Back to the topic, if it's ok to break certain rules then should they be in the rule book to begin with? Maybe call them guidlines, or best practice.

Having said that, I've benefitted from a few very short cab rides myself. Nothing spectacular compared with experiences of some folk here, but a class 50 down the platform length at Brum NS was a rare treat to be savoured. Those were the days...

Alas the rule book is a legally binding document, with no room for vagueness (although that hasn't stopped various interpretations being taken from it in the past!).

Only those with authority and the correct cab passes are allowed up front, and even then it's at our descretion. Newly qualified drivers are not allowed to have road learners with them, I've been turned down a few times whilst learning New St to Gloucester and Aynho to Old Oak.

 

[Intermodal]

Is there any rule about allowing visitors in the cab while stationary to have a look around (usually enthusiasts/little children)? I have never heard that it's contrary to any rule.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Is there any rule about allowing visitors in the cab while stationary to have a look around (usually enthusiasts/little children)? I have never heard that it's contrary to any rule.

if its stationary I let people see into the cab aslong as they don't touch anything but if it is close to separture time then they need to leave the cab as not to cause distraction.

 

[Rugd1022]

Is there any rule about allowing visitors in the cab while stationary to have a look around (usually enthusiasts/little children)? I have never heard that it's contrary to any rule.

It isn't worded as such Andrew, but as I mentioned in my post just above yours, only those who have official reasons to be in the cab are allowed.... ie: the booked driver, a road learning fellow driver, inspector (or assessor) and in the event of an accident police officers. Even if they have the relevant passes, it's still up to me whether or not I let them in. Hope that explains things a bit more

One of the drivers at my company (but not at my depot) was suspened a while ago for allowing his daughter to have a quick look inside his cab whilst he was in a station platform, and last year a driver at my depot was given a rollocking for allowing an enthusiast to take photos inside his cab, after the pictures were seen online by one of our managers. We have to be very careful these days as some managers are looking for any excuse to 'let people go'. Sad but true I'm afraid. I do feel a bit awkward when refusing entry to the cab to someone who shows a genuine interest as it's something I used to do myself back in the 70s at places like Paddington, Reading etc. In those days, most drivers obliged and from that little acorn I ended up on the footplate with those very same drivers just a few years afterwards, so I do see it from the other side so to speak.

(With apologies for steering things off topic again! :wink)

 

[amcluesent]

"Bending" the rules seems fine until someone is injured or killed. The rules are there for a reason and any deviation should result in dismissal and loss of pension.

 

[Seacook]

The rules are there for a reason and any deviation should result in dismissal and loss of pension.

Are you sure that's harsh enough? What penalty do you think should apply to someone who say, drove at 75 mph on a motorway? Flogging? Transportation?

Disproportionate penalties are unhelpful.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

"Bending" the rules seems fine until someone is injured or killed. The rules are there for a reason and any deviation should result in dismissal and loss of pension.

Aren't you the one who wanted the BTP to bend the rules in order for your ECML train to run?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=747067&postcount=3

 

[amcluesent]

Aren't you the one who wanted the BTP to bend the rules in order for your ECML train to run?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=747067&postcount=3

I'm a reformed character after being given an infraction by the mods

 

[LE Greys]

In my case, maybe yes. I occasionally bend rules, because I think that I can get away with it safely. In some cases, it's because I live under the delusion that I am invulnerable (or at least totally infallible and have superhuman reactions). Therefore, I am convinced that I can film a steam special out of the window of an HST while overtaking just north of Thirsk (both at full line speed, so a closing speed of 50 mph). If I could drive, I would be convinced that I could do 125 mph on a motorway in perfect safety. In other cases, it is simply because I am convinced that the rules are there for ordinary minions, not for superior beings like myself (said with tongue in cheek).

I'm sure I'm not alone in these delusions.

 

[jon0844]

Well, in the right circumstances (and location) driving at 125mph is possible to do safely, and legally! I've done it many, many times (well, nearer 150mph+) but I'd never do it here.

Forget the legal issue; the driving standards here are just too low. If we get an increase to 80/85mph that will be a big step, and a surprising one, but you don't have to be a superior being to do 125, you just need everyone else to step up a grade too.

 

[chiltern_chidg]

From what I know, the rules are that no one without a 'cab pass' or without being accompanied by a Driver Standard's Manager (DSM) is permitted in the front cab of a train at anytime. This is due to the belief that, a train driver can easily become distracted by a cab visitor.

What I find so blaze is that why would a driver become distracted without a DSM present? Yes okay, a DSM can ensure that the driver isn't becoming distracted but there again, my point is that; in a car, you wouldn't have someone in the passenger seat that you did not want? Correct? The same principal in theory works with a Train Driver's Cab- does it not? You wouldn't have someone sat in the passenger seat who you didn't feel safe or comfortable being there with?

At the end of the day, it's the driver's train and he can have whoever he likes in his cab. Especially at night having someone to talk to will prevent fatigue.

The rules as far as a stationary train is concerned- I believe that there aren't any restrictions. I think, the main restrictions on cab access is restricted when the Train Driver is at the controls- in a point of safety.

Matthew

 

[AlterEgo]

At the end of the day, it's the driver's train and he can have whoever he likes in his cab. Especially at night having someone to talk to will prevent fatigue.

I am not a driver, and do not speak for them, but it is a fact that unauthorised people in cabs have caused, or contributed to the causes of accidents in the past. Here is one which could have been much nastier than it was:


http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Preston1986.pdf

 

[chiltern_chidg]

I am not a driver, and do not speak for them, but it is a fact that unauthorised people in cabs have caused, or contributed to the causes of accidents in the past. Here is one which could have been much nastier than it was:


http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Preston1986.pdf

Thanks for that. It's quite a sad read .


Like normal, it's those selfish people who ruin the enjoyment for others who most likely respect a Train Cab and the Driver's role that loose out!

Matthew

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks for that. It's quite a sad read .


Like normal, it's those selfish people who ruin the enjoyment for others who most likely respect a Train Cab and the Driver's role that loose out!

Matthew

Well, the person in the cab in that incident was an enthusiast, and probably never had any intention of distracting the driver. However, the report concludes thus:


56. I can only attribute what I believe was an uncharacteristic failing on Mr Blakeley's part to the irregular and distracting presence of passengers in the driving cab.

Anyway, as I have said, I am not a driver. I have actually been on an unofficial cab ride with my father, who was then a Tube driver, in the past (in about 1990!). I loved it! More recently, I took part in an official cab ride with my employer, which was done as per the rules, with a Driver Manager present in the cab.

 

[chiltern_chidg]

I do feel a bit awkward when refusing entry to the cab to someone who shows a genuine interest as it's something I used to do myself back in the 70s...

I have had a lot of driver's say to me that 'back in there day' that "you could easily get away with stuff like that". But now, in this age, things have become a lot more strict and people do a lot more extreme and terrible things.

Matthew

 

[O L Leigh]

You've contradicted yourself.

From what I know, the rules are that no one without a 'cab pass' or without being accompanied by a Driver Standard's Manager (DSM) is permitted in the front cab of a train at anytime.

Broadly, this is correct.

At the end of the day, it's the driver's train and he can have whoever he likes in his cab. Especially at night having someone to talk to will prevent fatigue.

The rules as far as a stationary train is concerned- I believe that there aren't any restrictions. I think, the main restrictions on cab access is restricted when the Train Driver is at the controls- in a point of safety.

This bit isn't.

O L Leigh