Delays due to a fatality?

[chuckles1066]

I'm a bit confused sorry. Are you sufggesting that the lack of a heading on the BBC home page relating to England's embarrassing defeat in football is in some way down to a Labour government that was no longer in power?

Or was it an EU directive?

I was merely making a point that the complete absence of any mention of something that the entire country had been talking about for what seemed like eons was an example of the media bigging Britain up - that came about as a result of the earlier post regarding the non-reporting of suicides.

Apologies, it went a bit off-topic.

 

[Flamingo]

I've just found this thread on another place that has information about what is involved in a fatality, posted by someone at the sharp end.

http://railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=99&t=21354

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I've just found this thread on another place that has information about what is involved in a fatality, posted by someone at the sharp end.

http://railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=99&t=21354

I've quoted the post in question:

To be classed as a 'simple' fatality, the police (usually BTP) need to be sure there is no foul play. Usually this is if there is witnesses available to confirm that the person chose to be in front of the train of their own free will. Drivers, station staff, passengers etc are usually first hand witnesses.

Then if it is a suicide, there are usually telling items found, notes, bags, alcohol etc where the impact occured, again this points to suicide.

The scene of crime officers will also need to take photographs etc.

Whilst this is going on usually fresh traincrew are on the way.

As soon as the Police deem the incident non-suspicious then the recovery process can commence. Police, Network Rail RIOs, paramedics and undertakers will usually collect the body (parts). The train will be having its brake test and horn test to prove it is fit to move forwards, and if the train has no visible sign it has been involved in a fatality it will be allowed forward, usually to the nearest depot. If it requires some cleaning, sometimes the Fire Brigade are called to wash it down, or Network Rail have specialist cleaning contractors (DV Howells usually). A high speed incident at a station will usually require the station platforms to be cleaned. Whilst train movements may be permitted, they will not be allowed to call at the station until such times as they are clean.

Most of the time it is within the 90 minute target for normal working to resume. On a 4-track line sometimes a 'barrier' train can be used to shield the body from passing trains. This will most probably be a freight train, and the driver has to agree to make the move.

When a fatality is deemed susicious is where there is foul play suspected (ie someone was pushed) or where the body is found (usually once dawn breaks). In these cases it takes much longer as there are more lines of investigation open.

I hope I have answered sensitively your concerns.

I deal with the on site response to fatalities.

 

[the sniper]

I think it was the previous administration that issued directives to newspapers and the BBC to "big Britain up" at all costs; they're both fairly easily manipulated, newspapers get threatened with imposition of VAT on their cover price and the BBC is told the existence of the licence fee will be "reviewed" if they fail to play ball.

Are you joking? The newspaper are notoriously anti-Britain, especially the likes of the Daily Mail! The BBC aren't naturally inclined to slag off Britain, but why would they be, even without the outside interference of which you speak?

For example, a little quiz. Have a look HERE.

What momentous occasion occured on this day? You won't find any reference to it and yet it concerned an event that the entire nation had been talking about for ages, an event that would demonstrate the nation's superiority over everyone else. It should have been the lead story and yet.......

The match against Germany was in the afternoon.

Now look at the screen capture again and tell me where there's a mention of it

Hardly a conspiracy... probably more down to the laziness of the BBC web team. Or if the 'top stories' relied on article views, the article on England being beaten might not have had enough clicks to make the top as most people would have heard or seen the result, thus would not have read a short article on it telling them what they know and probably didn't want to dwell on.

The story not making what would anyway be a small appearance on the front page of their site is nothing compared to it being featured as the main story on their main news television broadcasts, as I seem to remember it was. Why didn't the bad news ban stretch to this, or is the ban only applicable to things that most people won't see/notice anyway?

And by the way, I guess the newspapers didn't get the VAT rise threat memo on this occasion either....

http://news.uk.msn.com/photos/special-photo-galleries/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=155565370&page=11

Apologies, it went a bit off-topic.

Went a bit non-topic, more like.

 

[Striker]

The match against Germany was in the afternoon.

Now look at the screen capture again and tell me where there's a mention of it

Where it says "goal reignites technology row".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was merely making a point that the complete absence of any mention of something

But they DO mention it.

 

[chuckles1066]

Where it says "goal reignites technology row".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But they DO mention it.

Nope; that story (had you clicked on it) would have taken you to an article regarding a single incident that occured during the match.

There was no other mention of anything to do with the match, which was even more bizarre than the non-mention elsewhere on the main page.

 

[Striker]

Nope; that story (had you clicked on it) would have taken you to an article regarding a single incident that occured during the match.

There was no other mention of anything to do with the match, which was even more bizarre than the non-mention elsewhere on the main page.

I know why there's no mention of it. It's so people don't accidently see the results of games when browsing the BBC website. Unless you specifically clicked on the special "World Cup 2010" section of the website, there was no mention of any result of any game on the normal BBC homepage. I found this useful when I had to work and wanted to avoid a score of a match before I'd seen the highlights programme later that evening. It also explains why in the article about the disallowed goal, there's no mention of the actual game.

So, no conspiracy I'm afraid.

 

[chuckles1066]

I know why there's no mention of it. It's so people don't accidently see the results of games when browsing the BBC website. Unless you specifically clicked on the special "World Cup 2010" section of the website, there was no mention of any result of any game on the normal BBC homepage. I found this useful when I had to work and wanted to avoid a score of a match before I'd seen the highlights programme later that evening. It also explains why in the article about the disallowed goal, there's no mention of the actual game.

So, no conspiracy I'm afraid.

Ahhh right, thank you for the explanation, I knew there had to be a reason that UK State television wasn't reporting the facts.

Of course, it doesn't explain why previous (successful) match reports appeared on the website immediately.......I guess that's something we'll just have to wonder about, isn't it?

Or not :roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It must be wonderful living in a world where everything's the governments fault.

 

[Hydro]

Maybe the BBC has finally come round to my way of thinking that "it's only ****ing football"

 

[chuckles1066]

It must be wonderful living in a world where everything's the governments fault.

I never said that - although you're pretty much on the mark.

HERE you go - another one......have to say, I did need the tissues after this one......

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I never said that - although you're pretty much on the mark.

HERE you go - another one......have to say, I did need the tissues after this one......

Well of course the deputy Prime Minister is going to support his government's bid. :roll: What a non-story!

 

[Greenback]

Please stop confusing Britain with England!

There may be a reluctance to headline what was a national embarrassment for the English football team, though I prefer the explanation given by the sniper. Even if we assume there was a deliberate reluctance to put the result on the homepage, rather than a desire not to spoil things for those that hadn't seen it, or a lack of staff at the BBC wesbite on a Sunday afternoon/evening, I see nothing to link this particular example with any government directive!

 

[Striker]

Of course, it doesn't explain why previous (successful) match reports appeared on the website immediately.......I guess that's something we'll just have to wonder about, isn't it?

Or not :roll:

Maybe people complained that they were seeing the results of the England matches before they'd had chance to watch the highlights. By the time the BBC took note it just happened to be their last match.

To be honest, I remember it always being like that during the World Cup.

I very much doubt your theory of some kind of conspiracy.

 

[chuckles1066]

Well of course the deputy Prime Minister is going to support his government's bid. :roll: What a non-story!

So the assertion that the bid was "unbeatable" ties in where, exactly, with the real world facts? Anyone with a working brain cell knew it was a crap bid?

Take your time..........

Or you could just admit that it was a lot of English chest-puffing and flag waving and "we're the best at everything, just look at everything we've achieved over the past 50 years" bull$h1t?

As I say, take your time, I'm sure you can shoot my opinion down in flames.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So the assertion that the bid was "unbeatable" ties in where, exactly, with the real world facts? Anyone with a working brain cell knew it was a crap bid?

Take your time..........

Or you could just admit that it was a lot of English chest-puffing and flag waving and "we're the best at everything, just look at everything we've achieved over the past 50 years" bull$h1t?

As I say, take your time, I'm sure you can shoot my opinion down in flames.

Yes, but the deputy prime minister is hardly going to stand up and say, well it's a bit crap really is he? Of course he's going to support his government's bid! It's called spin - have you never heard of it?!

 

[chuckles1066]

It's called spin - have you never heard of it?!

Do you mean lying?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Do you mean lying?

Are you actually trying to have a debate or are you just trolling?

 

[chuckles1066]

Are you actually trying to have a debate or are you just trolling?

A debate?

Spin = lying in my book?

Your mileage might vary?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Well, evidently your definition of spin isn't correct:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spin

To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion:

 

[the sniper]

Anyone with a working brain cell knew it was a crap bid?

Erm, no. The Spain/Portugal and England bids were regarded as being technically the strongest bids, I believe. FIFA were, as 'anyone with a working brain cell' now knows, looking to take the World Cup to new markets and were looking for beneficial social regeneration to take place as part of the preparations for the competition. From a program I saw on the various bids, the place hosting Russia's bid really was set to massively benefit from the investment in infrastructure and transport. This appealed strongly to FIFA's agenda.

Our press freedom also played its part, which rightly or wrongly only served to damage the bid. Personally I think it's a good thing, as I'm not what you'd call a fan of football, though I could appreciate the positive economic effects the event would have had.

Or you could just admit that it was a lot of English chest-puffing and flag waving and "we're the best at everything, just look at everything we've achieved over the past 50 years" bull$h1t?

I'd love to know where all stuff is being printed/broadcast, as it's passed me by. The mainstream media are usually overwhelmingly anti-Britain. The only achievement of the last 50 years that is anywhere near regularly lauded is the introduction of Concord, and people now do as much moaning about it being taken out of service as anything else!

Who are all these people saying that 'we're the best at everything'?

 

[Greenback]

They are not in the newspapers I see every day! The headlines paint a very gloomy picture of Britain, everything is a disgrace according to many of them.

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

I've been using the railways now for seven weeks and tonight, for the second time in that period, there were severe delays caused by a fatality.

Incidentally, I'm sure both occasions involved Slough but that's another story for another day.

Does this mean someone's jumped in front of a train? On both occasions I haven't been able to find any news report indicating such an event.

Or does "fatality" mean someone onboard has had a heart attack or something?

I work as a guard (that's our official title here,not conductor) on Valley Lines services in South Wales.I've been unlucky enough to have two fatalities in a 25-year career.Fatalities are handled much differently these days.

The first incident occured in the late 80s.On a dark night a train coming in the opposite direction to mine reported hitting something and the signalman asked us to take a look.We found a very gory scene and reported the information to the signalman via a nearby signalpost telephone.He thanked us and told us to proceed normally.We completed our shift as normal and were not interviewed or even asked for a report.

The second incident happened about seven years ago and the procedure has changed beyond recognition.Myself and the driver were relieved by a fresh crew,interviewed,driven home and offered councelling.While I regard such measures as far preferable to what went on in the past they do,unfortunatly,result in more delay than used to be the case.

Fatalities can affect traincrew,especially drivers,in different ways.Some are devastated and find themselves unable to work trains again while ,at the other end of the specturm,others can appear to be totally indifferent.To illustrate an example of the latter,I remember an old hand driver hitting a woman and killing her at Cardiff Central station.He was interviewed by a policewoman and the discussion dragged on a bit too long for his liking.He said "Look,how much longer is this going to take"? She said "Oh,I'm sorry,are you becoming upset"? He replied "No,I've been on since 5 this morning,I want my breakfast".

 

[TDK]

I cannot find any trace of an eu directive either.


It takes longer now because the police bve to be sure that it was a suicide, and that they weren't pushed (as happened in London a couple of months ago). Until the police have established that it was suicide, the body cannot be moved and it is a crime scene. This is the right thing to do. Can you imagine the headlines if someone was pushed and they casually removed the body in 14 minutes without investigating and it turned out it was murder? Bet everyone would then complain about those incompetent police officers.

Nothing is actually set in stone until the inquest is heard and that can be months after the event, it is down to the police to asscertain whether there is evidence of any foul play, if not the lines are reopend, another fact is even if the victim is only identifyable by one finger print the coroner still has to pronounce the victim as deceased, this all takes time especially in remote areas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The second incident happened about seven years ago and the procedure has changed beyond recognition.Myself and the driver were relieved by a fresh crew,interviewed,driven home and offered councelling.While I regard such measures as far preferable to what went on in the past they do,unfortunatly,result in more delay than used to be the case.

Fatalities can affect traincrew,especially drivers,in different ways.Some are devastated and find themselves unable to work trains again while ,at the other end of the specturm,others can appear to be totally indifferent.To illustrate an example of the latter,I remember an old hand driver hitting a woman and killing her at Cardiff Central station.He was interviewed by a policewoman and the discussion dragged on a bit too long for his liking.He said "Look,how much longer is this going to take"? She said "Oh,I'm sorry,are you becoming upset"? He replied "No,I've been on since 5 this morning,I want my breakfast".

Good acurate post, companies these days offer a good chain of care for any train crews that are involved in any incident that could affect their ability to carry out their duties, not only fatalities but other incidents like near misses (or hits) SPADS, divorce, family issues, some old hands may think "what a load of Bull" but due to these measures post incident incidents have dropped by a large degree, if any of you have witnessed some drivers or guards after a fatality or other major incident you would understand that it takes time to be able to come to face what has happened, drivers' and Guards have to also be medsicreened after any major incident and that takes 3 days for results to be obtained.