Doors not even opening

[yorkie]

Emergency chords are for emergencies! Close to death, fire etc. Not delayed for 5 to 30 mins. Emergency means that, its got sod all to do wilth customer service.

Don't mess around the emergency services else whilst they're dealing with your customer service call someone else is dying.

Don't tell me not to "mess around the emergency services" as I would not do such a thing. However, if the TOCs dump a vulnerable person in the middle of nowhere then it may result in a legitimate emergency call being made. Did you actually read the article?

 

[O L Leigh]

However, that isn't the situation that the OP is claiming occurred here (I'm also sceptical that it happened as described, but let's assume it did). In this case, activating the alarm as a consequence of the guard failing to release the doors at a stop, or inform passengers that the stop was being skipped, isn't misuse - it's a legitimate notification that something is wrong.

No it isn't. You go and find the guard and tell him/her what has happened, not pull a cord.

The emergency cord is there to stop the train and/or alert the traincrew of an emergency situation. This means a fire, medical emergency or some other incident that requires the crew's immediate attention because it endangers the safety of some or all of the passengers, or endangers the train itself.

For some people, particularly vulnerable people, missing a stop could lead to an "emergency".

Aye, it could. Then again it might not. Even then I would urge against pulling the cord. Something that happens that "might lead to an emergency" is not in itself an emergency.

If the stop was missed due to some action or omission by the traincrew then by all means complain and get them to arrange through their Control some sort of alternative transport to ensure that their safety is ensured.

(it also wouldn't have the impact you described in your post, as the train would be at a platform and so length & lack of corridor connections wouldn't be relevant.)

Wouldn't it?

The OP has been rather vague on a number of points so how can we assume that the train would not have already cleared the platform before coming to a stand again?

O L Leigh

 

[yorkie]

We can debate the legitimacy all day long but the fact of the matter is that if someone pulls the chord when they have simply not paid attention then they could expect a fine, and I don't think anyone would argue against a fine for such a misuse and I don't think anyone would condone such a misuse.

But I would be extremely shocked if anyone would be prosecuted in the event described by the OP. I personally don't think I would do it, unless there was a really urgent need e.g. a passenger was unwell, or it was the last train back, or it was a very long distance to the next stop, or some other urgent reason.

I do find it difficult to believe that the event happened, but we have to assume it did. I would urge the OP to ensure it's properly reported as an OMTR download could conclude if the stop was made and if the doors were released and if not the guard would have to explain to his superiors.

Such an event must be incredibly rare, almost unheard of.

I don't want to suggest it's the case here, but passengers do sometimes tell 'porkies' to people meeting them. The other day I was on a train to Nottingham, someone asked if the train was on time, he was told we were 3 late. He then said "the train is late" on the phone, yet we were early into Nottingham. OK, so that's a slight exaggeration but I've heard much worse than that! It is feasible at a stop like Glenrothes for someone to expect the doors to open on the opposite side when heading East. Someone making such a mistake may be tempted not to admit this blunder.... If the OP writes to FSR detailing the allegation, if they get a letter back insisting the doors were released, then that's possibly your answer.

 

[jon0844]

I have to say that if I ever tried to get off a train and the doors either didn't open, or I simply didn't have time to get off before the driver shut them on me, I would not hesitate to pull the alarm. Even more so if I was with other people and got separated as a result.

I can also assure you that I would only do this when I have done nothing wrong (i.e. not missed the stop through my own inattention).

I haven't yet had this happen to me, but have seen others who could not alight simply because of the sheer number of people getting off and the driver clearly wanting/needing to be moving to maintain time.

I would consider this a safety issue too, as the driver (or guard) should have sufficient sighting to see when everyone is clear of the doors. If people are still coming out, it is not clear and (IMO) not safe to close the doors.

When a driver closed the doors on people boarding once, which I also considered dangerous - and it happened before the Huntingdon accident - I did make a complaint and received an apology. To be fair, I've never seen a train close doors since while people are still getting on, which is somewhat different to someone rushing for a train as the doors are closing (which is totally dangerous on the part of the idiot doing so).

With so much padding in the timetables, you have to presume there is some scope for a driver to wait a little longer on those occasions where there are many people trying to board (e.g. there's an event at a station and lots of people are trying to get on/off - so the train itself is not necessarily totally packed and the reason why people can't get on/off).

 

[Surreytraveller]

Thats also 5 minutes to the rest of the passengers on the train, resulting in a late arrival, resulting in fines. Then there is the knock on effect to other services resulting in more fines, complaints and bad press....all because of one of one sellfish individual.

You say who cares...well you obviously dont which speaks wonders about your attitude.

Well, if the crew don't care, why should the passengers?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Anyone who thinks that missing you're stop (for whatever reason) is an emergency will not pass their rules exam.Fact.
....and also will not work for the railway.

Lol. You get asked that on your rules? Spelling mistakes should count as failing rules too, as it could cause messages not to be understood!

 

[mumrar]

With so much padding in the timetables, you have to presume there is some scope for a driver to wait a little longer on those occasions where there are many people trying to board (e.g. there's an event at a station and lots of people are trying to get on/off - so the train itself is not necessarily totally packed and the reason why people can't get on/off).

Ah, padding, everyones favourite stick to beat. On all of the railway forums, padding is a constant source of discussion and scourn. However, not every route has it, take a look at a CrossCity timetable for example. It's also odd that a lot of forum members take the attitude that loco and stock are better than units, that units run on padded timetables, but the units still operate their padded timetables quicker than loco and stock did on the non padded. So what do the people want? For me, I'm willing to sacrafice a few minutes on a journey to know my train is more likely to arrive when it says it will. After all, how many people drive to work allowing only the minutes you believe it takes to drive and walk and nothing else? After all, that would just be padding, which is cheating.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Lol. You get asked that on your rules? Spelling mistakes should count as failing rules too, as it could cause messages not to be understood!

Not when most safety critical messages on the railway are spoken.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Don't mess around the emergency services else whilst they're dealing with your customer service call someone else is dying.

Who said anything about messing around with the emergency services? By the sounds of it, the only people likely to do that are the train crew who caused the use of the cord in the first place....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But the second wrong is correcting the first - ie allowing the passenger to alight.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not when most safety critical messages on the railway are spoken.

You not got anything sensible to say? Have to resort to one-liners?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

it's correcting the wrong at the expense of other people. Would you like to be stuck at a signal, train late, because someone has selfishly pulled the cord?

You not got anything sensible to say? Have to resort to one-liners?

Bit rich coming from the person who said this:

Talk to the hand, cos the face ain't listening to your rubbish!

 

[Surreytraveller]

it's correcting the wrong at the expense of other people. Would you like to be stuck at a signal, train late, because someone has selfishly pulled the cord?

But that applies for any reason a train is stood at a signal or stops out of course. Perhaps the train shouldn't stop at any station so as not to inconvenience the passengers who do not wish to get off... And the fact it affects other people is irrelevent. That is the train crew's fault, not the passenger.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Obviously not.

But by selfishly acting you are causing delays, trains to be held at signals which increases the risk of spads, and possibly causing fines to the company.

Out of interest - how old are you?

 

[Surreytraveller]

Obviously not.

But by selfishly acting you are causing delays, trains to be held at signals which increases the risk of spads, and possibly causing fines to the company.

Out of interest - how old are you?

It is the crew who are acting selfishly, by not allowing passengers to leave the train. And what relevence does my age have to do with it? Can you not tolerate someone having a discussion with you and offering a differing point of view than yourself? May I ask how old you are?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

No, I am enjoying the discussion, it is rather amusing. It was just interest anyway.

But whether or not the crew acted wrongly, which, if they have, then I would expect appropriate action to be taken, I go back to; two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Surreytraveller]

No, I am enjoying the discussion, it is rather amusing. It was just interest anyway.

But whether or not the crew acted wrongly, which, if they have, then I would expect appropriate action to be taken, I go back to; two wrongs don't make a right.

Who's trying to make a right - the passenger is just trying to leave the train. Who cares about wrongs and rights - what does that have to do with the situation?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Well people with morals care about wrongs and rights.

It has everything to do with the situation, doing something wrong, isn't right

 

[Surreytraveller]

Well people with morals care about wrongs and rights.

It has everything to do with the situation, doing something wrong, isn't right

Tell that to the train crew who refused to let the passenger off.

 

[mumrar]

Tell that to the train crew who refused to let the passenger off.

So it's not just the word 'emergency' that you don't know the meaning of then. The passenger was unable to get offm either through their own error or an error by the traincrew. The crew did not refuse to let the passenger off, that would be a wholly different scenario

 

[boing_uk]

I personally have only ever used an emergency door open plunger once, when I had fallen asleep on a 158 from Blackburn to Blackpool and got locked in the unit which had been completely shut down.

Despite ringing the station (no answer) and trying to attract platform staff, I had no other choice after about 20 minutes in the freezing cold. Felt rather bad on seeing the same unit parked in the Blackpool Carriage Sidings the next day with a "Do Not Move" board attached to it... although whether this was related or not I do not know.

But I'd agree with the sentiments of some of the railwaymen on this topic... when in service, the emergency devices are just that, for an EMERGENCY. Not being able to get off, for any reason, does not constitute one. Make the matter known to traincrew if its not your fault; simple as that.

 

[GB]

Surreytraveller, were you on the train involved? If not then why are you so adamant that it was the train crews fault or there wasnt a genuine reason for not releasing the doors?

 

[Oswyntail]

Putting aside the somewhat immature banter that has padded out this thread, the crux seems to be - as in so many different topics - that there are two perceptions of what constitutes an "emergency". One of these is, I presume, defined in a rule book of the railways; the other is created in the perception of the passenger in reaction to events. What saddens me is that many, who I again presume are railwaymen, fail to see that the second is actually the critical definition. The railwaymen are there not to run trains, or satisfy the rule book - those are secondary conditions. They are there to provide a service to the paying customer, and, in this sort of occurrence, this means accepting their view that this is an emergency.

 

[boing_uk]

You could say the same thing about people who dial 999 for what the emergency services see as something trivial and non-critical, but to the caller is an emergency. After all they too are providing a service.

The average customer doesnt understand what the consequences of pulling the emergency handle will be. Railwaymen do. And not only that, the knock-on consequences of pulling that handle affect more people than just the train that is stopped, if the line is a busy one.

How can that even be considered as acceptable? No, I am not a "railwayman" but I am an engineer whos job it is every day to disadvantage certain people for the greater good.

 

[jon0844]

Ah, padding, everyones favourite stick to beat. On all of the railway forums, padding is a constant source of discussion and scourn. However, not every route has it, take a look at a CrossCity timetable for example. It's also odd that a lot of forum members take the attitude that loco and stock are better than units, that units run on padded timetables, but the units still operate their padded timetables quicker than loco and stock did on the non padded. So what do the people want? For me, I'm willing to sacrafice a few minutes on a journey to know my train is more likely to arrive when it says it will. After all, how many people drive to work allowing only the minutes you believe it takes to drive and walk and nothing else? After all, that would just be padding, which is cheating.

Bloody hell - all I said was that with the padding in MOST timetables (happy now?) that if a station is particular busy because loads of people are there for whatever reason - and there's room on the train for them to board - then the driver should wait until people HAVE boarded - not sound the hustle alarm and shut the doors on people.

 

[GB]

The railwaymen are there not to run trains, or satisfy the rule book - those are secondary conditions. They are there to provide a service to the paying customer, and, in this sort of occurrence, this means accepting their view that this is an emergency.

How can you say "railwaymen" are not there to run trains and then go onto say they are there to provide a service to the paying customers?

While im sure most rail staff do their best to give a good service, safety and complying with the rule book are not "secondary conditions".

Now im sure it will be argued about just how far you follow the rule book in any given situation (and im sure the term jobsworth would be floated about), but if a staff member elects to not follow a particualr rule and something were to happen then that staff member could leave himself wide open to all sorts of issues.

this means accepting their view that this is an emergency

Well where does it stop? If someone needs the toilet but they are all occuppied warrant the pulling of the chord? What if a passenger realises he has forgot to lock his car and needs to get off at the next stop to go back but the train is not booked to call?

 

[driver9000]

Complying with the rules and regulations is the primary condition for railwaymen. If an incident gets investigated or ends up in court its the first thing that is looked at.

 

[mumrar]

Oswyntail, I can assure you that all of the safety aspects of my job are always the primary priority. To that end, serving a customer must always come second do any safety critical duties. For example, if the chap in the OPs story had knocked the cab door as the train departed, I wouldn't have answered the door until the train was clear of the platform. This is to ensure that I remain vigilant by the door control panel incase something is wrong at the station. Everyone from the HSE, HMRI right down to our management will always reaffirm that safety aspects of a guards job is the priority at all times.

 

[Oswyntail]

How can you say "railwaymen" are not there to run trains and then go onto say they are there to provide a service to the paying customers?

While im sure most rail staff do their best to give a good service, safety and complying with the rule book are not "secondary conditions"....

Perhaps i should have said "...primarily to run trains...". Without that primary function, all the rulebooks, routing guides, fares manuals etc are meaningless. I agree that, in providing the service, safety is a prime concern, but it is still a "secondary condition" to providing the service - without the requirement for the service there would be no requirement for safety, to put it rather oddly (even for me).
On the question of emergency services, I believe that call operators are trained to deal with all calls sympathetically, ascertaining whether there is an actual emergency, and firmly but fairly handling situations where there is not. There are frequently calls that start off apparently trivial ("I can't find my shoes.....") and only on enquiry turn out to be serious ("...because they're in the bedroom and the house is on fire"). That is sometimes how the human brain copes with stress. And, as I have said before, these situations are stressful for the passengers.

 

[Ferret]

Perhaps i should have said "...primarily to run trains...". Without that primary function, all the rulebooks, routing guides, fares manuals etc are meaningless. I agree that, in providing the service, safety is a prime concern, but it is still a "secondary condition" to providing the service - without the requirement for the service there would be no requirement for safety, to put it rather oddly (even for me).

Oswyntail, put simply - if the railway was unsafe then nobody would use it and it would become pointless running it at all! Safety is the prime consideration at all times. The secondary (but still very important) consideration are our customers.......

 

[Surreytraveller]

Surreytraveller, were you on the train involved? If not then why are you so adamant that it was the train crews fault or there wasnt a genuine reason for not releasing the doors?

Because the guard admitted it to the OP, as stated in the first post of this thread.