First Capital Connect Prosecution

[cjohnson]

(1) No person shall enter through any train door until any person leaving by that door has passed through.
(5) In the case of automatic closing doors, no person shall enter or leave by the door when it is closing

Blimey - if the TOCs really want to start getting more income from out-of-court settlements for Byelaw offences, they could catch dozens of passengers breaching these two on every service!

 

[Dave1987]

Blimey - if the TOCs really want to start getting more income from out-of-court settlements for Byelaw offences, they could catch dozens of passengers breaching these two on every service!

I think these are to stop people from sueing if they are injured by forcing their way on whilst people are getting off. Ive never ever seen those particular byelaws enforced and can never see them being enforced.

 

[johnb]

A bit like if I had a key to your house really and sat down, ate your food watched your telly and so on and so forth - would you get the police involved and get me arrested or would you just let it go?

Funnily enough, my house has a deadlock on the front door; you can't get into my house with a piece of cheap, universally available, and totally legal for its various non-rail uses equipment.

If this is a significant and serious safety issue, FCC are being grossly negligent by not changing the locks to something more secure. If it isn't, then they're doing this as a revenue-raising exercise.

 

[jon0844]

There's only so much you can do if the internal door is also a fire exit and must be easily opened in an emergency.

I am not sure about the external door locks but it sounds like people have figured out you can force them. How do you protect against that? And who pays to upgrade the doors on a train that's almost 40 years old?

It seems far better to save money and prosecute those who forced the doors or were caught inside instead. Do enough people and I am sure the message will get through.

 

[A-driver]

Funnily enough, my house has a deadlock on the front door; you can't get into my house with a piece of cheap, universally available, and totally legal for its various non-rail uses equipment.

If this is a significant and serious safety issue, FCC are being grossly negligent by not changing the locks to something more secure. If it isn't, then they're doing this as a revenue-raising exercise.

What's wrong if its the latter?

It clearly says private on all the doors and the fact the door needs a key to unlock or needs to be forced open makes it obvious its not for public access.

Changing the locks isn't practicle-every driver needs a key so the keys could quickly enter public circulation. And you can't have a different lock for each individual door.

People who travel in the cabs know they shouldn't be in there so nothing wrong with enforcing it with a fine.

 

[jon0844]

Fixing (well, hardly fixing as they're not broken) all the doors would cost the ROSCO money, and thus FCC would likely pay a higher leasing charge and that would somehow get passed on to the passenger. So, you and I end up paying for securing an area that is quite clearly marked as private.

Or FCC prosecute and potentially make some money, which means we don't pay any extra - and we don't suddenly find that in a few months, it's crush loaded on these private areas or someone decides to have some fun with the safety equipment, fire extinguisher etc.

Definitely a win in my view to go for the court route. Both posters on here have admitted they knew it was private and they shouldn't be in there, so it's a pretty open and shut case.

 

[W230]

Having travelled on a 313 on Friday and finally looked to see where these doors between the cabs are that are being referred to in this debacle, I am genuinely amazed that anyone could fail to understand that they were not supposed to be in there!

I think A-driver is totally right. If we want we can be nice and cynical and assume that FCC do it to raise revenue, so what? Don't go in there then!

You makes your choice at the end of the day...

 

[RJ]

Fixing (well, hardly fixing as they're not broken) all the doors would cost the ROSCO money, and thus FCC would likely pay a higher leasing charge and that would somehow get passed on to the passenger. So, you and I end up paying for securing an area that is quite clearly marked as private.

Or FCC prosecute and potentially make some money, which means we don't pay any extra - and we don't suddenly find that in a few months, it's crush loaded on these private areas or someone decides to have some fun with the safety equipment, fire extinguisher etc.

Definitely a win in my view to go for the court route. Both posters on here have admitted they knew it was private and they shouldn't be in there, so it's a pretty open and shut case.

Wise words - I'm in total agreement.

 

[Dr.iver]

The thing is with these areas is that they contain safety equipment such as ladders, if u know what u are doing you can also access the equipment cupboard as well as switching off some off the safety equipment ( I won't go into to detail as I'm sure someone will go looking for it).
It is clearly locked out of use for a reason and if the train is full then I'm afraid you wait for the next one as far as I'm concerned, I remove people from this area regularly and it causes delays especially in the peak which I think u will find is the reason why occasionally they will look out for it.
From a more basic point of view why the hell should some people force their way on when other less fortunate soils are left behind on the platform.
The moral is really if the trains full wait for the next one and don't delay/inconvenience or potentially endanger others