Smoking onboard the train

[bnm]

or have a go at anyone I see doing it.

Perfect. A bit of vigilantism will certainly help the situation. :roll:

 

[Butts]

No, that's still an offence under Railway Byelaw 3 (the words "on or near" apply).

A friend told me he once saw one Charles Kennedy MP having an illegal puff while hanging out the window of the Caledonian Sleeper. Allegedly.

Kennedy also got caught in the West Country having a sly burn I believe.

Sleepers (with the duration of journey) should in my view have some provision for smoking.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

About 1/7th of the population may take exception to that. I'm sure smokers have no objection whatsoever.

Put it into figures....there are Ten Million Smokers in the UK , thats about a fifth to a quarter of the adult population.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Smoking is one of the leading causes of fires in this country, if not the leading cause. While I am not going to go on a moral rant (after all it's their poison, mine's drink) the dangers of discarding a cigarette incorrectly can cause serious fires be it in a house, flat, hotel, car, train, plane or ship. There is a reason smoking was banned on aircraft and believe me we used to take a very dim view of it.

Phil

How many Aeroplane crashes were attributed to a fire caused by a cigarette-I can't think of any off the top of my head.:roll:

The same with ships as well - next we'll be hearing a cigarette (or cigar ) was the real cause of the Titanic sinking :roll:

Anyone would wonder how Railways managed for 150 Years of "legal smoking" without a major fire every other day if the risks are as great as seems to be suggested .:roll:

 

[jon0844]

I think the risk of fire is probably greater now than it was because a) there are no facilities for putting out a cigarette safely and b) the person smoking is going to be trying to hide the fact, and therefore not take the usual precautions and might want to quickly ditch the cigarette if at risk of being caught (or with said 'evidence').

I do not condone the actions taken by another passenger on the above flight though. If the cigarette had been flushed, there was clearly no fire risk and no risk to the plane. The airline could have surely dealt with it by simply stating that the passenger was no longer allowed to fly with them - as is their right. A far more effective punishment.

Giving a handshake and a free drink only goes to validate the actions taken, and next time said vigilante might dish out a bit more punishment - and possibly on the wrong person.

 

[Clip]

Seems fair enough to me. They could have ruined their holiday, fire or not.

But the fact is is that they DIDNT ruin their holiday so punching him is well out of order and im surprised they didnt get arrested for doing that.

And as for the person who reported this story and then said they gave them a free drink and snacks, well thats just shameful. Rewarding violence is not big and nor is it clever, it actually encourages them.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Anyone would wonder how Railways managed for 150 Years of "legal smoking" without a major fire every other day if the risks are as great as seems to be suggested .:roll:

I suspect its a case of "better safe than sorry" and one, which as a smoker, I agree with. I remember some of the slammers absolutely radiated tobacco from the seats. Perhaps a dedicated smoker's carriage with enhanced ventilation and a very cheap and basic interior for cleaning/replacing could be viable for long distance services?

But the fact is is that they DIDNT ruin their holiday so punching him is well out of order and im surprised they didnt get arrested for doing that.

And as for the person who reported this story and then said they gave them a free drink and snacks, well thats just shameful. Rewarding violence is not big and nor is it clever, it actually encourages them.

Commending one person for breaking a law whilst disapproving of another really is a bit rich. Also, "three burly blokes"...hardly the fairest ratio. Perhaps keeping him behind for a quick word would've proved more effective as well...if he slank in his seat, he perhaps felt guilty for doing it too.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect its a case of "better safe than sorry" and one, which as a smoker, I agree with. I remember some of the slammers absolutely radiated tobacco from the seats. Perhaps a dedicated smoker's carriage with enhanced ventilation and a very cheap and basic interior for cleaning/replacing could be viable for long distance services?

I suppose twenty droplights/sliding ventilators could be described as "enhanced ventilation".

 

[jon0844]

Commending one person for breaking a law whilst disapproving of another really is a bit rich. Also, "three burly blokes"...hardly the fairest ratio. Perhaps keeping him behind for a quick word would've proved more effective as well...if he slank in his seat, he perhaps felt guilty for doing it too.

He was only a 'suspect' though from what I read, so for all we know it could have been the wrong person. Started off by a member of staff pointing to who s/he thought had gone for a sneaky fag, with word spreading and everyone now assuming it was him without question.

Going down in the seat might have served as the final 'proof' in the mind of the person who had already assumed guilt, while to others it was merely someone wanting to rest.

The same assumptions didn't work out too well for Jean Charles de Menezes either!

 

[Clip]

Commending one person for breaking a law whilst disapproving of another really is a bit rich. Also, "three burly blokes"...hardly the fairest ratio. Perhaps keeping him behind for a quick word would've proved more effective as well...if he slank in his seat, he perhaps felt guilty for doing it too.

I didnt commened anybody. In fact I condemned both the person who hit them and the attendant who gave them free food a drink.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I didnt commened anybody. In fact I condemned both the person who hit them and the attendant who gave them free food a drink.

Ah, I believe I've been misunderstood. I was referring to the original poster then, quoting you appears to have left it appearing to refer to you. My apologies.

 

[Clip]

Ah, I believe I've been misunderstood. I was referring to the original poster then, quoting you appears to have left it appearing to refer to you. My apologies.

No worries

 

[gazzak]

What's the situation with the electronic cigarettes? They look exactly like the real thing, and the first time I saw one I was completely fooled into thinking someone was actually smoking. What would happen if someone used one of those on a train or aircraft?

 

[GatwickDepress]

I suppose twenty droplights/sliding ventilators could be described as "enhanced ventilation".

Perhaps more a conflat wagon encased in a metal grille?

No worries

Cheers mate!

What's the situation with the electronic cigarettes? They look exactly like the real thing, and the first time I saw one I was completely fooled into thinking someone was actually smoking. What would happen if someone used one of those on a train or aircraft?

Apparently its a bit of a minefield as to what TOCs allow them and not. According to this webpage, quite a few permit them while others don't.

 

[breadfan]

What's the situation with the electronic cigarettes? They look exactly like the real thing, and the first time I saw one I was completely fooled into thinking someone was actually smoking. What would happen if someone used one of those on a train or aircraft?

It's just water vapour isn't it? All good.

It's the smell 'aroma' that real cigarettes emit that makes telling the difference easy. Though I know some pubs won't allow them but that is because when they get busy it makes it hard to police.

 

[Butts]

Perhaps more a conflat wagon encased in a metal grille?


Cheers mate!


Apparently its a bit of a minefield as to what TOCs allow them and not. According to this webpage, quite a few permit them while others don't.

Had a look at this - banned on Virgin due to staff not being able to differentiate between an Electronic Cigarette and a real one - oh dear :roll:

 

[gazzak]

Had a look at this - banned on Virgin due to staff not being able to differentiate between an Electronic Cigarette and a real one - oh dear :roll:

Have you seen one in action though Butts? They are amazingly similar to the real thing. Obviously the smell isn't there but even to an ex-smoker like myself I was fooled completely. I can see why there would be an issue allowing them.

 

[Butts]

Have you seen one in action though Butts? They are amazingly similar to the real thing. Obviously the smell isn't there but even to an ex-smoker like myself I was fooled completely. I can see why there would be an issue allowing them.

I have indeed seen them , but as you say the key is the smell - in a fresh carriage it would immediately be apparent if someone was smoking.

By the way they are a poor substitute for "the real thing" no proper "kick"

 

[BestWestern]

What's the situation with the electronic cigarettes? They look exactly like the real thing, and the first time I saw one I was completely fooled into thinking someone was actually smoking. What would happen if someone used one of those on a train or aircraft?

I know that if you use one on a Megabus you get a visit from the SAS and the Flying Squad!

I wonder if the same applies on SWT and EMT?!!

 

[Phil6219]

He was only a 'suspect' though from what I read, so for all we know it could have been the wrong person. Started off by a member of staff pointing to who s/he thought had gone for a sneaky fag, with word spreading and everyone now assuming it was him without question.

Ok, this was a fair while ago so my memory is a little off however we didn't point out who it was. The passengers in question knew who it was as did we given he reeked of cigarette smoke (that level of reeking you only get from either smoking or standing right next to someone who is).

With regard to our actions, well the other passengers were wrong and I was wrong. However at the time feelings were quite strong, as crew we know how dangerous a cabin fire is and some passengers are wary of even the simplest thing on an aircraft. I have been directly involved in a suspected onboard fire and it was not fun, infact I damn near handed in my wings when we landed. There is also the "Robert Sole" element, how desperate must someone be to have a smoke to do that? A heck of a lot of crew are smokers and they all manage to hold off until we land.

If I am honest I can't think of any aircraft disaster caused by a stray cigarette, Air Canada 797 was the likely candidate but it has now been established that it was due to wiring arcing. However, it is the risk that is the thing here. At the end of the day if a cigarette causes an aircraft fire resulting in loss of life then people will be wanting to know why it was allowed to happen, hence why it is enforced. The reason why there was never a major issue back when it was legal to smoke onboard was because there were precautions in place (still there) and more importantly that passengers could openly smoke in their seat and not have to worry about stashing the evidence. Smoking was never allowed in lavatories, although there was (and still is) ash trays provided there. Ash trays are still in seat armrests to this day as they offer a place to safely extinguish a cigarette (though most are full of chewing gum).

Bit of trivia though, back when smoking was allowed on aircraft it was easier for engineers to detect where leaks were in the aircraft's skin as there would be nice nicotine streaks from where the leak was.

As for what sank the Titanic, probably Leonado Di Caprio's bad acting

What's the situation with the electronic cigarettes? They look exactly like the real thing, and the first time I saw one I was completely fooled into thinking someone was actually smoking. What would happen if someone used one of those on a train or aircraft?

Well they seem very popular now but back when I was flying they were quite rare. We wouldn't allow them to be used onboard as other passengers may see it and spark up a real one. Now they are popular so perhaps they are allowed, I don't know as my flying days are long over.

On the broader scope of smoking in this country, I firmly believe that they are trying to ban it altogether eventually. While I think we would all be better if they did I am against that as it is our right to do what we want and not have the government dictate what is good and bad for us. I miss smoking in pubs, I don't smoke but my friends did and after the ban they would all end up outside leaving me sat on my own until they returned - oh how social that was. Smoking should be banned indoors, however common sense needs to be applied with the rule - an open platform is outdoors and as long as it's not done next to a crowd of people there should be no issue with smoking there.

Phil

 

[Clip]

Enforce the no smoking ban with all the power of the law behind you. That does not give anyone the right to punch someone down a flight of airline stairs, nor for that person to be rewarded for doing so.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Bit of trivia though, back when smoking was allowed on aircraft it was easier for engineers to detect where leaks were in the aircraft's skin as there would be nice nicotine streaks from where the leak was.

Phil

True, but pity it didn't save china airlines 611...


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Enforce the no smoking ban with all the power of the law behind you. That does not give anyone the right to punch someone down a flight of airline stairs, nor for that person to be rewarded for doing so.

The no smoking ban is not enforced, and you're quite right it should be. I shouldn't be threatened or abused by people who seem to think the no smoking ban doesn't apply to them. But it's not the only rule that should be enforced but isn't. Cycling on station platforms is another. its no only stupid, idiotic and downright dangerous but is against railway byelaws anyway. but its not only the practice of riding cycles, but the more usual on platform behaviour of what I call cycle hopping, where they stand on one pedal and push the cycle along with ther other foot. This I consider to be more dangerous than actually cycling as the rider has less control over their bike, IMHO! But I am sure some cyclist will tell me I am wrong!

 

[jon0844]

Kids generally cycle normally, while it seems to be older users that do that 'cycle hopping' and they're often in suits and quite possibly on a folding bike they made up as soon as they got off the train (rather than wait until they're out of the station by carrying it). I don't know why they figure this isn't the same as cycling, especially as you're right about them having less control.

 

[Flamingo]

I've had somebody cycle into me on a platform and somebody else nearly fall off under my train.

 

[jon0844]

I almost knocked someone on a bike down on to the down fast at Hatfield. It was when it had snowed a few days before (a couple of years back), and so only parts of the platform had been de-iced and cleared (mostly through people walking on the same bits over and over).

As such, I was walking close to the edge of the fast line - but behind the yellow line. I had to move over a bit to avoid some ice and - whoosh - there went a cyclist on the platform edge as I almost cut him up.

Had things been timed differently, I'd have collided and the only direction he'd have gone would have been down onto the track. Goodness knows if he appreciated how close he'd come to serious danger to his life.

He carried on cycling to get to the bridge quickly and no doubt remain oblivious.

 

[MP33]

Whatever happened to the man who commuted from Brighton to his market trading business in South London. Who when smoking was banned on trains, continued to do so and was regularly arrested.

I believe he took he case through higher and higher courts. No doubt contributing to the save the lawyer fund.

 

[ChilternHenry]

As a smoker myself, even I will admit it is fairly easy to go without a ciggy for a train journey. However, if it is a long journey, i may either take a break at a station in the middle, or as i see quite a few other people do, I sometimes take an electronic cigarette with me, however, do get some odd looks from surrounding people. They only produce water vapor, so i believe they are legal? If they're not, there's not much of a future in Steam excursions on Britain's railways Anyone have any views on people using electronic cigarettes on trains, Okay with it, not fussed, dislike it?

 

[Butts]

As a smoker myself, even I will admit it is fairly easy to go without a ciggy for a train journey. However, if it is a long journey, i may either take a break at a station in the middle, or as i see quite a few other people do, I sometimes take an electronic cigarette with me, however, do get some odd looks from surrounding people. They only produce water vapor, so i believe they are legal? If they're not, there's not much of a future in Steam excursions on Britain's railways Anyone have any views on people using electronic cigarettes on trains, Okay with it, not fussed, dislike it?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, an Electronic Cigarette does not have the same "kick" as a B&H KIngsize.

However when you consider the price of "patches" it is a cheaper substitute.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....They only produce water vapor, so i believe they are legal? ....

They are legal, but they contain other chemicals and the exact effects of them have not been fully understood, atleast that's what my staff brief said.

 

[swj99]

I think the risk of fire is probably greater now than it was because a) there are no facilities for putting out a cigarette safely and b) the person smoking is going to be trying to hide the fact, and therefore not take the usual precautions............

A client came into an office I once worked in to see a colleague. He'd arrived with a lit cigarette (this was before the smoking ban) and when told it was a non smoking office, he put the cigarette out (or at least he thought he did) and put it into his suit pocket. 10 minutes later, his jacket was on fire. The fire was put out easily with a cup of coffee, and no real harm was done, other than to the suit.

Giving a handshake and a free drink only goes to validate the actions taken, and next time said vigilante might dish out a bit more punishment - and possibly on the wrong person.

Rewarding violence is not big and nor is it clever, it actually encourages them.

Must say I agree there. Violence begets violence. And it's interesting you mentioning the possibility of the said vigilante possibly picking on the wrong person in future. There are vigilantes who deal with people who have behaved in an antisocial way, there are others who have died trying.

The same assumptions didn't work out too well for Jean Charles de Menezes either!

A good example of how dangerous assumptions can be.

It's the smell 'aroma' that real cigarettes emit that makes telling the difference easy. Though I know some pubs won't allow them but that is because when they get busy it makes it hard to police.

I knew a guy who was asked to leave a pub in Rotherham back in the 80s. He'd stopped smoking tobacco and was smoking one of those herbal things, honeyrose I think the brand was. The landlord thought it was a joint and refused to believe him, even when shown the packet it came in.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, an Electronic Cigarette does not have the same "kick" as a B&H KIngsize.

However when you consider the price of "patches" it is a cheaper substitute.

I used to smoke cigarettes, and I think I'd describe myself as having an all or nothing attitude. If I wanted to smoke, I just would. I wouldn't bother with low tar, because you have to snap the filters off those to get a proper nicotine hit. When I smoked, I smoked heavily, which is why I decided to stop. I'd 'tried' stopping a few times before over the years, but only lasted about 3 months each time. In the end, I started again because I wanted to smoke.
I'd tried patches before, but the only way they would have stopped me is if I'd stuck them over my mouth. Many times, I'd gone around wearing the patch, and chain smoking as well. These so called aids to stopping smoking are largely by products of the tobacco industry, which I'm sure is cashing in on the fact that their customer base is being reduced by government policy and increased awareness of the health risks involved. For those reasons and others, I'd question their effectiveness. If you want to stop, just don't smoke. If you use patches or gum, aren't you just feeding the addiction when really you want to kill it ?
I say live and let live, and I support the right of anyone to smoke if they really want to. Having said that, I know that I only stopped when I really wanted to. I think the 'holier than thou' attitude that some people seem to adopt is taking things a bit far, with this and many other things.
If someone wants to stop, they will. If they want to smoke, they will. I’d have thought it makes sense to take a realistic view and facilitate this in some way so that it reduces the fire risks. If this means trains having a carriage where it was still permitted to smoke, then at least there would be proper ashtrays and less chance of someone setting the toilets on fire.

 

[BestWestern]

If someone wants to stop, they will. If they want to smoke, they will. I’d have thought it makes sense to take a realistic view and facilitate this in some way so that it reduces the fire risks. If this means trains having a carriage where it was still permitted to smoke, then at least there would be proper ashtrays and less chance of someone setting the toilets on fire.

The problem though, as has already come up, is with the wider issues a smoking carriage would cause. In this day and age, thankfully, it is rightly considered that nobody should be compelled to walk through something as unpleasant and potentially harmful as a coach thick with cigarette smoke. This raises obvious issues for both non-smoking passengers who wish/need to move around the train and pass through this area, and of course on-board staff, who would be expected to enter the area in order to carry out various duties. There is also the problem of adequately ventilating the area so as not to affect the rest of the train, which would mean no air con fitted to that portion of the rolling stock and lots of large, opening windows. It would likely also mean locating said area at one end of the train, meaning non-gangway stock only or no multiple working. And even if you succeeded in doing all of that, you will still have the problem of people frequently opening whatever dividing door(s) you have allowing the smoke and smell to drift, and of course you'll have people who smell disgusting walking back into other areas of the train (one person smells slightly after a smoke, but that's nothing compared to the stench you would carry if you'd been sat in a cramped smoking compartment). All in all, it's just not feasible from a rolling stock point of view.

Speaking as a Guard myself, I for one would refuse flatly to enter such an area, as I expect would most of my non-smoking colleagues. Indeed I would imagine even some smokers would take issue at such a concentration of smoke. I recall as a youngster sitting in a smoking coach on a 'Slammer with a family member who is a heavy smoker, and quite honestly finding it difficult to breathe. It was utterly vile, no exaggeration. Nobody should have to put up with that. Unless the smoking compartment was to become a complete no-go area for staff, how would you check tickets and in general police that part of the train? What happens if a Passcom is pulled in there and the Guard is not willing to venture in and get a lungfull of thick smog? How will other passengers feel about Guards frequently stinking like an ashtray all the time? Would all TOCs be willing to provide high-level BUPA or similar cover for all employees who are exposed to the conditions? Pay out large sums of money to any staff member who develops smoke-related health problems?

The list of problems goes on and on, and that's before you reach the thorny issue that is the law! I don't think we'll see smoking carriages back on the network any time soon!

 

[Butts]

This is going to sound pathetic to non-smokers (and possibly smokers as well )

However I am so proud of myself having travelled from Falkirk to Edinburgh and back today and endured two five hour spells without a cigarette

No patches or fake fags , just cold turkey

Mind you I was travelling East Coast 1st Class and necked the equivalent of eight free whiskies each way (2x4 Doubles) which may have helped.