Train driver photographed reading newspaper

[Clip]

Yeh, I guess your right. If someone said to me what I had posted, I probably wouldnt believe it myself unless I was there to see it, But I was there, I am certain of what I saw and I am certain of the actions I took afterwards.
I know there was a screen and it looked about the same size as a portable DVD player I had a few years ago.
If i'm at the front of the queue at that L/C, I always look to see if i know the driver. And the reason I didnt report it and spoke to the driver personally is before about a week previous to this incident, I saw a ECS 321 pass through Stratford going towards Ilford with tail lights on the front. I phoned control and informed them of what I saw. The day after, I spoke to one of the Anglia drivers and told him what I had seen and that I reported it, and he told me that he got in a lot of trouble a few years back for having tail lights lit on the front and he told me that I shouldnt report that sort of thing because the management come down really hard over it. With that still fresh in my mind, I didnt bother reporting it, and went to speak to the driver myself. Even if i did report it, there most likely wouldnt have been any proof.
I know the chingford run is only 26 mins, but again, I know what I saw.

Hold on a min. your coming from the 'stow to Chingford which means the train was going from right to left yes(IIRC) now if that was the case you would only have bee able to see the driver - Ive been at the same LC many times and being in an A-Class Merc im sat quite high and i still cant even see the other window in full so how do you manage to see a portable dvd player?

If it was the other way the the train wouldve been on the other track and from there you could not see much apart from the top of the drivers head surely on the other side let alone know he was playing a dvd..

Im going to do the journey again in the next couple of days.. from both ends because i dont think its possible to see much in the cab from the LC.

 

[Turbocharger]

If you arrive late and you get hustled by the platform staff to be on your way again, it's easy to forget to check the lights. I've nearly done it myself, but I always get out and check them before departing no matter how much the platform staff hustle me.

True, but if someone keeps doing it wrong and no one says anything, what else are they forgetting? That is my angle on it.

Also, is it not also the dispatcher's job to check your lights too? I am doing the course now and it says in there that lights must be checked before dispatching.

(Edit) Sorry should have said I meant the departing train's lights not the signal lights. Just to avoid confusion

 

[O L Leigh]

True, but if someone keeps doing it wrong and no one says anything, what else are they forgetting? That is my angle on it.

Possibly nothing. Who can say...?

Also, is it not also the dispatcher's job to check your lights too? I am doing the course now and it says in there that lights must be checked before dispatching.

They have to check that the train is complete and that nothing happens until while it's still in the platform, but I've never yet had anyone come up and look at the FRONT of my train. I think the dispatcher is more interested in the rear.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

I have colleagues who swear blind that they see naked women through various windows on almost every trip. Sometimes they come back with quite lurid details of their sexual exploits, all glimpsed through a bedroom window from a moving train. There's one window in particular that always gets mentioned, but when I've looked in the view is so poor that for ages I was convinced I had the wrong one. You can barely even tell that it's a bedroom from the glimpse you get, never mind if there's anyone in there or what they're up to.

So that's why the trains sometimes crawl along and I can't figure out why.

Any chance of telling us mere passengers, so we can all take a look?

 

[Turbocharger]

Possibly nothing. Who can say...?

But the point is if they keep doing one thing wrong, that is enough to take them to task. As they may start doing other things wrong. I hate snitching, but not when it comes to safety.

They have to check that the train is complete and that nothing happens until while it's still in the platform, but I've never yet had anyone come up and look at the FRONT of my train. I think the dispatcher is more interested in the rear.

That is interesting thanks. Food for thought. Just want to get it right. Cheers.

 

[jon0844]

But the issue here is reduction of risk rather than punishment of wrongdoing. The driver has to change the lights over and, if one has forgotten, they need to rectify the mistake ASAP. For that reason I don't bother reporting it via the signaller but will try and attract the attention of the driver and point down to indicate the lights. This usually works. O L Leigh

I've seen trains with the lights the wrong way around (but we're talking old trains like 313s). Likewise, I've been on at least five trains (313s and 321s) that have had no internal lights - which is nice going into the Potters Bar/Hadley Wood tunnels! I've always reported direct to the driver where possible, obviously not in the case of the wrong aspect headlamps/tail lights.

Do newer trains have any way to easily switch, or even to alert if you're moving in a direction against the lights? Okay, so you could be reversing but surely at line speed it's pretty clear you're not, so a modern train should either switch or bring up a warning to prevent it being possible to go forward with red lights facing frontwards.

 

[O L Leigh]

Do newer trains have any way to easily switch, or even to alert if you're moving in a direction against the lights? Okay, so you could be reversing but surely at line speed it's pretty clear you're not, so a modern train should either switch or bring up a warning to prevent it being possible to go forward with red lights facing frontwards.

The Cl379s have an "Auto" setting and a headlight proving unit showing both the lights selected on the front and the remote tail lights. With the switch in auto the lights change automatically depending on whether or not the cab is live. Key in and you get your selected "whites" (day or night settings), or key out and they automatically go to red.

However, I don't think the proving unit necessarily shows that the lights are actually working so I always get out and look anyway.

O L Leigh

 

[O L Leigh]

But the point is if they keep doing one thing wrong, that is enough to take them to task. As they may start doing other things wrong. I hate snitching, but not when it comes to safety.

Very admirable.

I don't think the theory necessarily holds true because it's a very simplistic way of looking at the situation. Yes, forgetting to check your lights might point to a lax cab routine that may suggest other things get missed, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that they are.

I think we may have to agree to differ on this one.

O L Leigh

 

[Turbocharger]

Very admirable.

I don't think the theory necessarily holds true because it's a very simplistic way of looking at the situation. Yes, forgetting to check your lights might point to a lax cab routine that may suggest other things get missed, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that they are.

I think we may have to agree to differ on this one.

O L Leigh

Okay put it another way, and sorry to the chap who has decided to leave the forum because of this but....I was a HGV driver for ten years. I had to check all my lights before taking a wagon and trailer out.

What is the difference?

 

[O L Leigh]

Was the gaffer there at the gate yelling at you to get moving because every minute you tiffled about checking this and that delayed all the other arrivals and departures, for which the company could expect to receive a financial penalty due to poor timekeeping...?

But that's when it goes up the wall. In most cases drivers do get out and check, or at least check the position of the switches. The number of trains actually leaving with the wrong lights on is tiny.

O L Leigh

 

[Turbocharger]

No matter how many of us you seem to want to get sacked on here with your posts,remember you still have to pass the tests to replace us.Snitching doesnt count!

What is it with you lot? Think its time to revoke my membership here.Never felt so intimidated by a bunch of spotters/commuters before. What a bunch you are.Horrible people.Enjoy your trains,but dont forget to shop the staff.

Goodbye

Don't be silly. Get your @ss back here. My comments have only been towards idiots who give good drivers a bad name!

Don't you dare leave because of that sir! Sorry!

 

[jon0844]

What is it with you lot? Think its time to revoke my membership here.Never felt so intimidated by a bunch of spotters/commuters before. What a bunch you are.Horrible people.Enjoy your trains,but dont forget to shop the staff.

While there may be some exceptions, I don't think most people are out to just get staff sacked - but if you see something clearly wrong, you shouldn't ignore it.

Reporting a driver for reading the paper today could prevent something worse happening tomorrow. Any professional driver would not do anything to get into such a position anyway, so what's the problem?

Sure, someone could make something up or have a vendetta against a member of staff but that's totally different to actually witnessing something that should be reported.

On the flip side, management should take into account a first offence or a 'moment of madness', as well as listening to any claim that someone has simply made something up.

I am sure you know fellow staff who bend or break the rules. Do you stick by them, or feel they're going to get you in trouble one day? What would you do if you could anonymously tip someone off about their behaviour, as I am sure you can? Only today there's talk about NHS staff having to decide whether to report fellow staff who put people at risk, or keep quiet and run the risk of being caught up in any subsequent investigation or enquiry - possibly being found guilty of NOT taking action that could prevent an incident.

Would you, or any other member of staff, stick by a colleague in such extreme cases? I expect not.

 

[Turbocharger]

Was the gaffer there at the gate yelling at you to get moving because every minute you tiffled about checking this and that delayed all the other arrivals and departures, for which the company could expect to receive a financial penalty due to poor timekeeping...?

But that's when it goes up the wall. In most cases drivers do get out and check, or at least check the position of the switches. The number of trains actually leaving with the wrong lights on is tiny.

O L Leigh

You have no idea about supermarket delivery timings But yes I checked all my lights front, back and all the side markers and number plates and air brakes, air lines, wheels, tyres, and heights for bridges and tacho and oil, water, fuel, screen wash, cuddly toy and sleeping bag. Every single day.

Because I was responsible. No one else. It's the job. And if a train driver can't check their lights for the direction they are going, would you say that is okay because they are in a hurry?

 

[O L Leigh]

Did I say that was OK...? The point I'm making is that sometimes you can be rushed into making a mistake, but that is all it is. A mistake.

You sound like you were a professional driver, but can you claim that someone somewhere in your industry hasn't been hustled into overlooking something that might just have an impact on safety...? Just because you and I are professionals and won't be rushed into ignoring our usual safety routines it doesn't mean that things don't get overlooked by others or, indeed, by ourselves during times of particular duress. This doesn't indicate a lackadaisical attitude towards safety or the demands of the job, but reflects that we are all human.

O L Leigh

 

[Turbocharger]

Did I say that was OK...? The point I'm making is that sometimes you can be rushed into making a mistake, but that is all it is. A mistake.

You sound like you were a professional driver, but can you claim that someone somewhere in your industry hasn't been hustled into overlooking something that might just have an impact on safety...? Just because you and I are professionals and won't be rushed into ignoring our usual safety routines it doesn't mean that things don't get overlooked by others or, indeed, by ourselves during times of particular duress. This doesn't indicate a lackadaisical attitude towards safety or the demands of the job, but reflects that we are all human.

O L Leigh

So you are saying train drivers are hustled? Either way lorry drivers break the rules or train drivers do for their bosses. Either way both should not. It's down to the driver that is what I am saying. Buck stops with them. Not the bosses.

If I got told to break the driving rules I walked away. But we are getting away from the point here. No one in charge of a train should be reading a newspaper or be showing the wrong lights. Is that too much to ask? To follow the rules? Sorry.

It's that simple.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

sometimes you can be rushed into making a mistake, but that is all it is. A mistake.

And you would expect to get a job on the railways now saying that?

 

[Jonny]

As an aside, photos from digital cameras have a time stamp on them. This can be compared to the monitoring data from the train and other sources; of course the location can also be checked using the background.

The appropriate conclusions can then be reached relatively easily.

 

[notadriver]

Just a word of warning. If enthusiasts/spotters/people wanting to work in the industry keep criticising the people on this forum who work on the railway (no I'm not excusing the newspaper incident), then staff, particularly Drivers and Guards will leave the forum and go elsewhere. It would be a great loss for others who really like railways or want advice from those already working there.

Railway staff get enough bad press as it is from the media. We don't need here as well.

 

[Teaboy1]

I agree this is the thin edge of a very nasty wedge .... if our hobby activities begin to result in rail folk loosing their jobs because of our photos, then the rail folk will make our presence of platforms all the more difficult and eventually end with us being regarded as spies and to be avoided or escorted off the premises !! Be careful et c ... living in glass houses .... :cry:

 

[mallard]

As an aside, photos from digital cameras have a time stamp on them. This can be compared to the monitoring data from the train and other sources; of course the location can also be checked using the background.

The appropriate conclusions can then be reached relatively easily.

That's assuming that the owner of the camera took the time to set the time/date correctly. I've never bothered with any camera I've owned.

 

[falcon]

I agree this is the thin edge of a very nasty wedge .... if our hobby activities begin to result in rail folk loosing their jobs because of our photos, then the rail folk will make our presence of platforms all the more difficult and eventually end with us being regarded as spies and to be avoided or escorted off the premises !! Be careful et c ... living in glass houses .... :cry:

I doubt that Jim Hales will be seen as a rail enthusiast.If the photo had been taken from a station platform I think it could have caused a lot of problems.

 

[SWTCommuter]

A more accurate headline would have been 'Train driver photographed with something which which might be a newspaper open on control desk'.
The driver's face is not visible in the photograph so it's not possible to tell whether he is reading the paper or looking ahead.


Of the dumb comments Daily Mail site, this is my favourite:
'how could the driver swerve @last minute if there was a child placing stones on the rail???'

 

[GB]

No one in charge of a train should be reading a newspaper or be showing the wrong lights. Is that too much to ask? To follow the rules? Sorry.

I agree to the first point but the second point is purely a mistake. Where people are involved mistakes do happen from time to time for whatever reason in all professions and criticising someone over a simple mistake is not on imo.

 

[Roylang]

I agree to the first point but the second point is purely a mistake. Where people are involved mistakes do happen from time to time for whatever reason in all professions and criticising someone over a simple mistake is not on imo.

Fully agree. I work in the aviation industry where there is an acceptance that the human will fail from time to time and that mitigation must be put in place to ensure that there is no safety breach when they do.

To expect the human to be 100% perfect is asking too much. That said, deliberate acts such as reading a newspaper, if true, are beyond what is acceptable.

Roy

 

[Metroland]

There are some dumb comments, but usually they are a good barometer of what the public really think. This should matter to all staff and enthusiasts, and both groups are very good at shooting themselves in the foot.

Some comments are

And those train drivers even dare to demand a higher salary!!!!! Unbelievable!!!

Well we must have an investigation and suspend the driver, but you can bet your bottom dollar that his union will present a vigorous defence. Worse still, he is sacked and happens to be an RMT member, the public will enjoy another period of travel chaos.

lol they are train drivers, not surgeons or rocket scientists - the trains run on rails and are as close to being on automatic pilot as you can get - should be grateful he is actually awake! Presumably they are all on minimum wage - but guess unions have not only inflated their importance to the whole function, but their salaries as well.

In other words, this sort of incident is very bad for the public view of not only the professionalism of railway staff (in particular drivers), but it also indicates the job is easy, quote boring, and doesn't deserve the salary it commands - and indeed the only way that is obtained is union bully boy tactics.

Hardly a good advert is it?

There are times to stick up for people, and time to condemn them. I sense creeping into this thread is the old railway ethos of 'not dropping people in it', when professionals should be saying this sort of thing is totally unacceptable instead of making lame excuses.

 

[87015]

A more accurate headline would have been 'Train driver photographed with something which which might be a newspaper open on control desk'.
The driver's face is not visible in the photograph so it's not possible to tell whether he is reading the paper or looking ahead.


Of the dumb comments Daily Mail site, this is my favourite:
'how could the driver swerve @last minute if there was a child placing stones on the rail???'

Well if Branson does go around telling people how his driver had stayed in the cab to steer the train...

 

[Metroland]

I agree to the first point but the second point is purely a mistake. Where people are involved mistakes do happen from time to time for whatever reason in all professions and criticising someone over a simple mistake is not on imo.

Agreed.

 

[Grantham]

*Sigh*

I think the bloke is in enough hot water with his company as it is.

Nothing that any of us all on here say will make any difference, so why not graciously allow his company to punish him and continue to read your own newspapers? We can be as outraged as we like, in exactly the same way that we might detest parrots, or painted furniture.

There is always plenty to be outraged about if you read the right newspaper. I don't actually read newspapers because they print so much tripe and garbage, and are exceedingly careless with the truth and other details.

M

 

[jon0844]

I agree this is the thin edge of a very nasty wedge .... if our hobby activities begin to result in rail folk loosing their jobs because of our photos, then the rail folk will make our presence of platforms all the more difficult and eventually end with us being regarded as spies and to be avoided or escorted off the premises !! Be careful et c ... living in glass houses .... :cry:

Isn't the idea that rail enthusiasts are allowed to take photos as they're also able to provide information/intelligence - being the eyes and ears etc?

Surely a driver doing something dangerous, when in charge of hundreds of people, isn't expected to be let off because everyone in the railway 'sticks together'?

To give that impression would be more damaging to the industry than anything one single person could do. Setting the lights wrong could be seen as a simple, honest, mistake - but reading a paper and not looking ahead is surely gross negligence?

Being able to stop for an obstruction is obviously not going to be possible at speed, and the train would stop if the driver went past a red - but what if the driver saw something that would require the application of the emergency brake to reduce the severity of an incident?

Imagine plowing on and crashing and the subsequent inquiry showing that the driver didn't do anything at all..

 

[passmore]

What gets me most of all about this is once again, the media are digging at the railways and their 'level of safety' left, right and centre. I'm sure hundreds of people travel using their cars and handsfree mobiles everyday, but do the tabloids report them?
Yes perhaps reading the newspaper in this scenario isn't the wisest of things, but these drivers are professionally trained in terms of route knowledge and familiarisation of certain landmarks along the route. There are also safeguards that are present in trains such as AWS.
I think to suggest that somehow this indicates that their job is easy is naive and foolish.

 

[GB]

Isn't the idea that rail enthusiasts are allowed to take photos as they're also able to provide information/intelligence - being the eyes and ears etc?

Surely a driver doing something dangerous, when in charge of hundreds of people, isn't expected to be let off because everyone in the railway 'sticks together'?

To give that impression would be more damaging to the industry than anything one single person could do. Setting the lights wrong could be seen as a simple, honest, mistake - but reading a paper and not looking ahead is surely gross negligence?

Being able to stop for an obstruction is obviously not going to be possible at speed, and the train would stop if the driver went past a red - but what if the driver saw something that would require the application of the emergency brake to reduce the severity of an incident?

Imagine plowing on and crashing and the subsequent inquiry showing that the driver didn't do anything at all..

Bad railway image aside, the trouble is what an outsider and the media may perceive to be dangerous may not actually be so.