wrote:
Yorkie wrote:

What's the point in providing emergency alarms, if the alarm is not
answered?

It was answered, by two railway staff. Why would having the driver
involved have improved the situation?

AIUI, the train was DOO and the driver was in charge. The two people who
asked the OP to leave the train may or may not have been railway staff,
and they may or may not have worked for FCC; they merely claimed to be
railway staff but did not produce any evidence to back up their claim.
All according to the OP, of course.

A little aside: I was on a night bus in Manchester last night and it was
heavily delayed by an incident at a bus stop (a lady waiting to board
claimed to have been robbed by someone alighting). There were masses of
people in hi-viz yellow jackets at this and several other stops. The
jackets did not identify them in any way. They got involved, but all
they did was direct the lady to some more people in yellow jackets and
tall pointy hats, which is what passes for a police uniform in
Manchester these days.

Nobody bothered to tell the remaining passengers what was happening, or
indeed to ask any of us if we'd seen or heard anything untoward, so I
went downstairs to find out for myself. In conversation with one of the
yellowjackets, who didn't identify himself at all, I did catch a glimpse
of a Stagecoach logo on a dark woolly pullover. The logo would have been
completely obscured by the hi-viz jacket if he'd bothered to wear it
properly instead of letting it hang half off him. I suppose that's what
passes for a bus inspector's uniform in Manchester these days.
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Old enough to remember when bus
conductors had red stripes down
their trousers, not tomato ketchup

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

AIUI, the train was DOO and the driver was in charge. The two people who
asked the OP to leave the train may or may not have been railway staff,
and they may or may not have worked for FCC; they merely claimed to be
railway staff but did not produce any evidence to back up their claim.
All according to the OP, of course.

So you are most concerned about them not providing ID? I accept the
point, but in the circumstances I think that it was reasonable to get
the problem sorted as quickly as possible. After all, the longer the
drunks are on the tain, the greater the opportunity for things to 'kick
off' again. The fact is that if there is going to be trouble it is
better at a station than on a train (either moving or stopped in
section).

I'll ask you the same question that I've asked both the OP and another
poster: What do you think should have been done?


A little aside: I was on a night bus in Manchester last night and it was
heavily delayed by an incident at a bus stop (a lady waiting to board
claimed to have been robbed by someone alighting). There were masses of
people in hi-viz yellow jackets at this and several other stops. The
jackets did not identify them in any way. They got involved, but all
they did was direct the lady to some more people in yellow jackets and
tall pointy hats, which is what passes for a police uniform in
Manchester these days.

You don't feel that it is beneficial for police officers to be clearly
visible?


Nobody bothered to tell the remaining passengers what was happening, or
indeed to ask any of us if we'd seen or heard anything untoward, so I
went downstairs to find out for myself. In conversation with one of the
yellowjackets, who didn't identify himself at all, I did catch a glimpse
of a Stagecoach logo on a dark woolly pullover. The logo would have been
completely obscured by the hi-viz jacket if he'd bothered to wear it
properly instead of letting it hang half off him. I suppose that's what
passes for a bus inspector's uniform in Manchester these days.

In what way would things have been better if the bus inspectors had
been wearing Manchester Corporation Transport uniforms, and the police
officers blue serge tunics with a whistle chain?

On 7 Oct 2006 06:26:54 -0700, "jonmorris"
wrote:

On board the 0036 First Capital Connect service from Kings Cross to
Peterborough, Friday 6th October 2006 (Saturday morning), I was
assaulted after getting off the train at Hatfield station. No serious
injury fortunately, but I'm more angry with the way it was allowed to
happen.

Interesting, as there was also a kerfuffle on the 21:34 from
Blackfriars, while it was in the station, on Tuesday, 3rd. They called
the police, who were there within 5 minutes, and the total delay to
the train was about 15 minutes before we could leave for Brighton.
While waiting, someone who had obviously been involved came through
our carriage, kicking the door to the corridor connection open
violently, and hitting the knee of the passenger sitting adjacent. .

It obviously pays to keep your head down when trouble flares up.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Terry Harper wrote:

It obviously pays to keep your head down when trouble flares up.

Even when a child is involved? And would 'keeping your head down'
include not phoning the police?

wrote:
Yorkie wrote:
wrote:
As there was a child involved I would have called the police in any
case. I'm not sure that pulling the alarm achieved much. Why did you
choose that course of action?

Is carrying a mobile 'phone compulsory?

No, but most people carry them, and the OP said that he told the
troublemakers that he would phone the police if trouble continued.

"Emergency Alarm - Only for use if you do not have a mobile 'phone" Hmm


What's the point in providing emergency alarms, if the alarm is not
answered?

It was answered, by two railway staff. Why would having the driver
involved have improved the situation?

Answered? Maybe, but not in anything like a satisfactory way.


I'm not trying to have it both ways. As I made clear in my original
post, I feel that the police should have been called, particularly as a
child was involved. What do you think should have been done
differently?

I've been on trains where rail staff have been in direct contact with
BTP, and arranged for the doors to be held so that the purpetrators
could not escape. It worked, and if that is done more often then people
would NOT cause trouble on trains as they'd know they are not going to
get away with it.

But on First it's profits first, passengers second, generally.

Anyway, I agree with some other points you make, and yes it sounds like
999 should have been called.

In article ,
(Joyce Whitchurch) wrote:

AIUI, the train was DOO and the driver was in charge. The two
people who asked the OP to leave the train may or may not have been
railway staff, and they may or may not have worked for FCC; they
merely claimed to be railway staff but did not produce any evidence
to back up their claim. All according to the OP, of course.

As an FCC customer myself (between Cambridge and King's Cross mainly)
I'm appalled at this story.

The late night trains on the GN are a bit famous for troublemakers.
There was considerable concern expressed when First took over from WAGN
that they dispensed with the services of the security guards WAGN had
used. They eventually (in Elaine Holt's online session last July)
claimed this was because they were using their own in house security
staff. That is no excuse for failing to authenticate themselves, however.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Yorkie wrote:
wrote:
Yorkie wrote:

Is carrying a mobile 'phone compulsory?

No, but most people carry them, and the OP said that he told the
troublemakers that he would phone the police if trouble continued.

"Emergency Alarm - Only for use if you do not have a mobile 'phone" Hmm

I have neither said nor implied that that is the case.



What's the point in providing emergency alarms, if the alarm is not
answered?

It was answered, by two railway staff. Why would having the driver
involved have improved the situation?

Answered? Maybe, but not in anything like a satisfactory way.

What do you feel was unsatisfactory, and how do you feel that the
situation should have been handled?



I'm not trying to have it both ways. As I made clear in my original
post, I feel that the police should have been called, particularly as a
child was involved. What do you think should have been done
differently?

I've been on trains where rail staff have been in direct contact with
BTP, and arranged for the doors to be held so that the purpetrators
could not escape. It worked, and if that is done more often then people
would NOT cause trouble on trains as they'd know they are not going to
get away with it.

I think that rather depends on time, place and type of incident. Given
that it was about 01.00 on a Saturday morning I'd have thought that
Hertfordshire Police might have been better able to help. I'm not sure
that holding the drunken couple on the train would have been the best
course of action in this case - attempting to do so could have caused
more trouble. As it was, no-one on the train was assaulted
(unfortunately an assault happened at Hatfield station, but that might
have been avoided if the police had been called).


But on First it's profits first, passengers second, generally.

Whatever one may think of First, I don't think it affected the way this
incident unfolded.


Anyway, I agree with some other points you make, and yes it sounds like
999 should have been called.

I really do think so, particularly as the OP told the couple that he
would do so. Telling drunks that you are going to call the police
often antagonises them, so having done so you should follow through.
In fact, I think that I'd have just called the police, explained the
situation, and been ready to give information and a statement. If the
OP has said that a child was at risk, and that he feared a breach of
the peace, he would have got a prompt response.

wrote:
Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

AIUI, the train was DOO and the driver was in charge. The two people who
asked the OP to leave the train may or may not have been railway staff,
and they may or may not have worked for FCC; they merely claimed to be
railway staff but did not produce any evidence to back up their claim.
All according to the OP, of course.

So you are most concerned about them not providing ID?

My point is simply that I do not know whether they were railway staff or
not. I expect railway staff on duty on a train to wear a uniform that
identifies their function and their employer, and name badges that
identify them.

I accept the
point, but in the circumstances I think that it was reasonable to get
the problem sorted as quickly as possible. After all, the longer the
drunks are on the tain, the greater the opportunity for things to 'kick
off' again. The fact is that if there is going to be trouble it is
better at a station than on a train (either moving or stopped in
section).

I'll ask you the same question that I've asked both the OP and another
poster: What do you think should have been done?

Train was Driver Only. Driver was responsible for the safety of
passengers. Driver should have taken charge of the situation. Driver
should have spoken to the OP as he was the one who activated the alarm.
If there were other staff available on the train, the Driver could have
arranged for them to deal with the situation. That seems not to have
happened.

The primary cause of any disturbance (and we are of course entirely
reliant on the OP's recollections here) seems to have been the
argumentative female. She may or may not have had an offensive weapon;
that is unclear; but if she had, then these people who may or may not
have been railway staff should have sought police assistance.

Given that the (apparent) troublemakers were happy to leave the train at
the next stop, then that was probably the simplest way to resolve the
situation. But any staff at the station should have been warned. And if
BT Police were unable to attend, then BTP should have considered passing
a message to their colleagues in the local force. Removing a problem
from railway property may simply have moved it to the streets of Hatfield.

Finally, I consider that the (apparent) railway staff were quite wrong
to ask the OP to leave the train; though again we can only judge the
situation by the OP's account of it. I would have considered two other
options: firstly, allowing the OP to remain on the train and travel to
another station; secondly, detaining the train in the station for a few
minutes, thereby allowing the OP to stay on the train until the other
people had left the premises.

Safety on the railway is a much wider business than just making sure the
rolling stock doesn't kill people. First rule of the Rule Book:
"You must do everything possible to ensure the safety of:
• yourself
• others
• contractors
• passengers
• the public
• trains
• equipment
• infrastructure".

A little aside: I was on a night bus in Manchester last night and it was
heavily delayed by an incident at a bus stop

[snip]

You don't feel that it is beneficial for police officers to be clearly
visible?

Visibility is not the same as identification.

In what way would things have been better if the bus inspectors had
been wearing Manchester Corporation Transport uniforms, and the police
officers blue serge tunics with a whistle chain?

It would have been considerably better because we would have known who
and what they were. Yellow jackets are worn by a great many people these
days, from lorry drivers to lollipop ladies, road sweepers to newspaper
vendors. They stand out enough that they are unlikely to be run down by
a motor car, but in a sea of similar hi-viz garments they just blend
into the background.

A simple and immediate improvement would be the addition of the
Stagecoach logo to front and back of the hi-viz vests worn by the
(apparent) bus inspectors - for the same reasons that Network Rail
require anyone working on the line to have their employer's logo on PPE.
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Old enough to remember when black
macs were suitable lineside gear

It provides, sadly, the best reason for having your own private
transport if you are out late at night, or arranging to travel in a
group.

As a bloke I never worried about travelling, late or exceedingly early
hours when younger, but as a dad, if my daughter's college activities
require her to be on campus late I would rather she gets a B & B up
there rather than taking a Preston M/cr - Manchester Hadfield late at
night.

And they call this progress ........... sheeesh!

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
wrote:
Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

AIUI, the train was DOO and the driver was in charge. The two people who
asked the OP to leave the train may or may not have been railway staff,
and they may or may not have worked for FCC; they merely claimed to be
railway staff but did not produce any evidence to back up their claim.
All according to the OP, of course.

So you are most concerned about them not providing ID?

My point is simply that I do not know whether they were railway staff or
not. I expect railway staff on duty on a train to wear a uniform that
identifies their function and their employer, and name badges that
identify them.

They may not have been on duty, but provided assistance when needed.


I accept the
point, but in the circumstances I think that it was reasonable to get
the problem sorted as quickly as possible. After all, the longer the
drunks are on the tain, the greater the opportunity for things to 'kick
off' again. The fact is that if there is going to be trouble it is
better at a station than on a train (either moving or stopped in
section).

I'll ask you the same question that I've asked both the OP and another
poster: What do you think should have been done?

Train was Driver Only. Driver was responsible for the safety of
passengers. Driver should have taken charge of the situation. Driver
should have spoken to the OP as he was the one who activated the alarm.
If there were other staff available on the train, the Driver could have
arranged for them to deal with the situation. That seems not to have
happened.

As the driver did not appear on the scene, it is reasonable to assume
that there was some liason between him and the two staff members who
dealt with the incident. Of course, the driver may have been female,
in which case it was probably netter for the two male staff to deal
with the problem. In any case, where there is a risk of injury to
staff, it makes sense to minimise that risk to the person who can drive
the train.


The primary cause of any disturbance (and we are of course entirely
reliant on the OP's recollections here) seems to have been the
argumentative female. She may or may not have had an offensive weapon;
that is unclear; but if she had, then these people who may or may not
have been railway staff should have sought police assistance.

I think that the staff thought that the OP was part of the problem
(and, in threatening to phone the police, but not doing so, he may have
unwittingly added to the problem). They kept what they saw as the two
parties apart, got them off the train as quickly as possibe, and, it
seems, restored order.


Given that the (apparent) troublemakers were happy to leave the train at
the next stop, then that was probably the simplest way to resolve the
situation. But any staff at the station should have been warned. And if
BT Police were unable to attend, then BTP should have considered passing
a message to their colleagues in the local force. Removing a problem
from railway property may simply have moved it to the streets of Hatfield.

If the OP had just, removed himself from conflict, dialled 999,
explained about the situation (and, in particular the child), and said
that he would try to get the train held at Hatfield if the
troublemakers were going forward, the police could have attended. He
could have used the alarm while the tain was in the station, and
explained the situation to staff.


Finally, I consider that the (apparent) railway staff were quite wrong
to ask the OP to leave the train; though again we can only judge the
situation by the OP's account of it. I would have considered two other
options: firstly, allowing the OP to remain on the train and travel to
another station; secondly, detaining the train in the station for a few
minutes, thereby allowing the OP to stay on the train until the other
people had left the premises.

The staff were faced with a situation which appeared to have two sides
- they presumably tried to be even-handed. I've asked the OP what he
felt should have been done, but he hasn't responded.


Safety on the railway is a much wider business than just making sure the
rolling stock doesn't kill people. First rule of the Rule Book:
"You must do everything possible to ensure the safety of:
· yourself
· others
· contractors
· passengers
· the public
· trains
· equipment
· infrastructure".

A little aside: I was on a night bus in Manchester last night and it was
heavily delayed by an incident at a bus stop

[snip]

You don't feel that it is beneficial for police officers to be clearly
visible?

Visibility is not the same as identification.

The 'pointed hats' that you referred to aren't enough, then? Are you
saying that GM police wear totally anonymous hi-vis clothing?


In what way would things have been better if the bus inspectors had
been wearing Manchester Corporation Transport uniforms, and the police
officers blue serge tunics with a whistle chain?

It would have been considerably better because we would have known who
and what they were. Yellow jackets are worn by a great many people these
days, from lorry drivers to lollipop ladies, road sweepers to newspaper
vendors. They stand out enough that they are unlikely to be run down by
a motor car, but in a sea of similar hi-viz garments they just blend
into the background.

A simple and immediate improvement would be the addition of the
Stagecoach logo to front and back of the hi-viz vests worn by the
(apparent) bus inspectors - for the same reasons that Network Rail
require anyone working on the line to have their employer's logo on PPE.

Well, the lady who said she had been robbed seems to have found someone
to help. And you shouldn't let your rather pedantic concerns about
uniforms blind you to the most important point - there were members of
staff and police officers there to help. That's a vast improvement on
the situation in many places.