|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 29, 2018 9:57:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 29, 2018 10:13:31 GMT
But serious as the risk of an attack on a driver is, there is also the real threat of easy access to a cab being used by those intent on causing death and destruction. It beggars belief that at a time of heightened security alert, Transport for London refuse to take this threat seriously.
That bit alone is quite astonishing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 29, 2018 10:23:44 GMT
But serious as the risk of an attack on a driver is, there is also the real threat of easy access to a cab being used by those intent on causing death and destruction. It beggars belief that at a time of heightened security alert, Transport for London refuse to take this threat seriously. That bit alone is quite astonishing. Would you care to explain how exactly easy access to the cab would offer a more destructive option to a terrorist than exploding a bomb on a train. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 29, 2018 11:32:15 GMT
But serious as the risk of an attack on a driver is, there is also the real threat of easy access to a cab being used by those intent on causing death and destruction. It beggars belief that at a time of heightened security alert, Transport for London refuse to take this threat seriously. That bit alone is quite astonishing. Would you care to explain how exactly easy access to the cab would offer a more destructive option to a terrorist than exploding a bomb on a train. Very simply, by then being able to drive the train into a packed station instead before detonating devices. Why would it be just a terrorist and not several? I don't think the District 8 post is being alarmist, by the way, it struck me somebody was thinking about both members and passengers, quite rightly too. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 29, 2018 11:52:41 GMT
Why would terrorists draw attention to themselves by trying to gain access to the cab when they could sit or stand quietly in the saloon like all the other passengers and wait until the train arrived at a crowded platform before denotating their bombs? Same result but with less chance of being detected.
We have incidents where drivers have been actually assaulted, we don't need to add hypothetical terrorist situations in order to get better cab security. if anything it weakens our case as management can claim that the chance of a terrorist entering the cab is so low that it can be discounted.
|
|
|
|
Post by toby on Jul 29, 2018 13:31:57 GMT
What are the costs of solving this?
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 29, 2018 14:44:30 GMT
Why would terrorists draw attention to themselves by trying to gain access to the cab when they could sit or stand quietly in the saloon like all the other passengers and wait until the train arrived at a crowded platform before denotating their bombs? Same result but with less chance of being detected. We have incidents where drivers have been actually assaulted, we don't need to add hypothetical terrorist situations in order to get better cab security. if anything it weakens our case as management can claim that the chance of a terrorist entering the cab is so low that it can be discounted. Yes, but I'm trying to see it from management's point of view & if there is the slightest chance of a terrorism incident being exacerbated by that, they should be the first to be doing something about it. By the way, I'm not convinced of any management's whole-hearted interest in staff welfare in any given situation, as an ex-union branch secretary myself, which is why I pondered on 'their' potential primary concern. Seems to me in an age where everybody displays notices saying our staff must not be subject to abuse, you should not need to be raising this issue at all, because management should already have been doing more than paying lip service to your concerns |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 29, 2018 19:33:46 GMT
Would you care to explain how exactly easy access to the cab would offer a more destructive option to a terrorist than exploding a bomb on a train. Very simply, by then being able to drive the train into a packed station instead before detonating devices. You need to do more than just access a cab in order to drive the train. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 29, 2018 19:40:16 GMT
You need to do more than just access a cab in order to drive the train. It's a good start though - (a necessary but not a sufficient condition). Given the existence of train stops, it would be difficult to drive a Tube train anywhere it shouldn't go. You've all been watching "The Taking of Pelham 123" ! (The original version I hope) "Although J doors provide an emergency evacuation route on Underground trains, it would be easy to find a technical fix to this that allowed door locks to be remotely released in emergencies. " The J door is an emergency evacuation route, and should be available even if, for example, the driver is incapacitated. Rather than having a remote release, would a system which allowed the lock to be normally releasable, but can be over-ridden by a (conscious) driver? |
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Jul 29, 2018 19:46:32 GMT
There's also the other argument of how passengers would get out of the train in an emergency, which I imagine is why it is easy to get into a cab in the first place
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 29, 2018 21:00:22 GMT
This is a tricky one. However, I don’t sit comfortably with any idea which makes evacuating a train more difficult.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jul 29, 2018 21:09:53 GMT
But serious as the risk of an attack on a driver is, there is also the real threat of easy access to a cab being used by those intent on causing death and destruction. It beggars belief that at a time of heightened security alert, Transport for London refuse to take this threat seriously. That bit alone is quite astonishing. Would you care to explain how exactly easy access to the cab would offer a more destructive option to a terrorist than exploding a bomb on a train. I’ve often wondered that one potential scenario could well be that accessing a cab potentially allows the train to be stopped in a place where there is little or no means of egress - particularly in a tube tunnel. Naturally this could allow for maximising casualties in any kind of active shooter or bladed weapon scenario. There are other ways to disable a train from inside the saloon, but not without more specialist knowledge. It’s a tricky one to resolve - naturally I’d prefer to see cabs more secure, however it’s hard to do without compromising the only escape route from a train in a tube tunnel. |
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by Dom K on Jul 29, 2018 22:48:25 GMT
We should immediately refrain from discussing about how best to use a train as a form of terrorism. It’s good to discuss ideas to improve security, but remember this forum can still be searched for and read by Tom, Dick and his mischievous mate Harry. Let’s be mindful. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 29, 2018 22:57:18 GMT
We should immediately refrain from discussing about how best to use a train as a form of terrorism. It’s good to discuss ideas to improve security, but remember this forum can still be searched for and read by Tom, Dick and his mischievous mate Harry. Let’s be mindful. Thanks If this is how "best to use a train as a form of terrorism" then I think we're all safe.  Not sure how much of a problem unauthorised and unwilling access to a cab is. I doubt there are many people wanting to punch a driver/operator's nose. Probably there are those that seek a point a sanctuary from their fellow passengers however. Pretty difficult to find a rational, cost-effective solution for this I would have thought. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 29, 2018 23:55:35 GMT
We should immediately refrain from discussing about how best to use a train as a form of terrorism. It’s good to discuss ideas to improve security, but remember this forum can still be searched for and read by Tom, Dick and his mischievous mate Harry. Let’s be mindful. Thanks If this is how "best to use a train as a form of terrorism" then I think we're all safe. Not sure how much of a problem unauthorised and unwilling access to a cab is. I doubt there are many people wanting to punch a driver/operator's nose. Probably there are those that seek a point a sanctuary from their fellow passengers however. Pretty difficult to find a rational, cost-effective solution for this I would have thought. I've been a driver for 15 years and I can't remember a single incident until recently where passengers have entered the cab to abuse train drivers but there have been several incidents this year. On Saturday there was the first indecent where a driver was assaulted, I don't know if the passenger punched on the driver on the nose but while you might find it vaguely amusing I doubt if the woman who was assaulted does or any of her colleagues. There is a rational, cost effective solution; magnetic locks that energise when the cab is activated and which the Like Controllers can open remotely the same way they can make PAs on trains. LU have rejected this as too expensive. Rather than making this about terrorism the unions should make this about service delivery, if a driver is incapacitated by an assault then service would have to be suspended while a spare was sent to relieve the injured driver. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jul 30, 2018 0:06:31 GMT
We should immediately refrain from discussing about how best to use a train as a form of terrorism. It’s good to discuss ideas to improve security, but remember this forum can still be searched for and read by Tom, Dick and his mischievous mate Harry. Let’s be mindful. Thanks If this is how "best to use a train as a form of terrorism" then I think we're all safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Jul 30, 2018 5:59:18 GMT
If this is how "best to use a train as a form of terrorism" then I think we're all safe. Not sure how much of a problem unauthorised and unwilling access to a cab is. I doubt there are many people wanting to punch a driver/operator's nose. Probably there are those that seek a point a sanctuary from their fellow passengers however. Pretty difficult to find a rational, cost-effective solution for this I would have thought. I've been a driver for 15 years and I can't remember a single incident until recently where passengers have entered the cab to abuse train drivers but there have been several incidents this year. On Saturday there was the first indecent where a driver was assaulted, I don't know if the passenger punched on the driver on the nose but while you might find it vaguely amusing I doubt if the woman who was assaulted does or any of her colleagues. There is a rational, cost effective solution; magnetic locks that energise when the cab is activated and which the Like Controllers can open remotely the same way they can make PAs on trains. LU have rejected this as too expensive. Rather than making this about terrorism the unions should make this about service delivery, if a driver is incapacitated by an assault then service would have to be suspended while a spare was sent to relieve the injured driver. And how does that work if comms are defective or the cab hasn’t been properly deactivated? As a passenger, the idea of my emergency exit being blocked when needed due to Murphy’s Law doesn’t sit well. Before going down a dispute path, I’d be curious to know what underlies these incidents, and how they can be headed off. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 30, 2018 8:01:42 GMT
Power would need to be discharged before any evacuation could take place so automatically disengaging the lock in the event of a power to the train being lost (unless actively overridden by the driver every n minutes) would seem to reduce the likelihood of a prevented evacuation.
The lock could also be automatically disengaged in other circumstances if not actively maintained too - no inputs from any controls in either cab for n minutes, open M door, etc.
|
|
paulsw2
My Train Runs For Those Who Wait Not Wait For Those That Run
Posts: 303
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jul 30, 2018 9:11:07 GMT
Power would need to be discharged before any evacuation could take place so automatically disengaging the lock in the event of a power to the train being lost (unless actively overridden by the driver every n minutes) would seem to reduce the likelihood of a prevented evacuation. The lock could also be automatically disengaged in other circumstances if not actively maintained too - no inputs from any controls in either cab for n minutes, open M door, etc. It could be linked to the S stock OPO alarm system we need to keep the TBC twisted to prevent it activating it is already linked to the trains public address system |
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 30, 2018 23:56:18 GMT
If this is how "best to use a train as a form of terrorism" then I think we're all safe. Not sure how much of a problem unauthorised and unwilling access to a cab is. I doubt there are many people wanting to punch a driver/operator's nose. Probably there are those that seek a point a sanctuary from their fellow passengers however. Pretty difficult to find a rational, cost-effective solution for this I would have thought. I've been a driver for 15 years and I can't remember a single incident until recently where passengers have entered the cab to abuse train drivers but there have been several incidents this year. On Saturday there was the first indecent where a driver was assaulted, I don't know if the passenger punched on the driver on the nose but while you might find it vaguely amusing I doubt if the woman who was assaulted does or any of her colleagues. There is a rational, cost effective solution; magnetic locks that energise when the cab is activated and which the Like Controllers can open remotely the same way they can make PAs on trains. LU have rejected this as too expensive. Rather than making this about terrorism the unions should make this about service delivery, if a driver is incapacitated by an assault then service would have to be suspended while a spare was sent to relieve the injured driver. OK. You make a serious point, but I can't see how (on the face of it) that this is a pragmatic solution, to be honest it sounds a little fanciful to me and it would require a lot of research and development. If Saturday was the first incident where a driver has been assaulted in 15 years then (dare I say it!) I think we are doing pretty good. I would also hope that the "greater good" (i.e. other passengers) would assist in this matter. I wonder how that 15 years compares to (say) people working in the retail sector? Perhaps it's time to go like the buses where the driver is clearly visible but in his (or her) safety cubicle? I think they are quite safe in there... |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 31, 2018 0:17:36 GMT
I've been a driver for 15 years and I can't remember a single incident until recently where passengers have entered the cab to abuse train drivers but there have been several incidents this year. On Saturday there was the first indecent where a driver was assaulted, I don't know if the passenger punched on the driver on the nose but while you might find it vaguely amusing I doubt if the woman who was assaulted does or any of her colleagues. There is a rational, cost effective solution; magnetic locks that energise when the cab is activated and which the Like Controllers can open remotely the same way they can make PAs on trains. LU have rejected this as too expensive. Rather than making this about terrorism the unions should make this about service delivery, if a driver is incapacitated by an assault then service would have to be suspended while a spare was sent to relieve the injured driver. OK. You make a serious point, but I can't see how (on the face of it) that this is a pragmatic solution, to be honest it sounds a little fanciful to me and it would require a lot of research and development. If Saturday was the first incident where a driver has been assaulted in 15 years then (dare I say it!) I think we are doing pretty good. I would also hope that the "greater good" (i.e. other passengers) would assist in this matter. I wonder how that 15 years compares to (say) people working in the retail sector? Perhaps it's time to go like the buses where the driver is clearly visible but in his (or her) safety cubicle? I think they are quite safe in there... Let's go back to my first post on this thread "For the last two years your ASLEF Health and Safety reps have been campaigning to make drivers cabs on London Underground safe and secure" ASLEF have been warning about this issue for two years, we've been telling LUL that cab security wasn't good enough and that eventually it would end with a driver being assaulted. When I became driver 15 years ago incidents where passengers entered the cabs where unheard of but in the last six months there have been several. ASLEF saw this coming and LUL ignored them. And now a driver has been assaulted. As for the retail sector (which I worked in for 12 years before I joined the Tube) if I had been assaulted then I wouldn't have left up to a thousand customers stuck in the shop with no one to take over with thousands more customers stuck in shops behind me. As for buses you don't evacuate a bus through the drivers cab. |
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 31, 2018 0:40:32 GMT
OK. You make a serious point, but I can't see how (on the face of it) that this is a pragmatic solution, to be honest it sounds a little fanciful to me and it would require a lot of research and development. If Saturday was the first incident where a driver has been assaulted in 15 years then (dare I say it!) I think we are doing pretty good. I would also hope that the "greater good" (i.e. other passengers) would assist in this matter. I wonder how that 15 years compares to (say) people working in the retail sector? Perhaps it's time to go like the buses where the driver is clearly visible but in his (or her) safety cubicle? I think they are quite safe in there... Let's go back to my first post on this thread "For the last two years your ASLEF Health and Safety reps have been campaigning to make drivers cabs on London Underground safe and secure" ASLEF have been warning about this issue for two years, we've been telling LUL that cab security wasn't good enough and that eventually it would end with a driver being assaulted. When I became driver 15 years ago incidents where passengers entered the cabs where unheard of but in the last six months there have been several. ASLEF saw this coming and LUL ignored them. And now a driver has been assaulted. As for the retail sector (which I worked in for 12 years before I joined the Tube) if I had been assaulted then I wouldn't have left up to a thousand customers stuck in the shop with no one to take over with thousands more customers stuck in shops behind me. As for buses you don't evacuate a bus through the drivers cab. Thanks shrugged. May I ask why it is only the last two years that this has become a perceived issue? I say "perceived" because it seems to only have manifested itself as an issue in the last 6 months. Have passengers got more savvy with means of entry? Is it the night tube and therefore a correlation to beer? I ask as if we deal purely with the data that you have provided (which I have no reason to argue with), then we have several instances of passengers entering cabs in the past six months and one assault, whereas for the past 15 years these numbers have been zero. Have I got that correct? Presumably in the days of guards they had no secure place and there was no problem then (I assume). So what has changed do you think? I know you will take issue with me on this, but, if the above is correct, then one driver being assaulted out of how ever many hundreds (?) of drivers in a decade and a half doesn't seem to me to be a significant number. Whilst I would wholeheartedly agree that absolutely no-one needs to be in this position of course. I'm not sure that your analogy re retail makes sense as surely you are (rightly so) more interested in you and your colleagues staying safe than the impact on the "customers". I know i would be! |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jul 31, 2018 1:12:28 GMT
Let's go back to my first post on this thread "For the last two years your ASLEF Health and Safety reps have been campaigning to make drivers cabs on London Underground safe and secure" ASLEF have been warning about this issue for two years, we've been telling LUL that cab security wasn't good enough and that eventually it would end with a driver being assaulted. When I became driver 15 years ago incidents where passengers entered the cabs where unheard of but in the last six months there have been several. ASLEF saw this coming and LUL ignored them. And now a driver has been assaulted. As for the retail sector (which I worked in for 12 years before I joined the Tube) if I had been assaulted then I wouldn't have left up to a thousand customers stuck in the shop with no one to take over with thousands more customers stuck in shops behind me. As for buses you don't evacuate a bus through the drivers cab. Thanks shrugged. May I ask why it is only the last two years that this has become a perceived issue? I say "perceived" because it seems to only have manifested itself as an issue in the last 6 months. Have passengers got more savvy with means of entry? Is it the night tube and therefore a correlation to beer? I ask as if we deal purely with the data that you have provided (which I have no reason to argue with), then we have several instances of passengers entering cabs in the past six months and one assault, whereas for the past 15 years these numbers have been zero. Have I got that correct? Presumably in the days of guards they had no secure place and there was no problem then (I assume). So what has changed do you think? I know you will take issue with me on this, but, if the above is correct, then one driver being assaulted out of how ever many hundreds (?) of drivers in a decade and a half doesn't seem to me to be a significant number. Whilst I would wholeheartedly agree that absolutely no-one needs to be in this position of course. I'm not sure that your analogy re retail makes sense as surely you are (rightly so) more interested in you and your colleagues staying safe than the impact on the "customers". I know i would be! I don’t think the issue is entirely new - there have certainly been a few cases over the years of people breaking into cabs in the Kennington loop, although I forget the finer details. Needless to say the subject was the subject of much chatter at work today. It’s surprising how many drivers are unaware that the J door forms a key part of the train’s emergency escape. Obviously an egress device like on mainline trains is out of the question due to single-line tunnels, yet in many cases this all took quite a bit of explaining. It seems there only a handful of viable options: * Make the existing J door lock covers more robust, to deter opportunistic use as far as possible * Fit some kind of secondary lock on the inside of the J door for use only in an emergency situation, although this opens up worm cans, not least if it transpires drivers start using it routinely * Redesign cabs so that there is a central walkway but two places of safety either side, with additional doors, sort of like some mainline cabs which have gangway connections. Suffice to say this didn’t seem too popular! * Try to find a technological solution perhaps involving a maglock which can deenergise in certain circumstances, although hard to pin down what these circumstances might be! In reality I suspect the first of those is all that might happen, and perhaps changing to a more sophisticated type of key. It’s rather sad that not so many years ago J doors didn’t need locking at all. |
|
hobbayne
RIP John Lennon and George Harrison
Posts: 516
|
Post by hobbayne on Jul 31, 2018 10:28:24 GMT
The 73 stock and others have a glass cover which you have to break in order to access the drivers cabs. The 92s just have a plastic card which can easily be removed silently. At least the smashing of the glass can alert the driver his cab is about to be breached.
The central has 3 or 4 occasions recently, of exactly this.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jul 31, 2018 10:52:30 GMT
* Try to find a technological solution perhaps involving a maglock which can deenergise in certain circumstances, although hard to pin down what these circumstances might be! As it forms part of an emergency escape route which can ONLY lead onto the track (excepting the cabin's side doors in open areas in which case the main compartment doors would also open onto a usable escape route), then I'd say de-energisation of the track circuit would be a good candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jul 31, 2018 11:03:56 GMT
Let's go back to my first post on this thread "For the last two years your ASLEF Health and Safety reps have been campaigning to make drivers cabs on London Underground safe and secure" ASLEF have been warning about this issue for two years, we've been telling LUL that cab security wasn't good enough and that eventually it would end with a driver being assaulted. When I became driver 15 years ago incidents where passengers entered the cabs where unheard of but in the last six months there have been several. ASLEF saw this coming and LUL ignored them. And now a driver has been assaulted. As for the retail sector (which I worked in for 12 years before I joined the Tube) if I had been assaulted then I wouldn't have left up to a thousand customers stuck in the shop with no one to take over with thousands more customers stuck in shops behind me. As for buses you don't evacuate a bus through the drivers cab. Thanks shrugged. May I ask why it is only the last two years that this has become a perceived issue? I say "perceived" because it seems to only have manifested itself as an issue in the last 6 months. Have passengers got more savvy with means of entry? Is it the night tube and therefore a correlation to beer? I ask as if we deal purely with the data that you have provided (which I have no reason to argue with), then we have several instances of passengers entering cabs in the past six months and one assault, whereas for the past 15 years these numbers have been zero. Have I got that correct? Presumably in the days of guards they had no secure place and there was no problem then (I assume). So what has changed do you think? I know you will take issue with me on this, but, if the above is correct, then one driver being assaulted out of how ever many hundreds (?) of drivers in a decade and a half doesn't seem to me to be a significant number. Whilst I would wholeheartedly agree that absolutely no-one needs to be in this position of course. I'm not sure that your analogy re retail makes sense as surely you are (rightly so) more interested in you and your colleagues staying safe than the impact on the "customers". I know i would be! Before February 1975 there were tube trains overrunning terminus stop marks, then Moorgate happened. Before November 1987 there were fires on the Underground, then Kings Cross happened. How severe an incident with a cab invasion would you need before you (and London Underground) agreed that this is an important safety issue and needs to be addressed? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 31, 2018 11:06:49 GMT
As it forms part of an emergency escape route which can ONLY lead onto the track (excepting the cabin's side doors in open areas in which case the main compartment doors would also open onto a usable escape route), then I'd say de-energisation of the track circuit would be a good candidate. The cab side doors can be used to evacuate a train when only those doors are adjacent to a platform. This can happen, above or below ground, when there is a train occupying the main part of the platform which cannot (for whatever reason) be moved clear. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 31, 2018 11:20:12 GMT
Any J door lock would need to be failsafe, I think the conditions where the lock de-energises should be:
1. Power failure.
2. Removal of driver’s master key
3. Failure of driver to operate vigilance device
4. Line controller unlocks.
Also, should the non occupied cab be locked?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 31, 2018 11:50:34 GMT
I think all cabs should be locked and unlocked under the same circumstances, and your list is basically good, but I would say that a driver should be able to override an unlocking, at least in your scenarios 1 and 2 - for example when the train is being used as protection for a member of staff on the track who has been given the key to prevent the train moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jul 31, 2018 12:37:19 GMT
As it forms part of an emergency escape route which can ONLY lead onto the track (excepting the cabin's side doors in open areas in which case the main compartment doors would also open onto a usable escape route), then I'd say de-energisation of the track circuit would be a good candidate. The cab side doors can be used to evacuate a train when only those doors are adjacent to a platform. This can happen, above or below ground, when there is a train occupying the main part of the platform which cannot (for whatever reason) be moved clear. Indeed, however the train would only reach that position, surely, with a driver in control. Under such circumstances there would be staff available to de-energise the security door interlock; there's no need whatsoever for passengers to be able to detrain themselves in that situation. I believe there is also recently a video someone took when they occupied the rear cab on the Bakerloo line after it had been left insecure. So both cabs, yes. |
|
