Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2007 12:08:57 GMT
I can't believe that any enthusiast would have the cheek to ask some random driver for a cab ride  I'm astonished you lot are astonished ! Not just enthusiasts, the public at large are fascinated by the front view from a train ...especially tube stock ! I get asked for a cab ride quiet a bit ...I have even been offered money (£20 for two stops ! ...I didn't accept). Perhaps you lot look too fierce !!! lol ! Mind you not everyone is happy to have other people in the cab. Some drivers will not allow other drivers in the cab, never mind non driving LUL staff ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2007 13:34:05 GMT
I heard that Kennington loop was now signaled to full passenger standards so a detrainment wasn't necessary. I also belive that to be correct, if passgeners don't heed the announcements then they go round the loop, it stops the service being delayed. There have been plenty of occasions when an inattentive driver has taken a packed train round the loop instead of down to Morden. Seem to remember it being quite common. |
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jul 3, 2007 14:09:22 GMT
I asked the Line General Manager. He told me who he was by name .. which meant nothing to me ! Within a few stops I'd forgotten who he was and asked him again  If it is the Central Line man you refer to, he wouldn't have taken offence. He came from the school of hard knocks at Baker St. (Met) when 8 Circles in the same direction was not unusual. He was also the duty scrutineer. An all round good bloke. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2007 14:24:55 GMT
I heard that Kennington loop was now signaled to full passenger standards so a detrainment wasn't necessary. I also belive that to be correct, if passgeners don't heed the announcements then they go round the loop, it stops the service being delayed. That's certainly been the case for a long time - when I was a guard on the Northern 11 years ago it wasn't necessary to check the whole train, because it is colour-light signalled (ie no shunt signal) it is ok to take passengers. There used to be a little announcement box at the guard's end of the SB CX platform which you operated with your guard's key and it started a recorded announcement "all change this train terminates here". They did detrain for a while (not sure exactly when, I wasn't on the line then) but now the instruction is to make announcements and close the doors. It's not unusual to have passengers over-carried round the loop. tfc |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Jul 3, 2007 19:30:18 GMT
There is also an insurance aspect to look at with cab rides. Should anything go wrong, the knock-on and subsequent adverse publicity would be catastrophic, not to mention who would foot the bill.
Most certainly where I work (non LUL) any accident/incident when carrying unauthorised passengers is completely the responsibility of the driver. Our insurance company will not take the slightest interest, and I imagine the same would be true of a major organisation such as LUL.
Just getting caught is bad enough, as it means instant dismissal, but the knock-ons...? It just isn't worth thinking about.
Just going back a bit about riding loops, when I was younger, we used to bunk off school, and ride The Tube all day, hiding from guards, station staff and whoever else might throw us off the system. This is going back 25+ years, I know, but happy memories all the same. That Capital Card served me well! And probably why it isn't in existance anymore
|
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 12, 2007 9:15:55 GMT
So far as I can see anyone caught in a cab without authority may well lay themselves open to prosecution. Would they? ask them to let me drive their train (I wouldn't actually In a case where an unauthorised person was the only person in the cab of a train, without the knowledge or permission of someone who was authorised then yes I suspect they would be liable to prosecution (it might even technically be trespass). However if the unauthorised person (A) is in the cab with someone who is authorised to be there (B), with that persons permission (a person authorised to be in cab doesn't necessarily have the authority to authorises others to be there too), then the situation is different. Obviously B will be in trouble, but I don't think that A would be liable to be prosecuted, particularly if they were invited in by B. I don't think it is reasonable to expect A to know whether B is authorised to invite them into the cab or not. If A asked B, then similarly I think it is reasonable for A to expect B to say no if they are not authorised. If A asks B, knowing that B is not authorised to allow them into the cab, then that is unfair on B, but I don't think it is breaking any regulations to ask? Indeed I think that I could walk up to a random train operator I've never met before and do this!) - obviously I would expect them to say no, but I don't think I would be breaking any rules in doing so. It would be different though if I didn't accept the "no" answer, harrassed the driver, etc., |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 12, 2007 9:21:29 GMT
none of that is relevant,any T/O letting strangers into the cab,and then letting them operate the train,must need their head examined and certainly should not be working for L.U.  |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jul 12, 2007 10:44:29 GMT
and certainly should not be working for L.U. In this era of security and safety concerns, they wouldn't be in short time, and I can guess that the press would blast it out if they knew! |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 12, 2007 18:30:16 GMT
none of that is relevant,any T/O letting strangers into the cab,and then letting them operate the train,must need their head examined and certainly should not be working for L.U. I'm not talking about a stranger operating the train, but just being in the cab. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2007 18:47:05 GMT
In my opinion, LU need to straighten things out a bit. The driver is technically in-charge of the train. The moment they step into that cab it is their train. They decide if it needs to come out of service for what ever reason, how long the doors are open for etc etc. Now surely it would make sense that it is the drivers decision to let someone in the cab, but its not, yet its the drivers train and they have to make 99% of other decisions. It doesn't make sense. Either it is the drivers train, or it isn't, one or another.   Surely, as long as they are over 18 (legal reasons mostly), are competent enough and will just sit/stand there without distracting the driver, touching anything etc, and additionally, letting the line controller/DMT/whoever know, for safety reasons, then I can't see why not. And even if there is the driver would have to accept responsibility if something went wrong as it was their decision to let the person in the cab in the first place. And before anyone asks, I am not talking about complete strangers here either, they'd have to be someone the driver knows and trusts. |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 12, 2007 20:09:52 GMT
none of that is relevant,any T/O letting strangers into the cab,and then letting them operate the train,must need their head examined and certainly should not be working for L.U. I'm not talking about a stranger operating the train, but just being in the cab. |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 12, 2007 20:31:08 GMT
get what you are saying Chris M. And you have answered back to correct me,but,do you not think that by inviting any old person/perkin into the cab you are taking a big risk,just because you may happen to see this person/perkin on a regular basis(travelling)and you may exchange pleasantries,does not mean to say that you know this persons/perkins state of mind,and he/she could turn into a raving lunatic once they are in the cab and you are moving. This could cause some massive problems for L.U.,customers and for your own wellbeing. Do you not just think it is best not to let any unauthorised people in the cab at any time what so ever.thus,keeping customers safe,the train safe,yourself safe and your job safe.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2007 20:45:31 GMT
I disagree. If the driver is happy to let someone they know well and trust, making them aware of the incidents that could occur (such as one unders & being stuck in a tunnel for long periods), as well as the driver being responsible for the person, then I can't see a problem myself. |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jul 12, 2007 20:50:47 GMT
I disagree. If the driver is happy to let someone they know well and trust, making them aware of the incidents that could occur (such as one unders & being stuck in a tunnel for long periods), as well as the driver being responsible for the person, then I can't see a problem myself. The trouble is UD, whilst I agree where you are coming from, all it takes is for "some incident" to occur, and some "witness" then makes an allegation that the Operator was being distracted by someone (who it then turns out is not a member of staff), it then leaves the Operator open to blame, perhaps even negligence. Even though this is not the case. LUL do from time to time for special reasons offer cab rides, but this (I believe) is also in the presence of an Operating Official or othe Operator. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jul 12, 2007 20:55:02 GMT
just because you may happen to see this person on a regular basis(travelling)and you may exchange pleasantries,does not mean to say that you know this persons(or perkins)state of mind,and he/she could turn into a raving lunatic once they are in the cab and you are moving. This could cause some massive problems for L.U.,customers and for your own wellbeing. Do you not just think it is best not to let any unauthorised people in the cab at any time what so ever.thus,keeping customers safe,the train safe,yourself safe and your job safe. However, equally a member of staff could appear fine and then turn into a raving lunatic once in charge of a train! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2007 21:03:35 GMT
I knew I was missing something. It sounded all too simple when I typed it. That said, surely if the authorisation is given by the T/OP, and the T/OP is made responsible for the authorisation, even if someone kicked off about there being someone else in the cab, the responsibility still falls to the T/OP? (I.E, the driver agrees to take the blame for anything that may, but 99.9% of the time, wont happen.) |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jul 12, 2007 21:08:59 GMT
I knew I was missing something. It sounded all too simple when I typed it. That said, surely if the authorisation is given by the T/OP, and the T/OP is made responsible for the authorisation, even if someone kicked off about there being someone else in the cab, the responsibility still falls to the T/OP? Yes but then they could argue that LUL have not properly managed the possible risks (or even public perception) associated with having an un-authorised person in the cab! Having said that, I have been in the cab of a BR train! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2007 21:12:51 GMT
But LU will pass the blame onto the T/OP (who knew the risks when they said yes to the person being allowed in the cab), just like the "witness" has already passed the blame on to the cab passenger. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 12, 2007 22:50:46 GMT
get what you are saying Chris M. And you have answered back to correct me,but,do you not think that by inviting any old person into the cab you are taking a big risk,just because you may happen to see this person on a regular basis(travelling)and you may exchange pleasantries,does not mean to say that you know this persons(or perkins)state of mind,and he/she could turn into a raving lunatic once they are in the cab and you are moving. This could cause some massive problems for L.U.,customers and for your own wellbeing. Do you not just think it is best not to let any unauthorised people in the cab at any time what so ever.thus,keeping customers safe,the train safe,yourself safe and your job safe. Any person in the cab other than the driver is a risk, heck having a human being in charge of a train is a risk. But this is not my point. My point was related to the suggestion that an unauthorised person in the train cab would be liable for prosecution. I'll try and explain it a bit better - Scenario 1: A random member of the public, Joe, enters the train cab without the authorisation of the train driver (Sally) or anyone else. Sally does not want Joe to be there. Joe is an intruder and should be prosecuted. If Joe assaults Sally then LU would definitely prosecute (a member of this forum was assaulted by an intruder in his cab and the intruder was prosecuted); if he doesn't assault her then I would hope they would still prosecute, but I don't know the details of any instance where this has happened to know whether they would prosecute or not. Scenario 2: Sally, the train driver, invites a member of the public (Alan) into her cab. It doesn't matter whether Alan and Sally know each other or not (or if they do, how). Sally has the authority to authorise people to be in the cab with her, and she has authorised Alan to be there. Alan does not misbehave while he is in the cab and does not at any time take control of the train. Alan should not be prosecuted imho, as he has done nothing wrong. Authorised people are allowed into train cabs with the permission of the driver. Sally should be subject to appropriate disciplinary procedures if she broke any rules. If she did not break any rules, she should not be disciplined. Scenario 3: Abdul, the train driver, invites a member of the public (Karen) into his cab. It doesn't matter whether Adbul and Karen know each other or not (or if they do, how). Abdul does ''not'' have the atuhority to authorise people to be in the cab with him. Karen is therefore ''not'' authorised to be in the cab, regardless of whether Abdul wants/allows/invites her to be there or not - even if he tells her she is authorised. Karen does not misbehave while she is in the cab and does not at any time take control of the train. Karen should not be prosecuted imho, as she has done nothing wrong. Although unauthorised people should not be in train cabs, it is not her responsibility to know whether Abdul is allowed to authorise people or not. Abdul should be appropriately disciplined for allowing an unauthorised person into the cab with him. If at no time did he endanger the safety of the train or passengers then no punishment should follow beyond perhaps an unofficial reminder of the rules. Scenario 4: Rhiannedd invites a random member of the public (Erica) into her cab. It doesn't matter whether they know each other or not (or if they do, how) or whether Rhiannedd can authorise people to be in the cab. While in the cab Erica assaults Rhiannedd. imo Erica should be prosecuted for assault, although not for being in the cab without permission (as she wasn't). Scenario 5: Jacob, the train driver, invites the general manager of the Scenario Line (Anita) into his cab. Anita is a former driver, and authorised to be in the cab as part of her job. Jacob is authorised to authorise people to be in the cab. While in the cab Anita assaults Jacob. Imho Anita should be prosecuted for assault, although not for being in the cab without permission (as she wasn't). I expect that she would also be dismissed from her job. |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jul 12, 2007 23:00:05 GMT
Why is Sally authorised but Abdul not? I'll have to read this again later ;D Oh and Chris, have you just been on a Diversity course! What with that Welsh name snuck in there! ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
|
Post by Colin on Jul 13, 2007 4:06:19 GMT
The driver is technically in-charge of the train. The moment they step into that cab it is their train. They decide if it needs to come out of service for what ever reason, how long the doors are open for etc etc. Now surely it would make sense that it is the drivers decision to let someone in the cab, but its not, yet its the drivers train and they have to make 99% of other decisions. It doesn't make sense. Either it is the drivers train, or it isn't, one or another. Not quite. Whilst the driver may initially remove a train from service, the reason will still be investigated by a mobile duty manager or mobile train technition at the earliest point possible in the journey to confirm the reason - we're not trusted that much!! If an incident occurs within platform limits, the station supervisor is actually the designated person incharge. A lot of our procedures involve others that take charge - wrong direction movement person in charge, for example. Yes, the driver still makes a lot of critical decisions - but certainly not 99% of them. There is a railway term which describes certain operational roles in a definitive way - safety critical. Train operator is described as such (as are jobs like signaller, line controller, station supervisor, etc), so there really shouldn't be any further discussion needed. That said, I have more to say!!  ;D ;D ;D You have all missed a fundamental point here - the railway has rules...........................and the rules include who is or isn't allowed in the cab. It's not about what anyone thinks should happen - similarly it doesn't matter whether the driver is able to decide he can concentrate on the signals, platform train interface, etc, etc with a non railway trained staff member present (and I don't think any driver can realistically, honestly, say they can make that judgement) - the rules say it's not allowed. Disobey the rules - you risk your job. It's as simple as that. This forum has a policy of not allowing internal publications to be published - I think this subject deserves a one off special exemption, so here's a poor quality extract from the current rule book:   All drivers have been issued with a personal copy - so they cannot use the excuse that they didn't know who was and who wasn't authorised. EDIT: Interestingly, I notice that there is no mention of the maximum number of people permitted in a cab - it was always 3 - note to operational standards: I think someone has forgotten something ;D ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2007 9:12:10 GMT
EDIT: Interestingly, I notice that there is no mention of the maximum number of people permitted in a cab - it was always 3 - note to operational standards: I think someone has forgotten something ;) ;D ;D Any more than that and your oxygen would run out, I'd have thought? ;) Not to mention you'd all need to be very skinny! |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 13, 2007 9:44:16 GMT
Why is Sally authorised but Abdul not? It doesn't matter for the purposes of the scenario, but perhaps Sally is an instructor-operator and Abdul ins't. Oh and Chris, have you just been on a Diversity course! What with that Welsh name snuck in there! ;D ;D ;D ;D nope, but I had just been discussing maths exams, where all sorts of names come up. One of my GCSE maths teachers did say she once deducted a mark from someone for getting the gender of the person used in the question wrong! It was an ethnic-minority name of some sort, but given that in my year at school was typical with 1 black person (of Sri-Lankan descent), 1 person who was half Pakistani (with the incredibly foreign name of "Sam McMurran"!) and about 800 other kids who were white British, its not surprising they'd never heard the name before! |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 13, 2007 9:51:38 GMT
EDIT: Interestingly, I notice that there is no mention of the maximum number of people permitted in a cab - it was always 3 - note to operational standards: I think someone has forgotten something ;) ;D ;D I note it also only mentions the HMRI, not the RAIB, RSSB, HSE or any other safety body (presumably those people carrying out internal investigations would either have a cab permit or be LU Uniformed operational staff?). Another thing to note is that it only covers people who request to travel in your cab. The only time I've travelled in a cab, I was invited in without requesting to be (I was stood on the end of the platform (the correct side of the do not pass this point barriers) taking a photograph looking down the line). Although you do not need to reproduce it, does the handout to staff note the penalties for breaching the rules? The driver I travelled with said the worst that could happen would be they'd get a telling off. |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 13, 2007 17:37:04 GMT
this all seems to have got very long winded.Its simple.If someone is authorised to be in the cab, and the T/O is happy for them to be there,apart from someone who needs to be in the cab( tech officer etc)then thats fine.If that someone should be a customer, or any other member of the public,and they want to ride up front with the T/O for fun,then the answer should be "NO.SORRY.YOUR NOT AUTHORISED". Easy, see |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 13, 2007 18:59:48 GMT
.If that someone should be a customer, or any other member of the public,and they want to ride up front with the T/O for fun,then the answer should be "NO.SORRY.YOUR NOT AUTHORISED". Easy, see T-op: Hello mate, would you like a cab ride? Punter: Yes please, that would be most kind of you T-op: No, sorry you're not authorised! <cruel laugher as t-op closes the cab door> ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2007 19:19:58 GMT
EDIT: Interestingly, I notice that there is no mention of the maximum number of people permitted in a cab - it was always 3 - note to operational standards: I think someone has forgotten something ;) ;D ;D Any more than that and your oxygen would run out, I'd have thought? ;) Not to mention you'd all need to be very skinny! Actually, you get a lot more than 3 people in the cab of a D stock (as you may see when the service has gone hopelessly wrong and staff are desperately trying to get to work to avoid further cancellations). But I think the omission of the "3 in the cab" rule from the book must be an oversight, I've not heard of it being changed. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 13, 2007 19:47:35 GMT
Interestingly, I notice that there is no mention of the maximum number of people permitted in a cab - it was always 3 - note to operational standards: I think someone has forgotten something ;D ;D You may be interested to note that the old rule book didn't give a maximum number either. The old procedure (TC121) made no reference to how many people should be in a cab at any one time. It has always been said that it is three but this is an unwritten rule. As a DMT I always worked on the principal that you should have the minimum number of people in the cab rather than look to a maximum figure. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 13, 2007 19:55:17 GMT
I asked the Line General Manager. He told me who he was by name .. which meant nothing to me ! Within a few stops I'd forgotten who he was and asked him again If it is the Central Line man you refer to, he wouldn't have taken offence. He came from the school of hard knocks at Baker St. (Met) when 8 Circles in the same direction was not unusual. He was also the duty scrutineer. An all round good bloke. Yes, but I wouldn't buy a used car from him!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2007 22:08:10 GMT
If it is the Central Line man you refer to, he wouldn't have taken offence. He came from the school of hard knocks at Baker St. (Met) when 8 Circles in the same direction was not unusual. He was also the duty scrutineer. An all round good bloke. Yes, but I wouldn't buy a used car from him!! But I would happily flog him mine after I cut the brake pipes |
|
