profit first, safety second?

[whole diary]

[Mookiemoo]

First Buses put Profit First, Safety Second, otherwise how else can you explain all the First Group Buses that get ORDERED OFF THE ROAD by vehicle examiners.

Like Father, Like Son.

First Bus, First Great Western it's the same top management!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wrong again. The one thing I get peed off with is the red tape surrounding safety. I  far as I am concerned the management take saftey far too seriously. I am not saying anyone in the industry that First are in should turn a blind eye to safety but this lot take it to far!

My issue is only with safety measures that are only needed to cater for the morons of the world.  Safety that is needed for danger = fine.

Safety needed because someone MIGHT fail to engage brain before acting = not fine.

It is more a comment on society in general but WHEN did we stop ultimately begin responsible for our own fate?

[John R]

When we started to adopt the US approach of a compensation culture, no win no fee lawyers, and all the related practices that have become commonplace these days. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

I've had a brillant day, it's not been a bad week at all.

What?  Smokey, in a good mood?  Surely not!    

[gaf71]

First Group RUIN my life!!!!

Okay smokey, I've seen what you say.........now:

1. I probably spend in total more time on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains than anyone other than staff (does anyone here do 2:20 in each direction most days?)

2. I use, arguably, the most unreliable line in the FGW network

3. Even when train run on time, the stock used for a LONG DISTANCE journey is often debatable

4. Anything up to 20 minutes late is regarded as on time by most commuters on my line

Even given that, I cannot say FGW ruin my life.

Maybe some persepective is in order

I work for 'em. They tend to ruin my working life most days!

[vacman]

First Group RUIN my life!!!!

Okay smokey, I've seen what you say.........now:

1. I probably spend in total more time on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains than anyone other than staff (does anyone here do 2:20 in each direction most days?)

2. I use, arguably, the most unreliable line in the FGW network

3. Even when train run on time, the stock used for a LONG DISTANCE journey is often debatable

4. Anything up to 20 minutes late is regarded as on time by most commuters on my line

Even given that, I cannot say FGW ruin my life.

Maybe some persepective is in order

I work for 'em. They tend to ruin my working life most days!

They pay the bills every four weeks though! 

[Mookiemoo]

First Group RUIN my life!!!!

Okay smokey, I've seen what you say.........now:

1. I probably spend in total more time on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) trains than anyone other than staff (does anyone here do 2:20 in each direction most days?)

2. I use, arguably, the most unreliable line in the FGW network

3. Even when train run on time, the stock used for a LONG DISTANCE journey is often debatable

4. Anything up to 20 minutes late is regarded as on time by most commuters on my line

Even given that, I cannot say FGW ruin my life.

Maybe some persepective is in order

I work for 'em. They tend to ruin my working life most days!

They pay the bills every four weeks though! 

Whereas I pay them for my priviledge

[Station Manager]

First Buses put Profit First, Safety Second, otherwise how else can you explain all the First Group Buses that get ORDERED OFF THE ROAD by vehicle examiners.

Like Father, Like Son.

First Bus, First Great Western it's the same top management!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really like First don't you Smokey 

I'M GETTING STICK HERE FOR MY VIEW ON FGW^▸ (First Great Western) AND SAFETY,
SURELY I'M ENTITLED TO MY VIEW,

ANOTHER POINT IS EVERY BODY IS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS
I'M WELL AWARE OF THE SAFE OPERATION OF TRAINS, BUT THERES MORE TO RAILWAYS THAN RUNNING TRAINS AND MY SAFETY CONCERNS ARE NOT DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH TRAINS, FAR FROM IT.

I'm going to shock some people here, train crew mostly, but I'm going to side with Smokey on the issue of safety.

I don't deny that safety is first with train movements, but at the station I work at, we used to have a Small BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) maintenance team (3 men) who looked after just about anything and everything for 50 miles up & down the line, this team were well know to all the staff from booking offices, to station staff, the permanent way (track workers), the signal box and signal maintenance teams.

Today we get hundreds of different contractors from all over the place, we don't know most of them, that in it's self raises a question of security, they have access to all sorts of rooms.

Train crews might be surprised to learn that contractors working at stations do not need pts, as work on platforms is
not deemed on or near the line.

[vacman]

Station staff don't require PTS^▸ (Personal Track Safety) either.

[Lee]

Station staff don't require PTS^▸ (Personal Track Safety) either.

For the benefit of forum readers, could you give an explanation of what PTS is?

[vacman]

Personal Track Safety, it's a competence card for working on the track, allows you to walk on the track etc. Not sure why you would need one for working on a platform?? If thats the case than all passengers should have one!

[TerminalJunkie]

Sometimes, 'safety first' goes to far: today's 0841 Barnstaple to Exmouth left about 30 people behind at Barnstaple (and, presumably, every other station to Exeter) because they couldn't fit any more people into a two-car 142.

However, they would have comfortably fitted (and relieved the standing passengers) in the empty two-car 142 that was attached to it, but that was locked out of use because of the short platforms at Eggesford...

[smokey]

Personal Track Safety, it's a competence card for working on the track, allows you to walk on the track etc. Not sure why you would need one for working on a platform?? If thats the case than all passengers should have one!

You need a Driving licence to drive a car, you don't need one to be a passenger in the car.

I would suggest all contractors working on the Railway should hold PTS^▸ (Personal Track Safety), it's also a good way to check out Contractors for Drug & Alcohol abuse.

Note: PTS is the basic safety requirement to work on or around the track, however even then PTS holders can not work alone, PTS allow the holder to work under direction of a COSS (controller of site safety) who oversees the safe operation of work.

This is much of the subject of safety that worries me, In "Railnews" the rail industry newpaper, there was a report about contractors installing a cable on a bridge over Railway lines at a Station.
They were using a ladder in the running lines and when asked where the COSS was there were blank looks, these men didn't have PTS, and were working Safely as they had checked the time table and there were no trains due.

I'm sure if you check the train times at Melksham there's Likely to be NO train due.

Now if a Ladder or scaffold is hit by a fast moving train at a station that is busy how many passengers could be killed?

See where I'm coming from, I'm not having a go at Train crew, they are real professionals, trained with safety first in mind, contractors can just come to a station to work, unsupervised and without any formal training, working often to Profit First, Safety Last.

I can't understand with bigger franchises why more maintenance isn't done in house.

[John R]

Oh dear, that's the type of crass stupidity that gives the railway a bad name. And with two hours before the next train as well. Was any transport put on for them, or did they just go back home?

What was wrong with walking through the train at Umberleigh and ensuring that anyone who wanted to get off at Eggesford moved to the front two coaches. Of course, I know the answer, the rules don't allow it, and no employee of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would dare breach a safety rule, and I don't blame them.  So I'm not criticising the staff one bit. Fare collection must have been interesting too, and as for the thought of an hour in crushed standing conditions on a 142.... yuck!

The trouble is, it was worse having the second train attached at all, as it would just have wound passengers up no end. If 2x142s are not permitted to stop at Eggesford then why were they even attached at all?      

[Shazz]

Personal Track Safety, it's a competence card for working on the track, allows you to walk on the track etc. Not sure why you would need one for working on a platform?? If thats the case than all passengers should have one!

Now if a Ladder or scaffold is hit by a fast moving train at a station that is busy how many passengers could be killed?

If it was hit head on, then just the person who might have been using at the time, as it'd get taken straight over the top in most cases....

So, None.

Plus, the speed limit is what through a station, 10 these days? Giving the driver ample time to see it, and stop...

[smokey]

Sometimes, 'safety first' goes to far: today's 0841 Barnstaple to Exmouth left about 30 people behind at Barnstaple (and, presumably, every other station to Exeter) because they couldn't fit any more people into a two-car 142.

However, they would have comfortably fitted (and relieved the standing passengers) in the empty two-car 142 that was attached to it, but that was locked out of use because of the short platforms at Eggesford...

Oh dear, that's the type of crass stupidity that gives the railway a bad name. And with two hours before the next train as well. Was any transport put on for them, or did they just go back home?

What was wrong with walking through the train at Umberleigh and ensuring that anyone who wanted to get off at Eggesford moved to the front two coaches. Of course, I know the answer, the rules don't allow it, and no employee of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would dare breach a safety rule, and I don't blame them.  So I'm not criticising the staff one bit. Fare collection must have been interesting too, and as for the thought of an hour in crushed standing conditions on a 142.... yuck!

The trouble is, it was worse having the second train attached at all, as it would just have wound passengers up no end. If 2x142s are not permitted to stop at Eggesford then why were they even attached at all?      

Some thing Else, I haven't been up the Barnstaple branch since the 6 car DEMU^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit) made a special visit, but if I remember Eggesford correctly the Down platform is short but the Up (Exeter) platform is longer, I would think a 4 car 142 would be platformed at Eggesford.
So is it a case that because the Dowm platform IS short a 4 car UP train can't call even thourgh it fits.

An observation, 8+2 HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s can not call at stations between Plymouth and Penzance, because of short platforms if the SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) is U/S, yet when 8+2HSTs call in Truro Down platform all coaches are platformed, so why the BAN?
FGW saying their drivers can't stop in the right place? I find HST drivers are spot on for stopping.