Drunks on trains - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Jim]

Thanks for these replies. I have the number on myBTP number on my mobile now and will report these incidents when I see them. I still think though that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should have a clear policy that the guard must be allowed to refuse to allow the train to proceed if drunks get on, and that their asasessment of the situation must be respected. I don't see why there should be any flexibility about allowing drunk passengers onm trains. Afer all, many TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s like Arriva for example, don't allow their staff any discretion if a passenger doesn't have the correct ticket or has forgotten their railcard. They are charged the full fare and there is no room for negotaition. The same attitude should be applied to drunks, or for that matter , in my opinion, anyone who drinks alcohol on trains.

FGW staff can, you are not actually allowed on railway premises intoxicated, according to Railway Bylaws I think.

The thing is, the company are not 100% likely (despite what is said) to back you up after you get assulted, so I am told..........

[vacman]

Thanks for these replies. I have the number on myBTP number on my mobile now and will report these incidents when I see them. I still think though that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should have a clear policy that the guard must be allowed to refuse to allow the train to proceed if drunks get on, and that their asasessment of the situation must be respected. I don't see why there should be any flexibility about allowing drunk passengers onm trains. Afer all, many TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s like Arriva for example, don't allow their staff any discretion if a passenger doesn't have the correct ticket or has forgotten their railcard. They are charged the full fare and there is no room for negotaition. The same attitude should be applied to drunks, or for that matter , in my opinion, anyone who drinks alcohol on trains.

The guard always has the right to not take the train with drunks, the guard is the person in charge of the train!

[devon_metro]

Sadly things could be dangerous in confrontation, and hiding in the rear cab is easiest for the guards. 150/1s must be lifesavers at night!

[Jim]

Sadly things could be dangerous in confrontation, and hiding in the rear cab is easiest for the guards. 150/1s must be lifesavers at night!

They are anywhen for crew!

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

sorry i know im going threw all the old topics but i find them interesting, if half of the behavior described here happened on the streets most police officers would be there ... i hope anyway i have seen it happen and they would be moved on or if they dont move taken to the cell for the night but on the railways in lets face it a saftey critical environment drunks are alowed to do what ever they want its wrong, i think drinking should only be alowed on intercity trains and drinking on platforms and local services banned

[Tim]

sorry i know im going threw all the old topics but i find them interesting, if half of the behavior described here happened on the streets most police officers would be there ... i hope anyway i have seen it happen and they would be moved on or if they dont move taken to the cell for the night but on the railways in lets face it a saftey critical environment drunks are alowed to do what ever they want its wrong, i think drinking should only be alowed on intercity trains and drinking on platforms and local services banned

No no no.  Don't ban drinking.  Just enforce the existing ban on disorderly drunkeness. 

BTW^▸ (by the way).  Can someone post the BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) number on this website.  I'm going to follow Vacmann's suggestion of reporting these incidents in future.

[TerminalJunkie]

0800 40 50 40 - http://www.btp.police.uk/default.aspx

[G.Uard]

Late night turns, especially between larger towns with pubs and clubs etc and the sticks can be a nightmare.  Personally, I always try to weed out potential troublemakers at the main station, where at least I have a dispatcher or two for back-up.  For the safety of myself and my passengers, I always attempt to exclude those who are obviously inebriated.  Even in my short career, I have refused to take a train out when it has been invaded by drunken yobs.  Fortunately, we were in a major station and cavalry soon arrived to persuade the merrymakers that they were not travelling.  However, I am the first to admit that this is not always possible.  

At such times, being a guard can be a thankless and even dangerous job.  Perhaps those who raise the issue of not having a ticket checked will realise that guards' duties are safety critical and that we are first and foremost, responsible for the safety of our passengers.

[Tim]

One thing that annoys me about ticket barriers is that despite FGW^▸ (First Great Western) saying that they reduce antisocial behaviour they are left open in the late evening.  If we had more of them manned into the evening, fewer drunken yobs would reach the platform (where they are in danger of falling off the edge which isn't nice for the drivers who hit them or for the poor s*ds who have to clean up the resultant mess) and the trains.  If you excluded everyone who was visibly very drunk and everyone without a ticket from the platform the Guard's problems would be halved.

Any threatening situation whether it be verbal abuse or serious assult is much better happening at a station than on a train.  Escape routes, police and (in the worst case) ambulances are much closer at hand.

Perhaps if the Guard's refused to move trains more often and passngers routinely pulled the cord when they felt threatened by yobs, you would get an impact on FGW's performance statistics sufficient for them to take notice (after all keeping a yob off a train must be a cheaper way of improving performance than the engineering work required to lift a TSR^▸ (Temporary Speed Restriction) - this is the kind of logic that appeals to the bean-counters).  If the consensus amoung both staff and passengers is that this is a serious problem then it could be solved by the rail unions and passenger groups working together to get BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) and FGW to take it seriously (ticketless travel has been tackled because it is a financial problem for the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) - anti-social behavious needs to become a cause of similar finacial problems for TOCs before they will take it seriously).  The unions need to encourage passengers to complain to FGW and report every incident to BTP.  In turn the passengers need to understand that the Guard is free to stop a train that he judges is safety0-comprimised by drunkards (I would hope that most passengers would be sympathetic to this if only it could be communicated to them right in order to break through the anti FGW attitude that many passenegrs have).

ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC)) (and I suspect other TOCs) do not pay passenger compensation for delays caused by antisocial behaviour (an idiot repeatedly pulling the communication cord on the Cardiff Manchester service I used in December for example attracted no compensation depite my being 1 hour late as a result).  I also suspect that they are allowed to exclude such incidents from performance stats as delays "outside the control of the railway"(is this true?).  Whilst these arrangement do have the appearance of being fair to the TOCs it does remove two incentives from them to sort out the problem and I would argue that the exceptions should be lifted.
 

[devon_metro]

Late night turns, especially between larger towns with pubs and clubs etc and the sticks can be a nightmare.  Personally, I always try to weed out potential troublemakers at the main station, where at least I have a dispatcher or two for back-up.  For the safety of myself and my passengers, I always attempt to exclude those who are obviously inebriated.  Even in my short career, I have refused to take a train out when it has been invaded by drunken yobs.  Fortunately, we were in a major station and cavalry soon arrived to persuade the merrymakers that they were not travelling.  However, I am the first to admit that this is not always possible.  

At such times, being a guard can be a thankless and even dangerous job.  Perhaps those who raise the issue of not having a ticket checked will realise that guards' duties are safety critical and that we are first and foremost, responsible for the safety of our passengers.

One benefit of the 150 class then, doors can be opened from non passenger compartment.

[Phil]

For the safety of myself and my passengers, I always attempt to exclude those who are obviously inebriated.

Am I alone in being slightly concerned by this? If it's a personal decision then I'm perfectly happy to respect your choice; but if it's company policy to "exclude anyone who is obviously inebriated" from boarding a train, then I'm not too sure I like it.

Speaking as a father of a twenty-something year old daughter who to the best of my knowledge has never been in, let alone, caused any serious trouble over the past few years but who nevertheless goes out with girlfriends on public transport on a regular basis, has a good time and occasionally comes home (shall we say) fairly merry, I would feel a lot happier knowing that guards on trains extended their duty of care to both themselves and their passengers to include young ladies who have perhaps had one or two too many, than having to worry that there is a blanket ban imposed on anyone obviously inebriated boarding the train, leaving her stranded, potentially alone, late at night with little chance of getting home.

Clarification would be appreciated, please?

[devon_metro]

Its completely down to the guard. I'm fairly sure a group of girls wouldn't be excluded as threatening.

[Phil]

Cheers, d_m. I had a feeling common sense would prevail, but my training is such that I tend to take written statements  literally, so I just wanted to check

[G.Uard]

   Railway Byelaw 4 (1) provides that :-

"No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication."

Although my post could, at a pinch, have been taken to indicate otherwise, I was referring to our powers to exclude intoxicated persons who present such behaviour as to cause disquiet or fear on the part of staff and/or passengers and/or who may pose a clear threat to their own safety and/or that of others.  No one that I know wishes to persecute the odd reveller(s) who has/have had one too many and the decision to exclude or remove anyone from a train is not one which is taken lightly.  We are not policemen, merely railway staff attempting to provide a public service. 

With regard to 'duty of care', I accept that it extends to both passengers and staff, but should not include those who pose a threat as detailed above. If in doubt, unless in the direst emergency, a quick call to Control will provide valuable clarification and instruction on how to proceed.

I should also state that these are my own views and interpretation of Railway Byelaws.  They are not intended to convey FGW^▸ (First Great Western) policy or practice.

[inspector_blakey]

G.Uard it's pretty difficult to argue with any of what you've said here. I've seen some fairly appalling behaviour on trains (one of the worst seems to be the last BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) service on a Saturday evening, which even though it leaves Bristol relatively early at 2233 always seems to have its fair share of loud and offensive passengers in an advanced state of inebriation). I don't think any reasonable person would expect the guard to try and check tickets at the same time as dealing the unruly pax. It's always struck me that it would make sense to roster two guards on those later trains, but of course that would cost extra money.