Train Guard Jailed

Stigy

Clicky

Interested to see others' views on this one. Although obviously the facts do often get twisted, from the outset a 5-year sentence in clink seems a tad harsh here. The Guard has obviously lost his job which probably paid around £30,000 a year, and is now sharing accommodation with rapists and murderers.

The young girl was drunk and 'drugged' so shouldn't have been on the railway anyway. Yes the Guard should have realised she was leaning on the train, but he didn't (obviously, after departure.....). To say he was in sole control is incorrect once the train is on the move, although I'm not sure if the emergency brake can be activated from the back/centre cab (non-driving cab). I'm sure we have a driver here somewhere that can confirm or deny?

Either way, I'm pretty sure if he saw her falling, he'd have stopped the train in some way or another!

He shouldn't have dispatched the train in the first place, but hindsight's a wonderful thing.

daveyjp

Its a simple test. Did the guard do as he should have given the circumstances he was presented with?

He didn't know she was drunk or drugged, he did know she was leaning on the train, the picture in the link shows him looking and I'm sure CCTV gives a much fuller sequence of events.

The guard does have sole control prior to the train moving. Without a signal the driver won't pull off. The signal indicates all doors are closed and locked and no one is in danger of being injured when the train begins moving.

He did send a signal for the train to stop after he saw her fall. The train had gone 33m

Gross failure of a duty of care.

Stigy

No

daveyjp wrote: »

Its a simple test. Did the guard do as he should have given the circumstances he was presented with?

He didn't know she was drunk or drugged, he did know she was leaning on the train, the picture in the link shows him looking and I'm sure CCTV gives a much fuller sequence of events.

The guard does have sole control prior to the train moving. Without a signal the driver won't pull off. The signal indicates all doors are closed and locked and no one is in danger of being injured when the train begins moving.

He did send a signal for the train to stop after he saw her fall. The train had gone 33m

Gross failure of a duty of care.

I know the Guard has sole control prior to moving, I was refering to once the train had departed. I'm sure the Guard knew, given his experience that she was at least under the influence of something.

You say that the signal sent to the driver indicates that nobody is in danger, that is incorrect on most modern trains. I appreciate in this case he was looking out of the window. What if there isn't a window that can be opened? How is the Guard supposed to know that there's no danger once he has closed the doors?

Guards see this every Friday night, and I think the travelling public need to take more responsibility for their actions, afterall, it is an offence to be drunk on the railway.

[Deleted User]

Yes, although not such a harsh one!

I don't know about this.

If it were my family member that was killed I'd think exactly the same.

BUT if it were my family member that was now in prison, I'd strongly disagree, I think the law can be very unfair, we have seen government officers get away with similar failures, but now we see this.

It's a really really bad situation for all involved, I do feel for everyone in this such unfortunate case.

timbo58

The facts are: a jury of his peers has convicted him of the offence.

That should be good enough for everyone not fully au fait with all of the facts.
He failed in his main role -that of 'guard' by allowing the train to set off when it wasn't safe to do so.
Yes, the accident was not all his fault, however he was sober and compus mentis and (most importantly of all) his whole reason for being at the rear of the train and signalling the driver to start from the station was that of safety.
BTW he didn't stop the train after 33metres, I don't know where that 'fact' came from, if she fell down the side of the train as other reports show the train doesn't even look 33m long in total? The train also would have barely gone 10m by the time the emergency brake would have been activated surely?

The whole thing is a total tragedy: a girl lost her life and a man has ruined his, all for the sake of drink/drugs and not regarding safety as paramount.

Hasbeen

No

daveyjp wrote: »

Its a simple test. Did the guard do as he should have given the circumstances he was presented with?

He didn't know she was drunk or drugged, he did know she was leaning on the train, the picture in the link shows him looking and I'm sure CCTV gives a much fuller sequence of events.

The guard does have sole control prior to the train moving. Without a signal the driver won't pull off. The signal indicates all doors are closed and locked and no one is in danger of being injured when the train begins moving.

He did send a signal for the train to stop after he saw her fall. The train had gone 33m

Gross failure of a duty of care.

If i am correct?
In these trains the door controls are operated from the vestible.
Guard stands on platform ensures no one is late entering or leaving, then closes all doors except the one he is at.

Once all clear he closes that door.
Guard did testify that she had moved away prior to closing last door.

Signal to driver to depart, closes door control panel and moves into back cab where there is an opening window to observe platform.

He sees girl back banging on/leaning on side of train rushes back to controls and gives emergency stop signal (to late)

Up to a few years ago it was mandatory to remain at door controls to give emergency signal, this requirement was done away with by the Train Company's in the rule book.
I was surprised to even see guard was looking out of window as there is no rules to even do this.

Re above it would be more helpful to see actually what happened rather than one picture which shows at the moment wrongly the guard not at the best re public opinion.

Perhaps railway/train expert could correct or comment?

Votes split at the moment at 4 each

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Yes

Stigy wrote: »

Clicky

Interested to see others' views on this one. Although obviously the facts do often get twisted, from the outset a 5-year sentence in clink seems a tad harsh here. He was charged with manslaughter which brings that sort of sentence.

The Guard has obviously lost his job which probably paid around £30,000 a year, and is now sharing accommodation with rapists and murderers.so you know which jail he is going to then?

The young girl was drunk and 'drugged' so shouldn't have been on the railway anyway. So are many thousands of people each week as you well know in your job so do you turf out everyone of your passengers if they are drunk? No I didnt think so.

Yes the Guard should have realised she was leaning on the train, but he didn't (obviously, after departure.....). He was looking directly at her when he gave the signal to move off

To say he was in sole control is incorrect once the train is on the move, although I'm not sure if the emergency brake can be activated from the back/centre cab (non-driving cab). I'm sure we have a driver here somewhere that can confirm or deny? Yes he can give a signal to the drive r to stop - which is what he done IIRC

Either way, I'm pretty sure if he saw her falling, he'd have stopped the train in some way or another!

He shouldn't have dispatched the train in the first place, but hindsight's a wonderful thing.

Isnt it.

Stigy wrote: »

I know the Guard has sole control prior to moving, I was refering to once the train had departed. I'm sure the Guard knew, given his experience that she was at least under the influence of something.

Well if thats the case then he shouldve known not to give the signal to start then shouldnt he.

Hasbeen wrote: »

If i am correct?
In these trains the door controls are operated from the vestible.
Guard stands on platform ensures no one is late entering or leaving, then closes all doors except the one he is at.

Once all clear he closes that door.
Guard did testify that she had moved away prior to closing last door.Was released in court that he changed this statement as CCTV proved it not true.

Signal to driver to depart, closes door control panel and moves into back cab where there is an opening window to observe platform.The door control panel is right by the window he is looking out of for this very reason to ensure a safe dispatch

He sees girl back banging on/leaning on side of train rushes back to controls and gives emergency stop signal (to late)Doesnt have to rush anywhere on those units as the controls are right beside where he is leaning out of so his fingers should always be on the panel when carrying out his dispatch duties

Up to a few years ago it was mandatory to remain at door controls to give emergency signal, this requirement was done away with by the Train Company's in the rule book.Has it now? Could you show me where this was removed from the rule book as I dont believe you. In fact it is still in the rule book IIRC for trains that have guards and not DOO
I was surprised to even see guard was looking out of window as there is no rules to even do this.Yes, yes there are

Re above it would be more helpful to see actually what happened rather than one picture which shows at the moment wrongly the guard not at the best re public opinion.This still was taken from the 30 second of CCTV footage shown to the court during the trial, also which showed her leaning against the door all the time and he was looking at her - even when he gave the signal to move.

Perhaps railway/train expert could correct or comment?

Votes split at the moment at 4 each

opinions4u

The pictures looked pretty clear cut to me. That train shouldn't have moved and that's the fault of the guard. Whether or not it's manslaughter is another debate. But he's been tried in front of his 12 peers who have decided it is.

That girl should also never have been drugged and drunk either. But she's not the only 16 year old ever to get in that state.

We all have a basic duty of care to our fellow humans.

Tragic for all concerned.

Stigy

No

OOf course the Guard could have refused her travel when he initially saw her board the train...what would have then happened if she was attacked? Nothing legally, although it's not uncommon for staff to be sacked after such incidents...would her parents have been satisfied that she was too drunk to be on the railway? Probably not. Can't win really.

Intalex_2

I don't know how I feel about this one. I do feel sorry for the guard, 5 years, really? The photo doesn't really show very much though, is their a video CCTV of it anywhere? It just looks as though she's waiving her friends goodbye.

Hasbeen

No

Thankyou to Jeff Bridges Hairs reply. Is this an opinion or experts. Can you give us your relevant experience? I have none only an opinion. Which when wrong will amend given correct info. That is why I left it open for a railway expert to correct.

Originally Posted by Hasbeen
If i am correct?
In these trains the door controls are operated from the vestible.
Guard stands on platform ensures no one is late entering or leaving, then closes all doors except the one he is at.

Once all clear he closes that door.
Guard did testify that she had moved away prior to closing last door.Was released in court that he changed this statement as CCTV proved it not true.

Can you show us where this is reported?


Signal to driver to depart, closes door control panel and moves into back cab where there is an opening window to observe platform.The door control panel is right by the window he is looking out of for this very reason to ensure a safe dispatch

What type of unit is this? I have only ever seen Guards at vestible doors


He sees girl back banging on/leaning on side of train rushes back to controls and gives emergency stop signal (to late)Doesnt have to rush anywhere on those units as the controls are right beside where he is leaning out of so his fingers should always be on the panel when carrying out his dispatch duties

As above what type of unit is this?

Up to a few years ago it was mandatory to remain at door controls to give emergency signal, this requirement was done away with by the Train Company's in the rule book.Has it now? Could you show me where this was removed from the rule book as I dont believe you. In fact it is still in the rule book IIRC for trains that have guards and not DOO

Sorry you do not believe me. Removed in Oct 2007. For power operated doors. Please see RSSB Site GERT8000/SS1 Rule book section 8.3
Where they removed, Remain at door until train has passed clear of platform


8.3

Starting a train with power-operated

doors that are operated by a guard

You must close the doors, except the local door from where the
train is being worked.
After the train doors are closed
When you have closed the doors, you must:
•

where appropriate, check the door interlock light is lit

•

position yourself on the platform so that you can see the whole

length of the train.

From this position, you must carry out the train safety check.
If it is safe for the train to start, you must:
•

close the local door

•

where appropriate, check the door interlock light is lit

•

give the READY-TO-START signal to the driver

•

make sure the door controls are secured.

I was surprised to even see guard was looking out of window as there is no rules to even do this.Yes, yes there are

Please point us to the relevent part of the up to date rule book
From site Train Duties and Despatch

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Rule%20Book%20Modules/SS%20-%20Station%20Working%20and%20Shunting/GERT8000-SS1%20Iss%202.pdf

Re above it would be more helpful to see actually what happened rather than one picture which shows at the moment wrongly the guard not at the best re public opinion.This still was taken from the 30 second of CCTV footage shown to the court during the trial, also which showed her leaning against the door all the time and he was looking at her - even when he gave the signal to move.

Sorry! did not see that bit, can you point out court statement or is this taken from the so called news papers

Perhaps railway/train expert could correct or comment?