Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Union investigation into the Graffiti Artists deaths
I know this isn't news, but it might well be soon.
if this is true, then London Underground should be held to account.
As an aside to this, I was told some years ago, by a senior manager, that running the trains to time, was more important than picking up passengers.
According to information obtained by the union, the presence of people on the line had already been reported to the District Line control room by a train operator, but the usual warning to drivers to proceed at an appropriate speed was not issued.
The train which struck the two men was travelling at its normal speed when the fatal incident occurred, at approximately 23:00on January 12.
RMT also understands that the electric current remained switched on for the 15 to 20 minutes it took for the police to attend the scene. Normal practice in such circumstances is for the current to be switched off.
The operator, understandably in shock, had been unable to leave his cab to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those who had been hit. However, during this period RMT understands that the train operator was put under intense pressure to move the train regardless, and eventually did so.
In a subsequent debriefing the union understands that the operator was pressured to say that he had moved the train because he had felt threatened by the presence of others on the track, although the driver maintained that he felt coerced by the control room to move it.
if this is true, then London Underground should be held to account.
As an aside to this, I was told some years ago, by a senior manager, that running the trains to time, was more important than picking up passengers.
According to information obtained by the union, the presence of people on the line had already been reported to the District Line control room by a train operator, but the usual warning to drivers to proceed at an appropriate speed was not issued.
The train which struck the two men was travelling at its normal speed when the fatal incident occurred, at approximately 23:00on January 12.
RMT also understands that the electric current remained switched on for the 15 to 20 minutes it took for the police to attend the scene. Normal practice in such circumstances is for the current to be switched off.
The operator, understandably in shock, had been unable to leave his cab to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those who had been hit. However, during this period RMT understands that the train operator was put under intense pressure to move the train regardless, and eventually did so.
In a subsequent debriefing the union understands that the operator was pressured to say that he had moved the train because he had felt threatened by the presence of others on the track, although the driver maintained that he felt coerced by the control room to move it.
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lonnie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
cont
According to information obtained by the union, the presence of people on the line had already been reported to the District Line control room by a train operator, but the usual warning to drivers to proceed at an appropriate speed was not issued.
The train which struck the two men was travelling at its normal speed when the fatal incident occurred, at approximately 23:00on January 12.
RMT also understands that the electric current remained switched on for the 15 to 20 minutes it took for the police to attend the scene. Normal practice in such circumstances is for the current to be switched off.
The operator, understandably in shock, had been unable to leave his cab to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those who had been hit. However, during this period RMT understands that the train operator was put under intense pressure to move the train regardless, and eventually did so.
In a subsequent debriefing the union understands that the operator was pressured to say that he had moved the train because he had felt threatened by the presence of others on the track, although the driver maintained that he felt coerced by the control room to move it.
According to information obtained by the union, the presence of people on the line had already been reported to the District Line control room by a train operator, but the usual warning to drivers to proceed at an appropriate speed was not issued.
The train which struck the two men was travelling at its normal speed when the fatal incident occurred, at approximately 23:00on January 12.
RMT also understands that the electric current remained switched on for the 15 to 20 minutes it took for the police to attend the scene. Normal practice in such circumstances is for the current to be switched off.
The operator, understandably in shock, had been unable to leave his cab to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those who had been hit. However, during this period RMT understands that the train operator was put under intense pressure to move the train regardless, and eventually did so.
In a subsequent debriefing the union understands that the operator was pressured to say that he had moved the train because he had felt threatened by the presence of others on the track, although the driver maintained that he felt coerced by the control room to move it.
Of course if the idiots had not been there vandalizing the trains in the first place there would have been no problem at all.
Do you expect us to have sympathy with them.
They four men doing it were not young kids but men in their late teens (19) and early 20s.
I am sick of morons like this behaving in such an anti-social way and people like you trying to put the blame on everybody else.
They had no right to be there, they got hit by a train, tough luck.
Do you expect us to have sympathy with them.
They four men doing it were not young kids but men in their late teens (19) and early 20s.
I am sick of morons like this behaving in such an anti-social way and people like you trying to put the blame on everybody else.
They had no right to be there, they got hit by a train, tough luck.
Lonnie, despite our general disagreements on most things, I'm with you on this.
Having 'one under' is a traumatic occurence for any operator. Having pressure to continue operating in an event such a this (whether they should or should not "have been there in the first place" is irrelevant), is out of order.
Whether it's PPP management and profitability, or fear that the Evening Fasc.... err...Standard will run a headline about delays being caused by the "Wrong Kind Of Body" should not dictate whether a unit is moved immediately after an incident like that. That is entirely between the operator and the emergency services (if, and when) at the scene.
What's you opinion, rather than the cut-and-paste Union release?
Having 'one under' is a traumatic occurence for any operator. Having pressure to continue operating in an event such a this (whether they should or should not "have been there in the first place" is irrelevant), is out of order.
Whether it's PPP management and profitability, or fear that the Evening Fasc.... err...Standard will run a headline about delays being caused by the "Wrong Kind Of Body" should not dictate whether a unit is moved immediately after an incident like that. That is entirely between the operator and the emergency services (if, and when) at the scene.
What's you opinion, rather than the cut-and-paste Union release?
Hi brachiopod,
Thanks for your agreement, now my opinion, and i've been working for this company for over twentyfive years, is that it could well be true,.
I know of numerous incidents where the controllers have pressured, or tried to pressure the driver, with disasterous consequences, mainly for the driver.
The thing is, the driver is the man or woman on the spot, safety is paramount, and his/her actions are what counts.
Although the driver, believing he had hit someone, should not, under any circumstances moved his train, he is the person with the knowledge that he'd probably just killed someone, and with that state of mind, yielded to the pressure from above.
All telephone and radio calls to the controllers are recorded, so it certainly looks like the union has managed to get a copy.
That being so, In this case, and I have no remit with Mr Crowe, (too militant for me), I would tend to believe it.
The unfortanate thing, is that the controllers are very rarely held to account, and the driver nearly always ends up at fault.
Thanks for your agreement, now my opinion, and i've been working for this company for over twentyfive years, is that it could well be true,.
I know of numerous incidents where the controllers have pressured, or tried to pressure the driver, with disasterous consequences, mainly for the driver.
The thing is, the driver is the man or woman on the spot, safety is paramount, and his/her actions are what counts.
Although the driver, believing he had hit someone, should not, under any circumstances moved his train, he is the person with the knowledge that he'd probably just killed someone, and with that state of mind, yielded to the pressure from above.
All telephone and radio calls to the controllers are recorded, so it certainly looks like the union has managed to get a copy.
That being so, In this case, and I have no remit with Mr Crowe, (too militant for me), I would tend to believe it.
The unfortanate thing, is that the controllers are very rarely held to account, and the driver nearly always ends up at fault.
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.