Depends what they've done. Passing through a red light has little impact because the train gets stopped anyway.

I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have very minor impacts, if any.

In message , at 19:27:14 on
Tue, 10 May 2011, Steve Gardiner remarked:

Depends what they've done. Passing through a red light has little impact
because the train gets stopped anyway.

Not if the safety device which does that stopping has been disabled.

I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have
very minor impacts, if any.

And some may cause big impacts (eg with the train in front).
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:27:14 on
Tue, 10 May 2011, Steve Gardiner remarked:

Depends what they've done. Passing through a red light has little impact
because the train gets stopped anyway.

Not if the safety device which does that stopping has been disabled.

I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have
very minor impacts, if any.

And some may cause big impacts (eg with the train in front).
--
Roland Perry

Compare the RMT's actions with this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

Kevin

On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:50 +0100
"Zen83237" wrote:
Compare the RMT's actions with this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

I hate using cliches but you really couldn't make that one up. What sort of
utter idiots are they hiring for railway management positions?

B2003

In message , at 12:53:50 on
Wed, 11 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked:
Compare the RMT's actions with this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

Are you alluding to the apparent lack of union support for this chap?

What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley
was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken,
which would not have infringed the rules.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:17:36 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:53:50 on
Wed, 11 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked:
Compare the RMT's actions with this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

Are you alluding to the apparent lack of union support for this chap?

What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley
was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken,
which would not have infringed the rules.

Whatever the situation, sacking a man for carrying out what he presumably
thought was an action to prevent a possible incident is just vindictive. It
smacks of management using their powers simply because they can.

B2003

But this is impossible as one part of the device sits on the track and the other part of the device is on the underside of the train - and there are many of them so even if one is disabled the others still work. The driver does not have access to this system.

Yes there are big potential risks on the railway, but this may not have been one of them. It's unlikely that the driver can do anything that will lead to an actual collision as far as I know. But again - I do not know the facts around this particular case, so, unlie others, will not jump to any conclusions.

In message , at 12:51:20 on Wed, 11 May
2011, d remarked:
What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley
was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken,
which would not have infringed the rules.

Whatever the situation, sacking a man for carrying out what he presumably
thought was an action to prevent a possible incident is just vindictive. It
smacks of management using their powers simply because they can.

Don't be silly. If someone breaks the rules like this, you can't let
them off because they thought breaking the rule was OK. That's anarchy,
especially in a safety-critical industry like railways.

I note you've ignored the possibility of other ways to prevent an
accident.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:48:31 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Whatever the situation, sacking a man for carrying out what he presumably
thought was an action to prevent a possible incident is just vindictive. It
smacks of management using their powers simply because they can.

Don't be silly. If someone breaks the rules like this, you can't let
them off because they thought breaking the rule was OK. That's anarchy,
especially in a safety-critical industry like railways.

And what if a train had come and derailed while he was finding other
ways to solve the problem? Sometimes rules need to be broken if they get
in the way.

Perhaps you think those idiot plods not diving into a pond the other year to
save someone because it was against the rules was a good idea given that
the victim drowned?

B2003

On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:20:17 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
People like you are everything thats wrong with britain today.

Absolutely. If kids want to work as chimney sweeps rather than go to
school, who are we to stop them?

Straw man. Or should that be child?

Any rule that states that no one no matter what shall do anything on the
railway without prior permission even if doing so could prevent a derailment
is a rule that needs to be re-thought. Do you think 50 years ago a station
master would have waited for health and safety clearance before he removed
an obstruction from the line?

B2003