I think the main reason that the tribunal decided he shouldn't have been
sacked was more to do with the poor way that LU handled the whole
disciplinary affair than anything else. Running with a tripcock cut out
and no second person in the cab could have serious safety consequences in
the same way that an aggravated SPAD could.

Often the outcome of an aggravated SPAD is the sack, although an appeal
may mean that the driver is taken back by the company, but reduced in
grade (usually to station assistant) with the pay for that lower grade.
The ex driver may then be able to apply for a driver's job after one or
two years (depending on the ruling). Again, depending on the ruling, the
driver may have to actually "join the queue" of new applicants for a
driver's job rather than automatically go back to his driving position.

From what was in the paper, LU have said they're taking him back, but not
as a driver. The MT has said that it won't affect his standard of living,
so it can only be assumed that he has gone to a different grade, but is
retaining his driver's rate of pay.

Roger


*From:* Paul Terry
*Date:* Wed, 11 May 2011 19:20:10 +0100

In message , Roland Perry
writes

You must have missed this posting a couple of days ago:

"Basically, the driver deliberately ran the train with a
safety
device (the tripcock) cut out without a second person in
the
cab. The tripcock is part of the safety system that stops
the
train if it goes past a red signal. A driver must ALWAYS
have a
second person in the cab if the Tripcock is defective."

Full report (see para 37 onwards):

Nevertheless, the tribunal (and now TfL, by reinstating the
employee) seem to have decided that this was not after all a
sackable offence, especially given the precedent that another
driver had done the same but with a train in public service, and he
merely received a warning.
--
Paul Terry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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

I alluding to the fact that the tube train driver knowingly breached safety
rules and the RMT are ****ed that the driver was sacked for infringing
safety rules. This guy got sacked but I don't see anybody striking to have
him reinstated, but then he is not a driver.

In message , Steve Gardiner
writes

Walking on the track without prior arrangement is really not acceptable.

But he had made prior arrangement. He had phoned the Brockenhurst Signal
Box and asked them to turn off the power before he retrieved the
trolley.

He should have phoned up and reported the trolley

Which is exactly what he did. His own words are quoted in today's
Telegraph:

"I considered it an emergency and therefore phoned the signal box in
Brockenhurst and asked them to turn off the power so I could retrieve
the trolley.

"I was trying to prevent a rail accident and believe I followed
procedure.

"Once I was informed the power was off I went onto the track and removed
the trolley and a few other small pieces, such as tin cans. I thought
nothing of it.

SWT have made no comment, and are not likely to now that an Employment
Tribunal hearing is on the cards. However, it seems that he was fired
for walking on the track without being in possession of a Personal Track
Safety Certificate, something that very few platform staff have these
days.
--
Paul Terry

In message , at 19:20:10 on Wed, 11
May 2011, Paul Terry remarked:

You must have missed this posting a couple of days ago:

"Basically, the driver deliberately ran the train with a safety
device (the tripcock) cut out without a second person in the
cab. The tripcock is part of the safety system that stops the
train if it goes past a red signal. A driver must ALWAYS have a
second person in the cab if the Tripcock is defective."

Full report (see para 37 onwards):

Nevertheless, the tribunal (and now TfL, by reinstating the employee)
seem to have decided that this was not after all a sackable offence,
especially given the precedent that another driver had done the same
but with a train in public service, and he merely received a warning.

If you have time (I don't) to find that conclusion in the report (rather
than the tribunal criticising the procedures) then it would be worth
posting the paragraph numbers.

But I'm glad we agree that the tripcock was disabled by the driver,
which was the point of my posting. Steve Gardiner was saying this was
impossible.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:44:33 +0100
Steve Gardiner wrote:
Walking on the track without prior arrangement is really not acceptable.
the guy should really have known better. At the very least he needs to
go through his training again.

Well it turns out he DID call the signal box before doing it.

If the train was in imminent danger of hitting the trolley - and I can't
see a derailament occuring in this instance especially as trains usually
go pretty slow through stations - then the guy really was putting his

Do they? Perhaps you should stand at finsbury park one day when an
east coast express goes through.

own life at risk.

Thats his lookout.

Once you allow one guy to do this then you know there'll be others and
quickly lose control.

Utter crap.

He should have phoned up and reported the trolley - with instant

He did.

communications these days, and radios in trains the driver could easily
have been alerted, the train diverted or stopped and the power shut off
to allow for the trolley to be removed safely.

They told him it was and he did.

Incidentaly this has now made it to the radio and theres a local petition
to re-instate him.

I'd be interested to know given that the supervisor saw the guy on CCTV
removing the trolley, why the same supervisor didn't spot the trolley earlier
and get it sorted himself. Wouldn't surprise me if he's deflecting attention
from his own incompetence.

The attitude of people on here frankly disgusts me though its par for the
course in Britain today. I wouldn't hire any of you lot to run a bath.

B2003

On 2011\05\12 09:54, d wrote:

The attitude of people on here frankly disgusts me though its par for the
course in Britain today. I wouldn't hire any of you lot to run a bath.

Are you in a hiring and firing position, Boltar?

On Thu, 12 May 2011 10:04:53 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\05\12 09:54, d wrote:

The attitude of people on here frankly disgusts me though its par for the
course in Britain today. I wouldn't hire any of you lot to run a bath.

Are you in a hiring and firing position, Boltar?

I was responsible for interviewing and suggesting possible candidates at
a couple of jobs until I went self employed.

B2003

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:48:31PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
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.

According to the BBC report, he had the power turned off first. So what
*could* he have done differently? Had the trains stopped for several
hours because he thought there was a dangerous obstruction until someone
trained in the highly skilled art of moving trolleys was called?

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

OK, so he thinks there's a dangerous obstruction. Therefore he *must*
report it and *must* have the trains stopped until it's removed or
someone has verified that it is not dangerous. Did I miss anything?

Well, that's exactly what he seems to have done.

The only criticism I can think of is that maybe he didn't change into
some boots with decent ankle support and so he might have fallen and
twisted his ankle painfully on the ballast.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Planckton: n, the smallest possible living thing

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 03:04:07PM +0000, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , wrote:
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.
Wellingborough, 1898. A porter's trolley fell off the platform onto the
track. Instead of running to the signalbox to stop trains, two railway
employees tried to shift it. They failed, the express was derailed,
and five people and two staff were killed.

Sometimes, Boltar, there are reasons for rules and procedures ...

It's an electric line. He had the power turned off before going onto
the track. So unless you're positing time-travel-related accidents, I'm
afraid your risk is purely imaginary.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Today's previously unreported paraphilia is tomorrow's Internet sensation

In article ,
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 03:04:07PM +0000, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , wrote:
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.
Wellingborough, 1898. A porter's trolley fell off the platform onto the
track. Instead of running to the signalbox to stop trains, two railway
employees tried to shift it. They failed, the express was derailed,
and five people and two staff were killed.

Sometimes, Boltar, there are reasons for rules and procedures ...

It's an electric line. He had the power turned off before going onto
the track. So unless you're positing time-travel-related accidents, I'm
afraid your risk is purely imaginary.

Yup, I'd missed that he had rung the electrification control room (and
hopefully waited for the OK though we don't know that either !)

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996