TBirdFrank wrote:
It provides, sadly, the best reason for having your own private
transport if you are out late at night, or arranging to travel in a
group.

Having a post-pubs train service is a good thing. You obviously have
to expect a different atmosphere on a train full of people who have
mostly had a drink to that on a morning commuter train, but by and
large it's trouble-free, if, at times, raucous.

Incidents where it gets really threatening are, fortunately, pretty
rare. As for being in a group, it would be no bad thing if people were
a bit less insular - it would provide a lot of deterrance to the odd
troublemaker if they knew that the rest of the passengers would back
each other up.


As a bloke I never worried about travelling, late or exceedingly early
hours when younger, but as a dad, if my daughter's college activities
require her to be on campus late I would rather she gets a B & B up
there rather than taking a Preston M/cr - Manchester Hadfield late at
night.

I'm surprised that your daughter makes such a journey. I've always
thought that living away from home was an important part of higher
education. It's what makes it more than just 'more school'.


And they call this progress ........... sheeesh!

"TBirdFrank" wrote in message
ups.com...
It provides, sadly, the best reason for having your own private
transport if you are out late at night, or arranging to travel in a
group.

As a bloke I never worried about travelling, late or exceedingly early
hours when younger, but as a dad, if my daughter's college activities
require her to be on campus late I would rather she gets a B & B up
there rather than taking a Preston M/cr - Manchester Hadfield late at
night.

And they call this progress ........... sheeesh!

I wouldn't expect any problems on Local Trains, they are for Local People.


--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"
(For membership email... )
"Leave the Mobile Phone at home day Oct 25th 2006"

In message . com, at
16:49:14 on Sat, 7 Oct 2006, remarked:
Of course, the driver may have been female,
in which case it was probably netter for the two male staff to deal
with the problem. In any case, where there is a risk of injury to
staff, it makes sense to minimise that risk to the person who can drive
the train.

That is perhaps more of an argument for reviewing the use of DOO trains
on that route, at that time of day (or indeed female-D OO trains on that
route at that time of day).
--
Roland Perry

I'm surprised that your daughter makes such a journey. I've always
thought that living away from home was an important part of higher
education. It's what makes it more than just 'more school'.

She has for some courses - but student loans dear boy, student loans

I wouldn't expect any problems on Local Trains, they are for Local People.

Ah - but Ken - as she gets off before Royston Vasey, she never has to
leave!

wrote:
As there was a child involved I would have called the police in any
case. I'm not sure that pulling the alarm achieved much. Why did you
choose that course of action?

Because I thought I'd get to speak to the driver, who could call the
police (which is what I said I'd do). The train DID stop, but when
reset we continued to Hatfield and a) nobody had been called b) the
doors were opened to let any offender off.

With hindsight (a wonderful thing) I should have called 999. I wrongly
assumed the passenger alarm was the thing to go for (the new stickers
DO say to use it for illness, harrassment etc).

To clarify a few more things;

1) The driver was male (I saw him as I was already sitting on the
train).

2) BTP at Kings Cross, where I've been asked to go next week to make a
full statement, confirmed the two people would have been security
guards (she mentioned the name of the company, but I don't remember it)
on contract with First Capital Connect.

3) As I had no lasting injury, they were very keen to dissuade me from
going any further. I declined to let it go. The main part of the report
will be on the woman that assaulted me - not so much the action of the
train operator or hired guards - which I'll try and get an explanation
of from First.

4) The BTP woman I spoke to yesterday admitted she wouldn't travel on
the late services from Kings Cross because they have all sorts of
trouble. Makes you think!

I can understand that. Given that you had already been involved in an
altercation with them, having you go back near them to give your
version of events was only ever going to exacerbate the situation.

Yes, this wasn't wise. However, the guards needed to know WHY I'd
pulled the alarm, as I am sure (as mentioned) that they thought it was
because I was drunk.

Once again, as there is a child involved, I'd have dialled 999. So far
as railway staff are concerned, why would you wish to speak to the
driver, rather than the members of staff with whom you dealt?

If you call for aid, the driver can arrange for BTP to meet the train.
I never got that chance. The alarm was reset and the train continued
without any intention of calling the police. So, while saying I was
going to call the police, the guards had other ideas. I did call as
soon as I got home instead, to report the assault on myself, rather
than to deal with the incident on the train. Threatening to kill people
is an arrestable offence as far as I am aware.

I think that you are probably right, but you could still report it to
Hertfordshire Police. There is still the issue that there is a couple
who were behaving aggressively and drunkenly while responsible for a
child. Is there CCTV in the area? If so, you might still get afollow
up, particularly if the couple are known to the police locally. It
would have been better to act at the time, but it's still not too late.

No CCTV on 365s (ironic as the older stock now does) and no CCTV at
Hatfield. Possibly something of where they boarded at Kings Cross of
Finsbury Park. I am quite hopeful that the police will identify them.

I realise that you are upset, but that's bad advice. If decent people
don't try to help what chance is there? The likelihood is that the
people who were being abused and threatened prior to your involvement
are, in fact, grateful to you, just as, I am sure, you would be
grateful to someone who intervened to try to help you.

I am always being told off for getting involved, with the point made
that one day I'll be put in hospital - or worse. This is the nearest
things have come to it happening, so I'm sorry but much as I have a
conscience, I don't think I can see myself ever getting involved again.
No wonder so many others in society won't. I recall the stories of
people murdered for getting yobs to stop throwing stones, damaging
property etc.

As a matter of interest, how do you think that this should have
beenhandled?

The police should have been asked to attend. Yes, it would have annoyed
other passengers wanting to get home. Yes, it may have caused First to
have a late train arrival at Peterborough. The police need to be aware
of this 'family' that could well carry out their threats in the future
on myself or anyone else they don't get on with.

I've got a chance to speak to the police this week (and will be), and
also to pass my concerns about the security company used with First at
a later date.

Jonathan

jonmorris wrote:

I reported everything by telephone to British Transport Police, and
await an explanation from FCC. BTP were concerned by this, but I'm
not holding out much hope of them getting to the bottom of things. I
don't know who the people were who claimed to be working for the
railway, and never got to speak to the driver.

http://www.documentcapture.co.uk/forms/btp_2006.htm

BTP are running a survey about crime on the railway. You should forward
your observations.

Roland Perry wrote:

That is perhaps more of an argument for reviewing the use of DOO trains
on that route, at that time of day (or indeed female-D OO trains on that
route at that time of day).

I wouldn't say so. A single guard is as likely to avoid the situation
due to danger to himself as the driver is.

What it might be an argument for is the abolition of the BTP and its
replacement with local force jurisdiction, as I expect it would have
been a lot easier to have local plod waiting for the train in such an
instance, which would have been the ideal situation.

Neil

TBirdFrank wrote:

And they call this progress ........... sheeesh!

No, they call it the faster spread of news. Without this NG, none of
us would ever have heard of this incident, nor of any other similar
ones.

I have never, ever, in many journeys over many years, encountered
anything I'd think to be remotely threatening on a late-night train.
I've seen drunk people, silliness, high spirits and such, but never
anything seriously threatening. Most late-night trains I've been on
have been quiet and subdued, while others (such as the last run to
Buxton on a Friday night) almost feel like a social club.

While this incident raises major questions in how it was handled, I'd
think that was fairly good odds, and I really wouldn't worry.

Neil

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message . com,
at 16:49:14 on Sat, 7 Oct 2006,
remarked:
Of course, the driver may have been female,
in which case it was probably netter for the two male staff to deal
with the problem. In any case, where there is a risk of injury to
staff, it makes sense to minimise that risk to the person who can
drive the train.

That is perhaps more of an argument for reviewing the use of DOO
trains on that route, at that time of day (or indeed female-D OO
trains on that route at that time of day).

Not really. It's why WAGN introduced security guards and First (they
claim) use their own security staff.

--
Colin Rosenstiel