Tonight:
5°c
Drunk train guard ignored red light and refused to let passengers off
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent9 Feb 2010
A drunken train guard signalled his driver to go through a red light and refused to open the doors to let passengers off or on during a terrifying journey between Waterloo and Kingston.
Travellers hammered on the driver's door to alert him after the doors failed to open at Barnes but he thought the noise was caused by Friday night revellers and carried on.
Eventually at Mortlake he investigated, a commuter phoned police and officers were waiting when the train pulled into Wimbledon.
Patrick Coyne, 40, was found passed out and slumped over his controls. “This was not normal practice for safety reasons,” prosecutor Anne Crossfield told Westminster magistrates. It took a minute to rouse him and he was disorientated. He was sacked by South West Trains.
In his bag were two cans of Budweiser and he admitted decanting half a bottle of vodka into two water bottles. Coyne told officers: “I must stop drinking.”
Ms Crossfield said at one stage in the journey the train arrived at St Margarets and the defendant gave the driver two signals to proceed to the next station but the driver could see that there was a red signal. “The defendant, after realising what he had done, apologised to the driver,” she said.
Coyne, of Merton Park, pleaded guilty to endangering the safety of a person conveyed by railway due to being over the alcohol limit. He will be sentenced later, probably at crown court.
Reader views (31)
Slumped over the controls?!!! He's a guard not a driver! how can he be slumped as the only 'controls' he has is at face level? bunch of media hype innit
- LoysMari, London, 19/08/2010 02:25
Report abuse
I am puzzled by the various suggestions that the passengers should have pulled the emergency alarm if the doors failed to open. I would have thought that being "carried past your stop" was NOT an emergency situation as such and therefore such action would merely get you a fine for 'improper use' of the alarm.
- Peter, Exeter, Uk, 12/02/2010 20:09
Report abuse
People's ignorance in connection with the role of the guard is most annoying. The guard, according to the National Railway Rule Book 'is responsible for the safety of passengers on the train'. If the driver is incapacitated, injured or worst case scenario, dead, the guard must undertake the emergency procedures normally allocated to the driver. Therefore the guards knowledge in this respect has to be equal to that of the driver. Traditionally the guard was 'in charge' of the train in connection with time keeping etc. In fact only the guard was issued with a watch right up until the late 1980's. Granted the role had to change, but a passenger train properly staffed by two professionals is far better - a train is NOT a bus. Root cause of this incident is weak management.
- Shiny Shoes, Chester - UK, 12/02/2010 18:18
Report abuse
Davey_Buoy, there are plenty of opportunities within all operators of the rail industry for staff, if they have a problem of ANY kind to get help from the company, if it could affect their job in any way. People manage to hide problems from their closest family, why couldn't they be able to hide it from their managers?
So this "terrifying journey" people experienced? I didn't realise the guards drove the train! Like someone has already said, if people were that scared, why didn't they pull the alarm?
Press hyping this up on that matter? I think so.
- A Driver, London UK, 11/02/2010 03:13
Report abuse
As is usual there is more to this story than is in print. The guard should have phoned in sick or unfit for duty and later gone to see his manager to give the reasons why. If he did he would still have a job. Instead he decided to try and drink away his problems, lost his job and ended up in court.
There is a strict no alcohol and drugs policy, [including some over the counter drugs], right across the railway and introduced by British Rail back in 1993.
Sorry to disappoint Frank...But Bob Crow and the RMT, or whatever union he was a member of, will NOT stand up for this ex guard...Let alone call for industrial action of any kind.
As has been pointed out before...If they couldn't get off the train, why didn't passengers pull that little red handle as the train began to pull out of Barnes. It won't bite you 
- Rodders, Feltham SWTLand, 10/02/2010 12:06
Report abuse
"So, why exactly is a guard required"
You do know SWT is a private company, not an arm of the state? We had this thing called 'privatisation' over here. May have heard about it even in Vancouver.
Reason is because moving to DOO on a large network like that would cost SWT a fortune due to installation of the cameras, mirrors etc. required). It's also unpopular and hard to explain to passengers why they'll be better off with no one around. Similar to conductors on buses - I suspect a majority would like them to return but aren't willing to pay the price.
- Tom, London, UK, 10/02/2010 10:45
Report abuse
So, why exactly is a guard required? It would seem that it is safer without one, or at least not having one makes no difference. Ah, but there would be fewer union dues! Now, since the UK is broke, maybe a bit of cutting back on the this kind of job padding would be a good idea?
- Coylum, Vancouver, Canada, 10/02/2010 06:32
Report abuse
All of you defending the Union and Bob Crow should remember a few years ago when all those empty beer cans and bottles were found stashed away in the roof of that maintenance depot and he called a strike in the defense of the maintenance team. As I recall, Metronet had decided to act swiftly and strongly to ensure safety and old Bob called a strike because they failed to follow the rules properly. Perhaps SWT were afraid of the same.
- Jeremy, Sydney, Australia, 10/02/2010 02:49
Report abuse
The one concern should be why did the situation get this series? Drivers and gaurds should be booked on for duty by a manager who checks they are fit for duty - if this guy was sober when he started his shift then he was on a serious mission to get wasted, or he was drunk (and most likely had an on going drink problem) in which case the duty of care wasn't carried out and warnings of the guards problems were missed.
Miguelm's sacracastic comments would be amusing were he at least able to read through the article and determine that it was the guard who was drunk and not the driver.
It's a shame the passengers on this 'terrifying journey' were so scared they couldn't pull the passanger alarm handle but all had to run to the drivers door and bang and shout!
- Peter, London, UK, 10/02/2010 00:36
Report abuse
Nothings changed I was travelling on the underground in the 1940's and it is still the same,you'll find out,good luck to you all!!!!
- Davey_Bouy, Chertsey, 09/02/2010 18:26
Report abuse
To Tubey from Sussex, an employer should indeed have facilities to help people like that. Help them out of the door and the business pronto.
- Ciccio, Toronto, Canada, 09/02/2010 17:40
Report abuse
Rail employee eber heard of Pat Sikorsky? Even Red Ken said he deserved to be sacked but not our friend Bob because he was one of his mates.
Every one is equal brother its just that some are more equal than others!!
- Duncan, Kent, 09/02/2010 16:57
Report abuse
Were the passengers actually "terrified" as implied in the opening paragraph, or just annoyed and confused as to why the train hadn't stopped as expected?
Unless the train was hurtling along the tracks and veering round corners like a rollercoaster, I can't see how the passengers could have been on a "terrifying journey".
- Ianvisits, London, UK
There always has to be a pedantic idiot. Doesn't there?
- Whocares?, London, 09/02/2010 16:25
Report abuse
In the words of Peter Sellers:
"We do not and cannot accept the principle that incompetence justifies dismissal. That is victimisation."
Come on and join the Bob Crowe war cry "everybody out!".
- Bob, Cheam, 09/02/2010 15:24
Report abuse
The guy has a drink problem obviously,but why the pathetic comments about Mr Bob crow!Such nonsenses postings do nothing for your credibility middle England.
- Kev, London uk, 09/02/2010 15:21
Report abuse
Policy on drinking on the trains is pretty draconian, and for good reason - the Eltham Well Hall crash in the early 70s was caused by a drunk train driver - this and similar incidents in other parts of the country around the 70s/80s led to really quite severe anti-alcohol policies being in place, and I don't recall Mr. Crow leading the lads out against those at any point.
Remember we are far less tolerant of drinking and driving now than we used to be, thank goodness.
On the telling the driver to go past a red signal, this isn't quite the case, from the information in the report the guard gave the 'ready to start' two buzzes to the driver when the signal was at danger, which is (nowadays) against the Rules, after it caused a number of serious accidents. It's still the driver's job to check the signal, the reason for the rule is that drivers subconsciously accepted the 'ready to start' as overruling the red signal.
- Tom, London, UK, 09/02/2010 14:59
Report abuse
This noble worker, a hero of the working class, must have been under a great strain. Imagine the ordeal of taking all these toffs back to their smart homes in fashionable St.Margarets, Kingston etc. The only consolation is that the driver probably does half the hours and earns twice as much as most of them. No wonder he is constantly having a drink and raising a toast to his good fortune!
- Miguelm, West London, UK, 09/02/2010 14:42
Report abuse
If passengers couldn't get off the train at their station because the doors were not released, why didn't they pull that little red chain...or is it handle these days??
- Mark H, London England, 09/02/2010 14:19
Report abuse
This was the guard, not the driver, so less danger to passengers.
However, lives were put at risk. It's the guard's job to make sure that no-one is caught in the doors or trapped between the train and the platform before signalling the driver to proceed.
- Nigel, London, 09/02/2010 14:03
Report abuse
@ Tubey, sussex
Are you Bob Crows spokesman? If so when can we expect the strike, Easter weekend perhaps?
Or for the Liberal-Lefty's, "The pre-summer festive season".
------------------------------------------------
"This was not normal practice for safety reasons"
Really??
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 09/02/2010 14:01
Report abuse
@Ianvisits, London.
A fine observation, added some welcome humour to an ornery day.
- Neil, London, 09/02/2010 13:58
Report abuse
Why do people on here believe the RMT would go on strike for somebody that had admitted to being in the wrong?
No union would be able to support somebody that has endangered the lives of the public to that level.
- Rail Employee, London, 09/02/2010 13:50
Report abuse
There wouldn't be a strike for something like this. All 21st century Railway staff know about the zero tolerance drugs and alcohol policy.
That's why it is so incredibly rare to have something like this happen. Rail staff are subject to random breathe and urine sample tests for drugs and alcohol. Indeed, there are some medications that you are not allowed to take and carry out important functions with.
An employer in this sort of business should have the facilities to help people like Mr Coyle, he should see a manager every day when he reports for duty and you would have thought that they or his colleagues noticed what was happening so he could get help.
At least his actions did not lead to anything serious occuring.
The driver wasn't drunk - he was driving the train so there was no risk there!
- Tubey, sussex, 09/02/2010 13:34
Report abuse
Sue, Kent
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
One out, all out.
- Malc, London,England, 09/02/2010 13:26
Report abuse
As if living in Kingston doesn't have enough woes of its own...
- Keith, King's Cross, 09/02/2010 13:16
Report abuse
I agree with Jaffa cake.
Should P.S.V. drivers not be subjected to regular mandatory blood tests to eliminate temptation to take drink /drugs before or during duty?
- Huggy, Cumbernauld Scotland, 09/02/2010 13:04
Report abuse
I'm surprised Bob Crow hasn't called a strike!
- Sue, Kent, 09/02/2010 12:59
Report abuse
I was on this train, thanks to the work of a off-duty railman all passengers were disembarked at Mortlake so wouldn't of been at risk by the time the train got to St Margarets.
- Foz, London, 09/02/2010 12:58
Report abuse
Were the passengers actually "terrified" as implied in the opening paragraph, or just annoyed and confused as to why the train hadn't stopped as expected?
Unless the train was hurtling along the tracks and veering round corners like a rollercoaster, I can't see how the passengers could have been on a "terrifying journey".
- Ianvisits, London, UK, 09/02/2010 12:55
Report abuse
I'd like to see how Bob Crow can defend this individual.
After all, he's always chanting the "safety" mantra.
- Anthony, Esher, Surrey, 09/02/2010 12:43
Report abuse
He sounds like he needs help. There must have been signs before this incident? Did it get swept under the carpet for fear of bringing out Bob Crow?
Crow should rethink his tactics and SWT should have taken greater care and responsibility.
- Jaffa Cake, london,England, 09/02/2010 12:00
Report abuse
