Failed Unit
Established Member
It was mentioned, saying the driver had on had the instruction 3 months ago. The train was not sheduled to stop at Finsbury Park.
It was mentioned, saying the driver had on had the instruction 3 months ago. The train was not sheduled to stop at Finsbury Park.
The report does not mention that the driver was "instructed that stopping over points was not a good place to stop".
The report says
"The Rule Book makes clear that, if a train is leaving a station, the requirement to stop the train takes precedence over any consideration of unsuitable places to stop."
"The training material does not explain this"
"the incident driver, who had completed his training three months before the incident, believed that he was required to make a rapid judgement call"
So is it your assertion that FCC's training material contradicts the Rule Book?
Yes - Easy for me to say from the armchair however. But that is how I interpreted the comments, that the driver felt from his instructions he was doing the right thing. He wasn't of course, but I interpret that the training was a factor.
The problem with DOO despatch is that once the RA has been given there is no way to take it back again should a problem be discovered.
But once the PASSCOM had been pulled the train should have been stopped. There could be mitigating circumstances to explain the driver's behaviour and the decision to continue to Finsbury Park
The fact that the driver has the power to override the passenger communication system adds to the safety of it, rather than detracting from it.
Not that lessons shouldn't be learned from this, or to downplay the seriousness of it, but literally millions of people manage to use these (and similar) trains every year without any hassle...
So it seems to me to be blindingly obvious that you do not despatch a train unless you are absolutely certain it is safe to do so.
It seems that this incident has revealed unsafe practices that had grown up, and should have been stamped on with force.
The RAIB seem to disagree with you with their statement "Trains must be stopped immediately if the passenger communication alarm is activated while any part of the train is in, or has just left, a station."
Don't 365 alarms allow passengers to speak to the driver? If they did, a driver wouldn't need to guess the best course of action.
No, but the guard can stop the train at a signal from the dispatch staff on the platform (or the sight of disconnected limbs flying past his window)...
Which bit of my statement? The bit where I said "But once the PASSCOM had been pulled the train should have been stopped"...?
I read here that FCC are hot on prosecutions but really raising this point is, I feel going a bit too far since luckily no real harm was done and hopefully lessons have been learned all round.Interesting point no-one's made: it's against the byelaws to go through a door (or attempt to do so) when it's closing.
So this woman was actually committing an offence by trying to get on the train after the chimes sounded.
How?
How?
I have seen guards mid train closing the doors and giving the RA signal and they have no access to brakes as there used to be in the old guards vans etc
Would a guard not have to get in contact with the driver and see if they would stop the train? (Unlike the driver in this instance who wrongly overrode the alarm perhaps they might heed the guard?)
The bit where you said "There could be mitigating circumstances to explain the driver's behaviour and the decision to continue to Finsbury Park".
The rules are clear. The driver should have stopped straight away.
However, that doesn't mean that there wasn't some reasoning behind continuing.
Yes, as I believe I have already said.. .
However, that doesn't mean that there wasn't some reasoning behind continuing. I'm not saying that this is the correct course of action, but it may help to explain his actions....
The problems are not necessarily the consequence of the training received....
If the driver believed it was a spurious activation he may have considered that the main issue was not relating to safety but to performance and did not wish to be stung for the additional delays such actions would have caused....
But the bottom line is that we don't know. ...
O L Leigh
Interesting point no-one's made: it's against the byelaws to go through a door (or attempt to do so) when it's closing.
So this woman was actually committing an offence by trying to get on the train after the chimes sounded.
A moron might try to board the train while the doors are beeping, but so might a deaf person.
Wherever on the train the guard is dispatching from they will have access to the Guard-Driver buzzers, and as Failed Unit said earlier the "long buzz" would quickly inform the driver the train must be stopped. A full list of Bell Codes are available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_code
In any case with the local door open the interlock (?) means the train simply won't move anyway.
Did you read the RAIB report?
As I said lessons have been learned.
True in most cases but not all. Some engines that pull loco hauled coaching stock are not compatible with said stock re bell/buzzer communication. Therefore there is no effective means of communication between the driver & guard whilst the train is on the move. The RA (right away) can be given in various means not limited to a green flag/lamp or dispatch staff setting the RA indicator at main stations. The guard of course (if departing the train from the van) will have access to the emergency brake to stop the train if required or can use the pass-comm if elsewhere (this WILL stop the train as there is no override)
I'm sure either I read or someone told me once that modern trains have an electrical circuit that goes through the doors so when they're closed it's complete but broken when they're open; so whilst their open, the train is effectively paralyzed. Balloney?
the driver may simply have thought the PASSCOM had been operated in error and simply needed to be reset and elected to do it at a location where the least delay was caused. I'm not saying that this is the correct course of action, but it may help to explain his actions.
I'd say (my opinion) that if an alarm goes off on a 365 then it's unlikely to be by mistake.