Whistle boards and whistle usage at railway crossings

[Lockwood]

I remember a few years back for a couple of weeks, Southern would do a blast at every crossing.
I asked a guard why the horn was being used a lot more and he said it was being used at every crossing. (I think that the MCBs were excluded from the horn. The AHBs between Chichester and Havant were certainly included)
I can't speak further away than that, as I was only doing that shuffle.

Not sure why there was a decision to use the horn that much then.

One of the crossing accident reports included a survey of the crossing and found that not all the drivers beeped on approach, despite the board.

Are whistle boards mandatory or advisory instructions?

 

[GB]

Are whistle boards mandatory or advisory instructions?

They are mandatory.

 

[TOCDriver]

They are mandatory.

Most of the time

 

[Will.C]

I think I may know the crossing in question,is it the crossing on Mandeville Road?If so I find it hard to believe that if your at ground level you can see into the cab of whats most likely to be a 66 on the freight, and see the driver using an i pod.

Also, if he were to be using an I pod he needs to get with the times, I mean who has a white I pod nowadays!!!

 

[Felim_Doyle]

No, not the Mandeville Road crossing. These are stiles which are part of public footpaths through farmland at the rear of Booker Park School. They are roughly south of the Mandeville Road crossing (i.e. towards Little Kimble).

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You concluded? Could be permanent way workers or S & T on track, unfortunately you cannot conclude as I feel you cave concluded on most of your findings without solid evidence.

Surely “permanent way workers or S & T on track” are people too so my conclusion still holds! As for my original “findings”, the solid evidence is what I witnessed very clearly in both cases quoted. If you doubt my word then you are, at best, erring on the unsafe side or, more worryingly as a train driver, in denial that these things do happen.

Do you call the police when you see a car driver on the mobile phone? I still feel you do not have sufficient details to report anything.

My eye-witness testimony should suffice. I'm sure that if I reported it, unlike you, the individual operator, Network Rail and, if necessary, British Transport Police would all take it very seriously.

Perhaps it does not help. I do not wave at enthusiasts or people at level crossings as I feel there is no need to.

When I say a driver has not waved back to me it is usually because they are not looking up or ahead. It is not my intention to distract drivers but most who are looking do return the gesture so maybe it does break the monotony.

As quoted earlier there are strict rules on the sounding of the warning horn. If someone runs across a level crossing ignoring the signs and unfortunately gets hit with or without a whistle board you cannot blame the driver of the train.

What we're discussing here is drivers not sounding at whistle signs before a sequence of pedestrian crossings which are part of public footpaths and are spaced only a few metres apart. We are not talking about pedestrians or motor vehicle drivers ignoring level crossing rules or trespassing on the railway. The signage in question is targeted at the driver and not the pedestrian. If the rules dictate that the driver should be looking up and ahead and sounding an audible warning at a whistle sign but he/she isn't then the driver is indeed responsible for any incident.

I beg to differ.

You offer yourself as a railway enthusiast and in my opinion your attitude and also comments can only reiterate why some drivers do not like enthusiasts.

Firstly, I'm not sure where I offered myself as a railway enthusiast. I like trains but I'm not an enthusiast in the traditional sense. I just happen to live near a line which I occasionally have to cross when out for walks or to access some nearby facilities. No anorak, no leaky Biro, no taking down locomotive numbers.

I fail to see where my attitude and comments would be a problem to drivers. I am not anti driver but pro safety whereas you seem to be defending and protecting irresponsible colleagues which worries me.

 

[DownSouth]

Also, if he were to be using an I pod he needs to get with the times, I mean who has a white I pod nowadays!!!

Blasphemy! A white iPod is the cool retro option these days

 

[A-driver]

No, not the Mandeville Road crossing. These are stiles which are part of public footpaths through farmland at the rear of Booker Park School. They are roughly south of the Mandeville Road crossing (i.e. towards Little Kimble).

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely “permanent way workers or S & T on track” are people too so my conclusion still holds! As for my original “findings”, the solid evidence is what I witnessed very clearly in both cases quoted. If you doubt my word then you are, at best, erring on the unsafe side or, more worryingly as a train driver, in denial that these things do happen.

My eye-witness testimony should suffice. I'm sure that if I reported it, unlike you, the individual operator, Network Rail and, if necessary, British Transport Police would all take it very seriously.

When I say a driver has not waved back to me it is usually because they are not looking up or ahead. It is not my intention to distract drivers but most who are looking do return the gesture so maybe it does break the monotony.

What we're discussing here is drivers not sounding at whistle signs before a sequence of pedestrian crossings which are part of public footpaths and are spaced only a few metres apart. We are not talking about pedestrians or motor vehicle drivers ignoring level crossing rules or trespassing on the railway. The signage in question is targeted at the driver and not the pedestrian. If the rules dictate that the driver should be looking up and ahead and sounding an audible warning at a whistle sign but he/she isn't then the driver is indeed responsible for any incident.

Firstly, I'm not sure where I offered myself as a railway enthusiast. I like trains but I'm not an enthusiast in the traditional sense. I just happen to live near a line which I occasionally have to cross when out for walks or to access some nearby facilities. No anorak, no leaky Biro, no taking down locomotive numbers.

I fail to see where my attitude and comments would be a problem to drivers. I am not anti driver but pro safety whereas you seem to be defending and protecting irresponsible colleagues which worries me.

In short there is no safety issue here. Just because a driver dosnt acknowledge you it dosnt mean they havnt seen you. As for not looking ahead, I can asure you that they are constantly scanning the road ahead. We dont tend to look around the bushes at the side of the line for people but will notice people on crossings who are not in a position of safety. It it the crossing users responsibility to ensure it is safe to cross the tracks, it is not the train drivers responsibility to ensure a crossing is clear before driving over it. If we spot someone on a crossing infront of us there is very little we can do anyway, braking and whistling will only do so much as trains take a long distance to stop.

And if you are that sure of your testimony to newspapers and ipods then report it to NR or the TOC. As you say, we dont take it seriously on here as we dont believe you. If you think the TOC will then take it to them. I cant understand why so many people on here think the best course of action is to spout this rubbish on a spotters forum. Its obviously not that much of a concern to you as if it were you would report it formally to the relevant authority. What do you honestly think anyone on here will do with the stuff you are claiming? That is exactly why people accuse you of trolling as any legitimate claims would be addressed to the railway, not an online forum...

 

[455driver]

Save your breath TDK, somebody is obviously so self important that a few written words from him would get the driver(s) sacked!

Funnily enough I thought you needed actual evidence to back up your statement but that is obviously just us lesser mortals and FD is some sort of superhuman who can be believed at all times even when he has only seen 20% of the whole picture!

 

[Moonshot]

Just had a quick read through this thread.....my first impression was that the author has got upset because a driver didnt wave back ?

 

[A-driver]

Just had a quick read through this thread.....my first impression was that the author has got upset because a driver didnt wave back ?

Yep-that's pretty much what I thought. Driver didn't wave so therefore the only conclusion is that he was not concentrating on driving and was probably using his phone, iPod, reading a paper or doing all 3 at once. Plus he was probably drunk aswell as he hiccuped as the train went past. And I'm pretty sure there was a smell of weed coming out the cab aswell...

 

[Goatboy]

Am I the only one who doesn't see what the big deal is if a driver makes a call or changes a track or something when driving?

It's not a car, it's not going to veer into a tree if you don't hold the steering wheel properly. Drivers are professionals who have been extensively trained and are probably bright enough to know what making a call on greens is not neccesarily unsafe and reading The Sun when approaching the buffer stops at 40mph = bad.

 

[A-driver]

Am I the only one who doesn't see what the big deal is if a driver makes a call or changes a track or something when driving?

It's not a car, it's not going to veer into a tree if you don't hold the steering wheel properly. Drivers are professionals who have been extensively trained and are probably bright enough to know what making a call on greens is not neccesarily unsafe and reading The Sun when approaching the buffer stops at 40mph = bad.

I sort of half agree with what you are saying although the things you mention are strictly prohibited. Should a driver use their phone in a moving train or read the paper/use an iPod etc then they will be looking at loosing their job. If they cause an incident because of it they may even end up being prosecuted and facing criminal proceedings.

Therefore drivers tend not to risk everything to use their phone etc.

 

[Tomnick]

Mobile phone usage isn't prohibited across the board though, is it - merely barred at individual (and probably most) TOCs? I can't really see a problem with a driver, running under clear signals, making or receiving a short 'work-related' phone call if his company's policy allows. I'm thinking particularly of freight drivers, who might go for a couple of hours without a convenient opportunity to bring their train to a stand and ring back Control about something important, for example.

 

[A-driver]

Mobile phone usage isn't prohibited across the board though, is it - merely barred at individual (and probably most) TOCs? I can't really see a problem with a driver, running under clear signals, making or receiving a short 'work-related' phone call if his company's policy allows. I'm thinking particularly of freight drivers, who might go for a couple of hours without a convenient opportunity to bring their train to a stand and ring back Control about something important, for example.

It is a rule book requirement that they are switched off. Freight companies have become very strict lately and some managers will bring phone detectirs into cabs like they use in prisons to check electronic devices are off.

I don't think any companies allow phone use on a moving train, ours allow it for work calls when stationary - either at a red or station but you would be in very hot water if caught using a mobile in control of a moving train

 

[kipper]

Cant remember the "waving to members of the public" modules in my rules

 

[455driver]

Cant remember the "waving to members of the public" modules in my rules

I seem to remember it consisted of-
1, make a fist
2, straighten index finger
3, point the extended index finger upwards
4, move hand vertically slowly.

I think thats about it!

 

[Lockwood]

I seem to remember it consisted of-
1, make a fist
2, straighten index finger
3, point the extended index finger upwards
4, move hand vertically slowly.

I think thats about it!

You point to the ceiling to wave?

 

[455driver]

I meant the middle finger.

Serves me right for rushing the message.

 

[DownSouth]

I seem to remember it consisted of-
1, make a fist
2, straighten index finger
3, point the extended index finger upwards
4, move hand vertically slowly.

I think thats about it!

I think you're confusing that with the rule book module for an Englishman receiving a short ball from Mitchell Johnson.

 

[trevwilliams]

Wow. It's quite a post this. I am inclined to feel, after reading the entire post that the op has stated their case in a concise manner. In reply we have some extremely defensive responses. It's interesting, for example, how some have focused on the waving as if it was a major detail. One thing this op is not, is a troll.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[O L Leigh]

Trolling or not, the OP has constructed his objections based on what he feels should happen. He has made allegations that are, in my own experience, difficult to substantiate based on what he says he could see through the windscreen of various trains. He has stated what he believes should be acceptable use of the warning horn along a certain stretch of line. All of these things are open for discussion.

But what is uncertain is whether or not his observations and allegations are correct or even warranted.

With regard to the use of the warning horn, he is not necessarily correct that a stretch of line with multiple crossings should have multiple whistle boards. The use of whistle boards depends not on the number or frequency of crossings, but on the sightlines from the crossings themselves. I have driven a number of routes with multiple crossings that don't have a single whistle board.

When it comes to his allegations about drivers doing things in the cab they shouldn't be, then if he feels so certain about what he's seen he should take those allegations to the train company in question. However, I would say again that my own experience is that it is not easy to see into the cab of a train and to be certain about what you can see.

O L Leigh

 

[A-driver]

Wow. It's quite a post this. I am inclined to feel, after reading the entire post that the op has stated their case in a concise manner. In reply we have some extremely defensive responses. It's interesting, for example, how some have focused on the waving as if it was a major detail. One thing this op is not, is a troll.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Sorry but I feel he is trolling or else he would direct his complaints down official avenues, not come in a forum to shout about them...

Plus a read of the post shows that what is described is very unlikely. Too many contradictions and embellishments along with assumptions.

 

[Bijgc]

I am in full agreement with trevwilliams; the OP has raised legitimate concerns about safety and non-adherence to procedure. In response, they are called a troll and have had their argument ridiculed by a number of posters, some of whom appear to be drivers – the very people that should be most aware of safety-critical practices. Shameful.

The OP’s question was whether audible warnings were mandatory – it would appear that they are, but are not being used. Discussion of the whys-and-wherefores of this should be important for all. There is no need to belittle the OP or twist their subsequent statements when they have stated what they believe to be facts – they were the only witness to the events and have provided a detailed description that I see no reason to dispute.

 

[A-driver]

I am in full agreement with trevwilliams; the OP has raised legitimate concerns about safety and non-adherence to procedure. In response, they are called a troll and have had their argument ridiculed by a number of posters, some of whom appear to be drivers – the very people that should be most aware of safety-critical practices. Shameful.

The OP’s question was whether audible warnings were mandatory – it would appear that they are, but are not being used. Discussion of the whys-and-wherefores of this should be important for all. There is no need to belittle the OP or twist their subsequent statements when they have stated what they believe to be facts – they were the only witness to the events and have provided a detailed description that I see no reason to dispute.

What safety concerns were raised then? And what procedures were not adhered to? Can you tell me for certain if whistle boards are located at those crossings? I can think of loads of xings without whistle boards as the driver has a good enough view not to need them. Audible warnings are only mandatory if a whistle board is present. Otherwise it is down to discretion. If I approach a crossing with no W board and I can see people standing there who are looking at the train I see no need to whistle as they can clearly see me and are waiting for me to pass before crossing.

I see no evidence in the post that drivers are ignoring whistle boards or doing anything wrong at all. The is no requirement to wave at people on crossings and the poster states that he could see approaching trains which points to the crossings having excellent visibility which suggests no whistle board will be present.

The only reason drivers get defensive is because too many people on her like yourself think they know it all and post stuff as fact when actually you clearly have no idea of regulations and correct procedures. Your statement in the quoted post "The OP’s question was whether audible warnings were mandatory – it would appear that they are, but are not being used." Backs this up. "It would appear they are" but in fact they are not, not all crossings have whistle boards and so the is no requirement to sound the horn on approach.

And adding the sentence "shameful" to the end of your post certainly dosnt make you any more credible...just makes you look rather arrogant actually, especially combined with the rest of your post being factually inaccurate.

Drivers on he have answered the OPs rather accusational post truthfully and explained reasons for things and are then bombarded with know it alls telling us that we are wrong. Experience tells us what is likely to have happened and let's face it, anyone could come in here and make accusations like the OP has. The more you read into the original post the more it comes across as a series of rants and looks suspect and embellished. Sure a driver may have missed a whistle board for whatever reason but to then go on about newspapers and iPods is fantasy land I'm afraid.

 

[trevwilliams]

What safety concerns were raised then? And what procedures were not adhered to? Can you tell me for certain if whistle boards are located at those crossings?

If you read back through the OPs first post you will read the following:

Both when at home and when I have been out for walks I have observed some trains in the northbound Aylesbury direction passing the whistle board† without sounding an audible warning. Furthermore, southbound Princes Risborough trains never ‘whistle’ although I can't be sure if there is a whistle board† in that direction without trespassing on the line.

From that we can infer that there is a whistle board for trains traveling north; and some drivers fail to sound the whistle. This reads like a safety concern to me. I have done a fair bit of recreational rail travel this year. Two journeys down the Mid-Sussex line to Bognor Regis recently involved TWO instances when the driver did not sound a whistle when approaching and passing a whistle board. I know this because I was sitting in the first carriage looking out the window. I am a rail enthusiast and an ex employee from BR days. No amount of the ifs, buts and bluster that I have read on this discussion serve to allay my concerns. In fact they have increased my concerns. This OP has bought this issue to this forum in a dignified manner, they have put their case clearly and raised valid safety concerns; all posted under their own name and with details of their location. What I find abhorrent is those members, who should be taking notice are instead closing ranks, and in some instances their eyes as well.

 

[O L Leigh]

Pardon me, but we have been suggesting that, if the OP is sufficiently concerned about the matter, he should take his concerns to the train operator(s) in question. This is not closing ranks. This forum is not the right place. Instead, the OP has come here and, with his very first post, started laying on the allegations thick.

There is a pervading air of anti-staff sentiment on this forum and has been for a very long time. So it's hardly surprising that it gets people's backs up when they come on here making allegations that are hard to substantiate and try to conjure up a storm from it. I'm sorry to have to say, but there are far too many people who know far too little about what they are saying making definitive statements based on assumptions that are incorrect but are not willing to admit that they might just be wrong.

That's not to say that railstaff are above the same problems. However, where it comes to our own jobs, we do happen to know what we're talking about. If we step in to correct an incorrect assumption from another member we don't like to be told that we don't know what we are talking about by someone who has never done our job.

Sometimes there are some worthwhile contributions to be made here and some good discussions, but only when both sides show a little knowledge and a little give and take.

Yes there are rotten apples in the barrel that spoil things for everyone. I'd even go so far as to admit that there are perhaps drivers out there who really shouldn't be in the grade for one reason for another. However, that does not infer that there is a trend or that we're all unprofessional and need to be replaced with a computer or monitored by in-cab CCTV. But if there is a complaint to be made about a driver's conduct it should be referred directly to that driver's employer, not aired on here or used to bang a drum about how we're all fat, lazy, overpaid, militant, work-shy wasters who pass the day texting, reading the paper or listening to music.

O L Leigh

 

[A-driver]

If you read back through the OPs first post you will read the following:



From that we can infer that there is a whistle board for trains traveling north; and some drivers fail to sound the whistle. This reads like a safety concern to me. I have done a fair bit of recreational rail travel this year. Two journeys down the Mid-Sussex line to Bognor Regis recently involved TWO instances when the driver did not sound a whistle when approaching and passing a whistle board. I know this because I was sitting in the first carriage looking out the window. I am a rail enthusiast and an ex employee from BR days. No amount of the ifs, buts and bluster that I have read on this discussion serve to allay my concerns. In fact they have increased my concerns. This OP has bought this issue to this forum in a dignified manner, they have put their case clearly and raised valid safety concerns; all posted under their own name and with details of their location. What I find abhorrent is those members, who should be taking notice are instead closing ranks, and in some instances their eyes as well.

Could you see out the cab infront if the train to at Bognor then? Could the driver see the crossings and garuntee they were clear with no one approaching? If so why sound the horn? I think I know the crossings you mean and whilst I havnt driven to Bognor in many years I do remember the sighting was fairly good.

 

[trevwilliams]

Could you see out the cab infront if the train to at Bognor then? Could the driver see the crossings and garuntee they were clear with no one approaching?

A question I have for you and anyone else reading this is: Is it mandatory for a driver to sound the whistle when approaching a crossing, when that crossing has a 'WHISTLE' or 'W' sign on its approach? I am asking this as my entire argument and support of the OP relies on this being the case?

 

[GB]

It is mandatory except between the hours of something like 2330-0700....but the caveat is a driver may use his horn during those times (and any other time) if he feels it necessary.

 

[A-driver]

A question I have for you and anyone else reading this is: Is it mandatory for a driver to sound the whistle when approaching a crossing, when that crossing has a 'WHISTLE' or 'W' sign on its approach? I am asking this as my entire argument and support of the OP relies on this being the case?

It's technically mandatory as explained above but let's face it, if the driver can 100% see that it is clear with no one for miles around, ie no bushes hiding the crossing, visible path leading up to it, no one at all about then is it really a problem? It's best practice to and should be done but if a tree falls in a wood with no one about does it make a sound...if you are driving a car with no traffic it people about do you still indicate...

If the OP is correct that a whistle board may have been 'ignored' then it dosnt mean the driver was breaching safety regulations and was doing something they shouldn't have been, it may just have been an innocent mistake, split second lapse of concentration. Hardly the crime the OP is trying to portray it as.