SPAD Procedure

[Tio Terry]

It's a long, long while since I had any direct involvement with SPAD/SPAR incidents but, having read the entries here, I would just make the following points.

Signallers are employed by Networkrail. Drivers are employed by TOC's/FOC's.

If a Signaller were to agree that a driver could continue then, legally, they would be accepting on behalf of NR any consequences that might arise from that decision. I seriously doubt that NR would want a signaller to do that for them on their behalf, they would want that passed up the chain to somebody more senior.

Similarly I doubt the TOC/FOC would want their driver to continue without assuring themselves that they felt they were fit to do so. By talking with them and agreeing that they can continue then they have accepted all legal responsibility for whatever happens next. I'm sure that NR would want that rather than they took responsibility.

Irrespective of the train service both party's will want to protect their legal situation and limit their exposure to the risks of litigation involved.

 

[Llanigraham]

Say what you wish, doesn't change the FACT it has happened.

Maybe it doesn't happen in your box but three of my local stations have direct contact with the Signaller. I can relay at least one incident where the Driver said he was ok to continue but a member of platform spoke to the Signaller and the Driver was removed. I can also tell you for a FACT that at least 2 serious SPADS that I know of the Signaller has said the Driver cannot continue. Both those Drivers are known to me personally.

If I go through a Signal at Danger that has reverted, It is me who makes the decision. If I decide not to drive. NOBODY can overrule me. They can overrule my decision to drive but not when I refuse. Each time I have had a SPAR (due to reversion) I have never had a conversation with control and often, the first time control hear about it is when I tell them.

Typically I get. "You ok to continue ?" "Yes Signaller" "ok, please wait for a proceed aspect"

Don't even fill out a 3185 some days.

I suggest you read the Rule Book!

 

[Johncleesefan]

I suggest you read the Rule Book!

Does it actually state in the rule book who gives the final day? I believe it says in s5 after passing a signal at danger without authority to contact sig immediately, fill 3185 and act on sig instructions. Makes no mention of who gives the say

 

[contrad!ction]

Does it actually state in the rule book who gives the final day? I believe it says in s5 after passing a signal at danger without authority to contact sig immediately, fill 3185 and act on sig instructions. Makes no mention of who gives the say

S5 Section 10:
You must not allow the train involved to proceed until authorised by Operations Control.

There's also a section on our 3189 form that states:

PART 4: Authorisation for the train to proceed
Authorisation for train to proceed forward received from Operations Control at...(time)
Driver of train is authorised to proceed to...(location) OR driver relieved of duty at...(location) at...(time)

So in the case of a SPAD that decision is well out of our hands as signallers.

It's SPARs and other incidents where the real ambiguities/grey areas are, in my opinion.

 

[Johncleesefan]

S5 Section 10:
You must not allow the train involved to proceed until authorised by Operations Control.

There's also a section on our 3189 form that states:

PART 4: Authorisation for the train to proceed
Authorisation for train to proceed forward received from Operations Control at...(time)
Driver of train is authorised to proceed to...(location) OR driver relieved of duty at...(location) at...(time)

So in the case of a SPAD that decision is well out of our hands as signallers.

It's SPARs and other incidents where the real ambiguities/grey areas are, in my opinion.

fair one, i didnt have mine to hand, cheers for clearing up

 

[contrad!ction]

fair one, i didnt have mine to hand, cheers for clearing up

No worries, I'm all for signaller-driver cooperation (once in a blue moon)

 

[Johncleesefan]

No worries, I'm all for signaller-driver cooperation (once in a blue moon)

(checks colour of moon to see if cooperation was justified)

 

[gerryuk]

I believe on the tube its down to the station supervisor whether the driver is fit to continue driving the train until he/she can be relieved further down the line. I believe the supervisor will do a sobriety check and if ok and the driver is prepared to continue then the train will continue in service and the driver relieved further down the line. This is done only at the request of the Line Controller.

 

[highdyke]

With SPADs, contacting control is really to check the drivers record and if he/she is 'at risk' (IE too many points) on his record, plus they might have to be interviewed.

Obviously there's lots of reasons a driver is instructed to pass a signal at danger (failures, engineering, examination of line and so on). Having been in a cab where this was done over a TCB single line, I can't help feeling they are trusting at times!

 

[ComUtoR]

I suggest you read the Rule Book!

I suggest you remember the difference between your rule book and ours.


I'm aware of what our rule book states and I'm generally aware that your rule book states other instructions. However; I can flat out state with 100% clarity what actually happens on the ground.

The problem lies with some people who will follow the rule book blindly and not give a flying **** about what is actually happening, they are very willing to pass the buck and shift all blame to someone else, and happily not care a fig. That's why there is such a rift between Driver and Signallers.

Here's a thing. You get a call from a Driver, he's clearly shaken up, freaked out a little, obviously worried. You ask are you ok to continue. Driver says yes. You let him continue ?

Here's another. Driver calls up, slurred speech, sounds a little whacked out. Driver says he's ok to continue. He continues, gets to location, relieved of duty, fails drugs and alcohol test. (actually happened on my TOC) Driver cleared of everything because he was allowed to continue in service.

You can quote me the rule book all day long. I know for a fact it happens. Some decent Signallers will make a judgement call and flat out stop the Driver from continuing.

I reiterate. I have gone through more reds than I can remember and control have NEVER been involved, unless I refused to continue.

 

[highdyke]

I reiterate. I have gone through more reds than I can remember and control have NEVER been involved, unless I refused to continue.

Is this because of failures/signaller accidently putting the road back? Then yep, they wouldn't get involved long as the driver is okay to go on.

 

[Llanigraham]

I suggest you remember the difference between your rule book and ours.


I'm aware of what our rule book states and I'm generally aware that your rule book states other instructions. However; I can flat out state with 100% clarity what actually happens on the ground.

The problem lies with some people who will follow the rule book blindly and not give a flying **** about what is actually happening, they are very willing to pass the buck and shift all blame to someone else, and happily not care a fig. That's why there is such a rift between Driver and Signallers.

Here's a thing. You get a call from a Driver, he's clearly shaken up, freaked out a little, obviously worried. You ask are you ok to continue. Driver says yes. You let him continue ?

Here's another. Driver calls up, slurred speech, sounds a little whacked out. Driver says he's ok to continue. He continues, gets to location, relieved of duty, fails drugs and alcohol test. (actually happened on my TOC) Driver cleared of everything because he was allowed to continue in service.

You can quote me the rule book all day long. I know for a fact it happens. Some decent Signallers will make a judgement call and flat out stop the Driver from continuing.

I reiterate. I have gone through more reds than I can remember and control have NEVER been involved, unless I refused to continue.

I refer you to post #34 above:

S5 Section 10:
You must not allow the train involved to proceed until authorised by Operations Control.

There's also a section on our 3189 form that states:

PART 4: Authorisation for the train to proceed
Authorisation for train to proceed forward received from Operations Control at...(time)
Driver of train is authorised to proceed to...(location) OR driver relieved of duty at...(location) at...(time)

So in the case of a SPAD that decision is well out of our hands as signallers.

It's SPARs and other incidents where the real ambiguities/grey areas are, in my opinion.

I did the job as per the Rule Book.
Your comments about that are offensive.

 

[ComUtoR]

It's a very difficult position to be put in as a signaller, and if I wasn't 100% or the driver says I don't know/not sure/erm I wouldn't hesitate in pulling a driver off (in the kindest way possible) - the last thing I want to do is somehow coerce a driver into continuing if they don't feel up to it because they feel like they'll get blamed for delays later.

I refer you to this post. I'd also refer you to Health and Safety legislation. I'd also refer you to our basic training. If you believe someone is acting unsafe then you must take action to ensure the safety of the railway.

I have no intention to be disrespectful or cause offense. Those that pass the buck and use the rulebook as a get out clause are putting the railway at risk. I have watched too many RED videos where someone will happily default to passing the buck rather than take action. I have seen too many colleagues pressurised by Signallers to do something they should not be doing and seen too many incidents where blame culture has been a direct contribution. And yes I have seen Drivers get away with incidents where they have failed drug testing because they were allowed to proceed.

To turn a blind eye where a Driver is clearly shaken up or wash your hands of any responsibility and turn it over to TOC control doesn't absolve you of your duty to ensure the safety of the railway. There is a rift between Drivers and Signallers and the blame culture keeps that divide open.

I have tried desperately to get a decent relationship with my boxes. I have personally requested trips up there (and had them) and I do my damn well best to ensure that I am polite, professional, and generally human towards the Guys and Girls with the fish tank

I have seen 3185's go missing, Box tapes go missing, Reversions failed to be reported, SPADS covered up, Signalman errors covered up and who knows what else. Still I trust those Signaller with my life, and yes, once of twice they have put that in danger.

I'm glad you follow the rule book.

However, my point still stands. I go through a Red, control know nothing. 2 quite serious SPADS I can relate to you the Signaller made the decision to remove the Driver.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I did the job as per the Rule Book.

I have no doubt you are aware that you guys are taught Rule book A and we are taught Rule book B

Even worse now with the new style rule book (are you aware of the new style ?)

 

[GB]

I have seen 3185's go missing, Box tapes go missing, Reversions failed to be reported, SPADS covered up, Signalman errors covered up and who knows what else. Still I trust those Signaller with my life, and yes, once of twice they have put that in danger.

Those are some mighty big accusations. I hope you can back them up seeing you have posted them on a public forum.

However, my point still stands. I go through a Red, control know nothing.

How do you know your control are unaware?

 

[ComUtoR]

How do you know your control are unaware?

Go through Red, fill out Driver report, speak to Driver Manager, No record of passing the signal. Read daily logs, no record of signal passed. Speak directly with control, yep first they heard of it.

 

[QueensCurve]

Platform staff would not make a decision about a driver who had suffered a SPAR. That can only be made by Control.

Signal passed at R...?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TI have lost count of the numbers of signals gone back on me, (one quite bad recently) and I have made the decision to come off a few times. Each time, my line manager has questioned my judgement and pulled me up on cancelling the service and costing the company in terms of delays.

It must be quite a scary thing to happen.

One very wet night about 25y ago I was travelling from Paddington to Bath in an HST. Immediately following a big lightening flash we experienced an emergency brake application. I remained seated until we stopped safely and then looked out of the droplight seeing a red light somewhere past the front of the train. The driver moved at caution up to the signal and there was the clunk, clunk, clunk of flatted wheels.

I have always thought it must have been terrifying for the driver since he did not know whether or not he was approaching a major collision unable to stop before he hit it.

 

[carriageline]

I am siding with ComUtor (at least from how I understand what he's saying, I think there may be some confusion!!)

I've spoke to plenty of drivers after near misses, COAs, TPWS acts. etc. 8/10 I would say are fine, and you can tell they are ok. A lot of drivers can seem to brush it off, and move on. 1/10 would sound fine, say he's a little shaken up but okay to continue (both times ive seen that happen the driver was taken off as apparently the words "shaken up" require that!)

The other 1/10, as ComUtor has said, you can tell they are quite shaken up by it. I've told control that, even if the driver is happy to continue. They've always been taken off.

In a SPAR situation, if driver is happy to continue then he goes, providing he's not at fault at all (which of course he won't be).

In a SPAD, control make all the decisions, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GB]

The other 1/10, as ComUtor has said, you can tell they are quite shaken up by it. I've told control that, even if the driver is happy to continue. They've always been taken off.

Agreed, but would you say that was your (the signaller) decision to take the driver off or controls?

 

[ComUtoR]

Agreed, but would you say that was your (the signaller) decision to take the driver off or controls?

If the Signaller turns to his or her control and tells them they believe the Driver shouldn't continue then its them making that recommendation. They are in direct contact with the Drivers. I doubt control will turn around and say that the Driver could continue is the Signaller has stated they believe the Driver is unfit/shaken up/made a very serious error. The Signaller is an integral part of the process. If Control act on the Signallers advice then its the the Signaller making the decision, otherwise your just splitting hairs.

In the SPAR situation. I've barely heard the Signaller miss a word. "Sorry about the Driver, it was X, Have you passed the Signal ?, are you Ok to continue ? Where is control involved in that decision ? The Signaller doesn't contact our TOC control and wait for a decision if the Driver can or cannot continue. Even when you have passed it the Signaller just lets you toddle off like nothing happened as you still get the "are you ok to continue ?"

 

[gerryuk]

Is it possible in this day and age for a driver on the mainline to cover a spad up?

 

[carriageline]

Not really. Modern signalling is recorded and logged to the ninth degree, with modern systems having SPAD alarms that monitor for SPADs specifically. Nevermind FFCCTV and trains being recorded


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elecman]

There can't be 2 Rule books, there is 1 master rule book and the sections issued are used without variation between the various companies/ roles.

 

[Llanigraham]

There can't be 2 Rule books, there is 1 master rule book and the sections issued are used without variation between the various companies/ roles.

Correct, but it appears someone thinks otherwise.

 

[GB]

If the Signaller turns to his or her control and tells them they believe the Driver shouldn't continue then its them making that recommendation. They are in direct contact with the Drivers. I doubt control will turn around and say that the Driver could continue is the Signaller has stated they believe the Driver is unfit/shaken up/made a very serious error. The Signaller is an integral part of the process. If Control act on the Signallers advice then its the the Signaller making the decision, otherwise your just splitting hairs.

So you are now changing the goal posts. The above does not constitute the signaller making the decision to take the driver off. You can call it splitting hairs all you like.
(My Bold)

 

[Johncleesefan]

So you are now changing the goal posts. The above does not constitute the signaller making the decision to take the driver off. You can call it splitting hairs all you like.
(My Bold)

I believe that both points raised by commuter in bold indicate the signaller liasing with their control. Regardless on who decided the driver is/isn't fit to continue, that conversation still took place on recorded line

 

[contrad!ction]

I believe that both points raised by commuter in bold indicate the signaller liasing with their control. Regardless on who decided the driver is/isn't fit to continue, that conversation still took place on recorded line

This is the important bit - if I state on a recorded line that as a signaller I do not consider it safe for the driver to continue in his/her present state (regardless of what the driver says) then no controller should be trying to persuade me otherwise, hopefully...

 

[highdyke]

All this stuff can be listened to remotely. CCF (and other things) can be played back. Every minute is accounted for, so a power or equipment failure will be logged somewhere, or anything that costs a couple of minutes.

Even the public now have access to what's going on these days through open train times to an extent!

I saw one chap try to cover something up years ago, managers spend lots of time listening to how people perform, and this got picked up and the person fired.

 

[Harbornite]

Signal passed at R...?

Signal passed at Red. According to witwikipedia

There are a number of ways that a train can pass a signal at danger without authority, and in the UK these fall into four basic categories:

A SPAD (Previously Category A SPAD) is where the train proceeds beyond its authorised movement to an unauthorised movement.[4]
A Technical SPAR (Previously Category B SPAD) is where the signal reverted to danger in front of the train due to an equipment failure or signaller error and the train was unable to stop before passing the signal.
A Signaller SPAR (Previously Category C SPAD) is where the signal was replaced to danger in front of the train by the signaller in accordance with the rules and regulations and the train was unable to stop before passing the signal.
A Runaway SPAR (Previously Category D SPAD) is where an unattended train or vehicles not attached to a traction unit run away past a signal at danger.
Some SPADs can be defined as;

SAS SPAD - "Starting against signal" SPAD,[5] where the where the train was standing at a danger signal and the driver moved past it.
SOY SPAD - "Starting on yellow" SPAD,[5] where the train left on a caution signal and the driver didn't appreciate that the next signal would be at danger.

I witnessed a train in the Birmingham area pass a red signal but under the correct procedures.

 

[Harbornite]

I do have a witness but I'll say no more because it's not really an issue, merely an observation.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

There's a clip on youtube that shows a Voyager having a signal go red in front of it without it having a chance to stop. Would the signaller and the driver's manager and/or control have treated it as a category A until proven otherwise? In the case of the clip, iirc it was something to do with a trackside gang caused the signal to go red, might have been a cable accidentally hit. Once the signaller had confirmed that to be the case would it then have been treated as a category B?