Croydon Tram Crash

[theageofthetra]

That's a blame device, not a safety device.

Correct. Would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Is it a camera connected an image processing system that attempts to detect closed eyes, head angle, etc? The technology is there and I think some cars might have it? http://breckon.eu/toby/publications/papers/walger14headpose.pdf is fairly interesting

If all Tramlink management have come up with is a CCTV camera just recording video to be viewed later then that's astounding

 

[AlterEgo]

Some further details:

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/...ing-trialled/story-30468162-detail/story.html

A new system to keep tram drivers "vigilant" is already being trialled and should be installed on all trams soon, Transport for London has revealed.

An update issued today by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) on its investigation into the fatal tram derailment at Sandilands Junction last year said tram operators should consider installing such systems.

The Advertiser reported in June that TfL had opened a tender process for companies to design a new driver vigilance system and an automatic speed monitoring device, which could automatically slow speeding trams.

At the moment, the trams rely on a so-called 'dead man's handle', which drivers must keep their hand on and is supposed to apply the brakes should the driver let go of the handle for more than a few seconds.

But it has been reported that drivers used to be able to either disable the handle, or that they were not functioning correctly.

The RAIB said the driver of the tram involved in the fatal crash "lost awareness" before the derailment.

This new system, which TfL says should be installed by the autumn, can detect "any sign" that the driver is distracted or fatigue and provide an alert.

A separate system for automatically managing tram speed on certain parts of the network is also being developed.

(my bold)

On the Driver Vigilance Device:

The DVD could be incorporated within the AVSM or provided on its own and it must generate a vigilance alert and inform the driver if no driver activity is detected for a time period.

It would then brake if the driver does not respond to the alert within a time period - different to the DSD which only activates if pressure if taken off the controls for a specific time period.

The warnings for both systems would have to be audible and visible to drivers and the control centre, where trams in service are monitored, would be notified in real time.

The only other trams in the country which have a similar device are the 2014 fleet of Birmingham trams, which were bought new with the vigilance device.

Read more at http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/...0385543-detail/story.html#8liAOtV4bifomyt3.99



So, it does appear that this is a vigilance device designed to protect the tram from overspeed and/or inattention.

If this is what the union are objecting to then it would be good to understand exactly what their objection is.

 

[Clip]

Indeed it would.

And some back pedalling from certain posters who assumed far too much before knowing the facts. As ever.

 

[Taunton]

I suspect that, rather than Tramlink analysing the situation as operators and determining a camera pointing at the driver is the best solution, a salesman from some camera organisation has got into the tram organisation and pushed heavily their product. It would be quite a sale for them. Whether it is the most effective solution is by the by. If the Tramlink management didn't go for it there are always multiple further routes to come down on them, working through the First Group central management, or similar.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It doesn't matter what the DVD does, or how it works, if the operator doesn't maintain it. There seems to be a culture of neglect at Tramlink, as well as a culture of blame and an apparent schism between management and front-line staff resulting in mutual distrust.

I'm not sure how you solve such a situation, but steamrollering a new device through without consultation isn't the way, nor is ignoring the fact that safety devices were not treated as essential requirements (trams allowed out with defective DVDs for example).

It doesn't matter how fantastic any new vigilance device is, if staff aren't involved and consulted on the implementation and if management don't address the underlying issues behind why so many drivers seem to suffer from fatigue while at the controls, then the risk of another incident is there.

 

[Clip]

It doesn't matter what the DVD does, or how it works, if the operator doesn't maintain it. There seems to be a culture of neglect at Tramlink, as well as a culture of blame and an apparent schism between management and front-line staff resulting in mutual distrust.

I'm not sure how you solve such a situation, but steamrollering a new device through without consultation isn't the way, nor is ignoring the fact that safety devices were not treated as essential requirements (trams allowed out with defective DVDs for example).

It doesn't matter how fantastic any new vigilance device is, if staff aren't involved and consulted on the implementation and if management don't address the underlying issues behind why so many drivers seem to suffer from fatigue while at the controls, then the risk of another incident is there.

So still no back pedalling from yourself and your previous post I see then. Amazed how someone from west Yorkshire seems to know so much about the inner workings of tramlink and can form such an opinion even after they have been proven wrong in their opinion about this device.

 

[D365]

Will that device likely be the same or at least work on the same principle as the vigilance device on heavy rail trains?

Err, your answer could be found directly in the line below...

 

[Caterpillar]

So still no back pedalling from yourself and your previous post I see then. Amazed how someone from west Yorkshire seems to know so much about the inner workings of tramlink and can form such an opinion even after they have been proven wrong in their opinion about this device.

And nor should he back pedal. The fitted device is unlikely to prevent another Sandilands incident, as it is NOT linked to the braking system. So if a driver fatigue or illness occur, the tram would still keep going. See Sun video, the questions as to why the driver can still power the tram while incapacitated, has not been addressed. The dsd is not fit for purpose. These events (driver asleep/illness) have happened before the Sandilands incident ( but benign location and not recorded by public) and no further safety devices were mentioned or suggested.

The device shines infrared directly into drivers eyes to 'read' them. http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/Intersil/documents/an17/an1737.pdf
This must be of some concern on a driver welfare level. It also has a camera to take an image should such an event occur. Is this camera live 24/7 who is monitoring it and why? Why an image is needed in such an event, would appear as others have noted a blame device. The underlying reason for fatigue or lack of situational awareness has not been addressed. The 17 years old bus rota and working hours / patterns remain.

Fitted with no driver or aslef consultation if my information is correct.

Many genuine reasons for concern imho.

 

[Clip]

And nor should he back pedal. The fitted device is unlikely to prevent another Sandilands incident, as it is NOT linked to the braking system. .

Did you not read the article that is at the top of this page then where it specifically states

The DVD could be incorporated within the AVSM or provided on its own and it must generate a vigilance alert and inform the driver if no driver activity is detected for a time period.
It would then brake if the driver does not respond to the alert within a time period - different to the DSD which only activates if pressure if taken off the controls for a specific time period.

so it IS to be linked to the braking system

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So still no back pedalling from yourself and your previous post I see then. Amazed how someone from west Yorkshire seems to know so much about the inner workings of tramlink and can form such an opinion even after they have been proven wrong in their opinion about this device.

One of the links posted up the thread (since the recent unlocking, I believe) included mention of vigilance devices being defective and trams being in service in that state. If that is happening at all, there's a problem. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, there were all kinds of stories about a schism between management and staff, and issues over shift patterns. These stories aren't "evidence" but they should prompt further investigation by regulators.

I'm not an expert and didn't claim to be one- I just expressed an opinion based on the evidence I had to hand at the time. The further details since posted do make this new device seem less flawed than it initially did: "a camera facing the driver", but this element of distrust between management and front line staff, increasingly throughout the whole railway industry, is not going to help either side.

I'm of the opinion that many of the industrial disputes are ideologically driven by a deeply anti-union government hell-bent on "cutting costs". Other opinions may vary.

 

[Dent]

I'm of the opinion that many of the industrial disputes are ideologically driven by a deeply anti-union government hell-bent on "cutting costs". Other opinions may vary.

That statement is rather biased. Phrases like "anti-union" and "hell-bent" are unhelpful to a balanced discussion, and rather inflammatory.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That statement is rather biased. Phrases like "anti-union" and "hell-bent" are unhelpful to a balanced discussion, and rather inflammatory.

Of course it's biased- it's an opinion. If you don't like reading opinions that differ from your own, perhaps give the internet a wide berth. :roll:

 

[Caterpillar]

Did you not read the article that is at the top of this page then where it specifically states




so it IS to be linked to the braking system

No I can 100% assure you , regardless of links or what others say etc, this system does NOT link to the braking system. It sounds an alarm, takes a picture and shakes the seat. There are other proposed system which do link to the braking system, but this is not one of them.

 

[BestWestern]

No I can 100% assure you , regardless of links or what others say etc, this system does NOT link to the braking system. It sounds an alarm, takes a picture and shakes the seat. There are other proposed system which do link to the braking system, but this is not one of them.

Genuinely? Takes a picture and shakes the seat?!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Genuinely? Takes a picture and shakes the seat?!

Shaking the seat might well be effective, but taking a picture? I can't see that as anything other than gathering evidence against the driver.

That's not to say that drivers should be allowed to doze off at the controls: but if it happens, something else has gone wrong further up the chain of events.

 

[BestWestern]

Shaking the seat might well be effective, but taking a picture? I can't see that as anything other than gathering evidence against the driver.

That's not to say that drivers should be allowed to doze off at the controls: but if it happens, something else has gone wrong further up the chain of events.

It sounds decidedly comedic. Intercontinental trains running at 186mph manage to do without 'vibrators' being installed under the Driver's backside, I'd be gobsmacked if it was a serious proposal on a tram! As for taking a picture, as if just to ensure that there is rope enough to hang the accused, just no!

 

[Caterpillar]

Genuinely? Takes a picture and shakes the seat?!

Yes, the mechanism is under seat. Camera directly to front at 6 o'clock. Many are already fitted just not activated. 100% not linked to braking system.

 

[Clip]

It sounds decidedly comedic. Intercontinental trains running at 186mph manage to do without 'vibrators' being installed under the Driver's backside, I'd be gobsmacked if it was a serious proposal on a tram! As for taking a picture, as if just to ensure that there is rope enough to hang the accused, just no!

You are aware that those trains are fitted with a vast array of safety systems and are controlled by signalling and thus isn't really comparable to a tram.

 

[BestWestern]

You are aware that those trains are fitted with a vast array of safety systems and are controlled by signalling and thus isn't really comparable to a tram.

I am, yes. And some of that technology should quite obviously have been deployed, in a much simplified form, here. Even an LUL style tripcock system would be effective, combined with a stop signal prior to the infamous curve. Bargain basement(ish), but far more effective than shaking a seat, which frankly is a ridiculous idea.

What is the purpose of taking a photograph of the alleged sleepy offender? So that they can all be instantly sacked? And, considering that a driver can evidently continue to operate the 'dead mans' whilst asleep, what protection does the 'vibrator' offer against a driver who is incapacitated? Or a driver who is distracted and fails to recognise their location and the need to brake?

 

[Caterpillar]

I am, yes. And some of that technology should quite obviously have been deployed, in a much simplified form, here. Even an LUL style tripcock system would be effective, combined with a stop signal prior to the infamous curve. Bargain basement(ish), but far more effective than shaking a seat, which frankly is a ridiculous idea.

What is the purpose of taking a photograph of the alleged sleepy offender? So that they can all be instantly sacked? And, considering that a driver can evidently continue to operate the 'dead mans' whilst asleep, what protection does the 'vibrator' offer against a driver who is incapacitated? Or a driver who is distracted and fails to recognise their location and the need to brake?

Precisely.

There have been previous occasions of a medical collapse, driver hit buffers. In a more dangerous location, like a curve, these would have been similar disasters to Sandilands. This system will not prevent these. What good is shaking a seat and taking a photo if the driver has a heart attack, stroke or other medical emergency.

 

[Bromley boy]

I am, yes. And some of that technology should quite obviously have been deployed, in a much simplified form, here. Even an LUL style tripcock system would be effective, combined with a stop signal prior to the infamous curve. Bargain basement(ish), but far more effective than shaking a seat, which frankly is a ridiculous idea.

What is the purpose of taking a photograph of the alleged sleepy offender? So that they can all be instantly sacked? And, considering that a driver can evidently continue to operate the 'dead mans' whilst asleep, what protection does the 'vibrator' offer against a driver who is incapacitated? Or a driver who is distracted and fails to recognise their location and the need to brake?

I agree.

This does seem a very bizarre solution, if it can even be called a solution. I can well see why the union isn't happy about what has been proposed based on the last few posts.

Surely a better system would be some form of TPWS style overspeed loops at key locations. These would ensure that if a tram was approaching too quickly for whatever reason: driver inattentiveness; driver error; driver incapacitation, the brakes would come on.

Excessive speed caused this accident. Overspeed loops would prevent this root cause. This system only purports to deal with one scenario that could result in excessive speed.

I'm sure overspeed loops have been considered and dismissed due to costs. Far better to make a pretence at implementing an improvement which, lo and behold, hangs the driver out to dry without actually meaningfully improving safety.

 

[Antman]

I agree.

This does seem a very bizarre solution, if it can even be called a solution. I can well see why the union isn't happy about what has been proposed based on the last few posts.

Surely a better system would be some form of TPWS style overspeed loops at key locations. These would ensure that if a tram was approaching too quickly for whatever reason: driver inattentiveness; driver error; driver incapacitation, the brakes would come on.

Excessive speed caused this accident. Overspeed loops would prevent this root cause. This system only purports to deal with one scenario that could result in excessive speed.

I'm sure overspeed loops have been considered and dismissed due to costs. Far better to make a pretence at implementing an improvement which, lo and behold, hangs the driver out to dry without actually meaningfully improving safety.

Would a driver be instantly sacked for falling asleep? Obviously nobody would do so intentionally?

I guess tramlink had to be seen to be doing something to reassure the public and this is it? Of course it could also be used to protect a driver if false allegations were made.

 

[Bromley boy]

Would a driver be instantly sacked for falling asleep? Obviously nobody would do so intentionally?

I guess tramlink had to be seen to be doing something to reassure the public and this is it? Of course it could also be used to protect a driver if false allegations were made.

I would imagine so.

On the big railway (I assume tramlink is similar) drivers are required to "book on" before every shift. By booking on you are stating you are well rested, fit and well for duty, therefore the onus is placed on the driver.

The difficulty with this is that fatigue is a natural aspect of extreme shift cycles and if you refused to book on every time you felt tired you'd probably refuse half of your shifts.

It's a very difficult one, as you say someone does not fall asleep intentionally. Obviously drivers need to take responsibility to ensure they are fit for duty but there also needs to be:

1. Efforts to ensure shift patterns don't cause excessive fatigue;
2. Technology to ensure the risk of accidents is kept to a minimum of all else fails.

 

[Antman]

I would imagine so.

On the big railway (I assume tramlink is similar) drivers are required to "book on" before every shift. By booking on you are stating you are well rested, fit and well for duty, therefore the onus is placed on the driver.

The difficulty with this is that fatigue is a natural aspect of extreme shift cycles and if you refused to book on every time you felt tired you'd probably refuse half of your shifts.

It's a very difficult one, as you say someone does not fall asleep intentionally. Obviously drivers need to take responsibility to ensure they are fit for duty but there also needs to be:

1. Efforts to ensure shift patterns don't cause excessive fatigue;
2. Technology to ensure the risk of accidents is kept to a minimum of all else fails.

I see what you mean, it does rather put the driver in an impossible position, they might feel fine when they start the shift but an hour or two later start feeling drowsy.

 

[philthetube]

It doesn't matter what the DVD does, or how it works, if the operator doesn't maintain it. There seems to be a culture of neglect at Tramlink, as well as a culture of blame and an apparent schism between management and front-line staff resulting in mutual distrust.

I'm not sure how you solve such a situation, but steamrollering a new device through without consultation isn't the way, nor is ignoring the fact that safety devices were not treated as essential requirements (trams allowed out with defective DVDs for example).

It doesn't matter how fantastic any new vigilance device is, if staff aren't involved and consulted on the implementation and if management don't address the underlying issues behind why so many drivers seem to suffer from fatigue while at the controls, then the risk of another incident is there.

On any railway a vehicle with a defective DVD would be immediately out of service and on the underground, and I would be surprised if not the same on the main line, a second member of staff must ride with the driver.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

On any railway a vehicle with a defective DVD would be immediately out of service and on the underground, and I would be surprised if not the same on the main line, a second member of staff must ride with the driver.

That's precisely my point on the whole issue. There seems to be a lack of respect for both safety and harmonious industrial relations between management and staff at the coal face. If it was discovered that a "big railway" TOC was sending out stock with defective OTMR or TPWS, or was violating driving hours rules, can you imagine the headlines?

Perhaps less so with drivers hours, because apparently anybody who wants improved working conditions is a communist/Trotskyist/fantasist/terrorist-hugger according to the MSM of course! :roll:

 

[Adlington]

An update from RAIB:

Key recommendation areas addressed to UK tram operators, are likely to be:

• provision of active tram protection to prevent serious accidents due to excessive speed at high risk locations
• research into active means of detecting the attention state of drivers and intervening in the event of inattention
• improved containment of passengers by tram windows and doors
• setting up of an industry body to facilitate more effective cooperation between UK tramway owners and operators on matters related to safety performance and the development of common standards

In addition, the RAIB’s investigation into how Tram Operations Ltd manage fatigue risk may result in a recommendation.

Our final report will also highlight the importance of ensuring the availability of in-tram CCTV systems and any actions already taken to address the issue. If necessary, the RAIB will also make a recommendation for further improvement in this area.

This list is not exhaustive, but includes some of the important safety issues that are likely to take time to implement, making early consideration vital. Other areas within the scope of our investigation, such as consideration of underlying safety management and regulatory factors, will also give rise to recommendations.

We are encouraged to learn that some tramway organisations have already started work in a number of these areas.

 

[Domh245]

I suppose that point 2 covers the driver-facing CCTV that is being installed in Croydon, although it is good to see that the first recommendation is about some sort of overspeed detection, so that should also work it's way onto the trams once it is ready.

 

[Adlington]

I suppose that point 2 covers the driver-facing CCTV that is being installed in Croydon

Point 2 mentions "research into active means of detecting the attention state of drivers and intervening in the event of inattention" (my emphasis), so it's rather a dead man's handle than a camera.
We'll see...