Lumo driving standard

[hexagon789]

Middle ground required here. If something is uncomfortable or dangerous then it is best addressed rather than left to the point where it might cause an incident.

Exactly.

People are entitled to contact the relevant TOC if they are unhappy with harsh braking; whether the TOC will be interested in any such correspondence is another matter.

I agree on both points, but people have a right to complain of they wish regardless of whether they understand the minutiae of what they complaining about. I get complaints all the time by people who likely have no understanding of the in-depth processes of how things work, but I find the overwhelming majority of people are quite understanding, more forgiving and more amiable if you at least attempt to explain things as best you can as to why the things they are complaining about have occurred.

In general I'd say harsh braking is far worse and much more common in continental Europe than in the UK though!

Definitely!

My question is - do 803s have blended rheo or regen brakes

Blended regen with rheo back-up.

 

[Mintona]

I’m not going to judge another driver on a route I don’t sign when I can’t see what is going on out the front.

 

[Nflkrail]

As a driver, we all know at our depot that there are 'good', 'bad', 'ok', 'great' and everything in-between driving styles. A lot of this will be based on when they were taught. Similarly, all drivers have 'off' days or runs.

A restrictive (double or single yellow) aspect must allow a minimum service braking distance until the driver encounters the red. That is to say, the driver will always be able to stop should they react positively when they see the first restrictive aspect, with the rare exception of instances such as poor rail adhesion. Route knowledge will then tell you how quickly you need to get the brake on and the speed off factoring where the red is, the speed you're doing and the railhead conditions.

Sometimes, when I'm driving at 100mph, I encounter a single yellow and I know I haven't got much room until the red. The brake is applied firmly to get the speed down; in this instance it's possible someone on their feet may think, that's a bit rough. That's different to a driver who throws the train around. It's easier to drive poorly than it is smoothly. I'm not going to apologise for firm braking if it's warranted, and if I need to use the emergency brake, I will. I have sometimes applied the emergency brake then to release it when whatever I've applied it for is no longer a danger (some trains you can then release without coming to a stand). Yes, this causes the train to handle roughly but better than flattening someone.

We've all encountered poor driving, but sometimes it can be misinterpreted if you're not in the know or upfront.

Reading between the lines on Lumo, their drivers are new to the route, new perhaps to high-speed driving, new to the stock. I would think the Peterborough incident is due to poor route knowledge, which is down to both the training and the driver. But more widely, I would think the raib report will highlight that more needs to be done to train new drivers on the route, given the speeds and associated risks involved. I'm not judging the driver, it happens to us all. You learn the route properly when you're on your own, you just need to stay safe in the meantime.

 

[JonathanH]

But more widely, I would think the raib report will highlight that more needs to be done to train new drivers on the route, given the speeds and associated risks involved.

Is there a difficulty that with Lumo only running fast services that aren't really expected to use the turnouts, loops and platforms along the route and on almost every journey just stay on the fast line, there simply isn't any opportunity to refresh the stopping distances for each and every possible feature?

 

[Dieseldriver]

Is there a difficulty that with Lumo only running fast services that aren't really expected to use the turnouts, loops and platforms along the route and on almost every journey just stay on the fast line, there simply isn't any opportunity to refresh the stopping distances for each and every possible feature?

My comment is not based on what happened at Peterborough but the same could be said of lots of Drivers based at particular depots around the country. The important thing when route learning isn’t just the ‘humdrum’ regular day to day routings, it’s also the unusual moves/lines that you rarely do that need to be learnt.
If this incident was partially caused by a route knowledge/learning issue, hopefully it should stop the moronic comments on this forum by people stating ‘I don’t need to sign a route in my little car with rubber tyres running on a tarmac road, why do Train Drivers driving hundreds/thousands of tonnes of train with metal wheels on metal rails’….
Route knowledge isn’t just about knowing the physical layout of a route, it’s also about anticipation of route risks, there’s much more to it than people who aren’t on the inside will ever comprehend.

 

[Edsmith]

Middle ground required here. If something is uncomfortable or dangerous then it is best addressed rather than left to the point where it might cause an incident.

I agree completely, always best to speak up about any concerns, if it turns out to be nothing it's better safe than sorry.

 

[David57]

Is there a difficulty that with Lumo only running fast services that aren't really expected to use the turnouts, loops and platforms along the route and on almost every journey just stay on the fast line, there simply isn't any opportunity to refresh the stopping distances for each and every possible feature?

I was on a Lumo earlier in the week, the amount of times we changed from fast to slow lines was noticeable

 

[Dren Ahmeti]

I was on a Lumo earlier in the week, the amount of times we changed from fast to slow lines was noticeable

All because as an OA operator, they don’t get preferential paths like LNER do, and are forced to “make do”.
Even super-fasts on GWR-land are pathed around fast services; I took one the other day, and because of lateness, we followed the service that should’ve left 10 mind earlier all the way to Paddington, even though we were fast from Chippenham.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

I’m not going to judge another driver on a route I don’t sign when I can’t see what is going on out the front.

Last night, I was on 1C39 (last Down Bristol), and we had two freights put in front of us, as we were down to two-track railway; once from Slough West to Reading, and then from Tilehurst East to Didcot East.
Both were caused by freight services running outside their path (one late, one early), and it was probably caused by ARS intervention, and not signaller.

You know what the stretch between Reading-Didcot is like - the most the driver got up to was 95mph eventually, driving defensively (keeping it around 50/55mph on a 125mph stretch of line), as they were receiving adverse aspects all the way until Moreton Cutting, when the freight fortunately peeled off, and went via the Down Avoider. I’d say there was quite a harsh braking application just after Pangbourne, but that’s to be expected due to the signal sighting available there - you know the curve I’m talking about?

Lumo and other open-access operators deal with this day in day out, much more than any other TOC.

They also deal with a fair few of alternate routings that aren’t questioned for non-stoppers: York avoiders vice platform or v.v.; Hertford Loop vice ML; lots of Slows vice Fast running and vice versa.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Following the original complaint by the OP, it has been looked at. The worst deceleration on the run was at 5% g, which was warranted when a restrictive aspect appeared. The transition to 5% is the important thing here as that would have been sudden.

For obvious reasons, I am not going to get into any further detail here about that particular run.

IET units can go up to 12.5% in emergency. At 12.5% you really don’t want to be anywhere else in the train than in your seat.

 

[357]

Following the original complaint by the OP, it has been looked at. The worst deceleration on the run was at 5% g, which was warranted when a restrictive aspect appeared. The transition to 5% is the important thing here as that would have been sudden.

For obvious reasons, I am not going to get into any further detail here about that particular run.

IET units can go up to 12.5% in emergency. At 12.5% you really don’t want to be anywhere else in the train than in your seat.

Thanks for that

Unfortunately what was a question about paths, driving policy and signal aspects (and to an extent the terrible design of tray table on what is a better seat overall) turned into a bash Lumo thread... Not my intentions when posted.

Driving units with notches for brakes - where does that compare to percentage of full service?

I would guess the issues in the coach were made worse by the flip down tables being so smooth - and made yet even worse by the backwards facing seats having nothing to stop stuff sliding straight into the people sitting in said seats!

I'd likely have not noticed so much if stuff wasn't sliding and falling off tables!

 

[43066]

Following the original complaint by the OP, it has been looked at. The worst deceleration on the run was at 5% g, which was warranted when a restrictive aspect appeared. The transition to 5% is the important thing here as that would have been sudden.

If this is correct then I’m absolutely staggered that someone claiming to be professional train driver (I have my doubts) would take to social media and formally complain about a colleague who was braking normally for restrictive signal aspects. Presumably this led to a great deal of stress and unpleasantness for said colleague and all for absolutely no good reason.

Very poor form.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, the driver (unless he is on this forum) is blissfully unaware. Only if something odd was found on the download would the matter be taken up with him and then, to be fair to due process, the reply I gave here would have been far more vague.

 

[bramling]

If this is correct then I’m absolutely staggered that someone claiming to be professional train driver (I have my doubts) would take to social media and formally complain about a colleague who was braking normally for restrictive signal aspects. Presumably this led to a great deal of stress and unpleasantness for said colleague and all for absolutely no good reason.

Very poor form.

Would the driver necessarily know? Certainly at my mob we get complaints coming in at the rate of sometimes several per day where people make allegations, mainly when they get caught in closing doors. Depending on who is investigating the driver *might* be asked to provide a report, but most of the time if CCTV or download shows no issues then the driver wouldn’t know about it - though there would of course be a record of the incident being investigated which would have the driver’s details on it.

 

[LCC106]

It does, however, go to show that what gets posted on here can get investigated and members should be mindful of that. That’s no dig at Clarence Yard by the way, and interesting to note his comments, but (however loose the) allegations do get taken seriously.

 

[irish_rail]

Maybe when posting this kind of stuff in future exact details of day and service shouldn't be included for the sake of the driver?
The post is valid in my opinion but I personally wouldn't have given any details of the date and time of the trip.

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe when posting this kind of stuff in future exact details of day and service shouldn't be included for the sake of the driver?
The post is valid in my opinion but I personally wouldn't have given any details of the date and time of the trip.

Agreed, especially when it’s an operator only running a few trains a day, so relatively easy to identify the service.

 

[irish_rail]

I also agree the OP has a point. I'm a driver, and recently travelling passenger experienced an abysmally driven 802 along the B and H. It actually gave me backache due to the constant on and off the power and brake . 80x is a relatively simple traction to drive, but if driven "lazily" doesn't half give a bad ride. Thankfully the vast majority of first group employed 80x drivers do an excellent job.

 

[ComUtoR]

It does, however, go to show that what gets posted on here can get investigated and members should be mindful of that. That’s no dig at Clarence Yard by the way, and interesting to note his comments, but (however loose the) allegations do get taken seriously.

That someone read this forum and took it upon themselves to investigate and then share that investigation is very disconcerting.

Does this send a message of caution or does it promote further action.

There was no identifying service mentioned so it worries me even more.

 

[43066]

No, the driver (unless he is on this forum) is blissfully unaware. Only if something odd was found on the download would the matter be taken up with him and then, to be fair to due process, the reply I gave here would have been far more vague.

I’m pleased to hear that.

I would also hope that a decision to investigate would only be taken based on a formal complaint made by an identifiable individual, rather than just something written anonymously on here (I realise such a complaint might have been made in addition to the comments here). Apart from anything else it is likely to prove an enormous waste of management time otherwise, as this example has demonstrated.

My original point stands - I’m surprised a train driver of all people would feel the need to complain about a train driver braking normally for signal aspects!!!

I also agree the OP has a point. I'm a driver, and recently travelling passenger experienced an abysmally driven 802 along the B and H. It actually gave me backache due to the constant on and off the power and brake . 80x is a relatively simple traction to drive, but if driven "lazily" doesn't half give a bad ride. Thankfully the vast majority of first group employed 80x drivers do an excellent job.

The OP does not have a point because (assuming we can believe any of what has been written above) they were investigated and found to be driving normally. Keeping in mind the audience on here do you *really* want to encourage them to complain and seek explanation everytime some aspect of perfectly normal driving is not to their liking?

I had to brake sharpish from 120 for a 50 TSR which came up quicker than expected the other day… All perfectly normal and nobody batted an eyelid. Would I want to then read about it on here because an enthusiast had decided there was something wrong with my driving? Good grief.

 

[bramling]

That someone read this forum and took it upon themselves to investigate and then share that investigation is very disconcerting.

Does this send a message of caution or does it promote further action.

There was no identifying service mentioned so it worries me even more.

Surely it’s no different to someone moaning about a rough ride on other forms of social media? These sorts of things can be quite easily investigated, if for no other reason than to disprove any allegation.

I can certainly think of an example where someone made a comment on Facebook about along the lines of “just got off a train, driver going mad, drove way faster than it normally goes”. Turned out the section of track had just had a significant speed increase. Likewise I seem to remember someone posting on here some years ago a similar allegation about a speeding driver, where it turned out the service was booked on a 75mph slow line but on that occasion had been routed on the 100mph fast line.

If there is an allegation floating about, best to get it investigated promptly whilst stuff like download data is available, rather than wait for a formal complaint to come in, which might not land until weeks later.

 

[43066]

If there is an allegation floating about, best to get it investigated promptly whilst stuff like download data is available, rather than wait for a formal complaint to come in, which might not land until weeks later.

If a *proper* allegation is made, I completely agree. I’m not sure anonymous, unverifiable comments made on an Internet forum count as that, though!

There’s something a little odd about this entire thread…

 

[ComUtoR]

I can certainly think of an example where someone made a comment on Facebook about along the lines of “just got off a train, driver going mad, drove way faster than it normally goes”. Turned out the section of track had just had a significant speed increase. Likewise I seem to remember someone posting on here some years ago a similar allegation about a speeding driver, where it turned out the service was booked on a 75mph slow line but on that occasion had been routed on the 100mph fast line.

It's very easy to throw out random, and often uneducated accusations about anything. The railway has procedures in place to monitor and assess staff on a regular basis. Should we be encouraging and accepting that trail by social media is now the default way to prompt an investigation ?

If another random accusation gets posted does that mean it should be investigated without due process based on hearsay ? TOCs will have procedures in place to start an investigation where there is cause to do so. I'm not sure that random posting on social media constitutes a justified cause to investigate a member of staff. I would be interested in this unannounced monitoring will go on the Drivers file to say that something was investigated and they were found to be innocent, rather than an unofficial check that's now swept under the proverbial carpet.

 

[bramling]

If a *proper* allegation is made, I completely agree. I’m not sure anonymous, unverifiable comments made on an Internet forum count as that, though!

My place has definitely investigated stuff off the back of social media.

It normally takes the form of a phone call along the lines of “XXX is fuming, someone is claiming … on Facebook, look in to it and email back will you”.

Occasionally such things even turn out to have a grain of truth to them!

 

[ComUtoR]

My place has definitely investigated stuff off the back of social media.

It normally takes the form of a phone call along the lines of “XXX is fuming, someone is claiming … on Facebook, look in to it and email back will you”.

Occasionally such things even turn out to have a grain of truth to them!

An internal request to start an official investigation where the Driver would be aware of and a report asked for.

Which results of which would doubtfully be posted on social media for all to see. That wouldn't be professional.

 

[bramling]

It's very easy to throw out random, and often uneducated accusations about anything. The railway has procedures in place to monitor and assess staff on a regular basis. Should we be encouraging and accepting that trail by social media is now the default way to prompt an investigation ?

I’m not suggesting making allegations on social media should be encouraged (though this forum isn’t social media in the truest sense, and is - to some extent at least - a more specialised media), on the contrary a formal report to the relevant operator’s customer services is the correct way to go.

But I am suggesting that operators may well consider it prudent to look into stuff pre-emptively, as by the time anything arrives formally any evidence might have been lost. The latter scenario really isn’t to the benefit of anyone.

I would also suggest that in the vast majority of instances the download is almost certain to show “nothing to see here” as an outcome, so nothing for drivers to be bothered about.

 

[ComUtoR]

I would also suggest that in the vast majority of instances the download is almost certain to show “nothing to see here” as an outcome, so nothing for drivers to be bothered about.

I've seen my share of downloads so I understand where your coming from. However, in an investigation you don't just rely on the OTDR evidence. The Drivers report will form a vital part of the overal evidence package.

 

[irish_rail]

I’m pleased to hear that.

I would also hope that a decision to investigate would only be taken based on a formal complaint made by an identifiable individual, rather than just something written anonymously on here (I realise such a complaint might have been made in addition to the comments here). Apart from anything else it is likely to prove an enormous waste of management time otherwise, as this example has demonstrated.

My original point stands - I’m surprised a train driver of all people would feel the need to complain about a train driver braking normally for signal aspects!!!



The OP does not have a point because (assuming we can believe any of what has been written above) they were investigated and found to be driving normally. Keeping in mind the audience on here do you *really* want to encourage them to complain and seek explanation everytime some aspect of perfectly normal driving is not to their liking?

I had to brake sharpish from 120 for a 50 TSR which came up quicker than expected the other day… All perfectly normal and nobody batted an eyelid. Would I want to then read about it on here because an enthusiast had decided there was something wrong with my driving? Good grief.

Actually if drivers are driving poorly then yes that should be called out. Braking hard for adverse signals is absolutely fine, but it absolutely isn't when braking for stations and speed restrictions etc. As drivers we have to aim to provide the best overall journey experience possible , especially on longer distance journeys. Braking suddenly and heavily is not good way to drive and most DSMs will pull a driver up for that. Clarence_yard has confirmed the Lumo driver on this thread hasn't broken the rules, but that's not to say they are driving well. Its not just about transporting cargo from A to B, as a long distance train driver, personally I take a bit of pride in my driving and the overall experience for the passengers.
And just to reiterate i am not for one minute suggesting that train details be given on here as im not up for getting anyone in trouble but general comments on a journey experience shouldn't present a problem.

 

[Watershed]

I don't think it would be right for people to be put off writing posts here or on social media where they ask whether something is normal. Train drivers are human, they can make mistakes or have 'off' days sometimes.

Honestly I'm slightly surprised that a comment on here resulted in a more formal investigation, but we don't necessarily know the full story (e.g. I would be less surprised if a comment/complaint was also made through formal channels such as Customer Relations). But it is important to take comments seriously because it could be the trigger that prevents another incident like this happening.

And even if something is entirely safe and "by the book", that doesn't necessarily mean it's comfortable. It's perfectly safe for an aircraft to fly in turbulence, and sometimes that is unavoidable, but pilots will still usually try to move to a smoother altitude/flight path if they can help it. No different here, it may just be that the driver would benefit from a bit of feedback about trying to drive more smoothly. Or equally if could just be bad luck in terms of aspects/TSRs encountered.

 

[bramling]

I've seen my share of downloads so I understand where your coming from. However, in an investigation you don't just rely on the OTDR evidence. The Drivers report will form a vital part of the overal evidence package.

If one doesn’t mind cancelling a train to give the driver the time to write a report!

 

[PupCuff]

If another random accusation gets posted does that mean it should be investigated without due process based on hearsay ? TOCs will have procedures in place to start an investigation where there is cause to do so. I'm not sure that random posting on social media constitutes a justified cause to investigate a member of staff. I would be interested in this unannounced monitoring will go on the Drivers file to say that something was investigated and they were found to be innocent, rather than an unofficial check that's now swept under the proverbial carpet.

Social media is actually an increasingly valuable tool in the identification and subsequent investigation of accidents and incidents. Less common I would think for monitoring of compliance with driving policies and whatnot purely on the basis it's generally disproportionate to try and whittle down the individual train, time, location etc, but for someone like Lumo with a limited pool of trains to check it's probably not that time consuming in fairness, particularly if you can do a remote download of an 80x from the comfort of your desk (unfamiliar with the traction so no idea if you can or not).

As Bramling notes upthread, far better to collect the perishable evidence so you don't stitch yourself up down the line when it turns out something was amiss. Once you've looked at CCTV footage or a download you'll have a much better idea whether it was something or nothing and then if it was nothing, you've only lost the time taken to make the request/take and review the download.

All in all, I think Clarence Yard's response shows a particularly good level of customer service; proactively monitoring social media channels for customer concerns and feedback, looking into it and providing a speedy response to the customer.