Overshoot at MKC - 9th May

[LowLevel]

No, it wasn't a serious suggestion about how safety should normally be maintained. The serious suggestion was, everything else that I wrote in that post. That particular remark was simply drawing attention to what the situation would actually be on the ground.



So, no response then to the question of what other plausible danger would there be that would justify a series of bureaucratic procedures adding up to something like 20 minutes in order to avert this unknown danger....

There are plenty of detailed posts in this thread explaining the what/why of what has occurred. Despite their provision, your basic response is to just say "nah".

Consequently I can only suggest you will have to be satisfied with what you have received thus far and feeling it to be insufficient, and having addressed your points as best we can the rest of us who are actually involved in their processes will have to continue to deem your opinion, which of course you have the right to hold, irrelevant.

 

[The Planner]

The signal at Milton Keynes P6 is on the end of the platform. A signalling expert will confirm, but surely the axle counters are going to get very excited if they count a certain amount in and then have them disappear if the train reversed without any authority or reset? Same goes to the prior section, its going to have counted some out that then reappear.

 

[GordonT]

Safety standards are rightly much more rigorous than they were back in the 1960s when I first had an awareness of travelling on trains. And the number of accidents has sharply declined. I remember some drivers of the Glasgow "Blue Trains" (class 303s) occasionally overshot platforms. The guard and driver would exchange 3 bells. The driver would move the lever from F to R and select notch 1 and drive the train back into the platform without leaving his seat. No formalities of any kind.
And all in full view of the passengers sitting behind the driver who had an uninterrupted view ahead and who regarded it as a mildly amusing minor occurrence.

 

[Lewisham2221]

But two trains didn't hit each other. It would be perfectly reasonable in the days after the event to investigate what happened from a perspective of, if there had been another train there this could have been serious, so is there anything we need to do to make this less likely to happen again? But that shouldn't be a barrier to getting the train moving again as soon as possible, when the only thing that happened was a train overshot without - from what we've heard - causing any other incident.

You're missing the point. A train shouldn't be overrunning a station, so part of the process is establishing why the train overran.

If the driver had a lapse of concentration, you want to quickly establish why - and potentially don't want that driver taking the service forward if there's a likelihood of that lapse of concentration reoccurring, potentially leading to a SPAD or worse...

Is there any other issue with the driver, like a medical situation?

Adhesion problem? You're going to want action taken to prevent a reoccurrence (and possible SPAD and/or points run through).

Traction (braking) problem? You might want to take the unit out of service, or else - guess what - that's another potential SPAD or worse issue...

 

[RailwayRookie]

Adding to the axle counter comment above there could be other infrastructure concerns to consider such as if the train had run across a set of points that were banned to facing movements for its return.
Something like that, control would be able to find out. But the signaller would be far more conscious of, hence talking to and getting authority from EVERYONE.

It's not as simple as "bang the train in reverse until you see the stop boards" like some people seem to think. Thankfully those people only have make arm chair decisions and do not have authority in the real world.

 

[Haywain]

The signaller will want you moving asap, control who don’t have to clean up the mess will take their merry time.

That sounds like just a bias according the the area of the railway in which you work. Control staff are concerned with late running as they know full well that it impacts other services, and it is them that has to make decisions about cancellations, not the signaller. And the case in point is very much a safety issue, which should be of concern to both functions and dealt with accordingly.

 

[King Lazy]

Drivers really need to not have issues weighing heavily on their mind. And especially when undertaking unusual actions. Having just had an incident that could lead to disciplinary action or affect one’s future career prospects would certainly be such an issue.

To require the driver to undertake quite rare manoeuvres in a timely manner whilst there is something weighing on their mind could easily lead to another incident and that incident could be catastrophic.

For example, a driver overruns, quickly changes ends, is concerned about the delay to passengers and then accidentally pings the wrong side doors.

And for those who believe trained individuals shouldn’t make such errors. Only this week we’ve seen a report of a BA pilot who accidentally cut thrust during a take off causing damage to the aircraft and I’m sure, delay to passengers. It could be argued that a trained pilot shouldn’t do that.

A great many railway and aviation incidents occur when concentration is diverted from the primary task. That can be due to alarms, mechanical issues, or even worrying you’ve just invoked possible disciplinary measures and may have to inform your family your mortgage may be harder to pay in future.

On another note I remember years ago my manager telling me he was on call when a driver 100 miles away had a simple TPWS activation towards buffers due to distraction by crowds at an extremely busy station during a large racing event.

The manager asked the driver over the phone what had happened and judging by the driver’s response that his speed was c12 mph and he was fit to continue left the matter to be dealt with by the drivers own manager when he was next in.

But a short time (a day or so IIRC) later the same driver had a SPAD before the previous incident had been fully investigated.

Due to the legal/press furore that would’ve occurred had that SPAD caused injury or death and an outstanding incident hadn’t been dealt with, the manager told me that in future any TPWS incident would incur a restriction from driving until a full investigation was complete.

So unfortunately for those who would like the priority to be as such, delays to passengers aren’t the priority after a safety incident. Not compounding the incident is. And compounding the incident would also compound the delay.

And when people pose the delay to passenger argument. I suspect there will always be those who aren’t happy with the response. What is the acceptable delay?

Why did it take 20/15/10/8/5 minutes to deal with this? A bus driver could’ve done it in 18/13/8/6/3.


Finally on the reversing bus question. You can bet it’s a great idea until one day, possibly far into the future a bus driver kills someone by reversing even if it’s a freak accident and a million plus safe reversing manoeuvres have been made before.

I’d be willing to bet the bus company would have a notice out before the end of the day banning reversing.

And any bus drivers forum would probably have someone who has never reversed a bus asking why the bus couldn’t just do a u-turn over the pavement like a taxi would as “you can always check there are no pedestrians”.

 

[Zomboid]

I doubt there's anyone who wants the process to take longer than necessary. But doing things safely is the absolute priority and there is a process to follow which takes time.

Doing things without a process is where one mistake gets compounded by more mistakes and that's how people get hurt.

 

[Somewhere]

The signaller will want you moving asap, control who don’t have to clean up the mess will take their merry time.

It'll be the other way round

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Adhesion problem? You're going to want action taken to prevent a reoccurrence (and possible SPAD and/or points run through).

There's an additional factor in a case like this which several other posters seem to have missed; while it's true that only one signal section is occupied - how does anyone know, if it's adhesion related, if the following train isn't going to SPAD and then plough into the back of the one being reversed?

I'd imagine part of the procedure before setting back would be to ensure the following train is stopped at a previous signal before any move can be authorised?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Drivers really need to not have issues weighing heavily on their mind. And especially when undertaking unusual actions. Having just had an incident that could lead to disciplinary action or affect one’s future career prospects would certainly be such an issue.

To require the driver to undertake quite rare manoeuvres in a timely manner whilst there is something weighing on their mind could easily lead to another incident and that incident could be catastrophic.

For example, a driver overruns, quickly changes ends, is concerned about the delay to passengers and then accidentally pings the wrong side doors.

And for those who believe trained individuals shouldn’t make such errors. Only this week we’ve seen a report of a BA pilot who accidentally cut thrust during a take off causing damage to the aircraft and I’m sure, delay to passengers. It could be argued that a trained pilot shouldn’t do that.

A great many railway and aviation incidents occur when concentration is diverted from the primary task. That can be due to alarms, mechanical issues, or even worrying you’ve just invoked possible disciplinary measures and may have to inform your family your mortgage may be harder to pay in future.

On another note I remember years ago my manager telling me he was on call when a driver 100 miles away had a simple TPWS activation towards buffers due to distraction by crowds at an extremely busy station during a large racing event.

The manager asked the driver over the phone what had happened and judging by the driver’s response that his speed was c12 mph and he was fit to continue left the matter to be dealt with by the drivers own manager when he was next in.

But a short time (a day or so IIRC) later the same driver had a SPAD before the previous incident had been fully investigated.

Due to the legal/press furore that would’ve occurred had that SPAD caused injury or death and an outstanding incident hadn’t been dealt with, the manager told me that in future any TPWS incident would incur a restriction from driving until a full investigation was complete.

So unfortunately for those who would like the priority to be as such, delays to passengers aren’t the priority after a safety incident. Not compounding the incident is. And compounding the incident would also compound the delay.

And when people pose the delay to passenger argument. I suspect there will always be those who aren’t happy with the response. What is the acceptable delay?

Why did it take 20/15/10/8/5 minutes to deal with this? A bus driver could’ve done it in 18/13/8/6/3.

Excellent post.

Finally on the reversing bus question. You can bet it’s a great idea until one day, possibly far into the future a bus driver kills someone by reversing even if it’s a freak accident and a million plus safe reversing manoeuvres have been made before.

I’d be willing to bet the bus company would have a notice out before the end of the day banning reversing.

And any bus drivers forum would probably have someone who has never reversed a bus asking why the bus couldn’t just do a u-turn over the pavement like a taxi would as “you can always check there are no pedestrians”.

I'm almost certain that such an incident has occured, at least causing serious injury, if not death.

I am absolutely certain that similar "oh I'll just reverse it a little, it'll be fine" have resulted in collisions causing damage to other vehicles or property and thus costly insurance claims.

It's these very incidents that have led to many bus companies doing exactly that and effectively banning all unsupervised reversing manoeuvres (with some exceptions such as bus stations, but not without incident).

 

[Haywain]

I am absolutely certain that similar "oh I'll just reverse it a little, it'll be fine" have resulted in collisions causing damage to other vehicles or property and thus costly insurance claims.

I can vouch for this - years ago I had a bus reverse into a car I was driving, causing it to be written off.

 

[6Gman]

Excellent post.


I'm almost certain that such an incident has occured, at least causing serious injury, if not death.

I am absolutely certain that similar "oh I'll just reverse it a little, it'll be fine" have resulted in collisions causing damage to other vehicles or property and thus costly insurance claims.

It's these very incidents that have led to many bus companies doing exactly that and effectively banning all unsupervised reversing manoeuvres (with some exceptions such as bus stations, but not without incident).

I'm pretty sure I read of a case where a coach driver was prosecuted for reversing his vehicle inappropriately but I cannot recall the details.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

There's an additional factor in a case like this which several other posters seem to have missed; while it's true that only one signal section is occupied - how does anyone know, if it's adhesion related, if the following train isn't going to SPAD and then plough into the back of the one being reversed?

I'd imagine part of the procedure before setting back would be to ensure the following train is stopped at a previous signal before any move can be authorised?

Exactly, the last thing you want is a train making a wrong-direction movement without everyone being absolutely certain it's safe for it to do so.
The signaller will ensure that any following trains are at a stand before authorising the first one to return to the platform. They will probably also warn the driver behind that he/she may see a train in the distance moving towards them on the same line.

 

[Somewhere]

If you have a train making an unsignalled move, everything else in the area will need to be brought to a stand. That will also take time.

 

[Spaceship323]

And that all rather exactly my point. That is a truly absurd set of bureaucracy to have to initiate in order to set a train back 3 carriage lengths into a platform.

Imagine if it was a bus that overshot the bus stop by some meters due to driver error stopping. And just to make it more comparable, imagine there's some safety issue that makes it inadvisable for the driver to open the doors at the point where the bus has stopped at. What's the driver going to do? Most likely look in his mirrors, check all is clear to reverse back to the correct position, and then do it. All sorted within seconds. The big things that are reasonably likely (in a sane World) to be different on the railway are that you'd probably have to let the signaller and the guard know what you're doing, and that the driver would have to walk back to the cab at the other end of the train - and those things, in a sane World, would add a few minutes. Not 20 minutes.

Isn't it illegal to reverse a PSV with passengers onboard without a banksman?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Isn't it illegal to reverse a PSV with passengers onboard without a banksman?

No, absolutely not

 

[stuu]

So, no response then to the question of what other plausible danger would there be that would justify a series of bureaucratic procedures adding up to something like 20 minutes in order to avert this unknown danger....

Stop digging

It takes time to ascertain that there isn't a fault with the train or the driver. It just does. Then solving the problem can happen

 

[Haywain]

Isn't it illegal to reverse a PSV with passengers onboard without a banksman?

Certainly not, it's a practice that has been built into the design and layout of bus stations for many, many years.

 

[sharpener]

Certainly not, it's a practice that has been built into the design and layout of bus stations for many, many years.

Doesn't make it safe though. Cambridge bus station is a case in point, they have recently increased the number of services that go into bay 10, and though there are barriers a lot of pax prefer to walk across behind the buses as opposed to using the walking route and ped xing. For a big tourist destination Drummer St bus station is not adeqate.

And the new(ish) bus stops at the railway station are a disaster, they are a long way away, too far apart from each other and there is little shelter.

In comparison with train drivers, bus drivers lack many skills including stopping at the right mark, stopping at the harrington hump if there is one, lowering the suspension for ppl with limited mobility etc etc.

 

[Harpo]

Isn't it illegal to reverse a PSV with passengers onboard without a banksman?

I have two rural routes in my area that reverse, loaded and unaided, in local villages with full sized single deckers.

 

[Krokodil]

If that were the case they'd probably have just said "ah screw it" and canned the station stop, so it would arrive at wherever it's destination was on time.

That happened at Lockerbie. Driver almost forgot the stop, remembered too late to prevent an overrun. Knowing that a "failure to call" would result in less grief than an overrun, he powered up and carried on.

That sounds more like the standard PTI check (open local door, step out etc) before releasing the doors rather than a specific instruction in the case of an overrun. I've never heard of crew being instructed to release individual doors that are still in the station with a T-key when a train has overrun a platform nor of it being the recommended practice as implied in this thread.

I believe that the previous poster is referring to the use of butterfly switches on 158s when stopped at short platforms to open additional doors to the local one. Scotrail do the same with pairs of 156s on the West Highland Line.

 

[43066]

I can’t seem to find it now - but there was a YouTube video some years back of an (I think) XC approaching a station with brakes smoking, overshooting the platform, and the driver then doing the “walk of shame” and setting back.

 

[Falcon1200]

control who don’t have to clean up the mess will take their merry time.

You clearly have no idea what Control actually does. 'Cleaning up messes' is the major Control function, but whatever the mess, has to be done correctly in the interest of all concerned. And sometimes that takes time.

 

[43066]

You clearly have no idea what Control actually does. 'Cleaning up messes' is the major Control function, but whatever the mess, has to be done correctly in the interest of all concerned. And sometimes that takes time.

Agreed. Control tend to be very much the brains behind the operation - I learned a few years ago to call them directly rather than wasting time with the resources desk.

 

[Tilting007]

The signaller will want you moving asap, control who don’t have to clean up the mess will take their merry time.

Depends on the box .
I am sure any Control will want things moving as quickly or quicker than a signaller..

 

[Horizon22]

Agreed. Control tend to be very much the brains behind the operation - I learned a few years ago to call them directly rather than wasting time with the resources desk.

Although service controllers and resource controllers are normally next to - or at least near - each other. Normally the former is promoted from the latter though.

 

[Starmill]

Some TOCs have effectively banned using the emergency door release handles in these situations because it's considered an incorrect release of doors, even if the door that's released using the emergency handle is one that's on the platform, and is likely to trigger removal from duty pending investigation if it's done.

This is crazy because if you leave passengers on a train for 25 minutes when they can see the platform at their station what's likely to happen? They will likely pull the emergency door release themselves of course. If they do so then realistically who is going to stop them stepping off the train and leaving the station in the usual manner?

Now the driver and guard are in a much worse position. What if the train doesn't have a TMS which immediately alerts the driver which door has been released, or if that indication isn't working correctly? They could feel the need, quite justifiably in many cases, to act as if it's an offside door that has been released onto a live running line and someone has climbed out. Emergency call time.

This is more of an issue for trains in multiple where there is no corridor connection between the units as the guard is less likely to be able to release the local door themselves for all parts of the train here.

 

[jfowkes]

Is there any scope for making this kind of process slightly more efficient under GBR?

Without several TOCs in the mix, you could in principle have a unified (or at least simpler) set of rules for this kind of incident. This could slightly reduce the "bureaucracy overhead"?

In practice I suspect this is not the case but I'd be interested to know what others with more knowledge think.

 

[43066]

Although service controllers and resource controllers are normally next to - or at least near - each other. Normally the former is promoted from the latter though.

Ours don’t seem to be.

Resources desk: I need a taxi in tomorrow, please. “I’m not sure if I can authorise it, can you contact your driver manager to authorise it, blah blah blah.”

Oh Strewth.

Control: I need a taxi in tomorrow, please, if you want that train to run. “Done”.

They’re people I can work with!