TPE unusual station duties process observed

BMIFlyer said:

This no longer applies, as per the rule book.

A competent person is now only from the driver grade, not a guard.

The only time a guard can sit in the leading cab is to help the driver examine the line, or for any specific reason given by control, such as a broken windscreen obscuring the drivers view, or where permission has been sought due to the driver having an incident (for example a near miss and said driver feels shaken up).

Usually when a safety system is isolated, the train is terminated at an appropriate station, say Leeds, Huddersfield, Selby, etc.

Click to expand...

Which module specifically states Driving grade only? Competent Person still carries the definition in the 'glossary' simply as somebody competent to carry out a particular rule or regulation, rather vaguely. DSD failure in TW5 requires only for the CP to confirm they understand how to stop the train, there's no mention of who they are.

BestWestern said:

Which module specifically states Driving grade only? Competent Person still carries the definition in the 'glossary' simply as somebody competent to carry out a particular rule or regulation, rather vaguely. DSD failure in TW5 requires only for the CP to confirm they understand how to stop the train, there's no mention of who they are.

Click to expand...

Changed my reply slightly - at my TOC, the guard is only competent for DSD/Vigilance, all other equipment failures require a driver grade in the front.

BestWestern said:

Which module specifically states Driving grade only? Competent Person still carries the definition in the 'glossary' simply as somebody competent to carry out a particular rule or regulation, rather vaguely. DSD failure in TW5 requires only for the CP to confirm they understand how to stop the train, there's no mention of who they are.

Click to expand...

Probably company specific so likely contained within the companies contingency plan?

SPADTrap said:

Probably company specific?

Click to expand...

Correct.

Eric said:

I may be wrong, but it definitely appeared to be the driver.

Why else would he walk up and down the train before opening the doors?

I was sat in the front carriage, so had a good enough view. I've never seen this operation before.

Click to expand...

You probably are wrong. If the action of walking up and down the train corresponds with door release or other station duties then at TPE this would correspond with the guard's duties. If the train cannot be detrained for some reason (be it poor weather, vulnerable passengers, unsuitable locations etc.) then the service may well have to continue with the guard travelling with the driver. It is unlikely that train door control would be permitted from the driving cab unless all other door controls were faulty, which is broadly the rule followed with guard-operated trains. If the driver was operating the doors, it would be under instruction of the guard if the train was in passenger service (which obviously it was).

BMIFlyer said:

This mostly no longer applies, as per the rule book.

The only time a guard can sit in the leading cab is for failure of the vigilance system, or to help the driver examine the line, or for any specific reason given by control, such as a broken windscreen obscuring the drivers view, or where permission has been sought due to the driver having an incident (for example a near miss and said driver feels shaken up).

Click to expand...

The Rule Book is actually the exact opposite - it mostly still does apply. Your company's instructions may vary but a competent person is still defined in the RSSB Glossary as "a person who is passed as being qualified and has the required knowledge and skills to carry out a particular rule, regulation, instruction or procedure". Module TW5 then describes actions of a competent person during failure of AWS, TPWS, DSD, vigilance equipment or windscreen breakage.

tsr said:

The Rule Book is actually the exact opposite - it mostly still does apply. Your company's instructions may vary but a competent person is still defined in the RSSB Glossary as "a person who is passed as being qualified and has the required knowledge and skills to carry out a particular rule, regulation, instruction or procedure". Module TW5 then describes actions of a competent person during failure of AWS, TPWS, DSD, vigilance equipment or windscreen breakage.

Click to expand...

Okay, in the TPE specific rulebook, it mostly doesn't apply

I have the RSSB TW5 on my iPad, yes it doesn't mention WHO the competent person is/has to be, but we have our own specifics as advised by our ops standards department.

(Sorry if I'm waffling on, been a long day).

tsr said:

(Didn't someone once smash the window of a Virgin train service to escape after doing something brutal onboard - rather than use the egress? I seem to remember it might have been something really quite nasty like murder or attempted murder.)

Click to expand...

I believe that was due to the other passengers unsurprisingly scarpering and the guard managing to lock him in the carriage so he wouldn't have had access to the emergency door release and, again unsurprisingly, he wasn't going to just sit there after murdering somebody.

BMIFlyer said:

Okay, in the TPE specific rulebook, it mostly doesn't apply

I have the RSSB TW5 on my iPad, yes it doesn't mention WHO the competent person is/has to be, but we have our own specifics as advised by our ops standards department.

(Sorry if I'm waffling on, been a long day).

Click to expand...

No problem - I've also had a few long days recently where I would have been similar!

The definition is there in the app, which is what I was also using. Go back to the list of modules -> Use the menu on the top left -> Under "Dashboard" there should be a list of items -> Tap "Glossary"!

Cumberlandkev said:

Thomas Lee Woods. 21 yrs imprisonment.

Click to expand...

Here is a news report of the incident: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/10/ukcrime

A man was jailed for life today with a minimum tariff of 21 years after admitting the murder on a train of a university student who had done no more than look in his direction. Thomas Lee Wood, 22, fatally stabbed Thomas Grant, 19, in the chest on a Virgin train from Glasgow to Devon as it went through Cumbria on May 27.

Click to expand...

The guard's ability to be the competent person in case of AWS failure was removed a number of years ago when the guard's route knowledge requirement was watered down. Yet just to show how these things don't necessarily follow a logical pattern, the guard is still competent to control a propelling move in the case of driving cab failure to clear the line while the driver drives from the back of the train *shrug*

Just a week or two ago I know of a train given dispensation to proceed with a broken windscreen at reduced speed with the guard up front as well (I believe it was a VTEC service).

The rulebook doesn't specify a lot of things in huge detail but the company usually elects to arsecover and make it more restrictive than that anyway.

Eric said:

I may be wrong, but it definitely appeared to be the driver.

Why else would he walk up and down the train before opening the doors?

I was sat in the front carriage, so had a good enough view. I've never seen this operation before.

Click to expand...

The problem is: it definitely "appeared" to be the driver.
With a statement like that, you could have also said "it definitely appeared to be the guard" or
"it definitely appeared to be an RPI".
"It" could have been any number of roles. Yu are either sure, or not. Wishy washy phrases like "definitely appeared" is useless as you're saying you're sure it might have been X or Y.

If you were on the train, you wouldn't be able to see if the mystery person came from the cab or the first set of doors (unless you were next to those doors?).

Bertie the bus said:

I believe that was due to the other passengers unsurprisingly scarpering and the guard managing to lock him in the carriage so he wouldn't have had access to the emergency door release and, again unsurprisingly, he wasn't going to just sit there after murdering somebody.

Click to expand...

How would you lock somebody in a carriage? Is there a way of disabling the emergency egress? Surely to isolate all doors in a carriage the guard would have to walk past the offender?

E_Reeves said:

How would you lock somebody in a carriage? Is there a way of disabling the emergency egress? Surely to isolate all doors in a carriage the guard would have to walk past the offender?

Click to expand...

On most stock on the network, locking an external passenger door out of use physically locks it shut, the emergency egress will not bypass it. On more modern stock it may be possible to electronically take a door out of use, in which case the emergency egress will still function.

E_Reeves said:

How would you lock somebody in a carriage? Is there a way of disabling the emergency egress? Surely to isolate all doors in a carriage the guard would have to walk past the offender?

Click to expand...

Depends on the train type. There are units where operating 1 isolating cock will cause the doors to be locked shut.

E_Reeves said:

How would you lock somebody in a carriage? Is there a way of disabling the emergency egress? Surely to isolate all doors in a carriage the guard would have to walk past the offender?

Click to expand...

The TM managed to pen him into the saloon by locking the vestibule doors.