• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

466 departs Paddock Wood with lights the wrong way round

Status
Not open for further replies.

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,075
A great over reaction for such a small error, that is easily rectified

A small error with a potentially lethal result.
And maybe it could be easily rectified, but at the time it wasn't - so a risk existed. Maybe it was rectified later, we don't know. But it wasn't at the time. Therefore a risk existed
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,075
Utter tosh. I have worked in industries with safety critical work and no-one would be getting fired for a small mistake like that.
I was not commenting on the original mistake, I was commenting on YOUR obvious disregard for safety. Comments like yours belittling the risk - and by implication disregarding the rules - don't go down well
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,159
I was not commenting on the original mistake, I was commenting on YOUR obvious disregard for safety. Comments like yours belittling the risk - and by implication disregarding the rules - don't go down well
Whatever. Stop taking yourself so seriously as self-appointed H&S expert.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,821
Location
East Anglia
If it has the possibility of resulting in a crash or accident, then yes.
With the lights not showing red you've just removed one protection from stopping a rear end collision. Yes I know the signals should stop that from happening, but one day the holes in the cheese will line up.
In any other industry anyone paying such short shrift to basic safety as you would be out the door very quickly
Jesus Christ, calm down for goodness sake.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,075
Why?

Are you two representative of the safety culture in the industry? Not a good sign if you are
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,758
Location
Back in Sussex
Stone the crows, 'potentially lethal', 'disregard for safety', thank goodness you don't ever see lorries, vans, buses, coaches, taxis or cars driving the roads without lights during darkness and bad visibility, they wouldn't be able to cause lethal accidents I'm sure
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
The risk should be self-evident

Considering that whites on both ends is a legitimate move. Can you expand on the 'risk' please. I'm not sure how you go from whites at the back to a rear end collision so quickly. Yes, I am aware of the collision with the 800 Azuma. Could you please also, highlight and explain the 'lethality' of it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,519
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If it has the possibility of resulting in a crash or accident, then yes.
With the lights not showing red you've just removed one protection from stopping a rear end collision.

If a driver saw white ahead of them on the same line, I'd imagine they would take just as quick action (if not more so) than red!
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
I don’t quite buy the level of risk that randyripply is selling, but it could be possible for a driver to misinterpret a train with whites on the rear for a train on the opposite line, particularly on a slight curve during darkness...which might be an issue if the following train was in the same section for whatever reason.
 

Surreytraveller

On Moderation
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Messages
2,810
I don’t quite buy the level of risk that randyripply is selling, but it could be possible for a driver to misinterpret a train with whites on the rear for a train on the opposite line, particularly on a slight curve during darkness...which might be an issue if the following train was in the same section for whatever reason.
Maybe on a line with permissive working?
Traditionally taillamps existed to prove the end of the train was the end of the train to signallers, and the train had arrived complete. By the time an approaching train sees a taillamp it is probably too late to stop in time anyway, if the driver isn't expecting the train to be there
 

Sprinter107

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2019
Messages
935
It's a train with no lights that can be the problem, as it could mean train divided.
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,486
Easy Mistake to make. I've done it a few times. o_O

For example 377s have the option for "Auto" Lights - Whereby when the train is turned off the Tail Lights come on. Similarly when you turn the train on, the day/ night and marker lights come on. The problem is, you get somewhat accustomed to them being on "Auto" so can easily forget to check. There are some wierdo :lol::lol: drivers out there who don't use Auto Lights.

If the TMS doesn't inform you - it won't at low speed - then a passing driver might flick his/her lights to remind you or, in daylight, tap the top of their head!
 

Sprinter107

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2019
Messages
935
Wonder why our 172s never had that auto light feature, as they were built about the same time. When they go into sleep mode, their tail lights come on at both ends, even if headlights are selected on the switch, which extinguish when the desk is opened.
 

Chris217

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2018
Messages
620
Do they still dish out form 1s to drivers who leave their lights on incorrectly?
 

K.o.R

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
658
Have seen 444s, 450s and 377s coming into Portsmouth & Southsea from Portsmouth Harbour with no lights on on multiple occasions. I found the guard and let them know each time.
 

Class2ldn

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2011
Messages
1,162
Seriously its not a massive issue.
It's a simple case of forgetting to change the lights.
We've all done it and the ones here jumping on their high horse about it have probably never driven a train.
Form 1 for leaving your lights on, leave it out.
If a toc does that then I wouldn't be there very long I know that much.
On the 700 as soon as we key off it changes to reds so people just tend to leave the headlight switch on so as soon as you key on one end the lights come on.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
Perhaps the Rulebook should be divided into "Things drivers have decided matter" and "Things drivers have decided don't matter". Then we could throw away the second half and avoid arguments like this.

Alternately we could recognise that the Rulebook and its contents are there for good reason, and not imply that members of the public should be aware of messroom cover-up culture?
 

Class2ldn

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2011
Messages
1,162
It's not a cover up culture but there are bigger issues on the railway to worry about.
It's a simple mistake and being human we all make them.
Implying that it's going to be a big safety issue by some isnt reality, a quick phone call and the driver would run back and change them. That's all there is to it.
I'm not even sure how it started a discussion to be honest.
 

Raul_Duke

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
397
Perhaps the Rulebook should be divided into "Things drivers have decided matter" and "Things drivers have decided don't matter". Then we could throw away the second half and avoid arguments like this.

Alternately we could recognise that the Rulebook and its contents are there for good reason, and not imply that members of the public should be aware of messroom cover-up culture?

It’s not members of the public though is it. It’s the spotters who think they’re mainline qualified because they’ve downloaded an extension pack for train-sim and a PDF of the rule book.

Our depot is renowned for enforcing pretty minor infractions or mistakes with the full weight of the formal disciplinary process and even they wouldn’t form one someone for an isolated incident of forgetting to switch the light over. You’d get told to not be so stupid in future and ticked off for any delay minutes.

If it’s the lights on the back of the train in front that have made you put the brake on then a lot of things have gone very wrong further up the ladder for a considerable amount of time.

Some people on here would have a fit if they ever saw a train going forward to assist, or the lights on a shunting loco..... :p
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
It’s not members of the public though is it. It’s the spotters who think they’re mainline qualified because they’ve downloaded an extension pack for train-sim and a PDF of the rule book.

While such individuals certainly exist (and in this thread), I'd say you'd let your imagination get the better of you by applying that to the OP and the initial response — which I believe has sparked most of the subsequent discussion here.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,597
How easy it is to make a certain mistake, and how easy it is to rectify it once it's noticed, is completely irrelevant to the discussion of how much of a risk it presents while it persists, surely?

There seems to be some disagreement about whether it really matters what colour the lights are. If it doesn't really matter, then why bother with it all? Why not just leave them the wrong way around until the end of journey - instead of delaying passengers in order to sort it?

On the other hand, if it does introduce a safety risk, then the fact that it's easily done doesn't mean that it's a 'minor' mistake. It might suggest that it's a flaw in the way the train is designed though.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,825
The primary function of the tail lamp or lights is to indicate that it’s the rear of the train and thus that the train is complete, which is largely redundant on a line with continuous train detection. It’s also important on a permissive line. The Rule Book contains provision for dealing with a train without a tail lamp in both cases. Neither case applied here so, whilst it’s something that should be rectified as soon as possible, it’s not the end of the world. Indeed, it’s permissible for a train to continue normally with tail lights failed, just a handlamp perched somewhere displaying a hint of a red light towards the rear, which is neither use nor ornament unless you’re really looking for it!
 

broadgage

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2012
Messages
1,094
Location
Somerset
Whilst in theory a fatal accident COULD be caused the chances of this actually happening seem negligible.
Firstly, the signalling system should keep trains well apart, without reliance on the driver seeing the tail light of the train in front.
Secondly in the very rare case of a wrong side signalling failure, the driver of the following train would assuredly make an emergency stop on seeing red OR WHITE lights ahead.
Has a fatal accident EVER resulted from a white light at the rear of a train, when it should have been red ?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The primary function of the tail lamp or lights is to indicate that it’s the rear of the train and thus that the train is complete, which is largely redundant on a line with continuous train detection. It’s also important on a permissive line. The Rule Book contains provision for dealing with a train without a tail lamp in both cases. Neither case applied here so, whilst it’s something that should be rectified as soon as possible, it’s not the end of the world. Indeed, it’s permissible for a train to continue normally with tail lights failed, just a handlamp perched somewhere displaying a hint of a red light towards the rear, which is neither use nor ornament unless you’re really looking for it!

This sums it up perfectly. There’s a *small* risk that something might come of it, perhaps the most prominent being if a white lamp isn’t displayed at the front and staff on or about the track miss the train’s approach. This is why the railway has always tended to go for a “belt and braces” approach to safety where in general multiple layers are applied and more than one thing has to go wrong for something bad to happen. It is perhaps food for thought with regard to the decision that yellow fronts are no longer mandatory.

I think some people on here do have a habit of over analysing things and seem to think that every little thing is a hanging offence. Were that to be the case we’d probably have no trains running at all!
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
It’s not members of the public though is it. It’s the spotters who think they’re mainline qualified because they’ve downloaded an extension pack for train-sim and a PDF of the rule book.

It's possible that if the 'driver' in post 2 hadn't replied in such a melodramatic fashion, the rest of the bollocks in the thread wouldn't have followed.

How dare a spotter or member of the public ask such a question!
 

rd749249

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2015
Messages
170
Done it once before and seen it on a platform. On the former, the signaller bought me to a stop at a station and made me do the ‘walk of shame’ lol. He was told by another driver. Signaller also bought me to a stop once when I had a 5 headcode instead of a 2 as I forgot to change it when entering passenger service just after leaving the depot. I’ve also put my coffee down on a platform to mimic lights (open and closing both hands) to an oncoming driver who had his tail lights on. It’s minor in the grand scheme of things but I do tell my manager in any case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top