ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Yours has taken a large hit here, considering your, quite frankly, disgusting attitude of insulting and ridiculing anyone who dares disagree with you.
-
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!
Pass Train Struck Rail during NR Relaying 0 RAIB Report
- Thread starter Old Timer
- Start date
- Status
Yours has taken a large hit here, considering your, quite frankly, disgusting attitude of insulting and ridiculing anyone who dares disagree with you.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I am in agreement with Ralph, this started off as a good discussion but you have made some uncalled for comments against OT
TheSlash
Established Member
To be honest i don't know what the debate is about. NR is currently underwritten by the Government, but as the biggest source of embarssment, they are moving at a rapid pace to Re-Privatise it.
Here's to First Network Rail, Stagecoach Network Rail, Virgin West Coast Mainline Network Rail and Siemens Signalling Projects Network Rail
Here's to First Network Rail, Stagecoach Network Rail, Virgin West Coast Mainline Network Rail and Siemens Signalling Projects Network Rail
OMGitsDAVE
Member
Moving off the subject of Network Rail's ownership, and on to the actual subject of the thread...
Makes for a good read, fascinating to see that they didn't report it themselves too, hmm!
Cheers OT!
Makes for a good read, fascinating to see that they didn't report it themselves too, hmm!
Cheers OT!
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,503
Sorry, which industry are we talking about now?
Old Timer
Established Member
Thank you for your observations.
What is set out in the Report is the attitudes and behaviours that Network Rail maintenance people have been displaying for some time, and which are familiar to those who have to work with them.
This is not the first time such attitudes have been suspected by RAIB, but this particular Report is the first time where they have been flushed out and there is demonstrable and irrefutable evidence.
Any renewals man on here can regale you with tales of how Maitenance have waltzed into Possessions and Possession planning meetings demanding access where others would have been denied, and causing disruption to carefully planned and programmed works which have been in the pipeline for many months.
A common one is the late tamping site. Although tampers are at a premium, and are programmed for months out, Maintenance appear to be completely unable to plan more than a week out and thus will arrive at a Possession meeting with a need to find a site to tamp. If it just happens that this is in someone else's worksite then tough, and if it falls between two worksites, they will be combined and possibly reduced, leaving some poor sod without a worksite for their planned work.
On other occasions, they do not even bother to turn up at the meeting but simply organise it with the PICOP. By way of example, one Saturday night we were on a 7-day weld defect site. A tamper was spotted warming up and enquiries made because there had been no mention of any tamping taking place. It turned out to be a tamper allocated for maintenance that they did not even know they had booked until a day or two before.
We were then told that the tamper would enter our worksite and do some tamping before going off elsewhere. It was made quite clear to us that WE must accomodate this activity despite it not being discussed or agreed with us. Our ES naturally reported the incident and I reported it in as an "incident" in accordance with our Procedures. The point being that what was being proposed was contrary to Network Rail's own planning and Possession procedures.
Our protestations about the need to remove the weld defect came to nothing until we took the decision to withdraw from the job, notifying the PICOP that as we now had insufficient time to remove the defect, we would be holding the worksite until the line was available to us to carry out the weld repair, which would incur a considerable over-run as our people would be taking the appropriate rest time before returning.
There then followed a long series of phone calls with increasingly senior individuals who all considered that a 7-day defect was only so until THEY decided it wasn't. None of course were prepared to issue a written instruction to that effect (because legally they couldn't) but they tried to bully the team into handing back with the 7-day weld left in situ beyond that date. Now a 7-day defect is called that for precisely that reason, it can only stay in for 7 days.
The standoff eventually ended with us completing the work and the Posession over-running. The Monday morning Inquest however would only address OUR having failed to complete in the booked time. It did not and would not address the true reasons, nor would it investigate the issue of bullying behaviour. Our incident report was buried through the medium of threats being made about the Company being taken off the Contract - simply for following declared Network Rail reporting processes.
Any Renewals man worth their salt will have identified a number of other iregularities on the site in the Report that have obviously taken place that are not discussed, and it is noticable that the man's "manager" either did not know or if he did know, chose to ignore the most obvious of all Rule Book and RRM machinery operations basics. How can you manage a man who seemingly knows more than you do ???
The labouring staff who came from an agency would certainly not report an issue as they would be marked up "NWB" (Not Wanted Back), and the agency would not have the slightest interest in causing any ripples that could upset its client.
This raises yet another issue with the use of cheap labour agencies against the bigger Infrastructure Contractors. The reason ? Safety and safety culture costs money. A major Infrastructure Contractor's supervisor would not have allowed the job to go ahead on safety grounds. THAT is why those Comapnies are now out of favour - that and the fact that properly trained and motivated staff cost money. Many of the major players staff are unionised against labour agencies who are not yet the Unions seem to find it acceptable to put its own trained members on the dole rather than unskilled non-union workers - work that one out ???
The shame is that the RMT continues to turn a blind eye to all of this because they were responsible for the creation of ths monster, and for Political dogma reasons they will not now accept that they were wrong. Meanwhile prepare to read more of this type of incident as Network Rail is starting to do more and more renewals in-house.
So far their attempts have raised a laugh in the Infrastructure world but now its going beyond that with things like this.
Last edited:
Erm, what I meant to type was passenger deaths, but deaths in general really is equally valid.
As I have said before and will say again, I do not work in the industry but I am a highways engineer and while the rules are somewhat different, alot of the principles are broadly similar. Which is where my interest lies.
Looking at historical records, the railway for passengers has become a much safer place. The last rail passenger death, caused by railway operation, was in 2007 IIRC. Were there any equally long periods with BR that had such a record? Ive not checked.
If BR were given the chance to have as much funding as NR currently gets, then I have no doubt it would have become just as bloated and ineffectual as NR seems to be. All organisations get that way. NR should have its funding drastically cut, then see the dead wood (hopefully) get released). I have my own opinions on how transport in general should be run, but this isnt the forum to voice them, because it may upset the enthusiasts, professionals, socialists and free market capitalists alike.
And for the record, Network Rail is a private company whos only shareholder is the Government. Which is the same position as, lets say, Blackpool Transport, a private company who's only shareholder is Blackpool Borough Council. Does that make them public companies? No. They are, however, publicly owned at the end of the day and therefore IMO their debts should be shown on the public balance sheet.
Ploughman
Established Member
With regard to pressure to complete the work.
It was normal practice to plan a cut off time into a job were, unless it was possible to extend the possession, you stopped uplifting at a designated time and completed what you had done.
Looking at the work plan as in the report it stated that follow up weekend shifts were available for tamping and stressing, use these, or do like we had to, and replan the job for the next available period even if it is a year away.
If the work was that urgent then I am sure an earlier possession window would be found.
It was normal practice to plan a cut off time into a job were, unless it was possible to extend the possession, you stopped uplifting at a designated time and completed what you had done.
Looking at the work plan as in the report it stated that follow up weekend shifts were available for tamping and stressing, use these, or do like we had to, and replan the job for the next available period even if it is a year away.
If the work was that urgent then I am sure an earlier possession window would be found.
Old Timer
Established Member
Yes absolutely.
It was a typical maintenance type job though - seemingly planned "on the back of a fag packet" with no thought given to any "what if" and no contingency. I wonder if there was a proper bar chart review ? or should I not ask ?
Late Possessions in that area are a fact of life, and should have been factored into the work, also the two lines in question could easily have been retained bearing in mind the day and the fact that Lawley St FLT was closed.
"Fail to plan - Plan to fail" was never so apt.
As a fellow former BR (now private) railway engineer I have to agree with OT. I can think of numerous examples where pressure has been brought to bear by various NR employees to disregard or 'bend' their own rules and standards - fortunately within my area of expertise there are a few individuals who provide a back stop and support proper application of process. It is also very noticable how there is a growing culture of one rule for us, one rule for you when it comes to various aspects of the job.
strange6
Established Member
I have decided to scrub my previous comment having now read how hostile this thread was getting! I do miss British Rail though
Old Timer
Established Member
So do we all, chap, so do we all !....I do miss British Rail though
ChrisCooper
Established Member
People often use the argument of the number of fatalities and the time between accidents to say the privatised network is safer than BR, or that Network Rail is safer than Railtrack. The thing is though that safety has constantly improved over time. I'm pretty certain the biggest safety improvement for a long time has been TPWS as many deaths would have been prevented had it been fitted in the past. BR would probably have fitted APT had privatisation not happened. The only concern is that unlike TPWS which covers all serious risk spots, ATP might have been fitted to high speed routes. Then again a high profile accident or two on none fitted routes and it would either have become universal, or TPWS would have been used to fill in the gaps. Of cource it was post privatisation accidents at Southall and Paddington that lead to the rush to fit TPWS.
BR themselves mad big leaps forward in safety. They made AWS universal which must have prevented many accidents. They developed the Mk1 coach which for it's time was a big leap in safety, then the Mk2 which was another leap forward (the Mk3 despite it's high aclaim is actually roughly on the same level as a Mk2 in terms of crashworthyness, it's just they have been involved in less crashes, and ironically since the few they were in were quite low in terms of fatalities they tend to be forgotten anyway). High intensity headlights and high visability clothing must have saved many track workers lives. The one legacy BR left that has lead to 3 major crashes and a large number of none rail fatalities is the automatic level crossing.
Serious derailments due to infrastructure failure were quite rare under BR. Since privatisation there have been 3.
BR themselves mad big leaps forward in safety. They made AWS universal which must have prevented many accidents. They developed the Mk1 coach which for it's time was a big leap in safety, then the Mk2 which was another leap forward (the Mk3 despite it's high aclaim is actually roughly on the same level as a Mk2 in terms of crashworthyness, it's just they have been involved in less crashes, and ironically since the few they were in were quite low in terms of fatalities they tend to be forgotten anyway). High intensity headlights and high visability clothing must have saved many track workers lives. The one legacy BR left that has lead to 3 major crashes and a large number of none rail fatalities is the automatic level crossing.
Serious derailments due to infrastructure failure were quite rare under BR. Since privatisation there have been 3.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,503
Seriously though, it's clear that OT has built up a reputation on this forum, to the extent that he's able to abuse his position by constantly imposing his own opinions so forcefully. It has got to the point where he can say practically anything on the forum without fear of reproach, safe in the knowledge that one or more of his fans will come to his defence should anybody express a different view or try to correct his errors. That one individual holds such a dominant position is not a recipe for a healthy forum and is something that the moderators need to consider carefully. I don't want to discuss politics on a railway forum, but it isn't right that someone on one side of the argument gets away with shouting so loudly.
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone who spends more time reading than posting on these forums these days I've got a few comments to make (sadly, they're not on topic..). Railsigns, your tirade of abuse is boring, pathetic and uncalled for. You're doing nothing but making yourself look a complete and utter fool, and your above post about an "Old Timer Fan Club" is utterly hilarious.
It comes to something when somebody resorts to the above behaviour rather than admitting a mistake, does it not? Now, Railsigns, why not stop and let the sensible (and rather interesting) on topic discussion continue..
I suspect that won't happen, and I'll get some lovely response, but it's worth a shot.
It comes to something when somebody resorts to the above behaviour rather than admitting a mistake, does it not? Now, Railsigns, why not stop and let the sensible (and rather interesting) on topic discussion continue..
I suspect that won't happen, and I'll get some lovely response, but it's worth a shot.
AlexS
Established Member
From an objective point of view -
My opinion is that OT brings party politics perhaps too often into discussions where they, while perhaps indirectly relevant, really should be avoided for our sanity This is why, incidentally, I suspect Mr Railsigns has an issue - differing positions on the political spectrum. OT's obvious right wing leanings and Railsign's personal title should confirm that. From that perspective I'd ignore both of your comments from a political level.
If this isn't to your taste it's easy to filter it out.
However, OT's experience and professional opinions regarding permanent way maintenance do seem to add much to the discussion. Railsigns does not seem to have established similar credentials as yet but if he does so then I'm sure that will be taken into account.
I have several friends who work for NR direct maintenance in a variety of areas who would struggle to disagree with OT, if not wholeheartedly agree with him, on the points raised, and raise similar points themselves on a regular basis - and in particular were horrified but not surprised at this report.
However I feel the private industry vs public body card is well overplayed and the same issues can appear in either - whether it's from perceived 'cowboys' in private industry, or the 'them and us' side of things that springs from public sector involvement.
Balanced enough and considered post I hope?
My opinion is that OT brings party politics perhaps too often into discussions where they, while perhaps indirectly relevant, really should be avoided for our sanity
This is why, incidentally, I suspect Mr Railsigns has an issue - differing positions on the political spectrum. OT's obvious right wing leanings and Railsign's personal title should confirm that. From that perspective I'd ignore both of your comments from a political level.If this isn't to your taste it's easy to filter it out.
However, OT's experience and professional opinions regarding permanent way maintenance do seem to add much to the discussion. Railsigns does not seem to have established similar credentials as yet but if he does so then I'm sure that will be taken into account.
I have several friends who work for NR direct maintenance in a variety of areas who would struggle to disagree with OT, if not wholeheartedly agree with him, on the points raised, and raise similar points themselves on a regular basis - and in particular were horrified but not surprised at this report.
However I feel the private industry vs public body card is well overplayed and the same issues can appear in either - whether it's from perceived 'cowboys' in private industry, or the 'them and us' side of things that springs from public sector involvement.
Balanced enough and considered post I hope?
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,503
The preceding comments, and the abuse that has been directed at me, just reinforce my point: Old Timer is beyond reproach on this forum. So be it, if that's how you like it; it's your forum.
I don't know what has been posted since 0530 this morning but I find it a little odd that some comments have been removed yet others have been left in situ.
Wyvern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 1,573
Presumably posts that were personal attacks instead of reasoned arguments.
Presumably posts that were personal attacks instead of reasoned arguments.
Thats what I would have thought, but the post that kicked most of it off is still intact...unless it was over looked?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
There was worse that was deleted. Needless to say, Railsigns made personal attacks on many people in this thread, including me.
Do we really care if two people who most of have not even met have an argument? I don't give a flying but it seems tot a huge reaction from the folks on here. If nobody bothered commenting and stuck with the thread there would be no need to delete posts, going back to the topic I remember the RIAB when it first started and had a group[ of them visit my depot to learn more about the depot workings, I was told then that the RIAB is an independant un biased department, is this still the case or is it now micro managed like the majority of companies?
moggie
Member
OT and I have in the past established we have a different political outlook and as this is a rail forum and the sole reason I join in I have no wish to revisit the politics of rail under this thread.
However, from my specialist discipline I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiment espoused by OT which is increasingly backed by firm evidence (rather than anecdotal) to which OT refers. NR as infrastructure owner should be setting a leading role in demonstrating and upholding good practice towards application and implementation of Railway Group and Company standards. Sadly (in the context that NR should be adopting a role similar to BR) in my experience this is very often not the case although there are some exceptions.
I find at times there is a shocking lack of familiarity among some NR representatives of how their own standards should be applied and too often there is an overwhelming and unhealthy push to complete a job irrespective of a process that demands a particular way of ensuring the job is done in a safe manner.
On many occassions I have been faced with NR people ignoring their own processes even when it is pointed out to them in in their own standards. The accusation being that we are obstructive, lack creativity, motivated solely to prolong the task and other such cobblers. Much of this I put down to ignorance of the consequnces of their actions but unfortunately some are far more cavalier with network safety and imho are not fit for the job they do.
Yes, I can see some negative traits among some of our won staff but I agree that culturaly most of the private contractors I have dealings with are in the right place and do not support playing fast and loose with standards.
Ironically, NR DPE's (the better ones) can be quite probing of contract processes and deliverables - but I strongly suspect that such attention is not so critical of their won outputs.
NR must improve and stop pretending otherwise.
However, from my specialist discipline I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiment espoused by OT which is increasingly backed by firm evidence (rather than anecdotal) to which OT refers. NR as infrastructure owner should be setting a leading role in demonstrating and upholding good practice towards application and implementation of Railway Group and Company standards. Sadly (in the context that NR should be adopting a role similar to BR) in my experience this is very often not the case although there are some exceptions.
I find at times there is a shocking lack of familiarity among some NR representatives of how their own standards should be applied and too often there is an overwhelming and unhealthy push to complete a job irrespective of a process that demands a particular way of ensuring the job is done in a safe manner.
On many occassions I have been faced with NR people ignoring their own processes even when it is pointed out to them in in their own standards. The accusation being that we are obstructive, lack creativity, motivated solely to prolong the task and other such cobblers. Much of this I put down to ignorance of the consequnces of their actions but unfortunately some are far more cavalier with network safety and imho are not fit for the job they do.
Yes, I can see some negative traits among some of our won staff but I agree that culturaly most of the private contractors I have dealings with are in the right place and do not support playing fast and loose with standards.
Ironically, NR DPE's (the better ones) can be quite probing of contract processes and deliverables - but I strongly suspect that such attention is not so critical of their won outputs.
NR must improve and stop pretending otherwise.
If anyone has a problem with any content, and wants the moderators to consider taking action, the report button (looks like this
Don't understand what the problem is? The only posts which have been deleted related to insults and arguments between individual members. All those who had posts deleted received a message indicating their messages were deleted and nobody who actually had their post deleted has complained through the proper channels!
Old Timer
Established Member
I would agree with that. I would also say that there have been some very positive contributions and may I thank Industry colleagues for being so good as to come on here and support my observations and comments. Thank you.
AlexS - I note your point about Political observations and in fairness I have tried to avoid posts that ru the risk of being interpreted in that manner. I would just say however, that I was not responsible for introdicuing any Political direction into this topic. That was introduced by someone else with, as far as I am concerned, little or probably no experience within the Infrastructure organisation.
As an engineer and a manager I have to deal with facts, and in my professional judgement, it would have been improper to leave unchallenged a comment that was passed purely from the perspective of Political dogma and one that had no basis in fact.
To have left that unchallenged would by that very act have been an accceptance of something which was incorrect, and which could then have been taken as factual by those who are not in the know.
moggie
Member
I can't see the problem with OT's posts.
Of course he (my assumption) is often robust in his opinion / arguments. It's what comes with experience and this forum is usually the better for it. After all, isn't that one of (not the only) purpose of a forum but to share knowledge and dare I say educate those who take an interest - professional or non-professional?
If OT considers you are mistaken in your assertion he says so. But there is no harm in countering anyones opinion / ascertions - that is anyones perogative is it not? However, there's no need for contributors resort to ramping up the personnel insults or allow the subject to degenerate into a slanging match - my dads bigger than your dad etc. Beware - some people may enjoy the wind up nature so try not to bite if you cant handle the tension. Just have your say and move on. In the past I have found OT happy to accept a reasonable counter argument from myself and other posters even if he does not necessarily agree. Tht's what makes this forum interesting and worthy of a read.
People will always have a different outlook on the political front. Often comes from their background and life experiences. OT and I both work in the same industry yet my perspective differs from OT. I often find the arguments he advances thought provoking and well made even if I don't always agree.
For example, in my part of the industry we were never so busy with work than during the Blair years - fact. This was totally the opposite from the Thatcher / Major years where BR was hamstrung by constant internal re-organisations, much like NR today. Many schemes were either long long overdue renewals, retrenchment projects or just much needed work that fell foul of the bean counters and got cancelled before they saw the light of day rather than what were enhancements which occurred post Railtrack under Blair. (OT could now well make another argument about the political climate to allow funding of these projects). Hence why I measure how well politicians are doing for this industry based on outcomes rather than words.
However OT makes an equally valid point regarding NR's T&C's towards it's staff and from my part I am glad I remain with a private sector supplier rather that NR as things stand.
But getting back to the thread - I do not have the same industry perspective that OT has but it is clear that my observations from within the industry are very similar to that of OT's, others on this thread and the RAIB evidence in this incident report and therefore it can be argued that NR's problems, as exemplified by this incident, are I'm afraid showing increasing signs of being endemic and far from isolated. I would be interested in hearing peoples thoughts on why this may be. Could it be due to the relative immature nature of NR as an organisation that appears to spend far too much time indulging in inward looking reorganisation of management structures rather than bulding on what it has got and focusing on what it should be doing SAFELY on the ground?
For what it's worth!
Of course he (my assumption) is often robust in his opinion / arguments. It's what comes with experience and this forum is usually the better for it. After all, isn't that one of (not the only) purpose of a forum but to share knowledge and dare I say educate those who take an interest - professional or non-professional?
If OT considers you are mistaken in your assertion he says so. But there is no harm in countering anyones opinion / ascertions - that is anyones perogative is it not? However, there's no need for contributors resort to ramping up the personnel insults or allow the subject to degenerate into a slanging match - my dads bigger than your dad etc. Beware - some people may enjoy the wind up nature so try not to bite if you cant handle the tension. Just have your say and move on. In the past I have found OT happy to accept a reasonable counter argument from myself and other posters even if he does not necessarily agree. Tht's what makes this forum interesting and worthy of a read.
People will always have a different outlook on the political front. Often comes from their background and life experiences. OT and I both work in the same industry yet my perspective differs from OT. I often find the arguments he advances thought provoking and well made even if I don't always agree.
For example, in my part of the industry we were never so busy with work than during the Blair years - fact. This was totally the opposite from the Thatcher / Major years where BR was hamstrung by constant internal re-organisations, much like NR today. Many schemes were either long long overdue renewals, retrenchment projects or just much needed work that fell foul of the bean counters and got cancelled before they saw the light of day rather than what were enhancements which occurred post Railtrack under Blair. (OT could now well make another argument about the political climate to allow funding of these projects). Hence why I measure how well politicians are doing for this industry based on outcomes rather than words.
However OT makes an equally valid point regarding NR's T&C's towards it's staff and from my part I am glad I remain with a private sector supplier rather that NR as things stand.
But getting back to the thread - I do not have the same industry perspective that OT has but it is clear that my observations from within the industry are very similar to that of OT's, others on this thread and the RAIB evidence in this incident report and therefore it can be argued that NR's problems, as exemplified by this incident, are I'm afraid showing increasing signs of being endemic and far from isolated. I would be interested in hearing peoples thoughts on why this may be. Could it be due to the relative immature nature of NR as an organisation that appears to spend far too much time indulging in inward looking reorganisation of management structures rather than bulding on what it has got and focusing on what it should be doing SAFELY on the ground?
For what it's worth!
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
.....and that was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you take the trouble to read the rules of this website, you will find that inflammatory posts and the like are not acceptable.....or am I the only one to have read them. I ask all fellow members to read these rules, which the moderators have gone to the trouble of preparing to make this a site worth visiting, then to abide by them.
Moderators, you might find that there is a need to e-mail everyone with a copy of these rules.
Last edited:
- Status