314 stopping short

Status
Not open for further replies.

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,227
I should have been clearer - what I meant is the first two examples wouldn't bother me. This example would and the TOC would be contacted, but not posted about in public.

For all we know it may not be the first recent incident with the driver concerned. However it isn't fair to speculate about it in public.
Fair enough. I have no argument with that at all.

If something has happened that concerns you enough to want to do something about it, this is the appropriate method of doing so.

O L Leigh
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ffcphone

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
151
Location
Bolton, UK
I must confess as a regular user of train services, services which after all are run to transport members of the public, I am somewhat uneasy at the thought of train drivers seemingly advocating secrecy when errors are made such as the OP highlighted. I am also surprised at other suggestions no harm would have come from passengers falling several feet. With the number of passengers completely cut off from their surroundings by way of personal audio players etc, older more frail passengers, disabled passengers etc I suspect a great deal of "damage" would actually have occurred. In this highly litigious world in which we live, the law suits would have been plentiful.

Presumably, those who advocate keeping quiet are happy to apply this to other industries rather than just their own profession. Perhaps the Daily Telegraph should have just kept quiet and put MP's expenses down to a series of mistakes and not told us. Perhaps the banking sector should have just kept quiet about the trillions of global currency units list in dodgy mortgage backed assets. Perhaps the whistle blower in the Madoff scandal should have put it down to a mistake. Where do we stop?

A driver who unnecessarily puts the safety of his passengers at risk by (a) stopping short of a platform AND (b) releasing/opening the doors is doing just that. What other reason can there be for the actions taken?

I'm all in favour of the OP.

I have, on one occasion, brought to the attention of a TOC a driver who ignored a TSR and adopted an unacceptably harsh braking and accelerating pattern throughout my journey. I don't think I reported it on here as I was not a member at the time.

I can understand the "brotherhood" wanting to stand up for each other, but not at the expense of freedom of speech and customer safety.
 

37401

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2008
Messages
3,281
Location
Birmingham
the short stopping may have been down to AWS, TPWS ect kicking in and the train just came to a halt too soon, who knows but I think we should leave it to the TOC to work out, as said posting such things on a public forum may not be a good idea.

also I read "the doors opened" so how is this the drivers fault, the guard opens the doors IIRC surely they should of noticed the lack of platform

anyway im not saying anymore, you just never know whos reading
 

ffcphone

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
151
Location
Bolton, UK
also I read "the doors opened" so how is this the drivers fault, the guard opens the doors IIRC surely they should of noticed the lack of platform
Doesn't the driver have to "pass control" of door opening to the guard/conductor ie the doors can't be just unlocked/opened at the guard's whim?

F
 

37401

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2008
Messages
3,281
Location
Birmingham
Doesn't the driver have to "pass control" of door opening to the guard/conductor ie the doors can't be just unlocked/opened at the guard's whim?

F
hmm, well when ive ever seen a departure its the TM/Guard that seems to close them "Beep beep beep, beep beep beep" doors close and i see the guards opening/closeing the doors a few times
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,227
I don't think that the parallel between a train driver stopping short and the MP's expenses scandal or the collapse of the banking sector stands up. I really can't believe that any MP could possibly use the defence that they made a mistake or that the cause of the banking collapse was anything other than taking unacceptable risks. While there is usually some underlying cause behind something like a stop-short, these are not deliberate actions.

No driver goes to work with the intention of having an incident. However, things can happen that cause the momentary lapse of concentration that leads up to an incident. As I said before, we are all aware of this and all take whatever action we consider necessary to minimise the risk of an incident but with the best will in the world, sometimes things just happen.

All that aside, I am not advocating secrecy. What I am pointing out is that there are ways and means of addressing safety issues. If you believe that safety has been compromised then by all means report it. What I object to is someone being subject to "trial by forum"; and that happens to apply to anyone, not just other drivers. The problem is that people are too quick to judge based on incomplete information and with no understanding of the job.

Once it has been reported, the incident will be investigated by the management and the FACTS of the matter ascertained. The driver will be interviewed and asked to talk through the events leading up to the incident, together with any other aspects that may have been contributory. Once the facts have been established, the driver will be put on an action plan to reduce the risk of a repeat. This is how these events SHOULD be dealt with, so lets leave it to the professionals.

O L Leigh
 

Expression357

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2009
Messages
78
Location
Essex
A stop-short-and-release are normally reported either by the Driver or the Guard/Train Captain as a matter of course.

They will feature in the National Operations Centre (NOC) log the following morning and are investigated as an operating incident by the Train Operating Company.

Drivers and Guards generally know when they've made the mistake, and to be fair, these incidents have not resulted in any passengers leaving the train on to an area that is out of platform.

Rest assured they are investigated in the same way as any SPAD, Over-Run or TPWS Activation in order to prevent reaccurance, and form part of the Safety Management System of every Operating Company.

Only recently, an RPI reported a stop-short, using the 8-car stop vice 12-car stop on a 12-car train. This has been investigated with the Driver and the Train Captain both screened and interviewed; and as a result there are recommendations that can be made (and are being introduced) in order to prevent reoccurance of this Operational Risk.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,227
Doesn't the driver have to "pass control" of door opening to the guard/conductor ie the doors can't be just unlocked/opened at the guard's whim?
I'm sorry to be mean, but this demonstrates you have very little understanding of how trains are operated.

The doors are under the control of either the driver or the guard depending on the type of rolling stock and method of working. There is no "passing of control".

Where the doors are under the control of the guard there is a system of bell codes used to communicate between guard and driver. One of these is 2-2 which means "do not open doors". The driver might use this code during the leaf-fall season if the train has slid on approach to a station and overshot, for example. However, if the train has been stopped outside a station at a red signal, the driver would not necessarily think the code necessary as he/she would not expect the guard to attempt to release the doors.

On DOO services it all falls to the driver. This is where things can get a bit tricky because it isn't difficult to fall into a routine. You stop so many times and the next action is to release the doors, so it can become an automatic response. The risk is that you pull up to a red signal and, because you've stopped, you unthinkingly give a door release. These sorts of routines are high-risk and drivers need to be aware of them so that they can guard against them. One way to do it is to put the schedule card in front of the door buttons. However, there is never any intent or deliberate action to cause an incident.

O L Leigh
 

dan_atki

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2006
Messages
1,883
Doesn't the driver have to "pass control" of door opening to the guard/conductor ie the doors can't be just unlocked/opened at the guard's whim?
Depends on the location and the stock in use.

Driver only operated (DOO) areas: Doors released and closed by the driver in the front cab.

Guard areas: Doors released by guard, doors closed by guard with no input from the driver. The way this should be done (I believe - please correct if I am wrong) is the guard should check their local door is adjacent to a platform*, open it, check all un-locked-out doors are adjacent to the platform and release them. After closing all doors, and then their own they give the right away buzzer code to the driver.

*there are also buzzer codes to instruct the driver to go forward or set back, although I've never experienced one being used.

Voyagers: Driver opens the doors, and ultimately has control of them. When safe to close them, the guard/train manager will use the appropriate buzzer code to instruct the driver to close the doors (apart from the guard's local which they will shut themselves after all others are closed). They then use the right away buzzer code.
 

ffcphone

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
151
Location
Bolton, UK
hmm, well when ive ever seen a departure its the TM/Guard that seems to close them "Beep beep beep, beep beep beep" doors close and i see the guards opening/closeing the doors a few times
I agree. But when the train first comes into the platform, the guard/TM must wait for his panel to go live by way of the driver "authorising" door release/opening. This is to stop the possibility of the doors being opened when the driver is not yet at his required stop point and doesn't want the doors opened yet...ie when short of the platform!


"Accidents are caused by mistakes" as the road sign near me points out. Yes I appreciate humans can and will make mistakes. But occasionally those mistakes cost lifes or put people in danger. Under-shooting a platform is an annoyance but in itself as a standalone issue doesn't put passengers in danger. Stopping short, authorising the doors, the TM/guard opening them DOES. Come to think of it, perhaps the TM/guard needs to bear some sort of responsibility for this. Aren't they supposed to open their local door first to check the whole train is at a platform before opening the whole train up?

People should remember this is a forum for public discussion about both positive and negative aspects of rail travel.

F
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm sorry to be mean, but this demonstrates you have very little understanding of how trains are operated.

The doors are under the control of either the driver or the guard depending on the type of rolling stock and method of working. There is no "passing of control".

Where the doors are under the control of the guard there is a system of bell codes used to communicate between guard and driver. One of these is 2-2 which means "do not open doors". The driver might use this code during the leaf-fall season if the train has slid on approach to a station and overshot, for example. However, if the train has been stopped outside a station at a red signal, the driver would not necessarily think the code necessary as he/she would not expect the guard to attempt to release the doors.

On DOO services it all falls to the driver. This is where things can get a bit tricky because it isn't difficult to fall into a routine. You stop so many times and the next action is to release the doors, so it can become an automatic response. The risk is that you pull up to a red signal and, because you've stopped, you unthinkingly give a door release. These sorts of routines are high-risk and drivers need to be aware of them so that they can guard against them. One way to do it is to put the schedule card in front of the door buttons. However, there is never any intent or deliberate action to cause an incident.

O L Leigh
Thank you for clarifying the position. As I don't work for the trains my knowledge is built up over many years of travelling and observing.

I've said all I want to say on the matter which appears to be in agreement with some posters on here and not with others. That is the great thing about forums like this...the ability to discuss matters, to gain greater understanding from those in operational duties and to put your point of view across, whether it's ultimately right or wrong.

F
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,811
I touched on this earlier, but is anyone able to give an answer as I don't know the stock and route myself. Was it a DOO service in the incident?

Of course if it was not DOO, then the guard is at fault for opening the doors, and the driver at fault for not stopping in the correct position. Surely a million to one chance of BOTH making the mistakes.
 

dan_atki

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2006
Messages
1,883
Under-shooting a platform is an annoyance but in itself as a standalone issue doesn't put passengers in danger. Stopping short, authorising the doors, the TM/guard opening them DOES. Come to think of it, perhaps the TM/guard needs to bear some sort of responsibility for this. Aren't they supposed to open their local door first to check the whole train is at a platform before opening the whole train up?
The service is driver only operated and has neither a guard nor train manager on board to operate the doors.
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,126
Location
Wrexham
Is there any other industry where members of the public are discouraged from highlighting safety issues or telling anyone about it?

What about airlines?
There are near misses every day in our skies and they are not publicised, if it was not for the telegraph the MP shambles would have not (not safety but still). If you worked on the railway and relaised how some managers can be draconian you would understand. If something is made public the management may act differently on a situation. All Spads etc are for public view on the railway and many other statistics for the public to see however no names are metioned. If the report did not mention the time of the train it would be quite acceptable but by naming the time of the train it isn't rocket science for all the staff at that depot to know who it was and some people do not want all the depot knowing they have made a mistake.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,520
It's actually rather worrying, although as has been said I don't want to pass judgement on anyone.

314s operate DOO; conductor on board for revenue and customer service purposes only. The driver steps out of the cab, looks along the platform then opens the door, as monitors aren't fitted. (They may be fitted soon if and when 320s are cascaded out to Cathcart, but we don't know if and when that'll happen!). As there are no passenger door controls on 314s, this could have been pretty serious on a crowded train.

It's clearly been a mistake, and we all make mistakes. I'm sure there won't have been intent. But people who make mistakes do still need to face the consequences. Whilst, as OL Leigh said, the drivers do fall into a routine, that's actually a bad thing when they physically need to get up and check the train is all on the platform.

Does anyone think that DOO monitor installation would actually improve this? Surely if they don't need to get up and out of the cab, and they can just check by looking at some TV screens, then the checking would be easier and this would happen less often.
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,811
It's actually rather worrying, although as has been said I don't want to pass judgement on anyone.

314s operate DOO; conductor on board for revenue and customer service purposes only. The driver steps out of the cab, looks along the platform then opens the door, as monitors aren't fitted. (They may be fitted soon if and when 320s are cascaded out to Cathcart, but we don't know if and when that'll happen!). As there are no passenger door controls on 314s, this could have been pretty serious on a crowded train.

It's clearly been a mistake, and we all make mistakes. I'm sure there won't have been intent. But people who make mistakes do still need to face the consequences. Whilst, as OL Leigh said, the drivers do fall into a routine, that's actually a bad thing when they physically need to get up and check the train is all on the platform.

Does anyone think that DOO monitor installation would actually improve this? Surely if they don't need to get up and out of the cab, and they can just check by looking at some TV screens, then the checking would be easier and this would happen less often.
Just to clarify, are you saying that the correct procedure is for the driver to stand up, open his local door, check the train is fully platformed and THEN open the passenger doors? And despite all these safeguards the driver still opened the passenger doors when the train was not at the platform?

Routine can simply not be blamed for that, it is either a monumental error on the drivers part or some form of mechanical failure with the door system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There are near misses every day in our skies and they are not publicised,
However they are recorded automatically, and it would be unusual for the public to notice it - slightly different to this.
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,566
Location
Nottinghamshire
As I don't work for the trains my knowledge is built up over many years of travelling and observing.

F
Knowledge? What knowledge?
All i've seen is pure speculation and holier than thou preaching!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have, on one occasion, brought to the attention of a TOC a driver who ignored a TSR and adopted an unacceptably harsh braking and accelerating pattern throughout my journey.
I rest my case!
It's not for you to say that a Driver ignored a TSR, it's not for you to say he braked too harshly, and it's not for you to say he accelerated too harshly either!
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
I agree with your senitments Kneedown.

This incident would have been reported with a full investigation taking place. It is not right (or wise) to comment or speculate on a public forum about why this might of happened.

None of us know the exact reason for what happened nor the events leading up to it. If you see something unsafe then feel free to report it to the relevent authorities or write/contact the TOC concerned, but this is not the place for what effectivly amounts to gossip.

Note: This is not a pop at the OP

Is it any wonder train enthusiasts get a bad name for themselfs:roll:

I have, on one occasion, brought to the attention of a TOC a driver who ignored a TSR and adopted an unacceptably harsh braking and accelerating pattern throughout my journey
Please explain as to what qualifies you to assess the situation as you did.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,227
I wasn't aware that Cl314's didn't have local door buttons.

Does anyone think that DOO monitor installation would actually improve this? Surely if they don't need to get up and out of the cab, and they can just check by looking at some TV screens, then the checking would be easier and this would happen less often.
I'm surprised that there aren't at least "Car Stop" boards at the relevant places along the platforms so that the driver knows that the entire train will be in the platform before releasing the doors. This is what we have on our routes irrespective of the method of despatch.

There would be no need to check that the train would be completely in the platform, as DOO monitors should be in the correct place along the platform to line up with the train anyway. If the driver can see in the monitors and there is still a coach hanging out the back, then it's the monitors that are in the wrong place.

Routine can simply not be blamed for that, it is either a monumental error on the drivers part or some form of mechanical failure with the door system.
I think you might be surprised just how many incidents have their root causes in either the driver/guard/signaller/whoever falling into a routine or making an assumption about something. Train driving is a very repetitive job on a par with working on a production line, which is why you have to be on top of your game.

I know that I have a "station stop" routine and a "red signal" routine that takes precedence. This can cause me problems when the red signal is at the end of a platform as I will go straight into "red signal" mode and it sometimes takes me a few seconds to remember to release the doors. :oops:

O L Leigh
 

bluenoxid

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
2,032
Passenger comfort. I know when I'm travelling on a smooth train and a badly driven train. Same as a bus. I don't have a clue about buses but a driver at the wheel with a mobile at his ear driving it like a maniac might indeed be noticed
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,811
Just to clarify, are you saying that the correct procedure is for the driver to stand up, open his local door, check the train is fully platformed and THEN open the passenger doors? And despite all these safeguards the driver still opened the passenger doors when the train was not at the platform?

Routine can simply not be blamed for that, it is either a monumental error on the drivers part or some form of mechanical failure with the door system.
I think you might be surprised just how many incidents have their root causes in either the driver/guard/signaller/whoever falling into a routine or making an assumption about something. Train driving is a very repetitive job on a par with working on a production line, which is why you have to be on top of your game.

I know that I have a "station stop" routine and a "red signal" routine that takes precedence. This can cause me problems when the red signal is at the end of a platform as I will go straight into "red signal" mode and it sometimes takes me a few seconds to remember to release the doors. :oops:

O L Leigh
I understand where you are coming from, I really do, but I don't accept it for a case such as this. If the driver had been following routine he would have opened the local door and checked the train was platformed and then release the passenger doors - that is what the correct routine would be (according to people who know the stock and route). I'm sure you would agree with that, and bare in mind I have removed some steps for the sake of simplicity.

If the above routine was followed then the passenger doors would never have been opened as the routine is to check the train is platformed. The fact this didn't happen would suggest that the wrong routine was being followed of releasing passenger doors too quickly without checking.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Passenger comfort. I know when I'm travelling on a smooth train and a badly driven train. Same as a bus. I don't have a clue about buses but a driver at the wheel with a mobile at his ear driving it like a maniac might indeed be noticed
I take it you also know every units individual characteristics along with any faults developing throughout a journey?
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,227
I'm not so sure about passengers noticing how "well" a train is being driven or being able to accurately judge the speed of the train.

I was PASS back to my depot today along my core route and it felt like the driver was sand-bagging. I know precisely where the speed changes are and what the linespeed is at any given point, and I also happen to be familiar with the "passing times" at locations where the train is not booked to stop. Even so, this trip felt really slow. However, a quick glance at my watch showed the service to be either bang on or slightly ahead of time. Given that this was the impression being gathered by a driver hugely familiar with the route and the different approaches to timing the service, what chance has a passenger got of being able to accurately say that something is not as it should be.

As a a driver I know that there are times when I might legitimately brake hard, although as a rule I try to avoid doing so. Someone could have stepped onto a foot crossing just ahead of me or there could be someone titting about on a platform. If I believe that heavy braking or acceleration is necessary then I am the best judge of it. No-one else even has a view forward to know what is going on ahead, let alone possess the required knowledge to gainsay my decision.

As I said before, if there has been a safety incident that concerns you enough then please contact the relevant operator. However, being a busy-body and making criticisms that you have no way of being sure about let alone substantiating does not fit this category. This is just mischief-making.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I understand where you are coming from, I really do, but I don't accept it for a case such as this. If the driver had been following routine he would have opened the local door and checked the train was platformed and then release the passenger doors - that is what the correct routine would be (according to people who know the stock and route). I'm sure you would agree with that, and bare in mind I have removed some steps for the sake of simplicity.
As a driver with experience of DOO operation, I would be very surprised if this really was the procedure in use on the Stratclyde PTE routes. For the want of putting up some "Car Stop" boards the operator could save itself a lot of time and effort. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am dubious about the claim that this is indeed the method of working. What I would like is some confirmation of the methods of despatching DOO trains before making any judgement.

As for the routine element of my post, I still contest that you are underplaying it's importance. When I was a trainee I had it drilled into me that I should "pause for the doors". The idea was that it would give me a couple of seconds to look around and work out exactly where I am and decide what my next action should be. The problem is that most times when you stop a DOO train the next action is to release the doors. This incident sounds like a classic case of this.

To reinforce this point, there have been SPAD's at station starter signals because the guard has been too preoccupied with station duties to notice that the starter is at danger and has shut up and given the driver two on the bell. As the driver's normal response to this is to get underway, he/she has just given it the beans and gone right past the signal without stopping.

O L Leigh
 

dan_atki

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2006
Messages
1,883
As a driver with experience of DOO operation, I would be very surprised if this really was the procedure in use on the Stratclyde PTE routes. For the want of putting up some "Car Stop" boards the operator could save itself a lot of time and effort. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am dubious about the claim that this is indeed the method of working. What I would like is some confirmation of the methods of despatching DOO trains before making any judgement.
Judging by http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Pollokshields_East_Station_02.JPG there are indeed Car Stops.
 

delt1c

On Moderation
Joined
4 Apr 2008
Messages
1,382
how times have changed. I can remember twice in the 70's (OK slightly worse for Newcastle Brown) when Iopened Mk1 carriage doors and stepped into oblivion, never for a minute blamed the staff.We all make mistakes but passengers still have a duty to check it is safe, strange thing is I yet to read of somneone with sight imparement having an accident, always seems to be someone with good vision,.
 

Jim

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
3,134
Location
Wick
Look - seriousally - I read the first page and time for a rant!

Yes the incident happened, so if your that worried, report it - but don't leave it for discussion and more to the point speculation on a public forum! How do you think the driver would feel if s/he found this thread, and how do you think FSR feel about having an incident speculated on but not reported!

You should do it officially or not at all

And TBH, as I said when SDO came in on HST's stopping at short platforms, if your stupid enough to alright where there is no platform - then what is your IQ!

Rant over!
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,811
As a driver with experience of DOO operation, I would be very surprised if this really was the procedure in use on the Stratclyde PTE routes. For the want of putting up some "Car Stop" boards the operator could save itself a lot of time and effort. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am dubious about the claim that this is indeed the method of working. What I would like is some confirmation of the methods of despatching DOO trains before making any judgement.

As for the routine element of my post, I still contest that you are underplaying it's importance. When I was a trainee I had it drilled into me that I should "pause for the doors". The idea was that it would give me a couple of seconds to look around and work out exactly where I am and decide what my next action should be. The problem is that most times when you stop a DOO train the next action is to release the doors. This incident sounds like a classic case of this.

To reinforce this point, there have been SPAD's at station starter signals because the guard has been too preoccupied with station duties to notice that the starter is at danger and has shut up and given the driver two on the bell. As the driver's normal response to this is to get underway, he/she has just given it the beans and gone right past the signal without stopping.

O L Leigh
Indeed I am still myself surprised at this method of operation and I'm not convinced it is correct either - the result of finding out if it is correct or not would affect my (and possibly your) opinion on what happened, who was at fault, and why.

I don't think your example reinforces the point at all (incidentally, I have been in the situation you describe more than once) as my point was something different - that the wrong routine was being used, possibly because of laziness or poor training etc etc etc - but of course that would depend on the correct method of operation which we are both unsure of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And TBH, as I said when SDO came in on HST's stopping at short platforms, if your stupid enough to alright where there is no platform - then what is your IQ!

Rant over!
Possibly very high. There is no correlation between IQ levels and visual impairment.
 

Jim

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
3,134
Location
Wick
Indeed I am still myself surprised at this method of operation and I'm not convinced it is correct either - the result of finding out if it is correct or not would affect my (and possibly your) opinion on what happened, who was at fault, and why.

I don't think your example reinforces the point at all (incidentally, I have been in the situation you describe more than once) as my point was something different - that the wrong routine was being used, possibly because of laziness or poor training etc etc etc - but of course that would depend on the correct method of operation which we are both unsure of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Possibly very high. There is no correlation between IQ levels and visual impairment.
Yes alright, but in this case I am not led to belive this applied, therefore is not relevent!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
but of course that would depend on the correct method of operation which we are both unsure of.
So lets stop speculating - we have reached the facts - and that is that we know hardly any!
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,227
I don't think your example reinforces the point at all (incidentally, I have been in the situation you describe more than once) as my point was something different - that the wrong routine was being used, possibly because of laziness or poor training etc etc etc - but of course that would depend on the correct method of operation which we are both unsure of.
Granted, the precise method of despatch will influence will influence how this incident is seen. However, I don't believe that we are talking at cross purpose, as I feel that we are both attempting to make the same point but are just coming at it from different ends.

In the example I gave, the correct routine is the "red light" routine of putting the brake into full service, the reverser into neutral, pushing the DRA in and getting your hands and feet away from the controls. Even if the guard shuts the door and gives two on the bell the driver should ignore this until the signal has cleared. However, hearing the two on the bell has been proven through experience to be enough to send some drivers into their "right away" procedure irrespective of the signal aspect facing them. It's a Pavlovian response brought on by conditioning and absolutely the wrong routine to fall into.

This is what you meant, wasn't it...?

O L Leigh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top