Derailment at Kirkby (Merseyside) - 13/03/2021

[pdeaves]

Taking a different line of thought. What purpose does the curfew serve? I see the sense in 'custodial' (notwithstanding the discussion about whether it should be suspended or not), fine, community service. But in this particular case, why the curfew? It's not like being distracted only happens over night or something like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taking a different line of thought. What purpose does the curfew serve? I see the sense in 'custodial' (notwithstanding the discussion about whether it should be suspended or not), fine, community service. But in this particular case, why the curfew? It's not like being distracted only happens over night or something like that.

Pure punishment I suspect.

 

[muz379]

Its an interesting legal question, whether the inability to reoffend should be taken into account at the sentencing stage. I don't know the answer, by the way. What also crosses my mind is that if the driver was happy using his mobile phone whilst driving a train, what kind of car driver is he? I don't suppose for a second that this is relevant to the sentencing discussion, but it seems perverse that he would be comfortable doing one but not the other, and therefore the opportunity to carry out a broadly similar act of negligence remains open to him. Let's hope he's bright enough to see the parallels

I think broadly it should be , but I also think that your view on that will largely be informed by what purpose you think prisons serve . I largely think prisons should be for public protection to keep only likely reoffenders of a dangerous nature away from society , maybe in some instances open prisons and less secure prisons should he used for rehabilitation .

He could be at risk of carrying out the same negligent acts whilst driving a car then again he might not be a car driver I work with a few traincrew that don't drive cars . I personally think that is one that is best left again to if he is caught doing that criminal act .

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think broadly it should be , but I also think that your view on that will largely be informed by what purpose you think prisons serve . I largely think prisons should be for public protection to keep only likely reoffenders of a dangerous nature away from society , maybe in some instances open prisons and less secure prisons should he used for rehabilitation .

They have basically three purposes - protection of society, rehabilitation and simple consequence-based punishment as a deterrent, because "you'll spend 10 years in the slammer" definitely is a big deterrent to wilfully committing a crime (which is a bit different from criminal negligence of this kind*, as demonstrated by car drivers fiddling with phones).

* I think you can reasonably expect that if you murder someone you will get a long jail term, whereas the vast majority of mobile phone misuse will result in a minor "slap on the wrist" type punishment or in most cases nothing at all.

 

[Wyrleybart]

It is likely the DSD would have stopped the train if the Driver was incapacitated.



I think blaming, even partially, Network Rail is a bit harsh, but there is certainly a debate to be had regarding TPWS on dead end lines; Should an OSS now be provided at every such location, which must run into thousands across the UK network - Would the cost be justified, and was this considered when TPWS was being installed, bearing in mind that it is provided for many PSRs ? And as a matter of interest is there a fixed distant on the approach to the platform, with associated AWS equipment ?

It is surely about conduct in the cab. Literally millions of services must have terminated at that station safely. So, perhaps (and this is not going to go down well with some on here) perhaps train cabs need the equivalent of an aviation cockpit voice recorder. Yes, I see it was alleged this driver was on Whatsapp which is silent if the phone's tones are switched off, but how many are ? If there is to be millions of pounds of "safety investment" I would prefer it to be in CVRs rather than once in a million OSS grids at terminal stations.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Read today ..if it's not already been posted have searched.. his text(s) were about the F1 commentator Murray Walker's death.

Hardly something that meritted an immediate text - surely it could have waited the minute or so until he reached the terminus?

He was very lucky not to have to send a message about other deaths, had the skew of the bridge deflected the train towards the narrow walkway connecting the Liverpool and Wigan platforms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is surely about conduct in the cab. Literally millions of services must have terminated at that station safely. So, perhaps (and this is not going to go down well with some on here) perhaps train cabs need the equivalent of an aviation cockpit voice recorder. Yes, I see it was alleged this driver was on Whatsapp which is silent if the phone's tones are switched off, but how many are ? If there is to be millions of pounds of "safety investment" I would prefer it to be in CVRs rather than once in a million OSS grids at terminal stations.

CVRs are of very low value for trains, and there are far more trains than terminal platforms so would cost a *lot* more.

The point of a CVR is to capture the decision process of the two or three-person crew in an aircraft (though it also helps that you get other noises, e.g. that of a bomb going off). As trains only generally have one driver, there's little to capture.

Visual rather than audio CCTV pointed at the driver would be of greater use (because that would see phone use, packing their bag etc), but I doubt the Unions would ever accept that.

 

[Wyrleybart]

CVRs are of very low value for trains, and there are far more trains than terminal platforms so would cost a *lot* more.

The point of a CVR is to capture the decision process of the two or three-person crew in an aircraft (though it also helps that you get other noises, e.g. that of a bomb going off). As trains only generally have one driver, there's little to capture.

Visual rather than audio CCTV pointed at the driver would be of greater use (because that would see phone use, packing their bag etc), but I doubt the Unions would ever accept that.

I agree that getting cab cameras past the current ASLEF and RMT would perhaps be a total brick wall.

"Driver Bloggs. you were observed to be picking your nose whilst operating 2J72, in contravention of food and hygeine regulations" !!!

 

[nedchester]

It is surely about conduct in the cab. Literally millions of services must have terminated at that station safely. So, perhaps (and this is not going to go down well with some on here) perhaps train cabs need the equivalent of an aviation cockpit voice recorder. Yes, I see it was alleged this driver was on Whatsapp which is silent if the phone's tones are switched off, but how many are ? If there is to be millions of pounds of "safety investment" I would prefer it to be in CVRs rather than once in a million OSS grids at terminal stations.

Or driverless trains as is being mooted for London Underground (and being introduced on many Rapid Transit Systems worldwide). Merseyrail would be probably be a suitable network to try this on but would need millions in investment.

There was no 'alleged' about the driver on WhatsApp by the way.

 

[northwichcat]

On the subject of sentencing. Not the same, but similar - there have been a few recent cases where airline pilots have turned up for duty well over the airline alcohol limit, which IIRC is a quarter of the U.K. driving alcohol limit. The two examples I can find received custodial sentences of 8-10 months.

Now you can argue whether texting a couple of times ‘at the wheel’ is more or less dangerous than flying an airliner whilst impaired through alcohol. But the sentence was similar, the difference being that the train driver had his suspended. The other consequences are the same though - lost job, etc etc.

The first example I could find of an issue with a pilot turning up drunk relates to two Canadian pilots who turned up too drunk to fly a plane and were arrested before they could even attempt to fly the plane. It seems they were let off because prison staff at HMP Low Moss didn't know what to do with blood samples, meaning they destroyed the evidence. It seems if they had been found guilty they could have faced up to two years in prison. Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43907466

In making comparisons remember these were Canadian nationals, who had been detained in a foreign country for turning up in an unfit state to do their job, not for actually flying a plane while drunk.

 

[muz379]

consequence-based punishment as a deterrent, because "you'll spend 10 years in the slammer" definitely is a big deterrent to wilfully committing a crime

I think the deterrent effect is open to debate , I mean we imprison people at the highest rate in Europe and yet we don't have anywhere near the lowest crime rates , even looking at homicide which is a serious crime that you are definitely going to get a custodial sentence for we aren't anywhere near the lowest

 

[Surreytraveller]

Is the driver still able to claim on his pension considering he will be 60 by now even when you're sacked for such a serious incident ?

Think you've been watching too many American 1980s TV cop shows.
Pensions are protected

 

[Bletchleyite]

Think you've been watching too many American 1980s TV cop shows.
Pensions are protected

Contributory ones are (as it's your money invested), but some final salary ones aren't depending on exactly how they are structured. I have definitely heard of them being forfeit after a gross misconduct dismissal.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Taking a different line of thought. What purpose does the curfew serve? I see the sense in 'custodial' (notwithstanding the discussion about whether it should be suspended or not), fine, community service. But in this particular case, why the curfew? It's not like being distracted only happens over night or something like that.

Basically, if you get a suspended sentence you will get conditions imposed. In this case, unpaid work and a curfew. Break either of these, or come before a cort again whilst the sentence is suspended and it's (usually) off to prison to finish the sentence.

 

[Falcon1200]

Loss of job, reputation, possibly loss of much of his pension as someone above suggested.

Also, assuming he was safeguarded ex-BR staff which seems to be the case, loss of privilege travel facilities.

If there is to be millions of pounds of "safety investment" I would prefer it to be in CVRs rather than once in a million OSS grids at terminal stations.

Safety-critical comms between parties are already recorded of course, I'm not sure anything more is really required. I don't doubt that this case will be highlighted, briefed to and discussed by railway staff, and that will be a deterrent in itself. Regarding OSS, I would assume (although it has not been confirmed) that there is indeed a fixed distant with AWS magnet on the approach to the platform, so there is a form of warning to Drivers beforehand.

 

[GB]

It is surely about conduct in the cab. Literally millions of services must have terminated at that station safely. So, perhaps (and this is not going to go down well with some on here) perhaps train cabs need the equivalent of an aviation cockpit voice recorder. Yes, I see it was alleged this driver was on Whatsapp which is silent if the phone's tones are switched off, but how many are ? If there is to be millions of pounds of "safety investment" I would prefer it to be in CVRs rather than once in a million OSS grids at terminal stations.

How would a voice recorder work if there is no voice or sound to record? Those "millions" would be much better spent of pre-emptive measures rather than reactionary ones.

CVR use on planes is a completely different kettle of fish.

 

[skyhigh]

It is surely about conduct in the cab. Literally millions of services must have terminated at that station safely. So, perhaps (and this is not going to go down well with some on here) perhaps train cabs need the equivalent of an aviation cockpit voice recorder. Yes, I see it was alleged this driver was on Whatsapp which is silent if the phone's tones are switched off, but how many are ? If there is to be millions of pounds of "safety investment" I would prefer it to be in CVRs rather than once in a million OSS grids at terminal stations.

In my cab all you'd get would be me humming to myself. If I'm talking to someone it's via GSMR and already recorded, the only potential benefit would be recording cab-cab calls - but you're not supposed to use those for safety critical communications anyway so I doubt there would be any point.

 

[Efini92]

It is likely the DSD would have stopped the train if the Driver was incapacitated.



I think blaming, even partially, Network Rail is a bit harsh, but there is certainly a debate to be had regarding TPWS on dead end lines; Should an OSS now be provided at every such location, which must run into thousands across the UK network - Would the cost be justified, and was this considered when TPWS was being installed, bearing in mind that it is provided for many PSRs ? And as a matter of interest is there a fixed distant on the approach to the platform, with associated AWS equipment ?

Not necessarily, it depends on the unit. Some aren’t fitted with vigilance which could allow a driver slumped over the controls to carry on depressing the DSD.

Network Rail would have to take the blame as the infrastructure manager, wether they designed that particular section or not.
They should have some sort of reduction in PSR and related OSS.
The single line from rainford to Kirkby is 70mph. There’s a fixed distant about a mile from the buffers and that’s it until you get to the OSS for the buffers.

 

[Horizon22]

As to your second point. Attitude and culture really are the key here. Sadly, mobile phones are at a point where they are almost issued at birth and critical to our daily lives. They have saturated everything we do. I'd happily stick my phone away for a day and enjoy the peace and quiet from the kids but the younger Drivers have a different attitude. They will stick it in airplane mode and not turn it off because they see that as 'off' I've seen Drivers exit a cab and within seconds have their phones to their ear or are already checking messages. The 'Railway' just cannot keep up with the modern generation fast enough.

They are also very much tripping over themselves too. We cant use them, they are evil things that lose your job and can stick you in the clink. However, lets issue one to everyone and tell you to use it when required. Our GSMR has a direct link to Fleet but they still encourage you to use your mobile. Even the rulebook allows for mobile phone use where needed. 18 odd years ago it was black and white. DO NOT USE THEM. Now its a bit grey which some use regulated.

The other giant pink mammoth sitting in the corner of the room is more obvious to Internals. It isn't the phone that's the problem. It was the distraction. It doesn't matter if its a mobile, tablet, DAS, or GSMR or even quickly grabbing your bag. Doing something at a safety critical time can, and does, lead to incident.

There is a greater issue with situational awareness and the need to be focussed at safety critical times.

I think there’s evidently a difference between having your mobile phone available and actually using it. The vast majority of drivers would I think plainly understand this difference, especially when within the cab conducting safety critical activities (I.e whilst diagrammed to drive). On any given diagram there are turnarounds, ‘pass’, breaks and relief when whilst on shift, a driver is evidently not physically driving a train.

This is when mobile phone use would become more acceptable. Indeed in times of service disruption, it becomes absolutely vital to ensure displaced crew get back on track, to cover work and generally for contact as required. Obviously if that call comes through whilst driving that’s just a big no-no so it should be off (not sure what if/any notifications airline mode would make as distraction is the big issue).

There was recent a change to the mobile phone policy at a couple of TOCs I know that did tighten up some of these “gray errors” with a specific mention of “whilst conducting safety-critical activities” and a longer section for drivers. Dispatchers for instance might often use them for passenger assistance between trains.

 

[357]

Some TOCs are so strict on this that they don't even allow smart watches to be turned on in the cab (including those that rely on a phone for any connection)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some TOCs are so strict on this that they don't even allow smart watches to be turned on in the cab (including those that rely on a phone for any connection)

I can see the sense in that. If you had your phone on and in your bag, there's a fairly big barrier to getting out of the seat and looking at it. Whereas if your smart watch beeps, you will look at it, it's equivalent to having your phone sat on the desk. And as you do, you'll be distracted.

 

[skyhigh]

Some TOCs are so strict on this that they don't even allow smart watches to be turned on in the cab (including those that rely on a phone for any connection)

My TOC has a policy of absolutely no mobile devices on in any active cab. No smartwatch, no tablet or phone on flight mode in your bag, nothing. In addition you must switch off all devices a minimum of 5 minutes before your departure time.

On some occasions (such as fault finding outside the train) you may be permitted to use your mobile phone but you need to contact control via the GSMR - so permission is recorded on the call recordings - and request to use your mobile.

If in an emergency situation you may use your mobile phone but only if there is no other alternatives. So way down the list after GSMR, SPT, lineside phone, any other railway phone and the conductor's phone.

It does strike me as odd there's so much variation in policies across the rail industry.

 

[D6130]

Not necessarily, it depends on the unit. Some aren’t fitted with vigilance which could allow a driver slumped over the controls to carry on depressing the DSD.

Network Rail would have to take the blame as the infrastructure manager, wether they designed that particular section or not.
They should have some sort of reduction in PSR and related OSS.
The single line from rainford to Kirkby is 70mph. There’s a fixed distant about a mile from the buffers and that’s it until you get to the OSS for the buffers.

But surely the train involved in the accident was travelling in the other direction from Liverpool....where I believe the maximum line speed is 60 mph? OK, so there's not a huge difference, but there would be slightly less braking distance involved. Presumably these speeds are a throwback to the days when both branches were part of the double-track main line from Liverpool Exchange to Wigan, Manchester, Leeds and York. I would be very surprised if some form of speed control isn't installed as a result of this incident. Perhaps a home signal with 'Moorgate' control?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Some TOCs are so strict on this that they don't even allow smart watches to be turned on in the cab (including those that rely on a phone for any connection)

How do they define Smart Watches? The line isn't always as obvious as a lot of people think (e.g. Hybrid watches etc - even going back a decade or two to things like digital sports watches etc!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do they define Smart Watches? The line isn't always as obvious as a lot of people think (e.g. Hybrid watches etc - even going back a decade or two to things like digital sports watches etc!).

It'd be fairly easy to define them as any watch that is capable of any kind of communications function, whether on a standalone basis or on basis of connection to a mobile phone.

 

[Efini92]

But surely the train involved in the accident was travelling in the other direction from Liverpool....where I believe the maximum line speed is 60 mph? OK, so there's not a huge difference, but there would be slightly less braking distance involved. Presumably these speeds are a throwback to the days when both branches were part of the double-track main line from Liverpool Exchange to Wigan, Manchester, Leeds and York. I would be very surprised if some form of speed control isn't installed as a result of this incident. Perhaps a home signal with 'Moorgate' control?

I can’t answer you on that side as I’ve never driven, but I don’t imagine it’s much different.
That’s my thought and as there hasn’t really been any upgrades down there the issues haven’t come to light. It still doesn’t appear that those questions were asked.
I imagine if they do anything they’ll lower the PSR on approach to the bays and have a set of OSS for it.

 

[jamesst]

I can’t answer you on that side as I’ve never driven, but I don’t imagine it’s much different.
That’s my thought and as there hasn’t really been any upgrades down there the issues haven’t come to light. It still doesn’t appear that those questions were asked.
I imagine if they do anything they’ll lower the PSR on approach to the bays and have a set of OSS for it.

60 down to 15 on approach with company policy of 10mph at the start of the platform.
A fixes distance board on approach with a set of oss soon after and another set once in the platform.

 

[niggill617@gma]

60 down to 15 on approach with company policy of 10mph at the start of the platform.
A fixes distance board on approach with a set of oss soon after and another set once in the platform.

When RAIB release the report it will be interesting to see what the braking strategy of the incident driver was initially, and what the norm is. The Croydon derailment normal braking point was the second tunnel gap for 49 percent of the drivers. The report fails to state where the other 51 would brake. Getting back to Kirkby; fixed distance at about one mile would be nominal step 1 at 3 percent g (70mph), job done notwithstanding gradient and final approach for the TPWS.

I was given TPWS trip speeds sheet for my routes. At one location the line speed is 75 mph and the trip speed was stated as 76 mph, may have been typo? The RAIB Sileby Investigation should shed some light on the true worth of TPWS.

 

[Master29]

I don't think anyone's being protective here - every driver knows that this particular driver messed up and has rightly forfeited his entire career.

However, I think some of us can see that locking up a 60 year old man who's family is reliant upon, who presents no further risk to society and who would find it impossible to re-offend even if he somehow wanted to, is a waste.

But where do you draw the line here in terms of the severity of the offence for the excuse of "He shouldn't go to prison because he's a family man?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Ultimately, what is prison for? Its usually either punishment or for the protection of others. Given the driver has lost his job and likely will never work in the industry again, I'd say the consequences he has faced have already fulfilled both of those things so what would sending him to prison achieve beyond that?