Freight Derailment at Whitacre Junction Coleshill and Nuneaton (12/09)

[furnessvale]

It's about time TOCs stopped axing route knowledge retention just to save a bit of money!

Drivers should know reasonable alternative routes. If the TOCs don't maintain this knowledge then at times of disruption, where an alternative route could have been used, the TOC should not receive compensation.

 

[tsr]

Sorry but the reason Guards don't have in cab indications to prevent disorientation is because they don't need it. I know there is a 'drive' at the moment to demonstrate a Guards worth but hamming the job up or blatantly lieing about it doesn't help. Guards do not need anywhere near the level of route knowledge that Drivers do, largely down to the fact that a Drivers role literally relies on and revolves around the route knowledge.

All I will say is...
a) all guard training I have ever been involved in has required spot checks to ensure candidates are familiar with their line of route from the vantage point of wherever they are onboard the train, including knowing which major structures, level crossings and station platforms they are passing.
b) the driver is so vulnerable that a second person onboard really should be able to pinpoint the location of an incident* or, for that matter, any suspected defect.
c) knowing exactly where you are, or not, is critical to resolving an incident safely, as demonstrated.
d) I don't tend to lie about train crew skills, seeing as I have seen what they can and cannot do on countless occasions on the ground, in a control room, and as a passenger.

* See here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feced915d4c10000159/R082011_110407_Lavington.pdf
The Train Manager onboard the HST in question was the only person who, when required, provided a fully accurate description of the train's location - page 21.

 

[Llanigraham]

It's about time the railway got rid of all this 'signing the route' nonsense. A HGV driver can be sent anywhere in the country without needing to 'know' the route. Likewise there's no legal requirement for a bus driver to earn a route other than to avoid the commercial embarrassment of going the wrong way or getting lost with passengers on board. Airline pilots can be rostered for any route, with the only requirement ahead of flying being to study the airways routings and approach plates (with a few exceptions for 'challenging' airports in performance terms). The railway needs to stop being so precision about this stuff and put the passengers first.

So you are proposing to say to hell with safety?
Do you have any idea what is needed to drive a train and why it takes so long to train them?

 

[MotCO]

It's about time TOCs stopped axing route knowledge retention just to save a bit of money!

Do the TOC contracts specify the level of route knowledge and retention required?

 

[Dieseldriver]

All I will say is...
a) all guard training I have ever been involved in has required spot checks to ensure candidates are familiar with their line of route from the vantage point of wherever they are onboard the train, including knowing which major structures, level crossings and station platforms they are passing.
b) the driver is so vulnerable that a second person onboard really should be able to pinpoint the location of an incident* or, for that matter, any suspected defect.
c) knowing exactly where you are, or not, is critical to resolving an incident safely, as demonstrated.
d) I don't tend to lie about train crew skills, seeing as I have seen what they can and cannot do on countless occasions on the ground, in a control room, and as a passenger.

* See here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feced915d4c10000159/R082011_110407_Lavington.pdf
The Train Manager onboard the HST in question was the only person who, when required, provided a fully accurate description of the train's location - page 21.

You honestly think a Guards Route Knowledge is more in depth/difficult to retain than a Drivers? Without wanting to be unduly disrespectful to the Guards grade (which I believe is valuable and needed on passenger trains) you don't know half of what a Driver knows route knowledge wise and you don't have to implement that knowledge to anywhere near the same level/frequency.

 

[tsr]

You honestly think a Guards Route Knowledge is more in depth/difficult to retain than a Drivers? Without wanting to be unduly disrespectful to the Guards grade (which I believe is valuable and needed on passenger trains) you don't know half of what a Driver knows route knowledge wise and you don't have to implement that knowledge to anywhere near the same level/frequency.

Not at all what I'm saying. Although retention certainly has its difficulties at both grades, and route learning can be quite lengthy for either.

Guards/drivers know very different things relating to their side of operations, aside from physical location, and implement the knowledge very differently. It's also fair to say there's an awful lot of external human factors which could distract a guard away from safety requirements and route awareness against what a driver would find in a properly-contained cab environment where the safety conditions are the only thing of any importance, therefore continuous location awareness alone is hard enough to actually use on the part of the onboard crew.

As an example pertinent to the Lavington incident I quoted, consider the guard becoming situationally aware during the accident, which in theory could have been within moments of - perhaps - dealing with an abusive passenger or a saloon related fault, whilst only having a blurred view at high speed, sideways, out of a window, therefore having to rely on recognition of landmarks and prior ride quality to know the safest course of action when they'd come to a stand after hitting the tree.

(If anyone cannot see that then I politely suggest they are unlikely to actually be a driver who has ever worked with a guard or vice versa...)

 

[Signal Head]

It's about time the railway got rid of all this 'signing the route' nonsense. A HGV driver can be sent anywhere in the country without needing to 'know' the route. Likewise there's no legal requirement for a bus driver to earn a route other than to avoid the commercial embarrassment of going the wrong way or getting lost with passengers on board.

Or slicing the top of the bus (and potentially passengers' heads) off on a low bridge.

 

[Tin Rocket]

Not at all what I'm saying. Although retention certainly has its difficulties at both grades, and route learning can be quite lengthy for either.
T
Guards/drivers know very different things relating to their side of operations, aside from physical location, and implement the knowledge very differently. It's also fair to say there's an awful lot of external human factors which could distract a guard away from safety requirements and route awareness against what a driver would find in a properly-contained cab environment where the safety conditions are the only thing of any importance, therefore continuous location awareness alone is hard enough to actually use on the part of the onboard crew.

As an example pertinent to the Lavington incident I quoted, consider the guard becoming situationally aware during the accident, which in theory could have been within moments of - perhaps - dealing with an abusive passenger or a saloon related fault, whilst only having a blurred view at high speed, sideways, out of a window, therefore having to rely on recognition of landmarks and prior ride quality to know the safest course of action when they'd come to a stand after hitting the tree.

(If anyone cannot see that then I politely suggest they are unlikely to actually be a driver who has ever worked with a guard or vice versa...)

Not at all what I'm saying. Although retention certainly has its difficulties at both grades, and route learning can be quite lengthy for either.

Guards/drivers know very different things relating to their side of operations, aside from physical location, and implement the knowledge very differently. It's also fair to say there's an awful lot of external human factors which could distract a guard away from safety requirements and route awareness against what a driver would find in a properly-contained cab environment where the safety conditions are the only thing of any importance, therefore continuous location awareness alone is hard enough to actually use on the part of the onboard crew.

As an example pertinent to the Lavington incident I quoted, consider the guard becoming situationally aware during the accident, which in theory could have been within moments of - perhaps - dealing with an abusive passenger or a saloon related fault, whilst only having a blurred view at high speed, sideways, out of a window, therefore having to rely on recognition of landmarks and prior ride quality to know the safest course of action when they'd come to a stand after hitting the tree.

(If anyone cannot see that then I politely suggest they are unlikely to actually be a driver who has ever worked with a guard or vice versa...)

The track locator app will tell you where you are down to nearest yard or chain.

 

[Tom Quinne]

It’s all well and good a driver or guard giving their location down to the nearest chain, but signallers don’t have that level of detail readily to hand, not without consulting the sectional appendix or another detailed route maps that they may have to hand (unlikely).

Even for bridge strikes it could take up to five minutes to track the bridge down in the strike appendix, then locating and protecting it on the panel.

As for a guards route knowledge, they should know stations (obviously), location hazards, junctions, tunnels, major bridges, signal box control areas, ECO control areas, train detection methods, line names, direction of travel on said lines, which signals apply to their train at stations, areas through which they travel.

All that should be able to be recognise during darkness, daylight, or whilst in the saloon doing customer service duties.

There’s no need to know line speeds, signals other than at a station and other driver requirements. There will be guards who have knowledge on a par with a driver, but this is the exception rather than the rule of course.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[Dieseldriver]

Not at all what I'm saying. Although retention certainly has its difficulties at both grades, and route learning can be quite lengthy for either.

Guards/drivers know very different things relating to their side of operations, aside from physical location, and implement the knowledge very differently. It's also fair to say there's an awful lot of external human factors which could distract a guard away from safety requirements and route awareness against what a driver would find in a properly-contained cab environment where the safety conditions are the only thing of any importance, therefore continuous location awareness alone is hard enough to actually use on the part of the onboard crew.

As an example pertinent to the Lavington incident I quoted, consider the guard becoming situationally aware during the accident, which in theory could have been within moments of - perhaps - dealing with an abusive passenger or a saloon related fault, whilst only having a blurred view at high speed, sideways, out of a window, therefore having to rely on recognition of landmarks and prior ride quality to know the safest course of action when they'd come to a stand after hitting the tree.

(If anyone cannot see that then I politely suggest they are unlikely to actually be a driver who has ever worked with a guard or vice versa...)

I believe you overestimate what a Guard needs to know and underestimate what a Driver needs to know.
But in case you're right, next time I deal with an emergency situation (dealt with a few, never had my Guard deal with them operationally) I'll call on my superhero Guard to recall their far superior route knowledge. When I'm driving a 400 tonne passenger train at 100mph (or a 1800 tonne freight train at 75mph) in thick fog during leaf fall I'll call on my Guard to guide me as to where and how I should be braking for every PSR, station, signals if I'm running under any cautionary aspects. If I come up against a junction signal with a route indicator or junction indicator cleared for me, I'll give a Guard a bell as clearly they are better informed than I am about where those indications can take me and speeds over the points etc.
I agree with you that Guards can be valuable in case of emergencies but, (and I'm sure you'll try to disprove this by dragging up an incident where a Guard intervened) the fact is in the vast, vast majority of incidents, the Driver takes full control on the scene. They are the one who make the emergency call/request line blocks and current isolations aswell as requesting for emergency services to attend. I'm really not trying to belittle the Guards grade but it's difficult to write this to someone who has the bizzare notions that you do. Very occasionally a Guards Route Knowledge will come in handy during an incident but to make out its a regular event or that Guards have anywhere near the same Route Knowledge as a Driver is just plain wrong.
This is why Drivers take much more time to learn routes and retain much more information on them than Guards.

 

[LowLevel]

The route knowledge that a guard and a driver has is different because it's horses for courses. The guard is 'meant' to know where they are to a reasonable degree of accuracy, not how to drive the train safely over the route, whether in the saloon at night with the lights on or otherwise. I can tell you roughly where I am from a windowless bog just from the rail noises as long as I'm orientated before I go in.

The other point is that maintaining a degree of detachment is beneficial to the guard. The last time I got involved in a 'serious' incident I was very much the one in charge of it as the driver was having a bit of a meltdown (as was only fair having not been out long alone and suddenly confronted with the reality that yes, things definitely do go wrong for the first time). That included inspecting the train, planning the emergency evacuation which happily wasn't required, recovering the train, directing brake and rotation tests and accompanying the driver in the cab at the control manager's request to return it to a station when it was safe to move.

The problem of course is that nowadays most companies are not correctly recruiting and training guards to behave like that. They look at customer service skills and assume the rest will come along with it. It's quite possible to dress nicely and still be a bit cold blooded when it comes to dealing with problems.

It's not the first time I've had to do that either *shrug*

That's why teamwork is the key. I'd certainly hope and expect the driver to be capable of managing an incident but it most definitely is not always the case.

 

[FOCTOC]

Was there a derailment somewhere? Clicked on here qnd can only see wibble about guards route knowledge...

 

[LowLevel]

Was there a derailment somewhere? Clicked on here qnd can only see wibble about guards route knowledge...

I believe the scientific term is 'thread drift' but yes it has wandered off topic like a drunk in a High street on a Saturday night

 

[Intermodal]

Was there a derailment somewhere? Clicked on here qnd can only see wibble about guards route knowledge...

I see you are new to RailUK

 

[70014IronDuke]

I believe the scientific term is 'thread drift' but yes it has wandered off topic like a drunk in a High street on a Saturday night

Not really a very good analogy, IMO. There has certainly been 'thread drift' but mostly on a subject (or subjects) very relevant to the forum, viz the duties/responsibities of guards and drivers.

Was there a derailment somewhere? Clicked on here qnd can only see wibble about guards route knowledge...

You are perhaps being flippant for effect, but the conversations (for the most part) are not 'wibble' at all. In fact, IMO these posts offer valuable insights into modern operations that will probably be lost to many potential readers in this one-incident specific thread.

Perhaps the mods could separate this discussion out of this thread under a new title such as "Duties and required knowledge of drivers & guards - compare and contrast"

 

[FOCTOC]

Not really a very good analogy, IMO. There has certainly been 'thread drift' but mostly on a subject (or subjects) very relevant to the forum, viz the duties/responsibities of guards and drivers.



You are perhaps being flippant for effect, but the conversations (for the most part) are not 'wibble' at all. In fact, IMO these posts offer valuable insights into modern operations that will probably be lost to many potential readers in this one-incident specific thread.

Perhaps the mods could separate this discussion out of this thread under a new title such as "Duties and required knowledge of drivers & guards - compare and contrast"

Valuable insights? More like uninformed guesswork which is hardly informative. Never known a forum with so much thread drift - Ive read some that truly leave me scratching my head!

 

[The Planner]

Drivers should know reasonable alternative routes. If the TOCs don't maintain this knowledge then at times of disruption, where an alternative route could have been used, the TOC should not receive compensation.

Good luck with getting that agreed.

Do the TOC contracts specify the level of route knowledge and retention required?

No, but I think DfT are beginning to catch on.

 

[HLE]

Sorry but the reason Guards don't have in cab indications to prevent disorientation is because they don't need it. I know there is a 'drive' at the moment to demonstrate a Guards worth but hamming the job up or blatantly lieing about it doesn't help. Guards do not need anywhere near the level of route knowledge that Drivers do, largely down to the fact that a Drivers role literally relies on and revolves around the route knowledge.

I’m glad you posted that. Guards around here just about know the station calling pattern let alone the route in the dark.

But they know all the ticket types etc. It’s the way the role is heading now

 

[class 9]

It's about time the railway got rid of all this 'signing the route' nonsense. A HGV driver can be sent anywhere in the country without needing to 'know' the route. Likewise there's no legal requirement for a bus driver to earn a route other than to avoid the commercial embarrassment of going the wrong way or getting lost with passengers on board. Airline pilots can be rostered for any route, with the only requirement ahead of flying being to study the airways routings and approach plates (with a few exceptions for 'challenging' airports in performance terms). The railway needs to stop being so precision about this stuff and put the passengers first.

You clearly haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about, road driving and the railway are entirely different enterties.
The fact you dismiss route knowledge as 'nonsense' underlines your ignorance of the subject, so there's no point trying to put you right.

 

[furnessvale]

Good luck with getting that agreed.

Obviously no chance of retrospective application. It should be a condition at the start of any franchise.

 

[Ianno87]

Obviously no chance of retrospective application. It should be a condition at the start of any franchise.

How on earth would you define "reasonable"?

Besides, it would need to be priced into the bid to ensure maintainance of it...

 

[furnessvale]

How on earth would you define "reasonable"?

Besides, it would need to be priced into the bid to ensure maintainance of it...

Of course it would have to be priced into the bid, but the present situation of bustitution from Carlisle to Preston for example is hardly in the passengers best interest.

As for reasonable, we could make a start by quoting reasonable as used by TOCs when the passenger is using an alternative route. Over and above that, a hell of a lot seems to be specified by the DfT for potential franchisees. Ssurely they could draw up a list of diversionary routes.

 

[Robertj21a]

I believe you overestimate what a Guard needs to know and underestimate what a Driver needs to know.
But in case you're right, next time I deal with an emergency situation (dealt with a few, never had my Guard deal with them operationally) I'll call on my superhero Guard to recall their far superior route knowledge. When I'm driving a 400 tonne passenger train at 100mph (or a 1800 tonne freight train at 75mph) in thick fog during leaf fall I'll call on my Guard to guide me as to where and how I should be braking for every PSR, station, signals if I'm running under any cautionary aspects. If I come up against a junction signal with a route indicator or junction indicator cleared for me, I'll give a Guard a bell as clearly they are better informed than I am about where those indications can take me and speeds over the points etc.
I agree with you that Guards can be valuable in case of emergencies but, (and I'm sure you'll try to disprove this by dragging up an incident where a Guard intervened) the fact is in the vast, vast majority of incidents, the Driver takes full control on the scene. They are the one who make the emergency call/request line blocks and current isolations aswell as requesting for emergency services to attend. I'm really not trying to belittle the Guards grade but it's difficult to write this to someone who has the bizzare notions that you do. Very occasionally a Guards Route Knowledge will come in handy during an incident but to make out its a regular event or that Guards have anywhere near the same Route Knowledge as a Driver is just plain wrong.
This is why Drivers take much more time to learn routes and retain much more information on them than Guards.

Quite ! - makes me wonder how these trains operate when they are DOO (like Thameslink, Overground etc) if the guard is supposed to have such detailed knowledge ?

 

[IanXC]

Drivers should know reasonable alternative routes. If the TOCs don't maintain this knowledge then at times of disruption, where an alternative route could have been used, the TOC should not receive compensation.

There is also the question of alternative routes being available. I can think of a few occasions where friends have been stuck on trains in situations where some crossover or another could have been beneficial, but was out of use for whatever reason.

 

[175001]

It's about time the railway got rid of all this 'signing the route' nonsense. A HGV driver can be sent anywhere in the country without needing to 'know' the route. Likewise there's no legal requirement for a bus driver to earn a route other than to avoid the commercial embarrassment of going the wrong way or getting lost with passengers on board. Airline pilots can be rostered for any route, with the only requirement ahead of flying being to study the airways routings and approach plates (with a few exceptions for 'challenging' airports in performance terms). The railway needs to stop being so precision about this stuff and put the passengers first.

Wow. Honestly, what a idiotic post

 

[dk1]

Wow. Honestly, what a idiotic post

Please don't put Skymonster off posting rubbish like this. We need this sort of reply to give us all a good laugh every now & then

 

[LowLevel]

In other news, the railway is anticipated to be open this afternoon with a 20mph emergency speed restriction, passenger services may remain disrupted until tomorrow due to crew/rolling stock balancing meaning it's more expedient to operate the emergency service reliably than attempt the normal service.

A further derailment occurred during the rerailing operation within the depot so that might be a little while longer before completion.

 

[XCTurbostar]

In other news, the railway is anticipated to be open this afternoon with a 20mph emergency speed restriction, passenger services may remain disrupted until tomorrow due to crew/rolling stock balancing meaning it's more expedient to operate the emergency service reliably than attempt the normal service.

A further derailment occurred during the rerailing operation within the depot so that might be a little while longer before completion.

Thanks for the update. Let’s hope it all goes as planned.

 

[Darandio]

In other news, the railway is anticipated to be open this afternoon with a 20mph emergency speed restriction, passenger services may remain disrupted until tomorrow due to crew/rolling stock balancing meaning it's more expedient to operate the emergency service reliably than attempt the normal service.

A further derailment occurred during the rerailing operation within the depot so that might be a little while longer before completion.

Wow, a post actually related to the incident. Thanks for the update.