ITV Trouble on the tracks

[Glenn1969]

This programme has finished now. Do we think there will ever be another series?

 

[theironroad]

Was on the STV hub but not ITV one.

Well that was the itv hub I checked yesterday form down south and still in there at 1807 today as image shows....

 

[PG]

This programme has finished now. Do we think there will ever be another series?

I'd like to imagine that someone else will commission/produce something better and this can be consigned to the archives!

 

[Trackman]

I am still finding it all a bit 'odd' Looking at CCF, and P10 at New Street, I cannot fathom out, if the train arrived from Coventry, and was going back that way, and stopped half way down, why the points to what looks like No 3 siding were reversed ? and ifthe train stood foul of the mid platform signal, how did that allow the points to be moved ? ( and further, if you can signal to / from No3 sdg, why no one saw it ! )

I've just watched the programme (and looked at the track diagrams) It was the reversing move (so to speak) from 10B to 10A.
Programme has it right of the shot of the signal, only NS184 could have been passed at danger which protects the points.
At first I thought it was a reversing move SPAD i.e starting ahead of a signal at danger, this is not the case.
So basically the dispatcher has instructed him to pass at danger.
It's been posted on here about it being allowed at New Street; if I was the driver there is no way I'd move.
I'd like to see what the rule book says about this.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'd like to see what the rule book says about this.

Only the *Signaller can authorise you to pass the signal at Red. You can be dispatched on a red to pass the signal but you must tell the platform dispatcher that you have authority to pass the signal at Red. Movements before authority can only be granted by the Signaller. However this is what the local instructions are overruling.

At my TOC there are locations where I am asked to 'drop down' I ALWAYS refuse. My TOC policy also states that any movement must be authorised by the Signaller.

*there are exceptions

 

[ashkeba]

A little bit of defence for one of the guys on the N ex bus, he had a ticket and it looked as if he had been sold it by the driver who then told him that the bus was overloaded and he couldn't travel.

It appeared that the driver did not realise his bus was overloaded until it could not lift away from the kerb. It looked to be one of those "kneeling" buses. It looked like he handled it badly, as did the passengers, as did Network Rail directing so many passengers to it, as did National Express not having any relief service on standby when the market is on and the trains are on strike.

I think that British public transport often doesn't pull together when a crisis happens like in some other countries. It is not the only place to do that but some do better.

 

[Robertj21a]

It appeared that the driver did not realise his bus was overloaded until it could not lift away from the kerb. It looked to be one of those "kneeling" buses. It looked like he handled it badly, as did the passengers, as did Network Rail directing so many passengers to it, as did National Express not having any relief service on standby when the market is on and the trains are on strike.

I think that British public transport often doesn't pull together when a crisis happens like in some other countries. It is not the only place to do that but some do better.

Most buses 'kneel'.
The bus wouldn't have been overloaded as such (as in too much weight) it would have simply had more passengers on board than it was safe to drive with.
There is no reason for a private bus company to have a spare bus and driver just sitting around in case a rail company messes up.
The key issue is that the TOC failed to organise matters properly.

 

[philthetube]

The programme did show the bus resting on the kerb and if I remember correctly say that it was unable to be driven.

 

[ashkeba]

Most buses 'kneel'.
The bus wouldn't have been overloaded as such (as in too much weight) it would have simply had more passengers on board than it was safe to drive with.
There is no reason for a private bus company to have a spare bus and driver just sitting around in case a rail company messes up.
The key issue is that the TOC failed to organise matters properly.

Well, I think the programme said overloaded but maybe this is another mistake by it.

The reason would be to sell more tickets and make more money. I assume two full buses is more profitable than one unless something is very wrong with that business.

I do not disagree that the train company failing organise was the key issue.

 

[ashkeba]

And I do not think they should have a spare bus just in case the railway messes up but I think National Express is a big company with many routes so there must be a good chance that at least one will use an extra bus profitably when the Christmas market is on, or is Birmingham's Christmas market much smaller than those I have visited elsewhere?

 

[dvboy]

Birmingham's Christmas market is one of the biggest.

It would surprise me if NXWM do not have a spare vehicle and driver on standby towards the end of service for breakdowns and other issues to ensure the last service of the day runs.

I think there was some deviation from reality when it came to the bus. There is a gap of four hours overnight between buses to Coventry but there are buses that make shorter journeys that run in between, and I wonder if they could have asked those making shorter journeys to get the next one or other buses which share the same route for part of the journey.

The guy they showed in the bus shelter with a ticket looked like he had a day ticket purchased on a bus -mentioned it expiring by midnight- so either it was a multi-operator ticket or he'd traveled into Birmingham by bus anyway and wasn't a train passenger but couldn't travel anyway because the bus was full.

 

[Robertj21a]

The programme did show the bus resting on the kerb and if I remember correctly say that it was unable to be driven.

Yes, you're right but a bus will often rest on the kerb when the front is lowered on arrival at the stop. It's only the driver saying that it can't be driven - probably more accurate to say that he can't drive it safely, or legally, in that condition.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I was expecting this to be on last night but clearly not. Is that it? Did they only do 3 episodes?

CJ

 

[Ashley Hill]

I sort of got that impression last week when the talking heads at the end done their piece to camera saying how wonderful it all is.

 

[DelW]

I was expecting this to be on last night but clearly not. Is that it? Did they only do 3 episodes?

CJ

IIRC the series was shown as three episodes in my listings mag (I can't check since my recycling was collected yesterday).

 

[Blinkbonny]

Yes. Just three.

 

[lammergeier]

I've just watched the programme (and looked at the track diagrams) It was the reversing move (so to speak) from 10B to 10A.
Programme has it right of the shot of the signal, only NS184 could have been passed at danger which protects the points.
At first I thought it was a reversing move SPAD i.e starting ahead of a signal at danger, this is not the case.
So basically the dispatcher has instructed him to pass at danger.
It's been posted on here about it being allowed at New Street; if I was the driver there is no way I'd move.
I'd like to see what the rule book says about this.

As has been mentioned, there was no SPAD. It was a reversing move which IIRC started beyond the signal protecting the trailing points. It's a common move at New St, and the dispatchers will get permission for you to draw down, as per local instructions. A dispatcher cannot authorise a driver to pass a signal at danger, (even at New St), and that is not what happened here.

 

[SlimJim1694]

At my TOC there are locations where I am asked to 'drop down' I ALWAYS refuse. My TOC policy also states that any movement must be authorised by the Signaller.

No harm in dropping down. If platform staff ask me to do it I just phone the signaller first. I wouldn't do it without speaking to signaller, but then again it appears there are local instructions for Birmingham New Street.

 

[ComUtoR]

No harm in dropping down. If platform staff ask me to do it I just phone the signaller first.

I have learned, through experience, that any additional movement can lead to an incident. At the locations where we are asked to drop down, it is being done for convenience rather than an operational reason. I have also noticed that where you may be asked to drop down, its all on you as the Driver. There is rarely any dispatch (bat/flag etc) and its often done on spoken word alone.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can someone please explain what "dropping down" means?

 

[SlimJim1694]

I have learned, through experience, that any additional movement can lead to an incident. At the locations where we are asked to drop down, it is being done for convenience rather than an operational reason. I have also noticed that where you may be asked to drop down, its all on you as the Driver. There is rarely any dispatch (bat/flag etc) and its often done on spoken word alone.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. It is a risk and everyone involved needs to be aware of the importance of communication and the need to come to a complete understanding before any movement takes place.

 

[SlimJim1694]

Can someone please explain what "dropping down" means?

Dropping down is railway slang for drawing up to a signal such as a ground signal to leave sidings/depots or a platform starter signal.

As in, "can you drop down to the dummy please, drive?"

 

[Mag_seven]

Dropping down is railway slang for drawing up to a signal such as a ground signal to leave sidings or depots or a platform starter signal.

Cheers - I suspected that's what it was. I'm now going to watch this programme on catch-up TV and try to work out what all the fuss is about!

 

[Dr Hoo]

I have learned, through experience, that any additional movement can lead to an incident. At the locations where we are asked to drop down, it is being done for convenience rather than an operational reason. I have also noticed that where you may be asked to drop down, its all on you as the Driver. There is rarely any dispatch (bat/flag etc) and its often done on spoken word alone.

I realise that you work somewhere other than Birmingham New Street but can you clarify the distinction between "convenience" and "operational reason"?
At a guess convenience would be something like enabling a double berthing to allow passengers to connect between services but operational reason would be something like a train having a defective cab and needing an assisting/multipled unit attached to enable it to be moved.
Is that what what you have in mind?

 

[ComUtoR]

I realise that you work somewhere other than Birmingham New Street but can you clarify the distinction between "convenience" and "operational reason"?

Operational reasons are ones that are done out of necessity. You may need to drop down to enable permissive working, dealing with unit faults or infrastructure issues.

Convenience reasons can be where platform staff prefer to dispatch from one location, rather from another. The trains that are dropped down are also moved because passengers complain that they have to walk down the platform a little further (literally 60m in some cases). One location where we used to drop down a lot was done almost out of tradition. We drop down because 'its always been done'

As an example :

Unit is down one end of the platform and your asked to 'drop down' You may need to :

Speak to the Signaller for permission
Check the signal (if possible)
make announcement
carry out PTI check
close doors
move down the platform to the correct stop mark (if there is one)
another PTI check
reopen doors

Each step opens up the potential for error. Calling up the Signaller just adds to their day. I assume that the reason why there is a local instruction at New Street is because of the number of calls it would generate for the Signaller. It also creates confusion for passengers. The train is moving before it booked to and people tend to panic. You are also creating train movements within platforms where they are not expected to move. This also increases risk.

Because 'dropping down' is done so casually, the operational bits are often missed. PTI checks don't happen and you can be stopping your train at incorrect locations, which may cause additional problems.

Operational movements are very different. They are managed within an inch and are covered by policies and procedures. Operational movements are also free of passenger interaction and are most likely ECS (empty coaching stock) Even simple attachments are usually accompanied by 'stand clear' announcements and are monitored by staff watching the platform.

The platform/train interface (PTI) is one of the highest areas of risk. Passenger accidents tend to happen at the platform train interface. My preference is not to make unnecessary train movements; especially in platforms.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thank you the comprehensive reply, ComUtoR.
Even though I was a Traffic Manager/Station Manager/Operations Manager for a number of years under BR (including stations with portion working) I can't recall ever having to deal with things like 'staff preferences' and 'tradition' about drop downs and draw ups.
Certain specific issues were dealt with by adjustments to properly signed stopping positions.
(I realise that things have moved on a long way from slam doors, no DOO, far more platform despatch staff and so forth.)

 

[ComUtoR]

Even though I was a Traffic Manager/Station Manager/Operations Manager for a number of years under BR (including stations with portion working) I can't recall ever having to deal with things like 'staff preferences' and 'tradition' about drop downs and draw ups.

At my TOC. I struggle to recall an operational reason for where we regularly drop down. Typically it happens because the front portion has split off and departed. For us, its always been a choice to do it or not. Don't get me wrong, I used to do it without a seconds thought but as the years have gone on, the railway has changed quite dramatically, especially with incidents and who is liable.

It's the same where we used to 'go on the road' Over time, this has become a rare occurrence and is now frowned upon, rather than accepted as the normal way of working.

Certain specific issues were dealt with by adjustments to properly signed stopping positions.

Exactly. Sometimes by dropping down you put your unit somewhere its not supposed to be. At my depot we have a situation where your caught on the magnet if your a few meters out and the unit has to split. On the same platform you are also caught on the grids if you stop incorrectly and then change ends.

With reference to the BR days. I think back then it was a case of just getting stuff done and any consequences was brushed away or just accepted.

 

[MotCO]

Yes, you're right but a bus will often rest on the kerb when the front is lowered on arrival at the stop. It's only the driver saying that it can't be driven - probably more accurate to say that he can't drive it safely, or legally, in that condition.

I'm also wondering that if the bus was overloaded (i.e. has more passengers than stated on the bus capacity notice inside the bus), would the insurance be invalidated? Therefore the driver could not legally move the bus.

 

[andy1571]

I'm also wondering that if the bus was overloaded (i.e. has more passengers than stated on the bus capacity notice inside the bus), would the insurance be invalidated? Therefore the driver could not legally move the bus.

Indeed, and if I’d have been the driver in that situation, I’d have also refused to move the bus too. Each bus or coach has a legal “plated” maximum capacity. Had the driver chosen to ignore it and they’d been an accident, there’s a good chance he’d have been called up and lost his vocational licence (and maybe worse), with National Express also finding themselves in hot water too. I’d suggest a nice prime time TV clip of him merrily pulling away with 120 passengers on a bus designed for maybe 90-100 would have caused all sorts of issues. As well as apparently being physically unable to lift the platform, please remember the platform needs to stay clear in motion too so that the driver can see his mirrors and near side blind spots clearly.

Leaving aside how we might like to see public transport being structured in an ideal world, I’m a little surprised to see NatEx being criticised by some contributors. I thought they’d been left in an impossible situation. Whilst most big depots will carry spare drivers/vehicles, who’s to say these hadn’t been called out to cover on their own network, at what was evidently a busy time of year? Perhaps NatEx already had some additional commitments covering the planned replacements mentioned? If we are saying they ought to have provided spare vehicles/drivers on the off chance the WMR service collapsed, how many...5? 10? 20? 50? Who pays? Remember NatEx routes parallel most WMR lines across the West Midlands, so its not just the Coventry route that could potentially be affected. The narrator did say that WMR wasn’t even able to resource its reduced timetable; I don’t think it’s the job of the local bus company to plan and resource for the fallout from that.

Andy M

 

[LAX54]

So what, if anything then, was or are protetcting the points ? which obvioulsy were in reverse and not normal ?