Can be very beneficial. Dump and run.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Latest on colour blindness testing
- Thread starter DazeK
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
out of curiostity, how long do you have from seeing red to come to a standstill? i guess when you see yellow you start breaking and you stop this side of the red signal. cos when you apply emergency break u got to worry about other things the train might do like derail or people falling on each other?
also i am assuming the red signal is some distance away from railway track intercorssing.... how far would you say the signal can be from these intersections? i am not in the industry so just guessing they make them far enough so if someone start pressing break from teh red light starting point then they have enough room to stop before this corss section?
thanks
There is an area known as service braking distance (service braking being normal step 1 or 2 braking), which is from the first restrictive aspect to the red and takes in to account the worst performing train in terms of braking. Some sections are longer than others so don’t require immediate braking, but there should be some sort of positive action to acknowledge the restrictive aspect, even if it’s just losing the power. The finer details come with route knowledge.
The same principle applies to reductions in speed (generally greater than a third from your current linespeed). You shouldn’t ever need to apply the emergency brake unless it’s gone a bit wrong.
prit123, Just to add, in the normal course of working where everything appears ok and a signal has just changed to red due to a fault with the signalling system for example, applying the emergency brake would not derail you. It would be a heavy brake application which MAY cause people to go off balance but the driver is only concerned with stopping the train as quickly as possible, preferably before passing the signal. In addition to Stigy’s response, there’s the obvious amount of time it takes for you to SEE the signal, your brain to acknowledge the colour, thinking time to react etc.
Alright for some! For me I’d normally have to return to the station I’m due to be relieved at anyway and sometimes my own train is my train home lol!
thanks for the reply, thanks to Stigy too.
As per @Stigy‘s response, you should never encounter a red without having been checked down by restrictive aspects. Although I was talking about the scenario where a signal “goes back”. It’s usually down to equipment failure or error on behalf of the signaller, but at the time
you don’t know why.
Most signals protecting crossovers are equipped with TPWS so a train approaching at line speed with the driver ignoring the signals would experience a brake demand. This will mitigate (but not prevent) a collision.
I think signal sighting is 8 seconds? In Planning we model eight seconds I think. Could be seven or nine. That includes sighting, brain to compute and reaction.
Sounds about right. With signal sighting they will also factor if you can see it from the magnet.
That may be under eight second sighting time you put up a repeater
Is that 8 seconds at top line speed i assume?
Apparently it’s all bespoke based on line speed, curvature and other features.
TPWS would be a God gift for the poor driver who somehow missed the signal. i guess as technology advances the AI will play bigger and bigger role in unfortunate events like this. thanks for all the replies. learning good things here
In very broad terms, a signal might be provided with a banner repeater if it can’t be sighted continuously for the minimum period of time (I think it’s nine seconds nowadays?) at linespeed, effectively increasing the sighting distance. I guess it’s not an absolute requirement, just one possible solution, as there might be other ways of solving the problem, e.g. reduction in permissible speed, moving the signal itself, providing a co-acting signal, demolition etc.!
Some bedtime reading with some relevant content:
Much appreciated - thanks for posting.
RBSN
Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2014
- Messages
- 383
OP
As a driver your eyesight must be classed as ‘normal’ and any question regarding colour will unfortunately bring your application to an end.
There are many colours that a driver uses on a day to day; including but not only - green, red and yellow and blue.
As a driver your eyesight must be classed as ‘normal’ and any question regarding colour will unfortunately bring your application to an end.
There are many colours that a driver uses on a day to day; including but not only - green, red and yellow and blue.
Av80r
Member
Does anyone have anything other than anecdotal evidence showing the OP has no chance of passing?
Pilots, nuclear electrical artificers and Royal/Merchant Navy navigators (jobs where red and green are just as critical as train driving, including at distance and with instantaneous changes) both use Ishihara, Nagel and CAD testing to prove perfect colour vision; you are allowed to fail two of these tests and still work without restriction as it is appreciated all three tests have flaws. The only difference is the CAD test can sometimes prove you're "colour safe", which means they may have colour vision deficiencies of some sort but there is no performance variation against someone with full colour vision when faced with the most difficult colour related task in their job. Colour safe range in CAD is quantifiable and each industry can set their own range, this is the reason CAD testing has become slightly more popular as you can actually put a number on somebody's colour vision and thus not exclude people with irrelevant colour deficiencies from your job. It would be surprising if train driving didn't follow a similar system.
The airline industry does not use the lantern test for pilots.
Pilots, nuclear electrical artificers and Royal/Merchant Navy navigators (jobs where red and green are just as critical as train driving, including at distance and with instantaneous changes) both use Ishihara, Nagel and CAD testing to prove perfect colour vision; you are allowed to fail two of these tests and still work without restriction as it is appreciated all three tests have flaws. The only difference is the CAD test can sometimes prove you're "colour safe", which means they may have colour vision deficiencies of some sort but there is no performance variation against someone with full colour vision when faced with the most difficult colour related task in their job. Colour safe range in CAD is quantifiable and each industry can set their own range, this is the reason CAD testing has become slightly more popular as you can actually put a number on somebody's colour vision and thus not exclude people with irrelevant colour deficiencies from your job. It would be surprising if train driving didn't follow a similar system.
The airline industry does not use the lantern test for pilots.
Isharia is use on the railway according to RSSB group standards AFAIK. If you fail it, you fail the medical, and that’s it. There are plenty of applicants who have perfect colour vision so I don’t see why a TOC would want to spend money testing and retesting a borderline applicant. Medicals are expensive - which is why they are right at the end of the recruitment process.
These threads keep coming up again and again with people looking for loopholes, ways to shortcut the system, drawing comparisons with other industries etc. The harsh reality is that people probably need to accept that certain medical conditions will preclude you from certain jobs, and sadly this is one of them. If you were partially sighted, or paraplegic, you couldn‘t become a train driver either.
RBSN
Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2014
- Messages
- 383
You’ll find a large amount of members on this forum are experienced in the recruitment process and have relative knowledge that accompanies that.
Regardless of what other industries require, the Railway requires you to have a standard eyesight that doesn’t not include any type of colour blindness.
There isn’t any way round that and people need to accept it. The Railway has many different roles that they would welcome you to apply for, driving is only a small part of the industry.
Last edited:
I believe this is why Isharia is used, as opposed to other tests. It can simply determine whether the candidate has *any* colour blindness, regardless of type. That is sufficient for the purposes of the industry.
Tests which distinguish between different types of colourblindness would therefore serve no useful purpose.
irish_rail
Established Member
Certainly used to in the not to distant past, may of changed now perhaps
BloominMan
Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 89
To be fair which folks will find surprising - I used to know an electrical engineer who was obviously safety critical, who couldn't pass the ishara test but could pass the lantern test. They passed every medical. Company discretion.
Ok; I'll play.
Lets say for arguments sake that CAD becomes the norm and the industry sets its own standard. That standard can be set so tight that it still becomes a hurdle to pass. What would be the point in allowing colour-blindness but then setting the bar so high that an infinitesimal number of people actually make the grade. Increased costs for the TOC and then increased heartache for the applicants. However...
Lets play round two.
The TOC allows colour-blindness and sets the bar stupidly high. Those that actually make the grade go into a pool of successful candidates. Awesome, job done, right ? Well not really. Each applicant now has a score :/ That score becomes another way to dump candidates. With such a deluge of applicants those that have any points in the colour-blindness test will just drown. There are a plethora of candidates that will pass with flying colours. They will be the default choice because having a score allows you to cherry pick your applicants. This already happens with the assessment process. You can still pass the assessments to the required standard but the TOCs now set a higher pass mark with 'Enhanced'
Round three. Let's hammer it home.
Dear Mr Utor,
Thank you for your recent application for the role of TRAIN DRIVER. We are pleased to say that you have PASSED all stages. Your score at the medical stage was CB #1.0596. Your application has been UNSUCCESSFUL and Unfortunately we cannot progress your application further.
Many thanks for your time and we wish you well for the future.
Thank you for your recent application for the role of TRAIN DRIVER. We are pleased to say that you have PASSED all stages. Your score at the medical stage was CB #1.0596. Your application has been UNSUCCESSFUL and Unfortunately we cannot progress your application further.
Many thanks for your time and we wish you well for the future.
Or
Dear Mr Utor,
Thank you for your recent application for the role of TRAIN DRIVER. We are pleased to say that you have PASSED all stages. Your score at the medical stage was CB #1.0596. Your application has been SUCCESSFUL and you have been placed in our Talent Pool for future vacancies. Your position is #5689.
Should a position become available we will contact you at that time.
Thank you for your recent application for the role of TRAIN DRIVER. We are pleased to say that you have PASSED all stages. Your score at the medical stage was CB #1.0596. Your application has been SUCCESSFUL and you have been placed in our Talent Pool for future vacancies. Your position is #5689.
Should a position become available we will contact you at that time.
Av80r
Member
I'm also aware of electrical engineers with colour deficiency, they're not allowed to work on certain equipment but their deficiency means they can work on most equipment safely.
Can anyone find the most recent and valid set of standards on colour vision? The only one I can find is a 12 year old set of standards on there stating the below:
"Where a rare or acquired defect is suspected, or specific colour dependent tasks require it, the responsible occupational physician may recommend alternative or additional tests."
It would be nice to have the exact rule in writing, anecdotal evidence is sometimes ok but if it's wrong then people will be avoiding the job without the need to avoid the job. I know aviators with colour deficiency that had to pass through alternate hoops to get into the job, and I also know plenty of people on pprune forums (aviators and non-aviators) telling prospective aviators they have no chance of getting onto the job...
221129
Established Member
2.1.8.1 Railway undertakings shall not permit train drivers with defective colour vision to
drive trains on Network Rail managed infrastructure.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
drive trains on Network Rail managed infrastructure.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Are you sure you know (f)ATPL holders with colour deficiency? I have held one for the last 12 years and my annual class 1 medical renewal requires me to pass the Isihara test (I did the light box thing the first time but it has been withdrawn for renewals), and I know of nobody for whom that requirement has been waived. Given most of the instrumentation on the flight deck of modern airliners is presented with some form of colour coding for warning levels (green good, orange bad, red; might need to put the paper down and do something), not to mention primary flight displays using varying colours to represent flight parameters, I would be surprised to hear of any loopholes. Class 2 medical for PPL perhaps or maybe a restricted class 1??
Whilst it may be behind the times (and I can say the same for many of the class 1 medical standards), thems the rules as they say.
There are however a variety of medical reasons which should preclude someone from being a pilot and I would say the same is true for train drivers. There’s usually very little flexibility in those requirements as any accident investigation could lead to a medical examiner being held criminally responsible for not following the guidelines.
It’s a real shame and I have to say given the fact that there are reasonable adaptations that can be made for colour blindness I think there is reasonable argument for change to be effected at some point... but until that time...
- Status