LM Service misses stop

[Metroland]

You are quite correct Yorkie, Drivers are supposed to report missed stops to the signaller anyway, all on a recorded phone which can be listened in by management at any time. The signaller is then supposed to log it, tell his route control, who tells the TOC control and looks on the database to see if the driver is 'at risk'. And depending on circumstances, the driver is either taken off duty straight away and med-screened, or at the end of his shift. He may also be interviewed by NR and later his supervisor.

I'm not actually sure whether some staff realise NR/TOC management can sit at home with laptops and listen to live messages and what's going on. The railway is not like the road, its an extremely controlled environment.

 

[Dai.]

Once again, well done on being a grass!

Someone somewhere has reported it straight to the company and I'm sure the driver would have himself spoken to his superiors about it and I'm also sure the conductor would have reported aswell.

 

[yorkie]

And if that procedure has been followed, it doesn't matter what is written on here.

So it appears to me anyone suggesting that what is written on here matters, is suggesting that procedures may not being carried out correctly and that there is perhaps a culture of hushing things up on the railway. I find that concerning, therefore I suggest the OP writes to LM just to be sure.

If the reporting cards are not clear enough for drivers, or drivers are fatigued due to being worked too hard, that's hardly the drivers fault, but it needs reporting so that things can be improved in future.

I would certainly not condone anyone dishing abuse at the driver, and if I saw anyone do this I would tell them that they don't know it is the drivers fault!

 

[O L Leigh]

And if that procedure has been followed, it doesn't matter what is written on here.

So it appears to me anyone suggesting that what is written on here matters, is suggesting that procedures may not being carried out correctly and that there is perhaps a culture of hushing things up on the railway. I find that concerning, therefore I suggest the OP writes to LM just to be sure.

Controversial as ever.

I think you are extrapolating too far. A driver staying quiet over a "fail to call" (for example) does not equate to a culture of hushing things up. I'm simply urging a more cautious approach on the basis that whistle-blowing would be an extreme reaction.

We're monitored quite closely enough as it is by our managers, thank you. We are all acutely aware that the industry is intolerant of mistakes. But equally we are all know that the Sword of Damocles is hanging over our heads at all times and that straightforward honest mistakes can sometimes be career-ending. What we really don't need are lots of over-zealous members of the public adding to our woes.

If the reporting cards are not clear enough for drivers, or drivers are fatigued due to being worked too hard, that's hardly the drivers fault, but it needs reporting so that things can be improved in future.

If you think we can change anything to do with rostering or the formatting of schedule cards, then I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. I was canvassed for an opinion when we changed our schedule cards and none of the suggested improvements were implemented. It was simply a sop to the drivers so that the company could say we'd been consulted.

O L Leigh

 

[yorkie]

Do you disagree with the requirement to report missed calls? as that is what appears to be suggested?

Management should listen but if drivers missed calls as a result of poor cards, then I suspect they would change them. But they perhaps wouldn't if no-one reported missed calls, because managers would probably think there's nothing wrong with them as they'd be unaware of any missed calls as a result of the poor cards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The train spent several minutes at Bushey so it looks pretty certain that the driver did contact the signaller as required. I am quite sure the driver followed correct procedure and management are aware of it, so you needn't worry that the driver could get disciplined for failure to report.

HRW passengers would have been 25 mins delayed as a result, they are entitled to write to LM and complain, and doing so will not get the driver into any further trouble. The few that did dish abuse were wrong to do so. I hope Management look at what improvements can be made to report cards as a result. Drivers are only human and they should be supported. I think that sums it up.

 

[O L Leigh]

Do you disagree with the requirement to report missed calls? as that is what appears to be suggested?

No it's not what I'm suggesting. I don't disagree with the requirement and I'm pretty sure that most drivers feel the same way. However, some drivers may still chance their arm and stay quiet in the hope that a mistake will be overlooked.

Management should listen but if drivers missed calls as a result of poor cards, then I suspect they would change them. But they perhaps wouldn't if no-one reported missed calls, because managers would probably think there's nothing wrong with them as they'd be unaware of any missed calls as a result of the poor cards.

Missed calls are reported, as are other incidents, and their causes explored. If the problem was down to the schedule card, that would be reported.

The problem is that the schedule cards are produced using an "off the shelf" IT package which appears to have limited options to change the way that the information is presented. When it was being trialled at my depot I complained bitterly that the formatting was not clear; not so much so that they could be changed (though I did hold out a vain hope), but to register my complaint so that management would be aware that drivers were not happy with them.

The train spent several minutes at Bushey so it looks pretty certain that the driver did contact the signaller as required. I am quite sure the driver followed correct procedure and management are aware of it, so you needn't worry that the driver could get disciplined for failure to report.

In this instance I agree, as I have been saying consistently. My objection is that we do not know what a driver may or may not have done with regard to self-reporting and, therefore, posting specific details that can identify an individual working is reckless.

HRW passengers would have been 25 mins delayed as a result, they are entitled to write to LM and complain, and doing so will not get the driver into any further trouble. The few that did dish abuse were wrong to do so. I hope Management look at what improvements can be made to report cards as a result. Drivers are only human and they should be supported. I think that sums it up.

I think that is eminently sensible.

I have said on a previous ocassion that the correct place to be making complaints about an incident is directly to the TOC. I don't have any issue either with people being cross about it. However, as I said above, I just feel that people should think about what they are saying on this (and any other) forum and about the possible implications and consequences.

O L Leigh

 

[37401]

He`s only human, people forget things, I hope he still has a job

 

[Barn]

Surely part of the reason why drivers are so well paid for a fairly simple and highly sought after job is that it's so vital that they do not make mistakes?

 

[Danielo]

It was not my intention on being a 'grass' - I merely wanted to discuss it on the forum, as I was quite surprised that the stop was missed.

Let me get one thing straight - I am on the driver's side here. The guy made an honest mistake, and I did not like the way passengers were barracking him at Bushey (which incidently was the next scheduled stop anyway!).

If anybody will use the forum to punish this driver, then please take into consideration that anybody makes mistakes, and also please take my word for it that he was clearly upset about the situation. He should not have been shouted at by some passengers.

My sincere apologies for publishing the time and service.

 

[AlexS]

Although from a passenger's point of view with London Midland's usual performance problems I'd be quite unhappy if my train went zooming past my stop because I'd not be at all confident there would be one to take me back

There does seem to be some expectation that the passenger will take every delay, incident and problem without getting thoroughly annoyed - that's clearly unrealistic and dealing with it is part of the training. Being in a job where you have to face the great british public is unfortunately part and parcel of this.

 

[gordonthemoron]

was waiting for a london train at grantham in the 90's when a northbound 91 overshot the platform by about 4 coaches

 

[Ben]

You are not suggesting that the guard/driver failed to report this are you?

No not all,

what I am saying is the "incident" is likely to have been dealt with by the Crews Immediate Managers, whereas a post on here could be picked up by a more senior manager that starts waving the P45 stick.

 

[jon0844]

I don't go as far as suggesting there's some sinister train driver equivalent of the Cosa Nostra vow of silence over incidents, but I'd feel far happier letting the railway sort out any mistakes that happen rather than trumpetting them loudly on a publicly accessible internet forum.

It's quite likely that one or more affected passengers will have made a complaint anyway.

By contrast, I've been on a train where there has been a non-standard stopping pattern (given the usual stopping pattern throughout the day) and the onboard announcer kept saying 'next station Potters Bar' when it wasn't due to stop there - and didn't!

I wonder if anyone complained (even though they shouldn't have been on the train if they'd checked the correct details at King's Cross before boarding) and what happens then!

 

[GB]

Surely part of the reason why drivers are so well paid for a fairly simple and highly sought after job is that it's so vital that they do not make mistakes?

As long as humans are still humans, 100% fault free is impossible in any industry.

Please dont assume for one minute that it is a "fairly simple" role either.

 

[The Snap]

And if that procedure has been followed, it doesn't matter what is written on here.

Exactly.

There is nothing wrong with telling a story of an incident you saw happen on the railway. Yes, this forum is accessible to anyone, which includes railway management. However, by posting it on here, there is absolutely no reason why the poster should be blamed for dropping the railway staff member ‘in it’.
The management will be aware of the incident anyway, through either a public complaint or the service monitoring systems that are in place across the network. If they don't know about it, their systems are highly flawed!
Hence, posting a discussion of the incident is irrelevant, because the company will know regardless.
Similarly, posting the exact service the incident occurred on is also irrelevant. Yes, it will speed up the railway company’s investigation SHOULD they find the post, but as I already said, they’ll find out eventually through their own means and systems.

How people can say that just because the incident was reported on here, a staff member will be sacked is completely beyond me...and to an extend, a very blinkered and naive view!

 

[SWT Driver]

You'd be amazed how the "Supermarket" manager mentality works, they'll sack or try to sack you for the most inane & puerile thing nowadays.

 

[Metroland]

I think there is a bit of naivety being shown. In route control (which is not the same as signalling control) staff monitor TRUST outputs/overview monitors - and things are flagged up automatically. 2 mins gained or lost either way on a passenger train, will initiate a phone call to the controlling signal centre - in this case Wembley. They [the signalling staff] *probably* would have noticed the stop being missed, because signallers working signalling panels anticipate things working to certain timings, and it is quite possible they would have spoken to the driver anyway. Nevertheless, the driver/guard are supposed to report it to the controlling sgnal box and it is logged and acted on. I strongly disagree with OL Leigh that the driver should 'chance getting away with it' (if that's what he meant) but I agree when the public get involved it can potentially make it worse. But rest assured, railway operating is noticed by so many people and logged, things like this are spotted. Not reporting things is looked at very dimly indeed should they come to light later, which more often than not they do, and its often a sacking offence if caught - compared to a nasty letter in this instance.

Anyway, the incident is logged and allocated to a manager, and depending on the drivers record, this will be escalated and dealt with. Senior management do get to know about it, its their job, if the driver is on their list as deemed 'at risk', IE has a record of mistakes, family problems and so on and so forth. In some instances, with serious operating incidents (this is) he will be relieved of duty and drink/drug tested.

This is without passengers/station staff reporting missed stops, which they tend to do. Sometimes trains are instructed to miss stops for various reasons, and station staff tend to be very hot at spotting if they haven't been told.

I really honestly think laying into the OP is beside the point, sure taking the train service details away is probably wise, because someone could get hold of the issue and make a big deal about it outside the railway - and then people are made examples of. But what is done, is done and people should not be concerned about the railway's internal processes which are very strict, I strongly suspect the driver will at the very least be interviewed by his train crew leader and the details logged on his record, with a quantity of points to evaluate risk, should he be at fault.

 

[bluenoxid]

I think there is a bit of nativity being shown.

So who are the three Wise men because I don't see enough in this thread

I really honestly think laying into the OP is beside the point, sure taking the train service details away is probably wise, because someone could get hold of the issue and make a big deal about it outside the railway - and then people are made examples of.

It is wise.

 

[Metroland]

damn those auto spell checkers!

Just a word about TRUST and slightly off topic, but I want to promote an understanding just how strictly controlled things are. With each train there is a set of planned timings and then the actual timings. If timings go skew, it is auto logged, and then an explanation code is put beside it - which is manually entered. This is the job of route control.

I can't recall all the codes now, there are probably hundreds. But there are codes for driver errors, signalling errors, infrastructure failure, weather and so on - this all helps tor resolve who is to blame, who pays who, who the managers are, what are the underlying causes.

I have no idea if train crew get shown codes that are logged against them. But the aim for most staff is not to get codes logged against you for the day - quite tough for at busy locations, though this is taken into account.

If for example a signaller makes a regulating error, this gets a code. Say for example a freight train is run in front of a passenger train, with the anticipation it is being looped at X junction. For whatever reason, it turns out the path was tight, at the following passenger train catches up and delays it 4 minutes. This is logged with the code, and the location of the delay. On top of that, non direct delay is allocated. So if that passenger train then delays another train further down the line, that delay is then logged against the original delay and the minutes lost. With serious infrastructure delays, this can add up to several thousands minutes, say a major points failure. On top of that, it shows some staff are better at dealing with delays and problem solving than others. But any staff, with too many delays or incidents logged against their name, will be disciplined, it's that strict. People don't 'get away with things', like the media often portray.

 

[AlexS]

Although in a lot of places TRUST is only as good as the person who starts it off - for example I know of a freight train that departed a terminal and was at least 2 hours into it's journey before the signaller in the originating box updated the system to say it had left him!

 

[JustinStacey.x]

You'd be amazed how the "Supermarket" manager mentality works, they'll sack or try to sack you for the most inane & puerile thing nowadays.

Last I was aware it is almost impossible to sack someone nowadays, as the 'system' these days works in favour of staff which is why there are so many wastes-of-space still in jobs. You can't just 'fire' someone on the spot like they do in movies you pretty much have to follow 'procedure' except for the most serious of acts, unless I'm wrong, and the system isn't as crap as I thought..

 

[Metroland]

Although in a lot of places TRUST is only as good as the person who starts it off - for example I know of a freight train that departed a terminal and was at least 2 hours into it's journey before the signaller in the originating box updated the system to say it had left him!

Well yep, but most locations have auto report worked off the train describers. Any power signalled locations for a start (certainly all of the WCML) but often other places. There are secondary locations like freight terminals and remote points on absolute block lines, but these are becoming less and less.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Last I was aware it is almost impossible to sack someone nowadays, as the 'system' these days works in favour of staff which is why there are so many wastes-of-space still in jobs. You can't just 'fire' someone on the spot like they do in movies you pretty much have to follow 'procedure' except for the most serious of acts, unless I'm wrong, and the system isn't as crap as I thought..

You can fire anyone for anything in the first year for whatever reason, for virtually no notice. Most companies can get rid of you quite easily, long as they follow their disciplinary procedure. In the real world, of course, they often get rid of people they don't like by logging more against them, and turning a blind eye to others. I'm afraid this does happen in most companies, often companies work on if the face fits (This is universal, not just the railways). Its up to the person concerned to then take it to court or their union and prove discrimination - not that easy.

Generally speaking companies do not like to be seen to be taking on minorities, women, or anything that can get big court payouts and will tend to follow procedures. Large companies or where the workforce is more unionised tend to be more careful, because wrongful disciplinary action ends up in big pay outs or strikes.

On the railways they tend to dot the Is and cross the Ts and build up very extensive records about people, so they don't often lose unfair dismissal cases. One of the reasons they railway is very unionised, is because once many of the staff are fired or have much logged against them, they will find it impossible to get further railway employment. And like the police etc you basically 'lose your trade'.

 

[ukrob]

Another incident and once again *some* (not all) members of rail staff are trying to hush it up.

 

[GB]

TRUST as you say is only any good if it is updated correctly on the manual point, though a hell of alot of places have automatic reporting anyway.

CCF is what is used by most controls (certainly Network Rail) as this records everything automatically, displays headcodes, can show if a route is set or what aspect a siganl is showing and can even replay events in the past. Very good for investigating incidents such as over runs, spads and TDA.

There is no getting away or hiding from things these days. Everything is recording, from voice comms to the signallers actions to the drivers actions, which is why its always best to report things as soon as possible...which Im sure the driver/guard/signaller did in this incident.

 

[Metroland]

Bit more about it for those that are interested:

CCF is an information display system which displays current train position and punctuality information on bespoke railway network maps.

CCF is now the standard train movements information display system used in all Network Rail control centres and also by several Train Operating Companies [The control centres overview the signalling centres and their main task is to allocate delay, log incidents, direct large incidents, reschedule services and so on]. At peak times over 500 users are logged in concurrently.

Key features of the development and installation project included:

• Geographical data configuration.

• Preparation of network maps for all regions.

• Preparation of data relating train position to timing points.

• Testing of maps and associated data.

• Specification, development and testing of additional system functionality.

• Display of signalling indications on maps.

• Overdue and unscheduled train alarms.

• User and role administration facilities.

• System support.

• Provision of help desk for 3rd-line support calls.

• Upgrade of CCF maps in line with infrastructure changes and release upgrades on a quarterly schedule.

The Benefits

Key benefits of CCF include:

• Reduced operating costs brought about by the rapid visual identification of the status of trains on the network. Overdue and unscheduled train alarms draw the controller's attention to issues requiring attention.

• Improves punctuality by assisting in the prompt recovery from disruptions due to rolling stock or infrastructure failure.

http://www.deltarail.com/case_studies/operational_planning/ccf.html

That would be on top of the supervision from the signalling centre pictured below, and data logging on the train and interlockings, station monitors, outputs to train crew supervisors offices and other managers (most mangers have CCF or similar in their offices) CCTV on train and stations, voice recording all lines and channels. Even the TOC and NR control centres are overseen by a national control centre on top of that!

 

[tony_mac]

the train my girlfriend was one once managed to miss stopping at Darlington. They were already running quite late, and it was the last train of the night, so they had to get a taxi back from Newcastle - so rather more than a 25 minute delay.
I think that they were more annoyed that the train actually stopped at Durham, but they were told that they couldn't arrange taxis from there, so had to wait until Newcastle.

 

[O L Leigh]

I strongly disagree with OL Leigh that the driver should 'chance getting away with it' (if that's what he meant).

Not reporting things is looked at very dimly indeed should they come to light later, which more often than not they do, and its often a sacking offence if caught - compared to a nasty letter in this instance.

I disagree with it too for the very reason that you give.

However, it would be naive to believe that every driver who has a minor slip-up is going to drop themselves in the mire be reporting it if there is a chance that it may go undiscovered. It's not right and, as you point out, the penalty for being found out later is invariably much worse than if the driver had owned up to it at the time.

Unfortunately, the way the "system" works is very focused on a driver's record. Most companies will expect a qualified driver applying for a vacancy to be entirely incident-free. Likewise, any advancement within the driving grade (e.g. to instructor driver) will depend on a driver's record. So if a DOO service trips over the TPWS overspeed loops on arrival at an unstaffed terminus station, for example, there is going to be the temptation not to report the activation on the basis that no-one is ever likely to find out provided that the OTMR isn't downloaded within a certain timeframe. It is an entirely unavoidable consequence of the recruitment and advancement policies used at every TOC/FOC.

On the whole I would say that the way incidents are dealt with is generally firm but fair, but then we've moved away from having a points-based system to something that doesn't have quite the same stigma attached. A company needs to have a fairly solid case in order to dismiss a driver, although some offences can and will carry the penalty of instant dismissal (e.g. a positive drink/drugs test). However, driver managers are aware that often times these things are just down to a mistake plain and simple, and the driver will get an action plan which will include additional monitoring in order to get them back out on the road and aim to prevent a repeat of the incident.

Another incident and once again *some* (not all) members of rail staff are trying to hush it up.

I'm glad you qualified that statement.

O L Leigh

 

[yorkie]

No not all,

what I am saying is the "incident" is likely to have been dealt with by the Crews Immediate Managers, whereas a post on here could be picked up by a more senior manager that starts waving the P45 stick.

what do you base that possible scenario on? i suspect you made it up!

 

[GB]

So if a DOO service trips over the TPWS overspeed loops on arrival at an unstaffed terminus station, for example, there is going to be the temptation not to report the activation on the basis that no-one is ever likely to find out provided that the OTMR isn't downloaded within a certain timeframe.

But you can never tell when and where the next download will come from so it would be so foolish to "reset and go". It will invariably be picked up anyway as the train would be seen to be stopping out of course.

 

[ungreat]

certainly naming names is out or identifying people through circumstance. So yep, i guess i see the objection.

Despite you threatening to do so on a now locked thread........