Downloads can be very subjective. The evidence they provide is very black and white but you do not see the reasons why something may have happened. They need to be backed up by other evidence.
The idea is that the person interpreting the download should know what they’re doing. Yes if something of concern appears on a download then of course the next step is going to be to get the driver’s side of the story, but this is hardly going to be necessary if there’s “nothing to see here”. Why would you need or want to go chasing a driver over something which isn’t there?
So passenger alleges driver was speeding. Review a download and find the train never exceeded the speed profile. Why would anyone need or want to be getting the driver off the train in that scenario? Obviously it does require the manager to be clued up, but that’s a separate issue (we did have a case at my place where an investigation went further than it should for a so-called SPAD on a repeater signal, but that sort of thing really shouldn’t happen!).
I would certainly ask that when you are downloading a unit and the Driver is exonerated, Would this be added to the Drivers file or just a quick personal note and then binned. Keeping clear evidence that a Driver was investigated and then cleared is just s important as download evidence that goes against a Driver.
At my place, officially there should always be a report generated, as officially we can’t raise the order for a download without a case reference. This sort of thing may well be more for those fleets which are maintained by the manufacturer (be curious if anyone could say what the position is on this with the contractually oriented Hitachi fleets?!). Certainly for non-manufacturer-maintained fleets at my place, where there aren’t the contractual hoops to jump through, it could be done with a simple phone call to a depot.
Really there should be an audit trail, as you don’t as a duty-holder want to wrap up a passenger allegation, bin the evidence, and then find a couple of months down the line there’s an email from the ORR, the initial reporter having repeated the allegation to them. Worth keeping the copy of the download saved somewhere for that reason alone.
I would also like to understand that on what grounds are unofficial investigations taking place; that would be outside the Drivers standard CMS cycle, but not declared to the Driver. Surely internal procedures must still be followed; especially if a Driver was specifically being investigated.
Personally, I would take the view that the driver is only being investigated at the point if and where a red flag of whatever sort showed up.
Certainly I take the view that any report emanating from a member of the public is essentially unconfirmed until there is something solid to substantiate it, which in most cases will be either a download or perhaps in some cases CCTV. Obviously if a report is serious then it may well have to be that a driver needs to be taken off the trains immediately as a precaution, especially if a D&A contravention is alleged.
To be honest, I don’t think any of this is for people to be worrying too much about. In virtually all cases it will be the case that there’s “nothing to see here”, and in the rare event that something does flag up then better to have it addressed before the issue develops into a full safety-related incident.
One does have to add: if someone is sufficiently worried that someone in a position of responsibility is looking at a download, one does wonder what they fear might be found!
