Should train cabs have in-cab cameras, to help investigate incidents?

[alf]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/incident-at-enfield-town-12-10-21.223368/

After the Croydon tram crash, & before that the HST crash at Southall, there were serious proposals that there should be an in cab camera, as on some US & Asian railways & very many lorries.

I read somewhere that ORR considered it.

It would be a great way of immediately exonerating drivers from newspaper/forum rumours of looking into personal bag or dozing.

 

[357]

It would be a great way of immediately exonerating drivers from newspaper/forum rumours of looking into personal bag or dozing.

You think they would release the footage so soon?

 

[O L Leigh]

After the Croydon tram crash, & before that the HST crash at Southall, there were serious proposals that there should be an in cab camera, as on some US & Asian railways & very many lorries.

I read somewhere that ORR considered it.

It would be a great way of immediately exonerating drivers from newspaper/forum rumours of looking into personal bag or dozing.

This gets looked at from time to time by the industry, and each time they do it gets kicked back into the long grass. Clearly they have decided that it's not worth the cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This gets looked at from time to time by the industry, and each time they do it gets kicked back into the long grass. Clearly they have decided that it's not worth the cost.

Or more likely the disputes. I can understand why staff wouldn't like this - I wouldn't like having a camera staring at me (me specifically, not just a general office or shop one used for crime prevention purposes) during my working day either.

Data recorders and the likes are one thing, but actual surveillance quite another - it's effectively like working with your boss stood at your shoulder the whole time, and nobody likes that.

 

[notadriver]

After the Croydon tram crash, & before that the HST crash at Southall, there were serious proposals that there should be an in cab camera, as on some US & Asian railways & very many lorries.

I read somewhere that ORR considered it.

It would be a great way of immediately exonerating drivers from newspaper/forum rumours of looking into personal bag or dozing.

no cameras thank you. Breach of privacy. Plane cockpits don’t have them. They are common place in lorries, buses and coaches as they cause the most deaths / injuries through mobile phone usage I think.

 

[ComUtoR]

After the Croydon tram crash, & before that the HST crash at Southall, there were serious proposals that there should be an in cab camera, as on some US & Asian railways & very many lorries.

I read somewhere that ORR considered it.

This gets looked at from time to time by the industry, and each time they do it gets kicked back into the long grass. Clearly they have decided that it's not worth the cost.

It is being trialled. It records sound too.

 

[notadriver]

Where is it being trialled ? ASLEF would never agree to that.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Lorry drivers: Professional job in a regulated industry, responsible for a large vehicle, potential for death and serious injury to yourself and others in the event you screw up.
Train drivers: Professional job in a regulated industry, responsible for a large vehicle, potential for death and serious injury to yourself and others in the event you screw up.

For one - cameras in the cab are apparently commonplace.
For the other - they're an unacceptable breach of privacy in the workplace.

What am I missing? Apart from the obvious (powerful unions).

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'm all for CCTV at work, it'll only hang you if you've done something wrong. Many times it has saved me when I haven't done anything wrong & without it, it would have been just my word.
No-one is going to constantly monitor it, it would be impossible. It's only looked at when there's an issue of some description.

 

[Ediswan]

No-one is going to constantly monitor it, it would be impossible.

Amazon are already using AI to do exactly that with (road) delivery drivers: Amazon faces spying claims over AI cameras in vans

Amazon has begun using AI-powered cameras in delivery vans that constantly record footage of drivers and upload any mistakes they make.

 

[berwicksfinest]

Quite simply a lorry can pull off a road for the operator to use a services or a handy bush, Us freight drivers usually hang out of the cab door not ideal CCTV viewing

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite simply a lorry can pull off a road for the operator to use a services or a handy bush, Us freight drivers usually hang out of the cab door not ideal CCTV viewing

To be fair, in the principles of equality no drivers should be expected to urinate in bottles/out of cab doors, because that excludes 50% of the population from being able to do the job. Proper toilet facilities should be provided, on board the locomotive if necessary.

Didn't 37s used to have a bog in the nose?

 

[berwicksfinest]

To be fair, in the principles of equality no drivers should be expected to urinate in bottles/out of cab doors, because that excludes 50% of the population from being able to do the job. Proper toilet facilities should be provided, on board the locomotive if necessary.

Didn't 37s used to have a bog in the nose?

Whole-heartedly agree 100%.................. However if you need to go en route, it really is your only option.

Dropping into the real world our locos are not fitted with any form of air cooling, and radiator end can increase the temperature in cab by 20 degrees. lets just say thats incredibly low priority, so toilet facilities are well below that !!

 

[Sm5]

I'm all for CCTV at work, it'll only hang you if you've done something wrong. Many times it has saved me when I haven't done anything wrong & without it, it would have been just my word.
No-one is going to constantly monitor it, it would be impossible. It's only looked at when there's an issue of some description.

In the work place for many surveillance is a part of everyday life, its just not always apparent…

laptop / phone usage is an obvious one for millions.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm all for CCTV at work, it'll only hang you if you've done something wrong. Many times it has saved me when I haven't done anything wrong & without it, it would have been just my word.
No-one is going to constantly monitor it, it would be impossible. It's only looked at when there's an issue of some description.

Ah, the old "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" chestnut.

I've worked in places where footage from internal CCTV has been used to bully members of staff, so the idea of CCTV in cabs potentially opens up a Pandora's Box of issues. It's bad enough that a driver who sips from their water at a station call can have passengers tweeting the company about it.

 

[O L Leigh]

I’m not so convinced that in-cab CCTV it would add an awful lot. Footage of a driver, say, sitting stock still not making any control inputs could just as easily be distraction, micro-sleep or the effects of some more serious health condition.

 

[Dougal2345]

Quite simply a lorry can pull off a road for the operator to use a services or a handy bush, Us freight drivers usually hang out of the cab door not ideal CCTV viewing

Maybe for locomotives it could allow the driver to switch it off when the loco. isn't moving?

 

[choochoochoo]

If they do it like they have on aircraft, it only holds 30 mins and overwrites the stuff older than 30 mins , then a voice recorder/camera would be fine.

 

[GB]

Modern Cockpit Voice Recorders hold 2 hours worth of voice before being over written. Flight Data Recorders hold enough for even the longest of commercial flights.

We are all on the outside of this investigation so it's premature to start going down the lines of inward facing cameras.

 

[choochoochoo]

Modern Cockpit Voice Recorders hold 2 hours worth of voice before being over written. Flight Data Recorders hold enough for even the longest of commercial flights.

We are all on the outside of this investigation so it's premature to start going down the lines of inward facing cameras.

ok so 2 hours, that's fine...and trains already have Data Recorders just like planes.

I'd say you only need no more than the last 30 mins of voice/inward cab camerra recording to figure out what happened on a train incident.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'd say you only need no more than the last 30 mins of voice/inward cab camerra recording to figure out what happened on a train incident.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that.

If you look at real incidents, the majority are caused either by external factors (e.g. poor rail adhesion, equipment failure, incursion onto the railway, etc) for which there would be external evidence, or human factors (e.g. concentration, fatigue, poor decision-making, etc) which will comes to light through staff reporting. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any incident where the provision of in-cab CCTV would be any more revealing than if it wasn’t available.

CCTV is not a panacea and would only assist in the investigation of the minority of incidents. What matters in investigations such as this is what happened, what actions did the driver take/fail to take and why. Investigators will already have downloaded the data recorder, secured any voice tapes, interviewed the staff and examined the physical evidence. What more does having in-cab CCTV offer besides a defence against the sort of specious allegations that I only hear on this forum? It speaks of very poor industrial relations between staff and management if a driver’s report has to be capable of substantiation by CCTV in order for it to be believed.

 

[dosxuk]

I'd say you only need no more than the last 30 mins of voice/inward cab camerra recording to figure out what happened on a train incident.

A regular comment on air accident reports is that the voice recording was unavailable, often due to the people involved at the time either not realising it was important enough to stop the recorder or forgetting to in the process of dealing with the incident.

Air accident investigators have spent decades campaigning for longer duration recorders and for cameras to be fitted, with little success. Turns out pilots don't want to be filmed all the time either so the proposals go nowhere.

 

[choochoochoo]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that.

If you look at real incidents, the majority are caused either by external factors (e.g. poor rail adhesion, equipment failure, incursion onto the railway, etc) for which there would be external evidence, or human factors (e.g. concentration, fatigue, poor decision-making, etc) which will comes to light through staff reporting. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any incident where the provision of in-cab CCTV would be any more revealing than if it wasn’t available.

CCTV is not a panacea and would only assist in the investigation of the minority of incidents. What matters in investigations such as this is what happened, what actions did the driver take/fail to take and why. Investigators will already have downloaded the data recorder, secured any voice tapes, interviewed the staff and examined the physical evidence. What more does having in-cab CCTV offer besides a defence against the sort of specious allegations that I only hear on this forum? It speaks of very poor industrial relations between staff and management if a driver’s report has to be capable of substantiation by CCTV in order for it to be believed.

I'm not saying CCTV will give you the answer. I'm saying that you don't need more than the last 30 minutes to help solve/confirm what happened. What use are images from more than 2 hours ago going to be for an event that's just happened ?

A regular comment on air accident reports is that the voice recording was unavailable, often due to the people involved at the time either not realising it was important enough to stop the recorder or forgetting to in the process of dealing with the incident.

Air accidents where cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data is unavailable is usually due to it being lost at sea or destroyed through severe trauma. Neither of which are as likely on the rails. - And modern trains (and planes) use or have the capability telemetry to transfer a lot of live data.

If CVR data was not available for any other reason it is usually either deliberately/negligently switched off. OR the authorities do not deem that class of aircraft/operation as needing a CVR.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not saying CCTV will give you the answer. I'm saying that you don't need more than the last 30 minutes to help solve/confirm what happened. What use are images from more than 2 hours ago going to be for an event that's just happened ?

Understood. My issue is that it’s a solution looking for a problem.

As I mentioned up-thread, the industry looks at it from time to time and decides that it’s an option not worth pursuing. That there may be parallels to this industry or that is immaterial. It has to work for rail if it’s going to be pursued.

 

[rebmcr]

Air accidents where cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data is unavailable is usually due to it being lost at sea or destroyed through severe trauma. Neither of which are as likely on the rails. - And modern trains (and planes) use or have the capability telemetry to transfer a lot of live data.

If CVR data was not available for any other reason it is usually either deliberately/negligently switched off. OR the authorities do not deem that class of aircraft/operation as needing a CVR.

Your comments involve a lot of assumptions. Not every aircraft-related incident involves a collision with the ground — investigations into 'near misses' are just as important, and I think it's likely those that @dosxuk is referring to.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that.

If you look at real incidents, the majority are caused either by external factors (e.g. poor rail adhesion, equipment failure, incursion onto the railway, etc) for which there would be external evidence, or human factors (e.g. concentration, fatigue, poor decision-making, etc) which will comes to light through staff reporting. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any incident where the provision of in-cab CCTV would be any more revealing than if it wasn’t available.

CCTV is not a panacea and would only assist in the investigation of the minority of incidents. What matters in investigations such as this is what happened, what actions did the driver take/fail to take and why. Investigators will already have downloaded the data recorder, secured any voice tapes, interviewed the staff and examined the physical evidence. What more does having in-cab CCTV offer besides a defence against the sort of specious allegations that I only hear on this forum? It speaks of very poor industrial relations between staff and management if a driver’s report has to be capable of substantiation by CCTV in order for it to be believed.

There are lots of accidents where, sadly, the driver doesn't survive. Therefore they can't give an account. CCTV would therefore be a big help in determining what happened. I'm not saying it would be useful in every case, I'm not saying it should therefore happen, just merely pointing out that there are many cases where it would have been very helpful.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The simple answer to this question is no.

Not because anybody usually has anything to hide, but because the sense of being ‘watched’ could cause more incidents than are solved by the camera.

After an incident such as a stop short release, a wrong side release or a SPAD there’s sufficient information from the recorders and interviews. The driver is put on a plan anyway.

For a fatal collision, it’s unlikely to help these days as systems should have prevented it from happening.

It can’t be justified.

 

[Dougal2345]

The simple answer to this question is no.

Not because anybody usually has anything to hide, but because the sense of being ‘watched’ could cause more incidents than are solved by the camera.

It can’t be justified.

I'm very dubious about that to be honest. Many offices these days have CCTV - mine does - and I doubt people in them are in a constant state of paranoia about being 'watched'.

And no-one will ever watch the recordings anyway, unless there is an incident - watching someone stare out of a cab window for hours on end and occasionally pick their nose is probably not gripping viewing (although maybe there would be a niche sales market among enthusiasts )

 

[py_megapixel]

Personally I'm surprised they don't already. Many trains now which didn't have CCTV from new have had it retrofitted in the passenger compartment, and I assumed they'd have done the same in the cab

 

[O L Leigh]

There are lots of accidents where, sadly, the driver doesn't survive. Therefore they can't give an account. CCTV would therefore be a big help in determining what happened. I'm not saying it would be useful in every case, I'm not saying it should therefore happen, just merely pointing out that there are many cases where it would have been very helpful.

Lots...? I've counted just four since privatisation (Ufton Nervet, Ladbroke Grove, Great Heck and Carmont), none of which would have been illuminated further by in-cab CCTV footage.

After an incident such as a stop short release, a wrong side release or a SPAD there’s sufficient information from the recorders and interviews.

For me this is the point, and one which the industry so far has seemed to agree with. It adds nothing to the battery of investigative sources already available and is likely to provide inconclusive evidence, and therefore is not worth pursuing. It's not so much that there are philosophical objections (as interesting as they may be to discuss) but rather practical ones.

I'm very dubious about that to be honest. Many offices these days have CCTV - mine does - and I doubt people in them are in a constant state of paranoia about being 'watched'.

And no-one will ever watch the recordings anyway, unless there is an incident - watching someone stare out of a cab window for hours on end and occasionally pick their nose is probably not gripping viewing (although maybe there would be a niche sales market among enthusiasts )

I tend to agree with this, but there is quite a big difference between the CCTV in your office and CCTV in my cab.

The main reason why many workplaces have it is not to monitor the workforce but to ensure the security of the building and the equipment it contains. You'll see notices around the railway saying that CCTV is provided for "safety and security", which generally means the prevention and detection of crime, and that is it's main purpose in many settings. Therefore, unless you're helping yourself to the paperclips, you've nothing to worry about.

Putting cameras into the cab is about monitoring the driver and nothing else. Yes it may only be used in the event of an incident (although the fact that it's being said here is not an official confirmation of policy and, therefore, there is nothing to say that it won't be used as a means of snooping on drivers and otherwise monitoring them in-cab), but we're not necessarily talking about anything that might be considered a criminal act. As such, it is intrusive.