Station overrun procedure

[ComUtoR]

Someone who blindly follows rules because they're told to, in my opinion, isn't a healthy way to go about life.

I would agree, in principle. However there is a difference between blindly following a rule and working to a rule book.

Have you read about Milgram's Study of Obedience?

Yes I have. I have also carried out my own Obedience studies too.

A lot of what is written in the Rule Book should be followed (most is common sense!). But the self-admitting fact it changes twice a year shows that it's not correct to follow everything if you don't understand why you're following it.

I also understand the reasons why it changes too.

Train Drivers should follow rules, come what may is just plain wrong, in my opinion of cuose.

But there is little alternative. How does someone pick and choose which rules to follow and when ? Who defends that Driver in court when they decide to break a rule and it ends up killing someone ? It is very easy to suggest that we should take a more flexible approach to the rulebook and break rules when we decide to but those of us at the sharp end do understand the reality.

The Plymouth incident highlights where rules were not followed, there was a lack of understanding and someone should have challenged the signal

An example of myself bending a rule for what I thought was a good reason.

40(ish) mph into a station. The station is on a curve.
I'm about 50yrds from the 'home' signal and about 75yrds from the station when I get an STOP message on the CSR
For the benefit of the passengers and service I decide to stop at the station instead of using an emergency stop.
As I hit the start of the station I saw a train at the junction (the home signal protects the junction) :/

For all I knew that STOP message was because they just SPADed the signal. Thankfully it hadn't but I didn't know that as I flew past it. If I had used emergency then I would have been half in the station and half across the junction.

It's those scenarios where blindly following the rulebook is the right decision. Any suggestion that it makes me a robot or that passenger comfort should be allowed for or that in someone's opinion the Driver should do what they want is just as wrong.

Another scenario.

Driver running fast, going about 60mph
Gets 2 yellows and puts the brake in.
The train starts to slip so the Driver ups the brakes
The train slips further and the the Driver puts it into emergency.
The train keeps going past the single yellow..
Train heads towards a junction..
Junction signal still at Red..
Driver hits the Big Red Button on the GSMR.
Train flies past the Red.

The Driver followed the procedure perfectly and yet still went past the signal. In this situation the Driver gets fully exonerated. During the investigation every single action that was taken gets looked into. There was a question raised about whether or not procedure was followed to the letter. Any deviation would have cost the Driver and he would have taken responsibility for the SPAD.

If you flip the incident to a different perspective. There was a Driver about to leave the station ahead as he had the junction. The STOP message the Driver sent prevented a collision.

Any decision to not use emergency from either Driver could have lead to a collision. No question, stick the brake in. Sometimes we just don't know what's ahead of us or the potential consequence of not following the rules.

 

[Llama]

As has already been pointed out, use of the emergency brake in situations like a possible or imminent station overrun (and many other potentially more serious scenarios) is required because it is guaranteed, by failsafe systems, to stop the train as quickly as is physically possible for that traction unit at that time. Not using the emergency brake isn't guaranteed to do this, either because an the emergency brake application gives more brake performance than a 'service' brake application does (eg 12%g vs 9%g), or for example in units like Sprinters, the removal of the possibility of a spurious electrical feed affecting brake performance - these types of units need certain combinations of 'train wires' to be energised to release the brakes. Those train wires are the electrical equivalent of the brake pipe on conventional hauled stock. When an emergency brake application is made, those train wires are physically earthed out which guarantees beyond all reasonable doubt that an electrical defect can't affect the operation of the brake on any or all vehicles on the train.

It is important to stop as quickly as is physically possible in some scenarios. Failure of the driver to apply the emergency brake when instructed to will result in the driver being accused of violating instructions, and that the traction unit in question might have stopped sooner if emergency was used and the outcome of the incident might have been different or averted. Station overruns are not 'safety of the line' incidents per se, but they are usually treated as such because their aftermath often involves some kind of degraded operation such as making an unsignalled wrong direction movement, and therefore adds risk to normal operations.

 

[cjp]

With posts like the ones above this has developed into a really interesting thread.
Thanks people.

 

[DanDaDriver]

On an HST for example, you won’t get a harder brake application in emergency, but you will get a much quicker application down the train when you zero it, meaning you stop sooner.

Some of the older drivers, (particular those who seemed to learn HST’s in the NE under BR) tend to put the brake to a higher step, wait for the faster application and then bring it back to the step they actually want.

And on HST’s you can take it out of emergency before you’ve stopped, although it takes ages.

Some more modern stock has “Enhanced,” emergency braking, however in the case of a station over-run then you have no control over where you’re going to stop as you can’t takr the brake off until you’ve come to a stand.

Not to mention all this being downloaded onto the OTMR.

 

[axlecounter]

*sigh*
You miss the point and have missed what I wrote.

Someone asks a question that obviously doesn't understand why something is like it is.
How is saying "because that's what's written" going to help this person understand the reasoning behind it, and thus understand why the rule is like it is?

Someone who blindly follows rules because they're told to, in my opinion, isn't a healthy way to go about life.
Have you read about Milgram's Study of Obedience?
Yes, shooting people or shocking them until they're dead is fairly different to following the Rule Book, but the mechanic is the same - following something that you've been told, no questions asked... ever.

A lot of what is written in the Rule Book should be followed (most is common sense!). But the self-admitting fact it changes twice a year shows that it's not correct to follow everything if you don't understand why you're following it.

No, I'm not suggesting that.
And you should try and learn to stop putting words in peoples mouths
That's like me saying "are you suggesting anyone who follows the rule book would also shoot someone if they were told to?" No. I'm sure you're not.

There's a big difference between following something that you understand through and through, and thinking it is a choice.


If you blindly follow rules, without question, simply being a robot, doing what you're told, no matter what it is... it's just not right.
Most of the time what's being asked is agreeable, which is why there is no problem, but to suggest Train Drivers should follow rules, come what may is just plain wrong, in my opinion of cuose.

Blindly following rules in life ain’t surely a good way to go (imho, at least). Blindly following of the rules in the railway would have avoided like,...nine major incidents out of ten? It’s mere supposition of course, but reading incident reports this is the idea you get.

Yes, there’s that very rare occurence where not following a rule would/could avoid (or could have avoided) an incident or at least lessen the consequences, but how does one know when it’s that occurence or if he is just making the wrong assumptions?

As for your example, if you know there’s an obstruction on the line and you go ahead just because the signaller tells you so you’re actually breaking a rule...unless up there in Brexitland your Rulebook says that safety is not a priority!

 

[edwin_m]

At least 99% of the time it's entirely reasonable for train drivers and similar roles to follow a rigid set of rules, and in fact the selection and training for these roles aims for that type of rules-based individual.

The question of why the rules are what they are is a separate discussion, but it's entirely reasonable to do this and perhaps in time to change the rules when there's a good reason to do so. For example platforms used to be required to have ramps at the ends, until it was decided that the risks arising from providing an easy route onto the track for anyone outweighed the benefits of easy access for staff and easy access off the track during an evacuation. So now the standard is to have a square end with a fence.

I think there's an issue, with track workers in particular, that accidents and near-misses tend to be down to non-compliance with the existing rules and the root cause is usually insufficient staff. But the RAIB reports tend to recommend additional rules, without really considering whether this will just take up more time or lead to even more non-compliance.

 

[andythebrave]

Off on a slight tangent here. Late 60s, on way from Liverpool to Leicester (a regular journey), finally about to beat 40 minutes for Crewe to Nuneaton start to stop but, oh no, sail past Nuneaton with hard braking at around 60 and end up reversing. Shame.
Ah, this reminiscing, any moment now I may be tempted to recall some ridiculous Peak runs between Leicester and St Pancras.

 

[coxxy]

Problem is, as has already been covered, a station over run is a mistake.. it happens and to some degree is accepted by whatever TOC your at. At my TOC, the second you dont make an emergency brake application, when it becomes clear you aren't going to stop, it then becomes a violation which in itself is more questions to answer. Yes I hear what people are saying about potentially blocking junctions, and I agree in principle but I would put the brake in emergency every time.

Often it isn't what you've done wrong that goes under the spotlight. It's what you do afterwards. We all know how much the TOCs love assessing people on NTS's.

 

[Firestarter]

I agree. I notice he always brings up random railway proceedures like this, sparks a massive debate and seems to just disappear as people try to answer his “concerns”.
Maybe we should stop fueling this strange habit with responses as it does no good. Most of the stuff he asks are usually a simple “Why is a railway proceedure like this when it shouldn’t be”
Simple answer should just be “Because it is” with no explantion needed or given.

One look at his Youtube channel tells you all you need to know about him