Suspended jail for FCC driver after covering up of SPAD

[driver_m]

I think you've taken the wrong lesson from this. Please read the points made up-thread about the lack of significance of the cab radio issue.

Is this some kind of joke? I've got exactly the same concerns as acepepper, and you think it has little significance? I'll listen to ASLEF over the points in this thread every day of the week thanks!

 

[TDK]

No, obviously there was a risk during the incident.

Where is the risk to the public since the driver was removed from duty? What does a custodial sentence hope to achieve?

So a person kills someone whist drink driving, they are injured to the extent that they cannot drive a car again, they will most likely receive a custodial sentence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He reset and carried on. Whether that was deliberate or not I'm not qualified to say, but the message to any driver thinking of doing that is clear - don't, as you will be risking a custodial sentence.

In fact, it's quite possible that if circumstances are clearly indicative that it's a deliberate act by someone in the future, the sentence may not be suspended, as it was in this case.

FYI TPWS reset and continue incidents are extremely rare with none in the first quarter of this year, information from the opsweb site. I think a custodial sentence in mot merited in this case, the driver losing their job is punishment enough for the incident. He apparently read across to another signal and this is easily done. As for the CSR or GSM-R radio it is currently permitted for a driver to take a train into service as long as the radio is working (GSM-R) but needs to inform the signalman first and get permission. All this as with the case of the guard at James street I feel is the judicial system flexing their muscles as I do not feel in the latter case that the incident should have even gone into the judicial system at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ASLE&F have made new recommendations that I will not publish on this forum regarding the taking a train into service without the radio equipment being set up with the headcode displayed, this has been published since this incident.

 

[455driver]

Gotcha.

Custodial sentences act as a deterrent. Rightly so, it was suspended.

So why do we see banned car drivers being caught behind the wheel for the 5th time getting nothing more than a fine and further ban?

Where is the deterrent factor?

Oh silly me I forgot, we have to keep the slaves in line dont we!

 

[TDK]

So why do we see banned car drivers being caught behind the wheel for the 5th time getting nothing more than a fine and further ban?

Where is the deterrent factor?

Oh silly me I forgot, we have to keep the slaves in line dont we!

There isn't one as if there was it wouldn't happen, maybe we should adopt the laws they have in some middle east countries, get caught and have your hands cut off so you cannot drive, steal and have a finger removed so everyone knows you are a theif, rape and be castrated, hey it would work here but unfortunately they don't allow it.

 

[455driver]

From the inception of CSR we were told that only an area code was necessary to run in service. As I understand it, this is not sufficient for the ORR.

Point will be rendered moot soon as CSR is replaced by GSMR.

Now we're being told that GSM-R alone, without a train reporting number (don't call it a headcode please), is adequate. Do the ORR agree with that?

I dont think the ORR have much of a clue about railway operation!
OF doown yer its still called a headcode!

Clarification please.

Good luck getting that from a Government department!

 

[acepepper]

So a person kills someone whist drink driving, they are injured to the extent that they cannot drive a car again, they will most likely receive a custodial sentence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


FYI TPWS reset and continue incidents are extremely rare with none in the first quarter of this year, information from the opsweb site. I think a custodial sentence in mot merited in this case, the driver losing their job is punishment enough for the incident. He apparently read across to another signal and this is easily done. As for the CSR or GSM-R radio it is currently permitted for a driver to take a train into service as long as the radio is working (GSM-R) but needs to inform the signalman first and get permission. All this as with the case of the guard at James street I feel is the judicial system flexing their muscles as I do not feel in the latter case that the incident should have even gone into the judicial system at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ASLE&F have made new recommendations that I will not publish on this forum regarding the taking a train into service without the radio equipment being set up with the headcode displayed, this has been published since this incident.

I have posted a link to these. Here it is again. I don't see any reason not to post them, they can be found with a simple Google search.

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/141627/orr_prosecution_of_aslef_member/

 

[455driver]

There isn't one as if there was it wouldn't happen, maybe we should adopt the laws they have in some middle east countries, get caught and have your hands cut off so you cannot drive, steal and have a finger removed so everyone knows you are a theif, rape and be castrated, hey it would work here but unfortunately they don't allow it.

Which party has this in their manifesto, they can have my vote!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is this some kind of joke? I've got exactly the same concerns as acepepper, and you think it has little significance? I'll listen to ASLEF over the points in this thread every day of the week thanks!

So why is it that if the CSR/GSMR fails at the signalbox then its normal working (edit- now 20mph max according to ASLEF), but if it fails on a train then the train needs taking out of service?

 

[acepepper]

Point will be rendered moot soon as CSR is replaced by GSMR.


I dont think the ORR have much of a clue about railway operation!
OF doown yer its still called a headcode!


Good luck getting that from a Government department!

A headcode and a train reporting number are two completely different things.

 

[Wolfie]

Nothing on the ORR website other than the press release. RAIB investigations are publicly accessible. As this is a legal case then I guess there is an embargo in place and has legal precedents about publishing the details of the case.

FOI request maybe ?

An individual can appeal against either conviction or sentence. Obviously the former won't happen in this case as the individual pleaded guilty. However, until such time as it is clear that there is not to be an appeal against sentence it is probable that any RAIB report, if such a thing exists, will not be released.

 

[Llama]

The RAIB will have been made aware of the incident in the first instance and investigated to a degree but once it was found there was no infrastructure or competence management issue they would likely have referred it upwards to the ORR and washed their hands.

 

[acepepper]

Which party has this in their manifesto, they can have my vote!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So why is it that if the CSR/GSMR fails at the signalbox then its normal working (edit- now 20mph max according to ASLEF), but if it fails on a train then the train needs taking out of service?

Good question. That's why the ORR needs to clarify what's what, in their opinion, with CSR and also GSM-R. They've seriously muddied the waters with this and they need to clear it quickly.

 

[Tomnick]

So why is it that if the CSR/GSMR fails at the signalbox then its normal working (edit- now 20mph max according to ASLEF), but if it fails on a train then the train needs taking out of service?

If the GSM-R fails at one box, an adjacent one can usually take over the 'role' - yes, it'll slow down an emergency broadcast slightly, but it'll still be quicker than NRN! If the whole lot packs in in a given area, it's a blanket speed of 40mph - with no ability to make an emergency broadcast. I don't know where they've got 20mph from, then, for an unregistered radio that can still receive emergency calls - it's not my place to disagree though!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A headcode and a train reporting number are two completely different things.

Entirely correct - just as no-one ever refers to a bang road move, dropping behind the dolly, waiting for the peg to come off, knocking out, clearing back or pulling off .

 

[acepepper]

If the GSM-R fails at one box, an adjacent one can usually take over the 'role' - yes, it'll slow down an emergency broadcast slightly, but it'll still be quicker than NRN! If the whole lot packs in in a given area, it's a blanket speed of 40mph - with no ability to make an emergency broadcast. I don't know where they've got 20mph from, then, for an unregistered radio that can still receive emergency calls - it's not my place to disagree though!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Entirely correct - just as no-one ever refers to a bang road move, dropping behind the dolly, waiting for the peg to come off, knocking out, clearing back or pulling off .

I still use some of those
The headcode/train reporting number thing really grates on me. When did one start being mistakenly used as the other by just about everyone?

 

[455driver]

When I were at SWT they used the running number such as 2T36
Now I am at FGW they still use the old headcode such as 2T36
Which are obviously totally different!

 

[acepepper]

When I were at SWT they used the running number such as 2T36
Now I am at FGW they still use the old headcode such as 2T36
Which are obviously totally different!

Both of those is a train reporting number, neither is a headcode, whichever company you work for. For some reason in recent years, train reporting number has been mistakenly replaced by headcode. Probably by people who don't even know what a headcode is.

 

[455driver]

Both of those is a train reporting number, neither is a headcode, whichever company you work for. For some reason in recent years, train reporting number has been mistakenly replaced by headcode. Probably by people who don't even know what a headcode is.

So all those photos from the 60s and 70s with 2T36 etc in the headcode box wasnt actually the headcode being shown then!

 

[Tomnick]

I still use some of those
The headcode/train reporting number thing really grates on me. When did one start being mistakenly used as the other by just about everyone?

At a guess, does it date from the period where the reporting number was displayed on the front of the loco, taking the place of the headcode that was previously indicated by lamp positions? I can understand the potential for confusion with the two character headcodes used (less so nowadays, of course) in the former NSE area, but it seems almost universal around here - although the term is rarely used in a safety-critical context.

 

[acepepper]

So all those photos from the 60s and 70s with 2T36 etc in the headcode box wasnt actually the headcode being shown then!

Show me a photo of a train with 2T36 displayed in the headcode box and I'll concede your point. Modern trains don't have headcodes but the train reporting number is frequently called a headcode by pretty much everyone. That's what grates on me.

 

[455driver]

Will 1H83 do-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/robert55012/5673291576

or 2T15
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rober...K3-dswn2R-ohdCQY-ax5hu3-ax2zx8-ax2zWH-ax5h2w/

 

[acepepper]

Will 1H83 do-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/robert55012/5673291576

It's not exactly 2T36 on a FGW train is it? Ok, let's just say that in every case where the word headcode is used now, it's used incorrectly.

 

[68000]

So why is it that if the CSR/GSMR fails at the signalbox then its normal working (edit- now 20mph max according to ASLEF), but if it fails on a train then the train needs taking out of service?

Ignoring the CSR reference but for GSM-R, if a signallers terminal has gone faulty, the role can be transferred to another signaller / shift manager until the fix. If the radio fails on the train (and registration failure is not classed as radio failure), the train has no comms and that is against group standards therefore the train comes out of service

 

[acepepper]

Ignoring the CSR reference but for GSM-R, if a signallers terminal has gone faulty, the role can be transferred to another signaller / shift manager until the fix. If the radio fails on the train (and registration failure is not classed as radio failure), the train has no comms and that is against group standards therefore the train comes out of service

That's how I understand it but would the ORR consider that a driver who didn't get the train reporting number up had failed to set up the radio, as they found in the Scott Walford case with the CSR?

 

[68000]

That's how I understand it but would the ORR consider that a driver who didn't get the train reporting number up had failed to set up the radio, as they found in the Scott Walford case with the CSR?

I had not seen the case details but either the ORR has placed too much emphasis or the union has placed too much emphasis on this part of the case

What has the union said about the reset of TPWS and go? Reset and go endangers ASLEF members as much as the travelling public. They have latched onto a minor part (in my view) of the case that will inconvenience the travelling public a lot just so they can try and make a point to the ORR

 

[Tomnick]

That's how I understand it but would the ORR consider that a driver who didn't get the train reporting number up had failed to set up the radio, as they found in the Scott Walford case with the CSR?

Since the hypothetical driver would have, hopefully correctly, followed a clearly laid down procedure for registration failure, how could any action - legal or disciplinary - be taken against him in that respect? It's quite clear that it's acceptable to run normally with the GSM-R not registered.

 

[acepepper]

I had not seen the case details but either the ORR has placed too much emphasis or the union has placed too much emphasis on this part of the case

What has the union said about the reset of TPWS and go? Reset and go endangers ASLEF members as much as the travelling public. They have latched onto a minor part (in my view) of the case that will inconvenience the travelling public a lot just so they can try and make a point to the ORR

ASLEF is quite clear about TPWS reset and go; it's totally unacceptable. Calling the ORR's view on the CSR not being set up a minor thing is wrong. As a driver, I've often been unable to fully set up the CSR and had to run with just an area code. My TOC has ALWAYS said that this is acceptable. The ORR has now said that it's not and has used it quite blatantly as part of a case against a driver who now has a prison sentence hanging over his head. They have this totally wrong, as anyone who uses CSR will tell you. They need to admit that or tell us exactly what is and is not acceptable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since the hypothetical driver would have, hopefully correctly, followed a clearly laid down procedure for registration failure, how could any action - legal or disciplinary - be taken against him in that respect? It's quite clear that it's acceptable to run normally with the GSM-R not registered.

That's exactly what they told us about CSR, but the ORR has now clearly said that that's wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I had not seen the case details but either the ORR has placed too much emphasis or the union has placed too much emphasis on this part of the case

What has the union said about the reset of TPWS and go? Reset and go endangers ASLEF members as much as the travelling public. They have latched onto a minor part (in my view) of the case that will inconvenience the travelling public a lot just so they can try and make a point to the ORR

I also meant to say that this will have hardly any effect on the travelling public. Maybe a few minor delays now and then.

 

[Tomnick]

Surely it's not down to the ORR to determine the procedure to be followed in a given situation and judge others against it, but merely to ensure compliance with both laid down procedures and the law? No doubt the decision to allow normal running with an unregistered radio will have been thoroughly risk assessed and deemed acceptable by suitably qualified professionals (RSSB?), which is surely sufficient to ensure compliance with the law?

 

[ComUtoR]

As a driver, I've often been unable to fully set up the CSR and had to run with just an area code. My TOC has ALWAYS said that this is acceptable. The ORR has now said that it's not and has used it quite blatantly as part of a case against a driver who now has a prison sentence hanging over his head.

Bold : Where have they said its not acceptable ?

Underlined : Did they ? The Driver pleaded guilty. That's very much the end of the case. Skip the trial and go to sentencing. What happened is that the ORR had an investigation into the incident and gathered evidence. If you have ever had a SPAD or been part of a SPAD investigation you would know what happens. I can give you a brief run down if you want but I suspect you know what happens as most Drivers do.

The press release is very badly worded. Everything we are discussing is hearsay. There is no posted report of the incident or no posted report of the precise points he was prosecuted for.

I'm more than happy to try and break down the incident and maybe we can all contribute to make up a plausible story. One single absolute fact remains. He failed to follow procedure.

 

[455driver]

It's not exactly 2T36 on a FGW train is it? Ok, let's just say that in every case where the word headcode is used now, it's used incorrectly.

Well on our schedule cards that is what it says, when we contact the signalmam that is what we say.

Just because somebody has, at some stage, decided to call it a train running number instead of a headcode doest change the fact that it is a headcode!
But then why use one word when three will do eh!

its like those mobile catering vehicles they use on Cross Country trains isnt it, you know those things formally known as trolleys! :roll:

 

[68000]

ASLEF is quite clear about TPWS reset and go; it's totally unacceptable. Calling the ORR's view on the CSR not being set up a minor thing is wrong. As a driver, I've often been unable to fully set up the CSR and had to run with just an area code. My TOC has ALWAYS said that this is acceptable. The ORR has now said that it's not and has used it quite blatantly as part of a case against a driver who now has a prison sentence hanging over his head. They have this totally wrong, as anyone who uses CSR will tell you. They need to admit that or tell us exactly what is and is not acceptable.

Do you really think that you will be convicted in a court of law for running the radio unregistered? Not a hope in hell's chance. The driver was convicted of an unsafe practice regarding TPWS and SPADing yet ASLEF issued no statement (that I am aware of) about this. What measures have they put in place to protect their members from a driver who has SPADed and reset his TPWS?

I also meant to say that this will have hardly any effect on the travelling public. Maybe a few minor delays now and then.

Delays will increase because of this interpretation by ASLEF

 

[acepepper]

Surely it's not down to the ORR to determine the procedure to be followed in a given situation and judge others against it, but merely to ensure compliance with both laid down procedures and the law? No doubt the decision to allow normal running with an unregistered radio will have been thoroughly risk assessed and deemed acceptable by suitably qualified professionals (RSSB?), which is surely sufficient to ensure compliance with the law?

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/141627/orr_prosecution_of_aslef_member/
http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/pr...s-prison-sentence-for-ignoring-safety-systems

Have you read these? They're ASLEF and ORR links about the case. The ORR clearly stated in their evidence to the court that the driver had failed to set up his cab radio. Yet going by the laid down procedures, which as far as I know, every TOC uses, he had. The SPAD and what followed was bad enough but the ORR adding in this little gem of "evidence" made him look totally irresponsible.

This is why, as drivers, we need total clarification on what is acceptable, and to give ASLEF credit, that's all they're asking for.