Prior to leaving Cambridge, Mr Walford had also failed to set up his Cab Secure Radio, which prevented any direct contact from the signaller. As a result of his actions Mr Walford's train ran "out of control" putting himself, passengers and train staff at risk of a serious incident, such as a collision with an oncoming train.
You are missing the important sentence and then making an inference.
On 8 October 2013, the 20:40 Cambridge to London Kings Cross, driven by Mr Walford, passed a red signal at Hitchin station a signal which instructs a driver to stop their train. The train's warning safety system applied automatic brakes but Mr Walford deliberately reset the system and continued on without seeking the required authorisation. Prior to leaving Cambridge, Mr Walford had also failed to set up his Cab Secure Radio, which prevented any direct contact from the signaller. As a result of his actions Mr Walford's train ran "out of control" putting himself, passengers and train staff at risk of a serious incident, such as a collision with an oncoming train
Let's break it down.
The sentence about Scott resetting the safety system is his action that put the train "out of control"
The sentence about leaving Cambridge and the CSR is merely a statement of a fact. NOWHERE have they said that not having it fully setup is unsafe. Just an action Scott took.
Now lets look at what that implies and what hasn't been said.
As a Driver. You key on your cab and make an attempt to set up the radio. If that fails then you call the Signaller and ask why your headcode/TRN has been rejected or if there is any problems. It is the radio that has failed to setup and your actions are fully compliant. The Signaller knows your only running with the area code and makes whatever he/she does to insure you are contactable. I proposed they would use the stock number and anecdotally will confirm that they can contact you directly. If this was the case, the report would read...
Prior to leaving Cambridge, The Cab Secure Radio failed to setup correctly.
Considering "Mr Walford failed to set up the CSR" can easily mean that he simply keyed on the cab. NOWHERE does it say that the CSR had the area code entered. We have inferred that. It doesn't even say anything about the state of the CSR just that Mr Walford failed to set it up. Everything about the whole CSR is hearsay because there is no evidence to say precisely what state it was in.
The report is so badly written and lacking in any real concrete facts its impossible to make a valid judgement to what actually happened. Its so bad its a wonder why everyone is so apprehensive about what will happen next and where you stand when the brown stuff hits the spinny thing. PERSONALLY its pushing me further towards a work to rule attitude. Keeping fully within all procedure will prevent the TOC's making a scapegoat out of the Driver.
As to "Out of Control" its in quotation marks and I'm desperately searching the grey matter but isn't there a technical definition for a Train Out of Control ? The train was no longer under the protection of the signalling system and I think that is what "out of control" is defined as (I've been checking but can't find it) Remember this is the railway we are talking about. Technicalities and Jargon is prolific.
