Swansea Mum's Horror as Daughter is Left Alone

[Get-Pulled-Off]

No, we work within the rulebook AND the Working Instructions.

Working instructions must never take precedence over the rulebook though, that's what worries me now. Its not the fault of any individual members of staff but a culture that has spread across the industry. In my experience though Control are happy for me/my SSM to make decisions and tell them afterwards. Only in a major incident where trains risk cancellation/significant diversion/fail to call do we tell them before hand because they need to make arrangements for passengers to get to where they want to do. If we asked them if we could make a wrong direction movement that is only going to delay a train by a few minutes they would more than likely laugh and tell us just to get on with it.

You may not like it, I may not like it, but that's how it is.

Not in my signalbox/control its not. I regulate trains that put more than 5 minutes of delay and wouldn't dream of ringing them then, so why would I when it comes to wrong direction moves? We are allowed to exercise our judgment with regards to service recovery and only inform them before the event if we really have to.

In fairness to you, I'd rather take a minor b#####king for delaying a train 5 minutes than see a young girl stranded.

Exactly. So what would you do if Control say no? Honestly its much better to do it, and then tell them what you have done. Never have I been brought into the office for making a decision to delay a train for a few minutes when there is a legitimate reason. Unless you're planning on hammering a service to allow your missus to catch it to go shopping or some other spurious reason, then Control, or at least our Control simply acknowledge what you've done and carry on with whatever they were doing before you disturbed them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Get-Pulled-Off, if there was a "like" facility on this forum I'd have just clicked it. A wonderfully refreshing and full of common sense post. Thank You.

Thank-you! Luckily I did most of my training with old skool railwaymen of the 70s and 80s who's attitude was to make the railway safe, then simply get on with it and (not) worry about what Control think later!

 

[GadgetMan]

From reading the article the mother's version of events once the train departed state;

The doors did not open,
she then squeezed past the trolley to another set of doors,
she then had a brief exchange with the trolley dolly,
it was after all of the above that the pass comm was pulled.

It is very difficult to predict how long the above will have taken but I would estimate it at a around a minute or a little more. The train will have covered a fair distance from the platform in that time.

as to the guard "who went on to tell her that it was not a legitimate reason to have pulled the emergency brake", that comment may have been made before the stranded child was mentioned. I would have said exactly the same to a passenger if they said something along the lines of "the doors didn't open and I need to get off the train..."

Obviously once the stranded child is mentioned the conversation would change direction. But even then it would depend on what the passenger says. For example if she just said my daughter has got off then it would be easy to (WRONGLY) assume the daughter is old enough to look after herself for a short while as she managed to make her own way off the train.


Having looked on NRE, it's 7 minutes from Gowerton to Llanelli on the train. Contrary to what Get-pulled-off says, most wrong direction signalling moves these days would take far more than the time it would take for the train to get to Llanelli and taxi back if there isn't a train straight away.

A call to the police would've been sufficient in between to get an officer to the station to look after the child.



A different situation but my driver recently missed a station as he thought we were an express. Slammed the brake in when I made an announcement and the train stopped about 2 carriage lengths past the platform with no signals inbetween.

The driver reported the overrun to the signalman and asked to set back. The signalman then spoke to Network Rail control, Network Rail control then called my TOC's control and got told NO to setting back to the station. Network Rail control then rang the signalman back to say NO, who then had to contact my driver and refuse the move and tell him to continue to the next station.

All of the above took 25 minutes. The move could easily have been done in about 4 minutes had the signalman made the decision himself, but there are no longer many operational staff on the railway who will make a performance impacting decision off their own back. Get-pulled-off is in the minority, it would be nice if all operational staff took some responsibility and made a decision when it matters, but unfortunately times and ethics have massively changed and it doesn't take much now to be suspended/dismissed or be disciplined and have it on your file.

I and most front line staff don't like or agree with critical frontline decisions having to go through desk managers first but unfortunately that's the direction the railway has decided to take.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly. So what would you do if Control say no? Honestly its much better to do it, and then tell them what you have done. Never have I been brought into the office for making a decision to delay a train for a few minutes when there is a legitimate reason. Unless you're planning on hammering a service to allow your missus to catch it to go shopping or some other spurious reason, then Control, or at least our Control simply acknowledge what you've done and carry on with whatever they were doing before you disturbed them!

I agree with the above, I have never been b***cked for legitimately delaying a train off my own back either. But the fear of being formally disciplined is always there with the newer breed of staff and they will not make decisions when it matters. And those are the staff that are liked by the modern TOC's and their control.


I know and have been told by a recent manager that if I was to re-apply for my job he wouldn't employ me. Simply because I am happy to use my own initiative even when Control don't agree with it for performance reasons.

 

[Ferret]

GPO, I'll give you an example of where our working instructions take precedence over the rulebook then, just to rock your world a little The rulebook (M4) allows you to run at 5mph through flooding that isn't above 100mm over the railhead. Our working instructions expressly prohibit us to run the train through that floodwater.

Gadgetman - this is the thing - we have mortgages to pay, and it's all well and good saying we should do this, but will those who say we should pay our mortgages after we've been fired as a matter of principle?

 

[GadgetMan]

Gadgetman - this is the thing - we have mortgages to pay, and it's all well and good saying we should do this, but will those who say we should pay our mortgages after we've been fired as a matter of principle?

Nope and that is the problem. As a Guard I go out to work everyday wondering if it will be my last. Not because I fear being seriously assaulted, but because I might make a decision that management having never done my job disagree with.

If you don't make a decision then you can't risk losing your job. Simples.

Before someone comes and mentions unfair dismissal etc. It's all well and good winning at a lengthy tribunal, but it does not get you back your job.

 

[Tomnick]

Another example (which, I understand, isn't a one-off, at least for the TOC in question). Train is slightly delayed at origin because of a door problem, which is resolved by the traincrew (who immediately know what's wrong and how to put it right) within a few minutes. Delay disputed by 'maintenance' because the traincrew didn't contact them for advice, and ends up being attributed to the traincrew. I find it unbelievable that anyone would prefer to have a minor delay (I think it came to about eight minutes including delays to a couple of other trains) turned into something much bigger purely because of where the delay minutes are attributed within the same TOC. With that in mind, I can see why folk are scared to make even simple decisions without phoning home first.

Despite my initial post on the subject, I think I must be in a relative minority - I applaud Get-pulled-off's approach to these things, and would like to think that I'm perfectly capable of making such decisions where the conditions allow. We have a freight in the morning that's booked to go inside for a Class 1 to pass, then come back out to run for a bit before being turned onto the (relatively quiet) branch. Even when it's running right time, there's usually a decent margin to keep him running and get him onto the branch (considering what's coming the other way at the branch junction, of course), and between the three boxes involved (and not Control) we usually agree to do so. No doubt we'd get shafted with the delay minutes if something went wrong, even if the plan would otherwise have worked, though...

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

GPO, I'll give you an example of where our working instructions take precedence over the rulebook then, just to rock your world a little The rulebook (M4) allows you to run at 5mph through flooding that isn't above 100mm over the railhead. Our working instructions expressly prohibit us to run the train through that floodwater

Sorry to wee on your chips, chap, but there was an amendment (in Dec 2011, I think) and M4 is now M3 and nothing is allowed to proceed when the flooding is above the railhead without permission from Operations Control - one of the few examples where you do need to consult them. Wrong direction moves, however, aren't one of them!

 

[Ferret]

Sorry to wee on your chips, chap, but there was an amendment (in Dec 2011, I think) and M4 is now M3 and nothing is allowed to proceed when the flooding is above the railhead without permission from Operations Control - one of the few examples where you do need to consult them. Wrong direction moves, however, aren't one of them!

Hmmmm, and what would the speed be if operations control allowed it? Hardly weeing on my chips are you?

You can prattle on until you're blue in the face, but it changes nothing with regard to what I'd be required to do! Which for a start, is report to Control that a passcom has been pulled.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

The driver reported the overrun to the signalman and asked to set back. The signalman then spoke to Network Rail control, Network Rail control then called my TOC's control and got told NO to setting back to the station. Network Rail control then rang the signalman back to say NO, who then had to contact my driver and refuse the move and tell him to continue to the next station.

All of the above took 25 minutes.

Whilst that doesn't suprise me, it does sadden me. If we get so scared of making a decision, then why don't they just replace us with some Eastern Europeans who will simply follow orders from Control?

As to wrong-direction moves taking longer than I said - I disagree. They don't have to take that long, it simply takes someone prepared to make a dicision. Once the decision has been made the actual process is quite simple on most lines - yes LCs, catch points etc will always cause more problems. As a signalman your first wrong direction move is always a nerve racking one, especially when the track circuits spread in all direction because the there is no route in. But once you get used it, its very straightforward. Stop any trains that might approach or be fouled, get a route card out, get it checked, instruct the driver, repeat back. It can be done in minutes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmmmm, and what would the speed be if operations control allowed it? Hardly weeing on my chips are you?

Irrelevant to the orginal question. Your assertion was that your working instructions were different to the rule book in respect of flooding, they aren't. We all share a rule book because in theory we should all be working to the same rules, not our own company instructions.

You can prattle on until you're blue in the face, but it changes nothing with regard to what I'd be required to do! Which for a start, is report to Control that a passcom has been pulled.

You work however you see fit. I personally like to tell Control what I've done, you prefer telling them what you're going to do. We've (presumably) never been in trouble for either course of action, so there is no right and no wrong it seems. Its just I would rather make the decision and not Control!

 

[Ferret]

OK GPO, let me put it this way - you contact Ops Control in line with the rulebook and they say trains can run. Our Control say, no. Who wins out? Now, tell me how you're peeing on my chips?

 

[swj99]

If it was the case that a train operator and it’s servants or agents failed to allow a passenger to leave the train at their destination station, then clearly it suggests there’s a problem which needs to be addressed, in order to avoid the same situation arising again. I believe it would be in the interests of both the TOC and it’s passengers, for them to review the process by which it is decided when it is appropriate for doors to be closed and for a train to leave a station, together with a review of the procedures to be followed whenever a problem is brought to the attention of those in charge of the train.

I also believe that a discussion about whether or not the train should have reversed back to the station means that another, very important point could be missed. And the point is that if the train had not have left the station until the child’s mother had got off it anyway, there wouldn’t have been a problem, and as such the child’s mother might not have felt the need to complain in the first place. Having a situation where a passenger is unable to leave the train at their destination rather defeats the object of them using the train, which is of course unacceptable.

 

[Wolfie]

If it was the case that a train operator and it’s servants or agents failed to allow a passenger to leave the train at their destination station, then clearly it suggests there’s a problem which needs to be addressed, in order to avoid the same situation arising again. I believe it would be in the interests of both the TOC and it’s passengers, for them to review the process by which it is decided when it is appropriate for doors to be closed and for a train to leave a station, together with a review of the procedures to be followed whenever a problem is brought to the attention of those in charge of the train.

I also believe that a discussion about whether or not the train should have reversed back to the station means that another, very important point could be missed. And the point is that if the train had not have left the station until the child’s mother had got off it anyway, there wouldn’t have been a problem, and as such the child’s mother might not have felt the need to complain in the first place. Having a situation where a passenger is unable to leave the train at their destination rather defeats the object of them using the train, which is of course unacceptable.

In broad terms I understand where you are coming from BUT how long should a train stand at a platform before it is safe to assume that no one else wishes to get off. Should said train then be delayed even further by opening its doors for the passenger who then comes onto platform. After all, having a situation where a passenger is unable to board the train at their origin rather defeats the object of them using the train, which is of course unacceptable.

I guess the bottom line is that trains, like buses, are NOT personal transport and as such individuals may be inconvenienced at times....

Going to extremes, "What do you mean the 1032 doesn't stop at my station, failure to make it do so means....."

 

[BestWestern]

We all work to the RULE BOOK, not Control's instructions. Ours certainly are not rules trained, and have no authority to make or refuse decisions made by the people detailed in the right hand column of the appropriate module.

Control may take a strategic role as to turning your unit round short etc but they should not be interfering with how the movement is performed on the ground. You wouldn't do something that contravened the rule book despite Control 'instructing' you do it, would you? Where does it stop, do you ring Control to pass a signal at danger? Examine the line?

I don't know where this paralysis of decision making is coming from on the Railway, and why every decision has to be referred to Control? Is it a fear of making a decision, poor rules knowledge, or wanting someone else to take responsibility?

Nobody is suggesting we feel that referring everything to Control is ideal, however crews are very much aware that anything out of the ordinary usually requires a phone call, and I would certainly think that a setting back movement leading to a significant delay would be included in that. Nobody is 'frightened' to make a decision, crew are generally very clear on what they intend to do, but equally nobody particularly wants to be hanged for disrupting the train service off their own back because they thought it was the right thing to do but somebody above disagreed later.

As for the overall authority of Controllers, I agree they shouldn't be 'interfering with how the movement is performed on the ground', but that is an entirely different thing to granting or denying permission to carry out the movement in the first place. Please bear in mind that the situation is very likely to be different for you in your role as it is for those of us who are working trains. You mention asking for Control's permission to examine the line as an example; the answer of course is no, you wouldn't, because that is a direct instruction from a Signaller. However, the last time that my Driver was requested to do so, he did feel compelled to phone Control to get it rubber-stamped that I would be in the cab assisting him, and I wouldn't have gone in there if one of us hadn't done that.

TOCs are worryingly swift to dismiss their staff nowadays, and the use of one's initiative does not always pay dividends, sadly. If in doubt, you ask Control. The call is recorded and if any questions are asked later on, usually by upper management, you are covered. Such is the world we now live and work in.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

OK GPO, let me put it this way - you contact Ops Control in line with the rulebook and they say trains can run. Our Control say, no. Who wins out? Now, tell me how you're peeing on my chips?

You tried to catch me out but you hadn't realised the rule book has been changed. To be fair, there are that many damn rule changes these days I can;t blame you for that!! De jury the rulebook says Ops Control can give authority to run. De Facto its a job stopper until the water has subsided.

What happens in reality is that if a train is trapped fore and aft due to flooding, Ops Control may take expert advice from P-Way to find out if it is safe, how secure is the ballast, and is the water moving. They will then talk to your Control, and come to a decision about whether the train can move. If your Control doesn't want it to move, then our Control will tell me that. Nothing in that contradicts what I have said - that we follow the rule book. We have common rules and a common rulebook for a purpose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, the last time that my Driver was requested to do so, he did feel compelled to phone Control to get it rubber-stamped that I would be in the cab assisting him, and I wouldn't have gone in there if one of us hadn't done that.

What, even in the instances where the rulebook explicitly instructs you to accompany the driver?

Oh dear oh dear. I despair.

 

[swj99]

In broad terms I understand where you are coming from BUT how long should a train stand at a platform before it is safe to assume that no one else wishes to get off…………..
Going to extremes, "What do you mean the 1032 doesn't stop at my station, failure to make it do so means....."

I would say that the clue is in the word assumption. Assumptions can be very dangerous. If the decision for the train to depart is based on an assumption, this would in itself I think be a cause for concern. Surely in this technological age we live in, putting the safety of passengers at the mercy of an assumption far from ideal, and is avoidable, isn’t it ?
The situation highlighted by the news reports is about someone being unable to leave a train, so I’m not sure what you mean about passengers being unable to board a train, or the bit about extremes.

 

[Ferret]

You tried to catch me out but you hadn't realised the rule book has been changed. To be fair, there are that many damn rule changes these days I can;t blame you for that!! De jury the rulebook says Ops Control can give authority to run. De Facto its a job stopper until the water has subsided.

In fairness, I hadn't noticed the change so you can have your pound of flesh there, but when I was trained some years ago, it absolutely was the case that the working instructions over-rode M4.

Nothing in that contradicts what I have said - that we follow the rule book. We have common rules and a common rulebook for a purpose.

Absolutely we do. But don't pretend that Control don't have a say in what we do - there's no point in them existing if that's the case.

 

[FGW_DID]

The decision to leave should be decided by the timetable, if its time to leave and the doors are clear, then they are shut, then the train safety check is carried out, then the driver gets the RA.

It's pretty simple, if no one is boarding or alighting and its time, then its doors closed and locked.

 

[Ferret]

What, even in the instances where the rulebook explicitly instructs you to accompany the driver?

Oh dear oh dear. I despair.

Examining the line does not explicitly instruct a guard to ride with the driver...!

 

[BestWestern]

Examining the line does not explicitly instruct a guard to ride with the driver...!

Indeed, it is a circumstance in which the Guard is permitted to ride in the leading cab; it is not a demand.

What, even in the instances where the rulebook explicitly instructs you to accompany the driver?

Oh dear oh dear. I despair.

Yep, even where the Rulebook permits (not explicitly instructs), because people have been heavily disciplined for entering the driving cab for what they judged to be legitimate reasons on previous occasions.

As I said, if in doubt we call the boss. They are paid to take overall charge, we are paid to simply follow rules. If something is near the mark, it is preferable to confirm the best course of action. Means you won't get sacked.

Look at it another way. Siggy asks Driver to examine the road. Driver asks Guard to come up front and view it from the secondman's side, all perfectly legit. Train passes through a platform on which is stood a manager. Manager is sending smoke signals before the tail lights have passed him, Guard and Driver both get pulled on arrival at the next stop, numerous reports are required, phone calls probably downloaded, Signaller also has to be questioned about it by his superiors, trains possibly cancelled or disrupted because bollockings take precedence over just about anything else, whole thing is a major pain in the arse. Nobody did anything 'wrong', but both Driver and Guard will be deemed to have caused issues which could have been avoided because they didn't have the presence of mind to call Control. Any sniff of somebody doing something incorrect 'operationally' warrants an investigation, that is how things move whether we like it or not. It really is best just to ask and get it logged!

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Examining the line does not explicitly instruct a guard to ride with the driver...!

Yes it does. TW1 Reg 16 and AC Reg 14 apply.

During darkness, fog, falling snow or a tunnel the driver must be accompanied if a competent person is immediately available. In nearly all cases that will be the Guard. If it is reported that someone has fallen from a train, the driver MUST be accompanied, and the same applies when examining the OLE.

Do Control have influence over what we do? Only strategic decision making. With the exception of a few specifics like flooding, they have no authority over to allow or refuse a instruction in the rule book. I genuinely do find it worrying how many staff want re-assurance that Control have "okayed it" for some of the most basic railway work. Control are there to tell you to terminate short, to divert, special stop orders, that sort of thing. They are certainly not there to allow or refuse to allow you to sit in the cab during an examination of the line during darkness, etc.

 

[Ferret]

GPO - what else does it say? Edit - ah - I see you answered! Now, 9/10, you're asked to examine the line for which of those?

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Indeed, it is a circumstance in which the Guard is permitted to ride in the leading cab; it is not a demand.

No no and thrice no!! The rule book does not "permit" you to be in the cab, it explicitly instructs that the driver MUST be accompanied. What will Control say when you ring them? No you mustn't follow the rulebook? Dear oh dear. Please read and familiarise yourself with TW1 Reg 14 and AC Reg 16! Here is a Copy and Paste.

16.2 Being accompanied by a competent
person

While examining the line, you must be accompanied by the
guard or other competent person if immediately available:
• during darkness, fog or falling snow, or
• if you must pass through a tunnel.

However, if you receive confirmation that a person has fallen
from a train, you must be accompanied by the guard or other
competent person:
• during darkness, fog or falling snow, or
• if you must pass through a tunnel.

You need not be accompanied if the examination is in connection
with:
• a track circuit which has failed to clear or otherwise shows
occupied
• an overline bridge that has been struck by a road vehicle.

Please tell me you don't need Control to rubber stamp that instruction? Can you show me someone who has been fired for complying with a rule book requirement that is as simple and explicit as that?

 

[BestWestern]

I don't think that's the case either to be frank! As far as I'm aware, the rulebook requires a competent person to ride with the driver for the failure of DSD, AWS, TPWS, DRA, DVE or a cracked windscreen. And that's it!

Ah, I think we might be reading different Rulebooks! Isn't it helpful that they insist on changing it every five minutes!?

Pretty sure mine says that failure of AWS is no longer a reason, that went a while back I'm sure. As for DSD that rings a bell, can't remember the others without looking! But I think you should find examining the line is still in there - though, they might have changed it of course!

 

[Ferret]

Ah, I think we might be reading different Rulebooks! Isn't it helpful that they insist on changing it every five minutes!?

Pretty sure mine says that failure of AWS is no longer a reason, that went a while back I'm sure. As for DSD that rings a bell, can't remember the others without looking! But I think you should find examining the line is still in there - though, they might have changed it of course!

AWS is still there - or at least it was this morning on the online version!

 

[fsmr]

Have i missed someting but why the hell has the trolly person not got radio contact with the guard or driver. surely as eyes on board, he or she should at least be able to alert the crew to on board emergencys that dont warrant pulling the comms such as in such a distressing situation for the child and mother. Had the worst happened to the unfortuante child, the press would have had a field day and the crew ended up answering to a coroners court
No different to a bus driver refusing to take a stranded youngster on board with no money IMHO.
These days you really cant be too careful

 

[BestWestern]

Yes it does. TW1 Reg 16 and AC Reg 14 apply.

During darkness, fog, falling snow or a tunnel the driver must be accompanied if a competent person is immediately available. In nearly all cases that will be the Guard. If it is reported that someone has fallen from a train, the driver MUST be accompanied, and the same applies when examining the OLE.

Do Control have influence over what we do? Only strategic decision making. With the exception of a few specifics like flooding, they have no authority over to allow or refuse a instruction in the rule book. I genuinely do find it worrying how many staff want re-assurance that Control have "okayed it" for some of the most basic railway work. Control are there to tell you to terminate short, to divert, special stop orders, that sort of thing. They are certainly not there to allow or refuse to allow you to sit in the cab during an examination of the line during darkness, etc.

You have clearly read yours more recently than I have read mine, I stand corrected

I don't disagree with your sentiment, really I don't. What has to be understood however is just how stringent current TOCs tend to be when it comes to operational issues, they allow no room for those who get it wrong. Guards in cabs is a particular area in which books will be thrown very heavily at people, indeed at my TOC even other Drivers are no longer allowed to ride up front unless it is for a specific purpose. A Guard was b*llocked by a senior manager because they opened a cab door whilst a train was stationary in a platform! - to check on their Driver, who hadn't responded to the Ready to Start buzzer. Such a fuss has been made that the very idea of crossing that threshold brings fear, and for good reason. So, if you need to go in there, Rulebook compliant or not, you bloody well ring Control and tell them! Do you blame us, really?!

We had a case in which a Driver overshot a platform by a small distance. Single line, bi-direction, TCB. Dead straight, no pointwork, crossings or anything else, and absolutely no chance of any other trains being anywhere near him. He made a decision to set back, on his own authority and without asking anybody, including the Bobby. Very foolish, but arguably perfectly safe in real terms and a 'sensible' solution to the problem you might say. He no longer drives trains. If I were thinking of setting back, even once the Signaller had cleared it, I would again be phoning Control. It really is the easiest of way of avoiding paperwork and meetings with no biscuits.

AWS is still there - or at least it was this morning on the online version!

Curious, a Comp Manager was pretty adamant it was long gone! Perhaps they don't know everything after all

Have i missed someting but why the hell has the trolly person not got radio contact with the guard or driver. surely as eyes on board, he or she should at least be able to alert the crew to on board emergencys that dont warrant pulling the comms such as in such a distressing situation for the child and mother. Had the worst happened to the unfortuante child, the press would have had a field day and the crew ended up answering to a coroners court
No different to a bus driver refusing to take a stranded youngster on board with no money IMHO.
These days you really cant be too careful

No on board staff carry radio equipment, there is no need. A trolley steward can make his way through the train to them Guard if necessary, or use a PA to make an announcement.

This case is very different to a bus driver refusing travel. Nobody on the train willfully abandoned anybody, and as has already been comprehensively discussed, turning back isn't such an option as it would be with a bus.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

So, if you need to go in there, Rulebook compliant or not, you bloody well ring Control and tell them! Do you blame us, really?!

Yes and No. Its certainly the culture these days to ring Control for everything, so its by no means isolated to a few members of staff. However I do think this culture is spreading because we are letting it. The more we have to run everything by Control, the more control, small 'c', they think they have over us. Act in accordance with the rule book and they can huff and puff all they like but they can't touch you. But I think the fear of what "they" might do to you is somewhat, but not completely, overblown. Our Control are honestly quite happy to let us get on with it within reasonable parameters. I appriciate TOCs can be very strict, as are NR at times, but I know a lot of drivers and I can't remember the last times they were up in arms about someone who has been potted for not contracting Control, or making a minor rules transgression or violation.

We had a case in which a Driver overshot a platform by a small distance. Single line, bi-direction, TCB. Dead straight, no pointwork, crossings or anything else, and absolutely no chance of any other trains being anywhere near him. He made a decision to set back, on his own authority and without asking anybody, including the Bobby. Very foolish, but arguably perfectly safe in real terms and a 'sensible' solution to the problem you might say. He no longer drives trains.

I have issues with that because I don't like trains doing something I don't know about or expect. It might have been safe, but it kind of sets a precedent which is the issue.

That said, if there was no danger whatsover, a bollocking would seem to have been more than sufficient in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

GPO - what else does it say? Edit - ah - I see you answered! Now, 9/10, you're asked to examine the line for which of those?

I'm not too sure what you mean but if you're asked to examine the line by the signalman and one of those scenarios apply then the driver must be accompanied. The only exceptions are for track circuit failures and overline bridge strikes.

 

[BestWestern]

Yes and No. Its certainly the culture these days to ring Control for everything, so its by no means isolated to a few members of staff. However I do think this culture is spreading because we are letting it. The more we have to run everything by Control, the more control, small 'c', they think they have over us. Act in accordance with the rule book and they can huff and puff all they like but they can't touch you. But I think the fear of what "they" might do to you is somewhat, but not completely, overblown. Our Control are honestly quite happy to let us get on with it within reasonable parameters. I appriciate TOCs can be very strict, as are NR at times, but I know a lot of drivers and I can't remember the last times they were up in arms about someone who has been potted for not contracting Control, or making a minor rules transgression or violation.

Definitely a big 'C' where I'm from, they're ever so important

We don't deliberately set out to park ourselves in their pocket, but ultimately they are our employer and we are pretty much here to do what they tell us quite frankly! I could make a stand by deliberately doing things without telling them, but the result would be initially lots of additional paperwork and report writing, and eventually probably the sack. That isn't likely to help a great deal to be honest. Also I'd wager there is probably a very different culture on the signalling side. You are in charge of your patch, whereas a crew are in charge only of a single train, operating essentially to your instructions, and ultimately under the further supervision of the TOC. Your sphere is wider than ours Sir!

I have issues with that because I don't like trains doing something I don't know about or expect. It might have been safe, but it kind of sets a precedent which is the issue.

That said, if there was no danger whatsover, a bollocking would seem to have been more than sufficient in my opinion.

I think he set up his own demise really, and I very much doubt anybody would have expected any other outcome under his particular circumstances. But it does show how 'initiative' (in whatever form and for whatever reason), sometimes ends up doing damage.

 

[fsmr]

No on board staff carry radio equipment, there is no need. A trolley steward can make his way through the train to them Guard if necessary, or use a PA to make an announcement.

This case is very different to a bus driver refusing travel. Nobody on the train willfully abandoned anybody, and as has already been comprehensively discussed, turning back isn't such an option as it would be with a bus.

No but in this case if the facts are as reported, the person in charge of the trolley should have had the authority to somehow contacted the guard and prevent the train from departing, once away form the platform it was then as has been stated very hard to do anything.
This would then have been a non event. If you are going to block isles to make money , at least make the staff manning it part of the customer care and not just another commercial opportunity.
With CCTV now so affordable, surely a case for onboard CCTV in each coach so that the guard has full view of what is going on before he gives the clearance.
Travelling on the underground getting on an off is a nightmare with kids but that is another topic

 

[BestWestern]

No but in this case if the facts are as reported, the person in charge of the trolley should have had the authority to somehow contacted the guard and prevent the train from departing, once away form the platform it was then as has been stated very hard to do anything.
This would then have been a non event. If you are going to block isles to make money , at least make the staff manning it part of the customer care and not just another commercial opportunity.
With CCTV now so affordable, surely a case for onboard CCTV in each coach so that the guard has full view of what is going on before he gives the clearance.
Travelling on the underground getting on an off is a nightmare with kids but that is another topic

Some trains do have the CCTV you mention, but they'd be DOO - a bad thing! You only have one pair of eyes, and the safest place for them to be during dispatch is out on the platform where the real danger is.

Even if the Guard had a view of the inside of the coach, it wouldn't necessarily have shown anything more than somebody stood close to a door. If you stopped the dispatch every time you had that, you'd get nowhere!

As for trolley stewards, the simple answer is that they are employed simply to serve refreshments, and anything more would cost money.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Definitely a big 'C' where I'm from, they're ever so important

We don't deliberately set out to park ourselves in their pocket, but ultimately they are our employer and we are pretty much here to do what they tell us quite frankly! I could make a stand by deliberately doing things without telling them, but the result would be initially lots of additional paperwork and report writing, and eventually probably the sack.

Its not a case of not telling them, you just tell them what you are doing and not what you going to do, if they would give you permission I doubt your Controllers are that much different to ours. Ours love a solution! So we just say "this is the problem, and what we have done is...." etc... None of our side have ever been hauled in for that. I say within acceptable parameters, we don't authorise cancellations, crew changes etc, and we normally check on diversions.

I think he hanged himself, and I very much doubt anybody would have expected any other outcome under his particular circumstances. But it does show how 'initiative' (in whatever form and for whatever reason), sometimes ends up doing damage.

I'm very saddended to hear that :cry: