Titan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 No. but this latest incident does have many significant similarities, particularly with regards to potential outcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 30, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 Right let's look at some numbers - 1. Publicly available information does not list SPADs by train operator, you need to be registered on Opsweb to get that information. What is available to anyone with an internet browser is the RSSB overall SPAD report which breaks information down by NR 'Routes' and the most recent is for the half year 2014/15 (exact dates not stated but it is for year ended Septr 2014 where comparison is made with a previous year). 2. That report show the moving annual average for the number of SPADs as 300 - a figure which is increasing. 3. It also shows the percentage of TPWS brake demands which were interventions (55%), a figure which is also rising. I read that as meaning that on 55% of the occasions when TPWS was activated it was an intervention which presumably means the Driver had either not responded or had not responded in time. 4. there were no 'TPWS reset & continue' incidents in that period but there had been one in the previous year - the Driver involved in that had subsequently been taken to court, convicted, & jailed. 5. When normalised by train miles the higher rate of SPADs occurs with freight rather than passenger trains although the number of freight SPAD instances is much lower. 6. However all the more serious (by ranking) SPADs involved passenger trains or ECS trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 30, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 No. but this latest incident does have many significant similarities, particularly with regards to potential outcome. That must be speculation as details of the incident have not yet been made public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted November 30, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 Sorry but the tone is "smart remark" when you're making comments about "liked to break safety rules". I doubt that anyone is disagreeing with the meat of what you're saying, just the way in which it's said. Painting images of death and destruction ..... Not a smart remark but my perception of how the bereaved and injured will see it once they find out how the accident was caused. As for images of death that is the harsh reality. I Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted November 30, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 30, 2015 Not a smart remark but my perception of how the bereaved and injured will see it once they find out how the accident was caused. As for images of death that is the harsh reality. I As I said it's a reply that could just as easily be used for, well, anything that could possibly hurt someone (when it comes to railways you can use it as an argument for getting rid of them). It gets so over-used every time there's a safety issue that it's just become a cry of wolf, even if it is justified. "Liked to break safety rules" certainly was anyway, unless you've actually got a reason to think the people involved deliberately went around breaking them because they got pleasure from it, which I rather doubt you actually mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugd1022 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Right let's look at some numbers - 1. Publicly available information does not list SPADs by train operator, you need to be registered on Opsweb to get that information. What is available to anyone with an internet browser is the RSSB overall SPAD report which breaks information down by NR 'Routes' and the most recent is for the half year 2014/15 (exact dates not stated but it is for year ended Septr 2014 where comparison is made with a previous year). 2. That report show the moving annual average for the number of SPADs as 300 - a figure which is increasing. 3. It also shows the percentage of TPWS brake demands which were interventions (55%), a figure which is also rising. I read that as meaning that on 55% of the occasions when TPWS was activated it was an intervention which presumably means the Driver had either not responded or had not responded in time. 4. there were no 'TPWS reset & continue' incidents in that period but there had been one in the previous year - the Driver involved in that had subsequently been taken to court, convicted, & jailed. 5. When normalised by train miles the higher rate of SPADs occurs with freight rather than passenger trains although the number of freight SPAD instances is much lower. 6. However all the more serious (by ranking) SPADs involved passenger trains or ECS trains. I can state with confidence that one reason for the recent rise in SPADs is that many of them involved newly qualified graduate drivers, many of them being 'fresh off the street', now I'm certainly not tarring every new recruit with the same brush but it is very real factor amongst the statistics over the last year or so. It's not just messroom chatter either, a lot of folk don't like to hear about this sort of thing but I've spoken to several colleagues who are mentor drivers with concerns over particular graduates who have gone on to have SPADs (and other safety related incidents). This isn't necessarily the fault of those doing the training either, as in many cases there is a definite change in attitude towards the job in some who have recently been passed out, resulting in the job 'biting them back on the arse', so to speak. In one recent example, a newly passed out graduate buffered up to a set of wagons at 16mph, wrecking the wagon in the process, he promptly walked away without reporting it, the loco was subsequently downloaded and the culprit received his marching orders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted November 30, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 You're getting carried away now...would, should, could, maybe, perhaps, possibly are all words which feature too much in threads like this, or taking an argument / perspective to a hypothetical conclusion...... the Daily Mail we're not hopefully. Seriously? Wootton Bassett wasn't just a SPAD, but a SPAD that put a trainload of rail ethusiasts right in the middle of a junction that for the want of 30 seconds or so would have seen an HST pass straight through the middle of the WCRC train. Nothing Daily Mail or hypothetical about it, it is only pure luck that avoided a mass fatality accident. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 30, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 Is this thread about Wootton Bassett then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 No, but due to the similarities it cannot go unmentioned. In other words repeated reference to Wooten Basset does not make this thread about Wooten Basset. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted November 30, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 Is this thread about Wootton Bassett then? No, its about patterns of behaviour and safety culture of organisations operating on the railway. This latest incident shares certain similarities with Wootton Bassett, and ultimately it is about the safety of the railway and those on it. Quite rightly, as per your title, it beggars belief that an organisation that has already had a full network prohibition has, in the same year has a separate prohibition for what appears to be a similar event. That said, a read of this arbitration report gives some background on WCRC pre-Wootton Bassett and the attitudes and processes at work http://www.accessdisputesrail.org/New%20ADC%20Web/Access%20Dispute%20Adjudications/ADA20%20Documents/ADA20%20determination.pdf And this quote from NR regarding the post-WB suspension: "Network Rail also has serious concerns about the fact that WCR unilaterally suspended the response to Network Rail’s review of WCR’s Safety Management System undertaken in January 2015. The review raised some serious and significant issues and there was no communication with Network Rail to explain that the response was being suspended" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 30, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 Let's make one distinction between this and WB. WB involved a spad. This incident does not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 That must be speculation as details of the incident have not yet been made public. Incorrect, Details have been made public, specifically the fact that the TPWS was found to be isolated has been made public and is not speculation. That isolating the TPWS can result in a Spad is not speculation, as it actually happened at Wooten Basset. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 30, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 No, its about patterns of behaviour and safety culture of organisations operating on the railway. This latest incident shares certain similarities with Wootton Bassett, and ultimately it is about the safety of the railway and those on it. Quite rightly, as per your title, it beggars belief that an organisation that has already had a full network prohibition has, in the same year has a separate prohibition for what appears to be a similar event. That said, a read of this arbitration report gives some background on WCRC pre-Wootton Bassett and the attitudes and processes at work http://www.accessdisputesrail.org/New%20ADC%20Web/Access%20Dispute%20Adjudications/ADA20%20Documents/ADA20%20determination.pdf And this quote from NR regarding the post-WB suspension: "Network Rail also has serious concerns about the fact that WCR unilaterally suspended the response to Network Rail’s review of WCR’s Safety Management System undertaken in January 2015. The review raised some serious and significant issues and there was no communication with Network Rail to explain that the response was being suspended" Again, to try and keep it on track, this thread is about the ORR's statement, and has nothing to do with NR's position on them. So, whilst interesting, is it particularly relevant to the incident under discussion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Let's make one distinction between this and WB. WB involved a spad. This incident does not. Or better still lets not, since it is irrelevant. Both of these incidents are about isolation of the TPWS and the risk that this brings, spad or otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 30, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2015 Carry on then. I'm going to wait till the facts are made public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chy Mengrowyn Paul Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Perhaps this thread should be locked until more correct details are officially released.... ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod3 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 When further facts are available relating to this incident then discussion can continue, until then it is locked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.