Jump to content
 

Class 66 derailment


Recommended Posts

As one of my committees at BSI includes Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system interaction with infrastructure both this and the one at NL with the 800/1 would have been mitigated with such a system. While it would have to be disabled for coupling, it would help minimise the impact of distraction. The TPWS setting at terminals increases the time taken to 'crawl' along some platforms - thus increase the time when a driver is waiting to make the late brake application.  

 

Whatever the rules, if there are concerns  about children's health and well-being then staff are going to bend the rules - ignoring it is not going to end well; at least it was not as bad as the 1892 Thirsk crash.

Edited by Bomag
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, Craig1989 said:

I always thought drivers were told have their phones off in the cab when driving 


Item 52 in the report is pretty clear:

 

“The driver’s use of his personal mobile phone was contrary to the DB Cargo ‘Mobile Phone Policy’, which states:
‘Personal mobile telephones must not be used whilst in the driving cab, or on or about the running line’.“

 

 

Edited by Western Aviator
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting fact in the RAIB report; The passenger train Driver had been doing the job for 44 (forty-four) years ! He must have thought he'd seen most things during his career. Thank goodness he, and everyone else, escaped without injury. 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Western Aviator said:


Item 52 in the report is pretty clear:

 

“The driver’s use of his personal mobile phone was contrary to the DB Cargo ‘Mobile Phone Policy’, which states:
‘Personal mobile telephones must not be used whilst in the driving cab, or on or about the running line’.“

 

 


this is where anomaly’s within the cab environment is so evident. It’s against all company policies, but ask yourself why? What is the difference between GSMR, cab advisory systems on a tablet, some silly idiot who has there phone blasting out music in the train behind you ect ect. This I feel is one of those situations when or if a phone needs to be used in the driving cab that common sense should prevail, and anything like the above could lead to similar incidents and not to be distracted by any of the above when your focus needs to be elsewhere.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, Andymsa said:


this is where anomaly’s within the cab environment is so evident. It’s against all company policies, but ask yourself why? What is the difference between GSMR, cab advisory systems on a tablet, some silly idiot who has there phone blasting out music in the train behind you ect ect. This I feel is one of those situations when or if a phone needs to be used in the driving cab that common sense should prevail, and anything like the above could lead to similar incidents and not to be distracted by any of the above when your focus needs to be elsewhere.

 

Its all to do with human psychology.

 

Listening to music, directions from a satnav, etc are a passive activity - i.e. no need for the brain to stop and refocus on making meaningful reply.

 

Humans are wired up to respond immediately in conversations, even if at a loss for words then body language, a change in posture or non words like "hmmmm" all happen because of that psychological need to respond.

 

That's why all safety organisations don't think 'hands free' is an acceptable alternative to fiddling with mobiles when driving - yes you might not have to manipulate the device physically,  but the act of having a conversation means your brain loses focus on the tasks at hand.

 

The same danger happens with a conversation with someone in the passenger seat - but the crucial difference is because they can see what you can see, if there is a complex situation developing (e.g. a unusual road layout ahead) then they will understand if the driver stops communicating or deliberately avoid engaging in communication until the tricky area has been passed through.

 

A mobile phone user doesn't have that feedback - they have no idea what the driver is seeing and thus what levels of concentration are needed so cannot cease conversation in the same way.

 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Its all to do with human psychology.

 

Listening to music, directions from a satnav, etc are a passive activity - i.e. no need for the brain to stop and refocus on making meaningful reply.

 

Humans are wired up to respond immediately in conversations, even if at a loss for words then body language, a change in posture or non words like "hmmmm" all happen because of that psychological need to respond.

 

That's why all safety organisations don't think 'hands free' is an acceptable alternative to fiddling with mobiles when driving - yes you might not have to manipulate the device physically,  but the act of having a conversation means your brain loses focus on the tasks at hand.

 

The same danger happens with a conversation with someone in the passenger seat - but the crucial difference is because they can see what you can see, if there is a complex situation developing (e.g. a unusual road layout ahead) then they will understand if the driver stops communicating or deliberately avoid engaging in communication until the tricky area has been passed through.

 

A mobile phone user doesn't have that feedback - they have no idea what the driver is seeing and thus what levels of concentration are needed so cannot cease conversation in the same way.

 


I have heard these arguments before, and they have been made by experts who have never driven a train. Let alone understand the situations that can occur in the driving cab. Let’s take a screaming baby in the rear of a car or children arguing in a car, is it a distraction most certainly yes, would that remove you from the focus of driving the car, or an argument in a pub, do not everyone look at such an argument. The point I’m making is that what ever happens in the cab from things going from within the train to external factors like GSMR or things you see outside of the train, all these things are distractions and it’s how you filter them that’s important. The difference between driving a car as opposed to a train is there are more factors to control in a car such as steering, watching other road users so the mobile phone use in a car environment is much more crucial, as I said it’s about common sense. Then again in Australia it’s been trialled to use music in the driving cab to help concentration but in the uk it’s a no no. 

Edited by Andymsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:


I have heard these arguments before, and they have been made by experts who have never driven a train. Let alone understand the situations that can occur in the driving cab. Let’s take a screaming baby in the rear of a car or children arguing in a car, is it a distraction most certainly yes, would that remove you from the focus of driving the car, or an argument in a pub, do not everyone look at such an argument. The point I’m making is that what ever happens in the cab from things going from within the train to external factors like GSMR or things you see outside of the train, all these things are distractions and it’s how you filter them that’s important. The difference between driving a car as opposed to a train is there are more factors to control in a car such as steering, watching other road users so the mobile phone use in a car environment is much more crucial, as I said it’s about common sense. Then again in Australia it’s been trialled to use music in the driving cab to help concentration but in the uk it’s a no no. 

 

I will tell all my Human Factors colleagues that all that testing and simulator work is completely useless and to get out there and do it themselves until they crash!

 

If I remember correctly there are five main physiological approaches to driving and individual may switch between them depending on various internal and external factors. You may be in a position where distraction is the main problem or fatigue. Outside the cities there is very little in Australia so fatigue is a major problem; music can help. What music will make worse is distraction (which is the major issue here).

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bomag said:

 

I will tell all my Human Factors colleagues that all that testing and simulator work is completely useless and to get out there and do it themselves until they crash!

 

If I remember correctly there are five main physiological approaches to driving and individual may switch between them depending on various internal and external factors. You may be in a position where distraction is the main problem or fatigue. Outside the cities there is very little in Australia so fatigue is a major problem; music can help. What music will make worse is distraction (which is the major issue here).


maybe your human factors colleagues may like to try six months worth of actual shift work, the constant feeling of what I can only call jet lag. Going from a late Saturday shift to a early Monday shift and trying to go to sleep early on the Sunday and your still wide awake because your been lates the week before, and getting up at 3 in the morning for a 10 hour shift now that’s fatigue. Your comment on fatigue clearly shows how much human factors people really know about train driving. Simulators may be useful to a point but does not give a real world realistic view of fatigue and fatigue can occur at any location not just outside cities. The main aspect to fatigue is the privatised company’s getting as much productivity from staff as they can, once that is addressed then crashes as you put it or errors will reduce from the human factor element. The music element being a distraction is again down to common sense especially on long distance work like my freight colleagues do, maybe a freight driver perspective be good here.

Edited by Andymsa
  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points about distractions while driving. I would be interested in the views of train Drivers past and present, on the following. Sometimes in NR Control we would make a non-Emergency NRN, or subsequently GSMR, call to a Driver, for example when tail lights had been reported on the front of a train, or to request further details on something the Driver had reported (when the information was urgently required). We would always start the call by asking the Driver if it was safe to speak, if they said no we ended the call and followed up the matter by some other means. However.... one Train Operator adopted a policy of instructing Drivers to stop their train if they received a GSMR call, even non-emergency; Yet at around the same time this Operator featured in a TV programme which in one episode had a reporter, and camera person, plus presumably Traction Inspector, in the cab, with the reporter discussing with the Driver the effect of fatalities; While driving at line speed ! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Some interesting points about distractions while driving. I would be interested in the views of train Drivers past and present, on the following. Sometimes in NR Control we would make a non-Emergency NRN, or subsequently GSMR, call to a Driver, for example when tail lights had been reported on the front of a train, or to request further details on something the Driver had reported (when the information was urgently required). We would always start the call by asking the Driver if it was safe to speak, if they said no we ended the call and followed up the matter by some other means. However.... one Train Operator adopted a policy of instructing Drivers to stop their train if they received a GSMR call, even non-emergency; Yet at around the same time this Operator featured in a TV programme which in one episode had a reporter, and camera person, plus presumably Traction Inspector, in the cab, with the reporter discussing with the Driver the effect of fatalities; While driving at line speed ! 

 

The difference would be that the driver had the Traction Inspector present to do most of the talking to the TV crew and the driver would have the option to ignore them when busy, I would imagine the Traction Inspector would also know when to be quiet.  Editing of the recording will make it look like they were all just chatting happily but it is likely there will be a lot cut out of such a recording to get to the bit they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Some interesting points about distractions while driving. I would be interested in the views of train Drivers past and present, on the following. Sometimes in NR Control we would make a non-Emergency NRN, or subsequently GSMR, call to a Driver, for example when tail lights had been reported on the front of a train, or to request further details on something the Driver had reported (when the information was urgently required). We would always start the call by asking the Driver if it was safe to speak, if they said no we ended the call and followed up the matter by some other means. However.... one Train Operator adopted a policy of instructing Drivers to stop their train if they received a GSMR call, even non-emergency; Yet at around the same time this Operator featured in a TV programme which in one episode had a reporter, and camera person, plus presumably Traction Inspector, in the cab, with the reporter discussing with the Driver the effect of fatalities; While driving at line speed ! 

 


this just goes to show how some train operators policy’s are ridiculous. Yes I remember that episode shown on TV and thought myself how distracting. But just the presence of anyone in the driving cab is distracting let alone a film crew. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

The difference would be that the driver had the Traction Inspector present to do most of the talking to the TV crew and the driver would have the option to ignore them when busy, I would imagine the Traction Inspector would also know when to be quiet.  Editing of the recording will make it look like they were all just chatting happily but it is likely there will be a lot cut out of such a recording to get to the bit they want.


unfortunately not all traction inspectors conduct themselves in a professional manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Andymsa said:


maybe your human factors colleagues may like to try six months worth of actual shift work, the constant feeling of what I can only call jet lag. Going from a late Saturday shift to a early Monday shift and trying to go to sleep early on the Sunday and your still wide awake because your been lates the week before, and getting up at 3 in the morning for a 10 hour shift now that’s fatigue. Your comment on fatigue clearly shows how much human factors people really know about train driving. Simulators may be useful to a point but does not give a real world realistic view of fatigue and fatigue can occur at any location not just outside cities. The main aspect to fatigue is the privatised company’s getting as much productivity from staff as they can, once that is addressed then crashes as you put it or errors will reduce from the human factor element. The music element being a distraction is again down to common sense especially on long distance work like my freight colleagues do, maybe a freight driver perspective be good here.

 

Fatigue has both physiological and behaviour impact, you cannot reliably test many of the former e.g. eye tracking, heart rate, skin conductivity in 'live' test. It is also not ethical to test edge cases in live situations. Going from late (or nights) to earlies is a known issues for all shift work, not just on railways. However, some people are physiologically disadvantaged in being less able to adjust to shift work, or have a varying ability. This why a good organisation has an effective fatigue reporting system where line managers are trained (and supervised) to record fatigue as not a disciplinary issue but a management of risk issue. During lockdown some of our shift workers on safety critical roles have had nothing to do  for half the shift and the reports of fatigue once they have been mobilised shot up; the critical thing is to record the circumstances properly.

 

We know a lot more on fatigue than we did 20 years ago; most of the improvements were kicked off post 2001 Great Heck where the preliminary research showed how little evidence there was (whether for road or railway driving).

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:


unfortunately not all traction inspectors conduct themselves in a professional manner.

I would like to add to the above, The Driver always can give the opportunity the Traction inspector to behave more appropiately, and always reserves the option to "drop them off at the next station" and to be fair I can name twice this has happened 

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

And it is amazing how very sensible people can change dramatically when tv or royalty is present. 


having worked a royal train, I can say it made no difference to me although I was the secondman, also when I was training on mp12 as it was known back in the day on one of my trips a royal was travelling again made no difference to me. There’s no chance of me appearing on TV lol, those who do your find have been cherry picked and your average with attitude staff don’t get a look in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bomag said:

 

Fatigue has both physiological and behaviour impact, you cannot reliably test many of the former e.g. eye tracking, heart rate, skin conductivity in 'live' test. It is also not ethical to test edge cases in live situations. Going from late (or nights) to earlies is a known issues for all shift work, not just on railways. However, some people are physiologically disadvantaged in being less able to adjust to shift work, or have a varying ability. This why a good organisation has an effective fatigue reporting system where line managers are trained (and supervised) to record fatigue as not a disciplinary issue but a management of risk issue. During lockdown some of our shift workers on safety critical roles have had nothing to do  for half the shift and the reports of fatigue once they have been mobilised shot up; the critical thing is to record the circumstances properly.

 

We know a lot more on fatigue than we did 20 years ago; most of the improvements were kicked off post 2001 Great Heck where the preliminary research showed how little evidence there was (whether for road or railway driving).


 

I do agree that some cope better with shift transitions than others, but I’ll be frank train operating companies are not interested in these reporting process and is just a tick box exercise to say to the powers that be look at what we are doing. Yes there is a thing called the fatigue index but it’s a joke, just because something complies does not make it safe from a fatigue point of view, and yes managers are trained to record fatigue but when we as a depot point out something is not safe do to the hours all the reply we get is that the diagram is legal, only another driver would understand that term. And just to make the point I once did report I felt fatigued during a shift and all I got was a load of grief from management. I guess we are going have to agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 hours ago, Andymsa said:


I have heard these arguments before, and they have been made by experts who have never driven a train. Let alone understand the situations that can occur in the driving cab. Let’s take a screaming baby in the rear of a car or children arguing in a car, is it a distraction most certainly yes, would that remove you from the focus of driving the car, or an argument in a pub, do not everyone look at such an argument. The point I’m making is that what ever happens in the cab from things going from within the train to external factors like GSMR or things you see outside of the train, all these things are distractions and it’s how you filter them that’s important. The difference between driving a car as opposed to a train is there are more factors to control in a car such as steering, watching other road users so the mobile phone use in a car environment is much more crucial, as I said it’s about common sense. Then again in Australia it’s been trialled to use music in the driving cab to help concentration but in the uk it’s a no no. 

 

It doesn't matter whether you are driving a train, driving a car, performing open heart surgery, preparing prescriptions, a solder observing an enemy, a tree surgeon, etc

 

ALL conversations* will result in a lack of special awareness and can result in accidents in certain circumstances. This is science fact and has been proved by clinical studies as well as accident investigations / data for many years.

 

Obviously that doesn't mean accidents will happen in all cases or that everyone is susceptible to the same degree. After all in some careers after all good conversational skills and the ability to quickly react on them are a must.

 

Its why physcometric testing has become such an important part of recruitment for certain jobs, such testing should provide a way of filtering out those whose personalities and behaviours under pressure may be a cause for concern.

 

At the end of the day humans are not robots - and train drivers are not a special breed that cease to be affected by the same flaws as the rest of the population.

 

 

* Conversations are not the same thing as receiving orders. If the response from the user is effectively a ‘yes sir’ with no further discussion / debate / conversation then there is minimal loss of spacial awareness.

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, caradoc said:

Some interesting points about distractions while driving. I would be interested in the views of train Drivers past and present, on the following. Sometimes in NR Control we would make a non-Emergency NRN, or subsequently GSMR, call to a Driver, for example when tail lights had been reported on the front of a train, or to request further details on something the Driver had reported (when the information was urgently required). We would always start the call by asking the Driver if it was safe to speak, if they said no we ended the call and followed up the matter by some other means. However.... one Train Operator adopted a policy of instructing Drivers to stop their train if they received a GSMR call, even non-emergency; Yet at around the same time this Operator featured in a TV programme which in one episode had a reporter, and camera person, plus presumably Traction Inspector, in the cab, with the reporter discussing with the Driver the effect of fatalities; While driving at line speed ! 

 

 

Can't say I was ever bothered by the NRN or GSMR, you either answered or you didn't! 

I even remember speaking to a signalman approaching a red and having to ask him to repeat as the AWS horn stopped me hearing what he said. I don't feel that it was a problem as long as you were in control of the train when you answered, of course that was only holding a phone to your ear not looking at a screen.

 

The phone I disliked answering was the train to cab phone on the TPO's that was nearly always a complaint of rough riding and accusing you of going too fast! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

It doesn't matter whether you are driving a train, driving a car, performing open heart surgery, preparing prescriptions, a solder observing an enemy, a tree surgeon, etc

 

ALL conversations* will result in a lack of special awareness and can result in accidents in certain circumstances. This is science fact and has been proved by clinical studies as well as accident investigations / data for many years.

 

Obviously that doesn't mean accidents will happen in all cases or that everyone is susceptible to the same degree. After all in some careers after all good conversational skills and the ability to quickly react on them are a must.

 

Its why physcometric testing has become such an important part of recruitment for certain jobs, such testing should provide a way of filtering out those whose personalities and behaviours under pressure may be a cause for concern.

 

At the end of the day humans are not robots - and train drivers are not a special breed that cease to be affected by the same flaws as the rest of the population.

 

 

* Conversations are not the same thing as receiving orders. If the response from the user is effectively a ‘yes sir’ with no further discussion / debate / conversation then there is minimal loss of spacial awareness.

 

 


yes absolutely right we are human, and humans make mistakes, so all the human factors in the world won’t change things.

 

 I don’t think I have said train drivers are a special breed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Andymsa said:


yes absolutely right we are human, and humans make mistakes, so all the human factors in the world won’t change things.

 

 

Agreed - but if research proves that conversations are detrimental to concentration (exactly how detrimental varying of course depending on the individual), then its entirely reasonable to try discourage them from taking place at the same time as safety critical activities are taking place - hence the 'mobiles off and in the bag' policy by some TOCs or the ban on the use of 'hands free' options for Network Rail employees while on duty.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...