Level crossing stupidity...

[Hobby]

Still not an excuse though. I don't understand why people seem to be trying to justify the driver's actions by questioning the sign. It seems perfectly clear that the driver should have stopped in accordance with the instructions. Sloppy work practices are no excuse as those of us who work on the railways are well aware.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Hobby

[101]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Still not an excuse though. I don't understand why people seem to be trying to justify the driver's actions by questioning the sign. It seems perfectly clear that the driver should have stopped in accordance with the instructions. Sloppy work practices are no excuse as those of us who work on the railways are well aware.

 

I agreed with Mike Stationmaster but I was not trying to justify the drivers actions and I very much doubt Mike was either. 

 The Stop board should be better worded, it would read much better saying 'STOP Proceed when crossing clear' , dropping the word unless and enforcing the message much more clearly.

I don't know if any/many or all of the drivers on the Ffestiniog are part timers but either way I would be surprised if the training is quite as rigorous as your own was and I doubt that the consequences of passing a stop board are impressed on them as much as it is on the 'Big' railway.

Although the way it is worded at present it is not actually a STOP board unless the crossing is not clear which puts doubt into drivers minds approaching it.

 

Incidentally in regard your last sentence I say this as someone who retired in 2017 as a driver after almost 40 yrs service 

Edited April 12, 2019 by 101

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Still not an excuse though. I don't understand why people seem to be trying to justify the driver's actions by questioning the sign. It seems perfectly clear that the driver should have stopped in accordance with the instructions. Sloppy work practices are no excuse as those of us who work on the railways are well aware.

 

It's not a case of picking driver or sign and saying one is OK, one is at fault. Arguing there are issues with the sign is not excusing the poor driving practice. All raising questions about the sign is doing is considering a part of the explanation of what lead to the incident. It seems to my amateur mind that the wording of the sign might've contributed to drivers driving the way they've done. That's an explanation, not a justification. Too often explaining is treated as justifying.

 

AFAICT no-one is saying there is an excuse.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Reorte

[Hobby]

Bear in mind there will also be local instructions and training so I suspect that the sign will be clear to those who use that piece of track.

 

I am sorry if you feel that way but the comments come across to me that way. To me the sign seems clear enough and it's meaning should be understood to people who are passed to work that line. Perhaps best to agree to differ.

 

No doubt we'll see in due course what the investigation says until the I won't say any more.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Hobby

[jim.snowdon]

Any decision in regard to signage will, ultimately, rest with HM Railway Inspectorate, as the Safety Authority. The RAIB only make recommendations, with no consideration as to practicality or liability. HMRI might well take the view that the existing signage, given that it applies only to a minority of trains, is adequate; a full-blown Stop Board would probably not be considered appropriate since it would have the status of a signal, which either (brake) fitted trains would routinely pass as it did not apply to them (not a practice to be encouraged), or it would unnecessarily require all trains to be stopped, the majority for no good reason.

 

In any case, I expect that HMRI would be rather more interested in driver training and practice, together with how the railway enforces the rules. We will probably not get to see what they do, as there is no requirement for the Inspectorate to publish their decisions.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

17 hours ago, Hobby said:

I am sorry if you feel that way but the comments come across to me that way. To me the sign seems clear enough and it's meaning should be understood to people who are passed to work that line. Perhaps best to agree to differ.

 

Sure, the sign is clear enough - stop unless the crossing is clear, so there's no reason to pass it without stopping if the crossing isn't clear. And people working the line should understand it. My point all along though is that it's all well and good saying what things should be but you also need to consider typical human behaviour and how (bad) habits form even when people really should know better. Regarding raising that sort of thing as finding excuses doesn't really help getting to the bottom of why poor behaviour happens in the first place, and without that it's much harder to come to a satisfactory solution.

 

"Here are a bunch of rules - obey them" and nothing more than that only gets you so far. You've still got problems if the people supposed to obey them are only doing so because they see them as something arbitrary they've got to do to avoid being in official trouble rather than because they understand the reason for them well enough to want to even if there was no penalty for ignoring them (and I'd trust the latter person in a situation with poorly defined rules more than someone blindly following better defined ones).

Edited April 13, 2019 by Reorte

[lmsforever]

Driver training on all railways in the UK is to a high standard just because its maybe narrow gauge they are still in charge of loaded trains with the public on board.True the speeds are not high but safety and comptinence is the main priority  on any railway.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

Sure, the sign is clear enough - stop unless the crossing is clear, so there's no reason to pass it without stopping if the crossing isn't clear. And people working the line should understand it. My point all along though is that it's all well and good saying what things should be but you also need to consider typical human behaviour and how (bad) habits form even when people really should know better. Regarding raising that sort of thing as finding excuses doesn't really help getting to the bottom of why poor behaviour happens in the first place, and without that it's much harder to come to a satisfactory solution.

 

"Here are a bunch of rules - obey them" and nothing more than that only gets you so far. You've still got problems if the people supposed to obey them are only doing so because they see them as something arbitrary they've got to do to avoid being in official trouble rather than because they understand the reason for them well enough to want to even if there was no penalty for ignoring them (and I'd trust the latter person in a situation with poorly defined rules more than someone blindly following better defined ones).

But earlier you said

 

"Shouldn't conditional requirements to stop be done with signals?"

 

Fact is the instructions were disobeyed, apparently due to complacency. That is a big training issue & I suspect will be a major part of the investigation.

It doesn't matter what form the rules take, signage, lights, or instructions, if they are ignored.

 

Such a site is never going to have a TWS on it.

[Hobby]

Thanks Kevin. Reorte, I would expect the behaviour you mention on our roads but I would not expect it on a passenger carrying railway in the UK. As the report says the sign was out there for a reason following similar incidents which that driver and those who taught him should surely be aware of the consequences of their actions. It's just lucky no-one on the road was involved or we'd be looking at a court case.

[The Stationmaster]

On 12/04/2019 at 10:25, Compound2632 said:

But that was the rule. The point at issue is that the rule was habitually ignored.

But it's not what the sign says.  Effectively it says there is no need to stop if the crossing is clear so there is no mandatory Instruction to stop, and the norm at many level crossing, and on various st STOP bards is to make it manadatory to actually stop.  That is why I am, and remain, critical of the wording of the sign and it would definitely be something I would pick up on an audit. 

 

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But earlier you said

 

"Shouldn't conditional requirements to stop be done with signals?"

 

Fact is the instructions were disobeyed, apparently due to complacency. That is a big training issue & I suspect will be a major part of the investigation.

It doesn't matter what form the rules take, signage, lights, or instructions, if they are ignored.

 

Such a site is never going to have a TWS on it.

And regrettably the wording of the sign could contribute to any complacency.  Wording on STOP boards is not necessarily a simple matter and it is one where some thought is required.  A very basic rule (sorry) in writing a Rule, Regulation,  or Instruction is to first put the important or critical part and then what has to be done after that mandatory part has been carried out.  You don't start off by putting in relaxations of the essential message because that then gives a trainee the wrong emphasis during their learning  phase.

[pH]

This one is just unbelievable. Total concentration on the road traffic and ignoring the railway:

 

https://youtu.be/u_EwrAsv3r4

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, pH said:

This one is just unbelievable. Total concentration on the road traffic and ignoring the railway:

 

https://youtu.be/u_EwrAsv3r4

 

Nah. Probably on the phone.

Why didn't the driver just follow the other vehicles? He/She would have been long gone when the train arrived.

Edited April 13, 2019 by melmerby

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Nah. Probably on the phone.

Why didn't the driver just follow the other vehicles? He/She would have been long gone when the train arrived.

Also missed the fact that the barrier was coming down. Almost certainly on the phone as you suggest.

[avonside1563]

On 13/04/2019 at 21:39, The Stationmaster said:

But it's not what the sign says.  Effectively it says there is no need to stop if the crossing is clear so there is no mandatory Instruction to stop, and the norm at many level crossing, and on various st STOP bards is to make it manadatory to actually stop.  That is why I am, and remain, critical of the wording of the sign and it would definitely be something I would pick up on an audit. 

 

And regrettably the wording of the sign could contribute to any complacency.  Wording on STOP boards is not necessarily a simple matter and it is one where some thought is required.  A very basic rule (sorry) in writing a Rule, Regulation,  or Instruction is to first put the important or critical part and then what has to be done after that mandatory part has been carried out.  You don't start off by putting in relaxations of the essential message because that then gives a trainee the wrong emphasis during their learning  phase.

I wonder if the wording is deliberately ambiguous to avoid normal service trains coming to a stand every time they approach the crossing, coupled with the fact the crossing is manned during normal operations. Yes the sign could be worded in a stronger way but there is still an issue with complacency which will continue to be a problem as long as there is the human factor involved.

[Reorte]

On 13/04/2019 at 15:44, kevinlms said:

But earlier you said

 

"Shouldn't conditional requirements to stop be done with signals?"

 

Fact is the instructions were disobeyed, apparently due to complacency. That is a big training issue & I suspect will be a major part of the investigation.

It doesn't matter what form the rules take, signage, lights, or instructions, if they are ignored.

 

Such a site is never going to have a TWS on it.

Why the "but"?  I said that earlier because it was a thought that occurred to me, and it would be interesting to hear the take of people with real world railway knowledge on that point. It does matter what form the signs etc. take because they may be contributing to the issue. If they're perceived as not that important for some reason whilst some others are treated as much more important (hopefully drivers aren't doing the same with signals) then there's probably a fault with both training and the sign.

 

On 13/04/2019 at 16:53, Hobby said:

Thanks Kevin. Reorte, I would expect the behaviour you mention on our roads but I would not expect it on a passenger carrying railway in the UK. As the report says the sign was out there for a reason following similar incidents which that driver and those who taught him should surely be aware of the consequences of their actions. It's just lucky no-one on the road was involved or we'd be looking at a court case. 

I wouldn't expect it on our railways, whether NR or a narrow gauge line or anything else, either. For some reason an attitude of complancency has developed regarding that crossing and it's important to work out every aspect of why. "The sign should be obeyed, end of" simply isn't getting right to the bottom of it, even though it's true.

 

My point is that "these are the rules, you must obey them" is true but is also too simple, especially when you're dealing with people and not robots.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, avonside1563 said:

I wonder if the wording is deliberately ambiguous to avoid normal service trains coming to a stand every time they approach the crossing, coupled with the fact the crossing is manned during normal operations. Yes the sign could be worded in a stronger way but there is still an issue with complacency which will continue to be a problem as long as there is the human factor involved.

That thought had occurred to me and I suspect you are probably on the right lines.  However IF that is the case there should be more comprehensive written Instructions applying to trains which have less brake power than a passenger train - that appears to either not be the case or such Instruction (if it existed) was not complied with on this occasion..  

 

And yes - there can always be an issue with complacency (and less than adequate training) which is why signs should be worded, in so far as it is possible, to minimise the risk of such a situation developing.  Hence the wording I would have used and indeed why I have already (very strongly) advised one railway (which I shall not name of course but it wasn't the one in question here) to alter the wording on a STOP board because I found it to be repeatedly ignored for one particular movement and has thus lost its impact in the situation where complying with it is critical.

 

I have come across various situations when carrying out operational safety audits on 'private' railways where things are not exactly how they should be for either basic safety (usually in respect of staff safety) or in terms of training etc.  indeed at least two railways where I have subsequently been involved had been served Improvement Notices in respect of some of their basic management practices (lack of) some of which related to safety and more particularly to training.  There are areas where unfortunately people without a railway operational & safety background or knowledge of current legislation (and some with an ingrained 'old railway' background) can miss the wider picture and may not be aware of contemporary safety practice or even of certain legal requirements where legislation has changed.  The Ffestiniog would, I hope, not be in that category but I still remain concerned with the wording of that sign and were I auditing that railway I would be looking for it to be changed (together with suitable arrangements to be set out to avoid delay when passenger trains are running).

[Hobby]

My point is that the sign is clear enough, and I feel the debate about the wording of the sign has unfortunately taken the discussion away from the true issue, the "custom and practice" and ignoring specific instructions in the Local Instructions, quote from the report~:

 

"He stated that this was the custom and practice of the drivers who had trained him when he qualified as a driver in 2013, and, despite the local instruction in the operating procedures and the clear signage adjacent to the line, this was also his usual practice."

 

From that comment the RAIB clearly (!) feel the sign is clear enough in conjunction with the Local Instructions and the issue is more about poor training/complacency.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Hobby

[The Stationmaster]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

My point is that the sign is clear enough, and I feel the debate about the wording of the sign has unfortunately taken the discussion away from the true issue, the "custom and practice" and ignoring specific instructions in the Local Instructions, quote from the report~:

 

"He stated that this was the custom and practice of the drivers who had trained him when he qualified as a driver in 2013, and, despite the local instruction in the operating procedures and the clear signage adjacent to the line, this was also his usual practice."

Which sort of proves my point.  The very wording of the sign had allowed 'custom and practice' to develop.   Simple really - positive instruction to stop - risk of collision greatly mitigated;  very basic risk assessment stuff. 

[Hobby]

I don't follow that logic, the sign had not allowed "custom and practice" to develop, poor training, assessments and safety briefs have allowed that to develop...

[Reorte]

10 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I don't follow that logic, the sign had not allowed "custom and practice" to develop, poor training, assessments and safety briefs have allowed that to develop...

 

Get inside peoples' heads, how people behave and react to different things, why there may be a thoroughly ingrained ground-in sense of "never pass a signal at danger" (and probably a feeling of unease even under those circumstances where it is allowed) yet where it can be hard to get people to treat other restrictions as seriously.

 

You can write rules that say they should all be treated with the utmost seriousness but it's rather harder to get peoples' brains to instinctively do so. A conscientious person will still obey them but that's the conscious side doing so, having to think about it. You want the instinctive behaviour to be in the same place.

 

Using the wider context of this thread as an example, why would (hopefully!) no-one reading this be part of any of the stupidity described in this thread? Ultimately it's not because we blindly obey the rules of level crossings but because we've got the right level of thinking about them, to the point where it would be just about impossible to overcome our instincts not to do something stupid at a level crossing. To get there requires more than simply being told "these are the rules, stick to them."

Edited April 15, 2019 by Reorte

[Hobby]

Hence we have Assessments and Safety Briefs, and I assume the FR do as well, so that they can be reminded.

 

(Many road vehicle drivers could also benefit from such events!  )

[Reorte]

36 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Hence we have Assessments and Safety Briefs, and I assume the FR do as well, so that they can be reminded.

 

(Many road vehicle drivers could also benefit from such events!  )

That's just another "here are the rules, stick to them." Once again, telling people what they should do is necessary but not sufficient.

[Hobby]

Depends how they are done, if there is a particular issue they can concentrate on that in addition to the normal on-going stuff to serve as a reminder.

 

However it looks like this goes beyond that, it would seem that there was deliberate ignoring of the rules (signs, local instructions, call them what you will), unfortunately that sort of thing only tends to come to light when someone in authority sees it or an accident happens such as this. I would hope that the Driver Trainer and/or Assessors were not complicent with the "custom and practice", if they were it's going to take some work to get it out of the system. The "C&P" attitude seen here seems more reminiscent of "playing with trains" we used to see at the start of the preservation movement than what it should be now. I'd be more worried about that sort of attitude than the (red herring) sign.

[Reorte]

The important thing is for people to be convinced that the rule really matters, so that they're not just following it - and being reminded about it - as a box-ticking exercise. I get annoyed by people who take a "don't question, just obey" approach for this reason. It doesn't result in rules being taken seriously when they should be because it's too likely to result in people who, where they do follow them, don't for the right reason. Which means slack practice is more likely to develop. The frequent response to that is increased monitoring, which IMO is both unpleasant and not particularly effective because it's treating a symptom and not a disease.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Depends how they are done, if there is a particular issue they can concentrate on that in addition to the normal on-going stuff to serve as a reminder.

 

However it looks like this goes beyond that, it would seem that there was deliberate ignoring of the rules (signs, local instructions, call them what you will), unfortunately that sort of thing only tends to come to light when someone in authority sees it or an accident happens such as this. I would hope that the Driver Trainer and/or Assessors were not complicent with the "custom and practice", if they were it's going to take some work to get it out of the system. The "C&P" attitude seen here seems more reminiscent of "playing with trains" we used to see at the start of the preservation movement than what it should be now. I'd be more worried about that sort of attitude than the (red herring) sign.

From what I have found in the private/preservation world the two tend to go together unless there is a strong culture to prevent that sort of thing.

 

And no - the sign is a very long way from being a red herring and that is something which could be readily missed if you don't have the background and experience in this particular area of railway operations and safety.   And especially in respect of the way signs need to worded to avoid complacency and to minimise the development of poor 'custom and practice'.

Edited April 15, 2019 by The Stationmaster