Should only the ultra-continent travel by train in bad weather?

[royaloak]

Thanks for that. O/T sorry, but -  I wonder why the 27 way was fitted to the 56, which was supposed to be a freight only loco? What would that have been needed for other than hauling or rescuing passenger trains? (A very fortunate decision as it turned out....) I ask in ignorance, not because I have any agenda!

I am not actually sure it is a 27 way (I never signed 56s) but it is a red diamond multiple working jumper unique to class 56 and 58, as there were no plans for them to multi with other classes they reinvented the wheel and made them incompatible with all previous classes, and some seem to think deliberately making things incompatible is a privatisation thing!

[royaloak]

I remember my induction course in electricity generation. The head of safety for the company danced around in front of us (he was an extrovert character, what would once have been called camp, and became a very dear friend), pointing at the safety rules, which when supported by local management instructions and plant standard operating procedures formed the company safe system of work. He made it very clear that as authorised and senior authorised persons and then control persons (people familiar with the electricity industry will be aware what those roles are) we were legally responsible for our decisions and actions. If we stayed within the safe system of work and there was an incident then the company legal team and their appointed barristers etc would be in court to defend us as it would be the corporate safe system of work which was on triel. If we went outside that the same legal bods would be in court to tell the court that the company had a robust safe system of work, they'd given us all the necessary training built on top of core skills (i.e. people had HND's, degrees etc to get the job in the first place) and we'd signed our authorisation certificates to state we understood and accepted our responsibilities therefore if we ignored rules and procedures we would be hung out to dry. A message reinforced by a board level member of management. Some may not like that, but personally I did like it as it made clear where we stood and there was no pretence about it. In a safety critical industry you need tight control of work to prevent people getting hurt. People point back to the good old days but tend not to point back to industrial safety of bye gone eras and bemoan the fact we don't kill and maim as many people as we once did.

Thank you, its similar to the rules we have to follow and what I was told on induction.

 

I wonder of those advocating the driver taking things into his own hands would be so keen if it was them actually driving the train and it was their future employment (or freedom if it went wrong) on the line?

 

Its easy to be so bold when tapping away at a keyboard but maybe they wouldnt be so keen if they were 'in charge' of the train?

 

I am paid to do a job, part of that job is to comply with the railway rule book (the one written in blood) and to follow orders, yes seriously, I am not paid to be a maverick and make things up as I go along!

Edited March 5, 2018 by royaloak

[Zomboid]

I am not actually sure it is a 27 way (I never signed 56s) but it is a red diamond multiple working jumper unique to class 56 and 58, as there were no plans for them to multi with other classes they reinvented the wheel and made them incompatible with all previous classes, and some seem to think deliberately making things incompatible is a privatisation thing!

At some point you have to move on in terms of standards. If this red diamond was to become BRs next standard multi system after blue star then it makes sense. Then privatisation came along...

60s don't have any multi do they?

[Mike Storey]

It's you that need to join the real world.

You can't go round abusing the people who pay your wages.

You need to negotiated an understanding with your management at a very high level that when you are working you are representing the company and that any decision you take will be backed, even at the highest level in a court.

If your boss can't trust you then that is not my problem. It just adds to my opinion that you should not be in a job where you have to face customers and make decisions about what should be done for their safety and comfort.

On what has emerged it is clear that in this situation the concern over safety overrode concern with comfort. Your first duty is looking after your customers. Your second duty is observance of the rules. If you can't do that then the comment of jobsworth would seem to be valid.

If your union can't get an undertaking from management that they will protect and support any worker in any circumstance then things have reached a pretty sorry state.

God help us all if another conflict breaks out and the likes of you are making decisions.

We soon tore up the rule book when there was a spot of bother in the South Atlantic. Funny how there was almost universal praise for what a lot of people did at that time. 

Bernard

 

Normally Bernard, I find your posts both logical and well informed, but in this case? This was not a war zone. This is not about Churchill's beaches or the derring-do of the average marine. The level of potential danger is well understood by professional railway peeps, but not understood by its passengers. The balance of probability (and evidential case history) in a criminal or civil court action would most definitely be against the individual member of staff, if he or she had acted against company or industry policy or instruction, whatever the discomfort of the people involved. The concern over customer comfort can NEVER override concern for their safety, unless the degree of "comfort" becomes a safety hazard itself. Someone needing a pee does not equate to someone breaking their ankle, or much worse.

 

You propose a course of action to an individual that is well-nigh non-existent in UK industry, that of backing an employee. Let me give you a very petty example. When Traffic Manager at Ashford (Kent) in 1986, I was in charge of the ticket office amongst many other things. The chief clerk implored me to sign off the expenditure on two plastic filing boxes, to store hundreds of season ticket record cards, representing the only specific record of many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of business. They were currently stored in cut-up cereal boxes, made by the chief clerk, which kept falling to bits, and records were being lost or mixed up. Three official requisitions (which is what we were supposed to use) over six months, had resulted in nothing. So I signed the petty cash authority, within my £20 limit, and he went to Rymans and bought the darn things. Just one week later, I was summoned to the Area Manager, and received an almighty bollocking, for not following stationery procedure, because this would affect his performance review, he believed, to cut costs (and presumably his performance award). I learned to hide any occasion on which I broke the rules in future, right through to Programme Director level, and not to try to appeal to reason (until I reached the level at which I could achieve the respect that demanded I be listened to). 

 

Incidentally, said Area Manager, despite promotion, was later sacked, allegedly for having his house double-glazed for nothing by a firm to whom he had promised the contract to double-glaze a certain signal box, which was not within his power, and they lost.

 

Customer satisfaction is a two way street. Corrupt officials aside, there is a contract between customer and provider, and force majeure is key. Absolute customer satisfaction only exists in marketing hyperbole. It does not exist in the real world. You may strive all you like, and state the customer is always right, and seek to deliver to that. You will not survive long, unless the customer is entirely price flexible.

 

To criticise the efforts made by most railway folk in these circumstances, howsoever ill-expressed in their defence, as jobsworths, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality at the front line. And we do now know that the very efforts you advocate were being undertaken on other trains, elsewhere, at the time, but safely.

[Oldddudders]

 

Incidentally, said Area Manager, despite promotion, was later sacked, allegedly for having his house double-glazed for nothing by a firm to whom he had promised the contract to double-glaze a certain signal box, which was not within his power, and they lost.

 

 

Gosh! Was that Harry H?

[Captain Kernow]

When Traffic Manager at Ashford (Kent) in 1986

I'm beginning to wonder if I had a narrow escape - I'm sure that was one of the jobs I was applying for in 1984!!

[Captain Kernow]

So because we have railstaff saying the passengers should stay on the train because its safest and passengers/rail enthusiasts are saying they would bale out whenever the will took them I think it is best not to run any trains during bad weather, no trains=nobody stuck on the trains so everyone is a winner!

Of course, that would mean those who couldn't travel having to find local hotels to stay in.

 

But perhaps not Premier Inns - they can be a bit picky, it seems - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/premier-inn-homeless-people-turned-away-customer-paying-westonsupermare-a8240171.html

 

Yet oddly inconsistent, too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-31756845

[Horsetan]

I wonder what the people who agree with this action would be saying if one or more had been electrocuted?

One day it may happen. Hope springs eternal.....

[Mike Storey]

Gosh! Was that Harry H?

 I could not possibly confirm or deny, M'Lud.

[royaloak]

Of course, that would mean those who couldn't travel having to find local hotels to stay in.

 

But perhaps not Premier Inns - they can be a bit picky, it seems - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/premier-inn-homeless-people-turned-away-customer-paying-westonsupermare-a8240171.html

 

Yet oddly inconsistent, too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-31756845

Not the railways problem is it?

 

Seeing the effort our Managers and Admin were putting into getting stranded staff hotel rooms I wouldnt rate the passengers chances very high, hence me taking them to Penzance on Thursday knowing I would be stuck at least until the following morning, but hey lets forget about all the positive things done by staff and Management and focus on the few negatives!

Edited March 5, 2018 by royaloak

[phil-b259]

60s don't have any multi do they?

 

Yes the do - but only multiple working within the class.

 

No different from the 59s, which also feature multiple working within the fleet.

 

Since privitisation multiple working has standardised on the American system BUT due to the rise of computer control simply being able to connect locos / units is not enough! - the computers have to be able to 'talk' to each other.

 

Witness the situation between early and late build Electrostars where they will indeed couple up perfectly well but as the computer software is different and cannot talk to each other, one unit has to be hauled dead.

[scouser]

Would all please note. All health and safety rules place the responsibility on the individual at the point of their control. So someone gets off the train when they shouldn't and gets hurt, the driver would have to explain why he/ she didn't stop that person. That is the LAW!

Sorry Bernard but there is no comparison between a war situation and normal life.

Whatever you did in the Atlantic, thank you.

Paul

[royaloak]

Would all please note. All health and safety rules place the responsibility on the individual at the point of their control. So someone gets off the train when they shouldn't and gets hurt, the driver would have to explain why he/ she didn't stop that person. That is the LAW!

A point neatly ignored by the 'I will do what I want' brigade!

 

Of course a train driver would have some defence in the fact they are locked away at the front of the train if passengers self evacuated, but if the driver had encouraged or hinted that the passengers should/could self evacuate then they are responsible for any injuries anyone who takes that 'advice' sustains in the eyes of the law, common sense doesnt come into it!

Edited March 5, 2018 by royaloak

[Dunsignalling]

The short answer might be that those with an overriding need to be in control of their own destiny shouldn't put their travel provision in the hands of others.

 

Take the car (or get one), not the train.

 

Solves everybody's problem if you think about it. The rail staff regain control over their destiny too.

 

John

Edited March 6, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Happy Hippo]

In an effort to lighten the thread up a little....try sitting in a goods loop in the middle of nowhere in the snow for fourteen hours with no food or drink, desperate to execute a number two, with no communication between you and the signalman....! 

 

 

Of course in the good old days there was a shovel and the firebox!!

[caradoc]

Mike Storey and Captain Kernow have posted relevant and valid information on just how these incidents on the railway happen, and I can vouch for the fact that time passes incredibly quickly when you are caught up in dealing with these things. Fortunately, my involvement was only ever from the comfort of the Control Office, but we always recognised and appreciated the efforts made by those outside in the elements. royaloak has also made pertinent observations on the individual responsibility placed on members of staff, usually only one or two, having to deal with a full trainload of passengers, at the same time as carrying out their safety and operational duties.

 

BTW I too was involved in a Voyager disabled by seawater at Dawlish, even though I never had an operational role on the WR; This was also in the early days of the sets, one had been drenched but was able to continue in service, until it finally succumbed at Carstairs and sat there for a long time!

[4630]

I don't believe this document has been posted in this thread, I've quickly scanned through but can't see it, so apologies if I've missed it.

 

This link is to the Rail Standards and Safety Board (RSSB) guidance note agreed with relevant parties in the rail industry dated June 2014 and titled - 'Meeting the Needs of passengers when Trains are Stranded'.  I believe it's up to date and hasn't been superseded.

 

https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/oodocs/atocnr%20gn%20sp01%20iss%203.pdf

 

It's interesting to read through the guidance note and compare with the accounts of what may (or may not) have happened in this particular incident.  The timescales on pages 35 and 36 are particularly interesting.

 

I'll just make the observation that, on a quick read through, the document doesn't reference the increased degree of difficulty to all concerned if the situation actually involves multiple stranded trains.

Edited March 6, 2018 by 4630

[Ashcombe]

.......... 

 

...............Yes, toilet-less trains used to be the norm, but the design of non-corridor coaches was such that, in extremis it was possible to take a leak out of the window..........

 

John

Being on my second marriage, I have sufficient awareness of the physiological differences between the sexes to know that the option you suggest is not available to at least 50% of the world's population.

[Captain Kernow]

Not the railways problem is it?

 

Seeing the effort our Managers and Admin were putting into getting stranded staff hotel rooms I wouldnt rate the passengers chances very high, hence me taking them to Penzance on Thursday knowing I would be stuck at least until the following morning, but hey lets forget about all the positive things done by staff and Management and focus on the few negatives!

I really don't know whether the TOCs do go to the extent of arranging hotel rooms for stranded customers passengers these days, but I do recall from my days as a duty Station Manager at Bristol TM (a rather long time ago now, in the days of British Rail) trying to find hotel rooms in places close to the station for stranded passengers, so it certainly used to be done in that area.

[royaloak]

I really don't know whether the TOCs do go to the extent of arranging hotel rooms for stranded customers passengers these days, but I do recall from my days as a duty Station Manager at Bristol TM (a rather long time ago now, in the days of British Rail) trying to find hotel rooms in places close to the station for stranded passengers, so it certainly used to be done in that area.

It is still done, but once the passengers are warned not to travel then surely some responsibility should fall on those passengers who have to make such important life or death journeys to sort themselves out!

[locoholic]

It is still done, but once the passengers are warned not to travel then surely some responsibility should fall on those passengers who have to make such important life or death journeys to sort themselves out!

Which again raises the issue of whether (a) it is somehow reckless of passengers to board trains once a warning not to travel has been issued, and (b) whether "sorting themselves out" also covers being abandoned for three hours (see previous references to self-evacuation and selfish t#@+$).

 

As a previous post has shown, three hours is way beyond the timescale in the guidelines for an official evacuation. If the resources to adhere to those guidelines are no longer available, surely the train operating company should not be running trains? That, or the Rail Regulator needs to compell those responsible to ensure that the necessary resources are available?

[Captain Kernow]

Which again raises the issue of whether (a) it is somehow reckless of passengers to board trains once a warning not to travel has been issued, and (b) whether "sorting themselves out" also covers being abandoned for three hours (see previous references to self-evacuation and selfish t#@+$).

 

As a previous post has shown, three hours is way beyond the timescale in the guidelines for an official evacuation. If the resources to adhere to those guidelines are no longer available, surely the train operating company should not be running trains? That, or the Rail Regulator needs to compell those responsible to ensure that the necessary resources are available?

This raises an interesting notion - what is the current target (if one exists) for evacuation of a train that has clearly failed and isn't going to be moving any time soon. I am assuming that all TOCs will have an Emergency Protocol in place for such events, not just when there is widespread adverse weather, but when an individual train fails somewhere for an extended period of time, in otherwise 'normal' circumstances?

[Bon Accord]

It is still done, but once the passengers are warned not to travel then surely some responsibility should fall on those passengers who have to make such important life or death journeys to sort themselves out!

 

If, because of the severity of the weather, explicit warnings are being given by the TOC's not to travel then what business have they running trains in the first place?

By doing so they're inviting this kind of situation to occur.

[royaloak]

Which again raises the issue of whether (a) it is somehow reckless of passengers to board trains once a warning not to travel has been issued, and (b) whether "sorting themselves out" also covers being abandoned for three hours (see previous references to self-evacuation and selfish t#@+$).

 

As a previous post has shown, three hours is way beyond the timescale in the guidelines for an official evacuation. If the resources to adhere to those guidelines are no longer available, surely the train operating company should not be running trains? That, or the Rail Regulator needs to compell those responsible to ensure that the necessary resources are available?

After being stuck on a train for 3 hours with no heat, lights or toilets (do we know whether any of these were actually available to them?) self evacuation, while still wrong, would be inevitable and being selfish doesnt really come into it, desperate yes but not selfish. 

 

Being stuck on a train for a long time is unpleasant when the basic facilities are available, but being stuck on a train for 3 hours which doesnt have a toilet available is way beyond acceptable.

[royaloak]

If, because of the severity of the weather, explicit warnings are being given by the TOC's not to travel then what business have they running trains in the first place?

By doing so they're inviting this kind of situation to occur.

Because you always get the 'my journey is very important to me so I am going regardless' brigade, also, if you have already started running services when the decide to pull the plug you have to get the crews (and to a lesser extent the trains) back to their home depots.