Traffic operation at stations: who took the ad hoc decisions?

[Mikkel]

In the event of an unexpected operational situation at a steam-era station, who would typically make the (ad hoc) decisions about what to do?

 

Examples could include a loco failure on a passenger service, a derailment, a runaway wagon, defunct stock blocking a running line, or similar. I am thinking specifically of situations within the station limits, but obviously some of them might well affect the wider system "downstream". My own focus is on the pregrouping period, but I assume the command structure would not have changed greatly for many years.

 

At small stations, I suppose the Station Master would have some role to play, but would he need to refer to higher/divisional levels first? And what was the command structure/arrangement in such matters at medium-sized and large stations? How much decision-making would be left to the discretion of staff below the Station Master level?

 

I understand there was a "Traffic Manager" position in some areas, but that seems to have been related more to development of traffic, rather than operation... (I think?).

 

I have looked through my books to find info on this, but it is rarely detailed on such matters, so any info would be much appreciated.

[The Stationmaster]

Depended entirely on what it was and when it was as well as where it was and as things differed between BR Regions they no doubt differed between Post-Group companies and probably even more so between Pre-Group companies. Lots of situations were covered by the Rule Book and General Appendix as well as more localised Instructions and there was a huge list of things which had to be reported and numerous forms to report them.

 

One consequence of all that, and the subsequent paper chain, was that no doubt all sorts of things were 'squared up' without a hint of them reaching any form of supervisor,inspector or local manager such as a Station Master, Yard Master, Shed Master etc. This would particularly be the case with things which occurred out of office hours or were not so readily under the gaze of passing members of the public or railway officers etc. Thus straightforward derailments in yards would involve equally straight forward re-railing and nothing reported unless there was no way of easily 'dealing with' consequent damage to track or vehicles etc. Running line derailments were very reportable but were sometimes 'squared up' as were such delights as pulled headstocks and Signals Passed at Danger and even runaways and minor collisions where there no passenger trains involved.

 

So in lots of cases nobody was told

 

But running line loco failures had to be dealt with and that meant contact with Control to get a replacement and the start of a paper trail, complicated derailments or those involving serious damage could not be covered-up so yet again paper trails - especially if a breakdown gang had to attend. In some cases an appropriate Inspector from the District Office would attend to either supervise what was being done to put things right or to get investigations of the cause underway or in later years it might well be down to a local traffic/operating dept manager to cover all sorts of things except the purely technical aspect - in the course of my big railway life I think I attended/had to deal with most things short of a running line collision varying from derailments to failed locos to fires (on locos or trains), fatalities, signals passed at danger, signal lamps out, working with the technical supervisor of a breakdown crane or other rerailing gang, and all sorts of oddities which on the earlier railway would have fallen to various other jobs which had either ceased to exist or covered such large areas they couldn't be everywhere in short order.

 

BTW usually 'Traffic Managers' (which title I held in one post) were involved in an operational role.

[Mikkel]

Thanks very much Mike, as usual a very helpful reply from you. I can't think of anyone more appropriate to respond :-)

 

It seems there was a good deal more independent action and decision-making than I thought - unofficially at least. It is an interesting aspect of human nature that the more bureaucracy there is, the more informal action there is too. I recognize that from my own work!

 

I found this little piece on the daily routine of a station master in 1912, which complement your own experiences on the paperwork burden: http://turniprail.blogspot.com/2011/05/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html

 

- and on the same blog: http://turniprail.blogspot.com/2010/10/some-rules-for-station-masters.html

 

Both entries seem to emphasize the formal responsibility of the Station Master in dealing with incidents and accidents within station limits.

 

The same is implied (though not made overly clear) in the 1905 GWR Rule Book, which I do not have but found online on Frank's site: http://www.dukedog.plus.com/british%20steam/rule%20book%20index.html

[Oldddudders]

I pretty much concur with Mike's summary, having spent 5 years in a Control, followed by jobs in local and Divisional management.

 

Not quite in the steam era, but in my time the SM would generally be held responsible for what went on in his patch - to the extent that he had authority over it. Thus when operating incidents turn sour, the SM's actions might be scrutinised, even if his staff were not implicated in the incident. I recall an SM at Redhill who, having heard there was a fatality on his patch gave his deputy instructions - and went to lunch. Not clever, thought his bosses at Divisional level when the delays piled up - and he was removed from his post days later.

 

At the next level up, the Area Manager at Polegate suffered a similar fate, when the planned single-line working on his patch on a Sunday went all wrong, there were serious delays, and he showed little interest. Indeed, the Divisional Manager himself appeared in the Control, where I worked, and asked for the AM to be phoned. The AM's wife informed the controller that her husband was in the bath! "He'd better get out the bl**dy bath, then!" quoth the DM. A career-limiting moment, and he was required to report to Waterloo on Monday morning for a new job! At least he was clean....

 

Bizarrely, the same DM also came to grief not very long afterwards. I think it was a Tuesday morning when the up Brighton Main Line line south of Balcombe Tunnel suffered severe icing, and a 12-car electric train became stuck. It being the morning peak the service soon came to a stand for many miles back, yet the driver of the stranded/failed train did not ask for assistance. The DM, to his credit, went into Haywards Heath box, but by doing so he effectively took command - and then failed to initiate any actions. Control felt powerless to do anything unless he sanctioned it, as the very senior man on the spot. "Black Tuesday" resulted in him finding himself in the freight organisation a week later.

[Mikkel]

That sounds like very prompt action against men who clearly did not take their responsibilty seriously. Certain other professions could do with a similar approach!

[Raffles]

Today's railway could learn a lot from it's past but doesn't, sadly.

[caradoc]

Today's railway could learn a lot from it's past but doesn't, sadly.

 

As a current railway employee, as are many others on RMWeb, l would be obliged if you could clarify please ?

[lonesome_whistle]

As a current railway employee, as are many others on RMWeb, l would be obliged if you could clarify please ?

 

As a current railway employee (who's been around long enough to have seen the way things used to work), I think I agree with Raffles...

[Raffles]

As a current railway employee, coming up for 19 years, my point is that (in my opinion) there is much from the past that has been lost to the detriment of todays railway. Years back, the Station Manager was a person who was capable of making sound decisions. They had the respect of their staff because they had most likely worked up from that level. They would know their staff by name would walk the station every morning and greet them all (might not be the case everywhere but it certainly was at one London Terminal).

 

The management were stronger then and they hadn't been infiltrated by bean counters and greasy pole climbers. I see it every week - long serving managers who have a good railway background and know their stuff are generally better respected than those who have not. That said, there are some that will never be any better irrespective of how long they serve.

 

Apologies if this is leading the thread astray but getting back to the operational decisions point:

 

During some service disruption a while back, a Duty Manager contacted Control to alert them to the fact that a local station down the line from his had not had a train call there for nearly two and a half hours and asked them when they might put a stop in on one for these people. The initial reponse was "So?" and that was quickly followed by a "don't know".

 

If the Duty Manager was trusted to make the decision himself, we could have had a stop order put in and those people wouldn't have been left waiting. Control centres don't see platforms full of people and don't take the abuse that comes when things go wrong but that seems to be the way forward so who am I to argue?

[Oldddudders]

As a current railway employee, as are many others on RMWeb, l would be obliged if you could clarify please ?

Do not assume because people are critical of the way the railway is today, that they are criticising the people who work there. There are far fewer of you now than when I started in 1966 - about 250k staff then - and things were just "different". The division of the industry into so many separate companies, each with its own profit motive, has taken away the mutual support ethos that was key to the working environment. Station staff no longer trained or empowered to wind points or flag signals - that sort of thing.

 

I'm sure the remark wasn't personal against you or anyone else in particular - you're probably all working harder than ever, the trains are all much newer, and the passenger business has boomed. It just can't gel as it was once able to do, that's all.

[caradoc]

Thanks for your reply Raffles and others. I just find it disappointing, and dispiriting, to hear that 'everything was better in the past', implying that today's railway staff are somehow less competent and dedicated than their predecessors. You will know as well as anyone that 99.9% of railway staff, in all companies, grades and departments, do their best to do a good job each day and provide a safe and reliable service for passengers and for freight customers.

 

As Oldddudders says, many of the difficulties stem from the structure of our rail system: If I was asked 'how can we make the railways as difficult and complex to operate as possible ?', particularly on a day-to-day basis during disruption, I would come up with what we have now.

 

Control Centres don't, as you say, deal directly with platforms full of delayed passengers, but they do see the overall picture of the whole train service - For example, would putting additional stops on a train end up causing more delay to a greater number of passengers ? They also have orders from above to follow, one of which might well be not putting special stops on particular services.

 

Cheers

Matt (33 years 'in' and counting !)

[Oldddudders]

Control Centres don't, as you say, deal directly with platforms full of delayed passengers, but they do see the overall picture of the whole train service - For example, would putting additional stops on a train end up causing more delay to a greater number of passengers ? They also have orders from above to follow, one of which might well be not putting special stops on particular services.

My simple and vague understanding of the present arrangements suggests that special stops = delays = £ payable to others. Until that situation changes, I think the Control - where I spent the years 1968-73 learning a huge amount - is on a hiding to nothing.

[byron]

As an ex Controller in the so called "good old days" things were much easier to sort out. Every one worked for the same company, so in times of disruption you just grabbed the nearest available loco/driver/guard/etc. to sort the problem. Trains were run on a class basis - heaven help the PW department. In my patch there were two booked PW trips per day. They actually ran about once a week as resourses were moved up the line.

 

Mike

[The Stationmaster]

My simple and vague understanding of the present arrangements suggests that special stops = delays = £ payable to others. Until that situation changes, I think the Control - where I spent the years 1968-73 learning a huge amount - is on a hiding to nothing.

Very much so Ian. What with contractual stuff tying up so much of what was once 'straightforward front-line operating decisions' there isn't much space left to make decisions which might benefit a few folk who are suffering problems or even to regulate by headcode priority. Talking to some freight company folk recently they are on £33 per minute for delay to other operators (I didn't have the heart to tell him that back in the '90s my lot were on £100 per minute) but the daft thing about these sort of figures is that they are cobbled together by folk almost totally out of touch with the reality of timetabling, timekeeping and infrastructure limitations (witness recent comments about Tisbury Loop in another thread).

 

In my admittedly very limited dealings with NR I not only come across some - to me - strange ideas but more frequently personnel in important operating positions who don't appear to have even some of the most basic facts in their heads. That is not so much their fault as the fault of those who created their Job Descriptions and selected and appointed the occupants (and I do think 'fault' is exactly the right word). Again this stems, in part at least, from the dis-integrated railway and the now narrow opportunities to develop a rounded range of skills and knowledge, not helped by those who are still keen to get rid of 'old railway' experience. Privytisation has done some very good things but it has also created some big problems and removed from the industry a very large pool of knowledge and skills which are still relevant.

[John_Hughes]

Isn't the problem that so many organisations nowadays (not just the railways by any means) have largely eliminated the 'sergeants' - the people on the ground who knew exactly what was going on and how to deal with problems - and replaced them either with higher levels of management or with 'the computer says no' automated systems. Just look at what's happened to your friendly, sensible local bank manager...

 

On a more railway-related note, in the past there were certainly some pretty 'interesting' slips that were quietly squared-up, and I count one of the drivers involved in one as a personal friend. Whether the station master at the appropriate place ever knew about it is a moot point (I knew his son very well and I don't think he ever heard of it from his father) but the duty signalman was in it up to his neck!

[Oldddudders]

Isn't the problem that so many organisations nowadays (not just the railways by any means) have largely eliminated the 'sergeants' - the people on the ground who knew exactly what was going on and how to deal with problems - and replaced them either with higher levels of management or with 'the computer says no' automated systems. Just look at what's happened to your friendly, sensible local bank manager...

 

On a more railway-related note, in the past there were certainly some pretty 'interesting' slips that were quietly squared-up, and I count one of the drivers involved in one as a personal friend. Whether the station master at the appropriate place ever knew about it is a moot point (I knew his son very well and I don't think he ever heard of it from his father) but the duty signalman was in it up to his neck!

I think your reference to the Bank Manager is very apt. Each of the many companies now involved in running the railway has its own - the Finance Director, who is charged with huge responsibilities to the owners/shareholders, and has appropriate authority over the running of the company. He/she will have headcount as a key performance indicator, so reducing the permanent workforce is always seen as good news. Systems rather than people tick the box nicely, thanks.

 

Yes, covering up the errors and sins of daily railway life has always gone on. We are all grateful to avoid being in the stew. Arguably if there was no damage or injury that may sound ok - but what happens next time? Reporting of incidents and their thorough examination has led to much of the operating regime that makes British railways so safe. What nearly went wrong at A may happen big time at B, with loss of life etc, but if reported, suitable instructions to avoid it may be issued. I think it's called Corporate Learning.

[Fat Controller]

My old boss, who'd been at Central Division Control, used to use the expression 'I don't think I want to know how you did that' when confronted with instances of the rules being bent (sorry, 'interpreted according to the spirit, not the letter')

[The Stationmaster]

Isn't the problem that so many organisations nowadays (not just the railways by any means) have largely eliminated the 'sergeants' - the people on the ground who knew exactly what was going on and how to deal with problems - and replaced them either with higher levels of management or with 'the computer says no' automated systems. Just look at what's happened to your friendly, sensible local bank manager...

 

On a more railway-related note, in the past there were certainly some pretty 'interesting' slips that were quietly squared-up, and I count one of the drivers involved in one as a personal friend. Whether the station master at the appropriate place ever knew about it is a moot point (I knew his son very well and I don't think he ever heard of it from his father) but the duty signalman was in it up to his neck!

 

I think the big problem is very much as you identify it - the 'tick the box' mentality which has developed as much as anything to avoid being sued because it demonstrates 'it was checked'. Interestingly, talking to a former (post big railway) colleague over the weekend I was encouraged to learn that competency assessment theory - at least in some countries - is at last beginning to move forward from that rather basic idea and that 'judgement' is beginning to creep back in as a critical factor in achieving improved genuine levels of risk reduction. Whether that will ever spread into 'tick the box' obsessed Britain is another issue but I won through with just such approach, albeit in a small way but very safety critical indeed, a while back so there might be a chink of light at the end of the very long tunnel.

 

Another thing which shows up the lack of corporate confidence is the way they deal with disciplinary offences and where there are automatic punishments (sometimes severe) it demonstrates to me, and the really clued-up folks in safety consultancy, that there is not only the lack of corporate confidence but very often a lack of managerial skill and judgement - for all sorts of reasons.

 

As for cover-ups the best one I have ever heard of and am prepared to reveal occurred a long time ago in North Wales where after departing a single line crossing station the engine crew discovered they still had the token for the section in rear and not the one for the section they were actually in - at that time a proscribed 'instant dismissal' offence. They adopted a very simple answer - the token went in the firebox and vanished forever and the rest of the job was squared-up with the aid of the local S&T Lineman. Thus at least half a dozen folk involved but trusting enough of each other to 'deal with all the evidence'

[The Stationmaster]

My old boss, who'd been at Central Division Control, used to use the expression 'I don't think I want to know how you did that' when confronted with instances of the rules being bent (sorry, 'interpreted according to the spirit, not the letter')

 

Ah, but you had to know 'em to know how to bend them. I learnt long ago that there could be times when the mark of a sensible manager was either instant blindness or instant deafness (but myopia could be the mark of a bad one).

[coachmann]

I think it should be born in mind that the old railway regime had evolved over a hundred or so years. One Saturday dinnertime in 1960 my driver and I had almost completed a shift shunting between Oldham Mumps and Clegg Street when a chap came down from the signalbox and begged us to collect some urgently needed parcels vans from west of Manchester for Oldham Clegg Street Parcels depot. It rested on us whether we did it or not though who he had cleared it with, I don't know. The fact that our Lanky 3F was unfit for purpose didn't seem to matter.

[Oldddudders]

One of the first things I learnt from my boss in my first local management job was that when there's been an incident, and you've been called, assuming life and safety are now secure on site, roll a cigarette and think about what you are going to do. As a non-smoker the fag wasn't part of the deal for me - but the idea of having a think certainly appealed. One certainly saw the alternative approach - teararse management, running around like headless chickens or the oozalum bird. As my soldier Godson has been told - Proper Prior Planning Probably Prevents P**s-Poor Performance, and reacting to a situation is no different. I'd add that to the sort of judgement Stationmaster implies in the manager who knows when to look the other way.

[The Stationmaster]

One of the first things I learnt from my boss in my first local management job was that when there's been an incident, and you've been called, assuming life and safety are now secure on site, roll a cigarette and think about what you are going to do. As a non-smoker the fag wasn't part of the deal for me - but the idea of having a think certainly appealed.

Always very sound advice - the alternative is put the kettle on and have a cuppa before going to site or make sure someone makes one when you get there so you can stand back and drink & think. Thinking time is always important unless you have it all worked out in your head in advance or within an instant of arrival - and that is far from always being the case even if you've seen half a dozen similar incidents in the previous year; they're all different.