Jump to content
 

The human side of the railway...


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Not such a happy posting as we're used to in this thread, but a sobering reminder of the important safety role that front line rail staff still have, despite a greater tendency now I feel for some people to think that "trains drive themselves now" and so on:

 

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/11/10-jail-sentence-for-driver-who.html

Rather an unpleasant development in my view - it is the job of railway managers to run teh industry and manage their workforce, not the job of some interfering p*llock from outside the industry who is trying to justify their existence.

 

The Driver was suspended and taken off driving duties - a right, proper, and proportionate punishment for what he did in my view although I say that with no knowledge of his record.  Accordingly he has been dealt with in the proper (I trust) disciplinary procedure - so why on earth should he be punished twice for the same thing?  Was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol - there is proper legal process to deal with that but if he was why does the report not say so.

 

Sorry but I think this sort of 'legal action' tarnishes the integrity of both the railway industry and that of the not so Civil Servant who initiated it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Rather an unpleasant development in my view - it is the job of railway managers to run teh industry and manage their workforce, not the job of some interfering p*llock from outside the industry who is trying to justify their existence.

 

The Driver was suspended and taken off driving duties - a right, proper, and proportionate punishment for what he did in my view although I say that with no knowledge of his record.  Accordingly he has been dealt with in the proper (I trust) disciplinary procedure - so why on earth should he be punished twice for the same thing?  Was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol - there is proper legal process to deal with that but if he was why does the report not say so.

 

Sorry but I think this sort of 'legal action' tarnishes the integrity of both the railway industry and that of the not so Civil Servant who initiated it.

 

I had several instances where staff under my control did things they shouldn't have. Twice BTP were involved but as I took appropriate disciplinary action immediately, much quicker than they could act, they did not instigate any further action. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again without knowing all the facts, perhaps the view taken was that the person concerned had acted so negligently and put his or other train passengers and staff at risk of serious harm or death that a prosecution was the appropriate way forward. Presumably the incident following an internal investigation was deemed to be so serious that the case was referred to the ORR. This doesn't seem to be the case of an error of judgement or a simple mistake which could have been dealt with by internal discipline but a complete disregard for the necessary safety procedures. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Again without knowing all the facts, perhaps the view taken was that the person concerned had acted so negligently and put his or other train passengers and staff at risk of serious harm or death that a prosecution was the appropriate way forward. Presumably the incident following an internal investigation was deemed to be so serious that the case was referred to the ORR. This doesn't seem to be the case of an error of judgement or a simple mistake which could have been dealt with by internal discipline but a complete disregard for the necessary safety procedures. 

A SPAD with potentially serious consequences is a reportable incident - it is then up to ORR to consider what has taken place and what has been done in consequence of the incident.  There is nothing in the procedure which effectively compels them to prosecute unless the Duty Holder has failed to take action.  According to the report linked earlier in this thread the Duty Holder very obviously had taken relevant and appropriate action in respect of a SPAD which was clearly one of blatant disregard - including suspension and taking the Driver off driving duties> I don't think you can get anymore 'relevant' than that, the man ceased to be permitted to drive a train (and might even have been dismissed although we don't know that).

 

In other words he had received both appropriate punishment and action which removed him from the position where he could make a similarly flagrant breach of the Rules in the future - that, effectively was all that was needed because he's out of the driving cab and has also probably been 'fined' through loss of earnings/income.  Any disciplinary outcome would have been based on the seriousness of his offence and nowadays I can't see any railway manager allowing something this serious to pass without a severe punishment within the disciplinary procedure.  In fact, and procedurally, if his employing train operator had failed to do so it would be them, and not the Driver, who would quite legitimately facing prosecution  - for their failure as the Duty Holder.  

 

So quite what a court prosecution adds to the Driver's punishment I really don't know - unless there is far more to the case than has been reported

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive started a new hobby of train driver spotting, basically ive got to catch a photo similar to this one of all of our depots drivers. They have to be in the cab and Ive got about half a dozen so far, I don't really want to post them on the net so this one of me will have to do.

attachicon.gifimage.jpg

Out of interest, when did you take that, Michael? The loco was at Frethun when I went to work last night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather an unpleasant development in my view - it is the job of railway managers to run teh industry and manage their workforce, not the job of some interfering p*llock from outside the industry who is trying to justify their existence.

 

The Driver was suspended and taken off driving duties - a right, proper, and proportionate punishment for what he did in my view although I say that with no knowledge of his record.  Accordingly he has been dealt with in the proper (I trust) disciplinary procedure - so why on earth should he be punished twice for the same thing?  Was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol - there is proper legal process to deal with that but if he was why does the report not say so.

 

Sorry but I think this sort of 'legal action' tarnishes the integrity of both the railway industry and that of the not so Civil Servant who initiated it.

 

In the marine and aviation industries the involvement of "the law" in similar circumstances has been routine for many years now, so no great surprise to see that another form of transport has caught up. Indeed some companies make a point of routinely informing the appropriate DFT department whenever they dismiss an employee for any incident involving professional conduct, which is a bit off considering the burden of proof and evidence for an internal disciplinary offence is rather different to that required by English law for criminal negligence or an OHS offence. However that's the somewhat vicious world we work in today.

Edited by Bon Accord
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...