What Happens After SPADs?

[Steve-e]

Rules differ (slightly) from country to country, but in general:

• the driver is send ASAP for psychological assessment, for re-evaluation of his mental state. This too is a legal document, to be used in Court if need be.
• depending on the results of this test, the driver can be re-instated, put on light duty for a re-assessment later or disqualified completely. These tests are usually valid for 5 years, unless indicated otherwise by the psychologist.
•  

That's interesting about the psychological assessments, it did cross my mind after the recent air crash in France but I never knew it was taken seriously on the Railways.

 

Cheers

[peanuts]

This is why it is important to be carefull what over the counter medicens you take - anything with codine in it for example could mean you fail the test for cocaine - and a lot of hay fever treatments end up being out of bounds thanks to their ingredients

 

nightnurse and daynurse a bad for this also when you have been off sick and taking medication you have to inform your roster clerk what you were taking the dosage and when you last took it they then check if you can resume or have to wait for it to clear your system 

[Gilloverland]

I had a signal 'go back' on me from green to yellow between getting the bell and passing the signal last week that had i not noticed it i would have sighted the red at about 50mph so no doubt sailed past that too which again would have been a cat B (spar), with that one i stopped outside the box and spoke to the signalman direct who said his panel was showing all green proceed aspects, again i had to go at caution and in fact the next signal was at danger, had i passed that one without authority then that would have been a cat A spad as it would have been my fault!

 

Did it have an LED head on it by any chance?

[phil-b259]

Did it have an LED head on it by any chance?

Why would that make a difference?

 

Mind you we have had quite a lot of trouble with the LED 'light engines' which have been fitted to replace the SL35 (normal signal lamp) lamps in signal heads. After about 2 years use the bit that keeps the lamp proving circuit working has a tendency to randomly fail putting the signal in rear back to red because the signalling system thinks the 'light engine' fitted signal is blank

[PaulRhB]

, tpws wasn't fitted to the signal i passed which i found a bit strancge as it protected a level crossing, so it was up to me to bring the train to a stop

 

 

Because the crossing doesn't pose a risk of collision with trains which is the standard for TPWS installs. There are crash treadles to put the lights on red and drop the barriers and these were standard before TPWS. We thought it was fitted at first as all ours are but it's for the groundframes not the crossings even though some of the GF's are long out of use it's there in the locking.

[Ray H]

I agree that anyone found guilty of malicious acts that cause or are likely to cause accidents no matter how severe should be subject to due judicial process.

 

However, my understanding of investigations into incidents is that they are designed to ascertain what when wrong and how it went wrong so that the necessary steps could be taken to minimise the risk of them happening again. That's primarily how most safety features have been introduced onto the rail network.

 

What doesn't help is for the threat - real or otherwise - of any kind of action being taken against those involved in the incident for they are then less likely to be as open as they might otherwise be about their part in the incident.

 

I'm horrified to think that drivers can be summarily dismissed for passing a signal at danger when as a result of doing so the incident cannot be fully investigated to minimise repetition.

 

We are all human and run the risk of misjudgement from time to time. Unless it is malicious (or unusually repetitive) it should be recognised as such and treated for what it is, an unintentional incident otherwise there is a real risk that something far more serious will not be able to be investigated fully because something that was seen as a seemingly irrelevant piece of information by an "accused" person actually turns out to be a vital and key factor in the greater scheme of things.

 

The railways of forty years or so ago may have been guilty of many failings. The one thing they weren't guilty of as far as I recall was taking action that might jeopardise the establishment of even the smallest fact that might contribute to a safer railway.

[Gilloverland]

Mind you we have had quite a lot of trouble with the LED 'light engines' which have been fitted to replace the SL35 (normal signal lamp) lamps in signal heads. After about 2 years use the bit that keeps the lamp proving circuit working has a tendency to randomly fail putting the signal in rear back to red because the signalling system thinks the 'light engine' fitted signal is blank

 

Your spot on there but the bit about 2 years - 2 weeks more like!

[PaulRhB]

Having a SPAD due to a lapse or error isn't an automatic punishment but they will be monitored, trying to hide it is gross misconduct and also what prevents learning from it. I know a few who've had a SPAD held up their hands to it and one actually said it kicked the cavalier bit out of him and made him a better driver, now a Instructor.

Incidents can be a nasty way to learn but certainly don't need to be career ending.

[kenw]

dont know if this is pertinent to the discusion but you also have "technical spads " where a train takes a wrong route  even tho the signals are cleared for the route concerned as the driver should stop and query the incorrect route at the signal and can lead to large amounts of delay 

 

No, that's still a spad, unless the speed of the junction means you don't see any indication* of route until it's too late to stop (eg Colton Jn, 125 either way).

* This includes for example, flashing yellow aspects when you don't want the diverging route, or greens when you should be getting checked for an approach controlled junction. The junction signals regarded as being at stop for your route, as would actually be the case with semaphores.

 

The term Technical Spad refers to a technical fault being the cause, usually a fault occurring that reverts a signal to danger when the trains unable to stop.

[big jim]

Did it have an LED head on it by any chance?

Funnily enough yes, well the one that went back in front of me didnt but the one that failed was an led, and it was a cold morning!

 

Infact the fact it was an LED head was mentioned Immediatly asa probable cause of the problem

[kenw]

There's also a Category (C ) , though also since re-named, that referred to a signal deliberately replaced on you when unable to stop.

 

I'd such an incident last year south of Newark, when the crossing keeper for a CCTV monitored crossing saw on his screen two youths leaning over the barrier waving their jackets about*, and put the signal back.

It turned out they'd been trying to get two donkeys that had strayed off the line.

Unfortunately too late for both the signal - I ended up almost at the next one, and the donkeys.

 

* Would the new radar / laser systems have 'seen' this? the donkeys weren't on the actual crossing

 

In any event, the immediate action's a full emergency brake application, bringing the train to a stand, contact the signaler, and no further movement till authorised. 

[phil-b259]

I'm horrified to think that drivers can be summarily dismissed for passing a signal at danger when as a result of doing so the incident cannot be fully investigated to minimise repetition.

You are missing the point. The only time a driver will face immediate dismissal after a SPAD which was not caused by a technical failure or a deliberate act by the signaller in an emergency, is if THEY FAIL TO FOLLOW PROCEDURES (which basically means stop and report it before getting permission to proceed). Due to the way systems like TPWS deliberately overriding the system is not a straightforward procedure and as such any driver doing so I'd making a conscious decision to ignore all their training and driving standards they have ever been taught. As such they deserve what they get.

 

If a driver does have a non technical SPAD then complies with the rules and procedures then they have noing to fear.

 

Of course you also need to remember that train drivers operate under a penalty points system similar to motorists (without the fines element). If a driver makes too many mistakes and accrues too many over their recent career (points do eventually lapse - just like those on your car licence) then it is entirely possible that they may be dismissed after a SPAD if said SPAD causes them to exceed the maximum number of points allowed

 

The message is quite simple - play by the rules and I couldn't care less what used to go on in the old days - the rules relating to SPADs are there for a reason and if a driver has trouble understanding them they shouldn't be driving trains.

[keefer]

Rules differ (slightly) from country to country, but in general:

• • the guard has a conversation with a manager, but even if he (she!) directly caused the SPAD by signalling the driver to depart against a red signal, they usually get off with a verbal warning (unless said manager believes the guard needs retraining, depending on what's come out in the discussion)

 

This has cropped up over the years in accident reports (e.g. Bellgrove) - the 'ding-ding and away' from the guard being taken by the driver to mean 'start the train'.

I don't know if the rules have changed, but the finding was that the 'right away' from the guard should only be taken to mean that the train is ready to depart i.e. platform duties are complete, doors closed etc.

It was still the driver's responsibility to ensure that any relevant signals were clear before moving off

[jjb1970]

One of the most stressful things I've ever done at work was to dismiss a guy on capability grounds. I'm guessing most here know what a capability procedure is but for those who do not it is a procedure where if people are unable to do their job it can lead to dismissal. This is often conflated with disciplinary procedures however they are completely different (although admittedly when the final sanction is the same it is a moot point to those on the receiving end). I did a few disciplinary procedures and although it gave me no pleasure I also didn't feel anything like as stressed given the nature of the reasons for those proceedings. However, when you have a decent, hard working guy (who I also liked a lot) in front of you on capability it is horrible but equally in a safety critical industry you cannot be blind to persistent mistakes and if re-training has not worked there has to be an end point. I think the key is persistent and a failure to improve after retraining, I would not expect anybody to be dismissed for one or two mistakes unless there was a case of gross negligence, misconduct or a wilful refusal to follow procedures.

[beast66606]

This has cropped up over the years in accident reports (e.g. Bellgrove) - the 'ding-ding and away' from the guard being taken by the driver to mean 'start the train'.

I don't know if the rules have changed, but the finding was that the 'right away' from the guard should only be taken to mean that the train is ready to depart i.e. platform duties are complete, doors closed etc.

It was still the driver's responsibility to ensure that any relevant signals were clear before moving off

 

A lot of platforms have DRA reminder notices on them - certainly down 'ere in Norfolk

[phil-b259]

Nope. I did everything by the rules (except of course stopping in time for the red signal) but got sacked anyway. In fact, and I'm stepping outside my legal limits here, the safety advisor stated in the interview he held with me that in his opinion I was misinformed by the time table I had been given: the speed indication on it was higher then the time table itself, i.e. I was too early (t-t was laid out for 80, speed indication was 120, so I did 120, which was allowed by both train and line speeds) and therefore, in his opinion, not a dismissable offence. Events in my shift leading up to that last run where also quite incomprehensible, given the continued drive by the railway for "more efficiency" in driver shifts. In all, several people made mistakes, but I'm the only one who lost his job over this incident. I am stepping out of the legal limits here, as I have the impression some seem to imply that losing my job was justified. Hope I'm wrong on that tho

 

I cannot comment on the procedures of non NR railways, and based on the above it sounds like there were mitigating factors in your case which may not have been effectively considered during the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process.

 

However the point still stands - Safety systems like TPWS / AWS are not optional on Network Rail. As a driver you have a responsibility to follow laid down procedures and REPORT* if they have been forced to come to a stand due to a by the TPWS/ AWS systems regardless of whether it was your own fault or not. Failing to follow such a fundamental rule - which is basically lying / being downright dishonest - definitely deserves dismissal in my book.

 

*(Please note that stating an event has occurred is not the same thing as admitting that you are personally responsible - that is what the subsequent investigation will look into).

 

IF however you, as a driver do report a TPWS activation when it happens and don't try and hide the fact an 'intervention' has occurred then immediate dismissal is totally inappropriate and a proper investigation should be undertaken without prejudice to the outcome. It may be that no action is recommended due to the specific circumstances of the case, or that merely a rebriefing is needed. More worrying cases (from the railway industrys point of view) may well requires more in depth training / mentorship to improve the drivers standards  - and ultimately if you as a driver have accumulated enough 'points' on your railway licence then dismissal may well result - just as accruing to many 'points' on your motoring licence means a ban from driving motor vehicles.

 

As a parallel to this NR have certain 'lifesaving rules' ALL their staff must observe. However if a breach occurs the immediate reaction is not to discipline the staff member - it is to establish whether breaking the rule was deliberate and in bad faith. If the decision basically is along the lines of 'the person concerned didn't deliberately set out to break the rules then the person should be given appropriate training PLUS the circumstances of the situation must be checked to see if the company is at fault for inviting the person to break the rule by virtue of factors such as time or management pressure. If the investigation shows that the person routinely breaks the rule even after they have had retraining etc then disciplinary procedures - including sacking the person - will certainly be considered

[PhilH]

In passing, and looking up stats as a result of reading this thread, I must admit to a feeling of surprise, in this age of gizmos and gadgets, at the number of spads still occuring on the network, especially Cat A.

 

There doesn't seem to be much improvement happening year on year either...is this just a result of trying to speed everything up?

[PaulRhB]

There's less serious Cat A's due to TPWS etc as they usually stop short of any conflict. The other part is human nature, distraction for personal reasons, such as issues at home, or from the immediate environment which inevitably happen. A family member seriously ill or as last night at work a well liked colleague suddenly passing away distracts us unavoidably.

People with problems, such as in the family, that might distract can and do get time off track as part of the welfare process as it's recognised it increases risk of distraction.

[big jim]

The other part is human nature, distraction for personal reasons, such as issues at home, or from the immediate environment which inevitably happen. A family member seriously ill or as last night at work a well liked colleague suddenly passing away distracts us unavoidably.

People with problems, such as in the family, that might distract can and do get time off track as part of the welfare process as it's recognised it increases risk of distraction.

I had that early in my career, after my eldest was born i wasnt getting any sleep and was not fit to drive, the first thing i did whe i booked on a particular morning was inform the booking on point i was unfit for duty, the guy behind the glass basically forced me to work 'as there was no one spare', i didnt have an incident but between trains i went for a sleep in my car and woke up 15 mins after i should have departed, when i arrived at the train the depot manager was there about to repremand me however when he saw me and inexplained i'd told the BOP i was unfit for duty he covered my work and taxi'd me home where i slept for 17 hours!!

 

The company then arranged for both myself and my wife to have 'councilling' with an outside orginisation which really helped with the situation

 

Had i not gone in that morning and told them when i booked on i was having problems i would have been in a different situation!

[big jim]

This has cropped up over the years in accident reports (e.g. Bellgrove) - the 'ding-ding and away' from the guard being taken by the driver to mean 'start the train'.

I don't know if the rules have changed, but the finding was that the 'right away' from the guard should only be taken to mean that the train is ready to depart i.e. platform duties are complete, doors closed etc.

It was still the driver's responsibility to ensure that any relevant signals were clear before moving off

The guard shouldnt give a right of way against a red signal, its part of their duties as well to check the signal is clear prior to departure, if they cant see the signal there will probably be an OFF indicator somewhere on the platform, the likes of marylebone which is DOO have CD (close doors) and RA (right away) indicators which are linked to the signals so its not possible for the dispatch staff to give you right away against a red signal

 

There were some 'old hand' guards when i worked at first north western that would give you '6 buzzes' at navigation road when heading towards stockport to draw forward to the next signal as it was visible from the platform but not on the end of it (about 300m away) it was normally at red as it protected a level crossing and would only be pulled off by the signaller once you had departed the station

 

Passenger units (and 67s) have DRAs (drivers reminder devices) in the cab, if the signal is red you press it which will prevent you taking power, it wont put the brakes on so you will be able to roll but you cant power up which SHOULD help stop a spad such as if the guard gives you the buzz buzz against a red but as stated human nature, error, fatigue, boredom, familiarity may make a driver simply switch it off regardless and go

 

The rules over its use have changed over the years, and there are other times when you use it as well as in platforms with a red signal but originally it couldnt be used on the move but that was relaxed so you could set it approaching a red out on the mainline but then an argument started that overuse could result in the system becoming less effective as drivers used it 'like sheep' as it were!

 

As an aside the only unit ive driven which will stop when you push the dra ware 165s as originally the dra was linked to the emergency stop button, they have been modified now though with a separate switch

[Rivercider]

This has cropped up over the years in accident reports (e.g. Bellgrove) - the 'ding-ding and away' from the guard being taken by the driver to mean 'start the train'.

I don't know if the rules have changed, but the finding was that the 'right away' from the guard should only be taken to mean that the train is ready to depart i.e. platform duties are complete, doors closed etc.

It was still the driver's responsibility to ensure that any relevant signals were clear before moving off

I am not sure of the exact criteria, but when travelling on trains I have noticed a different procedure at certain stations.

Where stations are sited near signals the guard gives six buzzes ( instead of two) when ready to depart, which is acknowledged by the driver.

 

cheers

[big jim]

I am not sure of the exact criteria, but when travelling on trains I have noticed a different procedure at certain stations.

Where stations are sited near signals the guard gives six buzzes ( instead of two) when ready to depart, which is acknowledged by the driver.

 

cheers

Funnily enough ive just edited my previous post on the last page to include an example where that used to happen to me!

[The Stationmaster]

Did it have an LED head on it by any chance?

Interesting that - I actually saw one 'bob' last week when returning from green to red, almost like a searchlight signal going back through the range of colours.  First time I've ever seen that happen.

[Rugd1022]

In passing, and looking up stats as a result of reading this thread, I must admit to a feeling of surprise, in this age of gizmos and gadgets, at the number of spads still occuring on the network, especially Cat A.

 

There doesn't seem to be much improvement happening year on year either...is this just a result of trying to speed everything up?

 

Unfortunately there have been a number of SPADS in recent months involving graguate drivers, since Christmas I've been hearing of several happening on some of the routes that I sign. I'm certainly not casting aspurtions on graduates in general but it is a very worrying trend and appears to involve trainees who have come onto the railway 'off the street', straight into the driving grade. It's more than just mess room talk too.

[The Stationmaster]

You are missing the point. The only time a driver will face immediate dismissal after a SPAD which was not caused by a technical failure or a deliberate act by the signaller in an emergency, is if THEY FAIL TO FOLLOW PROCEDURES (which basically means stop and report it before getting permission to proceed). Due to the way systems like TPWS deliberately overriding the system is not a straightforward procedure and as such any driver doing so I'd making a conscious decision to ignore all their training and driving standards they have ever been taught. As such they deserve what they get.

 

If a driver does have a non technical SPAD then complies with the rules and procedures then they have noing to fear.

 

Of course you also need to remember that train drivers operate under a penalty points system similar to motorists (without the fines element). If a driver makes too many mistakes and accrues too many over their recent career (points do eventually lapse - just like those on your car licence) then it is entirely possible that they may be dismissed after a SPAD if said SPAD causes them to exceed the maximum number of points allowed

 

The message is quite simple - play by the rules and I couldn't care less what used to go on in the old days - the rules relating to SPADs are there for a reason and if a driver has trouble understanding them they shouldn't be driving trains.

Alas not entirely so Phil.  One TOC which had a rather poor SPAD record decided the way to improve it was to immediately dismiss any Driver who had a SPAD - and made sure its Drivers understood that 'penalty'.

 

I don't think Drivers necessarily go an a 'penalty points' system - if they err the usual approach is to put them on monitoring and, in effect, keep a close eye on them while endeavouring to identify and resolve any problems they might have.  Some locations on BR used to adopt a sort of 'penalty points' system with disciplinary punishments believing in starting at the lowest (Verbal Caution) and building up to the highest (Dismissal) which in reality wasn't very bright as it took little account of the misdemeanour.

 

And here's a good question which is one that might sometimes have to be faced.  Driver A SPADs at a signal and stops about 200 yards in advance of it on pointwork; Driver B SPADs at a signal and 200 yards in advance of it his train comes into collision with another train injuring several passengers.  The circumstances of the two SPADs are as near as is possible identical as far as the Drivers' action/inaction are concerned and both have clean records and decent reputations.  In both cases the men will be dealt with in the Disciplinary Procedure after the facts have been clearly established, and there are no mitigating circumstances in either case - do they then receive the same level of punishment or do they receive different levels of punishment and any subsequent monitoring etc?