First TPE driver suffers suspected heart attack mid-journey

[Flywaver]

Is it not the case that the DSD means that a secondman is unnecessary? A secondman was basically a fireman who did all the jobs that a fireman did apart from tending the boiler? Now that we have multiple unit stock and generally fixed rakes of freight wagons (meaning no coupling up/shunting); electric train heating (meaning no tending to the steam heat boiler); signal post telephones/cab radio (meaning no walking miles to signalboxes); better AWS/TPWS (meaning that you don't need two people looking out for signals); etc, their job would be to make sure that the driver wasn't incapacitated for any reason, which isn't really much of a job...

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

I know times have changed and its all about £££s than safety.. Later on ill be doing continuous driving for 3 1/2 hours in the dark. It's still a good thing to have company..

 

[MattRobinson]

I agree that it would be nice to have a secondman - it's a good method of driver training and you can have a chat and some company - but the reasons above pretty much negate any reason to have them.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

 

[notadriver]

Some TOCs allow a driver travelling passenger to ride up front but as far as I know guards are not normally allowed in leading cabs. Any idea why this is ?

 

[ainsworth74]

Any idea why this is ?

As far as I'm aware it's to reduce distractions. Some TOCs got very twitchy about any sort of possible distraction to the driver (FGW went as far as refusing permission for cab ride videos to be made by offical companies). Though I think the policy actually started under BR.

 

[Crossover]

I'm led to belive most Japanese stock has windows in the bulkhead. The drivers supposedly have to point to acknowledge signals, and never know if management might be sat behind them watching.

I have heard about the acknowledging signals thing before - the idea is that by sayigng it aloud (or such like) it reinforces the signal aspect in the drivers mind, with the intention that incidents are less likely to occur

 

[GB]

I have heard about the acknowledging signals thing before - the idea is that by sayigng it aloud (or such like) it reinforces the signal aspect in the drivers mind, with the intention that incidents are less likely to occur

Its called "risk triggered commentary". Like you say the idea behind it is to keep the important information in the drivers short term memory. Our company has recently introduced it and drivers are mandatorily required to do it when on restrictive aspect.

 

[jopsuk]

presumably though there's no easy way to monitor whether or not drivers are doing it, especially in a freight loco? On Japanese passenger trains it is rather enforced by paranoia...

 

[GB]

No way to monitor it at present, could always add a mic to the black box tho!

 

[driver_m]

No way to monitor it at present, could always add a mic to the black box tho!

The cynic in me thinks that will be tried somewhere before too long.

 

[A-driver]

presumably though there's no easy way to monitor whether or not drivers are doing it, especially in a freight loco? On Japanese passenger trains it is rather enforced by paranoia...

It's not compulsory though, just recommended. I personally don't do it, not out loud anyway-find that more distracting. I don't really know anyone else who says they do it, though some may not admit it for whatever reason.

Some DMs like you to try it when they are in the cab with you but I havnt come across any yet who try to insist on it.

It's what ever works or you really and as long as you have a clean liscence then most DMs will be happy.

 

[ainsworth74]

The cynic in me thinks that will be tried somewhere before too long.

Well it's already common on commercial aircraft (might even be a requirement).

 

[GB]

The difference with aircraft though (as far as I can see), is for accident investigation purposes where communication can be a contributing or causing factor. That doesn't translate well to trains unless your on an engineering site or similar.

 

[notadriver]

The difference with aircraft though (as far as I can see), is for accident investigation purposes where communication can be a contributing or causing factor. That doesn't translate well to trains unless your on an engineering site or similar.

I've seen quite a few DVDs where poor communications is a contributing or causal factor in some incidents. i think the role of today's train driver is more like a pilot than a bus driver.

 

[GB]

I've seen quite a few DVDs where poor communications is a contributing or causal factor in some incidents. i think the role of today's train driver is more like a pilot than a bus driver.

Yes but those voice communications are already recorded, monitored and audited. There is no real reason to add a separate microphone and recording equipment in the cab.

 

[notadriver]

I'm not saying microphones should be fitted - only that communications are important just like on an aircraft.

 

[GB]

I'm not saying microphones should be fitted - only that communications are important just like on an aircraft.

I don't disagree.

 

[sbt]

Well it's already common on commercial aircraft (might even be a requirement).

Its a requirement. And its not just one mike, there are at least two 'Area' microphones and each of the crews headset mikes are also recorded. Recording is on a loop so only the last half hour or so is recorded, so its not that useful for 'compliance monitoring'.

Its usefulness in accident investigation is not just because of the words said. It picks up the sound of alarms that the Flight Recorder doesn't and things like flap levers being moved. It can even help with things like engine power settings, through analysing engine noise, if the Flight Recorder is damaged or not recovered - the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Recorder are separate items.

What modern trains have that aircraft don't is forward (and rearward) facing video cameras - they wouldn't be much use. However the idea of cockpit area videos recording is under discussion after a number of accidents where exactly what actions the pilots took remained uncertain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

presumably though there's no easy way to monitor whether or not drivers are doing it, especially in a freight loco? On Japanese passenger trains it is rather enforced by paranoia...

On some US lines the driver and guard are connected by radio and the driver has to call out the signal aspects which the guard has to acknowledge. I think they also have to call the location.

 

[Dieseldriver]

RTC is something I have tried and do not find useful at all (personally). I think forcing drivers to use it is wrong as people find different ways to cope with running under restrictive aspects and it should be down to choice.