Reading 61306 'Mayflower' Incident 13/6/15

[PHILIPE]

There seems to have been no rush to ban WCR this time so there may have been extenuating circumstances. We don't really know.

 

[Harlan Cage]

There seems to have been no rush to ban WCR this time so there may have been extenuating circumstances. We don't really know.

I think it was a case that a mistake was made and then the process to manage the issue was adhered to.

HC

 

[SPADTrap]

There seems to have been no rush to ban WCR this time so there may have been extenuating circumstances. We don't really know.

Not extenuating circumstances just an error which was dealt with appropriately, not much different to if it was any TOC.

 

[MCR247]

There seems to have been no rush to ban WCR this time so there may have been extenuating circumstances. We don't really know.

But from what other people have said there is no need for a ban so there doesn't need to be extenuating circumstances

EDIT: I see other people got here before me, should've refreshed the page

 

[E&W Lucas]

There seems to have been no rush to ban WCR this time so there may have been extenuating circumstances. We don't really know.

There was no "rush" to ban them last time; it was something that had been brewing for some considerable time.
There can be no extenuating circumstances, for a train moving without authorisation.

What immediately struck me, is that the crew seem to have been using hand held radios to receive the RA. I have never known this to be a recognised procedure, and I would be interested to see if this method is documented in WC's standards?
I should imagine that any investigation will also want to see the risk assessments and documented procedures for despatch from each station served by the operator.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Indeed, there was no rush to ban them. How long did it take for the suspension to come through from Network Rail after the incident? It was about a month afterwards?

This is a serious incident, and WCRC will be investigated again. What will need to be established is if this is simply driver error, or if there are still problems at a managerial level that impact on safety.

Now although the handheld radios are there, were they used for dispatch or simply to find out what had happened after the train had been stopped? It is not certain from the video because we only see it being used (in one of the train crew's hands) after the train has stopped.

 

[tsr]

WCRC staff use (or have previously used) handheld radios to dispatch the Jacobite steam service. I would therefore not be surprised to see this being done elsewhere.

In any case, whether or not radio use is in their safety case - or should be - the important thing here is probably for them to find out and then act on the reason why the train at Reading moved, with all issues weighted equally. The pros and cons of using handheld radios for dispatch might be best IMHO left to another thread, and it may be an interesting discussion at that.

 

[BestWestern]

A supposedly reliable version of events, I am told - Guard contacted the Driver using radio, and advised that dispatch would be undertaken using the RA. Driver mistook this communication for bring given Right Away, and started the train.

Would certainly make sense, though I must obviously state that I don't have evidence this is factual.

 

[ExRes]

A supposedly reliable version of events, I am told - Guard contacted the Driver using radio, and advised that dispatch would be undertaken using the RA. Driver mistook this communication for bring given Right Away, and started the train.

Would certainly make sense, though I must obviously state that I don't have evidence this is factual.

Well if that is true then the mind boggles as to the competence of both WCRC and the driver

The driver hears something on the radio, thinks it's giving him the RA, fails to repeat said message and moves the train, it really is frightening beyond belief if WCRC are operating in this cavalier manner

 

[gswindale]

From what I've read about WCRC; don't a number of of their drivers work for other operators as well?

If so; then it isn't just the "cavalier attitude of WCRC" that needs to be questioned; but that of any operator that employs the same drivers/crew?

 

[oddiesjack]

I was on a Cumbrian Coast LHCS service recently, and the train moved forward a few feet before stopping again at one of the stations. No crew members were relieved, and no fuss was made. After a "right away" from the guard, we just carried on.

 

[theblackwatch]

Indeed, there was no rush to ban them. How long did it take for the suspension to come through from Network Rail after the incident? It was about a month afterwards?

They were never banned due to an incident!

 

[455driver]

There seems to have been no rush to ban WCR this time so there may have been extenuating circumstances. We don't really know.

WCR followed the correct procedures this time so reason to ban them!

It wasn't the number of incidents that got them banned last time but the fact they didn't really seem to give a stuff about any of the incidents they were involved in and nobody was ultimately responsible!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From what I've read about WCRC; don't a number of of their drivers work for other operators as well?

If so; then it isn't just the "cavalier attitude of WCRC" that needs to be questioned; but that of any operator that employs the same drivers/crew?

So a company doesn't have the required level of management in place and its the fault of the ground troops!
How does that work exactly?
Or do you not actually understand why they were banned in the first place!

 

[gswindale]

So a company doesn't have the required level of management in place and its the fault of the ground troops!
How does that work exactly?
Or do you not actually understand why they were banned in the first place!

The ban is irrelevant in this context; as this could have been any train in service.

From the earlier post; it seems that there was miscommunication between the crew which resulted in the train moving before it should.

Once this was realised; it appears that the appropriate steps were taken.

Are you suggesting that what appears to be a simple misunderstanding between 2 "ground troops" is the fault of management?

If this had been a DB Schenker service for example, would you be banging on about their "cavalier attitude" or would it be a "mistakes happen - the crew are human"?

 

[E&W Lucas]

The ban is irrelevant in this context; as this could have been any train in service.

From the earlier post; it seems that there was miscommunication between the crew which resulted in the train moving before it should.

Once this was realised; it appears that the appropriate steps were taken.

Are you suggesting that what appears to be a simple misunderstanding between 2 "ground troops" is the fault of management?

If this had been a DB Schenker service for example, would you be banging on about their "cavalier attitude" or would it be a "mistakes happen - the crew are human"?

Please understand this -

Every other operator, has to have a risk assessment and detailed procedure in place, for despatching each type of train they operate, from every station that they operate from. We are wondering if such is in place here?

Furthermore, the use of radios to give the RA has been questioned. I drive a variety of loco hauled trains, for two operators, in a wide variety of circumstances. in none, is the use of a radio acceptable for this purpose, and I have never heard of them being used by any other company. The reason is obvious, given the possible outline of events given above, which is totally believable. A radio is not a robust enough system for train despatch. It's an RA signal or green flag, if there is no driver - guard buzzer available.

 

[gswindale]

Thank you.

That makes sense.

It is good to see somebody taking the time to explain things rather than just making statements as if everybody has exactly the same knowledge.

 

[adsteamfan]

Please understand this -

Every other operator, has to have a risk assessment and detailed procedure in place, for despatching each type of train they operate, from every station that they operate from. We are wondering if such is in place here?

Furthermore, the use of radios to give the RA has been questioned. I drive a variety of loco hauled trains, for two operators, in a wide variety of circumstances. in none, is the use of a radio acceptable for this purpose, and I have never heard of them being used by any other company. The reason is obvious, given the possible outline of events given above, which is totally believable. A radio is not a robust enough system for train despatch. It's an RA signal or green flag, if there is no driver - guard buzzer available.

I have heard that WCRC have revised their operating procedures to stop the use of radios to give RA instructions. I note that you have not mentioned DBS moving their train on the wrong RA with the doors open and not stopping and reporting the event to the signalman. That seems far more serious to me - at least West Coast followed protocol!!

 

[crispy1978]

I was on a Cumbrian Coast LHCS service recently, and the train moved forward a few feet before stopping again at one of the stations. No crew members were relieved, and no fuss was made. After a "right away" from the guard, we just carried on.

Reminds me of a similar situation on an ATW service at Harlech in 2011 I was on when the school kids all jumped on the train. We'd pulled away when a late running schoolboy came running on to the platform, the conductor stopped the train and allowed the youth to board.

Incidentally - this West Coast, they are the ones who run the Jacobite from Fort William aren't they? Hopefully nothing will ensue, as we're hoping to travel with them in September!

 

[E&W Lucas]

I have heard that WCRC have revised their operating procedures to stop the use of radios to give RA instructions. I note that you have not mentioned DBS moving their train on the wrong RA with the doors open and not stopping and reporting the event to the signalman. That seems far more serious to me - at least West Coast followed protocol!!

Yet another spotter that has totally failed to understand what went on with West Coast, and thinks that the Big Bad Railwaymen are picking on them.

WCR was suspended for failing to have adequate systems and procedures in place to ensure that its services were operated safely, and for failing to ensure that its crews were following said procedures correctly. Immediately, experienced railwaymen are looking at this incident, and seeing possible evidence of this still being the case.

There has never been any suggestion that DBS does not have adequate procedures and systems in place.

I agree that both of these incidents are similar, and on a different day, if a passenger had been dragged between the train and the platform, either driver could have found themselves on a manslaughter charge.

 

[Muzer]

Of course, not reporting an incident properly is not something that should happen. But it's not the reason WCRC were banned in the first place. It unfortunately does happen; I remember reading one or two RAIB reports within the past couple of years that mentioned that a long period of time had passed before it was reported, or that it was reported by a member of the public.

 

[Welshman]

Reminds me of a similar situation on an ATW service at Harlech in 2011 I was on when the school kids all jumped on the train. We'd pulled away when a late running schoolboy came running on to the platform, the conductor stopped the train and allowed the youth to board.

Not quite the same, though, as, presumably, the ATW conductor had originally secured the doors and given permission to start.

There was no danger in what s/he did, and I suppose there could have been accusations of neglecting the duty of care if a schoolchild was left on the platform for the next two hours.

 

[BestWestern]

Not quite the same, though, as, presumably, the ATW conductor had originally secured the doors and given permission to start.

There was no danger in what s/he did, and I suppose there could have been accusations of neglecting the duty of care if a schoolchild was left on the platform for the next two hours.

Absolutely. Stopping a Sprinter, Pacer, etc and opening a local door for whatever reason, whilst not an ideal turn of events, is perfectly harmless (though might cause paperwork if done in a certain way...). The issue with slam door stock and no interlock is the very significant risk of the train moving with doors open, which carries substantial risk of harm.

 

[adsteamfan]

Yet another spotter that has totally failed to understand what went on with West Coast, and thinks that the Big Bad Railwaymen are picking on them.

WCR was suspended for failing to have adequate systems and procedures in place to ensure that its services were operated safely, and for failing to ensure that its crews were following said procedures correctly. Immediately, experienced railwaymen are looking at this incident, and seeing possible evidence of this still being the case.

There has never been any suggestion that DBS does not have adequate procedures and systems in place.

I agree that both of these incidents are similar, and on a different day, if a passenger had been dragged between the train and the platform, either driver could have found themselves on a manslaughter charge.

I suggest that you re-read my statement.
I DID NOT MENTION anything about the ban. What I remarked upon is that YOU did not mention anything about the DBS incident whilst continually bashing WCRC. Nor did I imply any lack of procedures or systems just that I had heard that they didn't stop or get stopped and the driver was treated like a naughty schoolkid by the station manager as seen and heard on the video.
The doors on the WCRC train were all closed and the train was ready to depart.
Also, for your information, I am not a spotter. I am a mechanical engineer whose interest is in the mechanical aspects of the engines themselves and, as I work in the Nuclear sector I know, understand, practice and preach safety far more than you could probably imagine!!!

 

[Sacro]

The doors on the WCRC train were all closed and the train was ready to depart.

Really? From what I've heard from a primary source the guard wasn't on the train and the doors weren't all closed. This doesn't sound like the train was 'ready to depart'.

 

[wensley]

Really? From what I've heard from a primary source the guard wasn't on the train and the doors weren't all closed. This doesn't sound like the train was 'ready to depart'.

The train clearly wasn't ready to depart, it hadn't been given the RA!

 

[w0033944]

I can but presume from the comments of several professional railwaymen on this forum that the general view is that WCR are "undesirables" who need to be removed forthwith. Dare I suggest that this might be underlain by a more general disdain for/dislike of "kettles" and anything that might be termed "heritage"? Add in the sarcastic comment aimed at a steam enthusiast (essentially implying that all who have an interest in steam are ignorant and shouldn't question their forum betters), and I get a distinct undertone of "RailUK should be a rail industry-only forum - the great unwashed laity are not welcome here".

More specifically, in reply to E&W Lucas; are you claiming that the severity or potential dangers presented by an incident are neither here nor there; the procedures and paperwork being the only determining factor in whether the TOC should be given a pass or hounded from the network? Had the DBS incident occurred in a set of circumstances which caused the death of a passenger, should that persons' family have said "Oh well, at least, after Dave was killed, DBS followed procedure and had their paperwork up to date"? Surely the incident itself must count for at 50% of the assessment?

 

[Muzer]

I can but presume from the comments of several professional railwaymen on this forum that the general view is that WCR are "undesirables" who need to be removed forthwith. Dare I suggest that this might be underlain by a more general disdain for/dislike of "kettles" and anything that might be termed "heritage"? Add in the sarcastic comment aimed at a steam enthusiast (essentially implying that all who have an interest in steam are ignorant and shouldn't question their forum betters), and I get a distinct undertone of "RailUK should be a rail industry-only forum - the great unwashed laity are not welcome here".

More specifically, in reply to E&W Lucas; are you claiming that the severity or potential dangers presented by an incident are neither here nor there; the procedures and paperwork being the only determining factor in whether the TOC should be given a pass or hounded from the network? Had the DBS incident occurred in a set of circumstances which caused the death of a passenger, should that persons' family have said "Oh well, at least, after Dave was killed, DBS followed procedure and had their paperwork up to date"? Surely the incident itself must count for at 50% of the assessment?

In short, I think he is, and I agree. Having an incident through a string of unfortunate human errors is one thing. Having an incident caused by a completely inappropriate and lax safety culture (as the Wootton Basset SPAD was) is quite another.

The ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES of the accident, IMHO, should be completely irrelevant — if luck had fallen differently, many accidents would have many more or fewer fatalities. The potential consequences should be considered, as well as whether and how it could easily have been prevented, whether it was actively caused by disregarding of safety rules, etc.

 

[IanXC]

I am reliably informed that DRS use radio dispatch communication between Driver and Guard on the Cumbrian Coast loco hauled services, due to the very restricted clearances in parts of the route making other methods impractical.

 

[gswindale]

In short, I think he is, and I agree. Having an incident through a string of unfortunate human errors is one thing. Having an incident caused by a completely inappropriate and lax safety culture (as the Wootton Basset SPAD was) is quite another.

And there is the crux of this particular issue.

After the Wootton Basset SPAD; their operating licence was suspended due to the lax safety case.
If Network Rail were not satisfied that their safety case had been appropriately revised then they would not have been allowed back on the network.

Therefore it appears to me that this was a case of God old fashioned human error just like the DB Schenker incident; as I see no reason to believe that WCRC's safety case was in any way lacking at this point in time based on the facts available to me as a member of the "great unwashed" who can only go on what info I gain off sites such as this.

May I point out that it gained about as much press coverage as the "bus driver held us hostage" story being discussed elsewhere on this site (as far as my searching found!)

 

[w0033944]

In short, I think he is, and I agree. Having an incident through a string of unfortunate human errors is one thing. Having an incident caused by a completely inappropriate and lax safety culture (as the Wootton Basset SPAD was) is quite another.

The ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES of the accident, IMHO, should be completely irrelevant — if luck had fallen differently, many accidents would have many more or fewer fatalities. The potential consequences should be considered, as well as whether and how it could easily have been prevented, whether it was actively caused by disregarding of safety rules, etc.

My fault, I suspect, as I phrased that post badly. My reference to fatalities was a secondary point; my argument was that it appears from some comments that the DBS incident was of a more severe and serious nature than the Reading one, yet Lucas' opinion seemed to be that, as he perceived DBS to be better-managed, their incident was of less significance than that of WCR, to the point where he could claim that DBS ought not censured but WCR should be banned permanently. Can I presume that we all agree that those outcomes are rather different?

If we can agree on that point, what justification is there for treating the two companies differently, and what level of importance is placed upon the actual incident (as opposed to management procedures in an office miles from the scene) in determining those differing treatments? From reading his posts, I can only conclude that his responses would be that the actual incident itself is irrelevant, and that his justification for the differential response is solely based upon past performance, management structure and an undefined, nebulous assessment of "professionalism". In any safety-critical organisation, these criteria seem rather weak and unbalanced, given that the severity of the actual incident is swept under the carpet - a state of affairs which I cannot imagine the head of H&S in the University laboratories in which I spent a year researching for a Masters accepting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And there is the crux of this particular issue.

After the Wootton Basset SPAD; their operating licence was suspended due to the lax safety case.
If Network Rail were not satisfied that their safety case had been appropriately revised then they would not have been allowed back on the network.

Therefore it appears to me that this was a case of God old fashioned human error just like the DB Schenker incident; as I see no reason to believe that WCRC's safety case was in any way lacking at this point in time based on the facts available to me as a member of the "great unwashed" who can only go on what info I gain off sites such as this.

May I point out that it gained about as much press coverage as the "bus driver held us hostage" story being discussed elsewhere on this site (as far as my searching found!)

Thanks for putting your case so eloquently - that's the point I was attempting (but failing) to make! If we assume that NR acted correctly when they reversed the WCR ban, we must logically conclude that the Reading incident was unconnected with the previous SPAD in terms of management oversight, procedures etc. Why, then, should these two recent incidents be treated so differently?