Would you always follow rules and procedure?

[ComUtoR]

A fascinating discussion!

Indeed it is.

We sit in learning and development days discussing incidents and try to learn from what happened. It's never clear and never black and white. Too much strict adherence to rules can lead to an incident, just as much as breaking or indeed bending them can. What happens over time is that the rules get changed. Same with the plethora of procedures that we all have to adhere to. They evolve over time. The railway is a nightmare for acting in a reactive way and the rule book is infamously born out of incident and mistakes. We are not very proactive and that strict adherence to the rule book and policies just adds to the glacial movement of change on the railway. I think we are moving into an era where there is more challenging of the status quo and much more acceptance when things just go wrong or mistakes happen.

I don't understand why you wouldn't be allowed to trip MCBs? I can understand them not wanting you to go off and start fault-finding on your own. If Maintenance Control authorise you (or indeed instruct you) to go and trip a particular MCB to try and resolve the fault, then surely that is all the permission that you need? I'd draw the line at Control "authorising" me to do something that the Rule Book (or TOC-specific appendices, yuk) or Sectional Appendix expressly prohibits.

It's all down to money; well mostly money. Fault finding takes time and historically Drivers and other staff tend to get too caught up in a problem and forget that the clock is ticking. We all know the phrase 'headless chicken mode' or 'cut and run'. There is an issue where so much has been removed from our role over time that we lean towards a cut and run policy to save time and money. It also comes down to training. The more modern approach to traiing is to teach less and less and be more dependent on control to instruct you. There is also a history of er... [redacted] because [redacted] and [redacted]. Look at the Wooton Basset incident and you can see where I am coming from. It is much easier to have a policy to not isolate or trip anything. Also think about 'Rest and Go incidents (almost completely wiped out now)

If Control authorises it, why not? My traction training tells me what these isolating cocks are for and the consequences of operating one. I recall prepping one to find that the horn didn't work at all, and further investigation quickly revealed that it had been isolated during repairs and - in error - not reinstated. At the most, a quick phone call to make sure that there wasn't another reason for it being left isolated, then get on with it?

In essence I would agree with you and there is a large degree of that. BUT. Control do not have rules training or even traction training and as expected then can and do 'authorize' you to do something that is way, way outside the rule book. I think what we are all discovering is that I do what my training specifies and do what the rule book allows. Ultimately you are in charge of the train and you are responsible. An example of this is the Peckham Rye incident where control authorized an evacuation onto a live running line. Granted there were other factors but it highlights that the last line of defense is the Driver.

Where is the stop mark relative to the points? (...)

​

Social media policy and all that :/ However, I will reiterate. Sometimes mistakes happen.

It's getting more interesting now! What if the train's about to be taken out of service to go for stabling? On the other hand, what if you release the local door briefly and the passenger manages to fall out, perhaps being caught off balance by their coat suddenly being freed? Maybe it's one for Control to make a decision on. Taking a line blockage on the adjacent line first might be a sensible precaution though!

Ahh the what if game Again, I can reiterate that it is often the person on the ground who has to make that final decision. Examine the situation, assess the risks, is there any explicit rule against, is the procedure or policy applicable, do you have local knowledge, traction knowledge etc.. Then make a decision.

 

[ComUtoR]

If Control authorises it, why not?

This and the point it linked to is interesting. I have done exactly as you have stated on many occasions. A quick bell to fleet and your happy. BUT taking this thread and its poll. There are those who are very much black and white. If the rule states you must not X and control/fleet/maintenance ask you to do it then you should turn around and state that it is not allowed. I cannot fault those who will outright refuse to carry out such an action. 29 people currently state they will ALWAYS follow the rules.

Nobody should ask you to break the rules. Knowingly breaking the rules again, makes you just as responsible. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Meerkat]

These days social media doesn’t help pragmatism beat rigid rules adherence.

Passenger on Twitter thanks guard for freeing his coat......someone flags up the rules have been broken....managers have to take action.
Of course you could argue that is a good thing but....

 

[Tomnick]

It's all down to money; well mostly money. Fault finding takes time and historically Drivers and other staff tend to get too caught up in a problem and forget that the clock is ticking. We all know the phrase 'headless chicken mode' or 'cut and run'. There is an issue where so much has been removed from our role over time that we lean towards a cut and run policy to save time and money.

That's exactly my understanding, at our place at least. They want us to get onto Control straight away so that they can look at the bigger picture and avoid us getting engrossed in fault-finding and possibly missing something obvious in the process. They don't want us to spend ages trying to fully resolve the fault when there's ten trains standing in rear and they need us to isolate whatever needs to be isolated to get it out of the way. That's all fair enough. That approach only works if the Driver is allowed to carry out Control's instructions!

It also comes down to training. The more modern approach to traiing is to teach less and less and be more dependent on control to instruct you. There is also a history of er... [redacted] because [redacted] and [redacted]. Look at the Wooton Basset incident and you can see where I am coming from. It is much easier to have a policy to not isolate or trip anything.

I think I'm lucky to have had pretty comprehensive traction training plus a couple of years in an environment where I've had plenty of experience of dealing with broken trains! Regardless, though, surely the absolute minimum is ensuring that the Driver understands the consequences of isolating anything worthy of a mention in TW5, knows the restrictions imposed by the Rule Book and is sufficiently confident in that knowledge to tell Control to go forth if their instructions are less restrictive? Wootton Bassett shows us the importance of only isolating stuff in accordance with the Rule Book!

In essence I would agree with you and there is a large degree of that. BUT. Control do not have rules training or even traction training and as expected then can and do 'authorize' you to do something that is way, way outside the rule book. I think what we are all discovering is that I do what my training specifies and do what the rule book allows. Ultimately you are in charge of the train and you are responsible. An example of this is the Peckham Rye incident where control authorized an evacuation onto a live running line. Granted there were other factors but it highlights that the last line of defense is the Driver.

Exactly - the distinction between Control trying to authorising you to do something that the Rule Book prohibits and Control asking you to do something that you wouldn't do without their permission but is otherwise legitimate!

Ahh the what if game Again, I can reiterate that it is often the person on the ground who has to make that final decision. Examine the situation, assess the risks, is there any explicit rule against, is the procedure or policy applicable, do you have local knowledge, traction knowledge etc.. Then make a decision.

And that's what it comes down to, again. A thorough understanding of the rules (and TOC policies etc.) and the ability and confidence to make and justify a decision

 

[DanDaDriver]

Breaking the rules in an emergency is a veritable case of “A medal or the sack.”

If you get time then have a look at the railway accident archive. You’d be surprised at how many accidents (a large majority) would simply not have happened if people somewhere along the line had just followed the rules.

 

[4F89]

Would I speed through points to avoid someone else colliding with my train? Against the rules, yes. Would I do it? Damn right.

 

[king_walnut]

Would failing to call at a couple of rural stations in order to to get medical attention to someone at the next biggish station count as a valid reason to not follow the rulebook?

 

[Stigy]

Far as I'm aware rules and procedures cater for any emergency situations and outline exactly what you should do in an emergency situation. Granted I'm sure there are some situations were perhaps following rules and procedures isn't possible. I wonder what emergency situations would require you to not follow rules and procedures though?

Person on the track, being restrained by a member of staff when the track is still live. There’s a train berthed at the platform and the Guard is aware and won’t dispatch the train obviously. No time to contact the signaller as there’s a chance in the struggle the person being restrained could come in to contact with the juice rail, and in turn injure or kill both of them.

 

[4F89]

Person on the track, being restrained by a member of staff when the track is still live. There’s a train berthed at the platform and the Guard is aware and won’t dispatch the train obviously. No time to contact the signaller as there’s a chance in the struggle the person being restrained could come in to contact with the juice rail, and in turn injure or kill both of them.

Then you'd get the electric off, as in the rules.

 

[Stigy]

Then you'd get the electric off, as in the rules.

No time.

It’s not as simple as that sometimes unfortunately.

Forgot to add. A ‘friend’ went down to assist and dragged the suicidal person off the track with help of a shunter.

 

[Peter C]

No time.

It’s not as simple as that sometimes unfortunately.

This is a difficult one! What would you do?

 

[DanDaDriver]

Person on the track, being restrained by a member of staff when the track is still live. There’s a train berthed at the platform and the Guard is aware and won’t dispatch the train obviously. No time to contact the signaller as there’s a chance in the struggle the person being restrained could come in to contact with the juice rail, and in turn injure or kill both of them.

Then you’d use the red button rather than mess around getting into a wrestling match on live track.

 

[Stigy]

This is a difficult one! What would you do?

I would go on the track and assist, given I’m PTS trainen and competent in my own actions

 

[Peter C]

I would go on the track and assist, given I’m PTS trainen and competent in my own actions

Fair point. I wouldn't know how to do anything like that!

 

[Stigy]

Then you’d use the red button rather than mess around getting into a wrestling match on live track.

There was no driver involved in this incident, and the staff involved has no knowledge of ‘red buttons’

 

[Peter C]

There was no driver involved in this incident, and the staff involved has no knowledge of ‘red buttons’

Is this a real event that has actually happened? Everything sounds awfully specific!

 

[DanDaDriver]

There was no driver involved in this incident, and the staff involved has no knowledge of ‘red buttons’

Then someone who is PTS trained would know how to contact the signaller and request a switch off.

 

[Stigy]

Is this a real event that has actually happened? Everything sounds awfully specific!

Yes. It’s not as clear cut sometimes to follow the rules to the letter. In fact, it’s quite clear that to save life and limb one doesn’t need to follow rules on the track. I’d not expect a member of the public to know enough about the workings of the railway to assist in this situation, however if the staff member(s) do, and lives are at stake, rules should be interpreted. In this case, the staff member who went on the track to assist wouldn’t have done so if it was a member of the public alone on the track, I’m 100% certain of that. But when there’s a fellow member of staff involved who could be killed, it’s a different ball game. And the Daily Mail would have a field day.

 

[Stigy]

Then someone who is PTS trained would know how to contact the signaller and request a switch off.

Indeed. But there’s no time.

 

[Peter C]

Yes. It’s not as clear cut sometimes to follow the rules to the letter. In fact, it’s quite clear that to save life and limb one doesn’t need to follow rules on the track. I’d not expect a member of the public to know enough about the workings of the railway to assist in this situation, however if the staff member(s) do, and lives are at stake, rules should be interpreted. In this case, the staff member who went on the track to assist wouldn’t have done so if it was a member of the public alone on the track, I’m 100% certain of that. But when there’s a fellow member of staff involved who could be killed, it’s a different ball game. And the Daily Mail would have a field day.

I can see where you're coming from. As a member of the public, I don't know how everything on the railway works when it comes to this sort of situation, but I think I have more knowledge about the operation of the railway than the normal commuter!

 

[Stigy]

I can see where you're coming from. As a member of the public, I don't know how everything on the railway works when it comes to this sort of situation, but I think I have more knowledge about the operation of the railway than the normal commuter!

There is a lot to this scenario, and a lot of dynamic risk assesment took place as in all situations. It could have run more smoothly admittedly, and people could have communicated better in my opinion. I think it’s important to follow rules of course, but sometimes it’s easy for people to say what you should have done in any situation, but only those involved are really qualified to make that judgement as far as I’m concerned. Sometimes you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t in this industry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. But there’s no time.

What was a member of staff doing restraining them on the track with the juice on? Juice off before going on the track at all, surely? If they fry themselves in the meantime, own stupid fault.

 

[Stigy]

Run towards the approaching train (on the platform) with both arms raised?

Not sure if this is serious or not as you may not have seen my initial post....I’ll treat it as serious .

Train is already there, hence there’s technically already a line block. It’s also a platform where any trains in situ would be terminated (although not a ‘bay’ platform or similar). The sole issue with this scenario was that the track was live. There were no risks of train movements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s already there, hence there’s technically already a line block. It’s also a platform where the trains terminate (although not a ‘bay’ platform or similar). The sole issue with this scenario was that the track was live. There were no risks of train movements.

Sorry, missed that bit. I reread it and edited my post with other thoughts.

What would I do? Shout to the member of staff to let him go and get off the track. And it would not be polite. Wrestling someone near third rail is downright stupid.

 

[Stigy]

What was a member of staff doing restraining them on the track with the juice on? Juice off before going on the track at all, surely? If they fry themselves in the meantime, own stupid fault.

Good question and the simple answer is I don’t know. The initial staff member was a shunter so maybe she was already there? As I said, I do think things could have been communicated better initially, but there weren’t. Communication is key when rules are concerned of course

 

[Stigy]

Sorry, missed that bit. I reread it and edited my post with other thoughts.

What would I do? Shout to the member of staff to let him go and get off the track. And it would not be polite. Wrestling someone near third rail is downright stupid.

Easy on paper I guess, but when you have someone with you who wants to end their life? Could you watch somebody die?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Easy on paper I guess, but when you have someone with you who wants to end their life? Could you watch somebody die?

I would not put my life at risk to save someone who was wilfully trying to end theirs, no. No way.

 

[Stigy]

I would not put my life at risk to save someone who was wilfully trying to end theirs, no. No way.

I agree. And if I were the shunter (the first staff member in the scene), I’d not have got involved unless I was certain the juice was off and the signaller gave me the relevant permission. However, the other person now has the shunter think about too. To be honest. If I knew the juice was off I probably wouldn’t go trackside either although it’s releyiveky safe, there’s still risks of injury, and with no threat to life, I’d probably leave it to the Police.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I mentioned I'd be shouting to the shunter to let him go. Most likely with it being third rail the person would be injured rather than killed anyway.

If the shunter was being held by the other person in an attempt to kill the shunter, I *might* get involved, that said. Would depend on how the overall situation looked.

And once he was back off the track, I'd call the shunter an effing idiot if he went down willingly.

 

[Dave1987]

Absolutely no question. Always follow the rules. The rule book is your bible. One day you may stand in front of a judge justifying your actions. If your actions were in compliance with the rules the judge will then move to question the people who wrote the rule book and not you.