Train driver confirmed dead in West Worthing station tragedy (01/02/2022)

[66701GBRF]

I haven't fully read the report but isn't it a little unusual for the RAIB to specifically name individuals concerned? In this case the driver that was struck.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I haven't fully read the report but isn't it a little unusual for the RAIB to specifically name individuals concerned? In this case the driver that was struck.

I believe they have before when someone has died. Data Protection Act/GDPR only applies to living individuals, so no breach of law.
Although it could be seen as insensitive.

 

[4069]

RAIB publishes the name of the deceased only if their family is happy for it to appear.

Stuart J
RAIB (retired)

 

[deltic]

What I find strange is what the guard's role was in this incident. The train was signalled to depart from the siding at 21.41. When it didnt move the signaller tried to make contact with the driver. When that failed they asked the driver of train 1N35 to stop alongside to find out why the driver had not responded. At 21.49 control contacted the guard to find out what the problem was. At 21.54 the driver of 1N35 stopped alongside the siding and reported the cab door was open. There is no mention of whether the guard attempted to ascertain why there was a delay in departing the siding nor what they did when contacted by control. Would you normally expect a guard to be more proactive in ascertaining why there was a delay or are services so regularly delayed it was not considered unusual?

 

[NSEWonderer]

What I find strange is what the guard's role was in this incident. The train was signalled to depart from the siding at 21.41. When it didnt move the signaller tried to make contact with the driver. When that failed they asked the driver of train 1N35 to stop alongside to find out why the driver had not responded. At 21.49 control contacted the guard to find out what the problem was. At 21.54 the driver of 1N35 stopped alongside the siding and reported the cab door was open. There is no mention of whether the guard attempted to ascertain why there was a delay in departing the siding nor what they did when contacted by control. Would you normally expect a guard to be more proactive in ascertaining why there was a delay or are services so regularly delayed it was not considered unusual?

I'd assume so. Wasn't it coming out a siding therfore yet to start it's first route?

 

[nickswift99]

I'd assume so. Wasn't it coming out a siding therfore yet to start it's first route?

Irrespective, I think the guard's actions would not have been material in the survival of driver. However, having to live with the thought that they had lost a colleague must be utterly desperate. It's a desperately sad event for all involved.

 

[Class 170101]

The report mentioned personal issues on the driver's phone yet the RAIB didn't seem to indicate one way or the other whether they may have contributed to his death - focussing on the toilet issue as far as I could see and we know how important mental wellbeing is and taking care of it is these days.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Irrespective, I think the guard's actions would not have been material in the survival of driver. However, having to live with the thought that they had lost a colleague must be utterly desperate. It's a desperately sad event for all involved.

It might not have but I assume being proactive is ideally what on the railway is expected. It wasn't according to the details till control instructed the guard did an investigation begin as to why the train hadn't left on time more so why the driver was not responding. Feel for the drivers Family and the Guard who definitely this has hit hard.

 

[Iskra]

The report mentioned personal issues on the driver's phone yet the RAIB didn't seem to indicate one way or the other whether they may have contributed to his death - focussing on the toilet issue as far as I could see and we know how important mental wellbeing is and taking care of it is these days.

The RAIB report states that this would be beyond its scope, as well as being very difficult to ascertain regardless. The report is also extremely professional and diplomatic, to its credit in dealing with such a sensitive and sad incident.

The RAIB can't make recommendations regarding individual mental wellbeing. What it can do is look at tangible stuff like the adequate provision of toilet opportunities for staff to reduce the risk of lineside incidents, or how quickly the electric is switched off, which could save lives in the future.

 

[Class 170101]

The RAIB report states that this would be beyond its scope, as well as being very difficult to ascertain regardless. The report is also extremely professional and diplomatic, to its credit in dealing with such a sensitive and sad incident.

The RAIB can't make recommendations regarding individual mental wellbeing. What it can do is look at tangible stuff like the adequate provision of toilet opportunities for staff to reduce the risk of lineside incidents, or how quickly the electric is switched off, which could save lives in the future.

Whilst it may be beyond the RAIB, and I don't see why it should, wasn't it raised as an issue by the Air Accident equivalent of the RAIB in respect of a plane crash some years ago and surely lessons indicated there equally apply to the railway and if there are an lessons from this incident then they could be lessons for all modes of transport (and maybe business in general) not just railway.

 

[Iskra]

Whilst it may be beyond the RAIB, and I don't see why it should, wasn't it raised as an issue by the Air Accident equivalent of the RAIB in respect of a plane crash some years ago and surely lessons indicated there equally apply to the railway and if there are an lessons from this incident then they could be lessons for all modes of transport (and maybe business in general) not just railway.

Discussion for a different thread to be honest.

 

[Plinko]

'Heartbroken by the loss of one of our own' - train driver confirmed dead

A TRAIN company says it is “heartbroken” by the death of a train driver found dead on the tracks at a railway station.

www.theargus.co.uk

Awful news

 

[king_walnut]

The RAIB report is absolutely disgraceful to be honest. "We don't know, so we are guessing".

I knew the man who died, I'm a driver at the same depot. Neither theory makes any kind of sense whatsoever.

Everyone doing West Worthings back then would have known full well that you go into the middle sidings, a Littlehampton is 5 minutes behind (the one that hit him), then two go towards Brighton before you get the signal out.

Having a cigarette, you'd just stand at the open door. Plenty of drivers do this (they shouldn't but they do). Also, I imagine the cigarette would have been found if that was the case?

Urinating, again he'd have known that Littlehampton was coming by, and even if he was down to having to urinate, that train stopping at West Worthing is very obvious, those headlights are really bright. Also, the driver of that train WOULD have seen him if he was just casually taking a leak. Even in the dark you can see clearly.

He was a very conscientious driver. He would have known that an emergency PNB could have been a thing at Worthing, but if it was a TOTAL urinating emergency then I can't imagine him being at all reckless with his PTS. "Lie flat in the 6ft if a train is approaching" is not something I could see him forgetting.


The reality is that nobody will ever know for sure, and I find these ridiculous guesses by the RAIB to be insane.

 

[Surreytraveller]

What I find strange is what the guard's role was in this incident. The train was signalled to depart from the siding at 21.41. When it didnt move the signaller tried to make contact with the driver. When that failed they asked the driver of train 1N35 to stop alongside to find out why the driver had not responded. At 21.49 control contacted the guard to find out what the problem was. At 21.54 the driver of 1N35 stopped alongside the siding and reported the cab door was open. There is no mention of whether the guard attempted to ascertain why there was a delay in departing the siding nor what they did when contacted by control. Would you normally expect a guard to be more proactive in ascertaining why there was a delay or are services so regularly delayed it was not considered unusual?

As far as the guard would be concerned, the train was probably just waiting for the signal. Train being held back for a late runner would be nothing unusual

 

[the sniper]

The first recommendation, made to Govia Thameslink Railway, requires that on-train staff have adequate access to toilets across all of their routes

Why only GTR, don't want to rock the boat too much...? It'll be interesting to see if the RSSB's guidance paper on the matter, mentioned in the report, results in anything discernible.

Would you normally expect a guard to be more proactive in ascertaining why there was a delay or are services so regularly delayed it was not considered unusual?

As far as the guard would be concerned, the train was probably just waiting for the signal. Train being held back for a late runner would be nothing unusual

Indeed, I can't speak for that location, but there are others like that where you wouldn't give it much if any thought. There's no passengers, so unless it's your last bit you'd probably just go with the flow and wait until the Driver called to report anything out of the ordinary they'd heard from the signaller.

 

[pompeyfan]

The RAIB report is absolutely disgraceful to be honest. "We don't know, so we are guessing".

I knew the man who died, I'm a driver at the same depot. Neither theory makes any kind of sense whatsoever.

Everyone doing West Worthings back then would have known full well that you go into the middle sidings, a Littlehampton is 5 minutes behind (the one that hit him), then two go towards Brighton before you get the signal out.

Having a cigarette, you'd just stand at the open door. Plenty of drivers do this (they shouldn't but they do). Also, I imagine the cigarette would have been found if that was the case?

Having a piss, again he'd have known that Littlehampton was coming by, and even if he was down having a piss, that train stopping at West Worthing is very obvious, those headlights are really bright. Also, the driver of that train WOULD have seen him if he was just casually taking a leak. Even in the dark you can see clearly.

He was a very conscientious driver. He would have known that an emergency PNB could have been a thing at Worthing, but if it was a TOTAL piss emergency then I can't imagine him being at all reckless with his PTS. "Lie flat in the 6ft if a train is approaching" is not something I could see him forgetting.


The reality is that nobody will ever know for sure, and I find these ridiculous guesses by the RAIB to be insane.

Firstly, I’m sorry for yours and your colleagues loss. I know how much these things can rock depots.

Reading the document it refers to 2 “up” trains, a service from Littlehampton and a service from Southampton. When you refer to the Littlehampton service are you referring to destination or origin?

 

[Sunset route]

What I find strange is what the guard's role was in this incident. The train was signalled to depart from the siding at 21.41. When it didnt move the signaller tried to make contact with the driver. When that failed they asked the driver of train 1N35 to stop alongside to find out why the driver had not responded. At 21.49 control contacted the guard to find out what the problem was. At 21.54 the driver of 1N35 stopped alongside the siding and reported the cab door was open. There is no mention of whether the guard attempted to ascertain why there was a delay in departing the siding nor what they did when contacted by control. Would you normally expect a guard to be more proactive in ascertaining why there was a delay or are services so regularly delayed it was not considered unusual?

I’m not saying either way, but often trains will be held in West Worthing Middle siding beyond there departure time for regulating late running services and that might not be communicated to the guard.

 

[Egg Centric]

Goodness me those notices to drivers about the urine bottles in the appendix are prissy.

No wonder industrial relations so bad if that's the kind of tone managers take with the workforce. Like being lectured by a headmaster at school.

 

[AlterEgo]

An inquest is due to be held for the late Mr Olesiak; the process starts with a pre-inquest review on 7th March, according to the West Sussex Coroner: https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/birth...vice/#inquest-and-pre-inquest-review-hearings

I do hope this process gives his family and loved ones the closure that is necessary after such a confusing and tragic accident.

 

[Fincra5]

What I find strange is what the guard's role was in this incident. The train was signalled to depart from the siding at 21.41. When it didnt move the signaller tried to make contact with the driver. When that failed they asked the driver of train 1N35 to stop alongside to find out why the driver had not responded. At 21.49 control contacted the guard to find out what the problem was. At 21.54 the driver of 1N35 stopped alongside the siding and reported the cab door was open. There is no mention of whether the guard attempted to ascertain why there was a delay in departing the siding nor what they did when contacted by control. Would you normally expect a guard to be more proactive in ascertaining why there was a delay or are services so regularly delayed it was not considered unusual?

Not really. Trains were often held at WWO Siding for other trains to pass ahead (on the UP Brighton).

 

[bramling]

Goodness me those notices to drivers about the urine bottles in the appendix are prissy.

No wonder industrial relations so bad if that's the kind of tone managers take with the workforce. Like being lectured by a headmaster at school.

This is exactly why industrial relations are so bad. To be fair not all management are like this, but there’s enough of it around to breed a toxic atmosphere.

Dare I say it, some of this is down to elements of the industry management being poorly educated and with limited life experience (not intended necessarily as a dig, just a statement of reality).

 

[Egg Centric]

This is exactly why industrial relations are so bad. To be fair not all management are like this, but there’s enough of it around to breed a toxic atmosphere.

Dare I say it, some of this is down to elements of the industry management being poorly educated and with limited life experience (not intended necessarily as a dig, just a statement of reality).

Well yeah, it's bloody ridiculous. I'd never even consider sending anything like that out to my team and I'd be fecking annoyed if I received something like that from the CEO too (I never would where I work fwiw and am fortunate enough to be in a position to tell him to sod off, but we are still a startup so that's not particularly special ).

The only saving grace - and this applies solely to the first two of them - would be if they were taken rather out of context as some kind of jocular newsletter written with personality... but it would have to be matched with many more pages of self deprecation and is still clumsy. The majority of them I fail to envisage any way they're reasonable.

Pathetic.

(And even ignoring the tone - anyone with a fecking brain and a modicum of common sense upon discovering that their employees were generating an increasing pile of piss bottles would try to decrease the need for them rather than assuming that they managed a uniquely piss bottle obsessed bunch who could be turned away from their piss bottle ways with posters... normal people don't piss bottle unless it's necessary ffs)

 

[bramling]

Well yeah, it's bloody ridiculous. I'd never even consider sending anything like that out to my team and I'd be fecking annoyed if I received something like that from the CEO too (I never would where I work fwiw and am fortunate enough to be in a position to tell him to sod off, but we are still a startup so that's not particularly special ).

The only saving grace - and this applies solely to the first two of them - would be if they were taken rather out of context as some kind of jocular newsletter written with personality... but it would have to be matched with many more pages of self deprecation and is still clumsy. The majority of them I fail to envisage any way they're reasonable.

Pathetic.

(And even ignoring the tone - anyone with a fecking brain and a modicum of common sense upon discovering that their employees were generating an increasing pile of piss bottles would try to decrease the need for them rather than assuming that they managed a uniquely piss bottle obsessed bunch who could be turned away from their piss bottle ways with posters... normal people don't piss bottle unless it's necessary ffs)

Indeed. The circulars show two issues. Firstly the tone is completely how not to engineer a positive workplace atmosphere. But even more seriously, they illustrate that quite evidently no consideration was given to the root cause of the issue.

Naturally no one knows if this is relevant to what happened that night, however the bottles being dumped on the track was certainly indicative of an issue that needed addressing, yet the best management could do was put out passive-aggressive circulars. Not a great advert for the management responsible.

 

[bengley]

The RAIB report is absolutely disgraceful to be honest. "We don't know, so we are guessing".

I knew the man who died, I'm a driver at the same depot. Neither theory makes any kind of sense whatsoever.

Everyone doing West Worthings back then would have known full well that you go into the middle sidings, a Littlehampton is 5 minutes behind (the one that hit him), then two go towards Brighton before you get the signal out.

Having a cigarette, you'd just stand at the open door. Plenty of drivers do this (they shouldn't but they do). Also, I imagine the cigarette would have been found if that was the case?

Urinating, again he'd have known that Littlehampton was coming by, and even if he was down to having to urinate, that train stopping at West Worthing is very obvious, those headlights are really bright. Also, the driver of that train WOULD have seen him if he was just casually taking a leak. Even in the dark you can see clearly.

He was a very conscientious driver. He would have known that an emergency PNB could have been a thing at Worthing, but if it was a TOTAL urinating emergency then I can't imagine him being at all reckless with his PTS. "Lie flat in the 6ft if a train is approaching" is not something I could see him forgetting.


The reality is that nobody will ever know for sure, and I find these ridiculous guesses by the RAIB to be insane.

I agree with everything you've said. It's also worth mentioning, it's possible to have a wee out of the cab door without leaving the train. I have done it myself stopped at reds numerous times when caught short. In darkness there's no chance of being spotted.

Sadly I feel that the most likely scenario here, given the personal issues mentioned and the lack of any PPE or seeming regard for his own safety, is the one the RAIB haven't talked about.

 

[Wyrleybart]

The most damning point doesn't appear to have been raised here yet. Younger males tend to have more resolute bladders. But the train driving fraternity is not just males, females are involved too. Some have a good urinary systems but not quite so strong, and they sometimes have much more personal needs. The TOC I work for has a 4.5 hour max continuous driving limit, but I have heard at least one company "south of the Thames" has up to six hours.

 

[Horizon22]

The most damning point doesn't appear to have been raised here yet. Younger males tend to have more resolute bladders. But the train driving fraternity is not just males, females are involved too. Some have a good urinary systems but not quite so strong, and they sometimes have much more personal needs. The TOC I work for has a 4.5 hour max continuous driving limit, but I have heard at least one company "south of the Thames" has up to six hours.

It's not great indeed, but there will also be the opportunity for an "emergency PNB" at the terminus if you really need to go and your stock doesn't have toilets on a tight turnaround.

That being said, there's lots of continuous driving of inter-city services, but that's been signed off by the unions for decades so I'm sure there was a major concern it would have been raised by now.

 

[Egg Centric]

Younger males tend to have more resolute bladders.

Is this true? Well, the younger bit no doubt. But the male bit I'm skeptical of.

I have, and always have had, a weak bladder - particularly once alcohol is involved - but during my research into this as it can be a bit annoying I swear I found out that women have far stronger bladders in general; otherwise they would be a bit more understanding about chaps caught short in public places I think. That also fits with my anecdotal experience.

And while I appreciate dogs are not humans, female dogs are well known to last longer inside than male ones if desperate.

 

[Clarence Yard]

After the comments above, I’ve re-read the report carefully and I think the RAIB have been walking a tightrope here.

They can’t take on the duties of a Coroner so they have had to stick to what they definitely know and leave everyone guessing the rest.

The publication of that notice I read as a bit of devilment on the part of the Inspector - it is so obviously crass. If you have staff persistently going for a piss in odd places, don’t resort to idiotic notices - sort out your PNB facilities.

 

[Tallguy]

The most damning point doesn't appear to have been raised here yet. Younger males tend to have more resolute bladders. But the train driving fraternity is not just males, females are involved too. Some have a good urinary systems but not quite so strong, and they sometimes have much more personal needs. The TOC I work for has a 4.5 hour max continuous driving limit, but I have heard at least one company "south of the Thames" has up to six hours.

Driving non stop or with only a few minutes for a turnaround would be illegal in a truck. My former employers stated in their staff handbook that anyone driving on company business had to physically stop driving after 3 hours of continuous time behind the wheel and take a minimum 15 mint break ‘outside the vehicle regardless of the weather conditions’.

 

[Falcon1200]

The TOC I work for has a 4.5 hour max continuous driving limit, but I have heard at least one company "south of the Thames" has up to six hours.

Those are long times, but are surely not truly continuous, ie without any kind of break at all - There are no non-stop runs of such length in the UK these days, AFAIK?