Scotrail HST serious tree strike avoidable- ASLEF.

[Ashley Hill]

12 minutes from the initial call to the collision isn’t long. Had the chain of communication worked correctly then allowing say 3 mins for the initial call,3 mins to call control,3 mins to call signaller and a minute to send a REC gives 2 mins for the driver to react and stop and a minute to spare. All hypothetical of course!! At best it might have prevented the collision,if not then the collision might have been less destructive.

 

[paulmch]

It is possible that they were simply overwhelmed by the volume of incoming traffic. You can’t realistically have 50 people sat at phones ‘just in case’ when 2 is fine 99% of the time.

You can certainly expect extra support to be provided during a named storm when demand is likely to spike!

 

[WAB]

You can certainly expect extra support to be provided during a named storm when demand is likely to spike!

From whom, though? This is a classic comment - realistically there isn’t a pool of people who are competent controllers doing non-urgent jobs who can be redeployed during times of pressure.

 

[Falcon1200]

Again though - "dealing with". There is no detail in the RAIB report on what specific activities "dealing with" actually entailed in this case and how it was determined whether those activities were or were not more important than taking inbound calls

Without being rude, have you ever worked in, or even been in during severe weather, a railway Control Room? During such periods the phone is ringing constantly, such that as soon as one call has been answered, and the matter dealt with, than another call comes in, which also needs to be dealt with; And so on and so forth. Those with access to the Control Centre Incident Log will know just how much pressure there was on the staff that day, something that was mentioned in the Carmont report. That is the reality; Controllers are not sitting around drinking tea or reading the paper on days like that.

Please also bear in mind that SICC deals with the whole of Scotland with a limited number of staff.

You can certainly expect extra support to be provided during a named storm when demand is likely to spike!

From where? It has been tried, during my time in Control, and (through no fault of the people involved) can be as much of a hindrance as a help, because they will not be familiar with Control basics such as areas of responsibility, both in Control and outside, logging and fault recording systems, phone operations; And that is if there are even spare desks for them to sit at in the first place.

 

[SamYeager]

Without being rude, have you ever worked in, or even been in during severe weather, a railway Control Room? During such periods the phone is ringing constantly, such that as soon as one call has been answered, and the matter dealt with, than another call comes in, which also needs to be dealt with; And so on and so forth. Those with access to the Control Centre Incident Log will know just how much pressure there was on the staff that day, something that was mentioned in the Carmont report. That is the reality; Controllers are not sitting around drinking tea or reading the paper on days like that.

Please also bear in mind that SICC deals with the whole of Scotland with a limited number of staff.



From where? It has been tried, during my time in Control, and (through no fault of the people involved) can be as much of a hindrance as a help, because they will not be familiar with Control basics such as areas of responsibility, both in Control and outside, logging and fault recording systems, phone operations; And that is if there are even spare desks for them to sit at in the first place.

In short you appear to be saying that Control will be overwhelmed with calls and that there is no cost efficient method of alleviating that pressure i.e. there's a fair chance a similar incident will reoccur at some point and it's just potluck whether severe casualties and/or fatalities will tale place as a result.

 

[43066]

In short you appear to be saying that Control will be overwhelmed with calls and that there is no cost efficient method of alleviating that pressure i.e. there's a fair chance a similar incident will reoccur at some point and it's just potluck whether severe casualties and/or fatalities will tale place as a result.

I’m sure that’s the case, yes. You aren’t ever going to be able to completely prevent events such as this, hence the importance of crashworthiness of stock.

 

[WAB]

In short you appear to be saying that Control will be overwhelmed with calls and that there is no cost efficient method of alleviating that pressure i.e. there's a fair chance a similar incident will reoccur at some point and it's just potluck whether severe casualties and/or fatalities will tale place as a result.

No, because urgent calls regarding the safety of the line from the helpline will now be (rightly) prioritised as they’ll come in on the emergency lines which are far less likely to be overwhelmed. Less critical calls may be delayed, yes.

 

[Falcon1200]

i.e. there's a fair chance a similar incident will reoccur at some point and it's just potluck whether severe casualties and/or fatalities will tale place as a result.

No, as @WAB says below. And not only (now) the Helpline but the Emergency Services have a dedicated Emergency number to phone.

No, because urgent calls regarding the safety of the line from the helpline will now be (rightly) prioritised as they’ll come in on the emergency lines which are far less likely to be overwhelmed.

Also the Emergency lines activate a siren in Control so there is no doubt that such a call is being received and it will be answered immediately regardless of workload.

 

[Killingworth]

12 minutes from the initial call to the collision isn’t long. Had the chain of communication worked correctly then allowing say 3 mins for the initial call,3 mins to call control,3 mins to call signaller and a minute to send a REC gives 2 mins for the driver to react and stop and a minute to spare. All hypothetical of course!! At best it might have prevented the collision,if not then the collision might have been less destructive.

Last Saturday afternoon a tree fell across, and blocking, a footpath leading to my local station. It was on Network Rail land. It was posted on two local Facebook groups, one of which added a picture. It hadn't fallen onto the railway itself. Both posters wanted it to be reported but didn't know who to. There was enough information in the two posts for me to do it for them. It was not a life threatening emergency, but it might have been.

How to contact Network Rail? https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commu...se our live chat service.&text=03457 11 41 41.

I completed an online report including a picture and Google maps picture together with What 3 words reference - form rejected. After 3 failed attempts I gave up and telephoned 03457 11 41 41. The usual call centre options, emergency being only one of them. The call was taken within a minute and well - I had all the information she needed ready to pass on very clearly. Nevertheless it had probably taken 3 or 4 minutes from first dialing to finishing the call, then she'd have had to pass it on. (The tree had been removed by Sunday morning.)

Which makes one wonder....

In this Scotrail case the tree was seen to have fallen on the line and the member of the public found the Network Rail number to call. That in itself may have taken a few minutes before repeated calls were made. Many, probably most, trees alongside the tracks are not within sight of public spaces and even when they are it's against the odds that a faller will be seen quickly. Expecting rapid and accurate reporting to Network Rail by members of the public is optimistic, especially when they may be in a degree of panic and confusion.

The truth is that too many trees are growing too big too close to tracks. They hide the railway but endanger it - and that applies to all classes of trains. Clearing those trees is the highest priority.

 

[paulmch]

From whom, though? This is a classic comment - realistically there isn’t a pool of people who are competent controllers doing non-urgent jobs who can be redeployed during times of pressure.

Having both worked in a gold command and been desperate to get in touch with Control when things have gone wrong on the ground I'm well aware of the challenges on both sides. There has to be a better way of dealing with large scale disruption because the current method borders on the dangerous sometimes.

 

[Falcon1200]

There has to be a better way of dealing with large scale disruption because the current method borders on the dangerous sometimes.

Suggestions welcome!

When I worked in Control we classed managers into two types, depending on their reaction when they entered the office only to see staff chatting, drinking tea etc;

1. Brilliant, the railway must be running well, or;

2. Why the hell are we paying all these guys to do nothing?

Control staffing was seen as an expensive luxury and pressure was always on to reduce costs, going right back to my earliest days in the role under BR, from 1984; Barely a year went by without some form of reorganisation, ie staff reduction. Hopefully (sadly?) recent events might change that mindset, in particular the Paddington dewirement just over a year ago in which, IIRC, a senior Network Rail executive was caught up.

 

[QueensCurve]

A change to 158s would be a very retrograde step for passenger comfort.

Drivers quite rightly see HSTs as providing a lack of safety for themselves. The Mk3 stock provide a high level of comfort and safety for the passenger. I for one think the 158s are dreadful to travel in.

Forward planning should provide safe and comfortable stock.

 

[chuff chuff]

Drivers quite rightly see HSTs as providing a lack of safety for themselves. The Mk3 stock provide a high level of comfort and safety for the passenger. I for one think the 158s are dreadful to travel in.

For me 158s pretty poor from the drivers side as well,I'd much rather drive an hst.

 

[K.o.R]

To be honest I wouldn’t even think of googling that information, I would call 999, which would probably add more delay.

That information that you shared is very good to keep handy/bookmarked.

I would, also. Maybe we need to add a "rail emergency" option alongside the Coastguard to the 999 system?