Thanks, I didn't read that bit.
My meaning of "dispatch" was a formal process involving both platform staff and the train Driver. Not self dispatch by the Driver alone.
The working of the station has some worrying concerns as well. IMO they should have retired the ramps that were physically compatible with one class of train but did not block the door operation, it seems the later ramp could have served for both and removed one source of error.
The station is operated by TfL and so the staff are TfL staff (well, employed by TfL's Overground concessionaire). The only trains that require staff despatch are the Southern Class 377s. It isn't particularly uncommon.
The other two types of train, the 378 and the 700, are driver-despatch using on-board monitors. That's not unusual either.
GTR were the ones who removed the ramp for the 378 and replaced it with another ramp for the 377, though. And the staff weren't trained on the different types of ramp so, because the 377 ramp fit into the 378 lugs, they didn't know it was wrong. The only difference between the two ramps was the 378 ramp had the extended arms to prevent the doors closing.
Seems to be becoming a bit of an issue in the industry mobile phone usage whilst driving. Bromsgrove in 2020 where a freight went through some buffers in a siding and fouled the mainline causing an XC 170 to strike a glancing blow* and then Kirkby in 2022 when a Merseyrail 507 lost an argument with the buffer stops. Both were caused by drivers being distracted by phones. And now this one where mobile phone usage played a role.
Having the driver operate DOO at every other station and then change to being dispatched by platform staff at one could also lead to an incident.
They do mention this in report. Sorry i dont still have it open to give the paragraph, but they say its not unusual for platform staff to be there to stop people touching the train as it leaves.
It's not unusual for the platform staff to be in the despatch corridor but you'd expect the driver to notice them and check that there wasn't a reason why they were in the despatch corridor. Unless, of course, the driver was on their phone and not paying attention...
RAIB go into it in quite a lot of detail later on in the report and mention those incidents as well as a trap-and-drag at Hayes and Harlington being caused by mobile phone usage.
Oh yes that is rather pointed isn't it?
Apologies my post was meant to be more of a question than a flat out statement.
The report also says that "RAIB determined that these phone calls were being used by the driver to deal with personal issues of a potentially distressing nature" - so maybe he shouldn't have been at work at all. Unfortunately he initially denied having used his phone at all - but police enquiries (from the network or phone isn't stated) disproved this.
There's no doubt about it - the driver was using his phone incessantly during his shift that morning, including during the ramp dispatch incident.
If I had to guess; it's more straightforward for the driver to use the same DOO procedure at every stop, rather than having to remember which stations are DOO and which are dispatched by platform staff.
Definitely - and given how many RAIB reports have been put out emphasising the danger of phone distraction, I doubt there is anyone of the railway that is ignorant of the risk - so at this point it is an issue of some people thinking that they can get away with it.
No, the report says (with reconstruction pic) that the platform staff's raised arms are mostly out of shot when viewed on the screen in the cab.
Ah, my mistake, have edited my previous post. Still, DOO is deemed to be a safe procedure regardless of if a station is staffed or not. The benefits of involving another person in the dispatch process at some stations is outweighed by the complications introduced by requiring the driver to switch between two different procedures at different stops.
Wouldn't that affect the GSM-R?
It's the flimsy excuse of "personal issues" post event that really irks me. The cynic in me thinks they're told to say this by the union.
I doubt a system to track/jam staff phones would be simple or inexpensive at all, not to mention it would prevent safe usage of mobile phones for emergency communication and presumably prevent passengers from using their phones as well.
Maybe, but ideally the reason stated by the staff for using their phone shouldn't make a difference; it should always be treated as wilful gross negligence which knowingly endangers the lives of potentially hundreds of people.
Zero tolerance but zero awareness?
The trouble is that many of the safety systems in a cab run on the same technology as mobile phones (e.g. GSM-R).
I don’t think it was a coincidence that RAIB drew attention to a report which showed that 40% of drivers believed they could use a mobile phone without detection and 18% of drivers think they can use a mobile phone without it affecting performance.
We've come to accept that driving a car with hands-free phones is 'ok' unless you have an accident. In a car you need the hand more than when driving a train - for steering obviously, and in a typical urban driving scenario you're more likely to have other eejits in cars, pedestrians, etc etc, and more signs and traffic lights - several times a minute - although the stopping distances are shorter..
It would depend on the mindset of those bus passengers who were in situ. We are now in a culture approaching towards the almost omnipresent phone and unfortunately some passengers would form the view that the bus driver was probably speaking to his/her depot controller and (wrongly) form the opinion that was fair game. Worse still some passengers might not perceive any problem with the phone being used.
We have, but that’s largely because the distraction from a hands-free phone isn’t very different to the distraction from having a conversation with a passenger.
The likely issue with your second para is having a detector which is sensitive enough to detect a phone in the driving cab but not in the passenger seats immediately behind it. That also, rather importantly assumes that no work issued phones or other equipment based on mobile phone technology are in use.