Can Drivers Move Other TOC's Trains?

[dmacw]

Here's a question,

The 16.23 FGW from Oxford to Banbury leaves from Platform 3. (bay platform) The 16.26 Chiltern Railways from Oxford to Bicester Town leaves from the same platform. Effectively blocked by the FGW service.

If for some reason the 16.23 to Banbury was cancelled due to 'no driver'. Not even one to dump the unit in the sidings. Would the Chiltern Railways driver be allowed to move the FGW unit into the sidings out of the way?

 

[barrykas]

If for some reason the 16.23 to Banbury was cancelled due to 'no driver'. Not even one to dump the unit in the sidings. Would the Chiltern Railways driver be allowed to move the FGW unit into the sidings out of the way?

Whilst they theoretically could undertake such a move, they'd need the agreement of (at least) the Driver, Signaller and both TOCs first...and that's without taking into account the different cab layouts of the FGW and Chiltern fleets (in part due to different ATP kit being in use, and different refurbishments).

Cheers,

Barry

 

[driver9000]

No unless both TOCs agree to allow the move.

 

[notadriver]

On a slight tangent - if a bus, coach or lorry got stuck, the police or anyone with a PSV/HGV licence could move it.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Surely they can't notadriver, as they would not be insured to drive it (police and recovery firms exempt)?

 

[route:oxford]

Whilst they theoretically could undertake such a move, they'd need the agreement of (at least) the Driver, Signaller and both TOCs first...and that's without taking into account the different cab layouts of the FGW and Chiltern fleets (in part due to different ATP kit being in use, and different refurbishments).

Cheers,

Barry

When I took the service to Bicester Village a few weeks ago, I'm sure the Chiltern service was externally branded with FGW dynamic lines.

 

[WatcherZero]

They could, but then it comes down to insurance, if your neighbour was moving your car and had an accident it wouldnt be covered.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

They could, but then it comes down to insurance, if your neighbour was moving your car and had an accident it wouldnt be covered.

But, unless there is an exemption I'm missing, it is illegal to drive a vehicle on a public highway which you are not insured to drive.

 

[Tottenham Flyer]

Surely they couldn't if they didn't sign the stock??

Back to the original question, as both TOC's have 165's, then there's no problem (assuming the train doing the blocking in is a 165 etc- you follow what I'm getting at). But if for example at Manchester Picc, a TPE 185 was on the stops, and a Northern unit came in on top, surely the TPE driver couldn't shunt the Northern unit out because he won't sign the stock??

Or have I completely missed the point of the original question?

 

[GB]

They could, but then it comes down to insurance, if your neighbour was moving your car and had an accident it wouldnt be covered.

He would be covered if he had fully comp insurance that includes driving other cars with the owners consent.

 

[dmacw]

Or have I completely missed the point of the original question?

Not at all, to those not familiar with the services I should have pointed out they are both likely to be class 165.

 

[NSE]

Surely they couldn't if they didn't sign the stock??

Back to the original question, as both TOC's have 165's, then there's no problem (assuming the train doing the blocking in is a 165 etc- you follow what I'm getting at). But if for example at Manchester Picc, a TPE 185 was on the stops, and a Northern unit came in on top, surely the TPE driver couldn't shunt the Northern unit out because he won't sign the stock??

Or have I completely missed the point of the original question?

I think the orginal point was if the stock was the same. i.e. a 165 between Chiltern/FGW, an EC/GC HST or a 180 HT/GC, I'm sure you get the point. So yeah you're right.

 

[Minilad]

XC Drivers cannot drive a VT 221 even though we used to drive them most days and in fact still do drive 221s

 

[headshot119]

What's the reason for that XCdriver. Something to do with the tilt I'll guess at?

 

[Yew]

What's the reason for that XCdriver. Something to do with the tilt I'll guess at?

It's more likely they know of xc s capacity problems, and are worried they might steal it for themselves

 

[Minilad]

What's the reason for that XCdriver. Something to do with the tilt I'll guess at?

Yep that would be it. All ours now have the tilt isolated so we are now out of competency on driving tilt enabled 221s. Even if they have tilt isolated

 

[Bedpan]

He would be covered if he had fully comp insurance that includes driving other cars with the owners consent.

The driving other cars extension to a private motor policy only provides basic RTA cover (ie third party only), whatever the cover provided for the insured's own vehicle. A Motor Traders' comprehensive policy would of course be different.

 

[notadriver]

The driving other cars extension to a private motor policy only provides basic RTA cover (ie third party only), whatever the cover provided for the insured's own vehicle. A Motor Traders' comprehensive policy would of course be different.

All true. My hypothetical situation was on private premises where assuming you had consent and permission anyone who had a licence for that type of vehicle could move it out the way and park it to free up another vehicle.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It has happened, I might have moved a Thames 166 several years ago. Though the entire move might have been entirely within a depot.
I doubt I would do it now days. I certainly wouldnt do it on the main line.

As for the OP, that specific example would just see the Chiltern service depart from a different platform.

 

[Crossover]

Yep that would be it. All ours now have the tilt isolated so we are now out of competency on driving tilt enabled 221s. Even if they have tilt isolated

How about VT drivers moving your XC 221s? Or would they just want them back too? :P
(Though with the lack of shops, I'm doubting it )

 

[Bedpan]

All true. My hypothetical situation was on private premises where assuming you had consent and permission anyone who had a licence for that type of vehicle could move it out the way and park it to free up another vehicle.

Well, I suppose if it was on private premises, then you wouldn't be required to have the appropriate licence.

 

[RPM]

I'm pretty sure on my competency paperwork it specifically says class 165/0, so moving a 165/1 unit would not be an option even though I'm perfectly capable of doing so.

 

[N Levers]

Here's a question,

The 16.23 FGW from Oxford to Banbury leaves from Platform 3. (bay platform) The 16.26 Chiltern Railways from Oxford to Bicester Town leaves from the same platform. Effectively blocked by the FGW service.

If for some reason the 16.23 to Banbury was cancelled due to 'no driver'. Not even one to dump the unit in the sidings. Would the Chiltern Railways driver be allowed to move the FGW unit into the sidings out of the way?

This wouldn't have been a problem a year ago as FGW would have been able to run one of the two services. Now this happens.

There are ECS shunts to the Sidings to get out of the way of the chiltern unit a few times a day and these shunts would be the first thing to be cancelled if there were limited drivers. I can see the above problem reoccuring.

On a side note... Southern Railway drivers drive FGW class 165/166's between Gatwick and Reading even though southern don't go that way and have no 165/166's themselves...

 

[western Champion]

How about VT drivers moving your XC 221s? Or would they just want them back too? :P
(Though with the lack of shops, I'm doubting it )

It has happened at least once that I know of following a fatality where a VT driver was traveling on the train concerned. He moved it to Bham Intl so the job could get going again which was in VT and XC interest.

If I was traveling in the train and on duty then I would offer to move it out the way. It's got to be easier for all concerned.

 

[paul1609]

Southeastern drivers also drive some Southern 377 trips on Tonbridge to London Bridge and its fairly common to see a guard on the Portsmouth to Cardiff service wearing an arriva trains wales uniform.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Safest way is to get a Driver Standards manager to make the move , if qualified and with permission.

Back in the day , have arranged this - so long ago it was class 47 and 86 !

 

[TDK]

I used to work for Southeastern and have driven SWT 455's but this was with the companies pemission, also Chiltern drivers drove the WSMR sets also with both companies permission. If a driver signs the traction and it is a different TOC as long as both companies agree there isn't a problem, oh yes also FGW drivers used to drive Virgin HST's up the North Wales Coast and Central trains drivers used to drive Wales and West 158's, oh and another one is when a route conductor signs the traction they drive the train no matter what the TOC is. So, the answer is yes as long as permission is granted, however in an emergency situation if there was lives at risk I would move any train even if I didn't sign the traction and face the consequences afterwards if there were any.

 

[Minilad]

It has happened at least once that I know of following a fatality where a VT driver was traveling on the train concerned. He moved it to Bham Intl so the job could get going again which was in VT and XC interest.

If I was traveling in the train and on duty then I would offer to move it out the way. It's got to be easier for all concerned.

Of course in this situation I would offer to do the same. I would just leave it up the the controls to OK it or not

 

[TDK]

Safest way is to get a Driver Standards manager to make the move , if qualified and with permission.

Back in the day , have arranged this - so long ago it was class 47 and 86 !

Why a DSM? With most TOC's a DSM is forbidden to drive unless the booked driver is on the train. If there isn't a booked driver the DSM would probably not move it!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Back in my day as an Ops Manager - we called them Traction Inspectors - they obviously had the neccesary competence ...and the will !