Collision Plymouth 03/04/16

[455driver]

Probably because these other drivers have more sense than to post ANY kind of detail relating to the incident as they are aware of the company social media policy.

Are you trying to say that I have posted some confidential stuff?
If so just say so instead of beating around the bush!

 

[VP185]

It doesn't have to be confidential does it. I suggest you read the policy first and ask about those who have fallen foul of it already.

 

[455driver]

It doesn't have to be confidential does it. I suggest you read the policy first and ask about those who have fallen foul of it already.

So you are still beating around the bush! :roll:

Why cant people answer a simple question with a simple answer?

What do you consider wrong with what I have posted?
As I have already posted it you wont get in trouble with teacher will you!

 

[ScouserGirl]

So you are still beating around the bush! :roll:

Why cant people answer a simple question with a simple answer?

What do you consider wrong with what I have posted?
As I have already posted it you wont get in trouble with teacher will you!

hold on if your staff shouldn't you be following the social media policy?

 

[VP185]

I've answered the question by saying "it doesn't have to be confidential" it is what the company deems unacceptable, what they call "bringing the company into disrupte". That covers a multitude of things.

You clearly haven't read the policy and you are clearly unaware of other members of staff who have fallen victim to it. It's your career to lose. Shame you are so arrogant that you can not accept friendly advice.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I've answered the question by saying "it doesn't have to be confidential" it is what the company deems unacceptable, what they call "bringing the company into disrupte". That covers a multitude of things.

You clearly haven't read the policy and you are clearly unaware of other members of staff who have fallen victim to it. It's your career to lose. Shame you are so arrogant that you can not accept friendly advice.

I'm not railway staff, but I couldn't see anything in any of 455Driver's posts on this thread that would "bring the company into disrepute". If your (and his) superiors feel different I'd say that's an overreaction, as as far as I'm concerned his posts on the matter were sensible and measured (if a little blunt, understandably), and should have reminded one or two posters about the dangers of speculation. The main thing about this incident for now is that it appears none of the human beings involved have suffered serious injury, thankfully. The whys and wherefores will come later.

 

[VP185]

I'm not railway staff, but I couldn't see anything in any of 455Driver's posts on this thread that would "bring the company into disrepute". If your (and his) superiors feel different I'd say that's an overreaction, as as far as I'm concerned his posts on the matter were sensible and measured (if a little blunt, understandably), and should have reminded one or two posters about the dangers of speculation. The main thing about this incident for now is that it appears none of the human beings involved have suffered serious injury, thankfully. The whys and wherefores will come later.

There's been staff pulled up and disciplined under the policy for what most what see as a trivial matter. The term "bringing the company into disrepute" is very open ended.

 

[Class 170101]

I believe I'm correct in saying that it's been 9 years since a passenger in a British train was killed? Railways especially our own have a brilliant safety record. I'm very proud of Britain's Railway safety record.

Pendolino at Grayrigg I would have thought.

 

[Nippy]

With regard to social media, I didn't bring any company into disrepute, but still got disciplined for it.

 

[Taunton]

Oh, for buffers ...

 

[Johncleesefan]

I don't see how 455driver has infringed on social media policy. He hasn't named any names, he hasn't added any company sensitive info, only that 2 drivers were onboard, he hasn't slated any company. The people speculating are the dangerous ones, making assumptions as to what happened/who is at fault. Its not your call to make. So lets leave that to the raib shall we.

 

[najaB]

I don't see how 455driver has infringed on social media policy.

It's hard to make a judgement either way unless you happen to know what the policy says?

 

[Robertj21a]

Given that the vast majority of this thread has hardly anything to do with the accident perhaps it should be closed down. All this speculation and off-topic stuff is not contributing anything at all.

 

[Scott M]

How long does it normally take for an RAIB report to come out?

Given that the vast majority of this thread has hardly anything to do with the accident perhaps it should be closed down. All this speculation and off-topic stuff is not contributing anything at all.

Tbf the forum is called 'UK rail discussion'. Mightaswell change the name if speculation and opinion is not allowed as there wouldn't really be any discussions in that scenario.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Can we have less bitching, name calling etc please.

It's becoming like a kindergarten. I thought that whilst avoiding & making any rash and unfounded allegations, we might resume some sort of adult debate in the near future.

Those who've been on here a long time, know that members of staff cannot always answer certain questions or comment on certain things that are alleged to have occurred, due to social media policy and for legal reasons as well.

So before certain people say or do something really silly and what they may later regret, take a step back, have a breather and if you can't be civil or sensible log out for a while. Basically TAKE A CHILL PILL!

 

[Llanigraham]

How long does it normally take for an RAIB report to come out?

As long as it takes, but they normally try to get them done as soon as they can.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think that's more than enough. This thread is locked. Once the RAIB have something to say on the matter please feel free to report (

) this post and the Forum Staff will unlock it for further discussion of in light of what the RAIB discover.

On a more general note I would like to bring everyone's attention to the Forum Rules. Two parts in particular:

Respectful

• Do not post material which in any way discriminates against, or provokes, any person or group of persons.

Try to think about that rule and particular the section in bold before posting. Some of the posts on this thread could be quite provocative to other members. I think sometimes because the posters making them don't go back and proofread their posts so things might not sound as they intended. Just stop and think before posting if what you're saying is actually clear.

And finally this one:

Respectful

• We aim to create a friendly environment for all members, where individuals respect each other. Please ensure your contributions comply with this.

It would appear that on a few occasions people on this thread were not keeping these rules in mind whilst posting and this has caused off-topic discussion and unnecessary rancour and anger/upset. Please can we try and tone our posts down. By all means disagree with each other but do so in a way that keeps the above in mind. There is no need to resort to name calling or to belittle other posters for getting something wrong.

Finally something else I would like people to keep in mind is that if there is a misunderstanding about what a poster means rather than assuming the worst and have a dig why not ask for clarification first? It might be that you're actually in a agreement or a clarification can help you and others understand what is being said. We want a friendly atmosphere. Jumping on people without giving them chance to clarify or explain their point is not conducive to that.

Many thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[Greenback]

The thread has been reopened as the RAIB have now apparently made a comment.

 

[ScouserGirl]

The thread has been reopened as the RAIB have now apparently made a comment.

here is the link if its okay to post
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/collision-at-plymouth-station

At 15:34 hrs on Sunday 3 April 2016, a train entering platform 6 at Plymouth station, collided with a stationary train. Around 35 people, including the driver of one of the trains were injured, some seriously.
The stationary train, 1A91, had arrived in platform 6 around 34 minutes before the collision. This train would normally have used platform 7. On this occasion it could not, because the platform lifts were closed for planned maintenance and the train required its catering supplies to be restocked before its onward journey to London Paddington at 15:41 hrs. At the time of the collision, train 1A91 had one member of staff on board.
Train 2E68 was the 13:39 hrs service from Penzance to Exeter. It was formed of two class 150 diesel multiple units coupled together; a total of four vehicles. There were approximately 60 passengers on the train as it approached Plymouth. This train was booked into platform 8 at Plymouth but the signaller decided to signal the train into platform 6 behind train 1A91 so that passengers intending to catch train 1A91 could do so easily as the lifts were not working on both platforms 7 and 8. Allowing trains to share a platform is known as permissive working......

 

[Greenback]

It's fine to post that link, but please include a quote as per our usual rules. What I think we don't want is for this to be the trigger for further speculative discussion and arguments.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Reading that brief statement, it looks like 2E68's driver did as much as he could given his slight confusion

The driver was surprised to see the rear of train 1A91 so close to the west end of the platform. He looked at the tracks to confirm which route the train was taking and, realising a collision was imminent, applied the emergency brake.

Would it be alright to ask if 2E68's crew would have been informed about the lifts being out of order?

 

[bnm]

Reading that brief statement, it looks like 2E68's driver did as much as he could given his slight confusion

Except perhaps accelerating after the permissive signal. As mentioned in the RAIB bulletin.

Not speculation so please don't shoot me down for mentioning it.

 

[HLE]

Reading that brief statement, it looks like 2E68's driver did as much as he could given his slight confusion



Would it be alright to ask if 2E68's crew would have been informed about the lifts being out of order?

Re-read the statement. It will be interesting to see a drivers eye view of the approach into the platform from the signal.

 

[ComUtoR]

Except perhaps accelerating after the permissive signal. As mentioned in the RAIB bulletin.

Not speculation so please don't shoot me down for mentioning it.

It's a fact that Driver accelerated but I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to suggest. Could you clarify. Was the acceleration the correct action to take or are you suggesting that the Driver made an error in accelerating ?

I'm surprised that the Signaler accepted a unit based on a visual estimation rather than actual train lenghts. Rightly so the RAIB are looking if there is a procedural error.

I'm also very shocked that the unit was still going 15mph after the brake application. If I hit the brake at 20mph I'd come to a stop pretty sharpish. No doubt the RAIB report will have graphs and deceleration distances as well as sighting.

 

[bnm]

It's a fact that Driver accelerated but I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to suggest. Could you clarify.

No. Because I suspect you wish to draw me into speculation. Thus opening the floodgates for the usual suspects to circle the wagons.

 

[HLE]

It's a fact that Driver accelerated but I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to suggest. Could you clarify. Was the acceleration the correct action to take or are you suggesting that the Driver made an error in accelerating ?

I'm surprised that the Signaler accepted a unit based on a visual estimation rather than actual train lenghts. Rightly so the RAIB are looking if there is a procedural error.

I'm also very shocked that the unit was still going 15mph after the brake application. If I hit the brake at 20mph I'd come to a stop pretty sharpish. No doubt the RAIB report will have graphs and deceleration distances as well as sighting.

The sighting will be the one of the most important parts i would imagine.

 

[ComUtoR]

No. Because I suspect you wish to draw me into speculation. Thus opening the floodgates for the usual suspects to circle the wagons.

I was being polite.

Your comment came across pretty badly and rather than make the usual accusations I asked for clarification.

Rather than make uneducated and open ended comments it's probably better to not post or clarify your comment so that those more in a position can clarify any confusion or questions you may have. If the discussions move to a questions over speed I'd be happy to chip in answers. From both lay and professional perspectives this collision should not have happened.

@hle. Indeed the sighting is significant. The brake application was left pretty late unless sighting was an issue. It's not unusual to go permissive and not unusual to see a unit longer than expected.

 

[bnm]

I was being polite.

Your comment came across pretty badly and rather than make the usual accusations I asked for clarification.

Apologies. I see as I find.

I'm bowing out. I'm done with this thread now, until the RAIB report is out.

 

[GB]

Personally I think the fact there wasn't enough room for both trains is slightly irrelevant....but does anyone know how far the unit was sticking out of the platform when all the dust settled?

 

[Greenback]

I think the thread is best closed again until there are further developments.