Driver refusing request to call at additional stations - is this really a thing?

[skyhigh]

However, can there be emergency plans devised for common problems (e.g. overhead wires down on ECML) so that an emergency timetable including stop orders etc can be pulled out of a drawer and used?

There are indeed contingency plans, and they are often used.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I accept that during periods of disruption, things in the control room may be chaotic, and there could be lack of available resources to issue stop notices. However, can there be emergency plans devised for common problems (e.g. overhead wires down on ECML) so that an emergency timetable including stop orders etc can be pulled out of a drawer and used?

There are emergency plans. But they don't work, because each situation is unique. And the problem will still persist - how do you get messages to train crews?

 

[ComUtoR]

how do you get messages to train crews?

Our control has access to GSMR. They can, and do, call Drivers direct.

 

[king_walnut]

I know this thread is about refusing to call at extra stations but .... I was once buzzed up by my OBS asking if we could call additionally at the next stop as there was a family who needed to get back to the campsite that was next to it because their son was diabetic and needed his medicine. It was late and no more services stopping there that night. I didn't have time to phone control before we got there so I purposely stopped out of course and then phoned control. They didn't actually seem all that bothered, then I wrote a report and never heard anything more. So drivers CAN make that decision on their own.

 

[choochoochoo]

Our control has access to GSMR. They can, and do, call Drivers direct.

I'd rather control didn't or were trained to do it considerately.

I once had them call me on GSMR as I approached a Red Signal into a platform !!

At least when a signaller calls you they usually know the aspect you're approaching.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Our control has access to GSMR. They can, and do, call Drivers direct.

Assuming a driver responds and Control have the time to make the call. I think people underestimate the workload that controls are under during disruption

 

[noddingdonkey]

Isn't there a simple solution that additional stops are not advertised until the traincrew acknowledge receipt of the stop order and confirm that they are able to comply?

 

[ComUtoR]

Isn't there a simple solution that additional stops are not advertised until the traincrew acknowledge receipt of the stop order and confirm that they are able to comply?

That's far to easy and doesn't support my bias.

There has to be a more technical solution so that this never happens again.

Maybe the information can be sent directly to the driver console. DAS (driver advisory system) or ETCS (European train control system) should work well.

I'm surprised automation hasn't been mentioned yet.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Isn't there a simple solution that additional stops are not advertised until the traincrew acknowledge receipt of the stop order and confirm that they are able to comply?

Adding another step into the process will slow the process down, and add to the already considerable workload that cannot be coped with.
I think people seriously underestimate control's workload during disruption

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

I'd rather control didn't or were trained to do it considerately.

I once had them call me on GSMR as I approached a Red Signal into a platform !!

At least when a signaller calls you they usually know the aspect you're approaching.

How are Control going to know what aspect you are approaching? They also aren't going to have the time to call each train they need to call considerately, amongst all the other tasks they need to perform. A driver is always free not to respond.
I think people seriously underestimate control's workload during disruption

 

[357]

I'm interested....

Are you allowed your iPads in the cab ?

Yes, however when the train isn't "secured" we must not touch it, it has a timetable app that gives us information we need (and would otherwise be looking at the WTT for) without any input from the driver.

Eg next station, time until departure, train length, stopping pattern.

Most TOCs use either TAS or DAS (Timetable Assistance System / Driver Assistance System)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

I'd rather control didn't or were trained to do it considerately.

I once had them call me on GSMR as I approached a Red Signal into a platform !!

At least when a signaller calls you they usually know the aspect you're approaching.

On my route the signaller must call us and then patch us through if we say it's safe to do so. Much better system.

 

[choochoochoo]

How are Control going to know what aspect you are approaching? They also aren't going to have the time to call each train they need to call considerately, amongst all the other tasks they need to perform. A driver is always free not to respond.
I think people seriously underestimate control's workload during disruption

Exactly. If they don't know what aspect I'm approaching then they shouldn't be calling me !! Which is what I should've said to them on that occasion in hindsight.

On my route the signaller must call us and then patch us through if we say it's safe to do so. Much better system.

Much better way of doing things, even if it adds an extra layer to the process.

 

[357]

I have to admit that I'm amazed by all this talk of needing a signed chitty to be prepared and handed out. Does the driver then have to verify the signature in their book of authorised signatories, or are wax seals involved?

To be honest, whenever anything goes wrong the first person many people try to blame is the driver.

The stop orders have a box for "issued on authority of" and leaves a paper trail.

It's easy for someone to say they never said something verbally, but harder when it's on paper.

If a fake dispatcher is giving out stop orders, or a real dispatcher is giving out fake stop orders, then there are bigger issues than the driver not stopping at the correct stations!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==

I have to admit that I'm amazed by all this talk of needing a signed chitty to be prepared and handed out. Does the driver then have to verify the signature in their book of authorised signatories, or are wax seals involved?

An example

When I was a dispatcher, control phoned me and ran off a long list of stations that a train wouldn't stop at. I asked "mate, just tell me where the train IS stopping"

He told me, but missed out one station.

When the failure to call was investigated, firstly it goes to the driver. He showed the stop order signed by myself, on behalf of control, and it matched where he had stopped.

The investigation then goes to me, I said as far as I'm aware, I filled it out correctly, so they download the call from control to myself.

Control gave me an incorrect stopping pattern, and didn't notice the inaccuracy when I repeated it back to the controller.

Without that paperwork, I could have easily said I told him to stop at the station in question and the driver would have an incident on his record.

 

[ComUtoR]

Yes, however when the train isn't "secured" we must not touch it, it has a timetable app that gives us information we need (and would otherwise be looking at the WTT for) without any input from the driver.

Eg next station, time until departure, train length, stopping pattern.

Thanks,. I'm always interested in TAS/DAS stuff. I don't usually hear anything positive.

On my route the signaller must call us and then patch us through if we say it's safe to do so. Much better system.

Our control will send the CONTACT message, then we call them.

I've had many many Signallers calling on the approach to a Red. It's the nature of the beast. I much prefer the CONTACT SIGNALLER approach. Which, in all honesty, is becoming more common.

 

[357]

Thanks,. I'm always interested in TAS/DAS stuff. I don't usually hear anything positive.



Our control will send the CONTACT message, then we call them.

I've had many many Signallers calling on the approach to a Red. It's the nature of the beast. I much prefer the CONTACT SIGNALLER approach. Which, in all honesty, is becoming more common.

TAS is literally just a timetable and a way to put delay reasons in (while stationary). No driving instructions whatsoever

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Isn't there a simple solution that additional stops are not advertised until the traincrew acknowledge receipt of the stop order and confirm that they are able to comply?

It might seem rudimentary, but what I'm used to works well. Slips of paper given at major stations or call to my work mobile if it's a last minute request and I convey message to drivers in the same way I would request stops.

 

[NEDdrv]

There is the other side of this where staff need to be in place to ensure other services are run on time. If I'm diverted somewhere but my next service is elsewhere. What do you propose happens ?

What if I'm going to be late because of the additional pickups so my next service runs +10 and blocks the platform for those 10 minutes causing more delays ?

What if that not to stop order causes a member of staff to miss their pass train ?

There are so many variables that it's difficult to understand what is actually going on. Most Railway staff tens to understand the complexity and the reality.

I think those who wear the tinfoil hats often only year the voices in their head telling them how naughty the railway is.



How do you SPAD a station ? There is no signal or danger. Are you proposing putting a red at the end of the platform to force a stop ? You realise the Driver/Guard/etc. Could simply not open the doors many Drivers will trickle towards a station with a red to prevent PTI (platform train interface) issues if the train isn't booked to call there and the starter is red.

If your intention is that missing a station that is advertised should be considered equivilant to a SPAD then the Driver should then stop at the next station, detrain all passengers, and go ECS to depot. Medscreen, interview, probably about a week off. Not sure that's helpful for passengers either.

If I’m being brought to a stand at a red platform signal where I’m not booked to call I will normally stop just before the station unless in doing so blocks some points that may need to be used

 

[Surreytraveller]

It might seem rudimentary, but what I'm used to works well. Slips of paper given at major stations or call to my work mobile if it's a last minute request and I convey message to drivers in the same way I would request stops.

Rudimentary systems are best, but with fewer and fewer platform staff about, and those that are with little or no operational knowledge, training and experience, its difficult to get a message to a driver these days, and when messages do get through they're quite often wrong

 

[bramling]

You're deliberately overstating my SPAD comment. My original reference included the comment "forgetting to tell drivers about an additional stop, as has been intimated upthread, should be a disciplinary offence", ie targeted at someone other than the driver. You'll also have seen my comment that "My mention of SPAD was obviously not literal". I'm talking about the fact that once a station stop has been advertised to the public, it should be adhered to unless there are exceptional circumstances, and this does NOT include someone just not bothering to tell the driver. Our railways are better than this with their generally very rigid rules, for good reason, but those reasons too often don't include consideration for their passengers. Please don't labour this SPAD point out of context.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2022 ==


What extra cost to be borne by the customer? Surely you're not saying it's unimportant that a driver should be notified of an extra stop for his/her train as part of normal practice? And if it is important then it's part of an existing duty, with no additional resource requirement whatsoever.

I never said whether it was important or unimportant. Fact is that controls experience extremely heavy - at times bordering on physically unmanageable - workloads during disruption, and this combined with a reluctance from drivers to deviate from the script unless they’ve received absolutely clear confirmation is one reason why issues arise. It isn’t great, and it’s one thing which has probably got worse over the years as drivers have found themselves ever more expected to deliver 100.0% performance.

Having said that, I’m not sure that’s the original problem. It sounds more like the driver didn’t want to be late finishing. It’s one thing being on overtime due to an emergency (which is part of a driver’s terms & conditions), but extra stops isn’t an emergency. No one likes to finish work late.

 

[jamesst]

Exactly. If they don't know what aspect I'm approaching then they shouldn't be calling me !! Which is what I should've said to them on that occasion in hindsight.

Much better way of doing things, even if it adds an extra layer to the process.

I agree, at my toc the only person who can contact me directly via the gsmr is the signaller and I'm very happy for it to stay that way.

 

[baz962]

I know this thread is about refusing to call at extra stations but .... I was once buzzed up by my OBS asking if we could call additionally at the next stop as there was a family who needed to get back to the campsite that was next to it because their son was diabetic and needed his medicine. It was late and no more services stopping there that night. I didn't have time to phone control before we got there so I purposely stopped out of course and then phoned control. They didn't actually seem all that bothered, then I wrote a report and never heard anything more. So drivers CAN make that decision on their own

What you mean to say is that drivers can at the toc you work for. You can't speak for all tocs.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Adding another step into the process will slow the process down, and add to the already considerable workload that cannot be coped with.
I think people seriously underestimate control's workload during disruption

I think people seriously overestimate the public's capacity for having sympathy with issues which the TOC could easily resolve by employing sufficient staff to cope with forseeable situations.

 

[Watershed]

So say if passengers face more than a couple of hours delay, with mitigations for things like extreme weather, accidents etc, they can not only claim the cost of their ticket back but compensation for the inconvenience of being stranded, with perhaps an obligation to provide food and drink where available?

That right already exists for delays of 61+ mins.

 

[Parallel]

I've only been on a train once where it hasn't stopped at additional stations it was supposedly meant to. I was on a train at Exmouth with Polsloe Bridge and St. James' Park being the additional calls which were advertised as such by the station CIS, probably because the previous service was cancelled.

We sailed through both. I don't think Exmouth was staffed at that point, and all the other stations on that route are unstaffed until Exeter, so assume the driver either wasn't aware, or didn't get the SSO slip. At least it was probably a bit less of a inconvenience to passengers than the same happening somewhere like Lockerbie or Pewsey!

 

[Surreytraveller]

I think people seriously overestimate the public's capacity for having sympathy with issues which the TOC could easily resolve by employing sufficient staff to cope with forseeable situations.

Its not that easy. De-skilling frontline staff has been ongoing for years, so there simply isn't the capacity for TOCs to cope with foreseeable situations. And employing more staff isn't cheap. Its cheaper to pay for delays than to pay for, and train, sufficient staff.
The days of the TOCs caring about their customers are now gone.

 

[150219]

I think people seriously overestimate the public's capacity for having sympathy with issues which the TOC could easily resolve by employing sufficient staff to cope with forseeable situations.

I'm not convinced 100% that is the right answer, especially for working out stop orders and arranging for adding them to be added to trains. In many cases adding extra people into the mix can increase the complexity of decision making during disruption and can actually work against you for making time critical decisions.

Whilst inevitably there are circumstances that an extra person or two would help, there are a number where it wouldn't. Adding extra staff into the equation adds extra points of communication. For argument's sake, let's say one telephone call takes 2 minutes. Additional multiples of that result in extend time for decision making and communication. Whilst viewed in isolation this is just 2 minutes. In the case of a single shot cancellation and one extra stop order, this is quite manageable, very easy to arrange and standard practice. In disruption, not so much - especially if the incident happens *now* and there are suddenly 20 trains that all need a decision to be made of some sort or another.

Making a decision that involves a number of staff requires a degree of coordination. One of the evils of operating a railway is that disruption is inevitable. It might not happen today, it might not happen tomorrow, but something somewhere will happen. The fact that there will be disruption is foreseeable. The exact nature of what arises isn't. What is needed to fix it is dynamic and requires creativity to keep customers moving to where they want to get to.

Some of this will be obvious to people, some of it will hopefully explain a little bit more context behind decision making in disruption.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm not convinced 100% that is the right answer, especially for working out stop orders and arranging for adding them to be added to trains. In many cases adding extra people into the mix can increase the complexity of decision making during disruption and can actually work against you for making time critical decisions.

There is a stark difference between adding more staff into the decision making process and adding more staff to reduce workload.

From a Traincrew perspective, when I call control, I need it answered. What happens during disruption is that the phone rarely gets answered because there isn't enough people to do the basic task of answering the phone. The fallout from control not answering can be very detrimental.

Information during these times is also critical. Would it be better to have information from 3 Drivers in a 2 minute window or have one person take 6 minutes instead ? This is certainly where too many cooks need to be balanced.

However, control points can be quite heirachical. At my TOC I know who the top of the tree is. But is one person on the shift really enough ? Their workload must be huge. Whilst we split Mainline/Metro it's still a nightmare for control.

I'm the end user so I need efficient decision making and a quick response time.

Quite often during disruption im waiting on control to make a decision. I understand passenger frustration but I assure you. Traincrew are just as frustrated.

 

[Stadtbahn]

I think people seriously overestimate the public's capacity for having sympathy with issues which the TOC could easily resolve by employing sufficient staff to cope with forseeable situations.

I would agree with this. As an ordinary member of the public (albeit one with a passion for transit), accepting (and sympathising with) the reasons for this situation happening can only go so far. The bottom line is that it makes for an absolutely terrible passenger experience and no amount of sympathy with drivers or control room staff can change that.

 

[357]

Adding to this, I've never in my 11 years called control and had an answer from the person who picked up the phone without them needing to ask someone else

 

[150219]

There is a stark difference between adding more staff into the decision making process and adding more staff to reduce workload.

From a Traincrew perspective, when I call control, I need it answered. What happens during disruption is that the phone rarely gets answered because there isn't enough people to do the basic task of answering the phone. The fallout from control not answering can be very detrimental.

Information during these times is also critical. Would it be better to have information from 3 Drivers in a 2 minute window or have one person take 6 minutes instead ? This is certainly where too many cooks need to be balanced.

However, control points can be quite heirachical. At my TOC I know who the top of the tree is. But is one person on the shift really enough ? Their workload must be huge. Whilst we split Mainline/Metro it's still a nightmare for control.

I'm the end user so I need efficient decision making and a quick response time.

Quite often during disruption im waiting on control to make a decision. I understand passenger frustration but I assure you. Traincrew are just as frustrated.

Valuable thoughts, thank you. Especially the one about being hierarchical. This is broadly speaking spot on. There are a set number of people doing a set number of jobs. Phoning three times and getting a different person answering each call during disruption isn't helpful, when the person initially being spoken to is the person that needs to be contacted again. Personally, I like speaking to as many people as I can as efficiently as possible; but there is only one person who takes responsibility for their own sphere of work. If you can't liaise with whoever else you need to, when you need to, there's a problem. Wait a couple of minutes, try again (and so on). This won't just apply to one member of train crew of course, it applies to everyone stuck behind/in front too. Everybody wants their information now and if not now, then five minutes ago. Certain job roles can double up, others can't. Especially if there's a split in the decision making for one train service.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Utterly wrong!
The driver cannot decide to stop or not stop anywhere.
Any request for a service to stop ‘additionally’ or not to call MUST come from the tocs control and usually will be conveyed to the driver either by gsmr or (as has been said earlier) by the driver being given a signed paper request at a previous station.

Drivers or guards can and do/did decide to stop. It happened to me at New Milton on a CrossCountry Voyager once. Myself and a young lady were going to miss the last train back from Bournemouth - New Milton (the last from Brockenhurst had already gone) due to serious delays so the guard told the driver to stop for us at New Milton. We were ushered out of the driver's cab as the guard said control would find out and ask questions if he opened the passenger doors.