Drivers and Shunting

[GardenRail]

Is it now normal practice where by drivers will not shunt units, for example, 2 coupled without gangway/through access, to avoid walking on the ballast.

It's become a notable problem at Sheffield, with Transpennine Express, where they might decide to cancel a train at Sheffield, meaning it then needs shunting out of the platform into the Down Station Siding, or Up Station Sidings. Rather than shunt the double set within the station limits, they refuse, and insist on a movement right out to Dore Station or Meadowhall, change ends in the platform, and come back into the sidings. If this cannot be done, the service is often cancelled at Meadowhall and then runs empty stock to the sidings at Sheffield avoiding the need for shunting, but leaving the passenger high and dry at Meadowhall. Is this a thing with all TOCs or just TPX?

In the sidings though, it's still ballast, trees and bushes to contend with when they leave the cab.

And what happens where in an emergency, for whatever reason, a driver has to walk the ballast, to check the train, lay emergency protection or any other un-planned situation, and is faced with having to walk in the cess?

 

[ComUtoR]

The Sheffield thing sounds very specific to that location and there may be reasons why.

In normal circumstances, shunting in and out of yards would have specific walking routes. You cannot just get down on ballast.

In an emergency it is very different. The cess is also considered to be 'safe' and anything towards the running line will either be protected by the Signaller or you are providing the needed protection.

 

[66701GBRF]

You cannot just get down on ballast.

Better tell that to all the freight companies then!

 

[baz962]

I wouldn't know why this is at Sheffield. But in a siding you are away from the running line so it isn't necessarily a ballast or shrub issue , more an issue with being away from train movement.

 

[GardenRail]

Better tell that to all the freight companies then!

I did sort of think that....

 

[_toommm_]

I asked about this before, and I believe the answer was that the overtime ban meant that in order to start the service at Sheffield, the drivers would have to start early to shunt from the sidings between five and six, to shunt into a platform. As such, they join their train at the regular booking on time, and ‘shunt’, or in this case go ECS, straight to Meadowhall.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I wouldn't know why this is at Sheffield. But in a siding you are away from the running line so it isn't necessarily a ballast or shrub issue , more an issue with being away from train movement.

At Sheffield the Down Siding (really a ‘centre road’) has running lines on both sides. These are the Through Line northbound on one side and Platform 2 on the other. Not an ideal place to be clambering down and up twice if it can be avoided.

(I am not talking about when an adjoining line might be blocked by arrangement.)

 

[NorthernAspect]

At Sheffield, you either need to be able to walk through the train or have a driver in each end in the case of no gangway doors between sets.

So, in the case of TPE with a 6 car formation, there must be two drivers present to complete a shunt due to lack of gangways. That applies across the board.

It's not a case of drivers "refusing", there is a local instruction in place that prohibits it, which drivers/control are adhering to.

Emergency situations are a different beast entirely, and you do what is required as per Rule Book instructions in that situation. Normal day to day operations are done according to the Rule Book which provides the minimum standard, with the Sectional Appendix providing additional instructions for specific locations.

 

[LowLevel]

To be fair the layout at Sheffield specifically makes clambering around on the ballast either side of the station quite problematic, but I would be interested to know when the business of passenger crews requiring neat little walkways of pea gravel or concrete for regular operations crept in.

 

[theageofthetra]

At Sheffield the Down Siding (really a ‘centre road’) has running lines on both sides. These are the Through Line northbound on one side and Platform 2 on the other. Not an ideal place to be clambering down and up twice if it can be avoided.

(I am not talking about when an adjoining line might be blocked by arrangement.)

I wonder if this might be off the back of the investigation into the West Worthing fatality? Didn't that have a similar layout?

 

[TreacleMiller]

Is it now normal practice where by drivers will not shunt units, for example, 2 coupled without gangway/through access, to avoid walking on the ballast.

It's become a notable problem at Sheffield, with Transpennine Express, where they might decide to cancel a train at Sheffield, meaning it then needs shunting out of the platform into the Down Station Siding, or Up Station Sidings. Rather than shunt the double set within the station limits, they refuse, and insist on a movement right out to Dore Station or Meadowhall, change ends in the platform, and come back into the sidings. If this cannot be done, the service is often cancelled at Meadowhall and then runs empty stock to the sidings at Sheffield avoiding the need for shunting, but leaving the passenger high and dry at Meadowhall. Is this a thing with all TOCs or just TPX?

In the sidings though, it's still ballast, trees and bushes to contend with when they leave the cab.

And what happens where in an emergency, for whatever reason, a driver has to walk the ballast, to check the train, lay emergency protection or any other un-planned situation, and is faced with having to walk in the cess?

As stated it's a local instruction.

Drivers do not refuse to go on the ballast but will refuse risks that aren't assessed. Sheffield has a specific local instruction and this is being adhered to.

As for an emergency, that's different. We either arrange for a line block on required lines or where contact with the signaller is not possible, or if they can't provide signal protection, then we are in the cess (where possible) and laying protection as needed. Rain, snow, bushes or otherwise.

Your post reads a little like there's some anti driver or anti health and safety tinge to it. No one is refusing to do anything and I'm not sure where that idea came from?

 

[Signal_Box]

Better tell that to all the freight companies then!

Freight drivers never have an issue with doing what’s needed when it comes to boots on ballast. Passenger crew on the other hand, can’t get those shinny shoes dirty.

 

[james_the_xv]

Freight drivers never have an issue with doing what’s needed when it comes to boots on ballast. Passenger crew on the other hand, can’t get those shinny shoes dirty.

Surely it is a question of safety and risk management? For example An ECS move via Meadowhall is infinitely more safe for the driver than getting down on the ballast and running the risk of being hit by an incoming train. The issue is that freight drivers don't have the opportunity to do such moves (being almost exclusively driven from a single end locomotive), so that risk can't be managed in the same way?

 

[LowLevel]

Freight drivers never have an issue with doing what’s needed when it comes to boots on ballast. Passenger crew on the other hand, can’t get those shinny shoes dirty.

Funny how this passenger guard along with a selection of drivers has removed various trees, bikes and so on from the line over the years

It specifically seems to be planned shunting of trains that's an issue, ad hoc occurrences where you need to get off the train seem to be personal judgement but wandering between cabs on the ballast is often verboten even with a safe standard cess.

 

[baz962]

Funny how this passenger guard along with a selection of drivers has removed various trees, bikes and so on from the line over the years

It specifically seems to be planned shunting of trains that's an issue, ad hoc occurrences where you need to get off the train seem to be personal judgement but wandering between cabs on the ballast is often verboten even with a safe standard cess.

Even in a well lit depot or sidings away from a running line we aren't supposed to stray from the walking route and aren't supposed to walk between trains . Some places and some scenarios you can or as you say make a judgement. Maybe the people on here moaning should see the video I saw recently of someone getting crushed between units. Safety is there for a reason and if something happened and we had gone against the agreed procedures we would be in hot water.

 

[Signal_Box]

Surely it is a question of safety and risk management? For example An ECS move via Meadowhall is infinitely more safe for the driver than getting down on the ballast and running the risk of being hit by an incoming train. The issue is that freight drivers don't have the opportunity to do such moves (being almost exclusively driven from a single end locomotive), so that risk can't be managed in the same way?

Anytime a driver or crew alight from the loco or unit other than a platform there will be a line block to ensure a safe walking route as they require.

 

[Adam0984]

No authorised walking route at either end for swapping units possibly so the whole thing has to go to Dore or Meadowhall. Coupled with what's previously being mentioned no time to do this long shunt

 

[BrummieBobby]

Freight drivers never have an issue with doing what’s needed when it comes to boots on ballast. Passenger crew on the other hand, can’t get those shinny shoes dirty.

A sweeping generalisation, and certainly not my experience of dealing with incidents involving passenger trains (A passenger driver and guard assisting a MOM to remove the carcass of a muntjac deer, a driver removing scaffolding polls that had been thrown into the 4 foot and a driver who took it upon himself to remove vegetation that was obscuring a ground signal with his bare hands being recent examples)

 

[GardenRail]

No authorised walking route at either end for swapping units possibly so the whole thing has to go to Dore or Meadowhall. Coupled with what's previously being mentioned no time to do this long shunt

Ah well, the new Signalling at Dore won't allow trains to turn back there come April. So that's one option gone. Maybe they'll go to Grindleford to use the crossover and come back to Sheffield from there.

 

[Tomnick]

To be fair the layout at Sheffield specifically makes clambering around on the ballast either side of the station quite problematic, but I would be interested to know when the business of passenger crews requiring neat little walkways of pea gravel or concrete for regular operations crept in.

I'm sure that we were late to this particular party, but it started for us when it was just assumed that we'd do it on a planned, regular basis when no attempt had been made to assess the suitability of the surface. It's one thing to do it ad-hoc when it's all going wrong, but quite another when it's happening every hour in the same place – the frequency of risk side of the risk assessment. I don't think we asked for a neat little pea gravel walkway, we just wanted a level surface rather than a sloping ballast shoulder. Indeed, the walkway that we ended up with is so far from the rail that you'd walk further on ballast to get to/from it than you would if you just walk on ballast from one cab to the other! It's level-ish, though.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm sure that we were late to this particular party, but it started for us when it was just assumed that we'd do it on a planned, regular basis when no attempt had been made to assess the suitability of the surface. It's one thing to do it ad-hoc when it's all going wrong, but quite another when it's happening every hour in the same place – the frequency of risk side of the risk assessment. I don't think we asked for a neat little pea gravel walkway, we just wanted a level surface rather than a sloping ballast shoulder. Indeed, the walkway that we ended up with is so far from the rail that you'd walk further on ballast to get to/from it than you would if you just walk on ballast from one cab to the other! It's level-ish, though.

I don't doubt the benefits of it - I'm more interested in when it started to happen really.

There's always been some consideration of it as there's been locations over time where for example propelling moves have been undertaken rather than change ends, but I'm just interested as to when someone started to think "hmm, traincrew climbing on to the ballast isn't a good thing, let's start providing alternatives" - especially considering pre GSMR it was basically a routine task. The walkway at places like Longbridge reversing siding is probably a good example.

 

[Purple Train]

A sweeping generalisation, and certainly not my experience of dealing with incidents involving passenger trains (A passenger driver and guard assisting a MOM to remove the carcass of a muntjac deer, a driver removing scaffolding polls that had been thrown into the 4 foot and a driver who took it upon himself to remove vegetation that was obscuring a ground signal with his bare hands being recent examples)

Indeed. Once, I was on a train that was stopped due to a tree on the line, somewhere between Nottingham and Carlton if I remember correctly. An initial announcement was made that we were waiting for Network Rail to arrive with a saw. Cue groaning. The driver and guard went down to inspect the tree. There was then a further announcement that the driver of an empty stock train, for reasons unexplained, had a small saw at his disposal, and the train stopped alongside. I can't remember if Network Rail were actually required in the end, but we were away fairly shortly after. About five minutes after setting off again, the guard came back down the train with absolutely filthy hands (covered in a mixture of general dirt and sawdust).

This would have been about eight years ago - how much have times changed?

 

[LowLevel]

Indeed. Once, I was on a train that was stopped due to a tree on the line, somewhere between Nottingham and Carlton if I remember correctly. An initial announcement was made that we were waiting for Network Rail to arrive with a saw. Cue groaning. The driver and guard went down to inspect the tree. There was then a further announcement that the driver of an empty stock train, for reasons unexplained, had a small saw at his disposal, and the train stopped alongside. I can't remember if Network Rail were actually required in the end, but we were away fairly shortly after. About five minutes after setting off again, the guard came back down the train with absolutely filthy hands (covered in a mixture of general dirt and sawdust).

This would have been about eight years ago - how much have times changed?

Not much, we can still get stuck in and often do - there were loads of trees removed by crews yesterday. What has changed is that the 15x have a well equipped emergency cupboard with various handtools. The 170s do not and are not provided with a handsaw.

 

[Stigy]

And what happens where in an emergency, for whatever reason, a driver has to walk the ballast, to check the train, lay emergency protection or any other un-planned situation, and is faced with having to walk in the cess?

Just because drivers can walk on ballast, doesn’t mean they would want to as a preference. If an operation can be done on a platform, or with two drivers etc, that would be the safest way.

 

[dk1]

Just because drivers can walk on ballast, doesn’t mean they would want to as a preference. If an operation can be done on a platform, or with two drivers etc, that would be the safest way.

Do you walk on ballast is a constant question at routine railway medicals these days. Never used to be.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Silly question time: I'm currently at Sheffield and there are three Northern units stabled on the middle road.

How did the drivers who left the units there get back to safety?

The first unit is a 158 with no lights. Is that legitimate?

 

[Surreytraveller]

The first unit is a 158 with no lights. Is that legitimate?

I presume you mean no tail lights? That's fine if its not a running line

 

[skyhigh]

The first unit is a 158 with no lights. Is that legitimate?

When the batteries go flat the lights go off. It's not just been left with the lights switched off.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

How did the drivers who left the units there get back to safety?

The first unit is a 158 with no lights. Is that legitimate?

They would have taken a block with the signaller of the adjacent lines using gsmr in the cab, walked down the line to the authorised walking routes at the end of the platforms and then used the phone there to give up the block

Lights out on stabled units is fairly common on the older units unfortunately, they’ll be on for a while then as the battery lowers they switch off

 

[manmikey]

I find the assumptions being made about drivers that are following mandatory rules and local instructions amusing, "don't want to get out shoes dirty" , "need some pea gravel to walk on" , "refusing to do the shunt" "wont walk on ballast"
Rest assured we will walk on ballast when necessary and required and we don't give toss about out shoes, what we won't do is disregard the rule book and local operating instructions, most of which are in place because lessons are learned after some poor soul was injured or died.