Incompetence or Doing Their Job?

[Parham Wood]

On Friday I caught the 16:39 from Bath Spa to Cardiff, intending to change there for the 18:06 to Bridgend and thence to Llantwit Major. The train was shown as 7 mins late and because of this the 16:45 to Bristol Parkway was allowed to go in front of it. The 16:39 followed in immediately the 16:45 left. As the 16:45 stops once before Bristol Temple Meads (BRI) and my train runs non stop it meant that we caught it up at Keynsham and then had a slow approach to Temple Meads making us even later. I do not have too much of a problem with this, it may have been the right call if the turn around time at BRI was fast. Indeed we seemed to be all ready to leave ahead of the other train but then the circus arrived!

Between Bath and BRI someone in getting their luggage down dislodged the diffusion grid from one of the overhead fluorescent lights. This was somehow reported and just as we were ready to leave a maintenance crew got on, four of them eventually. They had to push through the standing only train to the fitting. Instead of looking at it and concluding in 30 secs that it was safe to leave to be fixed later as the train was late they proceeded to try and fit the grid back on but without success after several attempts.

Although a clip on fixing it looked far from easy to attach unless you probably have the knack. They showed no urgency in their task and after about ten minutes decided to give up and left. No apologies to passengers from them or anyone else later. My Cardiff by 3 or 4 minutes. I was not happy. Fortunately the direct train from Cardiff to Llantwit only resulted in a 26min late arrival but those going in the Swansea direction would be delayed by an hour at least. In my view it is not the way to run a railway.

 

[Parham Wood]

I would also add that Bath was extremely busy and probably with the 16:45 going first it took a lot of passengers for Bristol which would otherwise have crammed on the full 16:39.

 

[tiptoptaff]

A fault was reported, with the lighting, and the mobile fitters at BRI attended in an attempt to fix it. Upon deciding it was OK as was to proceed through the tunnel (where lighting is essential, for obvious reasons) they left it and allowed the train to leave.

How is that incompetence?

They probably didn't know much about the fault until they attended, other than "lighting fault in coach X, needs attention prior to departure from BRI"

 

[AM9]

I can just imagine some of the comments on here if a passenger was endangered or even injured by doing nothing and just continuing on. Maybe they should have taken the train out of service or at least that coach. Out of interest, what would the op do if they were resonsible for attending to the damage?

 

[GB]

Obviously cannot win with some people.

 

[dk1]

It's just one of them things. They tried to repair it. More haste less speed as they say.

 

[Parham Wood]

A fault was reported, with the lighting, and the mobile fitters at BTM attended in an attempt to fix it. Upon deciding it was ok as was to proceed through the tunnel (where lighting is essential, for obvious reasons) they left it and allowed the train to leave. How is that incompetence? They probably didn't know much about the fault until they attended, other than "lighting fault in coach X, needs attention prior to departure from BTM"

The light was in perfect working order as were all the others. The point I was trying to make was should they have been more mindful of delaying the train even for a couple of minutes for what was a non safety affecting fault particularly as the train was late?

 

[AM9]

The light was in perfect working order as were all the others. The point I was trying to make was should they have been more mindful of delaying the train even for a couple of minutes for what was a non safety affecting fault particularly as the train was late?

As I said, "what would the op (i.e. you) do if they were resonsible for attending to the damage?" By responsible, I mean legally, including verifying that it is safe to proceed for the rest of the diagram.

 

[SPADTrap]

A typically British question, I'm not sure how responding to a fault can be seen as incompetence, at a stretch I guess the fault reporting could have been more detailed.

 

[Bromley boy]

The light was in perfect working order as were all the others. The point I was trying to make was should they have been more mindful of delaying the train even for a couple of minutes for what was a non safety affecting fault particularly as the train was late?

But they (obviously) wouldn’t have known that until the damage had been inspected. Supposing the light had had live wires dangling from it? The emphasis is always on safety over and above punctuality.

If you want someone to blame, wouldn’t the passenger who broke the light be more logical?

 

[Parham Wood]

As I said, "what would the op (i.e. you) do if they were resonsible for attending to the damage?" By responsible, I mean legally, including verifying that it is safe to proceed for the rest of the diagram.[/QUOTE

I would have looked at the light, assessed there were no loose wires, that it was safe and let the train go on putting the light fitting in the guards area or cab advising whoever was my control it needed fitting when time permitted. Of course if guidance said that the train could not proceed with the item unfitted I would have tried to refit it and if I failed in that I would have declared the train unsafe to continue. So what would you do AM9?

 

[Parham Wood]

A typically British question, I'm not sure how responding to a fault can be seen as incompetence, at a stretch I guess the fault reporting could have been more detailed.

I did not say the responding to the fault reporting was incompetence. I had no problem with them attending but did they make the right decision to try and fix it when the train was already late?

 

[Parham Wood]

But they (obviously) wouldn’t have known that until the damage had been inspected. Supposing the light had had live wires dangling from it? The emphasis is always on safety over and above punctuality.

If you want someone to blame, wouldn’t the passenger who broke the light be more logical?

Yes they had to inspect it but should it have taken so long when the actual inspection was about ten seconds? It was deciding to try and fix it that was the issue.

Most who have replied have not addressed the fact the train was late and because of the maintenance crew actions made even later with missed connections for pax. This is the point I am trying to make. There is a lovely YouTube video set in the 50s or 60s about a train from Euston I think that ended up being quite late because of simple errors by railwaymen along its journey. None on their own were major but they all added up. E.g. guard does not sort parcels leading to delay when off loading them, driver reading his paper when stopped at red signal. Missing it turning to green for a whole minute, porters not shutting open doors as they pass etc. O.K. a bit over the top but it was done to make a point.

 

[daikilo]

A fault is a fault and in many circumstances can be carried forward. One that can't will cause disruption, whether you like it or not.

 

[satisnek]

Between Bath and BRI someone in getting their luggage down dislodged the diffusion grid from one of the overhead fluorescent lights.

Plastic trains

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes they had to inspect it but should it have taken so long when the actual inspection was about ten seconds? It was deciding to try and fix it that was the issue.

I won’t comment on that as clearly I wasn’t there, but the fact fitters were called out at all suggests it was (potentially) a serious defect.

Most who have replied have not addressed the fact the train was late and because of the maintenance crew actions made even later with missed connections for pax.

That’s because it’s irrelevant.

If there’s a potential safety/maintenance issue then that needs to be addressed. That will always come ahead of punctuality and hopefully you can see why that is.

Nobody working on the railway wants trains to run late, I can assure you. After all, we are the ones who get sworn at/spat at. But sometimes it’s uavoidable.

I think in this instance you should chalk it up as one of those things and claim for delay repay if availalbe.

 

[whhistle]

Most who have replied have not addressed the fact the train was late and because of the maintenance crew actions made even later with missed connections for pax.

That won't be their concern though.
The maintenance teams' priority is to fix faults. Thinking about how late a train is getting, is why things like The Smiler accident happens.

 

[AM9]

... So what would you do AM9?

As daikilo, Bromley boy and whhistle have all said, I would fix the fault as per my training, safety rules and using tools/available equipment at the time. Safety is the prime consideration. The lateness of the train is irrelevant until the safety issue has been dealt with. The world has been experiencing deaths, injuries and serious damage caused by those responsible for safety listening to impatient spectators. When I travel by train and am unfortunate enough to be there when something fails or worse, I just accept that those responsible will do what is needed to be done first. Any delays that I may suffer m,ay be irritating, but I remember that train travel is not all about me. You would do well to recognise that you are in the same situation. Make your delay claim and then move on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That won't be their concern though.
The maintenance teams' priority is to fix faults. Thinking about how late a train is getting, is why things like The Smiler accident happens.

Sort of - the Smiler thing had a lot more similarity with the use of the Zs1 signal used in Germany to signal that a driver may pass a signal at danger without being "verified" by the interlock.

 

[ComUtoR]

I would have looked at the light, assessed there were no loose wires, that it was safe and let the train go on putting the light fitting in the guards area or cab advising whoever was my control it needed fitting when time permitted. Of course if guidance said that the train could not proceed with the item unfitted I would have tried to refit it and if I failed in that I would have declared the train unsafe to continue. So what would you do AM9?

In effect you have answered your own question.

Check light, make assessment - Tick
Tried to refit it - Tick
Declared train unsafe - Train cancelled

Your ticking time just as much as the fitters who attended your train. Whether that takes 30 seconds of 10 minutes you still have to tick time. If unsafe the unit gets taken out of service. So much more than just a delay.

I assume that you felt that your actions would be doing your job but you would 100% still delay the train.

 

[ComUtoR]

That’s because it’s irrelevant.

That won't be their concern though.
The maintenance teams' priority is to fix faults. Thinking about how late a train is getting, is why things like The Smiler accident happens.

So why do 'cut and run' policies exist ?

Why, in my brand new shiny 700, does the HMI fault message state quite clearly about not delaying the train ?

 

[Bromley boy]

So why do 'cut and run' policies exist ?

Why, in my brand new shiny 700, does the HMI fault message state quite clearly about not delaying the train ?

Not sure “cut and run” means prioritising punctuality over safety.

I thought it meant: “if you can get the brakes off and get the wheels turning, boot everyone off and get the train out of the way by taking it to the nearest sidings”!?

What exactly does the 700 message say?

 

[DarloRich]

On Friday I caught the 16:39 from Bath Spa to Cardiff, intending to change there for the 18:06 to Bridgend and thence to Llantwit Major. The train was shown as 7 mins late and because of this the 16:45 to Bristol Parkway was allowed to go in front of it. The 16:39 followed in immediately the 16:45 left. As the 16:45 stops once before Bristol Temple Meads (BRI) and my train runs non stop it meant that we caught it up at Keynsham and then had a slow approach to Temple Meads making us even later. I do not have too much of a problem with this, it may have been the right call if the turn around time at BRI was fast. Indeed we seemed to be all ready to leave ahead of the other train but then the circus arrived!

Between Bath and BRI someone in getting their luggage down dislodged the diffusion grid from one of the overhead fluorescent lights. This was somehow reported and just as we were ready to leave a maintenance crew got on, four of them eventually. They had to push through the standing only train to the fitting. Instead of looking at it and concluding in 30 secs that it was safe to leave to be fixed later as the train was late they proceeded to try and fit the grid back on but without success after several attempts.

Although a clip on fixing it looked far from easy to attach unless you probably have the knack. They showed no urgency in their task and after about ten minutes decided to give up and left. No apologies to passengers from them or anyone else later. My Cardiff by 3 or 4 minutes. I was not happy. Fortunately the direct train from Cardiff to Llantwit only resulted in a 26min late arrival but those going in the Swansea direction would be delayed by an hour at least. In my view it is not the way to run a railway.

shocking incompetence and, frankly, jobsworthsim from the lad there Gary. When he looks at the replay he will be diisapointed with his actions.

This board! bloke criticised for trying to do his job. ffs.

 

[nuts & bolts]

This is Trial by Social Media unfortunately!

Parham, if you have a problem with punctuality and the Fleet dept of the TOC concerned rectifying a fault, why don't you contact the Relevent TOC customer services dept and ask for an explanation?
Why waste your time on here!

 

[whhistle]

I thought it meant: “if you can get the brakes off and get the wheels turning, boot everyone off and get the train out of the way by taking it to the nearest sidings”!?

What exactly does the 700 message say?

It's a shame it doesn't say more or less exactly that!
Clear English, you can understand what it means without having any corporatity about it.

 

[Bromley boy]

It's a shame it doesn't say more or less exactly that!
Clear English, you can understand what it means without having any corporatity about it.

Everything has to be dressed up in management speak these days.

 

[ComUtoR]

Not sure “cut and run” means prioritizing punctuality over safety.

Not so much safety but certainly prioritizes time and delays over properly dealing with a fault. The whole policy is designed to mitigate the delay over a fault. You don't deal with the fault, just isolate and get the unit on the move, and, or, out the way.

Everything has to be dressed up in management speak these days.

And there has to be an 'app' for it.