Manea Fail to Call?

[crehld]

Just because you miss a station dosnt mean you are not concentrating or not paying enough attention!

But it does though doesn't it? The driver is required to stop at the station. I imagine they would have had a calling pattern given to then to follow on the journey (you're the expert you tell me). As you say there are many possible explanations. Perhaps they didn't see the station, perhaps they did see it but it was too late to apply the brakes and stop, perhaps they didn't realise the station existed, perhaps they simply forgot they were supposed to call at the station. At the root of all of these scenarios, however, is a momentary lack of concentration / attention to detail on the driver's part, who should have known they were supposed to call at the station, but did not. Quite how anyone can argue to the contrary is baffling.

But perhaps I'm missing something. Given you're the expert, perhaps you could outline in which cases a failure to call could happen when the driver is dedicating 100% of their attention 100% of the time? Then I might get it.

It most definitely does not mean you 'could have had a more serious incident'. Absolutely no evidence to suggest that EVER being the case!

Perhaps I was not clear enough in the previous post. My apologies. Allow me to be as clear as possible. The failure to call was not, nor could lead to, a serious incident - this much has been established. A lack of attention or concentration while driving a train could lead to a more serious incident. It is this latter which I feel which concerns most people.

Once again a very experienced member of staff (ie me) is stating the FACTS about something and a load of arm chair experts are trying to argue that I'm wrong!

I'm not an arm chair expert. In fact I'm no expert at all, neither do I claim to be. But one does not have to be an expert to state the bleeding obvious.

In this case seems very clear the driver made an honest mistake: they were supposed to stop at the station, but they did not. Given the driver would have had the requisite route knowledge and should have known to stop at the station, this suggests there was a momentary lack of concentration. It's no different from me missing a turnoff on the motorway because I wasn't paying attention to the situation.

It's the fact you say you're an expert, but don't recognise there's obviously been a lapse of concentration here that leads me to assume I've missed something crucial in the conversation, so perhaps if you could explain how a driver could miss a station call and still be paying full attention to the job at hand 100% of the time, then I (and others) might gain a more of a detailed understanding of the situation and would know not to make such ridiculous assumptions for the future.

 

[A-driver]

But it does though doesn't it? The driver is required to stop at the station. I imagine they would have had a calling pattern given to then to follow on the journey (you're the expert you tell me). As you say there are many possible explanations. Perhaps they didn't see the station, perhaps they did see it but it was too late to apply the brakes and stop, perhaps they didn't realise the station existed, perhaps they simply forgot they were supposed to call at the station. At the root of all of these scenarios, however, is a momentary lack of concentration / attention to detail on the driver's part, who should have known they were supposed to call at the station, but did not. Quite how anyone can argue to the contrary is baffling.



But perhaps I'm missing something. Given you're the expert, perhaps you could outline in which cases a failure to call could happen when the driver is dedicating 100% of their attention 100% of the time? Then I might get it.







Perhaps I was not clear enough in the previous post. My apologies. Allow me to be as clear as possible. The failure to call was not, nor could lead to, a serious incident - this much has been established. A lack of attention or concentration while driving a train could lead to a more serious incident. It is this latter which I feel which concerns most people.







I'm not an arm chair expert. In fact I'm no expert at all, neither do I claim to be. But one does not have to be an expert to state the bleeding obvious.



In this case seems very clear the driver made an honest mistake: they were supposed to stop at the station, but they did not. Given the driver would have had the requisite route knowledge and should have known to stop at the station, this suggests there was a momentary lack of concentration. It's no different from me missing a turnoff on the motorway because I wasn't paying attention to the situation.



It's the fact you say you're an expert, but don't recognise there's obviously been a lapse of concentration here that leads me to assume I've missed something crucial in the conversation, so perhaps if you could explain how a driver could miss a station call and still be paying full attention to the job at hand 100% of the time, then I (and others) might gain a more of a detailed understanding of the situation and would know not to make such ridiculous assumptions for the future.

You are confusing a station overrun (which is taken seriously as it can show a lack of control over the train) with a fail to call. Route knowledge etc don't come into FTCs. If you have a FTC you have no intention of stopping at that station, perhaps you are genuinely oblivious to the fact you should stop there, perhaps it is forgetting your train calls there etc. But if you miss it because you forget to brake in time or can't stop in time then that is a station overrun.

Yes not fully checking a schedule card is an error on the drivers part, I'm not suggesting it isn't. But it's a very minor error and dosnt flag you up as being at risk from more serious incidents as it has little to do with concentrating when actually driving the train.

If s driver has a FTC then they will not be seen as higher risk of having a safety incident than anyone else.

 

[455driver]

Yes, and actually it was a big yellow train on the Cambrian Coast. It was a Sunday morning and she had the timetable stuck to her dash board!

I was close, I knew it was up Country and on the left hand side!

 

[Tetchytyke]

You are confusing a station overrun (which is taken seriously as it can show a lack of control over the train) with a fail to call. Route knowledge etc don't come into FTCs. If you have a FTC you have no intention of stopping at that station, perhaps you are genuinely oblivious to the fact you should stop there, perhaps it is forgetting your train calls there etc. But if you miss it because you forget to brake in time or can't stop in time then that is a station overrun.

But when does "forgetting to brake in time" turn into "forgetting your train calls there"? The guy who powered through Manea without stopping clearly forgot to brake in time.

I'm not being critical, I'm genuinely curious why you see an overrun as a bad thing but a FTC (which is, in effect, just a really long overrun) less so.

 

[MCR247]

But when does "forgetting to brake in time" turn into "forgetting your train calls there"? The guy who powered through Manea without stopping clearly forgot to brake in time.

I'm not being critical, I'm genuinely curious why you see an overrun as a bad thing but a FTC (which is, in effect, just a really long overrun) less so.

I wouldn't say he clearly forgot to break in time. He might have done, but there could be other reasons. Why would you need to break if you're not stopping? Obviously he should have stopped, but if he didn't think the train called then at no point did he forget to break in time.

 

[A-driver]

But when does "forgetting to brake in time" turn into "forgetting your train calls there"? The guy who powered through Manea without stopping clearly forgot to brake in time.



I'm not being critical, I'm genuinely curious why you see an overrun as a bad thing but a FTC (which is, in effect, just a really long overrun) less so.

But that's the point. It isn't just a big overrun and he didn't forget to brake in time. He never attempted to brake at all-a crucial difference (obviously I don't know for a fact what happened in this case but I'm using general terms).

A fail to call means that at that time you had no intention of stopping at that station. An overrun involves aiming to stop there but for some reason not slowing the train in good enough time (so you do have intention to bring te train to a stand but basically miss).

 

[Llanigraham]

Very defensive...

No, just a professional driver giving the full and correct facts of the situation.

I presume you aren't a train driver (or railway worker)?

 

[MCR247]

Tbf I think us people in armchairs get a bad rep on here :P

Even from my armchair I agree with A-driver. Drivers are all human and its easy to criticize them in hindsight. I, as a fellow human, have made so many mistakes where I've had countless opportunities to check something (the driver and the schedule card) but at the time as I thought I was right I didn't bother checking. (Do you doubt yourself everytime you think you know something?) Now when I'm wrong, its easy to look back and say that I should've checked, but in reality, there will be countless times where I think I'm right, don't check and I end up being right. Mistakes happen people

 

[A-driver]

I hate using analogies on here but a fail to call is really often on a par with leaving work in your car to drive the same route home you have done very day for ten years and thinking as you set off "ah, I'll stop at the co-op to pick up some milk on the way home" and getting to the front door to realise you still don't have the milk. It's a pain as you need to go out again but at no point have you put yourself or other road users in any danger and it dosnt really highlight an issue likely to lead to you causing a pile up on the motorway etc. or make you a bad driver. Or at least that's the way it often goes with FTCs involving unisual stopping patterns.

Now if this XC train had failed to call at Ely or peterborough then I'd agree it was a more serious issue as all trains stop there and a FTC would likely indicate a more serious underlying cause but at a small stop like this it's really not a major mistake. Id apply the same to Cambridge except that it has fixed reds for arriving trains so a FTC wouldn't be possible-it would be a SPAD.

 

[talltim]

No, just a professional driver giving the full and correct facts of the situation.

I presume you aren't a train driver (or railway worker)?

Why? And why does it matter?

I'm assuming it wasn't A-Driver who didn't stop at Manea, so he knows less of the facts than the OP (presumably an 'armchair expert') who at least saw the train. In fact I doubt he even knew it had happened until he read this thread.

I agree that its hardly a safety issue, but it is 'not paying 100% attention'

 

[A-driver]

Why? And why does it matter?

I'm assuming it wasn't A-Driver who didn't stop at Manea, so he knows less of the facts than the OP (presumably an 'armchair expert') who at least saw the train. In fact I doubt he even knew it had happened until he read this thread.

I agree that its hardly a safety issue, but it is 'not paying 100% attention'

As I said earlier-no driver can pay 100% attention 100% of the time. It's humanly impossible. No way they could have been. So your argument about it being a case of 'not paying 100% attention' is a huge waste of your time as it's completely irrelevant.

Yes a FTC is a concentration based error but it's still not a safety issue. There is absolutely no danger arising from it. The FACTS are that it in no way increases the chances of a driver having safety issues in the future nor does it make them a worse driver or high risk etc, it has nothing at all to do with the safety of the train or line.

Therefore your entire point and argument on the thread is flawed and irrelevant. Of course it was concentration based but it was a fail to call, nothing more. You can't just say 'well he could have been approaching a red instead of a station and that would be dangerous' as approaching a red or speed limit etc is a completely different kettle of fish to approaching a through platform. They have no similarities.

At least the industry and those who investigate these incodents recognise what I am saying here so people on here can say what they want but the industry isn't going to look at this FTC or any other similar incident as anything serious at all!

Look at this incident in particular-most XC trains run non stop through manea so it's fairly unusual for a driver to stop there. Therefore a fail to call is a real non issue. It dosnt take much investigation to hazard a good educated guess at why the train didn't stop...

 

[Juniper Driver]

Really? So how could a fail to call be a catastrophe?! How can a train not stopping at a through station due to a misread diagram possibly pose ANY danger to anyone at all?!

It's a fail to call, inconvenient? Yes. Dangerous? Absolutely not in the slightest, no matter how vivid your imagination!

A fail to call is the simplest and safest of all the possible driver errors. In most cases it isn't even investigated past the driver being asked why he didn't stop and a half joking slap round the wrist. Unless there is a history of incidents it is incredibly unlikely the driver will see a manager face to face or be taken off track. Normally a case of just asked for a report at their earliest convenience.

So easy to do,esp with different stopping pattens and working different trains,all sorts of factors come into it.I almost stopped at Whitton the other day because I have done so many hounslow rounders recently and was on a desiro on a Reading.I saw the screen say PLEASE STAND CLEAR and it clicked.

One of our drivers missed a station the other day and he was absolutely gutted.

SIDENOTE:Actually I call what happened to me as either Windsor mode or Hounslow mode and to be fair I was doing Windsor stops to Twickenham but by default I don't usually get caught in that trap.

 

[Philip C]

...... There is absolutely no danger arising from it. ......

There seems general agreement on this thread that there is "absolutely no danger arising" from the failure to stop. This leaves me out of step with you all.

Consider the following scenario:

A passenger waiting on the platform sees his train approaching. The expected train, at the expected time. Perhaps other passengers start to move forward in anticipation of its arrival. Our passenger collects his baggage, his shopping, perhaps his two children who have not been on their best behaviour. Perhaps our passenger is partially sighted or has his hearing impaired? He moves towards the point at which he would expect the train to stop.

Perhaps not ideal passengers, but fellow fallible citizens; most of us will know people like them.

Now instead of a train running to stop at the station we have a train passing at 70mph, perhaps more, perhaps with horn blaring; but still four, three, two yards from our only now aware passenger.

How is there "absolutely no danger arising"?

I am not saying that the driver is doing more than being human, but then neither is my passenger with his two children.

I'm certainly not demanding that the driver be sacked, but following a reasonable instruction (that his train stop as scheduled) is something any TOC should encourage. There are good commercial reasons for adhering to its advertised schedule and, I would argue, a safety element as well.

 

[A-driver]

There seems general agreement on this thread that there is "absolutely no danger arising" from the failure to stop. This leaves me out of step with you all.



Consider the following scenario:



A passenger waiting on the platform sees his train approaching. The expected train, at the expected time. Perhaps other passengers start to move forward in anticipation of its arrival. Our passenger collects his baggage, his shopping, perhaps his two children who have not been on their best behaviour. Perhaps our passenger is partially sighted or has his hearing impaired? He moves towards the point at which he would expect the train to stop.



Perhaps not ideal passengers, but fellow fallible citizens; most of us will know people like them.



Now instead of a train running to stop at the station we have a train passing at 70mph, perhaps more, perhaps with horn blaring; but still four, three, two yards from our only now aware passenger.



How is there "absolutely no danger arising"?



I am not saying that the driver is doing more than being human, but then neither is my passenger with his two children.



I'm certainly not demanding that the driver be sacked, but following a reasonable instruction (that his train stop as scheduled) is something any TOC should encourage. There are good commercial reasons for adhering to its advertised schedule and, I would argue, a safety element as well.

Absolute non-argument. Say the time table is up the spout due to disruption. At 0746 your passenger sees a train approaching and thinks 'that must be my 0746 train) so does everything you describe. But it isn't the 0746, it is the fast train booked to pass through at 0735 that's running late. Exact same scenario as you describe.

If you stand in front of the Yellow line ok any platform before your train has fully stopped then you are creating your own danger for yourself, even if you think your train is about to stop. If you stand behind the line and a train passes through at high speed ten there is no danger to you.

Sorry but I don't see any safety case arising from the drivers actions from your scenario. Just a case of a passenger standing too close to the edge and ignoring the yellow line put in for their safety-something worth paying even more attention to if you have a disability or young children!

As for TOCs 'encouraging anything', are you suggesting TOCs couldn't care less if drivers stop or not?! No one is denying that FTCs are not ideal and of course they are inconvenient but most definitely not a safety case, not even with passengers standing too close to the edge of a platform before their train has stopped.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Plus how many times do I go through Clapham Junction (and other stations) and get this all the time,on empties or for whatever reason.Screens wrong could be one reason.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A fail to call means that at that time you had no intention of stopping at that station. An overrun involves aiming to stop there but for some reason not slowing the train in good enough time (so you do have intention to bring te train to a stand but basically miss).

So a driver who remembers at the last minute is better off carrying on than trying to stop (assuming green signals, etc etc)?

I understand how it happens- I've driven a car perfectly safely on "autopilot" and ended up driving towards work rather than Tesco- so I have sympathy with it.

 

[A-driver]

So a driver who remembers at the last minute is better off carrying on than trying to stop (assuming green signals, etc etc)?



I understand how it happens- I've driven a car perfectly safely on "autopilot" and ended up driving towards work rather than Tesco- so I have sympathy with it.

Yes actually! In many cases if you realise you have forgotten to stop somewhere and know you are past the point of stopping carrying on can be the better option as it becomes a fail to call, not an overrun.

Of course the cut off between both is a grey area and it's not as black and white as I have perhaps made out, and a fail to call can be serious if there are underlying causes (ie suspicion of more than simple error-alcohol/mobile phone etc) but most of the time it's not taken seriously at all. And in this case at manea, as so few XC trains stop here and as it's such a small station it's almost inevitable that it was caused by the most basic of human errors.

Recently I was pass on a semi fast Cambridge-London which had an FTC at baldock. The driver went into 'cruiser mode' after Royston and realised his error when he saw passengers on the platform at baldock. He applied step 3 brake at 80mph as the train hit the platform and took the brake off about 2 seconds later realising he had no chance of stopping! (I witnessed this from the back cab). He carried on to letchworth, made a PA announcement to apologise to passengers and wrote out a report at kings cross. That was the last he heard of it. The relevance of that story is that it was a FTC rather than overrun as the downloads clearly proved that he had a fail to call rather than overrun but once he realised his mistake he still attempted to stop. Possibly if he realised half a mile earlier but still went through it would have been an overrun.

 

[Juniper Driver]

So a driver who remembers at the last minute is better off carrying on than trying to stop (assuming green signals, etc etc)?

I understand how it happens- I've driven a car perfectly safely on "autopilot" and ended up driving towards work rather than Tesco- so I have sympathy with it.

"autopilot",hate that but that's what it is.No way do I like it happening and I try to prevent it.Multiple factors result in this condition though.

 

[HLE]

On a side note , where would you rate an unscheduled stop compared to an overrun/fail to call?

 

[A-driver]

On a side note , where would you rate an unscheduled stop compared to an overrun/fail to call?

Pretty much the same thing. I've stopped at unscheduled stops twice. Never bothered reporting the first, had a manager riding with me on the second and he laughed it off. Neither caused a delay.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On a side note , where would you rate an unscheduled stop compared to an overrun/fail to call?

The same really. I've had 2 stops at unscheduled stations. Didn't bother reporting the first and a manger was up front with me on the second-he laughed it off. No delay caused or anything.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Although sometimes stop out of course due to red signal.

 

[Scott M]

From an outsider's point of view, this is actually probably one of the most serious incidents that can happen.

What if a Virgin Trains East Coast driver didn't realise he was stopping at a station, and therefore flew across the points that take you off the mainline at 125mph? Certain derailment.

 

[dk1]

From an outsider's point of view, this is actually probably one of the most serious incidents that can happen.

What if a Virgin Trains East Coast driver didn't realise he was stopping at a station, and therefore flew across the points that take you off the mainline at 125mph? Certain derailment.

That really is an outsiders view mate & im not being rude. I take it you have no knowledge of signalling at all?

 

[scott118]

From an outsider's point of view, this is actually probably one of the most serious incidents that can happen.

What if a Virgin Trains East Coast driver didn't realise he was stopping at a station, and therefore flew across the points that take you off the mainline at 125mph? Certain derailment.

haha without flashing yellow's? 125mph points - show me where..certainly not near Manea..

 

[Trainfan344]

From an outsider's point of view, this is actually probably one of the most serious incidents that can happen.

What if a Virgin Trains East Coast driver didn't realise he was stopping at a station, and therefore flew across the points that take you off the mainline at 125mph? Certain derailment.

What about the steam tour that SPADed and crossed a junction about a minute after a express service passed through?

 

[Juniper Driver]

What about the steam tour that SPADed and crossed a junction about a minute after a express service passed through?

That was a different matter where (allegedly) it spadded 2 signals?

haha without flashing yellow's? 125mph points - show me where..certainly not near Manea..

No,saying you were doing 125 and had to cross say a 20mph set of points then you would be checked down.Farnborough is an example of this although the line speed is not 125mph.

 

[dk1]

That was a different matter where (allegedly) it spadded 2 signals?

& after safety onboard systems where (allegedly) isolated.

 

[tsr]

I am utterly astounded to see what I presume are qualified railway workers saying there is no safety risk from a train failing to call at a station. As I have said on previous threads, whilst I am not a train driver, I am however in safety-critical railway employment... and consider this to be a quite inexcusable point of view.

As above, passengers should not need to expect a train which is advertised and booked to stop at a station to come flying through at whatever speed beyond that which it would normally enter the platform when stopping. Just because passengers "should" stand behind the yellow line (where there is one - see also major stations such as East Croydon as one example) does not mean they always will - indeed, we are all human and we certainly are not blessed with the ability to randomly work out whether a train driver has forgotten to stop today.

And how about those people onboard the train? You approach a station, getting ready to alight, and it doesn't slow down and zooms past the platform. "How weird" you or I on this forum might think. But "Oh [insert choice of swear word]" is what a 'normal' might think, and pull the green handle. Or the red one. Or any of the ones which jams on the brakes and possibly opens the doors. People do not take kindly to missing their stops when they have made the effort to get off, and rather more worryingly, they do not find it amusing when they think their driver is incompetent or unconscious - even if they are not, and they are just not educated on the intricacies of the railways. Not to say that the Manea situation wasn't mitigated (maybe by an immediate announcement) but some such situations may not be.

As railway professionals we must consider the reason we run the railway, which is for the customer (passenger or freight) and not our own convenience and amusement, and thus it is very serious if one of the passengers on what would otherwise be our very own train set come within inches of a train flying through a station where it could otherwise be reasonably expected to call. And for that matter, I (and my employers) also regard PIS errors to be extremely serious and a reportable matter where they do not indicate non-stop trains.

I know it is hard to concentrate at all times - I have been up at 0315 examining the line for people's electrocuted bodies, crossed virtually unlit third rail track in the pouring rain, dispatched trains during thick snowfall, you name it - the distractions are all there, and we can succumb at any point, but that does not mean that making some sort of mental error should not be examined and double-checked in case it could be prevented again. If it can't be, than fair enough. Someone who has marginally slipped up against an excellent safety record may just need to be regarded as having had "one of those days" and maybe there should be no disciplinary action. On the other hand, I have it on good authority that drivers have been fired due to trying to blag their way out of failing to call somewhere. There are massive differences per situation and unusual calling patterns can influence bad behaviour unwittingly, so I'm sure there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the Manea incident. But that does not mean it was safe.

From an outsider's point of view, this is actually probably one of the most serious incidents that can happen.

What if a Virgin Trains East Coast driver didn't realise he was stopping at a station, and therefore flew across the points that take you off the mainline at 125mph? Certain derailment.

Fortunately that particular point is very much an outsider's point of view. If the points had that severe a restriction over them, either speed limits or the signalling system (or other local instructions) would check down the speed of the train. (As above!)

 

[Juniper Driver]

& after safety onboard systems where (allegedly) isolated.

I had heard but couldn't really comment on the matter as I was not there or am not part of the investigation.I don't think that really comes into play when missing a station through error.

 

[dk1]

I had heard but couldn't really comment on the matter as I was not there or am not part of the investigation.I don't think that really comes into play when missing a station through error.

Of course it doesn't. Not sure why it was brought up in a 'fail to call' discussion? Suppose many people don't understand railway operations.