A lot of this thread is why signallers need to go on cab rides and why drivers need to visit boxes and ROCs! I sit in the middle and blame both
And signallers, drivers and other grades need to see what other important staff do. So yes, drivers, guards, P.Way, D&P (electricians) all need to visit signal boxes/signalling centres etc. And also visit signalling equipment rooms (would be good for them all to go trackside as well, but that’s harder to do these days). An alternative would be for them to visit S&T training facilities, which have all the equipment, but no trains
Just as signallers, S&T, P.Way and other grades need to see the drivers perspective from a cab. The view from a cab is very different compared to walking along the track.
Very briefly (I think it only happened for a month), the railway in my area held appreciation days (classroom only unfortunately) where an experienced person from one engineering department gave a talk to staff from other engineering disciplines. Including answering questions. This worked really well. I would like to see this brought back and expanded.
Oh, and S&T blame both signallers and drivers!
Signallers for their silliness. For example, a S&T team arrive on a track circuit failure to find out that there is a train/loco/wagon on the line...
Signaller reports a fault, unable to call the route for signal X to signal Y. Then the S&T find out they had a flank protection point locked in the wrong position…
CCTV not working at a level crossing, signaller/crossing keeper complains that they can’t clear the signals. S&T team leader asks “are you pressing the ‘picture’ button for the CCTV as well as the ‘crossing clear’ button? Signaller/crossing keeper says no, the CCTV is not working. S&T says, yes, but the signalling controls still need you to press the buttons in the correct sequence. When tried, the signals now clear
Drivers for their mistakes as well. One example, a driver stopped their train so short of the signal, that the train had not made it onto the track circuit that has to be occupied in order for the signal to release from red. Driver was advised that the train needed to be moved forward 20 metres… When the train moved forward, just like magic, the signal cleared

(I won’t say how long the train had been waiting…)
Driver reports a TPWS activation, but insists that they were not exceeding the set speed. Control is requested to obtain a download from the train (which always appears to take at least a week to appear…). When the TPWS system is checked on site, the equipment is found to be working correctly and as per the design. And many, many other trains have passed over the same equipment without problems…
Sometimes guards, station staff or other staff also.
Reports of TRTS / TRS buttons not working for example. Not always, but mostly, the S&T find no cause and it tests okay, plus, no further reports are received for months afterwards…
Yawn. Delay minutes form manager's KPIs and are a manager's problem. I had a discussion once with a manager about how a wholly unavoidable delay had caused a load of snowballed reactionary minutes and blown the budget as it were.
I pointed out that as a professional train guard I try my best to avoid delays, working as efficiently as possible, but I don't give two figs about *delay minutes*, which are entirely their job to chuck around, not mine, and especially when it comes to arguing cost centre of the same sodding company pays for them.
This caused quite some consternation as it clearly hit home that something that is quite important if you happen to be a responsible manager with a budget to look after (chasing attributed delay minutes) are an absolute irrelevance to the staff involved.
Yeah, on the engineering side, our management have delay minutes, KPIs, and other related statistics near the top of their briefing agenda.
An infrastructure failure on a main line almost always causes at least some disruption. It’s always fun when the failure stops all traffic on a main line and you get briefed on the train delay figures.
When such a failure occurs, in the past, a S&T fault team leader would get half a dozen phone calls all asking stupid questions. {Are you on site yet? What part has failed? How long will it take to fix? All while they were still travelling to the area of the failure, hence the answers were along the lines “I dunno, I don’t have a crystal ball!”}. Now an ARM is appointed (sorry, the acronym words escape me at the moment, but the last part is I think Response Manager) who instead asks all the questions.
Staff try to do their job to the best of their ability and more to the point, good teams try to do it as safety as possible, as quickly and efficiently as possible. No one wants trains to be stopped or delayed any more than necessary, so delay minutes, cancellations, KPIs etc are not important to us in the real world. What is more important, is accurate information, spares being available if needed, and access to the equipment (will the signaller grant a line block, will control allow the signaller to stop the trains so that they can grant a line block). Delay minutes, cancellations, KPIs etc are irrelevant if we are told, sorry your line block request will have to wait until a gap is found in the service. And we then spend ages watching train after train getting delayed…