Post incident med screening

[Zontar]

More of an observation than a discussion, but I've noticed where I'm at, that a lot of drivers are allowed to continue to the next station or shift following a SOL incident but then be med screened. This can be at times quite a significant time/distance.

I've always found this a bit odd. If there's a suspicion or chance of drugs/alcohol playing a contribution to the incident, why don't they test them there and then? Why do they take the risk and allow them to drive? Surely if there is a suspicion or doubt, then that person needs to be tested there and then and not put themselves or anyone else in any danger?

It just strikes me this is more convenient for the toc/fox and lip service. If they don't suspect it, don't test.

Can you imagine the old bil who had no test kit, asking some one to continue to drive down to the station who they stopped on suspension of drink driving?

Interesting to hear your/union thoughts.

 

[dk1]

More of an observation than a discussion, but I've noticed where I'm at, that a lot of drivers are allowed to continue to the next station or shift following a SOL incident but then be med screened. This can be at times quite a significant time/distance.

I've always found this a bit odd. If there's a suspicion or chance of drugs/alcohol playing a contribution to the incident, why don't they test them there and then? Why do they take the risk and allow them to drive? Surely if there is a suspicion or doubt, then that person needs to be tested there and then and not put themselves or anyone else in any danger?

It just strikes me this is more convenient for the toc/fox and lip service. If they don't suspect it, don't test.

Can you imagine the old bil who had no test kit, asking some one to continue to drive down to the station who they stopped on suspension of drink driving?

Interesting to hear your/union thoughts.

Drink driving doesn’t come into things. It’s a railway operational incident.

 

[signed]

I have no clue, but surely any medical exam is going to be a lot more focused on the other causes that may cause incapacitation (like genuine medical conditions...)

 

[dk1]

The particular drivers history is what would be taken into account when deciding if they can continue.

 

[Zontar]

Drink driving doesn’t come into things. It’s a railway operational incident.

But they test for drink/drugs after an incident.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

Maybe it's just my toc, but it's standard practice to have a med screen after serious SOL incidents such as tpws towards red, spad etc.

My point is, they allow that driver to carry on operating and in control of that train/passenger/freight THEN test.

If there's a risk of drink/drugs (which they must assume to warrant the test) why do they allow them to drive any further?

 

[dk1]

But they test for drink/drugs after an incident.....

These things are decided case by case. Often the distance they are allowed to continue is limited. Our job relies on the fact we have signed up to never sign on for duty whilst under the influence of drink or drugs in our system.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

But they test for drink/drugs after an incident.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

Maybe it's just my toc, but it's standard practice to have a med screen after serious SOL incidents such as tpws towards red, spad etc.

My point is, they allow that driver to carry on operating and in control of that train/passenger/freight THEN test.

If there's a risk of drink/drugs (which they must assume to warrant the test) why do they allow them to drive any further?

Yes, we are the same but if for example it is a fatality then in most cases there would be no need for this. Police obviously have no influence over this decision either although in my three unfortunate incidents they do forget they are not on the highway and overstep their authority until put right by railway managers.

 

[Mojo]

"Stopping the job" also carries its own risks. In the case of a post incident test it's about being pragmatic.

 

[43066]

More of an observation than a discussion, but I've noticed where I'm at, that a lot of drivers are allowed to continue to the next station or shift following a SOL incident but then be med screened. This can be at times quite a significant time/distance.

I've always found this a bit odd. If there's a suspicion or chance of drugs/alcohol playing a contribution to the incident, why don't they test them there and then? Why do they take the risk and allow them to drive? Surely if there is a suspicion or doubt, then that person needs to be tested there and then and not put themselves or anyone else in any danger?

It just strikes me this is more convenient for the toc/fox and lip service. If they don't suspect it, don't test.

Can you imagine the old bil who had no test kit, asking some one to continue to drive down to the station who they stopped on suspension of drink driving?

Interesting to hear your/union thoughts.

The answer is that an incident, in and of itself, doesn’t give rise to a suspicion, it’s merely something that’s tested for as part of the investigation process. The driver in question will be spoken to and asked whether they feel fit to continue etc. if they have a chequered history they will be required to remain where they are until relief gets to them.

If someone is suspected of being under the influence at work - for example if someone smelt alcohol on them in a depot - they would not be allowed to turn a wheel, and would be required to undergo a medscreen.

If there's a risk of drink/drugs (which they must assume to warrant the test) why do they allow them to drive any further?

There’s a risk of any safety critical member of staff being under the influence of drink and drugs, whenever they book on, but we don’t test all of them all of the time…

 

[NSE]

If a driver called the signaller/control to report an incident and it was clear they were under the influence of something, no signaller or controller is going to authorise further movement. They’re responsible for safety too, even though they aren’t standing on the train.

All drivers sign a ‘fit to work’ statement when they book on, so unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, you have to hold them to that within reason. In many cases, within reason being enough to get them to bring the train to a safe point to carry out the next steps. Additionally, many train lines are out in the middle of nowhere between stations. Stopping in the middle of nowhere means support can’t be easily accessed. So if you can bring the train to a better, safer location, then that will always be done where possible.

 

[66701GBRF]

Post incident screening isn’t done because there is a suspicion of use, it’s done to prove drugs or alcohol didn‘t play a part.

 

[KNN]

If there's a suspicion or chance of drugs/alcohol playing a contribution to the incident, why don't they test them there and then? Why do they take the risk and allow them to drive? Surely if there is a suspicion or doubt, then that person needs to be tested there and then and not put themselves or anyone else in any danger?

If there's a suspicion it's doubtful they would be allowed to continue, as others have said.

But unless I'm mistaken, incidence of driving a train under the influence is exceedingly rare, so it's usually a routine check rather than the expected cause.

Why create further problems for the sake of an unlikely event?

 

[PLY2AYS]

Post incident screening isn’t done because there is a suspicion of use, it’s done to prove drugs or alcohol didn‘t play a part.

Surely if it’s to rule out if drugs/alcohol played a part, then that constitutes suspicion? Or is the term suspicion too closely linked to accusation/allegation?

If it’s a possibility, like it will be in every incident, then rightly due process must pursue that avenue of investigation, even if it’s just a formality.
But it will always be a possibility nonetheless and is exactly the same reason that a police officer would carry out a breathalyser test, on suspicion of substances, is it not?

 

[GPR]

The test will be done just to rule it out.
there’ll more than likely be stats to show that incidents happen and drugs/ alchohol are never the contributing factor too.

 

[Zontar]

The test will be done just to rule it out.
there’ll more than likely be stats to show that incidents happen and drugs/ alchohol are never the contributing factor too.

And it it doesn't rule it out?
That driver has just continued driving under the influence.

 

[KNN]

A dozen train drivers banned over drug or alcohol tests in 18 months

Exclusive: Move coincides with spike in trains triggering safety alerts – although industry says link ‘unlikely’

www.independent.co.uk

(Article from the Independent discussing alcohol bans and SPADs in 2019.)

Not sure why you are so fixated on it. As this article says, in a bad year there were 12 bans for drugs and alcohol related issues, out of something like 27,000 drivers.

Also in a bad year there were 304 SPADs, so even if all 12 were related to SPADs, that's slightly less than 4% of incidents. And there are lots of other incidents which would merit a medscreening.

It's so low in the likely causes there wouldn't immediately be a suspicion, unless someone could smell it or the driver was slurring their speech.

 

[Zontar]

I'm not fixated on it, in fact I support the notion of everyone's discussion of ruling it out rather than suspicion.

In my head the logic of it is a bit backwards, just like people who brush their teeth before breakfast.

 

[PLY2AYS]

In my head the logic of it is a bit backwards, just like people who brush their teeth before breakfast.

You’re going to open up a can of worms with this one too… although I fear unrelated. But would be a hilarious thread to read.

 

[43066]

Surely if it’s to rule out if drugs/alcohol played a part, then that constitutes suspicion? Or is the term suspicion too closely linked to accusation/allegation?

No - it’s done to rule it out as part of the investigation.

If someone is ever suspected of being under the influence they would be immediate taken off track and required to undertake a med screen, irrespective of whether they’d just had an operational incident or not.

Clearly someone who called the signaller to report an incident would be required to remain at a stand if there was any genuine suspicion around their fitness to continue - for example if they were slurring their words.

 

[PLY2AYS]

No - it’s done to rule it out as part of the investigation.

If someone is ever suspected of being under the influence they would be immediate taken off track and required to undertake a med screen, irrespective of whether they’d just had an operational incident or not.

Clearly someone who called the signaller to report an incident would be required to remain at a stand if there was any genuine suspicion around their fitness to continue - for example if they were slurring their words.

I appreciate that, so are we saying that they’re optional then, depending on situation/incident?
If there’s no suspicion of being under any substances, then there’s no need to conduct a drugs/alcohol screening?

This is purely from a curiosity point of view, not trying to play devil’s advocate.

 

[KNN]

I appreciate that, so are we saying that they’re optional then, depending on situation/incident?
If there’s no suspicion of being under any substances, then there’s no need to conduct a drugs/alcohol screening?

This is purely from a curiosity point of view, not trying to play devil’s advocate.

It's a routine check when a safety incident has occurred. There is no judgement made, it's like checking an error log on a computer or the tyres on a car for bald patches. You do it because in an investigation you review all the potential causes, however likely or unlikely.

 

[43066]

I appreciate that, so are we saying that they’re optional then, depending on situation/incident?
If there’s no suspicion of being under any substances, then there’s no need to conduct a drugs/alcohol screening?

This is purely from a curiosity point of view, not trying to play devil’s advocate.

They’re optional for minor incidents (TPWS activation), standard practice for more serious ones (intervention against a red, SPAD, collision etc.)

They are a routine part of the investigation process and don’t imply any suspicion - hence why drivers will often be allowed to continue in service to a convenient location, should they feel fit to do so.

It's a routine check when a safety incident has occurred. There is no judgement made, it's like checking an error log on a computer or the tyres on a car for bald patches. You do it because in an investigation you review all the potential causes, however likely or unlikely.

Precisely.

 

[Horizon22]

There’s a lot of speculation here. Basically any significant* SOL incident will lead to a med-screen. It’s more an exclusionary action - to basically ensure drugs/alcohol was not a contributory factor as they could then be a criminal issue. It implies no judgment necessarily and all drivers should be aware they could be med-screened post incident “for cause”.

The driver’s status will also be taken into account and their record with regards to what actions to take next. This is where controllers check systems and liaise with on-call managers about what to do. Some drivers are seen as “higher risk” than others due to any previous incidents / PQD etc.

Depending on the location and type of incident, will determine what should happen to the crew involved next. It might mean relieving the driver immediately at the next stop - which may lead to considerable disruption. This is very rare, even with SPADs.

What is more likely is next suitable location (e.g. a key hub or location with a driver depot) or at terminus. When it comes to drink/drugs driving even another hour or so would still flag up on a test. Also don’t forget normally on-call med checks arent going to be exactly where you need them straight away so a convenient location is better all around.

* what is classed as “significant” may vary slightly between each operator.

 

[43066]

Depending on the location and type of incident, will determine what should happen to the crew involved next. It might mean relieving the driver immediately at the next stop - which may lead to considerable disruption. This is very rare, even with SPADs.

What is more likely is next suitable location (e.g. a key hub or location with a driver depot) or at terminus.

Fully agreed with your post. Although re. the above section it’s worth emphasising that the driver should *always* be asked if they feel fit to continue, and they have every right to remain where they are, or move to the next station to detrain everyone and no further.

Declining to continue is potentially a wise moved based on the experience of a colleague who was offered and accepted a wrong route, decided to continue (under some pressure from control/the signaller) and then unfortunately tripped some TPWS grids, due to being distracted by worrying about what had just happened.

 

[Horizon22]

Fully agreed with your post. Although re. the above section it’s worth emphasising that the driver should *always* be asked if they feel fit to continue, and they have every right to remain where they are, or move to the next station to detrain everyone and no further.

Yes of course, an initial welfare call will be done by signaller / controller and action taken from there. There is always the risk that doing something additional - like detraining can cause further issues as the driver is out of their routine.

Declining to continue is potentially a wise moved based on the experience of a colleague who was offered and accepted a wrong route, decided to continue (under some pressure from control/the signaller) and then unfortunately tripped some TPWS grids, due to being distracted by worrying about what had just happened.

It really does depend on the situation, no operational incident is the same.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Thanks for clarifying all… it’s something I’ve always wondered. Luckily not had to have one yet, or even more fortunately; a SOL incident!

 

[Busyboy89]

Might just be my TOC but TPWS (any), AWS, wrong route, station missed or overrun doesn’t result in a med screen unless on call manager requests it. Which in my 5 years at this particular TOC they haven’t.

SPADs always result in med screen.

I’ve always found it strange as like people are saying here it should be done as a process of elimination I would have thought.

 

[Sheridan]

The wording ‘for cause’ could probably confuse things somewhat - it sounds like the TOC has a reason to suspect drugs/alcohol may be involved when as many contributors to this thread have said, it’s in fact more of a procedural matter.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

If you’re unable to urinate after a certain amount of time, it’s considered a fail. Out of curiosity, is there any reason why they couldn’t send you to the hospital and do a blood test? I know it’s unlikely as they will give you water to drink but just curious. Thanks.

 

[fabs]

But they test for drink/drugs after an incident.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

Maybe it's just my toc, but it's standard practice to have a med screen after serious SOL incidents such as tpws towards red, spad etc.

My point is, they allow that driver to carry on operating and in control of that train/passenger/freight THEN test.

If there's a risk of drink/drugs (which they must assume to warrant the test) why do they allow them to drive any further?

They don’t med screen because there’s a suspicion. The more serious incidents have med screening to ‘rule it out’.

We trust our driver on the whole. Now, ‘for cause’ screening, ie because a manager has requested it, would be a different matter.

But after a big SoL incident the assumption is still always that the Traincrew are/were fit for duty.

 

[transportphoto]

As a general rule, railway staff acknowledge that at any point they could be required to provide a urine sample for drugs and alcohol analysis. There are typically three scenarios whereby this could be requested:

• Random - a certain percentage of the workforce needs to be screened at random over a specified period of time.
• Incident - used to rule out involvement of drugs/alcohol as a contributory factor to the incident.
• For cause - as a result of suspicion.

It has been fairly well summarised that colleagues are trusted to rock up to work and declare themselves fit for duty.

Given that this thread was started to share an observation and to invite direct feedback, rather than to start discussion around the subject, I’m going to bring the thread to a close.