Croydon Tram Crash

[endecotp]

It would put management in a rather awkward position, I'm assuming there is no suggestion that drivers have been working excessive hours? Imagine an accident did happen due to a driver falling asleep, and he had told management about it previously, the inevitable question would be why was he allowed to carry on driving.

Well quite. If a driver tells their manager that they fell asleep, then they should be stopped from driving - on full pay - while it's investigated. If a driver fallls asleep and doesn't report it, they should be dismissed immediately. If a manager is told that a driver has fallen asleep and hasn't stopped them from driving, or if a manager has not ensured that drivers know that they must report safety issues, or has let a culture develop where issues don't get reported due to fear of consequences, then they should be fired. Managers should know that public safety is their number one priority and that their continued employment depends on them getting this right.

This is all basic stuff for safety-critical jobs.

I do wonder how it compares to the culture within bus companies.

 

[Antman]

And that is the problem. It should be safe to report fatigue without repercussion. Fatigue is well known as one of the biggest dangers in the aviation industry, to the extent that the EU brought in rules preventing sanctions against pilots who report fatigue and promoting a "Just Culture".

Sure, if you're reporting fatigue on every early there are going to be questions about your health. But it should be safe to occasionally report that "I am too tired to safely drive" without management "asking questions".

And if drivers are not reporting on defective safety equipment because they're scared of the management, then that is absolutely terrifying.

Yes of course a driver should be able to say that they don't feel up to driving, whether because of tiredness or a health problem, but if it happens regularly inevitably questions will be asked about the drivers suitability for the job.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes of course a driver should be able to say that they don't feel up to driving, whether because of tiredness or a health problem, but if it happens regularly inevitably questions will be asked about the drivers suitability for the job.

But drivers are too frightened to report isolated incidents, to the extent that they're not reporting on defective safety equipment because they're too frightened to admit they needed to use it.

Whatever the reason, that is not an appropriate safety culture.

I do wonder how it compares to the culture within bus companies.

From what I hear about First's bus operations...

 

[theageofthetra]

But drivers are too frightened to report isolated incidents, to the extent that they're not reporting on defective safety equipment because they're too frightened to admit they needed to use it.

Whatever the reason, that is not an appropriate safety culture.



From what I hear about First's bus operations...

Does Tramlink still fall under a bus division- recruitment certainly used to. We have a number of ex bus drivers and most talk about the culture of fear especially if on one of the older better paid contracts where any excuse is used to get rid of them.

As others have said the aviation industry has lead the way in 'no consequence' reporting & many other industries need to follow suit before more serious incidents occur.

 

[theageofthetra]

Yes of course a driver should be able to say that they don't feel up to driving, whether because of tiredness or a health problem, but if it happens regularly inevitably questions will be asked about the drivers suitability for the job.

Yes definitely a problem and even more so with older drivers.

 

[theageofthetra]

And that is the problem. It should be safe to report fatigue without repercussion. Fatigue is well known as one of the biggest dangers in the aviation industry, to the extent that the EU brought in rules preventing sanctions against pilots who report fatigue and promoting a "Just Culture".

Sure, if you're reporting fatigue on every early there are going to be questions about your health. But it should be safe to occasionally report that "I am too tired to safely drive" without management "asking questions".

And if drivers are not reporting on defective safety equipment because they're scared of the management, then that is absolutely terrifying.

A very different industry but a significant cause of the banking crash (other than government policy) was a culture of fear of reporting risky practices.

 

[bramling]

Yes of course a driver should be able to say that they don't feel up to driving, whether because of tiredness or a health problem, but if it happens regularly inevitably questions will be asked about the drivers suitability for the job.

The problem is things normally go as follows:

[Driver] I feel fatigued.
[Desk] Are you telling me you're not fit for duty?
[Driver] Well no, I feel very tired and I'm worried something may happen.
[Desk] So you're unfit for duty?
[Driver] Yes I'm unfit for duty?
[Desk] So you're no use to me - go sick. I don't know why you bothered coming here if you're no use to me. Now I've got to cover the duty at short notice. <rant>.

This then happens a couple of times and the driver now finds themselves at some kind of attendance review or disciplinary hearing for irregular attendance.

Then, next time:

[Driver] I feel fatigued.
[Desk] Are you telling me you're not fit for duty?
[Driver] Well no, I feel very tired and I'm worried something may happen.
[Desk] So you're unfit for duty?
[Driver] Yes I'm unfit for duty?
[Desk] So you're no use to me - go sick.
[Driver] Actually, thinking about it, I just got a warning for my attendance, so yes I'm fit for duty. Hopefully everything will be okay ...

It's a hard nut to crack, as ultimately shiftwork is inherently tiring. In my experience the early turn is far worse, and this isn't helped because people who do earlies (either regularly or occasionally) often get home and then spend several hours carrying out normal family life, either through choice or under pressure. The result is not enough sleep. It doesn't help that rosters often end up arranged around maximizing time off at certain times, particularly weekends, which can result in some sub-optimal shift patterns.

Having said all this, it's worth remembering that we don't know for sure that the Croydon driver fell asleep. There are other potential scenarios besides fatigue.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

How are shift patterns arranged, be that railway or tramlink.

If I had to go to work an hour later each time my signing on time changed, that would be much easier to handle than having to get up an hour earlier. I simply go to bed at the same time and have an extra hour in bed or fill the time some other way. Going to bed an hour earlier, forcing myself to sleep in order to guarantee a proper sleep, or going to sleep at the same time and getting one hours less sleep is a different matter. Similarly a gradual change in hours is surely much more easy to accommodate than a 8 hour / 12 hour shift change from earlies/noons/nights or days/nights.

I had a friend in the privatised prison service who regularly did 36 hour shifts - his own, then cover an absence, then back to his own.

Regarding the reporting of incidents, surely that is why you have a union? Non rail industry unions are much weaker but in rail they remain strong. If a number of drivers report fatigue due to shift patterns, or faulty driver safety devices, or whatever, then it could / should be taken through the union and the management would not know which driver/s had the issue.

If it is a single driver suffering fatigue, and no other drivers suffer the problem, then perhaps that driver needs assistance to overcome that problem (in a positive manner, not be dismissed).

 

[endecotp]

I would like to hope that a driver who was suffering intractable fatigue problems would recognise themselves that they weren't in the ideal job, and look for something else. I.e. they'd move before they were pushed.

How well this works in practice obviously depends on the overall level of unemployment, what transferrable skills they have etc. (And whether they actually love the job despite being bad at it!)

I'd also like to hope that pointers to potential issues could often be picked up as part of the recruitment or training process; if they aren't, that's another potential management failing.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I would like to hope that a driver who was suffering intractable fatigue problems would recognise themselves that they weren't in the ideal job, and look for something else. I.e. they'd move before they were pushed.

How well this works in practice obviously depends on the overall level of unemployment, what transferrable skills they have etc. (And whether they actually love the job despite being bad at it!)

I'd also like to hope that pointers to potential issues could often be picked up as part of the recruitment or training process; if they aren't, that's another potential management failing.

I think the issue is if the rostering pattern is the cause of the problem, rather than the individual. That is why maximum hours and rest breaks were introduced (unlike my friend ex of the prison service), similarly perhaps (non) fatigue friendly shift patterns should be obligatory. Wasn't there an issue with the Class 66 which ran off the loop on the highland mainline re fatigue and shift patterns?

 

[bramling]

How are shift patterns arranged, be that railway or tramlink.

If I had to go to work an hour later each time my signing on time changed, that would be much easier to handle than having to get up an hour earlier. I simply go to bed at the same time and have an extra hour in bed or fill the time some other way. Going to bed an hour earlier, forcing myself to sleep in order to guarantee a proper sleep, or going to sleep at the same time and getting one hours less sleep is a different matter. Similarly a gradual change in hours is surely much more easy to accommodate than a 8 hour / 12 hour shift change from earlies/noons/nights or days/nights.

I had a friend in the privatised prison service who regularly did 36 hour shifts - his own, then cover an absence, then back to his own.

Regarding the reporting of incidents, surely that is why you have a union? Non rail industry unions are much weaker but in rail they remain strong. If a number of drivers report fatigue due to shift patterns, or faulty driver safety devices, or whatever, then it could / should be taken through the union and the management would not know which driver/s had the issue.

If it is a single driver suffering fatigue, and no other drivers suffer the problem, then perhaps that driver needs assistance to overcome that problem (in a positive manner, not be dismissed).

Generally rosters will be produced centrally but amended locally, working within parameters set by the company and influenced by legislation and best-practice guidance.

As I say, part of the issue is that rosters tend to be arranged to maximize quality time off. This is quite reasonable in itself, but this also needs to balance with business needs, which can produce unfortunate results.

A couple of real-life examples:

At a location known to me, train drivers work 7x night shifts Sunday to Saturday inclusive, which with being entitled to two rest days a week means two are carried over to the next week, which in turn means the following week has four rest days. It was locally agreed that, apart from a day off after the nights, the remaining three rest days would be grouped plus two further rest days at the start of the following week, giving five days off in a row and as a bonus a long-weekend off. The snag is this still required three duties to be worked soon after the nights. So the end result was N N N N N N N RD L L L RD RD RD. People will do it as it gives them a long-weekend off, but there have been issues with fatigue on the three late turns.

Meanwhile, another example, this time from a signalling location.
Friday - 2000-0630
Saturday - 1800-0630
Sunday - 1800-0630
Monday - 2000-0630
Tuesday - 2000-0630
Wednesday - 2000-0630
Thursday - 2000-0630
Again, people will agree to this as it means late turns can go home at 2000 and thus get home in time to see their family (compared to 2200). However the impact of a 77-hour week can best be left to imagination. It can be argued, although I'd disagree, that in a signalling location is there may not be much happening on nights, and if something does kick off then adrenalin kicks in - unlike train driving where alertness is absolutely required 100% of the time.

I'd add that these two real-life examples are examples of locally-produced arrangements, not arrangements produced by the respective company's rostering department, although both are in compliance with their company's parameters.

 

[Antman]

How are shift patterns arranged, be that railway or tramlink.

If I had to go to work an hour later each time my signing on time changed, that would be much easier to handle than having to get up an hour earlier. I simply go to bed at the same time and have an extra hour in bed or fill the time some other way. Going to bed an hour earlier, forcing myself to sleep in order to guarantee a proper sleep, or going to sleep at the same time and getting one hours less sleep is a different matter. Similarly a gradual change in hours is surely much more easy to accommodate than a 8 hour / 12 hour shift change from earlies/noons/nights or days/nights.

I had a friend in the privatised prison service who regularly did 36 hour shifts - his own, then cover an absence, then back to his own.

Regarding the reporting of incidents, surely that is why you have a union? Non rail industry unions are much weaker but in rail they remain strong. If a number of drivers report fatigue due to shift patterns, or faulty driver safety devices, or whatever, then it could / should be taken through the union and the management would not know which driver/s had the issue.

If it is a single driver suffering fatigue, and no other drivers suffer the problem, then perhaps that driver needs assistance to overcome that problem (in a positive manner, not be dismissed).

Ideally yes but what assistance could management realistically give the driver? If the driver is having difficulty sleeping then it is something to take up with their GP. If the problem cannot be resolved then ultimately the driver will be deemed unfit for work and there will be no other option but to terminate their employment. I don't mean to sound harsh, I just can't see any other way around it.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Generally rosters will be produced centrally but amended locally, working within parameters set by the company and influenced by legislation and best-practice guidance.

As I say, part of the issue is that rosters tend to be arranged to maximize quality time off. This is quite reasonable in itself, but this also needs to balance with business needs, which can produce unfortunate results.

A couple of real-life examples:

At a location known to me, train drivers work 7x night shifts Sunday to Saturday inclusive, which with being entitled to two rest days a week means two are carried over to the next week, which in turn means the following week has four rest days. It was locally agreed that, apart from a day off after the nights, the remaining three rest days would be grouped plus two further rest days at the start of the following week, giving five days off in a row and as a bonus a long-weekend off. The snag is this still required three duties to be worked soon after the nights. So the end result was N N N N N N N RD L L L RD RD RD. People will do it as it gives them a long-weekend off, but there have been issues with fatigue on the three late turns.

Meanwhile, another example, this time from a signalling location.
Friday - 2000-0630
Saturday - 1800-0630
Sunday - 1800-0630
Monday - 2000-0630
Tuesday - 2000-0630
Wednesday - 2000-0630
Thursday - 2000-0630
Again, people will agree to this as it means late turns can go home at 2000 and thus get home in time to see their family (compared to 2200). However the impact of a 77-hour week can best be left to imagination. It can be argued, although I'd disagree, that in a signalling location is there may not be much happening on nights, and if something does kick off then adrenalin kicks in - unlike train driving where alertness is absolutely required 100% of the time.

I'd add that these two real-life examples are examples of locally-produced arrangements, not arrangements produced by the respective company's rostering department, although both are in compliance with their company's parameters.

Assuming L is late turn, it is going the wrong way. I would suggest nights should be followed by earlies, followed by noons thus giving a lie in rather than a disturbed sleep eg 2200 to 0600 then 0600 to 1400 then 1400 to 2200. I would imagine train staff start times are not fixed to standard factory shift times so there wouldn't necessarily be an 8 hour jump from one group of working days to the next. Depends obviously on the size of the depot, rural outposts would have less flexibility as fewer trains to crew. Personally I'm not keen on the idea of seven straight days (or nights) anyway, nor 12 hour shifts, but as an outsider I'll leave it up to the insiders to agree between themselves. I wouldn't want to turn up at A & E when the nurse/doctor is coming towards the end of their seventh successive 12 hour shift however committed they are to my wellbeing!

 

[Antman]

Generally rosters will be produced centrally but amended locally, working within parameters set by the company and influenced by legislation and best-practice guidance.

As I say, part of the issue is that rosters tend to be arranged to maximize quality time off. This is quite reasonable in itself, but this also needs to balance with business needs, which can produce unfortunate results.

A couple of real-life examples:

At a location known to me, train drivers work 7x night shifts Sunday to Saturday inclusive, which with being entitled to two rest days a week means two are carried over to the next week, which in turn means the following week has four rest days. It was locally agreed that, apart from a day off after the nights, the remaining three rest days would be grouped plus two further rest days at the start of the following week, giving five days off in a row and as a bonus a long-weekend off. The snag is this still required three duties to be worked soon after the nights. So the end result was N N N N N N N RD L L L RD RD RD. People will do it as it gives them a long-weekend off, but there have been issues with fatigue on the three late turns.

Meanwhile, another example, this time from a signalling location.
Friday - 2000-0630
Saturday - 1800-0630
Sunday - 1800-0630
Monday - 2000-0630
Tuesday - 2000-0630
Wednesday - 2000-0630
Thursday - 2000-0630
Again, people will agree to this as it means late turns can go home at 2000 and thus get home in time to see their family (compared to 2200). However the impact of a 77-hour week can best be left to imagination. It can be argued, although I'd disagree, that in a signalling location is there may not be much happening on nights, and if something does kick off then adrenalin kicks in - unlike train driving where alertness is absolutely required 100% of the time.

I'd add that these two real-life examples are examples of locally-produced arrangements, not arrangements produced by the respective company's rostering department, although both are in compliance with their company's parameters.

A train driver can legally work 7 nights in a row? I find that astonishing and just a little bit concerning.

 

[bramling]

Assuming L is late turn,

Apologies for the acronym - yes you're right.

it is going the wrong way. I would suggest nights should be followed by earlies, followed by noons thus giving a lie in rather than a disturbed sleep eg 2200 to 0600 then 0600 to 1400 then 1400 to 2200.

In my experience the established practice seems to be to follow with lates. I *think* this is borne out by human-factors studies, but I could be misremembering.

I would imagine train staff start times are not fixed to standard factory shift times so there wouldn't necessarily be an 8 hour jump from one group of working days to the next.

Correct. There can be quite a variation between book-on times. In the example I quoted, on the nights the earliest drivers may book on around 22:00, the last around 23:30. With five people on nights, these are rotated around over the course of the week. There is a slight variation on Sundays to accommodate the later start-up in the morning.

Depends obviously on the size of the depot, rural outposts would have less flexibility as fewer trains to crew.

Correct. Generally the smaller the roster the worse it is.

Personally I'm not keen on the idea of seven straight days (or nights) anyway, nor 12 hour shifts, but as an outsider I'll leave it up to the insiders to agree between themselves. I wouldn't want to turn up at A & E when the nurse/doctor is coming towards the end of their seventh successive 12 hour shift however committed they are to my wellbeing!

Agreed. I don't like 12-hour shifts either, especially nights as the body is already messed up by the nights, without adding a further layer of grief. On nights you can also add factors such as having to eat at very odd times (or not having time to eat at all!), plus potentially having to travel in to work at a bad time - 1730 on Saturday or Sunday seems to be a particularly bad time to travel in by road.

But, as I say, people will do it if it gives them a squeeze somewhere else. Where I am, I can't overstress how much of a *big deal* people make about weekends off. Unfortunately people are tempted by the salary of certain jobs, but don't want to take what comes with this.

 

[carriageline]

A train driver can legally work 7 nights in a row? I find that astonishing and just a little bit concerning.

They can legally work 13 8 hour turns in a row... same as signallers, track staff, S&T techs etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bramling]

They can legally work 13 8 hour turns in a row... same as signallers, track staff, S&T techs etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where I am, the company's parameter is 10 shifts in a row. However this wouldn't be rostered - the maximum rostered is 7 shifts in a row. However with changeovers (either mutuals or syndicate arrangements) it's possible to end up with two consecutive weeks with the rest days grouped at opposite ends. There are certain other requirements such as having minimum 12-hours between shifts.

 

[Antman]

They can legally work 13 8 hour turns in a row... same as signallers, track staff, S&T techs etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I've learned something new, I have to say that I'm surprised.

 

[bramling]

A train driver can legally work 7 nights in a row? I find that astonishing and just a little bit concerning.

Yes - they can and do.

Generally there is in fact a preference to lump nights together as far as possible so people don't get disrupted more than once for a week's worth of duties. There is merit in this in it means one doesn't have to adapt more than once (first night can be the worst!), but the other side of the coin is that it becomes tiring towards the end of the seven. People then get greedy and want more, in the form of 12-hour shifts, although the driving grade is insulated from this I think - it certainly isn't allowed at the places I know - anyone able to elaborate on this? Very common in signalling and response staff though, almost standard in fact.

 

[LiftFan]

I wonder what will happen to the tram itself, whether it can be repaired since it's fairly new or just taken to the scrapheap with Manchester's old trams

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I wonder what will happen to the tram itself, whether it can be repaired since it's fairly new or just taken to the scrapheap with Manchester's old trams

Well... it's 19 years old, so it would be due a half-life refurbishment soon wouldn't it?

On the other hand, they could procure a further brand new Variobahn and then just use 2551 as a source of spares for the rest of the original fleet.

I suspect it will come down to whether or not the frames within the bodyshell were damaged or not ( are these things built with integral construction or are they on traditional frames? ).

 

[bramling]

Well... it's 19 years old, so it would be due a half-life refurbishment soon wouldn't it?

On the other hand, they could procure a further brand new Variobahn and then just use 2551 as a source of spares for the rest of the original fleet.

I suspect it will come down to whether or not the frames within the bodyshell were damaged or not ( are these things built with integral construction or are they on traditional frames? ).

Politically I can't see it returning to use. It would be a little insensitive to have it potentially running to places where relatives may see or even use it. Probably will be stripped and then disposed off, perhaps at best could be used for some kind of training in a secluded location.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Politically I can't see it returning to use. It would be a little insensitive to have it potentially running to places where relatives may see or even use it.

That didn't stop 91 023 from being returned to use, though, did it? Albeit with the last two digits reversed when it got refurbished.

 

[BestWestern]

That didn't stop 91 023 from being returned to use, though, did it? Albeit with the last two digits reversed when it got refurbished.

Nobody was killed in it, though. Without wishing to be overly graphic, consider that some of the fatalities in the Croydon incident were ejected through the windows and essentially crushed by the tram itself. That's a little different to a loco just happening to be on the rear of two crashed trains (and not being greatly affected by either of them).

 

[Caterpillar]

Well I've learned something new, I have to say that I'm surprised.

Tram drivers can and often do work 12 days in a row. This is with overtime and the 'legal' maximum. This comprises as follows:

S - rest
M - W (work)
T - W
W - W
T - WORK REST DAY
F - W
S - W

S - W
M - W
T - W
W - W
T - W
F - WORK REST DAY
S - Rest

Now, one can argue that the driver should not put himself in this position by doing the overtime, however I think the company should not permit it. I have spoken to drivers who would be quite willing to work all their rest days for a months, simply for the money.

 

[littlerock]

Changing tack, how often are trams serviced and in particular their safety kit? I assume this is logged and a record kept of work carried out.. If the dead mans handle was defective in some way, would this emerge during a service? Do drivers run through a quick safety check at the start of a shift or just start driving? How does he report a fault he observes or even suspects while on his shift? what happens when he does? How does this compare with the underground in terms of safety procedures?

 

[Caterpillar]

Does Tramlink still fall under a bus division- recruitment certainly used to. We have a number of ex bus drivers and most talk about the culture of fear especially if on one of the older better paid contracts where any excuse is used to get rid of them.

As others have said the aviation industry has lead the way in 'no consequence' reporting & many other industries need to follow suit before more serious incidents occur.

All the management at tramlink are previous First group bus managers, none from the rail division.

When The Sun newspaper released the video of the driver asleep, the driver was subsequently dismissed. However the management did nothing about the underlying issue, namely the TBC and the dsd element not sounding an alarm and ultimately braking the tram to a stand still. The tfl spokesman said the reason (for no dsd) was because the driver on the video was in and out of consciousness. This is simply ridiculous, when he was out of consciousness the dsd should alarm in a split second of insufficient pressure. No such alarm is heard in the 30 second clip. The problem is the tbc and dsd design, all that is required is hand weight on the tbc, whether that hand is dead or otherwise incapacitated is irrelevant. This is not safe. Drivers have suffered medical collapses and crashed the trams. There have been 6 previous incidents of drivers either crashing through illness or falling asleep. Tramlink have disciplined the drivers concerned, some were dismissed, but what have they done about the fact the dsd did not save the situation? Nothing.

Drivers coming forward to admit having fallen asleep (with no dsd) is brave and the only way forward for a safer system. Very serious questions need to be asked of the management.

 

[Robertj21a]

..........Edit.......


Very serious questions need to be asked of the management.

Agreed - that is what this case has been looking like since Day 1.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Very serious questions need to be asked of the management.

Yep, but the management seem to be of the opinion that if they sack enough drivers then no questions will be asked of them.

If what Leon Daniels is saying is true, then quite simply the safety systems are not appropriate for a tram and the management responsible should be sacked.

If what Leon Daniels is saying is not true, then quite simply the safety systems are not appropriate for a tram and the management responsible should be sacked.

Still, sloppy management from First Bus is not new.

 

[bramling]

Yep, but the management seem to be of the opinion that if they sack enough drivers then no questions will be asked of them.

If what Leon Daniels is saying is true, then quite simply the safety systems are not appropriate for a tram and the management responsible should be sacked.

If what Leon Daniels is saying is not true, then quite simply the safety systems are not appropriate for a tram and the management responsible should be sacked.

Still, sloppy management from First Bus is not new.

I suspect we may end up seeing a lot of arguing and blame passing between TFL and First, and vice versa.

I'm not expecting the RAIB report to probe too deeply into the management side of things either, especially on the TFL side. It's essentially one public body investigating another after all. I've found it rather noticeable that their reports into TFL incidents have been rather vague when it comes to management.

The end result will no doubt be First get blamed, rightly or wrongly.