• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Derailment in the Bromsgrove area (24/03/2020)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
My query would be how ordinary rail staff, let alone their Unions, could have not raised this as a matter of simple common sense. How long has it been the case - years, decades ?

There are many rules that many of us believe shouldnt exist, are out dated, and yes, sometimes plain stupid. However; that is where you need to take the professional approach. Rules are there for a reason and often reasons that we cannot see. As a Metro man I always thought the "4t's and a sugar" rule a little odd. I'm always pretty close to a signal or station so why is anyone walking a mile and a quarter but then, I went over to 100mph lines with signal spacing and stations that are miles apart. The professionalism in us also realises that the rules are created by people with much more knowledge and information that we have. There is decades of history behind the rulebook and again, someone else sees something we don't. Not forgetting one of the basic rules for a safe working railway has always been and should still be, the rules are there to be followed. Not just from a liability aspect but everyone working to the same rules keeps us safe.

There are always going to be cracks and scenarios that cannot be accounted for. The rulebook has evolved over time and still continues to change on a regular basis. The fact that this is changing in December shows that evolution.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheSel

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2017
Messages
855
Location
Southport, Merseyside
As an interested observer, not employed within the rail industry, can someone shed light on the working practices behind Para 29, please?

The driver arrived at Bescot yard, near Walsall, and booked on punctually, by telephone, at 21:11 hrs. He prepared the locomotive and departed at 21:32 hrs. Although this departure was 27 minutes behind the published schedule ...

The train's departure at 21:32 is said to have been "27 minutes behind the published schedule" - which means that the published schedule must be for the train to depart at 21:05. In this case, how is booking-on at 21:11 'punctual' for a 21:05 departure, even leaving aside how long the locomotive preparation might take? Would the driver's 'working hours' start from 21:05?
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
The rules might be changing, but telling the signaller first in this incident wouldn’t have made much of a difference.

As an interested observer, not employed within the rail industry, can someone shed light on the working practices behind Para 29, please?

The driver arrived at Bescot yard, near Walsall, and booked on punctually, by telephone, at 21:11 hrs. He prepared the locomotive and departed at 21:32 hrs. Although this departure was 27 minutes behind the published schedule ...

The train's departure at 21:32 is said to have been "27 minutes behind the published schedule" - which means that the published schedule must be for the train to depart at 21:05. In this case, how is booking-on at 21:11 'punctual' for a 21:05 departure, even leaving aside how long the locomotive preparation might take? Would the driver's 'working hours' start from 21:05?

it’s fairly often (at least on freight) driver’s diagrams don’t always match the actual jobs/schedules.
 

1955LR

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2019
Messages
241
Location
Hereford
I believe when changing rules one needs to be well aware of the saying " Act in Haste, repent at leisure" as they is always the risk of creating the opposite effect to what one intends .
I have been involved with rules for motorsport , and what seems to be obvious at first sight can easily create more problems than it solves.
 

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
Just remember the Rule Book is written in previous accident Victims blood
Yes. It is for the most part entirety reactive. I wonder what % of it was because someone thought of a great idea and it then got implemented?
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
As an interested observer, not employed within the rail industry, can someone shed light on the working practices behind Para 29, please?

The driver arrived at Bescot yard, near Walsall, and booked on punctually, by telephone, at 21:11 hrs. He prepared the locomotive and departed at 21:32 hrs. Although this departure was 27 minutes behind the published schedule ...

The train's departure at 21:32 is said to have been "27 minutes behind the published schedule" - which means that the published schedule must be for the train to depart at 21:05. In this case, how is booking-on at 21:11 'punctual' for a 21:05 departure, even leaving aside how long the locomotive preparation might take? Would the driver's 'working hours' start from 21:05?

I should imagine that the driver has been told to book on at a particular time giving him the minimum allowable amount of rest period from his previous job; however the train was actually scheduled to depart before this time. Therefore the driver was punctual, but there was a mismatch to the scheduled departure time of the train (presumably because there was no other member of staff available) ?
 

Tom Quinne

On Moderation
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
2,225
Ask / blame the RSSB.

This December I’ve got 9 new rule book modules to learn for my role, that’s on top of the two full binders full that haven’t been amended.

I should imagine that the driver has been told to book on at a particular time giving him the minimum allowable amount of rest period from his previous job; however the train was actually scheduled to depart before this time. Therefore the driver was punctual, but there was a mismatch to the scheduled departure time of the train (presumably because there was no other member of staff available) ?

Probably junior or yard driver booked to prep for the Mainline man, but as usual short staffing resulted in the mainline ha big to prep himself.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
I may be a little too close to this one to be entirely balanced in my views. Please bear this in mind and not just shoot me down.

The rules might be changing, but telling the signaller first in this incident wouldn’t have made much of a difference.

Agreed. However, had the freight man hit the "big red button" it would have given the passenger driver a fighting chance of getting the speed down.

Well yes, although others have pointed out it changes in December. My question then would be why December and why does it only need to be changed now?

My query would be how ordinary rail staff, let alone their Unions, could have not raised this as a matter of simple common sense. How long has it been the case - years, decades ?

My own interpretation of the outgoing rule is that it does not prohibit the immediate use of the REC facility on the GSM-R, and I believe that this is what should have happened. I appreciate that this is somewhat at variance to the RAIB's findings, but I strongly feel that it would be an appropriate action to take under these circumstances as the train had been involved in an accident and the driver is unsure if the loco and the associated debris is foul of the Up Gloucester. Perhaps there still wouldn't have been enough time to prevent the collision, but the reduction in speed of approach could have helped to mitigate the effects of the collision.
 

Juniper Driver

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Messages
2,073
Location
SWR Metals
A face-to-face book-on is preferable in so many ways.

Even if he’d continued with his duty, the manager might have given some words of reassurance, either by clarifying the situation, or simply something like “don’t worry lots of people are in the same boat, if you have difficulties we’ll try and be flexible”.

Train cabs are a terrible place when people have worries on their mind, as these worries tend to amplify and circulate. Trying to address the problem wasn’t a bad strategy in itself, just not whilst actually driving the train.

I remmber booking in in front of some managers many years back and someone made a comment which particulary p1553d me of and I had a go...I wasn't pulled from driving that day and completed my shift...I do agree though...Face to face booking on is better than what we have now...
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
My own interpretation of the outgoing rule is that it does not prohibit the immediate use of the REC facility on the GSM-R, and I believe that this is what should have happened. I appreciate that this is somewhat at variance to the RAIB's findings, but I strongly feel that it would be an appropriate action to take under these circumstances as the train had been involved in an accident and the driver is unsure if the loco and the associated debris is foul of the Up Gloucester. Perhaps there still wouldn't have been enough time to prevent the collision, but the reduction in speed of approach could have helped to mitigate the effects of the collision.
There is a lot of luck involved in this. If the 66 was a bit further towards the up Gloucester line this would have been rather different. A Turbostar on its side across the line at 85mph would have been the result.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
I remmber booking in in front of some managers many years back and someone made a comment which particulary p1553d me of and I had a go...I wasn't pulled from driving that day and completed my shift...I do agree though...Face to face booking on is better than what we have now...

We are unusual at our company in still booking on face to face with a TCS (albeit with a different job title nowadays) and I think it breeds a far better working relationship as we know each other well, rather than just entering a number into a phone and only speaking if something is up.

Most other depots book on by phone and the difference is obvious.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
There is a lot of luck involved in this. If the 66 was a bit further towards the up Gloucester line this would have been rather different. A Turbostar on its side across the line at 85mph would have been the result.

Yes I know. And that's what gives me so much disquiet about this incident. We got away with it when, as I believe I may have indicated back at the start of this thread, the incident could have been so much worse.

Hence my belief that a REC call immediately that the driver knew the loco was in the dirt could have saved a lot of bother rather than spending time getting out to check. His route knowledge would have told him the shunt neck was adjacent to a 90mph mainline and experience would have told him that the distance between his line and the running line is comparatively small. Therefore I believe that he should have prioritised raising the alarm in the quickest way possible on the assumption that the loco may have been foul of the Up Gloucester, even if he couldn't know for certain.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
2,880
Location
Lancashire
I’m surprised we don’t angle the end of sidings so that they point away from a main line in locations like this
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
I’m surprised we don’t angle the end of sidings so that they point away from a main line in locations like this
Not always possible but in his case it might have helped. The siding was shortened in the past according to the report. I wonder if the former buffer stop site was any better in this respect.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Yes I know. And that's what gives me so much disquiet about this incident. We got away with it when, as I believe I may have indicated back at the start of this thread, the incident could have been so much worse.

Hence my belief that a REC call immediately that the driver knew the loco was in the dirt could have saved a lot of bother rather than spending time getting out to check. His route knowledge would have told him the shunt neck was adjacent to a 90mph mainline and experience would have told him that the distance between his line and the running line is comparatively small. Therefore I believe that he should have prioritised raising the alarm in the quickest way possible on the assumption that the loco may have been foul of the Up Gloucester, even if he couldn't know for certain.
Fully agree with all of that. I'd question his decision making - why's he even in the 6ft between the siding and the up Gloucester, such that he has to run to the rear of the loco as the 170 approaches. Doesn't sound like a location the driver should be in even with the loco on the rails.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
I’m surprised we don’t angle the end of sidings so that they point away from a main line in locations like this
The immediate approach to the buffers has to be straight, so that any contact is 'square'. That tends to mean that the alignment would definitely be pointing off railway property and 'down the bank' in many cases, which can be highly undesirable for different reasons.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Agreed. However, had the freight man hit the "big red button" it would have given the passenger driver a fighting chance of getting the speed down.

My own interpretation of the outgoing rule is that it does not prohibit the immediate use of the REC facility on the GSM-R, and I believe that this is what should have happened. I appreciate that this is somewhat at variance to the RAIB's findings, but I strongly feel that it would be an appropriate action to take under these circumstances as the train had been involved in an accident and the driver is unsure if the loco and the associated debris is foul of the Up Gloucester. Perhaps there still wouldn't have been enough time to prevent the collision, but the reduction in speed of approach could have helped to mitigate the effects of the collision.
I agree with that. Even when I joined BR in the 80s (though not and never have been a driver) I found the emphasis on going back putting down detonators for a failed train rather antiquated, when on the busy modern railway they would nearly always encounter a signal or other telephone or indeed a train would arrive before someone had managed to walk a mile and a quarter on an adjacent line still open to traffic. The red button, and in some cases the hazard lights, give immediate warning to any train that might be headed into danger - even quicker than track circuit clips which of course don't work on many sections of line. Even an immediate call to the signaler would be unlikely to make any difference in the limited time available.

Fully agree with all of that. I'd question his decision making - why's he even in the 6ft between the siding and the up Gloucester, such that he has to run to the rear of the loco as the 170 approaches. Doesn't sound like a location the driver should be in even with the loco on the rails.
Every time the banking loco arrives in this siding the driver must change cabs, so there is surely a safe walkway on the side away from the main line? In an unusual situation people tend to follow their normal routes if they can, so I would have expected the driver to climb down on the "safe" side of the cab. I guess that might have happened, as the report doesn't say.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
The immediate approach to the buffers has to be straight, so that any contact is 'square'. That tends to mean that the alignment would definitely be pointing off railway property and 'down the bank' in many cases, which can be highly undesirable for different reasons.
I don't think it has anything to do with "pointing away" (from the railway property), its so any contact with the buffers is shared equally on both sides, otherwise one buffer would (at least for a short period) take the full load of the loco/train and they are not designed to do that.

That said, it looks like this particular set of buffers was about as much use as a chocolate teapot?
 
Last edited:

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
Yes I know. And that's what gives me so much disquiet about this incident. We got away with it when, as I believe I may have indicated back at the start of this thread, the incident could have been so much worse.

Hence my belief that a REC call immediately that the driver knew the loco was in the dirt could have saved a lot of bother rather than spending time getting out to check. His route knowledge would have told him the shunt neck was adjacent to a 90mph mainline and experience would have told him that the distance between his line and the running line is comparatively small. Therefore I believe that he should have prioritised raising the alarm in the quickest way possible on the assumption that the loco may have been foul of the Up Gloucester, even if he couldn't know for certain.
My view on the REC button is I'd rather be explaining to a manager why pressing it caused a few delay minutes than explaining to a judge why I hadn't.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
Fully agree with all of that. I'd question his decision making - why's he even in the 6ft between the siding and the up Gloucester, such that he has to run to the rear of the loco as the 170 approaches. Doesn't sound like a location the driver should be in even with the loco on the rails.

If anything it lends support to the idea that they were completely mentally bewildered/overwhelmed by the prospect of Lockdown that night, as that was one of, but the lesser of numerous oversights to have occurred during this incident.
 

seagull

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
619
I believe the driver of the 66 was indeed dismissed initially but then reinstated on appeal (and given a final warning about phone use).
Given the rather unprecedented circumstances of that evening, plus a prior good record, I would imagine that being the main reason for a successful appeal: normally nowadays any mobile phone incidents are dealt with in a similar way to drugs/alcohol infringements: zero tolerance.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I believe the driver of the 66 was indeed dismissed initially but then reinstated on appeal (and given a final warning about phone use).
Given the rather unprecedented circumstances of that evening, plus a prior good record, I would imagine that being the main reason for a successful appeal: normally nowadays any mobile phone incidents are dealt with in a similar way to drugs/alcohol infringements: zero tolerance.
If true that doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome. The situation that evening was one that I think any of us could have had a catastrophic error of judgement during. Thankfully most of us aren't in charge of large pieces of machinery.
 

Rockhopper

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2019
Messages
736
Would a train drive ever have occasion to use a device that might be mistaken for a mobile phone whilst driving a train?
 

nom de guerre

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2015
Messages
774
Ask / blame the RSSB.

This December I’ve got 9 new rule book modules to learn for my role, that’s on top of the two full binders full that haven’t been amended.


In fairness, a lot of the time the 'new' modules only have one or two clauses changed (eg slightly amending an existing rule to account for ETCS/ERTMS).
 

Juniper Driver

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Messages
2,073
Location
SWR Metals
We are unusual at our company in still booking on face to face with a TCS (albeit with a different job title nowadays) and I think it breeds a far better working relationship as we know each other well, rather than just entering a number into a phone and only speaking if something is up.

Most other depots book on by phone and the difference is obvious.
True...I booked on the other week...It said report to ORM...So I did....I was early and picked up a Wimbledon job from ORM...I was cross covering...Put phone down before it completed it's message and it didn't book me on...Pass to Sttaines to work thetrain...Another driver there...Said I was booked to work it..For some reason they didn't know I was there....I had reported to earlier ORM who had gone home...No call out for me as I would have showed up late on their computer system..Newish ORM's though probably not used to the job...I think.
 

TheLastMinute

Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
98
Location
Weston-super-Mare
The ORR has published a news story today stating the DB driver involved in this collision has been given a suspended 8 month jail sentence for causing the collision by looking at his phone.

From what's been said in reports, it's not a surprising outcome but hard not to feel some sympathy for him.


Driver sentenced to eight months imprisonment for causing crash

10 January 2023

Mr Mark Andrew Hubble has been found guilty of breaching Section 7a of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, following a prosecution brought by the Office of Rail and Road.

Mr Hubble was sending and receiving messages on his phone during the course of his journey, while driving a locomotive owned and operated by DB Cargo (UK) Limited on Monday, 23 March 2020.

After entering the siding at Bromsgrove station, he lost concentration due to reading a picture message on his mobile phone and then failed to control the speed of his locomotive, which struck the buffer stops, derailing and partially obstructing the adjacent main line. A passing CrossCountry passenger train then struck Mr Hubble’s locomotive - no-one was injured, but there was extensive damage to both the locomotive and the passenger train.

The prosecution asserted that the defendant's failure to control his train due to distraction caused by using his mobile phone while at the controls of his locomotive led to a serious incident. It added that under slightly different circumstances the incident may have had a “catastrophic outcome”.

In delivering the sentence, Judge Cartwright said: “Luckily there were only six people on board; the guard, driver and four passengers. But for the lockdown, the train might otherwise have been carrying a good number of others. Alan Jones, the driver, was immediately covered in glass, his driver's door torn open. If the locomotive had derailed a little further over, this would have been a head-on collision and he would have been killed.”

Ian Prosser, Chief Inspector of Railways, said “We are pleased with the outcome of this case. It sends a clear message to drivers about their responsibilities. This incident could have resulted in serious injuries and fatalities.”

Notes to Editors

The Office of Rail and Road is the economic and safety regulator of Britain's railway - including light rail, trams and heritage. As the health and safety regulator for the rail industry, we deliver advice and enforcement to help ensure the safety of both passengers and workers.

Mr Mark Andrew Hubble was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, for breaching section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Mr Hubble must also undertake 120 hours of unpaid work within the next 12 months and pay £600 compensation to CrossCountry train driver Alan Jones, costs of £2,400, plus a victim surcharge of £150.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top