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

[Llanigraham]

Sympathy, why?
The rules are quite plain, you do not use your mobile phone whilst driving a train.
(Just like you don't when driving a car)
He broke that rule and caused an accident which proved very costly and could have been much worse.

 

[william.martin]

I am gutted that he only got 8 months, think about what could of happened if he was driving in daylight hours at a more busy station!

 

[Dieseldriver]

From what I can remember from reading the RAIB report, although the Driver had been using their mobile phone during the journey, there was no suggestion it was in use during the course of the incident itself?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sympathy, why?
The rules are quite plain, you do not use your mobile phone whilst driving a train.
(Just like you don't when driving a car)
He broke that rule and caused an accident which proved very costly and could have been much worse.

Because he's human just like you and I. Having sympathy doesn't minimise the seriousness of his actions, but is a reminder of why those rules are in place. No doubt his career as a train driver is over and rightly so, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that it must suck to be in his shoes right now.

It's entirely possible to both condemn his poor choices, and to pity him for the situation his foolishness has put him in.

 

[TheLastMinute]

Sympathy, why?

Because he's human just like you and I. Having sympathy doesn't minimise the seriousness of his actions, but is a reminder of why those rules are in place. No doubt his career as a train driver is over and rightly so, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that it must suck to be in his shoes right now.

It's entirely possible to both condemn his poor choices, and to pity him for the situation his foolishness has put him in.

The phrase "There, but for the grace of God, go I." comes to mind.

 

[ainsworth74]

For me I have some sympathy purely because of the wider situation. This was lockdown eve, he'd gone into work just following Boris' "you must stay at home" message and he was worrying about how on earth he was going to deal with his childcare arrangements and his work commitments:

50. When the driver started work on 23 March, he had just seen the Prime Minister’s announcement of the COVID-19 lockdown (paragraph 27). He had also had a telephone discussion with a family member about the impact of the announcement on childcare arrangements (paragraph 28). These arrangements had relied on support from other family members which would be prohibited under lockdown. It was clear to him that this would make it very difficult for him to continue to manage his shift working pattern.

51. The driver stated that it was his normal routine to put his personal mobile phone on silent and in his bag, prior to his driving turns, but on this occasion, he forgot to do so and it remained, on silent and vibrate, in his pocket. As a result, he was alerted to receipt of the messages from the family member and he read and replied to them while driving (table 1). The final message he received included advice from his childrens’ school that further complicated the childcare issue, and the driver also replied to this. This final incoming message occurred about four minutes before the locomotive passed the signal at Bromsgrove station and five minutes before the collision with the buffer stop.

RAIB Report

He absolutely 100% should not have been using his mobile phone in the driving cab. Indeed I'm not sure he was fit to book on and drive that evening with the level of distraction he was dealing with in his personal life. But he did book on as fit and he did use his phone so he has, rightly, been found guilty of breaches of Health & Safety law. But I can't help but feel a certain amount of sympathy for him.

 

[YorkshireBear]

For me I have some sympathy purely because of the wider situation. This was lockdown eve, he'd gone into work just following Boris' "you must stay at home" message and he was worrying about how on earth he was going to deal with his childcare arrangements and his work commitments:



RAIB Report

He absolutely 100% should not have been using his mobile phone in the driving cab. Indeed I'm not sure he was fit to book on and drive that evening with the level of distraction he was dealing with in his personal life. But he did book on as fit and he did use his phone so he has, rightly, been found guilty of breaches of Health & Safety law. But I can't help but feel a certain amount of sympathy for him.

+1 that was an extraordinary day. It doesn't excuse it but it explains it

 

[Chris M]

+1 that was an extraordinary day. It doesn't excuse it but it explains it

Agreed, and (without having seen the sentencing remarks, if there are any) I would expect that is why the sentence is relatively lenient.

 

[01d-and]

I have not checked recently , but up to a couple of months ago , the damaged buffer stop had still not been replaced. There were a couple of wooden sleepers , I assume bolted / chained to the rails. Can any one give an update please ?

 

[PG]

Because he's human just like you and I. Having sympathy doesn't minimise the seriousness of his actions, but is a reminder of why those rules are in place. No doubt his career as a train driver is over and rightly so, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that it must suck to be in his shoes right now.

It's entirely possible to both condemn his poor choices, and to pity him for the situation his foolishness has put him in.

Post #113 upthread seems to indicate that he has (or had) retained his job.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Post #113 upthread seems to indicate that he has (or had) retained his job.

Ah, I missed that one. Simply assumed that phone use linked with a serious incident would be treated in the same way as drugs or alcohol, as that post suggests it now is. I suppose there's two ways of looking at things like that- some would say it suggests a pattern of behaviour likely to be repeated. Others might say that someone who has been involved in such an incident is unlikely to make the same mistake again.

 

[Neo9320]

Ah, I missed that one. Simply assumed that phone use linked with a serious incident would be treated in the same way as drugs or alcohol, as that post suggests it now is. I suppose there's two ways of looking at things like that- some would say it suggests a pattern of behaviour likely to be repeated. Others might say that someone who has been involved in such an incident is unlikely to make the same mistake again.

If he doesn’t learn from his mistakes then I’m sure there will be no more chances. Let us hope for his sake and the safety of all rail users that he is a fast learner!

 

[Donny_m]

Makes you wonder.. This chap got 8 months jail suspended, 120 hours and £3000 fine.

Average sentence for applying spray paint to a train is 2 years imprisonment, community service rarely less than 300 hours and fines £3000+ are standard…

 

[ainsworth74]

Makes you wonder.. This chap got 8 months jail suspended, 120 hours and £3000 fine.

Average sentence for applying spray paint to a train is 2 years imprisonment, community service rarely less than 300 hours and fines £3000+ are standard…

Maybe but I can't help but suspect the things that have been discussed in the last few posts will have played heavily into mitigation and therefore reducing the sentence (has anyone found a copy of the sentencing remarks online?). Not sure that your average graffiti artist spraying the side of a train has the same potentially persuasive mitigating factors to help them out!

 

[pdeaves]

Maybe but I can't help but suspect the things that have been discussed in the last few posts will have played heavily into mitigation and therefore reducing the sentence (has anyone found a copy of the sentencing remarks online?). Not sure that your average graffiti artist spraying the side of a train has the same potentially persuasive mitigating factors to help them out!

From a totally outside viewpoint, that seems reasonable. "Sorry, I didn't mean to spray my tag all over those trains, I had other things on my mind" doesn't really hold. It's the difference between a deliberate action and a momentary lapse. The train driver didn't set out to crash.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Ah, I missed that one. Simply assumed that phone use linked with a serious incident would be treated in the same way as drugs or alcohol, as that post suggests it now is. I suppose there's two ways of looking at things like that- some would say it suggests a pattern of behaviour likely to be repeated. Others might say that someone who has been involved in such an incident is unlikely to make the same mistake again.

Interesting to consider. I know drivers who have been dismissed for using a mobile whilst in charge of a train on Network Rail metals. Is the siding on which the collision occurred Network rail track ?

The driver of the Turbostar never drove again.

Obviously there were mitigating circumstances what with his personal life and I am sure this case has reminded other drivers not to reach for their communications device when it is not appropriate.

 

[185]

With sentencing, I wonder why the Kirkby driver got 12 months suspended whilst this driver got 8 months suspended - this was onto a much faster mainline, not just through a (double sided) dead end block - you'd assume the risk was far, far higher so the sentencing for this would be longer than the former.

 

[66701GBRF]

Interesting to consider. I know drivers who have been dismissed for using a mobile whilst in charge of a train on Network Rail metals. Is the siding on which the collision occurred Network rail track ?

Most companies will have a policy forbidding use of phones when the train is in motion regardless if its on NR metals or private infrastructure.

 

[43066]

With sentencing, I wonder why the Kirkby driver got 12 months suspended whilst this driver got 8 months suspended - this was onto a much faster mainline, not just through a (double sided) dead end block - you'd assume the risk was far, far higher so the sentencing for this would be longer than the former.

The Kirby driver was operating a train in passenger service which makes things rather worse, I suppose.

 

[Dave W]

With sentencing, I wonder why the Kirkby driver got 12 months suspended whilst this driver got 8 months suspended - this was onto a much faster mainline, not just through a (double sided) dead end block - you'd assume the risk was far, far higher so the sentencing for this would be longer than the former.

Less mitigation? The thread (and report) outlines the circumstances the driver found himself in.

I'd also say there's a difference between a driver in charge of a passenger train and one in charge of a light engine. From a lay perspective, one incident feels more direct than the other - i.e. distract yourself in charge of a passenger train and the dangers are obvious. Distract yourself in charge of a light engine and they're probably less so. I don't think it is a fair assumption that the risk is far higher.

EDIT: They were different offences too, weren't they? The Kirkby driver was convicted of endangering the safety of people on the railway; I believe the Bromsgrove driver was found guilty of a H&S offence?

 

[LOL The Irony]

With sentencing, I wonder why the Kirkby driver got 12 months suspended whilst this driver got 8 months suspended - this was onto a much faster mainline, not just through a (double sided) dead end block - you'd assume the risk was far, far higher so the sentencing for this would be longer than the former.

Could it be because one was in communication about a serious topic and the other was texting about the death of Murray Walker?

 

[ainsworth74]

With sentencing, I wonder why the Kirkby driver got 12 months suspended whilst this driver got 8 months suspended - this was onto a much faster mainline, not just through a (double sided) dead end block - you'd assume the risk was far, far higher so the sentencing for this would be longer than the former.

The Kirby driver was operating a train in passenger service which makes things rather worse, I suppose.

Could it be because one was in communication about a serious topic and the other was texting about the death of Murray Walker?

Got to be the case that messaging about childcare on Lockdown Eve is much better mitigation than texting about the death of Murray Walker in my book...

Certainly I had zero sympathy for the Merseryrail driver unlike the driver at Bromsgrove!

 

[43066]

Got to be the case that messaging about childcare on Lockdown Eve is much better mitigation than texting about the death of Murray Walker in my book...

Certainly I had zero sympathy for the Merseryrail driver unlike the driver at Bromsgrove!

100% agreed.

 

[O L Leigh]

The driver of the Turbostar never drove again.

That’s incorrect. He did drive again but then took retirement.

 

[the sniper]

Makes you wonder.. This chap got 8 months jail suspended, 120 hours and £3000 fine.

Average sentence for applying spray paint to a train is 2 years imprisonment, community service rarely less than 300 hours and fines £3000+ are standard…

Intent. And how many of the latter are caught on committing the offence their first time? There's usually evidence to link them to more than one incident...

 

[43066]

That’s incorrect. He did drive again but then took retirement.

I’m pleased to hear that. You can imagine something like that being traumatic enough to end someone’s career.

 

[2T57]

I have not checked recently , but up to a couple of months ago , the damaged buffer stop had still not been replaced. There were a couple of wooden sleepers , I assume bolted / chained to the rails. Can any one give an update please ?

It's just the same with the two sleepers across the track.

 

[TPO]

For me I have some sympathy purely because of the wider situation. This was lockdown eve, he'd gone into work just following Boris' "you must stay at home" message and he was worrying about how on earth he was going to deal with his childcare arrangements and his work commitments:



RAIB Report

He absolutely 100% should not have been using his mobile phone in the driving cab. Indeed I'm not sure he was fit to book on and drive that evening with the level of distraction he was dealing with in his personal life. But he did book on as fit and he did use his phone so he has, rightly, been found guilty of breaches of Health & Safety law. But I can't help but feel a certain amount of sympathy for him.

I also have sympathy.

The difficulty is with such personal prosecutions (which are a low-hanging fruit for the Regulator and satisfy the public lust for revenge/blame dressed up as "accountability") is that they can work against the Just Culture approach. [Sydney Dekker has written some good stuff about this topic in aviation and medical contexts and the same applies to Rail].

And it's the Just Culture approach that underpins high levels of safety.

Before chucking "rules violation" comments around, you have to ask questions such as "what was the company policy on mobile devices in cabs" and "how did {local] managers actually approach use of mobile devices in cabs vs the official policy."

Inevitably these situations are more complex that they seem at first glance.

Also note, the position of the FOC sector as regards use of mobile devices in cabs has historically been quite different to that of TOCs. I think you will find that many if not all FOCs make extensive use of phones/tablets to issue WONs/PONs/daily notices and transmit late notice ESR warnings. Trainlists are often emailed over and comms with Control are on the mobile. In some cases, managers may expect staff to pick up (albeit in a framework of when they should/should not) and company mobile device policies may be weak. BYO device policies may also be in place. RSSB (and in some cases ORR) policies are usually orientated to the passenger sector and are not always helpful in managing a particular risk in the FOC sector vs the TOC sector.

So, in this case...... you can easily have a combination of a mobile device "on" as it gets used for work purposes, a weak mobile device policy, and a person stressed and worried. SO yes, I have sympathy in the way I have sympathy for any human being who makes a mistake, is misled by the system they are working within- and is the one who takes the hit for the whole thing.

I suggest that "there for the grace of God go I" would indeed be a worthwhile reflection for some of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade.

TPO

 

[O L Leigh]

I’ve said before that I’m probably a little too close to this one, and I’m going to remind folk of that before going on to what follows.

While I do understand the human side of the case and have some sympathy with it, I don’t subscribe to the view that it constitutes a stout defence. I’ve always been told that the use of a mobile phone while driving a train is strictly verboten and am not aware of any exceptions. This driver can’t have been the only person on duty that day who was facing up to the potential effects of the lockdown on their home and personal life. I can’t see that differences in mobile phone policy between TOCs and FOCs really has much bearing on this either, as I can’t believe that the conduct that lead up to this incident could have been considered acceptable under any company’s policies.

I cannot agree with the sentiment “there but for the grace of god”. This wasn’t an incident borne out of an understandable lapse of concentration but of a lapse of judgement.

I’m not going to say that I think the outcome ought to be different, although I am surprised that the driver in question kept his job. That’s a matter that has been dealt with between the parties directly involved. I’ve no doubt that he’s had time to reflect on his actions and won’t put himself in that position again. Perhaps the best outcome from this for me is to serve as a lesson to anyone who might be taking chances with their own mobile phone while in the cab.

 

[the sniper]

Also note, the position of the FOC sector as regards use of mobile devices in cabs has historically been quite different to that of TOCs. I think you will find that many if not all FOCs make extensive use of phones/tablets to issue WONs/PONs/daily notices and transmit late notice ESR warnings. Trainlists are often emailed over and comms with Control are on the mobile. In some cases, managers may expect staff to pick up (albeit in a framework of when they should/should not) and company mobile device policies may be weak. BYO device policies may also be in place. RSSB (and in some cases ORR) policies are usually orientated to the passenger sector and are not always helpful in managing a particular risk in the FOC sector vs the TOC sector.

You'd think the RSSB or ORR might have something to say about that...