Incident at Chalfont & Latimer (21/06/20)

[Horizon22]

Yes I think this is spot on. From the RAIB report this driver had a history of doing it on NR as well, so there was certainly an element of ticking timebomb about it. I’d be interested to know exactly what training and instruction he would have received though, and the RAIB are surprisingly scant on that side of things.

You're right that the driver had a record of doing this, so I don't think the vast majority of Chiltern drivers would be doing the same but of course that's just a theoretical. I think the RAIB are scant because Chiltern's record keeping for training seems to be fairly poor and therefore they had no evidence either way.

 

[O L Leigh]

The rules are clear in that case, this is why thee ae a few class 66's with tripcocks fitted, on equipment means no running on underground metals.

If a defect develops in running then a second member of staff must ride in the cap to replace it.

I was meaning the lack of SCAT rather than a lack of tripcocks, which was more what @bramling was talking about.

 

[greatkingrat]

Perhaps evidenced by the driver manager who was looking at this driver at the time of the incident not actually having been signed off themselves as competent on the relevant parts of the LUL rulebook despite being responsible for managing the drivers who drive over LUL infrastructure day in day out! That was a slightly draw dropping moment (amongst many) for me when I read the report.

I think that is a wider problem than just Chiltern. Whenever a driver manager is recruited externally they will know less about the routes than the drivers they are supposed to be assessing. There will be some time set aside for the new manager to learn routes/traction, but particularly if the DMs are short staffed to begin with, it won't usually be enough to do it properly.

 

[IanXC]

A correction there, DfT doesn’t need to ‘authorise’ costs incurred by an operator in matters like this. They auhtoroty is around DfT paying the operator.

I'm not sure of the mechanisms but the net result is that an operator cannot sensibly authorise pay increases without DfT approval.

Remember we live in a world where the DfT signs off every recruitment decision TOCs make, including internal ones. The processes are currently much stricter than they were under Franchising. Ultimately the DfT are potentially left with a cost increase in the long term cost base of the TOC, they currently do not leave the operator to make such decisions, every last one goes across a Civil Servant's desk - and in this case, as per the RAIB report the DfT said no; they had a hand in this incident.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not sure of the mechanisms but the net result is that an operator cannot sensibly authorise pay increases without DfT approval

They could have in this case, given how few people it affected.