What about the smallest rule, with little to no consequence if it gets broken... (yes this is a leading question)
-
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!
Would you always follow rules and procedure?
- Thread starter Twotwo
- Start date
- Status
What about the smallest rule, with little to no consequence if it gets broken... (yes this is a leading question)
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Surprised no one has mentioned a short circuit bar yet
It’s hit and miss as to whether anyone would be killed with 3rd rail, depends how quickly you can get the juice off or have them prized from it.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Surprised no one has mentioned a short circuit bar yet
It’s hit and miss as to whether anyone would be killed or injured with 3rd rail, depends how quickly you can get the juice off.
Didn't think of that. But then I'm not staff so I haven't had relevant training.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
The first thing that is taught in any "first aid"(#) training is that you NEVER put yourself at un-needed risk, otherwise you can easily end up with 2 casualties/fatalities.
#Note the lack of capital letters above!
Here's one. GSMR radio fails during a journey. Comes up with a fatal fault code. Both ends the same. Signaller says train cannot run without working GSMR unless portable radio provided. Company control says get on with it, you can continue. NR control say use your mobile phone as method of contact in case of emergency, giving the signaler the number. Company policy is strictly no phones to be on in the driving cab. Rules are in section 25.3 of TW5. Company not willing to declare a failure but doesn't own operative portable gsmr radio. NR not willing to allow train to complete journey without a radio but by now there's a queue of trains trapped behind. What to do?
Can the train be run to a location whereby it can be taken out of service without causing the queue of trains to continue building? (A nearby station with passing capabilities?).
What does the rulebook say about this? (I’m not a driver....or train crew at all).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Tell them to talk to each other and decide and get back to me. In the meantime the train does not move. I will not be a middle man in other people's arguments. When they both tell me the same thing, that thing happens.
This sort of thing should not be happening and it is a most serious concern if it is.
Really, all safety policy should be a national matter. That would avoid this situation.
This sort of thing should not be happening and it is a most serious concern if it is.
Really, all safety policy should be a national matter. That would avoid this situation.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Signaller is in charge, end of.
Train stops where it is or may be allowed to continue at reduced speed to the FIRST convenient place where the train can be safely unloaded and moved out of the way, and only once a clear understanding is reached between the driver and signaller.
TOC pcks up the delay payments to all other trains and to NR.
Train stops where it is or may be allowed to continue at reduced speed to the FIRST convenient place where the train can be safely unloaded and moved out of the way, and only once a clear understanding is reached between the driver and signaller.
TOC pcks up the delay payments to all other trains and to NR.
Eccles1983
On Moderation
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 841
The train doesn't move.
Very simple, Control have no say or authority to override the rule book, signaller and driver.
Key out, butties out and watch the world go by until a portable radio or recovery train arrives.
Very simple, Control have no say or authority to override the rule book, signaller and driver.
Key out, butties out and watch the world go by until a portable radio or recovery train arrives.
Pragmatic solution is to do as NR control suggest (with signaller in agreement obviously), use the mobile phone to move train to place where it can be screwed down out of the way and declare yourself a failure. However this is not strictly speaking allowed as per the rule book and again strictly speaking contravenes company policy on mobile phone use in the cab. This is a case of both being written poorly rather than trying to prevent this solution. See TW5 25.3 for what I mean.
Company controls are not necessarily fully conversant with the rule book so it's down to the driver to challenge where necessary. Fleet controlcontro should be fully conversant with rules regarding DOTE, but...
Company controls are not necessarily fully conversant with the rule book so it's down to the driver to challenge where necessary. Fleet controlcontro should be fully conversant with rules regarding DOTE, but...
Dieseldriver
Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 974
Drivers do not have access to DOTE though. It says there clearly in the Rulebook that the train can continue on its journey with no operative radio as long as the Driver is given permission. My own actions would be to get that authority from both the Signaller and my TOC Control (along with the full name of the Controller giving me that authority which I would note down somewhere). On numerous occasions I have challenged instructions given to me and point blank refused to perform tasks that are in contravention of the Rulebook. These include Signallers telling me to proceed at linespeed after passing a signal at danger with verbal authority (the Rule book specifically outlines the few occasions where you may proceed at linespeed/50mph, any other time it is always at caution). I have refused to carry out instructions given to me by my TOC Control on numerous occasions relating to the safety of vulnerable passengers and train faults. I have refused to carry out instructions given to me by Driver Managers as they have been contrary to the Rule Book and TOC specific instructions. If we are expected to be conversant with the Rules and are (rightly) penalised for breaching them, I will not be unfairly placed in a position by another member of staff to go against that, irrespective of the circumstances. I would never put someone else in that position and I don't expect to be placed in that position.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Sorry but you can move once a clear understanding has been reached with the signaller, who may have taken "advice" from Network Rail control.
However if it is always the drivers perrogative to refuse to come to that understanding and block the line for a long time whilst he awaits a fitter and an "interesting" conversation with his own control.
And don't expect much "good will" from the signalling staff in the future either; we have l o n g memories!!
Llanigraham
On Moderation
And to add,
GSMR may not be functioning but in many places there are still telephones at signals and ALL calls into a signal box are recorded, so we can cope without GSMR and mobiles sometimes.
GSMR may not be functioning but in many places there are still telephones at signals and ALL calls into a signal box are recorded, so we can cope without GSMR and mobiles sometimes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, quite, I suspect I'd need one to assist in justifying my position above, which is that if I'm instructed by two organisations whose instructions I must obey, and those instructions conflict such that to obey one I must breach the other, then I am going to do nothing at all (i.e. bring the train to a safe stand and keep it as such) until such time as those two organisations sort their argument out between themselves directly.
It is not just in the railway I would take this line. I will not act as a middle-man between two other peoples' arguments in any setting, ever - I'll simply put them directly in contact with one another and instruct them both to get back to me when they've sorted it out between themselves and to confirm the solution they have both agreed. I'll mediate if needs be (e.g. on a three-way conference call) but I will never, ever act as the messenger.
But it is really very stupid (and dangerous in itself[1]) that this even occurs. As I said a national set of safety rules on things like mobile phones in active cabs would avoid it. TOC specific rules just cause this kind of issue. And there is really no justification for having TOC specific rules - it's one railway.
[1] Why? Stressed staff (particularly the likes of drivers) provably make poor decisions. And putting someone in the position of being stuck between two people is guaranteed to cause stress.
bramling
Veteran Member
Wise words.
The Rule Book is there for a reason, and the old saying that the Rule Book is written in blood is very true - much of the Rule Book is there as a result of pitfalls into which people have fallen over many years, so things which seem petty or outdated are likely there with good reason. Likewise doing things “by the book” means in most cases one should be protected by several layers of safety, belt and braces fashion, so even if something goes awry there should still hopefully be other layers to protect before things become dangerous.
*However*, the flip side of the coin is that occasionally things do happen. Thankfully most people won’t ever be put in the position of being called up and told the train behind is rolling towards you with no brakes, but the thought and associated implications of that is enough to make one think a little. I’m thinking of a particular incident very much in the public domain where a few rules were broken (or perhaps stretched) in order to avoid what would have been a serious collision.
So my answer is yes but with a caveat that it might be a no but only if I felt there was a *very* sound reason that I could reasonably justify in retrospect. When the brown stuff hits the fan there’s no substitute for good training and experience. People who understand rules and why they exist are more of an asset than people who can recite the Rule Book parrot fashion but don’t really understand why a particular rule exists in the first place.
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
Welcome to the railway!
Stringent selection and months of training where it’s drummed into people how vitally important it is to correctly follow rules and procedures. Then once out on the real railway it won’t be long before one is being instructed by someone else, quite possibly a manager, to do something in contravention of said rules and procedures, or worse bollocked (or even have someone trying to discipline for) same.
Safety comes first on the railway, except when some people’s scorecard / performance bonus / ego comes first!
bramling
Veteran Member
Great post.
As always much relies on the driver (or whoever) knowing the rules and being confident enough to stand their ground.
The difficulty often is that people will be put on the spot with the line “are you refusing an instruction driver?”, which can unsettle some people enough into going along with something which their instinct tells them is wrong but a nagging doubt says what if I’m misremembering and the other person is right? It isn’t possible to phone a friend or take a break to spend a few minutes looking up the rules on an iPad!
Many companies have something buried in their employment policies which state that instructions from managers / supervisors must be obeyed, which can conveniently form the basis of a disciplinary charge. Does one want to risk a few months being stood down at home, not knowing what the future holds, relying that the disciplinary panel will be clued up and fair, over something which might seem to be a point of triviality?
As you righty say people shouldn’t be put in this unsatisfactory position, but sadly it happens regularly.
Sounds flippant, but the “don’t really care not much bothers me” attitude does often suit the railway rather well. Such people tend not to fluster others into making errors. By contrast someone who panics at the mere prospect of a sit-down is likely to be involved with errors, either directly or through their interaction with others.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Is that written somewhere, i.e. that a signaller can instruct a driver to breach a strict instruction in their contract from the TOC? I don't see why they would have the right to do that.
I'd suggest that at all times the stricter of the two things applies.
Well yes really, in the rule book driver’s instructions are always to follow instruction from the signaller. Even if control have an instruction for the driver e.g not to call order or extra call orders or even to do overtime perhaps because of no relief driver, that will normally be passed on to the signaller for the signaller to pass it on to the driver. In the rare event control passes on information direct to the driver the driver will only call the signaller anyway to confirm if he/she is aware of these instructions. If the signaller is not then that instruction won’t be followed until they are.
Also it is very very very unlikely for control to call a driver when he/she is at the controls so all communication is done through signaller or the Guard if there is one.
Highlandspring
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,777
Perhaps that’s the case in your part of the world but ScotRail drivers on the DOO Glasgow North and South Electric routes receive all sorts of instructions (albeit non safety critical) directly from their Controllers via the GSM-R after a sort of signaller’s revolt in Scotland. The RMT in Scotland said it was not the signaller’s job to issue ‘train operator’ instructions about running non stop, stopping additionally, terminating short, next workings, getting relief etc.. and it nearly came to industrial action so now it’s almost exclusively done by the TOC controllers, who can use their own terminal to send a Contact Control message to the cab mobile. The signaller will be told what’s happening by their own NR Controller so they can regulate accordingly but they’ll usually only know about it after the driver does. I’ve heard there is even about to be a trial of using the GSM-R to broadcast passenger announcements directly from the Control during disruption to save drivers from having to do it.
Last edited:
That is perfectly sensible. The non safety-critical stuff to do with service issues should be communicated by TOC control, yes.
Anything to do with safety of the line, affecting movement of the train, regulation, degraded operations or emergencies is definitely where the driver should be communicating primarily, and receiving instructions from, the controlling signaller.
Anything to do with safety of the line, affecting movement of the train, regulation, degraded operations or emergencies is definitely where the driver should be communicating primarily, and receiving instructions from, the controlling signaller.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
But can the signaller override TOC policy e.g. on the use of a mobile phone in the cab? Is there a reference confirming this?
Dieseldriver
Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 974
No they can't. The only time a mobile can be used in the cab of a moving train is in an emergency, the failure of GSMR is not an emergency. The rule book instruction regarding using a mobile phone in those situations was quickly amended when it was realised that would place Drivers in direct contravention of their TOCs instructions. Not to mention it wasn't exactly a good method of work anyway.
Highlandspring
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,777
I agree. The service pattern and frequency involved, particularly the North Electrics, is much more like a Metro or Underground service than a traditional railway and requires a lot more Control intervention/manipulation than usual, so having a means for the Controller to talk directly with his or her drivers is important and really makes a difference to performance. At the point at which the signallers (at one particular signalling centre) started refusing to pass these messages they were being asked many, many times a day and even more so during disruption, adding to their already heavy workload. I can completely understand where they were coming from.
Again I totally agree and that’s exactly how it’s done.
I had similar happen to me but with a rucksack strap pulled into the step void on a class 158. I had no way to know the strap wasn't hanging out foul so I classed it as a safety hazard and instructed the driver to bring the train to a stand at the next station (which was a matter of metres away in a low speed area). I then got him to block the line with the signaller (class 158 doors stand foul when open) and I cleared the doorway and released the door locally to retrieve the bag.
If you're referring to Ian Faletto on the Lymington line I believe the final implication was that actually there was no hazard in the first place and he had been clearing litter (he had a reputation for being an eccentric).
I answered no.
In fact in my recent train driver interview I explained where I refused to follow an emergency procedure as one of my replies to their competency questions.
And here I am now as a driver for the past 12 months. So it couldnt have been a terrible answer.
However I will add, the reason i gave for refusing to follow said process was because that it was unsafe.
There's been a noticeable and well-publicised (within the industry) shift in recent years, with lots of material coming out of the RSSB's Rule Book and going into TOC-specific appendices instead. You can see it in the modules on the RSSB's site, and the briefing leaflets that accompany new issues. Sometimes it makes sense, e.g. to account for differences between types of traction. You're right, though - it should never create a conflict. The TOC-specific rules should only ever be more restrictive, unless the Rule Book specifically allows an exception (e.g., "...unless permitted by company instructions"). Unfortunately, a well-intentioned TOC policy can easily have unforeseen consequences in situations other than the ones that they were intended to cover. Again, that's the importance of the staff on the ground knowing *and* understanding the rules, and standing their ground if they're being instructed to do something contrary to those rules. As you say, let them sort it out between themselves. It's one thing trying to work out the safest way to resolve a situation that isn't exactly covered by the Rule Book, but quite another when other parties get involved and are giving conflicting instructions.
- Status