Sadly Dave continued to let trains through the red signal for the next four days until finally the wreckage reached back to signal 31 and someone finally brought him a flag.
You are assuming that the driver, the conductor and the Network rail guy don't really know the guy with the camera. Seeing that they are all actors and that this is some kind of reconstruction, chances are that they meet each other most days in the staff canteen.😜
Train driver from Belgium here, on my way to work. Thanks for sharing this! While the danger of the famous vague "it's ok to go!" is well known by us train drivers, it is still being used by others around us who don't apply the communications procedures. I'm currently raising awareness around me about this issue and so is the railway. This video couldn't have been suggested to me at a better time!
Better 120s late from checking the line is clear than running a red on a single person's verbal. At the very least the line controller's word (of green to go) beats that of a worker's regardless of paid position, seniority, experience or observation. This is taught even in the food industry, if in doubt, call it out- take it higher.
The biggest mistake here seems to have been that the guy at the gates was sent to a job he was not told about nor prepared for. This is a management issue, the driver and conductor would have rightly believed he knew the job he was there to do and could do it properly. Apparently not.
Rel1369 the greatest mistake, is not trusting the men on the train. keep second guessing you conductors, and they will soon be unqualified to open a can of beans.
deezynar Mostly yes, but how does Dave not have any flags make the SPAD itself worse? Even had he used flags, it would still be a SPAD - the issue here is that Craig passed a danger aspect, not that Dave gave a verbal instruction instead of a visual one!
Yes the passenger who got on at Kensen Hardwood platform flopped his dick out & got caught masturbating by the ticket inspector of 23 years experience.
Good acting indeed. My question is this... what kinda trouble would it cause if he had said 'i'd rather ask the signaller'? I mean both 'official' trouble and ribbing (or worse) from workmates as being the one who causes trouble... They can both be equally persuasive in a work environment, sadly
***** Yeah, you don't want to drop the guy in it for not having his flags. I was in a similar situation, pilotman didn't have his armband or even a red flag, not even ID - so I had to insist I sit there until he went and got the proper equipment.
Yes, same thing happened to me on a single - line section from Hastings up to Tonbridge. Wadhurst Tunnel to be exact. I flatly refused to move my Jaffa-Cake 1066 leccy until the signalman told me it was okay to go. That dates me don't it !
The reason train travel is so safe in the UK is that signalling is respected and obeyed, no exceptions. The driver made a serious mistake that had the POSSIBILITY of becoming a disaster, rules and training are there to prevent these accidents. The mistake had consequences to underline that fact. A competent crew will feel bad about the situation even though nothing happened; because it brought the possibility of a disaster that much closer. This is why train crews are so hostile to economies in signalling, safety and working practices, some do appear to waste time and require extra effort, but who wants to be responsible for, or involved in another Paddington or Ladbrook Grove.
In British railway parlance, a signal is said to be at "danger" if it is not clearly showing a "proceed" aspect. This means that it is at danger if it is showing red, any ambiguous aspect, or no aspect (something I sometimes refer to as "black"). Obviously, all of these, except a plain red, would indicate a fault, and a plain red can also be due to a fault, but could simply be due to another train ahead, points set for a conflicting move, a level crossing not confirmed safe, or a number of other causes. Whatever kind of "do not proceed" aspect is shown, a hand signal (as would have been given by the crossing attendant) is never authority to pass the signal, unless the verbal instruction from the hand signaller is clear in that respect. In this case, the crossing attendant should never have been attempting to do the job without flags. The driver should indeed have used the SPT at MV31. He would then either have been told "signal OK, wait for proceed aspect", "signal failed but line clear, proceed as per rule", or "signal failed and line blocked, await further instruction" - although these would be expressed in much more detail. See SPAD Risk III (which was made before this incident) for more on this and three other SPAD risks. ua-cam.com/video/5JlHdBkVS4k/v-deo.html The consequences of a SPAD vary. They can be anything from relatively minor to disatrous. Also, it is not a SPAD if proper authorisation has been obtained.
+Phil Reynolds Great post! I understand better now. Thanks. One suggestion, however. Your use of the word "black," I was wondering if you received approval to use the word by African-American Yanks? They do not permit the use of the word "black" unless you have a written permission slip signed off by at least sixteen American blacks. Oh, crikey...I just used it! I am in trouble now; will probably have to spend a couple weeks in the reeducation camp...you see how easy you can be in violation? You are just sitting there, innocently eating a tofu sandwich with catsup, when all of a sudden you use the word "black,,," and you're in trouble. Well, a car just pulled up in the driveway, so I better go now. See you all in a couple of weeks.
The core of this was the ambiguity of "it's OK to go". What was meant was "It's OK to go through the crossing". What was understood was "It's OK to go past the signal".
Could the signal have been set to show a proceed aspect when the level crossing barriers were not down across the road? If not, permission to drive the train across the crossing would necessarily constitute permission to drive it past the signal at danger. The question is "did the person who gave permission have authority to do so?" and also "would the driver reasonably have known if he didn't?" Shouldn't the person sent to the crossing to sort it out have asked train drivers to phone the signalman (instead of saying it was OK to drive on) if he didn't have authority to allow them to pass the danger signal? How would this incident have been affected if the man sent to the crossing had had a green flag with him and had held it up in front of the train?
It's pretty obviously an instructional video for trainee train drivers about following rules to the exact letter. It's trying to teach you something and make you remember it, which is why it manages to be both boring and overly dramatic at the same time.
Clarifying what's going on, and not making assumptions tends to annoy people, as they think you're talking down to them, or challenging them. When you're in a position of high responsibility, where lives are under your care, annoying others should be of no concern.
In retrospect the answer is simple. However honest mistakes do happen with hardworking honest people. Some automatic crazy stunt that teaches an important lesson when the tasks become repetitive and monotonous. I hope they were not fired as I can guarantee they will be the safest handlers in their job from this incident on. Life is like that!!!
3:20 BIG mistake on the part of the conductor. If I were the guard, then in response to a question like that from the train driver I would've responded "It doesn't matter. The signal is at danger. You need to speak to the signaller before proceeding."
I had the same thing once, while on the railway. I thought it best, to ALWAYS contact the signalman if in ANY doubt, and was glad I did. So we had a small delay, about 10 minutes, but the alternative would've been a head-on collision on a single line, and it was pitch dark and raining, and winter. Better safe than sorry. Sadly crews are under pressure now to keep to time or the Train Operating Company gets fined. But I'd still contact the signalman, oops "Signaller" in today's PC world, before moving my train.
gotta get a good "PC" dig in there too, even though it's literally no fucking bother to just assume that women can also work signal boxes. I swear some people are less emotionally intelligent than others and revert to almost toddler-like states when they feel threatened.
@@MarkPentler The way it was amphasized, it was sexist. If you relize it should be signaller (if that even is the correct term), you _edit_ your text. Yo do not turn what would otherwise be a good post into a sexist shitpost.
I like how this is made like it was the worst thing to happened in the recent decades, and I also like that you guys changed the original names, like people would sent death treats if they knew theirs real name.
"Signal at Danger" is what the Brits call it. In the US, we call it "A signal displaying a stop indication". The very first rule in the GCOR is Rule number 1.1.1, "In case of doubt, or uncertainty, always take the safe course."
The lack of flags is the biggest issue in this situation. To pass a signal at danger, the hand signaller shows a YELLOW hand signal (As signals that cannot be cleared due to faults are passed at caution); to cross a defective crossing, the attendant shows a GREEN hand signal. The driver should see the flag and know what action is authorised by the colour of the flag. Obviously in any doubt, the driver should call the box.
Ultimately the responsibility for a SPAD like this lays with the train driver. The trackworker could have been anyone! The Network Rail Rule Book makes clear that a train driver must be advised by the signaller prior to receiving any instruction by a designated person to pass as signal at Danger. In this scenario, the driver should have personally spoken to the signaller at MV31 over the signalpost telephone.
As a member of the public... and therefore a potential passenger, the fact this exists, tells me that I am remarkably safe. The fact that nobody actually got hurt, but the consequences for the people involved are just as drastic... tells me that when the govt privatized the railways, they at least didn't completely destroy everything. :)
Cars don't take the length of a football field to stop or carry hundreds of people. Even a semi truck only has one tank of hazardous/flammable gas/liquid/etc. while trains can have dozens and dozens. There is a far greater level of responsibility.
This case is equivalent to a road vehicle driver getting done for ignoring a red light after being told to do so by a policeman standing at the roadside.
Having watched this video in the past. I think its logical that if I was the driver of that train. I would have contacted the signaller for confirmation because at the end of the day. My licence would be a stake and that SPAD could have been avoided had common sense had been followed. The conductor nor the level crossing worker had the authority to tell that driver to pass the red signal. So what if the level crossing operator had no flags with him, not my problem. I would have still contacted the signaller because at the end of the day. Passenger safety is top priority!
I've been trained as a crossing keeper on the Mid Norfolk Railway and I'm sure I'd get in trouble for doing what Dave did i.e. telling the driver to go when I have no flags. Having said that I agree with you in that Craig was entirely at fault for believing Dave.
At the time of this incident occurring the crossing guy (had he been acting as a hand signaller) could have authorised the driver past the signal at danger with the use of a YELLOW flag. Crossing operators would use a GREEN flag (hence no confusion) - obviously the issue here wasn't that the driver didn't know who could authorise him past, but he assumed the role of the pway-man and didn't confirm anything.
pmailkeey you didn't need a ticket to pass a signal at danger, you're thinking of temporary block working. the point is that he could have authorised him past with a yellow, but because he forgot his flags , the driver didn't want to get him in trouble. all calls to the signaller are recorded and if he'd called up, the signaller would have asked about the flags. it's all changed now so this situation can't happen anymore
love how the guy sent to deal with the level crossing said it was alright to go- just a second before he walked straight under the signal that was on red!
These are produced monthly as part of a safety brief for the UK rail industry. A different incident is recreated with actors (bad ones who I think are actually rail workers who volunteer) then after the film is viewed the audience talks about what went wrong, why and how to avoid it.
As an ex-Chiltern Driver, I can say that you NEVER pass a signal at Danger unless given permission by the Bobby, a Pilotman, Engineering Supervisor or hand-signalman. I used to follow 2 guidelines during my rail career of 25 years and they were: 1: Never Assume and 2: If In Doubt, Don't! Those 2 principles always kept me safe.
As someone who uses this station from time to time. I find it hard to believe that signal was at red for any valid reason. There is another light down the track in the middle of nowhere which nothing stops at and one just before the double track becomes a single track at St Johns which is utilized as a stopper if something comes the other way on the single track bit. So yeah its a SPAD, but considering the line speed and traffic on the line it is probably the safest place to have a SPAD anywhere on the network. So many errors in this video.. You assume becomes its about a SPAD its the drivers fault but its really not.
The signal could have failed or the track circuit ahead could have failed (circuit thinks there is a train occupying the section when actually there isn't). Signals automatically go to Red when a failure is detected as an extra back up. It is then the driver's responsibility to call the signaller who will then give authority to pass the signal at Danger.
Feh! So I watched a few air crash videos and a few dozen dashcam vids and now UA-cam thinks I'm ready for a train drivers training video!!! The only thing I took away from this was thinking how smug the trainer in the classroom would be after showing this....
I am unsure but I think there is a rule requiring a driver stopped at red for a time to phone the signaller. Historically this was so the signaller wouldn't forget about the train and send another into the back. The driver thought the crossing operator was the signaller.
Lesson for all walks of life: If it's your responsibility, then it's important for you to CHECK and be 100% satisfied that all safety criteria is filled - even if it might cost you, your mates!
plankton50 SPAD is just a signal passed at danger, it doesn't mean that there is a death. (I don't know of the last time there was a death because of a SPAD)
no doesn't necessarily mean a death or accident occurred - could be the signal is linked to a sensor on the LC barrier and only goes green when the barriers are closed, but maybe sensor wasn't working or could be any number of other reasons. Either way the driver is supposed to ring the signaller to pass any danger signal, but I can see the misunderstanding if there is a guy from network Rail telling you it is safe to proceed - especially if you know the red light is linked to a malfunctioning sensor on the barriers (although he should have had the required flags to do this!)
The last time there was a death from a spad was at the Paddington train crash, where a class 166 or 165 left Paddington then passed SN109 at danger. And it switch tracks on to a track with a HST coming at about 100mph
A number of issues come to mind here, 1 / the RailTrack PerWay employee was wearing RailTrack safety gear, therefore he was an authorised employee. He was observed walking from the Boom Barrier to the train, and he informed the Driver of the defective boom barrier. 2/ The Train Driver said he was approaching the Starter signal, which was at Stop. Starting signals authorise the train to enter the Section Ahead, they do not protect a Level Crossing, which, as this particular Level Crossing is equipped with Boom Barriers, it would therefore not necessarily be protected by a Home Signal. Despite this, it is not unusual for Boom Barriers at some locations to be electrically interlocked with, but not protected by, the Starting Signal ( or , if applicable, Automatic Signal ).3/ As the Per Way employee stated that he had to manually operate the Boom Barriers ( using the Test Switch to do so ) and then advise the Driver when the barriers were down and it was safe for the train to proceed, which he did so. The PerWay employee stated he was not given advice as to what was required, nor did he have the red and green flags to indicate to the Driver that it was safe to proceed, hence the verbal advice to proceed. Clearly he has done this before, so he knew the procedure. 4/ the PerWay employee should have contacted the Signaller when he arrived on site, and a subsequent discussion between the Signaller and the PerWay employee should have resulted in the Signaller telling the PerWay employee to tell the Driver to ring the Signaller on the Post Phone.(Presumably, the Train toBaseRadioPhone was not available.) 5/ Under this scenario, the Signaller could have then issued the Driver with a verbal Caution Order to proceed past the Starting Signal. ( Caution Orders are normally only issued for Home and Dwarf Signals, but in this instance, the issuance of a Caution Order to pass the Starting Signal is justified.) 6/ Whilst I agree that the Driver could have confirmed it was OK to Proceed with the Signaller, the fact that a RailTrack employee who had operated, and rechecked, that the boom barriers were operating correctly, and it was therefore ok to Proceed, and as a Starting Signal can be passed at Stop only with verbal advice, both the Driver, and the Conductor (who was previously a Signaller ) were both under the impression that it was therefore ok to Proceed into the Section ahead.7 / I also note that the Panel Signaller appeared to be unaware of the defective boom barriers, and the extended conversation between the Panel Signaller, and the Driver was not shown. In my experience the Driver would most certainly have advised the Panel Signaller of what took place. 8/ the question then arrises as to how the Supervisor of the PerWay employee was aware of the defective boom barriers, but had not advised the Panel Signaller ( or ascertained if someone else had already done so) of that knowledge, nor had the Supervisor advised the Panel Signaller that he had sent a PerWay employee to the defective boom barriers to manually operate them. As a Supervisor, he should have given the PerWay employee a clear instruction to contact the Signaller via the Post Phone as soon as he had arrived on site. In my view, in this particular scenario, the lack of flags, whilst problematic, but in this instance, would not have prevented other measures being undertaken to ameliorate this.9/ therefore I would argue that there are other relevant factors applicable here that had a bearing on the actions of both the Driver and the Conductor, and a misunderstanding had occurred partially due to these other factors.
Wearing a HV vest with the correct logo does not correctly identify him! I left the railway 20 years ago and still have a full set of HV clothing and, my BR identity card! Private companies never bothered about safety ever!
Dear Steve,@@stevenmoran4060, 1/I have just read your reply, apologies for the late response. I retired 5 years ago, and like you, I did retain my safety vest, however, my employee ID card & Free Travel Authority was collected by my Supervisor, and I was then issued a Retired Employee Travel Authority in lieu. 2/Under the then existing Rules ( which can be traced back to1905 !), and presumably a similar Rule is currently applicable, any employee can request to see another employees ID ( in my case name and Departmental number ). In instances like the above, the Train Crew could have asked for that if they were not satisfied as to the person's status.. In my case, there were a number of instances where I did just that to ascertain a persons status, in in some instances the Rule's require an exchange of identities, which are then recorded.Therefore if staff are unsure as to a persons status, this procedure can be used.3/ Obviously, Safety is an obligation all railway employees are obliged to comply with, and I fully agree with you that all too often, especially in privatised transport, this, all too often, is given lip service by senior managers ( Middle Managers are normally compliant ). As a retired driver said to me once, when a spokesperson say"...Safety is our first priority...", the obvious response is to ask "that being so. why did the incident happen? In this regard I am reminded of the rear end fatal collision in Severn Tunnel, which, despite what the RI Report said, was, I would argue, entirely the fault of the Manager who removed the Protecting Flagmen without any reference to the Signalman or Train Controller. Thank you for your response, and regards from Australia.
So after reading through the comments and finding out about a new language that calls 'red' as 'danger', the driver accidentally passed through a red light by misunderstanding. So what? It's not exactly a busy crossng in a City, it's a railway, what's gonna happen? He might actually be on time?
In Australian they would have probably got away with it, as long as the signal at the station was an automatic signal, because the train would have waited there for a minute. What I don't understand is why it was red, there was no train in the next section so what was it waiting for?
Yes you are correct Buck, he shouldn't have crossed the tracks without clearance therefore starting the situation, it would have been ok as long as the train driver called the signal man, but that didn't occur.
The crossing having failed probably? Also there very well may have been a train there, just that it had moved on by the time the next signal was reached...
The signalman could have either, set the signal to danger to protect the level crossing, but if they did that, they would need a handsignaler, who would have keyed the signal from auto to danger, but as that wasn't the case, I could only think the signaller sanctioned a conflicting move.
I'm amazed that Standing Orders don't require personnel to identify themselves and their specific role in situations like this. I am equally amazed that Standing Orders don't require drivers to challenge and ascertain the role in which someone is acting before accepting any instruction. That just seems to be common sense. "Hi. My name is Fred and I am here to ensure your passage is clear over the level crossing because the barriers are broken. You must make all other checks as the driver." That's all it would have taken.
whats with the daft people asking what a SPAD is? 1. Google is your friend.. LOOK IT UP 2. if you paid attention you would work out it means the signal has been passed at danger 3. if you have a basic knowledge of trains (and this prob why you're watching these type of videos in the first place) you would know what it means
Signal Passed At Danger - SPAD. Danger or RED signal. The danger is anything you don't know. I was taught when a signal is red - treat it like a brick wall.
It is called the human factor . Every day , every where , every person makes a mistake .Sometimes a wrong button is pushed , a foot slips on a pedal a phone conversation becomes mixed up , a person takes a left when it should be a right etc etc etc, and usually there is no evil consequence , but sometimes , very rarely , death , destruction and mayhem follows . Every thing is Time and Chance. As the proverb says , every thing that can go wrong , will go wrong .
The real driver apparently lost his job and went ferral. He is now in the Congo, on the run from government forces armed only with a combat knife and a bandana. How do I know this? He was my father, John Rambo!
The guard being a former signaller would have known the rulebook from both sides, traction and signalling and that there was no get around a red is a red and you ask the signalbox for permission and take note in book of instruction by signalbox who would also put it into their book permission to pass signal at danger. Any local signal flagger would have given a slip which would have acted as a paper token to proceed as instructed, the fact there was no slip, no flags should have raised a lot more than eyebrows with traincrew...
So the problem is that the driver mistook the instruction to proceed through the crossing for the instruction to proceed through the "danger signal", correct? My question is... WHY ARE THOSE THINGS SEPARATE AT ALL?! There needs to be ONE, SINGLE authority which determines whether it's alright to proceed down the track, ONE signal given to the driver - go or don't go. Period. Sorting out which parts of the track (crossings or whatever) are working or not should be done by the guy at 5:28 and he should give one SINGLE instruction to the driver - proceed or stay stopped.
There is - it's the signal (normally) which will only display green when both the road ahead is clear (and route set by the signallers) and the barriers are down. If some part of the system is broken (as in this case where the barriers are broken) then the signal will remain red. At this point, the single point of contact is the signallers, whether that be a signaller at the station with appropriate flags or the signaller at the other end of the phone line (who he should have rung to get authority to pass the signal). The maintenance guy should not have been there doing that job and should not have given any sort of authority to go. At most he should have let the driver know that the barriers were down but authority to pass those barriers (and the signal) still resides with the signallers.
Kevin was upset ma arse, he went to the locker room lit up a joint before going home via the off licence for a bottle of jack d whiskey so he can face another day working for network rail.
Indeed it would - but where this driver made his mistake was (amongst other things) not contacting the signal man (they call 'em 'signallers' in this pc bullshit age). Passing a red can only be done with correct authorisation - there was none in this case as the road crossing chap was not authorised to send the train on through a signal at danger - only through the crossing itself.
Exactly, yes. I work in the Aviation industry and we get Human Factors training every 2 years. The saying is, a lot of the regulations are written in victims blood.
I also worked in the aviation industry. Many incidents/accidents and deaths were the result of communication errors. Google the Series "MayDay". It has fantastic analysis of real incidents like this. The scariest, because it can happen so easily, was a crash of a jet liner into the Everglades because the entire cockpit crew was trying to solve a possible gear problem and it worked out that no one was actually flying the airplane.
What if a member of a public walking his dog near railway lines witnesses a land slide that happened right in front of his eyes, and still unknown to railways,, and then runs along the lines to warn any approaching trains to avoid a major disaster, there is no one else about who has any phones to make a phone call, so he takes his red tee shirt off ( that is if he is wearing a red tee shirt otherwise any other colour except green is fine) to warn any approaching train driver, waves it as a flag, to stop a passenger carrying train with many people aboard, so will the driver use his instinct and carry on going full steam ignoring the chap waving his red tee shirt frantically or will the driver stop to avert a disaster? Or should the man run back to his house to make a call, and what if whilst making this call a train then hits the breach, or what if then train has already passed the last signal lamp and the next signal lamp is after the breach. Or should he carry a big marker pen and white card to scribble "STOP, LAND SLIDE AHEAD" or should the Train lines not run in such areas prone to landslide? many questions but no answers.
Wouldn't have enough time to stop, trains can take quite a while to stop, especially at full speed. (Which they hardly travel at". Would be the same outcome if the guy wasn't there.
In other words, shit is going to happen, it is going to happen no matter what we do, how much we avoid, and that is exactly why we are here in the first place because shit happened, and Universe came into being, what if we didn't exists, none of these problems we would face today, migration. racism, rapists, murderers, isis, Donald Trump, Putin, EU, Osama Bin Laden, oh I could go on and on. Welcome to Universe, please feel free and be my guest.
Obviously he should stay there and carry on waving his flag, the driver should stop as that is protocol. Also if the man is on or about the railway lines and has not raised his hand to acknowledge the train and/or is not wearing safety clothing the driver should stop as he might be too close to the train!
Cryptonymicus some of the older ones don't. I'm pretty sure they are working on getting them all equipped now. It looked like they were all using landlines so this is probably an older video.
I understand he drive trough a red signal. But he drive slow anfstopped by the next signal. So the safety worked. He should not drive in the first place but his feeling said be carefull so he did. Now what happend after?
Anybody know what the typical punishment for a driver would be for this kind of SPAD (i.e. caused by improper procedures as opposed to texting his girlfriend)?
not sure what the prob is....yes he passed a red but what was he to do....just sit at the station for the all clear ??? was he sposed to change track to go round an obstruction or fail with the rail....what happened to the train did it hav to go back ???? lots of questions not many answers....i know what he did wrong but what was the problem ???? and what was the fix ????
kenny ball passing a signal at danger is extremely serious. Comparing it to cars it's like the police set up a road block and told you to stop and you just drive through it. Those signals are to tell drivers that there is something wrong with the tracks ahead, they can't just swerve out of the way of an obstruction. Most likely they let the train pass after it was clear then switched drivers at the next stop.
There was no need to do anything special other than wait at the signal and call the signalman from the nearby telephone to clarify the situation. The train can safely stand at the signal for as long as necessary without danger. The signalman would have confirmed that the signal was working properly and to wait for it to clear before proceeding.
could it be that MV31 signal was connected to the level crossing barrier and since they were mulfunctioning the signal was never gonna get the proceed aspect?
AHB crossings (the type shown in the video) always operate independently of the signalling system and are triggered by treadles (switches on the track) further up the line. They do have a white (or sometimes blue) aspect that will illuminate when the crossing is stopping the road traffic and it would light up regardless of whether it was triggered manually or automatically
There are around 300 SPADs a year, though few are serious, and you wont see many on the news at 10. See www.raib.gov.uk/ for investigations into the more serious ones.
Tom Hooper the train violated the signal at the platform that was "at danger", (red). The misunderstanding was that the gate crossing attendant, who was only responsible for operating the gates at the crossing, was a signalman. They interpreted his "ok to go" verbal to be an override of the danger signal, not that the crossing was guarded and clear. In the case of a malfunctioning signal there would have been a signalman at the phone, waiting for the clearance from controllers. The driver and conductor interpreted the mechanic's presence to be about the signal, not about the crossing gates.
londontrada because he (the barrier attendant) was informing the driver that the barriers were down at the crossing and it was safe to pass over the crossing, he wasn't telling the driver that it was safe to pass the red stop light. That is the misunderstanding.
These guys are over complicating it, basically the dude was supposed to be the signal man but didn't have his flags therefore could only be the barrier controller. The barrier controller said that it was "ok to go" as in the barriers are down and the signals were on, the driver should have then called the signal man to check if it was safe to go. This part wasn't done.
connor etchells No, as he stated, he was sent to manually control the gate but wasn't given the proper flags (green and red). His mistake was getting onto the platform and negotiating a verbal with the driver. The driver and conductor saw the gate was down and assumed they were automatic. They misconstrued the mechanic's role and assumed he was giving them clearance to proceed against the red light. Which, as others have stated elsewhere, would have been a yellow flag from a man on the platform. Green flag for gate clearance, yellow for signal override. The driver had reservations but did not act on them, taking the verbal to mean proceed against the signal after being reinforced by the same mistaken interpretation by the conductor.
Don´t you use radio communication in the UK ? I´m just curious, i´m a traindriver in germany, when you pass a red signal here the signalman will see this on his screens and almost instantly pick up the radio asking you whats going on out there.
Yes the railways do use radio communication here in the uk for signal box to driver communication, but it's not always possible to make radio contact which could be down to range issues and radio blackspots, and as far as I know there's a telephone by each signal to also enable the driver to contact the signal box. Regards.
Very interesting. Reminds me of an incident I had at Leeds. I had an extra long train and just like you had a gut feeling the platform was too short for my train. I pulled up as much as possible and before releasing the doors walked back along this crowded platform. Half way along I met platform staff and I told them "I just want to make sure the train is on the platform". This git started shouting at me "your train is fully on the platform.....open the doors". With that I pushed my way back through the crowds to the cab and opened the doors. Sadly I learnt after the train was not fully on the platform and I knew I was in the shit. 😢😢
This is an educational/training video by the railroad for their employees regarding following protocol and the danger of not doing so. That train wasn't authorized to pass the red light even with the flagman's okay, the engineer(driver) should have radioed dispatch before moving the train.
My heart goes out to the traincrew originally involved in this. Assuming the portrayal is directly reflective of the actual incident (i.e: A SPAD occurred, but no persons, trains or worksite crew were placed at actual risk) then it is a no-harm incident that can be learned from. but the very fact a SPAD _occurred_ would be enough to give anybody a number of sleepless nights if they had as much dedication to their roles as many railwaypersons do. ❤
connor etchells I am thinking about it as a real life situation, when the signal shows red. and it shouldn't, you should NOT pass a stop signal unless the dispatcher gives you premission to do so. Thats how its done here in the US, idk about other countries
connor etchells doesn't matter, you heard it yourself, he was there to flag the crossing not a signalmen. Plus he didn't have any flags so, in this case i see what your saying, but the engineer should really have called dispatch to get permission to pass this stop signal at Danger.
Freedomtowerman Productions He also said that he should have called but didn't as in that instance it didn't seem necessary. But of course he was wrong.
The flags are just that -- small flags on sticks that are used in certain circumstances to signal trains. They come in sets of three -- red, yellow and green. The color difference is one of several points at which this error could have been caught. When a driver stops at a Danger signal (Red or Dark), his/her proper response would normally be to call the Signaller (the one in the central signal tower) and ask for instructions. However, in some circumstances (e.g. if there is track construction work ahead), to save time a "Hand-Signaller" may be posted at the signal. The Hand-Signaller's job would be, for EACH train that stops, to call the Signaller and receive explicit permission for THAT train to proceed. He/she would then tell the driver "You are authorized to pass signal MV31 at danger. Use caution and obey all further signals." He/she must then display a YELLOW flag. Only when all these steps have been folllowed is the train authorized to pass that specific *signal*.. By contrast, if a worker is hand-operating a set of misfunctioning gates (as in this case), s/he does not have to make a call or speak to the driver. But when the gates are down and traffic is stopped, he/she displays a GREEN flag, which authorizes the train to pass the *gates.* If in this example Dave had been provided with flags, he would have used a green one. Craig would immediately realize that the green flag did not authorize him to pass the Danger signal, and he would have called the Signaller. So the color of the flag used would have caught the error. Of course, as others have noted, Craig could have (and should have) called the Signaller if he was unsure or uncomfortable about anything. That also would have prevented the SPAD (Signal Passed At Danger).. One thing I like about this training video is that, although it is a dramatization of a real incident that happened in 2006, it deliberately does not even mention what happened to the three people involved. Who got the blame? Did anyone get fired, or otherwise penalized? The message is "That's not the point. If you ever let yourself get into such a sitution you are going to feel terrible. Think about how to prevent that from happening."
4:00 Craig's biggest mistake was the sheer speed at which he SPADed. Had he been travelling at cautionary speed he could have stopped the train at 4:40.
anyway, being a non train driver and typically a passenger, i fail to see the difference between a verbal go ahead and a piece of brightly colored fabric being twirled around. if the procedure stated that contacting whatever controlling authority proceeds over the signalling of the tracks on a red light he was clearly in the wrong. however, if all that is required is a bloke wearing an official uniform and a flag to let you pass, i would seriously question the system as a whole.
ACombineSoldier the guy with the flag is not a signal man, they have flags to indicate that the crossing guard is down, the signal man would stand on the platform and tell them it's ok to go. That's where the problem was, because he didn't have flags they thought he was a signal man (hence the questioning about why he didn't go to the box on the platform) If he had the flags they would know he was the guy operating the gate. Typically a signal man would be standing by the box and let them know based on what a guy in the control room said.
ACombineSoldier ex-fucking-actly . why in a modern age, are these signals not computer controler and or, the signal men not using a walkietalkie... I had one as a child in the 70s.. I'm sure the brigs can afford them for their conductors and signalmen. it's 2017 for fuck sakes, go buy some walkie talkies form the Chinese already.
bradley c. It was probably because the crossing gate was broken, though another train was pretty possible. Since this is a reenactment I'm willing to bet they cleared the line for this.
This clearly shows that in all walks of transport and not just aviation CROSS-CHECKING is a must. The driver should have contacted the panel (signal box) to verify what he felt so uneasy about instead of just assuming the way he did. ASSUME = Makes an ASS out of U and ME as we say in aviation ...
Passed the red signal at the platform without proper authority (having misinterpreted the level crossing guy's verbal permission to go over the crossing as official authority to pass the signal)
You don't pstop ut a signal at Danger/Stop unless theres a reason, I would of phoned the signalman to conferm it was safe to procede as there was probly no procedure for this type of event R. C.
Sadly Dave continued to let trains through the red signal for the next four days until finally the wreckage reached back to signal 31 and someone finally brought him a flag.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂
😅
Now you've explained all that, hang that fire extinguisher back on the wall, it's not a door stop!!!
Classic.
I often stop and talk about my feelings to a random camera-man. Perfectly normal.
Well you gotta get your inner monologue out somehow 🤣
You are assuming that the driver, the conductor and the Network rail guy don't really know the guy with the camera.
Seeing that they are all actors and that this is some kind of reconstruction, chances are that they meet each other most days in the staff canteen.😜
Yeah, I do the same. Not really while working though, especially not driving though. Lol
😂
This is the most tragic thing I have ever seen. That SPAD could have easily been avoided. I'm on the verge of tears
I'm going to need counselling I think
Of course he is joking... 😂😂😂
We've got a Spadulike in the town centre.
What the dickens is a SPAD - potatoes on the railway line or station?
@@angelacooper2661 SPAD, Signal passed at danger.. SPT, Signal post telephone
This can't be realistic... that ticket was far too cheap.
+Si Rose If it's only one station, it can cost about £2...
I was joking...
Si Rose Oh XD Sorry
Si Rose does have a serious point, where I live it's just short of a fiver to go one station down the line!
This was from 2006. It's gone up since then.
Train driver from Belgium here, on my way to work. Thanks for sharing this! While the danger of the famous vague "it's ok to go!" is well known by us train drivers, it is still being used by others around us who don't apply the communications procedures. I'm currently raising awareness around me about this issue and so is the railway. This video couldn't have been suggested to me at a better time!
Better 120s late from checking the line is clear than running a red on a single person's verbal. At the very least the line controller's word (of green to go) beats that of a worker's regardless of paid position, seniority, experience or observation.
This is taught even in the food industry, if in doubt, call it out- take it higher.
The biggest mistake here seems to have been that the guy at the gates was sent to a job he was not told about nor prepared for. This is a management issue, the driver and conductor would have rightly believed he knew the job he was there to do and could do it properly. Apparently not.
if u criticise the management in England u'll get punished maybe even sacked. The video maker obviously didn't want to go there.
What you're saying may be very true but the video did give us the information needed to connect the dots.
Rel1369 the greatest mistake, is not trusting the men on the train. keep second guessing you conductors, and they will soon be unqualified to open a can of beans.
Nice bit of Root Cause Analysis there, Mate! Sack top management, the guys on the ground always know better!!
deezynar Mostly yes, but how does Dave not have any flags make the SPAD itself worse? Even had he used flags, it would still be a SPAD - the issue here is that Craig passed a danger aspect, not that Dave gave a verbal instruction instead of a visual one!
why am i here... and why did i watch the whole thing?
I skipped through expecting an interesting ending. i thought it was a spoof. Did I miss an interesting bit?
No, missed nothing - however i found the whole video weirdly captivating
I watched the lot too, it kept me on the edge of my seat! FML
Yes the passenger who got on at Kensen Hardwood platform flopped his dick out & got caught masturbating by the ticket inspector of 23 years experience.
The Greatest Debator in the World Yeh actually that was my least favourite bit.
Man, I can almost feel that gut-wrenching feeling when the guy says he passed the signal at danger. Poor guy.
Good acting indeed. My question is this... what kinda trouble would it cause if he had said 'i'd rather ask the signaller'?
I mean both 'official' trouble and ribbing (or worse) from workmates as being the one who causes trouble...
They can both be equally persuasive in a work environment, sadly
***** Yeah, you don't want to drop the guy in it for not having his flags. I was in a similar situation, pilotman didn't have his armband or even a red flag, not even ID - so I had to insist I sit there until he went and got the proper equipment.
+TheChipmunk2008 they all lose their jobs, no question about it.
Yes, same thing happened to me on a single - line section from Hastings up to Tonbridge. Wadhurst Tunnel to be exact. I flatly refused to move my Jaffa-Cake 1066 leccy until the signalman told me it was okay to go. That dates me don't it !
Not half as much as me. I remember the schools class 4-4-0 travelling up & down that line
*"what would you have done?"*
☉_☉...?
◔◡◔ ... _[slowly reaches arm up and grabs hold of the string dangling from the ceiling]_
*choo choo*
British trains use two tone horns. So it would be
[slowly reaches for the lever on the dashboard]
*beep booop*
@@toddc5619 tbf true, but it was joke, don't take it too seriously :)
@@mlrd6622 a Dutch train might go booop beep!
"picked up the platform phone and checked."
also would have hung my fire extinguisher back up, it's not a door stop.
@toddc5619 beeeee dooooop *honk wonks in british rail*
Some fucking African tribal music in the background really helps convey the message
Chill out.
Hubert Good grief
Music is from South America. If you are going to post unwarranted insulting remarks at least get your bloody facts straight.
Best comment I've seen on the entire video!
STFU walter
The reason train travel is so safe in the UK is that signalling is respected and obeyed, no exceptions. The driver made a serious mistake that had the POSSIBILITY of becoming a disaster, rules and training are there to prevent these accidents. The mistake had consequences to underline that fact. A competent crew will feel bad about the situation even though nothing happened; because it brought the possibility of a disaster that much closer. This is why train crews are so hostile to economies in signalling, safety and working practices, some do appear to waste time and require extra effort, but who wants to be responsible for, or involved in another Paddington or Ladbrook Grove.
Kevin used to be a scally on Brookside... nice to see he's made something of himself.
I think he's an actor in these videos, he was also in the Merseyrail fire training video. That said I fell for it and thought he was a real conductor!
In British railway parlance, a signal is said to be at "danger" if it is not clearly showing a "proceed" aspect. This means that it is at danger if it is showing red, any ambiguous aspect, or no aspect (something I sometimes refer to as "black"). Obviously, all of these, except a plain red, would indicate a fault, and a plain red can also be due to a fault, but could simply be due to another train ahead, points set for a conflicting move, a level crossing not confirmed safe, or a number of other causes.
Whatever kind of "do not proceed" aspect is shown, a hand signal (as would have been given by the crossing attendant) is never authority to pass the signal, unless the verbal instruction from the hand signaller is clear in that respect. In this case, the crossing attendant should never have been attempting to do the job without flags. The driver should indeed have used the SPT at MV31. He would then either have been told "signal OK, wait for proceed aspect", "signal failed but line clear, proceed as per rule", or "signal failed and line blocked, await further instruction" - although these would be expressed in much more detail. See SPAD Risk III (which was made before this incident) for more on this and three other SPAD risks. ua-cam.com/video/5JlHdBkVS4k/v-deo.html
The consequences of a SPAD vary. They can be anything from relatively minor to disatrous. Also, it is not a SPAD if proper authorisation has been obtained.
+Phil Reynolds Great post! I understand better now. Thanks. One suggestion, however. Your use of the word "black," I was wondering if you received approval to use the word by African-American Yanks? They do not permit the use of the word "black" unless you have a written permission slip signed off by at least sixteen American blacks. Oh, crikey...I just used it! I am in trouble now; will probably have to spend a couple weeks in the reeducation camp...you see how easy you can be in violation? You are just sitting there, innocently eating a tofu sandwich with catsup, when all of a sudden you use the word "black,,," and you're in trouble. Well, a car just pulled up in the driveway, so I better go now. See you all in a couple of weeks.
@@john1653 Although this 'joke' is 5 years old it's really quite scary how accurate it's become with this 'woke' outrage culture in current times.
@Rocksen Race baiting mainstream media to thank for that
@@tosspot1305So don't wake up if you don't wanna be "woke".
@@amadeosendiulo2137 what?
The core of this was the ambiguity of "it's OK to go". What was meant was "It's OK to go through the crossing". What was understood was "It's OK to go past the signal".
should have made it even more ambiguous and said "it's OK" so you can go ahead and smoke a joint
Never used , " OK " . Say " line clear ahead , as far as the next signal ".
The clue's in the title!
Could the signal have been set to show a proceed aspect when the level crossing barriers were not down across the road? If not, permission to drive the train across the crossing would necessarily constitute permission to drive it past the signal at danger. The question is "did the person who gave permission have authority to do so?" and also "would the driver reasonably have known if he didn't?" Shouldn't the person sent to the crossing to sort it out have asked train drivers to phone the signalman (instead of saying it was OK to drive on) if he didn't have authority to allow them to pass the danger signal? How would this incident have been affected if the man sent to the crossing had had a green flag with him and had held it up in front of the train?
Such powerful emotions, brilliant watch..
It's pretty obviously an instructional video for trainee train drivers about following rules to the exact letter. It's trying to teach you something and make you remember it, which is why it manages to be both boring and overly dramatic at the same time.
But cudos for the sound scape, it actually makes it tense at the same time. Mostly however just as in "let's geto to the point" however.
Clarifying what's going on, and not making assumptions tends to annoy people, as they think you're talking down to them, or challenging them.
When you're in a position of high responsibility, where lives are under your care, annoying others should be of no concern.
In retrospect the answer is simple. However honest mistakes do happen with hardworking honest people. Some automatic crazy stunt that teaches an important lesson when the tasks become repetitive and monotonous. I hope they were not fired as I can guarantee they will be the safest handlers in their job from this incident on. Life is like that!!!
3:20 BIG mistake on the part of the conductor. If I were the guard, then in response to a question like that from the train driver I would've responded "It doesn't matter. The signal is at danger. You need to speak to the signaller before proceeding."
I had the same thing once, while on the railway. I thought it best, to ALWAYS contact the signalman if in ANY doubt, and was glad I did. So we had a small delay, about 10 minutes, but the alternative would've been a head-on collision on a single line, and it was pitch dark and raining, and winter. Better safe than sorry. Sadly crews are under pressure now to keep to time or the Train Operating Company gets fined. But I'd still contact the signalman, oops "Signaller" in today's PC world, before moving my train.
River Huntingdon ifs and buts.
Agreed. RIP River Huntingdon.
gotta get a good "PC" dig in there too, even though it's literally no fucking bother to just assume that women can also work signal boxes.
I swear some people are less emotionally intelligent than others and revert to almost toddler-like states when they feel threatened.
@@MarkPentler hit the nail on the head
@@MarkPentler The way it was amphasized, it was sexist. If you relize it should be signaller (if that even is the correct term), you _edit_ your text. Yo do not turn what would otherwise be a good post into a sexist shitpost.
I like how this is made like it was the worst thing to happened in the recent decades, and I also like that you guys changed the original names, like people would sent death treats if they knew theirs real name.
5:36 - perfect actor ;)
"Signal at Danger" is what the Brits call it. In the US, we call it "A signal displaying a stop indication". The very first rule in the GCOR is Rule number 1.1.1, "In case of doubt, or uncertainty, always take the safe course."
The lack of flags is the biggest issue in this situation.
To pass a signal at danger, the hand signaller shows a YELLOW hand signal (As signals that cannot be cleared due to faults are passed at caution); to cross a defective crossing, the attendant shows a GREEN hand signal. The driver should see the flag and know what action is authorised by the colour of the flag.
Obviously in any doubt, the driver should call the box.
Why was this in my recommended videos?
i know
I dont know
UA-cam is autistic, which is clearly indicated by an affinity for trains.
why indeed ? whats worse is i watched the whole thing thinking something was going to happen
me too
Ultimately the responsibility for a SPAD like this lays with the train driver. The trackworker could have been anyone! The Network Rail Rule Book makes clear that a train driver must be advised by the signaller prior to receiving any instruction by a designated person to pass as signal at Danger. In this scenario, the driver should have personally spoken to the signaller at MV31 over the signalpost telephone.
Even then, I would NOT have passed without seeing a handsignal.
SPAD alert - these people are too nice to each other. The driver should take his revenge cold and delicious
I run red lights all the time AND I disobey single line working practice ! (Mind you, on OO gauge layouts, only plastic people die !)
cunny funt
twunny fat
Try that with the real thing and see what it gets you !
Love these pan flutes in the background
Been on the railway for 5 years, and I still haven't arrived at Cardiff!
Has this been put up for Academy Award Consideration?
londontrada Not yet.
As a member of the public... and therefore a potential passenger, the fact this exists, tells me that I am remarkably safe. The fact that nobody actually got hurt, but the consequences for the people involved are just as drastic... tells me that when the govt privatized the railways, they at least didn't completely destroy everything. :)
The destruction started when the government NATIONALISED the railways.
@@bingola45 yeah, no.
Wrong. @@bingola45
Panpipes=Uneasy Feeling Doh!
Just imagine this level of cross-examination every time a car or van driver ignored a red light?
Honestly would make the roads a lot safer
Cars don't take the length of a football field to stop or carry hundreds of people. Even a semi truck only has one tank of hazardous/flammable gas/liquid/etc. while trains can have dozens and dozens. There is a far greater level of responsibility.
@@JCarey1988 even a proportional level of scrutiny would be nice
This case is equivalent to a road vehicle driver getting done for ignoring a red light after being told to do so by a policeman standing at the roadside.
Having watched this video in the past. I think its logical that if I was the driver of that train. I would have contacted the signaller for confirmation because at the end of the day. My licence would be a stake and that SPAD could have been avoided had common sense had been followed. The conductor nor the level crossing worker had the authority to tell that driver to pass the red signal. So what if the level crossing operator had no flags with him, not my problem. I would have still contacted the signaller because at the end of the day. Passenger safety is top priority!
You are so right! I worked on The London Underground, when I first saw this video, I thought, this is so wrong.
I've been trained as a crossing keeper on the Mid Norfolk Railway and I'm sure I'd get in trouble for doing what Dave did i.e. telling the driver to go when I have no flags. Having said that I agree with you in that Craig was entirely at fault for believing Dave.
At the time of this incident occurring the crossing guy (had he been acting as a hand signaller) could have authorised the driver past the signal at danger with the use of a YELLOW flag. Crossing operators would use a GREEN flag (hence no confusion) - obviously the issue here wasn't that the driver didn't know who could authorise him past, but he assumed the role of the pway-man and didn't confirm anything.
pmailkeey you didn't need a ticket to pass a signal at danger, you're thinking of temporary block working. the point is that he could have authorised him past with a yellow, but because he forgot his flags , the driver didn't want to get him in trouble. all calls to the signaller are recorded and if he'd called up, the signaller would have asked about the flags. it's all changed now so this situation can't happen anymore
BritishRail60062 you brits SURE DO LOVE YOU BUROCRACY don't you . why even bother leaving the EU? really!
love how the guy sent to deal with the level crossing said it was alright to go- just a second before he walked straight under the signal that was on red!
He meant 'OK to go over the crossing'. He had no idea that the driver was asking about the signal.
These are produced monthly as part of a safety brief for the UK rail industry. A different incident is recreated with actors (bad ones who I think are actually rail workers who volunteer) then after the film is viewed the audience talks about what went wrong, why and how to avoid it.
Should have chosen one that wasn't colour-blind!
As an ex-Chiltern Driver, I can say that you NEVER pass a signal at Danger unless given permission by the Bobby, a Pilotman, Engineering Supervisor or hand-signalman. I used to follow 2 guidelines during my rail career of 25 years and they were: 1: Never Assume and 2: If In Doubt, Don't! Those 2 principles always kept me safe.
As someone who uses this station from time to time. I find it hard to believe that signal was at red for any valid reason. There is another light down the track in the middle of nowhere which nothing stops at and one just before the double track becomes a single track at St Johns which is utilized as a stopper if something comes the other way on the single track bit. So yeah its a SPAD, but considering the line speed and traffic on the line it is probably the safest place to have a SPAD anywhere on the network. So many errors in this video.. You assume becomes its about a SPAD its the drivers fault but its really not.
The signal could have failed or the track circuit ahead could have failed (circuit thinks there is a train occupying the section when actually there isn't). Signals automatically go to Red when a failure is detected as an extra back up. It is then the driver's responsibility to call the signaller who will then give authority to pass the signal at Danger.
I watch this video once a year
Feh! So I watched a few air crash videos and a few dozen dashcam vids and now UA-cam thinks I'm ready for a train drivers training video!!! The only thing I took away from this was thinking how smug the trainer in the classroom would be after showing this....
I am unsure but I think there is a rule requiring a driver stopped at red for a time to phone the signaller. Historically this was so the signaller wouldn't forget about the train and send another into the back. The driver thought the crossing operator was the signaller.
8:39 watching a training video that has no relevance to my career goals. My life is screwed
Lesson for all walks of life: If it's your responsibility, then it's important for you to CHECK and be 100% satisfied that all safety criteria is filled - even if it might cost you, your mates!
Yellow vest ? It's orange ffs
If there's a SPAD does someone die? I'm confused
SPAD is simply a signal passed at danger bit.ly/1zVX4qA
plankton50 SPAD is just a signal passed at danger, it doesn't mean that there is a death. (I don't know of the last time there was a death because of a SPAD)
no doesn't necessarily mean a death or accident occurred - could be the signal is linked to a sensor on the LC barrier and only goes green when the barriers are closed, but maybe sensor wasn't working or could be any number of other reasons.
Either way the driver is supposed to ring the signaller to pass any danger signal, but I can see the misunderstanding if there is a guy from network Rail telling you it is safe to proceed - especially if you know the red light is linked to a malfunctioning sensor on the barriers (although he should have had the required flags to do this!)
you people sound dangerous. a little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous indeed
The last time there was a death from a spad was at the Paddington train crash, where a class 166 or 165 left Paddington then passed SN109 at danger. And it switch tracks on to a track with a HST coming at about 100mph
A number of issues come to mind here, 1 / the RailTrack PerWay employee was wearing RailTrack safety gear, therefore he was an authorised employee. He was observed walking from the Boom Barrier to the train, and he informed the Driver of the defective boom barrier. 2/ The Train Driver said he was approaching the Starter signal, which was at Stop. Starting signals authorise the train to enter the Section Ahead, they do not protect a Level Crossing, which, as this particular Level Crossing is equipped with Boom Barriers, it would therefore not necessarily be protected by a Home Signal. Despite this, it is not unusual for Boom Barriers at some locations to be electrically interlocked with, but not protected by, the Starting Signal ( or , if applicable, Automatic Signal ).3/ As the Per Way employee stated that he had to manually operate the Boom Barriers ( using the Test Switch to do so ) and then advise the Driver when the barriers were down and it was safe for the train to proceed, which he did so. The PerWay employee stated he was not given advice as to what was required, nor did he have the red and green flags to indicate to the Driver that it was safe to proceed, hence the verbal advice to proceed. Clearly he has done this before, so he knew the procedure. 4/ the PerWay employee should have contacted the Signaller when he arrived on site, and a subsequent discussion between the Signaller and the PerWay employee should have resulted in the Signaller telling the PerWay employee to tell the Driver to ring the Signaller on the Post Phone.(Presumably, the Train toBaseRadioPhone was not available.) 5/ Under this scenario, the Signaller could have then issued the Driver with a verbal Caution Order to proceed past the Starting Signal. ( Caution Orders are normally only issued for Home and Dwarf Signals, but in this instance, the issuance of a Caution Order to pass the Starting Signal is justified.) 6/ Whilst I agree that the Driver could have confirmed it was OK to Proceed with the Signaller, the fact that a RailTrack employee who had operated, and rechecked, that the boom barriers were operating correctly, and it was therefore ok to Proceed, and as a Starting Signal can be passed at Stop only with verbal advice, both the Driver, and the Conductor (who was previously a Signaller ) were both under the impression that it was therefore ok to Proceed into the Section ahead.7 / I also note that the Panel Signaller appeared to be unaware of the defective boom barriers, and the extended conversation between the Panel Signaller, and the Driver was not shown. In my experience the Driver would most certainly have advised the Panel Signaller of what took place. 8/ the question then arrises as to how the Supervisor of the PerWay employee was aware of the defective boom barriers, but had not advised the Panel Signaller ( or ascertained if someone else had already done so) of that knowledge, nor had the Supervisor advised the Panel Signaller that he had sent a PerWay employee to the defective boom barriers to manually operate them. As a Supervisor, he should have given the PerWay employee a clear instruction to contact the Signaller via the Post Phone as soon as he had arrived on site. In my view, in this particular scenario, the lack of flags, whilst problematic, but in this instance, would not have prevented other measures being undertaken to ameliorate this.9/ therefore I would argue that there are other relevant factors applicable here that had a bearing on the actions of both the Driver and the Conductor, and a misunderstanding had occurred partially due to these other factors.
Wearing a HV vest with the correct logo does not correctly identify him!
I left the railway 20 years ago and still have a full set of HV clothing and, my BR identity card!
Private companies never bothered about safety ever!
@@stevenmoran4060
Dear Steve,@@stevenmoran4060, 1/I have just read your reply, apologies for the late response. I retired 5 years ago, and like you, I did retain my safety vest, however, my employee ID card & Free Travel Authority was collected by my Supervisor, and I was then issued a Retired Employee Travel Authority in lieu. 2/Under the then existing Rules ( which can be traced back to1905 !), and presumably a similar Rule is currently applicable, any employee can request to see another employees ID ( in my case name and Departmental number ). In instances like the above, the Train Crew could have asked for that if they were not satisfied as to the person's status.. In my case, there were a number of instances where I did just that to ascertain a persons status, in in some instances the Rule's require an exchange of identities, which are then recorded.Therefore if staff are unsure as to a persons status, this procedure can be used.3/ Obviously, Safety is an obligation all railway employees are obliged to comply with, and I fully agree with you that all too often, especially in privatised transport, this, all too often, is given lip service by senior managers ( Middle Managers are normally compliant ). As a retired driver said to me once, when a spokesperson say"...Safety is our first priority...", the obvious response is to ask "that being so. why did the incident happen? In this regard I am reminded of the rear end fatal collision in Severn Tunnel, which, despite what the RI Report said, was, I would argue, entirely the fault of the Manager who removed the Protecting Flagmen without any reference to the Signalman or Train Controller. Thank you for your response, and regards from Australia.
So after reading through the comments and finding out about a new language that calls 'red' as 'danger', the driver accidentally passed through a red light by misunderstanding. So what? It's not exactly a busy crossng in a City, it's a railway, what's gonna happen? He might actually be on time?
In Australian they would have probably got away with it, as long as the signal at the station was an automatic signal, because the train would have waited there for a minute. What I don't understand is why it was red, there was no train in the next section so what was it waiting for?
Yes you are correct Buck, he shouldn't have crossed the tracks without clearance therefore starting the situation, it would have been ok as long as the train driver called the signal man, but that didn't occur.
The crossing having failed probably? Also there very well may have been a train there, just that it had moved on by the time the next signal was reached...
The signalman could have either, set the signal to danger to protect the level crossing, but if they did that, they would need a handsignaler, who would have keyed the signal from auto to danger, but as that wasn't the case, I could only think the signaller sanctioned a conflicting move.
I'm amazed that Standing Orders don't require personnel to identify themselves and their specific role in situations like this. I am equally amazed that Standing Orders don't require drivers to challenge and ascertain the role in which someone is acting before accepting any instruction.
That just seems to be common sense. "Hi. My name is Fred and I am here to ensure your passage is clear over the level crossing because the barriers are broken. You must make all other checks as the driver."
That's all it would have taken.
whats with the daft people asking what a SPAD is?
1. Google is your friend.. LOOK IT UP
2. if you paid attention you would work out it means the signal has been passed at danger
3. if you have a basic knowledge of trains (and this prob why you're watching these type of videos in the first place) you would know what it means
+Stew Fisher You probably need to chill out. Not everyone seeing these is a railfan or lives in Britain.
god i hate people who tell me to chill out because others are such fuckin retards asking stupid questions.
ADHERE TO ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS,
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO TRAIN CONTROL, DISPATCH CENTRE!
Aka the signaller
Signal Passed At Danger - SPAD. Danger or RED signal. The danger is anything you don't know.
I was taught when a signal is red - treat it like a brick wall.
It is called the human factor . Every day , every where , every person makes a mistake .Sometimes a wrong button is pushed , a foot slips on a pedal a phone conversation becomes mixed up , a person takes a left when it should be a right etc etc etc, and usually there is no evil consequence , but sometimes , very rarely , death , destruction and mayhem follows . Every thing is Time and Chance. As the proverb says , every thing that can go wrong , will go wrong .
The supervisor should have told him what he would be doing. As far as he knew, he could have just as easily been getting his boss’ dry cleaning…
Always wear a high visibility jacket
We called them high velocity jackets . From what happens when a driver sneaks up behind you and blows his horn .
The real driver apparently lost his job and went ferral. He is now in the Congo, on the run from government forces armed only with a combat knife and a bandana. How do I know this? He was my father, John Rambo!
The guard being a former signaller would have known the rulebook from both sides, traction and signalling and that there was no get around a red is a red and you ask the signalbox for permission and take note in book of instruction by signalbox who would also put it into their book permission to pass signal at danger. Any local signal flagger would have given a slip which would have acted as a paper token to proceed as instructed, the fact there was no slip, no flags should have raised a lot more than eyebrows with traincrew...
That is time I will never get back.
So the problem is that the driver mistook the instruction to proceed through the crossing for the instruction to proceed through the "danger signal", correct?
My question is... WHY ARE THOSE THINGS SEPARATE AT ALL?!
There needs to be ONE, SINGLE authority which determines whether it's alright to proceed down the track, ONE signal given to the driver - go or don't go. Period. Sorting out which parts of the track (crossings or whatever) are working or not should be done by the guy at 5:28 and he should give one SINGLE instruction to the driver - proceed or stay stopped.
There is - it's the signal (normally) which will only display green when both the road ahead is clear (and route set by the signallers) and the barriers are down.
If some part of the system is broken (as in this case where the barriers are broken) then the signal will remain red. At this point, the single point of contact is the signallers, whether that be a signaller at the station with appropriate flags or the signaller at the other end of the phone line (who he should have rung to get authority to pass the signal).
The maintenance guy should not have been there doing that job and should not have given any sort of authority to go. At most he should have let the driver know that the barriers were down but authority to pass those barriers (and the signal) still resides with the signallers.
Kevin was upset ma arse, he went to the locker room lit up a joint before going home via the off licence for a bottle of jack d whiskey so he can face another day working for network rail.
Would nt the signal be on (red) due to the crossing Faliure??
Indeed it would - but where this driver made his mistake was (amongst other things) not contacting the signal man (they call 'em 'signallers' in this pc bullshit age). Passing a red can only be done with correct authorisation - there was none in this case as the road crossing chap was not authorised to send the train on through a signal at danger - only through the crossing itself.
why have i got david brent in my head with things like this
Interesting considering that this is a safety video, the Fire extinguisher has been taken off it`s wall position and is holding a fire door open!
This is the kind of thing that comes up in Human Factors training. Training on how to overcome mistakes made out of the Human Factor.
Exactly, yes. I work in the Aviation industry and we get Human Factors training every 2 years. The saying is, a lot of the regulations are written in victims blood.
I also worked in the aviation industry. Many incidents/accidents and deaths were the result of communication errors. Google the Series "MayDay". It has fantastic analysis of real incidents like this. The scariest, because it can happen so easily, was a crash of a jet liner into the Everglades because the entire cockpit crew was trying to solve a possible gear problem and it worked out that no one was actually flying the airplane.
Got the book on that flight aftermath, The Ghost of Flight 401, explains a lot about why the plane crashed.
What if a member of a public walking his dog near railway lines witnesses a land slide that happened right in front of his eyes, and still unknown to railways,, and then runs along the lines to warn any approaching trains to avoid a major disaster, there is no one else about who has any phones to make a phone call, so he takes his red tee shirt off ( that is if he is wearing a red tee shirt otherwise any other colour except green is fine) to warn any approaching train driver, waves it as a flag, to stop a passenger carrying train with many people aboard, so will the driver use his instinct and carry on going full steam ignoring the chap waving his red tee shirt frantically or will the driver stop to avert a disaster? Or should the man run back to his house to make a call, and what if whilst making this call a train then hits the breach, or what if then train has already passed the last signal lamp and the next signal lamp is after the breach. Or should he carry a big marker pen and white card to scribble "STOP, LAND SLIDE AHEAD" or should the Train lines not run in such areas prone to landslide? many questions but no answers.
Wouldn't have enough time to stop, trains can take quite a while to stop, especially at full speed. (Which they hardly travel at". Would be the same outcome if the guy wasn't there.
In other words, shit is going to happen, it is going to happen no matter what we do, how much we avoid, and that is exactly why we are here in the first place because shit happened, and Universe came into being, what if we didn't exists, none of these problems we would face today, migration. racism, rapists, murderers, isis, Donald Trump, Putin, EU, Osama Bin Laden, oh I could go on and on. Welcome to Universe, please feel free and be my guest.
Even a green shirt would've sufficed, waving any object around violently means stop!
Obviously he should stay there and carry on waving his flag, the driver should stop as that is protocol. Also if the man is on or about the railway lines and has not raised his hand to acknowledge the train and/or is not wearing safety clothing the driver should stop as he might be too close to the train!
British trains don't have two-way radios in the driver's cab???
Cryptonymicus some of the older ones don't. I'm pretty sure they are working on getting them all equipped now. It looked like they were all using landlines so this is probably an older video.
I understand he drive trough a red signal. But he drive slow anfstopped by the next signal.
So the safety worked.
He should not drive in the first place but his feeling said be carefull so he did.
Now what happend after?
Anybody know what the typical punishment for a driver would be for this kind of SPAD (i.e. caused by improper procedures as opposed to texting his girlfriend)?
Probably management action
I love the low-key drama. No screaming. No finger pointing. Just men stating what happened.
Don't they have two way radios to contact head office..
passtheparcel2007 it's an old video.
not sure what the prob is....yes he passed a red but what was he to do....just sit at the station for the all clear ??? was he sposed to change track to go round an obstruction or fail with the rail....what happened to the train did it hav to go back ???? lots of questions not many answers....i know what he did wrong but what was the problem ???? and what was the fix ????
kenny ball passing a signal at danger is extremely serious. Comparing it to cars it's like the police set up a road block and told you to stop and you just drive through it. Those signals are to tell drivers that there is something wrong with the tracks ahead, they can't just swerve out of the way of an obstruction. Most likely they let the train pass after it was clear then switched drivers at the next stop.
I have no idea how I ended up here
Lol
There was no need to do anything special other than wait at the signal and call the signalman from the nearby telephone to clarify the situation. The train can safely stand at the signal for as long as necessary without danger. The signalman would have confirmed that the signal was working properly and to wait for it to clear before proceeding.
could it be that MV31 signal was connected to the level crossing barrier and since they were mulfunctioning the signal was never gonna get the proceed aspect?
AHB crossings (the type shown in the video) always operate independently of the signalling system and are triggered by treadles (switches on the track) further up the line. They do have a white (or sometimes blue) aspect that will illuminate when the crossing is stopping the road traffic and it would light up regardless of whether it was triggered manually or automatically
I don't recall seeing this incident on the News at Ten.
Also, is it just me, or do Network Rail employees seems a bit......"hammy" these days?
There are around 300 SPADs a year, though few are serious, and you wont see many on the news at 10.
See www.raib.gov.uk/ for investigations into the more serious ones.
hindler I think those were actors recreating the incident.
I wouldn't have trusted a random bloke I had never met as a person in authority! Dr Milgram would have been so proud.
This was confusing what did he do
Tom Hooper the train violated the signal at the platform that was "at danger", (red). The misunderstanding was that the gate crossing attendant, who was only responsible for operating the gates at the crossing, was a signalman. They interpreted his "ok to go" verbal to be an override of the danger signal, not that the crossing was guarded and clear. In the case of a malfunctioning signal there would have been a signalman at the phone, waiting for the clearance from controllers. The driver and conductor interpreted the mechanic's presence to be about the signal, not about the crossing gates.
But why did he say "OK to go"?
londontrada because he (the barrier attendant) was informing the driver that the barriers were down at the crossing and it was safe to pass over the crossing, he wasn't telling the driver that it was safe to pass the red stop light. That is the misunderstanding.
These guys are over complicating it, basically the dude was supposed to be the signal man but didn't have his flags therefore could only be the barrier controller. The barrier controller said that it was "ok to go" as in the barriers are down and the signals were on, the driver should have then called the signal man to check if it was safe to go. This part wasn't done.
connor etchells No, as he stated, he was sent to manually control the gate but wasn't given the proper flags (green and red). His mistake was getting onto the platform and negotiating a verbal with the driver. The driver and conductor saw the gate was down and assumed they were automatic. They misconstrued the mechanic's role and assumed he was giving them clearance to proceed against the red light. Which, as others have stated elsewhere, would have been a yellow flag from a man on the platform. Green flag for gate clearance, yellow for signal override. The driver had reservations but did not act on them, taking the verbal to mean proceed against the signal after being reinforced by the same mistaken interpretation by the conductor.
Don´t you use radio communication in the UK ?
I´m just curious, i´m a traindriver in germany, when you pass a red signal here the signalman will see this on his screens and almost instantly pick up the radio asking you whats going on out there.
Yes the railways do use radio communication here in the uk for signal box to driver communication, but it's not always possible to make radio contact which could be down to range issues and radio blackspots, and as far as I know there's a telephone by each signal to also enable the driver to contact the signal box. Regards.
Very interesting. Reminds me of an incident I had at Leeds. I had an extra long train and just like you had a gut feeling the platform was too short for my train. I pulled up as much as possible and before releasing the doors walked back along this crowded platform. Half way along I met platform staff and I told them "I just want to make sure the train is on the platform". This git started shouting at me "your train is fully on the platform.....open the doors". With that I pushed my way back through the crowds to the cab and opened the doors. Sadly I learnt after the train was not fully on the platform and I knew I was in the shit. 😢😢
I had visions of a car disregarding the red beacons and hitting the side of the train.
This is an educational/training video by the railroad for their employees regarding following protocol and the danger of not doing so. That train wasn't authorized to pass the red light even with the flagman's okay, the engineer(driver) should have radioed dispatch before moving the train.
@Andy B No 😡
My heart goes out to the traincrew originally involved in this. Assuming the portrayal is directly reflective of the actual incident (i.e: A SPAD occurred, but no persons, trains or worksite crew were placed at actual risk) then it is a no-harm incident that can be learned from. but the very fact a SPAD _occurred_ would be enough to give anybody a number of sleepless nights if they had as much dedication to their roles as many railwaypersons do. ❤
What would I have done?
Waited at the first signal and got conformation from the dispatcher.
Find it funny how people say stuff like this but in real life situations you wouldn't have, just like the dude in the video stated.
connor etchells I am thinking about it as a real life situation, when the signal shows red. and it shouldn't, you should NOT pass a stop signal unless the dispatcher gives you premission to do so. Thats how its done here in the US, idk about other countries
Freedomtowerman Productions You are correct, but again, they thought he *was* the signal man therefore thought his "OK" was to go past the signal.
connor etchells doesn't matter, you heard it yourself, he was there to flag the crossing not a signalmen. Plus he didn't have any flags so, in this case i see what your saying, but the engineer should really have called dispatch to get permission to pass this stop signal at Danger.
Freedomtowerman Productions He also said that he should have called but didn't as in that instance it didn't seem necessary. But of course he was wrong.
What exactly are the flags? And if they are the dispatching or signal changing ones, the train could be manually dispatched
The flags are just that -- small flags on sticks that are used in certain circumstances to signal trains. They come in sets of three -- red, yellow and green. The color difference is one of several points at which this error could have been caught. When a driver stops at a Danger signal (Red or Dark), his/her proper response would normally be to call the Signaller (the one in the central signal tower) and ask for instructions. However, in some circumstances (e.g. if there is track construction work ahead), to save time a "Hand-Signaller" may be posted at the signal. The Hand-Signaller's job would be, for EACH train that stops, to call the Signaller and receive explicit permission for THAT train to proceed. He/she would then tell the driver "You are authorized to pass signal MV31 at danger. Use caution and obey all further signals." He/she must then display a YELLOW flag. Only when all these steps have been folllowed is the train authorized to pass that specific *signal*..
By contrast, if a worker is hand-operating a set of misfunctioning gates (as in this case), s/he does not have to make a call or speak to the driver. But when the gates are down and traffic is stopped, he/she displays a GREEN flag, which authorizes the train to pass the *gates.* If in this example Dave had been provided with flags, he would have used a green one. Craig would immediately realize that the green flag did not authorize him to pass the Danger signal, and he would have called the Signaller. So the color of the flag used would have caught the error. Of course, as others have noted, Craig could have (and should have) called the Signaller if he was unsure or uncomfortable about anything. That also would have prevented the SPAD (Signal Passed At Danger)..
One thing I like about this training video is that, although it is a dramatization of a real incident that happened in 2006, it deliberately does not even mention what happened to the three people involved. Who got the blame? Did anyone get fired, or otherwise penalized? The message is "That's not the point. If you ever let yourself get into such a sitution you are going to feel terrible. Think about how to prevent that from happening."
4:00 Craig's biggest mistake was the sheer speed at which he SPADed. Had he been travelling at cautionary speed he could have stopped the train at 4:40.
Nonsense.
anyway, being a non train driver and typically a passenger, i fail to see the difference between a verbal go ahead and a piece of brightly colored fabric being twirled around. if the procedure stated that contacting whatever controlling authority proceeds over the signalling of the tracks on a red light he was clearly in the wrong. however, if all that is required is a bloke wearing an official uniform and a flag to let you pass, i would seriously question the system as a whole.
ACombineSoldier the guy with the flag is not a signal man, they have flags to indicate that the crossing guard is down, the signal man would stand on the platform and tell them it's ok to go. That's where the problem was, because he didn't have flags they thought he was a signal man (hence the questioning about why he didn't go to the box on the platform)
If he had the flags they would know he was the guy operating the gate. Typically a signal man would be standing by the box and let them know based on what a guy in the control room said.
ACombineSoldier ex-fucking-actly . why in a modern age, are these signals not computer controler and or, the signal men not using a walkietalkie... I had one as a child in the 70s.. I'm sure the brigs can afford them for their conductors and signalmen. it's 2017 for fuck sakes, go buy some walkie talkies form the Chinese already.
why was the signal danger to begin with.
Yeah they never mentioned that. Maybe track work ahead? Didnt look like a very busy line but could have been another train ahead of them.
bradley c. It was probably because the crossing gate was broken, though another train was pretty possible. Since this is a reenactment I'm willing to bet they cleared the line for this.
"A signal passed at danger (SPAD) occurs when a train passes a stop signal without authority to do so."
It may not be as easy as this ~ But at the end it says ''what would you have done?'' I would've pulled into a siding? Would that be possible?
Do they not use radios in Australia like in the US?
This is the UK not Australia.
what lesson to learn? If there ever is an irregularity, don't gloss over it, resolve it before proceeding
Yes, absolutely that's the lesson to learn. I feel much safer as a traveller for seeing this
***** well, that's another valid lesson too -
The guy said that the other guys had a spat on the phone? You call that a spat? Nobody was raising their voices or were upset.
A Signal Passed At Danger (SPAD), not a spat!
Limeys have stone age systems on their railways.
This clearly shows that in all walks of transport and not just aviation CROSS-CHECKING is a must. The driver should have contacted the panel (signal box) to verify what he felt so uneasy about instead of just assuming the way he did. ASSUME = Makes an ASS out of U and ME as we say in aviation ...
Strange, I never understood what they did wrong, crazy video.
Passed the red signal at the platform without proper authority (having misinterpreted the level crossing guy's verbal permission to go over the crossing as official authority to pass the signal)
Read the rule book over and over till it was lock in in my head
You don't pstop ut a signal at Danger/Stop unless theres a reason, I would of phoned the signalman to conferm it was safe to procede as there was probly no procedure for this type of event R. C.
Complete incomprehension - there's no hint given as to what they're talking about.