Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 25, 2019 16:08:39 GMT
Originally posted in this thread:Presumably the LUL Senior Operating Officer still has the right to waive this requirement? The SOO can only issue waivers to the rule book after they have carried out a dynamic risk assessment. Waivers are not issued for the fun of it - there must still be a safe way of doing something or at least some bloomin' good mitigation measures put in place to ensure risks are kept as low as reasonably practicable. Very few waivers are granted - probably something like four or five times a year. It's certainly not a routine method of achieving something.
|
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Aug 25, 2019 20:09:00 GMT
The class 33 is tripcock fitted; it was fitted ahead of a railtour on 29/04/2018 from Marylebone to Quainton Road. This weekend’s tours are a repeat of that, with an additional trip to Watford each day. flic.kr/p/25jtU8pNo trains are permitted to operate over the Metropolitan line, in traffic hours, without tripcocks fitted. The only exception to this is Chiltern class 172 units which must be buried between other units with tripcocks at both ends. Thanks, I wasn't aware that D6515 was tripcock fitted as I couldn't see one. Presumably the LUL Senior Operating Officer still has the right to waive this requirement? Even if the SOO could issue a waiver, would they do it for a railtour? If anything, a railtour would represent a higher risk - unfamiliar stock on a railway its not normally used on, with unfamiliar staff. And if a waiver were issued and the train were to be involved in an incident? |
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Aug 25, 2019 20:12:09 GMT
Yes, it wouldn’t happen.
As mentioned, SOO waivers are for emergencies or out of course working. Trains cannot be planned to not be compliant with the rule book. If a tripcock went defective it is possible that a waiver may be issued, but more likely that things would start to be cancelled.
Most waivers are issued for very mundane things like a station operating without sufficient lighting levels.
It is also worth noting that waivers can only be issued against the LUL Rule Book.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Aug 26, 2019 11:28:17 GMT
In the case of yesterday's tour, if the train was not tripcock fitted then it would be considered incompatible with the signalling system and would require an Incompatible Train Movement Procedure (commonly abbreviated to ITMP). These are usually for the running of an incompatible train at night or in a specific section of railway, rather than the moves yesterday, and require more than just the SOO's sign-off - I believe it requires about four or five signatures.
The rules regarding incompatible trains cannot be waived.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 26, 2019 14:46:03 GMT
To hopefully give a better idea of when rule book waivers are appropriate and how they're used, here are four real life examples that actually happened:
1) Route proving procedure
Problem: Signal failing to clear eastbound approaching Tower Hill.
Rule book procedure: Use a train in the bay platform to prove the route using a green signal.
Waiver issued: No train in the bay road. Station Supervisor on platform observing green signal (thus proving the route), with hand held radio on the line controllers channel ready to call a mayday if the signal returns to danger.
2) Emergency engineering work clashes with a train operating in a possession
Problem: Points at Morden required overnight emergency repair but whole of Northern line was under possession to allow the non TBTC fitted track recording train to operate.
Rule book procedure: booked possession meant points could not be worked on as railway is a line clear area.
Waiver issued: Engineering hours re-instated Morden to Stockwell to allow work on points. Possession for track recording train shrunk with buffer zone between the two work area’s and additional signage/detonators installed to ensure protection in place between the live railway and the engineering hours area.
3) Station below minimum staff numbers
Problem: Earls Court station is a station that must have a minimum number of staff present in order to remain open to the public.
Rule book procedure: Close the station if below minimum numbers
Waiver issued: The station had enough staff to keep both entrances and the District line platforms open, so the Piccadilly line was blocked off and Piccadilly line trains non stopped the station.
4) Shunt signal failure
Problem: The station starting signal at Barking eastbound could not be cleared as the points were stuck pointing towards the sidings. The shunt signal was also failing to clear.
Rule book procedure: Scotch & Clip points, trains proceed empty as shunt signal cannot be cleared.
Waiver issued: authority granted to keep trains in service and carry passengers past the failed shunt signal as the method of securing the points is no different to a coloured signal on the mainline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 14:56:45 GMT
I thought the carrying of passengers past shunt signals was put in the rule book a few years ago now  If so then it’s just a signal failing to clear and the normal procedures follow blah blah blah |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 26, 2019 15:18:54 GMT
Rule book 5, section 12 (page 57) - specifically the second blue section..... "Customers can only be carried over shunt signals when all of the following apply: - the move is authorised by a service manager
- the shunt signal is displaying a proceed aspect"
In the example given above, the shunt signal was failing to clear so it was that bit that required the SOO waiver. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Aug 26, 2019 20:01:40 GMT
Originally posted in this thread:Presumably the LUL Senior Operating Officer still has the right to waive this requirement? The SOO can only issue waivers to the rule book after they have carried out a dynamic risk assessment. Waivers are not issued for the fun of it - there must still be a safe way of doing something or at least some bloomin' good mitigation measures put in place to ensure risks are kept as low as reasonably practicable. Very few waivers are granted - probably something like four or five times a year. It's certainly not a routine method of achieving something. They tried issuing one for drivers on W&C line a couple weeks back, that was contested by drivers there. Upon reading it, I'd debate it was issued just for the fun of it 🙄 |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 26, 2019 20:47:00 GMT
Only two have been granted this year - one in March and the other in May, so I imagine the one you refer to was either declined or not pursued.
I have seen one granted which I think is very questionable, but I’m not inclined to discuss it on the open forum (sorry to tease!).
On the whole it’s a good system which offers flexibility where the rule book might be too rigid, but it’s integrity does rely on it not being used to cut corners. Certain managers on the ground seem to think it can be used to such effect but thankfully the SOO’s are very aware of how far they can go,
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Aug 27, 2019 10:56:12 GMT
Exactly, it was issued as a 'waiver' and we refused it, but it was issued nonetheless. It was given to the drivers at Waterloo, the drivers refused to accept it, so they sent some bully boys, still refused, so they withdrew.
I believe it was issued without review of rule book, then questioned by drivers, the SOO pointed out there was nothing in rule book saying you couldn't carry out said procedure, which was answered with "so why the waiver?" After which it was put down to the Wood Lane controllers manager. It was an interesting skirmish, I must say 🤔
I was on the Formal Investigation Report (FIR) when they issued the very first QRA (quantified risk assessment) on the Picc many, many years ago, was questionable then but has evolved somewhat and it's good to see it isn't issued at the drop of a hat, which was our worry back then. In the early days the SOOs were quite hasty, but they seem to have reined it in a little 😀
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 27, 2019 13:22:50 GMT
Are you sure one was issued?
Waivers are freely available to view on the intranet and only two have been issued this year - neither were on the Waterloo & City line.....
|
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Aug 27, 2019 17:49:48 GMT
Are you sure one was issued? Waivers are freely available to view on the intranet and only two have been issued this year - neither were on the Waterloo & City line..... Perhaps as it wasn't accepted it didn't make it to the Intranet. It was an 'attempted issue'! |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Aug 27, 2019 19:48:35 GMT
it left the drivers a bit confused. Suffice to say there were several guises to start with, followed up by the SOO sending an email saying a waiver had been issued, but it was questioned why a waiver to the rule book would be issued when there's nothing in the rule book about what they were issuing the waiver for.....
So, I think it didn't reach the intranet, cause someone along the line saw the madness of it 🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 27, 2019 20:19:09 GMT
Regarding Colin's example 3, I'm surprised that there aren't contingency plans in place for stations to partially close if they are short staffed, especially those which are a mixture of section 12 and non section 12. I'd have thought it'd be more of a defined procedure (if you have X staff short you have to close Y & Z". Station closures due to staff shortages (or "staff absence" which sounds like newspeak to try and deflect blame) anecdotally seem to be more frequent.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 27, 2019 20:47:50 GMT
Station closures due to staff shortages (or "staff absence" which sounds like newspeak to try and deflect blame) anecdotally seem to be more frequent. It's the result of significantly reducing staff numbers while minimum staff requirements have remained the same or decreased only very slightly. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 27, 2019 21:30:24 GMT
Regarding Colin's example 3, I'm surprised that there aren't contingency plans in place for stations to partially close if they are short staffed, especially those which are a mixture of section 12 and non section 12. I'd have thought it'd be more of a defined procedure (if you have X staff short you have to close Y & Z". In the first instance, the rule book and any legislative stuff like section 12 of the The Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989 (created after the Kings Cross fire in 1987) apply in a generic sense. There isn't a sepcific set of rules for each individual station * or procedures for individual signals should they fail, etc. That's exactly what the waiver system is for - those occassions where a particular rule or procedure needs a minor tweak to suit the given situation. Those who aren't aware should know that The Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989 have since been superseded by The Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) (England) Regulations 2009 BTW, you cannot have a station which is a mixture of section 12 and non section 12 (section 12 in old money, if you hadn't worked it by now, is the code name for a station being one that must comply with the relevant fire regulations have a minimum number of staff on duty within the station for it to remain open, amongst other requirements). If any part of a station is deemed to be sub surface, the whole station is covered by the relevant fire regulations. The definitions of sub surface in the fire regulations mean that some less than obvious stations fall foul of the rules - Hammersmith District & Piccadilly being the first that springs to mind. On the "big railway" - Barking! If you see the little red fire call points, it's a "section 12" station  * Stations do have individual congestion control plans but they do not replace the fire regulations. Station closures due to staff shortages (or "staff absence" which sounds like newspeak to try and deflect blame) anecdotally seem to be more frequent. It's the result of significantly reducing staff numbers while minimum staff requirements have remained the same or decreased only very slightly. It's the ticket office closures which have done the damage. Take my Earls Court example - the minimum staffing requirement is Station Suupervisor plus 5. So it used to be Station Supervisor plus: Earls Court Road entrance: 1xCSA and 1xticket office staff Warwick Road entrance: 1xCSA and 1xticket office staff District line platforms: 1xCSA Piccadilly line platforms: 1xCSA Hourly security checks: 1xCSA So the station always had a minimum of station Supervisor plus 7 rostered, thus there was some leeway if someone was late booking on or went sick. With those ticket office staff gone, it dosen't take a genius to see how easily the station is at risk of closure. There are of course more staff than this during the day, but station closures are certainly more frequent at the start and end of the day when stations are down to their minimum rostered numbers. |
|
Presumably the LUL Senior Operating Officer still has the right to waive this requirement?
