Post by igelkotten on Aug 25, 2005 11:49:41 GMT
This is a subject brought about by the sight of a man's hairy thighs. Well, at least by Tom seeing a shunter uncoupling cars at the central station here in Stockholm, and noting that his Hi-Vi shorts would probably not be allowed in Britain. Which got us talking about the differences in rules, regulations, organisational cultures and the philosophies behind them.
For example; the Trafiksäkerhetsinstruktion för Tunnelbanan, TRI TUB, the rule book we use in the Stockholm Metro, is to a large extent built upon the formulation of general rules and the desired results of actions, leaving the details to be worked out as necessary, perhaps in a specific supplement or just as a recommended method thaught during training.
For example, we have §33:9, Taking a train out of service, which states that:
"When a train is to be taken out of service, the driver shall ensure that the train is fully emptied of passengers. When stabling the train in a depot, the driver shall ensure that the train is stabled in the correct position and apply any local depot procedures"
and that's it!
Compare and contrast to, for example, LU:s reference manual and the procedures given for taking trains out of service and "tipping out", which are much more detailed and intricate, and can vary from line to line.
I'd say that the TRI TUB (and other swedish railway rule books) are, generally, written as goal-oriented texts: This is the desired result, do what you have to do in order to achieve them, whilst the LU and Network Rail (and what I have seen of US mainline rule books) refernece manuals are much more procedure-oriented, focussing on following a prescribed procedure in every possible and imaginable situation.
A further example: The paragraph in TRI TUB dealing with fire on trains does give several prescriptions and actions that must be done, but also states several things in more broad terms. There is also a paragraph stating flat out that it is impossible to state a procedure covering all eventualities in a fire situation, but common sense and a cool head combined with knowledge and training can in most any case effectively limit the possible damge and danger of a fire.
We also have a "portal paragraph", §2:4, which is very interesting. It states that "In case of emergency, each and everyone involved shall take any necessary action deemed necessary to prevent or limit the emergency, even if those actions are opposed to any rules in the TRI" and further, we have §2:5, stating that "If there is any doubt over which one of several instructions, regulations, or rules that apply to a given situation, the one deemed to lead to the highest level of safety shall be used"
Similar paragraphs are also present in other swedish rule sets for railway and tram traffic. From what I have seen and heard, there is nothing similar present in the LU and Network Rail reference manuals.
So, is one superior to the other? Does the "British way" lead to mindless robots, or the "Swedish way" to stoned hippies? I have more to comment, and a few thoughts of my own on the advantages and disadvantages of the respective philosophies, but I have to run off to work now, so I'll post those later tonight.
Any comments meanwhile would be interesting to read. Or am I the only org. theory-spotter on these boards? ;D
For example; the Trafiksäkerhetsinstruktion för Tunnelbanan, TRI TUB, the rule book we use in the Stockholm Metro, is to a large extent built upon the formulation of general rules and the desired results of actions, leaving the details to be worked out as necessary, perhaps in a specific supplement or just as a recommended method thaught during training.
For example, we have §33:9, Taking a train out of service, which states that:
"When a train is to be taken out of service, the driver shall ensure that the train is fully emptied of passengers. When stabling the train in a depot, the driver shall ensure that the train is stabled in the correct position and apply any local depot procedures"
and that's it!
Compare and contrast to, for example, LU:s reference manual and the procedures given for taking trains out of service and "tipping out", which are much more detailed and intricate, and can vary from line to line.
I'd say that the TRI TUB (and other swedish railway rule books) are, generally, written as goal-oriented texts: This is the desired result, do what you have to do in order to achieve them, whilst the LU and Network Rail (and what I have seen of US mainline rule books) refernece manuals are much more procedure-oriented, focussing on following a prescribed procedure in every possible and imaginable situation.
A further example: The paragraph in TRI TUB dealing with fire on trains does give several prescriptions and actions that must be done, but also states several things in more broad terms. There is also a paragraph stating flat out that it is impossible to state a procedure covering all eventualities in a fire situation, but common sense and a cool head combined with knowledge and training can in most any case effectively limit the possible damge and danger of a fire.
We also have a "portal paragraph", §2:4, which is very interesting. It states that "In case of emergency, each and everyone involved shall take any necessary action deemed necessary to prevent or limit the emergency, even if those actions are opposed to any rules in the TRI" and further, we have §2:5, stating that "If there is any doubt over which one of several instructions, regulations, or rules that apply to a given situation, the one deemed to lead to the highest level of safety shall be used"
Similar paragraphs are also present in other swedish rule sets for railway and tram traffic. From what I have seen and heard, there is nothing similar present in the LU and Network Rail reference manuals.
So, is one superior to the other? Does the "British way" lead to mindless robots, or the "Swedish way" to stoned hippies? I have more to comment, and a few thoughts of my own on the advantages and disadvantages of the respective philosophies, but I have to run off to work now, so I'll post those later tonight.
Any comments meanwhile would be interesting to read. Or am I the only org. theory-spotter on these boards? ;D
