QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS - PAUL WATSON
Paul Watson, Head of Operational Safety, but can you answer these simple questions regarding the rule book and your own contingency plans and some other questions that if you have nothing to hide should be straightforward to answer?
Then let me post your answers on this website, that way I am quite sure you can clear your name from my allegations of publicly being called a LIAR. What have you got to lose? Just think, if you are right then it would make me look a complete idiot and take away any credibility that this website currently has. If the roles were reversed, I would certainly launch a challenge especially if I knew I was right!
You are the “Professional Head of Operational Safety”! What do you think about the following scenario situation? Questions at the end.
I am going to show you this scenario situation. Bearing in mind that what I thought would make no difference whatsoever to whether these trains ran or not, TPE contingency plans prove this, the 3 previous years up to 2009 prove this along with the sections, "Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)".
THESE ARE THE THOUGHTS OF ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON on a partially defective warning horn and what could happen, "185 trains have two tones on their horns. If there is a partial failure, i.e. one of the horn tones fails but the other remains working, then the procedure for Drivers is to report the issue at the soonest convenience AS THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE OTHER HORN WOULD FAIL".
So what happens when we encounter this scenario?
It is a cold damp day, you already have a partial failure of the warning horn, you are travelling at 100mph because TPE contingency plans in conjunction with the rule book allow this to happen, when you encounter an area of bends and bridges, as you travel round one of these bends you see in front of you approximately 1000 feet away a group of track workers (this could be young children or anyone), you immediately push your warning horn upwards, YOU GET NO RESPONSE!
Remembering at this speed you are travelling at 150 feet per second, (approximately 7 seconds to impact). If you don`t actually freeze through the shock, (150 feet per second), you then push the lever downwards, (150 feet per second), NOTHING HAPPENS! Would or should anyone have to go through this sort of very traumatic event? WHAT NEXT? Spare a thought for the driver, the emergency service personnel, the police and the relatives and friends of the deceased, and all because a group of managers displayed their normal trait of IGNORANCE!
One simple question, could the above scenario become reality? Especially bearing in mind that Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson said, “THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE OTHER HORN WOULD FAIL".
In the above scenario, that is exactly what happened, THE OTHER HORN FAILED! It is a scenario situation like the "near miss" that never occurred, it is screaming you in the face, saying THIS IS DANGEROUS, THIS IS WHAT COULD HAPPEN, yet you failed to see that the near miss situation was a distinct possibility and to think you are Head of Operational Safety!
Would you therefore agree with me that your contingency plans are a danger to anyone on or around the railway?
If not, WHY NOT?
Why didn`t you as Head of Operational Safety actually understand this?
Did I actually explain this exact scenario to you in my appeal hearing?
So nearly 4 years on, why have you have been playing Russian roulette with peoples lives?
Will you make changes to these contingency plans?
Why didn`t you make changes 4 years ago?
When has what a driver or any person thinks about a situation caused a train to be removed from service?
If my thoughts were such a concern to you, then why did you IGNORE all my previous reports on warning horn failures?
Why was everything I put in on report forms and IP forms totally IGNORED?
If you was so bothered about that train remaining in service despite your own contingency plans allowing that train to run without any restriction to its speed, why didn`t you change TPE contingency plans so that when a train has a partial failure of the warning horn it is removed immediately from traffic?
Why didn`t you act upon my evidence in the sections “Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)”?
The evidence in, “Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)", highlight incidents where trains ran with both partial failures and complete failures of the warning horn. Did any other driver receive any type of reprimand or suffer the same fate as me?
If not, WHY NOT?
Why didn`t you question the discrepancies with the charges for the following issues, as you stated, "I considered the Company investigation report, the Industry Rule Book, the Company procedures on defect reporting, the Occupational Health report stating that Mr Webb was fit to attend a hearing, the disciplinary hearing minutes and the disciplinary outcome letter".
- That nowhere in the investigation report does it mention how the warning horn behaved on that morning in question, so how could Barry Cook level a charge against me that had not been investigated?
- Why didn’t you question why the charge was non specific and did not relate to which ruling had supposedly been broken? Where was the rule book prefix?
- Why didn’t you question Mark Atkinson as to why his version of what supposedly happened changed so much, especially what the disciplinary outcome letter stated in relation to what was said and written in the disciplinary hearing? Evidence is available in the section titled, "Further evidence of Mark Atkinson`s LIES".
How can you possibly say that a failure to report a partially defective warning horn is gross misconduct?
What "investigation outcomes for other driver incidents", were you talking about?
The evidence I presented showed beyond any doubt whatsoever that I did request 2 witnesses to attend, why were these basically refused through the attitude of Charlotte Pears?
I produced evidence again that proved I asked for representation before my interviews, why was this refused?
Why were the charges against me so vague, when they should have clearly outlined which rule or procedure I had allegedly broken?
Did you listen to the voice recording of my hearing?
Why did you use a set of disciplinary procedures that I had never seen?
Why wasn`t any of my IP reports implemented into the IP database?
“Be aware that in some cases but not indicating the correct field when the entry is first made, it is possible to assign yourself an action out of something that was rectified on the day, if this is the case, they need to be closed down now”. How can you assign yourself an action months later that wasn`t available to you on the day in question? If something was rectified on the day, don`t you think it would have been closed off on the day?
You then go on to say, “As explaining this some months later will not be acceptable”. So what about those that were a year or possibly 3 years overdue? Are they acceptable? If closed down after 1 year, is that acceptable?
“Where the view being formed that anyone who has actions open for a long time that could/should have been closed are not taking safety as seriously as they should”. So you clearly had concerns that individuals were not treating safety as they should. Don`t you think that what the above shows is just what a diabolical mess the IP system was in?
Would you therefore agree that your management failure to follow the IP process constituted an UNCONTROLLED SAFETY RISK.
After all you then state, “Let`s make sure we are on top of it now please”, would you say this is basically an admission of failure?
Why did you allow this IP process to get in such a mess? Why didn`t you monitor this?
IP report numbered 198, why was this totally IGNORED? Did you ask your driver managers at York why this was one of hundreds of reports that was totally IGNORED?
The report says, "Warning horn frozen on this unit, not working, hence causing the driver an awkward dilemma, chances are if reported to Network Rail as it should be, they may not allow the train to run. But 30 minutes later the horn will probably thaw out. All drivers are aware these horns are defective but opt to run the service. But if they have an incident will any blame be theirs? For not informing the signaller and following instructions".
On reading this report, why wasn`t this acted upon?
Can you see the SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS of this report?
What did you do with the managers at York that not only IGNORED this report but many other similar reports?
If you did absolutely nothing which I actually know is what happened, how can you be in the position of Operational Head of Safety allowing such IGNORANCE and also displaying the same IGNORANCE in ignoring this problem?
Do you think that if this and other reports had been acted upon, I would have been forced to such drastic measures to try and highlight serious safety concerns about these warning horns?
Can you see why I blame YOU AND YOUR MANAGEMENT?
This leads to another IGNORED IP report numbered 199, which again despite showing more SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS this is another IGNORED report.
The report says, "As previous years first really cold spell the warning horns freeze up. To start with the low tone wouldn`t make any noise with minimal noise from the high tone, but at Guide Bridge on the 15mph PSR, when trying to warn p way staff both tons failed to respond. Possibility that a snow shower didn`t help the situation. This is an age old problem that never gets rectified, MAYBE IT REQUIRES A DEATH BEFORE A SOLUTION IS FOUND"?
How can such a hard hitting report on a serious safety issue be BLATANTLY IGNORED?
What did you do about this report being IGNORED?
Do you fully understand the SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS of this report?
If this report landed on your desk, what would you do about it?
Supposedly a First Group value, "Reporting anything you think is unsafe, no matter how small you think it may be". What was the use of reporting anything? Where did it get me?
What happened to this statement? "We are committed to feeding back to you the corrective actions taken as a result of the IP process so that you can see the benefit". Where was the commitment towards me with the two IP reports above and numerous other IP reports??
"We will develop a process that will mean all front line employees will have more regular meetings with their managers which will include the identification of specific training requirements". How can you explain this?
Don`t you think those 2 IP reports highlighted a need for specific training?
With the statements made by First Group about this IP process you have got ask the question, why did your managers fail to implement these statements?
As Head of Operational Safety can you explain why TPE had me down as having 2 safety briefs in 5 years, (I actually had 3), is this, the sign of quality training in an industry where safety is paramount?
What did you do when I made you aware of this?
2 Managing Directors failed miserably to implement the IP process, what did you do about this?
I gave the details for the IP report to Vernon Barker, why didn`t I get any feedback? Especially bearing in mind, "We are committed to feeding back to you the corrective actions taken as a result of the IP process so that you can see the benefit"?
Where did I ever state, "Mr Webb stated that the horn failure he was charged with not reporting correctly, was actually only a partial horn failure and therefore the reporting procedure did not apply and in any event"?
Is this the passage where I said the above? "Once it started working again it was no longer, it didn’t need reporting because the weather had changed", That was my assumption of the situation, a situation I had been in numerous times before, every other time I did exactly the same as that day, so why wasn`t I pulled up on this and told I was wrong?
If so, then for the previous 3 years I had been treating this ruling wrongly, why wasn`t this noticed? Why wasn`t this picked up from my numerous reports? Surely even you can see that this could be a training issue?
Or is it down to how an individual reads into a passage and interprets that information?
But the most important issue here is that your management have failed to manage safety, how did they miss the numerous warnings written in my reports where more than one actually stated "every driver opts to run the service"?
"In relation to the allegation at 9.3, Mr Webb alleged that there was actually no procedure to follow. I found this argument strange as he did actually report the incident on the day albeit at the end of the day rather than at the time and therefore must have known about the procedure". Sorry, but I am completely lost with this statement, what did I report at the end of the day?
If you are talking about the "near miss" that never occurred, how did I report this?
If the near miss as I stated was fabricated, then how can there possibly be a procedure to follow for something that never happened?
If there had been a "near miss" where is the procedure to be found for reporting one? After all, I supposedly didn`t follow this procedure!
Did I actually falsify a repair slip?
If yes, what did you do about the numerous repair slips shown on this website that had far worse comments wrote on them that had nothing to do with any repairs?
Or is my evidence fabricated?
"I did not find this allegation credible as Mr Webb had put in two separate written records of this near miss incident". How can you possibly state this? Where is the second written record of a near miss?
Lets remember what you stated at the beginning, "I considered the Company investigation report, the Industry Rule Book, the Company procedures on defect reporting, the Occupational Health report stating that Mr Webb was fit to attend a hearing, the disciplinary hearing minutes and the disciplinary outcome letter". Where is this supposed second written report to be found?
How can you make such a fundamental mistake? Or is it the usual case of trying to make anything stick?
Why are you a LIAR?
"and had admitted, during the disciplinary hearing, to making numerous false reports in the past". Where did I admit this?
"Mr Webb was aware of our policies and had on line access to our statements on the standards we expect". Why LIE again? When was I never given access to these policies, I couldn`t get a paper version let alone an online version.
How on earth could you possibly come up with this statement? "He knew how the Company would react to such a report and, in my view, this is why he conducted the fabrication. He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety implications. The fact that he understood this, cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report". Do you honestly think that I wanted to "sack" myself?
"He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety implications".
SO PAUL WATSON, WHY WERE THE TWO REPORTS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE NOT INVESTIGATED?
"Warning horn frozen on this unit, not working, hence causing the driver an awkward dilemma, chances are if reported to Network Rail as it should be, they may not allow the train to run. But 30 minutes later the horn will probably thaw out. All drivers are aware these horns are defective but opt to run the service. But if they have an incident will any blame be theirs? For not informing the signaller and following instructions".
"As previous years first really cold spell the warning horns freeze up. To start with the low tone wouldn`t make any noise with minimal noise from the high tone, but at Guide Bridge on the 15mph PSR, when trying to warn p way staff both tons failed to respond. Possibility that a snow shower didn`t help the situation. This is an age old problem that never gets rectified, MAYBE IT REQUIRES A DEATH BEFORE A SOLUTION IS FOUND"?
Or don`t these actually count?
As for, "cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report"
How can you possibly state the above? How did I know that your company would react the way it did when for the previous 5 years all I ever encountered was nothing, not anything, no response whatsoever, so why the hell do you think I tried an alternative action?
As for the Ged Higgins saga, why was I supplied with 3 pages when there should have been 8 pages?
What about these cut and paste minutes, as they never made sense or related back to issues that were apparently mentioned. Why were they tampered with?
Why wasn`t the Ged Higgins issue sorted before my appeal due to the relevance this had?
Do you still stand by this statement? "The example I gave was Mr Webb's complaint regarding passive smoking in 2006, prior to the smoking ban, where he, after raising the complaint through the ordinary reporting channels, had complained to higher managers and ultimately to Her Majesty's Railway Institution (“HMRI”). In response to his complaint, the Company actually engaged a scientific body to test the air quality on its trains. The conclusion was that his complaints were unfounded". Because if you do, I am once again calling you a LIAR.
When I escalated issues in the past to a higher management level and received no response, I went to the ORR, why with all the evidence I have shown in the sections, "Blatant lies to the HMRI (1) messrooms" & "Blatant lies to the HMRI (2) Noise", did your management tell the ORR that I had never informed them of these issues? Why would they BLATANTLY LIE?
Is there therefore any wonder that I had any faith in taking this issue to you or anyone else in TPE management when you are all LIARS?
In terms of EQUITY should these charges have been gross misconduct?
"The Traction Bulletins actively encourage Drivers to provide feedback on any problems they are having with any Company equipment. I established that Mr Webb was aware of these documents but had not reported any issues under this process". So are you still of the belief that I never once used this system for reporting? Are you implying that this system would give feedback but a drivers report and an IP report wouldn`t?
"Mr Webb was aware of our policies and had on line access to our statements on the standards we expect". Why LIE again? When was I never given access to these policies, I couldn`t get a paper version let alone an online version.
How on earth could you possibly come up with this statement? "He knew how the Company would react to such a report and, in my view, this is why he conducted the fabrication. He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety implications. The fact that he understood this, cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report". Do you honestly think that I wanted to "sack" myself?
"He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety implications".
SO PAUL WATSON, WHY WERE THE TWO REPORTS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE NOT INVESTIGATED?
"Warning horn frozen on this unit, not working, hence causing the driver an awkward dilemma, chances are if reported to Network Rail as it should be, they may not allow the train to run. But 30 minutes later the horn will probably thaw out. All drivers are aware these horns are defective but opt to run the service. But if they have an incident will any blame be theirs? For not informing the signaller and following instructions".
"As previous years first really cold spell the warning horns freeze up. To start with the low tone wouldn`t make any noise with minimal noise from the high tone, but at Guide Bridge on the 15mph PSR, when trying to warn p way staff both tons failed to respond. Possibility that a snow shower didn`t help the situation. This is an age old problem that never gets rectified, MAYBE IT REQUIRES A DEATH BEFORE A SOLUTION IS FOUND"?
Or don`t these actually count?
As for, "cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report"
How can you possibly state the above? How did I know that your company would react the way it did when for the previous 5 years all I ever encountered was nothing, not anything, no response whatsoever, so why the hell do you think I tried an alternative action?
As for the Ged Higgins saga, why was I supplied with 3 pages when there should have been 8 pages?
What about these cut and paste minutes, as they never made sense or related back to issues that were apparently mentioned. Why were they tampered with?
Why wasn`t the Ged Higgins issue sorted before my appeal due to the relevance this had?
Do you still stand by this statement? "The example I gave was Mr Webb's complaint regarding passive smoking in 2006, prior to the smoking ban, where he, after raising the complaint through the ordinary reporting channels, had complained to higher managers and ultimately to Her Majesty's Railway Institution (“HMRI”). In response to his complaint, the Company actually engaged a scientific body to test the air quality on its trains. The conclusion was that his complaints were unfounded". Because if you do, I am once again calling you a LIAR.
When I escalated issues in the past to a higher management level and received no response, I went to the ORR, why with all the evidence I have shown in the sections, "Blatant lies to the HMRI (1) messrooms" & "Blatant lies to the HMRI (2) Noise", did your management tell the ORR that I had never informed them of these issues? Why would they BLATANTLY LIE?
Is there therefore any wonder that I had any faith in taking this issue to you or anyone else in TPE management when you are all LIARS?
In terms of EQUITY should these charges have been gross misconduct?
"The Traction Bulletins actively encourage Drivers to provide feedback on any problems they are having with any Company equipment. I established that Mr Webb was aware of these documents but had not reported any issues under this process". So are you still of the belief that I never once used this system for reporting? Are you implying that this system would give feedback but a drivers report and an IP report wouldn`t?
When was I ever once informed that it was a statutory requirement to attend an Occupational Health Appointment if you were off work and covered by a sick note? In what publication or set of procedures?
"the file of documents he provided on the day that showed he had escalated issues in the past beyond the standard reporting lines and that the Company had dealt with them accordingly". What did you ever deal with?
"I clarified, in reference to the procedures, that he had not followed the procedure in the rule book namely that when a Driver becomes aware of a defect on horn equipment, they are to inform the Train Operator's control and the line signaller". Why mention 2 options when it is either one or the other?
"It appeared to me that if Mr Webb was as concerned as he alleged he was about the defects then he would and should have made further attempts to report the issues on different reporting lines". The Rule book uses 3 key words, CONVENIENT, IF & MAY, none of these words have a mandatory meaning, they are clearly open to INTERPRETATION, how can I be found guilty and dismissed on this? When has any of my concerns ever bothered TPE management in the previous 5 years? How many further attempts would have been sufficient in your mind?
"was sufficient to justify fabricating a safety incident, resulting in a train being taken out of action", Why would a train be kept out of service for a "near miss" even if one had occurred?
Have you ever known a train removed from service for a near miss?
"Given the potential safety implications of reporting failures", If this is the case, then why only single me out, if I get gross misconduct for failing to report a partial failure of the warning horn, why didn`t everyone else get the same? Then what punishment do you give a driver for failing to report a complete failure of the warning horn as I have proven on this website?
How can you possibly state the following when this website proves this to be untrue? "In relation to 10.4, I explained to Mr Brady that contrary to what he was suggesting I felt my email demonstrated how seriously the Company regarded safety reports. The email clearly illustrated that the Company wanted any reports dealt with and noting on the system that this had taken place". The fact that you used IGNORANCE as your weapon of choice also makes a mockery of that statement.
"38 I had also seen no evidence to support the suggestion at paragraph 10.1 that Mr Webb was charged and dismissed because of his many previous defect reports. On the contrary, in my role as Operational Director I encourage all employees to raise safety reports and I found that this was reflected in the Traction Bulletin I referred to in paragraph 24. Nor could I find any evidence from the minutes of the disciplinary hearing to suggest that Mr Atkinson had conducted the hearing inappropriately as alleged at paragraph 9.4". How did you encourage employees to raise safety reports? What happened to my safety reports? Why don`t you listen to the audio and read the minutes again?
"39 In my view, Mr Webb's position was that he had been affected by horn defects in the past as he had witnessed safety line accidents which had resulted in a death. I could not comprehend however, how the actions he took on 14 January 2009 supported his position. The Drivers have the rule book and reporting procedures to stop any potential dangers arising as a result of defects. By breaching the Rule Book, Mr Webb actually increased the risk of a dangerous incident occurring which therefore negated what he alleged he was actually attempting to do".
How many times did I have to point out that my behaviour to this type of incident was the same as it had been for the past 3 years?
Even with the rule book and the contingency plans would it stop this below from happening?
It is a cold damp day, you already have a partial failure of the warning horn, you are travelling at 100mph because your contingency plans in conjunction with the rule book allow this, when you encounter an area of bends and bridges, as you travel round one of these bends you see in front of you approximately 1000 feet away a group of track workers (this could be young children or anyone), you immediately push your warning horn upwards, YOU GET NO RESPONSE!
Remembering at this speed you are travelling at 150 feet per second, (approximately 7 seconds to impact). If you don`t actually freeze through the shock, (150 feet per second), you then push the lever downwards, (150 feet per second), NOTHING HAPPENS! Would or should anyone have to go through this sort of traumatic event? WHAT NEXT? Spare a thought for the driver, the emergency service personnel, the police and the relatives and friends of the deceased, and all because a group of managers were or displayed IGNORANCE!
Can you answer Paul Watson?
Would the rule book and the contingency plans stop this from happening?
As I had a partial failure and saying, if I did fail to follow the procedure for not reporting correctly, what damage would this cause?
If I had got through to control with a partial failure, would that train have been removed from traffic?
If not, WHY NOT?
Because that train was being driven from the other cab would that train have stayed in traffic?
Did any other driver report a problem with that warning horn?
Bearing in mind the above scenario, who really puts people on and around the railway at risk?
What do your contingency plans state for a train with a partial failure of the warning horn?
If your contingency plans allow that train to run without restrictions to its speed then why would I be charged with gross misconduct if you as a company allow a train to proceed exactly like mine did on that January morning?
"the file of documents he provided on the day that showed he had escalated issues in the past beyond the standard reporting lines and that the Company had dealt with them accordingly". What did you ever deal with?
"I clarified, in reference to the procedures, that he had not followed the procedure in the rule book namely that when a Driver becomes aware of a defect on horn equipment, they are to inform the Train Operator's control and the line signaller". Why mention 2 options when it is either one or the other?
"It appeared to me that if Mr Webb was as concerned as he alleged he was about the defects then he would and should have made further attempts to report the issues on different reporting lines". The Rule book uses 3 key words, CONVENIENT, IF & MAY, none of these words have a mandatory meaning, they are clearly open to INTERPRETATION, how can I be found guilty and dismissed on this? When has any of my concerns ever bothered TPE management in the previous 5 years? How many further attempts would have been sufficient in your mind?
"was sufficient to justify fabricating a safety incident, resulting in a train being taken out of action", Why would a train be kept out of service for a "near miss" even if one had occurred?
Have you ever known a train removed from service for a near miss?
"Given the potential safety implications of reporting failures", If this is the case, then why only single me out, if I get gross misconduct for failing to report a partial failure of the warning horn, why didn`t everyone else get the same? Then what punishment do you give a driver for failing to report a complete failure of the warning horn as I have proven on this website?
How can you possibly state the following when this website proves this to be untrue? "In relation to 10.4, I explained to Mr Brady that contrary to what he was suggesting I felt my email demonstrated how seriously the Company regarded safety reports. The email clearly illustrated that the Company wanted any reports dealt with and noting on the system that this had taken place". The fact that you used IGNORANCE as your weapon of choice also makes a mockery of that statement.
"38 I had also seen no evidence to support the suggestion at paragraph 10.1 that Mr Webb was charged and dismissed because of his many previous defect reports. On the contrary, in my role as Operational Director I encourage all employees to raise safety reports and I found that this was reflected in the Traction Bulletin I referred to in paragraph 24. Nor could I find any evidence from the minutes of the disciplinary hearing to suggest that Mr Atkinson had conducted the hearing inappropriately as alleged at paragraph 9.4". How did you encourage employees to raise safety reports? What happened to my safety reports? Why don`t you listen to the audio and read the minutes again?
"39 In my view, Mr Webb's position was that he had been affected by horn defects in the past as he had witnessed safety line accidents which had resulted in a death. I could not comprehend however, how the actions he took on 14 January 2009 supported his position. The Drivers have the rule book and reporting procedures to stop any potential dangers arising as a result of defects. By breaching the Rule Book, Mr Webb actually increased the risk of a dangerous incident occurring which therefore negated what he alleged he was actually attempting to do".
How many times did I have to point out that my behaviour to this type of incident was the same as it had been for the past 3 years?
Even with the rule book and the contingency plans would it stop this below from happening?
It is a cold damp day, you already have a partial failure of the warning horn, you are travelling at 100mph because your contingency plans in conjunction with the rule book allow this, when you encounter an area of bends and bridges, as you travel round one of these bends you see in front of you approximately 1000 feet away a group of track workers (this could be young children or anyone), you immediately push your warning horn upwards, YOU GET NO RESPONSE!
Remembering at this speed you are travelling at 150 feet per second, (approximately 7 seconds to impact). If you don`t actually freeze through the shock, (150 feet per second), you then push the lever downwards, (150 feet per second), NOTHING HAPPENS! Would or should anyone have to go through this sort of traumatic event? WHAT NEXT? Spare a thought for the driver, the emergency service personnel, the police and the relatives and friends of the deceased, and all because a group of managers were or displayed IGNORANCE!
Can you answer Paul Watson?
Would the rule book and the contingency plans stop this from happening?
As I had a partial failure and saying, if I did fail to follow the procedure for not reporting correctly, what damage would this cause?
If I had got through to control with a partial failure, would that train have been removed from traffic?
If not, WHY NOT?
Because that train was being driven from the other cab would that train have stayed in traffic?
Did any other driver report a problem with that warning horn?
Bearing in mind the above scenario, who really puts people on and around the railway at risk?
What do your contingency plans state for a train with a partial failure of the warning horn?
If your contingency plans allow that train to run without restrictions to its speed then why would I be charged with gross misconduct if you as a company allow a train to proceed exactly like mine did on that January morning?
Shaun Brady asked you, "do you accept that the safety reporting procedures within your Company was absolutely chaotic"? Why do you think he asked this? Surely they have to be chaotic if hundreds of reports and serious safety issues are IGNORED.
How much money did "Summit Tunnel" cost First Group?
Could "Summit Tunnel" have been prevented?
Why did your managers IGNORE my reports concerning ice in tunnels?
Why didn`t they take notice of my simple cost effective answer in dealing with this issue?
Did you take any action against any of these managers for neglecting serious safety concerns?
The following is what Shaun Brady said in my appeal, "The question you have to ask yourself is why is it only Perry Webb reporting it, what’s happened to the other how many drivers on First? Why aren't they reporting it, and the issue is because there was a component of fear that if they report things they are going to be disciplined they are going to be picked out they are going to be pointed at and eventually they are going to be stitched up and sacked". Why do you think only a small handful of drivers ever reported anything at all? This is a very serious safety allegation, what did you do about this?
You were actually told again, "I will say be mindful of this please Paul. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and I know you will on the issue of safety and I will say to you honestly, you have drivers who will never report anything because they are scared absolutely frightened that they will lose their job and they will be sacked if they keep if they if they identify and report things you know that? I believe that this is a very dangerous position that this company has been put in". Did you take any notice of this? Did you do anything about it?
This was how I worded my defence, "Now I will give you the reason for that false allegation, since we got them units I have tried every way possible to get somebody to look at these warning horns. Among other things with these trains I have put in IP reports, drivers reports, defects slips till they come out of my ears, verbal complaints to management all over the last three years and to be brutally honest I have been totally ignored. I do not get a response to any of them and you won’t find a response because there isn't one. I've always took safety very seriously so on this day in question I was thinking to myself right I've got a problem here".
"How do I overcome this ignorance? And sadly I had to resort to this and it was the written fabrication of this was my method and it was to highlight what could actually happen one day and it could become a reality that a track worker, a member of the public or a member of train crew is actually killed and that’s what I was worried about. Like I'll go back to the split second when you hit the horn you get nothing, you've got to go for the other tone and if you're really unlucky your other tone won’t work as well".
"The false accusation, to me it was done out of fear, I had a genuine belief that by doing that I might hopefully improve matters but you have got to see my point of view that if you are constantly ignored, where do you go, you are actually at your wits end and you are thinking, there are a couple of other people who report these things but they are few and far between because most of them come in and all they will do is they will say to you “that warning horn doesn't work its not very good” and I will say to them “have you put it in the book?” “Oh no it'll be all right”. So you are stuck with that train, if you report them then and you have dobbed them in and nobody likes you for doing that".
"You are stuck in a situation, what do you do? And that happens every time its cold weather and you will get numerous drivers that will pass it over, over and over until it comes to me or maybe somebody like Keith Walden who is a stickler because he's a good lad he will put it in the book but he will also do what I do, he'll tell, why do you dump it on me? I'm sick of you doing this. And that’s the position you are in with it".
There are some really serious safety implications in the above paragraphs, what did you do about this?
If you didn`t do anything, why did you also IGNORE this?
Did I actually apologise? Your solicitor told Judge Burton that I never once apologised, "I just am I am just not like that. You know, if I offended anyone I apologise".
"No I understand that the point, the question I am asking is in terms of sufficiency is that that I am taking what you told me earlier at face value". Where does "sufficiency" play a part in the rule book for a partial failure of the warning horn?
What would have been a "sufficient" amount of attempts in your mind, please put a figure on this?
"the question that I would ask why are those stops not using another method of communication available". Where does it tell me for a partial failure of the warning horn to use any expeditious means of communication? Which rule or procedure states this?
"the thing I am trying to understand is I am taking what you said at face value which is I have got that much concern because of the reasons that you highlighted before I have been involved in this and it was a danger to anybody on the track essentially". Numerous times previously I informed TPE management in written reports about my concerns, why not do something before about this instead of now trying to use "MY CONCERNS" as an excuse to fuel your argument against me?
My concerns were always IGNORED, so why now start pretending they actually mean something to you?
How much money did "Summit Tunnel" cost First Group?
Could "Summit Tunnel" have been prevented?
Why did your managers IGNORE my reports concerning ice in tunnels?
Why didn`t they take notice of my simple cost effective answer in dealing with this issue?
Did you take any action against any of these managers for neglecting serious safety concerns?
The following is what Shaun Brady said in my appeal, "The question you have to ask yourself is why is it only Perry Webb reporting it, what’s happened to the other how many drivers on First? Why aren't they reporting it, and the issue is because there was a component of fear that if they report things they are going to be disciplined they are going to be picked out they are going to be pointed at and eventually they are going to be stitched up and sacked". Why do you think only a small handful of drivers ever reported anything at all? This is a very serious safety allegation, what did you do about this?
You were actually told again, "I will say be mindful of this please Paul. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and I know you will on the issue of safety and I will say to you honestly, you have drivers who will never report anything because they are scared absolutely frightened that they will lose their job and they will be sacked if they keep if they if they identify and report things you know that? I believe that this is a very dangerous position that this company has been put in". Did you take any notice of this? Did you do anything about it?
This was how I worded my defence, "Now I will give you the reason for that false allegation, since we got them units I have tried every way possible to get somebody to look at these warning horns. Among other things with these trains I have put in IP reports, drivers reports, defects slips till they come out of my ears, verbal complaints to management all over the last three years and to be brutally honest I have been totally ignored. I do not get a response to any of them and you won’t find a response because there isn't one. I've always took safety very seriously so on this day in question I was thinking to myself right I've got a problem here".
"How do I overcome this ignorance? And sadly I had to resort to this and it was the written fabrication of this was my method and it was to highlight what could actually happen one day and it could become a reality that a track worker, a member of the public or a member of train crew is actually killed and that’s what I was worried about. Like I'll go back to the split second when you hit the horn you get nothing, you've got to go for the other tone and if you're really unlucky your other tone won’t work as well".
"The false accusation, to me it was done out of fear, I had a genuine belief that by doing that I might hopefully improve matters but you have got to see my point of view that if you are constantly ignored, where do you go, you are actually at your wits end and you are thinking, there are a couple of other people who report these things but they are few and far between because most of them come in and all they will do is they will say to you “that warning horn doesn't work its not very good” and I will say to them “have you put it in the book?” “Oh no it'll be all right”. So you are stuck with that train, if you report them then and you have dobbed them in and nobody likes you for doing that".
"You are stuck in a situation, what do you do? And that happens every time its cold weather and you will get numerous drivers that will pass it over, over and over until it comes to me or maybe somebody like Keith Walden who is a stickler because he's a good lad he will put it in the book but he will also do what I do, he'll tell, why do you dump it on me? I'm sick of you doing this. And that’s the position you are in with it".
There are some really serious safety implications in the above paragraphs, what did you do about this?
If you didn`t do anything, why did you also IGNORE this?
Did I actually apologise? Your solicitor told Judge Burton that I never once apologised, "I just am I am just not like that. You know, if I offended anyone I apologise".
"No I understand that the point, the question I am asking is in terms of sufficiency is that that I am taking what you told me earlier at face value". Where does "sufficiency" play a part in the rule book for a partial failure of the warning horn?
What would have been a "sufficient" amount of attempts in your mind, please put a figure on this?
"the question that I would ask why are those stops not using another method of communication available". Where does it tell me for a partial failure of the warning horn to use any expeditious means of communication? Which rule or procedure states this?
"the thing I am trying to understand is I am taking what you said at face value which is I have got that much concern because of the reasons that you highlighted before I have been involved in this and it was a danger to anybody on the track essentially". Numerous times previously I informed TPE management in written reports about my concerns, why not do something before about this instead of now trying to use "MY CONCERNS" as an excuse to fuel your argument against me?
My concerns were always IGNORED, so why now start pretending they actually mean something to you?
TO BE CONTINUED: