. WARNING HORNS
Page 3
This section has a catalogue of issues that went totally against rules, regulations and procedures, it starts with further proof of the IGNORANCE waged against me, part of the personal crusade of TPE Management to totally disassociate themselves from me with their IGNORANCE as if I never existed.
It starts with a very hard hitting IP Report from a York Driver, who by the way, never received a response, I wonder why?
Page 3
This section has a catalogue of issues that went totally against rules, regulations and procedures, it starts with further proof of the IGNORANCE waged against me, part of the personal crusade of TPE Management to totally disassociate themselves from me with their IGNORANCE as if I never existed.
It starts with a very hard hitting IP Report from a York Driver, who by the way, never received a response, I wonder why?
York Driver IP Report
The above IP Report says:
During a safety briefing today, (17th February 2009), I raised the subject of warning horns not operating correctly on class 185 units under various non specific conditions to Fleet Engineering Manager Steve Bridge, his response was that he wasn`t aware of a problem except in foggy? and freezing conditions.
Can I suggest that all warning horns are checked and reported for defects on every occasion before a serious on track incident takes place, would even go as far as to suggest a complete review of the warning horns and replacement of any defective equipment with something more reliable.
You would have thought / expected a reply to this report, it gives a clear safety related warning that a serious incident could occur. TPE themselves say they are committed to feedback on these reports.
Did this report get inputted into the IP database? Or is this one of those that is from previous years and not closed off? Operations Director, Paul Watson could answer this.
But looking at the date of this report and the fact that it looks and sounds just like one of my reports and also the fact that this Management are aware of my situation at this present time, so how can they possibly answer it?
I contacted this York Driver one year later to ask what came of this report. To anyone who has been following this site, you already know the answer.
The above IP Report says:
During a safety briefing today, (17th February 2009), I raised the subject of warning horns not operating correctly on class 185 units under various non specific conditions to Fleet Engineering Manager Steve Bridge, his response was that he wasn`t aware of a problem except in foggy? and freezing conditions.
Can I suggest that all warning horns are checked and reported for defects on every occasion before a serious on track incident takes place, would even go as far as to suggest a complete review of the warning horns and replacement of any defective equipment with something more reliable.
You would have thought / expected a reply to this report, it gives a clear safety related warning that a serious incident could occur. TPE themselves say they are committed to feedback on these reports.
Did this report get inputted into the IP database? Or is this one of those that is from previous years and not closed off? Operations Director, Paul Watson could answer this.
But looking at the date of this report and the fact that it looks and sounds just like one of my reports and also the fact that this Management are aware of my situation at this present time, so how can they possibly answer it?
I contacted this York Driver one year later to ask what came of this report. To anyone who has been following this site, you already know the answer.
The response that York Driver Geoff Ackerman received from Engineering Manager Steve Bridge, "he wasn`t aware of any other reports into this", typifies the attitude of TransPennine Express towards this serious safety related issue. It may well be that TPE Management kept all my reports from him.
This is probably one of the only men who could assist in rectifying these serious horn defects, yet he denies any knowledge of previous reports, this is a mirror image of the BLATANT LIES TPE MANAGEMENT told the Inspector of Railways from the Office of the Rail Regulator, Mark Lenderyou.
Is there any wonder that I have said that this was a personal vendetta against me from this disgusting bully-boy management.
TransPennine Express were so desperate to keep warning horns out of the limelight that when they issued all their Drivers with a reminder (March 8th 2010) for defective on train equipment they omitted instructions regarding warning horn failures.
The equipment they reminded the Drivers about would have had very few, if any incidences of failure, but as all the repair slips and reports I have put on this website shows, THE WARNING HORN is virtually PERMANENTLY DEFECTIVE. So why wasn`t a reminder for the warning horns put on this list?
This is probably one of the only men who could assist in rectifying these serious horn defects, yet he denies any knowledge of previous reports, this is a mirror image of the BLATANT LIES TPE MANAGEMENT told the Inspector of Railways from the Office of the Rail Regulator, Mark Lenderyou.
Is there any wonder that I have said that this was a personal vendetta against me from this disgusting bully-boy management.
TransPennine Express were so desperate to keep warning horns out of the limelight that when they issued all their Drivers with a reminder (March 8th 2010) for defective on train equipment they omitted instructions regarding warning horn failures.
The equipment they reminded the Drivers about would have had very few, if any incidences of failure, but as all the repair slips and reports I have put on this website shows, THE WARNING HORN is virtually PERMANENTLY DEFECTIVE. So why wasn`t a reminder for the warning horns put on this list?
SAFETY BEFORE PERFORMANCE
"THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK"
Just by analysing each of the repair slips regarding one defective or both tones defective, have TPE carried out their own procedures and satisfied the Rule Book? Judge for yourselves by reading through this section on warning horns.
Drivers supposedly making "hasty decisions"? I find this statement totally unfair, nobody can anticipate another persons reaction to an out of course event, no matter what rules or procedures are in place, the first time any event happens, people behave differently, we are not robots! However, as in my case, a partial failure of the warning horn. We could literally go weeks and every single train cab that I driven from would have a defective warning horn, sometimes as many as 8 different cabs per day.
TPE could have helped allieviate the "hastyness" by having regular safety briefs, but as I have shown on this website, I only had 2 in 5 years that TPE knew about, (it was actually 3). Drivers emails which I published also show the complete lack of safety briefs.
Every single cab had a partial failure, one tone or the other did not work, it became so normal that very few Drivers could be bothered to ring control and explain the situation because all they ever got was try tripping the horn mcb, that train remained in service every time and finished its diagrammed work.
Some Drivers couldn`t even be bothered to put it in the repair book, it was such a common fault. But when we talk about complete warning horn failures on many occasions the same could be said, Drivers ignored the issue and passed the train over to the next Driver in line without saying a word, because it was a common occurrence.
This section will show that TPE and SIEMENS allowed trains to run with COMPLETE WARNING HORN FAILURES.
Lets not forget that the only recommendation to come from the supposed investigation report is below. Supposedly to be incorporated into a black hole? Sorry safety briefs.
After consideration of this evidence, action to be taken as deemed appropriate.
10. Recommendations
10.1 FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into the Safety Briefs.
Stephen Percival Driver Manager TransPennine Express (North)
This as I have shown was never implemented into any safety brief, it could have been put into the above circular, its quite clear, that once I was out of their way, their job was finished.
The following rules, procedures and regulations need to be taken into consideration when looking at the Drivers comments on repair slips and the action taken by TPE Control and SIEMENS depot staff.
RULE BOOK TW5 (37).
Warning horn
The people responsible: driver, train preparer
37.1 Entering service from a maintenance depot
You must not allow a train or traction unit to enter service from a
maintenance depot if you are aware the warning horn is defective
in any cab which needs to be used.
37.2 Entering service from somewhere other than a maintenance depot
A train or traction unit can enter service from somewhere other
than a maintenance depot if the warning horn is partially defective
(for example, one tone not working) in a cab which needs to be used.
In this situation you must:
• tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity
• carry out the instructions given which will be to deal with the
train as shown in Part A section 2,10 of this module. (Follows below)
2.10 Content of instructions
The instructions given to the driver may include taking the train to a location identified in the DOTE contingency plan at which:
• the circumstances and arrangements for allowing a train, traction unit or vehicle to remain in service to the end of the day.
(DOTE Contingency Plans)
"THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK"
Just by analysing each of the repair slips regarding one defective or both tones defective, have TPE carried out their own procedures and satisfied the Rule Book? Judge for yourselves by reading through this section on warning horns.
Drivers supposedly making "hasty decisions"? I find this statement totally unfair, nobody can anticipate another persons reaction to an out of course event, no matter what rules or procedures are in place, the first time any event happens, people behave differently, we are not robots! However, as in my case, a partial failure of the warning horn. We could literally go weeks and every single train cab that I driven from would have a defective warning horn, sometimes as many as 8 different cabs per day.
TPE could have helped allieviate the "hastyness" by having regular safety briefs, but as I have shown on this website, I only had 2 in 5 years that TPE knew about, (it was actually 3). Drivers emails which I published also show the complete lack of safety briefs.
Every single cab had a partial failure, one tone or the other did not work, it became so normal that very few Drivers could be bothered to ring control and explain the situation because all they ever got was try tripping the horn mcb, that train remained in service every time and finished its diagrammed work.
Some Drivers couldn`t even be bothered to put it in the repair book, it was such a common fault. But when we talk about complete warning horn failures on many occasions the same could be said, Drivers ignored the issue and passed the train over to the next Driver in line without saying a word, because it was a common occurrence.
This section will show that TPE and SIEMENS allowed trains to run with COMPLETE WARNING HORN FAILURES.
Lets not forget that the only recommendation to come from the supposed investigation report is below. Supposedly to be incorporated into a black hole? Sorry safety briefs.
After consideration of this evidence, action to be taken as deemed appropriate.
10. Recommendations
10.1 FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into the Safety Briefs.
Stephen Percival Driver Manager TransPennine Express (North)
This as I have shown was never implemented into any safety brief, it could have been put into the above circular, its quite clear, that once I was out of their way, their job was finished.
The following rules, procedures and regulations need to be taken into consideration when looking at the Drivers comments on repair slips and the action taken by TPE Control and SIEMENS depot staff.
RULE BOOK TW5 (37).
Warning horn
The people responsible: driver, train preparer
37.1 Entering service from a maintenance depot
You must not allow a train or traction unit to enter service from a
maintenance depot if you are aware the warning horn is defective
in any cab which needs to be used.
37.2 Entering service from somewhere other than a maintenance depot
A train or traction unit can enter service from somewhere other
than a maintenance depot if the warning horn is partially defective
(for example, one tone not working) in a cab which needs to be used.
In this situation you must:
• tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity
• carry out the instructions given which will be to deal with the
train as shown in Part A section 2,10 of this module. (Follows below)
2.10 Content of instructions
The instructions given to the driver may include taking the train to a location identified in the DOTE contingency plan at which:
• the circumstances and arrangements for allowing a train, traction unit or vehicle to remain in service to the end of the day.
(DOTE Contingency Plans)
TW5 (37) Continued
37.3 When in service
a) Complete failure
If the warning horn becomes completely defective on a train or traction unit which is in service, you must:
• tell the signaller immediately
• not move the train until instructed to do so
• carry out the instructions given which will be to deal with the
train as shown in Part A section 2.10 of this module.
When you begin your journey again, the train must travel at a
speed of not more than 20 mph.
b) Partial failure
If the warning horn becomes partially defective (for example, one tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
• tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity
• carry out the instructions given.
TPE Publication January 2009
Class 185 horns
The issue of class 185 air horn defects is one problem about which FTPE drivers wish to know what is happening. Since introduction, horn faults have become prevalent during the winter months especially during damp conditions. A number of alterations to the system have already been on carried out in the form of pressure regulators, non-return valves, settings and adjustments. We have discussed the matter further with Siemens and the following protocol will now be followed:-
• Reported horn defects will be endorsed as "checked against specification", with details
of rectification work or found to be compliant with specification (as applicable).
• 'NFF' or 'working on arrival' at depot shall no longer be acceptable answers.
• Siemens producing an action plan for managing and rectifying horn faults.
• Assistance from FTPE to investigate in service and provide the necessary detailed information on the reported fault.
REGARDING THE ABOVE 3 POINTS
(NFF) No Fault Found or Working On Arrival, are simply changed to "Tested Ok to run" or "Horns tested OK", the exact same meaning.
Why didn`t SIEMENS produce an action plan back in 2006 when it became apparent they had a major problem? Why take 3 years to do this?
TPE had enough information from me alone which would have helped with any investigation, but if they tell the ORR and part of their own Management team that I didn`t report anything is there any wonder that more than 1 year later (2010), SIEMENS and TPE are no nearer any sort of rectification.
The following are Repair Slips which totally contradict the above rules, procedures and regulations.
37.3 When in service
a) Complete failure
If the warning horn becomes completely defective on a train or traction unit which is in service, you must:
• tell the signaller immediately
• not move the train until instructed to do so
• carry out the instructions given which will be to deal with the
train as shown in Part A section 2.10 of this module.
When you begin your journey again, the train must travel at a
speed of not more than 20 mph.
b) Partial failure
If the warning horn becomes partially defective (for example, one tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
• tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity
• carry out the instructions given.
TPE Publication January 2009
Class 185 horns
The issue of class 185 air horn defects is one problem about which FTPE drivers wish to know what is happening. Since introduction, horn faults have become prevalent during the winter months especially during damp conditions. A number of alterations to the system have already been on carried out in the form of pressure regulators, non-return valves, settings and adjustments. We have discussed the matter further with Siemens and the following protocol will now be followed:-
• Reported horn defects will be endorsed as "checked against specification", with details
of rectification work or found to be compliant with specification (as applicable).
• 'NFF' or 'working on arrival' at depot shall no longer be acceptable answers.
• Siemens producing an action plan for managing and rectifying horn faults.
• Assistance from FTPE to investigate in service and provide the necessary detailed information on the reported fault.
REGARDING THE ABOVE 3 POINTS
(NFF) No Fault Found or Working On Arrival, are simply changed to "Tested Ok to run" or "Horns tested OK", the exact same meaning.
Why didn`t SIEMENS produce an action plan back in 2006 when it became apparent they had a major problem? Why take 3 years to do this?
TPE had enough information from me alone which would have helped with any investigation, but if they tell the ORR and part of their own Management team that I didn`t report anything is there any wonder that more than 1 year later (2010), SIEMENS and TPE are no nearer any sort of rectification.
The following are Repair Slips which totally contradict the above rules, procedures and regulations.
It took nearly 24 hours to treat a defective warning horn that had no high tone working and the low tone failed to work above 45mph.
Therefore this train had NO WARNING HORN WORKING above 45mph and stayed in service for nearly one day in such a dangerous state that was clearly a danger to anyone trackside.
TPE Control were clearly fully aware of this yet allowed this train to run. Why? Because business comes before safety and this is how they have always behaved.
What happened to the Rule Book which states that for a complete failure of the warning horn the train must proceed at a maximum speed of 20mph, then TPE Contingency Plans state that it travels no faster than 20mph to a location where it can be taken out of service?
"Function tested Ok", this is one of the usual bog standard responses we were all used to, and so the journey begins again, train goes into traffic, warning horn has a failure, back to the depot and all "OK", GROUNDHOG DAY!
I CHALLENGE ANYONE FROM TPE MANAGEMENT AND ANYONE FROM SIEMENS TO EXPLAIN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT REPAIR SLIP.
Lets remember what Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson said to me at my hearing, “The unit stayed in service WAS PUTTING THE SAFETY OF STAFF ON THE RAILWAY AT RISK”. An unbelievable statement considering the repair slips above and below.
_
Therefore this train had NO WARNING HORN WORKING above 45mph and stayed in service for nearly one day in such a dangerous state that was clearly a danger to anyone trackside.
TPE Control were clearly fully aware of this yet allowed this train to run. Why? Because business comes before safety and this is how they have always behaved.
What happened to the Rule Book which states that for a complete failure of the warning horn the train must proceed at a maximum speed of 20mph, then TPE Contingency Plans state that it travels no faster than 20mph to a location where it can be taken out of service?
"Function tested Ok", this is one of the usual bog standard responses we were all used to, and so the journey begins again, train goes into traffic, warning horn has a failure, back to the depot and all "OK", GROUNDHOG DAY!
I CHALLENGE ANYONE FROM TPE MANAGEMENT AND ANYONE FROM SIEMENS TO EXPLAIN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT REPAIR SLIP.
Lets remember what Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson said to me at my hearing, “The unit stayed in service WAS PUTTING THE SAFETY OF STAFF ON THE RAILWAY AT RISK”. An unbelievable statement considering the repair slips above and below.
_
We have a LOW tone not working above 20mph and a HIGH tone (very poor) in other words defective, above 60mph. Therefore we have a COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN above 60mph.
What happened to the Rule Book and TPE Contingency Plans? 20mph maximum speed and taken out of service? It took 6 hours before being looked at. So this train remained in service and was clearly a danger to everyone and anyone lineside.
SIEMENS maintenance staff somehow managed to test the warning horn on depot at a speed above 20mph which as anyone knows is simply not possible. Yet again, they manage to come up with the usual, "all working OK".
I CHALLENGE ANYONE FROM TPE MANAGEMENT AND ANYONE FROM SIEMENS TO EXPLAIN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT REPAIR SLIP.
What happened to the Rule Book and TPE Contingency Plans? 20mph maximum speed and taken out of service? It took 6 hours before being looked at. So this train remained in service and was clearly a danger to everyone and anyone lineside.
SIEMENS maintenance staff somehow managed to test the warning horn on depot at a speed above 20mph which as anyone knows is simply not possible. Yet again, they manage to come up with the usual, "all working OK".
I CHALLENGE ANYONE FROM TPE MANAGEMENT AND ANYONE FROM SIEMENS TO EXPLAIN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT REPAIR SLIP.
This unit had a COMPLETE FAILURE of the warning horn, was the signaller informed ? Did this train reduce speed to 20mph? Network Rail records would answer these questions. I CHALLENGE TPE to show the correct procedures were carried out.
The usual "trip the warning horn mcb" was used, hot water is tipped over the horn, has this been risk assessed? Driver then states that the HIGH tone wasn`t working, then when retried later on, both tones are now working.
The fitters comments however make no sense whatsoever, he only tested the LOW tone? Left the mcb tripped?
The usual "trip the warning horn mcb" was used, hot water is tipped over the horn, has this been risk assessed? Driver then states that the HIGH tone wasn`t working, then when retried later on, both tones are now working.
The fitters comments however make no sense whatsoever, he only tested the LOW tone? Left the mcb tripped?
This is a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn and the unit is left in service all day. This unit then goes into SIEMENS Maintenance Depot in York and although the horn is lubricated, the fitter is unable to test it due to night time constraints on noise in a built up area.
Therefore SIEMENS allow this unit to come off the depot without being sure they had rectified the warning horn. What happened to:-
37.1 Entering service from a maintenance depot
You must not allow a train or traction unit to enter service from a
maintenance depot if you are aware the warning horn is defective
in any cab which needs to be used.
Therefore SIEMENS allow this unit to come off the depot without being sure they had rectified the warning horn. What happened to:-
37.1 Entering service from a maintenance depot
You must not allow a train or traction unit to enter service from a
maintenance depot if you are aware the warning horn is defective
in any cab which needs to be used.
A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN, was this train speed reduced to 20mph? How long before this unit was taken out of service? Comments say, "TPE Control aware, booked onto depot for attention". Network Rail Records will show what happened.
Whatever time this unit ends up on the depot, all we see is the same old, "horn tested OK".
Whatever time this unit ends up on the depot, all we see is the same old, "horn tested OK".
This is evidence of just how serious TPE treat a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn, firstly I find it hard to believe that TPE Management think that de-icer and boiling water is the answer, once again, where do these instructions come from, which procedure?
What if the Driver scolded his or her self? That is why I previously mentioned if this practise had been risk assessed. Driver did not think that this horn was frozen, the usual trip warning horn mcb applied.
Now look at the dates, this failure was reported on the 9th January 2010, the first time SIEMENS Depot Staff look at this fault is the 12th January!
That is the best part of 4 days running round with a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn!
Not that it mattered how long it had taken to look at the fault because everything is fine, "horn tested OK".
What if the Driver scolded his or her self? That is why I previously mentioned if this practise had been risk assessed. Driver did not think that this horn was frozen, the usual trip warning horn mcb applied.
Now look at the dates, this failure was reported on the 9th January 2010, the first time SIEMENS Depot Staff look at this fault is the 12th January!
That is the best part of 4 days running round with a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn!
Not that it mattered how long it had taken to look at the fault because everything is fine, "horn tested OK".
This highlights a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn,(exactly the same problem that I encountered), the repair slip states at the bottom that TPE Control are aware.
Lets remember the PARTIAL FAILURE that I encountered on the morning of 14th January 2009 actually rectified itself and the train on arrival in York was being driven from the other cab.
Yet Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson at my hearing on summing up said, “It is my belief that this charge is proven that on the day in question you did fail to follow the correct procedure. The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
IF, the unit that I handed over at York which stayed in service, "was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk", should the same apply to the above situation? What difference is there?
The only difference being, THE ABOVE UNIT, 185148 STAYED IN SERVICE FOR OVER 4 DAYS BEFORE RECEIVING ATTENTION AT ARDWICK MAINTENANCE DEPOT!!!! Just like the unit did in the repair sheet above this one.
So, ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON AND OPERATIONS DIRECTOR PAUL WATSON, I CHALLENGE YOU BOTH TO RESPOND.
Lets also remember, what do we see from SIEMENS Depot Staff? The same old, horns tested on depot, OK.
Lets remember the PARTIAL FAILURE that I encountered on the morning of 14th January 2009 actually rectified itself and the train on arrival in York was being driven from the other cab.
Yet Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson at my hearing on summing up said, “It is my belief that this charge is proven that on the day in question you did fail to follow the correct procedure. The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
IF, the unit that I handed over at York which stayed in service, "was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk", should the same apply to the above situation? What difference is there?
The only difference being, THE ABOVE UNIT, 185148 STAYED IN SERVICE FOR OVER 4 DAYS BEFORE RECEIVING ATTENTION AT ARDWICK MAINTENANCE DEPOT!!!! Just like the unit did in the repair sheet above this one.
So, ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON AND OPERATIONS DIRECTOR PAUL WATSON, I CHALLENGE YOU BOTH TO RESPOND.
Lets also remember, what do we see from SIEMENS Depot Staff? The same old, horns tested on depot, OK.
SHEER IGNORANCE? No just what we were all used to, normally SIEMENS Depot Staff just write the usual, working on depot, tested Ok. Sometimes like this one, they ignore the warning horn altogether, after all even they must be sick of constant reports complaining about warning horn failures.
TO NOTE: This unit remained in service for 2 days with a PARTIAL FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN, then when it finally ends up at a Maintenance Depot, SIEMENS staff IGNORE the report.
Therefore this unit then leaves the depot with the same PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn.
37.1 Entering service from a maintenance depot
You must not allow a train or traction unit to enter service from a
maintenance depot if you are aware the warning horn is defective
in any cab which needs to be used.
Have you anything to say Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson?
TO NOTE: This unit remained in service for 2 days with a PARTIAL FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN, then when it finally ends up at a Maintenance Depot, SIEMENS staff IGNORE the report.
Therefore this unit then leaves the depot with the same PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn.
37.1 Entering service from a maintenance depot
You must not allow a train or traction unit to enter service from a
maintenance depot if you are aware the warning horn is defective
in any cab which needs to be used.
Have you anything to say Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson?
A PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn, nothing new there, reported at 15.56hrs on 25th February 2010 by the Driver and an outstation engineer. TPE Control are informed, so TPE Contingency Plans come into operation, "Train may complete its journey"?
But exactly what does, "Train may complete its journey", actually mean? How I read this situation and I know how all other Drivers looked at this, is quite simply this train remains in service till its completed diagram ends and then the unit ends up on a SIEMENS Maintenance Depot.
So the morning of my PARTIAL FAILURE which did rectify itself and also the train was going forward being driven from the other cab, why was my charge for failing to report a simple PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn to TPE Control so, so bad that it warranted a charge of gross misconduct?
I have never known or heard of any unit being removed from service for a PARTIAL FAILURE of a warning horn. With TPE Management it never once mattered what I thought, indeed as I have shown throughout this website, I was totally disregarded.
TPE Managers throughout this whole series of events tried to deflect blame from themselves by pointing out that "I" believed the PARTIAL FAILURE to be so serious, no matter what I thought, it was never of any relevance to them. The following is what I think could possibly happen one day.
SCENARIO
Can`t do it safely, don`t do it: Take a look at this scenario, a driver sets of on a journey, it’s a cold damp day, like many days we have in this country.
His speed builds up to 100mph, he enters an area of twists and turns, with many bridges spanning the railway, as he approaches a left bend, he goes under a bridge, suddenly not 1000ft away are a gang of track workers, he pushes his warning horn lever upwards, he gets no response, (remember the train is still moving at 100mph, at that speed, you travel 150 feet per second), when he gets over the initial shock of no response if he doesn`t freeze, he presses the lever down, again there is no response, (your still travelling at 100mph, 150 feet per second), WHAT NEXT?
Myself personally, I can only hope and pray that this never happens, not only would the relatives of the deceased be distraught but think of the driver and what impact it would have on him. Then spare a thought for the police, ambulance and anyone else who has to take the body away and clean the mess up.
Is it safe therefore to run a train where that scenario could happen? It may well be hypothetical, but in realistic terms, it could happen. IS IT SAFE, NO it isn`t. Do TPE or Siemens take any notice? No they don`t.
Going back to the above repair slip. NOTE: Siemens Depot Staff`s response, "Tested horn operation without fault", Groundhog Day!
But exactly what does, "Train may complete its journey", actually mean? How I read this situation and I know how all other Drivers looked at this, is quite simply this train remains in service till its completed diagram ends and then the unit ends up on a SIEMENS Maintenance Depot.
So the morning of my PARTIAL FAILURE which did rectify itself and also the train was going forward being driven from the other cab, why was my charge for failing to report a simple PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn to TPE Control so, so bad that it warranted a charge of gross misconduct?
I have never known or heard of any unit being removed from service for a PARTIAL FAILURE of a warning horn. With TPE Management it never once mattered what I thought, indeed as I have shown throughout this website, I was totally disregarded.
TPE Managers throughout this whole series of events tried to deflect blame from themselves by pointing out that "I" believed the PARTIAL FAILURE to be so serious, no matter what I thought, it was never of any relevance to them. The following is what I think could possibly happen one day.
SCENARIO
Can`t do it safely, don`t do it: Take a look at this scenario, a driver sets of on a journey, it’s a cold damp day, like many days we have in this country.
His speed builds up to 100mph, he enters an area of twists and turns, with many bridges spanning the railway, as he approaches a left bend, he goes under a bridge, suddenly not 1000ft away are a gang of track workers, he pushes his warning horn lever upwards, he gets no response, (remember the train is still moving at 100mph, at that speed, you travel 150 feet per second), when he gets over the initial shock of no response if he doesn`t freeze, he presses the lever down, again there is no response, (your still travelling at 100mph, 150 feet per second), WHAT NEXT?
Myself personally, I can only hope and pray that this never happens, not only would the relatives of the deceased be distraught but think of the driver and what impact it would have on him. Then spare a thought for the police, ambulance and anyone else who has to take the body away and clean the mess up.
Is it safe therefore to run a train where that scenario could happen? It may well be hypothetical, but in realistic terms, it could happen. IS IT SAFE, NO it isn`t. Do TPE or Siemens take any notice? No they don`t.
Going back to the above repair slip. NOTE: Siemens Depot Staff`s response, "Tested horn operation without fault", Groundhog Day!
_Yet another PARTIAL FAILURE, and again, it takes over 3 days to receive
attention at the Maintenance Depot, thats 3 days running round where a
scenario like given above could happen. What amazes me, is the response
from SIEMENS Depot Staff, "horn replaced"!
Why don`t SIEMENS replace all the warning horns if this supposedly remedies the situation? In reality, you replace a warning horn with an exact model, as history shows, this does not work.
Why don`t SIEMENS replace all the warning horns if this supposedly remedies the situation? In reality, you replace a warning horn with an exact model, as history shows, this does not work.
This was just a typical day, either low or high tone fails, the response from SIEMENS is what we all expected, "De frosted and tested OK".
Do the sayings, "Running round in circles", Or, "If it wasn`t so serious it would become a joke", ring a bell?
Like all other PARTIAL FAILURES that don`t state, "Control Informed", do you think that Drivers did inform control? I know that very few could be bothered, quite simply down to their familiarity with this situation and the reaction each time of TPE Management to such failures.
You cannot blame any Driver, it was the monster, the culture created from within TransPennine Express Management.
Do the sayings, "Running round in circles", Or, "If it wasn`t so serious it would become a joke", ring a bell?
Like all other PARTIAL FAILURES that don`t state, "Control Informed", do you think that Drivers did inform control? I know that very few could be bothered, quite simply down to their familiarity with this situation and the reaction each time of TPE Management to such failures.
You cannot blame any Driver, it was the monster, the culture created from within TransPennine Express Management.
A COMPLETE FAILURE of the warning horn, speed reduced to 20mph and train taken out of service? Signaller informed?
But not to worry, because SIEMENS Depot Staff have defrosted this warning horn as required and now everything will be fine!
That is until tomorrow, when this vicious circle starts all over again, leaving each and every Driver wide open to the consequences. Enough said.
But not to worry, because SIEMENS Depot Staff have defrosted this warning horn as required and now everything will be fine!
That is until tomorrow, when this vicious circle starts all over again, leaving each and every Driver wide open to the consequences. Enough said.
Just another example of an every unit, every day event. A PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn.
SIEMENS RESPONSE: TESTED OK ON DEPOT.
What happened to the "protocol" TPE & SIEMENS talked about in the Fleet Update of January 2009, remember, "NFF (No Fault Found) or working on depot will no longer be acceptable answers"?
Have we since 2009 ever seen anything other in all these repair slips than,"Tested on Depot OK".
This just shows how seriously TPE and SIEMENS take this problem.
I CHALLENGE TPE AND SIEMENS TO ANSWER EACH INDIVIDUAL REPAIR SLIP I HAVE PRESENTED ON THIS SECTION.
SIEMENS RESPONSE: TESTED OK ON DEPOT.
What happened to the "protocol" TPE & SIEMENS talked about in the Fleet Update of January 2009, remember, "NFF (No Fault Found) or working on depot will no longer be acceptable answers"?
Have we since 2009 ever seen anything other in all these repair slips than,"Tested on Depot OK".
This just shows how seriously TPE and SIEMENS take this problem.
I CHALLENGE TPE AND SIEMENS TO ANSWER EACH INDIVIDUAL REPAIR SLIP I HAVE PRESENTED ON THIS SECTION.
Finally for now, 2 repair slips that show serious traits of just what can occur with these warning horns at any time!
The top repair slip: I would have called this a COMPLETE FAILURE of the warning horn, but I wasn`t the Driver that day, so I would have to go along with the Drivers assumption of the situation he faced. The Driver perceived this a, "serious safety risk", if TPE Management in terms of "EQUITY" were looking at this situation, then no doubt, because this driver thought of this as serious and he never reduced speed or informed control or the signaller then he would be charged with gross misconduct, wouldn`t he?
But seriously, going to use the warning horn in an emergency situation, like turning a bend and being faced with children or track workers a few hundred yards from your train that is travelling at 100mph and then finding that no sound emerges from the warning horn, let me ask, how would you react, how would you feel? I know the feeling when you have a warning horn that works and a person is stood staring at you about to end their life.
The bottom repair slip: Another typical but equally dangerous trait. This was a COMPLETE FAILURE of the warning horn, which showed an intermittent working trait, this Driver says that he reported this to Control and the Signaller, did the train ever reduce speed to 20mph? Was this unit taken out of service? Who cares?
The top repair slip: I would have called this a COMPLETE FAILURE of the warning horn, but I wasn`t the Driver that day, so I would have to go along with the Drivers assumption of the situation he faced. The Driver perceived this a, "serious safety risk", if TPE Management in terms of "EQUITY" were looking at this situation, then no doubt, because this driver thought of this as serious and he never reduced speed or informed control or the signaller then he would be charged with gross misconduct, wouldn`t he?
But seriously, going to use the warning horn in an emergency situation, like turning a bend and being faced with children or track workers a few hundred yards from your train that is travelling at 100mph and then finding that no sound emerges from the warning horn, let me ask, how would you react, how would you feel? I know the feeling when you have a warning horn that works and a person is stood staring at you about to end their life.
The bottom repair slip: Another typical but equally dangerous trait. This was a COMPLETE FAILURE of the warning horn, which showed an intermittent working trait, this Driver says that he reported this to Control and the Signaller, did the train ever reduce speed to 20mph? Was this unit taken out of service? Who cares?