You are assuming that the driver, the conductor and the Network rail guy don't really know the guy with the camera. Seeing that they are all actors and that this is some kind of reconstruction, chances are that they meet each other most days in the staff canteen.😜
Sadly Dave continued to let trains through the red signal for the next four days until finally the wreckage reached back to signal 31 and someone finally brought him a flag.
Train driver from Belgium here, on my way to work. Thanks for sharing this! While the danger of the famous vague "it's ok to go!" is well known by us train drivers, it is still being used by others around us who don't apply the communications procedures. I'm currently raising awareness around me about this issue and so is the railway. This video couldn't have been suggested to me at a better time!
The biggest mistake here seems to have been that the guy at the gates was sent to a job he was not told about nor prepared for. This is a management issue, the driver and conductor would have rightly believed he knew the job he was there to do and could do it properly. Apparently not.
Rel1369 the greatest mistake, is not trusting the men on the train. keep second guessing you conductors, and they will soon be unqualified to open a can of beans.
deezynar Mostly yes, but how does Dave not have any flags make the SPAD itself worse? Even had he used flags, it would still be a SPAD - the issue here is that Craig passed a danger aspect, not that Dave gave a verbal instruction instead of a visual one!
Yes the passenger who got on at Kensen Hardwood platform flopped his dick out & got caught masturbating by the ticket inspector of 23 years experience.
Good acting indeed. My question is this... what kinda trouble would it cause if he had said 'i'd rather ask the signaller'? I mean both 'official' trouble and ribbing (or worse) from workmates as being the one who causes trouble... They can both be equally persuasive in a work environment, sadly
***** Yeah, you don't want to drop the guy in it for not having his flags. I was in a similar situation, pilotman didn't have his armband or even a red flag, not even ID - so I had to insist I sit there until he went and got the proper equipment.
Yes, same thing happened to me on a single - line section from Hastings up to Tonbridge. Wadhurst Tunnel to be exact. I flatly refused to move my Jaffa-Cake 1066 leccy until the signalman told me it was okay to go. That dates me don't it !
It's pretty obviously an instructional video for trainee train drivers about following rules to the exact letter. It's trying to teach you something and make you remember it, which is why it manages to be both boring and overly dramatic at the same time.
I had the same thing once, while on the railway. I thought it best, to ALWAYS contact the signalman if in ANY doubt, and was glad I did. So we had a small delay, about 10 minutes, but the alternative would've been a head-on collision on a single line, and it was pitch dark and raining, and winter. Better safe than sorry. Sadly crews are under pressure now to keep to time or the Train Operating Company gets fined. But I'd still contact the signalman, oops "Signaller" in today's PC world, before moving my train.
gotta get a good "PC" dig in there too, even though it's literally no fucking bother to just assume that women can also work signal boxes. I swear some people are less emotionally intelligent than others and revert to almost toddler-like states when they feel threatened.
Can't believe i've just watched this. But I did learn something. Even though I'm not a British rail train driver, engineer, signal man or any of the professions portrayed in this video, and even though i don't intend on ever becoming one of those noble professions, IF for some strange reason I do, i'll never make this mistake!! Thanks youtube.
The reason train travel is so safe in the UK is that signalling is respected and obeyed, no exceptions. The driver made a serious mistake that had the POSSIBILITY of becoming a disaster, rules and training are there to prevent these accidents. The mistake had consequences to underline that fact. A competent crew will feel bad about the situation even though nothing happened; because it brought the possibility of a disaster that much closer. This is why train crews are so hostile to economies in signalling, safety and working practices, some do appear to waste time and require extra effort, but who wants to be responsible for, or involved in another Paddington or Ladbrook Grove.
3:20 BIG mistake on the part of the conductor. If I were the guard, then in response to a question like that from the train driver I would've responded "It doesn't matter. The signal is at danger. You need to speak to the signaller before proceeding."
The core of this was the ambiguity of "it's OK to go". What was meant was "It's OK to go through the crossing". What was understood was "It's OK to go past the signal".
Could the signal have been set to show a proceed aspect when the level crossing barriers were not down across the road? If not, permission to drive the train across the crossing would necessarily constitute permission to drive it past the signal at danger. The question is "did the person who gave permission have authority to do so?" and also "would the driver reasonably have known if he didn't?" Shouldn't the person sent to the crossing to sort it out have asked train drivers to phone the signalman (instead of saying it was OK to drive on) if he didn't have authority to allow them to pass the danger signal? How would this incident have been affected if the man sent to the crossing had had a green flag with him and had held it up in front of the train?
Cars don't take the length of a football field to stop or carry hundreds of people. Even a semi truck only has one tank of hazardous/flammable gas/liquid/etc. while trains can have dozens and dozens. There is a far greater level of responsibility.
This case is equivalent to a road vehicle driver getting done for ignoring a red light after being told to do so by a policeman standing at the roadside.
A number of issues come to mind here, 1 / the RailTrack PerWay employee was wearing RailTrack safety gear, therefore he was an authorised employee. He was observed walking from the Boom Barrier to the train, and he informed the Driver of the defective boom barrier. 2/ The Train Driver said he was approaching the Starter signal, which was at Stop. Starting signals authorise the train to enter the Section Ahead, they do not protect a Level Crossing, which, as this particular Level Crossing is equipped with Boom Barriers, it would therefore not necessarily be protected by a Home Signal. Despite this, it is not unusual for Boom Barriers at some locations to be electrically interlocked with, but not protected by, the Starting Signal ( or , if applicable, Automatic Signal ).3/ As the Per Way employee stated that he had to manually operate the Boom Barriers ( using the Test Switch to do so ) and then advise the Driver when the barriers were down and it was safe for the train to proceed, which he did so. The PerWay employee stated he was not given advice as to what was required, nor did he have the red and green flags to indicate to the Driver that it was safe to proceed, hence the verbal advice to proceed. Clearly he has done this before, so he knew the procedure. 4/ the PerWay employee should have contacted the Signaller when he arrived on site, and a subsequent discussion between the Signaller and the PerWay employee should have resulted in the Signaller telling the PerWay employee to tell the Driver to ring the Signaller on the Post Phone.(Presumably, the Train toBaseRadioPhone was not available.) 5/ Under this scenario, the Signaller could have then issued the Driver with a verbal Caution Order to proceed past the Starting Signal. ( Caution Orders are normally only issued for Home and Dwarf Signals, but in this instance, the issuance of a Caution Order to pass the Starting Signal is justified.) 6/ Whilst I agree that the Driver could have confirmed it was OK to Proceed with the Signaller, the fact that a RailTrack employee who had operated, and rechecked, that the boom barriers were operating correctly, and it was therefore ok to Proceed, and as a Starting Signal can be passed at Stop only with verbal advice, both the Driver, and the Conductor (who was previously a Signaller ) were both under the impression that it was therefore ok to Proceed into the Section ahead.7 / I also note that the Panel Signaller appeared to be unaware of the defective boom barriers, and the extended conversation between the Panel Signaller, and the Driver was not shown. In my experience the Driver would most certainly have advised the Panel Signaller of what took place. 8/ the question then arrises as to how the Supervisor of the PerWay employee was aware of the defective boom barriers, but had not advised the Panel Signaller ( or ascertained if someone else had already done so) of that knowledge, nor had the Supervisor advised the Panel Signaller that he had sent a PerWay employee to the defective boom barriers to manually operate them. As a Supervisor, he should have given the PerWay employee a clear instruction to contact the Signaller via the Post Phone as soon as he had arrived on site. In my view, in this particular scenario, the lack of flags, whilst problematic, but in this instance, would not have prevented other measures being undertaken to ameliorate this.9/ therefore I would argue that there are other relevant factors applicable here that had a bearing on the actions of both the Driver and the Conductor, and a misunderstanding had occurred partially due to these other factors.
Wearing a HV vest with the correct logo does not correctly identify him! I left the railway 20 years ago and still have a full set of HV clothing and, my BR identity card! Private companies never bothered about safety ever!
Dear Steve,@@stevenmoran4060, 1/I have just read your reply, apologies for the late response. I retired 5 years ago, and like you, I did retain my safety vest, however, my employee ID card & Free Travel Authority was collected by my Supervisor, and I was then issued a Retired Employee Travel Authority in lieu. 2/Under the then existing Rules ( which can be traced back to1905 !), and presumably a similar Rule is currently applicable, any employee can request to see another employees ID ( in my case name and Departmental number ). In instances like the above, the Train Crew could have asked for that if they were not satisfied as to the person's status.. In my case, there were a number of instances where I did just that to ascertain a persons status, in in some instances the Rule's require an exchange of identities, which are then recorded.Therefore if staff are unsure as to a persons status, this procedure can be used.3/ Obviously, Safety is an obligation all railway employees are obliged to comply with, and I fully agree with you that all too often, especially in privatised transport, this, all too often, is given lip service by senior managers ( Middle Managers are normally compliant ). As a retired driver said to me once, when a spokesperson say"...Safety is our first priority...", the obvious response is to ask "that being so. why did the incident happen? In this regard I am reminded of the rear end fatal collision in Severn Tunnel, which, despite what the RI Report said, was, I would argue, entirely the fault of the Manager who removed the Protecting Flagmen without any reference to the Signalman or Train Controller. Thank you for your response, and regards from Australia.
In retrospect the answer is simple. However honest mistakes do happen with hardworking honest people. Some automatic crazy stunt that teaches an important lesson when the tasks become repetitive and monotonous. I hope they were not fired as I can guarantee they will be the safest handlers in their job from this incident on. Life is like that!!!
Clarifying what's going on, and not making assumptions tends to annoy people, as they think you're talking down to them, or challenging them. When you're in a position of high responsibility, where lives are under your care, annoying others should be of no concern.
In British railway parlance, a signal is said to be at "danger" if it is not clearly showing a "proceed" aspect. This means that it is at danger if it is showing red, any ambiguous aspect, or no aspect (something I sometimes refer to as "black"). Obviously, all of these, except a plain red, would indicate a fault, and a plain red can also be due to a fault, but could simply be due to another train ahead, points set for a conflicting move, a level crossing not confirmed safe, or a number of other causes. Whatever kind of "do not proceed" aspect is shown, a hand signal (as would have been given by the crossing attendant) is never authority to pass the signal, unless the verbal instruction from the hand signaller is clear in that respect. In this case, the crossing attendant should never have been attempting to do the job without flags. The driver should indeed have used the SPT at MV31. He would then either have been told "signal OK, wait for proceed aspect", "signal failed but line clear, proceed as per rule", or "signal failed and line blocked, await further instruction" - although these would be expressed in much more detail. See SPAD Risk III (which was made before this incident) for more on this and three other SPAD risks. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5JlHdBkVS4k.html The consequences of a SPAD vary. They can be anything from relatively minor to disatrous. Also, it is not a SPAD if proper authorisation has been obtained.
+Phil Reynolds Great post! I understand better now. Thanks. One suggestion, however. Your use of the word "black," I was wondering if you received approval to use the word by African-American Yanks? They do not permit the use of the word "black" unless you have a written permission slip signed off by at least sixteen American blacks. Oh, crikey...I just used it! I am in trouble now; will probably have to spend a couple weeks in the reeducation camp...you see how easy you can be in violation? You are just sitting there, innocently eating a tofu sandwich with catsup, when all of a sudden you use the word "black,,," and you're in trouble. Well, a car just pulled up in the driveway, so I better go now. See you all in a couple of weeks.
"Signal at Danger" is what the Brits call it. In the US, we call it "A signal displaying a stop indication". The very first rule in the GCOR is Rule number 1.1.1, "In case of doubt, or uncertainty, always take the safe course."
The lack of flags is the biggest issue in this situation. To pass a signal at danger, the hand signaller shows a YELLOW hand signal (As signals that cannot be cleared due to faults are passed at caution); to cross a defective crossing, the attendant shows a GREEN hand signal. The driver should see the flag and know what action is authorised by the colour of the flag. Obviously in any doubt, the driver should call the box.
I like how this is made like it was the worst thing to happened in the recent decades, and I also like that you guys changed the original names, like people would sent death treats if they knew theirs real name.
Ultimately the responsibility for a SPAD like this lays with the train driver. The trackworker could have been anyone! The Network Rail Rule Book makes clear that a train driver must be advised by the signaller prior to receiving any instruction by a designated person to pass as signal at Danger. In this scenario, the driver should have personally spoken to the signaller at MV31 over the signalpost telephone.
I am unsure but I think there is a rule requiring a driver stopped at red for a time to phone the signaller. Historically this was so the signaller wouldn't forget about the train and send another into the back. The driver thought the crossing operator was the signaller.
Feh! So I watched a few air crash videos and a few dozen dashcam vids and now RU-vid thinks I'm ready for a train drivers training video!!! The only thing I took away from this was thinking how smug the trainer in the classroom would be after showing this....
Lesson for all walks of life: If it's your responsibility, then it's important for you to CHECK and be 100% satisfied that all safety criteria is filled - even if it might cost you, your mates!
As someone who uses this station from time to time. I find it hard to believe that signal was at red for any valid reason. There is another light down the track in the middle of nowhere which nothing stops at and one just before the double track becomes a single track at St Johns which is utilized as a stopper if something comes the other way on the single track bit. So yeah its a SPAD, but considering the line speed and traffic on the line it is probably the safest place to have a SPAD anywhere on the network. So many errors in this video.. You assume becomes its about a SPAD its the drivers fault but its really not.
The signal could have failed or the track circuit ahead could have failed (circuit thinks there is a train occupying the section when actually there isn't). Signals automatically go to Red when a failure is detected as an extra back up. It is then the driver's responsibility to call the signaller who will then give authority to pass the signal at Danger.
love how the guy sent to deal with the level crossing said it was alright to go- just a second before he walked straight under the signal that was on red!
As a member of the public... and therefore a potential passenger, the fact this exists, tells me that I am remarkably safe. The fact that nobody actually got hurt, but the consequences for the people involved are just as drastic... tells me that when the govt privatized the railways, they at least didn't completely destroy everything. :)
There was no need to do anything special other than wait at the signal and call the signalman from the nearby telephone to clarify the situation. The train can safely stand at the signal for as long as necessary without danger. The signalman would have confirmed that the signal was working properly and to wait for it to clear before proceeding.
These are produced monthly as part of a safety brief for the UK rail industry. A different incident is recreated with actors (bad ones who I think are actually rail workers who volunteer) then after the film is viewed the audience talks about what went wrong, why and how to avoid it.
So after reading through the comments and finding out about a new language that calls 'red' as 'danger', the driver accidentally passed through a red light by misunderstanding. So what? It's not exactly a busy crossng in a City, it's a railway, what's gonna happen? He might actually be on time?
Having watched this video in the past. I think its logical that if I was the driver of that train. I would have contacted the signaller for confirmation because at the end of the day. My licence would be a stake and that SPAD could have been avoided had common sense had been followed. The conductor nor the level crossing worker had the authority to tell that driver to pass the red signal. So what if the level crossing operator had no flags with him, not my problem. I would have still contacted the signaller because at the end of the day. Passenger safety is top priority!
I've been trained as a crossing keeper on the Mid Norfolk Railway and I'm sure I'd get in trouble for doing what Dave did i.e. telling the driver to go when I have no flags. Having said that I agree with you in that Craig was entirely at fault for believing Dave.
At the time of this incident occurring the crossing guy (had he been acting as a hand signaller) could have authorised the driver past the signal at danger with the use of a YELLOW flag. Crossing operators would use a GREEN flag (hence no confusion) - obviously the issue here wasn't that the driver didn't know who could authorise him past, but he assumed the role of the pway-man and didn't confirm anything.
pmailkeey you didn't need a ticket to pass a signal at danger, you're thinking of temporary block working. the point is that he could have authorised him past with a yellow, but because he forgot his flags , the driver didn't want to get him in trouble. all calls to the signaller are recorded and if he'd called up, the signaller would have asked about the flags. it's all changed now so this situation can't happen anymore
It is called the human factor . Every day , every where , every person makes a mistake .Sometimes a wrong button is pushed , a foot slips on a pedal a phone conversation becomes mixed up , a person takes a left when it should be a right etc etc etc, and usually there is no evil consequence , but sometimes , very rarely , death , destruction and mayhem follows . Every thing is Time and Chance. As the proverb says , every thing that can go wrong , will go wrong .
anyway, being a non train driver and typically a passenger, i fail to see the difference between a verbal go ahead and a piece of brightly colored fabric being twirled around. if the procedure stated that contacting whatever controlling authority proceeds over the signalling of the tracks on a red light he was clearly in the wrong. however, if all that is required is a bloke wearing an official uniform and a flag to let you pass, i would seriously question the system as a whole.
ACombineSoldier the guy with the flag is not a signal man, they have flags to indicate that the crossing guard is down, the signal man would stand on the platform and tell them it's ok to go. That's where the problem was, because he didn't have flags they thought he was a signal man (hence the questioning about why he didn't go to the box on the platform) If he had the flags they would know he was the guy operating the gate. Typically a signal man would be standing by the box and let them know based on what a guy in the control room said.
ACombineSoldier ex-fucking-actly . why in a modern age, are these signals not computer controler and or, the signal men not using a walkietalkie... I had one as a child in the 70s.. I'm sure the brigs can afford them for their conductors and signalmen. it's 2017 for fuck sakes, go buy some walkie talkies form the Chinese already.
Kevin was upset ma arse, he went to the locker room lit up a joint before going home via the off licence for a bottle of jack d whiskey so he can face another day working for network rail.
The real driver apparently lost his job and went ferral. He is now in the Congo, on the run from government forces armed only with a combat knife and a bandana. How do I know this? He was my father, John Rambo!
I'm amazed that Standing Orders don't require personnel to identify themselves and their specific role in situations like this. I am equally amazed that Standing Orders don't require drivers to challenge and ascertain the role in which someone is acting before accepting any instruction. That just seems to be common sense. "Hi. My name is Fred and I am here to ensure your passage is clear over the level crossing because the barriers are broken. You must make all other checks as the driver." That's all it would have taken.
Exactly, yes. I work in the Aviation industry and we get Human Factors training every 2 years. The saying is, a lot of the regulations are written in victims blood.
I also worked in the aviation industry. Many incidents/accidents and deaths were the result of communication errors. Google the Series "MayDay". It has fantastic analysis of real incidents like this. The scariest, because it can happen so easily, was a crash of a jet liner into the Everglades because the entire cockpit crew was trying to solve a possible gear problem and it worked out that no one was actually flying the airplane.
What if a member of a public walking his dog near railway lines witnesses a land slide that happened right in front of his eyes, and still unknown to railways,, and then runs along the lines to warn any approaching trains to avoid a major disaster, there is no one else about who has any phones to make a phone call, so he takes his red tee shirt off ( that is if he is wearing a red tee shirt otherwise any other colour except green is fine) to warn any approaching train driver, waves it as a flag, to stop a passenger carrying train with many people aboard, so will the driver use his instinct and carry on going full steam ignoring the chap waving his red tee shirt frantically or will the driver stop to avert a disaster? Or should the man run back to his house to make a call, and what if whilst making this call a train then hits the breach, or what if then train has already passed the last signal lamp and the next signal lamp is after the breach. Or should he carry a big marker pen and white card to scribble "STOP, LAND SLIDE AHEAD" or should the Train lines not run in such areas prone to landslide? many questions but no answers.
Wouldn't have enough time to stop, trains can take quite a while to stop, especially at full speed. (Which they hardly travel at". Would be the same outcome if the guy wasn't there.
In other words, shit is going to happen, it is going to happen no matter what we do, how much we avoid, and that is exactly why we are here in the first place because shit happened, and Universe came into being, what if we didn't exists, none of these problems we would face today, migration. racism, rapists, murderers, isis, Donald Trump, Putin, EU, Osama Bin Laden, oh I could go on and on. Welcome to Universe, please feel free and be my guest.
Obviously he should stay there and carry on waving his flag, the driver should stop as that is protocol. Also if the man is on or about the railway lines and has not raised his hand to acknowledge the train and/or is not wearing safety clothing the driver should stop as he might be too close to the train!
This is an educational/training video by the railroad for their employees regarding following protocol and the danger of not doing so. That train wasn't authorized to pass the red light even with the flagman's okay, the engineer(driver) should have radioed dispatch before moving the train.
Well that was a waste of time, I was expecting something like 'they crossed over a dead body' or something, instead it's just a guy that didn't read signal right end of story.
i think it's a joke by RU-vid staff. The title is a perfect misunderstanding so they put this bs in our recommended vids to create a perfect misunderstanding.
These things (and worse) do happen, they have happened in the past and will happen in the future. But is travelling by train dangerous ? NO, compared to other ways of transport it is one of the safest (if not THE SAFEST) ! A hearty "THANK YOU" to all people at public transport, and in particular the people that dared to show in this video they are only human, lets never forget that they are working day in day out and do their best to bring us where ever we want to.
In Australian they would have probably got away with it, as long as the signal at the station was an automatic signal, because the train would have waited there for a minute. What I don't understand is why it was red, there was no train in the next section so what was it waiting for?
Yes you are correct Buck, he shouldn't have crossed the tracks without clearance therefore starting the situation, it would have been ok as long as the train driver called the signal man, but that didn't occur.
The crossing having failed probably? Also there very well may have been a train there, just that it had moved on by the time the next signal was reached...
The signalman could have either, set the signal to danger to protect the level crossing, but if they did that, they would need a handsignaler, who would have keyed the signal from auto to danger, but as that wasn't the case, I could only think the signaller sanctioned a conflicting move.
This clearly shows that in all walks of transport and not just aviation CROSS-CHECKING is a must. The driver should have contacted the panel (signal box) to verify what he felt so uneasy about instead of just assuming the way he did. ASSUME = Makes an ASS out of U and ME as we say in aviation ...
Change the procedure and use an all train stop boards system when entering a defective area use R T's between Hand Signalman-Signalman- to obtain permission from Signalman to enter area then relay message to Driver thru R T,s if no Hand Signal man permission from Signalman or Person in Charge controlling the area
Good video. He knew he was in trouble when the next signal was red - because the only reason it was red is the signal box knew he'd passed a signal at danger and wanted to stop the train. And then the driver made the call.
Anybody know what the typical punishment for a driver would be for this kind of SPAD (i.e. caused by improper procedures as opposed to texting his girlfriend)?
I understand he drive trough a red signal. But he drive slow anfstopped by the next signal. So the safety worked. He should not drive in the first place but his feeling said be carefull so he did. Now what happend after?
How was the signal at red going to change to green ? If there was a problem with the barrier the signalman may not have received signal from the barrier to the effect that the barriers were down , therefore the guy with or without the flags was letting the train go from his visual observations the the barrier was down ! In my opinion it was the signalman that should have been informed from the flag man that the barrier was down and change the signal to green , and not speak or indicate to driver at all !
plankton50 SPAD is just a signal passed at danger, it doesn't mean that there is a death. (I don't know of the last time there was a death because of a SPAD)
no doesn't necessarily mean a death or accident occurred - could be the signal is linked to a sensor on the LC barrier and only goes green when the barriers are closed, but maybe sensor wasn't working or could be any number of other reasons. Either way the driver is supposed to ring the signaller to pass any danger signal, but I can see the misunderstanding if there is a guy from network Rail telling you it is safe to proceed - especially if you know the red light is linked to a malfunctioning sensor on the barriers (although he should have had the required flags to do this!)
The last time there was a death from a spad was at the Paddington train crash, where a class 166 or 165 left Paddington then passed SN109 at danger. And it switch tracks on to a track with a HST coming at about 100mph
I don't think they had a radio, as stated in the video. "I should have checked with the signal man, it was only 10 feet away". So. no you wouldn't have used your radio, as you didn't have one.
All rules are based on previous mistakes or occurrences that resulted in serious accidents and/or deaths. If a signal is DARK or BLACK(no indication) it is to be taken as the most restrictive indication or RED.
I used to be a rail operator grade 2, worked at 2 stations with a crossing and you always ask for the road wether its there or not you got to ask the panel, no one asked for the road! first failsafe is the ro2 not present but matey had the crossing down still no road tho! second failsafe is the guard, he should check the road is given close the doors and tell the driver. third failsafe is the driver. They were all at fault.
The guard being a former signaller would have known the rulebook from both sides, traction and signalling and that there was no get around a red is a red and you ask the signalbox for permission and take note in book of instruction by signalbox who would also put it into their book permission to pass signal at danger. Any local signal flagger would have given a slip which would have acted as a paper token to proceed as instructed, the fact there was no slip, no flags should have raised a lot more than eyebrows with traincrew...
mistakes were made on all sides, for a start when sending a stand in management should have briefed him about his role for that day aswell as sending him over with the proper equipment, if the stand in wasn't briefed he should have contacted there & then to clarify what his job would be neither management or the stand in were organised & as for the driver he really should have known better than to have taken instructions from someone whos only there for the road barriers not for the line signals also if in doubt should have went to the lineside phone & called the box to see if it were clear to go if not wait for the signals then go not only that the conductor only buzzes to let driver know that all passengers are on, doors are closed & safe to move on he really cant autherise a spad
This was a multi level failure to communicate effectively cock up. It started with the fellow that was supposed to operate the gates not being told to take the proper equipment with him to do the job of his assignment. To compound that error he was wearing insignia that apparently gave him greater authority than he had for the job given, please let me know what those other job titles are that he has. Yes, ultimately the engineer having seen the red signal should have questioned the dispatch office. That is a mickey mouse system. There should have been 2 way communication between the train and controller. Dispatch could then have contacted the train when the signal was passed to question why it was passed.
If the driver and conductor had only put hi vis on, they could have ploughed that bus full of school kids stuck on the crossing with a clear conscience.
