2005 Q8 COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

[cgallafant]

From the York Study Group, eventually there should be four attempts posted from us.

[b]A signal at a busy junction has failed. The signaller answers the telephone and receives the following message:

[PJW]

[quote='cgallafant' pid='1975' dateline='1282913420']
From the York Study Group, eventually there should be four attempts posted from us.

[b]A signal at a busy junction has failed. The signaller answers the telephone and receives the following message:

[Jerry1237]

Both NR and LUL run safety critical communication courses to ensure that there is a process for communication to follow in a manner the message is fully understood by both parties and is not open to interpretation.

Here is an imaginary call to give an example of safety critical communication.

Driver: [pick up SPT, it rings]
Signaller: This is signaller Fred on workstation 3 at signalbox Gertie. Over.
Driver: Signaller Fred on workstation 3 at signalbox Gertie, this is driver Bert on train zero alpha nine three standing at signal Juliette Romeo three five one two signal. I have a red aspect and would like permission to proceed passed the signal. Over.
Signaller: You are driver Bert on train zero alpha nine three standing at signal Juliette Romeo three five one two signal. You have asked for permission to pass signal Juliette Romeo three five one two signal at red. Permission is not granted for train zero alpha nine three to pass signal Juliette Romeo three five one two which is at danger due to vandalism. If the signal clears, can you proceed at caution. If it does not clear can you call me back in five minutes and I will give you further information. Over.
Driver: Signaller Fred on workstation 3 at signalbox Gertie, you have instructed me that; Permission is not granted due to vandalism. If the signal clears, can you proceed at caution. If it does not clear can you call me back in five minutes and I will give you further information. Over.
Signaller: Yes, that is correct. Over.
Driver: Understood. Out.

Note that 'over and out' is not a valid statement. I would also hope that a signaller would refuse access to the railway for anyone who fails to communicate in a manner where the signaller was assured that those requesting access were competent. It is more imperative when the safe system of work isn't pre-planned or when the pre-planned works are being changed. However, the worst periods for problems is when someone is new to the railway or has got into bad habit (laxness, apathy etc.). Read the RAIB reports on track-worker fatalities, or even those of public deaths on level crossings to see the effect!

Jerry

[PJW]

Both NR and LUL run safety critical communication courses to ensure that there is a process for communication to follow in a manner the message is fully understood by both parties and is not open to interpretation.
Driver: [pick up SPT, it rings]
Signaller: This is signaller Fred on workstation 3 at signalbox Gertie. Over.

In my experience NR signallers do NOT give their names in such communication - though they do when completing specific proforma when both copies fill in their version simultaneously). I do not believe that this is slackness, but is the way they have been trained to communicate.

Permission is not granted for train zero alpha nine three to pass signal Juliette Romeo three five one two which is at danger due to vandalism.

I am surprised if this is proposed as good communication; the loss of a single word changes the whole meaning. The phrase that the line is "not clear" is explicitly banned and should instead be stated as "line blocked". I think the wording in this case is more likely to be: Wait for the signal and obey its aspect or call me back in five minutes".

If the signal clears, can you proceed at caution.

This seems to be a request or a question rather than an instruction. More likely to say something like: "When the signal clears you are authorised to proceed at caution, keeping a good lookout for trespassers who have been reported in the vicinity of 45MP. Stop at signal Juliette Romeo three five one four signal whatever its aspect and speak to me again."

[dorothy.pipet]

Another attempt for comments please.

Done open books - untimed

[PJW]

Another attempt for comments please.

Done open books - untimed

Certainly full marks for section a)

Your answer for part b) does look a little short for 10 marks; however I do not see what else they might have been looking for, other than the signaller should confirm that the driver has indeed repeated back correctly.

Part c). 
Careful re your terminology. 

• There is certainly a risk associated with working believing protected when the protection is not in place; that is a hazardous situation.  I would say that the actual hazard would best be described as "workers foul of track whilst open to traffic".  Clearly there is an element of danger involved even if workers are being protected by a lookout, but the likelihood of an accident resulting from the hazard is clearly far greater without that lookout protection. Similarly if the signaler had really provided adequate protection then the hazard would have been eliminated since the line would not be open to traffic (although of course there could still be another hazard that a train failed to stop at a protecting signal and then entered the line which was supposedly closed).
  
• Death / injury / damage are the losses which might result; they are the accident consequences rather than the hazard.
  

Other thaan terminology, this first part is fine.

I think that it is important to identify that there are several different misunderstandings:
a) the team member not understanding the extent of the team's work (perhaps the signal is on one side of the line but the associated location on the other and the person only thinking that they needed to work at the signal but the team assuming that it was a two line block which had been requested)
b) the team member failing to convey the message to the signaller in a clear unambiguous manner, perhaps the signaller was only acknowledging the information that the team had arrived on site and was proceeding with fault rectification with no idea that they were seeking protection, perhaps however acknowledging the request but not yet able to grant it until some trains had passed, or perhaps only preventing moves from that signal, but not up to it, or only in that direction whilst still intending to use the line for opposite direction moves, perhaps a confusion of where they were,
c) the team member failing to comprehend correctly what the signaler was meaning, so for example whether the protection had been put in place or only that he was going to arrange it.
These are the sort of things which could go wrong with the communication; the risk fundamentally is that of injury to track workers from a moving train, but I suppose that it might also be that during the work an invalid aspect could be displayed (since the maintainer believes that no driver would see it) and therefore there would be a risk of train collision / derailment.

The portion about what the signaler should do and part d) both seem fine to me.

Overall a good answer, but I am slightly concerned because I don't see how all the 10 marks would be justified and  think you may have lost a few marks for the things I have pointed out, but I think this would be a Credit.