RSSB "Red" incident reconstructions

I know that he said the Up Fast, (but) now - I didn't at the time, I didn't hear it. Obviously he did say it, it's on the tape, but I didn't hear it

(Where can u get the DVD?)

Even though the driver expected the signaller to put a block on the Up Fast line, the signaller said he was diverting all traffic via the slow lines. If he'd done this, the near miss wouldn't have happened - the oncoming train would have been on the slow line.

After the phone call to the signaller, the driver says
"I know that he said the Up Fast, (but) now - I didn't at the time, I didn't hear it. Obviously he did say it, it's on the tape, but I didn't hear it".

In the re-enactment, the Signaller does not mention the Up Fast at all, so it couldn't have been on the tape! All he mentioned were the slow lines.

It's a pity that the video does not end with an analysis as to who was at fault, the signaller or the driver. In the video it's the driver who seems to be at fault. After studying the conversation, it has to be the Signaller.

They talk about the "Mon" - what does this term mean?

" said:

(Where can u get the DVD?)

As I work in the industry, I just asked the RSSB to send me them.


" said:

Even though the driver expected the signaller to put a block on the Up Fast line, the signaller said he was diverting all traffic via the slow lines. If he'd done this, the near miss wouldn't have happened - the oncoming train would have been on the slow line.

I believe the signaller says something like "I'm pulling everything out from behind you onto the slow lines".


" said:

After the phone call to the signaller, the driver says "I know that he said the Up Fast, (but) now - I didn't at the time, I didn't hear it. Obviously he did say it, it's on the tape, but I didn't hear it.

In the re-enactment, the Signaller does not mention the Up Fast at all, so it couldn't have been on the tape! All he mentioned were the slow lines.

It's the signaller who says this, not the driver.


" said:

It's a pity that the video does not end with an analysis as to who was at fault, the signaller or the driver. In the video it's the driver who seems to be at fault. After studying the conversation, it has to be the Signaller.

Obviously communication was where it all went wrong, and although neither party were repeating messages back to each other, it is the signaller who is supposed to take the lead in safety critical communication.


" said:

They talk about the "Mon" - what does this term mean?

MOM. (Mobile Operations Manager)

(Where can u get the DVD?)

Even though the driver expected the signaller to put a block on the Up Fast line, the signaller said he was diverting all traffic via the slow lines. If he'd done this, the near miss wouldn't have happened - the oncoming train would have been on the slow line.

After the phone call to the signaller, the driver says "I know that he said the Up Fast, (but) now - I didn't at the time, I didn't hear it. Obviously he did say it, it's on the tape, but I didn't hear it.

In the re-enactment, the Signaller does not mention the Up Fast at all, so it couldn't have been on the tape! All he mentioned were the slow lines.

It's a pity that the video does not end with an analysis as to who was at fault, the signaller or the driver. In the video it's the driver who seems to be at fault. After studying the conversation, it has to be the Signaller.

They talk about the "Mon" - what does this term mean?

" said:

(Where can u get the DVD?)

As I work in the industry, I just asked the RSSB to send me them.


" said:

Even though the driver expected the signaller to put a block on the Up Fast line, the signaller said he was diverting all traffic via the slow lines. If he'd done this, the near miss wouldn't have happened - the oncoming train would have been on the slow line.

I believe the signaller says something like "I'm pulling everything out from behind you onto the slow lines".


" said:

After the phone call to the signaller, the driver says "I know that he said the Up Fast, (but) now - I didn't at the time, I didn't hear it. Obviously he did say it, it's on the tape, but I didn't hear it.

In the re-enactment, the Signaller does not mention the Up Fast at all, so it couldn't have been on the tape! All he mentioned were the slow lines.

It's the signaller who says this, not the driver.


" said:

It's a pity that the video does not end with an analysis as to who was at fault, the signaller or the driver. In the video it's the driver who seems to be at fault. After studying the conversation, it has to be the Signaller.

Obviously communication was where it all went wrong, and although neither party were repeating messages back to each other, it is the signaller who is supposed to take the lead in safety critical communication.


[quote="maxand" post=47993]They talk about the "Mon" - what does this term mean?

(Where can u get the DVD?)

Even though the driver expected the signaller to put a block on the Up Fast line, the signaller said he was diverting all traffic via the slow lines. If he'd done this, the near miss wouldn't have happened - the oncoming train would have been on the slow line.

After the phone call to the signaller, the driver says "I know that he said the Up Fast, (but) now - I didn't at the time, I didn't hear it. Obviously he did say it, it's on the tape, but I didn't hear it.

In the re-enactment, the Signaller does not mention the Up Fast at all, so it couldn't have been on the tape! All he mentioned were the slow lines.

It's a pity that the video does not end with an analysis as to who was at fault, the signaller or the driver. In the video it's the driver who seems to be at fault. After studying the conversation, it has to be the Signaller.

They talk about the "Mon" - what does this term mean?

Thanks John. Of course - it's the Down Fast traffic that got diverted to the slow lines! My bad.

However, if the re-enactment was meant to be authentic (from the tape), the Signaller would have mentioned the Up Fast line in some way, even if only to say it was not blocked, or did I miss something here?

Thanks for explaining "MOM". I have added it to the Wiki Glossary.

Thanks John. Of course - it's the Down Fast traffic that got diverted to the slow lines! My bad.

However, if the re-enactment was meant to be authentic (from the tape), the Signaller would have mentioned the Up Fast line in some way, even if only to say it was not blocked, or did I miss something here?

Thanks for explaining "MOM". I have added it to the Wiki Glossary.

No I think that's the reason a misunderstanding was reached between the lines which had or hadn't been blocked to traffic.

It's a pity that the video does not end with an analysis as to who was at fault, the signaller or the driver. In the video it's the driver who seems to be at fault. After studying the conversation, it has to be the Signaller.

I've seen that video before but it wasn't until I watched it again this time that I understood exactly what the confusion was over the blocking. The train was standing on the Down Fast and the driver wanted a block of the Up Fast, i.e. protecting the adjacent line so that he and the MOM could walk between. The signaller thought the driver wanted a block of the Down Fast (i.e. protecting only his own train), and routed other Down traffic around the stopped train without applying a possession to any lines.