The papers are going to love this (RAIU report - Buttevant)

dowlingm

This arrived in my inbox this morning courtesy of RAIU's alert service:

Summary

At 10:22, on Friday the 2nd of July 2010, the 08:00 Heuston to Cork passenger service passed through the Buttevant Level Crossing without incident. Approximately thirty seconds later a Track Recording Vehicle approached Buttevant Level Crossing in the opposite direction, as the Gate Keeper was in the process of closing the gates across the railway line. The Track Recording Vehicle struck one of the gates which resulted in damage to the gate and the Track Recording Vehicle. There were no injuries or fatalities as a result of this accident.

The immediate cause of this accident:

• The Gate Keeper was in the process of closing the level crossing gates across the railway line as the Track Recording Vehicle arrived at the level crossing.

The causal factors were:

• The Gate Keeper did not fully adhere to the operation instructions provided for the opening and closing of the level crossing gates;
• The contributory factor was:
• The Gate Keeper‘s co-ordination and concentration may have been affected by the presence of Cannabis in his system;
• There was no engineered safeguard introduced at the Level Crossing to ensure that the Level Crossing gates could not be opened to road traffic when a train was approaching, as the system was dependent on the full adherence of the gate keepers to the operation instructions.

The underlying factor was:

• No formal risk assessment process was carried out at the Level Crossing since its initial installation to measure its compliance against criteria introduced in Iarnród Éireann‘s current signalling standard.

(emphasis added)

Judgement Day

Great stuff - but what on earth are manual gates still doing at Buttevant anyway? :rolleyes:

Stonewolf

What are level crossings even doing on the Cork line at all.

There's probably a speed restriction just in case ...

byhookorbycrook

just what Buttevant needs, another train crash.:mad:

Cookie_Monster

So the keeper was baked at work
I hope he got ****ed out on his ear, could so easily have been deaths cos he was wasted.

dowlingm

144km/h or 90mph is the local speed limit, per the report.

It's a tricky spot to grade separate because it's cut into the side of a hill so there would be an almighty drop on one side, plus some property impact on the hill side.

corktina

oh dear Dog! AT Buttevant of all places!

parsi

Hmm. That bit about the crossing-keeper explains so much about Buttevant and the way folk drive around there....

dowlingm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So the keeper was baked at work
I hope he got ****ed out on his ear, could so easily have been deaths cos he was wasted.

from the report

RAIU wrote:

4.3 Gate Keeper
Directly after the accident, the Gate Keeper submitted his resignation and therefore did not perform any safety critical work after the accident.

Cookie_Monster

dowlingm wrote: »

from the report

yeah, the usual. had in your resignation; pension, reputation etc kept intact.
That's the norm in this country, don't get sacked, get asked to hand in your resignation...
:rolleyes:

BrianD

Do they have mandatory drugs tests after incidents like these?

Hypothetically speaking if a gatekeeper was removed for disciplinary reasons do they have to replace him or her? Can they move to automate the crossing?

n97 mini

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So the keeper was baked at work

If it was a first offence it was probably a verbal warning..

dowlingm

I think any chances of shoving it under the rug were complicated by the fact it was a Lloyd Rail operated vehicle that hit - I imagine their managers wanted to see consequences even if IE's didn't, not to mention the RSC. So odd though that so many LCs are not CCTVed but not this one - isn't one of the CCTV centres in Mallow? Is there some technical bar?

Hilly Bill

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yeah, the usual. had in your resignation; pension, reputation etc kept intact.
That's the norm in this country, don't get sacked, get asked to hand in
your resignation...
:rolleyes:

If the Gate keeper was paying into the pension then all he/she would get back is what they put in. I doubt if they was anyway.
The person wouldnt have been asked to resign, the person would have been either sacked for having drugs in their system which the drug test would have found or the person decided to quit on the back of what happened in the knowing that he/she had drugs taken. ( Only going by the report above )

Hilly Bill

BrianD wrote: »

Do they have mandatory drugs tests after incidents like these?

Hypothetically speaking if a gatekeeper was removed for disciplinary reasons do they have to replace him or her? Can they move to automate the crossing?

Yes to both.

CIE

dowlingm wrote: »

144km/h or 90mph is the local speed limit, per the report.

It's a tricky spot to grade separate because it's cut into the side of a hill so there would be an almighty drop on one side, plus some property impact on the hill side.

How would it be tricky, if you built a road bridge over the existing right of way? I don't see any hill on Station Road looking on Google Street View; I see lots of flat land surrounding the station area.

AngryLips

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If the Gate keeper was paying into the pension then all he/she would get back is what they put in.

While the entire question of the gatekeepers renumeration is kind of off-topic, what he gets in his pension would depend on the pension scheme in question. Given that it's a semi-state I'm guessing a defined-benefit pension that doesn't necessarily require a contribution from the employee in order to pay out.

Victor

CIE wrote: »

How would it be tricky, if you built a road bridge over the existing right of way? I don't see any hill on Station Road looking on Google Street View; I see lots of flat land surrounding the station area.

If you look at the map in the report, there is maybe 15m elevation between the stream west of the LC and the terrace of houses east of the LC. You would need to realign a few hundred metres of the road.

Terrontress

Would smoking dope be such a detriment to doing this sort of job?

I'm not condoning it but the report only says that it might have been a factor, not that it was.

If all he does is open and close a gate then I can't see it being contributory.

I remember a few years back there were plans to test train drivers for alcohol in the morning and there was uproar. It was claimed at the time that any remaining blood alcohol from the night before would not jeopardise the train's safety. If I recall correctly the company backed down.

If that lad had fought it out I bet he could have got away with six months full paid stress leave, a course of drug counselling and all benefits intact.

Losty Dublin

AngryLips wrote: »

While the entire question of the gatekeepers renumeration is kind of off-topic, what he gets in his pension would depend on the pension scheme in question. Given that it's a semi-state I'm guessing a defined-benefit pension that doesn't necessarily require a contribution from the employee in order to pay out.

It's worth pointing out here as well that if the man in charge of the gates was a temporary staff member, he'd not have any pension entitlement or any security of job tenure.

Cookie_Monster

Gardai were notified of the accident but no prosecution was taken.

^From the Indo^

So it seems it's perfectly ok to have illegal drugs in your system and endanger hundreds of commuters and rail staff, WTF?

foggy_lad

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

^From the Indo^

So it seems it's perfectly ok to have illegal drugs in your system and endanger hundreds of commuters and rail staff, WTF?

How many train and bus drivers are over the limit on a Monday morning yet their unions won't allow testing.

n97 mini

Terrontress wrote: »

If all he does is open and close a gate then I can't see it being contributory.

Would it be contributory if he was off his tits? Unable to see straight?

schemingbohemia

If foggy lad had read the report he would see that IE have a policy of testing 5% of staff on a random basis, but why let facts get in the way.:rolleyes:

For the Garda to have submitted a file to the DPP what offence would the gatekeeper have committed, ie which Act?

goingnowhere

schemingbohemia wrote: »

If foggy lad had read the report he would see that IE have a policy of testing 5% of staff on a random basis, but why let facts get in the way.:rolleyes:

For the Garda to have submitted a file to the DPP what offence would the gatekeeper have committed, ie which Act?

Railway Safety Act 2005 sec 110/111 and others

dowlingm

I'd say foggy would want the Offences Against The State Act at least.

Railway Safety Act 2005 seems to be the current legislation, starting from section 87. It looks like if they had pressed the point that 6 months/5000 euro was a possibility (section 109). IANAL, however.

CaptainSkidmark

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So the keeper was baked at work
I hope he got ****ed out on his ear, could so easily have been deaths cos he was wasted.

Thats not what it said at all, it said there was cannibis in his system, it did not say he was stoned on the job.



Also someone asked what there is manual gates doing in buttevant on the main line... There are approx 4-5 manual gates on the line between Mallow and charleville

mickydoomsux

foggy_lad wrote: »

How many train and bus drivers are over the limit on a Monday morning yet their unions won't allow testing.

Completely and utterly incorrect as usual.

All IE and BE staff in safety critical positions (i.e. anywhere near passengers or rolling stock basically) are subject to random mandatory drug and alcohol testing and if you don't comply you can and will be dismissed, same thing if you fail a test.

This was agreed to by the union a good few years ago. But don't let facts get in the way of your crusade.

foggy_lad

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Completely and utterly incorrect as usual.

All IE and BE staff in safety critical positions (i.e. anywhere near passengers or rolling stock basically) are subject to random mandatory drug and alcohol testing and if you don't comply you can and will be dismissed, same thing if you fail a test.

This was agreed to by the union a good few years ago. But don't let facts get in the way of your crusade.

How many are done on a Monday morning? If they were serious about safety they would have more regularized breath testing for all drivers as with testing only 5% of staff randomly many will seep through the cracks and may even be pre warned of testing knowing the culture of looking after comrades within CIE companies.

Cookie_Monster

5%/ 200 a year seems low enough tbh. I would expect personally if I were in such an industry to be tested at least once a year randomly. How many of the ~4,200 are front line, clearly that'd make the % a bit more meaningful.

CaptainSkidmark wrote: »

Thats not what it said at all, it said there was cannibis in his system, it did not say he was stoned on the job.

either way, illegal drugs in his system = compromised

tfitzgerald

At least no one was hurt. and surely the driver of the wagon that hit the fate must be partly at fault

Cookie_Monster

tfitzgerald wrote: »

At least no one was hurt. and surely the driver of the wagon that hit the fate must be partly at fault

why do you think that?

If he got a correct signal to proceed* through the section then he would do so without issue. Loco's that size don't exactly stop on a dime so even if he saw the gate in advance maybe there was simply not enough distance to stop it regardless.

*presumption, I'm not going to read the report through to check

-Chris-

foggy_lad wrote: »

How many are done on a Monday morning? If they were serious about safety they would have more regularized breath testing for all drivers as with testing only 5% of staff randomly many will seep through the cracks and may even be pre warned of testing knowing the culture of looking after comrades within CIE companies.

I've had a company car for the last 10 years, and I drive for a living. I've never been asked to do any kind of testing.

I'd think a 5% mandatory random testing is a fairly progressive and fair system. I don't think there's much to criticise about it tbh.

Cookie_Monster

-Chris- wrote: »

I've had a company car for the last 10 years, and I drive for a living. I've never been asked to do any kind of testing.

but you are not responsible for the safety of several hundred people when you're behind the wheel though.

That's the difference.

I'm not disagreeing it's not a good system to have in place but 5% seems low, you could go 20 years without being tested...

-Chris-

You only need the percentage to be high enough that people think it's not worth the risk. I wonder how 5% compares to other industries or countries.

Losty Dublin

tfitzgerald wrote: »

At least no one was hurt. and surely the driver of the wagon that hit the fate must be partly at fault

The driver of the PW car set off a warning light in the cab to notifythe gate keeper that he was approaching the crossing gate before the Cork train. Once the gate was opened, it set off a signal which gave his train a proceed aspect; he had every reason to assume the gate would be opened for him. It was solely due to the gatekeeper's error that the gate was closed again after the Cork bound train passed through so he has only himself to blame here.

foggy_lad

-Chris- wrote: »

You only need the percentage to be high enough that people think it's not worth the risk. I wonder how 5% compares to other industries or countries.

The problems are with the whole "old boys club"/unionised attitudes in companies like Irish Rail where staff will never inform on another menber of staff no matter how serious their wrong-doing is or they would have to resign as nobody would work with them and they may even be in danger at work.

In this type of athmosphere safety checks and breath/blood testing may not be so random and workers can be forewarned as management or others who are responsible for testing do not want the hassle of strike action resulting from the sacking of another employee for being drunk or stoned on company time.

from the report http://www.raiu.ie/uploads/raiu/2011R004Rev1_Buttevant.pdf

1.5.2 IÉ Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Standard Documents
Section 89 ‗Sampling for Drugs‘, of the Railway Safety Act 2005 (the Act) identifies where an authorised person may require a safety critical worker to provide a sample of blood or urine. Two occurrences where drug sampling are required are:
 In the case of an incident, where the safety critical worker concerned was performing or had performed a safety critical task on the railway infrastructure, or on the train, which was involved in the incident;
 At random and in circumstances that are reasonable, where a safety critical worker is performing a safety critical task or has made himself or herself available to perform a safety critical task by attending work.
To comply with the Act, IÉ‘s Chief Safety & Security Officer issued IÉ‘s ―Drugs & Alcohol Policy‖ in August 2007, which describes the reasons why the policy exists, the scope and objectives of the policy, the responsibilities of line management, human resource management and employees. Section 8 of this policy ‗Responsibilities of employees‘ states:

―Employees must not report for duty under the influence of, nor consume when on duty, alcohol or performance impairing drugs‖.
Section 10 of this policy, ‗Circumstances in which testing is carried out‘ states:
―As part of our normal selection process, all persons applying for employment within IÉ will be subject to testing for drugs. Existing employees transferring into a safety critical post will be subject to testing for drugs:
 Following a safety critical incident (whether an accident or other incident), where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the actions or omissions of a person were pertinent to the incident, then that person must be subject to evidential alcohol and drugs testing;

 Where there is reason to suspect that a person is unfit to perform normal duties through the
effects of alcohol or drugs then that person must be removed from duty and arrangements put
in place for alcohol and drugs testing of the person concerned;
 Randomly, 5% of IÉ‘s employees will be subject to testing for drugs each year.‖
The policy also provides information on the short and long term affects of drugs and alcohol. In
relation to Cannabis the policy states that the effects as ―A relaxed, often talkative or giggly state. It
affects concentration and co-ordination, making accidents more likely.‖
At the time of the accident IÉ‘s Drugs & Alcohol Policy had not been fully adopted, in that the 5%
random testing of IÉ‘s employees for drugs each year had not been implemented in full.
Random testing was introduced by IÉ in March 2010. IÉ proposed that 100 safety critical workers
required random testing for the remainder of 2010, a number agreed with the RSC. In fact, IÉ tested
101 of the 3,600 safety critical workers, achieving 2.8% random testing.
The Gate Keeper was subjected to the screening for drugs post accident, as per IÉ‘s Drugs and
Alcohol Policy, for which he tested positive for Cannabis on the 2nd July 2010. IÉ‘s Chief Medical
Officer (CMO) states, in his report dated the 8th July 2010, that the presence of this substance in the
Gate Keeper‘s system ―has significant implications for his ability to perform his duties in a safe and satisfactory manner‖.

the percentage is so small that people could be pretty sure they would never be tested or would be pre-warned of any testing and just not turn up for work that day or go home sick before the testers got around to them. Also worth noting is that phrase"At random and in circumstances that are reasonable" an employee can deem the circumstances unreasonable and will have the backing of others and the union and the fact that non safety critical workers are not subject to any testing.

-Chris-

I guess that's a different issue - the policy may be sound, but the implementation dreadful (as seems to happen here).

super_furry

I just can't think of anything buy Soupy Norman right now.

Losty Dublin

foggy_lad wrote: »

The problems are with the whole "old boys club"/unionised attitudes in companies like Irish Rail where staff will never inform on another menber of staff no matter how serious their wrong-doing is or they would have to resign as nobody would work with them and they may even be in danger at work.

In this type of athmosphere safety checks and breath/blood testing may not be so random and workers can be forewarned as management or others who are responsible for testing do not want the hassle of strike action resulting from the sacking of another employee for being drunk or stoned on company time.

The tests are carried out unannounced and without any warning and in the presense of an independent doctor or nurse and no amount of union reps, buddies. Safety critical staff are also health vetted and have been for years but never let facts get in the way of another of your shaggy dog stories :rolleyes:

mickydoomsux

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The tests are carried out unannounced and without any warning and in the presense of an independent doctor or nurse and no amount of union reps, buddies. Safety critical staff are also health vetted and have been for years but never let facts get in the way of another of your shaggy dog stories :rolleyes:

Was just about to post this. And i've heard first hand from drivers about tests carried out first thing on a Monday morning. I've been on premises when others have been randomly tested. I was on duty one day and a driver passed a signal at danger and he was brought to my station by the district manager straight from the cab of the train and he didn't leave his sight until two hours later when the independent doctor finally arrived.

No one hears about the test beforehand. I could literally walk in the door tomorrow morning to start my shift and be told to give a sample the second i walk in the door, same thing when i'm signing off duty or at any stage during the day.

But don't let that stop you Foggy, keep talking about CIE like it's still the seventies or eighties when things were genuinely terrible in the company.

tfitzgerald

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The driver of the PW car set off a warning light in the cab to notifythe gate keeper that he was approaching the crossing gate before the Cork train. Once the gate was opened, it set off a signal which gave his train a proceed aspect; he had every reason to assume the gate would be opened for him. It was solely due to the gatekeeper's error that the gate was closed again after the Cork bound train passed through so he has only himself to blame here.

Fair enough island corrected

cbl593h

What would the IÉ slant on this be then???

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Woman-depressed-attacks-work/story-12722926-detail/story.html

L1011

super_furry wrote: »

I just can't think of anything buy Soupy Norman right now.

I have a customer in Buttevant, every site callout leads to Soupy jokes in the office...

Carawaystick

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

either way, illegal drugs in his system = compromised

This is such a stoopid system for categorising the effect of drugs on a person.

Firstly it is well documented that cannabis can be detected in someones blood or hair or other samples long (>2 weeks) after taking the drug, when there is no effect of the drug on the person.

Secondly implying that the legalness of the drug has any bearing of the effect of the drug on a person is stoopid. All the psuedo-cocaine drugs ( plant food) sold before the headshops ban came in were legal. Some were desperate stuff and no-one working in a safety position should have been under the influence while taking them. You are saying cos they were legal that's alright.

On Illegal drugs.
I was prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug Aulin back in 2003. It was banned shortly afterwards. I still had some and I kept taking it to reduce my symptoms even though it was banned here. Would I have been compromised by using it?

Similarily some statin drugs are made in Ringaskiddy to reduce cholesterol. they sell here for much more than in Spain and in Spain you can buy them off prescription. However in Spain, as it's a wee bit warmer than here the drugs are life tested at a 30degC temp, rather than the 25 deg C temp the Irish Medicine board uses here. So it's illegal to sell the same drug, made in Cork and sole in Spain here.

Neither the statins or Aulin affect the users behaviour in any way. are you saying these users of these drugs are compromised? or are you going to row back and go for a subset of illegal drugs?

Hilly Bill

AngryLips wrote: »

While the entire question of the gatekeepers renumeration is kind of off-topic, what he gets in his pension would depend on the pension scheme in question. Given that it's a semi-state I'm guessing a defined-benefit pension that doesn't necessarily require a contribution from the employee in order to pay out.

If he was paying anything at all then all he will get is the value of the pension up to the day he was sacked .

snickerpuss

All the wildly incorrect assumptions about pensions/drug testing etc in this thread really amuse me. Why do people feel the need to basically make stuff up? The blind hatred for Irish Rail is probably only surpassed by the blind hatred for the Irish language. As someone impartial I find it bizarre. As mickydoomsux says keep on talkin like the old days! Weird.

DWCommuter

snickerpuss wrote: »

All the wildly incorrect assumptions about pensions/drug testing etc in this thread really amuse me. Why do people feel the need to basically make stuff up? The blind hatred for Irish Rail is probably only surpassed by the blind hatred for the Irish language. As someone impartial I find it bizarre. As mickydoomsux says keep on talkin like the old days! Weird.

I despise Irish Rail and this is my first contribution to this thread. My hatred is not blind. I know all about the the random testing and the effect on drivers etc. So please do not think that all the negative CIE/IE stuff is based on making stuff up. Its not. CIE is an abomination and has affected public opinion. It may be inaccurate opinion in some respects, but overall it is driven by a very justified and verifiable litany of failure.

snickerpuss

DWCommuter wrote: »

I despise Irish Rail and this is my first contribution to this thread. My hatred is not blind. I know all about the the random testing and the effect on drivers etc. So please do not think that all the negative CIE/IE stuff is based on making stuff up. Its not. CIE is an abomination and has affected public opinion. It may be inaccurate opinion in some respects, but overall it is driven by a very justified and verifiable litany of failure.

What I'm refering to is people coming here and posting 'Well typical Irish Rail and their typical union won't agree to any random drug testing' when that is patently untrue. It is comments like these that make me think people will make up/believe any old rubbish because of a grudge against IR. I've no problem with legit grievances, I by no means find the company perfect nor was I suggesting they are. However, posters who continually post factually incorrect information about the company only serve to make it seem like they have a blind hatred of IR. I'm a stickler for truth not made up rubbish. That's all I meant by that comment it's just something I seem to notice everytime I pop by this forum!

Terrontress

If 5% are tested per year does that mean, if they don't do anyone more than once, that it will take twenty years to ensure every safety critical employee is tested?

When you couple to that the fact that even those who are over the limit regularly might be tested on a day when they are under then it seems all the more ridiculous.

If I show up to work drunk 50% of the time then I'll hopefully get away with it for forty years.

I think that 5% should be tested per month!

schemingbohemia

Terrontress wrote: »

If 5% are tested per year does that mean, if they don't do anyone more than once, that it will take twenty years to ensure every safety critical employee is tested?

When you couple to that the fact that even those who are over the limit regularly might be tested on a day when they are under then it seems all the more ridiculous.

If I show up to work drunk 50% of the time then I'll hopefully get away with it for forty years.

I think that 5% should be tested per month!

Are you being deliberately stupid? 5% is a minimum! Where employees are suspected of being under the influence then they would obviously be targetted for testing. The Railway Safety Commission have decided that the 5% rate is satisfactory and I think they might know a bit more than you about rail safety.