Clear and concise comms
Reports received from passenger operators led Right Track to consider ‘SCC’ in the round. Are yours as clear and concise as they should be?
If an incident happens on the railway, one of the first things that needs to be done is to raise the alarm. If you’re a driver, that’ll be with the signaller. If you’re a dispatcher, it might be with the train manager. If you’re a track worker, it might be with the engineering supervisor. All these conversations are ‘safety critical communications’. But are they always as clear, concise and accurate as they need to be?
What if a signaller told a driver that they would be given permission to pass a signal at danger? If that signaller used the words ‘authorised’ and ‘my permission’ in explaining the movements, but before formally giving permission, confusion – and a SPAD – could follow.
RED 48 on clear communications covered a similar misunderstanding. The dramatisation in that safety video involves a freight driver reporting a technical problem to a trainee signaller. The driver can’t get power and asks for time to investigate, with the promise that he’ll report back afterwards.
The signaller confirms the information back to the driver. The driver says that if he needs to go outside to investigate, he will be in touch. The signaller says: ‘OK, you can do that driver, keep in touch.’ Just to be sure, the driver asks him to repeat this, which he does: ‘Yeah, you can do that now driver.’
Back in the cab, the driver calls his maintenance control. He states his location and says that he has come to a stand. He explains his technical problem and control suggests carrying out a rotational test. The driver confirms and says he will contact the signaller before reporting back. He puts on his high-visibility jacket and calls the box again. He speaks to the signaller and asks for the Up Slow and Down Fast to be blocked; the signaller repeats the driver’s request. The latter asks if he has clearance to go and check his train.
The signaller says he needs to make sure the area is clear of trains. He tells the driver that he will call back. The driver thanks him but leaves the cab anyway. As he is checking his train, an express on the adjacent line powers through, causing him to dive to the ground and under the shelter of the wagon.
Both driver and signaller were at cross purposes. Their failure to communicate meant that the driver thought he had the line blockage he needed, while the signaller thought the driver was waiting for confirmation of that fact. A near miss that, in the real world, could have been worse.
However, anecdotal evidence is now suggesting a reluctance on the part of some staff to use comms protocols because they’re too embarrassed to do so. This came to light in 2019, when RAIB investigated an incident in which a tamper made an unauthorised move of about 600 metres, ran over a junction and into Platform 3 at Balham. A passenger train had traversed the same junction just 75 seconds before.
The causes included the person in charge of the possession providing incomplete information about the position of the tamper. RAIB’s report also says that ‘the standard of safety critical communications was poor throughout, resulting in no party having a clear understanding of the location of the tamper or the actions to be taken’.
RAIB identified that, over the 20 years leading to the incident, safety critical communications had ‘not been embedded as standard practice in the rail industry’. This was partly down to competence and training, partly down to monitoring. And some signallers were too embarrassed to use ‘formal methods of communication’ like the phonetic alphabet.
Recently, reports have been received of some drivers not using the GSM-R for emergency calls. They too feel embarrassed but are also worried about stopping the job. While this is understandable to some extent, imagine what could happen if that need for urgency was not put over. Could a secondary collision or a derailment ensue? Is that a chance we ought to be taking?
It’s vital that we maintain our professionalism when using safety-critical comms, but that’s not only when on the radio or telephone – it’s face-to-face and ‘on the ground’ too.
Over the years, the industry has done a lot of work to improve verbal safety critical communications, much of which can be found on our website by searching ‘safety critical communications’.
When making a safety critical call, be sure to:
Overcome communication barriers:
use the best communication position
speak slightly slower at a good volume
avoid ambiguous language and regional words; keep jargon to a minimum
use the protocols and structure your conversation
confirm understanding – repeat back.
Avoid monotonous and unnecessary repeat-back:
think about what you’re saying and what it means.
Use active listening and neutral questions to confirm understanding.
