District line staff walk out in support of driver ‘who went through three reds

[whole diary]

[CJB666]

District line staff walk out in support of driver ‘who went through three red lights’

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) Tube strike 2018: Fury as District line staff walk out in support of driver ‘who went through three red lights’

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-tube-strike-2018-fury-as-district-line-staff-walk-out-in-support-of-driver-who-went-through-a3812231.html

Passengers are to be hit tomorrow [Friday] by a District line walk-out over a Tube driver alleged to have passed three red signals in his 11 weeks driving.

He had been qualified for 18 weeks but due to sickness, retraining and a compulsory removal from duty only drove for 11, London Underground claims. Two of the signals passed at danger (spads) were within a four-week period.

Nigel Holness, director of network operations at London Underground (LU), said it was “simply not safe for this employee to continue in a role as a driver”. LU refused to identify the severity of the spads — which could derail a train — or where they took place.

[TaplowGreen]

Sounds like LU have bent over backwards and this is just the usual RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)/ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) opportunism.

In the majority of Businesses I suspect the individual would be seeking alternative employment by now.

[Ralph Ayres]

Contrary to what the Standard claims, a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) is highly unlikely to derail a train as the signal positions are designed such that the train will be stopped automatically short of any danger.  It does seem that LU are ignoring the process they themselves have in place relating to trainees who have problems during their training. It may well be that this trainee does prove not suitable to be a driver but LU shouldn't be trying to circumvent the agreed process. It may for instance actually reflect shortcomings on the part of the trainer.

[ChrisB]

It has been reported that they have followed due process & and moved him to a station-based job while retraining is taking place.

[Phantom]

How much of that line is above ground?
Would be interesting to know what he was looking at if he couldn't see a red light in a dark tunnel

[paul7575]

How much of that line is above ground?
Would be interesting to know what he was looking at if he couldn't see a red light in a dark tunnel

Don’t have exact figures but a significant majority of the District is on the surface. 

Paul

[SandTEngineer]

Contrary to what the Standard claims, a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) is highly unlikely to derail a train as the signal positions are designed such that the train will be stopped automatically short of any danger.  It does seem that LU are ignoring the process they themselves have in place relating to trainees who have problems during their training. It may well be that this trainee does prove not suitable to be a driver but LU shouldn't be trying to circumvent the agreed process. It may for instance actually reflect shortcomings on the part of the trainer.

I'm afraid I have to challenge you on that.  There are lots of places on LU where a SPAD by a passenger train could involve an eventual derailment, albeit a protected one to other traffic.