Failed Unit
Established Member
It was mentioned, saying the driver had on had the instruction 3 months ago. The train was not sheduled to stop at Finsbury Park.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Commuter dragged after hand stuck in door
- Thread starter maniacmartin
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The report does not mention that the driver was "instructed that stopping over points was not a good place to stop".
The report says
"The Rule Book makes clear that, if a train is leaving a station, the requirement to stop the train takes precedence over any consideration of unsuitable places to stop."
"The training material does not explain this"
"the incident driver, who had completed his training three months before the incident, believed that he was required to make a rapid judgement call"
So is it your assertion that FCC's training material contradicts the Rule Book?
Failed Unit
Established Member
Yes - Easy for me to say from the armchair however. But that is how I interpreted the comments, that the driver felt from his instructions he was doing the right thing. He wasn't of course, but I interpret that the training was a factor.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Some sloppy reporting from the Sub-Standard again.
Even at KX any unit would be going faster than an average person can run within one coach-length, so there is no way this lady could have been dragged for more than 20 metres. Likewise, given that it was a Cl365 and that the doors are physically latched closed, there isn't actually much assistance that the passengers can render from inside the train in terms of helping to free her fingers. Therefore it seems plausible to me that the lady in question was able to free herself from the door in exactly the way that has been described but only did so when it became a matter of self-preservation, which is why she went along the platform with the train (running alongside rather than actually being dragged, I suspect).
It pains me to say it, but it does seem that staff error is going to be a causal factor here. The problem with DOO despatch is that once the RA has been given there is no way to take it back again should a problem be discovered. Consequently the driver is going to be unaware of any problems with despatch unless a PASSCOM gets pulled. But once the PASSCOM had been pulled the train should have been stopped. There could be mitigating circumstances to explain the driver's behaviour and the decision to continue to Finsbury Park (e.g. the person pulling the PASSCOM telling the driver that there was no problem; the woman managed to free herself, after all), but we shall have to wait and see what the RAIB discover.
O L Leigh
Even at KX any unit would be going faster than an average person can run within one coach-length, so there is no way this lady could have been dragged for more than 20 metres. Likewise, given that it was a Cl365 and that the doors are physically latched closed, there isn't actually much assistance that the passengers can render from inside the train in terms of helping to free her fingers. Therefore it seems plausible to me that the lady in question was able to free herself from the door in exactly the way that has been described but only did so when it became a matter of self-preservation, which is why she went along the platform with the train (running alongside rather than actually being dragged, I suspect).
It pains me to say it, but it does seem that staff error is going to be a causal factor here. The problem with DOO despatch is that once the RA has been given there is no way to take it back again should a problem be discovered. Consequently the driver is going to be unaware of any problems with despatch unless a PASSCOM gets pulled. But once the PASSCOM had been pulled the train should have been stopped. There could be mitigating circumstances to explain the driver's behaviour and the decision to continue to Finsbury Park (e.g. the person pulling the PASSCOM telling the driver that there was no problem; the woman managed to free herself, after all), but we shall have to wait and see what the RAIB discover.
O L Leigh
tsr
Established Member
I'm not terribly familiar with the class of unit involved. Could the passengers on the interior have pulled the emergency exit handle to stop the train and open the door? Perhaps there should also be a mandatory notice by such devices - "If the train moves with anything trapped in a door, pull this handle" or something like that.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
Not that lessons shouldn't be learned from this, or to downplay the seriousness of it, but literally millions of people manage to use these (and similar) trains every year without any hassle...
There is a big difference between -
- inadequate training, where a driver who does not understand the clear instruction from the Rule Book of "the requirement to stop the train takes precedence over any consideration of unsuitable places to stop", is allowed to drive a train; and
- FCC training their staff to do something that the Rule Books says not to do, which I consider would be a very serious matter indeed.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
The fact that the driver has the power to override the passenger communication system adds to the safety of it, rather than detracting from it.
So it seems to me to be blindingly obvious that you do not despatch a train unless you are absolutely certain it is safe to do so.
It seems that this incident has revealed unsafe practices that had grown up, and should have been stamped on with force.
The RAIB seem to disagree with you with their statement "Trains must be stopped immediately if the passenger communication alarm is activated while any part of the train is in, or has just left, a station."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But the driver should act on it accordingly, which the RAIB found that they did not do in this case, since they did not follow the clear instructions in the Rule Book.
Don't 365 alarms allow passengers to speak to the driver? If they did, a driver wouldn't need to guess the best course of action.
The woman is clearly to blame, as she rushed after hearing the alarm (by then it's too late) but the staff on the platform are paid to protect these idiots from themselves, and will have to shoulder a lot of the blame too.
The woman is clearly to blame, as she rushed after hearing the alarm (by then it's too late) but the staff on the platform are paid to protect these idiots from themselves, and will have to shoulder a lot of the blame too.
Despite drivers not following the Rule Book and trains being despached incorrectly.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Thank you, RAIB. Personally I'd like to wait for your final report before leaping to any quick conclusions. :roll:
Which bit of my statement? The bit where I said "But once the PASSCOM had been pulled the train should have been stopped"...?
Sheesh...!! Wind it in a bit, mate.
O L Leigh
The driver doesn't have to guess. The RAIB says "Trains must be stopped immediately if the passenger communication alarm is activated while any part of the train is in, or has just left, a station."
So it does not matter what the passenger says. Train partly in station, alarm pulled, train stops. Simple.
cjp
Member
How?
I have seen guards mid train closing the doors and giving the RA signal and they have no access to brakes as there used to be in the old guards vans etc
Would a guard not have to get in contact with the driver and see if they would stop the train? (Unlike the driver in this instance who wrongly overrode the alarm perhaps they might heed the guard?)
The bit where you said "There could be mitigating circumstances to explain the driver's behaviour and the decision to continue to Finsbury Park".
The rules are clear. The driver should have stopped straight away.
cjp
Member
I read here that FCC are hot on prosecutions but really raising this point is, I feel going a bit too far since luckily no real harm was done and hopefully lessons have been learned all round.
Using the same buzzer as they used to give the RA they'd buzz once (probably one long buzz at that) which tells the driver to stop the train.
Are you sure that is RA, and not a Ready to Start button (for the signaller) which then displays "OFF" on a similar style light up display down the platform (as in signal is off/at a proceed aspect)?
Wherever on the train the guard is dispatching from they will have access to the Guard-Driver buzzers, and as Failed Unit said earlier the "long buzz" would quickly inform the driver the train must be stopped. A full list of Bell Codes are available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_code
In any case with the local door open the interlock (?) means the train simply won't move anyway.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Yes, as I believe I have already said.
However, that doesn't mean that there wasn't some reasoning behind continuing. If the driver had picked up the intercom and been told by the passenger that "sorry, everything is OK" it may help to explain why the train continued, as the driver may simply have thought the PASSCOM had been operated in error and simply needed to be reset and elected to do it at a location where the least delay was caused. I'm not saying that this is the correct course of action, but it may help to explain his actions.
The problems are not necessarily the consequence of the training received. We always have it drummed into us that our jobs are safety first, but equally we have to account for delays and are under pressure for performance (likewise for the despatcher). Consequently the need to go back and reset a PASSCOM while stationary in the throat at Kings Cross would have been disruptive. If the driver believed it was a spurious activation he may have considered that the main issue was not relating to safety but to performance and did not wish to be stung for the additional delays such actions would have caused.
But the bottom line is that we don't know. The rules are there to be followed, but at times things go wrong and staff do the wrong things from time to time. But often the causes are not simple or straightforward and do not always point to a deficiency with the staff members themselves.
O L Leigh
If that was the case then the Rule Book would not have the very clear statement that it does.
If FCC management are encouraging/frightening drivers into putting passenger safety before profit, then that behaviour needs to be exposed.
cjp
Member
Did you read the RAIB report?
The report states
Thedriver assumed that there was a problem inside the train. He decided that an immediate brake application was inappropriate because this would delay evening peak services, and because the train would have stopped over points, a location where, according to his training, it would be difficult to provide assistance to passengers.
47 Although the incident driver acted contrary to the railway Rule Book, post incident enquiries by FCC showed that a significant number of its drivers would have made the same decision.
As I said lessons have been learned which seem to be
that passengers can and do sometimes behave irrationally (like lemmings)
And
Railway Staff should obey rules designed to to promote safe working.
And FCC seem to accept this even if this forum wishes still to debate matters.
And to those who told me how guards can signal to get a train stopped - thank you.
For which the penalty is death?
A moron might try to board the train while the doors are beeping, but so might a deaf person.
If a train can depart a station while physically attached to person on the platform, as others have said, there are lessons to be learned. This opportunity should not be missed.
I'm sure either I read or someone told me once that modern trains have an electrical circuit that goes through the doors so when they're closed it's complete but broken when they're open; so whilst their open, the train is effectively paralyzed. Balloney?
Surely the TOC has the same duty of care to either. Some people are stupid - it's not their fault, just something in them.
True in most cases but not all. Some engines that pull loco hauled coaching stock are not compatible with said stock re bell/buzzer communication. Therefore there is no effective means of communication between the driver & guard whilst the train is on the move. The RA (right away) can be given in various means not limited to a green flag/lamp or dispatch staff setting the RA indicator at main stations. The guard of course (if departing the train from the van) will have access to the emergency brake to stop the train if required or can use the pass-comm if elsewhere (this WILL stop the train as there is no override)
O L Leigh
Established Member
Yes I did. I was merely hypothesising on a likely scenario that could have lead the driver into making the incorrect decision.
However, the report does highlight that, while the driver failed to stop the train, he was unaware of the nature of the problem. If he believed that the problem was on-board he would have been correct in his thinking that the fastest and easiest place to render assistance would have been with the train fully in a platform which lead him into taking the wrong course of action.
I don't believe that I have disputed this.
O L Leigh
Ah yes good points, I was in unit mode! Thanks.
O L Leigh
Established Member
It's called a door interlock circuit, so not baloney.
The problem here was that the doors WERE all closed and that the lady's fingers were trapped in the rubber door seals which had deformed around her hand. Basically, the obstruction was not sufficiently large to prevent the doors from closing.
O L Leigh
I am happy to wait for the investigation, but will add that FCC have placed covers over all of the alarms in recent years. In fact, one concern was when I was on a train where a fight broke out and someone (reluctantly at first, but then realising not doing so could lead to someone being killed) pulled at the cover and the metal tag pulled out - leaving the cover on. Luckily, as it had perforated edges it was eventually taken off - but NOT a very good thing to have happen in an emergency.
This was on a 317/1 though, but what if it happened on this train too?
However, with the 365s, I think the last report (Huntingdon) pointed out that the positioning of the alarms was a factor. They're really not in a sensible place at all (and let's ignore how someone in a wheelchair could ever hope to use it). Stickers have been put on with arrows showing the alarm position, and then there's the cover to tear off again.
I'd say (my opinion) that if an alarm goes off on a 365 then it's unlikely to be by mistake.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Granted.
My point was that, as the woman had managed to free herself just prior to the PASSCOM being operated, it is likely that the driver was given misleading information and potentially even been reassured over the intercom that there was NO problem.
O L Leigh
- Status