Station platforms, it's gone too far, it's crossed a red line (literally)

[The Planner]

Why is being killed the metric? Surely being injured is bad enough?

 

[Agent_Squash]

Even without the H&S war of words, Piccadilly's red lines need to vanish. Instead, there needs to be a proper investment in making the platforms suitable for the traffic they handle.

 

[Justin Smith]

And the legislative background in this country (thankfully) means you can't acknowledge a risk exists and just do nothing about it.

Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable care ? For that matter, what happened to the concept of personal responsibility ?
One of the unintended side effects of making the world so safe people do not have to think for themselves is that, in some ways, it makes it more dangerous because, err, people stop thinking for themselves and so take no care because "other people take care of my safety"....

Bur nobody has yet answered the basic question anyway, if it has been safe for 150 years, why is it no longer safe ? And if the answer is because our risk aversion has gone up so what was considered safe is no longer thought of as safe enough, the obvious question is where does that end ?
And how much is all this costing ? If making the railways 100% safe costs so much it puts up the price of the tickets more people will drive and, ironically, get killed.....

Why is being killed the metric? Surely being injured is bad enough?

How seriously ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah the anti hsea crusdaer strikes again. It isnt worth trying to engage with this poster. He has no intrest in facts and merely wants to complain about hsea gone mad.

The Piccadilly situation IS a nonsense, to be fair to him. If only because of the nature of the staff involved.

 

[Justin Smith]

1 - It is also clear you don't like being told what to do

2 - by people you consider beneath you.

First point, correct, particularly if I cannot see any point to it.
Speed limits ? Yes I can see the point of them and so adhere even if PC Plod is not about.
Being told to step back from the edge of the platform, no I cannot see the point of that and object to being told I am incapable of making my own risk assessment for my own safety. I am not a child.

Second point, incorrect, and I feel insulted you have drawn that inference.

 

[The Planner]

Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable care ? For that matter, what happened to the concept of personal responsibility ?
One of the unintended side effects of making the world so safe people do not have to think for themselves is that, in some ways, it makes it more dangerous because, err, people stop thinking for themselves and so take no care because "other people take care of my safety"....

Bur nobody has yet answered the basic question anyway, if it has been safe for 150 years, why is it no longer safe ? And if the answer is because our risk aversion has gone up so what was considered safe is no longer thought of as safe enough, the obvious question is where does that end ?
And how much is all this costing ? If making the railways 100% safe costs so much it puts up the price of the tickets more people will drive and, ironically, get killed.....


How seriously ?

No idea, what are current categories apart from death and life changing? Broken limbs, required to go to hospital, minor injury, trip slip and fall?

 

[Justin Smith]

the world has changed and you don't understand it anymore.

Ahh, we agree on one thing. TBH I don't much like it anymore either. I would far rather have bought my son up in the 70s or 80s, and most parents (particularly older parents) think the same way

No idea, what are current categories apart from death and life changing? Broken limbs, required to go to hospital, minor injury, trip slip and fall?

Death is objective, you are either dead or you aren't, but injuries ares less so

 

[The Planner]

Ahh, we agree on one thing. TBH I don't much like it anymore either. I would far rather have bought my son up in the 70s or 80s, and most parents (particularly older parents) think the same way


Death is objective, you are either dead or you aren't, but injuries ares less so

So injuries should be ignored and because "no one died" its ok?

 

[setdown]

Used Pic 13/14 for the first time in a couple of years last week, what a grim experience. Besides the lines and staff shouting over it, someone was shouting over the tannoy things that the auto announcer said literally two seconds before. Over and over again. Would rather try and change at Oxford Road next time. Maybe that's the point!

It all seems rather moot when a 2-car 156 turns up and it takes far too long to get people off and on. The whole thing is a mess.

 

[Ken H]

No idea, what are current categories apart from death and life changing? Broken limbs, required to go to hospital, minor injury, trip slip and fall?

I think there is a standard system for calculating the effects of injuries as a proportion of a death. So losing a leg = .23 of a death (made that up but you get the idea). Most industries have a threshold of cost per deaths prevented to asses safety measures.

 

[Agent_Squash]

It also doesn't help that UK passengers seem to have a habit of crowding round the doors making it so the disembarking passengers have to squeeze through the crowd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also doesn't help that UK passengers seem to have a habit of crowding round the doors making it so the disembarking passengers have to squeeze through the crowd.

It is feral at Picc - the "if you don't move I can't get off so you won't get on" thing works on the Tube, but if you try it at Picc they push you out of the way.

The cause of it is lack of capacity, people are physically fighting for seats. If there were enough seats there would not be a problem, you simply don't see the same thing* on a 12 car on the south WCML. There is jostling for position by people after specific seats (e.g. legroom), but not physical violence.

Unsurprisingly it is less of an issue when a 6 car 331 rocks up. The answer to it is therefore obvious, and it isn't security guards who look like they'll push you off in front of a train if you even look at them the wrong way. Controlling your customers through fear so you comply when they are providing an unacceptable level of service is not an acceptable approach. Even Ryanair don't do that.

* You do see the Euston scrum on ICs, and it has a similar cause.

 

[bramling]

It is feral at Picc - the "if you don't move I can't get off so you won't get on" thing works on the Tube, but if you try it at Picc they push you out of the way.

The cause of it is lack of capacity, people are physically fighting for seats. If there were enough seats there would not be a problem, you simply don't see the same thing on a 12 car on the south WCML. There is jostling for position by people after specific seats (e.g. legroom), but not physical violence.

Unsurprisingly it is less of an issue when a 6 car 331 rocks up. The answer to it is therefore obvious, and it isn't security guards who look like they'll push you off in front of a train if you even look at them the wrong way. Controlling your customers through fear so you comply when they are providing an unacceptable level of service is not an acceptable approach. Even Ryanair don't do that.

I’ve always avoided the through platforms at Picc for this reason, though of course this is not always practicable if travelling west / north. Seems like the red lines have simply added a further dimension of unpleasantness. As you say, if people feel the need to fight for seats then capacity is insufficient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve always avoided the through platforms at Picc for this reason, though of course this is not always practicable if travelling west / north. Seems like the red lines have simply added a further dimension of unpleasantness. As you say, if people feel the need to fight for seats then capacity is insufficient.

If everything was operated using 3 or 6.195 or 331 (or 197 as the door positions are the same), with the door positions marked on the platform and displays and announcements clearly saying if it was 3 or 6, then there wouldn't be nearly half the problem. And we aren't that far off being able to do that.

 

[zwk500]

First point, correct, particularly if I cannot see any point to it.
Speed limits ? Yes I can see the point of them and so adhere even if PC Plod is not about.
Being told to step back from the edge of the platform, no I cannot see the point of that and object to being told I am incapable of making my own risk assessment for my own safety. I am not a child.

Are you a qualified expert on every kind of hazard then? You have the requisite knowledge and experience to competently review any risk assessment in every environment?

Sometimes the risk isn't obvious, sometimes it's not about everybody but the most vulnerable. Unless you've done the assessment yourself you have no way of knowing why the restrictions are in place. If you believe them to be unnecessary or problematic, raise a polite challenge back to the station management. But if you just decide to ignore the rules because you don't think they should apply to you, you're just being selfish.

 

[nlogax]

Even without the H&S war of words, Piccadilly's red lines need to vanish. Instead, there needs to be a proper investment in making the platforms suitable for the traffic they handle.

..is the correct response.

There are always going to be H&S odds and sods perceived as overreactions (certainly to a few folk here) but those particular Piccadilly platforms are a nightmare. The red lines are merely a symptom of a much more pressing infrastructure issue.

 

[DarloRich]

Even without the H&S war of words, Piccadilly's red lines need to vanish. Instead, there needs to be a proper investment in making the platforms suitable for the traffic they handle.

Spot on!

 

[Cowley]

Before we go any further can we try and keep this thread on debating the actual issues and not get personal with each other please.
It’s an interesting subject so let’s try and keep it in on the information side of things and bear in mind that there are people reading this that aren’t members etc…

Thanks everyone

 

[Bletchleyite]

..is the correct response.

There are always going to be H&S odds and sods perceived as overreactions (certainly to a few folk here) but those particular Piccadilly platforms are a nightmare. The red lines are merely a symptom of a much more pressing infrastructure issue.

Which is that 15/16 are needed. Or as a very minimum, to fix the crowding problem, cantilever some wider side platforms off the viaduct to replace them (though this would be at the expense of making some connections to Manchester Airport less convenient and wouldn't fix the track capacity problem*). And pack in running short trains!

The issues on the platform are very similar to the issues there used to be at Bank station on the Tube, which has been fixed at great expense with a whole new tunnel.

(It's a bit like Liverpool Central - "an extra island" is the shout, but you could get many of the benefits with relatively little digging by changing to side platforms).

* Actually, thinking on...if you took out the barely-used P12 for the platform on that side, it might just be possible to get a third track along part of the actual viaduct, which if you put crossovers in the middle of the 13/14 tracks would mean overtakes were possible in disruption, which might make a reasonable difference...

 

[Falcon1200]

Would a simpler solution not be, given that the island platform is far longer than almost every train using it, to just wall off one side of the platform, changing from one side to the other at the midpoint; That seems to be how the platforms are used anyway, ie Up trains use the Stockport end and Down trains the Oxford Road end ?

 

[Justin Smith]

Death is objective, you are either dead or you aren't,

Can I just contradict myself ?
Death, or rather cause of death, is not always objective. Like with dying of or with Covid, what happens of someone with a heart condition falls on the track, and, in their panic, they trigger a massive heart attack ?
That said, 99% of the time, if you fall off a station platform the cause of death would be obvious.

So injuries should be ignored and because "no one died" its ok?

The most important word in all this, and indeed in the pandemic response, is proportionate.
But you are missing the point anyway, it's as much about personal responsibility, e.g. if a group of lads are messing about and one gets pushed on to the track, that's their fault, nobody else's.

I’ve always avoided the through platforms at Picc for this reason, though of course this is not always practicable if travelling west / north. Seems like the red lines have simply added a further dimension of unpleasantness. As you say, if people feel the need to fight for seats then capacity is insufficient.

The National Journey planner always seem to recommend a change at Oxford Rd.
If travelling W to E then I change at Oxford road because you get a better chance of a seat. If travelling E to W then I change at Picc for the same reason.

 

[The Planner]

The most important word in all this, and indeed in the pandemic response, is proportionate.
But you are missing the point anyway, it's as much about personal responsibility, e.g. if a group of lads are messing about and one gets pushed on to the track, that's their fault, nobody else's.

What about if the platform is that overcrowded someone falls? Personal responsibility too?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would a simpler solution not be, given that the island platform is far longer than almost every train using it, to just wall off one side of the platform, changing from one side to the other at the midpoint; That seems to be how the platforms are used anyway, ie Up trains use the Stockport end and Down trains the Oxford Road end ?

I've suggested that before, but increasing use of longer trains makes that more difficult, and it'd only gain you about an extra foot or two of width.

One thing that may be worth considering is swapping over the stopping points so trains at P13 stop at the current P14 end and vice versa. The 13 end appears to be slightly wider and have a longer unobstructed length, and because almost all trains go to Manchester Airport you don't get people amassing there in the same way. The risk I suppose would be of potential stop-shorts being off the platform, but as everything on there is guard operated even if that did happen it'd just be a case of issuing the relevant "oi, move forward" bell code.

 

[Justin Smith]

Are you a qualified expert on every kind of hazard then? You have the requisite knowledge and experience to competently review any risk assessment in every environment?

This is the most stupid post I have ever read.
You are basically saying nobody is capable of working out the risk to themselves anywhere, and therefore nobody should do anything unless told it is safe. I have said before eventually, sooner or later, everything will be banned unless specifically allowed, and that is more or less what you appear to be arguing for. You might want that kind of world, I do not.

What about if the platform is that overcrowded someone falls? Personal responsibility too?

If the platform is too crowded that is a completely different issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the platform is too crowded that is a completely different issue.

It is.

 

[Justin Smith]

sometimes it's not about everybody but the most vulnerable.

I am not quite sure what you mean here, who is vulnerable, to falling off the edge of a platform ? But if such a person exists the solution is obvious, they should stay away from the edge of the platform. Do these people really need someone to point that out to them ? Or are you meaning mentally disabled ? If someone is so mentally disabled they might walk off the edge of a platform should they be out without a carer ? It is not for Network Rail (or anyone else) to prevent that.

But if you just decide to ignore the rules because you don't think they should apply to you, you're just being selfish.

I do not agree, how exactly is me walking closer to the edge of a platform putting anyone else at risk ?

 

[skyhigh]

Bur nobody has yet answered the basic question anyway, if it has been safe for 150 years, why is it no longer safe ? And if the answer is because our risk aversion has gone up so what was considered safe is no longer thought of as safe enough, the obvious question is where does that end ?
And how much is all this costing ? If making the railways 100% safe costs so much it puts up the price of the tickets more people will drive and, ironically, get killed.....

Your logic is tenuous at best. It wasn't compulsory to wear seat belts in the UK until 1983. If it had been safe not to wear seatbelts for almost 100 years, why was it no longer safe?

Opening windows (I.e. droplights) on the mainline is a historic practice and it's a good thing it's gone. The only real loss is to enthusiasts who liked hanging out the windows. I'm sure if it were technically possible they'd have loved to put power operated centrally locked doors on coaching stock 150 years ago, but it wasn't. It is now, and that's a good thing. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that removal of opening windows in 2022 is a bad thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do not agree, how exactly is me walking closer to the edge of a platform putting anyone else at risk ?

Well, if you do fall off then someone has to have the traumatic job of scraping the remains off the track and unit, and many peoples' journeys will be disrupted for hours.

The "anti suicide" fences on the south WCML and other similar places were to reduce the costs caused by disruption from suicides, they weren't for compassionate reasons, that was a fortunate side effect.

 

[Falcon1200]

Do these people really need someone to point that out to them ? Or are you meaning mentally disabled ? If someone is so mentally disabled they might walk off the edge of a platform should they be out without a carer ? It is not for Network Rail (or anyone else) to prevent that.

The problem is that most members of the public, no matter what their mental health, have absolutely no clue about how railways operate, or the dangers they pose. And yes, it is actually for Network Rail, and the rail industry in general, to take reasonable measures to prevent people on their property coming to harm. But I do agree the methods at Piccadilly 13/14 are heavy-handed.

I do not agree, how exactly is me walking closer to the edge of a platform putting anyone else at risk ?

Because others may be encouraged to do the same.

 

[Taunton]

To keep people safe. It may look silly to you, but NR has to consider everybody who might use the railway, some of whom would be very vulnerable only 1m away from the edge as a freight train ran past.

How does considering everybody lead to an unhappy experience for the majority, who have the mainstream interpretation of common sense? Non-stop trains have run past platforms for the best part of 200 years now. If I wait for a bus anywhere I am a comparable distance from passing road traffic, and certainly from the bus as it arrives. Yet none of these has ever been considered an issue.

Although in truth we could go the Amtrak way, where at some stations nobody is allowed on the platform until the incoming train has stopped, adding several minutes to each dwell time.