HST door-opening incident from 1990s

This one's been quite the mystery to me since childhood, so I wanted to ask around to see if anyone remembers this.

Sometime during 1991-94, there was a TV show episode documenting an incident in which a woman leaned against an HST door when it was at speed, then fell out and presumably died. In the reconstruction, which I remember vividly, the actress had wavy blonde hair and wore jeans; she had a very serene expression as she looked on at the passing scenery; at some point the door flung open, with an external view of the carriage showing her hanging on for dear life with both hands, only to lose her grip and land with a horrid thump onto the trackside gravel; it ended with close-up of her bloodied face. I seem to remember it could've been Panaroma or 999, but I had a check through some episode guides for that period and nothing came up (besides, 999 was more about rescues and survival stories).

Could this story have been part of the "Tamworth Triangle" thing?

Don't recall that, but I was on a mid evening 125 KX North which regularly used platform 1 at Peterborough. After we had departed and running at probably 60mph I walked through first to visit the buffet only to find a trailing door (platform side) open and blowing in the slipstream.
I slammed it shut and mentioned the incident to the guard, who just shrugged his shoulders saying 'yup it happens'.
This was well after the yellow strips were applied to door edges.

caliwag said:

Don't recall that, but I was on a mid evening 125 KX North which regularly used platform 1 at Peterborough. After we had departed and running at probably 60mph I walked through first to visit the buffet only to find a trailing door (platform side) open and blowing in the slipstream.
I slammed it shut and mentioned the incident to the guard, who just shrugged his shoulders saying 'yup it happens'.
This was well after the yellow strips were applied to door edges.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't Central Door Locking have prevented this?

JoeGJ1984 said:

Shouldn't Central Door Locking have prevented this?

Click to expand...

The door was probably on the latch i.e. closed but not sufficiently for the CDL to take effect.

I may say the door was not on the catch. it was just blowing in and out with slip steam. That is indeed what baffled me, along with the guards reaction. Anyway, no harm done, but...?

I believe central door locking is a relatively recent addition to HST's. I don't believe they were fitted with it when built hence the incidents described above.

Hadders said:

I believe central door locking is a relatively recent addition to HST's. I don't believe they were fitted with it when built hence the incidents described above.

Click to expand...

Central Door Locking was only introduced to HST stock in the 90s, along with the L/H Mk 3 sets. It certainly wasn't fitted from new.

When HSTs were first introduced slam door was the norm.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ainsworth74 said:

The door was probably on the latch i.e. closed but not sufficiently for the CDL to take effect.

Click to expand...

If the door was on the first catch and CDL was in effect the guard could not have got the door interlock and the train should not have departed under the rules applicable at the time.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

caliwag said:

Don't recall that, but I was on a mid evening 125 KX North which regularly used platform 1 at Peterborough. After we had departed and running at probably 60mph I walked through first to visit the buffet only to find a trailing door (platform side) open and blowing in the slipstream.
I slammed it shut and mentioned the incident to the guard, who just shrugged his shoulders saying 'yup it happens'.
This was well after the yellow strips were applied to door edges.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, a major breach of the rules.

How does the guard know that no-one has fallen out? He/she should have stopped the train, reported it to the signaller so as the line could be examined, ensure that the door was closed, secured and locked out of use labelled as such and examined at the next point where suitable staff were available.

If the train had been fitted with CDL (depends on when this alleged incident happened) then it should not have left the last station as a door on the first catch or open would prevent the guard getting the door interlock and the yellow bodyside lights would have remained illuminated. The CDL consisted of a thick metal peg which engaged into a hole in the door behind which was an electrical circuit. If the peg could not locate into the hole in the door when the guard attempted to get an interlock, and it wouldn't if the door was open or on the catch then the circuit would not be made and door interlock would not be possible. Note that there was not any traction interlock to prevent the train moving, as there is now. It was simply a case of the guard and/or station staff ensuring that all the body side lights were out and he had the correct indications on his panel.

If the train was moving at high speed it it was extremely fool-hardy to attempt to close it against the slipstream, even if you were strong enough. Mk 1 doors were fairly light things but Mk 3 doors as fitted to HST stock are EXTREMELY heavy and to pull that shut would, I suggest be very difficult indeed against the force of a slipstream of a train at speed.

It all sounds a little unlikely to me.

I have to say that I assumed that CDL meant that it couldn't leave the station, but it had CDL fitted, the door wasn't on the catch, but was a trailing door...ie catch towards the book of the train. There is no way I'd have pulled the door shut against the slipstream, I would have definitely pulled the alarm.
I suggested to the guard after he passed through that I was surprised that the train could move without all doors shut and outside lights extinguished: he just said that it didn't work like that, so I left him to it...rather shaken I have to say. Maybe the system was faulty.

Still, if anyone could shed some light on the original story of this topic, I'd be keen to hear it. Specifically, the name of the poor lass and that of the TV show. Quite the mystery!

(It was interesting to read the accounts posted here, however. Scary stuff. hock: )

caliwag said:

Don't recall that, but I was on a mid evening 125 KX North which regularly used platform 1 at Peterborough. After we had departed and running at probably 60mph I walked through first to visit the buffet only to find a trailing door (platform side) open and blowing in the slipstream.
I slammed it shut and mentioned the incident to the guard, who just shrugged his shoulders saying 'yup it happens'.
This was well after the yellow strips were applied to door edges.

Click to expand...

I very much doubt this, the former Platform 1 being a 4 car bay platform could never hope to be used by anything longer then a 4 car EMU never mind a HST.

G0ORC said:

Central Door Locking was only introduced to HST stock in the 90s, along with the L/H Mk 3 sets. It certainly wasn't fitted from new.

When HSTs were first introduced slam door was the norm.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



If the door was on the first catch and CDL was in effect the guard could not have got the door interlock and the train should not have departed under the rules applicable at the time.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Oh dear, a major breach of the rules.

How does the guard know that no-one has fallen out? He/she should have stopped the train, reported it to the signaller so as the line could be examined, ensure that the door was closed, secured and locked out of use labelled as such and examined at the next point where suitable staff were available.

If the train had been fitted with CDL (depends on when this alleged incident happened) then it should not have left the last station as a door on the first catch or open would prevent the guard getting the door interlock and the yellow bodyside lights would have remained illuminated. The CDL consisted of a thick metal peg which engaged into a hole in the door behind which was an electrical circuit. If the peg could not locate into the hole in the door when the guard attempted to get an interlock, and it wouldn't if the door was open or on the catch then the circuit would not be made and door interlock would not be possible. Note that there was not any traction interlock to prevent the train moving, as there is now. It was simply a case of the guard and/or station staff ensuring that all the body side lights were out and he had the correct indications on his panel.

If the train was moving at high speed it it was extremely fool-hardy to attempt to close it against the slipstream, even if you were strong enough. Mk 1 doors were fairly light things but Mk 3 doors as fitted to HST stock are EXTREMELY heavy and to pull that shut would, I suggest be very difficult indeed against the force of a slipstream of a train at speed.

It all sounds a little unlikely to me.

Click to expand...

There's still no traction interlock on HST sets, and there isn't any indication on the guard's panel as to whether all the doors are locked or not. The light on the panel simply shows if the panel is available or not. It's mark 1 human eyeball and correct checking only and always has been. The bodyside lights will go out if the door is not even there, let alone if it is on the catch. There is no electrical circuit that I am aware of to confirm that the bolts have dropped correctly.

G0ORC said:

...

If the train was moving at high speed it it was extremely fool-hardy to attempt to close it against the slipstream,

...

Click to expand...

A "trailing door" was mentioned in the post to which you are referring. I took that to mean one which would be pushed towards the closed position by the slipstream.

As far as I know by 1991 the number of mysterious deaths from falling out of train doors had reached 325 and a local coroner demanded answers.

One explanation I've heard is that people would start drinking at Euston and by the time they got up to Tamworth (roughly halfway between Euston and Lime Street) they would then stagger down the carriage towards the toilet and would simply mix up one door with another.

I presume the coroner checked their blood/alcohol levels?

321Clss93 said:

(It was interesting to read the accounts posted here, however. Scary stuff. hock: )

Click to expand...

Dont read too much into them, some are factually inaccurate and based on a little (but not much) knowledge!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Roverman said:

As far as I know by 1991 the number of mysterious deaths from falling out of train doors had reached 325 and a local coroner demanded answers.

One explanation I've heard is that people would start drinking at Euston and by the time they got up to Tamworth (roughly halfway between Euston and Lime Street) they would then stagger down the carriage towards the toilet and would simply mix up one door with another.

I presume the coroner checked their blood/alcohol levels?

Click to expand...

Yes obviously to open a toilet door you pull the window down, stick the top half of your body out the window to get to the door handle dont you! :roll:

One explanation I have heard is some people see something on the television (or read it on the internet) and assume it to be true, not that the television (or websites) could ever dramatise anything would they!

455driver said:

Dont read too much into them, some are factually inaccurate and based on a little (but not much) knowledge!

Click to expand...

Even then, they sound scary enough with a bit of imagination.

Interesting that drunkenness was mentioned; on the TV reconstruction, I clearly remember the actress sipping beer from a plastic cup as she leaned against the door. Being a kiddo at the time, I wasn't paying attention to what was being said on the narration, but it's likely they would've been hinting at that as being a reason for the fall. The music was harrowing, too.

LowLevel said:

There's still no traction interlock on HST sets, and there isn't any indication on the guard's panel as to whether all the doors are locked or not. The light on the panel simply shows if the panel is available or not. It's mark 1 human eyeball and correct checking only and always has been. The bodyside lights will go out if the door is not even there, let alone if it is on the catch. There is no electrical circuit that I am aware of to confirm that the bolts have dropped correctly.

Click to expand...

Perfectly true - when I made the comment regarding traction interlock I didn't make it clear that I was referring to more modern stock 220, 221, 222 etc as well as the vast range of DMU and EMU vehicles currently in service.

Sorry it wasn't very clear.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

LowLevel said:

There's still no traction interlock on HST sets, and there isn't any indication on the guard's panel as to whether all the doors are locked or not. The light on the panel simply shows if the panel is available or not. It's mark 1 human eyeball and correct checking only and always has been. The bodyside lights will go out if the door is not even there, let alone if it is on the catch. There is no electrical circuit that I am aware of to confirm that the bolts have dropped correctly.

Click to expand...

I accept totally that there is no traction interlock and never has been on HSTs and I meant to refer to more modern stock which we see daily now but I'm not sure about the rest of it - perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge of how this original CDL system worked could help.

If what you say is correct then I'm not sure why the system was taken into such widespread use in the 90s and more importantly, how is it still in use now that power door and slam door regulations have tightened up significantly.

Most, if not all, railway safety systems are based around "fail safe". From what you describe this is anything but "fail safe". I simply can't believe that if a door is missing or damaged a guard could obtain the correct indications on his panel and if were negligent enough, he/she could allow a train to leave in that condition.

I can't believe that current regulations allow this.

The CDL system fitted to the HSTs is pretty rudimentary, but it's someway above the "secondary door locks" fitted to MK1s in charter use, which are just standard bolts fitted inside the door which are slided across by the stewards. The CDL panel doesn't give any indication as to the operation of the CDL, beyond whether the panel is available for use. The exterior lights just confirm whether the CDL is engaged or not.

Roverman said:

As far as I know by 1991 the number of mysterious deaths from falling out of train doors had reached 325 and a local coroner demanded answers.

One explanation I've heard is that people would start drinking at Euston and by the time they got up to Tamworth (roughly halfway between Euston and Lime Street) they would then stagger down the carriage towards the toilet and would simply mix up one door with another.

I presume the coroner checked their blood/alcohol levels?

Click to expand...

I thought the eventual conclusion was that the door latches were found to be jamming if not properly lubricated resulting in the doors in question being closed but not locked?

TEW said:

The CDL system fitted to the HSTs is pretty rudimentary, but it's someway above the "secondary door locks" fitted to MK1s in charter use, which are just standard bolts fitted inside the door which are slided across by the stewards. The CDL panel doesn't give any indication as to the operation of the CDL, beyond whether the panel is available for use. The exterior lights just confirm whether the CDL is engaged or not.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this - I've obviously been working on a misapprehension for all of these years - apologies for getting it wrong.

I still find it strange that, given the almost paranoid attention given to door safety these days (and I'm NOT saying that that is wrong) such a system is still allowed which does not fail safe.

The example given earlier (that a door may be completely missing but a door interlock is obtainable) may be an extreme one but graphically illustrates how, in comparison to modern stock how rudimentary that system is.

I still can't believe its not been improved since it was first introduced in the 90s and having worked in the operational safety side of the industry (not directly concerned with the passenger railway, but connected to it - now retired) its incomprehensible to me that its still allowed to operate in this manner.

All it needs is a serious incident involving someone falling from an HST vehicle and I suspect the world may well change.

G0ORC said:

The example given earlier (that a door may be completely missing but a door interlock is obtainable) may be an extreme one but graphically illustrates how, in comparison to modern stock how rudimentary that system is.

Click to expand...

That's the distinction to draw though, HSTs don't have door interlock so they can't obtain interlock with a door open, simply because they don't have interlock. The CDL is only a secondary locking system, the doors if properly closed should keep themselves closed. I don't think the system is in any way unsafe, it just relies on staff performing their duties diligently in checking all doors are closed properly, which I have every faith in them doing.

G0ORC said:

Perfectly true - when I made the comment regarding traction interlock I didn't make it clear that I was referring to more modern stock 220, 221, 222 etc as well as the vast range of DMU and EMU vehicles currently in service.

Click to expand...

The relevance on a thread specifically about HSTs is what exactly?

Oh just for completeness on your off topic post, not all modern stock has Traction Interlock either!

wrong side of the bed again 455driver

455driver said:

The relevance on a thread specifically about HSTs is what exactly?

Oh just for completeness on your off topic post, not all modern stock has Traction Interlock either!

Click to expand...

Thank you - you are a nice chap, I know that from the vast number of comments I see from you on every conceivable aspect of railway operation imaginable. You obviously have a wide and vast knowledge of all aspects of the industry so I think we should all be quiet on the forum and listen to what you have to say on the subject of traction and door interlocks. It would be more relevant to the discussion than your irrelevant uninformative post above.

Please go on - tell us some more about traction interlock on modern stock as opposed to the lack of it on HST stock - I'm sure we will all be riveted by what you have to say.

However, if you had bothered to read the whole thread I'm sure you wouldn't have made that comment. I was making a comparison between traction interlock as fitted to SOME modern stock and the lack of it on HSTs.

I though it was relevant but what do I know?

Nothing, apparently.

I was a guard (conductor in new money) until 1993 working in the north east.

I remember all to well the people "falling" from the HSTs down south. There was one conductor who "fell out" down south way. the talking point at the time was that he was an experienced conductor and no one understood how he could just fall out of the train. there was no central locking on these (HSTs) trains then

The new pacer and 158's had the guard/conductor remote locking door operation. the hst's were (are they still?)what was referred to as slam door stock. the only way to open them was lowering the window and manually turning the exterior handle. this could be done when stationary or when in transit.

At the time the explanation was that either the guard had leant too far out of the window or had attempted to open a door that wasn't shut properly to give it a good slam shut, and had fallen out or he had jumped deliberately.

There was also reports of "others" ho had fallen from the trains around that particular time, but i don't know how many. if it wasn't for the fact a conductor had been killed i probably wouldn't have even remembered the incident, social media been nothing like now, national newspapers been the source of news.

The fact some were asking if he'd been thrown from the train was probably what caught my attention.

The things that always baffled me were this. there was never proof as to what carriage/door the people "fell" from. there were quite a few, if i remember rightly, who fell to their deaths with no proof as to how they actually exited the train.

For me , it wasnt inconceivable that the door was on a latch and people had perhaps tried to shut the door , by opening and slamming it shut.

Problem is, if a door was seen on a latch by a signalman or platform staff, even when shooting through , all efforts should or would have been made to stop the train , inform the driver and have the door secured.
the scaryest thing for me though was this. IF there was a nutter or group of nutters out there, throwing people from trains, i think it would have been fairly easy to do, without getting caught.

The only way you could get off that train was by the door ...or the window.

The ways to apply it were this.
1, simply cosh someone drop the window and tip them out....
2, someone leaning or looking out of an open window could be grabbed by the legs and tipped out , there wouldnt have been any real evidence of struggle left behind on the doors or windows and could easily be wiped clean.
3, lean out and open door onto 1st catch, wait for someone to try to open the door to slam it shut (especially the guard who would ,i feel , perhaps feel confident enough to attempt to open and slam it, and it was , really , his responsibility !!)and give them a timely push.

The whole thing never made any sense even then, but if someone had been coshed or had struggled with an assailant, there wouldn't have been any real evidence left after hitting the ballast at high speed. I suppose a knife or bullet wound would have been the only evidence. the coach ends, where the doors and toilets were, were fairly isolated and from experience on an evening some trains were near desolate.

Still makes me shudder thinking about it, thank god for conductor operated electronic doors now!

Peter Mugridge said:

I thought the eventual conclusion was that the door latches were found to be jamming if not properly lubricated resulting in the doors in question being closed but not locked?

Click to expand...

seems strange though, because there is (was) the 1st (safety) catch lock and the second catch lock when the door is fully shut, would both fail ? and on so many occasions and resulting, if correct, in so many lives lost?

G0ORC said:

Thank you - you are a nice chap,

Click to expand...

I know, its a fault of mine!

G0ORC said:

I know that from the vast number of comments I see from you on every conceivable aspect of railway operation imaginable. You obviously have a wide and vast knowledge of all aspects of the industry so I think we should all be quiet on the forum and listen to what you have to say on the subject of traction and door interlocks. It would be more relevant to the discussion than your irrelevant uninformative post above.

Click to expand...

I like to comment on things relevant to the thread, especially if it is a thread asking a specific question about a specific train.
This is obviously difficult for some people to grasp as nearly every thread ends up miles away from the original topic within about 10 posts!

G0ORC said:

Please go on - tell us some more about traction interlock on modern stock as opposed to the lack of it on HST stock - I'm sure we will all be riveted by what you have to say.

Click to expand...

I will do some digging around, there were a couple more built after the HST which lacked TIS (all now modified to include TIS, brake interlock etc) plus a few that dont have brake interlock but do have TIS (455 an example ).

G0ORC said:

However, if you had bothered to read the whole thread I'm sure you wouldn't have made that comment. I was making a comparison between traction interlock as fitted to SOME modern stock and the lack of it on HSTs.

Click to expand...

But how is the modern way of doing it relevant to a train built in the 70s?

G0ORC said:

I though it was relevant but what do I know?

Nothing, apparently.

Click to expand...

I didnt say you didnt know anything, I was merely pointing out that the info you posted wasnt relevant to this thread at the time.

lastladporter said:

seems strange though, because there is (was) the 1st (safety) catch lock and the second catch lock when the door is fully shut, would both fail ? and on so many occasions and resulting, if correct, in so many lives lost?

Click to expand...

The moving bit on the door itself ( the bit that you move out of the way when you turn the handle ) was the bit that was jamming wasn't it? So it would not have engaged with either of the fixed latches.

Peter Mugridge said:

The moving bit on the door itself ( the bit that you move out of the way when you turn the handle ) was the bit that was jamming wasn't it? So it would not have engaged with either of the fixed latches.

Click to expand...

yes i suppose it would be possible, but in so many incidents? and surely the old dmu`s would have had a similar fatality ratio?
but there again the handle on the hst stayed in the down position and only raised after the 1st catch was activated, the handle would have stayed in the down position if the mechanism was sticking- again , it seems odd that platform staff would have missed a handle hanging limp on so many occasions?
if i remember correctly the dmu handles could be in the horizontal (locked) position and the mechanism jammed giving the appearance of the door being shut but dont remember the hst being the same.
i think the conductor who died was an experienced senior conductor as well.
the fatality figures quoted earlier are staggering. maybe its just the cynic in me , but blaming a faulty mechanism for hundreds of deaths seems a bit lame , especially if there wernt as many both nationwide (as it seems a lot were down south) and over the previous years.
one poster said that drunkenness could be a factor , but i dont seem to recall many fatalitys with commuters coming down from aberdeen and the oil rig workers , and they were usually well oiled (pardon the pun).
it is an interesting, if macabre subject this though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
just found this on the "construction news" 11 august 2005

The Tamworth Triangle

IN THE DAYS before central door locking on trains, health and safety investigators were puzzled by the unusually high number of accidents and deaths involving open doors on this part of the West Coast Main Line.

Locals dubbed the area the 'Tamworth Triangle' in a nod to the rather more glamorous Bermuda Triangle and in recognition that the incidents kept occurring within an area between Alrewas, Tamworth and Lichfield.

Eventually someone realised there was a far more mundane explanation for the incidents.

The part of the Tamworth Triangle where they seemed to be most common lies approximately halfway between Euston Station in London and Liverpool Lime Street.

Passengers getting on at either of these stations would start their patronage at the bar of the buffet car and be due their first toilet stop in the area.

Unfortunately some would be incapable of recognising the difference between the carriage door and the toilet door, opening the wrong one, with disastrous consequences.


as i posted earlier , maybe im a cynic , but canned or not ,when you need to spend a penny , im pretty sure that having to pull down a window ,lean out of it and use a handle situated on the other side of a door on the outside of a train with wind blowing your hair off , doesnt seem a very likely scenario- someone targeting drunks and dispatching them through the window would , imo , seem more likely then drunks opening the wrong door.

Roverman said:

As far as I know by 1991 the number of mysterious deaths from falling out of train doors had reached 325 and a local coroner demanded answers.

One explanation I've heard is that people would start drinking at Euston and by the time they got up to Tamworth (roughly halfway between Euston and Lime Street) they would then stagger down the carriage towards the toilet and would simply mix up one door with another.

I presume the coroner checked their blood/alcohol levels?

Click to expand...

Indeed - and there were some incidents on ECML north of Newcastle and south of Berwick. A mate was tasked by examining these incidents in BR days - using the new database for accidents that was in then. Amazingly - alcohol featured strongly - in one unfortunate case at , or near Alnmouth - the toxicology report was the highest ever recorded blood /alcohol rate ever recorded in records. One idea was ****ed carry on drinkers - had issues lurching to the buffet car 2/3/4 hours into a journey. Certainly - "events" were reduced over the years....

does anyone know, were there any reports of witnesses seeing these drunks actually open the wrong doors and fall out? or was this just a presumption? just because people have high blood alcohol readings surely wouldnt be enough on its own for coroners to come to that conclusion?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
TRANS PENNINE
THE MAGAZINE OF THE PENNINE RAILWAY SOCIETY

No.74 - Winter 1990

NOTES FROM THE COMMITTEE TAMWORTH DEATH TRAP

In less than one year 5 people have been killed falling from moving trains in the Tamworth area. In no instance has there been found a defect on a door and BR can offer no explanation. The area has been dubbed the "Tamworth Triangle".

lastladporter said:

IF there was a nutter or group of nutters out there, throwing people from trains, i think it would have been fairly easy to do, without getting caught.

The only way you could get off that train was by the door ...or the window.

The ways to apply it were this.
1, simply cosh someone drop the window and tip them out....
2, someone leaning or looking out of an open window could be grabbed by the legs and tipped out , there wouldnt have been any real evidence of struggle left behind on the doors or windows and could easily be wiped clean.
3, lean out and open door onto 1st catch, wait for someone to try to open the door to slam it shut (especially the guard who would ,i feel , perhaps feel confident enough to attempt to open and slam it, and it was , really , his responsibility !!)and give them a timely push.

The whole thing never made any sense even then, but if someone had been coshed or had struggled with an assailant, there wouldn't have been any real evidence left after hitting the ballast at high speed. I suppose a knife or bullet wound would have been the only evidence. the coach ends, where the doors and toilets were, were fairly isolated and from experience on an evening some trains were near desolate.

Click to expand...

Bladdy 'ell, all that sounds like something from which a film could be made.

HST Nutters, anyone?