Claim of locking of doors on a stranded EMU

Jonfun · 22 Mar 2018

Bromley boy said:
You’d hope.

TOCs take shortcuts. I’ve been singularly unimpressed to have a passcom activation, call the bobby, start to walk back only to be met by a platform staff member who has reset the alarm (only drivers and guards should do this, according to the rule book).

I still insist on speaking to the passenger concerned, if they’re still present. This is normally viewed as me being obstructive/intransigent by the platform staff. But it really isn’t, and I don’t care.

Why do I do it? Because i don’t want some someone to pull the alarm again in the middle of nowhere when I’m the only staff member on the train.

I don't disagree with your application of the rules but I'm not sure the rules reflect best practice. I had it in my head - though I could be mistaken - the rule book had previously said [the guard/driver of a DO train] had to ensure the alarm was reset before the train continued, which is a subtle distinction. Having the guard mandated as the person who physically resets the passcomm causes headaches in a situation where you're working units in multiple, where a requirement to come to a clear understanding with AN Other member of staff who is in the other unit (driver, suitably trained revenue/catering crews etc) to reset the alarm would save a great deal of time with no safety impact - indeed, in a situation where someone's pulled the passcomm for someone having a medical emergency then time could well be of the essence.

RailUK Forums

dilbertphil · 22 Mar 2018

Class 185's have a unit door blocking switch in both cabs and in the MS car which can deactivate the doors without the need to lock them manually. This is used in a short platform long train situation. The emergency egress switches will still work when the UDB has been operated.

pompeyfan · 22 Mar 2018

Bromley boy said:
It’s permissible for a coach to remain in service with both doors on one side isolated, so long as TOC control is notified and gives permission.

If both doors are isolated and the first door on the next vehicle is isolated, the coach must be evacuated.

The below diagram gives a good overview.

View attachment 44153

I assume that’s the most up to date version of the rule book, which goes against what I remember, so the rule book has changed and I’ve not noticed.

I was under the impression, and I’m sure others will back me up, that on an MU that if the very first door or very last door had to be locked out, the carriage had to be evacuated, also, 2 doors on the same side again meant the unit had to be taken out of use. Finally, on a 150/1 combo, or 455/456 combo if a door has to be locked out on a blunt end, then again, carriage out of use. I’m now going to have to check my paperwork.

LowLevel · 22 Mar 2018

pompeyfan said:
I assume that’s the most up to date version of the rule book, which goes against what I remember, so the rule book has changed and I’ve not noticed.

I was under the impression, and I’m sure others will back me up, that on an MU that if the very first door or very last door had to be locked out, the carriage had to be evacuated, also, 2 doors on the same side again meant the unit had to be taken out of use. Finally, on a 150/1 combo, or 455/456 combo if a door has to be locked out on a blunt end, then again, carriage out of use. I’m now going to have to check my paperwork.

Yep. It changed recently.

185 · 22 Mar 2018

dilbertphil said:
Class 185's have a unit door blocking switch in both cabs and in the MS car which can deactivate the doors without the need to lock them manually. This is used in a short platform long train situation. The emergency egress switches will still work when the UDB has been operated.

The door blocking device, the UDB (Universal Door Blocker) on the 185 does not lock the doors. It just breaches the door release circuit so certain doors do not release when the guard operates the door open buttons, in a certain part of the train.

The rule book is clear regarding turning door locks on conventional stock when passengers are on board, moving or not - especially if all four doors are locked out per vehicle. If this is proven, then I agree with the previous posts - someone in that control could, and should be hung out to dry.

hexagon789 · 22 Mar 2018

185 said:
The rule book is clear regarding turning door locks on conventional stock when passengers are on board, moving or not - especially if all four doors are shut per vehicle. If this is proven, then I agree with the previous posts - someone in that control could, and should be hung out to dry.

I think if it's control that initiated the request then the crew shouldn't take all the blame, though I can see why they might.

pompeyfan · 22 Mar 2018

LowLevel said:
Yep. It changed recently.

Thank you, how recently is recent? Off the top of my head I assume yellow means continue with permission from the TOC Control etc?

hexagon789 · 22 Mar 2018

LowLevel said:
Yep. It changed recently.

Would you mind explaining it at all?

pompeyfan · 22 Mar 2018

hexagon789 said:
Would you mind explaining it at all?

I mean this with the best of intentions, but a little bit of knowledge is dangerous....

hexagon789 · 22 Mar 2018

pompeyfan said:
I mean this with the best of intentions, but a little bit of knowledge is dangerous....

Fair enough, I can appreciate that. No worries

Tomnick · 22 Mar 2018

pompeyfan said:
I assume that’s the most up to date version of the rule book, which goes against what I remember, so the rule book has changed and I’ve not noticed.

I was under the impression, and I’m sure others will back me up, that on an MU that if the very first door or very last door had to be locked out, the carriage had to be evacuated, also, 2 doors on the same side again meant the unit had to be taken out of use. Finally, on a 150/1 combo, or 455/456 combo if a door has to be locked out on a blunt end, then again, carriage out of use. I’m now going to have to check my paperwork.

The current situation is that those vehicles shown in yellow on the diagram can continue without being locked out if Control authorise it, possibly intended to allow certain vehicles with some mitigating feature to reduce the risk or possibly just part of the continuing effort to shift stuff out of the rule book and into company instructions. For the majority of trains, I’d imagine that the previous rules would continue to apply in practice.

hexagon789 · 22 Mar 2018

Tomnick said:
The current situation is that those vehicles shown in yellow on the diagram can continue without being locked out if Control authorise it, possibly intended to allow certain vehicles with some mitigating feature to reduce the risk or possibly just part of the continuing effort to shift stuff out of the rule book and into company instructions. For the majority of trains, I’d imagine that the previous rules would continue to apply in practice.

Oh right, okay. I I suppose there does need to be a sort of contingency measure.

Bromley boy · 22 Mar 2018

pompeyfan said:
I assume that’s the most up to date version of the rule book, which goes against what I remember, so the rule book has changed and I’ve not noticed.

I was under the impression, and I’m sure others will back me up, that on an MU that if the very first door or very last door had to be locked out, the carriage had to be evacuated, also, 2 doors on the same side again meant the unit had to be taken out of use. Finally, on a 150/1 combo, or 455/456 combo if a door has to be locked out on a blunt end, then again, carriage out of use. I’m now going to have to check my paperwork.

LowLevel said:
Yep. It changed recently.

Indeed, it changed relatively recently (last couple of years or so).

I’ve linked to rulebook below, TW5 is the relevant module, which contains the diagram referenced above. Scroll down to 1163/4 for the door regs:

https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERM8000-master-module Iss 2.pdf#page1137

Bromley boy · 22 Mar 2018

pompeyfan said:
Thank you, how recently is recent? Off the top of my head I assume yellow means continue with permission from the TOC Control etc?

Yes indeed.

TEW · 22 Mar 2018

pompeyfan said:
Thank you, how recently is recent? Off the top of my head I assume yellow means continue with permission from the TOC Control etc?

It was pretty recent but SWR continue to apply the older, more restrictive, rules anyway.

Bromley boy · 22 Mar 2018

Jonfun said:
I don't disagree with your application of the rules but I'm not sure the rules reflect best practice. I had it in my head - though I could be mistaken - the rule book had previously said [the guard/driver of a DO train] had to ensure the alarm was reset before the train continued, which is a subtle distinction. Having the guard mandated as the person who physically resets the passcomm causes headaches in a situation where you're working units in multiple, where a requirement to come to a clear understanding with AN Other member of staff who is in the other unit (driver, suitably trained revenue/catering crews etc) to reset the alarm would save a great deal of time with no safety impact - indeed, in a situation where someone's pulled the passcomm for someone having a medical emergency then time could well be of the essence.

The example I gave above involved a train already at a stand in a platform. If an alarm was pulled outside a station the driver could override the passcom (depending on stock).

The general point is that the only people who should reset passcoms are those with safety critical training who are competent to make the decision about whether or not it is safe to move a train.

Crossover · 22 Mar 2018

dilbertphil said:
Class 185's have a unit door blocking switch in both cabs and in the MS car which can deactivate the doors without the need to lock them manually. This is used in a short platform long train situation. The emergency egress switches will still work when the UDB has been operated.

185 said:
The door blocking device, the UDB (Universal Door Blocker) on the 185 does not lock the doors. It just breaches the door release circuit so certain doors do not release when the guard operates the door open buttons, in a certain part of the train.

The rule book is clear regarding turning door locks on conventional stock when passengers are on board, moving or not - especially if all four doors are locked out per vehicle. If this is proven, then I agree with the previous posts - someone in that control could, and should be hung out to dry.

This sounds like UDS (Unit DeSelect)? Last summer, at least, I have been on a double 185 where the guard has been back and forth manually locking out the back door for Liverpool South Parkway (and Warrington). Why they weren't built with SDO I don't know, though I believe the SWR Desiros have had it added (in an automated form) since

Jonfun · 22 Mar 2018

Bromley boy said:
The example I gave above involved a train already at a stand in a platform. If an alarm was pulled outside a station the driver could override the passcom (depending on stock).

The general point is that the only people who should reset passcoms are those with safety critical training who are competent to make the decision about whether or not it is safe to move a train.

"Safety Critical Training" is a phrase thrown around quite a bit on here and mostly incorrectly. The law clearly states what constitutes a safety critical task, and the physical act of resetting a passcomm isn't one of them. Making the decision that the train can continue following the activation would be. Indeed, in your example, if the platform staff dispatched trains, then they have safety critical training.

However - and the key point which you're making - that whoever resets the passcomm should be suitably trained, is correct. Unfortunately, training across the industry is getting worse by the year, not helped by the use of contractors such as RailGourmet and the like for on-train work. There is no reason why every member of staff working on board a train should not be trained in dealing with emergency situations - it doesn't matter what your job title is, in an emergency situation passengers will turn to the first member of staff they see.

Bromley boy · 22 Mar 2018

Jonfun said:
"Safety Critical Training" is a phrase thrown around quite a bit on here and mostly incorrectly. The law clearly states what constitutes a safety critical task, and the physical act of resetting a passcomm isn't one of them.

A passcom is a safety system. It is very much a safety critical piece of equipment and as such is should only be reset by those with the competence to do so. The rulebook unambiguously states the responsibility for resetting it rests with the driver or guard. TOCs ignoring or fudging this to save money is unacceptable in my view.

I seem to remember this issue was discussed recently with regards to OBS who were being asked to reset passcoms and egresses to save time.

Now that you mention it I don’t think there is any official definition of “safety critical” but we know it when we see it.

Jonfun said:
Making the decision that the train can continue following the activation would be. Indeed, in your example, if the platform staff dispatched trains, then they have safety critical training.

They are not dispatch staff at the location in question. Even if they were, they still shouldn’t be resetting passcoms.

Jonfun said:
However - and the key point which you're making - that whoever resets the passcomm should be suitably trained, is correct. Unfortunately, training across the industry is getting worse by the year, not helped by the use of contractors such as RailGourmet and the like for on-train work. There is no reason why every member of staff working on board a train should not be trained in dealing with emergency situations - it doesn't matter what your job title is, in an emergency situation passengers will turn to the first member of staff they see.

Agreed, anyone working on a train should be given a minimum standard of training.

Are GTR OBSs even put through a PTS course?

Jonfun · 22 Mar 2018

That's incorrect I'm afraid - there is an official legal definition of Safety Critical duties in relation to operation of a railway.

Staff should be trained for the duties they undertake regardless of whether they are legally defined as Safety Critical workers, however.

That specific example of a rule is one I don't believe is best practice. So long as the guard, or driver of a DO train, has authorised the resetting, who actually does it should really be immaterial. In the same vein it's the guard's responsibility in the rule book to, in the event of fire, move passengers away from danger into the next carriage. In reality, that's as likely to fall to revenue/catering staff/travelling managers etc as it would be to the guard. As long as the Guard maintains overall control of the situation and the staff member actually performing the physical task is trained properly there is no real safety risk

hexagon789 · 22 Mar 2018

Jonfun said:
As long as the Guard maintains overall control of the situation and the staff member actually performing the physical task is trained properly there is no real safety risk

That sounds quite reasonable

Bromley boy · 22 Mar 2018

Jonfun said:
That's incorrect I'm afraid - there is an official legal definition of Safety Critical duties in relation to operation of a railway.

Can you provide a link to this “legal definition” please? I’m not necessarily saying there isn’t one, just that I’m not aware of one, so I’d be interested to see it.

Jonfun said:
That specific example of a rule is one I don't believe is best practice. So long as the guard, or driver of a DO train, has authorised the resetting, who actually does it should really be immaterial. In the same vein it's the guard's responsibility in the rule book to, in the event of fire, move passengers away from danger into the next carriage. In reality, that's as likely to fall to revenue/catering staff/travelling managers etc as it would be to the guard. As long as the Guard maintains overall control of the situation and the staff member actually performing the physical task is trained properly there is no real safety risk

But with respect who are you to say it is not best practice? That might be your opinion but it is in the rulebook nonetheless and I know which viewpoint I will be following at work.

What we are talking about here is situations where staff who are not trained to do it reset passcoms and egresses often with the encouragement of the TOC, without any authority from the driver or guard who is responsible according to the rulebook. In the situation I’ve mentioned there was no question of the driver having authorised the reset. How can the driver or guard maintain overall control of the situation if they are not even able to speak to the person who has pulled the alarm?

If someone egresses and it is reset by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing you can see a scenario where someone ends up on the tracks and trains continue to run.

hexagon789 · 22 Mar 2018

Bromley boy said:
If someone egresses and it is reset by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing you can see a scenario where someone ends up on the tracks and trains continue to run.

I can indeed, not a good situation to be with.

bramling · 22 Mar 2018

Bromley boy said:
Can you provide a link to this “legal definition” please? I’m not necessarily saying there isn’t one, just that I’m not aware of one, so I’d be interested to see it.

But with respect who are you to say it is not best practice? That might be your opinion but it is in the rulebook nonetheless and I know which viewpoint I will be following at work.

What we are talking about here is situations where staff who are not trained to do it reset passcoms and egresses often with the encouragement of the TOC, without any authority from the driver or guard who is responsible according to the rulebook. In the situation I’ve mentioned there was no question of the driver having authorised the reset. How can the driver or guard maintain overall control of the situation if they are not even able to speak to the person who has pulled the alarm?

If someone egresses and it is reset by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing you can see a scenario where someone ends up on the tracks and trains continue to run.

At the end of the day the only person or people touching train equipment should be people who are specifically trained on that particular rolling stock, and even then it should be specifically on the authority of the driver who is of course in charge of the train. There's nothing in principle wrong with station staff being trained to touch specific pieces of equipment (for example passenger alarms, butterfly cocks, etc), but it shouldn't happen unless they have reached a clear understanding with the driver beforehand.

The only real exception might be if a stubborn driver is making a total hash of resolving a defect and there's someone more senior there who knows what they're doing. In the ideal world this scenario shouldn't of course happen, but it does crop up occasionally ...

Jonfun · 22 Mar 2018

Bromley boy said:
Can you provide a link to this “legal definition” please? I’m not necessarily saying there isn’t one, just that I’m not aware of one, so I’d be interested to see it.

But with respect who are you to say it is not best practice? That might be your opinion but it is in the rulebook nonetheless and I know which viewpoint I will be following at work.

What we are talking about here is situations where staff who are not trained to do it reset passcoms and egresses often with the encouragement of the TOC, without any authority from the driver or guard who is responsible according to the rulebook. In the situation I’ve mentioned there was no question of the driver having authorised the reset. How can the driver or guard maintain overall control of the situation if they are not even able to speak to the person who has pulled the alarm?

If someone egresses and it is reset by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing you can see a scenario where someone ends up on the tracks and trains continue to run.

You're correct, it's in the rule book, so you need to follow it. I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise and I fully agree that people shouldn't be resetting alarms on their own authority. But equally that doesn't mean I agree with everything that's in there and in this case of the strict requirement for only the guard (or driver on a DO train) to physically reset the handle as opposed to coming to a clear understanding with another trained person to do so on their authority I don't agree. A literal application of the rule book as given means on a guarded train formed of two non-gangwayed units where the guard is in the back set, even the *driver* in the front set wouldn't be allowed to reset the system and would instead have to wait for the guard to switch sets.

Regarding Safety Critical Work, this can be found in Section 4 of ROGS.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/599/part/4/made

185 · 22 Mar 2018

Crossover said:
This sounds like UDS (Unit DeSelect)? Last summer, at least, I have been on a double 185 where the guard has been back and forth manually locking out the back door for Liverpool South Parkway (and Warrington). Why they weren't built with SDO I don't know, though I believe the SWR Desiros have had it added (in an automated form) since

Depends on what the requirement is.

- Sometimes if you have a unit behind you don't wan't passengers in, you can use the UDB- the driver operates the UDB from the front cab, and the rear 3 coaches do not open when the guard operates the door release buttons. An example would be Liverpool to Manchester on a quiet train, when you don't want to open all six until Manchester, often with occasional short platforms it avoids a load of legwork and potential delay. Good for stopping fare evasion.

- The odd short platform on a long route - let's say Widnes or Irlam (before any lengthening). You would then just go down with a T-key and manually lock out those doors one by one. You would then make an announcement to remind people the last coach and a half's doors won't open. In terms of the rule book, the 185 differs from conventional DMUs - in let's say there's a train crash, the emergency door release handles when pulled override the keylocks, thus on a 185 there is no problem locking these doors out for this kind of thing.

185 · 22 Mar 2018

*SDO was used on the 170s and when you press the SDO button, all doors rearward of the pressed button do not open at the next stop.

Quite strangely, when TPE first got the 9x 170s, the SDO was not authorised or passed out for use, and guards could not use it. It was only cleared for use around 2008. Even though loads of guards (allegedly) had been using it every single day, especially for the likes of South Milford etc.

Bromley boy · 22 Mar 2018

Jonfun said:
You're correct, it's in the rule book, so you need to follow it. I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise and I fully agree that people shouldn't be resetting alarms on their own authority. But equally that doesn't mean I agree with everything that's in there and in this case of the strict requirement for only the guard (or driver on a DO train) to physically reset the handle as opposed to coming to a clear understanding with another trained person to do so on their authority I don't agree. A literal application of the rule book as given means on a guarded train formed of two non-gangwayed units where the guard is in the back set, even the *driver* in the front set wouldn't be allowed to reset the system and would instead have to wait for the guard to switch sets.

Fair enough, I think we are in agreement here. The key point is that someone resetting it both knows how to do it and has reached clear understanding with the driver/guard.

An interesting discussion.

Jonfun said:
Regarding Safety Critical Work, this can be found in Section 4 of ROGS.

Thanks for posting this, very illuminating.

BMIFlyer · 22 Mar 2018

185 said:
the driver operates the UDB from the front cab.

Incorrect, it is the guard who operates it and usually from the rear cab of the front unit.

185 said:
*SDO was used on the 170s and when you press the SDO button, all doors rearward of the pressed button do not open at the next stop.

Quite strangely, when TPE first got the 9x 170s, the SDO was not authorised or passed out for use, and guards could not use it. It was only cleared for use around 2008. Even though loads of guards (allegedly) had been using it every single day, especially for the likes of South Milford etc.

It wasn’t on the safety case for TPE but was added later to acomodate 6 car class 170 operations.

BMIFlyer · 22 Mar 2018

All of you discussing the resetting of the pass com...

At TPE the policy is the guard will reset it where possible otherwise the driver will do it.

Catering staff are not to touch any safety related item such as a passcom.

Claim of locking of doors on a stranded EMU

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member