Agreed that scrape was done by something going significantly faster that anything should move within a possession. As the freights run on the slows (and are shorter wheelbase) very worrying as to what scraped it is unknown.
-
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!
Incident at Wandsworth Common 07/08/16
- Thread starter SPADTrap
- Start date
- Status
Agreed that scrape was done by something going significantly faster that anything should move within a possession. As the freights run on the slows (and are shorter wheelbase) very worrying as to what scraped it is unknown.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,434
A standard container perhaps; could it be about the right height?
We don't know when it happened and there is nothing to stop a freight traveling on that line. A heavy object running at just 20mph is enough to do damage.
Could well have been an engineering train carrying used track panels with a sleeper sticking out further than intended. Its impossible to tell from one oddly angled photo.
I agree that it's risky to try to read too much into one photo, but the fact that the gouge mark runs the full width of the gantry at pretty constant depth says to me that it was struck by something moving at speed. At low speed I would expect the gouge to get shallower across the width of the gantry as the impactor would have had time to react to the forces being imposed.
There's another couple of impact marks lower down the gantry which start off deep and get shallower.
Sunset route
Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,188
I've often signalled freight and engineering trains via the Up Victoria/Brighton fast line especially if they are going into Kent via Pouparts Jcn which is accessed off the fast lines. Also west London traffic often takes the fast lines to Balham when there is work taking place on the slows overnight.
It's a scrape mark rather than a gouge, which has left a stain on the paint of the gantry, and may well have been made by something non-metallic (ie rubber), in view of the way it extends round the side of the post. I don't think too much should be read into it, as the report makes clear.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
I have never seen anything with containers run on that route. Doesn't mean they haven't, though, but highly unlikely.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Would be interesting to know how far the scrape is above the ground. Does it line up with the cantrail of passenger stock (the most likely part to scrape as the train sways) or the top of one of the various container dimensions? Damage to a passenger train is also more likely to trigger some sort of investigation when discovered, whereas containers and wagons pick up all sorts of dents and scrapes.
To me it looks much more like a gouge through the galvanising layer and into the steel below. The discolouration is due to rust rather than being paint.
The two impacts lower down the gantry also dislodged the galvanising layer at the initial contact point but don't continue all the way across.
At least that is the way it appears to me.
Sunset route
Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,188
Yep done it and got the T-shirt, just because it's rare and usually happens when the route via Maidstone is closed but it does happen.
Report from BBC News site https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49016151
Govia Thameslink fined £1m over Gatwick Express window death
Image copyrightJUST GIVING
Image captionSimon Brown was killed on the Gatwick Express in August 2016
A rail firm has been fined £1m after a man died when he leant out of an unlocked train window.
Simon Brown, 24, from East Grinstead, West Sussex, was killed when he hit his head on a steel gantry on the side of the track while on the Gatwick Express in London in August 2016.
In May, train company Govia Thameslink Railway pleaded guilty to a health and safety breach.
Along with the fine, the firm was ordered to pay £52,267 in costs.
Mr Brown had been previously described by friends as a life-long railway fanatic who was working in the rail industry.
He first volunteered on the Bluebell Railway aged nine and was working as an engineering technician with Hitachi Rail Europe in Bristol.
Bungle158
Member
Desperately sad and distressing for all concerned. During my time as an HST TM, l often had to make announcements asking passengers not to lean out of droplight door windows, particularly on scenic sections.
One of those instances of cost overriding safety concerns. Outside door release slam door stock should have been modified years ago.
One of those instances of cost overriding safety concerns. Outside door release slam door stock should have been modified years ago.
All passenger doors on this type of train have been activated by buttons from their introduction into service.
Bungle158
Member
Really? Door looking was retro fitted to Western HSTs years ago, but significantly after their initial introduction. This however, did not prevent passengers from attempting to open doors on approach to stations whilst the train was still in motion, nor leaning out of windows between stops
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,434
You cannot open the end door windows on 442s.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Is there any further information available on this? All we can see is the level of the fine and the guilty plea. I would like to understand more of the detail and the rationale for the fine.
Paul Kelly
Verified Rep - BR Fares
The BBC says GTR admitted a health & safety breach due to the warning sticker saying not to lean out the window not being displayed clearly enough. The judge said it was jumbled up with other notices. I think it's a particularly interesting point, since it's often said on here that the proliferation of back-covering and box-ticking warning and safety announcements these days means that passengers may be less likely to give attention to important safety or emergency warnings and announcements.
So would I. The BBC article does state the poor fellow was "a life-long railway fanatic who was working in the rail industry" so I wonder if any warning sticker, however large, would have stopped him leaning out?
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I don't mean an extract from the BBC article. I will wait for a detaled report in an HSEA journal.
Worf
Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 158
Fined for not having a clear enough sign "Do not lean out of the window". OK, definitely too many signs on the door to be clear.
It was a tragic accident, but Mr Brown was a lifelong railway enthusiast and "first volunteered on the Bluebell steam railway in Sussex aged nine and was working as an engineering technician with Hitachi Rail Europe in Bristol." Would he really have taken notice of a larger sign? As an "enthusiast, would you or I have done?
I think as enthusiasts we are probably more likely to lean out of train windows than the general public, and we probably know better the risks involved in doing so.
Something that all heritage railways should take serious note of in this "risk conscious" age.
(I posted my comment first in "railtours & preservation" section, as I thought the ruling was particularly relevant for preserved railways and rolling stock.)
It was a tragic accident, but Mr Brown was a lifelong railway enthusiast and "first volunteered on the Bluebell steam railway in Sussex aged nine and was working as an engineering technician with Hitachi Rail Europe in Bristol." Would he really have taken notice of a larger sign? As an "enthusiast, would you or I have done?
I think as enthusiasts we are probably more likely to lean out of train windows than the general public, and we probably know better the risks involved in doing so.
Something that all heritage railways should take serious note of in this "risk conscious" age.
(I posted my comment first in "railtours & preservation" section, as I thought the ruling was particularly relevant for preserved railways and rolling stock.)
Hmm.
Not sure I agree with this finding.
While signs do need to be clearly displayed, I wouldn't say it was the TOCs fault the person died.
The person worked for th railway and should have known the risks.
But even if they were a member of the public, still not sure if I'd agree.
Not sure I agree with this finding.
While signs do need to be clearly displayed, I wouldn't say it was the TOCs fault the person died.
The person worked for th railway and should have known the risks.
But even if they were a member of the public, still not sure if I'd agree.
It's been a while since I have travelled on these trains as they no longer run on GTR but I think he stuck his head out of the guards droplight window on the middle motor coach.
Guards use to dispatch from this door as it was a manual door and not a powered door.
Since this was a Gatwick Express and was DOO there would be no reason for this droplight to be used, so I think some of the fine would be around this.
Guards use to dispatch from this door as it was a manual door and not a powered door.
Since this was a Gatwick Express and was DOO there would be no reason for this droplight to be used, so I think some of the fine would be around this.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Quite possibly it wouldn't have stopped him from doing so, but it's a question of whether the TOC took sufficient precautions - looks like the judge has taken the view that providing the information isn't sufficient, it needs to be displayed more prominently - from the picture on the BBC site, there's clearly a yellow sticker with wording on it, but also several other bits of information in the same place.
Difficult, as there are many "safety"/"warning" things that need to be mentioned (in the modern climate), but the verdict means that putting the information up there isn't sufficient - it needs to be clearer.
Worth contrasting this with the Flying Scotsman thread - whilst there are some people who have made suggestions along the lines of "if people break through fences and get squished by a train then that's their own fault", the railway cannot allow this kind of behaviour and therefore needs to take much greater precautions - we can't just wash our hands of any accidents - putting up a sticker saying "Do Not Enter" (or whatever) is not sufficient.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,298
There was an RAIB report published some time ago: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59245646ed915d20f80000a9/R092017_170525_Balham.pdf
Deltic1961
Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2018
- Messages
- 645
We caught a Scotrail train on Sunday. It was an old Intercity 125 and I had to lean right out the window to open the door from outside.
I remember my dad doing this when I was a little kid. We don't use the train a lot but obviously the UK rail network hasn't moved on from the seventies. Quite disappointing considering the amount they charge for fares.
Could you imagine Easyjet turning up with a DC10?
I remember my dad doing this when I was a little kid. We don't use the train a lot but obviously the UK rail network hasn't moved on from the seventies. Quite disappointing considering the amount they charge for fares.
Could you imagine Easyjet turning up with a DC10?
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
thanks - I missed that - I wasn't sure if it had been embargoed because of the prosecution.
I would still like to read the full statement from the Judge.
First off, tragic incident and thoughts go out to all those affected. Having said that, I really don't see how GTR can be fined £1m for this. As if it is not common sense enough to not stick your head out the window of a train travelling at 60mph, potentially not even looking forwards as some have suggested in here, there was a warning sticker in place.
Looking at this and the tyne yard incident, starting to wonder if there is any point in companies adhering to health and safety laws, as sadly the bottom line seems to be that, no matter how well you have followed guidelines, if somebody gets hurt on your infrastructure you WILL be found at fault and fined no matter what. They will find a minor technicality to fine you for, such as the 'well there was a sticker, but there were also too many other stickers on the same door' technicality used in this case.
Looking at this and the tyne yard incident, starting to wonder if there is any point in companies adhering to health and safety laws, as sadly the bottom line seems to be that, no matter how well you have followed guidelines, if somebody gets hurt on your infrastructure you WILL be found at fault and fined no matter what. They will find a minor technicality to fine you for, such as the 'well there was a sticker, but there were also too many other stickers on the same door' technicality used in this case.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
you are making a comment based on the wording of a BBC report. You need to see the detailed court documentation to be able to understand the rationale behind the decision. I suspect no one here has.
As a starting point please look at page 18 of the linked RAIB report and point out which label shown tells you not to stick your head out of the window? It is also worth noting the widow is situated in a staff only area. How was it possible to access this window?
You will note if you have traveled recently on a train with drop light windows how the stickers around them have been improved AND that announcements are made instructing you not to lean out while the train is in motion. That is in response to recommendation 2 in the RAIB report linked above.
That is simply not true and i do wish people would stop suggesting such silliness.
Last edited:
The one that the report mentions which says 'Emergency Ventilation - Do not lean out of window when train is moving'
- Status