The report also mentions that passengers do have access to this area - which makes sense if it was used to store passenger luggage.
-
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
The report also mentions that passengers do have access to this area - which makes sense if it was used to store passenger luggage.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It wasn’t/isn’t in a “staff only area.” It was in a corridor with the guards van on the other side.
Andrew*Debbie
Member
For a details read "Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences Definitive Guideline" published by the Sentencing Council.
Link --> https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...fety-and-Hygiene-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf
This document describes the starting point and ranges for both fines and prison sentences for breaches of Health and Safety.
My guess of how the judge came to a £1M fine.
Harm
The Seriousness of Harm Risked is death. Death is Level A. Likelihood? My guess is once someones head is out of the window, they are at a high likelihood of harm.
"Actions of victims are unlikely to be considered contributory events for sentencing purposes" Govia Thameslink are required to protect for events which are reasonably foreseeable. I'd say this event was reasonably foreseeable and they did not offer sufficient protection against it.
This would be Harm Category 1.
Govia Thameslink plead guilty. They are probably a large company with a turnover over £50million a year. Looking at the fine range, I'd guess the judge would have decided they had medium culpability and also reduced the fine because of the guilty plea.
It is also possible the judge decided on Harm Category 2 and high culpability. We would need to read the decision.
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
It seems there’s no problem on the railway which can’t be solved with an announcement.
I take the point about the court documentation, however outwardly £1m seems a big fine for a label issue. People are going to encounter situations in life which are hazardous (not dangerous), and it’s simply not realistic to mitigate against every single hazard. What happened was tragic, but it was the result of a highly injudicious action.
The network has definitely moved on - these trains are being refurbished and outfitted with power doors, so as to avoid these complaints, and any future incidents like at Wandsworth Common...
The problem is that safety attitudes in organisations are modified by the law and the (financial impact of ignoring the law). Safety attitudes of the general public (as individuals rather than employees etc.), are modified by perception and personal experience, hence the fact that in this case, putting a head out of a window despite the 'common sense' arguments doesn't seem to have the right deterrent effect - especially with somebody who the media is saying had employment in the rail industry. Add that to the fact that there are far more general public individuals around than organisations that have specific legal health and safety obligations, it makes sense to me that the latter is best placed to effect safety improvements, given that among the former, there's 'one born every minute' to use a hackneyed expression, who might need the safety conscious attitude enforced by the law. A darwinian approach to safety precautions is hardly appropriate in a modern society.
Andrew*Debbie
Member
Yes. The sentencing guidelines specifically say the actions of the victim are unlikely to be considered.
According to UK law the TOC are culpable because they did not take sufficient action to reduce the risk.
It wasn't just the label issue. The judge also mentioned the units being driver only operated without any onboard crews to monitor the windows. The class 442 DOO-P conversion was a bodge from the get go - they were never intended for it and had a whole lot of derogations from standards.
Guards on droplight fitted trains are now required to make regular announcements regarding their safe use and monitor them for any 'misuse'.
colchesterken
Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 764
Have they reduced clearance standards?. When I was younger and we had slam door trains, I almost always had my head out of the window, apart from getting bits in my eye ( dont know why I did not have the sense to wear glasses ) I still have my head attached
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Indeed - a secondary statement on a small sticker.
Compare with the current set up on an HST: The window is surrounded by "hazard tape" with a prominent do not lean out sticker directly above the window. Short of Cumbrian coast style window bars there is little more that can be done.
My apologies - i am not familiar with the 442 units and assumed it to be within the guards area rather than the corridor.
I am not suggesting they should be. I simply want to know more of the detail.
but you are not expected to mitigate against every hazard. You are expected to do as much as is reasonable practicable to reduce risk. Do we think one small sticker with a secondary note about leaning out of an insecure window meets that criteria?
I want to understand what the judge said and upon what he based his decision to levy such a large fine because those comments have a potentially wide ranging impact on railway operations. We can see from the RAIB report that they want action taken on drop lights and stopped just short of recommending window bars.
As always the devil will be in the detail.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
These were the last trains built for the UK with manual doors, production ending in the early 1980s. Since then they have been fitted with central locking which, assuming staff operate it correctly, makes it impossible to open the door when the train is moving. Within a couple of years the remaining ones will be fitted with power doors or withdrawn.
The report says the door was in the corridor opposite the guard's compartment. As this is in the middle of the unit, passengers have access through the corridor but the guard would need to use the window and inward-opening door for platform duties when the platform was on the corridor side. The equivalent door on the other side is within the guard's compartment so not accessible. This used to be the arrangement with all "brake end" vehicles but only a handful are still in main line service.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
As I said above I assumed, wrongly, this was the window in the guards compartment. I am not familiar with the 442 unit. The correction is gratefully accepted
edwin_m
Veteran Member
This is discussed at length on page 19 onwards of the report linked above. The standards seem to be something of a mishmash but the clearance was arguably compliant, although there is evidence of the gantry being scraped by a train at some time in the past when clearances were less.
nottsnurse
Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2014
- Messages
- 275
Makes you wonder how this type of stock never had bars fitted over the windows, as many other types of stock in the SE were?
bramling
Veteran Member
Unless on-board staff are specifically provided adjacent to droplights, and not allowed to move from that position, I don’t see how the presence of a guard can make that much difference. When in service with SWT they often ran in 10-car formations, so the guard could be 7-8 carriages away.
Thinking back to slam-door days, one could quite happily board a non-gangwayed DEMU formation as recently as 2003-4, which ran in 6-car formations. Again one could be 100m away from the guard, who on these trains was unable to pass through.
With the poor judgement demonstrated by some people one wonders what would happen in a severe crisis situation.
malc-c
Member
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 990
I've not read through all 433 posts, so forgive me if my comments have already been covered, but I find this really sad.
Not just because the chap lost his life, but sad that in this day and age government bodies such as H&S seem to want to make someone a scapegoat. If this tragic accident had happened several decades ago it would have been put down to misadventure. The TOC would have been given a wrap on the knuckles for not making the signage clearer, but also the guy himself should have taken some of the blame, especially as he worked in the industry and would have known the risks involved when sticking your head of of the window on a train doing more than 60mph. The way it's been covered in todays media is that it's the TOC's fault for not ensuring the signage was clear, and for running stock where the window could be opened allowing someone to look out if it.
Not just because the chap lost his life, but sad that in this day and age government bodies such as H&S seem to want to make someone a scapegoat. If this tragic accident had happened several decades ago it would have been put down to misadventure. The TOC would have been given a wrap on the knuckles for not making the signage clearer, but also the guy himself should have taken some of the blame, especially as he worked in the industry and would have known the risks involved when sticking your head of of the window on a train doing more than 60mph. The way it's been covered in todays media is that it's the TOC's fault for not ensuring the signage was clear, and for running stock where the window could be opened allowing someone to look out if it.
Chris M
Member
The RAIB report makes it clear that the gantry that the person struck his head on was closer to the train than clearance standards permit. Indeed there was evidence that trains had made contact with it in the past.
Paragraphs 17 and 50 to 71 are the main ones dealing with the gantry. Some key points below, but it's best to read the report directly
- When it was installed in 1952 the standards required a minimum static clearance of 610mm from the train body. (paragraph 53) Present standards are a minimum clearance normally of 1624mm (absolute minimum 1364mm) from the nearest edge of a running rail. (p58)
- For the upper part of a train (including the window area): clearances of 100mm or greater are defined as "normal", 50-100mm are "reduced", and 0-49mm are "special reduced" (paragraph 54)
- "reduced" and "special reduced" clearances are permitted subject to additional controls (p54), including additional monitoring.
- "Anomaly" clearances (certainly including clearances ≤0mm, but possibly others too, the report isn't clear) must be restored to "normal" (if practical) or "reduced" standards within 12 months or, if predating 2009, at the next track renewal.(p56-57)
- All the above are based on measurements and calculations from the structure gauging train, which should run every 1-2 years or by manual measurements every 26-60 weeks (p55). The implication of paragraph 58 is that manual measurements, e.g. when monitoring for changes, are done at track level and take no/little account of swept envelope or cant.
- Paragraph 59 is worth quoting in its entirity:
- In 2008, 2011 and 2015 negative clearances were calculated, but track work in Februry 2015 restored these to positive values (p60)
- There is evidence that at least one vehicle struck the gantry between April 2011 and April 2013. (p71)
S-Car-Go
Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 222
Since the court outcome & report were released recently, I've read, with interest, this post back to the original incident.
It is telling that GTR pleaded guilty straightaway. A 442 unit that used to have staff/guard didn't, and their conversion should've included additional door modifications if all other passenger doors were plug-style with no opening window. The on-board sign could've been clearer but staff cannot police all of the train all the time.
However, earlier debate about lineside gantries/equipment being dangerously positioned is moot. The positioning is fine if people follow the rules and pay attention to the signage. It's tempting, but, do not lean out the window during motion when not in a station platform area. As a rail worker/enthusiast, the unfortunate victim should've known this, ignored the risk, and paid with his life.
I just hope this tragic event improves railway safety and best practice. Modern TOCs will soon phase out this type of rolling stock, but this is still very relevant for heritage railways.
It is telling that GTR pleaded guilty straightaway. A 442 unit that used to have staff/guard didn't, and their conversion should've included additional door modifications if all other passenger doors were plug-style with no opening window. The on-board sign could've been clearer but staff cannot police all of the train all the time.
However, earlier debate about lineside gantries/equipment being dangerously positioned is moot. The positioning is fine if people follow the rules and pay attention to the signage. It's tempting, but, do not lean out the window during motion when not in a station platform area. As a rail worker/enthusiast, the unfortunate victim should've known this, ignored the risk, and paid with his life.
I just hope this tragic event improves railway safety and best practice. Modern TOCs will soon phase out this type of rolling stock, but this is still very relevant for heritage railways.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,655
Surely someone who worked in t
Indeed, this pretty much sums up my feelings too.
Ultimately, what does this £1m go towards? Certainly it isn't towards the railways or passengers. Let alone the costs of the inquiry and time.
Indeed, this pretty much sums up my feelings too.
Ultimately, what does this £1m go towards? Certainly it isn't towards the railways or passengers. Let alone the costs of the inquiry and time.
Back in the day a train journey wasn't considered complete without bits in the eye or a dirty sooty face made even better if it was an A4 or the likes up front.
Class 442s had driver door controls installed in their cabs from new, (it was BR policy at the time all new units had to be DOO compatible) although were never actually used in DOO p mode until Gatwick Express begun operating them
I wonder if the guards droplight windows remained usable on the 303s during the many years they ran around Strathclyde in DOO mode ?.
Last edited:
The window bars tended to be fitted for specific limited clearance routes such as East Grinstead. The BML wasn't in this category.
I do find this case interesting from a liability perspective. What control did GTR have over the nature of the rolling stock and the decision that 442s should be DOO? Presumably GTR put the stickers in, but which other factors leading to the outcome were in their control? Should they have assessed the risk and asked for advice from ORR or the government? I'm genuinely curious about how this works, and indeed over whether the totality of the fine will in fact be paid by GTR. I don't do any significant regulatory work, but nor can I see how there could be recourse for them to recover the sums in question.
SilentGrade
Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 135
Utter wibble, look at the recent case of the farmer killed on the crossing near Stroud for one example of NR not being recorded as being at fault.
Yes, maybe not to the outcome. However what it could have done is given GTR an idea of how many times incidences of people flailing was happening and an idea of the risk of this type of event occurring. Something the judge highlighted as lacking in the judgement.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,268
Which is something of a red herring. They often ran as 10-car sets, so any guard could be either in the other van or elsewhere on the train (as they ought to be for a significant period of time).
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
Exactly a tragic accident but not in the U.K. where the motto where’s there’s blame there’s a claim comes to the fore. Meanwhile in the more realistic mainland Europe they still have full drop light windows on some of the older stock and no one bats an eyelid. It’s YOUR fault if you get injured doing something that is obviously stupid.
theironroad
Established Member
Has the behaviour of the small core of enthusiasts who 'flail', ( believe the practice is to get most of the upper half of your body out of the droplight window) changed since this tragic incident.
I see the ORR have written to all TOCs etc still using drop down windows to take appropriate action. What will it be, bearing in mind the mainline toc stick is being phased out. Do the scottail hsts still have a need to lean out to open the door????
I see the ORR have written to all TOCs etc still using drop down windows to take appropriate action. What will it be, bearing in mind the mainline toc stick is being phased out. Do the scottail hsts still have a need to lean out to open the door????
theageofthetra
On Moderation
- Joined
- 27 May 2012
- Messages
- 3,504
Yes noticed this when leaving Nottingham on a London bound HST this week. Quite a hard hitting, but effective announcement was made by the guard
Flying Snail
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2006
- Messages
- 1,634
Just more noise pollution, add it to the near continuous stream of pointless nonsense that is droned out over P.A. systems on trains; see it, steal it, sell it, sorted.
This whole nonsense is just another example of the insipid infantilisation of the population.
This gent was an enthusiast, preservationist and rail worker, there is no question that he was well aware of the risks involved in window leaning, the size of the warning sticker having any effect on his behaviour is beyond ridiculous.
I have done the same thing numerous times since I was a young boy and right from the start I was aware that it had a risk of causing injury, of course it had, objects and other trains could and did pass close enough to cause injury. Had I been injured or killed I would not expect anyone but myself to be held accountable for the consequences of my actions.
You would have to be an incredibly stupid person to not expect that sticking any part of your body, particularly your head outside of a train was anything other than potentially dangerous. But that seems to be the bar now, we live in the "caution, the drink made with boiling water that you just asked for is hot and may injure you if you pour it over yourself" era and are not better for it.
I also find all the mandatory box ticking guff irritating.
However I do take issue with the idea that it's up to you alone if you do it and down to you if it goes wrong.
It's not my job as a guard to deal with bodies with traumatic injuries plastered over the inside of a train because of your freedom of choice.
- Status