• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,533
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 not common to have limited clearances on heritage railways as they often have a single track in the middle of what was previously a double track formation and have to keep vegetation away from the tracks due to the fire risk.

The Cholsey and Wallingford railway have window bars on one side of their stock but I can't think of any other preserved railway with this feature.

It does seem unlikely that preserved railways will be forced to replace their stock with Mark 4 carriages as a way of implementing sealed carriages and power doors. Whether limited opening of windows or window bars on heritage railways is likely in the future is a matter for the ORR but would seem to be a bit drastic. Charter trains may be a different matter.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
From a heritage railway perspective my concern is that labels act as a deterrent. Your risk assessment would consider how effective current controls (as such) were working. Photos from diesel galas with people leaning fully out of the window with arms flailing about gives irrevocable evidence that it does not control it. Then you say staff travel in carraige to deter and challenge, except the response to this then becomes "oi you jobsworth I know what I am doing done it for years!"

Then it becomes an issue. That is how I see it anyway.
 

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
From a heritage railway perspective my concern is that labels act as a deterrent. Your risk assessment would consider how effective current controls (as such) were working. Photos from diesel galas with people leaning fully out of the window with arms flailing about gives irrevocable evidence that it does not control it. Then you say staff travel in carraige to deter and challenge, except the response to this then becomes "oi you jobsworth I know what I am doing done it for years!"

Then it becomes an issue. That is how I see it anyway.
Anyone caught doing that should have their mug shot taken and be barred from all heritage lines for a considerable period. Stick a rogues gallery in every booking office.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I'd imagine heritage railways are required to provide significantly greater clearances than the structure involved in this incident.
Anyone caught doing that should have their mug shot taken and be barred from all heritage lines for a considerable period. Stick a rogues gallery in every booking office.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
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.

You may not like it, you may find it "infantising", but that's the law - that's what the railway has to cope with - that's what the railway will be fined under the moment something goes wrong.

This isn't Sodor, we aren't in the 1950s, we either provide a safe travelling environment or we send the trains to Booths to be scrapped - if a Judge says your trains are unfit then your trains are unfit.

It may seem daft to insist on a different size of sticker or an extra inch of warning tape or marginally larger font size (or whatever recommendations may come out), but them's the rules - we wither make the railway safe enough to comply with the laws/ judges or we start scrapping the non-compliant stock.

We'll be having the same arguments in a few months about why apparently "minor" non-compliances are the reason why some trains aren't compliant with 2020 accessibility requirements.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
I'd imagine heritage railways are required to provide significantly greater clearances than the structure involved in this incident.
I'd say in general you're correct. Speeds are usually significantly lower than on the national network too, giving more time to see an approaching obstacle, and meaning less energy is involved in any collision. A head striking a tight bridge abutment at 25mph could still be fatal though.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
There is a simple and effective solution available which has been used before. Window bars. Why not just fir them back on?
 

Need2

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2016
Messages
595
If I stuck my head out of a moving car window and got decapitated by another motorist, who's fault is that? Should there be warning signs in cars?
This world is barking mad!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
You may not like it, you may find it "infantising", but that's the law - that's what the railway has to cope with - that's what the railway will be fined under the moment something goes wrong.

This isn't Sodor, we aren't in the 1950s, we either provide a safe travelling environment or we send the trains to Booths to be scrapped - if a Judge says your trains are unfit then your trains are unfit.

It may seem daft to insist on a different size of sticker or an extra inch of warning tape or marginally larger font size (or whatever recommendations may come out), but them's the rules - we wither make the railway safe enough to comply with the laws/ judges or we start scrapping the non-compliant stock.

We'll be having the same arguments in a few months about why apparently "minor" non-compliances are the reason why some trains aren't compliant with 2020 accessibility requirements.

A sensible posting. I disagree with your final sentence but that is for another day.

If I stuck my head out of a moving car window and got decapitated by another motorist, who's fault is that? Should there be warning signs in cars?
This world is barking mad!

This kind of ill educated wibble drives me mad. It is clear you have absolutely no understanding of the law. Your next point will be to moan on about some HSEA gone mad silliness. Please don't. The law in this area is not new, it has not changed much and has a clear precedent behind it.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
A sensible posting. I disagree with your final sentence but that is for another day.



This kind of ill educated wibble drives me mad. It is clear you have absolutely no understanding of the law. Your next point will be to moan on about some HSEA gone mad silliness. Please don't. The law in this area is not new, it has not changed much and has a clear precedent behind it.

Just because something happens to be the law doesn’t automatically make it right. Once upon a time homosexuality was illegal, if people hadn’t called that out as being wrong then things would have never changed.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Just because something happens to be the law doesn’t automatically make it right. Once upon a time homosexuality was illegal, if people hadn’t called that out as being wrong then things would have never changed.

Ok. I repeat: The law in this area has not changed since them olden days when men were men and common sense ruled supreme. It hasn't recently been brought in to pander to some kind of nanny state nonsense that people like to wibble on about. That should tell you all something.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
It is however true that a very different approach is taken as regards an acceptable balance of risk/personal freedom when you compare the roads to the railway. On the one hand, it's determined that people shouldn't be allowed/expected to make their own judgement about the risk involved in something like putting their head out of a moving train window. On the other hand, for years simple measures that would improve safety and save hundreds of lives, like more widespread speed cameras, speed recording devices on cars, etc have been resisted as unacceptable curbs to people's freedom. Whilst a train company is fined for a lack of sufficient warning notice, virtually no resources are dedicated to doing something about the fact that cars continually speed along my street way above the supposed 20mph limit.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Ok. I repeat: The law in this area has not changed since them olden days when men were men and common sense ruled supreme. It hasn't recently been brought in to pander to some kind of nanny state nonsense that people like to wibble on about. That should tell you all something.

Okay, so how come we managed for so long with copious drop light windows without it ever seeming to be a problem? Why has it only now suddenly become such a major issue?

In all honesty, as a GTR user, I resent £1m of what is effectively fare payers money being paid out to pacify someone’s poor judgement.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Okay, so how come we managed for so long with copious drop light windows without it ever seeming to be a problem? Why has it only now suddenly become such a major issue?

because the judge decided that Thameslink had not taken reasonably practicable steps to mitigate the risk. The ground on which that decision is laid has not changed for a considerable period of time.

This is is why I want to see the complete wording of his judgement so we can understand exactly what the failing was. The failing was not that someone stuck their head out of a window nor that he was not absolutely prevented from doing so. The failing was that reasonably practicable steps were not taken to prevent that action. I want to know what reasonably practicable steps the judge felt had been overlooked.

( and it was always a problem. People were injured or killed in them olden days by messing about with doors and windows. What has changed is the regulatory/reporting/investigation & enforcement mechanisms associated with such incidents)

In all honesty, as a GTR user, I resent £1m of what is effectively fare payers money being paid out to pacify someone’s poor judgement.

I take the point. However the fine is not to pacify someones poor judgement. The fine is because, in the view of a judge, Thameslink had not taken reasonably practicable steps to mitigate the risk of someones poor judgement resulting in a terrible accident. That is an important distinction and one that is often missed.
 
Last edited:

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
The trains I work on have fairly simplistic air bolts under the droplights which only release when the train is stationary. Any one not properly closed gives a door interlock and the train will not move.

All of the relevant bodies care not one jot about how long droplights have been used, how much common sense the person showed, what other mitigating factors there were. This is about an incident and reflecting on how best to avoid a recurrence. Cold hard cash is the language these companies speak, and like it or not, the application of health and safety law is what makes our country one of the safest places to live, travel and work. Personally I'm very grateful for that.

Had GTR been proactive before this incident, you'd fit quite a few air bolts for a million quid .....
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
It would be good if the fine could go back to the railway in some way. Perhaps towards NR's safety works.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Had GTR been proactive before this incident, you'd fit quite a few air bolts for a million quid .....
They fitted window bars pretty quickly after the incident. It was just two windows per set and the bars would not have interfered with guards' normal duties had the trains gone on to other work without DOO.
 

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
They fitted window bars pretty quickly after the incident. It was just two windows per set and the bars would not have interfered with guards' normal duties had the trains gone on to other work without DOO.

Well exactly - that is essentially why the fine has been applied - the reasonably practicable test was clearly failed.
 

Need2

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2016
Messages
595
This kind of ill educated wibble drives me mad. It is clear you have absolutely no understanding of the law. Your next point will be to moan on about some HSEA gone mad silliness. Please don't. The law in this area is not new, it has not changed much and has a clear precedent behind it.
Rather pompous don't you think?
You do not know my background as I do not know yours so, lets not assume shall we, we all know what that does!
The law is a complete ass, as you are for thinking it correct. Just beacause a law has been in the statute book for ever, it does not make it correct. The law is full of ridiculously old points that have no meaning in todays society eg " In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow"
The law found GTR 'at fault' and I cannot do anything about that except disagree.
If i stick my head out of a taxi window and get injured, who's fault is that?
If I climb over a level crossing barrier and get hit by a train, who's fault is that?
As you have said in a later post
I take the point. However the fine is not to pacify someones poor judgement. The fine is because, in the view of a judge, Thameslink had not taken reasonably practicable steps to mitigate the risk of someones poor judgement resulting in a terrible accident. That is an important distinction and one that is often missed.
Yes It was poor judgement, it was unbelievably poor judgement and unfortunately he paid the ultimate price. I still do not see why somebody else is at 'fault' for this. Can I sue a shop for selling me a sharp knife and then I cut myself?
This poor (but stupid) gentleman brought it all on himself and it's about time people took the blame for there own actions.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Rather pompous don't you think?
You do not know my background as I do not know yours so, lets not assume shall we, we all know what that does!
The law is a complete ass, as you are for thinking it correct. Just beacause a law has been in the statute book for ever, it does not make it correct. The law is full of ridiculously old points that have no meaning in todays society eg " In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow"
The law found GTR 'at fault' and I cannot do anything about that except disagree.
If i stick my head out of a taxi window and get injured, who's fault is that?
If I climb over a level crossing barrier and get hit by a train, who's fault is that?
As you have said in a later post

Yes It was poor judgement, it was unbelievably poor judgement and unfortunately he paid the ultimate price. I still do not see why somebody else is at 'fault' for this. Can I sue a shop for selling me a sharp knife and then I cut myself?
This poor (but stupid) gentleman brought it all on himself and it's about time people took the blame for there own actions.

It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. The majority of your post, but the penultimate paragraph in particular, shows that. It simply isn't worth discussing this point with you further as you seem unable to grasp the legal concepts involved.

I would urge you to seek out the judgement and read it. But you won't.

You are welcome to express your opinion. I do not agree with it.
 
Last edited:

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
The trains I work on have fairly simplistic air bolts under the droplights which only release when the train is stationary. Any one not properly closed gives a door interlock and the train will not move.

All of the relevant bodies care not one jot about how long droplights have been used, how much common sense the person showed, what other mitigating factors there were. This is about an incident and reflecting on how best to avoid a recurrence. Cold hard cash is the language these companies speak, and like it or not, the application of health and safety law is what makes our country one of the safest places to live, travel and work. Personally I'm very grateful for that.

Had GTR been proactive before this incident, you'd fit quite a few air bolts for a million quid .....

I'm intrigued, what stock is this?
 

Need2

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2016
Messages
595
It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. The majority of your post, but the penultimate paragraph in particular, shows that. It simply isn't worth discussing this point with you further as you seem unable to grasp the legal concepts involved.

I would urge you to seek out the judgement and read it. But you won't.

You are welcome to express your opinion. I do not agree with it.

No i won't seek out the judgement, I am not talking about the legal concepts, I am talking about reality, something you do not grasp or agree with. A FOOL sticks his head out of a moving train, gets killed and the TOC is at fault?
The law is indeed an ass.
I was right about one thing though. You are unbeliveably pompous :p
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
No i won't seek out the judgement, I am not talking about the legal concepts, I am talking about reality, something you do not grasp or agree with. A FOOL sticks his head out of a moving train, gets killed and the TOC is at fault?
The law is indeed an ass.
I was right about one thing though. You are unbeliveably pompous :p

It seems that you need a better understanding of the law. Even if you/others feel it's wrong, or out of date, it is still the law until it gets changed. Perhaps you should raise any concerns with your MP.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
The window bars tended to be fitted for specific limited clearance routes such as East Grinstead. The BML wasn't in this category.
Eventually they put window bars on the Brighton CIGs as well but not on the sliding vents so it was rather pointless. It just made it harder to open the doors from the inside. On the South Eastern the VEPs had them quite early on. The last seven CEPs had them for a few months and those imported back from South West Trains. I don't think the CIGs ever got them. I think I'm correct in saying that SWT didn't have window bard on any of their slam door units.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Eventually they put window bars on the Brighton CIGs as well but not on the sliding vents so it was rather pointless. It just made it harder to open the doors from the inside. On the South Eastern the VEPs had them quite early on. The last seven CEPs had them for a few months and those imported back from South West Trains. I don't think the CIGs ever got them. I think I'm correct in saying that SWT didn't have window bard on any of their slam door units.

Goodness. I'd moved away by then, but hadn't noticed how prolific window bars had become on my visits.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
A few people failing to understand the duty of care that a company has towards people. For example, I could make a meal in my house in a dirty unsafe manner and get food poisoning without anyone being fined but if I go to a cafe/restaurant and get food poisoning because of their dirty unsafe kitchen then they'd be at fault. Similarly, if I have an accident at work then that's different to having an accident in the house. Just because nobody is stopping me doing dumb things on my own (sticking my head out of a car window etc) doesn't mean a company can waive its responsibilities if I am not aware of the risks on their equipment/ premises.

Just because something happens to be the law doesn’t automatically make it right. Once upon a time homosexuality was illegal, if people hadn’t called that out as being wrong then things would have never changed.

By all means start a thread in the Speculative section on "My Idea For What The Law Should Be", but in the meantime the railway has to deal with the reality of what the law actually is.

Okay, so how come we managed for so long with copious drop light windows without it ever seeming to be a problem? Why has it only now suddenly become such a major issue?

How come emissions weren't a major issue for a long period? Or disabled access? Or...

The railway can't hide behind a defence of "it was acceptable in the '80s".

1. Public transport has to be safe (not just the railway - look at the regulations on air travel and how ultra-safe that has to be - it's not optional)
2. The law concerns itself with manageable quantifiable risks - if something can be prevented then it may be worth legislating about - the law can't stop every dumb thing happening but it tries to help preventable deaths/ injuries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
I am fairly sure I read somewhere that the minimum fine for this offense is £1.1 million although GTRs lawyers sought to argue it shouldnt be imposed as they hadnt made any profit this year.

GTR pleaded guilty.

Seems to me that the above two result in a fine of £1 million irrespective of who the victim was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top