• 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!

Passenger fatally injured on a train between Bath and Bristol, Saturday 01/12/18

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Apart from the defensive messages in this thread, presumably from TOC and NR interests, I feel that there is a strong defence by some HST fans here who won't admit that the love of their lives is no longer acceptable on a modern railway unless modifications, (probably prohibitively expensive) are undertaken on all of them.

The point is, the trains are being modified or withdrawn anyway. The process started back in the 1980s. As it happens, the trains involed at Balham and Twerton had both taken off the routes by the time the reports were published.

There has been a lot of talk about mitigation. I've poked my head out of various train windows over the decades, all of which had warning labels of various shapes and sizes. I don't think the slightly larger red label depicted in the report would have made any difference compared with the earlier yellow label. Short of locking the windows when the train is in motion or having staff at every set of doors, it's difficult to see what else can be done.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
Well, I'm impressed with your honesty for admitting that, but alarmed that somebody could hold such a flippant view about such a serious matter.
Look, nobody's being flippant here about this accident, least of all me. But notably the two recent droplight accidents both occurred where NR failed to maintain their own clearances for trackside items, long term, and seemed to have no realistic plan for checking and controlling same.

Unchecked vegetation allowed to strike train sides is obviously related to unchecked vegetation depositing leaf fall on the tracks, which itself has led to further accidents with loss of adhesion.
 

adamello

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2016
Messages
230
It is not being overlooked willfully.
It is a ridiculous state of affairs that a person/company can be held to blame for the action of an individual when warned not to do so.

The point of the finding (when in discussion about the warning) is that in the view of RAIB the warning wasn't sufficient, it was a tiny sign, and (paraphrased) being yellow and the wording suggests that it could be done, but with caution
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
X
It is not being overlooked willfully.
It is a ridiculous state of affairs that a person/company can be held to blame for the action of an individual when warned not to do so.
Another post here obsessing about blame. The RAIB is a government body empowered investigate accidents on the UK's railways and to provide reports that identify the any and all of the causes of accidents and recommend any changes in working practices, equipment and legislation in order to prevent recurrence of similar accidents. The investigations are forensic and fiercely independent of outside influence. They do not seek to allocate blame to individuals or organisations, but in the event of an individual's or organisation's failure, the report is available together with any other admissible evidence for examination and if appropriate applying criminal or civil law to restitution any those who have suffered loss.
If after reading and understanding their report in full, you feel that they have made an inappropriate conclusion in their report, it is your responsibility to take this up with the authorities. They are professionals in their role but just like any human being they can make errors. Nobody wants an incorrect conclusion to a report as it may lead to a recurrence of the accident.
Bleating here because you just don't like the answer that they gave acheives nothing. We would all of course love to hear the response from the authorities to your reasoned arguments disputing their conclusions.
 
Last edited:

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Just out of interest, in the age of central door locking, is there any good reason why the handle is on the outside only?
The standard MKI slam door design was used both on mainline and suburban compartment stock. The doors originally had a rather stiff sliding lever on the inside on suburban coaches and I think there was a swing lever on the corridor types. The inside handle was blanked off following a few cases of passengers opening the doors at speed, an when on the 6ft side, there were cases of fatalities and damage to oncoming trains.
Presumably, the inner handles could be restored provided it didn't interfere with central door lock operation. Presumably the TOCS would kick up a fuss as most of the MKIII coaches will soon be razor blades.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
Just out of interest, in the age of central door locking, is there any good reason why the handle is on the outside only?
On traditional stock, Mk 1 etc, it was normal to have an inside catch on high density stock, eg suburban emus, with doors to each seating bay, but not on mainline stock. Both had droplights and an outside handle. The inside catch had a stiff spring, which required both thumbs, at least, to push to release the door, if too stiff you needed to use the droplight and external handle anyway, which was easier to use (possibly deliberately so). Main line stock had outside only until sealed windows air-con Mk 2d came along in 1971, when an inside handle was provided - with severe warning notices. Within a couple of months of introduction I think two separate passengers, including a child, had fallen out at speed on the ECML, and the design was rapidly replaced by the traditional droplight approach.
 

virgintrain1

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Messages
207
Vertical window bars, though they make getting to the door handle a bit more awkward.
Out of interest how would that work? As slam door HSTs have no local door control meaning the TM has to stick their head out the window to check the train is platformed before releasing the doors.
And then again during dispatch as a slam door stock is most at risk of an aborted dispatch.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Out of interest how would that work? As slam door HSTs have no local door control meaning the TM has to stick their head out the window to check the train is platformed before releasing the doors.
And then again during dispatch as a slam door stock is most at risk of an aborted dispatch.
You'd have to dispatch from a crew window, or perhaps have the grille arranged so it could be unlocked and swung back somehow.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
The suggestion of prominent labeling seems reasonable and proportionate to me, although of course it does introduce the issue of people that can't read.

That is the point of the colour scheme and the diagrams. Red = Prohibitied.

I don't think the slightly larger red label depicted in the report would have made any difference compared with the earlier yellow label.

No one is saying the label STOPS anything from happening. They are saying the colours MIGHT make a difference and give someone a pause to think before acting. What it says is that your mind is conditioned to treat red more seriously than yellow. Red is a prohibitive colour, yellow is a warning/caution colour.

Just out of interest, in the age of central door locking, is there any good reason why the handle is on the outside only?

Nothing beyond cost/benefit. It isn't worth doing now.

Clearly the experts at the RAIB aren't compromised by similar feelings when determining primary and secondary causes of events that they are empowered to investigate.

Indeed. The people given the statutory and regulatory power to investigate and report have done so and delivered their report. That will do for me.

Another post here obsessing about blame. The RAIB is a government body empowered investigate accidents on the UK's railways and to provide reports that identify the any and all of the causes of accidents and recommend any changes in working practices, equipment and legislation in order to prevent recurrence of similar accidents. The investigations are forensic and fiercely independent of outside influence. They do not seek to allocate blame to individuals or organisations, but in the event of an individual's or organisation's failure, the report is available together with any other admissible evidence for examination and if appropriate applying criminal or civil law to restitution any those who have suffered loss.
If after reading and understanding their report in full, you feel that they have made an inappropriate conclusion in their report, it is your responsibility to take this up with the authorities. They are professionals in their role but just like any human being they can make errors. Nobody wants an incorrect conclusion to a report as it may lead to a recurrence of the accident.
Bleating here because you just don't like the answer that they gave acheives nothing. We would all of course love to hear the response from the authorities to your reasoned arguments disputing their conclusions.

Well said. It seems that people with no experience are happy to criticise those experienced investigators undertaking an impartial and independent investigation. I wonder why?
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Just the weight of rain on the leaves and branches of a tree can make lean over further.
Indeed. Recently I travelled on the once a day train that runs from Glasgow to Markinch via Dalmeny. There were numerous loud bangs on the rarely used piece of track. It ocurred to me that it was tree branches hitting the front of the train.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Certainly when I travelled along the Fishguard branch a couple of months ago, there was vegetation rubbing along the side of the train pretty much constantly along most of the length of the branch, and to the extent that twigs and leaves were entering the carriage through open windows (class 150). As an aside, it would be quite easy for someone to sustain injury by putting their arm out of a class 150 hopper window, which would be fairly easy to do if so inclined.

I tend to agree that people should simply exercise care. A droplight window isn't, IMO, inherently dangerous. The suggestion of prominent labeling seems reasonable and proportionate to me, although of course it does introduce the issue of people that can't read.

Interestingly the Fishguard line has been shut since the prang last Thursday.

I'm not convinced that different labels would make any difference. People disregard warning signs in all sort of situations. For example, UK cigarette packets have clear warning labels but lots of people still smoke.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
And indeed, too many warning signs has been shown to reduce the efficacy of them.
 

nickswift99

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2013
Messages
273
And indeed, too many warning signs has been shown to reduce the efficacy of them.
It also assumes that people are able to read the signs which is not a requirement for train travel otherwise. This requires the ability to be able to both read signs in English and understand them. Here's an article from this year in which the Coroner found that an autistic adult was unable to read a "No Swimming" sign.
An aspiring boxer drowned in a reservoir because his autism meant he couldn’t read the warning signs. An inquest heard Dwayne Thompson may have been confused about the yellow danger signs urging people not to get into the water. The 20-year-old had undergone lifeguard training at school but the court heard that the warnings were not ‘accessible enough to people with disabilities’.
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/18/auti...understand-warning-signs-8358406/?ito=cbshare
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
That is the point of the colour scheme and the diagrams. Red = Prohibitied.

No one is saying the label STOPS anything from happening. They are saying the colours MIGHT make a difference and give someone a pause to think before acting. What it says is that your mind is conditioned to treat red more seriously than yellow. Red is a prohibitive colour, yellow is a warning/caution colour.

The change from red to yellow is curious. No doubt it has been the case throughout the pink door era. I must confess I'd never noticed despite frequent trips on the HSTs over 20 years or so.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
The change from red to yellow is curious. No doubt it has been the case throughout the pink door era. I must confess I'd never noticed despite frequent trips on the HSTs over 20 years or so.

There is some science behind it but I can't find it on my phone
 

14xxDave

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2011
Messages
179
Location
Gateshead
There is some science behind it but I can't find it on my phone
I found this...
why-are-warning-signs-red-yellow-blue-or-green~801740148.html

Safety Signs News
Why are warning signs red, yellow, blue or green?
5th August 2014 | Health and Safety Signs

Everyone will have, at some point, seen a workplace safety sign. Green 'fire exit' signs are to be found in every public building, while any piece of remotely dangerous equipment will have a yellow or red warning erected somewhere nearby. These bold colours can cover some workplaces, such as factories and construction sites, where the risks are numerous.

However, while many people have seen these red, yellow, blue and green signs, few will know precisely why these specific colours are used. The same shades are in use on the vast majority of signs across the globe, with one or two exceptions, for the same purposes. Why are they so effective?

The answer is complex. Each colour has a different effect on people, sometimes unconsciously. They were not chosen at random either; the colours have been selected based on a number of factors that make each one the most suitable for safety signage.



Red

Red was first used on road signs and traffic lights to indicate prohibitive dangers, or reasons to stop performing an action. You stop the car at a red traffic light, or stop travelling at 50 mph when you see a red sign indicating the limit is 30 mph. This has carried over into the workplace.

Red was first chosen because it is the most visible colour from a distance. The wavelength of red light is able to penetrate further through fog, dust and clouds, so you can see a red sign even in the dark or on a misty day. This was useful for road signs, as drivers needed to know about hazards a good amount of time before encountering them, so they could react accordingly.

Red has become associated with stopping in our minds because of this. In the workplace, this means you can see a red warning sign from far away and instinctively know to stop what you're doing and pay attention to it. This is why it is used for the highest levels of danger.



Yellow

Once again, this is a very visible colour. One theory is that it is eye-grabbing because of its associations with the natural world. Bees and wasps around the world are yellow and black to signify how dangerous they are, warning predators to stay away, so yellow makes humans' unconscious minds take notice in case of a sting.

The colour's visibility combined with the feelings of danger it inspires make it perfect for the tier of danger below red. You can tell from a yellow sign that there is a potential hazard, but will notice the red signs first for immediate dangers.



Blue

Once again, driving provides a bit of an insight into why this colour is used. When you see blue while driving, it usually indicates a positive instruction; 'turn left ahead', for example, or 'one-way street'. These aren't warning of imminent dangers, just giving instructions to ensure a safer journey.

It is the same in the workplace. Blue does not elicit the same dramatic responses as 'danger' colours like red and yellow. It is fairly neutral in that respect. It is also one of the least visible colours from a distance. This makes it useful for positive instructions such as 'safety goggles must be worn' that are specific only to certain areas.

Essentially, blue is the colour used for non-urgent instructions, as it is a neutral shade that will not lessen the impact of the more important red and yellow signs.



Green

This is essentially the 'safe' colour. Where red is the colour of blood and yellow the colour of stinging insects, green is the peaceful colour of plant life. On signs, it is used accordingly, as it typically shows you where places of safety are.

Green is used for fire exits and first-aid kits, for example, because in a moment of crisis our minds will latch onto the colour due to it symbolising life and therefore safety. This is one of the reasons it is used on traffic lights as well - where red and yellow are dramatic colours, green is calming so lets you know when it is safe to go.
justcopyright.gif
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
There is some science behind it but I can't find it on my phone

There was an episode of 'Modern Life is Goodish' where Dave Gorman discusses the yellow/black warning colours. I believe its the colours that appear in nature.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
Red, must not
Yellow, Danger/hazzard
Blue, must do
Green, advice/information.

Having said that why LUL have some red whistle boards on the MET beats me? Must not whistle???????????????
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Some people with dyslexia and Irlen Syndrome have colour sighting issues, particularly with red, pink and green
These people wouldn't be able to distinguish a prohibition from a safe state notice by colour but could still read the words and any pictograms on the notices (they don't have red text on green background etc).

So although they would be less able to distinguish the importance of the notice instinctively it would still be accessible to them - rather like how deaf people can't hear an announcement but can read if and when the same message comes up on a screen.

The newer sign also has a specific pictogram for those who can't read English (or at all), unlike the old one which just had the generic exclamation mark for caution and "no sign" (empty red circle crossed through) for danger.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Aside from the colour the new stickers are much larger, more prominent and in two places on the door.
It is also the meaning behind the colour (and also the wording). Yellow is a warning (“Caution”), red is a direct prohibition (“Danger”).
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
"A woman died after she leaned out of the window of a moving train and was hit by a tree branch, an inquest heard."

"An accident inspector said a lack of inspections on the line was "possibly causal" to the accident."

Tragic, undoubtedly.

I'm amazed to see an inference that the railway was at fault, though.

I do frequently become aware that I am out of step with the feelings the modern world has with regards to health and safety, despite being nowhere near old enough to be a grumpy old git.

But is this not a case where it would be more technically accurate to say that the unfortunate passenger hit the branch?

Although I wasn't there, and although the branch doesn't seem to have given evidence, I find it highly likely that the branch was actually minding its own business at the time?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Martin66

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2016
Messages
105
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
The RAIB report found:

Vegetation management
60. A tree branch was close enough to the train for a passenger who was leaning out of a window to come into contact with it. A possible reason for this is that Network Rail had not undertaken a tree inspection in the area of the accident since 2009.

74. Given that the tree had been visibly (to an expert) in poor health for around 5 years prior to the accident, it is possible that had a tree inspection been carried out and the incident tree considered for a specialist tree inspection in the 5 years prior to the accident it might have been identified as needing felling or pruning. However, Network Rail had not undertaken a tree inspection in the area of the accident since 2009 and this is possibly causal to the accident
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,290
Location
Up the creek
I may also be out of touch with modern H&S attitudes, although I fully supported current practices when a (very junior) union rep in the 1980s.

This just seems to be an unfortunate case of an effectively unpreventable accident.

The young woman had around twice the level of alcohol in her blood permitted for driving.

The railway is too much on the defensive and unwilling to say anything that may upset families.

(I could say more, but I think the inquest is still open.)
 

superjohn

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
531
Another point of view would be that the railway is running trains with opening windows along that line. They should do all they reasonably can to assess and mitigate the known risks involved. I don’t consider keeping vegetation a safe distance away to be an unreasonable requirement, it would have to be cut back periodically anyway.

People are human, they make mistakes and do incomprehensible things all the time. This is why we have fences and safety barriers etc. If a fatal accident could be prevented by the reasonable actions of any party then that is what they should do.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,276
Location
SW London
Another point of view would be that the railway is running trains with opening windows along that line. They should do all they reasonably can to assess and mitigate the known risks involved. I don’t consider keeping vegetation a safe distance away to be an unreasonable requirement, it would have to be cut back periodically anyway.

People are human, they make mistakes and do incomprehensible things all the time. This is why we have fences and safety barriers etc. If a fatal accident could be prevented by the reasonable actions of any party then that is what they should do.
Apart from the Night Riviera, I don't think there are any remaining trains in regular service with droplights. Nevertheless, vegetation encroaching on the loading gauge remains a Bad Thing. It can cause damage to trains, and can be caught in open toplights on non airconditioned stock (I have had bits of vegetation enter a carriage on a 455) or cabside windows, the latter being an obvious hazard to drivers who may have a legitimate reason to be leaning out. I recall travelling on a Chester-London Voyager diverted via the Northwich/Sandbach line, which seemed to have vegetation scraping alongside most of the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top