No to which part ?
The investigation or it being reportable ?
Cheers in advance.
. If somebody had fallen out and injured themselves then that may be another matter.
Is there only reactive investigations and not proactive steps taken to prevent incident ?
Should it be only "IF" somebody had fallen. Should the RAIB investigate potential incidents ?
RAIB do investigate near misses. My understanding is they only do so for incidents where a safety digest or full report would bring about new conclusions.Is there only reactive investigations and not proactive steps taken to prevent incident ?
Should it be only "IF" somebody had fallen. Should the RAIB investigate potential incidents ?
They can do proactive "class investigations"....
RAIB do investigate near misses.
I'd imagine if someone needed assistance they would have been with the guard and had the guard had been at the back with that person then the doors would not have been released because they would have seen the stop short.This could be extremely dangerous for a visually impaired person. They would not know that the door was not aligned with the platform.
Is there only reactive investigations and not proactive steps taken to prevent incident ?
Should it be only "IF" somebody had fallen. Should the RAIB investigate potential incidents ?
Are there any that I could read please ?
I'd imagine if someone needed assistance they would have been with the guard and had the guard had been at the back with that person then the doors would not have been released because they would have seen the stop short.
I am sure different people have varying needs- some may not need any help some may need help.Does a blind person automatically need assistance or are the capable of being independent ?
Does a blind person automatically need assistance or are the capable of being independent ?
Are there any that I could read please ?
My assumption of why 'stop short' incidents aren't routinely investigated is that they are almost always human error. Beyond re-iterating that the driver/guard should check the PTI/all doors are within the platform before releasing doors what else is there to do?There are some on the RAIB website right now, although these 'near misses' usually involve trains and trackworkers or trains and obstacles on the railway etc, not 'stop short' incidents.
See here, for example: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/near-miss-between-totnes-and-newton-abbot
Class reports: My memory suggests there was one on level crossings, and another on braking systems for road rail vehicles.Are there any that I could read please ?
My assumption of why 'stop short' incidents aren't routinely investigated is that they are almost always human error.
Beyond re-iterating that the driver/guard should check the PTI/all doors are within the platform before releasing doors what else is there to do?
Having worked with a charity of people with visual impairment (VI) while this incident is unfortunate and potentially very dangerous it may not be as hazardous as others might think.It would be entirely down to the blind or partially-sighted person as to whether they needed assistance from railway staff. Some choose to be independent and some travel accompanied by a friend in which case additional assistance from staff is not required.
A lot of people have a guide dog or a stick to assist. Platforms are not all the same height and some have big gaps. I'd imagine blind or partially sighted people would assess the situation before stepping out, rather than open the doors and hope for the best. For context, my granny knew a blind couple back in the 1980s and 1990s. They travelled a considerable distance by tube and train to visit her.Does a blind person automatically need assistance or are the capable of being independent ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nearly all door releases at platforms are initiated by a member of on train staff (driver or guard), whose responsibility it is to check the train is wholly within the platform.Isn't that part of the blame culture ?
Following on from above. What about "process error" or "system error" ? As already mentioned above; if there are technological solutions, surely that then forms part of the mitigation process ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nearly all door releases at platforms are initiated by a member of on train staff (driver or guard), whose responsibility it is to check the train is wholly within the platform.
When the process accounts for the possibility of trains not being entirely within the platform, releasing the doors when the train is not entirely in the platform is human error. I'm calling a spade a spade here...
If RAIB thought they'd make new findings by investigating the countless overruns/stop shorts that happen on the network, they would investigate them.
I firmly believe there is a fundamental lack of understanding what the RAIB remit actually is.
We’re responsible for:
- investigating the causes of railway accidents and incidents where we believe our investigation will bring safety learning to the industry
- identifying the factors that may lead to a similar accident or make the consequences worse
- highlighting gaps in the railway industry’s safety defences that are revealed during our investigations
- making recommendations to prevent the same thing happening again
- increasing awareness of how railway accidents happen
- co-operating with other investigation organisations nationally and internationally to share and encourage good practice.
If you read the RAIB report for the unfortunate injury at the GCR, you'll see the danger of passengers stepping down from trains expecting a platform that isn't there. All it would have taken is someone on their phone not paying attention and that's a potential hospitalisation (or worse).
I think the issue other users are having with this thread is OPs (and others) attitude. There's no reason for OP or the public to be informed of the outcome to this investigation. If this thread had been titled 'Train stopped short, not sure what to do' this thread would probably have taken a different, less volatile direction...
What a terrible attitude. No, you wouldn't expect the details of any disciplinary action to be passed on, but you would expect an acknowledgment that this is a serious issue that will be investigated, together with an apology.I can tell you how Northern will handle it, there will be an internal investigation, some sort of performance improvement plan for the guard and possibly the driver and provided it isn't a regular or repeat occurrence that will be that.
The result of any of that isn't any of your business though and you won't hear about it. You've said yourself no one was hurt, you reported it, they're doing what they do in such circumstances.
Unless you want a plaque commemorating the 2024 Low Moor Memorial Stop Short incident forget about it and move on.
There's nothing in the OP's one and only pat to suggest that that isn't the case though. "Being bounced around" suggests that the OP has received more than one reply, the first almost certainly being some sort of acknowledgment and apology. Any further replies are most likely to be in response to the OP trying to gain further information than they are privy toWhat a terrible attitude. No, you wouldn't expect the details of any disciplinary action to be passed on, but you would expect an acknowledgment that this is a serious issue that will be investigated, together with an apology.
Do you believe in customer service?
Customer service don't owe you an answer to you posting to them.
Yes they do. That's their job.Customer service don't owe you an answer to you posting to them.
No, I believe in being horrible to customers at all times, and am especially cruel to dogs and children.What a terrible attitude. No, you wouldn't expect the details of any disciplinary action to be passed on, but you would expect an acknowledgment that this is a serious issue that will be investigated, together with an apology.
Do you believe in customer service?
Then this picture wouldn't exist. Human error does exist and this was a reportable incident whether the doors were opened or not as soon as the train stopped short. (Assuming we aren't looking at ASDO or an infrastructure issue).Getting the driver to move up a few feet before releasing would have been ideal IF the guard wasn't certain about the presence of anyone waiting to alight there.
A visually impaired passenger who doesn't require assistance I suspect would be switched on enough not to step off trains without having a specific routine or process for doing so.Does a blind person automatically need assistance or are the capable of being independent ?
Indeed - at the very top of the list of “who is responsible for my safety” is “me”. That’s not to say that everyone else can be lax, but it is wise to start from the assumption that they might be.Then this picture wouldn't exist. Human error does exist and this was a reportable incident whether the doors were opened or not as soon as the train stopped short. (Assuming we aren't looking at ASDO or an infrastructure issue).
In hindsight it's very east to say what could should and would be done, which is often times a problem in managements approach to these incidents.
Mistakes happen, both driver and guard will learn from this and take steps to prevent it happening again I'm sure..
A visually impaired passenger who doesn't require assistance I suspect would be switched on enough not to step off trains without having a specific routine or process for doing so.
Otherwise you could argue they are at risk of falling off the platform at any point in time right?
How do you this hasn't happened and OP isn't trying to be privy to information they are not entitled to?Northern should have immediately acknowledged the OP's complaint and advised them that the incident had been correctly reported at the time, and was investigated in line with procedure. Nothing more, nothing less.