• 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!

Commuter dragged after hand stuck in door

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flamingo

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
6,810
How?

I have seen guards mid train closing the doors and giving the RA signal and they have no access to brakes as there used to be in the old guards vans etc

Would a guard not have to get in contact with the driver and see if they would stop the train? (Unlike the driver in this instance who wrongly overrode the alarm perhaps they might heed the guard?)

The guard should be beside an active "driver - guard" buzzer which is how they communicate, a long single buzz from the guard is the signal to put the brake in immediately - The guard just puts his thumb on the buzzer and leaves it there until the brake goes in.

If the DG buzzer is broken and the whole things is going on flags and the RA, the guard would know where the nearest pascom is, and dive for it.

If DG buzzer and Pascom are both out of order, the train should not be in service.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
A moron might try to board the train while the doors are beeping, but so might a deaf person.

A very good point.

Another reason why the dispatcher has a responsibility to protect passengers. Even the morons.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
I actually thought I'd be reading this about someone at Finsbury Park, after I reported a dispatcher that didn't actually look along the train before giving the CD/RA (all within the space of a few seconds).

The problem was that while doing construction work on platform 1/2, and the installation of the new gates, crowds build up when a train comes in on platform 1 and people get off to get on the tube. As such, you can't see the whole train from where you turn the key.

I think now they've got a second person that looks and gives the nod to the dispatcher, but is that deemed safe? The dispatcher is now taking safety on the trust of a colleague who might also be distracted.

All of this was coming up to a year ago now, so as I don't commute anymore I can't say how FCC deals with things now. It might have changed, or it might not.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
I think now they've got a second person that looks and gives the nod to the dispatcher, but is that deemed safe? The dispatcher is now taking safety on the trust of a colleague who might also be distracted.

I don't think this is unusual, I've often seen a whole team dispatching long intercity trains at York or Doncaster. I think for an HST I've seen 4 plus the guard undertaking dispatch. Usually the one furthest from the Guard will raise their dispatch bat, and then the 'message' is relayed down the train to the guard before RA is given.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
I don't think this is unusual, I've often seen a whole team dispatching long intercity trains at York or Doncaster. I think for an HST I've seen 4 plus the guard undertaking dispatch. Usually the one furthest from the Guard will raise their dispatch bat, and then the 'message' is relayed down the train to the guard before RA is given.

This also happens with 12 and 10 coach trains on the Brighton Mainline. East Croydon Platform 1 is a good example, with up to five dispatchers (plus a guard on many services) for each train at the very busiest times. At present this is an especially useful and safe precaution due to building work (narrow platforms and poor visibility) and the effects of this added to the curvature of the platform.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Perhaps it would be a good idea if TOCs started enforcing the bylaws that state you shouldn't try and enter a train when the doors are closing, or obstruct them. It is often a daily occurrence where I see someone holding the door, yet I have read of two instances in the past five years where someone has been taken before the courts for doing just that, and even those were reported in a single column in a local newspaper and didn't have an effect.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
The RAIB seem to disagree with you with their statement "Trains must be stopped immediately if the passenger communication alarm is activated while any part of the train is in, or has just left, a station."
This bit actually contradicts the rule book!

Of course if the silly bint hadnt stuck her hand in the closing doors (expecting them to open) then none of the rest would have happened, but then it cant be her fault can it! :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By using the same button the guard has just used to give the ready to start signal, if the guard can give the RtS then they can give "stop" from the same location.
 

pendolino

Member
Joined
22 Nov 2010
Messages
737
The problem here was that the doors WERE all closed and that the lady's fingers were trapped in the rubber door seals which had deformed around her hand. Basically, the obstruction was not sufficiently large to prevent the doors from closing.

Which means the BIL light* would be out, so there would be little indication to the despatcher that anything was amiss. Apart from a woman looking like she's frantically stabbing at the door open button, which happens every time a train pulls away in the rush hour, as some people just seem unable to accept that they've missed the train. And if trains were held and not despatched until everyone was well clear, everything would grind to a halt.

It's a shame we no longer have the old barriers like there used to be at Waterloo years ago - a big metal concertina door that was slammed shut with a loud clang a minute or so before departure time, so that there couldn't be a continual stream of people trying to board a train that's about to pull away. Maybe they should make a comeback...

That, and an advertising campaign informing passengers that that bleeping noise the doors make doesn't mean 'quick! quick! the doors are about to close! hurry! jump on!' it means 'GET OUT OF THE BLOODY WAY OR YOU'RE LIKELY TO GET INJURED', might help prevent such incidents. But probably not.

* yes, yes I know that means 'Bodyside Indicator Light light', but everyone says BIL light.
 

NY Yankee

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2012
Messages
487
Location
New York City
Do trains in Britain have emergency brakes in the carriages that passengers can pull if they see impending danger?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Yes they're called pass-coms (or the emergency cord). On older rolling stock they would apply the brakes automatically, however, on newer stock it is considered safer in most circumstances to allow the driver to continue driving the train onto a location where aid can be provided to the train easier (a station) or where it is just safer to stop (for example if there is a fire you don't want the train stopping in a tunnel). They also now feature intercoms allowing the driver to talk to whoever has pulled the alarm to help them make a decision on the best course of action to take.
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
Which means the BIL light* would be out, so there would be little indication to the despatcher that anything was amiss. Apart from a woman looking like she's frantically stabbing at the door open button, which happens every time a train pulls away in the rush hour, as some people just seem unable to accept that they've missed the train. And if trains were held and not despatched until everyone was well clear, everything would grind to a halt.
It's not just the despatcher's job to check that the BIL lights are out, they also have to check that all doors are clear of obstructions. From the despatcher's position they couldn't see the passengers trapped hand, they should have moved along the platform slightly to check the whole train to ensure it was safe for the train to depart.
 

Scotrail84

Established Member
Joined
5 Jul 2010
Messages
2,360
Thank you - fair point. It was stated dispatch could do nothing to stop the train. The old long buzz would do the trick.

Yes 1 long beat on the buzzer from a guard or ram the brake handle in to emergency or pull the cord etc. A guard on every train..........
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
She was definitely in breach of the byelaws (although it's unclear whether it was intentional or not, and I can't remember if this one is strict liability).

All railway byelaws are strict liability.

To answer another point regarding the full force of the law being applied to the driver - it's possible that a charge could be made under Health and Safety Law. I suspect he'll have been disciplined nby his employer for failing to deal with the passcom activation correctly.
 

blacknight

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2009
Messages
543
Location
Crow Park
Perhaps it would be a good idea to also have passenger alarms on train exteriors, to allow people on the platform to stop a train in an emergency?

Maybe not such a good idea really if you think about it for minute or so.
Is it such a good idea to have passengers now touching a moving train? with a risk of clothing then snagging & another passengers then being put at risk of being pulled under the train.
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
My point was that, as the woman had managed to free herself just prior to the PASSCOM being operated, it is likely that the driver was given misleading information and potentially even been reassured over the intercom that there was NO problem.

If this is a scenario that may have happened why is it not mentioned in the RAIB report? If the driver had such a conversation with the passenger who operated the PCA (Passenger Communication Apparatus) surely detail of this conversation would be included. It would lend credence to the defence of the driver's actions and would be something the driver should have mentioned.

It is noted in the report that the driver operated the PCA override 3.5 seconds after the PCA was operated by the passenger. That's barely time to ask the passenger why they've operated the PCA, let alone get the answer to that question. It's highly unlikely the driver's question was so short and the reassuring reply from the passenger equally short for this hypothetical conversation to be concluded and acted upon in 3.5 seconds.

For your hypothesis to be possible the driver would have needed to ask what the problem was, hear the reassurance that nothing was amiss and decide to override the PCA in 3.5 seconds. I'd have to disagree that this was 'likely' as you stated. The report also states the driver 'assumed' the problem was on the train. Why would he assume that if the passenger who operated the PCA had given him a reassuring response?

No, the driver made a mistake or was acting under, or had misunderstood, training from his employer. That much is clear from the report and is addressed in the 'Actions reported....' section of the RAIB report:

FCC has issued a notice to all drivers reminding them that trains must always be stopped immediately if the PCA is operated while the train is leaving a station. FCC also intends to give this requirement greater prominence in driver training.

It's laudable, O L Leigh, that you are defending a fellow rail employee's actions by attempting to provide a scenario where the driver made the correct decision to override the PCA. But there is no evidence in the report that any conversation (even a very short one) took place with the passenger who operated the PCA, so I think your hypothesis is unlikely rather than 'likely'.
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
Further to bnm's pretty sound analysis, certainly procedure at my employers with regard to passcom operating on departure from the platform is to stop the train and ask questions later regarding what the problem might be.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Yes 1 long beat on the buzzer from a guard or ram the brake handle in to emergency or pull the cord etc. A guard on every train..........
If the guard could see the incident. In a lot of cases, a guard in this situation would not be of any use because they are either on enclosed stock (i.e. with no window for them to observe outside the train after the local door has been closed), or because in my experience I infrequently see guards observing the train as it departs the station.

Having read through a number of RAIB reports regarding dispatch of DOO trains from both manned and unmanned platforms, I am rather concerned with the primitive nature of dispatch of such trains when concerned with a system with which I have operational experience, that being OPO (One Person Operation) on the Underground. With newer trains now incorporating track-to-train CCTV the system is now even safer.

In a similar manner to the approach given to the safe evacuation of trains (as seen by the RAIB report regarding the FCC incident) is it perhaps worth investigating the extent to which the approaches used on LUL for a number of years could be applied to Network Rail lines and stations?
 

Daz28

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
310
Location
Elmstead Woods
This could be solved by having an emergency stop light a train length away from the platform to work in conjunction with CD/RA.

It does seem a weakness that the dispatcher has no way of stopping a train once they have given RA. However it also emphasises why it is so crucial that they do their job well.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
It is time a fixed penalty was introduced for people who 'interfere with the safe operation of the railway'. If people were fined £60 on the spot for holding open or attmepting to obstruct doors then it would soon cease.

Agreed. A very sensible suggestion indeed. In the meantime, I find that making an announcement once we leave the station to 'remind those people attempting to board the train late' not to barge the doors, for their own safety and avoid 'delaying fellow passengers' usually sufficiently shows them up in front of everybody else :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It does seem a weakness that the dispatcher has no way of stopping a train once they have given RA. However it also emphasises why it is so crucial that they do their job well.

It is a weakness. That is because DOO is a compromise, where the additional proven safeguards of having a Guard on the train are thrown away in order to save money. It really is as simple as that. It is utterly pointless having a dispatcher watching a train out of the platform if he is unable to stop the train once it starts to move.
 
Last edited:

blacknight

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2009
Messages
543
Location
Crow Park
This could be solved by having an emergency stop light a train length away from the platform to work in conjunction with CD/RA.

It does seem a weakness that the dispatcher has no way of stopping a train once they have given RA. However it also emphasises why it is so crucial that they do their job well.

Rather than costly alterations to infrastructure that would take age to complete, also what would procedure be in event of failure of this additional piece of equipment possible cancellation of services. Would it not be more cost effective to reinstate the train guard on services that are at present DOO.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Rather than costly alterations to infrastructure that would take age to complete, also what would procedure be in event of failure of this additional piece of equipment possible cancellation of services. Would it not be more cost effective to reinstate the train guard on services that are at present DOO.
What guarantees are there that having a guard on board would not prevent someone getting dragged along? I have been on many non-DOO services where the guard would not have been able to act should this have been the case.
 

blacknight

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2009
Messages
543
Location
Crow Park
It is a weakness. That is because DOO is a compromise, where the additional proven safeguards of having a Guard on the train are thrown away in order to save money. It really is as simple as that. It is utterly pointless having a dispatcher watching a train out of the platform if he is unable to stop the train once it starts to move.

TOC's putting profit before safety surely not;) quite happy with status quo until it all goes wrong then its all fault of staff involved in incident.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
If the guard could see the incident. In a lot of cases, a guard in this situation would not be of any use because they are either on enclosed stock (i.e. with no window for them to observe outside the train after the local door has been closed), or because in my experience I infrequently see guards observing the train as it departs the station.

Unfortunately, and for reasons which I personally feel make very little sense, the mandatory requirement for Guards to observe their train out of the platform was removed from the Rulebook some time ago - perhaps to make DOO appear less unsafe by 'levelling' the playing field?! - and whilst some TOCs have retained the requirement within their own procedures, others have done away with it. I fail to understand why, since if there is a Guard on they may as well be used to their full potential where safety matters are concerned, but there we go. SWT for example insist that the Guard blows his whistle when dispatching, at every stop regardless of whether there is anybody about, but are then quite happy for the same Guard to give the RTS and then walk away from the door. Strange. Those of us who are required to do it, can appreciate the obvious safety benefits it brings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What guarantees are there that having a guard on board would not prevent someone getting dragged along? I have been on many non-DOO services where the guard would not have been able to act should this have been the case.

There are no 'guarantees', in just the same way that there aren't any guarantees that a dispatcher will always prevent it. However, there is at the very least a far better chance of something being done far more quickly if there is a person on the train who has a form of direct communication with the dispatcher, or who is observing what is happening at the platform/train interface. The Driver's job is to drive the train, they cannot be expected to have one eye on the platform at the same time, and indeed cannot physically do so in most cases. That is someone else's job, hence we have the person known as the Guard.
 
Last edited:

blacknight

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2009
Messages
543
Location
Crow Park
What guarantees are there that having a guard on board would not prevent someone getting dragged along? I have been on many non-DOO services where the guard would not have been able to act should this have been the case.

In this incident had there been train guard towards the rear of the train then dispatcher having seen person trapped in door could have given emergency stop signal to guard who then could then have given stop signal to driver.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I think many of you need to read the report and stop jumping to your own conclusion and taking another opportunity to criticise rail workers with no idea what you are actually talking about.

The driver involved is back on driving duties and was back very quickly so obviously neither FCC nor nr saw this as a fault on his part or they would have kept him off track. The RAIB report also clearly states that the passcom overide was nothing more than a casual factor.

I believe the dispatcher is also back at work. I think this was more or a series of incidents to which no one person was seriously at fault. How many trains depart kings cross alone with no problem?

Some people on here really need to get out more and find something better to do with their lives than criticise rail staff for the slightest thing with no real knowledge if the exact circumstances other than second rate journalism designed to attract readers. If anyone actually thought the driver or dispatcher were seriously at fault and a danger to the railway then they wouldn't be back doing their jobs now would they?!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Unfortunately, and for reasons which I personally feel make very little sense, the mandatory requirement for Guards to observe their train out of the platform was removed from the Rulebook some time ago

I was under the impression that part of the reason for this rules removal was because it simply isn't possible for guards to properly observe the train out of the platform anymore on the majority of rolling stock. On most rolling stock there isn't a window for them physically look out of to ensure the train is out of the platform safely, so all they can do is peer out of the window of the door they dispatched from which doesn't really offer them much in the way of a view of the platform.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
In this incident had there been train guard towards the rear of the train then dispatcher having seen person trapped in door could have given emergency stop signal to guard who then could then have given stop signal to driver.

According to the RAIB report the train was an 8-car unit. On other routes where two units are joined together the guard in my experience sits in the front cab of the rear unit (i.e. in the middle). Where only one member of train dispatch staff is required, at Kings + that individual stands by the buffers.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
I was under the impression that part of the reason for this rules removal was because it simply isn't possible for guards to properly observe the train out of the platform anymore on the majority of rolling stock. On most rolling stock there isn't a window for them physically look out of to ensure the train is out of the platform safely, so all they can do is peer out of the window of the door they dispatched from which doesn't really offer them much in the way of a view of the platform.

It does seem to differ from TOC to TOC - look at Northern who are now sh*t hot on guards observing from the back - even on stock such as Pacers.

Enforcement of holding the doors is very lax, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone being more than just talken to by a member of railway staff - certainly I've never seen a fine given out, or someone being booted off a train at the next stop.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
Some people on here really need to get out more and find something better to do with their lives than criticise rail staff for the slightest thing with no real knowledge if the exact circumstances other than second rate journalism designed to attract readers.

But thats what the internet was created for, the "I know how to do your job better than you because I read it on the internet" brigade can furnish us with their fountain of knowledge.

Stick them out on the platform/ train and lets see how you would handle a situation in real time, without the benefit of hindsight!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top