Commuter dragged after hand stuck in door

[A-driver]

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!

Absolutely-most accurate post posted on this site in a long time!

 

[jon0844]

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.

If either a guard or dispatcher could fail to notice someone caught up, it would surely make no difference? If a guard shut the doors and was in another part of the train - how much quicker could the alarm be raised? To me, a dispatcher is a perfectly safe way of doing things - as long as they're checking properly. Perhaps the time from CD to RA is too quick, not allowing for people rushing to come away having realised they're too late - and giving time for the person that doesn't come away to stand out (or say something).

The problem here seems to be that passengers, not staff, couldn't do anything. The last line of defence so to speak. That's presumably why a driver is instructed to stop if any part of the train is still on the platform.

Now, one thing I know dispatchers will do after giving the RA is radio back to say that the train is gone. Surely this time, this didn't happen and I wonder if s/he said on the radio that something had happened? If so, what can control do to notify the driver over the radio and get the train stopped that way?

I'm asking as a novice here, so don't know what systems are already in place.

 

[ainsworth74]

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.

Yeah I've noticed that, due to the incident at Lime Street a few months back isn't it? Still seems a bit pointless because, without a window to lean out of, I would have thought the only time a guard is going to know something's wrong is either when a pass-com is activated or when their window goes past the results of an issue.

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.

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.

If you have a problem with a post you should report it and then the moderators will, if necessarily, take action.

Personally I think there has only been one poster here that seems to have been taking really hardline stance against rail staff, most others have been contributing to an interesting discussion on this incident and dispatch in general. The only criticisms of the staff involved seemed in line with what the RAIB have said. You cannot surely be saying that the rail staff involved made no mistakes and that therefore any criticism of their actions is unacceptable?

 

[Failed Unit]

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.

Scotrail on the other hand the gaurd could be anywhere depending on where they are in the revenue protection run.

 

[blacknight]

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.

In this case as train was dispatched from a manned station with dispatcher on platform, so even with a limited field of vision of modern stock the guard can see staff on platform who can thumbs up for good dispatch or if needs be give emergency stop signal.
Personally I can think of nothing worse than standing there watching events unfold, being powerless to do anything other than make a call to box & get train stopped.

 

[BestWestern]

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 is true that in most cases it isn't possible to lean out of an opening window, however the door windows on most stock do allow a reasonable sweep of the platform as you leave, and the critical area is immediately alongside the train, which is always well within view. We know that incidents do occur of people who, for whatever reason, feel it sensible to start running alongside departing trains and suchlike, and there can be no doubt that having the person in charge of the train watching the train out of the platform helps to reduce the obvious risks here.

The crucial point here is that, whether we like it or not, we now live in a 'Duty of Care' society, where it is nearly always the job of the company/authority/etc to safeguard people during their daily lives, rather than the job of the people themselves. For many years, trains had doors which people could open on the move, commuters would have them swinging open ready as they came into a platform, people just used common sense. That is no longer acceptable. People now must be physically prevented from being harmed by their own actions, however stupid or reckless, and if they aren't then it will always be somebody else's fault. Partly to blame for this are the ministers who have immersed us all in their nanny state mentality for so long, and some of those same ministers now want to remove the staff who provide that safeguard which they themselves have deemed so vital over recent years.

Having a Guard on the train who is on-the-ball and able to take the required action, provides an indisputable contribution to the safety of all concerned. We can stop a train if something goes wrong. We can ensure it is safe to dispatch a train in the first place - if people are stood too close to the train then that train is not safe to leave; how often do Drivers on DOO services at unstaffed stations take the chance and hope for the best, rather than jump out of the cab and shout down the platform?!

There are many arguments in favour of having a Guard on a train, most of them very sensible. There is only one argument for DOO - that it saves money. That should tell us all that we need to know.

 

[Mojo]

In this case as train was dispatched from a manned station with dispatcher on platform, so even with a limited field of vision of modern stock the guard can see staff on platform who can thumbs up for good dispatch or if needs be give emergency stop signal.

But this incident occurred after the RA was given, and there is a chance that the potential guard would not have been able to see the platform staff.

 

[142094]

Yeah I've noticed that, due to the incident at Lime Street a few months back isn't it? Still seems a bit pointless because, without a window to lean out of, I would have thought the only time a guard is going to know something's wrong is either when a pass-com is activated or when their window goes past the results of an issue.

Aye, and from my recent travels I've yet to see a guard give the two buzzes from anywhere else than the back of the unit. 150s are probably the best stock for dispatching on Northern's lines due to the separate entrance and slide down window, but on everything else there isn't much they could do or see.

Scotrail on the other hand the gaurd could be anywhere depending on where they are in the revenue protection run.

Same with Northern until recently, although they can open the doors from anywhere on the train, they will close up the local controls and walk to the back of the train each time now.

 

[blacknight]

But this incident occurred after the RA was given, and there is a chance that the potential guard would not have been able to see the platform staff.

There is a possibility that if there had been a guard on train involved in this incident that they would have had differing angle of view of this incident & doors could have been released to free the trapped passenger.

 

[ainsworth74]

In this case as train was dispatched from a manned station with dispatcher on platform, so even with a limited field of vision of modern stock the guard can see staff on platform who can thumbs up for good dispatch or if needs be give emergency stop signal.

True, I hadn't thought of that, though of course this only applies where a dispatcher is present

It is true that in most cases it isn't possible to lean out of an opening window, however the door windows on most stock do allow a reasonable sweep of the platform as you leave, and the critical area is immediately alongside the train, which is always well within view.

Really? Even on long trains (say 4-car or more)?

how often do Drivers on DOO services at unstaffed stations take the chance and hope for the best, rather than jump out of the cab and shout down the platform?!

I don't know but someone like O L Leigh (a DOO driver) might be able to comment on that.

 

[455driver]

If you have a problem with a post you should report it and then the moderators will, if necessarily, take action.

I was being a bit "tongue in cheek" and wasnt aiming the comment at anyone in particular, this thread has been better than most to be honest.

Personally I think there has only been one poster here that seems to have been taking really hard line stance against rail staff, most others have been contributing to an interesting discussion on this incident and dispatch in general. The only criticisms of the staff involved seemed in line with what the RAIB have said. You cannot surely be saying that the rail staff involved made no mistakes and that therefore any criticism of their actions is unacceptable?

No of course not, there were errors made by the staff but the main problem was the passenger sticking her hand in the door in the mistaken idea that the door would open again so she could board the train, delaying the train and every other passenger about 30 seconds into the bargain, okay 30 seconds doesnt sound much but if it happens to 4 or 5 trains in a row then we end up with ALL trains being 2-3 minutes late as things just snowball.
How often do trains leave a mainline London terminus and NOT get restrictive aspects within the first 5 minutes because the available paths are being squeezed to the maximum, which means trains have to slow down and gets caught up by the train behind which has to slow etc etc.

The fact that she had walked (not even run) past 2 carriages, heard (and ignored) the dispatchers whistle, heard (and ignored) the hustle alarm, seen the doors start to close and THEN decided to try and board the train seems to be lost on some people who forget that ultimately YOU are responsible for your own safety, what she did was dangerous/ selfish and against the railway byelaws but some people just seem to relish the chance to "have a pop" at any staff error forgetting that if the woman had been sensible and boarded either of the first 2 coaches or accepted the fact that she had missed the train then none of the other errors would have happened.

 

[BestWestern]

Aye, and from my recent travels I've yet to see a guard give the two buzzes from anywhere else than the back of the unit. 150s are probably the best stock for dispatching on Northern's lines due to the separate entrance and slide down window, but on everything else there isn't much they could do or see.

If there was a dispatcher at the location, they will be aware that the Guard is at the rear of the train and immediately make a beeline for them and give the stop signal. If there is no dispatcher, the Guard will at the very least be likely to see that something is or has happened, and bring the train to a stop. This is far more preferable to a lone Driver being completely oblivious to anything at all.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

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.

With the platform on the right, is the the driver simply relying on the RA sign and the doors closed indicator? As he is in sole charge after the RA is given he needs to be able to see doors/ side of train or dispatcher until he is clear of the platform.
He could not see the lady running so would not see/ hear any communication from the dispatcher?

In the past i have seen a couple aborted starts. The driver, constantly looking down the train has stopped /seen red flag & stopped.

 

[142094]

If there was a dispatcher at the location, they will be aware that the Guard is at the rear of the train and immediately make a beeline for them and give the stop signal. If there is no dispatcher, the Guard will at the very least be likely to see that something is or has happened, and bring the train to a stop. This is far more preferable to a lone Driver being completely oblivious to anything at all.

Of course - don't get me wrong, I'm not a particular fan of DOO, but the current design of some stock does make me wonder how things can be improved.

 

[Aictos]

Absolutely. And the two people here who were interfering with the safe operation of the railway were -

- The dispacher who should not have indicated that the train was safe to leave; and
- The driver who failed to stop when they should after the alarm was sounded.

So I hope that you are demanding that the full force of the law be used against them.

And the passenger wasn't interfering with the safe operation of the railway, there are plenty of notices around the doors on these trains advising not to board if the hustle alarm sounds as the doors are closing and any attempt to board may result in injury.

If someone told you to stick your head in a oven, would you do it?

No you probably won't as you would use that little known thing called common sense.

Don't 365 alarms allow passengers to speak to the driver? If they did, a driver wouldn't need to guess the best course of action.

The woman is clearly to blame, as she rushed after hearing the alarm (by then it's too late) but the staff on the platform are paid to protect these idiots from themselves, and will have to shoulder a lot of the blame too.

PCA alarms on the 365s do allow communication between Driver and User, these are located at various points though the train and are clearly marked.

l

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.

Totally agree about the gates and also the advertising campaign.

I was being a bit "tongue in cheek" and wasnt aiming the comment at anyone in particular, this thread has been better than most to be honest.



No of course not, there were errors made by the staff but the main problem was the passenger sticking her hand in the door in the mistaken idea that the door would open again so she could board the train, delaying the train and every other passenger about 30 seconds into the bargain, okay 30 seconds doesnt sound much but if it happens to 4 or 5 trains in a row then we end up with ALL trains being 2-3 minutes late as things just snowball.
How often do trains leave a mainline London terminus and NOT get restrictive aspects within the first 5 minutes because the available paths are being squeezed to the maximum, which means trains have to slow down and gets caught up by the train behind which has to slow etc etc.

The fact that she had walked (not even run) past 2 carriages, heard (and ignored) the dispatchers whistle, heard (and ignored) the hustle alarm, seen the doors start to close and THEN decided to try and board the train seems to be lost on some people who forget that ultimately YOU are responsible for your own safety, what she did was dangerous/ selfish and against the railway byelaws but some people just seem to relish the chance to "have a pop" at any staff error forgetting that if the woman had been sensible and boarded either of the first 2 coaches or accepted the fact that she had missed the train then none of the other errors would have happened.

Totally agree, well said!

 

[BestWestern]

The fact that [the passenger] had walked (not even run) past 2 carriages, heard (and ignored) the dispatchers whistle, heard (and ignored) the hustle alarm, seen the doors start to close and THEN decided to try and board the train seems to be lost on some people who forget that ultimately YOU are responsible for your own safety, what she did was dangerous/ selfish and against the railway byelaws but some people just seem to relish the chance to "have a pop" at any staff error forgetting that if the woman had been sensible and boarded either of the first 2 coaches or accepted the fact that she had missed the train then none of the other errors would have happened.

I completely agree. Sadly, it's likely that this stupid individual will now feel that she is some kind of martyr, and I sincerely hope that neither FCC nor it's staff will entertain this mentality. I have no doubt that she thought she would be able to force her way onto the train, and we can at least hope that there is a lesson learned.

 

[455driver]

Somebody posted about passengers "standing back from the edge" so the dispatcher can see, sorry to tell you but commuters especially stand right on the edge of the platform so they can be first on the train, why do you think there were people on the platform that did not want that train, because they know their train will be next on that platform, they know where the doors will be and they stand on the edge of the platform to ensure that nobody gets in front of them.

Have a look at Clapham jn platform 10 during the morning rush hour, they stand in the boxes that are supposed to be kept clear because they know that is where the doors will be (unless I am driving and stop about 6ft past the mark so people have got half a chance to get off the train ), some people actually stand with their toes off the platform edge.

 

[BestWestern]

Of course - don't get me wrong, I'm not a particular fan of DOO, but the current design of some stock does make me wonder how things can be improved.

It's often been said that there is far better visibility from the rear (or an intermediate) cab, and there is of course always a 'buzzer' button on the desk. perhaps there is an argument for Guards closing up the doors and then performing the final part of the dispatch from a cab, observing from the cab-side windows. However, this is not popular with TOCs, and I don't know of any who allow it.

 

[blacknight]

Surely now with RAIB reports into this incident at Kings Cross coupled with another RAIB report into incident involving DOO at Brentwood its time for RAIB to raise questions into safety of DOO trains.
As in both cases in my opinion had there been guard on these train chances of both incidents occurring could have been vastly reduced.

 

[Aictos]

Thing is though it doesn't matter if the next train is 3 mins away or 30 mins away, people will do anything and everything to get that train even if it's highly possible to cause injury.

Train Doors will cause injuries when being misused, it's not like they won't hurt because they do and you do know about it.

I suppose the best thing for the staff to do is make announcements prior to the doors shutting stating stand clear BUT sadly I feel that would make no difference.

 

[221129]

On Wednesday at Bristol TM i saw someone running from the stairs into the doors of a 158 (Unfortunately the guard shouted to him and he got on at the end of the train.)

 

[jon0844]

The fact that she had walked (not even run) past 2 carriages, heard (and ignored) the dispatchers whistle, heard (and ignored) the hustle alarm, seen the doors start to close and THEN decided to try and board the train seems to be lost on some people who forget that ultimately YOU are responsible for your own safety, what she did was dangerous/ selfish and against the railway byelaws but some people just seem to relish the chance to "have a pop" at any staff error forgetting that if the woman had been sensible and boarded either of the first 2 coaches or accepted the fact that she had missed the train then none of the other errors would have happened.

She was definitely the cause of the whole situation occurring, no doubt about that. I really hope she won't sue and get compensation, but alas there's always going to be a lawyer willing to take on such a case - and the Daily Mail will see to it that the railway industry has to cave in to avoid negative publicity.

Given the fact that 365s have had a similar incident before, I'm sure that would help any legal challenge.

Nevertheless, staff do have a responsibility to protect these idiots. Much as I'm sure we could all joke about not caring if such people killed themselves, we obviously don't mean it (let me make clear, nobody in this thread has said that - but I'm talking generally about idiots that make life hell for staff).

I think it's pretty obvious that some mistakes were made, as this woman should not have been made to move anywhere along the platform with part of her trapped in the doors. A dispatcher should have noticed between the CD and RA procedure, but (and this is also a general observation) I've seen staff doing one and then the other very quickly. One thing that has been mentioned and might be a factor is whether staff are looking at the doors after the CD, or just scanning quickly to see that all the lights are out. If that's the case, they can quickly go to RA - but they won't necessarily have thought there's any chance of someone/something being caught up.

Obviously in 99% of cases it's not a problem, especially with rolling stock with doors that are more sensitive. The idiots usually get away with it, and often the doors are re-opened and they'll even get on the train (so hardly helping discourage them from doing it again).

 

[455driver]

With reference to the passcom being activated.

Think about the timeline for a few seconds,
Doors close, passenger sticks hand in doors, BILs go out RA pressed, driver sets off, woman starts walking with the train, passcom pulled (how long after the train set off and how long after did the woman get her hand free?),

Driver speaks to passenger over passcom line, passenger says (what exactly?).
All the time the train is accelerating down the platform, how long would it take to go the 20 yards the woman was stuck? about 5 seconds I would guess (365s are a bit quick off the mark).
That isnt long for the driver and the passenger who activated the passcom to converse about the situation and the driver to decide what action to take.
WITH HINDSIGHT he should have wacked it straight into emergency but at the time, in the middle of the rush hour bearing in mind how many times the passcom gets pulled in "error" that isnt going to be the correct course of action 98% of the time.

 

[bnm]

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

The RAIB report does not say it was 'casual'. They would never use such a word. Causal maybe. The RAIB actually said:

The RAIB has observed that, in slightly different circumstances, the driver’s decision to override the PCA could have led to a more serious outcome

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?

And your point? Just because someone is back at work, doesn't mean action hasn't been taken. Being subject to an RAIB investigation alone would be enough for any employee to take on board and learn lessons from the recommendations and observations.

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 of the exact circumstances

And some rail staff need to stop circling the wagons whenever any potentially negative debate on their job and how they do it is discussed here. Yes, there are times when the criticism is unjustified, but not when it is analysis backed up by an RAIB report. I concluded that the driver made a mistake. I came to that conclusion, which may be seen as criticism, by reading the RAIB report in full. For fairness and balance I'd also happily state that the lady involved was also at fault. But it is important to remember, as others have said, that rail staff have a duty of care to all who enter the system. Even the idiots.

other than second rate journalism designed to attract readers.

I and others have been contributing to this thread by using the RAIB report as source material. That's hardly 'second rate'. That said, the press article quoted in the OP only got one fact wrong - the distance the lady was 'dragged'. The article wasn't on the front page in the print edition of the Evening Standard (Kiera Knightley's engagement was.... :roll so I fail to see how it could be '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?!

The incident was serious enough for the RAIB to be involved. The conclusions show there were areas and procedures that should be improved or should've been in adherence to the 'Rule Book'. Saying the staff still have a job is a smokescreen along with those circled wagons. Where no death, serious injury or destruction of property is caused I'd rather staff learn from their mistakes than be sacked. All employers have disciplinary procedures. These can involve advice, re-training, warnings (verbal and written), final warnings and dismissal. I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that the dispatcher and driver in this incident have received something at the lower end of whatever disciplinary procedure their employer has. Maybe just advice and some re-training. That, in isolation for this incident, is as it should be.

As a general observation any previous incidents on file should though figure in how far up the disciplinary scale things are taken.

Mistakes were made, lessons have, I hope, been learned by all involved. And I include the lady who was briefly trapped in the door. She'll definitely not try to board a train who's doors are closing again!

 

[reb0118]

I have been told by drivers who operate DOO that unlike the human eye the cameras that they use to check the doors are clear do not have peripheral vision and do not pick up passengers from more than a set distance from the side of the train. In many cases, although the doors have been clear when the driver has operated the door close button, it has been found that passengers who originally were beyond the vision of the on train cameras have still managed to get trapped in the doors prior to them closing fully.

In most cases this would stop the interlock for working and the train would not proceed but what if a piece of clothing was trapped? A person could in theory be dragged down the platform or worse.............

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The driver made a mistake.
The dispatcher made a mistake.
The passenger made a mistake.

A very good example of the Swiss cheese model of accidents.

 

[455driver]

She'll definitely not try to board a train who's doors are closing again!

Would you like to bet on that, how much, I will cover it!

I do NOT accept paypal, only money or beer!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The passenger made a BIG mistake.
The dispatcher made a mistake.
The driver made a mistake.

A very good example of the Swiss cheese model of accidents.

Post edited to correct the timeline!

 

[jon0844]

The driver made a mistake.
The dispatcher made a mistake.
The passenger made a mistake.

A very good example of the Swiss cheese model of accidents.

As an avid viewer of Seconds to Disaster and other shows, I am well aware that accidents are caused by a series of events that occur all at once. Just like the Concorde crash - if it the plane hadn't been so heavy, it wouldn't have hit the metal that burst the tyre that punctured the fuel tank...

I'd swap the order of your list though. The passenger made the biggest mistake of all and started the chain of events.

 

[Mojo]

I have been told by drivers who operate DOO that unlike the human eye the cameras that they use to check the doors are clear do not have peripheral vision and do not pick up passengers from more than a set distance from the side of the train. In many cases, although the doors have been clear when the driver has operated the door close button, it has been found that passengers who originally were beyond the vision of the on train cameras have still managed to get trapped in the doors prior to them closing fully.

The rule book requires drivers of DO trains departing from an unstaffed platform to carry out a train safety check after they have checked that the door interlock light is lit. Therefore any passengers who were not visible when the door close button was pressed can be observed when the train safety check is carried out.

Of course new technologies such as improved quality CCTV, track-to-train CCTV and sensitive edge on train doors all help ensure safety of customers at the platform train interface.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As an avid viewer of Seconds to Disaster and other shows, I am well aware that accidents are caused by a series of events that occur all at once. Just like the Concorde crash - if it the plane hadn't been so heavy, it wouldn't have hit the metal that burst the tyre that punctured the fuel tank...

I'd swap the order of your list though. The passenger made the biggest mistake of all and started the chain of events.

The order wasn't meant to be in chronological order, or order of "seriousness", just a list of the mistakes.

But yes, it is a load of ifs. If the dispatcher had noticed, if the passenger hadn't stuck her hand in the door, if the driver had stopped. If those mistakes had happened separately it wouldn't have been very serious, but the holes in the cheese lined up and we're left with an RAIB investigation.