Commuter dragged after hand stuck in door

[bnm]

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

I do NOT accept paypal, only money or beer!

If this lady is subject to another RAIB report for a similar incident I will of course honour that bet. Even if that means travelling to Feltham (which is punishment in itself) to buy you a beer.

She may well casually saunter for a train that is about to depart, again in the future but I very much doubt she'll stick any part of her anatomy in closing doors. If that does happen again then she really would be worthy of at least an Honourable Mention in the Darwin Awards.

 

[island]

So this woman was actually committing an offence by trying to get on the train after the chimes sounded.

The penalty for which does not incorporate being dragged to FPK!

Nevertheless, the passenger's action was clearly the root cause of the issue.

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?)

One ding = stop. Happened at Bristol Parkway on an FGW train I was on last month when the RA was given with a passenger still withdrawing luggage from the train, somehow.

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.

They don't always carry a radio.

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?

The dispatcher is responsible for making sure the doors have closed and the way is clear before giving the RA.

 

[bnm]

one ding = stop. Happened at Bristol Parkway on an FGW train I was on last month

And I heard and witnessed a 'one ding' (actually a buzzer in this instance) on a heritage railway DMU recently. Sat at the front with a clear view of the driver and I saw him swiftly hit the plunger. The sound of escaping air from the brake system was pretty impressive!

Passenger had opened a door as the train was departing apparently.

 

[142094]

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.

Course depends on what type of stock/unit it is, but a lot of Northern's stock such as the 14xs, 153/156/158 etc have the sliding window in the cab, although I'm not entirely sure where the buzzer is located in the cab - so if they did see something go wrong, they wouldn't be able to press the buzzer instantly (although no doubt would only take a second or two to get to it?). Same here, I've never seen it done anywhere, always from the local door.

What happens at KGX now since the barriers have been installed? In the past they used to shut the gates at the end of each platforms before a train was ready to depart, meaning no stragglers would be tempted to try and force the doors. The past few times I've been down I've seen the RA given and people still running down the platform, so must have changed.

 

[blacknight]

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.

In at least one recent RAIB report involving a DOO it was found that final safety check by driver was being carried out after the train started moving.
As for all the hi tech gadgets maybe all we need is interactive human platform staff to watch out for passengers putting themselves in place of danger as CCTV is only a silent witness it can record events but do nothing to prevent incidents happening as in this case dispatcher line of sight was blocked by other passengers so same can happen with cameras especially if train comes to a stand not in correct position as happened at Huntingdon & Brentwood incidents involving DOO trains.

 

[Hydro]

And I heard and witnessed a 'one ding' (actually a buzzer in this instance) on a heritage railway DMU recently. Sat at the front with a clear view of the driver and I saw him swiftly hit the plunger. The sound of escaping air from the brake system was pretty impressive!

Passenger had opened a door as the train was departing apparently.

Very common in the days of slammers. Train started to leave, someone sprints up and opens a door. "Ding" and the brake would dump. The guard would always stand in the door and observe until the entire train was clear of the platform.

 

[John55]

And I heard and witnessed a 'one ding' (actually a buzzer in this instance) on a heritage railway DMU recently. Sat at the front with a clear view of the driver and I saw him swiftly hit the plunger. The sound of escaping air from the brake system was pretty impressive!

Passenger had opened a door as the train was departing apparently.

Surely the hiss of air entering the braking system!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Very common in the days of slammers. Train started to leave, someone sprints up and opens a door. "Ding" and the brake would dump. The guard would always stand in the door and observe until the entire train was clear of the platform.

Still do - the benefits of an inwards opening door!

 

[GB]

No, it's the air from one side of the distributor leaving the system.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

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.



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.

The official line is we can open the doors from the front BUT we can only close them from the rear cab/Door of the unit that is in use if we have a set locked out of use we must act like it does not exist. Its a pain for revenue and a knee jerk reaction but thems the rules and that's what we must do. (Unless its a class 323 where we can do the doors from the middle due to no hand rails on the outside)

 

[Jonfun]

No, it's the air from one side of the distributor leaving the system.

I assume you're on about the hiss people are talking about on a heritage DMU? Don't forget the old DMUs were generally vac-braked - Hence inrush of air to apply.

 

[GB]

I assume you're on about the hiss people are talking about on a heritage DMU? Don't forget the old DMUs were generally vac-braked - Hence inrush of air to apply.

Yes fair enough, must of glossed over the heritage part

 

[Big Jim]

This sounds horrible. Pretty much a worst nightmare.

 

[LE Greys]

Very common in the days of slammers. Train started to leave, someone sprints up and opens a door. "Ding" and the brake would dump. The guard would always stand in the door and observe until the entire train was clear of the platform.

I've done that myself on CIGs and VEPs , and occasionally got off next to the exit when in the front of a train (always closed the door behind me though). Mind you, when you're sixteen you tend to think you're invincible.

There's an old story about someone at Clapham Junction who succeeded in 'jumping' an empty stock working to Wimbledon depot by using that method. He subsequently tried to bail out, but was a considerable distance beyond the platform at the time.

 

[bnm]

I assume you're on about the hiss people are talking about on a heritage DMU? Don't forget the old DMUs were generally vac-braked - Hence inrush of air to apply.

My bad. I heard the sound of rushing air on the heritage DMU. Out or in I know not, but I take a bow to superior knowledge. Always learning.

 

[ian13]

Clearly the woman shouldn't have tried to board, and breached the bylaws doing so. However, there are safety procedures in place to stop this sort of incident happening when someone does try. When people cross the road without looking, that doesn't make it fine to run them over.

The platform dispatcher had a non-ideal view. In all honesty it's quite reasonable that he wouldn't have been able to see the trapped hand, and only the door indicators. However, the report does state that the dispatcher should "temporarily left the dispatch point to look along the side of the train" before right away, whereas he believed he should not.

However, the driver should have stopped the train immediately upon the passcom being activated, especially given that's the only way he can be informed of an incident post despatch (in the DOO dispatch procedure used).

The driver operated an override control 3.5 seconds later and this prevented the PCA causing an emergency brake application. The train continued for about four minutes, until it reached the next station.

FCC training did not make it clear that he must stop if still within a station, but he instead believed it up to his judgement, not entirely his fault. Additionally, his training told him that points was an inappropriate place to stop due to difficulty in providing assistance. FCC have said they will change their training, but I find this the most concerning part of this.

 

[BestWestern]

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.

But all remain a compromise in comparison to a qualified person with a set of real human eyes, located out on the platform where things are actually happening :roll:

Beware the 'benefits' of all this wonderful technology. Some would tell you that it's so good you don't need a Driver either, but tell that to the parents of the child who fell between train and platform on the tube recently. The computer happily said 'yes', but thankfully a staff member, equipped with old fashioned human eyes, saw what the safety systems couldn't, and prevented a death. Brave new world and all that...

 

[PTF62]

She was definitely the cause of the whole situation occurring, no doubt about that. I really hope she won't sue and get compensation

Her actions only put in place the possibility of the situation occuring, but at that moment it was only a possibility. Had everybody done what they were paid to do, it would have merely remained a possibility.

It required the failure by the despatcher indicating that the train was safe to leave when it was clearly not, to actually change that from a possibility to the situation actually occuring.

The failure of the driver to follow clear instructions then exacerbated the stuation. However it seems from the posts here that it is not unusual that the correct Rule Book procedure is not followed, but that it should be ignored or not known by a driver only shortly out of training should give FCC's customers great concern.

I hope she does sue, and given the RAIB report it is difficult to see how she could fail to win.

 

[BestWestern]

I hope she does sue, and given the RAIB report it is difficult to see how she could fail to win.

I agree that she is likely to sue, and win. I also agree that there was clear negligence on the part of at least one of the staff members involved, and possibly both. However, if she does indeed sue, I would sincerely hope that FCC do what they can with any relevant byelaws in response. She was also in the wrong. We do not want to reinforce the notion that it is only staff who are obliged to follow any relevant rules.

 

[tirphil]

I agree that she is likely to sue, and win. I also agree that there was clear negligence on the part of at least one of the staff members involved, and possibly both. However, if she does indeed sue, I would sincerely hope that FCC do what they can with any relevant byelaws in response. She was also in the wrong. We do not want to reinforce the notion that it is only staff who are obliged to follow any relevant rules.

Indeed. Both rail staff and passenger did things that they should'nt have that day.

 

[ian13]

I agree that she is likely to sue, and win. I also agree that there was clear negligence on the part of at least one of the staff members involved, and possibly both. However, if she does indeed sue, I would sincerely hope that FCC do what they can with any relevant byelaws in response. She was also in the wrong. We do not want to reinforce the notion that it is only staff who are obliged to follow any relevant rules.

I think any compensation received will far exceed the ca. £100 fine from a strict liability bylaw offence!

 

[Flamingo]

But it might send the message that she had some responsibilities for her own actions. However, it won't happen, in the name of "customer service".

 

[PTF62]

But it might send the message that she had some responsibilities for her own actions.

I think the injuries caused by the two railway staff who failed to do their job correctly have already done that.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm just relieved to have spent the larger part of my travelling years in an age when we were able to open and shut train doors ourselves.

I don't trust these non passenger operated ones. You don't know when something might get caught up

 

[Flamingo]

I think the injuries caused by the two railway staff who failed to do their job correctly have already done that.

No, the injuries were caused by her sticking her hand in a door that was plainly closing. Everything else stemmed from that.

 

[PTF62]

No, the injuries were caused by her sticking her hand in a door that was plainly closing. Everything else stemmed from that.

Putting her hand in the door caused no injury.

The member of the railway staff who was employed to check that the train was safe to leave, and who failed to do so caused her injury.

The member of the railway staff who had instructions to stop immediately when the alarm was sounded failed to do so, and also caused her injury.

I fail to see why you cannot understand that if the railway staff had done their job correctly then the passenger would not have been injured.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm not arguing that the dispatcher (and to a lesser extent driver) did not fo their job correctly.

However, I don't understand why you seem to think she was an innocent victim rather than somebody who acted in a foolish and reckless manner. As I said, millions of people manage to get on and off these trains every day with no problem.

 

[jon0844]

If she sues, will it end up like McDonalds getting sued for scalding someone who put a coffee mug in their lap, such that we get a warning that the contents might be hot?

So because of this dumb woman, we may end up seeing every part of a train covered with safety stickers to warn other brainless morons?

Great.

 

[PTF62]

However, I don't understand why you seem to think she was an innocent victim rather than somebody who acted in a foolish and reckless manner.

Foolish and reckless, or someone who just made a mistake?

If you honestly think that people who make a mistake should be injured for their errors, then what is the purpose of the member of railway staff employed to safely dispatch the train. Lets get rid of them all, and if a few people die being dragged under trains after making a mistake, then it is their problem.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I had a passenger today that decided ...oh the doors are closing SO i'll put my arms in them and force them open...he didn't catch my train (due to having to speak to a member of the BTP) the passenger took a chance knowing what they were doing, was the dispatcher at fault..Yes...was the Drier at Fault...Yes was the PASSENGER at Fault ABSOLUTELY...typical swiss cheese scenario (that has been mentioned before). The dispatcher could have had his vision obscured, the driver could have got given the wrong instructions but the Passenger? could have been just plan stupid! (who in there right minds would attempt to put there hand in a closing train door..beggers belief) However if say I was the guard and either I saw or got told of the incident 1 long Buzz would tell the driver to stop (and he would have to) DOO increases risk, get rid and lets keep things safe!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Foolish and reckless, or someone who just made a mistake?

If you honestly think that people who make a mistake should be injured for their errors, then what is the purpose of the member of railway staff employed to safely dispatch the train. Lets get rid of them all, and if a few people die being dragged under trains after making a mistake, then it is their problem.

Foolish and reckless?? understatement of the year!