Cost Vs Safety

[rebmcr]

Actually, it was telegraph equipment that originated the 19" rack form factor — although this was very easily adopted when signalling started to be automated, due to the telegraph and the railway's close integration.

 

[ac6000cw]

Sorry my post was a bit narky, didn't mean for it to be (long day etc) I never put my job on there, maybe I should!

No problem

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually, it was telegraph equipment that originated the 19" rack form factor — although this was very easily adopted when signalling started to be automated, due to the telegraph and the railway's close integration.

Yes, there's a very long, intertwined history of telecommunications and railway signalling - all the way from early telegraphy to GSM radio. Some of the people who developed the original block and token instruments were railway 'Telegraph' superintendents/engineers/maintainers etc. at the time.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose it has something to do with the vertical integrations of the railway at that time and the fact that the telegraph engineers were the only people on hand experienced at working with electrical equipment.

 

[ac6000cw]

I suppose it has something to do with the vertical integrations of the railway at that time and the fact that the telegraph engineers were the only people on hand experienced at working with electrical equipment.

Undoubtedly - some of them would have been high tech 'whizz kids' of their day, and went on to found their own companies making the equipment (which is why we are still familiar with people like Edward Tyer & William Sykes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Robert_Sykes )

 

[edwin_m]

The first bits of electrical equipment used in signaling were the block telegraph, bells and telephones. All of which were derived from telecommunications (though they wouldn't have called it that at the time). All other electrical equipment including track circuits and electric locking came later, presumably once the telegraph people had got their feet under the table on the electrical side of signaling.

 

[raafif]

It would seem that my grandfathers death on the Tube in 1935 could still happen on some surface trains in UK today. The trains then had manually-opened slam-doors - are some still in service ?
He tried to board a train just as it moved off but the carriage door was locked (no notice posted on the window to say it was). He was too afraid to let go as the electric train had gained speed & he was knocked off the carriage step by a bracket just inside the tunnel.

While it was his fault for being too eager to board, it would seem that it was fairly regular for people to do this at that time ... & I'm sure some try this regularly today. I have a copy of the Coroners Inquest & legal opinion (1936) that would still hold true for the abolition of all carriages with slam-doors but I guess cost will determine the rate of replacement. I'm told he was the last person killed in such circumstances before automatic doors were used on the Tube.

Looking for photos of Earls Court Tube station (No.2 road) & the type of loco & carriages in use in 1935, if anyone can point me in the right direction ?

 

[Manchester77]

The only trains still in regular passenger service with slam doors are the mark IIIs. It's highly unlikely such an incident would occur today; let's face it if one does occur it'd attract major publicity. The majority of slammers were withdrawn in the early 2000s but that was due to the safety of the Mark I coach design iirc.

 

[raafif]

that's good to hear, I rode several slam doors when last in UK (2000). Pity they don't still use the horse-hair stuffed seats tho - they were very comfy on long trips.

What about train-surfers - quite a few in my country - becoming a real problem ..... maybe give the train a quick spray of water as it leaves every station ??

 

[edwin_m]

The remaining slam-door trains have to have some form of secondary lock so (assuming the staff use the lock correctly) it is impossible to open the door when the train is moving. Some main line trains (but not the Underground) do still have exterior handles on or near the doors so someone who didn't know this might still be able to ride on the doorstep.

Train surfing is an issue but tends to be on the back end of trains as anyone trying it on the sides would be unlikely to live long enough to spread the practice. Some trains and trams have had their ends modified to remove possible handholds and footholds, which were often provide originally to allow staff to clean the windscreens.

 

[LexyBoy]

Fencing off all roads should be a higher priority IMO. We'd need footbridges every few hundred metres though.

Seriously... there are risks everywhere and in the real world a balance has to be made between practicality, usability and safety. It would be much safer if we just banned all modes of transport, but too inconvenient for most. Yes it is terrifying as a parent realising that your child could be in mortal danger doing pretty much anything, you just have to accept that as they grow up they take responsibility for themselves (somehow!).

The remaining slam-door trains have to have some form of secondary lock so (assuming the staff use the lock correctly) it is impossible to open the door when the train is moving.

How impossible is "impossible"? I've more than once seen people opening the doors on HSTs before the CDL is released. It takes a bit of welly though so unlikely to happen by accident!

 

[AM9]

Fencing off all roads should be a higher priority IMO. We'd need footbridges every few hundred metres though.

Seriously... there are risks everywhere and in the real world a balance has to be made between practicality, usability and safety. It would be much safer if we just banned all modes of transport, but too inconvenient for most. Yes it is terrifying as a parent realising that your child could be in mortal danger doing pretty much anything, you just have to accept that as they grow up they take responsibility for themselves (somehow!).

This is where the Darwin factor kicks in. Would those who want toal safety ban alcohol, tabacco, bleach etc.. .. it goes on forever. I didn't find it terrifying as a parent. It was just one of those things that parents had to take responsibility for. If that looked too terrifying then don't have children and just reflect on the fact that oneself somehow managed to get through the extremely high risk years of childhood against all odds.

 

[TDK]

How much are you willing to pay and where is the money coming from?



Money,
Such as?
Because then the passengers would have to walk to the far end at platforms where the entrance is at the rear of the train, they tried that on the up at New Malden by making the 8 car board an S board and removing the 4 car board (which was under the canopy) with the result that everyone waited under the canopy but the train went past them (to stop at the S) and then the train had to wait while the pax made their way down the train and boarded the rear door after some of them verbally abusing the guard.


What about LCs in town centres where there is no room for a bridge or tunnel?
Close the road or close the railway?
What about where the Council wont let NR build a bridge because it would be visible from a couple of houses and spoil their view? Cough Ufton Nervert cough?
Easier said than done.


Trains stop at 1000s of signals a day without issue!
How much are you willing to spend on the few signals that are passed?



Super safe and comfortable trains (I prefer a mark 3 over any of the fancy new stuff personally and I prefer to 'drive' a train rather than ask a computer to do it for me) costs about £1.5 million a coach, how many new coaches do you need to replace all the 'unsafe' ones?
As the 444s and 450s no longer pass the new 'standard' shall we replace those as well?
I mean they are not as safe as they could be!
Where do you draw the line?

Aside-
As car technology and safety are improving all the time (how many people die in car accidents a year?) do you change your car every time a new/improved one comes out so you can be as safe as possible or do you accept the minute risk from having an 'older' car?

To sum this all up - everything is risk assessed and the risk is rated, the lower the risk rate the lower the priority. If you took every risk and paid to eliminate it passengers would be paying 100's of quid per journey and you would be paying hell of a lot more tax. Road deaths are extremely high so therefore maybe this needs to be addressed before rail for example limit all cars to do a maximum of 50mph?

 

[TUC]

My daughter was involved in an incident boarding a Jubilee Line train at London Bridge tube station last week. She was boarding with a pushchair and the door closing signal started when the pushchair was on and she was in the doorway. The problem was that, because of where other passengers were around the pushchair, she could neither move forward out of the doorway, nor come off the train with the pushchair.

To that point it was just an unfortunate combination. What caused a greater problem was that when the train doors (and the additional doors sealing the train from the platform) started to close, instead of opening again when making contact with my daughter, they continued to press in. Even when a staff member intervened, he had to visibly strain to try and stop them continuing to try to close, during which time they were still pressing in , leaving my daughter with some light bruising before they finally reopened.

I would have expected the door sensors to be far more sensitive than that. If it had been a frail person or a child, it could have caused greater injury.

 

[hassaanhc]

My daughter was involved in an incident boarding a Jubilee Line train at London Bridge tube station last week. She was boarding with a pushchair and the door closing signal started when the pushchair was on and she was in the doorway. The problem was that, because of where other passengers were around the pushchair, she could neither move forward out of the doorway, nor come off the train with the pushchair.

To that point it was just an unfortunate combination. What caused a greater problem was that when the train doors (and the additional doors sealing the train from the platform) started to close, instead of opening again when making contact with my daughter, they continued to press in. Even when a staff member intervened, he had to visibly strain to try and stop them continuing to try to close, during which time they were still pressing in , leaving my daughter with some light bruising before they finally reopened.

I would have expected the door sensors to be far more sensitive than that. If it had been a frail person or a child, it could have caused greater injury.

Not aware of either set of doors having a sensor to detect people or objects trapped in doors. :? I recall the Victoria Line trains and the new DLR trains were the first to have such a system, something that continued to the S Stock for Circle/District/Hammersmith/Metropolitan lines.

 

[TUC]

Not aware of either set of doors having a sensor to detect people or objects trapped in doors. :? I recall the Victoria Line trains and the new DLR trains were the first to have such a system, something that continued to the S Stock for Circle/District/Hammersmith/Metropolitan lines.

Presumably the fact that they did eventually open means that there must be some sort of sensor to detect-and advise the driver-that the doors can't close. It would seem a pretty simple safety feature.

 

[hassaanhc]

Presumably the fact that they did eventually open means that there must be some sort of sensor to detect-and advise the driver-that the doors can't close. It would seem a pretty simple safety feature.

The platform doors might do, I'm not sure about those. However, with the train doors the driver must gave opened the doors themselves after seeing the doors blocked and also not getting a doors closed indication in the cab (the train can't move without it). The 2009 Stock for the Victoria Line had a lot of issues with the "sensitive edge" when new.

 

[drbdrb]

If railways were invented today, H&S would never be allow them to operate.

Dear Mr H&S,

I want to construct a building where thousands of people will pass through every day.

They will need to walk alongside a 1.5 metre drop for hundreds of metres that is not fenced off. At the bottom of the drop I plan on installing an exposed very high voltage piece of steel that will kill or maim if touched. All of this is outside, so will be covered with ice and snow in the winter.

The design of the building will mean at certain points that the thousands of customers will be forced to walk less than a metre from the drop, and queue at that point next to the drop to wait to climb stairs to exit the building.

At random point points of time we will be running 1000 tonne vehicles through the site at 125 mph. We may give some warning of the arrival of these fast moving vehicles, but probably won't.

We do not plan on installing any physical separation between the 1000 tonne 125 mph vehicles and the customers who will be standing 0.5 meters away.

Our customer information systems are not particularly good, so people will frequently need to run next to the 1.5 metre drop, and next to the 125 mph vehicles.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that my plans are safe, and your permission to operate.

 

[theageofthetra]

One thing that that would help is emergency plungers at all main stations that would allow staff to cut the power/turn banner repeaters & signals to danger & stop a train ASAP if there is an incident at the platform edge. Some of the latest depots have these plungers at line level.

 

[najaB]

One thing that that would help is emergency plungers at all main stations that would allow staff miscreants to cut the power/turn banner repeaters & signals to danger & stop a train ASAP if there is an incident at the platform edgethey feel like having a bit of 'fun'.

Fixed it for you.

 

[edwin_m]

If railways were invented today, H&S would never be allow them to operate.

Dear Mr H&S,

I want to construct a building where thousands of people will pass through every day.

They will need to walk alongside a 1.5 metre drop for hundreds of metres that is not fenced off. At the bottom of the drop I plan on installing an exposed very high voltage piece of steel that will kill or maim if touched. All of this is outside, so will be covered with ice and snow in the winter.

The design of the building will mean at certain points that the thousands of customers will be forced to walk less than a metre from the drop, and queue at that point next to the drop to wait to climb stairs to exit the building.

At random point points of time we will be running 1000 tonne vehicles through the site at 125 mph. We may give some warning of the arrival of these fast moving vehicles, but probably won't.

We do not plan on installing any physical separation between the 1000 tonne 125 mph vehicles and the customers who will be standing 0.5 meters away.

Our customer information systems are not particularly good, so people will frequently need to run next to the 1.5 metre drop, and next to the 125 mph vehicles.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that my plans are safe, and your permission to operate.

Agreed, if the railway was being built from scratch today it would look very different. Some of your ideas are however enforced for new work:

- There is a principle (though I've never seen it set out in a formal document) that top-contact third rail is banned for new schemes unless they are extensions of existing third rail schemes.

- Trains aren't allowed to pass platforms at more than 125mph.

- New station work needs to consider passenger flows and crowding issues.

To be pedantic, the drop is officially 914mm not 1.5m, and although 1000 tonne and 125mph trains operate, 1000t trains do not operate at 125mph in the UK though a coupled TGV set probably isn't far off.

 

[AM9]

Agreed, if the railway was being built from scratch today it would look very different. Some of your ideas are however enforced for new work:

- There is a principle (though I've never seen it set out in a formal document) that top-contact third rail is banned for new schemes unless they are extensions of existing third rail schemes.

- Trains aren't allowed to pass platforms at more than 125mph.

- New station work needs to consider passenger flows and crowding issues.

To be pedantic, the drop is officially 914mm not 1.5m, and although 1000 tonne and 125mph trains operate, 1000t trains do not operate at 125mph in the UK though a coupled TGV set probably isn't far off.

And no trains would ever run at 125mph when powered from a rail at the bottom of a pit, even without the snow and ice.

 

[drbdrb]

And no trains would ever run at 125mph when powered from a rail at the bottom of a pit, even without the snow and ice.

So it is safer to be hit by a 3rd rail train at 70mph or whatever their maximum speed is? And it is safer to be hit at 125 mph by an overhead line or diesel train as there is no 3rd rail to fry your remains?

 

[AM9]

So it is safer to be hit by a 3rd rail train at 70mph or whatever their maximum speed is? And it is safer to be hit at 125 mph by an overhead line or diesel train as there is no 3rd rail to fry your remains?

You can't be more dead than dead.
My comment was about powering trains at 125mph from 3rd rail. It can't reliably be done!

 

[colhot]

The issue as stated "What cost to Safety".

I work in the airline industry and the safest airline is one that does not fly, the aircraft is on the ground and all fuel, oils etc are removed.

The issue is when a company who has had a serious incident that the spokes person states that "Safety is number one in his company" B******s is it?

Surely its 1.1 as number one is making money. In aviation you can plough all the money into preventing human error but you will soon go bust. There is a level that the organisation must sit and be happy with. In aviation, technology and procedures/processes has made aviation travel safer also its the same as cars that are so built that most accidents are survivable. Its the human we have to look at...

Also aviation uses SMS "Safety Management System" where everyone can report a hazard (A hazard is anything with the potential to cause harm.) and if the company mitigates against a risk (Risk Assessment is an evaluation based on engineering and operational judgement and/or analysis methods in order to establish whether the achieved or perceived risk is acceptable or tolerable.) (using various formulas). The question is who is accountable?

Maybe the courts would look at the risk and they themselves would use the same conclusion as the organisation that to spend £10 million would not justify the preventative actions. What would the chance be of an incident?

Do they wait for public out cry?

Shall we not use that train company to send a message or is it that we the public, accept the risk?

Is train travel safer today then the say 20/30/40 years ago?

Thanks (just my thoughts)

Morning,

I was reminded this morning that safety comes at a cost. I was about to post a reply on a thread but realised as I was typing that my answer would be pointless :/

There are various incidents on the railway but some appear to be totally avoidable if technology was implemented or infrastructure redesigned all obviously, at a cost.

The company I work for sent an internal communication recently stating targets for incidents. One of which was '1 death' Surely all targets for safety incidents should be ZERO. The railways leans towards reduction and mitigation and various safety concerns only appear to be implemented once its very public and usually after people have sadly list their lives.

The simple answer to the following question is MONEY but is there any other reasons why elimination of incidents isn't the target. Without being specific or starting debates about removal of X/Y/Z are there incidents etc. that can be totally eliminated albeit at a significant cost ?

Slam door stock is almost non existent (I'm sure some is still out there) and although passengers can still open the doors whilst the train is moving (egress') Slam door related incidents are surely a thing of the past. (yes there is now probably other door related incidents)

Is it that one incident is replaced with another ?

With ticket prices spiralling out of control and NR debt being insane. Have we been throwing money at problems but never actually resolving them ?

TL/DR : Safety good, Paying for it bad ?

 

[edwin_m]

The railway also uses SMS and processes which are quite similar to those of the aviation industry.

An airline or a rail operator has a financial as well as a moral duty to pay attention to safety, because an accident costs a lot of money not only in direct costs but in increased insurance premiums and loss of reputation. Rightly or wrongly, Malaysian Airlines appears to be experiencing this at present.

The UK rail network has become significantly safer in recent decades, with the most important contribution being the TPWS system that significantly reduces the risk associated with signals passed at danger. Older rolling stock has also been replaced by new designs with improved crashworthiness, though in view of the small number of crashes where this might have made a difference (further reduced by TPWS) it is arguable whether this represents a safety benefit at all. Road vehicle incursions (at level crossings and elsewhere) are now the top risk to the railway although in view of recent incidents the platform-train interface may be receiving more attention.

 

[AM9]

In my industrial experience (not rail related) the risk assessment process works on the principle that there is risk in most activities from falling off a ladder to a paper cut. It acknowledges that it would not be practicable to nullify all risks but recognises the obligations of taking reasonable care and providing appropriate training.
When I did a system level assessment, the hazard would be scored using a table with axes of probability against severity. The intercept of an individual hazard's probability and severity would give a score. A system with several hazards would have a maximum overall score. If this score was breached, mitigation woulkd be availble either by engineering user/functional protection, or mandated training would be specified (with prohibition of untrained users).
By these means, we maintained a very low incidence of safety incidents in an environment that allowed commercial activity to proceed.
The unrealistic demands of absolute safety and zero possibility of any mishaps is not only naiive, but also unfair. Most of those calling for it don't practice what they preach in their private lives so their demands are just posturing for their own (usually political) ends.

 

[edwin_m]

In my industrial experience (not rail related) the risk assessment process works on the principle that there is risk in most activities from falling off a ladder to a paper cut. It acknowledges that it would not be practicable to nullify all risks but recognises the obligations of taking reasonable care and providing appropriate training.
When I did a system level assessment, the hazard would be scored using a table with axes of probability against severity. The intercept of an individual hazard's probability and severity would give a score. A system with several hazards would have a maximum overall score. If this score was breached, mitigation woulkd be availble either by engineering user/functional protection, or mandated training would be specified (with prohibition of untrained users).
By these means, we maintained a very low incidence of safety incidents in an environment that allowed commercial activity to proceed.
The unrealistic demands of absolute safety and zero possibility of any mishaps is not only naiive, but also, not unfair. Most of those calling for it don't practice what they preach in their private lives so their demands are just posturing for their own (usually political) ends.

That's exactly the system used in the rail industry. Beyond a certain score the risk is "intolerable", at a very low score there is no need to do any further mitigation unless it's something really straightforward. In the region in between, the hazard has to be mitigated As Low As Reasonably Practicable - note that Reasonably Practicable takes account of factors such as cost and convenience.

 

[MarkyT]

Risks definitely need to be ranked. If too much effort and money is spent chasing diminishing returns on one particular risk then others may not get their fair share of attention and mitigation.