Incident at Wandsworth Common 07/08/16

[S-Car-Go]

GTRs lawyers sought to argue it shouldnt be imposed as they hadnt made any profit this year.

I find that that point bizarre. Please don't fine us as we haven't made any money this year. If I got caught speeding in a hypothetical car that I haven't got, I don't think I could say I won't pay because I didn't do paid overtime to cover the cost.

 

[NSEFAN]

The railway can't hide behind a defence of "it was acceptable in the '80s".

If anything, droplights with no window bars were probably very much acceptable in the 1980s, because droplights were the standard BR carriage door window and there was a reasonable assumption that passengers would be familiar with their usage. Compare this with the final days of HST operation on GWR this year; i would frequently see passengers completely bemused by the manually operated doors. As a general point, you could probably argue that the risk with droplights has actually increased as passengers become less familiar with them and have become increasingly sheltered from the risks.

Would a better sticker on the window in this case have prevented the accident? Possibly not. But then it is necessarily all about the unfortunate chap who was killed.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I find that that point bizarre. Please don't fine us as we haven't made any money this year. If I got caught speeding in a hypothetical car that I haven't got, I don't think I could say I won't pay because I didn't do paid overtime to cover the cost.

GTR's lawyers wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't grasp at straws. No different to someone claiming they didn't have time to buy a ticket

 

[Taunton]

I find the £1m fine bizarre, for a rail industry employee and known enthusiast (two "should know betters"), who has gone and sought out a staff window few if any other passengers even know existed, and projected himself way outside. Meanwhile the Elsenham crossing accident which killed the two schoolgirls, ensnared by the railway "economy" of reducing the only ticketing facilities to the opposite side of the line from both the village and their train platform, and which dispatched infrequent trains with no regard for who might be wanting to get them but were stuck on the opposite side of the line, also had a fine of the same £1m.

I'm also a bit lost why the TOC at Wandsworth got stiffed with the fine rather than Network Rail who had allowed a structure to encroach to be foul of the stipulated clearances. Meanwhile at Elsenham it was Network Rail who were found at fault, where it was the TOC's attitude of non-provision of ticketing facilities on the appropriate side of the line that, for me, directly led to it. All seems a bit of a legal lottery. I suspect the courts don't understand the industry complexity.

 

[krus_aragon]

I find the £1m fine bizarre, for a rail industry employee and known enthusiast, who has gone and sought out a staff window few if any other passengers even know existed, and projected himself way outside. Meanwhile the Elsenham crossing accident which killed the two schoolgirls, ensnared by the railway "economy" of reducing the only ticketing facilities to the opposite side of the line from both the village and their train platform, and which dispatched infrequent trains with no regard for who might be wanting to get them but were stuck on the opposite side of the line, also had a fine of the same £1m.

I'm not familiar with the second case, but to my understanding it's the answer to the question "did you consider the risk that this could happen, and what precautionary measures could be taken?"

In the second case, it may be that the answer was "we did, but we determined that the risk was managable because ... ", i.e. they'd assessed the risk and taken reasonable precautions . In the GTR case, it was more of "we didn't do a full risk assessment when we transferred the 442s to this route and started running them DOO".

 

[yorkie]

...All seems a bit of a legal lottery. I suspect the courts don't understand the industry complexity.

Absolutely it is and absolutely they do not.

 

[SteveT]

Pardon me if this has been noted elsewhere. The DT has got it only half-right; the threat is, of course, to the rolling stock, not the traction.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...rced-tracks-new-tougher-safety-rules-heritage

The statement from the ORR provides some clues.

"There are still some trains with droplight windows operating on the network and we have written to operators instructing them to take immediate action to prevent a similar tragedy happening again."

https://orr.gov.uk/news-and-blogs/press-releases/2019/gtr-fined-after-man-killed-on-the-gatwick-express

This might be taken to imply that preserved railways aren't on the mailing list.

If bars are to be fitted, could they be put on the inside?

 

[edwin_m]

If bars are to be fitted, could they be put on the inside?

To open the window from inside, to get to the door handle to exit, you need to slide the metal bar at the top of the glass down as far as it will go. Inside bars would make that difficult and risk trapping fingers between the moving bar on the glass and the fixed ones. Outside bars allow the window to be opened from inside and a gap can be left at the bottom big enough for an arm to reach down to the door handle but not for someone to put their head out.

 

[SteveT]

I'd have probably got there if I'd bothered to think it through (!) ... but … don't some MK1 carriages have handles on the inside?

There should be a small prize for whoever comes up with a solution that keeps passengers safe and allows windows to be opened but doesn't disfigure the carriages.

 

[SteveT]

To open the window from inside, to get to the door handle to exit, you need to slide the metal bar at the top of the glass down as far as it will go. Inside bars would make that difficult and risk trapping fingers between the moving bar on the glass and the fixed ones. Outside bars allow the window to be opened from inside and a gap can be left at the bottom big enough for an arm to reach down to the door handle but not for someone to put their head out.

Vertical bars would work...

 

[Bikeman78]

Pardon me if this has been noted elsewhere. The DT has got it only half-right; the threat is, of course, to the rolling stock, not the traction.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...rced-tracks-new-tougher-safety-rules-heritage

The statement from the ORR provides some clues.

https://orr.gov.uk/news-and-blogs/press-releases/2019/gtr-fined-after-man-killed-on-the-gatwick-express

This might be taken to imply that preserved railways aren't on the mailing list.

If bars are to be fitted, could they be put on the inside?

Window bars on trains that only have handles on the outside are a pain in the backside. I struggled with the CIGs out of Victoria when they had bars for their last few years. One of the bars was exactly where I wanted to put my arm out to reach handle.

 

[Bikeman78]

I find the £1m fine bizarre, for a rail industry employee and known enthusiast (two "should know betters"), who has gone and sought out a staff window few if any other passengers even know existed, and projected himself way outside.

It has to be said that the "do not lean out of the window" sign on this particular window is rather small. All the slam door trains I can remember had a slightly larger sign with white text on a red background. They didn't stop people leaning out so I don't suppose the size or position of the sign would have made any difference in this case.

 

[Taunton]

Is this not another case where Network Rail are sticking it on the TOCs. Would it not be more effective to require them to place their signalposts etc at the correct clearance?

 

[edwin_m]

Vertical bars would work...

Could do you a nasty injury if you had your arm between the bars to open the door from inside, and somebody outside grabbed the handle and opened it quickly before you could pull your arm in.

 

[JonathanH]

They did try bars on the inside on the Cumbrian Coast stock for a while when it was reintroduced in 2015 - eventually they realised that it was difficult for some people to reach the outside door handle.

These carriages have, of course, had their window bars removed now they have migrated to the Fife commuter trains to displace Riviera stock.

Window bars may prevent heads being put out of the train window but they don't preclude putting other parts out - e.g. to reach out with a camera. True a lost arm is not likely to lead to death but still a risk of bad injury.

 

[edwin_m]

They did try bars on the inside on the Cumbrian Coast stock for a while when it was reintroduced in 2015 - eventually they realised that it was difficult for some people to reach the outside door handle.

These carriages have, of course, had their window bars removed now they have migrated to the Fife commuter trains to displace Riviera stock.

Window bars may prevent heads being put out of the train window but they don't preclude putting other parts out - e.g. to reach out with a camera. True a lost arm is not likely to lead to death but still a risk of bad injury.

There's an element of reasonably practicable here - you need to put an arm out to open the door so you can't prevent arms being put out for other reasons. Ironically the Mk3s were initially built with inside door handles but these were quickly removed because of the risk of people opening the door in motion. Central locking effectively eliminates this so potentially the inside handles could have been restored and the windows sealed.

 

[JonathanH]

There's an element of reasonably practicable here - you need to put an arm out to open the door so you can't prevent arms being put out for other reasons. Ironically the Mk3s were initially built with inside door handles but these were quickly removed because of the risk of people opening the door in motion. Central locking effectively eliminates this so potentially the inside handles could have been restored and the windows sealed.

The ultimate end game here appears to be Mark 4s being the only available stock for charter trains. One obvious problem is the lack of brake vehicles other than DVTs but there would be a need for a generator van anyway to power the air conditioning. The other is whether they look congruous behind a steam engine.

 

[Taunton]

If the ORR suddenly think droplights are dangerous it's taken them a good long time to come to such a realisation. Did Ian Prosser never notice them before at any point in his career? My hunch is that, in the civil service hierarchy, they feel they have been trumped by the CPS with the court judgement, and feel they have to "keep up".

 

[edwin_m]

The ultimate end game here appears to be Mark 4s being the only available stock for charter trains. One obvious problem is the lack of brake vehicles other than DVTs but there would be a need for a generator van anyway to power the air conditioning. The other is whether they look congruous behind a steam engine.

Or perhaps Mk3s with the power doors, although the mods have proved difficult and it's probably some years before those already converted come out of use. Maybe 442 trailers?

 

[JohnElliott]

I'd have probably got there if I'd bothered to think it through (!) ... but … don't some MK1 carriages have handles on the inside?

Yes - the rule seemed to be that the ones with a door at every seating bay (EPBs, VEPs and so on) had inside handles, but the ones with two or three doors to the carriage didn't.

 

[BRX]

Putting sealed carriages on charter trains, at least those aimed at enthusiasts, would surely kill the majority of the market.

 

[Journeyman]

Putting sealed carriages on charter trains, at least those aimed at enthusiasts, would surely kill the majority of the market.

But they wouldn't kill people.

 

[JonathanH]

Putting sealed carriages on charter trains, at least those aimed at enthusiasts, would surely kill the majority of the market.

Depends what is on the front - if the trains had a really good PA system through which you could play the sound of the traction and the train is going to the right destinations it might not.

In some cases you can't hear the traction from a few carriages down anyway.

Clearly the kinetic envelope of a Mk 4 is somewhat different from that of a Mk 1 or Mk 2 - not sure what you could do about clearing these for more routes - the only alternative would appear to a rebuild of the trailer coaches from Mk 3 derived units but they can't be used straight from service like a Mk 4 could be.

If HMRI were prepared to ban pacers for "being unsafe" rather than because they were set out inside like a bus, it would seem apparent that they could easily decide not to extend the derogation on the use of Mk 1s after 2023.

 

[SteveT]

Putting sealed carriages on charter trains, at least those aimed at enthusiasts, would surely kill the majority of the market.

Perhaps there are some in rail management who would like to do just that, regarding charters as a nuisance.

 

[DarloRich]

I find the £1m fine bizarre, for a rail industry employee and known enthusiast (two "should know betters"), who has gone and sought out a staff window few if any other passengers even know existed, and projected himself way outside.

That has no impact on the application of the law in this case. This really isnt a hard concept to grasp.

I'm also a bit lost why the TOC at Wandsworth got stiffed with the fine rather than Network Rail who had allowed a structure to encroach to be foul of the stipulated clearances. Meanwhile at Elsenham it was Network Rail who were found at fault, where it was the TOC's attitude of non-provision of ticketing facilities on the appropriate side of the line that, for me, directly led to it. All seems a bit of a legal lottery. I suspect the courts don't understand the industry complexity.

It also clear you don't understand the law, how it works or to whom is applied. The fault was with GTR who did not take reasonable steps to remove the risk. Had they done so the closeness of the structure ( or otherwise) would have played no part in the tragedy.

Once again posters on this board try to compare two things that are not related to try and prove a confused point.

Absolutely it is and absolutely they do not.

The court doesn't need to understand the complexity of the railway industry because the complexity or otherwise of the railway industry has no bearing on the application of the law in this case. It needs to understand the law and apply that correctly. The law was correctly applied.

There should be a small prize for whoever comes up with a solution that keeps passengers safe and allows windows to be opened but doesn't disfigure the carriages.

Is this not another case where Network Rail are sticking it on the TOCs. Would it not be more effective to require them to place their signalposts etc at the correct clearance?

The ultimate end game here appears to be Mark 4s being the only available stock for charter trains. One obvious problem is the lack of brake vehicles other than DVTs but there would be a need for a generator van anyway to power the air conditioning. The other is whether they look congruous behind a steam engine.

If the ORR suddenly think droplights are dangerous it's taken them a good long time to come to such a realisation. Did Ian Prosser never notice them before at any point in his career? My hunch is that, in the civil service hierarchy, they feel they have been trumped by the CPS with the court judgement, and feel they have to "keep up".

Depends what is on the front - if the trains had a really good PA system through which you could play the sound of the traction and the train is going to the right destinations it might not.

Perhaps there are some in rail management who would like to do just that, regarding charters as a nuisance.

It seems the conspiracy theorists are out in force today!

 

[SteveT]

It seems the conspiracy theorists are out in force today!

Why is it a 'conspiracy theory' to suggest that some managers in the rail industry would rather do without the bother of charter specials?
Wasn't there a period in the 90s when life was made a bit difficult for railtour operators?

 

[Taunton]

It seems the conspiracy theorists are out in force today!

Maybe we are just the ones with common sense.

 

[DarloRich]

Maybe we are just the ones with common sense.

I am sorry but you are not. You are utterly clueless, especially in the operation of the law.

 

[DarloRich]

Why is it a 'conspiracy theory' to suggest that some managers in the rail industry would rather do without the bother of charter specials?
Wasn't there a period in the 90s when life was made a bit difficult for railtour operators?

I am not sure they would actually considering the lengths many people in the industry go to in order to facilitate special trains. That said incidents like this will bring an increased level of scrutiny. Good behaviour is essential and something people here can help manage.

Unless you think there is some secret cabal with nr, hsea, orr, dft and uncle tom cobley designed to upset enthusiasts!

 

[Bromley boy]

That said incidents like this will bring an increased level of scrutiny. Good behaviour is essential and something people here can help manage.

Indeed.

The biggest threat to the continued operation of charters and puffer tours is, by far and away, the daft actions of enthusiasts.

EDIT: I mean no criticism of the guy who was killed near Wandsworth. It so happens I know someone who knew him. He was, by all accounts, a true railwayman who took a risk and sadly paid the ultimate price.