Manea Fail to Call?

[Starmill]

The only thing that I think needs pointing out is that, like most stations nationwide, Manea doesn't have a yellow line

 

[Trainfan344]

The only thing that I think needs pointing out is that, like most stations nationwide, Manea doesn't have a yellow line

How on earth did you know where to stand? I presume you stood on the edge because that is the safest place? :P

 

[Crossover]

The only thing that I think needs pointing out is that, like most stations nationwide, Manea doesn't have a yellow line

Probably lucky to have a platform

 

[Philip C]

Once again, a load of nonsense in afraid. I don't no of any cases of near misses or people bring hit because they thought a train was stopping but it didn't.

As for all the last not, the disclaimer is the yellow line. Stand the wrong side of it and the railway has no responsibility of you are injured or worse.

I can't believe the vivid imaginations of people on here-never have I herd anyone within the industry suggest a FTC is a safety issue yet we have people trying to argue otherwise with little clue what they Are on about!

I have seen signs in several National Parks in the USA stating that "Your Safety is Your Responsibility" and I find that notion personally quite attractive. However I think you will find that the "yellow line" does not create a situation of "no responsibility". Consider what happened at Elsenham: the instructions were clear, had they been followed the two young ladies would not have entered onto the crossing but Network Rail was clearly held to be at fault. The Railway Industry takes Platform Train Interface Safety very seriously; there is no suggestion that painting a yellow line is the sole and total end to responsibility/liability.

My view is that the occurrence of trains passing, at speed, through platforms when they are scheduled to stop, introduces extra safety risks - it could hardly not. There is no suggestion that this is done for the fun of it, nor that, in most cases, any serious repercussion for the driver would be appropriate.

Yellow lines were painted to define the envelope of opening slam doors. More recently they may relate to turbulence caused by passing trains. They may be a point of reference that, with suitable signage, adjusts the point at which a passenger might be considered to be acting recklessly, but they do not absolve the railway from a duty of care to its passengers (including the young and the visually and aurally impaired).

My understanding was that very early in the Rule Book are the words "Safety is the First Concern" and then goes on to list those whose safety they must do everything possible to ensure. The word "disclaimer" isn't there (of course my copy may be out of date).

You will be aware that the management of risk does not depend upon whether a combination of circumstance has historically led to particular outcomes. If you keep rolling a handful of die you will eventually get a full set of sixes. The secret in safety is not only to address events which do commonly occur but also to reduce the probability (or impact) of events which could occur.

We may disagree about the extent to which the circumstances of the original event, which opened this discussion, present an increase risk. I am, however, sure that no professional safety manager in, say the RSSB, would dismiss this in your words: "there is absolutely no danger arising from it..."

But surely if they found them partially at fault in that case then the TOC would be (equally) partially at fault if the passenger was hit by a train that wasn't meant to stop? I don't see how the fact that the train failed to call makes any difference in that situation, hence my previous post.

I think devinier was making the same point.

I think you are asking a different question. I've tried to concentrate on the circumstance which was reported at Manea and am merely arguing that the assertion that absolutely no danger attaches to it doesn't convince me. This has led to some rather damning comments that, as some of us are not train drivers (I spent 30-odd years elsewhere in the railway industry), we should keep our views to ourselves! I really haven't the time to go into the fast train issue. But, for what it is worth - I really don't want to be locked in a waiting room until it is safe to come out, but I fear that is the direction we are going in (fenced off fast line platforms, platform edge doors, HS1 built so no trains pass a platform edge). Clearly there is a risk in heavy lumps of metal hurtling past our tender human flesh, but there are particular features introduced when a train which should stop doesn't. I'll leave it there.

 

[MCR247]

My view is that the occurrence of trains passing, at speed, through platforms when they are scheduled to stop, introduces extra safety risks - it could hardly not. There is no suggestion that this is done for the fun of it, nor that, in most cases, any serious repercussion for the driver would be appropriate.




I think you are asking a different question. I've tried to concentrate on the circumstance which was reported at Manea and am merely arguing that the assertion that absolutely no danger attaches to it doesn't convince me.

I'm not convinced that failure to call introduces any extra safety risks - thats what I was saying by talking about a fast train that isn't meant to stop.
It introduces extra risks in terms of that particular train (which I now see was your point), but to me the risk of someone getting hurt because of a nonstop train passing through at speed = the risk of someone getting hurt because of a train meant to stop passing through at speed (assuming all other factors the same) and so this risk has already been accounted for.
In hindsight, I should've aimed my posts at the people that were arguing that a passing nonstop train has greater risks than a passing meant to stop train, which was the main thing I disagreed on

 

[A-driver]

Are people seriously trying to continue arguing that a FTC poses a danger?! This forum does make me laugh sometimes!

Quite simply, if a FTC posed any danger then why would the industry not treat incidents as they do SPADS, TPWS, stop short, wrong side release, speeding etc rather than the current system
Most TOCs take to them of taking minimal action?

As far as I can see the only people concerned it poses a safety risk are those with no railway knowledge or experience and their arguments are largely based on a very vivid imagination and far too any 'what ifs' followed by ignoring the facts which discredit them.

No one has yet come back to me to explain how a FTC is any different to a late running fast train passing through at the exact time a stopper is due-it does happen.

 

[Starmill]

I think its fairly clear that a train which fails to call passing a platform at speed is only as dangerous as a train which was not booked to call passing a platform with waiting passengers at the same speed. Given how often the latter happens that can't be very dangerous can it?

That's not to say I don't think the background issues with some fail to calls might not be more serious than A Driver appears to suggest - but I don't have any evidence to go on for that one, and it's clearly up to the TOC to decide how they deal with it, as the safety of drivers to drive is their responsibility.

 

[tsr]

Are people seriously trying to continue arguing that a FTC poses a danger?! This forum does make me laugh sometimes!

Quite simply, if a FTC posed any danger then why would the industry not treat incidents as they do SPADS, TPWS, stop short, wrong side release, speeding etc rather than the current system
Most TOCs take to them of taking minimal action?

As far as I can see the only people concerned it poses a safety risk are those with no railway knowledge or experience and their arguments are largely based on a very vivid imagination and far too any 'what ifs' followed by ignoring the facts which discredit them.

No one has yet come back to me to explain how a FTC is any different to a late running fast train passing through at the exact time a stopper is due-it does happen.

I have given a detailed explanation with a background in my railway industry employment that this can be a safety issue but may not automatically be so. At the very least I can assure you that my employer treats it as a potential safety issue purely on the basis of the risk of further concentration-related hazards in future, if not passenger safety, which I deem personally to be equally important. I have known some very close calls due to trains not being advertised as non-stopping and there is certainly nothing safe about an error that could cause this - whether in system programming or the train being assumed to stop when it doesn't.

With regard to your comment about CIS/PIS not showing fast trains, I can only assume that you only get a glancing view of these systems as you pass stations as you are presumably concentrating on other tasks. Other than those systems where the method of signalling is not exact enough in terms of providing a location of a non-stop train, for example with very long sections covering multiple stations where trains of different timings may pass with little notice, I have rarely seen a non-stop train completely fail to be advertised by the on-platform components of such systems where the CIS is in full working order. Such issues will be logged if reported and fed back as appropriate. I do concede that there are a few stations where purely departure information is shown. On the other hand, if there are boards at platform entrances away from the platform edge, I would not necessarily expect anything other than departure information to be relevant anyway.

Last but not least, the railway rule book and current safety training is basically built on a combination of prior incidents and current "what ifs". If there were no "what ifs" then a lot of the procedures currently taught might seem redundant. Likewise SPAD investigations, TPWS activation reminders, you name it. We are lucky that our UK rail accident record is very strong and anyone looking at the last 10 years of UK rail accident history would probably query how cost-effective some training is, but it is quite rightly baseed on the worst case scenario. Long may it continue that such things do not occur.

 

[bramling]

I think its fairly clear that a train which fails to call passing a platform at speed is only as dangerous as a train which was not booked to call passing a platform with waiting passengers at the same speed. Given how often the latter happens that can't be very dangerous can it?

That's not to say I don't think the background issues with some fail to calls might not be more serious than A Driver appears to suggest - but I don't have any evidence to go on for that one, and it's clearly up to the TOC to decide how they deal with it, as the safety of drivers to drive is their responsibility.

For comparison, on London Underground a "fail to call" is taken very seriously, especially if the train has been driven through the station at line speed. This is partly because, on LU, signal overlaps are generally calculated on the basis of maximum attainable speed assuming the train started from a rest at the station in the rear. So, hypothetically, if you passed through a station at 30 mph and continued accelerating, the train might reach 50 mph. If you now had a SPAD at that speed, the signal overlap might only have been calculated on an assumption that trains would have been doing 5 mph leaving the station, and the overlap calculated to be good for, say, 40 mph. Areas where non-stopping is common (e.g. parts of the Met Line) are designed differently.

Obviously mainline is completely different as the signalling is designed on different principles. For mainline I would agree that, providing the train has otherwise been fully under control, a "fail to call" is in no way dangerous.

 

[Juniper Driver]

The tube though is generally packed though esp in rush hour and the main reason I don't use it.So that has got to make it high risk of people standing on the edge.(plus most tubes would stop there meaning people would be expecting it to stop).I'm not doubting the point tsr is trying to make though.

Saying that two wrongs don't make a right.(if you know what I mean)

(im sure I don't)

 

[Philip C]

I'm not convinced that failure to call introduces any extra safety risks - thats what I was saying by talking about a fast train that isn't meant to stop.
It introduces extra risks in terms of that particular train (which I now see was your point), but to me the risk of someone getting hurt because of a nonstop train passing through at speed = the risk of someone getting hurt because of a train meant to stop passing through at speed (assuming all other factors the same) and so this risk has already been accounted for.
In hindsight, I should've aimed my posts at the people that were arguing that a passing nonstop train has greater risks than a passing meant to stop train, which was the main thing I disagreed on

The reason why I feel there to be extra risk is that the circumstances and information systems (including staff who might say that "yes this is your train") act as an invitation to approach the yellow line/platform edge (at any rate to move forward). This is a reasonable expectation that this is your train, that it will be slowing, that you will soon need to enter it. It may not be much but it does distinguish it from the non-stopping train where all the messages are to keep well back.

 

[A-driver]

The reason why I feel there to be extra risk is that the circumstances and information systems (including staff who might say that "yes this is your train") act as an invitation to approach the yellow line/platform edge (at any rate to move forward). This is a reasonable expectation that this is your train, that it will be slowing, that you will soon need to enter it. It may not be much but it does distinguish it from the non-stopping train where all the messages are to keep well back.

Going round in circles.

People need to read the threat fully before posting as I've answered many of the points like the above which keep coming up already yet people are ignoring this and reposting the same few flawed comments

I think it reasonable to ask people to read threads before posting...

 

[Philip C]

Going round in circles.

People need to read the threat fully before posting as I've answered many of the points like the above which keep coming up already yet people are ignoring this and reposting the same few flawed comments

I think it reasonable to ask people to read threads before posting...

I think I have set my view out in enough detail and stand by it. I shall not be posting further on this thread as discussion appears to have ceased.