My usual 3 coach class 170 train to work this morning was defective - neither set of main doors in Coach A were working so the connecting door was locked to put the coach out of use. I had been sat in Coach A, but was asked to leave for the ubiquitous 'it's for your safety' reason.
Thus, the train ran with just two available coaches.
Due to the derailment just north of Dundee, there were a lot fewer passengers than normal, so from Stirling to Queen Street, it was only about 110% full. If the train had run from Aberdeen it would have been running the last section at about 150% seating capacity [the train is normally full with a few people standing].
I can see that there would obviously be risks to allowing passengers to use Coach A where the only normal exit would be through the connecting doors back into Coach B. I also can see that whilst running a train at over 100% seated capacity will carry more risk than one at less than 100% seated capacity.
The latter is clearly a well understood risk and many trains run at such crowding levels [I as well aware of how lucky I am that my usual trains are rarely so crowded]. The former is, I would guess, a less well understood risk.
To be clear, I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with the risk assessment done here [with my very limited knowledge, I would have very probably made the same choice]. Nonetheless, I do wonder if it was the best choice?
Thus, the train ran with just two available coaches.
Due to the derailment just north of Dundee, there were a lot fewer passengers than normal, so from Stirling to Queen Street, it was only about 110% full. If the train had run from Aberdeen it would have been running the last section at about 150% seating capacity [the train is normally full with a few people standing].
I can see that there would obviously be risks to allowing passengers to use Coach A where the only normal exit would be through the connecting doors back into Coach B. I also can see that whilst running a train at over 100% seated capacity will carry more risk than one at less than 100% seated capacity.
The latter is clearly a well understood risk and many trains run at such crowding levels [I as well aware of how lucky I am that my usual trains are rarely so crowded]. The former is, I would guess, a less well understood risk.
To be clear, I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with the risk assessment done here [with my very limited knowledge, I would have very probably made the same choice]. Nonetheless, I do wonder if it was the best choice?