RMT demands answers from Scotrail on safe train operation after appalling incident

[Mojo]

But as I understand it, Tube emergency stop buttons (which, as an aside, are often badly marked or even secured closed with plastic tabs, which always strikes me as odd).

You may be thinking of the ones on the Jubilee line, which I believe are decommissioned (or if not decommissioned, deliberately not advertised and sealed up). The Victoria and Central lines do have Platform emergency plungers/Emergency Stop Plungers which are advertised to the public.

The way they work is to withdraw the codes, which will cause the train to stop, or if it's already in the platform, it won't be able to depart. This is unless the train is in Restricted Manual mode, where there is no protection anyway. Not sure how it would work on the Mainline though, as whilst it could maintain a signal at the end of the platform at danger, it would have to be set up to send a message to the train somehow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The unpalatable truth for the dft, the TOCs and the raib is that a guard on the platform, then looking out of an open door on departure, provided us with the only truly safe way of moving a train

And for BR, who introduced trains from which the guard could not lean out when giving the RA, e.g. classes 156 and 158.

I am not convinced that dispatch of a train where the guard has no droplight is all that much safer than DOO. (The whole situation is safer as there is still a guard on the train, but there is little protection against PTI incidents once the local door has been closed).

FWIW I only remember seeing one such incident first-hand, in Germany, at Hamburg Hbf on a train of Silberlinge with a guard. Someone ran up and tried to board the moving train (jumping on the stepboard and pulling on the handle), the platform staff stopped it with a loud "Annnnhallllteeeeeeeeeen!" over the PA which was heard either by the guard or driver, not sure which, probably both.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

And yet it didn't here? Can we decisively say that a second pair of Mk1 eyeballs would have made a difference? Do we not need to wait for more detail to emerge before we can say something like that?

I would suggest that the rail unions have obviously been taking lessons from the FBU formation shroud waving team ...

it doesn't matter what the change is , you shout about safety even if it;s irrelevant ... ( in the FBU case e.g. down grading a station in what has become an industrial / commercial area to day staffing - scream and yell aobut risks in domestic fires even if there are few if any residential areas in the catchment area ... and the level of domestic fires is falling year on year due to smoke alarms, reducing tobacco use andin creasing use of oven chips )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You may be thinking of the ones on the Jubilee line, which I believe are decommissioned (or if not decommissioned, deliberately not advertised and sealed up). The Victoria and Central lines do have Platform emergency plungers/Emergency Stop Plungers which are advertised to the public.

The way they work is to withdraw the codes, which will cause the train to stop, or if it's already in the platform, it won't be able to depart. This is unless the train is in Restricted Manual mode, where there is no protection anyway. Not sure how it would work on the Mainline though, as whilst it could maintain a signal at the end of the platform at danger, it would have to be set up to send a message to the train somehow.

securing alarm pushes with covers and breakaway tabs is fairly standard in a variety of settings ( Molly guards )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The "solution" is to prevent incident. Cameras, droplights etc just let you watch it happen.

but that prevention may obviate the need to maintain the guard's role - which means that regardless ofthe safety the Unions won;pt be pushing for it ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

<snip>

Which begs the question: if the answers that RMT demand suggests that DOO would have made no difference in this case, will they acknowledge that fact?

of course not , we are talking about trades unions here . I am highly cynical aobut the motivation of many trades unions and their leadership in particular

 

[DarloRich]

of course not , we are talking about trades unions here . I am highly cynical aobut the motivation of many trades unions and their leadership in particular

which is to do what?

1. To look after the interests of their members and
2. Ensure financial solvency through keeping a high level of fee paying members ( by looking after their members interests)

Reducing the number of potential members by reducing the number of guards hardly meets either point 1 or 2! :roll:

 

[broadgage]

It seems to me that undue emphasis is being placed on what the railway industry should do to prevent accidents of this nature.
"employ guards"
"employ platform staff"
"fit platform edge doors"
"fit emergency stop buttons on the platform"
And various other suggestions.

Contact with a moving train is inherently risky and any measures to get a better view of the incident are of only very limited help.

It seems to me that passenger behaviour is the problem, not the design of the train or platform, nor how many staff are engaged. How about a simple advertising campaign warning of the dangers ?

" ONCE THE DOORS ARE STARTING TO CLOSE, STAND WELL CLEAR OF THE TRAIN, BEHIND THE YELLOW LINE. It is very dangerous to touch or lean on the train. You could be dragged under the train and killed. Take extra care if you have been drinking"

Also prosecute some of those who delay safe departure. A few dozen fixed £100 penalties would help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, it would seem a good case for some Byelaw prosecutions where people get away with a dangerous act like that. There is often good quality CCTV evidence these days.

 

[pemma]

The link says he fell between the platform and the moving train - it is possible that a guard would have seen this sooner and would have stopped the train more quickly, but equally it is possible that they would not have done so.

Indeed. I think the RMT should wait for the RAIB report before they demand answers from Scotrail. I do fail to see how having a member of staff in a ticket office is relevant to the RMT's argument.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to move the responsibility of monitoring the external on-train cameras from the driver to the guard so that the driver can concentrate on driving the train and the road ahead? The guard can then do his dispatch procedure and monitor the cameras until the train is clear of the platform.

Another safety case for retaining the guard on the train...

Or am I missing something...?

 

[absolutelymilk]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to move the responsibility of monitoring the external on-train cameras from the driver to the guard so that the driver can concentrate on driving the train and the road ahead? The guard can then do his dispatch procedure and monitor the cameras until the train is clear of the platform.

Another safety case for retaining the guard on the train...

Or am I missing something...?

The guard would then have to be in a position to see the screens. Unless these cameras are in the middle of the train (i.e. very liable to damage by passengers) then the guard would have to get to the end of the train in order to see them. This would not be trivial in a heavily loaded 12 car train...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The guard would then have to be in a position to see the screens. Unless these cameras are in the middle of the train (i.e. very liable to damage by passengers) then the guard would have to get to the end of the train in order to see them. This would not be trivial in a heavily loaded 12 car train...

Sorry I meant the cameras on the outside of the train on newer stock. The guard could monitor from any cab in the train

 

[absolutelymilk]

Sorry I meant the cameras on the outside of the train on newer stock. The guard could monitor from any cab in the train

And sorry I meant the screens, not cameras. I think any large display would be liable to damage from passengers.

 

[ComUtoR]

How about a simple advertising campaign warning of the dangers ?

This already happens.

 

[D1009]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to move the responsibility of monitoring the external on-train cameras from the driver to the guard so that the driver can concentrate on driving the train and the road ahead? The guard can then do his dispatch procedure and monitor the cameras until the train is clear of the platform.

Another safety case for retaining the guard on the train...

Or am I missing something...?

Surely if the train was already moving when the incident occurred the outcome would have been the same whether the screens were being monitored or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely if the train was already moving when the incident occurred the outcome would have been the same whether the screens were being monitored or not.

It depends precisely what the incident was.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And sorry I meant the screens, not cameras. I think any large display would be liable to damage from passengers.

In some areas. On the south WCML I reckon it'd be OK - vandalism is minimal. I would expect in any case to see more 20 ish inch TFT displays around trains in future showing things like forthcoming stops and connections. They could switch to showing images from the outside cameras during a guarded dispatch.

 

[Bevan Price]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to move the responsibility of monitoring the external on-train cameras from the driver to the guard so that the driver can concentrate on driving the train and the road ahead? The guard can then do his dispatch procedure and monitor the cameras until the train is clear of the platform.

Another safety case for retaining the guard on the train...

Or am I missing something...?

Retain the guard - but replace the driver by a computer ? Guard checks outside of train then closes doors. Computer starts train when it detects that all doors are closed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Retain the guard - but replace the driver by a computer ? Guard checks outside of train then closes doors. Computer starts train when it detects that all doors are closed.

...and leaves the guard on the platform.



There is of course a "guard only operated" railway - the DLR. I suspect being able to do this on the mainline is closer than reliable, road network-wide self-driving cars.

 

[BestWestern]

And yet it didn't here? Can we decisively say that a second pair of Mk1 eyeballs would have made a difference? Do we not need to wait for more detail to emerge before we can say something like that?

That one again.....:roll:

The inevitable rolling out of James Street as a means of attempting to dismiss the value of a Guard, is simply not valid.

The campaign to retain the role of Guard uses the expectation that those Guards will carry out their duties properly, not be wilfully neglegent to the tune of a five year prison sentence. Had the individual concerned not made his regretful poor judgement call, and instead followed safe dispatch procedure, he would in fact have prevented the incident and thus proved exactly the point that is being made here. In many of these (far too frequent) DOO incidents, the factor at play is the simple fact that the Driver is ill-equipped to do anything about it because the whole system has a great big safety hole in it. A Guard doing their job properly is always a better method of dispatch than DOO.

 

[pemma]

That one again.....:roll:

The inevitable rolling out of James Street as a means of attempting to dismiss the value of a Guard, is simply not valid.

When that happened a lot of rail staff were arguing it was unfair that the guard was facing criminal charges as it wasn't his fault that a girl was very intoxicated and acted the way she did, yet when DOO is mentioned the RMT refers to the term 'safety critical.' If the guard is 'safety critical' then they need to be responsible for safety following unforeseen and unusual incidents. However, a guard is a human with one pair of eyes so can't see everything which is going on at one given time so unless you have multiple guards and multiple dispatchers some things won't been seen in time and if you have multiple guards and dispatchers who has responsibility for giving the train the green light to go?

 

[BestWestern]

When that happened a lot of rail staff were arguing it was unfair that the guard was facing criminal charges as it wasn't his fault that a girl was very intoxicated and acted the way she did, yet when DOO is mentioned the RMT refers to the term 'safety critical.' If the guard is 'safety critical' then they need to be responsible for safety following unforeseen and unusual incidents. However, a guard is a human with one pair of eyes so can't see everything which is going on at one given time so unless you have multiple guards and multiple dispatchers some things won't been seen in time and if you have multiple guards and dispatchers who has responsibility for giving the train the green light to go?

I agree entirely; if we are to fight for the worth of the role then people need to do it properly. That starts at being visible in the train and doing tickets, and extends all the way to the safety stuff - if one is performing a safety critical role, one has to appreciate that there is a standard to which that role must be carried out, and one must understand that there are consequences when it isn't done properly.

The issue of 'overall responsibility' is a bit of a moot point; you are responsible for your actions and anybody else responsible for theirs. That is why Guards must check a signal before giving the Driver a tip, and why the platform staff must do the same before tipping the Guard. If everybody cocks it up and the train roars off against a red, everybody is in the brown stuff. The only defined wider responsibility is that if one of you messes it up, it becomes everybody's job to make sure it gets reported...

 

[PermitToTravel]

There are plenty of posts on various rail forums about safety culture on the railway, and plenty too about how the poster would never report a colleague for making a mistake when required to do so

 

[BestWestern]

There are plenty of posts on various rail forums about safety culture on the railway, and plenty too about how the poster would never report a colleague for making a mistake when required to do so

There is also a Rule Book, Competence Managers, investigatory procedures, the disciplinary process, and the law courts.

All safety critical frontline staff are well aware of their jobs, their duties and their obligations. Forum chatter gives the unqualified outsider nothing even close to a fully rounded picture; let's leave it at that.

 

[The Ham]

No, you're right. The second pair of mk1 eyeballs would have made a difference.

Being pedantic, given that eyes (at least for evolution purposes) have gone through several stages of development and that human eyes with the lenses, ability to see in colour, depth perception, etc. are fairly advanced and therefore could be argued to be several versions of eyes beyond the first version. As such it is unlikely that then an extra set of mark 1 eyeballs probably wouldn't belong to a human and therefore would have been of little help.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Being pedantic, given that eyes (at least for evolution purposes) have gone through several stages of development and that human eyes with the lenses, ability to see in colour, depth perception, etc. are fairly advanced and therefore could be argued to be several versions of eyes beyond the first version. As such it is unlikely that then an extra set of mark 1 eyeballs probably wouldn't belong to a human and therefore would have been of little help.

Well actually if you really want to be pedantic, actually the eyes don't "see" anything at all. All they do is transmit the "image" to the brain which then gives us the picture.

And of course, the brain has to be "used" and in the right way so that the correct decisions can be made at a moment's notice given what is happening at that particular time. This depends of course on the skill of whoever possesses the "right" brain

Anyway, I digress... going OT....

 

[320320]

And yet it didn't here? Can we decisively say that a second pair of Mk1 eyeballs would have made a difference? Do we not need to wait for more detail to emerge before we can say something like that?

From someone who's seen the cctv images, "drunk guy runs up and kicks the train as its leaving the station and falls down the gap".

 

[HH]

From someone who's seen the cctv images, "drunk guy runs up and kicks the train as its leaving the station and falls down the gap".

What I suspected from the first post. You can't stop idiots being idiots and suffering the consequences.

 

[XC90]

Dont tell me the RMT have jumped in before finding out the details of the incident?
The Herald had a piece on it and seem to know a bit more. If its true, I dont think a guard would have made a difference. Perhaps the RMT will come out and admit this

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Dont tell me the RMT have jumped in before finding out the details of the incident?
The Herald had a piece on it and seem to know a bit more. If its true, I dont think a guard would have made a difference. Perhaps the RMT will come out and admit this

if it;s a DOO train in the eyes of the RMT it will be because there wasn;t a guard

same as anything to do with the fire service is solved by more big red trucks and more Wholetime FFs in the eyes of the FBU ( unless it involves first aid when they run away )

 

[mbreckers]

I have heard from a source within ScotRail that the person stumbled in front of the train as it was entering the station.

If this was the cause, then DOO would not have made any difference

 

[Class 170101]

I have heard from a source within ScotRail that the person stumbled in front of the train as it was entering the station.

If this was the cause, then DOO would not have made any difference

Nor a guard come to that.

 

[380101]

I have heard from a source within ScotRail that the person stumbled in front of the train as it was entering the station.

If this was the cause, then DOO would not have made any difference

see 320320s earlier post on this incident re the cctv footage; "drunk guy runs up and kicks train as it pulls out of the station". If it had a Guard working the service out of the back cab with head out the droplight window then the incident may have been avoided - a DOO Service has no chance of avoiding it - even with in cab monitors.

The guy stumbling and falling in front of the train was another incident that happened this week at Cambuslang. He sadly died.

Young girl fell off platform yesterday at Stevenson and was dragged under a train entering the station- no update on injuries.