• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Shutting doors while passengers are boarding - how low can EMT sink?

Status
Not open for further replies.

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,532
So you're saying that if the guard started to close the doors while the first passenger was still boarding and others were waiting it's OK?

Crap customer service meet apologist.

Well, none of us - apart from the OP - were present so it's all a bit speculative, but ......

Guard of the xx.07 Derby, in conjunction with platform staff, prepares for departure as train from Scotland draws into adjacent platform. But since it isn't an advertised connection neither the Guard nor platform staff have any reason to change their actions.

Guard commits to door closure (i.e. presses the button) at which point some passengers rush across to board. The first dives through the door before it closes [I imply no criticism - I've done it myself]; the second places his bag in the closing door and it is trapped.

What should happen next?

A. "Get that bag out" so I can despatch this train on time.

B. "Sorry sir; do please board ... and I'll leave the doors open for anyone else making this unadvertised connection even the person alighting from the rear coach of the 11-coach Pendolino, and who isn't sure where Platform 4 might be ..."
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swj99

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2011
Messages
765
When the doors were closed. SHE WAS IN THE TRAIN................
So no, you did not read the report properly.
You are not in a position to speculate on my reading of a report, and you can shout, 'she was in the train', as loudly as you wish, but the fact remains that the RAIB has said -
People dispatching trains must allow train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely. This should take account of passengers with reduced mobility, passengers with children and passengers that need to gather their belongings
It is my view that if someone has a train door closed on them whilst boarding, then the person dispatching the train has not allowed the train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,137
Location
Powys
You are not in a position to speculate on my reading of a report, and you can shout, 'she was in the train', as loudly as you wish, but the fact remains that the RAIB has said -
But you quite obviously didn't read the Report correctly, as you said she was boarding the train.

It is my view that if someone has a train door closed on them whilst boarding, then the person dispatching the train has not allowed the train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely.
So what are the railway supposed to do?
By your suggestion NO train will leave on time if there is ANY passenger wanting to catch that train and still on the platform, even when, as has been pointed out several times, this was not an approved connection. If that happened the timetable would go to pot, and there would be even more complaints from Joe Public.

And sorry but your comments show you know very little about how or why the railway runs as it does, but are very quick to criticise.
 

BHXDMT

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2011
Messages
276
Location
England
It is my view that if someone has a train door closed on them whilst boarding, then the person dispatching the train has not allowed the train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely.

You keep ignoring the fact that this train originates in Crewe, had been there many minutes, and these passengers were attempting to board this service off a late running, unofficial connection. How can there not have been sufficient time to allow passengers to board and alight when the train had been there for several minutes already? The passengers off the other service shouldn't have even been trying to board.

Of course, shutting doors on passengers is largely frowned upon, and none of us bar the OP were there and they've reported it so there we go. Stuff like this happens all the time at places like New Street, where someone decides to make a run for the doors after the dispatcher gives the tip and door close has been pressed. You'll find you'll be treated the same way there too.
 
Last edited:

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,573
Location
UK
You are not in a position to speculate on my reading of a report, and you can shout, 'she was in the train', as loudly as you wish, but the fact remains that the RAIB has said -

It totally disproves your point and shows that you are quoting an incident totally out of context. The doors were not closed whilst she was in the doors. You are wrong to quote West Wickham to support your premise or the OP's incident. I can say that you have not read the report correctly because you stated that it was an RAIB recommendation, which is wasn't. That is incorrect. You are also mis-interpreting the report and attempting to use it to support your premise. You are failing to understand how RAIB reports are presented. A big problem with RAIB reports is that you do need knowledge to understand what information is being presented as you are otherwise likely to misinterpret what is being reported. I specifically highlighted all your mistakes with the report. Those are facts. Not speculation.

What the RAIB is doing it reitterating in more detail what is already laid out in the rule book. What they want is for PTI to be reviewed and made more robust as well as dealing with the technicalities of the unit that contributed to the incident. No where does it state the Driver closed the doors on the passenger. You made that assumption and incorrectly believed that the RAIB made it. You again could not have read the report correctly as it is not listed as the immediate cause or a casual factor. In fact, if that had happened then the Trainee would no doubt have joined a certain Mersyrail Guard.

It is my view that if someone has a train door closed on them whilst boarding, then the person dispatching the train has not allowed the train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely.

Yes, that is my view to. However, that is not what you used the report to highlight. It is a separate issue to closing the doors whilst people are boarding.

Please do not present an ill informed argument as it leads to misunderstanding by those wishing to learn how and why mistakes happen and how we can all work together to prevent them re-occuring.

The dispatch process has multiple events happening in sequence and they must be examined individually. In this case shutting the doors when people are boarding is where the process has gone wrong. Rightly, that has been reported.

Should more time be allowed ? Yes, but that will increase dwell times. Should doors be reopened ? Speculative, but it does lead to incidents.
 
Last edited:

swj99

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2011
Messages
765
But you quite obviously didn't read the Report correctly, as you said she was boarding the train.

No. I've just checked through everything I've posted on here, and I haven't said she boarded the train. Are you sure you were on the same thread as me ?
As to your comments regarding my reading of the report, you are speculating.

To summarise what I've said so far in this thread.

In post 37, I said,

I've said similar before, and it's as relevant now as it was then.

Passengers need to be able to board the train they are waiting for. While there are still passengers waiting to get on or off a train, it is clearly not ready to leave the station. To close the doors in circumstances such as these is just as wrong and unacceptable as it would be if someone deliberately closed any other door (railway related or not) when someone was either going through it, or attempting to go through it.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2567420&postcount=37

I then said, in post 44,

I did read all the comments prior to posting my own. Thanks.

BTW, what request are you talking about ? I certainly haven't made one.

As for closing a door whilst someone is going through it, it's unacceptable for safety reasons. In fact, the RAIB report into the accident at West Wickham on the 10th April 2015 states the following.

"People dispatching trains must allow train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely. This should take account of passengers with reduced mobility, passengers with children and passengers that need to gather their belongings."
Clearly, closing train doors whilst people are still going through them is at odds with this.

In post 49, I said,
?
Not sure what point you were attempting to make.

And in post 53, I said,

Not at all. It occurred because someone closed the doors when it was not safe to do so, contrary to the RAIB recommendation.

In the first post in this thread, the OP said, "The conductor on the EMT train let the first passenger on and then closed the door on me as I was boarding, trapping my bag. He barked at me to remove my bag, which I did, then closed the door on me, leaving myself and several other passengers marooned on the platform."
He went on to say, "Closing the doors while customers are trying to board isn't just discourteous, it is potentially very dangerous."

I quoted from a report in which the RAIB said people dispatching trains must allow train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely. On the basis that the OP's bag was trapped in the door, it would appear that whoever was dispatching the train failed to allow the doors to be released for sufficient time for the OP to get on the train safely. I therefore agree with Yorkie who suggested that the OP makes a complaint about the incident.

In post 62, I said,

You are not in a position to speculate on my reading of a report, and you can shout, 'she was in the train', as loudly as you wish, but the fact remains that the RAIB has said -

"People dispatching trains must allow train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely. This should take account of passengers with reduced mobility, passengers with children and passengers that need to gather their belongings"
It is my view that if someone has a train door closed on them whilst boarding, then the person dispatching the train has not allowed the train doors to be released for sufficient time for passengers to get on and off trains safely.

You keep ignoring the fact that this train originates in Crewe, had been there many minutes, and these passengers were attempting to board this service off a late running, unofficial connection.......
In my opinion, the starting point of the train is irrelevant, as is any other attempt at justifying the unsafe practice of closing a door when someone is going through it.

It totally disproves your point and shows that you are quoting an incident totally out of context. The doors were not closed whilst she was in the doors. You are wrong to quote West Wickham to support your premise or the OP's incident. I can say that you have not read the report correctly because you stated that it was an RAIB recommendation, which is wasn't. That is incorrect. You are also mis-interpreting the report and attempting to use it to support your premise. You are failing to understand how RAIB reports are presented. A big problem with RAIB reports is that you do need knowledge to understand what information is being presented as you are otherwise likely to misinterpret what is being reported. I specifically highlighted all your mistakes with the report. Those are facts. Not speculation.

What the RAIB is doing it reitterating in more detail what is already laid out in the rule book. What they want is for PTI to be reviewed and made more robust as well as dealing with the technicalities of the unit that contributed to the incident. No where does it state the Driver closed the doors on the passenger. You made that assumption and incorrectly believed that the RAIB made it. You again could not have read the report correctly as it is not listed as the immediate cause or a casual factor. In fact, if that had happened then the Trainee would no doubt have joined a certain Mersyrail Guard.

Yes, that is my view to. However, that is not what you used the report to highlight. It is a separate issue to closing the doors whilst people are boarding.

Please do not present an ill informed argument as it leads to misunderstanding by those wishing to learn how and why mistakes happen and how we can all work together to prevent them re-occuring.

The dispatch process has multiple events happening in sequence and they must be examined individually. In this case shutting the doors when people are boarding is where the process has gone wrong. Rightly, that has been reported.

Should more time be allowed ? Yes, but that will increase dwell times. Should doors be reopened ? Speculative, but it does lead to incidents.

I believe it is totally valid to quote the RAIB on a point of safety, which is why I have done it.
As I said before, you are not in a position to comment on whether or not I have read that report, or any other report, correctly. You have no idea of my expertise, experience or background, and it is none of your business, To suggest that I am failing to understand how reports are presented, or that I am presenting an ill informed argument adds nothing to the discussion.
It would appear that you have misrepresented what I've said in this thread, and your use of the phrase 'could not have' suggests speculation on your part.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,400
Location
Scotland
I believe it is totally valid to quote the RAIB on a point of safety, which is why I have done it.
Yes, it is. However quoting a report that dealt with a completely different type of incident doesn't really bring that much to the discussion.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,137
Location
Powys
I believe it is totally valid to quote the RAIB on a point of safety, which is why I have done it.
As I said before, you are not in a position to comment on whether or not I have read that report, or any other report, correctly. You have no idea of my expertise, experience or background, and it is none of your business, To suggest that I am failing to understand how reports are presented, or that I am presenting an ill informed argument adds nothing to the discussion.
It would appear that you have misrepresented what I've said in this thread, and your use of the phrase 'could not have' suggests speculation on your part.

OK, you didn't say it, however it is NOT valid to quote a report that has NO relationship to the matter under discussion. It also suggest that you do not fully understand the RAIB reports, but are willing to "grab" quotes out of them to further your argument.

And I would say it could be of great interest to us here to know of your "expertise, experience or background" since it could or could not support your stance on this matter. So far I do not see you as someone who has any working experience of the railway, but as an interested but ill-informed spectator. Many of the answers you have been given have been made by professional railway workers who have experience of these matters on a daily basis.

You seem to want that trains should wait until all passengers who may possibly want that train to board it, even when, as in this case, it was not a legitimate connection, so how do you expect any timetable to be adhered to?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,532
You seem to want that trains should wait until all passengers who may possibly want that train to board it, even when, as in this case, it was not a legitimate connection, so how do you expect any timetable to be adhered to?

Quite. And how would this be managed at places such as Stratford where there is a constant stream of passengers onto the platform for certain destinations?
 

jimbo99

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2010
Messages
132
A few years ago there was a dispatcher at East Croydon who used to shout at people to stand away as they ran towards a train that was "ready to depart". As the train left, he would always shout a courteous "thank you" and sometimes even ask them where they are going and let them know how long they would have to wait. He always gave the impression that he "cared".

This all makes for better relations between customer facing dispatchers and dispatcher facing customers - and probably leads to further incidents. The body language of some staff really doesn't help.
 

swj99

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2011
Messages
765
Yes, it is. However quoting a report that dealt with a completely different type of incident doesn't really bring that much to the discussion.
I believe the comment by RAIB is valid regardless of the type of incident.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,400
Location
Scotland
I believe the comment by RAIB is valid regardless of the type of incident.
Yes, it is. However, as has been pointed out, this service originated at Crewe so dwell time (which is what the RAIB report was commenting on) doesn't factor into it.
 
Last edited:

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
Forgive me if I am intervening here, but would the most simple and straightforward thing to do regarding the Glasgow Central/Edinburgh Waverley via Birmingham would be for VTWC to adjust the timetable at Crewe so as to make the Derby service a recognised connection?

Furthermore, the southbound VTWC service has a 14 minute wait at Wolverhampton anyway, so adjusting the timings at Crewe would not make much difference anyway, especially since the Norton Bridge flyover has been installed so as to reduce conflicting movements.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
3,042
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Forgive me if I am intervening here, but would the most simple and straightforward thing to do regarding the Glasgow Central/Edinburgh Waverley via Birmingham would be for VTWC to adjust the timetable at Crewe so as to make the Derby service a recognised connection?

Furthermore, the southbound VTWC service has a 14 minute wait at Wolverhampton anyway, so adjusting the timings at Crewe would not make much difference anyway, especially since the Norton Bridge flyover has been installed so as to reduce conflicting movements.

Given the difficulty (impossibility?) of running through services from the Alsager route northwards from Crewe this suggestion is the obvious answer to improving connectivity at minimal cost. So why has it not been done already?
 

CAF397

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2010
Messages
1,072
Location
Lancashire
When I've seen the Crewe-Derby service at Crewe it has either been a 153 or a 156.

Both these units have end carriage passenger doors.

The guard will be at the rear of the train and his door (also the rear passenger door) is last to close after station duties are complete.

The rear passenger door is the closest to the direction of passengers arriving from platform 5 arrivals.

Therefore, if the hustle alarm was sounding that to me implies that the 1st tip had been given from station staff for the train doors to be closed, and if that was carried out successfully, the second tip would be for the guard to close his door.

It is entirely possible the first person alledgedly allowed on was before the guard got on the train, then the guard got on the train and closed his door.

But i agree with most of the sentiments on here. It's not a valid connection, and if I miss a connection I know it is too tight, I might curse under my breath but I also know it wasn't guaranteed. If I make it, brilliant.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,260
what does it matter if its a valid connection? For whatever reason, the train was there, the passengers were there and were getting on the train when the door was shut. There wasn't a big red flag anywhere saying "danger do not get on this train".
The doors were shut as passengers were boarding. That's a dangerous thing to do, and even if its not a specifically named banned action, its going to contravene numerous health and safety regulations, not least of which is the general duty of care requirement to passengers.
Whyever it was done, the guard was at fault, the platform staff were at fault, and EMT were at fault for inadequate supervision and training.
 

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,074
Given the difficulty (impossibility?) of running through services from the Alsager route northwards from Crewe this suggestion is the obvious answer to improving connectivity at minimal cost. So why has it not been done already?

Because it would mean the Virgin service would need to arrive into Crewe earlier, and it's almost always late when I see it. So even if it were timed earlier, it's still a 'dodgy connection' and would then lead to VT getting loads of claims for delay repay.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,400
Location
Scotland
what does it matter if its a valid connection?
Because the passengers shouldn't have been trying to board. If trains where held whenever there were passengers appearing to want to board the whole system would collapse.
There wasn't a big red flag anywhere saying "danger do not get on this train".
There would, however, have been a loud alarm bleeping which means "Danger, do not attempt to board this train."
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,532
Forgive me if I am intervening here, but would the most simple and straightforward thing to do regarding the Glasgow Central/Edinburgh Waverley via Birmingham would be for VTWC to adjust the timetable at Crewe so as to make the Derby service a recognised connection?

Furthermore, the southbound VTWC service has a 14 minute wait at Wolverhampton anyway, so adjusting the timings at Crewe would not make much difference anyway, especially since the Norton Bridge flyover has been installed so as to reduce conflicting movements.

The wait at Wolves is irrelevant - the VT would need to be retimed earlier into Crewe to make it a valid connection.

Or put the Derby departure back (for many years IIRC it left at xx20) but that could create difficulties on the rather busy section between Kidsgrove and Stoke.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
what does it matter if its a valid connection? For whatever reason, the train was there, the passengers were there and were getting on the train when the door was shut. There wasn't a big red flag anywhere saying "danger do not get on this train".
The doors were shut as passengers were boarding. That's a dangerous thing to do, and even if its not a specifically named banned action, its going to contravene numerous health and safety regulations, not least of which is the general duty of care requirement to passengers.
Whyever it was done, the guard was at fault, the platform staff were at fault, and EMT were at fault for inadequate supervision and training.

Or, to put it another way:

"Passengers boarded as the doors were shutting. That's a dangerous thing to do."
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,525
Location
Sheffield
There would, however, have been a loud alarm bleeping which means "Danger, do not attempt to board this train."

Staff tell us it is a "hustle" alarm not a "danger" alarm. Hustle means 'to move quickly/push/jostle', not 'stand clear'.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,400
Location
Scotland
Staff tell us it is a "hustle" alarm not a "danger" alarm. Hustle means 'to move quickly/push/jostle', not 'stand clear'.
It is a hustle alarm in the sense of 'This door is about to shut so hurry up and get out of the way'.

It doesn't mean 'Run from the other side of the platform and try to jump on.'

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,550
As a mere passenger, what is the 'hustle' sound supposed to mean to me ?

So, is it possible for someone to give me the recognised definition of what the 'hustle' sound is supposed to mean to a passenger - I'm surprised that a simple question can't seem to get a simple answer !
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,532
My understanding is that the Hustle Alarm is "an audible warning that the train doors are about to close (or are in the process of closing?)".

I cannot find an RSSB definition of how this should be interpreted by passengers.

My interpretation would be:

"Don't try to enter as you could be injured by closing door. If you do try to enter it's at your own risk."

It would be useful, however, if the RSSB issued definitive advice.
 

Marklund

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
827
Because the passengers shouldn't have been trying to board. If trains where held whenever there were passengers appearing to want to board the whole system would collapse.
There would, however, have been a loud alarm bleeping which means "Danger, do not attempt to board this train."

Just playing devils advocate, forget the minimum connection time issue, what if this wasn't a connection, and just someone starting their journey at Crewe?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,532
Just playing devils advocate, forget the minimum connection time issue, what if this wasn't a connection, and just someone starting their journey at Crewe?

No difference in my book. If the bleeps have started ... at your own risk.

If you are catching the xx.07 and you arrive on the platform at anything after xx.06.00 you've cut it too fine!

[I note that EMT advise that they close doors 40 seconds before departure time; 60 seconds in London)
 
Last edited:

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,871
So, is it possible for someone to give me the recognised definition of what the 'hustle' sound is supposed to mean to a passenger - I'm surprised that a simple question can't seem to get a simple answer !

Tyne & Wear Metro
Do not attempt to enter or leave the train when warning tone sounds or doors are closing
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,554
It would be useful, however, if the RSSB issued definitive advice.

I'm not sure it would really help. After all, how many normals listen to any safety advice, let alone read the RSSB website?
 

Marklund

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
827
No difference in my book. If the bleeps have started ... at your own risk.

If you are catching the xx.07 and you arrive on the platform at anything after xx.06.00 you've cut it too fine!

[I note that EMT advise that they close doors 40 seconds before departure time; 60 seconds in London)

I quite agree with this, repeating it's an illegal connection is irrelevant.

The question should only be concern boarding when the alarm sounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top