The last slam door trains in public service

[xotGD]

The romantic age of the railway is over - unless you go to a heritage railway

Even one person poking their head out of the window "ever so slightly" is unsafe - I'm sure the 442 incident at Balham is still fresh in many people's minds

Unfortunately there are a minority of people without common sense...

People who brand an action as 'unsafe' are the ones without common sense. All actions have a degree of risk associated with them. This risk can be assessed by considering the severity of the potential consequences and the likelihood of occurrence.

 

[JBC]

Automatic doors with droplights would have been a fair compromise.

Several reasons why this is not a good idea...
1. Windows left open prevent air conditioning working properly in summer, and reduce the effect of the heating in winter. (OK, I know they're a good idea if the air con fails, so perhaps this argument isn't strong enough.)
2. Windows left open create extra drag at high speed - in a car, opening a window at 70mph uses more additional fuel that running the air con. And it's impossible to completely police windows being left open.
3. Danger of injury when the door is opened (not just when the train is in motion). I heard, from a railway professional at talk at around the time the first mark 4 coaches were built, that it had originally been planned to have droplights in the mark 4 doors. That was until it was realised that the doors slide alongside the body, and anyone with any body part sticking out when the door was opened would be very likely to get it trapped / broken / removed. I think there is far more risk of that happening than injuries when the train is moving.

 

[Scott1]

People who brand an action as 'unsafe' are the ones without common sense. All actions have a degree of risk associated with them. This risk can be assessed by considering the severity of the potential consequences and the likelihood of occurrence.

And the use of droplights has resulted in severe injury, and death. What would you call that level of risk?

 

[Roast Veg]

What about those who are less able to make informed decisions due to learning difficulties? I don't suppose they matter when precious droplight Windows are involved.

 

[37424]

Several reasons why this is not a good idea...
1. Windows left open prevent air conditioning working properly in summer, and reduce the effect of the heating in winter. (OK, I know they're a good idea if the air con fails, so perhaps this argument isn't strong enough.)
2. Windows left open create extra drag at high speed - in a car, opening a window at 70mph uses more additional fuel that running the air con. And it's impossible to completely police windows being left open.
3. Danger of injury when the door is opened (not just when the train is in motion). I heard, from a railway professional at talk at around the time the first mark 4 coaches were built, that it had originally been planned to have droplights in the mark 4 doors. That was until it was realised that the doors slide alongside the body, and anyone with any body part sticking out when the door was opened would be very likely to get it trapped / broken / removed. I think there is far more risk of that happening than injuries when the train is moving.

I think its fairly obvious your not going to have powered doors that slide with a droplight for the reasons you describe and if anybody originally proposed that I would be amazed.

But then again perhaps I shouldn't be amazed given they put partial non customer operated droplights on the swing plug and sliding cab doors of the 442's

 

[darasafvatnia]

I think its fairly obvious your not going to have powered doors that slide with a droplight for the reasons you describe and if anybody originally proposed that I would be amazed.

But then again perhaps I shouldn't be amazed given they put partial non customer operated droplights on the swing plug and sliding cab doors of the 442's

You could include droplights on swing plug doors if the droplights featured the same sensor technology that stops sliding doors closing fully when obstructed. It wouldn’t have to be some gruesome guillotine. Say someone had their hand out the window as it closed, it would automatically stop the door opening or closing until the hand was removed.

Powered doors aren’t accident or idiot proof any less than slamdoors. You still need a conductor on the platform or a guard to ensure nobody gets caught or trapped in a sliding door. For example, an incident occurred where a woman’s bag strap was caught in the sliding door as train sliding doors don’t have the same sensitivity sensor as underground trains do and her strap went undetected, which led to her being pulled under the train. I always see people run onto a train as the sliding doors close and they have to wrestle with it to not get crushed before the doors finally slide open again. Some of these experiences seem more dramatic on a sliding door than a slam door.

I understand dwell times are longer with slam doors and my idea of drop lights on automatic doors wouldn’t help with dwell times but with common sense applied it clearly wouldn’t be completely unreasonable of a compromise.

 

[37424]

You could include droplights on swing plug doors if the droplights featured the same sensor technology that stops sliding doors closing fully when obstructed. It wouldn’t have to be some gruesome guillotine. Say someone had their hand out the window as it closed, it would automatically stop the door opening or closing until the hand was removed.

Powered doors aren’t accident or idiot proof any less than slamdoors. You still need a conductor on the platform or a guard to ensure nobody gets caught or trapped in a sliding door. For example, an incident occurred where a woman’s bag strap was caught in the sliding door as train sliding doors don’t have the same sensitivity sensor as underground trains do and her strap went undetected, which led to her being pulled under the train. I always see people run onto a train as the sliding doors close and they have to wrestle with it to not get crushed before the doors finally slide open again. Some of these experiences seem more dramatic on a sliding door than a slam door.

I understand dwell times are longer with slam doors and my idea of drop lights on automatic doors wouldn’t help with dwell times but with common sense applied it clearly wouldn’t be completely unreasonable of a compromise.

As much as like looking out of the window the main purpose of the droplight is to open the external door lock because there is no internal door handle. Now the reason they didn't have an internal door handle was the danger of it being accidently knocked opened, however with modern day central locking you could stop that being an issue have an internal handle an no need for the drop light. Now things have moved on we have powered doors which have quicker dwell times and are easier for people with disabilities, and there is simply no need for a drop light on powered doors. OK you might also argue that on older stock it provided ventilation, but of course modern trains are Air Conditioned and of course you can have emergency drop down hopper windows in the event of Air Con failure as per 158's.

 

[Energy]

As much as like looking out of the window the main purpose of the droplight is to open the external door lock because there is no internal door handle. Now the reason they didn't have an internal door handle was the danger of it being accidently opened, however with modern day central locking you could stop that being an issue have an internal handle an no need for the drop light. Now things have moved on we have powered doors which have quicker dwell times and are easier for people with disabilities, and there is simply no need for a drop light on powered doors.

I do find I suprising though that the MK3s still had slam doors, the APT didn't but instead had power operated doors.

 

[37424]

I do find I suprising though that the MK3s still had slam doors, the APT didn't but instead had power operated doors.

Maybe it was just quicker and cheaper for cash strapped BR at the time, possibly it would have been viable for HST's but would have been a more difficult arrangement for the Loco Hauled MK3's which frequently worked with MK1 and MK2 carriages, while APT was meant to be a very advanced train.

Of course the HST was originally envisaged as more of a stop gap train to be replaced and cascaded by APT

 

[Domh245]

HST was meant to be a stopgap pending APT, so it made sense at the time to just roll with 'tried and tested' for a few years before APT came along. Needless to say that didn't work out.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

People who brand an action as 'unsafe' are the ones without common sense. All actions have a degree of risk associated with them. This risk can be assessed by considering the severity of the potential consequences and the likelihood of occurrence.

Eh? Please explain how branding an action as "unsafe" lacks common sense?

Yes, all actions have a degree of risk. So how would you risk-assess someone poking their head out of the window? How "risky" would you consider that action?

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

People who brand an action as 'unsafe' are the ones without common sense. All actions have a degree of risk associated with them. This risk can be assessed by considering the severity of the potential consequences and the likelihood of occurrence.

I really hope you don't work in anything safety related.

Sticking your head out of a train window isn't like mountaineering or motorcycling, it's not some legitimate hobby where participants understand and accept the risk. The majority of people who have been killed aren't thrill seeking train enthusiasts but members of the public, and Health and safety (or just common sense) suggests that small momentary lapses of judgement *should not* be fatal. Droplight windows are an archaic and unnecessary design features in trains that ought to be phased out. We don't need head sized holes in the side of trains anymore, especially when there's a risk of people's heads hitting line side objects at 100+mph.

If you're looking for thrills or risks in your life then get a real hobby...

 

[MarlowDonkey]

the main purpose of the droplight is to open the external door lock because there is no internal door handle.

I seem to recall from the 1960s and 1970s that DMUs and Mk1s, possibly Mk2s as well, all had internal door handles, the absence of which was a novelty on the Mk3s. Commuters invariably found it simplest to open slam doors quickly and easily by opening the window and putting their arm outside. The internal handles slid rather than rotated, so seemingly required more grip.

 

[37424]

I seem to recall from the 1960s and 1970s that DMUs and Mk1s, possibly Mk2s as well, all had internal door handles, the absence of which was a novelty on the Mk3s. Commuters invariably found it simplest to open slam doors quickly and easily by opening the window and putting their arm outside. The internal handles slid rather than rotated, so seemingly required more grip.

That's true but the internal DMU/MK1 door handle's are not very easy to open, which is good from the point of view of not being accidently unlocked but often much easier to open from the outside, I think the early wide door MK2 did have an internal door handle, but were potentially too easy to become unlocked accidently so were removed.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

That's true but the internal DMU/MK1 door handle's are not very easy to open, which is good from the point of view of not being accidently unlocked but often much easier to open from the outside,

That's my memory as well, so when the internal handles disappeared from MK2/3 it wasn't a culture shock for regular commuters to have to open the door using the droplight. Although I'm old enough to have travelled in them, I don't recall how the Western Region Autotrains and non-corridor compartment suburban stock was configured.

 

[xotGD]

And the use of droplights has resulted in severe injury, and death. What would you call that level of risk?

That isn't the risk. That is the consequence.

Risk is the product of risk and likelihood.

 

[xotGD]

Eh? Please explain how branding an action as "unsafe" lacks common sense?

Yes, all actions have a degree of risk. So how would you risk-assess someone poking their head out of the window? How "risky" would you consider that action?

As with any action, I would consider the potential consequence and the likelihood. By doing that you can then make a comparison between different activities. So, for example, whether cycling to the station represents a greater or lesser risk than making use of a droplight window.

 

[xotGD]

I really hope you don't work in anything safety related.

I do. And that is how I have an understanding of risk that is generally lacking in the general public who will expect a yes or no answer to the question "Is it safe?"

 

[37424]

I do. And that is how I have an understanding of risk that is generally lacking in the general public who will expect a yes or no answer to the question "Is it safe?"

I'm of the view we should teach Risk and risk assessment extensively from a fairly young age and have a bit less nanny H&S mentality.

 

[Domh245]

As with any action, I would consider the potential consequence and the likelihood. By doing that you can then make a comparison between different activities. So, for example, whether cycling to the station represents a greater or lesser risk than making use of a droplight window.

Where the risk can be reduced to zero (by removing all likelihood) it should - especially when there is no disbenefit to eliminating the risk. It is possible to tolerate a level of risk, but we shouldn't tolerate more than is necessary.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

As with any action, I would consider the potential consequence and the likelihood. By doing that you can then make a comparison between different activities. So, for example, whether cycling to the station represents a greater or lesser risk than making use of a droplight window.

At the risk of drifting off-topic, you might consider the potential consequence and the likelihood. But I bet the poor soul who lost his life at Balham did not consider the risk (and a great many before)

And how is cycling to the station comparable with making use of a droplight window?

Back on topic, I was on the Lymmie branch on the last day of the 3CIGs

 

[BayPaul]

I always think that reasonable risk is a combination of likelihood, consequence and also benefit. This is why it could be considered more reasonable to cycle to the station, which has a greater likelihood of harm, but provides significant benefit (exercise, low cost travel etc), compared with a drop-light window which provides minimal benefit, but has a hazard with a very significant consequence, even if the likelihood is relatively low.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Can we get back on topic please: the last slam door trains in public service

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where the risk can be reduced to zero (by removing all likelihood) it should - especially when there is no disbenefit to eliminating the risk. It is possible to tolerate a level of risk, but we shouldn't tolerate more than is necessary.

I think that's a very risk averse approach. In reality risk-benefit analysis needs to be applied. For instance if risk minimisation was the plan we'd stay in lockdown forever. But that's not how it'll be done. Even on the railway.

 

[507021]

I think that's a very risk averse approach. In reality risk-benefit analysis needs to be applied. For instance if risk minimisation was the plan we'd stay in lockdown forever. But that's not how it'll be done. Even on the railway.

What's this got to do with slam-door rolling stock?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's this got to do with slam-door rolling stock?

It was a reply to the point on risk management and assessment, as you can see by reading the quoted text.

 

[Domh245]

I think that's a very risk averse approach. In reality risk-benefit analysis needs to be applied. For instance if risk minimisation was the plan we'd stay in lockdown forever. But that's not how it'll be done. Even on the railway.

especially when there is no disbenefit to eliminating the risk.

Poor wording on my behalf, but I feel that you glossed over that bit - staying in lockdown forever has many 'disbenefits', removing droplights has very few (only one comes to mind - less effective monitoring of PTI during dispatch). @BayPaul phrased it far more eloquently. It is getting very off topic though

 

[37424]

Well getting back to the point I would conclude that the West Country sleeper will likely be the last mainline slam door, that's not of course including potential heritage operations which I would exclude and regard them more as regular charter trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Poor wording on my behalf, but I feel that you glossed over that bit - staying in lockdown forever has many 'disbenefits', removing droplights has very few (only one comes to mind - less effective monitoring of PTI during dispatch). @BayPaul phrased it far more eloquently. It is getting very off topic though

True, RA generally is probably a thread in its own right. I would agree there is basically no disbenefit of removing droplights and many, many benefits, not only in the area of stopping people knocking their heads off, but also stopping draughts etc.

 

[507021]

It was a reply to the point on risk management and assessment, as you can see by reading the quoted text.

Yes, I can see that, but it still doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread.