Wheelchair user has problems getting OFF a train (FCC)

[AlterEgo]

FCC issued a denial. Is that not their side of the story?

We are only told that FCC deny he had booked assistance, which we have to take at face value.

The rest of the story is told entirely from the viewpoint of the "victim", and unnecessary language is used. Such as "crashed" - balderdash. FCC haven't actually denied the incident happened, we are led to believe.

I'm afraid we know very little of the facts. This happened nearly two months ago. I'll put a good sum of money the "victim" complained to FCC over his treatment and is unhappy with their response.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle with these sorts of things. Remember the Asian wheelchair-bound passenger on Northern last year? Discussion of that incident quickly turned a corner when more facts came to light.

 

[Mojo]

A member of staff will have to get a ramp though. Hence EM2's post.

Not necessarily. Whilst not advised, I have seen a customer in a wheelchair get on a Voyager at New Street with a hand from someone else, and get off themselves. In the latter case though they were a famous paralympian so perhaps not surprising that they have the ability to make their wheelchair fly through the air

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Not necessarily. Whilst not advised, I have seen a customer in a wheelchair get on a Voyager at New Street with a hand from someone else, and get off themselves. In the latter case though they were a famous paralympian so perhaps not surprising that they have the ability to make their wheelchair fly through the air

True, but I suspect a man and his wife who are, well, not young, would use a ramp

 

[EM2]

... they were a famous paralympian so perhaps not surprising that they have the ability to make their wheelchair fly through the air

I've also assisted famous paralympians from a 222 and they still needed a ramp.
I then said 'I know this is probably a daft question, but we have to ask all aour assistance customers. Do you need any help going on from here?'
'Er, no!' and they shot off down the platform at a rate of knots!

 

[Mojo]

I've also assisted famous paralympians from a 222 and they still needed a ramp.

May have been the same one. They were politely advised that what they did was very dangerous and likely to cause injury to themselves and other customers on the platform.

 

[Aictos]

The safety poster at Hatfield (for buggies) does say to board with the buggy facing forwards, and to alight by pulling the buggy off backwards.

Realising the train was going to London, it would have been platform 2, not 3 as I'd previously said. It would have also been the up fast.

Platform 2 is actually the Up Slow at Welwyn Garden City as there are no platforms on the Fast lines there, thought you knew better

 

[O L Leigh]

There really are few things worse than someone with limited mobility turn up unannounced and try to use a DOO service and then create merry havoc when things don't work out, especially if they are travelling to an unstaffed location. We try to be as helpful and accommodating as we can, but if a person really does need a ramp to get on or off a train then we need to be warned so that we can be sure the assistance is there when they need it. That said, not everyone who uses a wheelchair needs a ramp. Several times I've seen people propelling themselves along the platform to their chosen door, hop out, sling the chair in and then board themselves.

I know that what I've just said does not necessarily apply to this particular incident, and I have done this deliberately due to the scarcity of verifiable facts. The press is notoriously scrupulous in it's standards of reporting. No, wait. That's not the word I was looking for. Er, lax. Yes, that's it. Lax. Remember the guy at Rayleigh who was dragged by his ankle down the station platform? We're in that league here. Much emphasis on emotion but woefully light on facts.

DOO despatch is always a bit of a compromise. I'm fairly certain that Cl365s are not suitable for "look-back" despatch, which means that there will either be CCTV monitors or depatch staff. CCTV monitors are quite good, but even they give a slightly limiting view. You certainly can't see what's happening just inside the doors on the train itself.

I don't sign Cl365s but have experience with stock that has door obstruction sensors (Cl315 and Cl379). Once you press door close the doors will all attempt to close. If one encounters an obstacle it will bounce a certain number of times to allow for the obstacle to be cleared. However, as the driver you cannot interfere with this sequence once it has started, even by pressing the door release buttons again. The idea is that the obstacle is moved so that the door can close and the train can move. However, a wilfully obstructed door will eventually simply fail to close and someone will have to go back and investigate.

I know I've already bemoaned the amount of speculation surrounding this incident, so I'm going to add some more. What I believe is a likely explanation is that wifey has backed her man up to the door in preparation to leave the train and gone looking for platform staff to assist. The driver has seen that the doors are clear and gone to shut up. At this point wifey hears the warbles and panics, so she rushes back to try and get hubby off the train herself and in doing so obstructs the doors, hence the doors closing on her and her hubby "repeatedly".

The key fact in the incident is the failure to book assistance, as any driver who sees a member of staff with a ramp when they run in is going to expect something to happen and will watch and wait until the ramp is clear of the train before shutting up. Had assistance been booked yer man wouldn't have found himself in this situation. In the scenario I have described, the reason why the doors closed on them had nothing to do with any wrongdoing on the part of FCC or shortcoming with DOO despatch, but simply because they tried to get out the doors as they were closing rather than getting clear of them.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

A member of staff will have to get a ramp though. Hence EM2's post.

But, I'd have thought you could actually board without a ramp on a 365 if someone is pushing you.

Platform 2 is actually the Up Slow at Welwyn Garden City as there are no platforms on the Fast lines there, thought you knew better

D'oh - yes. I forgot they are in the middle and have no platforms at all!! I don't use that station that much. Platforms 1 and 4 are for the terminating slows aren't they.

 

[Aictos]

DOO despatch is always a bit of a compromise. I'm fairly certain that Cl365s are not suitable for "look-back" despatch, which means that there will either be CCTV monitors or depatch staff. CCTV monitors are quite good, but even they give a slightly limiting view. You certainly can't see what's happening just inside the doors on the train itself.
O L Leigh

Don't forget DOO mirrors as well; St Neots (Platform 4), Sandy (Platform 1), Hitchin (Platform 1), Hertford North (Platform 1), Welwyn Garden City (Platform 2) all have 365s stop there and are dispatched using DOO mirrors.

The key fact in the incident is the failure to book assistance, as any driver who sees a member of staff with a ramp when they run in is going to expect something to happen and will watch and wait until the ramp is clear of the train before shutting up. Had assistance been booked yer man wouldn't have found himself in this situation. In the scenario I have described, the reason why the doors closed on them had nothing to do with any wrongdoing on the part of FCC or shortcoming with DOO despatch, but simply because they tried to get out the doors as they were closing rather than getting clear of them.

O L Leigh

Exactly or in the case of two dispatchers being available, one will actually deliver the assistance while the other would be dispatching the train - when the dispatcher has finished providing the assistance with the ramp on or off the train they would use either a station radio or other means of communication to advise the dispatcher who is dispatching the train that it is now safe to do so.

If it is a booked assistance going to another station such as Finsbury Park for example then the dispatcher who provided the assistance rings the staff at Finsbury Park and provides as much information as possible; this includes the headcode of the service (1A99), the length (4 coaches, 8 coaches), what train it is (Class 365s and Class 313s have a disabled area and are the only trains that have this) and most importantly whereabouts from the driver are they (2 coach from the driver, 7 coach from the driver etc....)

Some staff do ask what type of train it is but some don't, it's purely optional.

But, I'd have thought you could actually board without a ramp on a 365 if someone is pushing you.

I don't know, I rather say it's far better to board with a ramp - as a example one of the regulars at Stevenage who goes down to Finsbury Park on match days needs a ramp to board the train which usually is a Class 365 running the football special but is fine getting off and yes that does mean going down the stairs at Finsbury Park to leave the station!

D'oh - yes. I forgot they are in the middle and have no platforms at all!! I don't use that station that much. Platforms 1 and 4 are for the terminating slows aren't they.

Platform 1 is the Up Back platform which sees some services start from there but not many, Platform 2 is the Up Slow which sees all services from Stevenage use, Platform 3 is the Down Slow which sees all services to Stevenage use as well as some terminators, Platform 4 is the Down Back platform which is used for the Inners to Moorgate/Kings Cross as well as most of the terminators.

 

[185]

"This could have had nasty consequences actually, lucky it didn't. If only somebody had thought to provide a second member of staff on the train who could take charge of dispatch and stop people being jammed in the doors, deeply humiliated and potentially injured...Oh, hang on a minute..."

Like at James St on 22nd October.......

Totally unrelated. Unsurprising that feedback from disabled customers for their handling on DOO Driver-Only trains is substantially worse than for a 'proper' train with a guard.

The incident at James St relates, I believe, to a person up against the side of the moving train, on a curved platform after doors were closed and the bell was given. Guard has little if any view of the platform after his door is shut, as his window does not open.

FCC Control are responsible for overseeing the transport of disabled customers; as someone from East Coast at Peterborough put them on the train, did they tell their EC control, who should have in turn told FCC Control?

In the absence of a guard, should the driver be told on Driver-only?

 

[BestWestern]

The key fact in the incident is the failure to book assistance, as any driver who sees a member of staff with a ramp when they run in is going to expect something to happen and will watch and wait until the ramp is clear of the train before shutting up. Had assistance been booked yer man wouldn't have found himself in this situation. In the scenario I have described, the reason why the doors closed on them had nothing to do with any wrongdoing on the part of FCC or shortcoming with DOO despatch, but simply because they tried to get out the doors as they were closing rather than getting clear of them.
O L Leigh

I'm afraid I can't agree with your point there. This is very definitely a generic shortcoming with DOO, and this sort of incident will become far more prevalent if and when DOO spreads further. The simple fact is that with nobody 'on the ground' there will always be heightened risks with a Driver pressing buttons from the comfort of his warm cosy cab at the very front of the train. A scratchy mirror planted on the end of the platform, or a plethora of CCTV monitors relaying crammed-in images from every door on the train, are no substitute for somebody who is tasked with actually observing what is happening, from a position where they can actually see.

There will always be people who, for a wide range of reasons, do not or cannot book assistance. The railway has a duty to carry wheelchair-bound passengers regardless, they must be treated in the same manner as anybody else. One cannot help but wonder how this will play out in McNulty's brave new world of skeleton staffing and national DOO running. Will Drivers be tasked with leaving the cab when they see a wheelchair, venturing out into the cold and wet to play at customer service, or will we simply be abandoning these people to await the next train so that a member of staff (what's one of those?) can be dispatched to act at ramp attendant?!

 

[Fred26]

FCC Control are responsible for overseeing the transport of disabled customers; as someone from East Coast at Peterborough put them on the train, did they tell their EC control, who should have in turn told FCC Control?

There's no need to bother either Control with something like that. The staff at Peterborough should've phoned Welwyn to notify them and that's it. It's only necessary to phone control if Peterborough could not contact Welwyn. Even then, East Coast Control would've been left out of it entirely.

Some passengers want a ramp on and off, some only on, some only off. We only have one side of the story. For all we know the passenger may have told the staff at Peterborough that he didn't require assistance at Welwyn.

 

[amcluesent]

Has anyone looked at all the costs of meeting the needs of disabled pax on the train vs. giving them the money for a taxi when calling to book assistance?

 

[BestWestern]

Taxis would be very expensive as a permanent option

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm afraid I can't agree with your point there. This is very definitely a generic shortcoming with DOO, and this sort of incident will become far more prevalent if and when DOO spreads further. The simple fact is that with nobody 'on the ground' there will always be heightened risks with a Driver pressing buttons from the comfort of his warm cosy cab at the very front of the train. A scratchy mirror planted on the end of the platform, or a plethora of CCTV monitors relaying crammed-in images from every door on the train, are no substitute for somebody who is tasked with actually observing what is happening, from a position where they can actually see.

I don't doubt your conviction, but I dispute your reasoning. Granted I'm no great fan of DOO, but it's what I do every day so I know it intimately.

Staff on the platform, whether despatchers or guards, do not prevent door-related incidents. Indeed, the view afforded from DOO CCTV monitors, whether inside the train or on the platform, is often significantly superior to the view afforded from any single point along the platform (I am required to despatch myself from the platform if the DOO equipment is faulty or there is no staff available at locations that are normally staffed, so I have seen the difference). The shortfall in ANY despatch procedure is the inability to see inside the train to what is going on just inside the doors.

I outlined above what I considered to be a likely scenario that would explain the incident but wait to see what transpires from any investigation. However, any driver who sees someone struggling with a wheelchair in a set of doors isn't going to just attempt to get the doors closed. But I maintain that virtually all incidents relating to doors at despatch are down to the passengers rather than any fault with the method for despatch. People either try to enter or leave the train at the last minute after the door close warbles have started. Ironically, it's at stations with platform despatch rather than DOO equipment that this happens most often.

O L Leigh

 

[blacknight]

It is not a requirement to wear a Hi-vis to take a wheelchair off a train though. In fact, most TOC staff don't wear them, even for things like train dispatch. To be honest I find it distracting having non safety critical staff wearing Hi-viz.

Platform Staff have no requirement to wear it unless they are going on or near the lines, and a platform is not counted as being near the line for that rule.

Why would you need to acknowledge the driver?

Should tell that to sub contracted cleaning companies as we now have the cleaners wondering around in HI-viz vests:-x

 

[Aictos]

It is not a requirement to wear a Hi-vis to take a wheelchair off a train though. In fact, most TOC staff don't wear them, even for things like train dispatch. To be honest I find it distracting having non safety critical staff wearing Hi-viz.

Platform Staff have no requirement to wear it unless they are going on or near the lines, and a platform is not counted as being near the line for that rule.

Why would you need to acknowledge the driver?

It may not be a requirement not to wear a hi vis, but First require their dispatchers to wear one while on duty as they perform safety critical duties, not only that but it helps distinguish a member of staff by making them highly visible to other staff and passengers.

By acknowledging the driver, they are made aware that there may be a delay to their train while the assistance is delivered.

 

[BestWestern]

I don't doubt your conviction, but I dispute your reasoning. Granted I'm no great fan of DOO, but it's what I do every day so I know it intimately.

Staff on the platform, whether despatchers or guards, do not prevent door-related incidents. Indeed, the view afforded from DOO CCTV monitors, whether inside the train or on the platform, is often significantly superior to the view afforded from any single point along the platform (I am required to despatch myself from the platform if the DOO equipment is faulty or there is no staff available at locations that are normally staffed, so I have seen the difference). The shortfall in ANY despatch procedure is the inability to see inside the train to what is going on just inside the doors.
O L Leigh

Well, I think we shall have to agree not to agree on this one! I can think of many situations where the observation of those on the platform has 'saved the day', so to speak. It depends on the precise nature of the situation of course, but I regularly find myself re-releasing the doors after taking the first tip due to people charging them at the last moment, or a limb emerging from the train as they are about to close. With all the will in the world, a Driver with only a minimal view in either a fuzzy mirror or an array of small CCTV images, is going to find it harder to spot these things. As you will be only too aware, door incidents invariably occur at the last moment, and even once the doors have closed in some instances. You mention the superior views afforded by CCTV; do you have an image of both inside and outside the train, at every single door?! If you do, I would argue that there is simply too much to be observing all at once for you to ever be able to see everything to any worthwhile degree. If you have a view only of the inside or of the outside, then I fail to see how it is any more comprehensive than the view of a person observing from the platform?

I will maintain that DOO is a compromise, indeed you raise a good example of this when you mention those situations whereby a Driver must step onto the platform to carry out a check prior to dispatch. If your position for checking the doors are clear is a suitable point on the platform but you must then return to the cab to hit the buttons, how can you possibly be certain that the doors are in fact clear at the point they are closed?! You are effectively closing them 'blind' as you are not in your safe dispatch position when you are dispatching the train. Whilst we Guards will have the option of several door positions to work from, opting for the one which gives the best degree of safety, a DOO Driver with a knackered monitor has just his buttons on the desk. If I was seen by a Comp Manager closing my doors whilst looking the other way, I would fully expect a roasting. Under the safety gamble that is DOO however, this sort of thing flies nicely under the radar, the priority of course being to do as much as possible with the minimum of outlay. Sadly this is the nature of the safety compromise that will always come with a DOO operation. I remain sure that it is only the relatively very small amount of it that we have on our network which has kept the incident figures low all these years.

What I fully agree with you on is that most door incidents are the result of passengers' own actions!

 

[O L Leigh]

Well, I think we shall have to agree not to agree on this one! I can think of many situations where the observation of those on the platform has 'saved the day', so to speak.

Perhaps. But then my own experience is slightly at variance to that. Most of the times I've had door-related issues it has been at locations where platform staff are available to despatch. I've had people trapped in doors getting on or off the train (not always within my own sight due to curved platforms) and parents separated from their children by the train's closing doors.

With all the will in the world, a Driver with only a minimal view in either a fuzzy mirror or an array of small CCTV images, is going to find it harder to spot these things. As you will be only too aware, door incidents invariably occur at the last moment, and even once the doors have closed in some instances.

I have to ask, do you drive DOO services? I stand by my assertion that DOO equipment can provide a superior view of the doors compared to either looking back from the cab window and, in a number of cases, standing on the platform. They provide multiple views along the entire length of the train and actually help to show more detail than would otherwise be available from any other single vantage point. Even a mirror provides a view that is at least as good as looking back from the cab window and is superior because it is set back from the platform edge slightly and therefore provides a better viewing angle.

You mention the superior views afforded by CCTV; do you have an image of both inside and outside the train, at every single door?!

No, of course not. A typical 8 car DOO CCTV platform set up has 4 or 5 CCTV screens maximum. The Cl379s have one bodyside camera per coach giving 4, 8 or 12 pictures spread across 2 screens in the cab.

If you do, I would argue that there is simply too much to be observing all at once for you to ever be able to see everything to any worthwhile degree. If you have a view only of the inside or of the outside, then I fail to see how it is any more comprehensive than the view of a person observing from the platform?

See above.

I will say again, I have despatched myself using DOO CCTV on platforms and on the train, DOO mirrors, "look back" working, getting out on the platform by the cab and by going down to the despatchers vantage point at certain locations when staff have not been available. From all of these options I would rather use the platform monitors because, as I said, they give multiple viewpoints along the entire platform and a superior viewing angle compared to all the others. Indeed, I prefer to use platform monitors where available even when driving a Cl379 because the viewing angle is better (although this requires supreme precision with regard to the stop in order to secure a decent view out of the tiny side window).

I will maintain that DOO is a compromise, indeed you raise a good example of this when you mention those situations whereby a Driver must step onto the platform to carry out a check prior to dispatch. If your position for checking the doors are clear is a suitable point on the platform but you must then return to the cab to hit the buttons, how can you possibly be certain that the doors are in fact clear at the point they are closed?! You are effectively closing them 'blind' as you are not in your safe dispatch position when you are dispatching the train.

It's not worse than a platform despatcher or guard despatching from part way down a train. Can you look both ahead at the front portion as well as behind to the rear portion? Often times the despatcher turns his/her back on a significant part of the train in order to give me the bat and fails to see something happening behind them just at the last minute. However, as I'm watching for them I often see what's going on better than they can and will delay closing the doors until I'm satisfied that it's safe to do so. And I will say again that the majority of door-related incidents that I experience have been at staffed locations.

Besides, I have to be brutally honest and say that I think you're splitting hairs over this. Unless I can despatch myself from the platform and can get a good enough view of the entire train from directly by a cab with live door controls (even if it means opening up a middle cab) I won't use this method but go right to the back of the train and close up each coach one at a time using the coach end buttons.

Whilst we Guards will have the option of several door positions to work from, opting for the one which gives the best degree of safety, a DOO Driver with a knackered monitor has just his buttons on the desk. If I was seen by a Comp Manager closing my doors whilst looking the other way, I would fully expect a roasting. Under the safety gamble that is DOO however, this sort of thing flies nicely under the radar, the priority of course being to do as much as possible with the minimum of outlay. Sadly this is the nature of the safety compromise that will always come with a DOO operation. I remain sure that it is only the relatively very small amount of it that we have on our network which has kept the incident figures low all these years.

As I have already said, if a DOO driver like myself has a knackered monitor we will not simply shut up blind and hope for the best but use some other despatch method more appropriate to the location to ensure that our station duties are done correctly and safely. Don't forget, we're under EXACTLY the same pressures as guards and despatchers in this respect. Like guards, any DOO driver who simply releases the doors and counts to ten before closing them again and never taking a look back to see if it is safe to do so will get a right royal rollocking.

What I fully agree with you on is that most door incidents are the result of passengers' own actions!

Yup.

**EDIT**

Please try to understand that I'm not trying to champion DOO as a method of working. It is simply that the scarcity of facts surrounding this incident do not automatically suggest that the method of despatch was causal or even contributory. DOO requires additional support for the driver in terms of either platform equipment or on-train equipment, but that is all. Carried out properly, DOO despatch is no riskier than any other method of despatch. Indeed, a properly despatched DOO service is safer than a fully-manned service sloppily despatched by it's guard.

Bear in mind that I work DOO services and I understand that carrying out station duties safely and correctly is paramount to the job. We are not simply drivers but driver and guard all rolled up into one, and that means we have to demonstrate the same levels of competency as guards.

All that said, I would still prefer a guard and resist the idea of DOO spreading across the entire network. It does have certain safety issues that I have already gone on record to argue on this forum if you care to search back over the preceding months and years. I am a great champion of having guards on trains and there are many good persuasive arguments for keeping them there and even reinstating them where they have been removed. However, this isn't one of them.

To bring the thread back on-topic, so far there is nothing contained within the story as presented to suggest to me that DOO was contributory. This incident could have happened on any train anywhere, primarily because people do dumb things around trains.

O L Leigh

 

[BestWestern]

You make some very fair points there, and of course I must concede that I do not drive trains, DOO or otherwise, and cannot claim to share your experience of DOO dispatch. Things differ of course from location to location, and TOC to TOC, with DOO presumably being a different kettle of fish in many ways. I shall have to trust your informed judgement on the quality of the images available to you, and I guess modern stock with CCTV dispatch aids make the situation less precarious. But, again, it's always ultimately a safety compromise and I know if I had the choice of 'doing my doors' from the platform or from a telly in the back, I'd be out on the platform!

Fair play to those of you who do drive DOO, it's not a job (or two jobs?! )I'd relish at all and I'd imagine there must be times when it's a position you'd rather not be in yourselves?!

 

[O L Leigh]

I think you get used to it as a despatch method. Whatever gives you the clearest view at any given location is what you look for and if you're in any doubt if the doors are clear or not you wait.

Yes there are times when you feel quite exposed as a DOO driver and times when you really want the back-up of a guard, but for me it's usually just when things go badly wrong or when you have to go through Apache territory. A second member of safety critical staff adds security and safety particularly if a driver becomes incapacitated for any reason, and those are the really persuasive arguments.

But we're getting off-topic here. As I mentioned above, my thoughts on DOO operation are already a matter of record. Like everything else it's safe enough if done properly, but I do firmly believe that the true measure of the safety of a DOO service is still to be properly tested.

O L Leigh