Yellow door warning stickers on TPE's fleet

[Bletchleyite]

Passengers walking past 3or 4 closed doors because they don't want to press a button and then pushing some bodypart or other into a closing door is very common, unlike the sense of these people.

To be fair, pushing a button is *not* an intuitive method of opening a door, as such a method is near enough only used for doors on the railway. Least of all if the button is located in a variety of positions. I do wonder if, were there an obvious handle instead (as found on a lot of UIC stock), would they go for that? I think they would.

The door is closing regardless, of course the sensible option is to press the open button so the door opens again, but that seems beyond the wit of some people.

See above.

So you consider sticking your hand into a closing door is sensible do you?
Try it with a car/house/fridge/wardrobe/etc/etc door and see what happens.

With all of those types of door, closure would be prevented, certainly if I applied sufficient force to overcome that with which someone was closing it. If it was just swinging closed, you would easily be able to stop it with your hand.

 

[najaB]

I agree with most of your post, however I have to disagree with:

Of course sticking your hand in between the doors as they close is a very sensible thing to do isn't it!

The sliding door that most people will be familiar with is a lift door, which WILL open again if you put your hand against it. It's not unreasonable for people to think that train doors will do the same. Just today I saw a little girl 'holding' the train door open while her mummy caught up (there was no danger as the train wasn't due to leave for five minutes).

 

[edwin_m]

To be fair, pushing a button is *not* an intuitive method of opening a door, as such a method is near enough only used for doors on the railway. Least of all if the button is located in a variety of positions. I do wonder if, were there an obvious handle instead (as found on a lot of UIC stock), would they go for that? I think they would.

A lift door, referred to above, is opened with a button.

The 313s were originally fitted with handles which incoporated a switch to activate the powered opening. These were the doors referred to above that it proved possible to open by hand when not activated, and the handle was quickly replaced by a button. I suspect the problem there was that passengers could get enough of a grip on the door to apply mechanical force against the air pressure holding it closed. Less easy if the door is a smooth surface. A handle with a microswitch is also going to have more maintenance and reliability problems than a button, which is simpler to start with as well as being easier to replace.

Having said that, older stock on the Paris Metro has a handle which is lifted to open the doors. Newer units have buttons.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 313s were originally fitted with handles which incoporated a switch to activate the powered opening. These were the doors referred to above that it proved possible to open by hand when not activated, and the handle was quickly replaced by a button. I suspect the problem there was that passengers could get enough of a grip on the door to apply mechanical force against the air pressure holding it closed.

Merseyrail unit doors (same type) can only be opened to about 4" until they hit a very hard stop if they are not released. (This was a common game when I was a schoolchild!)

I'm almost certain I read that the reason for the removal of the handles was not that people could pull the doors open using the handles, but rather that people *attempting* and failing to do so (beyond 4" or so) were causing damage to the mechanism. But the problem was perhaps not that they were doing this deliberately, it was perhaps that units of that vintage had no indication whatsoever of whether they had in fact been released or not inside the unit. (Outside there are the yellow hazard indicators).

 

[transmanche]

These were the doors referred to above that it proved possible to open by hand when not activated, and the handle was quickly replaced by a button.

Pedant mode. After the handles were removed, the doors were opened by the guard. The door open buttons didn't appear until many years later.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The door is closing regardless, of course the sensible option is to press the open button so the door opens again, but that seems beyond the wit of some people.

That depends on the train. The buttons on the 333s, for instance, are not in the best position.

 

[455driver]

To be fair, pushing a button is *not* an intuitive method of opening a door, as such a method is near enough only used for doors on the railway. Least of all if the button is located in a variety of positions. I do wonder if, were there an obvious handle instead (as found on a lot of UIC stock), would they go for that? I think they would.

Do you not have lifts/elevators where you live, they have buttons to open the doors?
This thread is just getting silly with all the 'reasons' given for peoples stupidity!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you not have lifts/elevators where you live, they have buttons to open the doors?
This thread is just getting silly with all the 'reasons' given for peoples stupidity!

It's been stated above that putting your hand in the doors of a lift stops them closing, though. That's how almost everyone stops one - the button is more associated to calling one. So if familiar with lifts (which not everyone comes across on a daily basis, depends where you live/work) you would expect not to have your hand trapped if doing so.

An additional point - has it been identified why the guard did not see the issue before buzzing the train off? Is it a platform with particularly poor sight lines? Are some DOO-style[1] monitors needed? It was mentioned that he couldn't see it from his cab door, but he would surely have walked out from the cab twice during door closure, once to check if it was safe to press close, then once again to verify the doors were safely closed.

[1] I don't mean actual DOO, I mean monitors for the guard to assist with dispatch. These are provided at Berkhamsted, as one example, which has a curved platform.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Do you not have lifts/elevators where you live, they have buttons to open the doors?
This thread is just getting silly with all the 'reasons' given for peoples stupidity!

Whilst you might have disdain for stupidity, it is not a crime, and nor should it be. It's not worthy of punishment, and frankly I'm sick of seeing people say that others 'deserve' what happens to them, as though unfamiliarity, a slip of the mind or just plain stupidity are worthy of serious injury etc.

 

[DownSouth]

It also helps those with various visual impairment work out where the door edges are.

It is best practice around the world for this very reason.

Is there actually any evidence to suggest it is a reaction to the incident discussed in the TPE strike thread, or is it just a whole bunch of conjecture by forum members who have no idea of best practice for inclusion of people with disabilities?

Whilst you might have disdain for stupidity, it is not a crime, and nor should it be. It's not worthy of punishment, and frankly I'm sick of seeing people say that others 'deserve' what happens to them, as though unfamiliarity, a slip of the mind or just plain stupidity are worthy of serious injury etc.

Were something to happen to 455Driver which affected his independent mobility, for example he lost 70% of his vision due to injuries sustained in a car crash, I am sure that he would quickly gain a more mature view of the various accommodations made in public facilities (including public transport) which are actually for people with disabilities (including intellectual disabilities), not for the "stupid."

 

[455driver]

Whilst you might have disdain for stupidity, it is not a crime, and nor should it be. It's not worthy of punishment, and frankly I'm sick of seeing people say that others 'deserve' what happens to them, as though unfamiliarity, a slip of the mind or just plain stupidity are worthy of serious injury etc.

And neither would I like to see a worker get sent to prison/lose their job because of he actions of some stupid idiot just because that worker made a split second decision that turned out to be the wrong one even though it would have been the same decision that had been made thousands of times before without incident. Oh wait a minute!

Duty of care starts with the individual or at least I should and it should never be delegated to others simply because the individual has allowed themselves to knowingly and avoidably become incapable.

<takes care stepping from soapbox>
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is best practice around the world for this very reason.

Is there actually any evidence to suggest it is a reaction to the incident discussed in the TPE strike thread, or is it just a whole bunch of conjecture by forum members who have no idea of best practice for inclusion of people with disabilities?

Were something to happen to 455Driver which affected his independent mobility, for example he lost 70% of his vision due to injuries sustained in a car crash, I am sure that he would quickly gain a more mature view of the various accommodations made in public facilities (including public transport) which are actually for people with disabilities (including intellectual disabilities), not for the "stupid."

Most alterations to aid the mobility/sight impaired I wholeheartedly agree with, its the 'I am p1ssed/drugged up so you have to look after me' brigade I have a problem with.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Duty of care starts at the individual? Remind me to never do anything which places my trust in others, such as taking a bus - apparently it's my fault if we crash now.

I understand you're aggrieved about people being sued/prosecuted over incidents, but frankly when you're in a position of responsibility that doesn't end because the person you're dealing with is incapable. At its most extreme, I wouldn't let someone jump off a bridge, and that's not because I care about the clean-up bill.

 

[455driver]

My duty of care starts with me, okay I might need somebody elses assistance at times but ultimately I like to look after myself whenever possible rather than throw my wellbeing onto somebody else when it isn't necessary.

Obviously sometimes I have to hand it over to somebody else (catching a bus/taxi etc plus hundreds of other situations) but I like to look after myself where ever and whenever possible.

The speed some people delegate their wellbeing to others simply because they are unable to control themselves is quite scary at times and its that situation that needs to be fixed for the good of the Country as a whole.

 

[bb21]

Duty of care starts at the individual? Remind me to never do anything which places my trust in others, such as taking a bus - apparently it's my fault if we crash now.

How is this example relevant?

 

[TheKnightWho]

How is this example relevant?

I was taking the idea of the individual being responsible for themselves and taking it to its extreme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My duty of care starts with me, okay I might need somebody elses assistance at times but ultimately I like to look after myself whenever possible rather than throw my wellbeing onto somebody else when it isn't necessary.

Obviously sometimes I have to hand it over to somebody else (catching a bus/taxi etc plus hundreds of other situations) but I like to look after myself where ever and whenever possible.

The speed some people delegate their wellbeing to others simply because they are unable to control themselves is quite scary at times and its that situation that needs to be fixed for the good of the Country as a whole.

How do you judge when it's necessary? Do you realise how often we put our own welfare in each other's hands every day? You're throwing around all these terms like it's really obvious and something that doesn't happen that often, but not everyone sees things through the eyes of 455driver.

Plus what do we do when someone is incapable of looking after their own safety? Should they just perish then? Essentially, at what point does someone deserve serious, preventable injury?

 

[Alan White]

A lift door, referred to above, is opened with a button.

I suggest that the button on a lift is much more associated with summoning the lift than opening or closing the doors, which is usually automatic.

The incident in post #2 raises more questions than it answers. Why were the train doors closed two minutes before departure? Why were some doors open and others closed? Why did the closing doors not re-open when the customer's wrist became trapped? Why was the train able to move with a door which wasn't closed? I'd have thought that an industry which rightly commends itself on its safety record wouldn't have allowed this incident to be possible.

There are two things which concern me about train doors. Firstly, there seems to be a tendency for modern train doors to close automatically on a timeout, independent on each door, while the train is at a terminus. This results in the situation which started the above incident: the customer found that the first doors she encountered were closed but knew that the train wasn't yet due to depart so she looked further down the train. Despite the scorn shown by some in this thread, occasional travellers may not know that it's sometimes necessary to open the door. I do not consider myself to be stupid but I have walked past closed train doors. Only when I saw other customers inside did I understand that I should open the door.

Having some doors closed and some open or, even worse, all doors of a train which is not about to depart closed is confusing. I'd like to see all doors of a train at a terminus open until the train is ready to depart. This would avoid the incident above and provide a comforting, "yes this is your train, welcome aboard!" feeling rather than the present "my doors are closed: go away". This is the approach taken on LU and LO trains, which also open and close all doors at every station automatically* so there's no doubt whether it's safe to board.

On a more serious note, it would also mean that customers would understand that a train with closed doors should not be boarded.

Secondly, I'd like to see consistency of the internal door button arrangement. Most trains have the open and close buttons arranged vertically, but some have the "open" on top while others have the "close" on top. And why is there a close button anyway?

On an amusing note, and I don't know if it's the same elsewhere, the SWT 450s RDG-WAT have a "feature". When a train stops at a station, the guard unlocks the doors, people press the "open" button and leave the train. A second or so later there's a loud bleeping and an automated announcement says: "The door buttons are now activated" .

Personally I prefer manual doors. Those with the bow-tie shaped handle were really nice. Intuitive, easy to open and close, easy to see when the door was open, you knew it wasn't going to close as you approached, and it was quick to depart from the train because you didn't have to wait for the train to stop. The HSTs are nearly as good but for the locks .


* Yes, I know it's not really automatic. You know what I mean.

 

[transmanche]

And why is there a close button anyway?

To keep the heat in during the winter - and out during the summer!

 

[455driver]

To keep the heat in during the winter - and out during the summer!

Which is the reason the doors automatically close, there is no point sitting at a terminus for 20 minutes with the doors open and the air con trying to cool the world, all it does is overload and shutdown and do people moan then!

 

[Alan White]

In these environmentally-conscious times it should be easy to persuade customers that it's unwise to have the aircon running when stationary for long periods and it's much better that the doors are open to allow the free flow of fresh air.

This would also save money and therefore reduce the cost of their ticket. In theory .

 

[misterredmist]

I think it is clear there are no perfect answers to these kind of problems, and to an extent , attempting to sanitize the whole transport experience where the passenger is bound in cotton wool from station platform to station platform creates it's own problems.

People ARE responsible for THEIR OWN actions, and should be aware that the environment they are in at the station has many potential dangers - I think if people are made properly aware of potential dangers , they are more likely to avoid them....most of it is common sense , we know , and it is not good to provide an overdose of safety information.

However, as much as we all try, we can never make transport systems totally safe, accidents and mishaps are ALWAYS going to occur, and there is only so much that the staff, system designers and architects can do - we all need to think and do the right thing at the appropriate time and not expect fail safes to always be able to rescue us from our own inappropriate actions / in-actions......

I'll go and get the crash helmet.......

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Try telling that to the passengers!

 

[najaB]

The incident in post #2 raises more questions than it answers.

To take your questions in order:
Why were the train doors closed two minutes before departure?
Most train doors will automatically close after a while (e.g. two minutes) in order to save energy. They will re-open if the button is pressed.

Why were some doors open and others closed?
See above - some of the buttons had been pressed and some had not.

Why did the closing doors not re-open when the customer's wrist became trapped?
Because the door design didn't feature sensitive edges, so it as long as it had gone far enough through the closing cycle for the mechanism to reach the closed position as closed, it would register as closed to the train's systems.

Why was the train able to move with a door which wasn't closed?
The fact that the train was able to move meant that as far as the train's systems were concerned the door was closed and locked. In order to move a train which doesn't have interlock the driver would have needed to manually override the safety systems.

 

[jon0844]

I've always thought new trains with foot lighting to aid entry and exit should flash red when the hustle alarm goes, to give some sense of danger and make it very clear not to go through the doors.

And if you have very clear edge stickers, especially made to look sharp, it will also perhaps get some people to think twice.

There's certainly no harm doing it, and who cares if it spoils a livery? We should be factoring it into the design, so you can also include clear (perhaps standard) markings for the accessible doors, where you can board with buggies/bikes, first class etc.

It's public transport. I'd even say we look to use the same markings throughout the EU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's public transport. I'd even say we look to use the same markings throughout the EU.

We could start by putting big 2s near the doors for Standard class. (Yes I know it's technically Third).

The main thing I'm quite interested in on this one (and remain so) is why the guard did not see someone trapped before giving 2 buzzes to depart. The platform was curved, but surely he should have stepped away from the train sufficiently to be able to see that no door was obstructed to the best of his ability. Was the platform perhaps particularly crowded making this difficult? Is some procedural change, such as perhaps dispatching from a middle door, required here?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The main thing I'm quite interested in on this one (and remain so) is why the guard did not see someone trapped before giving 2 buzzes to depart.

He completely balled up the despatch proceedure. It looks like he forgot to key in and pushed the buttons to close the doors. He has gone out, seen the doors shut, closed cab door and given two. Nothing. He has then realised his mistake, keyed in again, pushed shut doors, seen interlock and given two. Bear in mind platform 10 at newcastle the curve is away from the rear so to look along the whole train you have to almost move down to the second carriage to see the front.

In that time this woman has attempted to board, tried to put her hand in the closing door to stop the doors closing and got her hand trapped. Sensetive edge does work, but if the obstruction is small enoughthe edges dont detect. The train has started moving with her still trapped because what the conductor should have done was restarted the despatch proceedure but he didnt and failed to check his train was safe to depart. Not only that but he didnt report the incident until the RAIB approached TPE some 5weeks later. 185's are now banned from platform 10 in service.

Whatever interpretation is publicised doesnt detract from the fact the despatch proceedure was carried out incorrectly and should have been stopped and restarted. That is what we are told to do now. Stop, and reatart from the beginning once safe to do so.

The issue with the cleethorpes conductor is rather different. ASBO Chav should never have been there and clearly there is an issue with yobbo behaviour. While within the training instructions given and laid down proceedures were breached, many people within the railway understand that conductors actions. Indeed by stopping the despatch again you have to ask yourself was he potentially putting himself in a position of danger by having to deal with the surfer? as with all incidents the stories portrayed by the people involved, company official spokespeople, union voice etc will always be different to what actually happened, which only the conductor and the youth involved will know, and will be open to interpretation and debate for some time to come.

What has gotten the backs of staff up is management describing ASBO chav as a vulnerable individual. He wasnt vulnerable, he knew what he was doing! He was clearly a problem because he had an ASBO he was breaching! What action has been taken against him? None! But a rail professional now has no job thanks to that idiot!

 

[DarloRich]

What has gotten the backs of staff up is management describing ASBO chav as a vulnerable individual. He wasnt vulnerable, he knew what he was doing! He was clearly a problem because he had an ASBO he was breaching! What action has been taken against him? None! But a rail professional now has no job thanks to that idiot!

I think the use of the word vulnerable in this context is unhelpful. The person in question was "vulnerable" in that he had put himself into a vulnerable position though his actions.

Most people, i think, see a vulnerable person as someone:

...Who is, or may be, unable to take care of himself/herself, or unable to protect himself/herself against significant harm or exploitation...

Regardless, and I know many people don't like this, there is a still a duty of care owed

EDIT - i am not saying i don't understand the actions taken by the train staff. I would have been tempted to give him a slap so it might be best i don't work with the public anymore!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Most people, i think, see a vulnerable person as someone:

...Who is, or may be, unable to take care of himself/herself, or unable to protect himself/herself against significant harm or exploitation...

I think agreement on that interpretation would be virtually unanimous!

- i am not saying i don't understand the actions taken by the train staff. I would have been tempted to give him a slap so it might be best i don't work with the public anymore!

There are many people across the country, not just in the railway who would do exactly the same, but we dont "have the right!"


Theres too much emphasis on "my rights" and "entitlement" these days, we seemed to have forgotten the "responsibilities" that come with those rights. Would ASBO chav taken responsibility for his actions if he was injured as a result of his actions? Doubt ot, he will be busy claiming compo he was entitled to while bleating on about his right to a peaceful life doing what the frack he wanted with my taxes! It woukd take a brave judge to remind him of this these days!

 

[DarloRich]

I think agreement on that interpretation would be virtually unanimous!

Agreed - and that is why using the term here causes so much confusion and unpleasantness. Yes he (or she) was a vulnerable person but only because he had placed himself into a vulnerable position.

Essentially, he was possessed of sufficient mental capacity to know that what he was doing carried risk rather than being unable to asses the existence of risk (if not the level of risk)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are many people across the country, not just in the railway who would do exactly the same, but we dont "have the right!"

Trust me i know I doubt anyone does anymore!

 

[misterredmist]

Try telling that to the passengers!

Aye , point taken.....

 

[47802]

I agree with most of your post, however I have to disagree with:The sliding door that most people will be familiar with is a lift door, which WILL open again if you put your hand against it. It's not unreasonable for people to think that train doors will do the same. Just today I saw a little girl 'holding' the train door open while her mummy caught up (there was no danger as the train wasn't due to leave for five minutes).

Indeed so, I remember when the 150/1's were newly introduced to the Transpennine route, as I was running for the train the doors started to close so I wedged my large sports bag between the doors to stop it closing, now I expected that like a lift it would detect an obstacle and open again, but to my surprise it just kept on trying to close, so I ended up wrestling with the doors to get the bag out, since then I have always been very wary of powered train doors.