• 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!

Commuter dragged after hand stuck in door

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I don't know. Though stupid what she did, it could be argued she didn't actually interfere with the doors. The doors closed as normal, and the train departed as normal (albeit for 20 metres or so).

Is there a specific offence for boarding while the doors are closing?

Railway Byelaw 10. Trains

(5) In the case of automatic closing doors, no person shall enter or leave by the door when it is closing.

Railway Byelaw 11. General safety

(1) No person shall move, operate, obstruct, stop or in any other way interfere with any automatic closing door, train, or any other equipment on the railway except:

(i) in an emergency, by means of any equipment on or near which there is a notice indicating that it is intended to be used in an emergency;

or

(ii) any equipment intended for the use of passengers in that way in normal operating circumstances.

Think that answers your question GB.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,913
Location
0036
Ok - this was all the railways fault.

Next we will be seeing people sue bars for letting them get drunk when they injure / kill themselves as a result..

Bad example. It's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who's drunk.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I thank you :)

You're more then welcome, :D

Bad example. It's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who's drunk.

Indeed, having successfully been on a SIA course recently I believe staff at such a venue can either refuse entry to someone who they believe to be drunk anyway and where Island's example comes into play the staff can then remove the drunk from the premises as the drunk is trespassing once asked to leave and they refuse to do so.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,608
Yes she was a total idiot, but it is very worrying that:
1 - her fingers stopped the door from totally closing yet the systems did not notice it.
2 - the driver ignored the alarm.
 

sbt

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2011
Messages
268
Yes she was a total idiot, but it is very worrying that:
1 - her fingers stopped the door from totally closing yet the systems did not notice it.
2 - the driver ignored the alarm.

Quite.

The fact that an idiot created a situation which led to some weaknesses in the safety system being found does not make them any less of a weakness. The system (including rules etc.) that displayed the weaknesses is for the protection of all, not just idiots.

Rick
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,609
Location
In the cab with the paper
It is noted in the report that the driver operated the PCA override 3.5 seconds after the PCA was operated by the passenger. That's barely time to ask the passenger why they've operated the PCA, let alone get the answer to that question. It's highly unlikely the driver's question was so short and the reassuring reply from the passenger equally short for this hypothetical conversation to be concluded and acted upon in 3.5 seconds.

The activation of the PCA override is simply to prevent the train brakes applying automatically, allowing the driver to decide where best to bring the train to a stand. It is not indicative of the length of any conversation over the intercom.

O L Leigh
 

tannedfrog

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
537
Does the report mention the exact time the train departed? As a regular commuter, she probably expected the doors not to close until a certain number of seconds before the start of the minute.

Unfortunately on the tube many people successfully hold doors open without injury and this lady may have expected the same on this train
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
410
Location
Derbyshire
Yes she was a total idiot, but it is very worrying that:
1 - her fingers stopped the door from totally closing yet the systems did not notice it.
2 - the driver ignored the alarm.

Neither of your statements is correct.

The door leaves were fully shut and latched and interlock had been made. Her fingers were trapped because the leading edge rubber door seals have enough "give" in them to deform around fingers and let the doors fully close.

The drive did not ignore the alarm. The Pass comm was activated. The driver over rode the automatic emergency brake application (entirely normal and appropriate for any PCA activation) and spoke to whoever activated the PCA. The driver made the decision - based on his training and his judgement and the information that he was in possession of at that time - that stopping across the neck of KX was not appropriate and that it would be better to carry on to the next station.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Neither of your statements is correct.

The door leaves were fully shut and latched and interlock had been made. Her fingers were trapped because the leading edge rubber door seals have enough "give" in them to deform around fingers and let the doors fully close.

The drive did not ignore the alarm. The Pass comm was activated. The driver over rode the automatic emergency brake application (entirely normal and appropriate for any PCA activation) and spoke to whoever activated the PCA. The driver made the decision - based on his training and his judgement and the information that he was in possession of at that time - that stopping across the neck of KX was not appropriate and that it would be better to carry on to the next station.

Good post and I would add to that that I would most probably have done exactly the same in those circumstances.

Until this incident I would have thought that anyone trapped in the doors like that would prevent interlock so if I had a pc activation and still had interlock then person trapped in doors would be the last thing I would expect.

Also, the way some TOCs go about their business (especially first group) stopping on the point work outside kings cross blocking all the other platforms in the rush hour and racking up all those delay minutes for other TOCs and trains only to find out the pc was pulled by someone thinking it was the toilet flush or whatever really wouldn't go down well with management and would most likely end with you being told next time to find a more suitable location to stop by using the override...

Often in the rush hour on some platforms you cannot see the entire length of the train due to the volume of passengers on the platform. Sometimes I just sit there waiting 2 or 3 minutes for people to exit the station so I can see the doors are clear at the back. Other times it is impossible as you have people waiting for other trains and they insist on standing right at the edge blocking your view. This is generally on curved mirror or look back platforms on a left hand curve, left hand platform. In these circumstances you have to use experience and guess work to close the doors then again a mix of experience, observing passengers behaviour and the interlock light to decide if it is clear to go. It's the only way sometimes.
 

Matt Taylor

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2008
Messages
2,362
Location
Portsmouth
that last sentence is critical, Clapham Junction platform 10 is precisely the situation you have described and even with two despatchers plus a guard in the middle of the train it is hard to judge if it's clear, the yellow line is there for a reason and if only people would stand behind it the despatch procedure would not only be safer but it would also be quicker. Commuters complain about delays but they are their own worst enemy with the way they behave in groups.
 

pendolino

Member
Joined
22 Nov 2010
Messages
737
The driver made the decision - based on his training and his judgement and the information that he was in possession of at that time - that stopping across the neck of KX was not appropriate and that it would be better to carry on to the next station.

I can't tell if you're suggesting that this was a correct course of action (or just re-iterating what actually happened), but he should have stopped if any of the part of the train was still in the platform - them's the rules.

But given that this was a driver with only 3 months experience, I'm not surprised things weren't done perfectly. When that alarm goes off, you have a split second to make a decision, frantically trying to evaluate the situation and remember the correct course of action - no amount of training prepares you for when things like this happen for real, especially for the first time. With hindsight his actions could have been different, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and for every driver, every incident like this is all part of the learning curve. I don't blame the driver for his actions at all, but I can guarantee that next time, he will be far more prepared to deal with it, having experienced it for real.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Other times it is impossible as you have people waiting for other trains and they insist on standing right at the edge blocking your view. This is generally on curved mirror or look back platforms on a left hand curve, left hand platform. In these circumstances you have to use experience and guess work to close the doors then again a mix of experience, observing passengers behaviour and the interlock light to decide if it is clear to go. It's the only way sometimes.

No you don't. And no, it's not the only way, here's another:

You contact the signaller informing him/her there will be a delay, you make a PA announcement to the same effect, you shut down the cab, walk back to an intermediate cab from which you can see the doors to be clear, asking passengers to step back from the platform edge if necessary, put your BR1 on, then shut the doors, and only once you are certain that all doors are closed, BIL lights are out and no-one is trapped in a closed door, then you go back to the lead cab, set it up and continue.

If you doubt this is the correct procedure, then speak to any CDM, as I have on several occasions about this exact situation at Streatham Common on the up slow in the morning peak.

The other option (as with the procedure for 455s turning back at Battersea Park on South Londons where there are no monitors at the country end of the up platform and you can't see the rear two coaches) is to walk back, checking doors are clear and use the local door close buttons. Much the same thing really.

Yes, it causes a delay, but so be it.
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
410
Location
Derbyshire
I can't tell if you're suggesting that this was a correct course of action (or just re-iterating what actually happened), but he should have stopped if any of the part of the train was still in the platform - them's the rules.

My post was in direct response to the suggestion that the driver had "ignored" the Pass Comm Alarm and I wasn't offering an opinion on the course of action taken.

However, I agree that the Rule Book is crystal clear. If the PCA is activated whilst any part of a train is in the station then the train must stop. This takes precedence over establishing the reason the PCA activation.
 

pendolino

Member
Joined
22 Nov 2010
Messages
737
My post was in direct response to the suggestion that the driver had "ignored" the Pass Comm Alarm and I wasn't offering an opinion on the course of action taken.

However, I agree that the Rule Book is crystal clear. If the PCA is activated whilst any part of a train is in the station then the train must stop. This takes precedence over establishing the reason the PCA activation.

Thank you for clearing that up.
 

EWS 58038

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
356
Location
Almere (Greater Amsterdam)
Another arguement for having a guard on each train, if mcNulty is implemented there may not even be dispatch staff...
What a nonsense. Clearly you heard something and don't know where the truth is and what the report is all about. It has nothing to do with railway staff but all on the Rolling stock and infrastructure aspects.
Perhaps you might want to read 'Modern Railways" more often to understand a bit more of the "real" railway instead of the "rail enthusiast" railway.

But in a country that is terrorised by Hell n Safety regulations I find it very odd that DOO is allowed, especially in big commuting area's.
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,754
Location
Essex
What a nonsense. Clearly you heard something and don't know where the truth is and what the report is all about. It has nothing to do with railway staff but all on the Rolling stock and infrastructure aspects.
Perhaps you might want to read 'Modern Railways" more often to understand a bit more of the "real" railway instead of the "rail enthusiast" railway.

But in a country that is terrorised by Hell n Safety regulations I find it very odd that DOO is allowed, especially in big commuting area's.

:lol::lol::lol:
You'll regret you said that...
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
410
Location
Derbyshire
But in a country that is terrorised by Hell n Safety regulations I find it very odd that DOO is allowed, especially in big commuting area's.

Why?

There are millions, literally millions, of DOO despatches every year featuring units with doors identical or similar to the iFE doors on the cl365's without incident.

The RSSB recognise the inherent safety of DOO operation/despatch as they don't have a specific Hazard Model within the Safety case suite for the scenario of getting trapped in powered doors and dragged.

If staff had followed procedures that adhered to the Rule Book then this incident wouldn't have happened.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
If staff had followed procedures that adhered to the Rule Book then this incident wouldn't have happened.

Perhaps but in the real world things arnt done 100% by the book in any industry. A certain amount of experience takes over. As the report says happened here the dispatcher relied on experience and pasenger behaviour which we all do. It's too easy to blame the staff but this was just an unfortunate incident, much the same as many others. Hatfield, potters bar, greyrigg etc could also have been prevented if things were done properly before hand. As could many incidents in other industries. Hanging the staff out to dry is too easy and does nothing to help in the future.

Things like this happen, they always have done and always will do. The interface between train and passengers is incredibly dangerous. There are very few incidents like this. No system can ever be 100% safe.
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
410
Location
Derbyshire
Perhaps but in the real world things arnt done 100% by the book in any industry. A certain amount of experience takes over. As the report says happened here the dispatcher relied on experience and pasenger behaviour which we all do. It's too easy to blame the staff but this was just an unfortunate incident, much the same as many others. Hatfield, potters bar, greyrigg etc could also have been prevented if things were done properly before hand. As could many incidents in other industries. Hanging the staff out to dry is too easy and does nothing to help in the future.

Things like this happen, they always have done and always will do. The interface between train and passengers is incredibly dangerous. There are very few incidents like this. No system can ever be 100% safe.

The train was despatched with a passenger trapped in the doors.

This is the fault of the dispatcher. Saying that passengers blocked the dispatchers view of the side of the train is not an excuse. It obviously isn't the first time that the dispatcher's view of the train has been blocked by passengers on the platform. Has this been raised as an issue to management by despatch staff before the incident?

If the dispatcher did not understand the importance of ensuring that the train was fit to be despatched it is the fault of the dispatcher's employer. The fact that dispatcher did not fully understand the CD/RA panel operation is also the fault of the dispatcher's employer.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Why did the dispatcher not understand the cd/RA? Didn't say that did it?

The problems will have certainly been raised numerous times-one particular TOC was constantly made aware by drivers that coaches 7 and 8 do not fit in the mirror on the up slow at Wandsworth common and that you can't see the back few coaches on look back in the down slow at new cross gate etc but nothing is done about it as it costs too much money. Compensation every few years is cheaper than solving the issues completely.

As pendolino says you have similar problems at streatham common but once again installing cameras will cost too much.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
.... Hanging the staff out to dry is too easy and does nothing to help in the future. ......
In any industry, if a staff member has caused a serious incident by ignoring the rules, or implementing them incorrectly, then it is absolutely right and standard practice for them to be disciplined appropriately, possibly with dismissal. And that is never an "easy" option for anyone concerned. Not to do so could have serious consequences in the future, as the effect of the rules becomes eroded.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
But no staff member has deliberately ignored the rules. Both concerned were working in the way the thought best at the time.
 

millemille

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2011
Messages
410
Location
Derbyshire
Why did the dispatcher not understand the cd/RA? Didn't say that did it?

"The dispatcher believed that he had to remain at the dispatch point after he first operated the CD control. This was because the driver’s CD indicator is extinguished when the dispatcher releases the CD switch at the dispatch point and, from past experience, the dispatcher believed that, if he released the CD button without immediately operating the RA control, the train driver might take this as a signal to reopen the train doors."

The bold highlights I've added. "Believed" and "might" clearly show that the dispatcher did not fully understand the operation of the CD/RA panel and safe train despatch.
 

GadgetMan

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2012
Messages
981
In any industry, if a staff member has caused a serious incident by ignoring the rules, or implementing them incorrectly, then it is absolutely right and standard practice for them to be disciplined appropriately, possibly with dismissal. And that is never an "easy" option for anyone concerned. Not to do so could have serious consequences in the future, as the effect of the rules becomes eroded.

As I mentioned previously, if we did everything by the book, the railway would grind to a halt as station dwell time would increase massively. Add to that the extra delay caused every time a guard sees a passenger approach a train and press the open button after the train has started moving. Ofcourse the train should be brought to a stand incase this passengers clothing gets caught on the train or they fall between the train and platform.

Unfortunately a significant proportion of the travelling public fail to look out for their own safety, and occasionally incidents like this take place and they will continue to do so.

Have you ever tried asking people to move away from a train or the platform edge? You'll find they will reluctantly shuffle back as a token gesture, and as soon as you've moved on to the next set of passengers asking them to move back, the first lot will have shifted forward again. A train on a busy platform will never get dispatched in this situation unless you have an unlimited number of staff to stand and carry out the job of the yellow painted line.
 

ian13

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2008
Messages
166
But no staff member has deliberately ignored the rules. Both concerned were working in the way the thought best at the time.

The Rule Book sets the official rules for how they should perform their roles. Ignorance is not an excuse, and I would be very surprised if the Rule Book had not been made available to these employees during training.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I didn't say they were ignorant to the rules. Looking at the driver specifically for example, he should stop if any part of the train is still in the platform. How many coach lengths out of the platform is gasworks tunnel? Where he was when the pc was pulled how obvious would it be if the back is in or out the platforms? It's incredibly difficult to judge from the front of a train and he couldn't have looked out the window as the curve goes the wrong way for him to see. Plus the incident was on the other side to him. You don't learn exactly how far out a platform you are as part of route knowledge, you learn approximately when the back of a train is over a raise in speed limit but that is normally an approximation. So very easy to assume you are clear of a platform when you are not or vice versa. Plus as I said earlier, if you have interlock then the last thing you would suspect the pass comm to be for would be someone trapped in the doors as the interlock circuit is designed to protect against that.

If he believed that the back was clear of the platform, and being that nothing is placed at stations to aide drivers to this, then he was In the right to keep going as this is what the rule book states you should do, continue to a suitable location and no location is more suitable for a pass comm operation than a station.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
I didn't say they were ignorant to the rules. Looking at the driver specifically for example, he should stop if any part of the train is still in the platform. How many coach lengths out of the platform is gasworks tunnel? Where he was when the pc was pulled how obvious would it be if the back is in or out the platforms? It's incredibly difficult to judge from the front of a train and he couldn't have looked out the window as the curve goes the wrong way for him to see. Plus the incident was on the other side to him. You don't learn exactly how far out a platform you are as part of route knowledge, you learn approximately when the back of a train is over a raise in speed limit but that is normally an approximation. So very easy to assume you are clear of a platform when you are not or vice versa. Plus as I said earlier, if you have interlock then the last thing you would suspect the pass comm to be for would be someone trapped in the doors as the interlock circuit is designed to protect against that.

If he believed that the back was clear of the platform, and being that nothing is placed at stations to aide drivers to this, then he was In the right to keep going as this is what the rule book states you should do, continue to a suitable location and no location is more suitable for a pass comm operation than a station.

Why not read the report and these questions will be answered?

41 A passenger near the incident door pulled the PCA about 9 seconds after the train had started moving, when it had travelled about 17 metres. The driver operated an override control 3.5 seconds later and this prevented the PCA causing an emergency brake application. The train continued for about four minutes, until it reached the next station.
42 The driver’s decision to override the PCA had no effect on this incident because passenger A’s fingers were released from the doors shortly before he operated the PCA override. However, overriding the PCA could have resulted in passenger A sustaining more serious injuries if she had remained trapped in the doors, as occurred at Huntingdon (paragraph 34).
43 Override controls are fitted to some trains so that, in appropriate circumstances, the driver can prevent the train stopping at an unsuitable location, such as in a tunnel where it will be difficult to provide assistance to passengers.
44 The railway Rule Book8, and the FCC training notes given to the incident driver during his training9, both instruct drivers that:
l if the PCA is operated, you must, if possible, avoid stopping the train in a place where it might be difficult to deal with the emergency; and
l you must stop the train immediately if the PCA is operated as the train is leaving the station.
45 The Rule Book makes clear that, if a train is leaving a station, the requirement
to stop the train takes precedence over any consideration of unsuitable places
to stop. The training material does not explain this and the incident driver, who had completed his training three months before the incident, believed that he was required to make a rapid judgement call. He had no indication inside his cab of where in the train the PCA had been operated. He decided to continue to Finsbury Park station; this was not a scheduled stopping place for this train, but was the first location at which assistance could be provided relatively easily. He made a general announcement to the passengers, saying that he was aware that the PCA had been operated and that the train would continue to the next station.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top