David Sinnett
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 146
Why don't they?
It would add to the health and safety of all travellers.
It would add to the health and safety of all travellers.
-
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!
Should HSE ban standing on public transport?
- Thread starter David Sinnett
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Have you ever been on a tube line at rush hour? Or in fact any commuter public transport at rush hour?
Trains are already less than two minutes apart along, for example, the Northern Line. How are you going to fit four or five times more trains along there?
or for a different example, the buses along "the Bridges" into Edinburgh of a morning are already stacked up close enough that you could jump from one roof to another. Fancy making them quadruple decker to let everyone sit?
I think you've underestimated quite how many people don't sit down on the way too work...
Trains are already less than two minutes apart along, for example, the Northern Line. How are you going to fit four or five times more trains along there?
or for a different example, the buses along "the Bridges" into Edinburgh of a morning are already stacked up close enough that you could jump from one roof to another. Fancy making them quadruple decker to let everyone sit?
I think you've underestimated quite how many people don't sit down on the way too work...
Yes, imagine the staff on the platform of the underground trying to block people from getting on a tube train because it was standing room only. they'd get killed. there would be a riot. a stampede. so such a policy would hardly make things safer.
Look also at the Glasgow commuter network and the subway up here. Subways statnding at 4-minute frequencies, which is as frequent as you can get it ATM, and most commuter trains are standing room only. We're over capacity up here, yet we have a vast number of trains serving these routes. It is exactly the same situation in London, and I would imagine it is in all commuter networks.
From what I've seen, standees on a train aren't at at an exceptionally great risk; I've only heard of a couple of incidients where standees were injured. Most TOCs aim to reduce the number of standees whereer possible, and aim to provide seats on journeys greater than 10 minutes, and FSR in particular seem to do a good job with this pledge, but the health and safety issues are not great enough by any stretch of the imagination to warrent the cost of effectively doubling capacity on the rail network.
From what I've seen, standees on a train aren't at at an exceptionally great risk; I've only heard of a couple of incidients where standees were injured. Most TOCs aim to reduce the number of standees whereer possible, and aim to provide seats on journeys greater than 10 minutes, and FSR in particular seem to do a good job with this pledge, but the health and safety issues are not great enough by any stretch of the imagination to warrent the cost of effectively doubling capacity on the rail network.
Because standing isn’t a health and safety risk. High density mass transit like buses, tube trains, trams, are designed to have a certain amount of standees.
Some practical problems:
Getting everyone to a seat would probably increase dwell times, and journey times. Indeed, I think most of us have stood in tube trains when there are only one or two stops, because it saves pushing to the door on a 30 second stop.
How would you regulate everyone getting a seat, would this mean for example, people in the rush hour being left behind? Would this lead to crowd control problems?
Economics: Ground transport has also had to put up with peak hour traffic, generated from people’s work times: Which means during the peak, all modes are subject to intense congestion. By all means you could provide extra rolling stock for peak hour’s travel only, but this would mean millions of pounds worth of equipment standing idle off peak. There is a balance to be struck as to what is desirable and what is economic. Perhaps another solution is staggering work hours?
Throughput: This is especially true on the tube, where the standing capacity makes the overall throughput greater. It is highly doubtful cities could function if everyone had to have a seat, without massive expenditures on new lines, usually for peak hours only. most tube lines operate at 2 min intervals, soon to be 90 seconds. National rail operate 3/4 mins in places or more where there is multiple lines. With passengers alighting/boarding, this is the theoretical maximum and highest of any mode, modes with separate vehicles reduce the throughput of passengers because of dwell times and relative spacing. But even then, at times demand will exceed capacity and it is handy to have standing space to avoid people being left behind.
Some practical problems:
Getting everyone to a seat would probably increase dwell times, and journey times. Indeed, I think most of us have stood in tube trains when there are only one or two stops, because it saves pushing to the door on a 30 second stop.
How would you regulate everyone getting a seat, would this mean for example, people in the rush hour being left behind? Would this lead to crowd control problems?
Economics: Ground transport has also had to put up with peak hour traffic, generated from people’s work times: Which means during the peak, all modes are subject to intense congestion. By all means you could provide extra rolling stock for peak hour’s travel only, but this would mean millions of pounds worth of equipment standing idle off peak. There is a balance to be struck as to what is desirable and what is economic. Perhaps another solution is staggering work hours?
Throughput: This is especially true on the tube, where the standing capacity makes the overall throughput greater. It is highly doubtful cities could function if everyone had to have a seat, without massive expenditures on new lines, usually for peak hours only. most tube lines operate at 2 min intervals, soon to be 90 seconds. National rail operate 3/4 mins in places or more where there is multiple lines. With passengers alighting/boarding, this is the theoretical maximum and highest of any mode, modes with separate vehicles reduce the throughput of passengers because of dwell times and relative spacing. But even then, at times demand will exceed capacity and it is handy to have standing space to avoid people being left behind.
Last edited:
Bob1964
New Member
Well i have a design for a double decker that will fit into the tightest gauge we have in the uk (C1) and guess what, nobody is the slightest bit interested!!!!
I suppose from a passenger point of view it is pretty annoying to see train companies like 1st great western profits soar and the government sitting on their hands.
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...tentPK=20621286&folderPk=75885&pNodeId=259338
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...tentPK=20621286&folderPk=75885&pNodeId=259338
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
Its not just a question of capacity on the line, every station the guard would have to lock the doors, walk down the train, check that no-one is left standing and kick off those who are, which could take a while on HSTs and the like, and then you will all be saying "why can't we just stand here? there's plenty of room!"
Next you will be telling us that walking to the buffet is a hazard and we should have highly trained, specially padded gymnasts serving food and drinks.
Its just not plausable.
Next you will be telling us that walking to the buffet is a hazard and we should have highly trained, specially padded gymnasts serving food and drinks.
Its just not plausable.
Seatbelts in trains would not reduce injuries: RSSB Press Release Technical Report
O L Leigh
Established Member
The only way to eliminate standing would be to have an airline style booking and seat allocation system for every single public transport journey, and that just isn't practical. Costs would soar along with journey times, and you'd be slashing capacity to a fraction of it's current level.
While there probably is an H&S angle to standing on public transport, I don't believe crashworthiness is the main priority. Trains these days don't tend to bump into things very often and when they do it tends to be at very low speeds (i.e. bufferstop collisions), so I'm not entirely sold on this problem. (There is a linked issue here that gets me going, but this isn't the time.) The issue for the industry is how you stop people boarding a service that is already full and standing. These things really ought to be self-policing but, as I've said before, punters don't look beyond their own priorities and will jam themselves into the tiniest gap while moaning about the "bleedin' awful railway". Providing extra capacity by lengthening trains and platforms or increasing the frequency of trains would help, but these "solutions" bring their own problems.
I'm interested in the idea of the C1 gauge double-decker, but I do have a few questions. How does the projected "crush" capacity compare with that of a comparable single-deck vehicle (e.g. a Cl455 trailer)? Could the reason for the lack of interest be that the additional number of seats available is negated by reducing the space for standees? Is the design DDA compliant? Given the current trend towards MU stock, how would you package the various train systems such as traction equipment, air reservoirs and A/C, and what impact would that have on the available capacity?
**EDIT**
Now the seatbelts issue has been raised, perhaps now is the time to get all hot and bothered.
What annoys me about the various railway crashworthiness nay-sayers is that they produce simulations that do not accurately replicate a rail incident. While this is broadly an incredibly difficult task anyway, the assumption that they all seem to use is that the train would come to a sudden and abrupt stop just as a road vehicle would. This just isn't the case because rail vehicles are much heavier and carry far more kinetic energy than a car which dissipates over a much longer period of time meaning that, from this perspective at least, a rail crash should be more survivable than a road crash. Of course people can get bounced around inside, colliding with the fixtures and each other, but the benefits of restraining them with seatbelts would be negligible. Plus you'd be back to the situation of needing airline-style booking and seat allocation systems to ensure that you were only carrying the number of passengers you could restrain.
The other aspect that is so often ignored is just how rare it is for someone to die in a rail incident. In terms of deaths per passenger mile, the railway is second only to air travel and a country mile ahead of road.
O L Leigh
While there probably is an H&S angle to standing on public transport, I don't believe crashworthiness is the main priority. Trains these days don't tend to bump into things very often and when they do it tends to be at very low speeds (i.e. bufferstop collisions), so I'm not entirely sold on this problem. (There is a linked issue here that gets me going, but this isn't the time.) The issue for the industry is how you stop people boarding a service that is already full and standing. These things really ought to be self-policing but, as I've said before, punters don't look beyond their own priorities and will jam themselves into the tiniest gap while moaning about the "bleedin' awful railway". Providing extra capacity by lengthening trains and platforms or increasing the frequency of trains would help, but these "solutions" bring their own problems.
I'm interested in the idea of the C1 gauge double-decker, but I do have a few questions. How does the projected "crush" capacity compare with that of a comparable single-deck vehicle (e.g. a Cl455 trailer)? Could the reason for the lack of interest be that the additional number of seats available is negated by reducing the space for standees? Is the design DDA compliant? Given the current trend towards MU stock, how would you package the various train systems such as traction equipment, air reservoirs and A/C, and what impact would that have on the available capacity?
**EDIT**
Now the seatbelts issue has been raised, perhaps now is the time to get all hot and bothered.
What annoys me about the various railway crashworthiness nay-sayers is that they produce simulations that do not accurately replicate a rail incident. While this is broadly an incredibly difficult task anyway, the assumption that they all seem to use is that the train would come to a sudden and abrupt stop just as a road vehicle would. This just isn't the case because rail vehicles are much heavier and carry far more kinetic energy than a car which dissipates over a much longer period of time meaning that, from this perspective at least, a rail crash should be more survivable than a road crash. Of course people can get bounced around inside, colliding with the fixtures and each other, but the benefits of restraining them with seatbelts would be negligible. Plus you'd be back to the situation of needing airline-style booking and seat allocation systems to ensure that you were only carrying the number of passengers you could restrain.
The other aspect that is so often ignored is just how rare it is for someone to die in a rail incident. In terms of deaths per passenger mile, the railway is second only to air travel and a country mile ahead of road.
O L Leigh
Last edited:
You would think the EU, in the name of interoperability, would pay for Bern gauge. Or perhaps only Spain qualify to have their gauge changed to standard on the same premise? It's a pity the railway industry/government can't make the case.
If they did it would cost the economy millions for people late for work, more cars on the road (more tax for Gordon). As for seat belts on trains, this could cause more deaths due to restraint on evacuation. Nobody wants to stand but if it means catching the train, bus tram or whatever given the choice folks will stand as you don't see many passengers waiting for the next service. As for H & S you are correct it would make a safer environment so would taking evey car and lorry off the road as there are many more fatalities/injuries on the roads than on public transport
It's much, much easier and cheaper to alter track guage than loading gauge. Think of all the historic tunnels and bridges in the Uk that would require alterations, all the platforms needing moved- whilst it would be wonderful, it's unlikely to happen.
And hell, why stop at Bern, go for the same loading guage as the Channel Tunnel...
delt1c
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,182
As a season ticket holder I dread to think of the increased cost if standing were to be banned, you would need 3 times as many trains to transport the same number of passengers, added to that how would you enforce it on trains, as it is common to see standing by the doors even though seats are available.
Somehow think it is a big negative, after all with the exception of folding bikes, cycles are banned from trains arriving at Liverpool St before 09.30 yet this is completely ignored and not enforced.
Next if standing were banned how would people get to the Buffet on Intercity services? And if they did get there and there was a Q would they have to return to their seats until the Q was gone.
Double deckers have been tried within the UK loading gauge , but the increased loading and unloading negated the advantges.
Somehow think it is a big negative, after all with the exception of folding bikes, cycles are banned from trains arriving at Liverpool St before 09.30 yet this is completely ignored and not enforced.
Next if standing were banned how would people get to the Buffet on Intercity services? And if they did get there and there was a Q would they have to return to their seats until the Q was gone.
Double deckers have been tried within the UK loading gauge , but the increased loading and unloading negated the advantges.
I think it depends on the journeys in question as to whether it's practical - i.e there's no way you could enforce it on the tube. Even on a Saturday or Sunday trains going through the central area can be standing room only. Though if it's a journey of 10 minutes it isn't an issue.
With long distance i.e. former Inter City services, you probably *could* justify a 'reservations only' approach. After all, for a domestic flight standing isn't allowed, nor is it on long-distance coach journeys, however I suspect the ensuing uproar about denying flexibility to the 'turn up and go' traveller will mean this can't work, conveniently forgetting the 'turn up and go' traveller can be turned away from an airplane or coach.
Most people I know see the train as the most flexible option, hence why they never buy AP train fares. They refuse to accept that their argument falls apart when you consider that places are 100% reservations.
Not everyone makes train reservations, and those who do rarely keep them. I remember travelling to Dundee on a FSR turbo; only 4 reservations and I was the only person in any of the 4 seats! An dthe rest of the train was pretty empty as well.
The train's always been flexible, and I think removing that option whould not be appreciated even on long distance services. Whilst I applaud the increasing availablity of AP tickets, I feel that open tickets should still be equally valid. and the last minute traveller should not lose what is currently their best option.
Not everyone makes train reservations, and those who do rarely keep them. I remember travelling to Dundee on a FSR turbo; only 4 reservations and I was the only person in any of the 4 seats! An dthe rest of the train was pretty empty as well.
The train's always been flexible, and I think removing that option whould not be appreciated even on long distance services. Whilst I applaud the increasing availablity of AP tickets, I feel that open tickets should still be equally valid. and the last minute traveller should not lose what is currently their best option.
Kneedown
Established Member
If you cram a train fulll of standees, the danger is decreased due to lack of room to fall over as well.......
But increased due to the possibility of crushing and suffocation.
I once went from Bristol to Edinburgh on Virgin XC. I had a reserved seat, and the seat next to me was reserved over different parts of the journey by 5 different people.
Not one of them took the seat.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Its interesting to note that the French TGV network has officially complied with a "reservations only" policy, which effectively becomes a seated-passengers-only policy. Whilst the rest of the network from Intercity to local commuter systems such as the Paris RER & underground Metro have been a crammed free-for-all (worse than London I'd say). It seems to have worked well - and you can't accuse the French of ever remaining silent in the face of laws they don't like!
But no thanks. We haven't the capacity for a seated-only policy in the UK - in fact we need policies which increase the capacity, don't we?
But no thanks. We haven't the capacity for a seated-only policy in the UK - in fact we need policies which increase the capacity, don't we?
But out of the Gare de Lyon, if the trains were spread evenly, there would be a TGV less than every four minutes. That's not to mention all the other intercity, regional and RER services. And peak services on the Paris-Lyon route commonly run as two Duplex units together- that's over 1000 seats.
33056
Established Member
Making trains (or any public transport for that matter) seating only will never work. Further to the above points, what would happen if a train was cancelled and the next one full? How long would the passengers off a fully-booked cancelled train have to wait before they could be accommodated on other services?
Regarding the French TGV, the ones I went on last month had tip-up seats in the vestibules - why if they are meant to be reservation only?
Regarding the French TGV, the ones I went on last month had tip-up seats in the vestibules - why if they are meant to be reservation only?
Snapper
Established Member
How is banning standing on a safe mode of transport (rail), thus making people travel by a less safe mode (road) - good H&S policy?
O L Leigh
Established Member
Thanks Paul. Very succinctly put.
I had a quick leaf through the latest edition of Railstaff News while at the Airport yesterday evening and found a brief report on the RAIB's finding for 2007. The number of passenger deaths in rail incidents during 2007 stands at one (Grayrigg), up from none the previous year. If I recall correctly, there were about half a dozen passenger deaths caused by people falling under trains and about the same number of railstaff killed, while the greatest number of deaths were as a result of trespass and suicide.
I'll try and take a copy away with me when I'm up there later today so that I can quote the figures more accurately.
O L Leigh
I had a quick leaf through the latest edition of Railstaff News while at the Airport yesterday evening and found a brief report on the RAIB's finding for 2007. The number of passenger deaths in rail incidents during 2007 stands at one (Grayrigg), up from none the previous year. If I recall correctly, there were about half a dozen passenger deaths caused by people falling under trains and about the same number of railstaff killed, while the greatest number of deaths were as a result of trespass and suicide.
I'll try and take a copy away with me when I'm up there later today so that I can quote the figures more accurately.
O L Leigh
- Status