Commuter Sues TfL Over "Rammed Platforms"

[Bletchleyite]

Then use the shoulder height ones now prevalent in Paris

Don't even need to be that high, the height of a pedestrian bridge parapet (i.e. about 1.2m high) does the job fine.

 

[uglymonkey]

But how many people fall off a underground station per year? And providing platform edge doors to prevent this at what cost? What would be judged "reasonable" to prevent the % of people falling off cost per year?

 

[Mojo]

But how many people fall off a underground station per year? And providing platform edge doors to prevent this at what cost? What would be judged "reasonable" to prevent the % of people falling off cost per year?

You've hit the nail on the head pretty much. If there was sufficient justification for platform edge doors at every station, they would have already been installed by now, especially at the brand new stations that have opened in recent years.

 

[miklcct]

I do hope that TfL lose this court case. It means that the Underground is inherently unsafe and TfL will have to fix it by installing platform screen doors at least in the busiest stations.

Oxford circus is a cross-platform interchange station. If the line on one side of the island can't drain passengers in time, passengers will eventually pile from the other side and push people on the track as normal crowd-control measures such as blocking fare gates don't work there, unless the other line is also stopped as well.

You've hit the nail on the head pretty much. If there was sufficient justification for platform edge doors at every station, they would have already been installed by now, especially at the brand new stations that have opened in recent years.

The new stations in the busiest zone 1 already have platform screen doors installed, such as Waterloo and London Bridge.

 

[mrmartin]

Might be justification though for them at very busy stations though, which would be way cheaper than every station, especially the half height ones discussed.

I think this is likely to have greatly lessened tho with the reduction in crush loading after covid though.

 

[DanNCL]

If the platform was allowed to get overcrowded and forced him over the yellow line, that would be a failure of TfL to manage the station appropriately. 1 person cannot hold back a crowd as it piles in behind you.

Indeed, but that could be determined from CCTV footage. If he was the wrong side of the yellow line and hadn’t been bumped over it by other people he likely won’t have a claim as it would be his own fault.

He’s relying on the judge determining that TFL allowed an unsafe number of people on the platform at the same time. That’s his only realistic chance of winning his case. Even then I’m not sure he’d win anything. TFL might be fined but I’d be surprised if he got any of the money, as his injuries, whilst severe, aren’t permanently life changing and he’s fully recovered from them.

 

[zwk500]

He’s relying on the judge determining that TFL allowed an unsafe number of people on the platform at the same time. That’s his only realistic chance of winning his case.

As I said, he's relying on TfL deciding to settle before the matter comes to court.

Even then I’m not sure he’d win anything. TFL might be fined but I’d be surprised if he got any of the money, as his injuries, whilst severe, aren’t permanently life changing and he’s fully recovered from them.

Can that happen in a Civil damages claim? AIUI either TfL are liable for his injuries or not - any wider points about station management do not form part of the case unless they specifically relate to this incident. Unless this claim is part of a wider case, which it doesn't appear to be. The article isn't clear but this doesn't appear to be a private prosecution.

 

[stuu]

Indeed, it would need to be the HSE/CPS prosecuting TfL for any fine to be levied. This appears to be a private civil case. The worst outcome for TfL is the precedent, but as previously pointed out, it doesn't happen often

 

[DanNCL]

Can that happen in a Civil damages claim? AIUI either TfL are liable for his injuries or not - any wider points about station management do not form part of the case unless they specifically relate to this incident. Unless this claim is part of a wider case, which it doesn't appear to be. The article isn't clear but this doesn't appear to be a private prosecution.

Indeed, it would need to be the HSE/CPS prosecuting TfL for any fine to be levied. This appears to be a private civil case. The worst outcome for TfL is the precedent, but as previously pointed out, it doesn't happen often

If this civil case was successful, the CPS would likely then have what they needed to bring their own case against TFL.

 

[zwk500]

If this civil case was successful, the CPS would likely then have what they needed to bring their own case against TFL.

But would have to bring their own case to fine TfL. And the fact that the civil case has been filed suggests that neither the CPS or HSE are showing much interest in prosecuting this case.

 

[mrmartin]

But would have to bring their own case to fine TfL. And the fact that the civil case has been filed suggests that neither the CPS or HSE are showing much interest in prosecuting this case.

I don't think you can infer that at all. CPS is completely swamped especially after covid. I don't think you can take that as lack of interest.

 

[Darandio]

as his injuries, whilst severe, aren’t permanently life changing and he’s fully recovered from them.

Aren't they? Has he? Because I cannot see anything in that article to suggest such a thing. Unless it's somewhere else?

 

[Hadders]

I do hope that TfL lose this court case. It means that the Underground is inherently unsafe and TfL will have to fix it by installing platform screen doors at least in the busiest stations.

Is it possible to install platform edge doors at stations like Waterloo or Embankment on the Bakerloo Line given the platform curve?
If TfL loses and platform doors have to be installed who is going to pay. Expect fares to increase to pay for ti.

Oxford circus is a cross-platform interchange station. If the line on one side of the island can't drain passengers in time, passengers will eventually pile from the other side and push people on the track as normal crowd-control measures such as blocking fare gates don't work there, unless the other line is also stopped as well.

Oxford Circus is not cross platform as you describe. There is level access via a short connecting corridor between the Victoria and Bakerloo Lines.

The new stations in the busiest zone 1 already have platform screen doors installed, such as Waterloo and London Bridge.

Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms are the newest stations in Zone 1 but they don't have platform edge doors.
The only stations on London Underground with platform edge doors are the deep level stations on the Jubilee Line Extension.

 

[zwk500]

I do hope that TfL lose this court case. It means that the Underground is inherently unsafe and TfL will have to fix it by installing platform screen doors at least in the busiest stations.

One court case does not a pattern prove.

The new stations in the busiest zone 1 already have platform screen doors installed, such as Waterloo and London Bridge.

Only the Jubilee Line extension. As mentioned, no others have been fitted (not even Jubilee line stations, where the excuse of incompatible stock doesn't apply).

Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms are the newest stations in Zone 1 but they don't have platform edge doors.

Although IIRC they were designed to accept PEDs at a later date?

 

[PupCuff]

I think it's important to note that hundreds, probably thousands of claims are launched against rail/metro companies each year. This one is perhaps higher profile than most others but the majority will either be dropped at an early stage or settled prior to court action.

I've done claims handling in the rail industry, its important to be fair to those who have had a bad experience or indeed have a reasonable case for claim and these are typically settled quickly through industry arrangements. Many others have a tenuous case at best and will gain a polite "sorry this was not the response you were hoping for" or a couple of free tickets if they've not been unreasonable.

If TfL lose it won't be an admission that anything is inherently unsafe, won't lead to any fines, and won't lead to widespread adoption of platform edge doors. It'll just be a suitable sum paid out to the claimant and that will be that. If they're not trying to settle then this suggests they feel they have a reasonable probability of either defending the claim or reducing the sum claimed.

 

[Wolfie]

Don't agree about the PED "failure" (as people have pointed out it would be incredibly expensive to fit them everywhere), but I do think he has a genuine case if it turns out TfL did mismanage the overcrowding situation (not saying they did).

These lawsuits are can be a good thing in 3 ways:

1) the person who was badly hurt gets some compensation for lost earnings, potential medical bills, etc

2) it gives a financial incentive to fix problems which are deadly

3) and perhaps most importantly, a lot of internal documents will come out in discovery in the case. There may be emails etc internally showing that TfL were systematically aware of the danger but didn't do anything about it for various reasons. This can lead to significantly enhanced processes and procedures which would never come to light otherwise.


A good example of this is the hot coffee saga with McDonald's, which was made in the press to look ridiculous, but it turned out McDonald's actually knew the coffee was way too hot for operational reasons and loads of people were getting scalded badly. There was a good documentary about this which changed my view entirely on these kind of lawsuits.

A good well nuanced post albeit 'discovery' is very definitely a US term. In England and Wales the relevant process is called 'disclosure'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2023 ==

If this civil case was successful, the CPS would likely then have what they needed to bring their own case against TFL.

Indeed, albeit it might be the HSE and not CPS, not to mention the likelihood of many more civil cases if TfL don't take immediate steps to address the issue.

 

[Jonny]

I do hope that TfL lose this court case. It means that the Underground is inherently unsafe and TfL will have to fix it by installing platform screen doors at least in the busiest stations.

Oxford circus is a cross-platform interchange station. If the line on one side of the island can't drain passengers in time, passengers will eventually pile from the other side and push people on the track as normal crowd-control measures such as blocking fare gates don't work there, unless the other line is also stopped as well.


The new stations in the busiest zone 1 already have platform screen doors installed, such as Waterloo and London Bridge.

Is it possible to install platform edge doors at stations like Waterloo or Embankment on the Bakerloo Line given the platform curve?
If TfL loses and platform doors have to be installed who is going to pay. Expect fares to increase to pay for ti.


Oxford Circus is not cross platform as you describe. There is level access via a short connecting corridor between the Victoria and Bakerloo Lines.


Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms are the newest stations in Zone 1 but they don't have platform edge doors.
The only stations on London Underground with platform edge doors are the deep level stations on the Jubilee Line Extension.

Looking at the 2015-release FOIA act diagrams (which may not be current) and particularly the one of the Oxford Circus Victoria-Bakerloo platforms, whilst the platforms are in separate tunnels there are a lot of cross-passages between equivalent-direction Bakerloo and Victoria platforms. Passengers might not cross over just to leave the station (or go to the central line platforms) but it is not far short of being cross-platform. Having been there recently, I'm also not sure how platform-edge doors could be reliably implemented without either narrowing the platforms even more or digging the middle of each Victoria-Bakerloo side into a proper island platform. Then you have problems caused people bunching near the platform doors because you know that is where it will open. In other words, platform doors are not a panacea.

 

[Basil Jet]

Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms are the newest stations in Zone 1 but they don't have platform edge doors.

Bank Northern Line Southbound is the newest platform, and also doesn't have platform edge doors.

 

[jon0844]

There are other options than PEDs which can work on curved platforms, e.g. partial fencing, which has the secondary benefit of managing where people wait for trains and so more likely to make space for others to alight first.

I am glad someone already said it, as I was thinking the same. Some platforms already have barriers to stop someone walking from a corridor and going straight onto the track (and by walking, it's more likely someone in a wheelchair or buggy that could potentially roll onto the line).

More of these along the platform would surely work almost as well as PEDs, but simply without protection of the areas where the doors line up. That's still a significantly smaller number of areas where someone could fall or be pushed on to the line. And it does make it easier to see where to stand/queue.

 

[Mojo]

If this civil case was successful, the CPS would likely then have what they needed to bring their own case against TFL.

If this were the case, it would have been dealt with at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More of these along the platform would surely work almost as well as PEDs, but simply without protection of the areas where the doors line up. That's still a significantly smaller number of areas where someone could fall or be pushed on to the line. And it does make it easier to see where to stand/queue.

Having seen how the PEDs on other lines work, I think this would make operations quite a bit quicker as there'd be fewer people blocking doors. It may make some repositioning of cameras necessary but it should also mean a clearer "dispatch corridor" for the driver too if you put them slightly back from the edge (as you'd have to to avoid trapping risk).

 

[duncanp]

This is sort of related, in that there was quite severe congestion at London Bridge station yesterday evening, following delays caused by a trespass incident.

Also being blamed is a new South Eastern timetable, which has cancelled several services.

There were no actual injuries, and no-one is suing South Eastern or Network Rail (yet).

‘Dangerous’ London Bridge rush-hour stampede blamed on rail bosses

‘Only a matter of time until a fatality’ as timetable overhaul causes commuter chaos

www.telegraph.co.uk

'Dangerous' London Bridge rush-hour stampede blamed on rail bosses​

'Only a matter of time until a fatality' as timetable overhaul causes commuter chaos

A "cost-cutting" rail timetable has been blamed by passengers for "dangerous" chaos at London Bridge.

Extraordinary pictures show the concourse at the central London station crammed with thousands of passengers during the evening rush hour on Wednesday.

People described being "trapped" in a "crush" amid a "total lack of information", with reports of fights breaking out and panic attacks.

It saw scores of cancellations, delays and line closures, with furious Londoners taking to social media over the "unsafe" stampede at around 5.30pm, with rail chiefs blaming a trespassing incident.

But commuters have now lashed out at the rail firm Southeastern, saying overcrowding is now a daily occurrence since it scrapped three key direct services with a new timetable last month.

'A disaster will happen'​

Direct trains between Hayes and London Canon Street, and from London Charing Cross to both Woolwich and Maidstone East, have all been axed to create "more reliable" services and save £10 million.

Lewis Richards, 37, an IT manager from Catford, told The Telegraph: "In all honesty, it was scary last night, I was at the top of the escalator with nowhere else to go and people were bumping into the back of me.

"Southeastern has basically reduced services and cut routes, so more people were forced to go to London Bridge.You've got thousands more people turning up at London Bridge to catch their train. It's been utter carnage.

"All to save money, but it's made service worse. It's dangerous, a disaster will happen. It's not if, it's when."



Chris Meekings, 48, an insurance broker from Sidcup, said: "The days I go into London, there have been delays and problems. I get on at Sidcup and it’s standing-room only. It's much worse since the timetable change.

"Last night was terrible, we were all kettled in at one point, platforms dangerously packed, only a matter of time until a fatality occurs."

'Sudden tidal surge'​

Suzanne Whitlock, from London, told The Telegraph that London Bridge "felt like a sudden tidal surge".

"People were crammed in a lift trying to get up, including an elderly gentleman," she said. "A staff member seemed to be finding it quite amusing".

"Travel since the timetable changes has been horrendous. Constant delays, cancellations, overcrowding, claustrophobic, getting stuck on packed trains for long periods with no explanation and what used to take an hour to take home now takes two," she said.

Network Rail and Southeastern launched a safety review on Thursday, with a Southeastern source saying the talks would "look into how we can better undertake crowd control and customer care".

Rail bosses under fire​

Louie French, the Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, said she was "very concerned by the overcrowding" and partly blamed the timetable, adding: "The ongoing misery & disruption for commuters cannot continue."

A spokesman for Southeastern blamed "an earlier trespasser on the line at Hither Green...which had an impact on services at London Bridge" between 5.30pm and 6.45pm and apologised to customers but denied the timetable change was to blame.

Southeastern said its timetable, which was introduced on December 11 without any consultation but has only just taken effect because of strikes, is in response to "substantial changes in customer demand for rail travel", with people commuting only 1.8 days per week in a recent survey.

It comes after similar scenes of mass crowds at London Euston station in recent months thanks to timetable changes by Avanti West Coast.

 

[stuu]

Having been there recently, I'm also not sure how platform-edge doors could be reliably implemented without either narrowing the platforms even more or digging the middle of each Victoria-Bakerloo side into a proper island platform. Then you have problems caused people bunching near the platform doors because you know that is where it will open. In other words, platform doors are not a panacea.

They aren't very deep, ~200mm or so, on the edge of the platform where no one is supposed to stand. They would make no practical difference to the platform width

 

[357]

They aren't very deep, ~200mm or so, on the edge of the platform where no one is supposed to stand. They would make no practical difference to the platform width

They actually make the usable part of the platform larger as they do away with the yellow line and people aren't afraid to stand right up or even lean against them

 

[Wolfie]

They actually make the usable part of the platform larger as they do away with the yellow line and people aren't afraid to stand right up or even lean against them

Absolutely.

 

[Cdd89]

When I was in Japan I noted PEDs (not actually doors!) that took the form of five vertically spaced ropes strung across between posts, which raise up (collapsing together) when trains arrive. There was a bit of a gap between the ropes and the train where someone could potentially get trapped, so there were light beam sensors and emergency release buttons to mitigate that risk.

Overall, that looked like a very economical solution that didn’t require extensive coordination with the trains themselves (it wouldn’t stop someone determined from climbing onto the track, but it would eliminate accidental incidents), and which would work on curved platforms.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

If London Underground is inherently unsafe so is every road in this country. Hyperbole maybe, but about as hyperbolic as the original statement. Can I have pavement edge doors please.

 

[endicomark69@g]

Any "Safety" measure that TfL wants to introduce - like Platform Edge Doors - has to go through the usual funding rigmarole of a business case stacking up against what would be substantial costs to implement. And having done this 30-odd years ago I know from experience that the Value of a Life (in 1994 it was rated at £800k-£1M by the Government) never made a positive case ANYWHERE on the Network for the scale of outlay andthe disruption to Services required to retrofit PEDS.

In the intervening decades it's hugely unlikely that anything about that standard calculation will have changed much - the VoL will have increased but so will every associated cost exponentially - so even were this case to "succeed" nothing more than some sort of compensation will be the result.

And in this Case - horrible as it is for the Claimant - I haven't seen any discussion of the "he felt faint and had a medical episode....." Admission in the Claim. The Lawyers have had to admit to this because any TfL Brief will go straight to the medical history of the Claimant - and any history of dizzy spells/epilepsy will be case dismissed and they already know it.

The most likely here is TfL will be "embarrassed" by a lapse in station control and apologise. There may be a quiet offer of some sort of much lower sum to avoid having to go through the court process (that'll be about as expensive as settling anyway) and no-fault goodwill all round may be how this gets ended.

But if the poor chap admits to "fainting" and the CCTV shows no support for "I was shoved over the edge" then he's not getting his £220k.

There are any number of "unsafe" platforms on the Network, but DfT/Treasury are NOT going to get into the business of allowing any such admission of such to be something that means they have to fund about £0.4Bn just to PED up Zone 1/2.

Likewise the first Class-Action to try and sue over the equally scandalous state of air-quality on the deep level Tube is also never likely to get anywhere. The costs involved for a Too Important To Fail Organization like TfL would be too astronomical to contemplate - so they won't.

 

[zwk500]

something that means they have to fund about £0.4Bn just to PED up Zone 1/2.

£400m sounds comparatively cheap to the numbers I was expecting!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The air quality issue only really significantly affects staff (who I believe do have a poor life expectancy as a result). Most others don't spend long enough down there for it to be a major issue, though it is true that as London's atmosphere cleans up with the increasing deprecation of ICE powered cars and the use of coal/wood for home heating that the Tube becomes disproportionately bad.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2023 ==

£400m sounds comparatively cheap to the numbers I was expecting!

You could probably do fences down the yellow line for far less than actual PEDs and gain much of the benefit.