GWR Droplight Fatality Findings

[Deepgreen]

No because that would be like canning the WCML.

The solution isn't to just ban everything, but to take reasonable steps to ensure safety. Removing totally unnecessary droplight windows to prevent deaths seems like a pretty reasonable step to me. Operating on canals is now licensed and usually requires insurance, there are railings protecting people coming to towpaths from bridges from cycling into the water, etc.

Baffled anybody would really object to it to be quite honest, apart from bashers who want photos over the Glenfinnan Viaduct.

I don't think anyone here has objected to the principle of removing droplights from the railway, but the means to do it, and the timescales, are perhaps under scrutiny. Again, it could be/have been done overnight, but that would have led to service cuts. Is that safer or less safe than phasing them out, overall?

 

[John R]

It’s worth bearing in mind that GWR was in the process of withdrawing all the relevant stock within the next year, so there was a clear period beyond which the risk would have been fully mitigated. So how reasonable would it have been to spend a fortune on stock which in the main was about to be withdrawn? (I don’t think the Castle Class programme had begun then, but again, that itself removed the problem on the vehicles that remained.)

I’m looking forward to the same Office for Rail and Road deciding that signalled pedestrian crossings must have foolproof barriers, to stop drunk pedestrians crossing when the red man is showing and thus putting themselves at risk.

 

[Deepgreen]

It’s worth bearing in mind that GWR was in the process of withdrawing all the relevant stock within the next year, so there was a clear period beyond which the risk would have been fully mitigated. So how reasonable would it have been to spend a fortune on stock which in the main was about to be withdrawn? (I don’t think the Castle Class programme had begun then, but again, that itself removed the problem on the vehicles that remained.)

I’m looking forward to the same Office for Rail and Road deciding that signalled pedestrian crossings must have foolproof barriers, to stop drunk pedestrians crossing when the red man is showing and thus putting themselves at risk.

Agreed that the same process and principles should have been applied to WCR and GWR.

 

[Iskra]

I am inclined to agree. I can't help wondering how much of the criticism, which echoes that after the previous droplight fatality and prosecution and the fatality in Liverpool where a guard was jailed, comes from salty enthusiasts who resent losing opening windows.

It's interesting too how many folk want to give GWR a pass, despite it failing to implement a presumably agreed with the regulator tosk assessment approach, while they were all over WCR for doing exactly the same.

In 2 months though, for life-expired stock that was already being modified or replaced?

- - - -

I wonder if this is why the 442’s vanished after a fortune had been spent on bringing them back into service?

 

[styles]

I don't think anyone here has objected to the principle of removing droplights from the railway, but the means to do it, and the timescales, are perhaps under scrutiny. Again, it could be/have been done overnight, but that would have led to service cuts. Is that safer or less safe than phasing them out, overall?

Your first post on this matter was:

While I accept that a breach occurred and that the death was a tragedy, it does make me wonder how far the railway (and other bodies) may be expected to go to protect people from themselves. The story goes on to report that the woman was "intoxicated" when she boarded the train. So, in order to protect drunk people in public places, where does the process end? Can there be any limit to the extent to which personal responsibility is eroded? I pose these questions as a prompt for discussion. In this case, GWR had not yet implemented a requirement to increase protection, but what constitues a reasonable timescale when immediate compliance would presumably require stock withdrawal and service cuts, thus penalising passengers?

Most of this comment appears to question the premise of even removing this rolling stock, with a question of timescales a mere afterthought.

It's fine to dress it up this way but it seems pretty transparent to me that the actual motive for changing the rolling stock is the perceived issue rather than how quickly it is done.

Further than that, even if this was purely about timescales, I'd suggest that we've known for many years before the incident even happened that this safety risk existed and it served no benefit to retain such doors. Well, it benefitted people who like to hang out of windows, and it benefitted shareholders for a few years who prioritised money over safety. Neither are particularly good reasons.

 

[Wolfie]

In 2 months though, for life-expired stock that was already being modified or replaced?

- - - -

I wonder if this is why the 442’s vanished after a fortune had been spent on bringing them back into service?

Did you bother reading #11? The timeline set out by ORR was as follows:

2016 Droplight-related fatality

May 17 RAIB safety recommendations

Nov 17 GWR written Risk Assessment - ORR advise GWR inadequate (unclear when exactly) - neither revisions nor, and this is problematic, any action to implement the mitigations identified in the Assessment taken by GWR

Dec 18 Further fatality

In what world exactly is that "two months"? Try 13 months from the publication of their flawed assessment.

I'm actually surprised that corporate manslaughter charges and individual prosecutions of relevant senior staff didn't follow.

 

[styles]

Did you bother reading #11? The timeline set out by ORR was as follows:

2016 Droplight-related fatality

May 17 RAIB safety recommendations

Nov 17 GWR written Risk Assessment - ORR advise GWR inadequate - neither revisions not action to implement the mitigations identified in the Assessment taken by GWR

Dec 18 Further fatality

In what world exactly is that "two months"? Try 13 months from the publication of their flawed assessment.

I'm actually surprised that corporate manslaughter charges and individual prosecutions of senior staff didn't follow.

But but.. the poor shareholders.

 

[Iskra]

Did you bother reading #11? The timeline set out by ORR was as follows:

2016 Droplight-related fatality

May 17 RAIB safety recommendations

Nov 17 GWR written Risk Assessment - ORR advise GWR inadequate - neither revisions not action to implement the mitigations identified in the Assessment taken by GWR

Dec 18 Further fatality

In what world exactly is that "two months"? Try 13 months from the publication of their flawed assessment.

I'm actually surprised that corporate manslaughter charges and individual prosecutions of senior staff didn't follow.

I do apologise, I merely repeated the two months claim that somebody else stated upthread on the assumption it was correct.

Do we know what the additional control measures identified actually were?

 

[uglymonkey]

I'm amazed we have trains in the 21st century that have opening windows! I thought they were all sealed totally and air con rules?

 

[Krokodil]

But it is ridiculous. “Don’t lean out of the window” should be all the signage you need.

This was the issue. From what I remember of the RAIB report at the time the area around the window was cluttered with signs. Following this incident GWR simplified the signage and made the danger much clearer.

Since 1975 and around 800 million miles, one person, who was drink, has been daft enough to put their head out of the window of a 125 and loose their life.

You reckon that this is the only fatality resulting from a droplight?

It’s worth bearing in mind that GWR was in the process of withdrawing all the relevant stock within the next year, so there was a clear period beyond which the risk would have been fully mitigated. So how reasonable would it have been to spend a fortune on stock which in the main was about to be withdrawn? (I don’t think the Castle Class programme had begun then, but again, that itself removed the problem on the vehicles that remained.)

The interim solution GWR subsequently used before the HSTs were withdrawn would have been inexpensive - changing the labels to make them clearer.

 

[Annetts key]

No because that would be like canning the WCML.

The solution isn't to just ban everything, but to take reasonable steps to ensure safety. Removing totally unnecessary droplight windows to prevent deaths seems like a pretty reasonable step to me. Operating on canals is now licensed and usually requires insurance, there are railings protecting people coming to towpaths from bridges from cycling into the water, etc.

Baffled anybody would really object to it to be quite honest, apart from bashers who want photos over the Glenfinnan Viaduct.

It’s worth bearing in mind that GWR was in the process of withdrawing all the relevant stock within the next year, so there was a clear period beyond which the risk would have been fully mitigated. So how reasonable would it have been to spend a fortune on stock which in the main was about to be withdrawn? (I don’t think the Castle Class programme had begun then, but again, that itself removed the problem on the vehicles that remained.)

I’m looking forward to the same Office for Rail and Road deciding that signalled pedestrian crossings must have foolproof barriers, to stop drunk pedestrians crossing when the red man is showing and thus putting themselves at risk.

I am in no way trying to defend GWR or any other railway company. And I consider that Network Rail should have taken partial responsibility for allowing the vegetation to become so bad.

I suffer from travel (motion) sickness, even on some trains such as HSTs (and class 8XX trains). So when I was feeling ill, being able to go and stand by an open drop light window with "fresh" air for a while did help me to feel slightly better.

Now, without the ability to do this, when I'm feeling bad, if i can hold it in, I have to get off the train at the next available stop. Recover, then wait for the next service. If I can't hold it in, well, the cleaners get some extra mess to clean up and I get to feel rotten for however it takes until I can get off the train.

So, IMHO, I think that over reactions are just as bad as inaction. Humans are really rather fragile. It is sad that a passenger lost their life. But people die every second of every day. And some people will do stupid things. I don't know how many incidents there have been due to people leaning out of windows of trains. But given the number of people who miss-use level crossings or which trespass on open railway lines, I would have thought that the overall risk from open drop light windows would not have been greater than these other risks to human life.

Please note, I am not saying that nothing should have been done.

Now, is the same Office for Rail and Road going to require road vehicles owners, drivers or operators to risk asses the power operated or hand operated windows in cars? In narrow country lanes, the vegetation can be very close to the side of the vehicle.

Yes, I know the speed should be lower (50MPH or 60MPH depending on the type of vehicle) than the 90MPH or 100MPH (depending on where exactly this incident took place) line speed at Twerton on the main line railway.

 

[Jimini]

You reckon that this is the only fatality resulting from a droplight?

Genuine question: aside from the GWR one and the Southern one at Wandsworth Common, has it happened anywhere else?

 

[sh24]

Genuine question: aside from the GWR one and the Southern one at Wandsworth Common, has it happened anywhere else?

Back in BR days, yes.

 

[Clarence Yard]

And exactly who is going to pay the fine.? GWR/First Group or the Taxpayer?

Unless it was covered in the agreement that ended the franchise in 2020, it will probably be the Taxpayer. The current National Rail Contract doesn’t cover past liabilities.

 

[Ashley Hill]

An underlying cause here is that the vegetation was allowed to grow to hazardous proportions at the lineside.

This is a contributing factor which has been overshadowed here by the droplight window argument. Should NR shoulder some of the blame for mis-management of lineside vegetation?

 

[BRX]

This is a contributing factor which has been overshadowed here by the droplight window argument. Should NR shoulder some of the blame for mis-management of lineside vegetation?

My impression is that the approach to overhanging vegetation became quite a bit more lax nationwide as droplights mostly disappeared. Not sure if that's accurate.

 

[AM9]

This is a contributing factor which has been overshadowed here by the droplight window argument. Should NR shoulder some of the blame for mis-management of lineside vegetation?

Did GWR raise the issue formally with NR. If they chose to run services without notifying the responsible authority, that must accept that the infrastructure was unsuitable for their rolling stock.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Did GWR raise the issue formally with NR. If they chose to run services without notifying the responsible authority, that must accept that the infrastructure was unsuitable for their rolling stock.

I’ve no idea if GWR raised this but is it acceptable that NR allows its lineside vegetation to grow to the degree that it encroaches the running lines? Travelling around the network it is very noticeable the amount of shrubbery that rubs/bangs along the side of trains.

 

[Bevan Price]

How long before someone demands that heritage railways get rid of all opening windows ?
(Which would bankrupt most of them.)

 

[JamesT]

Genuine question: aside from the GWR one and the Southern one at Wandsworth Common, has it happened anywhere else?

The RAIB report on the 2016 fatality https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a822e4ded915d74e34022a5/R092017_170525_Balham.pdf lists two previous deaths in 1999 and 2002. (Paragraphs 99 and 100).

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

How long before someone demands that heritage railways get rid of all opening windows ?
(Which would bankrupt most of them.)

That nonsense has been mentioned before and clearly the 25mph linespeed goes some way towards mitigating the risk - plus the majority of lines run few/no services at night. I think heritage lines are also more careful about maintaining vegetation clearances and increasingly are advising passengers to refrain from window hanging etc.

 

[Trackman]

How long before someone demands that heritage railways get rid of all opening windows ?
(Which would bankrupt most of them.)

You could fit monkey cages (bashing speak for bars on windows).

Yes it should be 'common sense' not to stick your head out of a window on a train doing is 100mph.

It takes some doing to put your head out a window when the train is travelling at 100mph.

 

[Annetts key]

My impression is that the approach to overhanging vegetation became quite a bit more lax nationwide as droplights mostly disappeared. Not sure if that's accurate.

The vegetation has been bad enough that the RMT have complained about it officially to management over 20 years ago. By this I mean RMT reps that represent infrastructure maintenance staff.

 

[Jimini]

The RAIB report on the 2016 fatality https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a822e4ded915d74e34022a5/R092017_170525_Balham.pdf lists two previous deaths in 1999 and 2002. (Paragraphs 99 and 100).

Thanks -- appreciate the info / context.

 

[Randomer]

Nov 17 GWR written Risk Assessment - ORR advise GWR inadequate (unclear when exactly) - neither revisions nor, and this is problematic, any action to implement the mitigations identified in the Assessment taken by GWR

I feel that this is the main problem here and most likely the thing that brought about the prosecution.

In some ways whether it was droplight or something else its the lack of process to action that matters e.g. what would have happened if Agility or GWR wrote a risk assessment indicating needed changes to the Class 80X inter carriage cabling after someone climbed it and came into contact with 25kV overhead and did nothing to action it. I suspect most members here would be quite happy that it was an issue that should have been addressed. However, droplights are for some reason more emotive than cabling between carriages that unfortunately looked quite like a ladder when first implemented.

 

[D365]

I wonder if this is why the 442’s vanished after a fortune had been spent on bringing them back into service?

Not on topic, but droplights is definitely not the reason.

 

[Belperpete]

Tragic as the accident was, and it’s sad it resulted in a loss of life but pure common sense tells you not to stick your head out of a window. Millions of people safely travelled on a train with droplight windows over the years, but the action of one irresponsible person warrants a train company being fined. Just ridiculous

And millions of people travelled on trains without continuous brakes, without block signalling, before they were mandated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Oct 2025 ==

But it is ridiculous. “Don’t lean out of the window” should be all the signage you need.

A sign is no use whatsoever to those people who don't see it or can't understand it. Or think they know better.

 

[Ashley Hill]

If the Do Not Lean Out Of The Window sign was proved to have been visible why was this case ever brought?
Despite trespass notices displayed at crossings/stations etc people still get killed when trespassing. Do the families of the deceased sue NR?

 

[Belperpete]

If the Do Not Lean Out Of The Window sign was proved to have been visible why was this case ever brought?

Because previous droplight fatalities had shown that the signage was ineffective?

Despite trespass notices displayed at crossings/stations etc people still get killed when trespassing. Do the families of the deceased sue NR?

I seem to recall at least one case where NR has been taken to court for not maintaining adequate protection against trespass. Such cases, as in this droplight case, are usually taken by the ORR rather than the families.

 

[GordonT]

If the Do Not Lean Out Of The Window sign was proved to have been visible why was this case ever brought?
Despite trespass notices displayed at crossings/stations etc people still get killed when trespassing. Do the families of the deceased sue NR?

Presumably part of the reasoning was that in this case the unfortunate lady was intoxicated and as such the notice would not have registered. Arguably the same consideration may have applied had the passenger been sober but had no reading ability or perhaps was not an English speaker.