Staff discretion to open doors at unscheduled station stops

[NeakPed]

As a former TOC Controller I can't recall being it being stated that Control should authorise the opening of doors in these circumstances.
When I have been asked, the majority of times my response was along the lines of - so long as it is safe to do, reach a clear understanding with the driver/other crew and advise any passengers not to venture too far as the train could go at any time. (There may have been a very small number of occasions when circumstances were such that opening the doors was not suitable).

 

[Peter0124]

You should be allowed to leave at a station like Rugby, where Avanti regularly calls and has long enough platforms. Makes no sense.

 

[bramling]

i guess they might NOT have the competency to use a station they don't routinely stop at. Would Avanti have "knowledge" of, say, Tring? Will an 11 car train fit in the platform here? It should be fixable via common sense ( rather than ringing someone miles away who you wont be able to get hold of anyway!) in an emergency though because otherwise people will just bail.

Should it not be one of those "come to a clear understanding" jobs?

Agreed. There’s a few potential risks I can see, such as the risk of a door opening onto a platform where that particular type of train doesn’t regularly call, length issues, or the risk of someone being left behind, but pretty much all this risk can be managed by using a local door and the guard overseeing what happens. Clearly DOO is more of a problem, but this thread doesn’t involve a DOO service.

The risks associated with someone exiting a train via a local door are a lot less and more controllable than if egress devices start being used.

 

[Taunton]

Is there also a concern about the train needing despatch and the risk of accidentally leaving people behind in the event of the train being allowed to move again?

Why concern for this but not for those left behind when there's a new policy that platform gates are closed 2 (or more) minutes before timetabled departure, and people are prevented from boarding a train right in front of them. In that case, regarding those "left behind", the railway couldn't give a stuff, and sometimes will even require them to buy new tickets.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Or that guards should have discretion to do stuff like this provided basic parameters are fulfilled, e.g. the train is properly platformed (or local door is used).

Agreed.

 

[Carlisle]

Clearly DOO is more of a problem, but this thread doesn’t involve a DOO service.

In practice it probably isn’t as most DOO services are relatively local stoppers that can potentially utilise most/all stations on their particular route sometimes using SDO .

 

[Falcon1200]

Releasing the doors at a station your train is not booked to call at would be a safety of the line incidenr

Surely not when the train is at a platform at which the type calls anyway.... eg Rugby, as per this thread?

 

[LowLevel]

Releasing the doors at a station your train is not booked to call at would be a safety of the line incidenr and would go on your record unleas permission is granted ir an emergency.

Only generally if done in error. Personally I always try and get hold of control before doing it but in the event of serious disruption and a very long delay whilst not being able to get through I would do it myself and explain later, and have done on several occasions. I believe Dynamic Risk Assessment is the modern buzz word for such a thing and it isn't just controllers who can do them!

 

[Horizon22]

Why concern for this but not for those left behind when there's a new policy that platform gates are closed 2 (or more) minutes before timetabled departure, and people are prevented from boarding a train right in front of them. In that case, regarding those "left behind", the railway couldn't give a stuff, and sometimes will even require them to buy new tickets.

This is pure whataboutery and unrelated to this scenario. Those passengers that miss a train are not stranded, for a start..

If there was discussion about buying new tickets they were a) either not there in a good time due to their own fault, or b) were delayed by another operator and should claim Delay Replay.

 

[zwk500]

Why concern for this but not for those left behind when there's a new policy that platform gates are closed 2 (or more) minutes before timetabled departure, and people are prevented from boarding a train right in front of them. In that case, regarding those "left behind", the railway couldn't give a stuff, and sometimes will even require them to buy new tickets.

I dont think there's any equivalency between those two situations.
You'd have a better argument about not holding connections in the face of delays, but the key difference would be that of separating passengers from their luggage. Which is not only a security issue, but a substantial problem for the customers to get reunited with their luggage.

 

[Horizon22]

Only generally if done in error. Personally I always try and get hold of control before doing it but in the event of serious disruption and a very long delay whilst not being able to get through I would do it myself and explain later, and have done on several occasions. I believe Dynamic Risk Assessment is the modern buzz word for such a thing and it isn't just controllers who can do them!

Indeed. If you have the rationale, have considered all of the risks, have safety at the forefront and have your decision logged/noted, nothing will come of it. In fact, I imagine many would commend you for your proactivity.

 

[Lemmy282]

The problem is also inconsistency. I was on a Northern 158 a few years ago, a very hot day and a full train. As usual the air con was no use so the coach was sweltering. The train manager came round to do a ticket check and some people asked if the hopper windows could be opened. The answer was "no, due to health and safety". Someone challenged the first part of that statement and pointed out our health was in question as a couple of people were feeling faint, didn't make any difference though.
A few stations later the crew changed over , the new TM came through exclaimed "wow it's hot in here" and promptly opened the windows!

 

[Flying Snail]

The problem is also inconsistency. I was on a Northern 158 a few years ago, a very hot day and a full train. As usual the air con was no use so the coach was sweltering. The train manager came round to do a ticket check and some people asked if the hopper windows could be opened. The answer was "no, due to health and safety". Someone challenged the first part of that statement and pointed out our health was in question as a couple of people were feeling faint, didn't make any difference though.
A few stations later the crew changed over , the new TM came through exclaimed "wow it's hot in here" and promptly opened the windows!

Because "health and safety" is the great justification, wheel it out and stifle any dissent because only evil monsters would be against people being safe.

Far too many use it inappropriately and hide behind it to justify all kinds of lazy, stupid, illogical, wrong, bad decisions and rules.

 

[RiponHall]

The fact that it doesn't take long for passengers to take things into their own hands may be illustrated by my experience on SWR a couple of weeks ago, when all lines were closed between Clapham Junction and Waterloo. I was on a Windsor train that came to a stand at St Margaret's - alongside an all stations service on the other side of the island. It was with its doors open - and deserted (presumably its passengers having left for other transport options.

The train crew very quickly announced that there was an unknown delay. From Open Time Trains, it was obvious that we were waiting for the train in front to reverse at Richmond before we could do the same (which was indeed what happened) - but only a very few people would know that there was a solution in hand. However, as soon as it was announced that the delay was unknown, several passengers opened Google to find the best alternative - with many deciding that buses from St Margaret's were the way forward. Less than ten minutes had passed (with no further announcements) before someone had decided that the emergency door release would be the best response to the still unknown delay. Fortunately, the train moved off (still with no announcement) just as they got to the door way - otherwise we would have been delayed even further whilst the self-detraining of passengers was sorted out.

I think this not only highlights the counterproductive reality of keeping doors locked when at a platform for an indeterminate time - but also the need for ongoing reassurance to passengers. If those passengers in the know could see trains being turned back at Richmond this cannot have been a secret (sitting in the train, I could see three trains that this had happened to), and some form of announcement - even if only of reassurance that work was under way to establish the best response to get people under way as quickly as possible - would probably have given people the confidence not to take things into their own hands and making a difficult day even more challenging to recover.

 

[Flange Squeal]

Indeed. If you have the rationale, have considered all of the risks, have safety at the forefront and have your decision logged/noted, nothing will come of it. In fact, I imagine many would commend you for your proactivity.

Not at a previous TOC when I was there! It was made clear that control must be spoken to first and if we hadn’t got authorisation then we’d had an incident, not a moment of proactiveness, and would be dealt with accordingly (and people were). I can’t say if it’s still the same now, but that was only as recent as a few years ago. Sometimes what seems like staff being nonsensical is actually staff merely avoiding disciplinary action by following clear company policy.

 

[LowLevel]

Not at a previous TOC when I was there! It was made clear that control must be spoken to first and if we hadn’t got authorisation then we’d had an incident, not a moment of proactiveness, and would be dealt with accordingly (and people were). I can’t say if it’s still the same now, but that was only as recent as a few years ago. Sometimes what seems like staff being nonsensical is actually staff merely avoiding disciplinary action by following clear company policy.

In which case, let the passengers get on with pulling the egresses and give them a proper incident to justify their existence investigating *shrug*

 

[Merle Haggard]

My experience on West Coast is that, in the event of a blockage of the line (the most common cause being as stated in the OP) trains are held at stations normally served by Avanti back down the line rather than in a queue at signals. This seems to be what happened to the OP.
By what logic does Avanti make sure that delayed trains are all standing at a station where their trains normally call but not allow passengers to alight? What is the purpose of doing so?
To take an extreme example; The xx.14 Manchester - Euston Avanti services all call at Rugby with the exception of the 15.14. With regard to the OP being on a train standing at Rugby; if it happened that the 15.14 departure was held out of course at Rugby because of yesterday's problem what dangers would be caused by opening the doors that don't apply to all the other services?

 

[sh24]

Interesting reading. It does seem that some ToC are needlessly risk averse around a process where there are clearly established processes. The story about not opening hopper windows on a 158 due "health and safety" is just bizarre. It's the kind of thing that gets real safety critical processes a bad name.

 

[NSEWonderer]

At my TOC once its know we will be held at a station out of course for an extended period(15mins+) of time and we know we are accommodated then an agreement between driver and guard is often made to release a local door at the very least(full release if fully accommodated). That way it saved another incident of potential abuse, egressing by passengers etc.

If information from signaller or control is very little to none then the announcements after a while will often start to annoy passengers as the apologies aren't telling them why they'll be late for where they going.

Advice i always learnt as platform staff is that the show must keep on going even if that means passengers decide to hit the road and take buses or whatever is avaliable, no good often comes from passengers simmering in a closed tin can especially at or near a station.

 

[gobbybobby]

The TOC I work for we can release doors if at a stand for a while without needing to call control in my training this was encouraged. We must come to clear understanding between guard and driver, check the train is properly accommodated in the platform ETC.

 

[Bow Fell]

It’s also worth pointing out that, the permission needed to open doors from Control isn’t actually a Control issue, bearing in mind the phone would be ringing non-stop when such an incident is ongoing, I’d see that a member of traincrew asking for permission is adding to the number of unnecessary phone calls when trying to deal with such an incident.

There is something on the traincrew management side that has obviously gone wrong in that traincrew are very wary of by taking their own initiative.

 

[cool110]

And what happens when a passenger gets fed up with that nonsense and pulls an emergency evacuation handle?

In which case, let the passengers get on with pulling the egresses and give them a proper incident to justify their existence investigating *shrug*

I'm fairly sure that's exactly what they want to happen, since then it wouldn't have been their decision.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm fairly sure that's exactly what they want to happen, since then it wouldn't have been their decision.

I've certainly had a bus driver say something to me along the lines of "I can't open the doors as we aren't at a stop as I'll get in trouble, but I can't physically stop you using those buttons above the door either".

Egress use is probably more likely now most of them on newer stock no longer seem to have the deterrent of break glass over them. 350s have a flimsy bit of plastic that can be put back on, 730s have nothing, it'd be as easy to use it as to press the normal open button. I think the break-glass has been removed on 390s too, presumably because they were fed up of replacing it.

 

[Russel]

During yesterdays WCML chaos, I was sat on a bench, in the sun with an iced coffee, at Atherstone, waiting for my on time LNWR train home from work, the whole 15 minutes I was there there was a 390 sat at the opposite platform and I was thinking at the time that it's a shame the doors couldn't be opened, though I don't believe 390s have SDO and an 11 car 390 overhangs the platform at Atherstone by almost half it's length so it wouldn't be possible in this case anyway.

Though, as we've seen posted in this thread already about people climbing out of HST droplights and forcing doors open, it does highlight how the railway in general has got it's self so tied up in knots over bloated H&S procedures and SOPs that using discretion can and does become non existent at times which can create issues while trying to prevent issues that aren't really there in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

During yesterdays WCML chaos, I was sat on a bench, in the sun with an iced coffee, at Atherstone, waiting for my on time LNWR train home from work, the whole 15 minutes I was there there was a 390 sat at the opposite platform and I was thinking at the time that it's a shame the doors couldn't be opened, though I don't believe 390s have SDO and an 11 car 390 overhangs the platform at Atherstone by almost half it's length so it wouldn't be possible in this case anyway.

Correct, but with Control permission local door can be opened, usually the one in the van area. I can't remember if it's actually possible to open another door as local door on a Pendolino other than using the egress, possibly only that one?

Though, as we've seen posted in this thread already about people climbing out of HST droplights and forcing doors open, it does highlight how the railway in general has got it's self so tied up in knots over bloated H&S procedures and SOPs that using discretion can and does become non existent at times which can create issues while trying to prevent issues that aren't really there in the first place.

The railway has a culture of absolute safety above passenger convenience. There is some justification for this, but I think it can go a bit far sometimes. Nobody (with any sense) is asking to get let out on an abandoned platform, but there's no reason arrangements can't be made to release doors (either all or local) when a train is stopped at a platform which is in use, and at one point a while back I recall it was actually policy in disruption to try to hold trains in platforms to do exactly that.

 

[zwk500]

and at one point a while back I recall it was actually policy in disruption to try to hold trains in platforms to do exactly that.

It still is, AFAIK.

 

[OscarH]

It does seem that some ToC are needlessly risk averse around a process where there are clearly established processes

It's not even risk averse really though, given that the driver/guard following the process described here and opening the doors is far less risky than trying to force passengers to stay onboard and letting them take matters into their own hands

 

[cool110]

It's not even risk averse really though, given that the driver/guard following the process described here and opening the doors is far less risky than trying to force passengers to stay onboard and letting them take matters into their own hands

Maybe the industry needs a wake up call from a particularly unhinged passenger who knows just enough to be dangerous...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have seen a Pendolino with the doors released at Tring during severe disruption, so it is entirely possible.

I've been on a Pendolino with doors released at Tring in severe disruption - I was one of the people who took advantage of it to stretch my legs for a few minutes, so yes, it's definitely possible. It was a few years ago though - possibly back in Virgin rather than Avanti days. (I've also had the same experience on SouthEastern, with a fast train opening doors to let passengers get some fresh air while stopped at Selling due to disruption. That was about 10 years ago). Sad to see that these kinds of eminently sensible and passenger-friendly actions are now getting stifled due to TOC bureaucracy

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've been on a Pendolino with doors released at Tring in severe disruption - I was one of the people who took advantage of it to stretch my legs for a few minutes, so yes, it's definitely possible. It was a few years ago though - possibly back in Virgin rather than Avanti days. (I've also had the same experience on SouthEastern, with a fast train opening doors to let passengers get some fresh air while stopped at Selling due to disruption. That was about 10 years ago). Sad to see that these kinds of eminently sensible and passenger-friendly actions are now getting stifled due to TOC bureaucracy

Might have been the same one, in my case it was a weekday evening and I was on the then 1824 LM to Crewe over on the slows, which I recall was later (a lot later, something like 2100) terminated short at Bletchley with nothing at all on hand to help those who were stranded, not even to tell them to go to MKC and get on Virgin, which I recall thinking was very poor as that was the last LM Crewe of the day back then.

I recall noticing that a fair few did bail out of both to get taxis, back then probably from the station taxi office (which is still there).