Near miss with an access ramp at Norwood Junction station (RAIB)

[sprunt]

I'm surprised I've not seen much comment on this:

64 The driver did not know that a portable access ramp was going to be used during this station call. This is a possible facto

65 The SAD or TD did not approach the driver to let them know that a mobility impaired passenger was boarding the train. Witness and documentary evidence shows that, at the time of the accident, platform staff were not expected to do this. RAIB’s investigation established that warning a driver had previously been an accepted practice at stations operated by ARL but had diminished over time, most likely as the class 378 trains were lengthened from their original three coaches to the current five coaches.

Surely it would be fairly straightforward for the procedure of using a ramp to include notifying the driver that it's happening, and then notifying them that the ramp has been removed and they can start the dispatch process?

 

[TFN]

I'm surprised I've not seen much comment on this:



Surely it would be fairly straightforward for the procedure of using a ramp to include notifying the driver that it's happening, and then notifying them that the ramp has been removed and they can start the dispatch process?

Not in my TOC, other than maybe seeing the platform staff with the ramp out I’ve got no clue if there’s an MIP that needs to a ramp to get off/on at the station I’m calling at.

I observe the DOO cameras and watch the platform staff do what they need to do, once clear I can depart.

 

[JamesT]

I'm surprised I've not seen much comment on this:



Surely it would be fairly straightforward for the procedure of using a ramp to include notifying the driver that it's happening, and then notifying them that the ramp has been removed and they can start the dispatch process?

One part of the report mentioned that normal procedure would be for the platform staff to be standing with the ramp so they would be visible as the train comes in. But in this case the platform staff were off to the side with the person requiring assistance.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm surprised I've not seen much comment on this:



Surely it would be fairly straightforward for the procedure of using a ramp to include notifying the driver that it's happening, and then notifying them that the ramp has been removed and they can start the dispatch process?

Deploying, using and removing a ramp already extends dwell time. Having to advise the driver then walking back from the cab to the accessible door before even unlocking the ramp would extend that further.

 

[DelW]

We have, but that’s largely because the distraction from a hands-free phone isn’t very different to the distraction from having a conversation with a passenger.

I think I've read some counter-evidence to this. During a phonecall, you tend to transfer yourself mentally to the location of the person you're talking to, and away from your actual location, meaning your driving becomes automatic not attentive. When talking to a passenger, that person is alongside you so your attention doesn't transfer away in the same manner.

Interesting. I wonder what the rules are in similar industries/roles? ATC for example

I don't think anyone has picked up on this?

From sometime in the early 2000s, my then employer (civil engineering contractor) had a blanket ban on mobile phone use on worksites, whether by staff or workforce.

Their use was permitted in offices and mess-rooms, and on larger sites there were designated safe areas around the site where mobile phone use was allowed, but outwith those, it was a disciplinary offence to use a phone or even have one switched on.

This followed several accidents where people had been distracted from their surroundings and been struck by mobile plant, crane loads, or similar.

 

[Wolfie]

I don't think anyone has picked up on this? From sometime in the early 2000s, my then employer (civil engineering contractor) had a blanket ban on mobile phone use on worksites, whether by staff or workforce. Their use was permitted in offices and mess-rooms, and on larger sites there were designated safe areas around the site where mobile phone use was allowed, but outwith those, it was a disciplinary offence to use a phone or even have one switched on. This followed several accidents where people had been distracted from their surroundings and been struck by mobile plant, crane loads, or similar.

TY. Interesting.

 

[sharpener]

One part of the report mentioned that normal procedure would be for the platform staff to be standing with the ramp so they would be visible as the train comes in. But in this case the platform staff were off to the side with the person requiring assistance.

Sounds like the procedure isn't mandatory or isn't enforced then. But IIRC the report also says standing by the passenger provides reassurance. And it is obviously not safe or sensible to have the passenger in the 0.75m safety zone as he/she will need to be further back when the ramp is deployed.

Deploying, using and removing a ramp already extends dwell time. Having to advise the driver then walking back from the cab to the accessible door before even unlocking the ramp would extend that further.

How about a distinctive baton unlike a despatch baton which the platform staff display as the train comes in? Without some effective procedure it is surprising these accidents aren't more common.

 

[Krokodil]

How about a distinctive baton unlike a despatch baton which the platform staff display as the train comes in? Without some effective procedure it is surprising these accidents aren't more common.

All of these ideas rely on humans following some kind of procedure. What about a wheelchair-user who arrives as the train is pulling in?

In the hierarchy of hazard controls, elimination comes first. Level boarding eliminates the need for the ramp.

After substitution you get engineering controls. Some ramps (which may include the replacements that were supposed to have been delivered) have a bar at the top which would obstruct the door closing and therefore prevent the driver gaining interlock.

Administrative controls (i.e. rules and signs) and PPE (providing everyone with shin pads to protect from flying ramps) should be last resorts if every previous level of control has been considered and rejected.

 

[edwin_m]

How about a distinctive baton unlike a despatch baton which the platform staff display as the train comes in? Without some effective procedure it is surprising these accidents aren't more common.

Standing prominently with the ramp would communicate that to the driver at least as effective. It wasn't possible because the platform staff member was attending to the passenger who needed the ramp, which would also have prevented them displaying any other signal.

All of these ideas rely on humans following some kind of procedure. What about a wheelchair-user who arrives as the train is pulling in?

In the hierarchy of hazard controls, elimination comes first. Level boarding eliminates the need for the ramp.

After substitution you get engineering controls. Some ramps (which may include the replacements that were supposed to have been delivered) have a bar at the top which would obstruct the door closing and therefore prevent the driver gaining interlock.

Administrative controls (i.e. rules and signs) and PPE (providing everyone with shin pads to protect from flying ramps) should be last resorts if every previous level of control has been considered and rejected.

Alongside the principle of ERIC (Eliminate - Reduce - Isolate - Control) sits ALARP (As Low as Reasonably Practicable).

Ideally we would have level boarding everywhere but not only would it be very costly, getting the transition wrong would be bad for everybody.

Some Overground platforms are already raised to match the entrance height of the 378 (about 1.1m above top of rail) but to do so at every station would most likely involve restricting what other types of train can pass those platforms.

In the longer term we might see fleets besides the Stadler Flirts with entrances to align with the standard 0.912m platform height, but with different "standard" platform heights on the same route a through service is automatically not fully accessible.

 

[Purple Train]

I feel like discussion of whether the member of platform staff should have been more visible misses the point that, if the correct ramp had been used, the door wouldn't have shut and so even a distracted driver unaware of the ramp couldn't have moved off even if they'd tried.

I think it's far better if the platform staff member is free to do whatever other duties they might need to do (e.g. reassuring the passenger) and the ramps are all correctly labelled, than the platform staff member is made to always have to notify the driver just in case the ramp doesn't inhibit interlock as designed.

 

[bramling]

I think I've read some counter-evidence to this. During a phonecall, you tend to transfer yourself mentally to the location of the person you're talking to, and away from your actual location, meaning your driving becomes automatic not attentive. When talking to a passenger, that person is alongside you so your attention doesn't transfer away in the same manner.

This is all an interesting discussion.

I’ve found that some people seem to cope with distraction better than others, perhaps through being used to it. For example driver instructors (and I presume this applies in other settings besides rail as well) seem to be able to cope with having people in a cab more than regular drivers, no doubt because they’re used to and acclimatised to it.

There seems to be something of an art to holding a conversation with someone without looking at them, which is what generally happens (or should happen!) for example if two people are in a train cab. However some people seem to find this very unsettling, and I wonder if this transfers to mobile phones being a distraction.

As an aside, I’d be interested to know if there’s any stats on phone use being a contributory factors in car incidents comparing conventional and hand-free phones.

Personally I’m not really keen on phone use in road vehicles full stop, however I do think there’s a case for a hands-free “hi love I’m 5 minutes away from home” type call being allowed. Not in a train though, not least because there’s no scope to park up and continue the call in a lay-by or whatever.

 

[Jimcam]

This is all an interesting discussion.

I’ve found that some people seem to cope with distraction better than others, perhaps through being used to it. For example driver instructors (and I presume this applies in other settings besides rail as well) seem to be able to cope with having people in a cab more than regular drivers, no doubt because they’re used to and acclimatised to it.

There seems to be something of an art to holding a conversation with someone without looking at them, which is what generally happens (or should happen!) for example if two people are in a train cab. However some people seem to find this very unsettling, and I wonder if this transfers to mobile phones being a distraction.

As an aside, I’d be interested to know if there’s any stats on phone use being a contributory factors in car incidents comparing conventional and hand-free phones.

Personally I’m not really keen on phone use in road vehicles full stop, however I do think there’s a case for a hands-free “hi love I’m 5 minutes away from home” type call being allowed. Not in a train though, not least because there’s no scope to park up and continue the call in a lay-by or whatever.

Another difference is that a passenger can see what the driver is doing. They will instinctively pause the conversation if, for example, they can see that the (car) driver is concentrating hard when waiting to turn into a major road. Someone on the end of a phone call has no idea of the environment around the driver, and will just continue talking away.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think I've read some counter-evidence to this. During a phonecall, you tend to transfer yourself mentally to the location of the person you're talking to, and away from your actual location, meaning your driving becomes automatic not attentive. When talking to a passenger, that person is alongside you so your attention doesn't transfer away in the same manner.

This is an interesting discussion. Now you've mentioned it I think I partially agree. I drive a car, and I much prefer to drive and talk to a passenger than to talk hands free on the phone. I think this is partly because I am more conscious of the other person when making a phone call rather than "mentally transferring myself". Someone in the car - if they ask me a question, they can see if I am turning the wheel or looking in a mirror or otherwise temporarily unable to answer due to concentrating on driving. Someone on the phone does not know this, and I feel more obliged to answer quickly to avoid awkward silences.

Phones also often require you to concentrate much harder on actually being heard as the listener doesn't have any visual cues like body language or lip reading to get what you're saying.

 

[Crossover]

I don't think anyone has picked up on this? From sometime in the early 2000s, my then employer (civil engineering contractor) had a blanket ban on mobile phone use on worksites, whether by staff or workforce. Their use was permitted in offices and mess-rooms, and on larger sites there were designated safe areas around the site where mobile phone use was allowed, but outwith those, it was a disciplinary offence to use a phone or even have one switched on. This followed several accidents where people had been distracted from their surroundings and been struck by mobile plant, crane loads, or similar.

My previous employer had similar rules on mobile phone use. Partly because of spark risk of electrical items (the site handled chemicals) but also to avoid people being distracted and getting wiped out by a forklift truck!

 

[saismee]

Someone in the car - if they ask me a question, they can see if I am turning the wheel or looking in a mirror or otherwise temporarily unable to answer due to concentrating on driving.

Such as a nut job driving like a maniac nearby. A passenger would (should) go silent when the driver needs to focus, then you get the fun conversation afterwards about what happened

The problem with a hands-free phone call in a train cab is that talking isn't always the distraction, it could also be what is said. A driver in a rocky relationship hearing something bad from there partner could make them lose all of their focus immediately, and possibly for quite some time.

 

[blimmo]

This is an interesting discussion. Now you've mentioned it I think I partially agree. I drive a car, and I much prefer to drive and talk to a passenger than to talk hands free on the phone. I think this is partly because I am more conscious of the other person when making a phone call rather than "mentally transferring myself". Someone in the car - if they ask me a question, they can see if I am turning the wheel or looking in a mirror or otherwise temporarily unable to answer due to concentrating on driving. Someone on the phone does not know this, and I feel more obliged to answer quickly to avoid awkward silences.

Phones also often require you to concentrate much harder on actually being heard as the listener doesn't have any visual cues like body language or lip reading to get what you're saying.

I agree with all this. I find it more distracting when my passengers aren't drivers themselves because I find they are less aware of the times I need to concentrate.

Having a passenger also slightly mitigates their own distraction since they can notice something you might not have seen yourself. I have had a shouted "look out" avoid a (minor) collision so it's not impossible. Overall I suspect having a chatty passenger is still more dangerous than driving alone but also less than a hands free call.

 

[styles]

On the flip side, if I'm driving late at night I do tend to appreciate it when passengers are a little more chatty, though not to an extreme. Not that I'd drive when too tired, but if it's late at night, having something to keep you alert can be helpful.

 

[MotCO]

This is all an interesting discussion.

I’ve found that some people seem to cope with distraction better than others, perhaps through being used to it. For example driver instructors (and I presume this applies in other settings besides rail as well) seem to be able to cope with having people in a cab more than regular drivers, no doubt because they’re used to and acclimatised to it.

I can relate to that from an office perspective. I used to have my own office, hence few distractions. We then moved to open plan, and initially it was so distractive, but over time I got used to it and could block out all extraneous conversations.

With regards to the ramps, could all new trains be specified to only accept one of two standard types of ramp - one for sliding doors, and one for plug doors. This should reduce or eliminate wrong ramps being used.

Also, I've noticed red flashing lamps attached to the cantrail when trains are at termini being attended to. Could these red flashing lights also be attached when ramps are being deployed?

 

[edwin_m]

Also, I've noticed red flashing lamps attached to the cantrail when trains are at termini being attended to. Could these red flashing lights also be attached when ramps are being deployed?

The report notes that the raised arms of the platform staff as a stop signal weren't visible on the door cameras, so something at cantrail level wouldn't be either.

 

[choochoochoo]

Personally, I am more distracted by loud conversations/arguments (or even worse, a screaming baby/child) going on directly behind me than I'd ever be by a mobile phone vibrating or beeping in my pocket. I'd be pushing for soundproofing the cab from passenger compartment more than ensuring mobile phones are off.

A rule to say phones should be off is useless, as those who want to use it will just ignore it, just as much as they ignore the rule that you shouldn't be using the phone whilst actually driving.

 

[notadriver]

On the flip side, if I'm driving late at night I do tend to appreciate it when passengers are a little more chatty, though not to an extreme. Not that I'd drive when too tired, but if it's late at night, having something to keep you alert can be helpful.

Driving a bus and and train driving are completely different.

 

[styles]

Driving a bus and and train driving are completely different.

Yes they are.

 

[notadriver]

Personally, I am more distracted by loud conversations/arguments (or even worse, a screaming baby/child) going on directly behind me than I'd ever be by a mobile phone vibrating or beeping in my pocket. I'd be pushing for soundproofing the cab from passenger compartment more than ensuring mobile phones are off.

A rule to say phones should be off is useless, as those who want to use it will just ignore it, just as much as they ignore the rule that you shouldn't be using the phone whilst actually driving.

It’s not useless - it’s in the professional driving policy.
On the other hand many many deaths have occurred on the roads directly due to inappropriate mobile phone use which is why insurance companies mandate the fitting of driver facing cctv in large vehicles.

 

[choochoochoo]

It’s not useless - it’s in the professional driving policy.
On the other hand many many deaths have occurred on the roads directly due to inappropriate mobile phone use which is why insurance companies mandate the fitting of driver facing cctv in large vehicles.

It is useless though. The rule don't use your phone whilst driving is simple enough to follow. Adding another layer to it (by insisting it must be off) doesn't really help.

If you can't be trusted to not use your phone whilst driving, how can you be trusted to just switch it off ?

 

[notadriver]

I think that’s a circular argument. If that was the case no one would obey any rules and do what they wanted leading to a dangerous railway and it is far safer than travelling by road so something is being done right.

 

[ModernRailways]

The report notes that the raised arms of the platform staff as a stop signal weren't visible on the door cameras, so something at cantrail level wouldn't be either.

This seems to have been overlooked in both the report and on these forums.
Dispatch/platform staff can’t be seen giving the one signal we can all perform because the raising two arms up is out of camera view. How would platform staff otherwise stop a train? Contact the signaller/Make an emergency call all of which take precious seconds whilst the train is moving and gaining speed. What if instead of a ramp, it was a small child trapped in the door and staff were trying to stop the train.
I would be curious to know whether the cameras should indeed have a different Field of View which allows them to see the full dispatch corridor, as it would appear that DOO cameras do not. If DOO cameras are only giving a limited view does this not go against the Rule Book which defines the dispatch corridor as the height of the train (plus up to OHLE height, where present) and the full length of the train, DOO cameras seem to ignore the former and just go for the latter covering the doors.

I do note in this situation the staff did raise both arms, albeit half-heartedly this probably made them more visible than had they of done so properly, in this situation it was most likely ignored/not seen due to the mobile phone use.
The above is more a hypothetical for those who are not distracted but have missed something small, or where the train needs stopped for whatever reason the staff believe. If arms raised can’t be seen on DOO cameras does it need further investigation/rule book clarification?

 

[sh24]

It is useless though. The rule don't use your phone whilst driving is simple enough to follow. Adding another layer to it (by insisting it must be off) doesn't really help.

If you can't be trusted to not use your phone whilst driving, how can you be trusted to just switch it off ?

Surely the "off" rule is about distraction if it rings/alerts/alarms. Have been through this in a factory where precision machining is going on. it requires high concentration for an extended period and a phone ringing is likely to distract and risk an expensive mistake.

 

[edwin_m]

This seems to have been overlooked in both the report and on these forums.
Dispatch/platform staff can’t be seen giving the one signal we can all perform because the raising two arms up is out of camera view. How would platform staff otherwise stop a train? Contact the signaller/Make an emergency call all of which take precious seconds whilst the train is moving and gaining speed. What if instead of a ramp, it was a small child trapped in the door and staff were trying to stop the train.
I would be curious to know whether the cameras should indeed have a different Field of View which allows them to see the full dispatch corridor, as it would appear that DOO cameras do not. If DOO cameras are only giving a limited view does this not go against the Rule Book which defines the dispatch corridor as the height of the train (plus up to OHLE height, where present) and the full length of the train, DOO cameras seem to ignore the former and just go for the latter covering the doors.

I do note in this situation the staff did raise both arms, albeit half-heartedly this probably made them more visible than had they of done so properly, in this situation it was most likely ignored/not seen due to the mobile phone use.
The above is more a hypothetical for those who are not distracted but have missed something small, or where the train needs stopped for whatever reason the staff believe. If arms raised can’t be seen on DOO cameras does it need further investigation/rule book clarification?

On the other hand enlarging the field of view, with a limited screen size in the cab, will make the images even smaller. Part of the problem seems to be that there is some data in white text on a black box that obscures that corner of the image - maybe it could be moved to the corner that is away from the side of the train.

Another option might be a handheld for platform staff with a button to trigger a GSM-R emergency call or perhaps operate some flashing lights off the end of the platform.

Not just a trapped child - even a ramp being swept along the platform by a departing train could cause many casualties if the platform was too busy for people to get out of the way. Conceivably someone could be knocked off their feet and fall under the train.

 

[notadriver]

The other option unless someone hasn’t mentioned it is to have the the door locked out by t key so even the driver can’t close it until it’s been manually released. Class 80x work this way.

 

[gravitystorm]

Surely the "off" rule is about distraction if it rings/alerts/alarms.

Distraction and also temptation, I suspect. If your phone rings 5 times using the special ringtone you have set for your Significant Other, then you get a text message, then many people will be tempted to just have a quick check...