Coupling trains: which is safest?

[ComUtoR]

Yes but at Leeds you would never attach a portion again if this was the case. We simply cannot budget for every potential eventuality. If in doubt fine don't do it. But not allowing people off doesn't make the platform empty.

I have no doubt that this is the case but it still doesn't change that there is a safety argument that letting everyone off and then carrying out the attachment is more or less safe. I know what I would do and I know what happens at my TOC but the there is no significant difference to really state clearly that one way is 'safer' than the other because you need to consider all the risks involved. A decision was made to couple whilst passengers were on board. Was that safe ? Yes. Was it the safest option ? Crikey no. They could have detrained, physically checked each unit to clear passengers, cleared the platform of all passengers and non essential staff and then carried out the attachment.

 

[bengley]

Coupling a 185 takes 10 seconds at most. There's no pull away test to be done - as soon as the units bang together the doors can be released. It's safe, it inconveniences nobody and this is how it's done on TPE.

 

[bengley]

(and guards cannot view the CCTV)

 

[Darandio]

I think he was referring to Network Rail staff at Lime St, but I may be wrong.

Indeed, the opening post does state Network Rail. I don't think it matters who he spoke to really, he wanted to tell whoever it was that they were wrong.

And maybe it's just me, but when they are using the fact it was to form an ECS service but didn't bother to mention this vital part of their argument in their first post, it makes me suspicious. To only insert it after their view has been challenged makes me wonder whether the interaction happened at all.

 

[Gems]

I have no doubt that this is the case but it still doesn't change that there is a safety argument that letting everyone off and then carrying out the attachment is more or less safe. I know what I would do and I know what happens at my TOC but the there is no significant difference to really state clearly that one way is 'safer' than the other because you need to consider all the risks involved. A decision was made to couple whilst passengers were on board. Was that safe ? Yes. Was it the safest option ? Crikey no. They could have detrained, physically checked each unit to clear passengers, cleared the platform of all passengers and non essential staff and then carried out the attachment.

Exactly. This is my point. Can you imagine arriving in the station with passenger holding a advanced purchased ticket for a train departing in 10 minutes, and keeping them on board just so you can cut corners and have a longer break. It is outrageous,

 

[ComUtoR]

and keeping them on board just so you can cut corners and have a longer break. It is outrageous,

Er ? Cutting corners for a longer break ? Are you suggesting that this attachment took place to get it done quicker, against the rules/procedures because the crew wanted a longer PNB ? Potentially an extra 4/5 minutes ?

 

[bengley]

Er ? Cutting corners for a longer break ? Are you suggesting that this attachment took place to get it done quicker, against the rules/procedures because the crew wanted a longer PNB ? Potentially an extra 4/5 minutes ?

Not even that. I coupled a 185 earlier and was in and out of the cab within 30 seconds.

 

[ComUtoR]

Being late on your PNB gets you out of work...

 

[Johncleesefan]

Quite simply the process remains the same regardless of what the unit then does due to standardisation so all competent crew ensure they do the correct process every time.

The only time this is different and doors released on arrival first is if there is no competent crew on the platform to watch the attachment. That’s my company policy anyway

 

[hooverboy]

Er ? Cutting corners for a longer break ? Are you suggesting that this attachment took place to get it done quicker, against the rules/procedures because the crew wanted a longer PNB ? Potentially an extra 4/5 minutes ?

nobody is suggesting cutting corners at all.
it's a suggestion that the rules are REALLY strictly adhered to,checked and double checked. etc etc.

health+safety are masters at this,and by following health+safety guidelines you can easily make a 5 minute job last half an hour.

 

[Johncleesefan]

If you w

Er ? Cutting corners for a longer break ? Are you suggesting that this attachment took place to get it done quicker, against the rules/procedures because the crew wanted a longer PNB ? Potentially an extra 4/5 minutes ?

if u wana talk about cutting corners, I have a driver bring a unit in for attachment (I was on the platform to watch it) he bailed out so he could rush to catch his pass back train home, leaving me to do the lot hence making the train late. Oh well, win some lose some

 

[jamesst]

Well at my toc (older Stock) coupling with people on is only allows

it should be a fairly straightforward procedure:
basically in order.
1) station announcer at "coupling station" says ....this will be the xxxx to wherever.PLEASE DO NOT BOARD THE TRAIN AT THIS TIME.
FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS WILL SAY WHEN YOU MAY DO SO
2)train pulls into station
3)doors open...alighting (not all)passengers disembark. Driver over PA says please do not board at this time.

4)driver announces" the doors will now be closing,passengers to take seats/hold on as this train will shortly be coupling.
5)doors close
6)couple up
7)open doors
8)station announcer says "this is the xxxx to wherever.You may now board the train.


that's actually a lot stricter than it used to be!...twas a very regular occurrence getting a bit of a jolt from a loco attatching to a rake of mk1's without any notice!

Believe me,you could have all the announcements in the world, you could have a naked woman standing with a flashing sign saying do not board and people would still try to get on that train causing more delay and potentially dangerous situations.
Much easier and safer to come in,do the coupling and then take it from there.

 

[ComUtoR]

nobody is suggesting cutting corners at all.

Gems was. Hence me quoting them and seeking clarification. Their comment came out of nowhere suggesting cutting corners for a longer break

health+safety are masters at this,and by following health+safety guidelines you can easily make a 5 minute job last half an hour.

Aren't they just. Isn't that the point of the OP. The attachment was done in a less safe manner and should have been done in the safest possible way, rather than the quick and efficient way.

 

[Llanigraham]

I have no doubt that this is the case but it still doesn't change that there is a safety argument that letting everyone off and then carrying out the attachment is more or less safe. I know what I would do and I know what happens at my TOC but the there is no significant difference to really state clearly that one way is 'safer' than the other because you need to consider all the risks involved. A decision was made to couple whilst passengers were on board. Was that safe ? Yes. Was it the safest option ? Crikey no. They could have detrained, physically checked each unit to clear passengers, cleared the platform of all passengers and non essential staff and then carried out the attachment.

So what do you suggest is done at Shrewsbury where coupling and uncoupling of numerous Cambrian, North Wales and Birmingham trains, nearly always loaded, takes place daily? Are you suggesting that both the units should be unloaded? I can just imagine the up-roar from passengers if that was proposed!

 

[Arrpi87]

I remember back in the day when what was then Connex South Eastern would split/join trains at Faversham.

This was on the old slam door trains and they certainly did bump and jump while carrying out the procedure! When the newer units started replacing them you could barely notice it. In fact you probably wouldn't even know it was happening, so it's certainly not a danger.

 

[Llanigraham]

Aren't they just. Isn't that the point of the OP. The attachment was done in a less safe manner and should have been done in the safest possible way, rather than the quick and efficient way.

Was it?
We only have a passengers word for that.
And if it was so unsafe why is it done that way every day at Shrewsbury.

 

[driver9000]

Like I said
It was my opinion only
that as it had standing passengers
I felt it less safer for the guard to
allow the coupling up when it was
an already terminating service going back out ecs.Why was it so important that the trains had to be joined up first?
There were no passengers waiting to get on!
They didn't do it this way when I was at
London Waterloo recently.
Everyone got of our train and then the sets coupled up.
It may be because those trains are longer and that there may be a lot more standing.

If my train had standing passengers,I would let them all off first then couple up as it IS safer to do it that way.
The 185s have CCTV so the guard should have seen his train had standing passengers and considered the safer option to let them off first!
If you have different rules for whenever it suits,then expect accidents!

When the train stops,open doors to allow all passengers off safely first.
CCTV should allow the guard to check his train to See if it's empty or not,or if it's a short train,he could easily do a quick walk through.
Then close all doors then do the coupling up.The guard would walk to the other end of the train,then reopen the doors if it was going back out in service.
I am not saying it was dangerous,but it was the less safe of the two.
If the railways took safety as seriously as they claim,they wouldn't do things less safe would they,and I wouldn't be told to move on when they didn't like my enquiry as to why they chose less safe!

There is no live feed for the Guard to view CCTV. The method of work you describe is the official procedure for coupling TPE units and has been through full safety validation and was employed by other operators long before TPE adopted it for themselves. It's neither unsafe or dangerous and there have been no incidents since the method of work was adopted.

 

[Belperpete]

Coming back from Manchester to Liverpool a few weeks ago,I was
travelling on a class 185. Arriving into Lime Street when the guard announced that everyone remain seated as the train was going to couple up to another 185 before he opened the doors.
Then the train stopped,people still standing and a second or two later moved forward again to couple up to the other set.
Upon alighting,I asked the guard,why was it not possible to let everyone off the train first,then couple the trains up.
Surely that would have been safer?

I have seen it done the other way around. Train arrived, doors opened, passengers out, loads of passengers got in, doors then closed and train started to move to couple up. Passengers then arriving on the platform see doors closing and panic that they are about to miss their train, and run over to the train to press the door open button just as the train starts moving. And passenger inside, who had not listened to the guard's announcement, thinks the train is departing, and as it is before time, thinks they must be on the wrong train and made a desperate dash to the doors, barging through all the standing passengers in their way. In both cases, quite illogical behaviour as there is no way they would get the doors opened, but potentially dangerous.

A Network Rail staff member told me it was completely safe,but what if the train didn't successfully couple the first time,were all the passengers to be shunted on the train whilst trying to couple.?

If they did it the way you suggest and the train didn't successfully couple the first time, then all the passengers who had just got on would need to be shunted whilst the train tried to couple again. Either way round, you will have passengers on the train whilst it shunts about.

In some situations, if there are a lot of people getting off, it might be safer to do it one way, or if there are a lot of people waiting to get on it might be safer to do it another way. The problem would be deciding which way would be appropriate in each particular case, and making sure that all the staff (and passengers) are clear which way it is going to be done on any particular occasion. It is therefore probably safer to have one standard method used every time.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I dread the thought, on the Southern, if every morning everyone had to wait on the train or the platform at a dozen stations, before being let off or on, while the railway staff exercised their authority by attaching before releasing the doors, of all the feet stomping, the umbrella waving, the briefcase throwing, and emailing of MPs that would take place

 

[FGW_DID]

it should be a fairly straightforward procedure:
basically in order.
1) station announcer at "coupling station" says ....this will be the xxxx to wherever.PLEASE DO NOT BOARD THE TRAIN AT THIS TIME.
FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS WILL SAY WHEN YOU MAY DO SO
2)train pulls into station
3)doors open...alighting (not all)passengers disembark. Driver over PA says please do not board at this time.

4)driver announces" the doors will now be closing,passengers to take seats/hold on as this train will shortly be coupling.
5)doors close
6)couple up
7)open doors
8)station announcer says "this is the xxxx to wherever.You may now board the train.
…………

………Believe me,you could have all the announcements in the world, you could have a naked woman standing with a flashing sign saying do not board and people would still try to get on that train……………

@hooverboy Have you ever been to Reading Stn? Once those doors open they’re boarding!!!!

 

[Taunton]

For about 150 years long distance trains changed locos every few hours. There was no issue about what happened when the replacing loco buffered up, nobody running up and down shutting doors and telling everyone to cower under the seats. And guess what, nobody was ever upset at any time. In fact passengers generally didn't even know it had happened. And if you think that a reversing steam loco in the dark is somehow easier to control, with a tender behind the cab blocking the view ...

I don't know where the paranoia came from.

 

[6Gman]

For about 150 years long distance trains changed locos every few hours. There was no issue about what happened when the replacing loco buffered up, nobody running up and down shutting doors and telling everyone to cower under the seats. And guess what, nobody was ever upset at any time. In fact passengers generally didn't even know it had happened. And if you think that a reversing steam loco in the dark is somehow easier to control, with a tender behind the cab blocking the view ...

I don't know where the paranoia came from.

I liked that.

However, we do now live in litigatious times and I understand a certain degree of nervousness.

Going back to the OP's OP (which was about safety rather than missing connections ...) I don't think the procedure outlined was inherently more hazardous than the alternative.

 

[swt_passenger]

This topic has come up before, and I think part of the problem is people post their ideas based on how their local TOC does things, but there are a number of different procedures in use. None of them are specifically right or wrong, and none are unsafe. They’re just different.

 

[Chris217]

My post is genuine
and It was an ecs when it departed.
The enquiry was real as was the response.

Many of you who work on the railways know
what the rules and procedures are and follow them in the correct manner.
I don't doubt that for a minute.
Not sure whether it's drivers or gaurds discretion regarding coupling etc or if
It makes any difference.
If we are led to always believe in the safest option,
then passengers would have been allowed off the train first.
Also,I expected more professionalism with my enquiry tbh.
I didn't say it was unsafe,only that it wasn't the safest option with standing passengers aboard.
If common sense prevailed then the enquiry wouldn't have had to be made.
It was only a question at the time,but i suppose some people only hear what they want to hear and say what they want to say,and if they dont like the question,fob me off by excusing the said enquiry as me not knowing what I am talking about.
Because they work on the railway,and i dont,i am supposed to know nothing! That shows the very ignorance and contempt by the staff who just don't like dealing with Joe Public!
I am not bothered whether it's right or wrong. It was just an enquiry and I got told to move on for asking!

 

[Ianno87]

Was it?
We only have a passengers word for that.
And if it was so unsafe why is it done that way every day at Shrewsbury.

Calling it "less safe" is not considering the full picture.

Firstly "less safe" does not mean "unsafe".

Secondly holding everybody on the platform, then releasing the doors creates risk of a door scrum and Platform-Train Interface risk (i.e. people tripping over/falling through the gap) instead. Tomatoe/Tomarto.

 

[fulmar]

Not sure whether it's drivers or gaurds discretion regarding coupling etc

Neither in the case of class 185s. It is company policy. See post 77 above for a short and accurate response. The same policy applies to class 185 units when operating Northern services.

 

[12guard4]

Guard correct. None story.

 

[DelW]

A lot of the respondents above seem to have missed the OP's statement, repeated several times, that after coupling, the train was going to be departing ECS. Therefore comments about pax exiting then re-boarding, keeping boarding pax off, etc. are irrelevant.

The TOC in question must presumably consider that coupling an occupied train involves some degree of risk to standing passengers, otherwise why instruct staff to make the announcement in the first place? I suspect it's mainly an ar$e covering exercise in case someone falls over during the coupling operation and bruises themselves, but if so, why not eliminate that (small) risk entirely by letting passengers off first? Which has the additional benefit of not unnecessarily delaying their journeys or risking missing their connections.

Some of the more defensive replies above do seem to have an element of, "we've always done it this way, so it must be the best way", which is not always the case (in any industry).

 

[fulmar]

Some of the respondents above don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that frontline staff are required to follow their employers policies and procedures. Whilst staff are free to submit suggestions for improving procedures, deviating from the existing procedures is neither permitted nor appropriate.

If people on this forum have ideas about improving safety or performance on the rail network, why not submit your ideas to the relevant TOC?

 

[30907]

A lot of the respondents above seem to have missed the OP's statement, repeated several times, that after coupling, the train was going to be departing ECS.

There has to be a consistent procedure, though, whichever way it is, to avoid confusion. So in terms of the alighting passengers, what the unit does next is irrelevant. Not to mention that a booked ECS move may be changed at short notice.