GWR Droplight Fatality Findings

[Deepgreen]

Couldn't find this anywhere so if there is a thread already, could the moderators please merge?

This is on the BBC news site today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20ej7rkj3ko

GWR have been fined £1m in connection with the death of a woman who leaned out of a droplight and was killed when hitting a tree branch.

A major rail operator has been fined £1m for breaching health and safety law when a young woman suffered a fatal injury after placing her head outside a droplight window.

Bethan Roper, 28, was killed on a Great Western Railway (GWR) train near Twerton in Bath on 1 December 2018 when her head struck a tree branch.

Regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) prosecuted GWR on the grounds it was aware of the issue of droplight windows, and had not yet implemented steps identified in a risk assessment undertaken two months before Ms Roper's death.

GWR was fined and also ordered to pay £78,000 after pleading guilty to two counts of breaching health and safety law.

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?

 

[The exile]

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?

penalising and potentially endangering...

 

[VP185]

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

 

[Tetchytyke]

They pleaded guilty. Presumably it’s just easier than defending it, both legally and in terms of PR. Gives the ORR something for their annual report too.

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

 

[styles]

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

But there's also no reason for droplight windows any more. If you can't replace the full rolling stock you can at least replace the locking mechanisms at a reasonable cost.

Everything sucks here frankly.

 

[renegademaster]

The only non-charter droplight trains now is the Night Riviera right?

 

[Davester50]

A million quid isn't going to bring the girl, who made the worst decision she could make while in the Railway's care, back.
However I think the reports that the risk assessments took so long to implement may sharpen minds that these things shouldn't linger and hopefully prevent the another incident that could be avoided.

 

[styles]

The only non-charter droplight trains now is the Night Riviera right?

Yes, GWR ditch their droplights and the ORR has praised them for it. This incident predates that though.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only non-charter droplight trains now is the Night Riviera right?

Yes and those are locked when the train is moving.

 

[Iskra]

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

But there's also no reason for droplight windows any more. If you can't replace the full rolling stock you can at least replace the locking mechanisms at a reasonable cost.

Everything sucks here frankly.

I feel like you are imposing current standards on a historic operation, when droplights were not considered dangerous. I know it’s not that many years ago, but a lot has changed since then.

I think it is bizarre that GWR have paid a substantial fine due to the reckless actions of a drunk passenger, on rolling stock that millions of other passengers have used safely.

 

[eoff]

Not sure I understand this, From the ORR statement

However, ORR later found the assessment to be neither suitable nor sufficient and wrote to GWR to highlight its shortcomings. The assessment was not revised in light of ORR’s concerns, and the actions GWR had identified to reduce the risk were not implemented before the fatal accident in 2018.

Great Western Railway fined £1m following fatal 2018 droplight window incident | Office of Rail and Road

Great Western Railway (GWR) has today been fined £1 million and ordered to pay more than £78,000 in costs after pleading guilty to breaches of health and safety law, following an investigation and prosecution by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

www.orr.gov.uk

Presumably they could have outright banned any operator from having windows that could be opened beyond some point, but they asked by leter for a new risk assessment?

 

[JamesT]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...en-bath-and-bristol-saturday-01-12-18.174421/ Is the thread discussing this incident at the time.

 

[renegademaster]

Yes and those are locked when the train is moving.

Does the guard have to come up and lift them all back up before departing or does it have some way of returning it back closed?

 

[fgwrich]

Does the guard have to come up and lift them all back up before departing or does it have some way of returning it back closed?

They should, so long as the Lazy Arm works, spring back up into the closed position. But, every Sleeper vehicle has its own attendant who will more than likely be doing the doors anyway.

You can see the Lazy Arm (effectively a scissor motion) in the bottom of the Mk3 door in this photo from my friends at 125 Preservation, showing some of the innards of a Mk3 door.

 

[jthjth]

They should, so long as the Lazy Arm works, spring back up into the closed position. But, every Sleeper vehicle has its own attendant who will more than likely be doing the doors anyway.

You can see the Lazy Arm (effectively a scissor motion) in the bottom of the Mk3 door in this photo from my friends at 125 Preservation, showing some of the innards of a Mk3 door.

There are so many notices these days that I suspect a notice telling you not to lean out gets lost in the noise. Coffee cups warning the contents may be hot, announcements stating the stairs may be wet etc etc. As a result many folk think it’s another notice crying wolf. Having just been to Switzerland it’s very noticeable how many things that would either attract a warning here, or would even be unthinkable, go without a mention.

 

[Ianigsy]

I think the lawyers’ answer will be that today’s drunk passenger could be tomorrow’s passenger with a disability or learning difficulty and you can’t ignore the circumstances leading to a death just because a repeat incident is now impossible.

I suspect that the ORR safety recommendations probably ended up on somebody’s desk at GWR and were treated as low priority because the HST sets were on their way out anyway.

 

[Tw99]

Having just been to Switzerland it’s very noticeable how many things that would either attract a warning here, or would even be unthinkable, go without a mention.

Just the lack of spiky fencing everywhere would certainly make an NR person's head explode.

 

[Horizon22]

This will be more about GWR not having had the right risk assessment having been warned about it following the fatality on a different route in 2016 as opposed to anything regards to how much it is personal liability.

So this would be more around risk assessing that someone might be intoxicated and what mitigations can therefore be placed around it.

 

[Elecman]

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

 

[Deepgreen]

This will be more about GWR not having had the right risk assessment having been warned about it following the fatality on a different route in 2016 as opposed to anything regards to how much it is personal liability.

So this would be more around risk assessing that someone might be intoxicated and what mitigations can therefore be placed around it.

Perhaps - but people might be, and very frequently are, intoxicated anywhere and so my point is about how far we must go to safeguard those who willingly surrender their common sense? How far do we as a society go with having a risk assessment for every conceivable eventuality and, in the process, steadily erode personal responsibility? I simply don't know, but it seems as if we are being hamstrung as a society by this sort of thing proliferating.

Having the correct risk assessment in itself means nothing - it is the action(s) that spring from it, and having a programme in place to withdraw the relevant stock would perhaps be a solid and serious response to the risk. Just updating the risk assessment per se is inconsequential. The overall danger to the public of immediately withdrawing all the affected stock and thereby perhaps forcing a number of potential rail passegers to go by road when their trains don't run almost certainly wasn't cited in any assessment, but it is a real and tangible risk whch is probably significantly higher than those internal rail risks that were considered.

 

[styles]

Perhaps - but people might be, and very frequently are, intoxicated anywhere and so my point is about how far we must go to safeguard those who willingly surrender their common sense? How far do we as a society go with having a risk assessment for every conceivable eventuality and, in the process, steadily erode personal responsibility? I simply don't know, but it seems as if we are being hamstrung as a society by this sort of thing proliferating.

I don't think it's particularly 'health and safety gone mad' to remove windows which people can stick their head out of at up to 125mph.

 

[Deepgreen]

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

Depends on how quickly it is paid, perhaps!

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

I don't think it's particularly 'health and safety gone mad' to remove windows which people can stick their head out of at up to 125mph.

I agree, and that's not what I said - but rather having a plan to withdraw, rather than a blanket instant withdrawal, is a valid and reasonable response to the risk.

 

[jfollows]

No, but getting “mind the gap between the train and the platform edge” at every single station, all of which have perfectly normal and straight platforms, demeans this. Telling me there’s an unusually large gap is fine. Telling me there’s a gap is stupid because anyone knows that in the absence of a gap the train hits the platform. Northern 331 automated announcements.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

I don't think it's particularly 'health and safety gone mad' to remove windows which people can stick their head out of at up to 125mph.

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.

 

[QueensCurve]

Couldn't find this anywhere so if there is a thread already, could the moderators please merge?

This is on the BBC news site today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20ej7rkj3ko

GWR have been fined £1m in connection with the death of a woman who leaned out of a droplight and was killed when hitting a tree branch.



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?

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

 

[The exile]

No, but getting “mind the gap between the train and the platform edge” at every single station, all of which have perfectly normal and straight platforms, demeans this. Telling me there’s an unusually large gap is fine. Telling me there’s a gap is stupid because anyone knows that in the absence of a gap the train hits the platform. Northern 331 automated announcements.

It’s worse - because no distinction is thereby made between a “normal” gap and an excessive one - just like “contents may be hot” on a cup designed to hold something that is supposed to be hot.

 

[styles]

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.

That's a very selective statistics, as are many.

How about all the non-125s? How many have been injured but not died?

It's a needless risk. As in, there's no real benefit to keeping these unsafe doors, so it's potential loss of life for at best the odd thrill of a basher. To me it doesn't check out.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

That's a very selective statistics, as are many.

How about all the non-125s? How many have been injured but not died?

It's a needless risk. As in, there's no real benefit to keeping these unsafe doors, so it's potential loss of life for at best the odd thrill of a basher. To me it doesn't check out.

The poster into was talking 125mph the only thing capable of 125 on the network being HSTs with stoplights that is the relevant statistic. More drunk people drown in the canal in Leeds every year but they haven’t asked for the canal to be concreted over.

 

[styles]

The poster into was talking 125mph the only thing capable of 125 on the network being HSTs with stoplights that is the relevant statistic. More drunk people drown in the canal in Leeds every year but they haven’t asked for the canal to be concreted over.

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.

 

[Wolfie]

That's a very selective statistics, as are many.

How about all the non-125s? How many have been injured but not died?

It's a needless risk. As in, there's no real benefit to keeping these unsafe doors, so it's potential loss of life for at best the odd thrill of a basher. To me it doesn't check out.

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.