GWR Droplight Fatality Findings

[Krokodil]

I don’t even think that is true- look at the Puffing Billy. If a heritage railway here allowed that the ORR would shut them down.

Not really, if they risk-assessed and had mitigations (keeping the foliage down for one) it might be possible.

 

[Tester]

It's certainly an aspect of the UK that we aren't willing to let Darwinism take its course, which has come from US style litigiousness over time. Most other countries do allow this, i.e. if someone does something obviously stupid and dies then nobody is prosecuted. The UK seems uniquely willing to protect stupid people from their own stupidity, only Australia seems to do this more.

Australia is very inconsistent in this regard.

Plenty of examples of both more extreme restrictions and more liberal provisions. As with so many things it appears to stem from peple/media saying, 'The government must do something'.

A good rule of life is, never say this. The government will always do something, but the chances of it being the right thing are very low, with unintended consequences abounding.

 

[Belperpete]

I do despair that the UK failed to adopt the standard RIC folding door with door blocking and autoclose back in the 70s. The HST should absolutely have had these.

I think that you need to remember the climate in which the HST was developed. It was developed by traditional locomotive engineers using traditional technology. It was seen as a stop-gap measure until the APT came into production service. The APT had been plagued by problems largely due to its new-fangled innovations. I suspect that the idea of using anything too novel to the UK would have been strongly resisted, lest it suffer the same fate as the APT.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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

Exactly. Crazy world we live in ( well the UK anyway).

Long cry from the days of idiots getting haulage behind a 40 ( or other) literally hanging out of windows with arms flailing.

 

[RUK]

Saying “people should be responsible for themselves” ignores that it’s not only the person itself who it affects when there’s an accident - if someone’s killed or injured, it affects their relatives, and the people on the railway who have to deal with the aftermath, cleaning up, and conduct the investigation, can take stock out of service which can’t be used during an investigation/cleaning for a while, and can also cause delays which affect other travellers and staff, costing time and money. Hence why effort should be made to prevent accidents.

 

[Russel]

Not sure what a fine is going to achieve here, the HST's are gone, First Group will be gone from GWR soon and no fine is going to bring the victim back...

Where is the money going?

 

[Haywain]

Not sure what a fine is going to achieve here, the HST's are gone, First Group will be gone from GWR soon and no fine is going to bring the victim back...

It achieves punishment for corporate failings that, at the very least, contributed to an unnecessary death occurring.

Where is the money going?

It goes to the government and is used to fund public services.

 

[Belperpete]

Not sure what a fine is going to achieve here, the HST's are gone, First Group will be gone from GWR soon and no fine is going to bring the victim back...

It is going to bring home to First Group and it's successors and peers that they can't just ignore their safety responsibilities in the way that GWR did.

 

[styles]

Not sure what a fine is going to achieve here, the HST's are gone, First Group will be gone from GWR soon and no fine is going to bring the victim back...

Where is the money going?

In some sense it's a bit 'wooden dollars' in that it's a company partly funded by the government paying money to the government. But really it is little different to any other fine from a criminal court. If I run a glass bottle company and I let someone use a loader to mop up molten glass and don't provide a proper cover for the loader and the worker gets burned when some drops into their cab; it's hardly a punishment if, having modified our loaders in the meantime to have protective covers, the HSE says oh ok, you're guilty, but there's no penalty. It sends the wrong message, and in the case an organisation is lucky enough for something to only be a near miss, it arguably sends the message that it's fine to take significant risks as long as when you're caught you fix them before an investigation or court case has time to conclude.

The alternative is to imprison those in charge, or hand them community orders like community service or mandatory H&S training or something.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In some sense it's a bit 'wooden dollars' in that it's a company partly funded by the government paying money to the government. But really it is little different to any other fine from a criminal court. If I run a glass bottle company and I let someone use a loader to mop up molten glass and don't provide a proper cover for the loader and the worker gets burned when some drops into their cab; it's hardly a punishment if, having modified our loaders in the meantime to have protective covers, the HSE says oh ok, you're guilty, but there's no penalty. It sends the wrong message, and in the case an organisation is lucky enough for something to only be a near miss, it arguably sends the message that it's fine to take significant risks as long as when you're caught you fix them before an investigation or court case has time to conclude.

The alternative is to imprison those in charge, or hand them community orders like community service or mandatory H&S training or something.

I think realistically fining companies only has any real effect when they're small companies. Fining companies usually has little real effect bar reducing their shareholder dividends a bit. I do wonder if there should actually be some personal director liability in this sort of case (where the issue is policy, obviously where the issue is the act of one individual like the Merseyrail case they can be personally prosecuted instead). But the law is what it is - being a regular listener on the LBC Legal Hour does nicely emphasise that very often the law is, as the phrase goes, an ass.

Fining a TOC is just a money-go-round, really.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2025 ==

I think that you need to remember the climate in which the HST was developed. It was developed by traditional locomotive engineers using traditional technology. It was seen as a stop-gap measure until the APT came into production service. The APT had been plagued by problems largely due to its new-fangled innovations. I suspect that the idea of using anything too novel to the UK would have been strongly resisted, lest it suffer the same fate as the APT.

The RIC folding door design has been around for a very long time. I think it would probably have been feasible to incorporate it in the Mk2, let alone the Mk3. As noted above, the Mk1 XP64 set had a similar design of door (but oddly one that was reversed, with the large section of the door opening inwards rather than outwards, hence the problems with it catching on the carpet) and so it could have been incorporated around then, or retrofitted to Mk2s and Mk3s as happened on some European coaches.

 

[styles]

I think realistically fining companies only has any real effect when they're small companies. Fining companies usually has little real effect bar reducing their shareholder dividends a bit. I do wonder if there should actually be some personal director liability in this sort of case (where the issue is policy, obviously where the issue is the act of one individual like the Merseyrail case they can be personally prosecuted instead).

Fining a TOC is just a money-go-round, really.

I'm sure the fine could've been higher, but GWR's operating profit last year was £27m. A fine of 4% of operating profit isn't particularly menial. I would make the fine higher, but I still don't think it's small fry at £1m. I am assuming the family will or have been pushing for some compensation also.

Of course, this may all change under GBR when the operators' profits are in public hands. It still 'sends a message', but not in the same way when it doesn't really penalise those responsible, except perhaps in their career prospects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Saying “people should be responsible for themselves” ignores that it’s not only the person itself who it affects when there’s an accident - if someone’s killed or injured, it affects their relatives

People do far more dangerous stuff as leisure activities than sticking their head out of train windows. Rock climbing/scrambling, cycling* and motorcycling are examples of this, so unless you are calling for a ban on all dangerous leisure activities then this isn't a great argument.

* I spent much of my youth sticking my head out of train windows with no adverse effects, whereas cycling has had a couple of serious attempts on my life... if doing the former you just need to be watching attentively for stuff you might hit, whereas if doing the latter it can be entirely out of your control and you are just wiped out by another road user with no way to avoid it...

and the people on the railway who have to deal with the aftermath, cleaning up, and conduct the investigation, can take stock out of service which can’t be used during an investigation/cleaning for a while, and can also cause delays which affect other travellers and staff, costing time and money. Hence why effort should be made to prevent accidents.

This is a better argument, by contrast, and is the main reason why anti-suicide fences were installed on fast lines on the 125mph mainlines. In a simple sense, they are cheaper than not having them because disruption is reduced. It sounds callous, of course, but it is how these decisions are routinely made by businesses and Courts - businesses and Courts do not generally act with emotion, they act on objective and provable fact.

(Parliament by contrast often does act on emotion - hence all the misguided "X's Laws" that have been popping up of late!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2025 ==

Of course, this may all change under GBR when the operators' profits are in public hands. It still 'sends a message', but not in the same way when it doesn't really penalise those responsible, except perhaps in their career prospects.

On occasions you do see Courts imposing fines on parts of the Civil Service, which really is all a bit pointless and just symbolic!

 

[Haywain]

On occasions you do see Courts imposing fines on parts of the Civil Service, which really is all a bit pointless and just symbolic!

It may be symbolic, but it wouldn't be right for a government owned organisation to be held to lower standards of punishment than private businesses just because the money returns from whence it came.

 

[styles]

On occasions you do see Courts imposing fines on parts of the Civil Service, which really is all a bit pointless and just symbolic!

Yes I think fines between public services are less impactful. It is up to the courts to take action they feel will balance punishment and opportunity for rehabilitation. The current penalties for organisations, including 'very large organisations', are financial. Against individuals they can be custodial and community orders. I think there are times where the wrong offence is prosecuted and some individuals should be held to account, rather than solely the organisations (and in the case of many private companies, thus, shareholders). This applies to both public and private organisations, though it will always be up to the court to impose a suitable penalty for the type, scale, etc of organisation.

 

[Belperpete]

The RIC folding door design has been around for a very long time. I think it would probably have been feasible to incorporate it in the Mk2, let alone the Mk3. As noted above, the Mk1 XP64 set had a similar design of door (but oddly one that was reversed, with the large section of the door opening inwards rather than outwards, hence the problems with it catching on the carpet)

Your statement that it's implementation on the MK1 set being problematic explains exactly why it wasn't used with the HSTs. They wanted coaches that were readily available for high speed running on the UK network, that could be rolled off the production line quickly. Introducing a major design change that would have needed significant development and retooling work and proving would have been the last thing they would have wanted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may be symbolic, but it wouldn't be right for a government owned organisation to be held to lower standards of punishment than private businesses just because the money returns from whence it came

Practically it does mean they are held to lower standards of punishment, though, because a financial punishment is a meaningless money-go-round, whereas a large fine for a for-profit business is going to mean at a minimum reduced shareholder dividends that year.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

I don’t even think that is true- look at the Puffing Billy. If a heritage railway here allowed that the ORR would shut them down.

To be fair sitting on the window sills was banned after a mini bus tried to beat the train.

For it to come crossings had to be upgraded to have boomgates.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your statement that it's implementation on the MK1 set being problematic explains exactly why it wasn't used with the HSTs.

That implementation was of course mucked up - it wasn't the same design, it was a different one which introduced uniquely British flaws! It just looked a bit similar.

They wanted coaches that were readily available for high speed running on the UK network, that could be rolled off the production line quickly. Introducing a major design change that would have needed significant development and retooling work and proving would have been the last thing they would have wanted.

The Mk2 (where it could have been introduced) came much earlier.

 

[bramling]

It achieves punishment for corporate failings that, at the very least, contributed to an unnecessary death occurring.

It goes to the government and is used to fund public services.

So essentially a revolving door doing a full circle, no doubt with a load more leaking away in the process for all the various administration and ancillary costs involved in the whole thing.

Reminds me of a post on my local Facebook group this week, sorry that nothing at all functions properly in this country any more, but we’re excited to announce your local leisure centre is being decarbonised.

As ever, the real problem here was excessive consumption of alcohol, but that’s too much of an elephant in the room for anyone to try and confront. Much easier to fuss about the colour of a sticker.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As ever, the real problem here was excessive consumption of alcohol, but that’s too much of an elephant in the room for anyone to try and confront.

Merseyrail seem to have done, to the extent that they have been pulled up on a few occasions for denying travel to people whose ataxia and unstable gait was to do with disability and not alcohol consumption. Nonetheless I've not heard anything to suggest a change of policy there.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

(Parliament by contrast often does act on emotion - hence all the misguided "X's Laws" that have been popping up of late!)

Its somewhat off-topic but I think you might need to justify that statement! I’m directly related to someone whose life has been saved due to one of those laws (in a medical sense) and indirectly to someone who was left with permanent life-changing disabilities due to an incident that would have probably been prevented by a similar law, had it been in place at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its somewhat off-topic but I think you might need to justify that statement! I’m directly related to someone whose life has been saved due to one of those laws (in a medical sense) and indirectly to someone who was left with permanent life-changing disabilities due to an incident that would have probably been prevented by a similar law, had it been in place at the time.

It's political so I'll take it to General, give me a second.

Here you go: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/xs-law-good-and-bad.293028/

 

[Russel]

It is going to bring home to First Group and it's successors and peers that they can't just ignore their safety responsibilities in the way that GWR did.

Will it really though?

This happened in 2018, how many of the senior leadership team at GWR and Frist that were around in 2018 are still around today? Also, given the size of First Group, this fine isn't going to be felt in anyone's pocket, personally, so again, what is it going to achieve?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Unless it was specifically covered in the agreement that ended the franchise in 2020, FG won’t be paying the fine -GWR (DfT) will.

It probably won’t even affect the management fee that FG get from the DfT because it relates to a pre-NRC incident.

 

[GordonT]

This happened in 2018, how many of the senior leadership team at GWR and Frist that were around in 2018 are still around today?

Mark Hopwood was appointed as MD at GWR around 17 years ago. Steve Montgomery appointed MD at First Rail in 2015. Both career railwaymen from BR days.

Also, given the size of First Group, this fine isn't going to be felt in anyone's pocket, personally, so again, what is it going to achieve?

Agreed.

 

[father_jack]

(Filmed at the site of Pill station, someone from my school got paid a small sum in cash to dig the hole!)

Ha ha ha !!!

 

[Russel]

Unless it was specifically covered in the agreement that ended the franchise in 2020, FG won’t be paying the fine -GWR (DfT) will.

Which makes the whole thing even more laughable, one government department paying another for an incident that happened two governments ago...

 

[Ballyheigue]

I think a really good way of mitigating the risk without having to resort to spoiling the experience of fresh air for all is to have posters with simple but effective wording placed right next to the droplight window in numerous locations for all to see. Something along the lines of ' only a selfish person who doesn't care about their family and friends would risk their life hanging their head out of this window', or better still 'you must really hate people you care for if you're stupid enough to hang your head out of this window'.

 

[BayPaul]

I think a really good way of mitigating the risk without having to resort to spoiling the experience of fresh air for all is to have posters with simple but effective wording placed right next to the droplight window in numerous locations for all to see. Something along the lines of ' only a selfish person who doesn't care about their family and friends would risk their life hanging their head out of this window', or better still 'you must really hate people you care for if you're stupid enough to hang your head out of this window'.

Not nearly a good enough mitigation to actually prevent a fatal incident, or to keep a company out of court.

Had GWR actually put up the proper signage that their own risk assessment identified, as part of a plan to remove these fundamentally unsafe* trains, the fatality probably still would have happened, but chances are they wouldn't have been fined.

*opening windows encourage people to lean out. On this thread people have frequently said that passengers who lean out are idiots, but unless all passengers are given training, why should they reasonably consider an opening window on a train different to one in a house. In the old days when every train had them, training was given (the Quentin Blake booklets in schools), but that's still barely adequate for those times, and certainly isn't for now.

 

[renegademaster]

A flooded quarry near me has a warning along the lines of "quarry water is ice cold and will kill you painfully" and a scary looking CGI photo of someone drowning. I feel but obviously can't actually confirm that those kinds of warnings are more effective than social shaming

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2025 ==

I think a really good way of mitigating the risk without having to resort to spoiling the experience of fresh air for all is to have posters with simple but effective wording placed right next to the droplight window in numerous locations for all to see. Something along the lines of ' only a selfish person who doesn't care about their family and friends would risk their life hanging their head out of this window', or better still 'you must really hate people you care for if you're stupid enough to hang your head out of this window'.

Part of what GWR got in trouble for is the door area being a wall of text with long winded warnings nobody read. That wouldn't help