Incident at Wandsworth Common 07/08/16

[Clip]

Given only a 100mm (4") clearance to passing trains, high closing speeds and the pressure pulse that is hardly a safe practice.

I take it you are qualified enough to make that statement?

 

[QueensCurve]

I take it you are qualified enough to make that statement?

I certainly wouldn't do it. And repeating what was in the other thread re the clearances.

 

[AlterEgo]

I take it you are qualified enough to make that statement?

It's a 4" clearance!!

 

[Tio Terry]

It's a 4" clearance!!

It's a minimum of 4" that includes an allowance for overthrows at both ends and middle for restrictive curves, it's not the same on an open line.

 

[QueensCurve]

It's a minimum of 4" that includes an allowance for overthrows at both ends and middle for restrictive curves, it's not the same on an open line.

I have never chanced it unless I am confident there is much bigger clearance unless I was confident no oncoming train was coming (eg one had just passed in which case you have a minute or so).

 

[Clip]

Aplogies, I notice you were talking about sticking your head out the window.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a minimum of 4" that includes an allowance for overthrows at both ends and middle for restrictive curves, it's not the same on an open line.

But it is not possible to tell where the 4" clearance is on any given line, if you're a guard or passenger. Of course it's not safe to stick your head out of the window.

 

[sarahj]

Anyway, the outcome. WE are not allowed to lean out the window on 442's during dispatch. Must be closed at all times.

I despair.:roll:

 

[QueensCurve]

Anyway, the outcome. WE are not allowed to lean out the window on 442's during dispatch. Must be closed at all times.

I despair.:roll:

Very sad. May be worse after RAIB pronounces.

 

[tsr]

Anyway, the outcome. WE are not allowed to lean out the window on 442's during dispatch. Must be closed at all times.

I despair.:roll:

However, at the very same locations used by 442s, you would have to lean out of a window of a similar size and shape during dispatch of a 171 or 377 from the cab because, due to a bodged design, there are no functioning interlock lights on those if the cab does not have a driver's key on.

I wonder who would be liable if a method of dispatch on a 377 or 171 is not now employed on a 442, and a PTI incident then occurs when it turns out a conductor could have been safely observing the train leaving the station from an open droplight.

(In fact, Southern conductor training has recently - and I suspect probably still - specifically included assessments of competency with regards to leaning out of open droplights during dispatch.)

In addition, during degraded working, how does a conductor use a green light or flag for the ready-to-start signal on a 442? Southern's appendix to the Rules specifically forbids doing this verbally, IIRC.

 

[sarahj]

However, at the very same locations used by 442s, you would have to lean out of a window of a similar size and shape during dispatch of a 171 or 377 from the cab because, due to a bodged design, there are no functioning interlock lights on those if the cab does not have a driver's key on.

I wonder who would be liable if a method of dispatch on a 377 or 171 is not now employed on a 442, and a PTI incident then occurs when it turns out a conductor could have been safely observing the train leaving the station from an open droplight.

(In fact, Southern conductor training has recently - and I suspect probably still - specifically included assessments of competency with regards to leaning out of open droplights during dispatch.)

In addition, during degraded working, how does a conductor use a green light or flag for the ready-to-start signal on a 442? Southern's appendix to the Rules specifically forbids doing this verbally, IIRC.

Well you start to think of things like. If I dispatched and during the train moving away someone fell between the train and the platform, an incident that I could have seen with the window open and me leaning out of it. Would I be liable?

And then, if we are not, what about HST's and their Mk3 coaches, or any dispatch.

I'm seeing a poor thought out knee jerk reaction thought up by someone who has never dispatched a train.

 

[swt_passenger]

With only 2 pairs of 442 in service they should just get rid of them now and use 377/x instead.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

With only 2 pairs of 442 in service they should just get rid of them now and use 377/x instead.

I'm surprised that they haven't already

 

[bramling]

Given only a 100mm (4") clearance to passing trains, high closing speeds and the pressure pulse that is hardly a safe practice.

Agreed it's certainly not "safe", but unless on a left-hand curve, there should normally be plenty of prior sighting of an approaching train giving ample opportunity to reign in. Furthermore, depending on the route in question, the frequency of passing trains may well be fairly sparse. By contrast lineside structures and overhanging branches can be encountered on a pretty constant basis on the cess side.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I saw the catering crew on the Edinburgh-Newcastle HST at the weekend flapping every time anyone went near the droplight on the door, even (admittedly on the track side) when we were stood in the platform at Carlisle for the thick end of an hour due to signalling problems.

Was that just an overeager crew member or have edicts gone out to everyone?

 

[tsr]

Was that just an overeager crew member or have edicts gone out to everyone?

Edicts dispatched at GTR regarding 442s. No idea about stock elsewhere featuring "proper" droplights (ie. not the ubiquitous hopper vent windows) - haven't seen anything yet. 442 motor coach droplights must also be obscured with a hazard warning tape "X" at all times.

 

[ExRes]

The following short article is on page 2 of the Daily Telegraph today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...n-death-man-24-who-died-after-leaning-out-of/

Corrections and Clarifications

Simon Brown

Contrary to what was suggested by articles of Aug 9 and 10 last year, it has not been established that Simon Brown was "leaning" out of a Gatwick Express train window when he was killed on Aug 7. In addition, it has been established that Mr Brown was not in fact hit by a train, but was struck by a signal gantry. The incident is being investigated by the Rail Accident and Investigation Branch, which will release a report in due course

 

[Martin66]

The RAIB report is now available:
https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/fatal-accident-balham

At about 17:24 hrs on Sunday 7 August 2016 a passenger, travelling on a Gatwick Express service from Gatwick Airport to London Victoria, suffered fatal injuries as a result of having his head out of a window and striking it on a signal gantry near Balham in south London. The train was travelling at about 61 mph (98 km/h) at the time of the accident.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I notice the RAIB are critical of Southern for misleading the RSSB regarding the 442s were only going to be used for a short while.

 

[yorkie]

I notice the RAIB are critical of Southern for misleading the RSSB regarding the 442s were only going to be used for a short while.

The report doesn't actually say that.

But the company (then called Southern, now called GTR) just used whatever stock the DfT told them they had to use!

 

[yorksrob]

Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference, given that the 442's are no more, ahem 'dangerous' than all the other drop light stock running around.

 

[trainmania100]

Looks like other trains have struck the gantry in the past. Surely this should have been assessed as we, the gash in the gantry from the report photo looks very deep from trains striking it

 

[edwin_m]

Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference, given that the 442's are no more, ahem 'dangerous' than all the other drop light stock running around.

However the guard's door on a 442 must be the only place there has been a droplight in the middle of a 23m vehicle, at least for stock in passenger service. This is likely to approach lineside structures on the inside of the tighter curves more closely than any droplight in Mk1 stock or its EMU derivatives.

 

[yorksrob]

However the guard's door on a 442 must be the only place there has been a droplight in the middle of a 23m vehicle, at least for stock in passenger service. This is likely to approach lineside structures on the inside of the tighter curves more closely than any droplight in Mk1 stock or its EMU derivatives.

Fair point, I can't think of any others on 23m stock.

 

[AlterEgo]

That clearance is very tight indeed.

The report doesn't mention which way the victim was looking, but we can only assume he was looking backwards and didn't see the gantry.

 

[Sacro]

That clearance is very tight indeed.

The report doesn't mention which way the victim was looking, but we can only assume he was looking backwards and didn't see the gantry.

Possibly indeterminable, there was no CCTV and I doubt the eye-witnesses were paying that much attention to him.

 

[AlterEgo]

Possibly indeterminable, there was no CCTV and I doubt the eye-witnesses were paying that much attention to him.

They would probably have been able to determine from his injuries, but it is not mentioned. Not that it is really relevant to the RAIB.

 

[Deepgreen]

Looks like other trains have struck the gantry in the past. Surely this should have been assessed as we, the gash in the gantry from the report photo looks very deep from trains striking it

Yes, that was the element that amazed me - it's one thing to have items outside the gauge (i.e. people) hitting structures, but trains themselves...!?

 

[LAX54]

Yes, that was the element that amazed me - it's one thing to have items outside the gauge (i.e. people) hitting structures, but trains themselves...!?

Of course it may not have been passenger trains, could have been engineering trains, like a crane or similar within a T3,

 

[najaB]

Of course it may not have been passenger trains, could have been engineering trains, like a crane or similar within a T3,

Possibly, but the immediate impression is that the mark was made by something(s) travelling at high speed.