Last of the droplights

[Journeyman]

Nothing is perfectly safe if we’re being honest.

No, it isn't, so we shouldn't use that term, but there are plenty of things safer than that.

 

[DelW]

I assume that the reason it became practice that the way to open a railway carriage door was to open the window fully, reach through, and use the outside handle, was to reduce the likelihood of it being opened accidentally on the move. However, it's quite an awkward operation, especially for anyone with limited dexterity, poor grip, or shoulder or arm injuries, and surely ought to have been superseded long ago.
I thought that most or all first generation DMUs had inside door handles, and I don't remember them having a locking system. Is that right, and if so, why were those designs allowed and yet mk3s built in the late 1970s still had droplights and outside handles only?

 

[bramling]

Therefore, I politely suggest you shut up about things you don't understand.

The longest period without a fatal train crash in the industry's history (getting on for 13 years and counting) is in the 21st century, and is down to the hard work and dedication of thousands of people.

I don't pine after the days when the railway routinely killed several dozen people a year in horrific accidents.

We used to send kids down mines for twelve hours a day. Thankfully things move on.

One could quite reasonably make an argument to say the industry should be concentrating on things which have a greater contribution to safety, which given that the last drop lights have survived in unmodified form for so long would indicate that that’s exactly the approach the industry has taken.

I wouldn’t conflate train accidents with windows. If I get on a train and something goes wrong like the driver having a SPAD (as at Southall for example) it’s largely beyond my control, whereas making a dumb decision to lean out of a droplight certainly is within my power. Personally I’d prefer resources to be directed towards the former risk as this is something potentially of relevance to a far greater number of people.

 

[Journeyman]

I assume that the reason it became practice that the way to open a railway carriage door was to open the window fully, reach through, and use the outside handle, was to reduce the likelihood of it being opened accidentally on the move. However, it's quite an awkward operation, especially for anyone with limited dexterity, poor grip, or shoulder or arm injuries, and surely ought to have been superseded long ago.
I thought that most or all first generation DMUs had inside door handles, and I don't remember them having a locking system. Is that right, and if so, why were those designs allowed and yet mk3s built in the late 1970s still had droplights and outside handles only?

It was always the case that suburban stock had handles on the inside, and main line, higher-speed stock didn't. For example, the SR's 4-EPB, 2-HAP and 4-VEP units had inside handles, but the CEPs, BEPs, CIGs etc. didn't. I'm assuming this is because it was seen as the risks of injury, accidental opening etc. were much higher on faster trains.

I wouldn’t conflate train accidents with windows. If I get on a train and something goes wrong like the driver having a SPAD (as at Southall for example) it’s largely beyond my control, whereas making a dumb decision to lean out of a droplight certainly is within my power. Personally I’d prefer resources to be directed towards the former risk as this is something potentially of relevance to a far greater number of people.

The thing is, resources were devoted to reducing SPADs, and their incidence is now a tiny fraction of what it was a few decades ago. Southall was instrumental in the decision to roll out TPWS, which has massively reduced the risk of train collisions - hence, that risk is now nowhere near as high a priority as it was in the past. Hence the lack of fatal crashes for 13 years.

It is now the case that droplights have moved significantly higher up the "league table" of risk, with two known fatalities over the last few years, so that's why it's getting attention now.

 

[Beemax]

I assume that the reason it became practice that the way to open a railway carriage door was to open the window fully, reach through, and use the outside handle, was to reduce the likelihood of it being opened accidentally on the move. However, it's quite an awkward operation, especially for anyone with limited dexterity, poor grip, or shoulder or arm injuries, and surely ought to have been superseded long ago.
I thought that most or all first generation DMUs had inside door handles, and I don't remember them having a locking system. Is that right, and if so, why were those designs allowed and yet mk3s built in the late 1970s still had droplights and outside handles only?

Agreed. When my wife moved over from Finland and started to travel on the GWR HSTs she was astonished that we still had train doors like that on the mainline, and sent photos abroad to friends, more or less to confirm her suspicions that the UK was a third-world country.

I didn't dare tell her about the free-emission toilets!

 

[Journeyman]

I didn't dare tell her about the free-emission toilets!

They were actually a lot more obvious in some countries. When I visited Switzerland in the eighties, I was surprised to see a flap open at the bottom of the toilet, through which the track was visible.

 

[43 302]

Because the additional door locking system was a secondary system - originally known as “Secondary Door Locking” - fitting interior handles would introduce additional risks.

What risks would they be? With door locking fitted how can an inside handle pose any risk?

 

[Journeyman]

What risks would they be? With door locking fitted how can an inside handle pose any risk?

BR's Central Door Locking system for slam-door stock is passive and reliant on supplies of air and power to work. If it loses those, the CDL fails in such a way as to allow the door to be opened. There are rules about locking doors out of use should this happen.

 

[bramling]

The thing is, resources were devoted to reducing SPADs, and their incidence is now a tiny fraction of what it was a few decades ago. Southall was instrumental in the decision to roll out TPWS, which has massively reduced the risk of train collisions - hence, that risk is now nowhere near as high a priority as it was in the past. Hence the lack of fatal crashes for 13 years.

It is now the case that droplights have moved significantly higher up the "league table" of risk, with two known fatalities over the last few years, so that's why it's getting attention now.

But, presumably, not as high up the league table as level crossings - which nowadays I'd probably regard as my biggest risk when travelling by train. I'd prefer resources be directed towards that risk rather than something which is essentially people doing something daft and risking only their own safety.

 

[Journeyman]

But, presumably, not as high up the league table as level crossings - which nowadays I'd probably regard as my biggest risk when travelling by train. I'd prefer resources be directed towards that risk rather than something which is essentially people doing something daft and risking only their own safety.

The railway is capable of addressing more than one safety issue at a time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the answer, which would be cheaper than installing power doors on stock which isn’t going to be around for long anyway, is to glue the droplights shut and install internal door handles.

Given they’re centrally locked there’s no need to rely on outside handles for safety.

I don't know if this is why Mk3s don't have internal handles, as that would be a really, really easy fix, but the problem with a large, heavy door like that is people opening them hard and belting people in the face on the platform. The awkwardness of opening it via the window means nobody can throw it back hard without warning like that.

The upside of that would be muppets who like standing in the way of people alighting getting their come-uppance, but I don't think the railway likes to work that way

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the additional door locking system was a secondary system - originally known as “Secondary Door Locking” - fitting interior handles would introduce additional risks.

Presumably it wouldn't be difficult to fit a system like UIC door blocking to the handle (or even simply using off the shelf handles for that purpose), so its use would also be blocked if the locking was engaged. This works by disconnecting the internal handle mechanially.

The bigger issue is surely of people who don't know their strength (yes, guilty sometimes, my last go at that was winding a First Aid instructor while trying the Heimlich manoeuvre with her wearing a training vest) opening the very heavy door too hard and knocking people over on the platform. UIC type doors, which do have inside handles, are folding and do not stick out more than a few inches from the coach body so aren't going to belt anyone in the face.

(It is a shame the UIC style doors fitted to the XP64 stock were not carried forwards. They lacked door blocking and autoclosers, but that could have been fitted later once the concepts proved themselves. It would have saved many lives from both falling from trains and from getting their heads knocked off when window-leaning.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought that most or all first generation DMUs had inside door handles, and I don't remember them having a locking system. Is that right, and if so, why were those designs allowed and yet mk3s built in the late 1970s still had droplights and outside handles only?

I've seen a kid playing with one of those on a Class 101. I don't think the parent was too impressed (as this was in the 90s they probably didn't even know the doors weren't locked), but it gave me enough of a scare to make me shout at them to pack it in. They do require quite some force to operate (to the point where I tended just to use the outside handle anyway) but without locking they were a silly idea.

Buses of course still have the same risk with the emergency door - I'm quite surprised nothing has ever been done about that, e.g. requiring a break-glass fitting.

 

[43096]

Presumably it wouldn't be difficult to fit a system like UIC door blocking to the handle (or even simply using off the shelf handles for that purpose), so its use would also be blocked if the locking was engaged. This works by disconnecting the internal handle mechanially.

It would be a pretty big mod: the CDL kit is all at the top of the door. If you’re looking at door blocking interlocked with CDL you’d basically need new doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be a pretty big mod: the CDL kit is all at the top of the door. If you’re looking at door blocking interlocked with CDL you’d basically need new doors.

Think outside the box, specifically outside the CDL box. The control signal could control the handle independently.

It would require some sort of flexible cable onto the door to carry that signal (whatever it is) and the handle box itself to have whatever electronics would interface with that. Not an excessively complex problem. Certainly a far simpler set of electronics and mechanics than a power-operated door of any kind.

(I've never quite worked out how the signal gets to the handle on a UIC door, I suspect some sort of cable inside the door, but it doesn't have to be the same design).

 

[bramling]

The railway is capable of addressing more than one safety issue at a time.

The industry may well be capable, but it still costs money and takes time away from other matters. The Balham incident should (in my view, others may differ) have been quite satisfactorily followed up with nothing more than a more prominent warning label.

 

[43096]

Think outside the box, specifically outside the CDL box. The control signal could control the handle independently.

It would require some sort of flexible cable onto the door to carry that signal (whatever it is) and the handle box itself to have whatever electronics would interface with that. Not an excessively complex problem. Certainly a far simpler set of electronics and mechanics than a power-operated door of any kind.

(I've never quite worked out how the signal gets to the handle on a UIC door, I suspect some sort of cable inside the door, but it doesn't have to be the same design).

It’s still a big mod. There’s no electrical or pneumatic connection to the door itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s still a big mod. There’s no electrical or pneumatic connection to the door itself.

You would need an electrical connection, yes. This would not be difficult to achieve with a flexible armoured cable. You would not need a pneumatic connection, it could be done with a solenoid.

It is certainly not as complex as a replacement door.

The benefits of a replacement door are (a) not whacking people in the face, (b) ease of dispatch and (c) PRM compliance. This would be my view as to why replacement doors have generally been the preferred option despite being far more costly (particularly the Chiltern solution).

 

[MarlowDonkey]

They do require quite some force to operate (to the point where I tended just to use the outside handle anyway)

As far as I recall, using the droplight to open with the outside handle was standard practice on commuter train DMUs. The practice on the Mk3s of not having an inside handle may have been directed against the door being opened accidentally.

 

[CC 72100]

When reducing levels of risk, there are several methodologies that can be used, in a hierarchical way.

Top of the risk reduction hierarchy is removing the risk completely. In this instance, the risk is an opening window, which allows dangerous behaviours to occur. Replace the door with something that doesn't have the opening window and you've solved that risk. Boom, no need to worry about methods of work, announcements, stickers, people patrolling vestibules, all of which are inferior methods of reducing that risk as they only reduce and do not eliminate the risk, plus it still requires human intervention, which in safety methodology is not good as humans are regarded as 'unreliable'.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy droplights as a nostalgic part of my childhood travelling by train, and yes will look to travel on slam door trains for that factor whilst I still can, but I couldn't agree more with the generic stance that the industry is taking in getting rid of them from public areas.

 

[50039]

I grew up in the 70s and 80s - always found the Mk3 doors that bit heavier and more awkward to open... having been on a few again recently, I find it quite odd to have to lean out to open the door.... I suspect that for most people it’s really odd. I’ll miss the sound of doors slamming, but I don’t really think there’s a place for them on the mainline anymore.
More confusingly, I was at the SVR last year and used a carriage where I had to turn the handle back to lock it (it was on a driver experience day rather than a public train), but that really did seem dangerous!

 

[Bikeman78]

Nope, that's not good enough. In the 21st century, there is absolutely no need for a window that can result in decapitation through misuse.



You clearly don't understand the principle of ALARP. There will always be accidents, yes, but it's a matter of reducing them to the lowest practical level. If you look at road safety statistics you'll see that the number of deaths and serious injuries on UK roads has declined sharply, because determined measures have been taken to improve safety. Likewise on the railways.

As far as I can tell, nothing has been done to improve the safety of cyclists in Cardiff in the past 20 years or so. Also road fatalities have been broadly the same for the last decade. Plenty more could be done to improve road safety but the cynic in me suspects that it's not a vote winner so it won't happen.

 

[Journeyman]

As far as I can tell, nothing has been done to improve the safety of cyclists in Cardiff in the past 20 years or so. Also road fatalities have been broadly the same for the last decade. Plenty more could be done to improve road safety but the cynic in me suspects that it's not a vote winner so it won't happen.

Actually again, the UK is very good at this - it just doesn't tend to get noticed. My wife is a driving instructor, and it's well known that the UK driving test is one of the most thorough and difficult in the world. It's regularly changed to make it more appropriate to modern conditions and more challenging - it now includes following satnav directions. It may be that we've reached a point where it's difficult to make further improvements, but much like our railways, our roads are among the safest you'll find anywhere, and that's come about with a lot of effort.

 

[James James]

I can't deny that British railways have a great safety record.

But the tradeoff with making it safer is that - in some cases (there are many improvements that have no negative impact - better crash standards for example) - it makes the railways either more expensive or more inconvenient - which in turn would make it less attractive, reducing usage numbers, making the overall world less safe if more people drive instead of taking the train (because driving is inherently more dangerous than the train).

Of course - for droplights, this is irrelevant. Removing them or barring them doesn't make the railway any less convenient or more expensive (except for the handful of grumbling enthusiasts). Although it's odd that they're such a problem in the UK, when opening windows seem to be fine on the continent (could be network specific though - perhaps less dangerous items close to trains on the continent).

 

[Bletchleyite]

perhaps less dangerous items close to trains on the continent).

Yes. The loading gauge is much bigger and most vehicles are not much wider than over here, certainly older style slab sided 26.4m UIC coaches of the sort that have full droplights.

 

[Journeyman]

I can't deny that British railways have a great safety record.

But the tradeoff with making it safer is that - in some cases (there are many improvements that have no negative impact - better crash standards for example) - it makes the railways either more expensive or more inconvenient - which in turn would make it less attractive, reducing usage numbers, making the overall world less safe if more people drive instead of taking the train (because driving is inherently more dangerous than the train).

This is precisely why the decision was made to go for TPWS rather than full Automatic Train Protection, after accidents like Clapham and Southall. ATP would save a tiny extra number of lives for an absolutely huge extra amount of money. When calculating cost and benefit, human lives do actually have a notional monetary value, so the decision was made that the economic case for ATP wasn't good enough. TPWS was close in terms of benefit, but several orders of magnitude cheaper - and, perhaps more importantly, a lot quicker to roll out. Certainly in conjunction with better crashworthiness of modern trains, it's done a huge amount to make the railway safer.

Of course - for droplights, this is irrelevant. Removing them or barring them doesn't make the railway any less convenient or more expensive (except for the handful of grumbling enthusiasts).

Agreed - this is something enthusiasts will get hugely animated about, like compartments v. saloons, underfloor engines v. loco haulage etc, that 99.9999999% of rail travellers don't give a toss about. It's insane that we should be trying to defend something that ultimately carries a huge amount of risk for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

 

[BRX]

Actually again, the UK is very good at this - it just doesn't tend to get noticed. My wife is a driving instructor, and it's well known that the UK driving test is one of the most thorough and difficult in the world. It's regularly changed to make it more appropriate to modern conditions and more challenging - it now includes following satnav directions. It may be that we've reached a point where it's difficult to make further improvements, but much like our railways, our roads are among the safest you'll find anywhere, and that's come about with a lot of effort.

There's loads of road safety stuff that could be implemented if motorists' preferences could be over-ruled, and more money spent on enforcement (ideally paid for out of an increase in VED if necessary).

For example, installing many more speed cameras (not having to wait until someone gets killed in a known dangerous location first). Fitting automatic speed limiters, and recorders, in all cars. Actually enforcing 20mph limits. Changing the lax sentencing for motorists who kill people through negligence. Having a proper system to prosecute people whose reckless driving is recorded by cyclists etc.

 

[Journeyman]

There's loads of road safety stuff that could be implemented if motorists' preferences could be over-ruled, and more money spent on enforcement (ideally paid for out of an increase in VED if necessary).

For example, installing many more speed cameras (not having to wait until someone gets killed in a known dangerous location first). Fitting automatic speed limiters, and recorders, in all cars. Actually enforcing 20mph limits. Changing the lax sentencing for motorists who kill people through negligence. Having a proper system to prosecute people whose reckless driving is recorded by cyclists etc.

Can't argue with that. I don't think there's any credible reason for being opposed to speed cameras. I stick to speed limits, so have never been caught by one. It isn't a "tax on motorists", because it's incredibly easy to avoid paying it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can't argue with that. I don't think there's any credible reason for being opposed to speed cameras. I stick to speed limits, so have never been caught by one. It isn't a "tax on motorists", because it's incredibly easy to avoid paying it!

Yes, it's an entirely optional "tax", every driver is fully equipped and able to choose not to pay it by simply paying attention to their speed.

I do however prefer average speed cameras because they reduce speeding generally rather than causing panic braking. If they are set to the conventional 10% + 2mph ish, and you stick to the indicated limit, even if you drift a bit you won't get picked up accidentally and things will be safer as a whole.

 

[keith1879]

I assume that the reason it became practice that the way to open a railway carriage door was to open the window fully, reach through, and use the outside handle, was to reduce the likelihood of it being opened accidentally on the move. However, it's quite an awkward operation, especially for anyone with limited dexterity, poor grip, or shoulder or arm injuries, and surely ought to have been superseded long ago.
I thought that most or all first generation DMUs had inside door handles, and I don't remember them having a locking system. Is that right, and if so, why were those designs allowed and yet mk3s built in the late 1970s still had droplights and outside handles only?

Couple of points here for information. The internal door handles on old DMUs were very difficult to operate.....you had to slide a metal catch against a spring using the force of your fingers or thumbs and did not have the mechanical advantage of a rotating handle. In practice very few people used the inside handles. With regard to Mark 3 coaches....they did originally have inside handles I believe ....quite easy to operate with a large lever but these were rapidly removed....I think because of accidents on platforms when doors were flung open without any prior check by the passenger inside. (Editing to add a question). I have tried without success to find a reference to the original internal door handles on Mark 3 coaches. I remember using them for a brief period on (probably) WCML loco-hauled stock. Can anyone else find pictures or even a reference.??