Passenger trapped in Elizabeth line door

[saismee]

I'd rather go back the the previous situation where the doors remain open until departure unless someone presses the close button.

This was likely changed due to trains having air conditioning/heating rather than just having windows.

I agree that the sounds should be different. On FLIRTs with level boarding, the sound plays for longer when the doors are locking due to the step moving, but there's no way to tell until the doors have already shut.

 

[Purple Train]

I've mentioned this before. The doors closing after a few seconds seemed like a good idea at first. However, the hustle alarms have got louder and I've seen many people run for trains two or three minutes before departure. I'd rather go back the the previous situation where the doors remain open until departure unless someone presses the close button. Until 25 years ago, the sound of the hustle alarm meant the train is about to depart. Now it means the door are closing but you can open them again or the doors are closing but you can't open them again. There is no way to tell the difference.

Agreed. I remember running for a 1-minute connection at Slough. It was my regular train home and so I knew that the train was timed to depart on the half-minute and that some drivers wait. I got to the door, which had automatically closed but was still unlocked, pressed the button, and it opened. And a man who had been standing resignedly next to the door said "woah well done!"

Yes, there was a green light around the door button and a tiny green light at the top of the door, but clearly, as you say, this man had been taken in by the hustle alarm, and would otherwise have had to spend 20 minutes unnecessarily twiddling his thumbs and cursing his ill-luck. I don't know about anyone else, but I think the railway should be striving to minimise unnecessary inconvenience to the greatest extent it can.

 

[chiltern trev]

I have just been reading Report 01/2026, issued March 2026, Passenger trapped and dragged at Ealing Broadway.

A contributory factory was the congested nature of the platform particularly around the new waiting room - see Figure 17, para 141, page 34.

It is clear the new waiting room obstructs the platform more than the old structure.

So why is there no a recommendation to remove the new structure and if a waiting room is required, replace with a narrower waiting room in line with the original waiting room footprint.

I ask the RAIB and got the following reply from RAIB

RAIB recommendations are not prescriptive in a manner that would instruct an infrastructure manager or station facility owner to remove/change any infrastructure. The platform width along the new waiting room complies with Railway Group Standard GI/RT7020, see paragraph 35 for further detail.
Recommendation 1 bullet point 1, asks the new operator to – undertake a risk-based assessment to understand how passenger flow on platforms can be affected by factors such as platform structures and width.
Recommendation 5 is to Network Rail to ensure that changes made on platforms (such as the waiting room) does not impact safety.
The ORR as the statutory safety authority will ensure the recommendations are considered, acted upon, and reported back to RAIB. The process will involve assessing the adequacy of actions taken by duty holders against clear criteria, with the goal of reducing risk to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).

 

[Bikeman78]

Agreed. I remember running for a 1-minute connection at Slough. It was my regular train home and so I knew that the train was timed to depart on the half-minute and that some drivers wait. I got to the door, which had automatically closed but was still unlocked, pressed the button, and it opened. And a man who had been standing resignedly next to the door said "woah well done!"

Yes, there was a green light around the door button and a tiny green light at the top of the door, but clearly, as you say, this man had been taken in by the hustle alarm, and would otherwise have had to spend 20 minutes unnecessarily twiddling his thumbs and cursing his ill-luck. I don't know about anyone else, but I think the railway should be striving to minimise unnecessary inconvenience to the greatest extent it can.

At the risk of being controversial, I suggest that the hustle alarm should only sound when the doors are closing for departure. Internal doors close without warning. I can think of plenty of trains that I have travelled on that had no hustle alarms for external doors at all. The most recent examples in Belgium and on the New York Subway. It didn't seem to be a problem.

 

[whoosh]

At the risk of being controversial, I suggest that the hustle alarm should only sound when the doors are closing for departure. Internal doors close without warning. I can think of plenty of trains that I have travelled on that had no hustle alarms for external doors at all. The most recent examples in Belgium and on the New York Subway. It didn't seem to be a problem.

Whilst I see your reasoning, there isn't a (sometimes large) gap in front of the door when it's an internal door. There is with the external doors, and external doors have (most infamously at Birkenhead Hamilton Square) knocked people over as they've shut before. So I would say they do need an audible warning that they are closing.

I do believe however, and have for quite some time, that the warning for 'doors closing' and 'doors closing and locking - i.e. the train will be departing' should be different, and more urgent sounding in the latter case, and more muted/calmer sounding in the former.

I would say it's likely that unnecessary rushing and franticness upon hearing 'hustle alarms' for auto-closing doors contributes to slips trips and falls on the platforms and stairs to platforms, and also to increased anxiety, especially amongst those who do not use the railway frequently and for whom the environment is unfamiliar.

 

[jon0844]

This is routinely a common problem; people expect train doors to act the same as lift doors yet they don’t and have never been designed to do to the same tolerances.

But people are more familiar with the latter and transfer their expectations to the railway.

Exactly. Annoying as it would be, a lift can stay stuck with the doors re-opening over and over until the end of time. A train needs to move.

Ironically, the fact lift doors keep reopening is a major cause of frustration when someone will try and squeeze in and can't quite fit - and the doors keep trying forever until they eventually work out they need to exit, or every other occupant gets the courage to tell them to leave!

 

[BrianW]

IIRC the RAIB report made no mention of the (excessive?) height difference 'when stepping up to the train', which will be significant for a person attempting to board at an unfamiliar station, especially for the last train, and perhaps for a passenger attempting to rush through a crowd on the platform and not wishing to be parted company from their friend and left behind.

A road T-junction would have a requirement for a 'joining vehicle' to have a certain minimum distance of visibility of an approaching vehicle; not dissimillar from a train approaching quickly on a gentle curve from 'behind' the obscuring waiting room structure. Is there not a similar requirement for visibility along the platform?

Can anyone tell me the height of the step up to the train, and what is the maximum acceptable?

Exactly. Annoying as it would be, a lift can stay stuck with the doors re-opening over and over until the end of time. A train needs to move.

Ironically, the fact lift doors keep reopening is a major cause of frustration when someone will try and squeeze in and can't quite fit - and the doors keep trying forever until they eventually work out they need to exit, or every other occupant gets the courage to tell them to leave!

A train does not NEED to move with parts of people hanging out- that would be unacceptably dangerous. Similarly a lift does not need to move when body parts would be removed when the lift passes the next floor. Safety first surely.

 

[jon0844]

A train does not NEED to move with parts of people hanging out- that would be unacceptably dangerous. Similarly a lift does not need to move when body parts would be removed when the lift passes the next floor. Safety first surely.

I absolutely wasn't suggesting a train needs to move when a door is blocked, and in most cases they don't (hence this thread). The doors simply don't reopen so people can keep doing so to delay the train by ages. The key is to removing the blockage and then securing the doors and allowing the train to move, possibly with staff intervention.

A lift on the other hand can't just force the doors shut and hope. There is nobody else there to sort the problem, so they have to keep re-opening ad infinitum.

I just pointed out the fact that people who might assume a train door will just open like a lift are not understanding that there's a major difference.

Imagine a peak time tube train where the doors fully reopened if someone touched them as they closed. The train would never leave.

 

[Purple Train]

IIRC the RAIB report made no mention of the (excessive?) height difference 'when stepping up to the train', which will be significant for a person attempting to board at an unfamiliar station, especially for the last train, and perhaps for a passenger attempting to rush through a crowd on the platform and not wishing to be parted company from their friend and left behind.

A road T-junction would have a requirement for a 'joining vehicle' to have a certain minimum distance of visibility of an approaching vehicle; not dissimillar from a train approaching quickly on a gentle curve from 'behind' the obscuring waiting room structure. Is there not a similar requirement for visibility along the platform?

Can anyone tell me the height of the step up to the train, and what is the maximum acceptable?

It's not as bad on platform 3 - close to the standard 185mm, I would say, but I haven't been in a while and am not an expert. Platform 4 is the one with the infamous reputation.

 

[BrianW]

It's not as bad on platform 3 - close to the standard 185mm, I would say, but I haven't been in a while and am not an expert. Platform 4 is the one with the infamous reputation.

Thank you.

If I recall correctly, the Building Regulations of 1965 were informed by research by the University of Loughborough regarding height of steps. Then Loughborough Polytechnic they have expertise in sports science and related ergonomics and anthropometrics. The max rise of a step for a domestic stair is 220mm, and for 'general access' is 170mm. Falls are the most common domestic accident, and many a fall is a prelude to death.

Are there statistics for railway passenger accidents related to falls? I see many a notice alerting us to danger at stairs, and advice to use the handrail.

Is there research evidence related to 'hustle alarms' and inducing of hurry and panic?

 

[Purple Train]

Thank you. IIRC the Building Regulations of 1965 were informed by research by the University of Loughborough regarding height of steps. Then Loughborouch Polytechnic they have expertise in sports science and related ergonomics and anthropometrics. The max rise of a step for a domestic stair is 220mm, and for 'general access' is 170mm.

Interesting, thank you!

 

[NSEWonderer]

Thank you. IIRC the Building Regulations of 1965 were informed by research by the University of Loughborough regarding height of steps. Then Loughborouch Polytechnic they have expertise in sports science and related ergonomics and anthropometrics. The max rise of a step for a domestic stair is 220mm, and for 'general access' is 170mm. Falls are the most common domestic accident, and many a fall is a prelude to death. Are ther statistics for railway passenger acidents related to falls. I see many a notice alerting us to danger at stairs, and advice to use the handrail.

Is there research evidence related to 'hustle alarms' and inducing of hurry and panic?

TFL did attempt a trial on the DLR which at the time didnt have a before door "hustle alarm":
TFL DLR Testing

Was an intresting read, more so pages 13 onwards for me

 

[BrianW]

TFL did attempt a trial on the DLR which at the time didnt have a before door "hustle alarm":
TFL DLR Testing

Was an intresting read, more so pages 13 onwards for me

That TfL report (of 2018) is interesting and relevant- thank you. The RAIB report on the Ealing Broadway incident make no reference to it, nor to the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) at all, and only seven uses of the words 'hustle alarm'. Although the RAIB report refers to the possibility of behavioural issues, the TFL report of several years previous, shows clearly that 'door closure warning sounds' are associated with passengers hurrying, causing problems and delays, indeed on one two-day trial there were 12 incidents of passengers trapped in closing doors.

The TFL trials suggest strongly that hustle alarms contribute to increased safety-related incidents. They also contributed to increased staff tiredness and thus also reducing attentiveness and increased safety risks.

The TfL report also refers to studies carried out previously on the London Underground, though I did not see any specific mention of findings. Perhaps these informed the 'three second audible alarm' required to 'assist' disabled persons by The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 2010 (RVAR).

I hesitate to reiterate that the train involved at Ealing Broadway was the 'last train' (so passengers less likely to 'stand back'), and the driver had 'previous' regarding competence (RAIB report para 128 et seq).

The TfL study appears to suggest that the RVAR requirements should also be reviewed; this too is not referred to in the RAIB report, perhaps because no-one involved is reported as having any impairment.