Woman dragged along by TPE train

[Anvil1984]

Question:-

As a guard I have always been taught that unless you can see all the doors close from the position that you are operating the doors from - do not depart from that position.

The railway being the railway there are always exceptions. It is acceptable to dispatch when you cannot see all doors due to e.g. a curving platform if you are assisted by platform staff (not applicable in this case) or after closing the doors (except of course the local door) walk as far down the platform as necessary to check that there are no obstructions prior to departing.

I assume that TPE guards can dispatch from any local door or are they like Northern in that they must use the rearmost door?

Therefore how did the guard not see this person trapped in the door?

Northern do not have to use rearmost door (at least on the East side), the instruction is any door except the front,

I have seen TPE use the intermediate door panel in the middle coach but then you can't see the whole of the platform once the doors are shut either as you can't look back at any incidents with late runners (the cabs have a droplight but the intermediate position doesn't)

As for the rest that would be speculation I'm afraid,

 

[Nestor]

Why does it take an Incident like this to flash up an anomaly with regard to 'safe despatch'.
Is there no feedback from respective staff or is it being ignored?

 

[reb0118]

Why does it take an Incident like this to flash up an anomaly with regard to 'safe despatch'.
Is there no feedback from respective staff or is it being ignored?

I believe the "Railway Rule Book" is much more reactive than proactive.

 

[Tomnick]

There's a definite cost saving to be had by self-dispatch, and I'm sure that temptation's too great for some managers to let feedback get in the way (from those that actually do the job).

 

[Whistler40145]

Can the RAIB demand or enforce a TOC to stop Self Dispatch of trains. If they deem it not to be safe?

 

[ModernRailways]

There's a definite cost saving to be had by self-dispatch, and I'm sure that temptation's too great for some managers to let feedback get in the way (from those that actually do the job).

Surely, if guards felt it was so unsafe though they could go to their union and get them to sort something out. After the incident in Liverpool I would have thought it would be more a case of safe than sorry?

 

[Tomnick]

They can, and do. I think I've seen it published that self-dispatch is one of the issues in the current dispute at EMT. I'm sure that (generally) risk assessments can be produced to show that management consider it safe enough though.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Question:-

As a guard I have always been taught that unless you can see all the doors close from the position that you are operating the doors from - do not depart from that position.

This is correct, it's in the rulebook. On SWT we have an 8 car curved platform at Witley and when operating a 12 car unit we have to work from the cab at the front of the rear unit, to do this safely requires a a lot of walking up and down the platform to do the safety check, close the doors and then check the hazard lights are out. It's a long process but it has to be done.

Local instructions may be in place but they should not override the rule book.

 

[AndyPJG]

Can the RAIB demand or enforce a TOC to stop Self Dispatch of trains. If they deem it not to be safe?

RAIB only INVESTIGATE incidents, and make recommendations in their reports.

It's not their role to dictate any procedures etc.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

It is perfectly safe to self-dispatch a 3 car train, with 6 doors, all automatic, on a platform with a curve, irrespective of platform obstructions. It happens regularly, and I can think of a number of locations where I have to do it.

You just need to be aware of you surroundings and pay attention, and follow the correct the dispatch procedure.

I.e. - a) Observe that there are no obstructions and close doors.
b) Observe doors closing as far as practicable.
c) Observe orange door light extinguished on each carriage, whilst also checking again for obstructions. Moving position away from the train for a better line of sight if needed.

c) is the key one and, whilst not apportioning any blame, I would assume that no matter how curved the platform, during this part of the process the Guard would have noticed that there was an obstruction in the doors.

3.6 Dispatching a train with
power-operated doors with a guard
from an unstaffed platform
You must first make sure all passengers are clear of the train doors.
You may then close the train doors.
If the driver operates the doors, you must give the ‘close doors’
signal to the driver.
[Driver-When you receive the ‘close doors’ signal, you must close the
doors then acknowledge the ‘close doors’ signal.]
When the doors are closed, you must carry out the ‘train safety
check’.
If it safe for the train to start, you must then:
• where appropriate, close the local door
• where appropriate, check the door interlock light is illuminated
• give the ‘ready-to-start’ signal to the driver
• stay at the door controls until the train has passed clear of the
platform.

3.2 The ‘train safety check’
When the train doors have been closed (and on trains fitted with
central door locking, the central door locking has been locked), you
must carry out the ‘train safety check’ by making sure that:
• the train doors are properly closed
• nobody is trapped in the doors, for example by clothing
• it is safe to start the train.
You must do this by positioning yourself on the platform, if
necessary with another member of platform staff, so that the full
length of the train can be seen.
You must also check that the exterior hazard lights have gone out
on trains fitted with central door locking.
[Guard - You must carry out the ‘train safety check’ if there are no platform
staff.]

Whilst I don't know the location concerned, with 3 coach train the train safety check should be perfectly easy to carry out without the need for additional platform staff, even with a curved platform.

 

[Tomnick]

Isn't it better for all concerned (except the accountants) to make use of dispatch staff, where already provided for other trains, though?

 

[Whistler40145]

Tomnick, I can agree with that.

If staff were available to dispatch a train, they are also available to keep an eye on movements on the platform, leaving the Traincrew to get the train moving ASAP.

Does anyone agree?

 

[headshot119]

Tomnick, I can agree with that.

If staff were available to dispatch a train, they are also available to keep an eye on movements on the platform, leaving the Traincrew to get the train moving ASAP.

Does anyone agree?

I agree entirely if platform staff are already available at a station for dispatching other services, they should dispatch ALL services from that station.

It seems crazy to me that a station the size of Newcastle has trains which self dispatch.

 

[TDK]

Originally Posted by RAIB
These doors were closing as the passenger reached them, so she put her right hand between the door leaves expecting this to cause them to re-open. They did not; closing around her right wrist and trapping it. The train then started to move, forcing the passenger to walk and jog alongside.

As the train started to move, the conductor, who was leaning out of the rear cab window, could not see the trapped passenger due to the curvature of the platform. Passengers on board the train observed what had occurred and pulled the emergency door release which had the effect of applying the brakes. Another person standing on the platform shouted to the conductor to stop the train and the conductor applied the emergency brake.

Sorry I am not a fan of the RIAB and anyone who knows how trains work will know that this statement is incorrect and naïve. Once the emergency brake is applied it will not release and have to be applied again. I feel the RIAB statement is inaccurate. We have to wait for the formal report.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe the "Railway Rule Book" is much more reactive than proactive.

The railway rule book is an insurance policy written by layers

 

[RPM]

Originally Posted by RAIB
These doors were closing as the passenger reached them, so she put her right hand between the door leaves expecting this to cause them to re-open. They did not; closing around her right wrist and trapping it. The train then started to move, forcing the passenger to walk and jog alongside.

As the train started to move, the conductor, who was leaning out of the rear cab window, could not see the trapped passenger due to the curvature of the platform. Passengers on board the train observed what had occurred and pulled the emergency door release which had the effect of applying the brakes. Another person standing on the platform shouted to the conductor to stop the train and the conductor applied the emergency brake.

Sorry I am not a fan of the RIAB and anyone who knows how trains work will know that this statement is incorrect and naïve. Once the emergency brake is applied it will not release and have to be applied again. I feel the RIAB statement is inaccurate. We have to wait for the formal report.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The railway rule book is an insurance policy written by layers

Both things may have happened simultaneously?

 

[TDK]

Why does it take an Incident like this to flash up an anomaly with regard to 'safe despatch'.
Is there no feedback from respective staff or is it being ignored?

As this is the first incident I can recall from this location maybe staff did not deem this location to be a risk. In all aspects every station has risk associated to it and risk assessments should be done on dispatch at all locations. The results of this risk assessment will then determine what form of dispatch is to be used. To find out if there is any breach of safety the risk assessments need to be sifted through.

 

[ModernRailways]

As the train started to move, the conductor, who was leaning out of the rear cab window, could not see the trapped passenger due to the curvature of the platform. Passengers on board the train observed what had occurred and pulled the emergency door release which had the effect of applying the brakes. Another person standing on the platform shouted to the conductor to stop the train and the conductor applied the emergency brake.

Sorry I am not a fan of the RIAB and anyone who knows how trains work will know that this statement is incorrect and naïve. Once the emergency brake is applied it will not release and have to be applied again. I feel the RIAB statement is inaccurate. We have to wait for the formal report.

Maybe the guard had not realised and just applied his own emergency brake in the cab as well as the one being pushed inside the train?

 

[TDK]

Both things may have happened simultaneously?

So what did stop the train? The emergency egress or the guard. This will be and should have been determines before a shoddy report from the RIAB was published.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe the guard had not realised and just applied his own emergency brake in the cab as well as the one being pushed inside the train?

Maybe but at the speed the train was travelling the train will stop very quickly. I don't really do Maybe's I look on the incident and facts and the fact is the report from the RIAB is blemished.

 

[ModernRailways]

Maybe but at the speed the train was travelling the train will stop very quickly. I don't really do Maybe's I look on the incident and facts and the fact is the report from the RIAB is blemished.

The article from the RAIB isn't currently fact. They are now investigating so that they can find the facts.

It would be hard for both to be pushed quite close together. It all depends on when the person on the platform shouted and made the guard aware.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

So what did stop the train? The emergency egress or the guard. This will be and should have been determines before a shoddy report from the RIAB was published.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Maybe but at the speed the train was travelling the train will stop very quickly. I don't really do Maybe's I look on the incident and facts and the fact is the report from the RIAB is blemished.

The report is not blemished, as no report has been published. This is a statement of the facts as they have them at the moment, and a statement that they are investigating. Once they have investigated and spoken to the relevant people concerned, reviewed CCTV, got a copy of the train downloads, etc etc etc then they will have a more accurate picture of what happened.

It is conceivable that the Guard also activated the emergency brake in the cab before, during or after the IEED was activated on the train.

 

[headshot119]

What's to stop the egress handle being pulled thus applying the emergency brake, and the guard realising and at the same time placing the CTBC into emergency??

At no point does that brief introduction to the incident say the brakes where released at any point.

 

[bluenoxid]

The railway rule book is an insurance policy written by layers

Actually, if it's what I'm thinking, it is written (in some senses) in blood.

Both things may have happened simultaneously?

Certainly and I think that is what they were trying to get at. Sloppy English, rather than incident failure

It's a concerning incident. I do see some of the comments about dispatch staff. In my opinion, we're looking at a situation where a risk assessment has been made of the situation and it has been deemed reasonable to dispense with dispatch staff. You must realise, there is a cost to providing these members of staff and it is not just a few pennies.

In addition, dispatch staff are not perfect and there is no guarantee that they would prevent such an incident happening.

 

[455driver]

I would like to know how her hand got stuck in a train door which has a hustle alarm and signs saying you shouldnt try to board the train while the doors are closing! i mean people need signs for everything these days dont they!:roll:

oops silly me that would mean the initial problem was the passengers fault wouldnt it, although it should not have been possible to gain interlock and move the train if the passenger had followed the rules the rest of the scenario would not have happened would it!

 

[causton]

I would like to know how her hand got stuck in a train door which has a hustle alarm and signs saying you shouldnt try to board the train while the doors are closing! i mean people need signs for everything these days dont they!:roll:

oops silly me that would mean the initial problem was the passengers fault wouldnt it, although it should not have been possible to gain interlock and move the train if the passenger had followed the rules the rest of the scenario would not have happened would it!

A common theme is people think the doors on trains are like those on lifts - where you can put your hand in and they will reopen! They will not!

 

[bluenoxid]

I would like to know how her hand got stuck in a train door which has a hustle alarm and signs saying you shouldnt try to board the train while the doors are closing! i mean people need signs for everything these days dont they!:roll:

oops silly me that would mean the initial problem was the passengers fault wouldnt it, although it should not have been possible to gain interlock and move the train if the passenger had followed the rules the rest of the scenario would not have happened would it!

I was driving my car earlier today. Little Jimmy across the road decided to try to get in the car but my passengers shut his hand in the door. Despite his screams (and by god the little git can scream), my passenger told me to set off. I put my foot to the floor. For some reason, we're both getting the blame for it but it was little Jimmy's fault wasn't it?

A train set off with a person attached. There is a system in place to stop that happening and it failed. The aim of this investigation is to ensure that the rail industry is able to learn the lessons that can be learned from this incident.

Most failures/accidents are a result of a number of contributory factors/incidents all happening in succession. You see it in the big incidents (Clapham, Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar) and the little ones (SPADs, a certain TOC's payroll system, etc). A number of contributory factors and incidents all triggered in a specific order and lead to the incident (and I bet for both the Guard and Passenger involved, the first one was getting up that morning).

It is very easy to go "stupid passenger" and there was nothing else we could do. You might as well write the Guard's off the rail network then!

 

[Muzer]

It's ridiculous how many of these threads turn into this argument.

Can't people just accept the following two things:

* The passenger was an absolute moron
* However, the train certainly shouldn't have departed with her hand in it.


It's not the case that in every single incident, it's either "the passenger is right" or "the rail industry is right". Both can be right/wrong at the same time

 

[Tomnick]

...it has been deemed reasonable to dispense with dispatch staff. You must realise, there is a cost to providing these members of staff and it is not just a few pennies.

They haven't been dispensed with though - they are still present and happily dispatching other trains (XC and EC?). You're not, then, talking about providing new staff (although numbers might have been reduced when the dispatch workload was reduced?). It's not just about safety either - surely a station of Newcastle's size deserves a staff presence on the platforms to assist passengers, help co-ordinate connections when authorised to be held etc.?

 

[455driver]

It's ridiculous how many of these threads turn into this argument.

Can't people just accept the following two things:

* The passenger was an absolute moron
* However, the train certainly shouldn't have departed with her hand in it.


It's not the case that in every single incident, it's either "the passenger is right" or "the rail industry is right". Both can be right/wrong at the same time

Any incident is always a chain of events, stop one of those events happening and the chain is broken, I think its best to break that chain at link 1 (the passenger) but of course everyone else thinks it should be broken at the last link (the railway).

There is no way in hell we will ever agree on it so these threads will always go the same way.

 

[Qwerty133]

They can, and do. I think I've seen it published that self-dispatch is one of the issues in the current dispute at EMT. I'm sure that (generally) risk assessments can be produced to show that management consider it safe enough though.

Not as though EMT seem to have a shortage of dispatchers, often see 3 on each set of platforms 1/2 and 3/4 as well as 1 manning the barriers at one station. and at least 1 per platform plus 2 on the barriers and 1 at a customer info desk at another.

 

[AlexS]

Actually, if it's what I'm thinking, it is written (in some senses) in blood.



Certainly and I think that is what they were trying to get at. Sloppy English, rather than incident failure

It's a concerning incident. I do see some of the comments about dispatch staff. In my opinion, we're looking at a situation where a risk assessment has been made of the situation and it has been deemed reasonable to dispense with dispatch staff. You must realise, there is a cost to providing these members of staff and it is not just a few pennies.

In addition, dispatch staff are not perfect and there is no guarantee that they would prevent such an incident happening.

TPE are notorious for dispensing with platform staff - they've previously had to reinstate them following removal after objections from the ORR - see Manchester Airport. When they do get forced to have them they use the cheapest agency ones possible.

We aren't talking a minor backwater that retained dispatchers as a hangover from slam door trains, its a hugely busy regional hub with a nightlife that is known to be lively with hazards and they still choose to pinch the pennies on dispatch staff.

More than one 'risk assessment' that has involved a conveniently cost saving removal of dispatch staff has been found to be very suspect following further investigation, it's sad that in at least one case this had to be after a CIRAS report.