Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 23, 2014 17:09:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 23, 2014 19:16:04 GMT
This was a pretty rare thing to've happened, glad to see they do make a recommendation nonetheless.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,096
|
Post by Tom on Oct 23, 2014 21:20:34 GMT
That could have been so much worse, had the circumstances been only slightly different. It is interesting to see how the immediate cause and causal factors were passenger action, one does wonder why the passenger thought she needed a scarf that went to her knees.
On an unrelated note, has anyone spotted the error in the report?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 23, 2014 21:32:41 GMT
one does wonder why the passenger thought she needed a scarf that went to her knees. Fashion. Or possibly Dr WHo.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 24, 2014 8:05:17 GMT
I wonder how long it'll be before the ORR start telling LU to install half height PEDs in tunnel section stations.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 24, 2014 8:49:18 GMT
I would expect a very long time. They may ask LU to do a cost-benefit analysis of measures to protect the platform-train interface, including PEDs (full and half height), and implement any that is found to be worthwhile. I doubt that retrofitting of PEDs of either height at every tunnel platform would be justified.
Personally I think it more likely that some way for a staff member on a platform to send an emergency stop message to a departing train driver will be designed. ISTR there was discussion of this in the thread about the Notting Hill Gate incident (where PEDs would not have helped).
|
|
|
Post by trt on Oct 24, 2014 9:19:46 GMT
one does wonder why the passenger thought she needed a scarf that went to her knees. Fashion. Or possibly Dr WHo. Well the former reason... meh, but the latter... perfectly understandable and entirely commendable, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 24, 2014 11:11:28 GMT
I would expect a very long time. They may ask LU to do a cost-benefit analysis of measures to protect the platform-train interface, including PEDs (full and half height), and implement any that is found to be worthwhile. I doubt that retrofitting of PEDs of either height at every tunnel platform would be justified. Personally I think it more likely that some way for a staff member on a platform to send an emergency stop message to a departing train driver will be designed. ISTR there was discussion of this in the thread about the Notting Hill Gate incident (where PEDs would not have helped). From personal experience, I don't think having a staff member on a platform would make any difference. Years ago, on behalf of LU I attended coroner's court following an incident where someone fell between the side of a train and the platform (I won't give more detail than that). From the person falling and ending up under a train it only took two seconds. The coroner concluded that no matter what CCTV or other equipment was in place, the incident was unavoidable. However, looking back on the incident PEDs would have prevented this person being killed. In my time with LU, I've dealt with nearly a hundred 'one under' incidents. All but one would have been prevented by PEDs.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by towerman on Oct 24, 2014 12:46:49 GMT
When I was first on the job back in the 60s I was told a story of a SM spotting an open middle cab door at Bank,pulling it closed & not noticing that he had trapped his jacket & was dragged down the tunnel.Never did find out if it was true or just an Central Line myth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 21:05:22 GMT
Has anyone thought of installing emergency stop buttons on the Piccadilly Line, as it appears to a higher risk line over the past twenty years or so??
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,096
|
Post by Tom on Oct 25, 2014 6:50:15 GMT
Emergency Stop Plungers were considered (and installed) as part of the enabling work for the original One Person Operation of the Circle and Hammersmith and City lines in the mid 1970s. However they were never commissioned and were subsequently decided to be not required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 13:46:01 GMT
Another PTI incident, one of many already and one of many to follow. How long will it take and how many deaths/serious injuries will it take for them to look at it properly and admit taking Guards off trains was a mistake. I'm aiming that more at the railways in the UK in general not just LU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 19:04:49 GMT
Emergency Stop Plungers were considered (and installed) as part of the enabling work for the original One Person Operation of the Circle and Hammersmith and City lines in the mid 1970s. However they were never commissioned and were subsequently decided to be not required. Also the District has them yellow diamond with a light in the middle
|
|
|
Post by Indefatigable on Oct 25, 2014 19:40:09 GMT
I have just one question to ask here - what the heck is a PED? I can't figure it out for the life of me!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 25, 2014 20:04:54 GMT
For anyone confused by the jargon, a PED is a Platform Edge Door as seen on the below-ground JLE stations. Half-height ones are seen on at least one line of the Paris MĂ©tro apparently, but I'm not familiar enough with that system to give more detail.
PTI is the Platform-Train Interface and the issues surrounding it, e.g. an incident when boarding or alighting a train is a PTI incident.
ORR is the Office of Rail Regulation - "the combined economic and safety regulatory authority for Great Britain's railway network." (Wikipedia)
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,096
|
Post by Tom on Oct 25, 2014 21:26:13 GMT
Emergency Stop Plungers were considered (and installed) as part of the enabling work for the original One Person Operation of the Circle and Hammersmith and City lines in the mid 1970s. However they were never commissioned and were subsequently decided to be not required. Also the District has them yellow diamond with a light in the middle Did the whole District line get them? I wasn't aware of any East of Barking or West of Earl's Court (basically, the bits that weren't shared).
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 25, 2014 21:48:30 GMT
Did the whole District line get them? I wasn't aware of any East of Barking or West of Earl's Court (basically, the bits that weren't shared). Not east of Barking and only to Putney Bridge, Nothing to Ealing or Richmond. Just Lines operated by C Stock. (Remnants still survive at Bow Road, Paddington and Earl's Court) I was surprised the RAIB didn't insist on some form of sensitive-edge be fitted to the doors as despite the early problems with the '09 Stock these have been resolved and work well on S Stock.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 26, 2014 10:12:53 GMT
Another PTI incident, one of many already and one of many to follow. How long will it take and how many deaths/serious injuries will it take for them to look at it properly and admit taking Guards off trains was a mistake. I'm aiming that more at the railways in the UK in general not just LU. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to have driven trains with a guard! For most of the PTI incidents, having a guard wouldn't have made much difference. The view the drivers have of the side of the train via CCTV is better than what a guard would have, especially on the Piccadilly '73 stock where the guard was in the cab of the sixth car. Any platform with a curve, closing the doors was always a gamble for the guard. The best views are on the stock with in cab CCTV where they can see what's going on after the train has moved off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 10:39:01 GMT
Also the District has them yellow diamond with a light in the middle Did the whole District line get them? I wasn't aware of any East of Barking or West of Earl's Court (basically, the bits that weren't shared). Tower Hill also had them they were known as ESL's Emergency Stop Lights
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Oct 26, 2014 17:11:29 GMT
The whole report and time spent on making it is a waste of paper in my opinion.
It was a freak accident. Accidents happen. Nobody was killed. The risk is 'as low as reasonably possible'.
And it basically suggests that the platform assistant should have waved his arms to signal to the driver not to leave. That didn't need an RAIB report to conclude.
I would have thought somebody would pull the alarm on the train. What about the impact of PEA covers on detering a passenger to pull the handle? In a packed train on the central line I have thought how restrictive those PEA covers are when you are squashed in like sardines.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 26, 2014 17:43:30 GMT
The report is not a waste imho. Yes, it was a freak accident but accidents do happen and you cannot know if a risk is ALARP until you investigate and quantify what the risk actually is.
The conclusion was that of the methods currently available, waving the arms is the only one that might have been practical in stopping the train.
The recommendations were (a) that LU needs to treat SATS as a role with safety responsibility, and (b) that there needs to be a way for platform staff to reliably indicate to a train driver that a PTI incident has occurred and they need to stop the train.
If they (LU) didn't need some external body telling them this then they would already be in place. Both of these recommendations will reduce the risk of other accidents as well as ones of this freak type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 18:10:57 GMT
One thing it brought out, which is probably the one thing that would really help, is addressing the misconception among passengers - and most especially staff - that a train can't - or, at least, won't - depart if clothing is trapped between the closing doors. It rather helpfully made clear that had the scarf been tugged out - as would likely have been quite easy - before the train started moving, all would have been well. In this case - though it is quite unusual in this regard - either the passenger involved or the member of station staff would have been able to do that, if only they had realised it was necessary. Additionally - as is likely to be the case more often - the member of station staff would (from the comfortable, retrospective viewpoint of my desk chair, where things are a thousand times easier) in reality have been better off getting the train stopped when he realised the clothing was caught. It appears to be the case that he could have done so, but the reason that he didn't was not poor provision of facilities to do this, but that he wasn't aware it was necessary. Once the train started moving - and it became clear not only that the train could depart with the clothing trapped in the doors, but - in fact - it had - it was already too late.
This is something that could do with addressing, though, obviously, in many cases, given how crowded platforms get and how little the member of staff doing SATS (who is rarely there anyway) can actually see, it's unlikely that a member of staff would notice anything amiss, even if they were there to notice. This being the case, I'm not really sure what good it is imagined that the money spent on such emergency stop devices would really be able to do.
I agree that realistically one of the best things to be done is provision of in-cab CCTV, so you can see the whole train as it departs all the while the train is still in the platform. Mind you, that CCTV still isn't magical and things can and will slip through the net, because it's not necessarily that easy to spot even fairly large incidents on a really crowded platform and the feed can flicker and drop out and come back. The report referenced a similar incident on the Northern line - which did have in-cab CCTV at the time - where the T/Op simply failed to notice the incident occurring.
Sensitive edges, now the considerable faults have finally started to be improved upon, are probably the best solution, though I don't think it's worth retrofitting them to 73s at this stage, not by a long shot.
PEDs - though I personally am not a fan - can also be expected to be a fairly effective option, though - as we've seen - difficult and expensive in some regards. I'm not actually sure they would prevent an incident where the scarf swings forward and gets caught in the train (and PED) doors, though. In fact I rather fear that in the right circumstances, if enough material got caught, they could actually cause quite nasty neck injuries, because the scarf would be clamped between two doors and would then be less able to move. I suspect it would get yanked free eventually, but probably not before putting quite a strain on your neck. Whether this is preferable I know I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to speculate. I also remain to be convinced that having two sets of doors to get oneself trapped in is an improvement on just the one. The travelling public have consistently proven themselves incapable of using one set of doors and adding another into the mix does not seem a good idea. I did hear a report of a child getting caught between the PEDs and a train and I've also heard of many injuries being caused by PEDs. Now, doubtless, many injuries are caused by the doors on the train, possibly inordinately more, but this is why I do not feel adding another layer of difficulty for the commuter who seems to have confused their fat lumbering self with Usain Bolt is an entirely trouble-free solution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 19:28:19 GMT
Another PTI incident, one of many already and one of many to follow. How long will it take and how many deaths/serious injuries will it take for them to look at it properly and admit taking Guards off trains was a mistake. I'm aiming that more at the railways in the UK in general not just LU. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to have driven trains with a guard! For most of the PTI incidents, having a guard wouldn't have made much difference. The view the drivers have of the side of the train via CCTV is better than what a guard would have, especially on the Piccadilly '73 stock where the guard was in the cab of the sixth car. Any platform with a curve, closing the doors was always a gamble for the guard. The best views are on the stock with in cab CCTV where they can see what's going on after the train has moved off. Curved platforms, the guard had monitors at the rear didn't he/she? I agree the in cab CCTV trains 92ts onwards have is very good and yeah you'd be able to see more this way than the guard would be able to as the train leaving, however the drivers main duty is still to be looking at the road ahead and not 100% of his/her attention on some screens infront of them. Also the 73ts Guards would've been able to see the train out leaning from the open rear cab door? The train would've at least been able to stop if the Guard saw this woman with her scarf caught in the doors as it was leaving!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 26, 2014 20:34:11 GMT
Curved platforms, the guard had monitors at the rear didn't he/she? Hamilton Square up here (currently closed for refurbishment) is similarly equipped. I suspect this warranted RAIB investigation as AIUI (not read it yet) being caught was what stopped the passenger being dragged into the tunnel and/or suffering severe neck injuries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 21:34:59 GMT
Did the whole District line get them? I wasn't aware of any East of Barking or West of Earl's Court (basically, the bits that weren't shared). Not east of Barking and only to Putney Bridge, Nothing to Ealing or Richmond. Just Lines operated by C Stock. (Remnants still survive at Bow Road, Paddington and Earl's Court) And Stepney Green eastbound.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 26, 2014 23:06:36 GMT
Curved platforms, the guard had monitors at the rear didn't he/she? Hamilton Square up here (currently closed for refurbishment) is similarly equipped. I suspect this warranted RAIB investigation as AIUI (not read it yet) being caught was what stopped the passenger being dragged into the tunnel and/or suffering severe neck injuries. The trouble with the in-cab monitors once on the move is that, even with ATO, the driver's core responsibility remains to observe the road ahead -- especially in open sections as there is the possibility of staff working on the track ahead, hazards etc. I wonder if it's only 'grandfather rights' which allows these monitors to function on the move, as on the mainline my understanding (please correct if this is wrong or out of date) is that where in-cab monitors are fitted they blank out once the train starts moving. It's not unreasonable to ask drivers to glance at the monitor whilst moving off, but in my view it's not reasonable to hold it against the driver if they don't notice something. There is one way it might be possible to restrict a train moving off, although certainly not an official method, and potentially hazardous and not always guaranteed to work, however if the doors were forced apart the train would lose pilot light and only be able to coast. The best way for the train to be stopped is for someone inside to operate a PEA handle, as within station limits this guarantees a brake application. Apart from this use an emergency stop plunger where available (only on the Central Line now I believe?).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 0:20:59 GMT
The trouble with the in-cab monitors once on the move is that, even with ATO, the driver's core responsibility remains to observe the road ahead -- especially in open sections as there is the possibility of staff working on the track ahead, hazards etc. I wonder if it's only 'grandfather rights' which allows these monitors to function on the move, as on the mainline my understanding (please correct if this is wrong or out of date) is that where in-cab monitors are fitted they blank out once the train starts moving. Surely that is also substantially undermined by the TOD and PM driving? I know PM driving isn't actively encouraged, but looking out of the window clearly wasn't at the forefront of anybody's mind when designing the system. In fact I think that's one of the big drawbacks of in-cab signalling. I can't really believe that if they wanted the monitors not to function on the move that that wouldn't be a fairly easy modification to've made, e.g. when installing the TBTC equipment. Indeed I recall a post from good old aslef shrugged, which makes it sound like they take watching your train the whole out of the platform pretty seriously over on the red one: All that said I have no experience of actually using this equipment and I'm more than happy to concede all of your criticisms, but I can't quite find it likely that monitoring the CCTV on the move isn't very much intended and I think it's certainly desirable as another potential line of defence, more of a chance for someone to spot something, means that once the cab is past the headwall, you can still give the emergency stop signal and stand a chance of being seen, half an eye can be kept on it on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 27, 2014 9:07:53 GMT
Curved platforms, the guard had monitors at the rear didn't he/she? I agree the in cab CCTV trains 92ts onwards have is very good and yeah you'd be able to see more this way than the guard would be able to as the train leaving, however the drivers main duty is still to be looking at the road ahead and not 100% of his/her attention on some screens infront of them. Also the 73ts Guards would've been able to see the train out leaning from the open rear cab door? The train would've at least been able to stop if the Guard saw this woman with her scarf caught in the doors as it was leaving! When I first joined LU I was a guard on the Piccadilly line for two years. There were no monitors provided at the rear of the train. To try and see along curved platforms we had to go get off the train and go over to the platform wall. By the time we'd get back to the cab loads more passengers could've come onto the platform. We took a chance and closed the doors without a view of the front part of the train. Once we had a pilot light, most guards just used to press the signal button and as soon as the train moved off shut the cab door. We were supposed to stay out for about a third of the platform, but we never did. I'm not sure if H&S would allow someone to hang out of the back of a train these days anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 15:49:13 GMT
I recently watched a couple of video125's driver's eye view videos. One was the Northern line, Charing Cross branch filmed just before the demise of the 59s (and 62s, I believe). Both of these trains required guards and so, at that time, the Northern was the last line to still have guards (though not very many working on a given day as the 95 rollout had been mostly finished by that point and the video was filmed exclusively from the front of 95s). Anyway, the point is, by that time (late 90s) you could clearly see monitors suspended from the ceiling at curved platforms for use by the guards.
The other was the 1992 version of the Central line back in the days of the 62s (and guards on every train). There were no monitors that I could see then, but the guard could be seen leaning out of the train to watch it out of the platform - though not every time and one can't help but wonder whether the cameras played a role.
|
|
hobbayne
RIP John Lennon and George Harrison
Posts: 516
|
Post by hobbayne on Oct 27, 2014 18:41:57 GMT
Unfortunately, I'm old enough to have driven trains with a guard! For most of the PTI incidents, having a guard wouldn't have made much difference. The view the drivers have of the side of the train via CCTV is better than what a guard would have, especially on the Piccadilly '73 stock where the guard was in the cab of the sixth car. Any platform with a curve, closing the doors was always a gamble for the guard. The best views are on the stock with in cab CCTV where they can see what's going on after the train has moved off. Curved platforms, the guard had monitors at the rear didn't he/she? I agree the in cab CCTV trains 92ts onwards have is very good and yeah you'd be able to see more this way than the guard would be able to as the train leaving, however the drivers main duty is still to be looking at the road ahead and not 100% of his/her attention on some screens infront of them. Also the 73ts Guards would've been able to see the train out leaning from the open rear cab door? The train would've at least been able to stop if the Guard saw this woman with her scarf caught in the doors as it was leaving! The East and West Central Line platforms at Bank had monitors at the guards positions as it was impossible for the guard to see the whole length of the train.
|
|