|
Post by 35b on Sept 7, 2021 12:27:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by u03drp on Sept 7, 2021 22:20:41 GMT
Like any accident involving a fatality or life-changing injuries, this is clearly tragic for all involved.
I understand the forum has strict rules regarding discussion of passenger fatalities prior to the release of official reports. But now that a report has been published, I hope it's within forum rules to ask if there's been any official (and public, naturally) explanation as to why smoke emanated from the second train (214) and why it came to such an abrupt stop. Paragraphs 27-30 of the report read as being strangely circumspect about this, and the report does not return to this point, as far as I can see. Is it simply that the RAIB do not regard it as pertinent to their inquiry?
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Sept 7, 2021 22:55:55 GMT
But now that a report has been published, I hope it's within forum rules to ask if there's been any official (and public, naturally) explanation as to why smoke emanated from the second train (214) and why it came to such an abrupt stop. Paragraphs 27-30 of the report read as being strangely circumspect about this, and the report does not return to this point, as far as I can see. Is it simply that the RAIB do not regard it as pertinent to their inquiry? As I understand it, the RAIB report will be looking for causes of an accident (possible liability / prevention of future accidents through changing procedures etc.) - I am sure that the inspectors/fire crew would have included anything regarding this, if it were pertinent/relevant.
With a live electrical current, moving wheels and a body on the track, I am sure you can work out why a train may have run short of a platform/smoke may have appeared. There is nothing to be gained by anyone/any organisation by making any further statements.
How respectful would any further forum discussion/speculation be towards the person who lost their life, or towards their family and what would it resolve/achieve ?
As you say, it is tragic - sadly someone, it could be any of us, has lost their life and a family has been bereaved. Like roads, railways are potentially dangerous places, which need to be respected.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Sept 7, 2021 23:15:10 GMT
the second train (214) and why it came to such an abrupt stop. As it was an uncommanded stop I would imagine the front trip was likely operated by striking something.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 8, 2021 7:47:07 GMT
How much more evidence do we need, to demonstrate that the driver cannot do the guard's job as well?
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 8, 2021 7:54:24 GMT
I think LU seem to come out poorly in this report, which is all about risk assessment. LU seemed unable to justify that risks were as low as practical. The incident occurred early in the Covid pandemic with few passengers around, so no-one to see what happened and then help or raise the alarm. Quiet times are probably more of a problem, with no public to assist. Platform risks were assessed by LU on a line-wide basis, suggesting no higher risk at curved platforms. And yet platform markings, lighting within the gap and ‘mind the gap’ announcements all suggest a higher risk was recognised. LU risk assessment was also only concerned with fatalities, and therefore understated risk by ignoring non-fatal accidents. They recommend ongoing evaluation of existing safety measures at stations, and periodic risk assessment of individual locations, likely because the platform CCTV monitors, used by train drivers, date back to initial installation in the late 1980s with no requirement to update equipment to meet two subsequent upgrades of CCTV standards. They also require effective delivery of actions proposed by internal investigation recommendations, following similar incidents which apparently resulted in no changes at this platform.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Sept 21, 2021 18:41:41 GMT
How much more evidence do we need, to demonstrate that the driver cannot do the guard's job as well? Unless we know a guard would have seen the person, that's only conjecture and not actual evidence; for instance, if the guard was using the same CCTV signals and had the same training, they too might not have seen the victim.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 22, 2021 7:29:28 GMT
Sorry, I was meaning the old-style guard. The one that was ON the train, and physically watched the platform to see if it was safe to give the 'right away'. Somebody else watching TV would be of little improvement.
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 22, 2021 8:30:51 GMT
As it states on Page 10 paragraph 6 "The railway is tightly curved to the left (in the direction of travel of trains) through the platform" and the photo "Figure 3" on page 11 illustrates how severe the curve is. If the guard was on the "back end" they wouldn't have been able to see the whole of the platform. Before CCTV a member of staff would have been on the platform during traffic hours to assist with dispatch by giving a hand signal to the guard but CCTV allows the driver to see the whole of the train.
In this case the train was on the platform for about 4 minutes and the person fell into the gap about 3 minutes after the train arrived at a time when the driver wasn't looking at the CCTV
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 10:25:47 GMT
Sorry, I was meaning the old-style guard. The one that was ON the train, and physically watched the platform to see if it was safe to give the 'right away'. Somebody else watching TV would be of little improvement. I’m not sure this would have helped, given that at the time the passenger fell the driver wasn’t looking at the CCTV, nor was required to be doing so. The same could well have applied to a guard - he would quite probably have been on the laudaphone to the driver to find out what the delay was. The dispatch process is very much set up to focus on doors. It’s fair to say it isn’t really designed to detect people falling beneath the train. If someone essentially disappears, as is what happens here, they’re unlikely to be noticed.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 22, 2021 14:44:38 GMT
There are only two potentially realistic ways of reliably preventing this sort of accident. 1) preventing people falling underneath the train 2) detecting people in the act of falling underneath the train (and, if detection is other than by the driver, making them aware). The first is obviously preferable but is also harder.
Unfortunately solutions doesn't currently exist to do that in a way that is both reliable and proportionately affordable (busy platforms are affordable but not reliable, gap fillers are expensive and not reliable enough). This is why the RAIB's recommendations were not along the lines of "install technology to fix this" but "do better risk assessments so when technology improves your benefit-cost calculations are correct".
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 22, 2021 15:01:44 GMT
There are only two potentially realistic ways of reliably preventing this sort of accident. 1) preventing people falling underneath the train 2) detecting people in the act of falling underneath the train (and, if detection is other than by the driver, making them aware). The first is obviously preferable but is also harder. Unfortunately solutions doesn't currently exist to do that in a way that is both reliable and proportionately affordable (busy platforms are affordable but not reliable, gap fillers are expensive and not reliable enough). This is why the RAIB's recommendations were not along the lines of "install technology to fix this" but "do better risk assessments so when technology improves your benefit-cost calculations are correct". Indeed; my reading of the report is of a deep wish that the original builders hadn't built the Bakerloo platforms as they did, and left a nigh on insuperable problem for future generations to manage.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 16:37:35 GMT
There are only two potentially realistic ways of reliably preventing this sort of accident. 1) preventing people falling underneath the train 2) detecting people in the act of falling underneath the train (and, if detection is other than by the driver, making them aware). The first is obviously preferable but is also harder. Unfortunately solutions doesn't currently exist to do that in a way that is both reliable and proportionately affordable (busy platforms are affordable but not reliable, gap fillers are expensive and not reliable enough). This is why the RAIB's recommendations were not along the lines of "install technology to fix this" but "do better risk assessments so when technology improves your benefit-cost calculations are correct". Indeed; my reading of the report is of a deep wish that the original builders hadn't built the Bakerloo platforms as they did, and left a nigh on insuperable problem for future generations to manage. I'm surprised a little more wasn't made of the individual being intoxicated. The railway is always going to be a hazardous environment, and passengers need to take their share of responsibility like anyone would when interacting with heavy machinery.
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 22, 2021 17:20:40 GMT
Indeed; my reading of the report is of a deep wish that the original builders hadn't built the Bakerloo platforms as they did, and left a nigh on insuperable problem for future generations to manage. I'm surprised a little more wasn't made of the individual being intoxicated. The railway is always going to be a hazardous environment, and passengers need to take their share of responsibility like anyone would when interacting with heavy machinery. That occurred to me, though as the Tube carries the drunk, I suspect it was considered a distraction to follow that up.
|
|
|
Post by quex on Sept 22, 2021 17:31:50 GMT
I'm surprised a little more wasn't made of the individual being intoxicated. The railway is always going to be a hazardous environment, and passengers need to take their share of responsibility like anyone would when interacting with heavy machinery. I think it would be appropriate for reference purposes to provide a link to some evidence suggesting that the passenger was drunk - I can't find anything in the report to say so. Never mind, found it on my second readthrough - paragraph 39, page 17. In terms of your point, I very much would like to agree with you. I would avoid using the tube drunk. However I think it simply isn't acceptable to have a transport system only safe for non-intoxicated people - they need to be accepted as a reality of the operating environment - "part and parcel" if you like.
Many rely on the tube to get home after a night out - discouraging and preventing these people from using the tube might increase overall increase risk as, without public transport home, more people may be inclined to drive when they shouldn't. That's notwithstanding, among many other things, that many uncontrollable medical conditions can have effects such as dizziness, faintness or uneasiness that are similar to being drunk. The RAIB report itself describes one incident where a person was fatally injured in similar circumstances after suffering a medical episode.
If I'm going into proper old man grumbly mode, even being on your phone can lead to a comparable loss of attention and reaction time.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 22:35:54 GMT
I'm surprised a little more wasn't made of the individual being intoxicated. The railway is always going to be a hazardous environment, and passengers need to take their share of responsibility like anyone would when interacting with heavy machinery. I think it would be appropriate for reference purposes to provide a link to some evidence suggesting that the passenger was drunk - I can't find anything in the report to say so. Never mind, found it on my second readthrough - paragraph 39, page 17. In terms of your point, I very much would like to agree with you. I would avoid using the tube drunk. However I think it simply isn't acceptable to have a transport system only safe for non-intoxicated people - they need to be accepted as a reality of the operating environment - "part and parcel" if you like. Many rely on the tube to get home after a night out - discouraging and preventing these people from using the tube might increase overall increase risk as, without public transport home, more people may be inclined to drive when they shouldn't. That's notwithstanding, among many other things, that many uncontrollable medical conditions can have effects such as dizziness, faintness or uneasiness that are similar to being drunk. The RAIB report itself describes one incident where a person was fatally injured in similar circumstances after suffering a medical episode. If I'm going into proper old man grumbly mode, even being on your phone can lead to a comparable loss of attention and reaction time.
I’m not saying that mitigations shouldn’t be implemented, and it’s certainly the case that intoxication is by no means the only reason things happen. However from the point of view of a taxpayer, I’m not overly impressed with my tax being used to protect people from the consequences of a decision to intoxicate their self. I suspect one would find it a hard sell to, for example, justify highly expensive measures such as PEDs or re-boring a curved platform on that basis alone. Obviously we here tend to look at things from a transport point of view, but personally looking at the bigger picture I’d rather money was directed to something like cancer research.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 22, 2021 23:43:46 GMT
I suspect one would find it a hard sell to, for example, justify highly expensive measures such as PEDs or re-boring a curved platform on that basis alone. Obviously we here tend to look at things from a transport point of view, but personally looking at the bigger picture I’d rather money was directed to something like cancer research. And nobody is suggesting that. It's why cost-benefit calculations are carried out, so you can make an objective decision about what to spend your money on. I don't suppose many people would object to TfL spending £1000 on something that prevented 1 serious injury every year and a death every 15 years but they would object to spending £100m on something that gave only that. But the thing that came out of the report is that TfL didn't have a good idea of what the risk actually is. If you think a given accident type (statistically) causes 1 death or serious injury every 10 years but actually causes 30 deaths or serious injuries every 5 years, then that's a very big difference in how much money you're going to be willing to spend on it.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 23, 2021 1:40:46 GMT
How much more evidence do we need, to demonstrate that the driver cannot do the guard's job as well? As a former Bakerloo line guard, I can report that in the 'good old days' standing at the open guard's doorway at Waterloo there was little view beyond the adjoining car. One depended on a platform attendant to advise when the train doors were clear for closing. Outside the peaks there was no assistance, but by crossing to the platform wall, maybe half a car forward, it was possible to see the rear half of the train. One then walked back to the guard's position to yell “mind the doors”, but passenger access was at the driver's end of the platform and they continually arrived from above. If the pilot light did not show doors closed, one merely repeated the open and close sequence. If it did show and there was no screaming from the front of the train, you gave the bell signal to the driver and paid attention as the train departed. It always worked for me! Victoria line train operators were always provided with a single CCTV view from the far end of the generally straight platforms, observing the front of the train from their cab window. This was unique until the Central line 1992ts trains arrived with CCTV views for the driver. I'm pretty sure that some TV views were provided for train guards on the Northern line at a few sharply curved platforms around the same time. As already pointed out, guards had other duties besides observing the platform, and incidents might occur whilst they busily recorded delay details in their journal. The report notes that the driver's CCTV is not recorded, and not linked with the Waterloo station control room which monitors 375 cameras distributed around the station, including on platforms. Times have definitely moved on! EDIT: Correction. This comment completely overlooks the introduction of one-person conventional train operation, which resulted in the widespread provision of mirrors and TV screens for driver observation of the platform on most LU lines during the 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 23, 2021 5:00:15 GMT
I'm surprised a little more wasn't made of the individual being intoxicated. The railway is always going to be a hazardous environment, and passengers need to take their share of responsibility like anyone would when interacting with heavy machinery. I think it would be appropriate for reference purposes to provide a link to some evidence suggesting that the passenger was drunk - I can't find anything in the report to say so. Never mind, found it on my second readthrough - paragraph 39, page 17. In terms of your point, I very much would like to agree with you. I would avoid using the tube drunk. However I think it simply isn't acceptable to have a transport system only safe for non-intoxicated people - they need to be accepted as a reality of the operating environment - "part and parcel" if you like.
Many rely on the tube to get home after a night out - discouraging and preventing these people from using the tube might increase overall increase risk as, without public transport home, more people may be inclined to drive when they shouldn't. That's notwithstanding, among many other things, that many uncontrollable medical conditions can have effects such as dizziness, faintness or uneasiness that are similar to being drunk. The RAIB report itself describes one incident where a person was fatally injured in similar circumstances after suffering a medical episode.
If I'm going into proper old man grumbly mode, even being on your phone can lead to a comparable loss of attention and reaction time.
From TfL's Railway Bylaws content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdfTfL buses and trams have the same bylaw, National Rail, etc. Basically if you're drunk and you have an accident on public transport its not the transport providers fault as you shouldn't be there
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 23, 2021 6:11:06 GMT
I think it would be appropriate for reference purposes to provide a link to some evidence suggesting that the passenger was drunk - I can't find anything in the report to say so. Never mind, found it on my second readthrough - paragraph 39, page 17. In terms of your point, I very much would like to agree with you. I would avoid using the tube drunk. However I think it simply isn't acceptable to have a transport system only safe for non-intoxicated people - they need to be accepted as a reality of the operating environment - "part and parcel" if you like.
Many rely on the tube to get home after a night out - discouraging and preventing these people from using the tube might increase overall increase risk as, without public transport home, more people may be inclined to drive when they shouldn't. That's notwithstanding, among many other things, that many uncontrollable medical conditions can have effects such as dizziness, faintness or uneasiness that are similar to being drunk. The RAIB report itself describes one incident where a person was fatally injured in similar circumstances after suffering a medical episode.
If I'm going into proper old man grumbly mode, even being on your phone can lead to a comparable loss of attention and reaction time.
From TfL's Railway Bylaws content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdfTfL buses and trams have the same bylaw, National Rail, etc. Basically if you're drunk and you have an accident on public transport its not the transport providers fault as you shouldn't be there And a guard was jailed following an incident in Liverpool where a drunk person died as his train departed. That allows such a person to be removed; not absolution of the operator if something happens to them.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 23, 2021 6:51:22 GMT
From TfL's Railway Bylaws content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdfTfL buses and trams have the same bylaw, National Rail, etc. Basically if you're drunk and you have an accident on public transport its not the transport providers fault as you shouldn't be there And a guard was jailed following an incident in Liverpool where a drunk person died as his train departed. That allows such a person to be removed; not absolution of the operator if something happens to them. For clarity: the guard in Liverpool was jailed for Manslaughter after giving the signal to start whilst a person was leaning against the side of their train.
|
|
|
Post by quex on Sept 23, 2021 7:35:21 GMT
However from the point of view of a taxpayer, I’m not overly impressed with my tax being used to protect people from the consequences of a decision to intoxicate their self. I suspect one would find it a hard sell to, for example, justify highly expensive measures such as PEDs or re-boring a curved platform on that basis alone. But I don't think anyone would propose those or other mitigations for drunk people alone. With few exceptions, an improvement that makes the railway safer for drunk people makes it safer for everyone. Any proposal would include this as part of its justification. Obviously we here tend to look at things from a transport point of view, but personally looking at the bigger picture I’d rather money was directed to something like cancer research. To use your cancer research example - cancer is a disease that can be both brought on through uncontrollable genetics but also through "irresponsible" decisions like excessive consumption of alcohol. It would be a very ethically dubious pick and chose who "deserves" to benefit from funding the research. In the same way, I'd argue (again, with perhaps a very few very specific exceptions) it's not really the railway's place to categorise passengers, based on what they have and haven't done with their life choices, and only apply safety mitigations to those who are thought to "deserve" it.
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 23, 2021 7:37:26 GMT
And a guard was jailed following an incident in Liverpool where a drunk person died as his train departed. That allows such a person to be removed; not absolution of the operator if something happens to them. The guard was jailed but Merseyrail weren't fined because he had failed to follow the dispatch procedure Rather than allowing "such a person to be removed" it clearly states that "no person shall enter, attempt to enter or remain on the railway" while drunk or otherwise intoxicated.
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Sept 23, 2021 11:46:32 GMT
And a guard was jailed following an incident in Liverpool where a drunk person died as his train departed. That allows such a person to be removed; not absolution of the operator if something happens to them. For clarity: the guard in Liverpool was jailed for Manslaughter after giving the signal to start whilst a person was leaning against the side of their train. I was avoiding specific reference to avoid getting drawn on what was a very specific set of circumstances. Rather than allowing "such a person to be removed" it clearly states that "no person shall enter, attempt to enter or remain on the railway" while drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Understood but - as the Liverpool case dramatically demonstrated - that did not absolve the operator or it's staff of it's responsibilities towards that person. I suggest that the bylaw has no more practical effect than to provide a legal basis for ejecting someone from the network and, possibly, prosecuting them for being there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 23, 2021 15:32:30 GMT
All train operators have a duty of care towards their passengers and staff receive safety training. In these two particular cases neither Merseyrail or London Underground were judged by RAIB to have failed in that duty, at Waterloo none of the staff involved were judged to have been at fault while at James Street the guard failed to follow procedures despite regular safety training, was prosecuted and convicted.
The bylaw is there to protect intoxicated passengers from endangering themselves and other passengers but London Underground, etc. simply don't have enough staff to prevent intoxicated passengers from entering the system. If someone decides to get intoxicated and use public transport then that is their choice.
|
|
|
Post by orienteer on Sept 24, 2021 10:22:26 GMT
Thinking about this hazard last night, maybe a form of barrier on the platform at the danger points could be devised to prevent falls into the gaps.
They would have to be able to be manually swung or pivoted out of the way (from the train side) in the event that a train stops in an irregular position and they blocked the doors.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 24, 2021 18:41:58 GMT
The new Merseyrail trains have a lip on the side which is there to reduce this risk:
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 25, 2021 8:42:38 GMT
A nice straight platform helps, something Waterloo Bakerloo doesn't have
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 9, 2021 16:10:55 GMT
A follow-up today:
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 9, 2021 19:46:03 GMT
..... The new One Person Operation (OPO) cameras are a big improvement, they move and are closer to the platform edge .....
Does this mean they scan an area? Has this been done with OPO cameras elsewhere on the system? Means the driver needs to look for a longer period to see the complete area covered?
I wonder if this is connected to "One-person operated cameras – 75 per cent of planned platforms commissioned" in the latest TfL Investment Programme Report. They ought to be reviewing the whole system, according to the accident report recommendations.
|
|