RMweb Premium Neil Posted July 10, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 10, 2017 Troubling incident regarding a missing toilet floor on an SDR train in service reported on by the BBC today. While a near miss rather than something worse it doesn't take much imagination to see how the outcome could have been far worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted July 10, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 10, 2017 RAIB statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dangerous-occurrence-on-the-south-devon-railway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill badger Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 One of those stories where a slight chill goes down your spine both as parent and some who deals with SHE risks for a living. Irrespective of any other considerations, how on earth could anyone deem it acceptable to put this carriage back into service with the floor missing (signage and an 'attempt' to secure the door notwithstanding)? The main thing is that the child came to no major harm, but its hard to see this ending well for the railway and its staff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I'm surprised the carriage wasn't taken out of service until the hole had been fixed. Its basic safety, it should not have happened. Having seen how some passengers ignore notices on heritage trains*, I'm not even sure that 6" nails through the doorframe would be "adequate". * Another carriage toilet, on a completely different railway. Signed as "Out Of Use" and locked but a passenger worked on the doorbolt and got in.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovex Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Another carriage toilet, on a completely different railway. Signed as "Out Of Use" and locked but a passenger worked on the doorbolt and got in.... Sometimes when you gotta go, you gotta go Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I still find it hard to believe that not only did the people in the carriage department forget to put the flooring in the toilet back in place, but the railway then put that carriage into revenue earning service. Surely after repairs to a carriage have finished everything should be checked and tested before entering operation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted July 10, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 10, 2017 I'm just surprised the floor for the toilet seems to be a separate component . I thought it would be integral to the whole coach. Glad nobody got hurt, they must have had a hell of a fright. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I'm just surprised the floor for the toilet seems to be a separate component . I thought it would be integral to the whole coach. Glad nobody got hurt, they must have had a hell of a fright.If it was a Mk1, then the body and chassis are seperate components mated together. I'd also suspect that the toilet floors corrode more quickly than the rest of the floor and need cutting out and replacing. Or not replacing in this case.... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Bloody hell, sorry, but someone wants to be prosecuted for that, idiiots that do things like that give the rest of the preservation scene a bad name. That is ludicrous and should never have happened Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken.W Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 If it was a Mk1, then the body and chassis are seperate components mated together. I'd also suspect that the toilet floors corrode more quickly than the rest of the floor and need cutting out and replacing. Or not replacing in this case....It was a Mk1 according to the report, but I'd have thought the floor planks would be complete across the full coach width, not separate in a toilet compartment. Also from the report, the floor was removed for maintenance on the brakes, not to do with corrosion, but why was this even necessary then, surely this work could be done from below, they are on the bogies after all ? Unbelievable this coach could be considered fit for service in this condition, but couldn't have happened if floor hadn't been out in the first place.Good than no one injured, but could still lead to a clamp down on heritage lines in general 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 It was a Mk1 according to the report, but I'd have thought the floor planks would be complete across the full coach width, not separate in a toilet compartment. Also from the report, the floor was removed for maintenance on the brakes, not to do with corrosion, but why was this even necessary then, surely this work could be done from below, they are on the bogies after all ? Unbelievable this coach could be considered fit for service in this condition, but couldn't have happened if floor hadn't been out in the first place. Good than no one injured, but could still lead to a clamp down on heritage lines in general No they aren't, the floors are often seperate, for the reasons you cite. But if you watch the interview on the BBC they were working on the brake MAIN not the brakes on the bogie, so yes, logically they would either need to remove the bog floor or take the coach off the bogie to do it. If I was making the repair I would have taken the bog floor up rather than take the whole coach off the bogies, its a service vehicle on a busy railway in peak season, its absolutely a logical way of making the repair. HOWEVER, leaving the hole open is unforgivable, the coach should have been removed from the train/service for repairs, even a temporary floor fitted if the thing was urgently needed, then all you need to do to lock the toilet out of use securely is to take the door handle off the outside and pull the spindle out! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 It's not a good look, but let's not jump to conclusions. We don't know what access prevention measures the passengers defeated to get into the toilet for one thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted July 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) It was a Mk1 according to the report, but I'd have thought the floor planks would be complete across the full coach width, not separate in a toilet compartment. Also from the report, the floor was removed for maintenance on the brakes, not to do with corrosion, but why was this even necessary then, surely this work could be done from below, they are on the bogies after all ? Unbelievable this coach could be considered fit for service in this condition, but couldn't have happened if floor hadn't been out in the first place. Good than no one injured, but could still lead to a clamp down on heritage lines in general As in making sure every toilet has a floor? This was an epic fail by the South Devon Railway, not a general malaise affecting the whole heritage railway movement. Edited July 10, 2017 by PhilH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted July 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) I'm not sure the general public are totally aware that there are generally no usable toilets on trains on heritage lines, certainly not on the two in South Devon that I frequent. More signs needed asap. Edited July 10, 2017 by gwrrob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Well, I am very pleased to say that the NYMR has passed this bulletin round its train crews and its C&W staff to highlight the need for staff to ensure defective equipment and unsafe areas are clearly marked and secure before the public are allowed on the train. This will also be used as a learning point on future guards rules courses on the NYMR, positive outcome from it anyway. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 No they aren't, the floors are often seperate, for the reasons you cite. But if you watch the interview on the BBC they were working on the brake MAIN not the brakes on the bogie, so yes, logically they would either need to remove the bog floor or take the coach off the bogie to do it. If I was making the repair I would have taken the bog floor up rather than take the whole coach off the bogies, its a service vehicle on a busy railway in peak season, its absolutely a logical way of making the repair. HOWEVER, leaving the hole open is unforgivable, the coach should have been removed from the train/service for repairs, even a temporary floor fitted if the thing was urgently needed, then all you need to do to lock the toilet out of use securely is to take the door handle off the outside and pull the spindle out! A few years ago I was shown around the carriage paint shop at Kidderminster where a Mk 1 BSK was receiving attention after some slight damage to the bogies. I think while it was in there it also received a fresh coat of paint. But before the coach was back in action I'm pretty sure it had a few test runs, so it begs the question why this coach at the SDR didn't have a thorough test to make sure it was safe. We must be fair to the volunteers however; as Boris says it is high season, so maybe as time would be precious the toilet was supposed to be locked out of use but in the end wasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I also wish to add that most toilets on preserved railways are unsafe once I have used them. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken.W Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 As in making sure every toilet has a floor? This was an epic fail by the South Devon Railway, not a general malaise affecting the whole heritage railway movement. I meant as in attracting much closer attention to and scrutiny of maintenance procedures and standards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 << staff had placed a notice on the compartment door and attempted to secure it to prevent it being opened. >> If I had seen such a sign on the door, if it was that urgent I would have tried another carriage then told the guard. If people ignore signs which are obviously there for a reason and then find a problem, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Mother and child emerged with no harm done but now the long arms of the law and lawyers will blow it out of all proportions. Certainly as has been mentioned it shouldn't have been left like this, but it was and it would have been interesting to find out what the sign actually said! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren01 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Had a similar experience at The WSR a few years ago, walked along the coach to find a seat ,as the train was very busy. Opened the end coach door and came face to face with the smoke box of Braunton, reported it to the guard on the train. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken.W Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) << staff had placed a notice on the compartment door and attempted to secure it to prevent it being opened. >> If I had seen such a sign on the door, if it was that urgent I would have tried another carriage then told the guard. If people ignore signs which are obviously there for a reason and then find a problem, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Mother and child emerged with no harm done but now the long arms of the law and lawyers will blow it out of all proportions. Certainly as has been mentioned it shouldn't have been left like this, but it was and it would have been interesting to find out what the sign actually said! Brian. This, although classed as a near-miss, is hardly something that can be described as a molehill. The photo shows the floor completely missing, and the train wheel directly below, and the article also describes the child as having to be grabbed and suffering bruising. Even at the relatively low speed involved this is perilously close to not being a near-miss but a child fatality. Given public observation of signs in general, to rely on a notice and 'attempt' to lock the door is clearly irresponsible in such a dangerous situation, and an out of use notice on a toilet door would normally be expected to mean it's not flushing or blocked, not that you're about to fall under the wheels. Edit to note it's actually being classed as a Dangerous Occurrence (by RAIB not lawyers) not a near miss which was described in the OP Edited July 11, 2017 by Ken.W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brack Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I suspect "grabbed and suffering bruising" is an exaggeration and lawyer speak for "more cash needed". It is a very dangerous incident which could've been much worse, but that statement screams compensation culture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) This, although classed as a near-miss, is hardly something that can be described as a molehill. The photo shows the floor completely missing, and the train wheel directly below, and the article also describes the child as having to be grabbed and suffering bruising. Even at the relatively low speed involved this is perilously close to not being a near-miss but a child fatality. Given public observation of signs in general, to rely on a notice and 'attempt' to lock the door is clearly irresponsible in such a dangerous situation, and an out of use notice on a toilet door would normally be expected to mean it's not flushing or blocked, not that you're about to fall under the wheels. Edit to note it's actually being classed as a Dangerous Occurrence (by RAIB not lawyers) not a near miss which was described in the OP I agree entirely, we put signs on out of use toilets and lock them with a star bolt, the toilet door lock and by removing the handle spindle and regularly still find people in them. The number of toilet doors we find booted through is amazing because all the public do is assume because the door doesn't open easily its stiff and push it harder, kick it, shoulder it etc. You either have to accept people will find their way in or physically sheet over the door with plywood! "Grabbed and suffered bruising" - nothing to do with compensation culture brack, if I saw one of my kids going into that situation I'm bloody sure I'd grab them and drag them back hard enough to leave bruises as well! Railways 101 - passengers are as thick as pig sheet Edited July 11, 2017 by Boris 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Rixon Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 What's the typical inspection-regime on a preserved railway? Do the working teams self-assess their work for safety, or is there a designated officer to certify the work? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted July 11, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2017 Railways 101 - passengers are as thick as pig sheet And apparently expect everyone else to protect them from their own stupidity, rather than having any sense of self-responsibility whatsoever. Maybe the railway should be in trouble, but so should the mother if she ignored a sign and forced a locked door. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now