Children on railway lines

[Aire Head]

 

8 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

 

The cause was that someone failed in very basic responsibilty towards themselves. Nothing more. Not having signs saying "danger" rather than "caution" shouldn't rationally be considered a cause at all, any more than a bucket full of water shouldn't require a sign saying "danger - don't stick your head in here" to avoid being the cause of someone drowning themselves in it.

 

 

I'm not sure the report is really saying that she died because of the sign was Yellow. The way I read it, it is saying "maybe of we put a red sign saying danger it might deter people better and therefore reduce the risk".

 

There is nothing wrong with trying to make things safer, people just like to read this as reducing responsibility rather because it make them feel better complaining about how "stupid people are these days".

[caradoc]

The sign above the window said 'Do not lean out of the window'; Not 'Lean out of the window if you like but watch out'. People have a responsibility for their own behaviour; The person with the prime, overriding duty towards their safety is themself !

 

This was of course a tragic accident, as was the one involving the Class 442 on Southern, but one wonders what the relevant causalty figures were when nearly every single train on the UK main line network had opening droplights ? 

 

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Aire Head said:

There is nothing wrong with trying to make things safer, people just like to read this as reducing responsibility rather because it make them feel better complaining about how "stupid people are these days".

 

There is if it gets taken too far and starts to have a "boy who cried wolf" effect.

 

Also whilst it may be possible to make things safer where people aren't being sufficiently responsible for themselves I'd much rather take my chances that I'll do something stupid and suffer the consequences than live in a world that's constantly trying to say "you need protecting from yourself." I do think there's a point where you cause more harm than good even if the result is technically safer.

[jcm@gwr]

I notice that there has been no mention of the fact that she was drunk!

She was twice the limit for driving, probably not capable of reading any

signs, but it was supposedly a crowded train, so why did no-body else 

notice and assist/restrain her. Arguably, those people are as much to

blame as the TOC, if you believe the authorities, but in reality, she was

the problem, and cause of her own demise, sad but true.

 

[Reorte]

59 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

I notice that there has been no mention of the fact that she was drunk!

She was twice the limit for driving, probably not capable of reading any

signs, but it was supposedly a crowded train, so why did no-body else 

notice and assist/restrain her. Arguably, those people are as much to

blame as the TOC, if you believe the authorities, but in reality, she was

the problem, and cause of her own demise, sad but true.

 

You try restraining a woman you've never met before and see where that gets you.

[Aire Head]

Also let's not act like this is a relatively new problem.

 

It was obviously common enough to be parodied by the Young Ones

 

 

[Aire Head]

4 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

There is if it gets taken too far and starts to have a "boy who cried wolf" effect.

 

Also whilst it may be possible to make things safer where people aren't being sufficiently responsible for themselves I'd much rather take my chances that I'll do something stupid and suffer the consequences than live in a world that's constantly trying to say "you need protecting from yourself." I do think there's a point where you cause more harm than good even if the result is technically safer.

I may not have explained my point very well.

 

I completely agree that ultimately she is responsible for her actions and the tragic consequence. What i do think though is that there is absolutely no harm in reducing the potential as much as possible and absolutely nothing wrong with looking at any tragedy regardless of cause and saying "was there anything that we could have done to stop this".

 

It doesn't reduce personal responsibility it's just trying to keep ahead on the idiot proofing until eventually a better idiot comes along and makes you look again.

[royaloak]

6 hours ago, caradoc said:

The sign above the window said 'Do not lean out of the window'; Not 'Lean out of the window if you like but watch out'. People have a responsibility for their own behaviour; The person with the prime, overriding duty towards their safety is themself !

 

This was of course a tragic accident, as was the one involving the Class 442 on Southern, but one wonders what the relevant casualty figures were when nearly every single train on the UK main line network had opening droplights ? 

 

If only that was still the case.

 

Probably a lot less because people knew the dangers, now in the 'it is always somebody elses fault' world we live in people do stupid things and when it goes wrong they try and make it somebody else responsible, something the RAIB do a good job at.

[Reorte]

51 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

I may not have explained my point very well.

 

I completely agree that ultimately she is responsible for her actions and the tragic consequence. What i do think though is that there is absolutely no harm in reducing the potential as much as possible and absolutely nothing wrong with looking at any tragedy regardless of cause and saying "was there anything that we could have done to stop this".

 

It doesn't reduce personal responsibility it's just trying to keep ahead on the idiot proofing until eventually a better idiot comes along and makes you look again.

I see where you're coming from but I think we simply don't agree. I do find idiot proofing to that degree something unpleasant in the world, even if it's me it might help someday (we can all be idiots occasionally). I'm sure it's possible to come up with ideas that you'd find ridiculous but would make a (very, very small) difference. They get rejected for reasons of absurdity as well as impracticality, but keep chipping away at the idiot proofing and eventually you'll reach the point where they become the next easiest step to reduce the most risk. There's a point where I'd prefer the risk of being harmed.

[mikejames]

the heading of this topic is

CHILDREN on the railway line.

 

I think this makes all the difference in that I assume they cannot be

expected to always show 'common sense' - even if we might hope!

 

my daughter has an autistic child and he really is unpredictable

so I go along with doing the best we can to make the railways safe for children.

 

I suspect when we have done that we have largely solved the adult 'problem'.

 

regards

mike j

[Classsix T]

4 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:

I notice that there has been no mention of the fact that she was drunk!

She was twice the limit for driving, probably not capable of reading any

signs, but it was supposedly a crowded train, so why did no-body else 

notice and assist/restrain her. Arguably, those people are as much to

blame as the TOC, if you believe the authorities, but in reality, she was

the problem, and cause of her own demise, sad but true.

 

I'm gonna tell a tale (vaguely) wrt this. I was at Ipswich last summer doing some harmless spotting and photting. All of a sudden there's an almighty curfuffle and a young fella comes belting along the platform closely followed by, what I assume was, girlfriend and Plod in hot pursuit. This guy ain't stopping for anything, believe me. Station staff shout to not cross the running lines but fella tries exiting via the Freightliner staff carpark. It's key card entry palisade fenced so the Coppers soon apprehend. 

 

Was I gonna stick a foot out or somehow retard this guy to aid professional law enforcement and the safety of fella and the railway? No I sodding wasn't. My involvement was purely as a witness, simple as. 

 

Further, drunk persons are notoriously difficult to engage with and can often make a bad situation worse. To suggest fellow passengers, for not acting, are somehow culpable is ludicrous. Ambulance chasing lawyers absolutely love that crap.

 

C6T. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Classsix T

[jcm@gwr]

I was not suggesting that anyone should have intervened, but I

am suggesting that the way they are blaming the TOC, is just as

valid as blaming other people who 'could' have intervened. 

The whole principle, and automatic assumption, of 'it must be

somebodies fault, but not the victims' is fundamentally flawed,

and needs to be addressed.

[johnofwessex]

20 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:

I was not suggesting that anyone should have intervened, but I

am suggesting that the way they are blaming the TOC, is just as

valid as blaming other people who 'could' have intervened. 

The whole principle, and automatic assumption, of 'it must be

somebodies fault, but not the victims' is fundamentally flawed,

and needs to be addressed.

 

While there are many cases where it is clearly the victims fault, there are none the less strong arguments for saving people from the consequences of their actions

[jim.snowdon]

From memory, the RAIB's terms of reference do not allow it to lay blame on any individual; that can only be done by the ORR (HMRI as was) as the enforcement authority for safety matters. Their activities are not usually headline material.

 

Jim 

[96701]

6 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

From memory, the RAIB's terms of reference do not allow it to lay blame on any individual; that can only be done by the ORR (HMRI as was) as the enforcement authority for safety matters. Their activities are not usually headline material.

 

Jim 

HMRI still exists.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/20/hm-chief-inspector-railways-says-trackside-trees-should-chopped/

 

However, this is absolutely nothing to do with children on railway lines. 

[caradoc]

12 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

While there are many cases where it is clearly the victims fault, there are none the less strong arguments for saving people from the consequences of their actions

 

True, but the question has to be how far an organisation must to go to achieve that. An earlier discussion in this topic mentioned the fine levied on DBS for the incident at Tyne Yard where a boy was injured; In that case I agreed that not enough had been done to mitigate against a known risk. In this instance however a sign clearly instructed people not to lean out of the window, and I am not convinced that the sign being red instead of yellow would have made any difference. In any event, the rail industry is making progress towards eliminating this particular risk, by replacing opening droplights, either with new trains, or power-operated doors on older stock.

[PaulRhB]

Unfortunately known risks can be very hard to manage. Lack of funds to allocate vs other risks plagues all industries and the railway often is fighting deliberate trespass repeatedly damaging fences. Locally even 8ft tall palisade fencing has had bars removed to keep using shortcuts! 

When the companies strive to adhere to demands for efficiency and employee safety it can be hard to keep up with the number of destructive immediate trespass incidents let alone nature’s constant attrition of the boundary. 

 

 

[The Johnster]

On 17/10/2019 at 16:41, mikejames said:

the heading of this topic is

CHILDREN on the railway line.

 

I think this makes all the difference in that I assume they cannot be

expected to always show 'common sense' - even if we might hope!

 

my daughter has an autistic child and he really is unpredictable

so I go along with doing the best we can to make the railways safe for children.

 

I suspect when we have done that we have largely solved the adult 'problem'.

 

regards

mike j

Yes.  We've solved the adult problem, assuming adult to mean someone who can read standard English and with the mental capacity to assume responsibility for their own actions, or at least covered our wotsits, and work to the assumption that children and others who might not be expected to be responsible for their own actions are in the care and under the supervision of an adult.  There is an element of 'duty of care' in this, and one of regulation, ensuring notices are displayed and that safety announcements are properly made; this is less 'duty of care' and more legal obligation.

Edited October 19, 2019 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

In the tragic case of the Twerton incident, there is another element to consider IMHO.  The casualty was undoubtedly behaving irresponsibly, but she was struck by a branch which was intruding into the loading gauge and in contact with the train.  This raises the possibility that it posed a risk to passengers behaving normally, responsibly, inside the train but near the open window.  Opening windows on airconditioned trains are a bit of an anomaly, and when the first fully airconditioned mk2 stock was initially introduced on the ECML in the 70s, the door windows were solidly glazed and could not be opened.  In order for the door to be opened from the inside by the passengers there was an aluminium handle inside the door.

 

A coach was sent to Canton for us to train on, as we had to learn how to switch the airco and heating on and off, and had this handle fitted.  I commented that it looked dangerous to me but was told that it was essential for the efficient and correct working of the airco that passengers could not open the windows. A red notice was displayed telling passengers not to open the door while the train was moving and the assumption was that nobody would be that stupid... IIRC it was the following week that an inebriated Scotsman on an up ECML train between Thirsk and York stumbled out of the toilet and collided with the handle, pitching himself out onto the down at over 100mph, where he was almost immediately run over by a down express.  The open door also hit the down train at a closing speed of 200mph+, fortunately only causing minor damage to that but wrecking the end of it's own coach.  

 

The train was taken out of service at York, and all of the new airco stock stopped at the next convenient station.  Doors with opening windows and no internal handle were fitted to them and to the new stock under construction, and no more was heard of internal handles.

[boxbrownie]

On 16/10/2019 at 21:27, jim.snowdon said:

 

But, it does have to be said that there is little excuse for lineside vegetation getting that close to the train. The problem there is, I think, largely down to past economies letting lineside management getting out of control.

 

Jim

Exactly, we took a trip on the Par to Newquay line for something to do this year and I was amazed that although we took the ride for the view mostly all we saw was undergrowth, thick undergrowth and on maybe 30% of the line it was actually brushing alongside the train, the vent windows were open and every few seconds little bits of leaf, twigs and even a Lady Bird came in through the vent.....and the noise of the bushes hitting the carriage was sometimes disturbing, truly unbelievable and really shoddy line side upkeep.

 

Anyone even getting close to leaning out of a window there would have their face scrapped off.......disgusting.

[jim.snowdon]

31 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

In the tragic case of the Twerton incident, there is another element to consider IMHO.  The casualty was undoubtedly behaving irresponsibly, but she was struck by a branch which was intruding into the loading gauge and in contact with the train.  This raises the possibility that it posed a risk to passengers behaving normally, responsibly, inside the train but near the open window.  Opening windows on airconditioned trains are a bit of an anomaly, and when the first fully airconditioned mk2 stock was initially introduced on the ECML in the 70s, the door windows were solidly glazed and could not be opened.  In order for the door to be opened from the inside by the passengers there was an aluminium handle inside the door.

 

A coach was sent to Canton for us to train on, as we had to learn how to switch the airco and heating on and off, and had this handle fitted.  I commented that it looked dangerous to me but was told that it was essential for the efficient and correct working of the airco that passengers could not open the windows. A red notice was displayed telling passengers not to open the door while the train was moving and the assumption was that nobody would be that stupid... IIRC it was the following week that an inebriated Scotsman on an up ECML train between Thirsk and York stumbled out of the toilet and collided with the handle, pitching himself out onto the down at over 100mph, where he was almost immediately run over by a down express.  The open door also hit the down train at a closing speed of 200mph+, fortunately only causing minor damage to that but wrecking the end of it's own coach.  

 

The train was taken out of service at York, and all of the new airco stock stopped at the next convenient station.  Doors with opening windows and no internal handle were fitted to them and to the new stock under construction, and no more was heard of internal handles.

In many ways, the decision that someone took to have internal door handles that required to be pushed down to operate was questionable in the first place. Common sense should have told the designers that. The standard for internal door handles on the Mark 1 stock, and even the Southern Railway EMU stock that was still about in the 1970s, was a horizontally oriented handle that was recessed into the lock face. You couldn't operate it by falling onto it, and to open the door required a definite squeeze action. The Metropolitan Railway went one better and had an internal door handle that had to be lifted to operate. Leaning down on it would not operate the lock. All intrinsically safe.

I never quite understood why, when the decision was taken to fit centralised door locking to the Mark 3s, there was no move to reinstate the internal door handles, even in a modified form, and either seal up or limit the opening of the door droplights. 

 

Jim

[The Johnster]

The brass horizontal catch handle on mk1s and some dmu stock was very heavily sprung and beyond the capacity of many people to use even before it didn't jam on it's sliding mechanism because cigarette ash or other crud had got inside it.  Attempts to free it by lubricating it just put oil all over the passengers.  Another poor piece of design, but not intrinsically dangerous.

 

I can almost visualise the process that led to the internal handle on the airco mk2s.  Something like as follows, at the design approval stage, '... and we can control the level of heating and draughtproof the train because all the windows are sealed and the passengers can't open them!'.  'Great, we'll adopt this design then!'.  Some time later, probably when the coaches are being constructed, 'Hang on a mo, how are the passengers going to open the doors from the inside?' 'Well, they're not s'posed to, so

they'll be opened by the platform staff won't they, er (unbidden but very clear mental image of the end of the platform at Berwick or somewhere on a dark rainy Sunday night), oh, praps not, um, just a minute, ok; we'll put a door handle in there for them, and spring it so that they can't knock it open accidentally, and put a notice there warning them not to open the door while the train is moving.  That'll be fine; the airco still isn't compromised any more than it had to be by open doors when the train stops anyway'.

 

I doubt if the people who signed off on it at these different stages were in direct contact with each other at the times they signed off, and am less than confident that it would have made any difference if they had been.

Edited October 19, 2019 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

Exactly, we took a trip on the Par to Newquay line for something to do this year and I was amazed that although we took the ride for the view mostly all we saw was undergrowth, thick undergrowth and on maybe 30% of the line it was actually brushing alongside the train, the vent windows were open and every few seconds little bits of leaf, twigs and even a Lady Bird came in through the vent.....and the noise of the bushes hitting the carriage was sometimes disturbing, truly unbelievable and really shoddy line side upkeep.

 

Anyone even getting close to leaning out of a window there would have their face scrapped off.......disgusting.

How many spots on the ladybird?  Some of the Valley Lines network is like this, more like Livingstone hacking his way through the jungle than a railway.  Relying on the trains to trim the vegetation has become the norm in cash strapped and staff short times.

[96701]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

Exactly, we took a trip on the Par to Newquay line for something to do this year and I was amazed that although we took the ride for the view mostly all we saw was undergrowth, thick undergrowth and on maybe 30% of the line it was actually brushing alongside the train, the vent windows were open and every few seconds little bits of leaf, twigs and even a Lady Bird came in through the vent.....and the noise of the bushes hitting the carriage was sometimes disturbing, truly unbelievable and really shoddy line side upkeep.

 

Anyone even getting close to leaning out of a window there would have their face scrapped off.......disgusting.

Couldn't agree more. One has to go back to privatisation where there were no contracts set up for the maintenance of earthworks, drainage or vegetation. There are now 20 years of backlog to recover which is going to take a long time and a lot of taxpayers' money.

 

[The Johnster]

2 minutes ago, 96701 said:

Couldn't agree more. One has to go back to privatisation where there were no contracts set up for the maintenance of earthworks, drainage or vegetation. There are now 20 years of backlog to recover which is going to take a long time and a lot of taxpayers' money.

 

To be fair to the privatised railway, something which goes very much against my nature by the way, there's more to it than Railtrack/Network Rail skimping on maintenance, it's neglect by councils and railway-adjoining landowners as well.  Commercial enterprises want to maximise profits and publicly funded bodies are overworked and cash strapped; both are constantly under pressure to reduce costs and increase workloads, which are of course mutually exclusive aims.  Rubbish from outside the railway and which the railway has no control over blocks railway drainage, and vegetation rooted outside the railway fence grows over railway property and seeds on to it.  Main roads and motorways are becoming increasingly overgrown for much the same reasons; just look at the intrusion on to the hard shoulders next time you're on one.