South Devon Railway - unsafe toilet

[rodent279]

And as another aside, I well remember the late & much-lamented class 310 EMU's (best units BR ever built....) used to have a small cast iron plug, for want of a better description, in the toilet floor. This was easily removable, and quite often was missing, leaving a hole about 6" dia in the floor, through which the track could be seen. Obviously not big enough to fall through, unless you happen to have your pet guinea pig with you, but a bit unnerving all the same. I guess it's purpose was to drain the floor easily if the toilet became blocked.

Edited January 31, 2018 by rodent279

[298]

What surprises me about this (from my perspective) is nobody has queried that the Guard denied all knowledge of the toilet having no floor. 

...

 

Or is it because I'd expect my guards to notice that I'm judging another railway by those standards?

I'd have expected the Guard to have known exactly why the Toilet was out of use, it's not like he could be working hundreds of coaches and having an answer to the often asked question of "Why are there so many Toilets out of service on this railway?" presents a good image for the Customer.

 

There seems to be a common theme of complacency involved- from the fact that temporary repairs are still in place (but deteriorating) months later, the paid employees in the C&E department unable to accept additional repairs on a seemingly stretched fleet until another coach was back in traffic, and the lack of a safety culture to escalate and fix issues such as this.

 

And in an age when society is often quick to criticize modern parenting methods or assumes everyone is best friends with an ambulance chasing lawyer or Jeremy Kyle, full credit to the Mother for following up with the incident as she felt it hadn't been dealt with properly...and for taking her Son to a preserved railways in the first place...

[Glorious NSE]

I'd have expected the Guard to have known exactly why the Toilet was out of use, it's not like he could be working hundreds of coaches and having an answer to the often asked question of "Why are there so many Toilets out of service on this railway?" presents a good image for the Customer.

Although, full marks to the train crew for understanding the seriousness of the issue when it did occur, and for not accepting the initial "look it's fine, I popped the screw back in" response on the day...

[sem34090]

In my defense, although I criticised the report slightly, my main criticism was of the ITV article. Either way, all my opinions seem to have been incorrect anyway, so I appreciate this as a lesson for next time: check the facts, or you'll do what I did!

[jjb1970]

In my defense, although I criticised the report slightly, my main criticism was of the ITV article. Either way, all my opinions seem to have been incorrect anyway, so I appreciate this as a lesson for next time: check the facts, or you'll do what I did!

I wouldn't worry about it. Every story I've ever been familiar with has read like a completely different one if when reported in the media, as if stories enter some sort of parallel alternate reality when noticed by the media. I'll admit I have jumped to conclusions enough times based on dippy news reporting and if people are honest I think there will be very few that haven't.

[PhilH]

I have to say, toilets locked out of use is one of my bugbears when visiting preserved railways. No doubt there are good reasons for it, either from a safety point of view, or just because it doesn't work, but it's annoyingly common to have to walk halfway down a set to relieve oneself.

 

Only on preserved railways? Try Kings X to Edinburgh, standing all the way, with only two working toilets on the whole train. That was a fun trip.

[rodent279]

Only on preserved railways? Try Kings X to Edinburgh, standing all the way, with only two working toilets on the whole train. That was a fun trip.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by rodent279

[brianusa]

As a train driver I have read several recent RAIB reports where things I considered important to the incident were basically glossed over, they were mentioned but werent gone into in detail, that does not sound like an impartial organisation to me

Are there any impartial organisations in government?  If a train driver has concerns, then who are we to doubt them?  As for specifics - best avoided as they can lead to conspiracy theories these days. 

 

Brian.

[phil-b259]

Are there any impartial organisations in government?  If a train driver has concerns, then who are we to doubt them?  As for specifics - best avoided as they can lead to conspiracy theories these days. 

 

Brian.

 

Yes and no.

 

Some Government organisations are more independent than others - the ORR claims it is 'independent' but some of its behaviour with regard to DOO disputes does suggest a rather to close relationship with the DfT.

 

The RAIB on the other hand does, from the reports they have released etc do want to try and remain independently minded, but folk need to remember they are there to examine facts - not to question overall DfT policy or methods of operation in principle (though obviously if said policies / principles can be shown to directly affect safety matters - e.g. roster patterns, fatigue, brain overload, no response to previous incidents, etc then they become 'facts' relevant to the investigation as it were)

 

The other thing we would all do well to remember is there is no such thing as an impartial individual or organisation - anyone who tries to claim otherwise is talking b******t if the first order. What can be said is that some organisations try and strive to be impartial in what they do - and that some are more sucessfull than others at it. For example UK broadcasters have a legal obligation to be 'impartial' when it comes to News and current affairs. Print media in the UK and broadcast media in the US have no such restriction, and can be as biased as they want to be. Does that mean all UK broadcast media are actually impartial at al times and all respects? - of course not, but the fact they try to be gives them far more resectability and dependability than organisations that don't have 'impartiality' as a key aim.

 

In some ways impartiality is like 'randomness' - in truth nothing is truly random. The balls bouncing round in the lottery machine are all influenced by the laws of physics - as was the designer of the machine, and while they may try and ensure unpredictability - the mere act of designing something to enforce randomness actually destroys randomness itself. I always recall reading an article that said if a lottery is truly random then it generating the exact same numbers every week must be every bit as likely as them being different. Unfortunately the human brain cannot accept this reality - so it assumes that such a thing might be a fix. Another test is to ask a person to pick one or a series of random number between 1 and 9. Very few actually pick numbers at either end or repeat individual numbers or pick numbers close to each end of the range as the brain seeks to over define 'random' and pick something it thinks 'looks better'

[royaloak]

Yes and no.

 

Some Government organisations are more independent than others - the ORR claims it is 'independent' but some of its behaviour with regard to DOO disputes does suggest a rather to close relationship with the DfT.

 

The RAIB on the other hand does, from the reports they have released etc do want to try and remain independently minded, but folk need to remember they are there to examine facts - not to question overall DfT policy or methods of operation in principle (though obviously if said policies / principles can be shown to directly affect safety matters - e.g. roster patterns, fatigue, brain overload, no response to previous incidents, etc then they become 'facts' relevant to the investigation as it were)

 

The other thing we would all do well to remember is there is no such thing as an impartial individual or organisation - anyone who tries to claim otherwise is talking b******t if the first order.

Thank you for your professional opinion (which is still only an individuals opinion)!

Are you a civil servant perchance, because you wont hear anything against any of the government departments will you!

Edited February 2, 2018 by royaloak

[Pacific231G]

The RAIB report is likely to be a lot better (or at least fairer) than the rubbish that the mainstream media churn out.

Why do you say that?  The BBC reports seemed to reflect acurately what finally appeared in the RAIB report and the only divergence I could see in the ITV report was that the "mother and her three-year-old child nearly fell through the toilet floor of a moving train" The RAIB report didn't state that but having to grab her child would certainly have put the mother in very real danger of falling herself.

 

It's very easy to accuse the mainstream media of churning out "rubbish" but what I actually see from Britan's mainstream broadcasters is a real commitment to truth and accuracy. They sometimes get it wrong of course, but don't assume that nobody cares if that happens. 

 

The phrase in the report I found particularly chilling was that "many of the guards and TTIs, although they were required to do so, did not physically check all toilet doors which appeared to be closed"  I can't help wondering what else they weren't checking but that's surely one of the most fundamental aspects of any train crew's duties. 

[royaloak]

The report does say the child fell into the cubicle and landed on top of the pipes and it was only the quick reactions of the mother which prevented him being more seriously injured or worse.

[LBRJ]

Are there any impartial organisations in government?  If a train driver has concerns, then who are we to doubt them?  As for specifics - best avoided as they can lead to conspiracy theories these days. 

 

Brian.

 

From the thins I have read from the RAIB they are seemingly impartial. as one would expect (or hope!)

 

People (even Guards checking trains into service) do make mistakes; the idea is to learn from them and to do better next time 

[Zomboid]

Why do you say that? The BBC reports seemed to reflect acurately what finally appeared in the RAIB report and the only divergence I could see in the ITV report was that the "mother and her three-year-old child nearly fell through the toilet floor of a moving train" The RAIB report didn't state that but having to grab her child would certainly have put the mother in very real danger of falling herself.

 

It's very easy to accuse the mainstream media of churning out "rubbish" but what I actually see from Britan's mainstream broadcasters is a real commitment to truth and accuracy. They sometimes get it wrong of course, but don't assume that nobody cares if that happens.

 

The phrase in the report I found particularly chilling was that "many of the guards and TTIs, although they were required to do so, did not physically check all toilet doors which appeared to be closed" I can't help wondering what else they weren't checking but that's surely one of the most fundamental aspects of any train crew's duties.

The context has changed a bit - I was responding to the post above mine which has now been deleted.

 

Though on railway matters, the mainstream media are usually full of BS, and the point I was making was that anyone who wants to know what went on should read the RAIB report rather than what ITVs work experience person has written based on a skim of it.

[rodent279]

I think I'd agree there. Mainstream news may not actually lie, but it will present the story in a way that is target audience will understand, and want to watch. I view most news stories, especially in newspapers, as exactly that-stories based on actual events.

[Pacific231G]

The context has changed a bit - I was responding to the post above mine which has now been deleted.

 

Though on railway matters, the mainstream media are usually full of BS, and the point I was making was that anyone who wants to know what went on should read the RAIB report rather than what ITVs work experience person has written based on a skim of it.

Do you have reason to believe that the writing of ITV's report was left to someone doing work experience? That would be very unusual editorial practice not least because such a person would not have had any journalistic training so could easily land the broadcaster in legal hot water. Clearly anyone with a particular interest in railway safety and operation - which probably includes most people here- should read the RAIB report, and I have, but the general public will just want the basic conclusions.

 

I get a bit fed up of the careless assertion that everything put out by mainstream broadcast media is either nonsense or spun to fit a particular narrative. It also worries me because if we assume that no news sources try to tell the truth then we leave ourselves wide open to all those who do want to lie to us. 

 

In this case I found the RAIB report rather more shocking than the initial media reports from the time of the original incident, not least because I was once a volunteer on that railway. The lack of communication seems staggering. A train crew undoubtedly would assume that a toilet "out of service" had a blockage, a broken seat or a leak not that it was a deathtrap with a void behind the door. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Zomboid]

I've read enough mainstream media reports of (rail) things where I do know the facts and how they relate to what's been published that I have a very low opinion of any such coverage.

 

The work experience thing was entirely flippant - clearly even if it was written by a work experience person it wouldn't be published without someone qualified looking at it.

 

Let's not drag this off topic any more though.

[Pacific231G]

And as another aside, I well remember the late & much-lamented class 310 EMU's (best units BR ever built....) used to have a small cast iron plug, for want of a better description, in the toilet floor. This was easily removable, and quite often was missing, leaving a hole about 6" dia in the floor, through which the track could be seen. Obviously not big enough to fall through, unless you happen to have your pet guinea pig with you, but a bit unnerving all the same. I guess it's purpose was to drain the floor easily if the toilet became blocked.

I can well remember encountering toilets on coaches in mainland Europe where the pan was at the top of a fairly wide pipe leading directly onto the track without even a U bend. Rather unnerving and also bl**dy cold in winter. ISTR that there was usually a flap that opened when you flushed the pan but in some cases that was either hanging open or not there at all- possibly because it was a luxury feature not included in the more basic designs.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Pacific231G

[phil-b259]

Thank you for your professional opinion (which is still only an individuals opinion)!

Are you a civil servant perchance, because you wont hear anything against any of the government departments will you!

 

Yes its just my opinion - but so is the stance you take on the impartiality of organisations. THAT is the point - whether you regard anything as impartial depends on your personal prejudices.

 

No, I am not a civil servant, but I have yet to read anything from the RAIB which suggests to me they are not trying to be as impartial as they can be for any organisation which has that goal written into its very existence. As indicated, I am not so convinced by the ORR..

 

Finally if you wish to try and change my mind then please produce evidence. You have commented that you believe certain areas have not been investigated properly - unless you are able to highlight the relevant RAIB reports and the areas you think have been missed then I stand by my assertion that the RAIB are indeed an Impartial body.

Edited February 2, 2018 by phil-b259

[rodent279]

I can well remember encountering toilets on coaches in mainland Europe where the pan was at the top of a fairly wide pipe leading directly onto the track without even a U bend. Rather unnerving and also bl**dy cold in winter. ISTR that there was usually a flap that opened when you flushed the pan but in some cases that was either not there or hanging open.

Yes, I remember them too. Not a pretty sight after a 12+hr journey overnight across Europe!

[jjb1970]

I think the RAIB and their sister organisations the AAIB and MAIB are genuinely independent. Their role is is to investigate and they are independent of the regulators for their industries. The wider civil service implements government policy and although they should be impartial in how they conduct their business they are still implementing political decisions. This is further complicated by the fact that some departments are tasked with promoting the industries or activities they regulate which is why it is so important to separate incident investigation from the relevant government agencies. For example the MCA is tasked with growing the UK fleet and advocating the interests of UK shipping as well as being the regulator. Hence the importance of the MAIB's independent status.

[Pacific231G]

 

In some ways impartiality is like 'randomness' - in truth nothing is truly random. The balls bouncing round in the lottery machine are all influenced by the laws of physics - as was the designer of the machine, and while they may try and ensure unpredictability - the mere act of designing something to enforce randomness actually destroys randomness itself. I always recall reading an article that said if a lottery is truly random then it generating the exact same numbers every week must be every bit as likely as them being different. Unfortunately the human brain cannot accept this reality - so it assumes that such a thing might be a fix. Another test is to ask a person to pick one or a series of random number between 1 and 9. Very few actually pick numbers at either end or repeat individual numbers or pick numbers close to each end of the range as the brain seeks to over define 'random' and pick something it thinks 'looks better'

In truth we simply don't know if true randomness exists in the universe and never will. I do seem to recall a definition that a random number is one that cannot be described by a smaller number, only one of the same length or longer. A lot of pseudo random generators are in fact very deterministic but phenomenon such as radioactive decay appear random to our current knowledge. You can use such phenomenon as well as various quantum effects to generate random numbers without destroying their randomness.

 

I've always found it intriguing that Tommy Flowers, the senior Post Office engineer who created the Colossus computer to crack the German Lorenz codes, also went on to design, or to manage the design of, ERNIE which does rely on being adequately random - I believe it used electronic noise from valves as the random source. It's intriguing because if you want to create uncrackable codes you need random sequences to generate the equivalent of one time pads.  

 

You're quite right about human hopelessness at generating random numbers- fortunately for us as the Germans tried to introduce a degree of randomness into Enigma by requiring the operators to create "random" three letter message prefixes independently of the original machine settings. Needlesss to say they used their girlfriends' initials, adjoining letters on the keyboard and other very guessable combinations.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Pacific231G

[jjb1970]

Many years ago there were lots of (probably mostly apocryphal) stories concerning vacuum toilets and people of ample proportions.

[Reorte]

You're quite right about human hopelessness at generating random numbers- fortunately for us as the Germans tried to introduce a degree of randomness into Enigma by requiring the operators to create "random" three letter message prefixes independently of the original machine settings. Needlesss to say they used their girlfriends' initials, adjoining letters on the keyboard and other very guessable combinations.

Another curious effect of humans trying to create random numbers is that trying too hard is quite common. If you ask people to draw a random scatter of dots on a page they'll generally try to produce an even density of dots, whereas a truly random process usually produces a few clumps and sparse areas.

[rab]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-44112957

Might have been cheaper to buy a suitable piece of wood

and spend a few hours fitting it in the hole.