Risk and reality

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

 Working to destroy respect for the rules really does not increase compliance.

 

No - but it means there is a nice easy structure to apportion blame - and frequently secure monetary compensation.

 

As we saw with the girl killed on a foot crossing, at times of loss folk find it very hard to admit that the death / injury is of the victims own making - they want revenge and to make someone suffer for their loss.

 

Its totally understandable in the sense that such emotions are a fundamental part of being human - but there are too many snake oil salespeople out there these days who promise quick answers and seek to absolve the dead / injured party (and their family / friends / communities) of guilt or personal omission via legal channels. (i.e. knowing where you offspring like to hang out in the evening) .

 

They will try absolutely everything to say black is white - and the legal system is designed to facilitate this. Any tiny loophole will be explored to find a way to make redress happen.

 

As any lawyer will tell you there is no such thing as 'common sense' in law*- precisely because there is no such legal definition of what such a person should be. This means that with something like Trespass, the lawyers have an absolute field day - unless the rules can be said to apply to everyone at all times then there are multiple opportunities to make it unenforceable for anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

11 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

An open window that doesnt open more than 6 inches is not going to see anyones head out...  the ORR in your own post said the Hasting unit proposal is acceptable, and I agree with it.

 

theres nothing more to save here, if your suggesting only permanently sealed windows is the only safe option... then your creating risk unnecessarily,. Old stock that isnt air conditioned creates heat on a hot day that can pose risk to life... trains without toilets can pose greater risk to life.

Weve seen several “instinct to survive” events were uninformed passengers have had to break windows or force doors to abandon a train after being stranded for hours and walk on the track to safety.

 

Indeed passengers becoming ill on board have few if any emergency treatments available.. I think if theres spare money for reducing risk from 3 “window” events in 50 years since steam started in 1971 to zero, two of which were on scheduled service trains... then theres better life saving risk reductions  still to be had on the railways.

 

 

 

Sorry when you said 'open' I read it to mean 'fully' open

 

As you say 6" is generally not enough to put your head out of - which is why the hopper windows used on the 319s for example are still absolutely fine for rail vehicles.

 

I have seen folk putting their heads out of the sliding toplights in the main passenger saloons of Mk1s though - how deep are they?

[adb968008]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

No - but it means there is a nice easy structure to apportion blame - and frequently secure monetary compensation.

 

As we saw with the girl killed on a foot crossing, at times of loss folk find it very hard to admit that the death / injury is of the victims own making - they want revenge and to make someone suffer for their loss.

Now you cant have your argument both ways...

 

saying its the victims fault for being on the crossing...

but then saying people need saving from themselves at an open train window...

 

Which one of the two has had most fatalities ?

 

[adb968008]

5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I have seen folk putting their heads out of the sliding toplights in the main passenger saloons of Mk1s though - how deep are they?

About a foot, as a kid I once exited a train through one of those top light windows.

 

no risk of that today, the table would collapse under my weight far before my gut got stuck in the gap.

Edited May 11, 2019 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Now you cant have your argument both ways...

 

saying its the victims fault for being on the crossing...

but then saying people need saving from themselves at an open train window...

 

Which one of the two has had most fatalities ?

 

 

I'm not making arguments - its not MY decision whether or not we can have opening droplights - that is the job of the ORR!

 

Its the ORR who drooped the absolute requirement for trains to always sound their horns at night after voter complaints - but this could well have been the critical difference between the girl in question living or dying. Its a change I would not have made....

 

Such an incident was bound to happen eventually (just as I'm pretty sure someone will die as a direct result of the removal of hard shoulders to create Smart motorways) but the ORR decided that a decent localised risk assessment was sufficient for the railway avoid blame in court.

 

As we have seen, the mothers legal challenge was indeed rejected on this occasion - but it wouldn't take much for that to change (e.g. deficiencies in the risk assessment - NR alerted to a crossing having a official  problem with teens hanging around it for example).

 

When it comes to opening droplights, the ORR has made a different judgement* - its a hazard that must be removed as the legal system has made it quite clear that putting up signs is not sufficient anymore and failure to address this - especially after the Balham incident) will result in adverse legal consequences.

 

Whilst the family of the Balham incident victim didn't go down the legal route, the RAIB report showed there was plenty of evidence to be found which could easily result in the decision going against the railway in the hands of a sufficiently skilled lawyer.

 

The Common law legal system explicitly uses previous cases to evolve - and in general the principle is that once a harmful action can be foreseen, it must be prevented from happening again. Anything which was already in place previously did not work so must be improved upon. In some cases lawyers can argue its too expensive - in others the government / business can be left with hefty bills to pay. Much depends on the skill of the lawyers involved and the resolution of the parties to toughen things out for as long as possible.

 

When it comes to trespass, the legal system has for several decades held that the railway has an obligation to keep people out of its property (other than where strictly necessary). The courts DO NOT CARE whether any actual harm has occurred - or the merits of whether it might or might not happen. NR can argue till its blue in the face that a trespasser only has themselves to blame - it still will be slapped with a massive fine if it cannot be proved that it has taken all possible steps to keep people out / mitigate the risks by slowing trains to a crawl till the trespassers have left the area.

 

That double standards exist is hardly a surprise - as has been commented on elsewhere we kill thousands on our roads every year but there is very little desire from the authorities to do anything radical to improve matters lest it affect them in general elections.

 

 

* Which is droplights of a restricted depth can be provided as the resulting opening is too small to get an average adult head through. If the droplights are dealt with (which in turn means fitting internal door handles and a proper central door locking system) then there is no need for an restrictions on where passengers may stand.

[adb968008]

In the case of Balham though (and I know this gantry well), isnt it too close to the line ? (I’m going off memory but something like 20cm ?).. I always look at it as I pass it as it is so close.

 

Wasnt there evidence of collision damage with a previous train?

The Accident report suggested incomplete records as to when it was installed, and the thought is the track has shifted closer to it with time ?

 

You can blame the person, but the situation is relevant to.

 

As an aside, the entry to Balcombe tunnel is another tight squeeze.

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by adb968008

[woodenhead]

Hypocrisy time, so after saying rules are rules, I had an argument today on platform 14 at Manchester Piccadilly.

 

I stepped over the yellow line three foot from the the platform edge today, was told by one of the station 'storm troopers' to get back behind the red line.  There is a second line 7 foot from the edge which when combined with its brother on platform 13 forms a box in which all waiting passengers must bunch together.

 

I asked why it was unsafe for me between the yellow and red lines, no train overhangs that far and actually there were no trains around even.  Was simply told it was unsafe.

 

Then as the train actually approaches everyone moves in past even the yellow line!!  So the red line is fr our safety when there are no trains about but as soon as a train approaches it is fine to get right up to the edge of the platform.

 

I then got on a train to Oxford Rd to get my Liverpool stopper where there isn't even a yellow line on the platforms and trains pass through faster that they would do at Piccadilly.

[brianusa]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I asked why it was unsafe for me between the yellow and red lines, no train overhangs that far and actually there were no trains around even.  Was simply told it was unsafe.

 

It is futile to try and argue with 'authority' in whatever shape or form it appears.   'They' were told what to say and there's nothing else to it.  (So there, might be added!)

       Brian.

 

[adb968008]

Try standing behind the yellow line at Norwood Junction platform 3...

 

the platform is very narrow, shared with Platform 2 (which is unused but with 1 line sharing plat 1 and 2).

 

The yellow line is painted exactly in line with the stairs/buildings footprints... giving exactly 1 row of bricks/stones (or hug the railings, or stand in the stairwell to the subway) for which passengers have to stand behind, to remain “safe”.

 

Plat 3 I will add is heavily used, especially in rush hour and sees a fair degree of high speed non stop services through it.

 

The result is is obvious, its packed like a tube station, with people less than a ft from the edge of passing nonstop services.

 

plat 4 isnt much better.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by adb968008

[jim.snowdon]

It looks to me to be a case of corporate paranoia somewhere. Group Standard GI/RT 7016 specifies a yellow line 1500mm back from the platform edge where the permitted line speed is greater than 100mph. TO quote from GI/GN7616, -

 

"The requirement to provide a yellow line on platforms at least 1500 mm from the platform G 11.2.1edge is understood to have been derived from tests carried out at Cheddington and Watford around 1970 and a limiting wind speed of 17 m/s. The British Rail Chief Mechanical and Electrical Engineer’s Department report T.204 High Speed Tests at Cheddington and Watford 1971. Aerodynamic Effects of Two Trains passing (Design Project No. 80327) November 1971 should be referenced for further reading. An electronic copy of this report is available on http://spark.rssb.co.uk."

 

The current issue of GI/RT 7016 (5) includes a new requirement in respect of platforms where freight trains pass, namely -

"At station platforms where freight trains (including container traffic but excluding those trains with the same aerodynamic profile as passenger trains, such as mail trains) pass, or are proposed to pass, on the adjacent line at speeds greater than 60 mph (100 km/h), action shall be taken to reduce the risk from the aerodynamic effects of passing trains to lightweight objects and vulnerable passengers on station platforms (for example, pushchairs, the elderly or frail)."

 

Nowhere are there any references to red liines, and the line speed through platforms 13 & 14 is a mere 20 mph, so none of the above requirements apply. Even the yellow line is not obligatory, although this would be far from the only case where they have been applied where there is no requirement.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

23 minutes ago, brianusa said:

 

It is futile to try and argue with 'authority' in whatever shape or form it appears.   'They' were told what to say and there's nothing else to it.  (So there, might be added!)

       Brian.

 

It is, if for no other reason than that there is a clause in the conditions of carriage that requires you (the passenger) to obey any instruction from a railway official, however inane it might be.

 

Jim

[adb968008]

At a guess, you have maximum 1 metre from the edge of plat 3 at Norwood junction, and maybe a 2metre wide platform in between the buildings./stairwells and the edge.

Trains seem to pass in their 50/60mph range.

 

take a look here.. the extreme ends are open space (but not many people congregate their, especially in the rain)

 

http://vipauk.org/transport/tube/over/east/nj.html#

 

i’m surprised those building structures havent been removed, but then again they provide revenue, so safety is somewhat selective.

 

The solution exists though, on the Jubilee line, Singapore and Hong Kong, various Airport metros etc .... put sliding doors along the platform edge,.but safety is selective, making it a bit hypocritical.

Edited May 11, 2019 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Hypocrisy time, so after saying rules are rules, I had an argument today on platform 14 at Manchester Piccadilly.

 

I stepped over the yellow line three foot from the the platform edge today, was told by one of the station 'storm troopers' to get back behind the red line.  There is a second line 7 foot from the edge which when combined with its brother on platform 13 forms a box in which all waiting passengers must bunch together.

 

I asked why it was unsafe for me between the yellow and red lines, no train overhangs that far and actually there were no trains around even.  Was simply told it was unsafe.

 

Then as the train actually approaches everyone moves in past even the yellow line!!  So the red line is fr our safety when there are no trains about but as soon as a train approaches it is fine to get right up to the edge of the platform.

 

I then got on a train to Oxford Rd to get my Liverpool stopper where there isn't even a yellow line on the platforms and trains pass through faster that they would do at Piccadilly.

 

19 minutes ago, brianusa said:

 

It is futile to try and argue with 'authority' in whatever shape or form it appears.   'They' were told what to say and there's nothing else to it.  (So there, might be added!)

       Brian.

 

 

You know that saying " don't shoot the messenger"....

 

Platforms staff at Manchester Piccadilly will have simply been given instructions about the red line - the paperwork and risk assessments which bought its introduction will be filed away in an office somewhere, how about trying to find out what they were from NR?

 

It strikes me far too many folk complaining on here haven't stopped to think that if the powers that be are instructing their staff to make such pronouncements, then rather than getting angry at the front line staff (or moaning on here) you need to go further up the food chain and get access to the documents outlining why the decision was made in the first place. That is a far more sensible use of time / effort which will either prove or disprove your suspicions as to whether the measure is necessary at all times.

 

Yes the hazard which gave rise to the red lines may only occur at certain periods during the rush hour, but  applying the rule at all times removes any chance of confusion creping in. All it would take is for someone to overhear you getting permission to be in that spot then return later when it wasn't OK - and bingo! the lawyers make a fortune for example.

 

As I keep having to point out, in these litigious times and with no shortage of legal claims firms all to eager to help claim compensation, many companies feel the need to instigate 'absolute' measures to defend themselves in court.

 

When will folk 'get it' - NR or the TOCs do not make up these rules for fun - its ultimately driven by a desire to not be found wanting if the case ends up in front of a Judge. If you dislike such 'arse covering' then you need to sort out the judicial system - particularly the 'no win / no fee' culture which hasn't gone away (if anything its expanded massively as all those flipping adverts for PPI companies show).
 

 

 

[adb968008]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

When will folk 'get it' - NR or the TOCs do not make up these rules for fun - its ultimately driven by a desire to not be found wanting if the case ends up in front of a Judge. If you dislike such 'arse covering' then you need to sort out the judicial system - particularly the 'no win / no fee' culture which hasn't gone away (if anything its expanded massively as all those flipping adverts for PPI companies show).

Yes but safer solutions exist and have been implemented in this country, but not at places of high risk on Network Rail.

 

Red and Yellow lines with shouting staff are archaic mechanisms prone to failure. Doors along the platform edges at Piccadilly's through platforms make absolute sense..its a dense, narrow heavily used platform, yet they aren't implemented.

 

So should a situation occur a good lawyer would walk all over an argument based on victorian safety regimes.

 

[phil-b259]

20 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

It looks to me to be a case of corporate paranoia somewhere. Group Standard GI/RT 7016 specifies a yellow line 1500mm back from the platform edge where the permitted line speed is greater than 100mph. TO quote from GI/GN7616, -

 

"The requirement to provide a yellow line on platforms at least 1500 mm from the platform G 11.2.1edge is understood to have been derived from tests carried out at Cheddington and Watford around 1970 and a limiting wind speed of 17 m/s. The British Rail Chief Mechanical and Electrical Engineer’s Department report T.204 High Speed Tests at Cheddington and Watford 1971. Aerodynamic Effects of Two Trains passing (Design Project No. 80327) November 1971 should be referenced for further reading. An electronic copy of this report is available on http://spark.rssb.co.uk."

 

The current issue of GI/RT 7016 (5) includes a new requirement in respect of platforms where freight trains pass, namely -

"At station platforms where freight trains (including container traffic but excluding those trains with the same aerodynamic profile as passenger trains, such as mail trains) pass, or are proposed to pass, on the adjacent line at speeds greater than 60 mph (100 km/h), action shall be taken to reduce the risk from the aerodynamic effects of passing trains to lightweight objects and vulnerable passengers on station platforms (for example, pushchairs, the elderly or frail)."

 

Nowhere are there any references to red liines, and the line speed through platforms 13 & 14 is a mere 20 mph, so none of the above requirements apply. Even the yellow line is not obligatory, although this would be far from the only case where they have been applied where there is no requirement.

 

Jim

 

Which suggest that those installed at Manchester have been applied to address a risk specific to that location. This is not unusual and is no different to each signal box having 'local instructions' in days gone by.

 

I am aware that there have been issues with overcrowding in the past on these platforms - maybe there is something specific about this at Manchester Piccadilly which requires additional measures to be taken. For example maybe there were issues with passengers bunching up at places on the platform forcing those who wished to get past to walk past the yellow line to get round the crowd. Keeping folk who are waiting behind a second line painted red would then create a safe corridor between the two lines for folk to walk down.

 

While outside peak times the red line may seem superfluous - people can become creatures of habit so making folk stand behind the red line at all times makes it less likely folk will forget at peak times.

[adb968008]

Red to a colour blind person, and a bloke with a loud hailer mean nothing to a non-english or deaf passenger. Certainly wont mean anything to an occasional visitor.

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

You know that saying " don't shoot the messenger"....

 

Platforms staff at Manchester Piccadilly will have simply been given instructions about the red line - the paperwork and risk assessments which bought its introduction will be filed away in an office somewhere, how about trying to find out what they were from NR?

 

It strikes me far too many folk complaining on here haven't stopped to think that if the powers that be are instructing their staff to make such pronouncements, then rather than getting angry at the front line staff (or moaning on here) you need to go further up the food chain and get access to the documents outlining why the decision was made in the first place. That is a far more sensible use of time / effort which will either prove or disprove your suspicions as to whether the measure is necessary at all times.

 

Yes the hazard which gave rise to the red lines may only occur at certain periods during the rush hour, but  applying the rule at all times removes any chance of confusion creping in. All it would take is for someone to overhear you getting permission to be in that spot then return later when it wasn't OK - and bingo! the lawyers make a fortune for example.

 

As I keep having to point out, in these litigious times and with no shortage of legal claims firms all to eager to help claim compensation, many companies feel the need to instigate 'absolute' measures to defend themselves in court.

 

When will folk 'get it' - NR or the TOCs do not make up these rules for fun - its ultimately driven by a desire to not be found wanting if the case ends up in front of a Judge. If you dislike such 'arse covering' then you need to sort out the judicial system - particularly the 'no win / no fee' culture which hasn't gone away (if anything its expanded massively as all those flipping adverts for PPI companies show).
 

 

 

By this logic, NR should adopt the Chinese Railways system of not allowing you anywhere hear a platform until the train has arrived and come to a stop. Then not dispatching it until everyone alighting from th etrain has cleared the platform.

 

This is, of course, no way to run a railway, but it would remove the risk of being prosecuted. It might also remove the passengers completely.

 

Jim

[adb968008]

6 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

By this logic, NR should adopt the Chinese Railways system of not allowing you anywhere hear a platform until the train has arrived and come to a stop. Then not dispatching it until everyone alighting from th etrain has cleared the platform.

 

This is, of course, no way to run a railway, but it would remove the risk of being prosecuted. It might also remove the passengers completely.

 

Jim

Not just China, ive seen it at choke stations in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, New York.... even our very special Blackpool North, which has operated like this for over 40 years.

Edited May 11, 2019 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Yes but safer solutions exist and have been implemented in this country, but not at places of high risk on Network Rail.

 

Red and Yellow lines with shouting staff are archaic mechanisms prone to failure. Doors along the platform edges at Piccadilly's through platforms make absolute sense..its a dense, narrow heavily used platform, yet they aren't implemented.

 

So should a situation occur a good lawyer would walk all over an argument based on victorian safety regimes.

 

 

Platform edge doors bring their own problems - they can only really be used on straight platforms and at places where all rolling stock has identical door openings. London Underground could not install them on the older bits of the Jubilee line for precisely those reasons* even though they were fitted to the Stratford extension and will feature on the Northern line extension to Battersea.

 

There is also a need to ensure the gap between the two sets of doors is as s,all as possible so nobody can squeeze through it - and this cannot be achieved if standard clearances have to be provided for freight traffic. You should note that although platform edge doors are provided on the Crossrail core - they do not exist east of the Pudding Mill lane portal or west of Paddington LL.

 

On high speed lines the usual tactic is to prevent access to the platforms until just before the stopping train is due - I recal this was considered at Manchester Piccadilly at one stage but rejected due to the effect on dwell times.

 

 

* They could of course try and fit them now but the disruption caused by the necessary engineering works / station closures would be too horrendous

[woodenhead]

I know in reality that they do have to apply the same rules regardless of time otherwise people will be more inclined to ignore it when they platform actually is crowded which my son has experience of.

 

i was more amused by by own reaction to chat back at the platform operative in the same way the OP felt when asked to not lean out of the window of a train stood at a station.  Whilst I did chat back I did so from the safety of being behind the red line 

 

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Red to a colour blind person, and a bloke with a loud hailer mean nothing to a non-english or deaf passenger. Certainly wont mean anything to an occasional visitor.

 

 

 

We don't insist every single toilet on a train is wheelchair accessible or that every single carriage or that every single notice is printed in the most popular tourist languages do we?

The majority of the population are NOT colour blind, deaf or unable to understand English. If any of these conditions are present then (1) there may well be other clues which the person with the loudhailer can see and react to and (2 If no action is taken after said loudhailer has been used then the staff member would be expected to investigate further.

 

At any station it is perfectly acceptable* to assume that the majority of persons will be able to see the colour red, be able to hear announcements and understand English. For the minority we take alternative measures - in this case having a member of staff physically present rather than simply relying on signs (which a blind person can't read) and automated announcements over the tannoy (which they cannot hear).

 

 

* There of course be local factors, such as for example a school for blind / partially sighted folk next door to the station which would trigger a different set of standards to be applied to that particular location.

[woodenhead]

The proper solution in Manchester Piccadilly is to implement the additional platforms plus some widening of the existing platforms which was of course planned but then postponed despite more traffic being routed through platforms 13/14.

 

If I hadn't gone for a pee I would have made the train on platform as I arrrived and would therefore not have been in a position to breK the red line rule.

[adb968008]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

We don't insist every single toilet on a train is wheelchair accessible or that every single carriage or that every single notice is printed in the most popular tourist languages do we ?

I thought safety signs on railways had to be in at least 4 EU languages ? (I know much of the continent on railways it is).

 

Similarly I thought disabled toilets was the reason why much of our stock is going for scrap right now.

[phil-b259]

22 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

By this logic, NR should adopt the Chinese Railways system of not allowing you anywhere hear a platform until the train has arrived and come to a stop. Then not dispatching it until everyone alighting from th etrain has cleared the platform.

 

This is, of course, no way to run a railway, but it would remove the risk of being prosecuted. It might also remove the passengers completely.

 

Jim

 

NR is not subject to Chinese law, its subject to British law and any actions it takes MUST be seen in light of the law which applies in the UK.

 

As has been noted many times its French law which allows SNCF to not fence in their railways - and while many may like this approach the brutal truth is that British LAW determines NR must do the reverse.

 

If you find compliance with UK law a hindrance then why don't you move overseas to somewhere whose legal thinking is more in line with your attitudes of personal responsibility - because its getting rather tiresome this continual sniping at things which are a direct result of our common law system and the decisions it has made over past decades to shift the burden of responsibility away from the individual at fault onto business / organisations for not stopping them in the first place.

 

The actions of NR / TOCs are all about trying to strike a balance - not go over the top like the example you cite in China (not least because it would decimate the timetable) but take measures that will stand up to a legal challenge in  the UK courts. They may not get it right every time or err on the side of caution - but as a study of H&S court cases will show taking too little cation can be very costly.

 

Look, we get that you think the balance has tilted to far away from personal responsibility - and to an extent I agree with this analysis, however until the UK legal system changes then that balance  will not restore itself!

 

[jim.snowdon]

Of course its not. I just used it as an example of the train of logic that is being promoted here.

 

Running a railway is inherently unsafe, and it is up to those who sit at the top, at Board level, to judge the balance that is "as safe as is reasonably practicable" and whether that would accord with the views of a judge should it come to trial. I have probably been nearer to that than you in the past.

 

Jim