rodent279

Parents may well be responsible, but does the "brute" deserve death or serious injury because of the negligence of another person misusing a door, or from a malfunctioning door? Anyone who thinks that it is not worth trying to mitigate that risk needs to take a look at themselves. I'm all for personal responsibility, but time and again real world experience proves that it is not enough.

I think this is probably the most succinct explanation of the need for CDL that i have seen. It is a fact that people cannot be trusted to alway act sensibly, within the rules and with consideration for others. And it is a fact that equipment (I.e. manual door locking mechanisms) can an do fail. CDL, whilst I am sure not infallible, adds an extra layer of protection against either misuse or malfunction of slam doors. We need to remember that not all "door incidents" were caused by numpties who deserved to be removed from the gene pool. The argument that "No-one has thus far been killed or injured" (ttbomk) on the WHL steam excursions is, as has been stated above, a shoal of red herrings. There is nothing special about that line or the trains that makes it exempt; rather, the opposite. The associations with the Harry Potter films, the fact that it stops on Glenfinnan viaduct, and the fact that a large proportion of passengers will be there for the Harry Potter connections (and therefore not necessarily familiar with trains, let alone slam door trains), makes it a matter of time before something untoward happens.

Serious question - why would you do that on the real railway? Something to do with keeping track circuits working in a particular location?

And whose common sense are we talking about? The general public? Are they supposed to understand about line speeds and traffic density, and behave accordingly? Common sense is such a vague, undefinable quantity that it cannot be used to govern rules about safety critical situations. You only have to spend 5 min behind the wheel of a car or on a bike to see that most people don't use their "common sense". They just do whatever requires the least thought and the least effort.

Or indeed having to be the unfortunate person having to scrape human remains from track, platforms, carriage sides etc.

Did the industry ever produce any figures showing how many railway staff going about their duties were killed or injured due to the misuse of, or malfunctioning of, slam doors?

This is worth reposting.

Something like 5 deaths per year nationwide, and dozens of injuries, during the first 10 or so years, up to about 1994, from when the majority of pasenger trains started to have some flavour of power operated doors, or manual doors under the control of CDL.

Also, of course, Tilbury, Sowfind* & Shoeburyness 🙂 Pedantic? Me? Surely not! * aka Southend

And Morecambe, and Heysham..... Bristol isn't a million miles away from the sea either, but maybe that's stretching the point a little!

Telephone technology had been around since the 1880's, so I'm sure a simple 2 way voice system would have been viable in the early 20th century.

May also have been a composite image, with the loco under test taken with a plain background, and the other loco and track superimposed.

Wonder if that's a posed photo? Can't help thinking where is the photographer? Have they posed the train, and got the loco in the background to move?

No, I know it's not an 08, but how this for something different? Venlo's answer to the Sheffield shunt.

It does in the sense that doors can't be opened until released by the CDL mechanism, which is what i was getting at.

The purists may moan & groan about authenticity, but that is a lovely livery, and it sits well on an already impressive looking machine.

But if the doors are under the overall control of CDL, there would be no more risk of that than with a door with conventional manual handles under the control of CDL. All the push buttons would do is allow the door to be pushed or pulled open once CDL has released the main door lock.

Would they need a new safety case? If you've got CDL and a power supply, why not fit push button door locks, such that pushing the button releases the door lock, allowing it to swing open under is own weight, in a controlled manner?

TBH, reading the Telegraph comments, it makes the D@!ly F@!l look rational, level headed and even handed.

The thing is, they do!

A frightening 38 years ago to the day I took this photo of thumper 60018 at Hastings, 12/04/1986! The occasion was my one & only trip to Hastings on a Thumper. When I took these photos, the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl was 4 days in the future, Buzby was still telling us it was good to talk, if you saw Sid, you had to tell him, and almost no one had a mobile phone! Last Saturday (6th April), I was reunited with 1013, for an excellent day out courtesy of Hastings Diesels Ltd. I'd really recommend a trip with HDL, the ambience on board is very relaxed, no premium dining but there is good food & beer in the ex-class 411 buffet car.

And doors were not unknown to fail when leaned on, causing death or serious injury to the unwary, and of course an open door can kill or seriously injury an innocent platform bystander, so it's not quite as simple as people being "sheltered and becoming useless", or "nanny state", whatever that is. Because back in the day of course, people were all big and tough and hard, not like us namby-pamby woftee-softee modern types, and didn't mind a few serious injuries or deaths. Hey ho, you know that's life isn't it?

Does that mean they mainly use 0 hours contract staff?

Would an interesting legal situation if seatbelts were fitted, but not compulsory, and a passenger who chose not to use one got thrown into/against a belted passenger, causing serious injury. How would that work out? Who is responsible? Passenger-but seatbelt not compulsory? TOC- but passenger had belt and could have worn it? Legal minefield which I think TOCs would want to avoid like the plague, unless forced to by government.

I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that the dispute between WCRC & ORR was purely about CDL. Does this mean that:- 1-even if a fully compliant CDL system is fitted, there is no guarantee that WCRC can continue to use Mk1's? 2-Are ORR placing other requirements on WCRC in respect of crash worthiness improvements before granting continued exemption to run Mk1's?