Doors and Droplights

@Lineisclear also elides heritage railways and the national network.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Wi

With good reason! It’s been confirmed judicially that slam door stock used on the National Network must be locked while in motion. Flying Scotsman ( and Steve) are right that droplights are a distinct issue. However, fitting CDL is, as West Coast have argued, is hugely expensive and likely to be unaffordable. Effective locking can be achieved cheaply by restricted droplight opening.
If that solution is accepted by the ORR it doesn’t follow that heritage operators of slam door stock will be ordered by the ORR to follow suit. They are probably in two categories……those that don’t have any inadequate clearances and those where clearances pose a known risk. If an incident occurs then, particularly for the latter category, they may well find that the yardstick used by the RAIB or the Courts is whether they should have installed a simple modification that achieves the same level of inherent safety that is now mandated for the National Network.

 

You fall into the same trap as WCRC, but from the opposite side. Mrs Justice Thornton did not rule on the merits of door locking, or indeed of removing the ability to open droplights*, but on the much narrower matters of whether (a) ORR had the authority to regulate as they have and (b) whether WCRC were entitled to challenge those regulations. It is actively misleading to say that the regulations, or the principles underlying them, have been subject to judicial confirmation when the whole purpose of Judicial Review is explicitly procedural only.

You then move from this false premise through a conditional piece of logic ("if that solution is accepted by ORR") to imply that the solution NYMR have chosen will be required on heritage railways which have clearances restricted enough to represent a risk to someone with their head out of the window, and then build further castles in the air by speculating on how a future incident involving injury to someone with their head out of the window might be assessed, were it to happen.

I conclude from your comments that NYMR are proceeding with changes that have not yet been agreed with ORR, and that the benefits of this change are derived from a mixture of national network requirements and speculation about what may happen in future. At the risk of speculating, I therefore interpret these posts as a veiled form of advocacy for these unapproved changes, designed to imply a level of inevitability that does not exist.

As someone who has to work (albeit not in a safety critical context) with risk assessment, I find this deeply unconvincing. Worse, it would appear to pose a grave risk of bouncing other heritage railways with similar hazards (e.g. Grosmont tunnel, Goathland station area) into doing likewise, with associated expenditure, for an unquantified and objectively very low risk - precisely what ALARP principles say should not happen. As there are other risks associated with the proposed approach, the formal risk assessment, with detailed method statement, would be extremely useful to see. For the little that it is worth, my own view on the "break glass" arrangement for locked Mk1 doors is that it is scandalously inadequate, breaches basic railway safety principles by not failing safe and, in a major incident, would be seen by the court of history in similar light to nightclub operators using locked fire doors - or BR practice in the aftermath of the Taunton fire.

* - I am not a lawyer, but I believe her observations on the merits of ORR's case would constitute obiter, and not be binding in any subsequent hearings on the topic.

 

Please clarify your highlighted statement. Are you envisaging droplight opening to be so restricted as to prevent access from inside to the external door handle? If so, what happens when the door needs to be opened?

 

I fail to see why the NYMR is going down this route. The Railway has a recently granted exemption from Reg 5 from the ORR until March 2028. Unlike other Reg 5 exemptions which require a CDL fitment programme, there is no such requirement. This is essentially the same as has been granted in the past with the notable exception that train speeds are now limited to 25mph, essentially bringing it into line with the regulation requirements that exempt heritage railways generally. As the line speed is only 30 mph and NYMR trains are times at 25 mph in any case, it makes little difference. What is apparent, however, from the pleas I receive, is that the Railway is struggling to find the necessary door stewards.
The Railway originally had a plan to simply lock the doors with the budget lock, which would have not required restricted droplight opening and, to me, was a reasonable solution. It would have required platform staff to open doors but that is still the case with the restricted droplight scheme.

 

My understanding is that the West Coast decision means the exemption is now subject to the same ORR requirements as for all other operators on the National Network.
35b’s point about fail safe is why the droplight solution to the requirement for door locking needs ORR approval.

 

From reading the papers at the time of the WCRC case, I would be very surprised if the NYMR exemption is subject to any such restrictions - the conditions of exemptions are specifically documented in the exemption, as absolutes. That is, I understand, part of why ORR (to the surprise of many) rescinded WCRC's exemption in January, and required a new one.

If NYMR hold an exemption until March 2028, it would be useful to understand what specifically in the exemption requires action to be taken to preserve that exemption, and therefore why this Gadarene rush to make changes rather than address the changed landscape in preparation for March 2028.

 

Staff on the platform open it for you. If it's not at a platform, it won't be possible to open the door from inside. If it's an emergency then you need to break the glass box to access the key for the lock that prevents the droplight from being opened fully.

 

Does a design exist for a lockable droplight? Not come across that before. Usually it's been window bars that allow the droplight to be opened but not to stick a head out. Obviously that's no use if expecting passengers unfamiliar with budget locks to unlock with a T key in an emergency - some of us have probably unlocked enough times to not need to stick our heads out but the public won't.

 

If your interpretation were correct the NYMR would be free to carry on running to Whitby in the way it has done for years. In practice it is being forced into the temporary stop gap of using door stewards until proper door locking can be deployed.

 

Which is why I'm curious about the specific details pertaining to the exemption, and what ORR's stated requirement is. Without getting into the tail/dog conversation re Whitby operation, I do recognise that a solution for operation to Whitby may well then impact operations on NYMR's own metals, for good or ill.

Meanwhile, I have a more fundamental concern, which is that ORR appear to be using NR's persistent failure to maintain their lineside clearances to drive through limits on use of windows by using door locking as a proxy measure. These two are then being treated as a single issue when they are actually separate matters. I then find myself deeply frustrated when the incident at Loughborough is used to argue that door locking will protect people where a door is off the platform when (a) central locking does no such thing and (b) the underlying issue picked up in the RAIB report was to do with the stopping point.

That brings me back to my sense of discomfort about the nature of discussion with ORR, where the appearance is of accepting all that they say at face value, rather than engaging in real, serious, discussion of risk management in accordance with the principles of ALARP. Coming back to the WCRC Judicial Review, one of my key disappointments was that the poverty of WCRC's statistical evidence left the field open for some pretty sweeping assertions by ORR about the safety benefits of their proposed measures, where the models used seemed to apply to the national network as a whole, and not be calibrated to the specifics of heritage railway operation. Again, ALARP principles appear to have allowed GCR (and others) to materially change their risk level by reviewing train lengths and stopping points.

 

I’m intrigued by the criticism of Network Rail for failure to maintain line side clearances. Surely the point is that with the near universal use of stock with non opening windows and locked doors there isn’t any justification for doing so. As Big Al points out in the absence of that operational requirement vegetation is being allowed to grow much closer to the line. The occasional appearance of slam door stock operating under a time limited exemption may need vegetation cut back but surely the onus is on its operator to comply with current network conditions not to expect NR to adapt?

 

A recent RAIB report on a near miss on a driver inspecting a train for a hot box included mention that the driver found it easier to walk to the rear of his train on the other line than on in the cess, because it was uneven and there was vegetation growth. If traincrew need to monitor their train, and growth is within the loading gauge, then I'd have thought there's a clear breach of H&S law by NR in respect of staff on their infrastructure.

There are other reasons than enjoying travelling with my head out of the window for trains to be kept clear of obstructions.

 

The Night Riviera sleeper (currently in the news due to Rishi travelling on it to Penzance) has lockable droplights. At the top of each window pane is some sort of sensor and seal. The droplight window in the door is magnetically locked by that seal whilst the CDL is active. Only once the guard has unlocked the doors can the droplight window be lowered to open the door.

 

Are you suggesting that NR now has no obligation to cut back vegetation?
There are many drivers who on other forums mention how often they report vegetation that they regard as a danger to them, often it seems which NR do nothing about. So are drivers less valued than passengers?

 

The conditions are laid down in the exemption. Let’s turn the clock back to 1999 when the regulations came in. They were primarily introduced to force the train operating companies to get rid of Mk1 slam door stock by imposing various requirements such as CDL. However, it was realised that this would affect heritage railways so, to exclude them a simple catch all of excluding any railway operating at a line speed of 25mph or less was included. Thus there was no requirement for the NYMR to comply between Pickering and Grosmont. Back then there was no thought of a heritage railway operating over the main line so there was no need to include anything in the legislation. Roll the clock on fourteen years and the circumstances have changed so the NYMR needed an exemption to run to Whitby with Mk1’s. Still no problem as such exemptions were relatively common. Roll the clock on another nine years and the ORR want CDL fitting to Mk1’s on the main line so exemptions become time limited to give operators an incentive to fit. However, what to do about the NYMR which operates solely vacuum braked stock over a six mile section of Network Rail which is effectively an extension of a heritage railway whilst not allowing other operators to do so? Someone came up with the simple solution of limiting speed to 25mph. In other words make those six miles the same as the rest of the NYMR in terms of their operations. On the face of it a simple solution; however the line speed was 30mph so, legally the regs applied and an exemption was necessary. The ORR have granted this so seemingly do not see a lack of CDL as a problem. Why then, does the NYMR? Or is it more specifically @Lineisclear. I know that the ORR have concerns about the platform train interface and it was suggest this could be overcome by locking the doors and using platform staff to unlock them on platforms coaches, a relatively simple solution provided there was a means of escape in an emergency, something which could be provided relatively easily. The thought train was continued to suggest that this might be an acceptable alternative to CDL. I’m not sure why this hasn’t been pursued as, to me, it would have been a simple alternative to CDL, not only for the NYMR but for all operators of Mk1 stock. It may have been kicked back by the ORR; I don’t know.

 

That's a very good point. The issue isn't really how many accidents happen, it's how many near misses.

Trains travelling the full length of the Mountsorrel Branch have to pass under the bridge on Swithland Lane. This was never a passenger line and the clearances for bogie stock through the bridge are very tight. There is a specific speed restriction in place and for the reopening last year using the GC/RR's DMU fleet bars were fitted across the top lights to prevent people leaning out. Out of the 4 trains I rode through to relieve someone at Bond Lane, twice I had to politely remind passengers that were hanging their whole arm out of the window between the bars to video down the side of the coach, that the clearances are smaller than usual. Even if it is the individual that seems determined to hurt themselves, after the worst had happened it would still fall to the railway to justify continuing to use that section of line or to not further modify the doors. With the precarious state many lines are in financially at the moment, how many can afford to be dragged through the courts by an upset family?

 

Very relevant points, but they still focus on the hazard (someone sticking their arm out) rather than the risk (the chance of that hazard taking place and becoming an incident). There is then a proportionality question - how far does the operator's duty extend to protecting people who choose to disobey signs.

In an environment where there are other significant hazards (steam locomotives involve steam, dry heat, heights, and heavy lifting, just to operate), it seems odd that this one item is attracting such an allergic response from some.