Doors and Droplights

Screenshot 2024-06-16 185620 by Dead Sheep posted Jun 16, 2024 at 6:57 PM

If there is a good case for the ORR deciding to force bars across windows, it is this.....

 

Sorry but that’s nonsense. It can be perfectly safe at one railway, but not at another because of the difference in infrastructure etc. that’s why each operator has to do a risk assessment.
The issue of consistency from the staff at a particular railway is one of training assessment and management. It is perfectly possible to have consistent consistency, it just takes a bit of effort.
Apparent inconsistency does not imply that there is anything wrong with the system or a need for the regulator to intervene. It might, but mere differences in approach should not be seen as evidence of an issue. I would be very unhappy to see the ORR become more interventionist simply on the basis of observed differences, and it isn’t likely they would in fairness.
There are some railway managements that might take a perceived “easy route” and simply apply the most restrictive approach. That will lead to a very unpleasant set of conditions and, the other danger is is that safety “by rote” leads to unthinking behaviour and actions related to safety. The history of railways is littered with the consequences of that kind of thinking.

 

When was this shot taken?

 

Last year.

 

Not ideal.

 

If any of those passengers had reached out as far as possible, could they have reached the signal post?

Notices warning against leaning out have been present for a long time. Over a century? If you ignored the notice and leant out regardless, it was at your own risk. That seems to have been considered OK until fairly recently. It still is considered OK in many other countries and on most heritage lines in Britain. It is no longer considered OK on the main line in Britain, so other risk control measures are required.
Question: given these other risk control measures, do the notices serve any purpose or are they only a source of confusion?

 

A simple notice gives a clear instruction. The confusion, IMHO, is where either the notices are not simple (see the RAIB report on Balham, or a number of RAIB reports on crossing incidents), or where the operator is held responsible for the (mis)conduct of the passenger.

 

This begs only one question in my mind;

What was the guard doing?

Why were they not turfed off at the next station and told in no uncertain terms they were no longer welcome to visit the railway?

 

I should say right up front that I don’t know the circumstances here, and I’m also not a guard so don’t know precisely what training they may or may not have for such a scenario. But I can imagine that one guard, faced with a carriage full of louts, may feel somewhat constrained in how far they wish to push any confrontation with regard to their own personal safety. If so, I can’t say I’d blame them.

The ultimate sanction they have is to refuse to give the right away from the next station until the issue is resolved - though in practice that may just be transferring the problem from one member of staff to another. At least at a station backup is probably easier to summon.

As I say, I don’t know the circumstances and maybe all that happened. But I doubt many people get into the sleepy world of being a heritage railway guard with the express intention of having to confront a train full of unruly yobs as part of their duty. (If certain services or types of event got a reputation on a particular railway, you could imagine that willingness to volunteer for operational duties on those services might start to dry up).

Tom

 

I take it that you do not attend many diesel galas then?

 

I'm not clear where this happened (lower quadrant signal, but green painted Mk1s doesn't ring bells to me). But what I notice in that picture is a glass bottle, I assume beer.

If we're considering risk assessments, then given the evidence of that still picture (see the discussion of police and calf in Staines for the limitations of such evidence) suggests to me that focusing on windows may somewhat be missing the point. Given the relationship between beer and railway preservation, that may need careful unravelling.

 

I’d guess that’s departing Bridgnort

 

Same Diesel Gala event, different idiots. Along this line there are a number of overhanging trees, bridge parapets and tunnels, not forgetting the hazards of slam doors.

 

Without defending these idiots - their presence at diesel galas is tedious and spoils them for me - it might be interesting to see the logs for whether these caused any incidents, and therefore assess the level of risk involved. I suggest that it shows that the risk level is actually a lot lower than often suggested.

 

And not forgetting this, though I believe the individual was banned.

 

Could be worse...

 

Much worse.

 

I think that provided that there are no restrictive structures and the line side is maintained the risk is low until the person gets to their waist.
I am not a guard, but I have twice halted my train and walked back to have a few choice words with people endangering themselves. All staff have a duty of care. I have never had a repeat performance from someone I spoke to, though I suppose I may have been quite direct.

 

Well I understand from posts on other forums that guards working for TOC are told to avoid confrontation. Think back to the two old folks on the XC service who refused to move from seats that were reserved by a different couple as an example, and they did not even look threatening. Those moved were the impacted, not the transgressors, all done apparently to avoid dispute.
So are we suggesting that volunteer guards should start getting involved in altercations with perhaps semi inebriated passengers? PA announcements yes, but I would think it would be something to be done at a station.

 

Disagree, there is a valid case for lineside clearances to be a individual line risk assessment, but I understood one of the things the ORR are getting themselves in a lather over is doors. Trains leaving with them open, people trying to get on trains that have been dispatched, or exiting where there is not a platform.
So to me a CME leaving say Crewe, is no different to a Heritage train leaving, say Bewdley, Swanage or Horsted Keynes, (to pick 3 at random) up until the point the mainline tour reaches 25 MPH.
Heritage Lines do not often (ever?) have enough platform staff to man every door, or pair of doors if it is the coach ends. So sometimes it is just the guard. Trains do not always of course exit the same side, Highley obviously, Harmans Cross say is different on a one service day to a two service day, even then maybe the first train and last train will follow "one service rules".
So to me that says a one size does need to fit all, as we appear to be in a world where people can no longer be responsible for their own safety in certain environments.
So the reported NYMR solution for Whitby, which obviously applies on those sets when on the NYMR proper, if deemed a success by the ORR, then to me it runs the risk of becoming a de facto ORR rule. Just like the CAA rule says keep your seatbelt fastened at all times unless moving around the cabin. Though of course Singapore Airlines have moved even a lack of personal responsibility for that by offering compensation for a force majeure incident.