Doors and Droplights

I don't think it is a case of personal responsibility being voided. You mention Singapore Airlines; I suspect they Airlines are paying out because (a) the question of personal responsibility isn't clear cut given the short time before the seat belt lights went on and the number of cabin crew injuries, plus (b) the cost of fighting a case is disproportionate to paying out quickly up front.

Back to heritage railways/ ORR are getting concerned over doors, which is why despatch requirements are becoming more onerous. But the issues over door use - as demonstrated in the RAIB report on the fall at Loughborough Central - are controllable by process. Knowing stopping points, using correct stopping points, having clear procedures to follow - all apply on the big railway as much as heritage railways. That does come back to proper risk assessment, and then managing operational risks in line with those assessments.

 

Yep. That smokebox could have harmed that tender behind even though the loco hasn't got a tender behind.

 

That’s shifting the argument on a bit. And disagreeing is fine…makes for better risk assessment.

I don’t believe it is impossible to safely despatch a train on a heritage railway even with doors. There are multiple mitigations that can be used and good training provided. Granted it is a couple of years since I last discussed matters with an ORR inspector, but at that time they simply wanted to see that such measures were in place. At that time a spot inspection of train despatch at Alresford was concluded with the comment that “There is much that **** TOC could learn from the way you do things and I wish others would come and look”. So, I take from that that “one size fits all” regulation of doors is neither desirable nor indeed - I think- technically legal under the powers invested in the ORR currently.

There have been incidents. However, those circumstances have often had some uniquely local factors.

I don’t believe there is any serious desire to take away from individuals responsibility for themselves. It will do no good at all to pander to such an agenda either.

 

Just for clarification, it's the driver who should report any vegetation obscuring a signal or speed limit sign on a RT3185 form. If the obstruction is bad, the obstruction should be reported to the controlling signal box.

Cheers, Neil

 

ok

 

These photos are probably the reason the nymr didn’t want to operate to Whitby during the diesel gala and I no they aren’t on the nymr but who can blame them for wanting to play safe and keep the problems in house?

 

The NYMR barely have enough operational carriages to run an hourly service between Pickering and Grosmont - running to Whitby would have meant big gaps in the timetable.

 

For what it's worth, I didn't hear any reports of folk being overly silly at the Gala just gone, and I didn't witness anything myself on the Sunday,
I did see and appreciate the notices posted in trains asking punters to restrain from 'Excessive' window hanging which I imagine was better received than an outright no.

 

That would be a sensible approach if that was adopted generally. It could even be expanded to say something like 'Please do not lean out of windows between Grosmont and Whitby due to close lineside foliage."

 

Going back to @Steve 's original question, we've just been informed on the GWSR that as a result of conversations with the ORR, the 1 coach in our 7 coach rakes that are off the 6 coach long platform at Toddington is to run with external doors locked as default, unless we specifically unlock them at other stations to aid a group booking for example. The extreme end doors at the other end of the rake are also going to be locked (as the platform is only just 6 coaches long, so a couple of feet wrong in either direction could see these doors off platform too). Practise at Gotherington where 5 coaches are off the platform remain as they were (except that in 1 direction, the front coach is now locked, so only the 2nd coach will be unlocked and available for boarding and alighting).

It seems the ORR has come to the conclusion that the theoretical risk of passengers being locked in a carriage that has caught fire or has toppled over is now outweighed by the very real risk of someone getting out of a door not at a platform.

 

We have a similar practice on the Bluebell - if we run a six coach train of Mark 1s (or carriages of equivalent length) the most northern end doors are locked, and passengers are guided to use other doors to get on / off. All the other platforms will comfortably take a 7 coach train, but at Sheffield Park it is a bit less than 6. The stopping point at Sheffield Park is for the southernmost carriage to be stopped with its end at the top of the ramp, which puts approximately a quarter of the last carriage off the ramp at the north end.

With a seven coach train, the seventh coach (at the north end) would have all doors locked. With non-corridor stock, we don't operate trains longer than the equivalent of five "standard" carriages except in exceptional circumstances.

Tom

 

Nice to know there's precedent for such an arrangement!

 

A very pragmatic solution. At least there's egress available from other carriages - I'm not convinced about the NYMR's way of locking all the windows so you'll need to find a key to unlock a door in an emergency.

 

I visited the GWSR yesterday and was somewhat surprised by the apparent inconsistency between requiring doors that would be off the ends of some platforms to be locked but not applying that requirement at Gotherington. On reflection, I suppose it is an application of ALARP. Keeping a few doors locked is practicable and reduces a risk. Keeping all the doors of several coaches locked is less practicable, and far fewer passengers will be getting on or off there than at the other stations, so the risk is lower already.

 

We have the same arrangements at Swanage, 5 coach trains have the upside Wareham end door locked out, 6 coach trains end doors on both ends are locked out.

 

For anyone wondering why this isn't the case for Herston Halt which only has a three-coach platform, as it is a request halt the Guard can ensure the passengers are in the correct part of the train to alight when they request the stop, thereby mitigating that part of the PTI risk.

 

I hope I'm ok in using the above post which is just part of one from a recent Vintage train post.

If I am understanding that correctly, does it mean that is an 'agreed way' forward for continung to use MK 1 stock?

ie, remove inside door handles and man the doors with stewards - although that would mean an awful lot of stewarding work.

If so, it gives me hope for my future main line tours (always behind a SR loco, usually Clan Line), if that approach is adopted more widely. As the more I hear about the stock (MK II s?) now having to be used by some, the less I am inclined to travel as I am very vulnerable to being cooped up in a sun trap with the lack of free flowing natural ventilation where I sit.

Bryan B

 

The WCRC Mk1's have had no handles on the inside of the doors since I have been stewarding. So I assume not a way forward just the way they work within their exemption.
Elsewhere I thought I had read a post that said one VT coach seemed to have a trail installation of what was presumed to the CDL gubbins.

 

The only loco hauled Mark 1s built with inside actuators, were the long extinct suburban stock.