Tipping out vs pax in sidings-is the balance right

It has been said many times before on this forum, but it looks like it needs repeating....

In terms of LU, we have to physically detrain trains (also called "tipping out") as it is a requirement of the HMRI - I don't know whether the same applies to other railways, but I would expect it does.

The reason for the HMRI requirement? Once upon a time, a Central line train was put into Liverpool Street sidings without being fully and physically detrained. End result was that a passenger was still on the train and ended up falling between cars and dying.

Yes it may cause a delay whenever a train is physically detrained, but there is a reason for doing so - perhaps the reasons as to why something is done the way it is should be considered before giving consideration to ways of eradicating a perceived inconvenience and riding roughshod over the safety implications.

However it is through the actions of others that we humans learn.

Are you saying that bodies such as the Air Accident Investigation Branch are a nonsense? How safe would air travel be if it wasn't for these people? The same could be said for the railway equivalent RAIB. Of course they are merely the investigators - in the case of the railways, HMRI are the enforcers.

Yes, I agree that in a general sense health & safety has gotten a bit silly; but at what point can it be said that something which has been implemented on safety grounds has been done as a result of learning from another's misfortune or simply been introduced for the sake of it?

The railway has to operate to rules, for everyones safety (as do other industries such as Air) - how were those rules developed? Yes that's right, by learning from previous mistakes/incidents/etc.

And whenever something is changed, or a new way of doing something is brought in, risk factors are considered. The detrainment ruling may have been a result of 'stupidity', but what is the risk of it happening again, and how acceptable is that risk? The HMRI clearly think the risk is not acceptable.

Thanks to Chris M,Colin and Tomcakes for their thoughts on this matter.....
The nub of my argument is this.....Why should the operational flexibility of the railway (bus service,school.....) be severely compromised because of the perceived possibility that A user,at some unspecified point in the future,might do something stupid,illegal or malicious,thus placing themselves in danger,despite the authorities having made reasonable efforts to preclude such a possibility?
I approach the UndergrounD from a passenger's perspective,although I have perhaps more than the average punter's knowledge of operations.
I've lost count of the number of times I have read,on this board,the (probably true) assertion that something sensible,aimed at improving service to ALL passengers,would not be possible because of the danger of prosecution or civil litigation as a result of the possibility that someone, doing something stupid,might get hurt.**
The whole perception of risk has changed in the last 20 years or so.It seems to have gone beyond rectifying faults which have actually caused danger or injury....which is fair enough....to becoming an attempt to preclude any possibility of harm under any circumstance,even where the persons concerned are breaking their rules of employment or the instructions provided.
We live in a hazardous world,and if we are protected from risk,we are less well prepared to judge risk when we are faced with it.If we bend or break the rules (of employment or carriage) we should know that we have abrogated our right to claim for injury or loss against our employer or carrier......surely!
This would lead to people being obliged to make a personal assessment of the risks involved in their actions,and the consequences of those actions should they decide to proceed,despite warnings (or common sense,in some occasions!) that those actions may be dangerous.
.....But this is a cultural issue,and one where my view appears to be a minority viewpoint,especially among those charged with regulating and legislating....



**For instance:Flashing interior lights at terminals....a well-considered approach to passenger information.If this procedure has,indeed,been banned,it would be interesting to know how many successful claims against UK railways have been made on this issue,and the total compensation paid as a result of loss or injury.If the totals are (as I suspect) none and nil,why not LEAVE WELL ALONE?!

The incident at Liverpool Street was on Saturday 12/2/00. I was on duty and involved.

So now the S stock is all enclosed, does this mean the requirement will not be present for physically tipping out? Granted though most sidings are still non-pax moves.

Flashing of lights is a very effective way, in my experience, of waking passengers up - or getting the attention of passengers who are distracted. I've seen it used on the railways occasionally, and it is used on buses which turn back short. It is FAR more effective than making a PA announcement - it gets every passengers attention immediately.

An excellent quotation on the whole matter, I think, comes from Prof John Uff:

"In my view, however, [Risk Assessment] has its limitations and should not be seen as a substitute for clear thinking."

... in the report into the Southall collision in 1997 - when the practice of doing a risk assessment and then following it blindly was criticised.

I've written the blasted things before, although obviously this is outwith the railway industry. There are all sorts of hazard which could be created if you're not careful, but however much you pander to stupid people, they will STILL manage to be stupid.

There are clear notices on carriage doors stating that they must only be used in an emergency and when the train is stopped. I'm not sure quite how ANYONE could manage to get a claim that LU were negligent if they went past clearly defined notices, there for their safety, and ignored them.

flashing lights? photo sensitive epilepsy springs to mind.

instead of flashing lights how about the lights by the doorways change colour indicating that everyone should now leave the train followed with a loud beep inbetween the automated announcements.

eg. train arrives at final station, doors open, door lighting changes colour simultaneously with a loud beep, automated audio message telling people to leave the train....and then repeat with another beep and an automated message etc.

Highly unlikely: there would need to be a burst of flickering at a greater rate than 55Hz. I would estimate that the maximum flashing rate that could be achieved with the type of fluo. tubes used for car lighting would be at the (very extreme) of about 10/12 Hz using the on/off switch.

However, flickering at that frequency can lead to the Bucha effect, but this would need a greater exposure than flicking the lights on/off possibly three times.

I think we must call a spade a spade and state the occurrence at Liverpool Street was an act of the most unbelievable stupidity (attempting to alight from a train entering sidings by exiting the emergency doors between cars and then trying to jump from the coupler cover plate between the cars to the platform whilst the train was moving and possibly cornering). The following directives were a gross overreaction and have hampered optimum LUL rail operations ever since.

However, circumstances are different now. Warning signage on car emergency exit doors are clearer, and yet routinely ignored by some passengers, whilst there is a notably enhanced hazzard risk from such car transfers, the number of such movements when balanced with the absence of reported incidents suggest even this risk is low. Of course it is a risk at all times (not just trains entering sidings) and the increase of this risk (a passenger deciding to move between cars) is only marginally greater if a person has failed to detrain and actually notices before a siding is fully accessed and decides to make their way to the driver (more likely they will operate an emergency alarm).

The principle concern that a passenger may attempt a repeat of jumping from between the cars either to the platform or from within a siding to a track is now all but impossible because of the inter-car barrier/curtains that obstruct this method of egress. I don't see how anyone could expect to perform such an act. On the 95 and 96 stock with their baffles, they don't quiet block the whole gap, but it is considered enough to stop a partially sighted person falling between the cars so I would suggest enough of a deterrent to someone foolish enough to think of jumping the other way !!

I am aware a train is permitted to operate with one such barrier/curtain missing, but this is an exceptionally rare event too.

As Ben correctly observes there is no possibility whatsoever of a repeat of the Liverpool Street episode with the S stock.

The only other element of risk is a passenger making their way to the trailing end (to become driving end) before the driver gets there and detraining from the front "m" door to the electrified track. Again an act of the utmost stupidity but possible.

I think it is time for a upto date real time risk assessment of this situation again with current stock, signs and conditions. Such weighting would have to balance the increased present day likelihood that a passenger may not speak English and thus may not understand an "all change" directive. There may also need to be an element of "customer care" to take into account.

I remain of the view that all depot stabling trains and trains going to sidings for more than a brief dwell and reverse should be thoroughly checked. I am less convinced that routine reversers should however !

I also agree with the sentiments expressed that we should not need to have processes in place designed to take account of the most unreasonable, selfish and downright stupid antics of an infinitesimal minority to the detriment of everyone else.

Are there warning signs on M doors about electrified track? Obviously a t/op and other staff members authorised to be in the cab in normal circumstances should not need such a warning, but what about pax being detrained that way?

Most mainline train companies these days provide information, largely in pictogram form, of what to do in the event of an incident (in most circumstances stay on the train, moving to another car if necessary), but I don't recall seeing similar on LU services. Obviously at seat cards and posters in vestibules aren't possible in the same way on the Underground but perhaps replacing some of the patronising "I'll offer my seat, and I'll say thank you" advert panels with "what to do in the event of an incident" panels would be an option though.

The fitting of inter-car barriers was not as a result of a drunk person falling between cars, it was a visually impaired person.

This is feasible, although much of the press coverage at the time relating to the installation of the barriers mentioned the aforementioned drunk student.

If people are determined to do something, they will find a way, regardless of the precautions put in place to prevent it.

You and Phil do make good points with that, but as Tomcakes says there are ways for passengers to get into cabs in an emergency, and these can be misused.
Also, people who are not track trained can be carried in cabs in certain circumstances (e.g. fllm crew), and while I can't think of a reason why they would need to exit onto live track they could do.