|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 20, 2023 6:53:26 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64330759This is likely to extend onto other Lines as the ballot results are confirmed: A correction to the BBC report is that it wouldn’t involve trains stabling in depots, only reversing in sidings. This is reinstating a policy which was withdrawn following the death of a passenger at Liverpool Street (Central) some years ago. The Union objection is that a lone driver could meet potentially disruptive passengers while changing ends through the train in sidings. A trial is currently underway on the Bakerloo and Waterloo & City Lines
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Jan 20, 2023 8:26:33 GMT
ASLEF climbing onto the out-brothers-out bandwagon?
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743 
|
Post by class411 on Jan 20, 2023 9:46:18 GMT
That is disgraceful.
LU kill someone by instigating an unsafe procedure and their attitude is: "We'll shelve the procedure for a bit and then bring it back again".
'Cretinous' is one word that springs to mind. 'Irresponsible' and 'callous' two more.
Of course, if you simply don't care about the deaf, non English speakers, or people wearing headphones, you're quite likely to support LU. They clearly don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 20, 2023 12:16:05 GMT
Since the Liverpool Street accident, the trains have been fitted with 'inner' intercar barriers to prevent people trying to vacate the train between cars. So it's not correct to imply no change has occurred.
I acknowledge the separate concern about T/Ops being accosted by over-carried passengers when changing ends through the train.
|
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jan 20, 2023 19:17:12 GMT
Couple of questions-
If a train is reversing, as different from stabling, it's going to leave that siding within a fairly short period. Yes? (the risk is a disruptive passenger, not an abandoned one)
If a train is to be reversed, are station staff always on-hand to tip out the train? What when they're not available?
Like many things, it seems like there are subtleties that aren't brought forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by nig on Jan 20, 2023 19:24:13 GMT
Couple of questions- If a train is reversing, as different from stabling, it's going to leave that siding within a fairly short period. Yes? (the risk is a disruptive passenger, not an abandoned one) If a train is to be reversed, are station staff always on-hand to tip out the train? What when they're not available? Like many things, it seems like there are subtleties that aren't brought forward. In the procudere they want to bring in there will be no station staff available at the moment if no staff are there the driver empties train by themselves the diffence is you have a station to retreat to if get rowdy passenger and can get station staff to help which you can't do if in sidings |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 21, 2023 0:41:03 GMT
ASLEF climbing onto the out-brothers-out bandwagon? Far from it. This has been a desire of senior management for some time. That is disgraceful. LU kill someone by instigating an unsafe procedure and their attitude is: "We'll shelve the procedure for a bit and then bring it back again". 'Cretinous' is one word that springs to mind. 'Irresponsible' and 'callous' two more. Of course, if you simply don't care about the deaf, non English speakers, or people wearing headphones, you're quite likely to support LU. They clearly don't. Senior management's view is the risk is low and they are prepared to own it. Since the Liverpool Street accident, the trains have been fitted with 'inner' intercar barriers to prevent people trying to vacate the train between cars. So it's not correct to imply no change has occurred. And yet they still managed to get through this "solution" and onto the platform when a panic occurred at Holland Park. Link to RAIB reportIf a train is to be reversed, are station staff always on-hand to tip out the train? What when they're not available? The procedure LU want to bring in does not involve any staff physically tipping out a train that is reversing via a siding. Like many things, it seems like there are subtleties that aren't brought forward. Such as? There's nothing hidden in the detail about this one. It's very simple. Currently a train reversing via a siding is physically checked to make sure its empty. LU want to remove that physical check. That's all of the detail. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Jan 21, 2023 8:29:12 GMT
This is hardly grounds for a strike.
Has ASLEF 'blacked' the new procedure? Much less disruptive, and far less likely to alienate passengers.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 21, 2023 9:57:58 GMT
Since the Liverpool Street accident, the trains have been fitted with 'inner' intercar barriers to prevent people trying to vacate the train between cars. So it's not correct to imply no change has occurred. I acknowledge the separate concern about T/Ops being accosted by over-carried passengers when changing ends through the train. Great. So now they are just more successful at trapping a passenger in a space in which they do not wish to be. Given the fact that being intoxicated is a very good reason for missing an announcement, a half asleep drunk, determined to get out of a train, will take some containing. Senior management's view is the risk is low and they are prepared to own it. How lovely for them. I bet that will be a great comfort to the family of the last person to die in one of these cost cutting experiments. And the families of any others who die in the future. I hope that the managers responsible will be held personally liable if anyone else dies because of this (I believe a change in the law is pending to allow that). A few years in jail might help to focus the minds of others in industry who are minded to take a cavalier approach to the safety of others. |
|
|
|
Post by croxleyn on Jan 21, 2023 11:06:28 GMT
Is the policy to speed up the reversal process, or to remove the need for a platform "supervisor"? If the former, could not the supervisor travel with the train to the siding and walk the length with the TOp? Any recalcitrant passengers could be (herded) persuaded though to the front for safer control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 21, 2023 11:23:01 GMT
Is the policy to speed up the reversal process, or to remove the need for a platform "supervisor"? Both, to speed up reversals and remove the detrainment staff. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Jan 21, 2023 11:45:35 GMT
Since the Liverpool Street accident, the trains have been fitted with 'inner' intercar barriers to prevent people trying to vacate the train between cars. So it's not correct to imply no change has occurred. I acknowledge the separate concern about T/Ops being accosted by over-carried passengers when changing ends through the train. Great. So now they are just more successful at trapping a passenger in a space in which they do not wish to be. Given the fact that being intoxicated is a very good reason for missing an announcement, a half asleep drunk, determined to get out of a train, will take some containing. Senior management's view is the risk is low and they are prepared to own it. How lovely for them. I bet that will be a great comfort to the family of the last person to die in one of these cost cutting experiments. And the families of any others who die in the future. I hope that the managers responsible will be held personally liable if anyone else dies because of this (I believe a change in the law is pending to allow that). A few years in jail might help to focus the minds of others in industry who are minded to take a cavalier approach to the safety of others. Who said “cavalier”? If - and it is an if - the risk assessments support the idea that this is a proportionate risk, then I would regard as “cavalier” any manager who didn’t seriously consider whether such a change is reasonable. Opinions will legitimately vary on the acceptability of individual categories of risk, and the appetite for them, but on a system that has already adapted to DOO and self despatch, this outsider is struggling to see why this idea is so far beyond the pale as to justify such strong language. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 21, 2023 12:05:54 GMT
I did. I'm sorry you're struggling. (Perhaps you believe the occasional death of a deaf person or a non English speaker is acceptable if it saves LU some money.) But I would have thought it would be an easy concept to understand. People have already died as a result of LU's actions to reduce staff, one, apparently because of this very change. So they come up with some half baked 'safety' procedure (It has already been shown to be flawed: see post by Colin Advisor above). Then they try and re-implement a clearly dangerous procedure. Thank God the ASLEF have got our backs on this. |
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 21, 2023 15:41:26 GMT
I think this is a bit OTT. As a passenger if you don't try to detrain yourself in a stupid place you won't get hurt. And the implication that inner inter car barriers make things worse doesn't really stack up.
Good reasoning has been put forward though about the potential for misguided assault of T/Ops who in fact will shortly bring you safely back to a station platform but are currently constrained within the train unlike at a station.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 21, 2023 15:52:58 GMT
In the past there have been proposals for the T/Op to check the train is fully detrained by scanning all the saloon CCTV images on a cab monitor. One might think this a potential solution if the images give adequate coverage and image quality. Also relying on good audio and visual CIS to tell passengers to get off.
Clearly current Bakerloo trains are nowhere near any of this yet....
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jan 21, 2023 15:55:44 GMT
As Colin has said there have been risk assessments done, the risks are considered to be low and appropriately mitigated. I've previously set out the principles of risk assessment here. This is no different. Perhaps you believe the occasional death of a deaf person or a non English speaker is acceptable if it saves LU some money.) (snip) People have already died as a result of LU's actions to reduce staff, one, apparently because of this very change. The likelihood of a person being deaf or not speaking English is likely to be lower than that of a person with full hearing who understands English. Therefore the likelihood element of a risk assessment score is going to be even smaller than for the population at large. Since the detrainment requirement was introduced there have been several instances every year of incomplete detrainment which has led to no unsafe situation but has led to Train Operators and station staff facing disciplinary action. One person died through a train not being checked when terminating. Since then modifications have been undertaken to the trains to address that risk, which would lower the immediate post-Liverpool Street score (which one could argue was already low and this was a tragic accident) even further. Whilst I don't entirely support the change the introduction of detrainment staff has introduced problems of its own; for example Queen's Park had a significant SPAD problem as a result of the detrainment staff being introduced and there were also issues about staff safety at other detrainment locations such as Stonebridge Park. This is all about the balance of risk. Finally, I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter and I would like to take this opportunity to remind members to consider the tone of their posts and appropriately moderate themselves - otherwise the forum staff will do it for you, and we don't want to have to do that. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 21, 2023 15:58:03 GMT
I think this is a bit OTT. As a passenger if you don't try to detrain yourself in a stupid place you won't get hurt. Is it OK for LU to implement a dangerous procedure if it only kills people (possibly frightened, confused, or drunk people) who do something stupid? Straw man argument. Nobody suggested they did. It's just been demonstrated that they are ineffective if anyone is determined to get out of a train. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 21, 2023 16:11:39 GMT
One person died through a train not being checked when terminating. It may only have been one person, but that person was a human being who was entitled to live a life not curtailed by some LU cost cutting exercise. He may well have had a wife and children whose lives have been ruined. Also possibly brothers sister and parents who will have to live the rest of their lives with the knowledge of this tragedy. If any LU employee could point to a procedure that could result in and LU employee getting killed, it would be acted upon. Why are passengers considered expendable? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jan 21, 2023 16:30:34 GMT
They aren't, but ultimately everything has a cost associated with it. There is no way that we can make anything 100% risk-free; all that can be done is to continue to assess risk and ensure that the situation is controlled so that to do more would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit it would provide.
I have explained all in the post I linked to previously. You might not like it, but that's the way things are.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 21, 2023 16:54:39 GMT
In the past there have been proposals for the T/Op to check the train is fully detrained by scanning all the saloon CCTV images on a cab monitor. One might think this a potential solution if the images give adequate coverage and image quality. If I had a pound for every time I've looked through the CCTV on an S stock and it appears empty only to find someone curled up asleep on a seat at the end of a car........I wouldn't be a millionaire but I'd certainly have enough to buy a decent lunch. The CCTV ain't that good! EDIT: this suggestion implies actually checking the train which the proposed detrainment process for trains reversing via a siding doesn't do. I hope you aren't suggesting this method be used for stabling trains! |
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 21, 2023 17:12:29 GMT
Good stuff there on how a CCTV check would need really good quality images and coverage. I wasn't trying make a specific claim about S stock.
I think there's quite a difference between a short trip to a reversing siding where the train comes back to the station only a very few minutes later e.g. Rayners Lane, and the case of a detrainment for stabling or where the total time for the reverse is longer. There are complicating factors though, like the time of the day and propensity for passengers to be in an aggressive condition, also the ease of them still being able to get their onward connection.
I was surprised at so much 'anti' opinion about inner intercar barriers. They may not be perfect but they do add deterrence that can save at least most passengers from attempting something silly and hazardous.
I'm not operating staff and I acknowledge the issues raised as valid concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by quex on Jan 21, 2023 17:55:14 GMT
Whilst I don't entirely support the change the introduction of detrainment staff has introduced problems of its own; for example Queen's Park had a significant SPAD problem as a result of the detrainment staff being introduced... [snip] Are you able to elaborate a little more on this? Are they similar to "ding-ding-and-away" incidents? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jan 22, 2023 0:13:58 GMT
Basically yes. Train operator got the door closed visual and didn't check the (poorly sighted) shunt signal.
Various factors made it worse including hearing points throw and/or a SB train leaving the siding roads, leading to anticipating signal clearance. Coupled with the very short distance to the points there was a not-insignificant derailment risk and there were suggestions that a derailment there had only been narrowly avoided on several occasions.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jan 22, 2023 23:30:07 GMT
I can foresee some transport enthusiasts boasting about how many sidings they've visited because of the new regulations I've read the reasons why class411 dislikes the proposed changes to train dispatch prior to entering sidings. I agree with much of what he says - including the issues related to the people can not hear / understand the messages. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 23, 2023 5:33:10 GMT
There are actually multiple separate, but closely related issues that need to be considered - (1) the likelihood of someone being over-carried, (2) the reaction of that person and (3) the actions available to the driver upon becoming aware of the person.
I think it is unarguable that the likelihood of someone being over-carried is greater under the new procedures than at present (for all the reasons mentioned in the thread), but that in isolation does not increase the risk to the driver as that depends on the other factors.
That majority of rail enthusiasts intentionally carried into the sidings and people arriving there accidentally should pose no physical danger to the driver, although they may be delayed changing ends if they have to explain what has happened, provide reassurance and/or deal with an emergency alarm.
The risk comes from the minority of passengers who either attempt to self-detrain and/or become violent towards the driver. In the latter case, on stock with individual cars then the connecting doors may provide some limited degree of protection and/or delay until the driver can retreat to the nearest cab and await assistance (which may or may not be close by), on walk-through stock then the cab will be the only place of safety - and depending where on the train the passenger is could be some distance away. Inappropriate comments, harassment, etc and pressure for cab rides or similar need to be considered as well as just physical violence of course.
A successful self-detrainment is almost certainly going to present the greatest risk to the passenger and the only one likely to cause a fatality. Obviously the first staff member to become aware of it will radio to get the juice off ASAP, but the time taken to become aware is very much a how long is a piece of string question. Unsuccessful attempts could lead to frustration or even panic which could be taken out on the driver and/or lead to passenger injury and/or damage to the train.
Management will have done risk assessments and concluded that the likelihood of each of the possible outcomes occurring is low enough, and the risk of fatality or (serious) injury (to passengers and staff) low enough that the overall risk is acceptable. That doesn't necessarily make the risk assessments correct - the likelihood of something occurring is always going to require some assumptions and (educated) guesswork, especially when the likelihood will change as a result of whatever it is you are risk assessing. If the people doing the risk assessment are basing their assessments on faulty or incomplete data (for whatever reason) then the outcomes will also be wrong (garbage in, garbage out). For example I was reading something recently where a risk assessment was done on the basis of a condition happening on average once every 10 years, whereas in reality it happened multiple times per week but wasn't being reported up the chain.
Finally, risk assessments are not the only criterion by which a proposed change should be judged. Personally, I value the human checking each vehicle, having been woken up at Epping multiple times and on one occasion at Bank DLR so lost in a good book that I was completely oblivious to the train having arrived and other passengers leaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmm on Jan 23, 2023 9:54:53 GMT
Basically yes. Train operator got the door closed visual and didn't check the (poorly sighted) shunt signal. Various factors made it worse including hearing points throw and/or a SB train leaving the siding roads, leading to anticipating signal clearance. Coupled with the very short distance to the points there was a not-insignificant derailment risk and there were suggestions that a derailment there had only been narrowly avoided on several occasions. And do you think that removing the detrainment staff will help solve that? Because what I understand from that is that it is a T/Op mistake, failing to check the signal in front of them. What if the new procedure is introduced, the same problem remains (after all, the T/Op will still get a door closed visual, will hear the points throw and will still see the SB train departing) and a train derails with passengers inside? Instead of only one person sustaining potential injuries (and actually, in the situation described, because of their own mistake), the likelyhood of having more people on the train and thus getting injured greatly increases. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 23, 2023 14:27:59 GMT
Management will have done risk assessments [snip][/snip] If the people doing the risk assessment are basing their assessments on faulty or incomplete data (for whatever reason) then the outcomes will also be wrong (garbage in, garbage out). For example I was reading something recently where a risk assessment was done on the basis of a condition happening on average once every 10 years, whereas in reality it happened multiple times per week but wasn't being reported up the chain. And herein lies the issue with management's risk assessments for this. They say that based on recorded data, overcarries are a rare occurrence. Well they would be! Trains are currently physically checked and anyone remaining board is asked to leave. For whatever reason (likely a member of staff not doing their job diligently) the odd one does slip through the net - indeed it happened at Barking on a H&C train last night - and I suspect it is these that management are basing their risk assessment on. What they should be doing is observing some real world detrainments and noting how many people have to be asked to leave a train. Afterall it is those that will be overcarried under the new procedure. I can pretty much guarantee that every single H&C train at Barking will have at least two or three people sat on it that the detrainment staff have to ask to leave. A couple of Saturdays back we were tipping out at Becontree in relation to the introduction of CBTC. I was an assisting I/O on the platform for drivers but I also helped the detrainment staff tip out the first couple of cars. Every single train had people still sitting on them despite my colleagues making announcements that train was terminating and the displays showing not in service. Several "customers" swore at us aggressively and one in particular threw a glass bottle which smashed on the platform. I'm sure we were all safe according to the risk assessment though. I can also tell many stories of tipping out at Parsons Green and having to kick people off that are completely oblivious to the fact the train has terminated. And although they're a slightly better class of "customer" at the west end of the line, I've still been sworn at aggressively on many occasions here too. Note that these "customers" swear aggressively when being asked to leave a train in a platform. Now imagine they realise they've ended up in a siding and driver comes walking past whilst changing ends. They make enquiries and are informed it will be 10 minutes (or maybe longer) before they are able to leave the train (ie, once it gets back to a platform), and that will be the wrong platform for the direction they are travelling in. Lets hope it doesn't progress beyond just swearing aggressively. On the plus side, LU's risk assessment says it'll all be ok so no need to worry. Now let me add in my own personal experience. Some of you may recall I was assaulted at Barking back in 2011. I was knocked unconscious on the platform by a couple of "customers" after they held the doors open on my train. To this day I have little memory of the incident other than having made several PA announcements, it was a mexican stand off. I left my cab to either find out if there was an issue or to reason with them to let go of the doors and was met with some aggressive swearing. I only know what happened next cos the CCTV footage ended up on BBC's Crimewatch program. As a result of my incident I had a fair amount of time off work, a SPAD following an incident at Upminster where I was followed by an aggressive "customer" (caused flashbacks of the Barking incident) and had to have two bouts of counselling at LU Occupational Health. You can imagine why I might be personally be concerned at the thought of this proposal, and why some of my colleagues on the District that remember my incident may also be concerned. Management can wave all the risk assessments they like, it doesn't make us feel any better. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jan 23, 2023 15:00:31 GMT
And do you think that removing the detrainment staff will help solve that? Yes, I do. Because modifying the way in which the detrainment staff behaved when closing the doors was seen to have an improvement. But then I spent several months looking at both the technical and Human Factors issues. To dismiss it as simply 'Train Operator Error' was over-simplification in the extreme. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 23, 2023 16:12:42 GMT
You can imagine why I might be personally be concerned at the thought of this proposal, and why some of my colleagues on the District that remember my incident may also be concerned. Management can wave all the risk assessments they like, it doesn't make us feel any better. I'd previously only been considering the passenger side of this (since ASLEF were dealing with the driver side). But the idea that LU management are prepared to risk the health and safety of their staff in this way is all but incomprehensible. They may be prepared to accept the death of a passenger every couple of years as 'unavoidable collateral damage' to their cost savings, but if this hare brained scheme goes ahead it appears that there will be instances where drivers have to deal with trapped customers on a regular basis, and it's almost certain that some of these will result in assault at least, and battery at worst. The thought of some small, slightly built, driver having to deal with a couple of drunk louts whilst trapped inside a train is not pleasant. If ASLEF cave into this demand, I hope it will be on the basis that the first time a driver suffers physical injury (whilst the managers are safely sitting behind their desks), everyone that signed off on this is unceremoniously booted out of LU (with no pension). If they are that confident of their 'risk assessment', they should have to problem agreeing to that. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jan 23, 2023 21:27:10 GMT
You can imagine why I might be personally be concerned at the thought of this proposal, and why some of my colleagues on the District that remember my incident may also be concerned. Management can wave all the risk assessments they like, it doesn't make us feel any better. I'd previously only been considering the passenger side of this (since ASLEF were dealing with the driver side). But the idea that LU management are prepared to risk the health and safety of their staff in this way is all but incomprehensible. They may be prepared to accept the death of a passenger every couple of years as 'unavoidable collateral damage' to their cost savings, but if this hare brained scheme goes ahead it appears that there will be instances where drivers have to deal with trapped customers on a regular basis, and it's almost certain that some of these will result in assault at least, and battery at worst. The thought of some small, slightly built, driver having to deal with a couple of drunk louts whilst trapped inside a train is not pleasant. If ASLEF cave into this demand, I hope it will be on the basis that the first time a driver suffers physical injury (whilst the managers are safely sitting behind their desks), everyone that signed off on this is unceremoniously booted out of LU (with no pension). If they are that confident of their 'risk assessment', they should have to problem agreeing to that. Having been over-carried into Harrow & Wealdstone siding one night over ten years ago, and well after the Liverpool Street sidings incident, I was quite grateful that the driver woke me up before the train headed back south. These days, the detraining 'in-service' seems mainly to be a Bakerloo line issue (along with Waterloo on the W&C), with every train needing to be checked at the north end of the line; locations on other lines only have some trains using sidings to reverse (e.g. Rayners Lane, Wembley Park). One of the side-effects is that 'problem' passengers can impact on the running of the London Overground trains as well because is no way past once beyond Queen's Park. I fail to see that the risk to the passenger is any worse than when they use the inter car doors whilst the train is in motion as I see happening fairly regularly on my travels. Deaths were never 'every couple of years' prior to the introduction of the checking by either the driver and/or the station staff and such exaggeration doesn't help the case. Given tight finances at the moment, it is quite correct to take another look at the cost vs risk to passenger balance, given that the passenger has to actively put themselves at risk. To my mind, the risk to the driver is much more important. But even here, there are possible solutions to some of the issues, such as stepping back of drivers with the 'new' driver boarding in the rear cab before entering the siding meaning that drivers don't have to walk through the train; or having security present whilst they change ends. I understand that the risk to the driver is real, but so is the risk to the detraining staff, with the important difference that help should be more readily available whilst in the platform. Ultimately, the risk to the passenger will disappear, if/when the Siemens stock is introduced, but the risk to the staff will remain (even with the potential introduction of auto-reversing at termini with sidings). |
|
