LU detrainment dispute

[class411]

Jan 23, 2023 21:27:10 GMT andypurk said:

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.

Well the difference in risk is that in the 'train in motion' case, they are merely trying to get from carriage to carriage. Foolhardy, but not particularly dangerous. Trying to de-train via a method that was never designed for that purpose is extremely dangerous - it will be even more so as any passenger trying it will have to cope with avoiding the new inter-carriage barriers.

A further point is that using the doors on a moving train is almost never necessary, and thus any passenger injured shares significant culpability. In the case of a possibly frightened, confused, and panicked passenger the major fault lies with LU in not ensuring they were correctly detrained.

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.

I would have thought it blindingly obvious that 'couple of years' did not mean regularly, every two years. It's just an expression to mean on a fairly rare, random, basis.

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.

If this change goes ahead, and there is an incident resulting in staff or customer injury or death, LU will be slaughtered in court - civil and criminal. It's one of those organisations that always claim 'passenger safety is our number one priority', and the fact that they suffered a fatality and then removed a system that protected against such issues, after a change that they had implemented to ameliorate the risk had demonstrably failed, will make life very easy for whoever is prosecuting them.

[Dstock7080]

The Bakerloo Line action in the first post has been suspended.

[andypurk]

Jan 24, 2023 10:02:57 GMT class411 said:

Jan 23, 2023 21:27:10 GMT andypurk said:

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.

Well the difference in risk is that in the 'train in motion' case, they are merely trying to get from carriage to carriage. Foolhardy, but not particularly dangerous. Trying to de-train via a method that was never designed for that purpose is extremely dangerous - it will be even more so as any passenger trying it will have to cope with avoiding the new inter-carriage barriers.

A further point is that using the doors on a moving train is almost never necessary, and thus any passenger injured shares significant culpability. In the case of a possibly frightened, confused, and panicked passenger the major fault lies with LU in not ensuring they were correctly detrained.

As trains going out of service to depot will still be checked there is really little risk where a passenger should be any of the above. They would be in a stationary train for a maximum pf around ten minutes or so at the Bakerloo line locations. In addition, all the locations are above ground, so it will be possible to "call for help". Given that trains are not checked when running through the Kennington Loop, where a passenger might be in a similar position, but the move is fully signalled, the 'risk' seems to be based on use of 'non-passenger' signalling for the siding.

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.

I would have thought it blindingly obvious that 'couple of years' did not mean regularly, every two years. It's just an expression to mean on a fairly rare, random, basis.

Hyperbole has no place in risk assessment. Especially if you are trying to claim TfL would be culpable in case of any incident. 

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.

If this change goes ahead, and there is an incident resulting in staff or customer injury or death, LU will be slaughtered in court - civil and criminal. It's one of those organisations that always claim 'passenger safety is our number one priority', and the fact that they suffered a fatality and then removed a system that protected against such issues, after a change that they had implemented to ameliorate the risk had demonstrably failed, will make life very easy for whoever is prosecuting them.

More hyperbole. It's worth remembering that the Liverpool Street incident happened whilst the train was entering the sidings from the platform, not whilst the train was actually in the siding. There have been other incidents of passengers being injured going between cars of trains in service, including getting trapped from the platform side, so what is the big difference from the point of view of risk to passengers? Passenger safety isn't absolute but a balance, otherwise there would be no issue in finding the money to replace all the existing stock with articulated units eliminating most of the risk concerned.

The checking of trains wasn't consistent until well after the incident at Liverpool Street which is why I mentioned being in a late evening train at Harrow Siding. 

The courts may not see it as such an open and shut case as you seem to consider it. 

[class411]

Feb 4, 2023 19:37:53 GMT andypurk said:

As trains going out of service to depot will still be checked there is really little risk where a passenger should be any of the above.

I cannot make any sense of that.

In addition, all the locations are above ground, so it will be possible to "call for help".

To whom are they going to call? Are there myriad LU staff milling around the sidings to hear their calls? Perhaps redeploy a couple (no, that does not mean exactly two) to check the train before it leaves service.

I would have thought it blindingly obvious that 'couple of years' did not mean regularly, every two years. It's just an expression to mean on a fairly rare, random, basis.

Hyperbole has no place in risk assessment. Especially if you are trying to claim TfL would be culpable in case of any incident.

It's only hyperbole if someone obdurately insists on taking the phrase literally. I didn't think anyone would be daft enough to think that was what was implied.

If this change goes ahead, and there is an incident resulting in staff or customer injury or death, LU will be slaughtered in court - civil and criminal. It's one of those organisations that always claim 'passenger safety is our number one priority', and the fact that they suffered a fatality and then removed a system that protected against such issues, after a change that they had implemented to ameliorate the risk had demonstrably failed, will make life very easy for whoever is prosecuting them.

More hyperbole.

Are you sure you know what hyperbole actually means? It does not mean a something which (you consider) might be a mild exaggeration, and with which you disagree, which seems to be the sense in which you are using it.

It's worth remembering that the Liverpool Street incident happened whilst the train was entering the sidings from the platform, not whilst the train was actually in the siding.

That is irrelevant. The salient fact is that it relates to a train being out of service with passengers on board.

There have been other incidents of passengers being injured going between cars of trains in service, including getting trapped from the platform side, so what is the big difference from the point of view of risk to passengers?

I thought I'd explained that, above. The big difference is that LU cannot stop people acting foolishly on in-service trains (where inter-carriage doors are presumably necessary for fire safety reasons). What they most definitely can do is ensure that passengers are not unnecessarily placed in a position where they are more likely to attempt to use the inter-carriage doors. You know, as they do at the moment.

Passenger safety isn't absolute but a balance

Indeed, and LU, on balance, decided to implement a checking scheme to mitigate the problem that lead to a fatality. Tat was a good move on their part.

Now they have decided to that it's too expensive (in terms of money, or time). So what was once a reasonable safety mitigation is being dumped because of cost. Good luck defending that should it ever become necessary.

The courts may not see it as such an open and shut case as you seem to consider it. 

LOL, and LU may not find such a case as easy to defend as you seem to consider it.


And all this ignores the much more pressing problem of drivers being attacked/abused by drunk, angry, passengers.

[t697]

It's a shame this thread has degenerated into such mud slinging. Seems to have drifted away from anything constructive in support of either change or status quo.

[rincew1nd]

Quite. I think we have given plenty of exposure to both sides of the argument, let us now leave it to LU and the Union(s) to find the middle ground.

[Dstock7080]

from 4 March 2023 ASLEF Members on the District Line have been instructed not to take trains into depots or sidings without physical checks that all passengers have detrained.

Result of ballot:
Number of individuals who were entitled to vote in the ballot 340
Number of votes cast in the ballot: 266
Votes cast in the ballot as a % of individuals who were entitled to vote: 78.24%
ARE YOU PREPARED TO TAKE PART IN INDUSTRIAL ACTION SHORT OF A STRIKE?
Number of spoilt or otherwise invalid voting papers returned 1
Result of Voting:
Yes: 262 98.87%
No: 3 1.13%
“Yes” votes as a % of individuals who were entitled to vote: 77.06%

[Chris M]

Why only from the 4th of March?

[rincew1nd]

I think a Union has to give a certain notice period of any industrial action.

[brigham]

Jan 21, 2023 8:29:12 GMT brigham said:

This is hardly grounds for a strike.

Has ASLEF 'blacked' the new procedure? Much less disruptive, and far less likely to alienate passengers.

... And ASLEF has.

Can we look forward to a new era of responsible Trade Unionism, targeting management instead of the long-suffering passenger?

[philthetube]

Jan 23, 2023 5:33:10 GMT Chris M said:

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.

Plus the risk of drivers being accused of innapropriate actions, Safeguarding children?
Tipping out mid route is a much bigger issuemid route than at termini, not to say that it is not an issue at termini.

Wonder if this is planned for Amersham where a couple of trains sit in the siding for 25 mins.

If I remember correctly the current rule about carrying passengers over shunt signals mean reduced speeds, this rule would be broken every time someone is overcarried.

Quote reduced - can we try to be selective on what we quote please folks, rather than quoting complete posts. Thanks, Tom.