Scotrail train travelling with doors open on Borders Railway 27/9/20

[greaterwest]

The crew will secure the door closed, proceed to the next station and then tip everyone out there at a location where other posters have already said they'd rather be.

Not immediately.

I think this is where the misconception is coming from. A failure of interlock is quite a serious fault ("wrong side" failure). If this is reported to the crew mid-journey, would they not be required to stop the train wait for a fitter to attend? If not, how long would it take for the TOC to authorise the train to move to the next station where it can be more easily attended? The railway, generally speaking, is not exactly quick at decision making. Would this policy vary from TOC to TOC?

For what it's worth, I agree that it is a safety issue and would alert a member of train crew as soon as I became aware of this, though I do understand the perspective the other posters are coming from.

 

[Applepie356]

How was the train allowed to move with open doors without any warning to the driver?

Even buses have an interlock in place to prevent moving with the rear doors open

Also not trying to blame the driver, but assuming that there was no guard surely the driver has to check the doors before powering up?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where has this suggestion that raising the alarm will result in a multi-hour stranding come from?

Because the railway is rather good at those, isn't it?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Of course you should always consider changing circumstances. You should also look ahead and try to predict what might change. How likely is it the situation goes from basically controllable to basically uncontrollable? How quickly will that happen? How much will you be able to affect that?

I suggest that there are several potential ways in which an open door can go from "basically not so bad" to "very immediately hazardous" very quickly. And the way to prevent or reduce the risk of all of those things is stopping the train.

Comparing the two real life situations in which I pulled the cord. I don't know if I did the right thing. But, in the heat of the moment, that is what I did.

In the first (Green Park), when the doors failed to open at Bond Street it seemed of little consequence. However, when it happened again at Green Park, I saw people started using the connecting door into the next car. I was aware that this would be potentially dangerous if the train started to move and decided to get in a position to pull the handle. Even then I waited until the doors closed in the next car and heard the brakes release, and saw there were people still crossing over the gap, before pulling the handle.

Contrariwise, in the second case (Waterloo), I pulled the handle immediately I realised the other passenger was having an epileptic fit (the onset of which seemed to coincide with the train starting to move), to stop the train whilst it was still partly in the platform, because I realised that if another passenger were to pull the handle between stops we, and in particular the patient, could be stranded on the viaduct for a considerable time. Had we already cleared the platform I would have tried to stop anyone else pulling it until we reached the next station.

I was surprised that, in neither case, none of the staff enquired as to who had pulled the handle or why although, to be fair, at least in the second case the reason was fairly obvious.

 

[Robertj21a]

Because the railway is rather good at those, isn't it?

Absolutely, and probably in the minds of all normal passengers. The UK railways are very safe but the many individual rules to ensure that can also result in a very time consuming experience.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely, and probably in the minds of all normal passengers. The UK railways are very safe but the many individual rules to ensure that can also result in a very time consuming experience.

And plenty of us think that's often overdone, as we consider the level of safety provided by road transport (or rail in the days of slamdoors, or indeed rail in other European countries where it's not quite as obsessive as here) to be adequate, and we don't want nannying to 100% safety throughout our lives as that makes for a rather boring life.

I wouldn't pull the handle for people using interconnecting doors on the Tube. I would have pulled it for doors failing to open, though, not for safety reasons but for reasons of passenger inconvenience. Indeed I've pulled it twice in my life, once for a medical emergency and once because of being locked in a train where the DOO driver had walked off without opening the doors. Of course because he had it didn't achieve anything, so after a short while it had to be the egress.

 

[Clip]

After reading this thread I can see where both sides are coming from however are those who are blaming the passengers for not alerting the guard(which they did) are seriously expecting on a unit with doors at 2/3rds that a passenger should get up from their position of safety ( their seat) possibly walk to the open doors to activate the pass com or try and walk past them to find a guard?

That is surely far more risk than letting the train carry on to its next station where they can safely alert the train crew?

 

[O L Leigh]

Not immediately.

Yes, pretty much.

I think this is where the misconception is coming from. A failure of interlock is quite a serious fault ("wrong side" failure). If this is reported to the crew mid-journey, would they not be required to stop the train wait for a fitter to attend? If not, how long would it take for the TOC to authorise the train to move to the next station where it can be more easily attended? The railway, generally speaking, is not exactly quick at decision making. Would this policy vary from TOC to TOC?

All TOC traincrew are trained in fault finding and can deal with a wide range of in-service faults. With regard to this particular incident it would appear that the door interlock circuit has failed at that door (and potentially others) which would require the attention of the fitters at the depot, but the crew would be very able to quickly close and secure the door and move the train to a place where it can be attended to, operating a safety bypass switch if necessary. Ergo, no stranding.

Some TOCs operate a "cut and run" policy whereby a time limit is set on how long a traincrew can carry out fault finding before the train has to be moved. In this instance the train was clearly not immobilised beyond the ability of the traincrew to get it moving again, so there is very little risk of the time running away.

Because the railway is rather good at those, isn't it?

So droll.

And plenty of us think that's often overdone, as we consider the level of safety provided by road transport (or rail in the days of slamdoors, or indeed rail in other European countries where it's not quite as obsessive as here) to be adequate, and we don't want nannying to 100% safety throughout our lives as that makes for a rather boring life

And that's fine if the legal environment permits it. The problem is that it doesn't.

After reading this thread I can see where both sides are coming from however are those who are blaming the passengers for not alerting the guard(which they did) are seriously expecting on a unit with doors at 2/3rds that a passenger should get up from their position of safety ( their seat) possibly walk to the open doors to activate the pass com or try and walk past them to find a guard?

That is surely far more risk than letting the train carry on to its next station where they can safely alert the train crew?

No. You can operate any passcom, not necessarily the one by the open door. Cl170s have one at every passenger door together with three in the "robo-loo" and two in the disabled area, and I believe this pattern is repeated on most stock. Therefore a passenger does not have to endanger themselves to alert the traincrew whatsoever.

While I do appreciate that the majority of passengers have no concept of the safety features of the train they're on, it does alarm me slightly that many would choose to ignore signs that a major safety system might have failed and elect not to at least mention this fact to a member of crew immediately. You know, just in case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And that's fine if the legal environment permits it. The problem is that it doesn't.

Well, it does - I'm not legally obliged to pull the passcom. The railway can't step back its safety in that way, but that doesn't mean the passenger has any obligation to make any given decision.

My decision would vary based on the situation. A crowded train or with kids there or with a long way to the next stop, I'd pull it. A quiet train with 2 minutes to the next stop, I'd keep an eye on it until arriving there then tell the guard (or driver if DOO).

 

[O L Leigh]

Well, it does - I'm not legally obliged to pull the passcom. The railway can't step back its safety in that way, but that doesn't mean the passenger has any obligation to make any given decision.

My decision would vary based on the situation. A crowded train or with kids there or with a long way to the next stop, I'd pull it. A quiet train with 2 minutes to the next stop, I'd keep an eye on it until arriving there then tell the guard (or driver if DOO).

Can I just ask then, in the event that you noticed an open door and elected not to alert the traincrew immediately and something untoward happened*, would you volunteer yourself to the authorities and be prepared to take responsibility for what happened?

* For the avoidance of doubt and to provide a non-exhaustive list of possibilities, I am including harm coming to anyone inside or outside the train as a direct consequence of the door being open in traffic due either to them falling out, being struck by something coming into the train, being struck by the door, either because it was out of gauge or had struck something itself and come off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can I just ask then, in the event that you noticed an open door and elected not to alert the traincrew immediately and something untoward happened*, would you volunteer yourself to the authorities and be prepared to take responsibility for what happened?

The law doesn't penalise inaction, except in a very narrow set of cases which doesn't extend to this case.

To use a sort-of-similar example, it is not illegal to walk past a burning building and fail to call 999. Nor is it illegal not to give first aid.

So there is no case to answer in the scenario you describe.

 

[najaB]

The law doesn't penalise inaction, except in a very narrow set of cases which doesn't extend to this case.

To use a sort-of-similar example, it is not illegal to walk past a burning building and fail to call 999. Nor is it illegal not to give first aid.

Which is a shame really. In countries that have this type of legislation there's much less of a bystander effect.

To those who have been making the point that they wouldn't pull the passcom because there's no immediate danger, have you considered that the fact that the train can proceed with a door open might indicate a more serious fault with the braking system?

 

[O L Leigh]

The law doesn't penalise inaction, except in a very narrow set of cases which doesn't extend to this case.

To use a sort-of-similar example, it is not illegal to walk past a burning building and fail to call 999. Nor is it illegal not to give first aid.

So there is no case to answer in the scenario you describe.

So you'd just sit there and keep shtum smug in the knowledge that the law is on your side while knowing that you could have done something but elected not to?

Your views are noted. I'm going to log off now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is a shame really. In countries that have this type of legislation there's much less of a bystander effect.

I have to disagree, in particular for the First Aider the ability to consider that getting involved is too high a risk to them is important.

To those who have been making the point that they wouldn't pull the passcom because there's no immediate danger, have you considered that the fact that the train can proceed with a door open might indicate a more serious fault with the braking system?

Unlikely, and if there is then pulling the passcom isn't[1] going to do a lot about it.

[1] On most stock. On the Mk5 CS stock the "red button" is a coach emergency brake so actually did.

 

[najaB]

I have to disagree, in particular for the First Aider the ability to consider that getting involved is too high a risk to them is important.

I agree on actually rendering first aid, but if it's not safe to do so then they should be under an obligation to at least make a call for assistance.

Unlikely, and if there is then pulling the passcom isn't[1] going to do a lot about it.

It will alert the driver to the situation *now* rather than later when (s)he applies the brakes and they don't work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree on actually rendering first aid, but if it's not safe to do so then they should be under an obligation to at least make a call for assistance.

We'll have to differ on this one I'm afraid.

 

[Howardh]

I had a situation a while ago where my train pulled into Lostock, and the door refused to open for me. By the time I'd found an alternative door, the train was pulling away. So at Bolton I got off and alerted the guard, who agreed the door was faulty.

As it happened I crossed the bridge there to get a train back which arrived shortly.

But I wonder what are the passenger's rights if they are on a long-distance train, the door doesn't open and the train sets off to the next station tens of miles away? What is the procedure for the pax and the crew then to get them back, especially if it's a late train and nothing going the other way?

 

[LRV3004]

The Newsquest group article in the original link says their report is based on what another paper have said. The other paper said the train was a 3 coach class 170 train.

It was a pair of 170s according to Real Time Trains.

Been watching this thread with interest and taking in the input and various opinions of everyone, whether they work on the railway or not.
As a railway worker myself in a traincrew role, I would personally tell the conductor/guard/TM in the first possible instance, because in any subsequent investigation, one of the questions asked in an interview would be “did you deal with the incident immediately”? If it was me being interviewed, I wouldn’t want to be saying “no, the train ran on with the door open to the next stop and I dealt with it then”. Obviously that’s dependant on being informed of the problem in the first place, but if I was the conductor in such a situation, I’d personally want to be made aware of such an occurrence ASAP, not a few minutes later.

 

[Sprinter107]

I think the majority of passengers would do something. Either pull the cord or get a guard. The twice I've had doors come open a passenger has pulled the cord. The problem has been looked at, the relevant people informed and the door has been secured, all within a few minutes. The train has the proceeded onto the next station and taken out of service. All without fuss.

 

[LowLevel]

I had a situation a while ago where my train pulled into Lostock, and the door refused to open for me. By the time I'd found an alternative door, the train was pulling away. So at Bolton I got off and alerted the guard, who agreed the door was faulty.

As it happened I crossed the bridge there to get a train back which arrived shortly.

But I wonder what are the passenger's rights if they are on a long-distance train, the door doesn't open and the train sets off to the next station tens of miles away? What is the procedure for the pax and the crew then to get them back, especially if it's a late train and nothing going the other way?

If the door is found to be faulty then the railway will get you back one way or another, by road if necessary.

Most doors failing to open are down to the passenger pressing the wrong button or no button at all in my experience however on class 158 there is a longstanding issue that can cause the door to self isolate without the out of service light coming on that you have to be aware of and keep an eye out for (there is a handle in the roof called the 'red flag' which when turned isolates the door. It isn't unknown for it to vibrate out of place or even be knocked out of place by the door arm in the roof and if it doesn't move fully over the door can still fail to operate but the out of service light won't come on. I hate working class 158s for many reasons and this is one of them).

 

[LRV3004]

If the door is found to be faulty then the railway will get you back one way or another, by road if necessary.

Most doors failing to open are down to the passenger pressing the wrong button or no button at all in my experience however on class 158 there is a longstanding issue that can cause the door to self isolate without the out of service light coming on that you have to be aware of and keep an eye out for (there is a handle in the roof called the 'red flag' which when turned isolates the door. It isn't unknown for it to vibrate out of place or even be knocked out of place by the door arm in the roof and if it doesn't move fully over the door can still fail to operate but the out of service light won't come on. I hate working class 158s for many reasons and this is one of them).

The 323s round Manchester had a door release issue round about 15 years ago when the conductor would release the doors, but a sporadic issue which occasionally arose was that the doors in the middle carriage wouldn’t release and passengers would end up being overcarried to the next station. Luckily with the 323s being local units, nine times out of ten the next stop was never usually that far away. Obviously the units have been refurbished since then so I’m assuming the door release issue has been resolved by now.

 

[Kingspanner]

The law doesn't penalise inaction, except in a very narrow set of cases which doesn't extend to this case.

To use a sort-of-similar example, it is not illegal to walk past a burning building and fail to call 999. Nor is it illegal not to give first aid.

So there is no case to answer in the scenario you describe.

Yes this is of course correct, but those who adhere to this thinking need to think about the fact that when they are in distress there is no automatic right to assistance.

It cuts both ways

 

[2HAP]

Whenn a passcoms is activated, does the driver know that a specific passcom has been activated, or just that a passcom has been activated?

 

[clagmonster]

This included one occasion where a rock went through a window, struck someone in the face causing them an injury having narrowly missed me with glass flying everywhere and all the passengers did was sit there, bar the woman who was injured who was understandably screeching.

I had to pick myself up to stop the train.

The rock flying through the window is an interesting case. Clearly as a passenger I would do something, if on a passcom fitted train I would clearly operate the passcom and speak to the driver. On a sprinter (guessing it was a sprinter you were working), I would pull the red handle but I would be a little worried about stopping the train where the perpertrator could throw more rocks. Of course, if the train were doing a decent speed it would be far away by the time it stopped anyway, but at low speed that could be a worry.

 

[Domh245]

When a passcoms is activated, does the driver know that a specific passcom has been activated, or just that a passcom has been activated?

Depends on the stock AIUI. More modern stock will flash up which coach the alarm has been pulled on the TCMS (and even in some cases CCTV covering the alarm handle) but on a turbostar like the incident train, it'd just be an alarm that a passcom has been activated

 

[Clip]

[QUOTE="O L Leigh,]



No. You can operate any passcom, not necessarily the one by the open door. Cl170s have one at every passenger door together with three in the "robo-loo" and two in the disabled area, and I believe this pattern is repeated on most stock. Therefore a passenger does not have to endanger themselves to alert the traincrew whatsoever.

While I do appreciate that the majority of passengers have no concept of the safety features of the train they're on, it does alarm me slightly that many would choose to ignore signs that a major safety system might have failed and elect not to at least mention this fact to a member of crew immediately. You know, just in case.
[/QUOTE]

But the 170s only have one accesible toilet per unit and one accesible area. So if you're not sat in neither of those areas, especially if you're sitting in the middle of the coach, you are still having to go towards the open doors and put yourself at risk to pull a passcom.

I think sitting there until you're at a very low speed or at a station is much much safer and is what the vast majority of people would do.

 

[najaB]

So if you're not sat in neither of those areas, especially if you're sitting in the middle of the coach, you are still having to go towards the open doors and put yourself at risk to pull a passcom.

I think sitting there until you're at a very low speed or at a station is much much safer and is what the vast majority of people would do.

Yes, it should go without saying that you shouldn't put yourself at additional risk to raise the alarm.

 

[Meerkat]

but the crew would be very able to quickly close and secure the door and move the train to a place where it can be attended to, operating a safety bypass switch if necessary. Ergo, no stranding.

You have a very narrow interpretation of stranding.
If I get kicked off my train before the end of my journey that train has stranded me.
I have waited in the cold whilst railway staff tried to organise buses/taxis - it went on so long I just got a train home, and that was at a major station not a village in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm so very pleased we've generated such a nation of selfish individuals, who are more concerned about their train being stopped and their journey delayed, than they are about an open door causing an injury to someone else on the train, to a passenger on a platform, or to a member of rail staff.

I hope you all suffer endless journey cancellations and your use of the railway makes your life more miserable than ever before.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm so very pleased we've generated such a nation of selfish individuals, who are more concerned about their train being stopped and their journey delayed, than they are about an open door causing an injury to someone else on the train, to a passenger on a platform, or to a member of rail staff.

I hope you all suffer endless journey cancellations and your use of the railway makes your life more miserable than ever before.

And the chances of any of those events happening?