TRTS RA CD Train Dispatch

[Jerry1237]

To be fair, they're are not supposed to give an RA unless they can see there are no obstructions or anything caught in the doors for the entire length of the train. Still think 5yr is excessive but retribution seems to be the weapon of modern society!

[PJW]

RAIB has published the report into the iverpool, James Street fatality: see http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/inve...222012.cfm

[PJW]

and another RAIB report on a similar issue, this time at Jarrow on the Tyne & Wear Metro:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/inve...262012.cfm

There seem to have been a spate of such PTI [Platform Train Interface] incidents as they are known on the London Underground recently; (thinking back not very far I recall the Victoria Line of LU and somewhere close to St Pancras on Thameslink). Seeing as the examiners will no doubt start thinking up some questions for the 2013 exam once they have finished marking 2012 papers, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a question on this topic arises.

The Convention this year also visited Bastille where some minimum height platform doors have been installed on the vintage part of the Paris Metro which features some sharper curves than even London Underground's old lines......
It becomes an even more important issue when the trains are truly driverless (i.e. without someone in the front cab whose role is to keep a sharp look out) and it has been announced that LU will not be purchasing any more fleets of train having cabs.

RAIB has published the report into the iverpool, James Street fatality: see http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/inve...222012.cfm

[Jerry1237]

Many of the PTI incidents of late have come from the "human factor". The Thameslink incident at Kentish Town was partially due to poor processes in place [increase in time to reaching a conclusion] and the crew overriding train bourne systems [result of many factors].

One view could be that with the number or trains increasing, a more relaxed societal view on risk and the increase in use of recreational drugs (alcohol is a legal drug), the number of incidents is predicatably growing.

As engineers, are we able to overcome this tide using an ALARP methodology? Should the same approach be taken to other forms of transport?

[PJW]

and another incident:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/curr..._cross.cfm
although this time it seems that there was nothing wrong with the train dispatch as it seems to have occurred AFTER the doors were fully closed. Perhaps it was entirely the passenger to blame, but perhaps the platform surface was slippery- certainly sounds from what is currently known that only a physical barrier such as a platform screen door would have prevented......

Many of the PTI incidents of late have come from the "human factor". The Thameslink incident at Kentish Town was partially due to poor processes in place [increase in time to reaching a conclusion] and the crew overriding train bourne systems [result of many factors].

One view could be that with the number or trains increasing, a more relaxed societal view on risk and the increase in use of recreational drugs (alcohol is a legal drug), the number of incidents is predicatably growing.

As engineers, are we able to overcome this tide using an ALARP methodology? Should the same approach be taken to other forms of transport?

[PJW]

A quote from the most recent RSSB Annual Safety Performance Report:

Risk to passengers
Four passengers died in separate incidents, all at stations. Of the four, three occurred at the platform-train interface (PTI) and one was a fall on an escalator. Based on RSSB’s Safety Risk Model (SRM), the PTI is the greatest source of passenger fatality risk. Most of the fatality risk does not arise from boarding or alighting, but is due to the people falling from the platform, or coming into contact with trains while standing too close to the platform edge.

[Jerry1237]

Another incident has occured at Charing Cross. Initial notification on RAIB.

---

It is an interesting question that is the ALARP arguement actually supportable in law? Many of these new incidents seems to lay the blame on the industry (and the RAIB findings certainly seem to want to indicate blame is entirely within the industry rather than commenting on the continued abuse of crossings etc), supported by the families (sometime, one might suggest in support of compensation claims) where the actual blame is potentially due to misuse, ignorance of the law and so forth. The Liverpool guard must feel he has been treated most unfairly and what do the driver/dispatcher of the Charing X incident feel against the media backlash?

[PJW]

Indeed. Some interesting information re those suffering from PTI incidents:
a) rather more females than males are involved with incidents getting on/ off trains,
b) conversely rather more males than females are involved with incidents not involving attempted boarding / disembarking.

The suggestion is that part of the reason for a) is the belief that there is greater likelihood of the incident being reported, but an important factor may be the "foot to floor" interface, since the choice of footwear style isn't gender neutral.

The suggestion for b) is the belief that males are generally less risk adverse and hence tend not to "stand behind the yellow line" and thus can become foul of loading gauge or affected by a fast through train. However another factor is the amount of "degraded mode operation" resulting from the quantity of alcohol in the bloodstream. For both sexes there is a correlation, this alarming rises late evening.

However a further risk factor seems to be being over 50 as the elderly clearly suffer a very large proportion of the getting on (and most distinctly getting off) incidents.

I regularly travel by HST; these trains have a conveniently ositioned vertical handle rail on the inside of the train along the edge of the door way and the door itself has a slightly angled rail which matches the step down from the train floor height to the platform surface. I tend to use the former; I don't remember ever having lost footing when leaving a train (except when descending vertically from the cab of a class 31 diesel as it exploded some detonators when working during engineering possession within Lord's tunnel near Marylebone- but that is a different story....) but it doesn't cost me anything in time or money and I regard the risks associated with holding it as negligible so therefore I do so. On the rare occasion taht I am carrying things in both hands (and therefore the risk I suppose rather higher) I don't- because I regard as impracticable. If the platform were bviously wet or icy, then yes I think I wouldreach out and put one bag down on the platform and then descend with the other one whilst holdng onto the rail. The thing is though I very rarely see anyone else holding the rail or even ensuring that they have a free hand pretty close to it ready to grab it at short notice- why?

Obviously there are some factors above which are within each individual's control, yet others which are unavoidable and I suggest it is those latter which should be the primary rationale for addressing the risk.

Another incident has occurred at Charing Cross. Initial notification on RAIB.

---

It is an interesting question that is the ALARP arguement actually supportable in law? Many of these new incidents seems to lay the blame on the industry (and the RAIB findings certainly seem to want to indicate blame is entirely within the industry rather than commenting on the continued abuse of crossings etc), supported by the families (sometime, one might suggest in support of compensation claims) where the actual blame is potentially due to misuse, ignorance of the law and so forth. The Liverpool guard must feel he has been treated most unfairly and what do the driver/dispatcher of the Charing X incident feel against the media backlash?