Doors and Droplights

I have always had the distinct impression that the report was watered down. The structure was dangerous and known to be, but was “no worse than many others” and I think that was the issue. Too many structures would have needed rectifying for a big noise to be made of the NR responsibility. In the end the ORR prosecuted the TOC for in effect unclear signage. Quite unforgivable given that the structure had been hit by rail vehicles and that was without doubt the infrastructure company’s fault, they didn’t face prosecution too.

 

It was an easy cop out for ORR to prosecute and fine the operator, Southern/GTR after the death at Balham.
The £1M fine paid by Southern/GTR wasn’t real money. It went from HMG DfT to GTR, then to ORR and back to DfT.
A few thousands in lawyers fees is much cheaper for HMG than properly funding The Railway to
ensure that tracks don’t creep too close to structures.

Same for vegetation, it’s cheaper for HMG/NR/ORR to blame operators and try to change The Rule Book to remove the requirement for drivers to lean out of loco cab windows to check the train, than maintaining the lineside.

 

How much engineering consideration has gone into this?

The slam door lock is designed to be operated thousands of times between overhaul.

The budget/private lock is completely different in design and construction. They won’t last.

 

It's easy to say "there's a relatively cheap method of ensuring doors are locked in motion". But does that apply if you use wooden-bodied non-corridor compartment stock? A Mark 1 has six doors per carriage; our SE&CR 100 seaters have 20! So the costs per carriage are not comparable - particularly since while it might be possible to come up with an industry-standard scheme for a Mark 1, those of us who use other carriage types might have to design bespoke solutions for what are essentially unique vehicles each with different configurations and locks.

Risk assessment is important. But surely it has to be informed by some kind of statistical analysis of how likely each type of incident is. Otherwise we are just dealing in hypotheticals - I'll trade you your "must lock doors and windows to ensure safety from line side vegetation" with "how would you evacuate a train of compartment stock with every door locked in the event of a train fire mid-section"?

Tom

 

On the one hand, Versailles. On the other hand, Ffestiniog. It's not unusual that a possible measure to reduce one risk would introduce or increase another risk. In that situation, both risks need to be assessed so that the decision is properly informed (and of course all of that documented).

 

As you say, a cop out. Always go for the low hanging fruit.

 

At Balham work to replace the signal post in question was already being planned at the time of the accident. That may have influenced the findings. Also the 5WES units with one public access opening droplight were regarded Southern/GatEx as a stop gap until more 378 units were delivered. From memory those droplights had signs saying do not lean out and not for public use.

Cheers Neil

 

They did have the stickers - the clarity of which was one of the things that were criticised in the report.

 

Excellent idea. As the trade body representing heritage railways, does the HRA have a view on this?

 

Maybe the links between HRA and NYMR are too deep for HRA to get involved with this issue.

 

The GM of the NYMR who was also Chair(?) of the HRA is no longer at the railway and is now in charge of the tank museum at Bovingdon so maybe the links aren't that deep now.

 

IMO a unified approach is indeed the way to go.

 

Lineisclear is, I believe, still involved with both HRA & NYMR.

 

I can assure you it was not.

 

Said in that way, I presume you have reason to know - and I'm delighted to accept that assurance.

 

Good. The subsequent response, which was not RAIB responsibility, seems to me to have fallen short for the reasons I described before.

I apologise for being careless in the way in which I phrased my post which wrongly impuned the investigation report. I should have been more careful.

 

I was on the nymr at the weekend the run to Whitby is a horrible experience now the door windows you can’t go near and you can’t even poke your head out the window of the seat your sitting at without being told off. It’s not going be a pleasant journey to Whitby when the sun does finally show it’s face. But when on the nymr you can do what you want. They keep on about about being a museum and showcasing how railways use to be but it really isn’t how they use to be anymore

 

I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your trip but I’m not clear what you expect any operator of Mark 1 stock on the national network to do? The ORR has made clear that it requires heritage railways to provide 21st century standards of safety. Those are not compatible with slam door stock unless door locking is in operation. As a result of the West Coast judicial review that’s pretty much cast in concrete. Demonstrating how railways used to be is never going to convince the regulator that it justifies exposing visitors to risks that may have tolerated in previous centuries but are no longer acceptable.

 

Hang on though. Not for the first time, two issues seem to be being elided, which is unhelpful. CDL is one and droplights is another. The fact they occur on the same stock is neither here nor there. You can have CDL and still have droplights. Indeed I'd have thought even with CDL, you'd still need to lean out to open the door using the original slam lock once whatever CDL has been disengaged.

To answer @Steve 's original question, not here we're not, on either front.

On door locks, the latest view from Mr ORR that I have heard third hand the other week is that there is no pressure to install CDL or anything of the kind (presumably assuming you have some sort of alternative RA in place such as platform and train staff keeping a good eye out). It did sound like they'd like to see more railways take up reflective strips on door edges. Certainly no mention of locking people in.

On droplights, my understanding has always been that because heritage railways are their own self-contained railways, it's much easier to RA the lineside than it is on the national network. In other words you can be a lot surer that there's not going to be anything joe public can knock their blocks off on along the route, therefore you can show droplights are low risk in that setting. If I see a tree branch that is growing a bit too close to running trains, I can report it immediately on our online system and our lineside clearance gang have it chopped back by the time of my next turn. Try getting that on Network Rail!