-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Train stopping short & doors been opened
- Thread starter David_bd19
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
12LDA28C
Established Member
There would be no requirement to report this to RAIB and I very much doubt it would be considered a 'near miss' - incidents like these happen fairly regularly on the railway and are dealt with internally. If somebody had fallen out and injured themselves then that may be another matter.
Is there only reactive investigations and not proactive steps taken to prevent incident ?
Should it be only "IF" somebody had fallen. Should the RAIB investigate potential incidents ?
james_the_xv
Member
RAIB do investigate near misses. My understanding is they only do so for incidents where a safety digest or full report would bring about new conclusions.
I think the question is was this reportable, and if not, should it be? (Both are questions I am not knowledgeable enough to expand on)
dingdinger
Member
I'd imagine if someone needed assistance they would have been with the guard and had the guard had been at the back with that person then the doors would not have been released because they would have seen the stop short.
12LDA28C
Established Member
Investigations of incidents are by their very nature reactive. I don't believe it's RAIB's job to be proactive in terms of pre-empting incidents although lessons learnt from incident investigations are disseminated to interested industry parties in the hope of preventing similar incidents happening elsewhere in a drive to improve safety on the railway.
There are some on the RAIB website right now, although these 'near misses' usually involve trains and trackworkers or trains and obstacles on the railway etc, not 'stop short' incidents.
See here, for example: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/near-miss-between-totnes-and-newton-abbot
Does a blind person automatically need assistance or are the capable of being independent ?
dingdinger
Member
I am sure different people have varying needs- some may not need any help some may need help.
12LDA28C
Established Member
It would be entirely down to the blind or partially-sighted person as to whether they needed assistance from railway staff. Some choose to be independent and some travel accompanied by a friend in which case additional assistance from staff is not required.
james_the_xv
Member
My assumption of why 'stop short' incidents aren't routinely investigated is that they are almost always human error. Beyond re-iterating that the driver/guard should check the PTI/all doors are within the platform before releasing doors what else is there to do?
Class reports: My memory suggests there was one on level crossings, and another on braking systems for road rail vehicles.
A while back now, they are not that common and perhaps less so these days.
TPO
Isn't that part of the blame culture ?
Following on from above. What about "process error" or "system error" ? As already mentioned above; if there are technological solutions, surely that then forms part of the mitigation process ?
Having worked with a charity of people with visual impairment (VI) while this incident is unfortunate and potentially very dangerous it may not be as hazardous as others might think.
Such people use a variety of aids - a guide dog would have stopped at the door and would not have allowed the handler to proceed, and if the person was using a long cane (which is the commonest such aid) they would quickly realise that stepping forward was a hazard. As already mentioned other VI people would only travel with a companion or arranged assistance which would provide protection.
So, a clear error here and a need for a serious talk to whoever was responsible but VI people are - in my experience - very resourceful.
A lot of people have a guide dog or a stick to assist. Platforms are not all the same height and some have big gaps. I'd imagine blind or partially sighted people would assess the situation before stepping out, rather than open the doors and hope for the best. For context, my granny knew a blind couple back in the 1980s and 1990s. They travelled a considerable distance by tube and train to visit her.
james_the_xv
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nearly all door releases at platforms are initiated by a member of on train staff (driver or guard), whose responsibility it is to check the train is wholly within the platform.
When the process accounts for the possibility of trains not being entirely within the platform, releasing the doors when the train is not entirely in the platform is human error. I'm calling a spade a spade here...
This is not to say that this particular guard deserves trial by RailForums... I can guarantee the guard knows they f'ed up and has been through the due process afterwards. If RAIB thought they'd make new findings by investigating the countless overruns/stop shorts that happen on the network, they would investigate them.
Other than ABDO (which I am not cognisant of) I would accept that the door release is Staff.
Of which I do appreciate. However, if there is no way to tell if you are fully platformed after stopping then human error, then there is evidence that this could be a process or system error.
When carrying out an investigation and then making suggestions to mitigate or prevent future error; there needs to be an objective look at the overall process. Stop shorts could be completely designed out and 100% removed from human error. It isn't hard. BUT (and I cannot lie) there would be other risks introduced and other impacts on the overall PTI procedures. Is anyone willing to accept those ?
What then happens if MSDO/ASDO/ABDO/SDO/FASDO/ etc fail ? It is not always Human error and the purpose of investigation is to help determine what actually went wrong.
I don't believe they would.
I don't believe in trial by railforums or any forum and I firmly believe there is a fundamental lack of understanding what the RAIB remit actually is.
12LDA28C
Established Member
Indeed. For the lack of doubt, this is clearly stated on the RAIB webpage thus:
About us
The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) independently investigates accidents to improve railway safety, and inform the industry and the public.
Last edited by a moderator:
bramling
Veteran Member
I can actually see two sides to this.
One can make a reasonable case to say that the general public do have some level of legitimate interest, since at the end of the day a safety-related incident clearly occurred, during which time passengers were doubtlessly exposed to some level of risk. If nothing else, especially with Northern being a public-sector operator, there is a legitimate interest in Northern being transparent - to at least some degree - as to how they have dealt with that. Compare with a RAIB investigation where most details are in the public domain.
So I don’t necessarily agree with some of the responses here which seem to read as “none of your business”. It isn’t unreasonable, for example, for the public to be able to scrutinise whether this was a staff error or a technical failure.
What certainly is for internal business only is what actions have been taken with the staff involved. Clearly an element of confidentiality applies there.
We all want rail travel to be as safe as possible, so Northern shouldn’t be just brushing the complaint off. I note that we don’t know the details as to how Northern have responded to the OP’s complaint, so we don’t really know if they have brushed it off or not.
What a terrible attitude. No, you wouldn't expect the details of any disciplinary action to be passed on, but you would expect an acknowledgment that this is a serious issue that will be investigated, together with an apology.
Do you believe in customer service?
Lewisham2221
Established Member
There's nothing in the OP's one and only pat to suggest that that isn't the case though. "Being bounced around" suggests that the OP has received more than one reply, the first almost certainly being some sort of acknowledgment and apology. Any further replies are most likely to be in response to the OP trying to gain further information than they are privy to
Snow1964
Established Member
No, customer service should always acknowledge you contacting them, and reply (that's what they are for).
What they don't need to do is advise the complainant with details of any investigations.
What should also happen in a responsible business, with safety or whistleblowing polices, is a polite follow up reply from a Senior manager or safety manager confirming the incident has been investigated and any appropriate action taken, and thanking the person for bringing their concerns to their attention. (Without specifying what was checked, or any outcome).
What you don't do, is not reply (as @coxxy suggested), and the complainant thinks it isn't taken seriously so starts to fire off letters to regulators, safety authorities, their MP etc.
It is not about hiding the event, or covering up, or some debate about need to know basis, it is about transparency, and showing complaints / safety concerns are not ignored in principle (not the specific outcome which is an internal matter, unless the investigator chooses to notify a higher safety authority to get changes made to prevent a reoccurrence).
Last edited:
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,154
Yes they do. That's their job.
They're not going to tell you what happened to the staff member, but they really should answer, that's the most basic level of customer service.
No, I believe in being horrible to customers at all times, and am especially cruel to dogs and children.
My inference from the way the OP's post is written is that having referred to being bounced around they've had an acknowledgement etc but that they want more than that for whatever reason to the point they've sent repeat chasers having already harangued the errant staff member in person at the time.
It would have been helpful for the OP to explain what they want in their own mind from the correspondence and what was lacking - an explanation of what Northern will have done? Some compo for alarm and distress? Or simply a "sorry this has happened, we have investigated and are working with our team to try and make sure it doesn't happen again".
As a result I explained in a bit of detail the process that would likely have been followed by Northern and made a flippant remark to finish, slightly sharpened I will admit by the usual responses that seem to suggest that any operational incident whatsoever should result in the individuals involved being shot, or at least severely disciplined and sacked.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Unless any forum member on this thread was on the train at the time and actually witnessed what the train crew were doing, and the circumstances at the time, who are we to comment/judge?
The OP made his concerns known to Northern Customer Services and the very least they can do is acknowledge the complaint and inform the OP that they will investigate. End of. From the OP's post, nobody fell off the train and nobody got injured/hurt. The train crew would have learned something from the incident and we all move on.
The OP made his concerns known to Northern Customer Services and the very least they can do is acknowledge the complaint and inform the OP that they will investigate. End of. From the OP's post, nobody fell off the train and nobody got injured/hurt. The train crew would have learned something from the incident and we all move on.
DMckduck97
Member
Then this picture wouldn't exist. Human error does exist and this was a reportable incident whether the doors were opened or not as soon as the train stopped short. (Assuming we aren't looking at ASDO or an infrastructure issue).
In hindsight it's very east to say what could should and would be done, which is often times a problem in managements approach to these incidents.
Mistakes happen, both driver and guard will learn from this and take steps to prevent it happening again I'm sure..
A visually impaired passenger who doesn't require assistance I suspect would be switched on enough not to step off trains without having a specific routine or process for doing so.
Otherwise you could argue they are at risk of falling off the platform at any point in time right?
Last edited:
Falcon1200
Established Member
Northern should have immediately acknowledged the OP's complaint and advised them that the incident had been correctly reported at the time, and was investigated in line with procedure. Nothing more, nothing less.
Indeed - at the very top of the list of “who is responsible for my safety” is “me”. That’s not to say that everyone else can be lax, but it is wise to start from the assumption that they might be.
DMckduck97
Member
How do you this hasn't happened and OP isn't trying to be privy to information they are not entitled to?
The getting bounced around customer service implies OP is fishing for more information.
- Status