Thames Valley infrastructure problems causing disruption elsewhere - 2014

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

And how, prey, would that staff member be able to check/help the driver?

They'd simply end up being another human in the crush, unable to see more than, and possibly less than, the driver.

I suggest that the driver ought to have waited for the platform to clear.

[stuving]

If the platform is too crowded for a train to start and very slowly leave, is it possible to safely run non-stop trains through it? Doesn't that have to wait for a much lower passenger density - at the very least least none in front of the line (depending on the line speed)? So the knock-on delay isn't going to be much if anything at all.

[TaplowGreen]

And how, prey, would that staff member be able to check/help the driver?

They'd simply end up being another human in the crush, unable to see more than, and possibly less than, the driver.

I suggest that the driver ought to have waited for the platform to clear.

.......erm.....by standing by the Driver's cab and letting him know when the platform is clear? I'd suggest the delay is a price worth paying rather than someone ended up between the platform and the train?

As delays seem to be Business as usual for every other reason for the last 6 weeks I'm sure a few minutes could be tolerated for Safety? In my industry it comes above all else.

If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) allows trains to depart in dangerously overcrowded conditions and  disgorges passengers onto similarly overcrowded/dangerous platforms then the onus is on them to ensure safety, not the passengers .

[Chris from Nailsea]

Of some relevance here is the report from the Rail Accident Investigation Branch into the sad incident in Liverpool on 22 October 2011: see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9790.msg121102#msg121102

[ChrisB]

I suggest that the driver ought to have waited for the platform to clear.

.......erm.....by standing by the Driver's cab and letting him know when the platform is clear? I'd suggest the delay is a price worth paying rather than someone ended up between the platform and the train?

Who said anything about no delay? Please read what I wrote above.

BUT - little purpose in him/her standing by the cab? Just as easy for the driver to look out frankly. Better further down the train ensuring that everyone has alighted that needs to & signal doors close?

[IndustryInsider]

Apologies if my 'Fingers crossed' comment came across as flippant. Not my intention.

With it being the 'look back' method I'd be even more concerned about DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) when a platform is that crowded. What does the driver do? Keep looking back until the whole train is clear of the platform and not look forward? Or switch between craning his neck out and checking the line ahead? Or just, after doors closed and interlocked, watch the road ahead?

I can tell you what did happen, as I was walking towards the driver away from the crowds and towards the carpark.
Doors shut, driver window closed.  Away.  Definitely 200+ people still on platform, and definitely the wrong side of the yellow in large numbers.
I don't know what the driver could have done differently without holding up the line for >10mins.

I suggest that the driver ought to have waited for the platform to clear.

.......erm.....by standing by the Driver's cab and letting him know when the platform is clear? I'd suggest the delay is a price worth paying rather than someone ended up between the platform and the train?

Who said anything about no delay? Please read what I wrote above.

BUT - little purpose in him/her standing by the cab? Just as easy for the driver to look out frankly. Better further down the train ensuring that everyone has alighted that needs to & signal doors close?

Interesting arguments coming forward on this one.  I'm with ChrisB and speak as someone who has self despatched my train at incredibly busy stations many, many times over the years.  My reasons are:

• The procedure at Maidenhead is for a driver to self despatch.  If you then start altering that arrangement ad-hoc then you run the risk of not coming to a clear understanding with those staff members on the platform who are trying to help.  Does a wave of an arm from a member of staff two carriages away mean it's ok to leave, or does it mean there's a mother and pushchair about to try and alight from those doors?
• Personally, I find a 'look back' dispatch is often better than using the mirrors which are open to glare, distortion, misting up etc. - and when you're looking back from the drivers cab your eye-line is pretty much perfectly in line with the doors, so if you can see the back of the train you know it's clear.  The view from a mirror is not so in line.  Having platform staff turn up and get in the way of that view can be a hindrance.  Having them stand by the cab means they have no better view than the driver does.

However, assuming NickB's observations are accurate (though I'd be amazed if it took more than ten minutes for the platform to clear as he suggest), then despite the driver despatching using the correct procedure (once you have 'door interlock' you then concentrate on what's in front rather than behind as you depart) if the platform was as congested as in the picture then he/she was foolish to depart.  You wait until it's clear enough that you're confident it's safe to depart, however long that takes.

There will always be some form of risk at the 'platform/train interface', and whether, as trains get busier and busier, the despatch procedures at Maidenhead need to be looked into is another matter, but for me there is a far greater risk from passengers standing close to the edge as a fast train rushes through at Maidenhead, than there is on a train departing which passengers know is there because they've alighted from it.[/list]

[Super Guard]

How about someone looking out of the rear cab window to see the train away safely, with the option of stopping the train in an emergency...? 

[a-driver]

As someone who has self despatched at Maidenhead with that service from platform 1 previously it doesn't take that long for passengers to filter off the platform enough for you to safely despatch the train.
Maidenhead you have quite a good view of the whole length of the train.  I will personally self despatch the train once I have a clear view of the whole length of the train for 20-30 seconds.  By a clear view I mean the width 2 people.  The width of 2 people for the entire length of the train ensures that everyone has alighted the train.  
What you tend to find is that passengers alighting first tend to by in a hurry for whatever reason and will jostle and brush alongside the train.  Those that alight last tend to calmly wait and filter off the platform and not come into contact with the train.
However, I'm in the school that will look back until the entire length of the train has cleared the platform where I consider it safe enough to do so.  I do this at every platform where the signal is displaying a green and there are no track workers, foot crossings etc in front of the train.
To shut the doors and then shut your drivers window in my opinion is dangerous.  In that time any incident could of happened on the platform, you should always look back until, at the very least, the train starts moving.  Leaving your drivers window down as well increases the chances of you hearing any shouts to stop should anything happen.  
Platform staff have no ability to stop a train once it starts to move as highlighted on the underground in the last few weeks when someone got their scarf trapped in the doors of a tube train.

[bobm]

If there were to be a second pair of eyes, rather than platform staff how about a guard?

[a-driver]

If there were to be a second pair of eyes, rather than platform staff how about a guard?

Every passenger train should have a guard.

[TonyK]

As someone who has self despatched at Maidenhead with that service from platform 1 previously it doesn't take that long for passengers to filter off the platform enough for you to safely despatch the train.

You describe the safety model perfectly, and say why we should have guards, A train with nearly a thousand souls aboard, many of whom will turn up as the doors are closing and try to get on board as if their very life depended on it, is a serious responsibility. You describe also the profit model. The true balance must be  found between the two.

[JayMac]

Very different dynamics but you get trains with 1000+ people on board and no guard, hour after hour, day after day, on the Underground.

Into the next decade TfL^» (Transport for London - about) may introduce driverless trains on LU lines.

[Super Guard]

Very different dynamics but you get trains with 1000+ people on board and no guard, hour after hour, day after day, on the Underground.

Into the next decade TfL^» (Transport for London - about) may introduce driverless trains on LU lines.

Driverless, with a 'Captain/Guard' 

[TaplowGreen]

Very different dynamics but you get trains with 1000+ people on board and no guard, hour after hour, day after day, on the Underground.

Into the next decade TfL^» (Transport for London - about) may introduce driverless trains on LU lines.

Driverless, with a 'Captain/Guard' 

Am I right in thinking that one of the LU lines (may be Victoria?) has trains which are potentially driverless already? Or was this just something Bob Crow (RIP) used as an excuse for a strike?

[Super Guard]

I don't think the trains are, but there are LU lines that can operate GOO^▸ (Guard Only Operation) trains (Guard Only Operation  ).

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) have always said there will always be a member of staff on-board regardless, so all this "driverless" hype that TfL put out is moot really.  I believe the next generation would be the first train that could run without an Operator at the "wheel" (cab will be there, but could be removed at later date).