Flying Scotsman could grind to a halt over modern door demands

[JJ73]

See here :- Flying Scotsman could grind to a halt over modern door demands (msn.com) 🚂

[What About The Bee]

With a guard at every door, as the article states, I cannot see how this is a safety issue. No need for central locking, if there is a guard there whose entire job is safety.

Bee

[Topcat2018]

This sounds like yet another example of nanny state-ism, elf 'n' safety gone mad and a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. Does The Office For Road And Rail have any statistics to show how many people are killed or injured owing to the absence of central locking on heritage railway coaches, or any statistics for the frequency of such occurrences when these coaches were in regular use?

I guarantee that undertaking any activity in your house or garden is far more dangerous than riding in a coach without central locking. More people are probably killed falling out of bed.

I don't think that having a guard on every door of a heritage train is practical. For a rake of six coaches this would typically mean at least 24 guards. And what about non-corridor coaches? Are the guards going to sit in the compartments with the passengers (two per compartment, one to guard each door). Simple nonsense.

[96RAF]

That could kill off every heritage line in existence, unless they are exempt by virtue of limited speed operations, but it seems the main thrust of the FS worry is folk stepping out on to a platform that isn’t there in a short station. It would be simpler to install a tannoy system and tell folk to sit tight until the train budged up a bit.

[Topcat2018]

@96RAF

I assume the doors opposite the platform side would be locked anyway. On some heritage trains I have been on with corridor coaches, where there is a short platform the train hasn't budged up but the doors on the platform side where there is no platform have been locked so passengers have to go out into the corridor and walk along to an unlocked door adjacent to the platform.

[Rallymatt]

I can’t access the full article so forgive any errors. The cost estimate of £1million does seem excessive, FS and other steam services appear to run with a regular rake of coaches rather than use every piece of heritage rolling stock out there. But if that is the true cost then it is something that would be a worthwhile investment from state funds. In comparison to enabling Charlie boy to wear his special hat it’s a drop in the ocean and would be at least as popular with the nation. Added to the fact that the Government are quite keen on bailing out failed private rail operators it would be hard to make a case against it.

This is the equivalent of the French Government not bothering with an alarm to protect the Mona Lisa

[Moccasin]

I’d assumed it was more about stopping incidents like this:

https://1991-new-world-order.fandom.com/wiki/The_%27Tamworth_Triangle%27

I can’t see the whole article though.

EDIT - Reading in Rail magazine, West Coast Railways are currently appealing after the derogation expired in March. The extension/exemption expires at end of June while a judicial review is considered. Belmond & Vintage Trains have extensions until 2024-5. LSL run coaches already fitted. It does seem only to apply to mainline stock.

While I know charter trains struggle for funds, the original requirement for central door locking was in 2005.

The implication I draw from the article is that regulators have lost patience with West Coast who’re challenging the requirement while other operators are showing progress. Obviously Belmond have somewhat deeper pockets!

[threelink]

I have seen no statistics but am aware of a number of incidents where idiots have opened carriage doors when they should not, or stuck their heads out of windows when dangerous to do so. I am not aware of any occasion on which a slam lock carriage door has opened spontaneously. Slam locks require active human manipulation, especially those where a window must be lowered to access an exterior handle. They served the railways well for a century or more. If HM Government is going to require that all trading organisations must guard against the activities of idiots, irrespective of the expense, the country will stop working. I suggest that education, not regulation, is the key.

[Pirlouit95]

Hello everyone.

It's still the same problem. Some will pay because of people (I wanted to use another word, but I'll be polite) messing around.

Like the insurance premiums which increase regularly because of the dishonest who abuse.

Both at home in the UK and with us in France.

[AndyMac1707817969]

This is not really about preventing stup*d people doing stup*d things. It about safeguarding companies who will be held responsible for the stup*d people being able to do stup*d things. It was fine back in the day but now where there is no longer the concept of personal responsibility, only those who you can extract money from are now ever responsible for anything.

[gilbo2]

Its a different world, people were used to checking the train had stopped, leaning out, opening the door from the outside and looking for platform in the process. Now we're used to the doors just opening when the train has stopped, is safe, and stepping out without looking or thinking about anything safety wise. Tough one.

[Rana Temporia]

There used to be posters on the stations asking people not to open the doors before the train had stopped, with a picture of a woman being knocked over. I used to go to work occasionally on the train in the 1980s and whenever the trains were coming into the stations during rush hour people would hang out of the windows and fling open the doors in order to jump out as quickly as possible and run for the connection/bus/pub. I did see someone get clobbered on Bolton Station once, but they just got back up and got on the train.

[LTSR_NSE]

The heritage/charter companies should simply follow the example of bike hire & outdoor activity centres - every patron signs a waiver that they take personal responsibility for their (in)ability to operate doors correctly at their own risk.

Anyone who injures another person can be sued, anyone who injures themselves gets nothing - company is blameless either way!

[Moccasin]

The heritage/charter companies should simply follow the example of bike hire & outdoor activity centres - every patron signs a waiver that they take personal responsibility for their (in)ability to operate doors correctly at their own risk.

Anyone who injures another person can be sued, anyone who injures themselves gets nothing - company is blameless either way!

 

 

I’m sure they would if they could. Office of Rail & Road can withdraw their licence to operate on the main line however. It seems that some charter companies have complied/are complying with the requirement (at significant cost) but West Coast are refusing and seeking judicial review. The requirement does not apply to heritage railways. Not yet anyway.

 

 

[Rallymatt]

Any waiver or indemnity is worthless in court. Although often used as a first line of defence (usually at insistence of an insurance company) they have no legal value in indemnifying the operator from liability.

[Rana Temporia]

Railymatt, unfortunately 100% true. Insurance companies will still ask you to do this while explaining that it is meaningless. They also now ask you to ensure that you don’t use terms like ‘fully insured’ or otherwise draw attention to the fact that you have insurance as it’s an open invitation for certain parts of society to have an accident at your expense.

[AndyMac1707817969]

Probably the way things are going in general especially in this something for nothing culture within the UK. I seem to remember reading that in Britain 75% of people involved in a road traffic accident put a claim in for whiplash, in France its 3%. UK holidaymakers put in more claims for food poising in hotels etc than the rest of Europe put together to a point where some hotels where refusing to accept holidaymakers from the UK.

[Brew Man]

UK holidaymakers put in more claims for food poising in hotels etc than the rest of Europe put together to a point where some hotels where refusing to accept holidaymakers from the UK.

 

 

Especially if they are wearing tattoos and Union Jack shorts.face_with_rolling_eyespersevere

 

 

[atom3624]

I remember a 'colleague' having been tail-ended by somebody when turning into the works entrance. On asking if all was well, talking about the car, the reply was 'there's a whiplash claim in anyway' ....

I think much of this was driven by marketed, 2nd rate legal advice saying they'll get money for you, the rest is simply a result of this and admittedly is 'a culture'!

Al.