Hmm...a tragedy if there ever was one. I was once a train guard and a train driver so I can speak from experience. It is not uncommon for passengers who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs to do some daft things. It can be very irksome for railway staff trying to get on with their job. That said, to allow a train to depart whilst someone is leaning or holding on to the train is fraught with danger. Notwithstanding that, I should think over the course of a year the same scenario happens many thousands of times across the country - normally without incident, of course. I dare say over the 20 years I was a driver I did much the same unwittingly, or perhaps even wittingly, without incident. Frightening.

Given the above some might think the prosecution of gross negligent manslaughter was harsh. I doubt if the victim's family think so. Even a fair minded person can see that the action of the guard was reckless, but to what extent it was criminal I could not honestly say.

Pgahegan - sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be suggesting barriers at the edge of platforms. I see that occasionally - some stations on London's Jubilee line for instance and more extensively on modern metro systems - but adding it to all platforms of rail/underground systems (and if them, why not at tram stops?), seems (a) hardly practical (what about different configurations of trains using the same platform?) and (b) massively expensive. How would you justify the cost and disruption?

According to the press reports at the time of the court case the guard admitted in court realising the young lady was in a dangerous position but did not consider going to her to ask her to move away. There was also evidence of lots of training in this type of situation that the guard had undertaken. He had the sole responsibility for saying the train should leave the station which placed a rather higher duty of care than normal on him. My understanding is that it was this higher duty of care plus his admissions in court that led to his conviction by a jury. It is interesting to note that Merseytravel, not Network Rail, have since been warned about the height of the platform with regard to the train floor and also the gaps between the trains and the platforms.
Take care
John C

Here is just one reason why:
SCHEDULE 1REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING PLACES OF WORK AND MEANS OF ACCESS OR EGRESS AT HEIGHTEvery existing place of work or means of access or egress at height shall—
(a)be stable and of sufficient strength and rigidity for the purpose for which it is intended to be or is being used;
(b)where applicable, rest on a stable, sufficiently strong surface;
(c)be of sufficient dimensions to permit the safe passage of persons and the safe use of any plant or materials required to be used and to provide a safe working area having regard to the work to be carried out there;
(d)possess suitable and sufficient means for preventing a fall;
(e)possess a surface which has no gap—
(i)through which a person could fall;
(ii)through which any material or object could fall and injure a person; or
(iii)giving rise to other risk of injury to any person, unless measures have been taken to protect persons against such risk;
As I said previously, this type of accident was entirely forseeable, so there is reg 3 of the management regulations, the PUWER regs; Dangerous parts of machinery11.—(1) Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective—
(a)to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or
(b)to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.
I'm sure you agree that a train is machinery,
If trains were a newly introduced form of transport, all of these issues would be dealt with at the design stage, it is time the railways are brought up to date, this is no longer the victorian era, No one should be put in this position, both as a passenger or a guard, as I said previously, both parties involved in this terrible accident will have to live with this for the rest of their lives when it could have been avoided with a suitable and sufficient risk assessment undertaken and then the findings implimented.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/downloads/3.pdf - Page 32

PREVENT OR MITIGATE A FALL
eg guard rails on railway platforms – designate edge with line
instead.

They have yellow lines a safe distance from the edge which normally state to Keep Behind Yellow line etc.

There has to be over 6000 stations in the UK and mentioned it would not be 'Reasonably Practicable' to put barriers in place.

The correct procedures were not followed at some point Employees have to be held accountable for their actions and not the employer!

I agree completely Peter
we will be putting fences up alongside every rive in the country next or along ever road so that only designated crossings can be used. Sometimes safety precautions are not practice - this is not a building situation where access is temporary and so edge protection can be installed. As for the guard he was convicted by a court of law presumably over many days of evidence I would not dream of coming to a conclusion based solely on a brief report of the case. Yes he probably does have a right of appeal but who was his solicitor and how do we know he did not know H&S law inside out?

This link is to the RAIB report into this tragic incident. A useful read to gain a fuller understanding of the details.

http://www.raib.gov.uk/p...ts_2012/report222012.cfm

The duty of care placed on passenger train guards has always been of a higher order as I am sure Ray Rapp would confirm. Thus the consequence of failure for an individual is much greater.

It may be of interest that the report does refer to ALL the causes including the operations of Merseyrail. Therein may be a discussion about what other matters might be relevant rather than a simplistic focus on WAH Regs.

p48

Am I missing something here
The Guard was charged with Manslaughter not a breach of HSAWA
I have to agree with Peter Gotch not reasonably Practicable to put up barriers on every station
I disagree with Pgrahegan a platform is not considered a normal place of work - contractors working on the platform will put up edge protection
Lets not forget the poor young girl killed was under age to be drinking in licensed premises but was under the influence of alcohol and illegal drugs at the time
Why wasn't the establishment where she was served alcohol on trial as well
Why was the person who supplied the illegal drug not found and prosecuted
Yes the Guard was wrong he did not follow his training, but I do believe there are a lot of lessons to be learnt. We should take some responsibility for our own actions no matter how out of our trees we get, particularly over the festive period

Barriers are but one technical option and the most expensive and difficult to design especially for retro-fit. However, that doesn't mean that nothing could or should be done to protect against gaps at platform edges. The report that I referenced at #14 deals with the matter of gaps at platform edges at some length including the history of such events.So it is a matter of some import for the industry and the report not surprisingly makes recommendations on the subject.


That there are lessons for the railway industry is clear. For example, there are far more of this type of incident than I ever realised. For example, the statistics detail in the report makes interesting reading.


As the RAIB are the competent investigators perhaps we should study their report more closely in our search for information and conclusions?

Does the O.P. find anything in the report that confirms the assertion that the employee was used as a scapegoat or that the employer should have been prosecuted?
p48

I can't believe some of the nonsense I'm reading about platforms and edge protection. Is this thread a reflection of today's society? God forbid we should ever be called up for national service.

In my opinion, and I live close to where the girl lived and use the same Merseyrail system, she should not have been allowed onto the train in the first place.

How far should we go back to the start of this issue? Maybe to the very first drink she had earlier in the day, were her parents aware she was drinking?

Her friends all knew her age and yet they all got drunk.

She had been drugged - was this willingly or forced upon her?

Where were the staff at the first station she entered and why was she allowed onto the train while drunk?

The girl got off the train at a previous station and then got back onto the train, this is what she was attempting to do when she suffered the tragic accident.

Were her friends responsible for her getting off the train there?

Was the guard just fed up with the girl and her friends antics while on and off his train, was he tired and ready for home after a long day at work?

Where were the other station staff when the accident occurred?

Lots of questions asked but where are the answers?

Until the accident occurred everyone involved thought it was all right to carry on.

let's hope that everyone learns from this.

So, should it be mandatory for railway stations to have ticket inspector/collector booths, so the inspectors can assess if the passenger is in a fit state to enter the station?

Pete

From experience it is sometimes very difficult for staff to determine exactly what a passenger will do. Sometimes they walk away, change their mind and come back to the train, pretend to be stuck in the doors, surf the train as it pulls out, etc. You cannot stop a train, or walk the length of the platform to ascertain what the person is up to, if you did, you risk getting assaulted. Very difficult scenarios are faced by railway staff every day. Main stations late Friday/ Saturday night is full of intoxicated people.

Ray

"it would not be reasonably practicable to retro-fit edge protection to many thousands of miles of platform"

It was reasonably practicable to fit miles and miles of armco [etc] on the approach to road bridges that pass over rail track.....after one incident.....it isn't as if incapable people are a rarity on the railway......there are always a few that should have avoided alcohol.......and a few more that are aged and infirm.....on every train.

Not only would it not be reasonably practicable, it would be utterly ridiculous.
Get back in the real world.
The whole practise of H&S is not to stop accidents from ever happening.

If there's one sign I'd like to see more of, it would be one that says "Look where you're going - take care of yourself". - Judith Hackitt 21/11/12

The sun is hot, water is wet, stay away from the edge of platforms - you might fall off.

We should not forget that there are any number of vulnerable people who use public transport all the time. Their abilities are not just impaired on a weekend evening. Placing too much reliance on personal responsibility in such public access situations feels uncomfortable to me.

The RAIB report http://www.raib.gov.uk/c...R222012_James_Street.pdf)
which I referenced previously says

"at para 56
While the rail industry’s overall safety record has improved in recent years, RSSB research shows that accidents at the platform/train interface have increased since 2005/2006, even when accounting for an increased number of passenger journeys. The increase in this type of accident has taken place over a period of time which saw a known industry hazard (trains with slam doors but no central locking) withdrawn from service (see figure 14). The increase indicates that the industry’s focus on operational matters has not delivered improved safety at the platform/train interface, which suggests that there is a need to consider technical solutions to reduce the risk“

and at para 57.
Some rail industry bodies may judge that technical solutions are not reasonably practicable to carry out when they compare safety benefits with the cost of implementation in a simplistic cost benefit analysis. However, technical solutions can bring operational benefits because they speed up train dispatch and give the people responsible for dispatch more confidence in the judgement calls they must sometimes make. Technical solutions that prevent accidents or mitigate their consequences also reduce train delays, service disruptions and associated costs. For these reasons, the operational benefits of technical solutions should be fully considered in any cost benefit analysis."

That all feels like a pretty professional response to a very complex issue to me. Straightforward recommendations that do not suggest barriers everywhere or that all accidents must be prevented. What it does do is to challenge the industry to review their approach to controlling the risk. It simply draws attention to the fact that reliance on operational procedures is not adequately controlling the risks. It also accepts that technical solutions could/should be found and contains a comment that perhaps the current cost benefit analysis needs a review as it does not properly capture relevant data.

Changing your approach to meet changing circumstances.... perhaps? I hope the industry can, and is probably already doing so, and that the opinion that nothing can or needs to be done does not prevail

p48

Just spent half an hour looking at a cost benefit analysis of retrofitting an anti surge barrier at Glasgow central station along the usable length of the platforms, setting the barrier 800mm back from the edge, with openings 1600 mm wide every 20m.( the average length of a train car is 23m) Typical layout below. This would allow wheelchair access and would also act as a “clear area” so the guard would be able to clearly see when it is safe to signal for the train to move. ____________ _________ _____________________
_____
The usable length of the Glasgow central station; according to Network Rail, is 253m. Fitting a barrier as described at a cost of, say £400 per meter = £101,200.
The number of passengers per year through the station, again from Network Rail is 34 million.
Divide 34million by 101,200 = £0.0029 per passenger is this too expensive to be reasonably practicable, as many of the postings have said on here??

As mentioned by a number of posters, this can and does work - Jubilee Line has been mentioned. However, it cannot work where there is common access to a variety of different train operators, including heritage stock on specials. Each train type will have different door spacings.

ps when I got a signal (semi-automatic) moved no more than 20 or so yards a few years ago because of poor sighting, the cost was £100,000 - I kid you not!

I'm with RayRapp on this one. I cannot believe some of the responses to this. We have become a completely risk averse society and instead of educating people about risk there are some on this thread who are advocating barriers everywhere where somebody can fall.

Where do we stop? Should we erect barriers at every place where there is the smallest risk of falling? Of course not. Railways are, in a sense, almost natural hazards because they have been around for over a century. Anybody who uses a railway is obviously aware of the danger of falling off the edge and obviously aware that falling in front of a train will probably be fatal.

The WAH regulation do not apply because a railway platform is not a "place of work", rather it is more like the pavement at the edge of a road.

I have not read the judgement of this case in full but it seems to me that the Guard had a clear responsibility for the safety of passengers that he failed to carry out. I have been a Railway Guard in the past and was always acutely aware of the danger of people on the platform falling between the gaps in the carriages. The only mitigation that I can see for this case is that modern rolling stock does not allow the Guard to continue watching the platform as the train departs so that he can stop the train if somebody falls.