Colin Reeves; as I said, it was a quick half hour on the internet; I got the USABLE platform length from network rail themselves:
www.networkrail.co.uk/.....tions%20and%20depots.pdf
Even if this is only 1 platform, the cost for 50 platforms would only be around £0.145 per visitor recouped in the 1st year. How many other industries can do that?
Big rab; “almost a natural hazard” so people should be used to it!
We have had street lighting since the early 19th century, therefore we have been digging holes in the road since this time, shall we not bother putting up barriers to prevent pedestrians falling into the said holes because people should know it’s dangerous?? Others have posted on here how they have to deal with drunks and druggies, not to mention disabled people and children, are they all fully aware of the dangers given their conditions and ages?
Also, why does everyone seem to think that the rail staff at the stations, as well as the ones who get onto and off of trains are not at work??

In its 2007 White Paper ‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’, the previous UK Government set out its vision for the
future of the railway in England and Wales. It sought a railway which over the following 30 years:

l will handle double today’s level of freight and
passenger traffic
l will be even safer, more reliable and more
efficient than now
l will be able to cater for a more diverse, affluent
and demanding population
l will have reduced its own carbon footprint
and improved its broader environmental
performance.
I think that the goal of doubling today’s present passenger volume is on the low side, even so, this growth in volume will mean of these type of accidents occurring more frequently, but I am obviously in the minority,

Oyyy, stop talking about me!!

Bigrab............ Does the railway run itself???? you obviously didn't read my posting, what about the rail staff who work on the stations day in day out every day of the year..what do you think the guard was doing that day?? of course the WaH regs apply, just as the HaSaWa applies.

Well Ray, the W@H regulations might not apply to the passengers, but the passengers must be protected.

Let's try out tis argument, by considering another W@H example - scaffolding on a high street pavement. The shoppers are not employed by the builder but they must be protected - if they are injured by a falling brick or tool then the builder has not complied with the W@H regs.

So, in the railway station have the guard or the railway company - in THEIR work environment - not complied with the W@H regs by allowing a drunk person to fall under a moving train, when it might have prevented?

I still think the root cause is allowing a drunk person to get near the platform edge.

Thanks Ray, I guess I was almost harking back to post #1 of this thread, and I take your point re Hasawa S3(1)

I've not read about the case other than on this thread, so is your summary in #48 your opinion, and in agreement with the conclusions during the case? that NWR have a suitable SSoW?

JohnW, you said

"I've not read about the case other than on this thread,"

If you wish to read it you can a find a link to the official investigation report into this James St incident that I posted at #14 in this thread.


p48

Page 19 of the Jan 2013 issue of the THSP magazine is an opinion formed from recent expert opinion on the case that the judgement in this instance maybe unsafe.
Steve

why shouldn't she be allowed on the train? surely this is the safest form of transport offered to her, do you know were your kids are every minute of everyday?

Public transport should be open to her like it is to everyone else who has had a drink and want to get home. If the guard was fed up with thier antics he should have called the police and had her removed. No amount of guard rails would have assisted as she was still leaning on the train when the guard signalled for it to move. If we are going to go for barriers everywhere then we also need a system in place to prevent the train moving if people are still next to the train (light guards).

The SHP has an article on this incident in this months edition.

Like Bigrab I have also worked on the railway for around 20 years BUT mine is a heritage railway working to a 1960 rule book.
The guard stands on the platform to await the station masters' 'right-away' to which he acknowledges. He then signals his ticket inspector the all clear, at which point he signals to the driver the 'right-away' and boards the train for his compartment. At all times up to the OK for the driver to leave the station, all three of us are checking for random acts by the passengers that may put themselves at danger. Once the train is moving, the guard stands in the doorway looking along the length of the train checking that no one is trying to board / leave the moving train anmd has his hand on the emergency brake. Only once he has left the station will he retire to the confines of his compartment.
Whilst not against progress and rationalisation, in this instance this is one case where the old ways are better with more staff and the guard leaning out of a window would have eliminated the certaintity of the young lass being killed.

Badger

I have been reading this thread with great interest as I work on the rail network and travel extensively by train.

the calls for barriers on all platforms has been raised before, both on this forum and in the industry, and the answer is always the same.

The installation of a barrier, while expensive is not the only cost, the disruption to the whole of the rail network as these barriers are constructed will be huge, nay massive, and will cost the rail network many millions alone. Add to that the fact that costs for any quotation for construction is now expected to exceed the original you have no way of knowing the final cost to the tax/farepayer. And then we can add on the maintenance and repair costs....

Then even if you install barriers, when they open, there will still be a significant gap between the platform and train on curved platforms, should we then proceed to get all the platforms straightened, as many of the incidents of people falling between the train and platforms are around the door area?

For those who are looking for the factors in this case, I am sure that both the prosectution and defence, RAIB, et al have looked under just about every stone during their investigations.

The only statement that concerns me in SHP is that the CPS requested the RAIB delay the publication of the report until after the trial, surely this would have been key evidence.....!!

IMVHO ... Ken

Bear in mind the total cost for introduction of this type of tech. Before installation there would need to be design and extensive testing before type approval could be granted and this would take a considerable amount of time. Then consider the lifetime costs attached, the development of a suitable maintenance regime and the cost of who would maintain as well as training for the staff identified as the maintainer.

So, when talking costs it's not a simple case of 'here's the equipment, lets fit it and move on', there's other elements that need consideration and costs attached before this type of initiative gets anywhere near the ground.

My heart bleeds for the poor impoverished train company’s. 250 million passengers at say £1 extra each that would be…. I’ll go get my calculator. Surely enough and this is just one operator. Last time I went on a train it felt like I was buying a coach, so an extra pound would not be noticed.

From Google :-

LONDON UK, 17 August 2011: Virgin Trains today announced record sales of £753 million for the year to March 2011 as booming passenger numbers reached more than 28 million and drove ticket sales faster than any other UK train operator.

West Coast Trains Limited, the operator of the line, filed accounts this week which showed profits after tax of £39.9 million and that it paid the Government a £110 million premium payment. Virgin Group and Stagecoach, the shareholders shared a dividend of £32.5 million for the year, while the business kept £6.5 million for reinvestment.

Passengers numbers have more than doubled in the last six years and Virgin Trains has carried more than 250 million passengers on the route since March 1997.

I’m sorry you feel I bring the profession into disrepute, because I chose to suggest there may be ways to help with this issue using modern technology.

People walking around coast lines are not being charged for a service, and I have never seen a motorway with a pavement next to it. In fact when you break down on a motorway they tell you to stand behind a barrier. So I don’t see this view as relevant or persuasive.

I only suggested CCTV as these are sometimes fitted to large vehicles where reversing sight lines are poor. So to have one fitted to the side of a train or on a platform looking down the length of a train did not seem that outlandish or that expensive considering the profits made. The monitor would be in the train cab and the train driver training would be “ look at monitor to ensure everyone is clear before moving off”.

Again I am sorry you don’t feel you can have a constructive debate with me, I mean no offence to anyone.

Chris, this sort of thing is already fitted on many stations, albeit the camera monitors are on the platform where the driver can see them. However, this may well not stop this type of incident happening as the driver has to look forward when moving off and cannot monitor people staggering into the side of the train as it moves off.

Most of the suggestions have been barriers aka Jubilee line. As mentioned before, this is not possible when multiple operators use a station as door spacings vary between stock types - particularly the odd heritage stock used on excursions.

I'm baffled that anyone thinks the best thing for a young, drunk woman after an evening out is to be left stranded by being prevented from using public transport to get home.

That's where part of the problem lies because there's a wide misconception that the train operating companies and the infrastructure owner are one and the same. Simply put, this isn't the case.

A project of this type would be delivered by the infrastructure owner, usually network rail but if it affected underground platforms as the result of a change to a railway group standard then also the likes of LU/TfL (as an example). As a result the cost of this would not have much of an impact on the operator's profit and would likely be paid out of the funding from the office of rail regulation, which comes from the government, which comes from the tax payer. So, the question really is what level of risk management do the general public want to pay for? Given unlimited resources (including money and competent people) it could be achieved but considering the old cost vs risk balance does one side outweigh the other? Equally it needs to be considered that if barriers were introduced what potential risk could be imported with them and how would that be managed?

Kate I don't think anyone, including me, suggested a drugged woman be left stranded on a station foyer. If she was unable to pay/produce a ticket to enter the platform she could have got assistance from local transport police and would still be alive today.

John

Just had a quick look at the report for the stats that Pete48 referenced, well worth a read. I have not read the full thing yet but when you get to the possible technical solutions, and specifically the one about reducing the gap, look at the pictures of the side of the train. The picture showing the gap dimensions and door step. Think so the person does not fall through, but lies on the edge of the platform, then what happens.

The report seemed to be suggesting no matter what the guard did the train would not have stopped. The only thing he could have done was physically move the girl away, instead of warning her. I will read the report in more detail, but I'm wondering why he was convicted.

Also interesting the comments about looked but did not see. They also linked this phenomena to car accidents.

Lots of things for us to talk over other than barriers (which it did not exclude as a solution).

But if you apply as a general rule that drunken young women should be prevented from entering railway platforms - many more vulnerable people will be put at risk. Meanwhile cases like this one that would be prevented by that rule are extremely rare, and there already are measures to prevent them (which in this case, unusually, failed). The rule would create a greater risk overall.

And I doubt that the transport police have the resources to deal with all the drunk and vulnerable passengers who wish to use trains. It's not as if young people getting drunk is in any way unusual.