Posted By John Caboche Badger, I would be more concerned as the Train Operating Company (TOC) rather than as Network Rail. They would be probably found to be at fault here if injuries/fatalities were increased as a result of "cramming them in like sardines". Would it be reasonably foreseeable that injuries and fatalities would be more likely in this scenario?, would it be reasonably practicable to lay on extra coaches? What is the statistical chances that a train would be involved in this type of incident? Hours travelled vs accident frequency. Maybe the TOCs are taking a calculated risk? John

Posted By Pete48 Here is the "official speak" statement from the regulator. Leave it to you to decide the acceptability of the statements under the "safety measures" paragraph. http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1335 I stopped using peak time trains years ago and now choose to drive when I need to travel at peak times. Now how to explain that risk assessed decision--hmmm? My anorak thoughts whilst travelling in mind numbed state were about the increased risks presented to a group of passengers by those who insist on standing up, getting ready and walking down the aisle as the train approaches a stop, especially at termini.

Posted By Tabs As a daily commuter I would suggest the following: It is more dangerous (to the rail staff) to try and deny some commuters the opportunity to travel. If we only allowed seated persons, would the injury rate (per mile x passenger numbers) actually be affected? How is a seated person less likely to be injured in a typical rail disaster than a standing person? There is no restraint system and the space involved (allowing unrestrained travel) is larger than the vestibules. Being restrained by the glass partitions may be safer than flying down the carriage. I sit - always (or I wait on the platform for the train that has seats available). But I see some people choose to stand despite seats being available. It is a matter of choice to some. Unless we had strong data showing serious increased risks to those standing, we would not see any mind changes in my opinion.

Posted By alex mccreadie There is nothing new about overcrowding on trains is there? I joined the Army in 1967 and travelled frequently from Euston to Stranraer in Scotland. If we were lucky we got a seat if not you sat or lay on your suitcase /kitbag.So what has been achieved in 40 years apart from a lot of people getting rich. Customers or cattle take your pick. Alex

Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter Had intended to respond earlier but the IT dept pulled the plug on all transmissions! Anyway having read Petes link I agree with the ORR's 'Although train incidents are relatively rare...', they do acknowledge there is a risk with '...it is true that the more heavily laden a train, the greater the number of passengers who are likely to be at risk in the event of an incident.' They also go on to say 'The health and safety risks that arise to passengers because of overcrowding are normally very low, but there are some areas where the ORR has concerns and is involved. These include overcrowding: 1)in emergency evacuation; 2)on platforms and stations; and 3)on underground routes in hot weather'. So they seem to agree that there is a problem but do not appear to be putting corrective action in place. Taking Tabs notes on injury/mile and perhaps Ben could answer a question for me - if passengers sit with their backs to where a loco' should be, there should be less injury due to passengers not being thrown out of their seats, as for those in the vestibule, they end up as human soup because these areas are designed as crumple zones - I think (will stand corrected if wrong). As an aside I've been on one of these modern units when the engine cut out which took ALL the power with it. No air con, no doors working etc, at least with the old Mk1's they could travel at 100 mph, had opening windows to every compartment and you could get out of the coach door which wasn't locked. Modern technology and advancement ... I don't think so! So back to my original question is there any legal precedence for putting the passenger at risk or at odds with HSWA SECT 3? Badger (PS: Before anyone sounds off that I'm one of those crackpots who would jump from a stuck train when it breaks down, do know I work on a heritage railway and have a good appreciation of what go wrong as a Guard).

Posted By Andy Petrie The DLR and a lot of the new rolling stock being designed for use in london (i.e. the LU Sub Surface Lines & London Overground) have wide gangways between carriages with no doors making the entire train effectively one compartment, the area where the vestibule used to be is now part of the train and can be used for standing passengers. the number of seats are also being reduced on busy suburban routes to allow more standing passengers on the trains. This is common practice on railways in Europe and the Far East and allows more passengers to use the train. The risk to passengers in a collision is considered to be low as it is the impact with the doors and cab ends that causes the main major injuries during a collision. It is no different from standing in the middle of the carriage on a normal train. Of course these are low speed railways and it may not be suitable on a high speed line.