Risk at the platform-train interface

Risk at the platform-train interface If you would like to give feedback on any of the material contained in this special topic report please contact: Stuart Carpenter Senior Safety Intelligence Analyst Block 2 Angel Square 1 Torrens Street London EC1V 1NY 2 3142 549 stuart.carpenter@rssb.co.uk Rail Safety and Standards Board 213

Intentionally blank

Contents Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Report scope 1 1.3 Data 1 2 Platform-train interface risk 2 2.1 Platform-train interface risk in context 2 2.2 Hazardous events at the platform-train interface 3 2.3 Managing system risk 4 3 Trends in injuries to passengers and public at the platform-train interface 5 3.1 Fatalities at the platform-train interface 5 3.1.1 Fatalities while boarding or alighting 5 3.1.2 Fatalities while not boarding or alighting 5 3.2 Harm while boarding or alighting 6 3.3 Harm to passengers and members of the public while not boarding or alighting 7 4 Factors affecting risk at the platform-train interface 8 4.1 Gender and Intoxication 8 4.2 Age and gender 9 4.3 Boarding or alighting 11 4.4 Day of week and intoxication 12 4.5 Time of day and intoxication 14 4.6 Month of year and intoxication 16 4.7 Weather 18 4.8 Light conditions 2 4.9 Accidents involving dispatched trains 21 5 Concluding remarks 22 Risk at the platform-train interface i

Executive summary Executive summary Introduction The platform-train interface (PTI) gives rise to a risk particular to rail transport. This risk forms a notable proportion of the total risk faced by rail passengers, especially fatality risk. PTI accidents are categorised in two distinct ways: Accidents occurring while boarding or alighting trains; or accidents occurring at the platform edge, but not during boarding or alighting. Headlines PTI risk accounts for the largest proportion (36%) of passenger fatality risk. Accidents during boarding or alighting account for 2% of the fatality risk, while other accidents at the platform-train interface account for 34%; this is biggest single contributor to passenger fatality risk. PTI risk accounts for 2% of the total passenger risk as measured by fatalities and weighted injuries (FWI). Of this, 11% (5.7 FWI) occurs while getting on or off trains, and 9% (4.9 FWI) occurs while not boarding or alighting. The total passenger risk as estimated by Safety Risk Model version 7.5 (SRMv7.5) is 54.7 FWI. Risk at the PTI is not limited to passengers. Members of the public, visiting stations for reasons other than travel (eg shopping, socialising, or meeting/seeing off passengers) are also affected by PTI-related risk. When passengers and public are considered together, the PTI accounts for 11.2 FWI per year and 4.2 fatalities per year, as measured by SRMv7.5. There has been an increase in amount of harm while boarding or alighting since 27/8, even when accounting for the generally increasing trend in passenger journeys. There are many factors which affect the occurrence of accidents at the PTI. These factors overlap, making up a complex list of criteria that contribute to the accident rate. There is a gender imbalance in the people involved in accidents at the PTI. This imbalance is different, depending on whether the person is boarding/alighting (where more females are involved, possibly due to footwear or propensity to report the accident), or not boarding/alighting (where more males are involved). Intoxication has a large effect on the occurrence of accidents at the PTI, especially when the person is not boarding or alighting. Males are involved in more alcohol related incidents than females. Males appear to have a generally higher level of risk from PTI accidents not due to boarding or alighting, even after taking into account that they are involved in more alcohol-related incidents overall. Accident rates are higher during off-peak periods of the day or week. There is also a higher rate of accidents in summer. It is possible that there is an increased proportion of people at these times who are less frequent users of the railway, such as tourists and other leisure users, and who are therefore less familiar with the unique risks associated with it. ii Risk at the platform-train interface

Contents The weather has some effect on accidents while boarding or alighting, with a higher rate of accidents seen when the weather is wet and icy compared to when it is dry and not icy. The effect is less than is seen with slips, trips and falls in stations. Alighting from the train appears to be more hazardous than boarding. Although the number of events are similar, alighting accidents account for around 7% of the harm. Risk at the platform-train interface iii

Executive summary Intentionally blank iv Risk at the platform-train interface

Introduction 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The platform-train interface (PTI) gives rise to a risk particular to rail transport. This risk forms a significant proportion of the risk faced by rail users, especially passenger fatality risk. Over the last few years, the number of PTI accidents has increased at greater rate than the number of passenger journeys. A greater understanding of the causal factors involved in PTI accidents can provide the industry with the knowledge to help prevent some of these accidents, and to mitigate the consequences when they do occur. In 211, RSSB published the first edition of a special topic report into the possible factors causing accidents at the PTI. The current report is the second edition and contains data that has been updated to the end of September 213. The main factors on which this report focuses are the effects of time (including the time of day, week or year) and its effect on people, age and gender of the people involved. Other factors that are investigated include the weather conditions, the type of station and its operator, and the type of train and its operator. 1.2 Report scope The report covers accidents occurring to passengers and other members of the public at the PTI. PTI accidents are categorised in two distinct ways: Accidents occurring while boarding or alighting trains (PTI (BA)). Accidents occurring at the platform edge not during boarding or alighting (PTI (not BA)). The first category covers any injury that happens while the person is getting off or on a train. The second category covers all other events of people coming into contact with trains due to being too close to the platform edge, or falling from the platform. It includes incidents of persons falling onto the track and being subsequently struck by a train entering or leaving the station, and incidents where no train is present. PTI accidents are distinguished from other slips, trips and falls around the station. To be a PTI-related injury, the incident must result in the passenger wholly or partially crossing the boundary between the platform and the track, or the platform and the train (if present). 1.3 Data Unless otherwise stated, the data used in the report comes from the industry s Safety Management Information System (SMIS). RSSB bases its safety performance analyses on the latest and most accurate information available at the time of production. We also continually update and revise previous years data in the light of any new information. The data cut-off date for this report was 3 September 213 for SMIS data. Risk at the platform-train interface 1

Platform-train interface risk 2 Platform-train interface risk 2.1 Platform-train interface risk in context The passenger risk profile comprises accidents with a wide range of causes. While many types of risk are common with other public areas eg slips, trips and falls, assault, bumping into other people or objects some are specific to the railway. These include train accidents, accidents while getting on or off trains, and other accidents at the platform edge. Chart 1. Passenger FWI risk by accident type: 54.7 FWI per year Assault and abuse 15% On-board injuries 7% Train accidents 6% Other passenger accidents 5% PTI accidents due to boarding or alighting 11% Slips, trips, and falls 47% PTI accidents not due to boarding or alighting 9% Source: SRM v7.5 Chart 2. Passenger fatality risk by accident type: 1.5 fatalities per year Train accidents 21% Other passenger accidents 1% Assault and abuse 16% PTI accidents due to boarding or alighting 2% Source: SRM v7.5 Slips, trips, and falls 17% PTI accidents not due to boarding or alighting 34% Slips, trips and falls in stations account for the largest proportion of passenger FWI risk, at 47%. Passenger PTI accounts for the next largest proportion, at 2%. Of this, 11% occurs while getting on or off trains, and 9% occurs while not boarding or alighting. PTI risk accounts for the largest proportion of passenger fatality risk. Accidents during boarding or alighting account for 2% of the fatality risk, while other accidents at the platform train interface account for 34%; this is the biggest single contributor to passenger fatality risk. PTI risk also accounts for a small proportion of public risk. According to SRM v7.5, public risk at the PTI is.5 FWI per year; this is nearly all fatality risk from accidents not during boarding or alighting. 2 Risk at the platform-train interface

Platform-train interface risk 2.2 Hazardous events at the platform-train interface The types of accidents that make up accidents at the PTI have varying consequences in terms of risk. These accident types are classified into hazardous events and are illustrated in the charts below. Chart 3. PTI (BA) FWI risk, by accident type: 5.95 FWI per year Other injury while boarding the train 24% Train door closes on passenger 11% Fall between stationary train and platform 26% Other injury while alighting the train 39% Fall from train in service onto track (no electric shock nor struck by train) <1% Source: SRM v7.5 Nearly one-third of the PTI (BA) risk results from injuries involving some part of the person falling between the train and the platform; 11% of the risk occurs when the person comes into contact with the external doors. Other injuries while alighting from the train account for more than double the risk than other injuries while boarding the train. Chart 4. PTI (not BA) FWI risk, by accident type: 5.28 FWI per year Passenger electric shock at station (OHL) <1% Electric shock at a station (conductor rail) 17% Struck by / contact with moving train while on platform 42% Fall from platform and struck by train 27% Fall from platform onto track (no electric shock nor struck by train) 14% Source: SRM v7.5 Most of the PTI (not BA) risk involves being struck by a train, either while standing too close to the platform edge or after falling onto the track. This explains the high fatality risk. Furthermore, the extended height of a fall on to the track, and the possibility of contact with the conductor rail on some parts of the network, will increase the probability of fatal consequences. Risk at the platform-train interface 3

Platform-train interface risk 2.3 Managing system risk Planning is a key part of the industry s approach to safety management. Companies produce individual safety plans, detailing the activities and initiatives for the forthcoming period, and indicating the associated expected benefits. The overall expected benefit of industry planning over Control Period 4 (CP4) was brought together in the Railway Strategic Safety Plan (SSP), which was based on the information in individual plans. The SSP covers the five-year period from April 29 to March 214 and defines a number of trajectories, each related to a particular aspect of system risk. Trajectories can be used as a way of illustrating expected changes in the level of risk as a result of the initiatives being undertaken or planned by the industry over the period covered by the SSP. SRMv6.6 was used for the beginning of CP4, SRMv7.5 was used to assess the risk as of the end of 212/13, and SRMv8 will be used at the end of CP4 (March 214). There is a specific trajectory related to risk to passengers at the platform-train interface. The SSP projects an improvement of around 16% by the end of March 214. For some trajectories, two charts are used to review progress. This is done in those cases where the types of events that are covered by the trajectory fall into two distinct types, as in the case of PTI-related accidents. Chart 5. Passenger accidents at the platform-train interface (normaliser: passenger journeys) PTI (BA) accidents PTI (not BA) accidents 12% 12% 1% 1% 8% 8% 6% 4% 2% % Trajectory range Trajectory mid-range Performance against trajectory 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 6% 4% 2% % Trajectory range Trajectory mid-range Performance against trajectory 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 29 21 211 212 213 214 29 21 211 212 213 214 The 29-214 SSP projected a best estimate improvement of around 16% by the end of March 214. The risk estimates currently fall within the SSP range for each trajectory. 4 Risk at the platform-train interface

Trends in injuries 3 Trends in injuries to passengers and public at the platform-train interface 3.1 Fatalities at the platform-train interface 3.1.1 Fatalities while boarding or alighting There has been one PTI (BA) fatality since 23/4, none have occurred since 26/7. On 13 February 27, at Haddenham & Thame Parkway station, a male passenger fell between a train and the platform while alighting. 3.1.2 Fatalities while not boarding or alighting There have been 36 PTI (not BA) fatalities since 23/4; six of these were to members of the public and 3 were to passengers. There have been seven fatalities since the publication of the first edition of this report (June 211); two public fatalities and five passenger fatalities: On 19 July 211, a male member of the public was struck by a moving train whilst standing too close to the platform edge at Hayes and Harlington station. On 3 August 211, a male passenger was struck by a moving train at Clapham Junction station; he was standing too close to the platform edge under the influence of alcohol. On 3 of September 211, a male passenger was struck by a moving train at Urmston station, Manchester. He was standing too close to the platform edge and under the influence of alcohol. On 22 October 211, a 16 year old female passenger was struck by a train when standing too close to the platform edge at Liverpool James street station, whilst under the influence of alcohol. On 1 February 213, a female member of the public fell from the platform at Barnsley Interchange station and was struck by a train. On 15 February 213, a male passenger was stuck by a moving train at Kennett station whilst standing too close to the platform edge and under the influence of alcohol. On 4 April 213, an elderly female passenger fell from the platform at Queen s Road station and was struck by a train. Details of all of these fatalities are given in Appendix 1, and some associated analyses are presented in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Risk at the platform-train interface 5

Harm (FWI) Trends in injuries 3.2 Harm while boarding or alighting Chart 6. PTI (BA) harm to passengers and other members of the public 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6.3 6.3 1.8 1.7 4.5 4.5 4.3 1.6 2.6 5. 1.5 2.4 1 4.3 4.4 1.6 1.8 2.6 2.6 5.2 2. 3.2 5.8 2.1 3.7 6.3 2.2 4.1 Shock & trauma Minor injury Major injury Fatality Normalised FWI rate 6.6 2. 4.6 2.8 1. 1.7 3.2 1.2 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Harm per billion passenger journeys 213/14 (Apr to Sep) 212/13 (Apr to Sep) 212/13 211/12 21/11 29/1 28/9 27/8 26/7 25/6 24/5 23/4 There have been no PTI (BA) fatalities since 26/7; most harm is in the form of major injuries. There has been a steady increase in the level of harm since 27/8, with an average level of harm of 5.46 FWI per year over the period shown. When normalised by the number of passenger journeys it can be seen that the rate of harm has been increasing over the past five years, reaching a value of 4.45 FWI per billion passenger journeys in 212/13, the highest value since 26/7. The data for April to September 213/14 shows an increase when compared to the same period in 212/13, which indicates that this trend is set to continue. Injuries to members of the public represent.1% of the overall level of harm; nearly all incidents relate to passengers boarding and alighting. Members of the public can be injured during boarding/alighting, for example when they are assisting passengers. 6 Risk at the platform-train interface

Harm (FWI) Trends in injuries 3.3 Harm to passengers and members of the public while not boarding or alighting Chart 7. PTI (not BA) harm to passengers and other members of the public 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4.4.2 4.1.2 1.2.9 3 3 2.9.2 1.7 1 6.5.1 1.4 5 5.7.2 1.5 4 4.7.2 1.5 3 5.3.2 1.1 4 7.1.2.9 6 6..3.7 5 3..3 1.7 1 Shock & trauma Minor injury Major injury Fatality Normalised total.9.1.8 2..1.9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Harm per billion passenger journeys 213/14 (Apr to Sep) 212/13 (Apr to Sep) 212/13 211/12 21/11 29/1 28/9 27/8 26/7 25/6 24/5 23/4 The majority of risk from PTI (not BA) accidents is fatality risk. As the number of fatalities per year varies between one and six, a difference of just one fatality per year will make a large difference to the total harm. The influence of fatalities on total harm is seen especially when comparing harm in the first half of this year with the same period last year. There has been no discernable trend in major and minor injuries due to this type of accident in the last ten years. When normalised by the number of passenger journeys, an overall downward trend from 26/7 can be seen, with fluctuations due to changes in the number of fatalities. The overall level of harm in 212/13 was the lowest in the range shown. Members of the public account for a small proportion of the total number of PTI (not BA) accidents (5% of the 84 events occurring since April 23) but a notable proportion of the number of fatal PTI (not BA) events (17% of the 36 fatalities occurring since April 23). This may be due to fewer members of the public reporting less serious injuries at stations. Risk at the platform-train interface 7

PTI (BA) accidents per year Factors affecting risk 4 Factors affecting risk at the platform-train interface The following analyses are all based on data related to injuries occurring to passengers and members of the public. 4.1 Gender and Intoxication Chart 8. PTI accidents by gender and intoxication (April 23-September 213) 7 612.2 Darker shades represent intoxication related accidents 7 6 6 5 4 3 2 594.2 331.6 294.2 14.8 44.2 21.8 5 4 3 2 PTI (not BA) accidents per year 1 11.1 22.4 1 18. 37.4 3.6 Female Male Female Male PTI (BA) PTI (not BA) More females than males are involved in PTI (BA) accidents; around 65% of these accidents have occurred to females. Footwear could be one reason for this difference. It is also possible that females are more likely to report this type of incident. Far more males than females are involved in PTI (not BA) accidents; around 75% of these accidents have occurred to males. Intoxication accounts for a much larger proportion of this type of injury (45% compared with 6% of PTI (BA) accidents). The statistics indicate that males have a higher level of risk from PTI (not BA) in general, even after taking into account that they are involved in more alcohol related incidents overall. 8 Risk at the platform-train interface

PTI (BA) accidents per year Factors affecting risk 4.2 Age and gender Chart 9. PTI (BA) accidents by age and gender (April 23-September 213) 1 35 3 Observed accidents involving females Observed accidents involving males Expected accidents involving females Expected accidents involving males 25 2 29 15 132 143 1 17 59 63 5 Under 16 16-3 years 31-5 years 51-7 years Over 7 Under 16 16-3 years 31-5 years 51-7 years Over 7 Male Female Females aged over 51 and males aged over 7 are involved in a higher number of accidents than would be expected when considering their representation in the passenger profile. These age groups include the elderly, who may be less steady on their feet. Those aged between 31 and 5 are involved in fewer accidents than would be expected when considering their representation in the passenger profile. This is particularly pronounced for males. This may be because people in this age group might travel more frequently and could therefore be more familiar with the railway network. It is also possible that reporting rates differ for different age groups; leisure passengers may be more likely to report injuries than time-pressed commuters and business passengers. Parents or older companions of younger travellers may be more likely to report an injury if it occurs to those in their care. The observed number of accidents involving females is higher than the observed number of accidents involving males throughout the age ranges shown, despite the expected number of accidents being higher for males in each range with the exception of over 7. However the difference in the actual number of injuries is much less pronounced for those below the age of 16. 1 Passenger profile proportions have been calculated from the passenger journeys information from the DfT National Travel Survey 28-212. Risk at the platform-train interface 9

PTI (not BA) accidents per year Factors affecting risk Chart 1. PTI (not BA) accidents by age and gender (April 23-September 213) 25 2 Observed accidents involving females Observed accidents involving males Expected accidents involving females Expected accidents involving males 15 13 1 6 5 3 2 4 2 Under 16 16-3 years 31-5 years 51-7 years Over 7 Under 16 16-3 years 31-5 years 51-7 years Over 7 Male Female As with boarding/alighting accidents, age groups containing those over the age of 7 suffer more PTI (not BA) accidents than expected, when considering their proportion in the passenger profile, although the degree of disproportion is much less marked than with accidents while boarding or alighting. Unlike with boarding/alighting accidents, there is a large disproportion between the observed and expected number of accidents for 16-3 year old males. A large proportion of accidents occurring to 16-3 year olds involve intoxicated males. 1 Risk at the platform-train interface

Harm per year from PTI (BA) accidents Percentage of harm or percentage of total number of accidents per year Factors affecting risk 4.3 Boarding or alighting Chart 11. PTI (BA) accidents (April 23-September 213) 1% 64.3.2 9% 8% 2. 7% 553. 6% 5% Boarding/alighting accidents (other/unknown) Boarding accidents 4% Alighting accidents 3% 3.3 2% 537.4 1% % Accidents Harm (FWI) A similar number of accidents occurs whether the person is boarding or alighting the train. The harm from alighting accidents is disproportionately high; they account for almost 7% more harm than boarding accidents. Chart 12. Harm from PTI (BA) accidents by injury Falling from the train onto the platform degree (April 23-September 213) may well be associated with a greater 4. degree of risk than falling into the train, Shock/trauma 3.3 Minor injury due to the distance involved, or the more 3. Major injury.9 likely absence of something to get hold of Fatality to regain balance. 2. A greater proportion of alighting accidents are in the form of major injuries compared with boarding accidents. 2. 1.. 2.3.1 Alighting accidents.8 1.1 Boarding accidents.2 Boarding /alighting accidents (other/unkown) Risk at the platform-train interface 11

PTI (BA) accidents per year Factors affecting risk 4.4 Day of week and intoxication Chart 13. PTI (BA) accidents, by day of week and intoxication (April 23-September 213) 2 25 2 15 1 5 Accidents not involving intoxication Accidents involving intoxication Accident rate not involving intoxication Accident rate involving intoxication 185.7 177.9 178.4 172.7 162.8 139.2 7.9 6.3 8.3 8.4 11.5 13. 13.4 6.3 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 25 2 15 1 5 PTI accident rate per billion trips in progress per year The total number of PTI (BA) accidents increases between Monday and Thursday, coinciding with a rise of accidents due to intoxication. When normalised by trips in progress 3, the rate of accidents reported as involving intoxication increases between Monday and Friday, this rate remains higher during the weekend. The number of accidents without reported intoxication also increases during the week. However, when normalised, the accident rate is relatively consistent throughout the week, but much higher during the weekend. It is possible that the higher rate of accidents on weekends is due to the increase in leisure travellers at these times, who may be less frequent passengers and therefore less familiar with the railway network. There may also be differences in reporting levels as described in section 4.2. A likely reason for the lower number, but higher rate of accidents on Mondays is that around 1% are bank holidays; the passenger profile seen on these days will be similar to that seen on weekends. Intoxication is not always possible to detect and so may not be recorded. 2 Normalising data obtained from the DfT National Travel Survey. 3 Trips in progress are only counted if the railway is the main mode of travel, around 5% of trips include a rail stage as a minor part of a longer journey and are therefore not counted. 12 Risk at the platform-train interface

PTI (not BA) accidents per year Factors affecting risk Chart 14. PTI (not BA) accidents by day of week and intoxication (April 23-September 213) 4 12 1 8 6 4 2 6.2 Accidents not involving intoxication Accidents involving intoxication Accident rate not involving intoxication Accident rate involving intoxication 3.3 6.4 4. 7.7 6.2 5. 5.1 6.7 6.4 6.3 9. 4.8 2.9 12 1 8 6 4 2 Accident rate per billion trips in progress per year Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun As with accidents while boarding or alighting, the total number of PTI (not BA) accidents increases between Monday and Saturday. The increase is mainly due to the rise in intoxication-related accidents, which account for around a third of all PTI (not BA) accidents on a Monday, rising to a peak of more than half on a Saturday. Saturday has the highest total number of accidents due mostly to the contribution made by intoxication related accidents, even though there are fewer passenger journeys than during the week days. 4 Normalising data obtained from the DfT National Travel Survey. Risk at the platform-train interface 13

Average annual number of PTI (BA) accidents Factors affecting risk 4.5 Time of day and intoxication Chart 15. PTI (BA) accidents by time of day and intoxication (April 23-September 213) 5 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 46.5 72.1 54.3 59.959.3 56.454.6 57.4 59.5 69.8 71.8 Accidents not involving intoxication Accidents involving intoxication Accident rate not involving intoxication Accident rate involving intoxication 17.7 4 15.8 1.7 9.8 5.8.2 3.4 1.2..2.1..5.5.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 4. 4.7 5.4 4.4 5.7 2 5.1 5. 3.5.9 57.8 36. 28.4 2 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 Accident rate per billion trips in progress per year The number of PTI (BA) accidents involving intoxication rises during the day and peaks at around 21:. During the four-hour period, 22: to 1:, more than a third of reported accidents involve intoxication. The changes in proportion are more apparent when the data is normalised by trips in progress. 6 Peak accident numbers without recorded intoxication coincide with peak travel times in the morning and afternoon, although when normalised by trips in progress, the rate is relatively low at these times. The rate of accidents not reported as involving intoxication is highest at off-peak travel times, during the middle part of the day and in the evening and night. Changes in the level of leisure travellers may be affecting the reported accident rate as suggested in section 4.4. 5 Normalising data obtained from the DfT National Travel Survey. The confidence in the data between 2 and 4 hrs is low, therefore this data has not been included in the chart. 6 As a trip includes all stages of a journey (in the case of a rail journey, it would include getting to and from the station for example), the start and end times of rail stages are distorted. This means that it is likely that the peak travel times are more pronounced than they appear in the data. A trip cannot be counted across two days, so it is likely that there are inaccuracies in the normalised data around midnight. 14 Risk at the platform-train interface

Average annual number of PTI (not BA) accidents Factors affecting risk Chart 16. PTI (not BA) accidents by time of day and intoxication (April 23-September 213) 7 4. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. Accidents not involving intoxication Accidents involving intoxication Accident rate not involving intoxication Accident rate involving intoxication 1..3.2.1.1. 1.7.8 2.4.1 1.9.3.9 1.8 1.7.6.6.6 2.9 2.6.8.9 1.8 1.3 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.3 2.9 2.2 2.5 1.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1.7.2 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Accident rate per billion trips in progress per year The number of accidents involving intoxication rises during the day and enters a sustained peak at 2:, remaining high until :. The increasing trend is more apparent when normalised by trips in progress. Between 21: and 23:, the number of intoxication-related accidents is roughly twice that of accidents not related to intoxication. The rate of accidents without reported intoxication shows a similar pattern to that shown in Chart 15, the rate is highest at off-peak travel times, during the middle part of the day and in the evening and night. The evening peak is more pronounced for PTI (not BA) accidents than for PTI (BA) accidents. This may be due to the fact that intoxication is not always possible to detect and so may not be recorded. 7 Normalising data obtained from the DfT National Travel Survey. The confidence in the data between 2 and 4 hrs is low, therefore this data has not been included in the chart. Risk at the platform-train interface 15

PTI (BA) accidents per year Passenger journeys (millions) Factors affecting risk 4.6 Month of year and intoxication Chart 17. PTI (BA) accidents by month of year and intoxication (April 23-September 213) 9 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 72.1 Accidents involving intoxication Accidents not involving intoxication Monthly average passenger journeys (millions) Lesiure travel as a percentage of all travel 77. 79. 82. 89.5 13.4 16.7 115.3 4.8 4.1 5.7 6.2 5.4 6.4 5. 6.2 5.2 4.6 6.2 7.3 97. 84.1 9.2 91.1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Leisure travel as a percentage of all rail travel It appears there is little seasonal variation in PTI (BA) accidents that involve intoxication. It is interesting that the highest numbers of PTI (BA) accidents are in summer, despite there being a decrease in the number of passenger journeys which is notably low in August. This could be due to the peak in the number of passengers using rail travel for the purpose of leisure. Passengers who travel at these times may be less frequent users of the railway, and therefore less experienced with its associated risks. As suggested in sections 4.1 to 4.5, it is also possible that there is a difference in reporting rates between peak and off-peak travellers. 16 Risk at the platform-train interface

PTI (not BA) accidents per year Factors affecting risk Chart 18. 7 6 PTI (not BA) accidents by month of year and intoxication (April 23-September 213) 5.5 Accidents involving intoxication Accidents not involving intoxication 5 4 3 3. 3. 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.5 3.3 4.1 3.1 3.6 2.2 3.3 3. 4.3 3.2 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.3 3. 3. 4.2 2 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec As with PTI (BA) accidents, there is little seasonal variation in PTI (not BA) accidents that involve intoxication. Again, the highest monthly total of accidents is in summer (August), with the lowest number of accidents occurring in spring (March). Chart 15 to Chart 18 all appear to show a similar pattern of higher rates of accidents at off-peak travel times of day, days of week, and months of year. This could be due to similarities in the passenger profile seen at these times. Risk at the platform-train interface 17

Factors affecting risk 4.7 Weather The effect of weather was analysed by comparing the number of PTI accidents to the weather occurring on that day, based on a ten-year sample of data over the period January 21 to December 21. Incident data since 21 was taken from SMIS for the urban counties of Greater London, Merseyside, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Strathclyde and West Yorkshire as more than half of all incidents occurred in these six counties. 8 Weather also varies less across these counties as they are relatively small, allowing weather data from the principal city to be used as a reference point. 9 Table 1. Rate of PTI accidents in different weather conditions, normalised by the number of days within sample areas (21-21) Incidents/day No ice Ice Dry 1.2 1.8 Wet 1.4 1.23 Weather conditions appear to have an effect on the rate of PTI incidents. As shown in Table 1, there are more incidents occurring when the weather is wet and icy 1, than when conditions are dry and ice-free. Overall, when the weather is bad (wet or icy) there is an increase in accident rate of nearly 5%, compared with good conditions (dry and no ice). When wet and icy conditions occur together, the increase in rate is around 2%. It appears that the effect that weather conditions have on the PTI accident rate is much lower than the effect it has on slips, trips and falls in stations (Table 2). Table 2. Rate of slip, trip and fall accidents in different weather conditions in sample areas (21-21) Incidents/day No ice Ice Dry 2.67 3.57 Wet 3.18 4.47 When the weather is bad (wet or icy) there is an increase in the slip, trip and fall rate of over 25% compared with good conditions. When wet and icy conditions occur together, the increase in rate is around 65%. 8 Passenger incidents from all six counties were weighted according to the percentage of incidents occurring in each county out of the total and then aggregated. 9 Weather data from Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com) 1 Icy conditions are when temperatures fall below 1C, allowing the possible formation of ice on the ground. 18 Risk at the platform-train interface

Accident rate (accidents/day) PTI accident rate (accidents/day) Factors affecting risk The monthly rate of incidents was predicted, using observed weather patterns and the ratios derived from Table 1. Chart 19. PTI accidents by month with predicted rate using model based only on weather conditions (21-21) 1.6 1.4 1.2 Actual accident rate Accident rate as predicted by model Mean accident rate 1..8.6.4.2. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec The model predicts an increase in accident rate in the winter months, although this increase is underestimated compared with some winter months. The model does not predict the increase seen in the summer months. This suggests there are other factors (such as those already discussed in this report) which may have more of an effect on the rate of PTI accidents. Chart 2 shows how the model predicts slip, trip and fall accidents. The fact that the model is similar to the observed rate of accidents shows that slips, trips and falls are better correlated with weather conditions. Chart 2. Slips, trips and falls by month with predicted rate using model based only on weather conditions (21-21) 4.5 4. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. Actual accident rate Accident rate as predicted by model Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Risk at the platform-train interface 19

Average annual number of PTI (BA) accidents Factors affecting risk 4.8 Light conditions It is possible that the amount of daylight while a person is boarding or alighting could affect the chances of an accident. One way to test for this is by looking at the accidents rate peaks seen during the peak hours of 8: and 17:. In the winter months of December, January and February, these times will be significantly darker than in the summer months of June, July and August. Chart 21. PTI (BA) accidents by time of day in winter and summer months (21-21) 4 35 Average annual number of accidents in summer Average annual number of accidents in winter 3 25 2 15 1 5 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 1: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 2: In the winter months, there are peaks seen in the accident rate at 8: and at 17:, which are not seen to the same extent in the summer months. This may be due to the lack of daylight at these times during the winter. In the summer months, the rate then increases at 1:, remaining high until the evening. In the summer months, it is likely that there is a greater proportion of tourist travellers during the day time, than in the winter months. 2 Risk at the platform-train interface

Factors affecting risk 4.9 Accidents involving dispatched trains In the last five years, there have been four fatalities involving trains in the process of being dispatched. The most recent occurred on 22 October 211 at James Street, Liverpool, when a 16-year-old female passenger fell between the train and the platform and was struck by the train as it departed. The following analysis is based on all passenger injuries occurring at the PTI between April 28 and March 213, and highlights those events occurring just after dispatch, when the train has begun moving. It should be noted that the analysis does not include any causal attribution to the role of dispatch. Chart 22. PTI injuries involving dispatched trains, April 28 to March 213 Average harm from PTI injuries (1.2 FWI per year) Average number of PTI fatalities (3.2 per year) Not involving dispatched trains 9% Involving dispatched trains 1% Not involving dispatched trains 75% Involving dispatched trains: Struck by train 25% Out of the 6,666 PTI injuries occurring between April 28 and March 213, 54 involved dispatched trains. While these account for only 1% of accidents, they account for 1% of the harm (1. FWI per year). Injuries involving dispatched trains involve the person being struck by the train, being trapped in the doors, or other injuries while boarding or alighting the train. Almost half of the injuries and nearly all of the harm involved a passenger being struck by the train. This is typically when they are too close to the platform edge or have fallen between the train and the platform. When only considering fatalities at the PTI, accidents involving dispatched trains account for a higher proportion. A quarter of all fatalities at the PTI involved dispatched trains and all of these were passengers being struck by the train. Intoxication was implicated in three of the fatalities involving dispatched trains, three of the major injuries, and five of the minor injuries; in total, it has been associated with 67% of the harm. To get a better understanding of the role of moving trains on passenger risk at the PTI, a review of the structure of the SRM is being carried out. The review is focusing on identifying new precursors that will better classify accidents involving moving trains, including if the train was dispatched, passing through the station, or arriving at the station. Risk at the platform-train interface 21

Concluding remarks 5 Concluding remarks PTI risk accounts for the largest proportion of passenger fatality risk, and the second largest proportion of passenger FWI risk. Although most of the PTI FWI risk occurs while boarding or alighting, most of the PTI fatality risk occurs while not boarding or alighting the train. Alighting from the train appears to be more hazardous than boarding. Although the number of events is similar, alighting accidents account for around 7% of the harm. Risk at the PTI is not limited to passengers. Members of the public, visiting stations for reasons other than travel (eg shopping, socialising, or meeting/seeing off passengers) are also affected by PTI-related risk. There has been an increase in amount of harm at the PTI since 27/8, even when accounting for the generally increasing trend in passenger journeys. There are many factors which affect the occurrence of accidents at the PTI. Some of these factors overlap, making up a complex list of criteria that contribute to the accident rate. This means some of the effect of a particular factor may be masked by the effects of other factors. The factors that can be shown to have an effect on the occurrence of accidents at the PTI include: Gender of the passenger Intoxication of the passenger Time of day or week that the journey is taking place The weather at the time of the journey Seasonal changes in the passengers demographic 22 Risk at the platform-train interface

Appendices Appendix 1. List of fatalities at the PTI Passenger PTI (BA) fatalities Year 26/7 Date and time Location Age Intoxication Gender SRM precursor Haddenham & Thame 13/2/27 Parkway Passenger fall between a stationary 23:42 station 37 No Male train and platform whilst alighting Passenger PTI (not BA) fatalities Year 23/4 23/4 23/4 24/5 24/5 24/5 25/6 26/7 26/7 26/7 27/8 27/8 27/8 28/9 28/9 28/9 29/1 29/1 29/1 29/1 21/11 21/11 21/11 Date and time Location Age Intoxication Gender SRM precursor 4/4/23 Passenger fall from platform and 21:35 Manor Park 51 No Male struck by train - general causes 23/8/23 Woolwich Passenger electric shock at station 22:48 Dockyard 26 Yes Male (conductor rail) 1/1/23 Passenger fall from platform and 21:38 Brockley Whins 17 Yes Male struck by train under the influence 6/7/24 Passenger electric shock at station :48 Bushey station 2 Yes Male (conductor rail) North 7/1/25 Queensferry Passenger fall from platform and 23:28 station 17 Yes Male struck by train under the influence 11/1/25 18:39 25/3/26 2:44 Clapham Junction Station 43 Yes Male Pembrey & Burry Port station 27 Yes Female 25/6/26 23:55 Habrough 17 Yes Female 29/6/26 Hersham 16:55 station 4 No Male 25/1/27 15:55 Treorchy station 15 No Male 7/11/27 14:52 Cambuslang 19 Yes Male 21/11/27 22:58 Glengarnock 26 Yes Male 25/2/28 12:37 Hilsea station 22 Yes Male Seaforth and 4/1/28 Litherland 11:28 Station 88 No Male 18/2/29 15:25 Whyteleafe 4 No Male 23/2/29 :2 London Bridge 4 No Male 11/11/29 13:19 West Ealing station 32 No Male 21/11/29 23:53 Angmering 16 Yes Female 3/1/21 Carshalton 2:13 Beeches 52 Yes Male 3/1/21 Streatham 6:2 Station 23 No Male 5/6/21 23:39 Earlsfield 43 Yes Male Stansted 1/7/21 Mountfitchet 22:52 railway station 28 Yes Male 8/7/21 15:5 Langley Green 42 Yes Male Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger fall from platform and struck by train under the influence Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail) Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger fall from platform and struck by train under the influence Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger fall from platform and struck by train - general causes Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail) Passenger fall from platform and struck by train - general causes Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger fall from platform and struck by train under the influence Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail) Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail) Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger fall from platform and struck by train under the influence Risk at the platform-train interface 23

Appendices 21/11 21/11 211/12 211/12 211/12 212/13 213/14 23/7/21 18:23 22/9/21 22:22 3/8/211 2: 3/9/211 22:17 22/1/211 23:28 Twickenham station, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 55 No Male Sudbury and Harrow Road. 29 Yes Male Clapham Jcn station, London Borough of Wandsworth 36 Yes Male Urmston, Trafford Park, Manchester (Warrington Central-Trafford Park) 26 Yes Male Liverpool James Street station, Liverpool (Wirral line) 16 Yes Female 15/2/213 21:3 Kennett station 44 Yes Male 4/4/213 Queen s Road, 11:22 Peckham. 81 No Female Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail) Passenger fall from platform and struck by train under the influence Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge Passenger fall from platform and struck by train - general causes Public PTI (not BA) fatalities Year Date and time Location Age Intoxication Gender SRM precursor 26/27 11/1/27 :4 Gidea Park 33 Yes Male MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge 26/27 23/2/27 23: Seven Kings Station 42 No Male MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge 27/28 22/8/27 22:4 Shoreham 16 No Male MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge 21/211 2/1/21 19:35 Romford station, London Borough of Havering 211/212 19/7/211 15:27 Hayes & Harlington station, London Borough of Hillingdon 211/212 1/2/212 14:43 Barnsley Interchange station, South Yorkshire 61 No Male MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge 58 No Male MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to platform edge 73 No Female MOP (non-trespasser) fall from platform & struck by train general causes 24 Risk at the platform-train interface

Appendices Definitions Term Fatalities and weighted injuries (FWI) Fatality Hazardous event Major injury Minor injury Passenger Definition The aggregate amount of safety harm. Weightings are provided below. Injury degree Definition Weighting Fatality Death occurs within one year of the accident. 1 Major injury Class 1 minor injury Class 2 minor injury Class 1 shock/trauma Class 2 shock/trauma Injuries to passengers, staff or members of the public as defined in schedule 1 to RIDDOR 1995. This includes losing consciousness, most fractures, major dislocations and loss of sight (temporary or permanent) and other injuries that resulted in hospital attendance for more than 24 hours. Injuries to passengers, staff or members of the public as defined in RIDDOR 1995 and amended in April 212 that are neither a fatality nor a major injury plus: Workforce injuries, where the injured person is incapacitated for their normal duties for more than three consecutive calendar days, not including the day of the injury..1.5 All other physical injuries..1 Shock or trauma resulting from being involved in, or witnessing, events that have serious potential of a fatal outcome eg train accidents such as collisions and derailments, or personal accidents involving being struck by train. Shock or trauma resulting from other causes, such as verbal abuse and near misses, or personal accidents of a typically non-fatal outcome..5.1 Death within one year of the causal accident. This includes subsequent death from the causes of a railway accident. All are RIDDOR reportable. An incident that has the potential to be the direct cause of safety harm. An injury to any person as defined in Schedule 1 of RIDDOR. This includes most fractures, amputations and losses of consciousness, or where the injury resulted in hospital attendance for more than 24 hours. Physical injuries that are not major injuries or fatalities. For the workforce, minor injuries are Class 1 if they result in the staff member being unable to return to their normal duties for more than three days, not including the day of the injury. For passengers and members of the public, minor injuries are Class 1 if the injured person was taken directly to hospital from the accident site. Other minor injuries are Class 2. A person on railway infrastructure, who either intends to travel on a train, is travelling on a train, or has travelled on a train. This does not include passengers who are trespassing or who commit suicide they are included as members of the public. Risk at the platform-train interface 25

Appendices Term PTI crossings Public (members of) RIDDOR Safety Risk Model (SRM) Shock and trauma Definition The number of times the PTI has been crossed by passengers, used to normalise data when comparing station accident rates. The number of PTI crossings is the number of passenger station entries and exits, added to twice the number of passenger interchanges. Persons other than passengers or workforce members. This includes passengers who are trespassing (eg when crossing tracks between platforms), and anyone who commits, or attempts to commit suicide. The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) is a set of health and safety regulations that require any major injuries, illnesses or accidents occurring in the workplace to be formally reported to the enforcing authority. It defines major injuries and lists notifiable diseases many of which can be occupational in origin. It also defines notifiable dangerous occurrences, such as collisions and derailments. A quantitative representation of the safety risk that can result from the operation and maintenance of the GB rail network. It comprises 12 individual models, each representing a type of hazardous event. Shock or traumatic stress affecting any person who has been involved in, or a witness to, an event, and not suffered any physical injury. Shock and trauma is measured by the SRM and reported on in safety performance reporting; it is within the scope of what must be reported into SMIS. However, it is never RIDDOR-reportable. Class 1 Shock/trauma events relate to witnessing a fatality, incidents and train accidents (collisions, derailments and fires). SMIS (Safety Management Information System) Strategic Safety Plan Train accidents Trespass Trip Class 2 Shock/trauma events relate to all other causes of shock/trauma such as verbal assaults, witnessing physical assaults, witnessing non-fatality incidents and near misses. A national database used by railway undertakings and infrastructure managers to record any safety-related events that occur on the railway. SMIS data is accessible to all of the companies who use the system, so that it may be used to analyse risk, predict trends and focus action on major areas of safety concern. This is a joint statement by the companies responsible for Britain s mainline rail network setting out an agreed industry approach to managing safety. The 29-214 plan was developed by bringing together commitments made by industry companies in their own individual safety plans, thus creating a linkage with the duty holder planning process. Reportable train accidents are defined in RIDDOR. The main criterion is that the accident must be on or affect the running line. There are additional criteria for different types of accident, and these may depend on whether the accident involves a passenger train. Trespass occurs when people intentionally go where they are never authorised to be. Note: Level crossing users are never counted as trespassers, providing they are not using the crossing as an access point into a permanently unauthorised area, such as the trackside. A door-to-door journey including one or more stages such as walk, train journey, walk. 26 Risk at the platform-train interface