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
020 3142 5490
stuart.carpenter@rssb.co.uk
 Rail Safety and Standards Board 2013
Intentionally blank
Contents
Contents
1
2
3
Introduction
1
1.1
Purpose
1
1.2
Report scope
1
1.3
Data
1
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
Trends in injuries to passengers and public at the platform-train interface5
3.1
4
5
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
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
20
4.9
Accidents involving dispatched trains
21
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 20% 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 2007/08,
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 70% 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 2011, 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 2013.
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 30
September 2013 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
On-board injuries
7%
Assault and abuse
15%
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: 10.5 fatalities per year
Train accidents
21%
Assault and abuse
16%
Slips, trips, and falls
17%
Other passenger
accidents
10%
PTI accidents due to
boarding or alighting
2%
PTI accidents not due
to boarding or
alighting
34%
Source: SRM v7.5

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 20%. 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 0.5 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
Train door closes on
passenger
11%
Other injury while
boarding the train
24%
Fall between
stationary train and
platform
26%
Fall from train in
service onto track (no
electric shock nor
struck by train)
<1%
Other injury while
alighting the train
39%
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%
Fall from platform and
struck by train
27%
Fall from platform onto
track (no electric
shock nor struck by
train)
14%
Struck by / contact
with moving train
while on platform
42%
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 2009 to March 2014 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
2012/13, and SRMv8 will be used at the end of CP4 (March 2014).
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 2014.
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
120%
120%
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
60%
Trajectory range
Trajectory mid-range
Performance against trajectory
0%
40%
20%
Trajectory range
Trajectory mid-range
Performance against trajectory
0%
123412341234123412341234
123412341234123412341234
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

The 2009-2014 SSP projected a best estimate improvement of around 16% by the end of
March 2014. 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 2003/04, none have occurred since 2006/07.

On 13 February 2007, 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 2003/04; six of these were to members of
the public and 30 were to passengers.
There have been seven fatalities since the publication of the first edition of this report (June
2011); two public fatalities and five passenger fatalities:

On 19 July 2011, 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 2011, 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 30 of September 2011, 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 2011, 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 2013, a female member of the public fell from the platform at Barnsley
Interchange station and was struck by a train.

On 15 February 2013, 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 2013, 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
Trends in injuries
3.2
Harm while boarding or alighting
Chart 6.
PTI (BA) harm to passengers and other members of the public
10
9
8
7
6.3
6.3
6.3
1.8
5.0
1.7
4.4
1.6
5
2.1
2.0
1.5
4
2.0
2.2
4.3
4.3
1.6
4
3.2
1.8
2.8
3
2
4.5
4.5
2.4
2.6
1
2.6
2.6
8
6
5.2
5
9
7
5.8
6
Harm (FWI)
6.6
10
3.2
3.7
4.1
4.6
3
1.2
1.0
1.7
2
2
Harm per billion passenger journeys
Shock & trauma
Minor injury
Major injury
Fatality
Normalised FWI rate
1
1
0
0
0
2013/14
(Apr to
Sep)
2012/13
(Apr to
Sep)
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04

There have been no PTI (BA) fatalities since 2006/07; most harm is in the form of major
injuries.

There has been a steady increase in the level of harm since 2007/08, 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
2012/13, the highest value since 2006/07.

The data for April to September 2013/14 shows an increase when compared to the same
period in 2012/13, which indicates that this trend is set to continue.

Injuries to members of the public represent 0.01% 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
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
8
7
5
4.4
0.2
4
1.2
0.9
5.7
0.2
4.1
0.2
0.9
4.7
0.2
5.3
0.2
Fatality
0.3
Normalised total
5
4
2.9
0.2
3.0
6
3
0.3
5
4
3
6
1.1
1.5
1.7
3
6.0
0.7
5
2
7
Major injury
1.5
3
Minor injury
4
2.0
0.1
1.7
3
0.9
0.1
1
1
1
2
0.9
1
Harm per billion passenger journeys
1.4
Harm (FWI)
7.1
0.2
6.5
0.1
6
Shock & trauma
0.8
0
0
2013/14
(Apr to
Sep)
2012/13
(Apr to
Sep)
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04

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 2006/07 can be seen, with fluctuations due to changes in
the number of fatalities. The overall level of harm in 2012/13 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 804 events occurring since April 2003) but a notable proportion of
the number of fatal PTI (not BA) events (17% of the 36 fatalities occurring since April
2003). This may be due to fewer members of the public reporting less serious injuries at
stations.
Risk at the platform-train interface
7
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 2003-September 2013)
70
700
Darker shades represent
intoxication related accidents
612.2
60
50
500
44.2
40
400
331.6
300
21.8
594.2
30
200
294.2
100
0
20
14.8
22.4
11.1
18.0
Female
PTI (BA)
37.4
3.6
Male
Female
PTI (not BA) accidents per year
PTI (BA) accidents per year
600
10
0
Male
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
Factors affecting risk
4.2
Age and gender
Chart 9.
PTI (BA) accidents by age and gender (April 2003-September 2013)1
350
Observed accidents involving females
Observed accidents involving males
Expected accidents involving females
Expected accidents involving males
300
PTI (BA) accidents per year
250
209
200
150
143
132
107
100
63
59
50
0
Under 16 16 - 30
years
31 - 50
years
Male
51 - 70
years
Over 70 Under 16 16 - 30
years
31 - 50
years
51 - 70
years
Over 70
Female

Females aged over 51 and males aged over 70 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 50 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 70.
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 2008-2012.
Risk at the platform-train interface
9
Factors affecting risk
Chart 10. PTI (not BA) accidents by age and gender (April 2003-September 2013)
25
Observed accidents involving females
Observed accidents involving males
Expected accidents involving females
PTI (not BA) accidents per year
20
Expected accidents involving males
15
13
10
6
4
5
3
2
2
0
Under 16 16 - 30
years
31 - 50
years
Male
51 - 70
years
Over 70 Under 16 16 - 30
years
31 - 50
years
51 - 70
years
Over 70
Female

As with boarding/alighting accidents, age groups containing those over the age of 70
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 16-30 year old males. A large proportion
of accidents occurring to 16-30 year olds involve intoxicated males.
10
Risk at the platform-train interface
Factors affecting risk
4.3
Boarding or alighting
Chart 11. PTI (BA) accidents (April 2003-September 2013)
100%
0.2
64.3
Percentage of harm or
percentage of total number of accidents per year
90%
80%
70%
2.0
553.0
60%
Boarding/alighting accidents
(other/unknown)
50%
Boarding accidents
40%
Alighting accidents
3.3
30%
537.4
20%
10%
0%
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 70%
more harm than boarding accidents.
Chart 12. Harm from PTI (BA) accidents by injury
Falling from the train onto the platform
degree (April 2003-September 2013)
may well be associated with a greater
4.0
Shock/trauma
degree of risk than falling into the train,
3.3
Minor injury
due to the distance involved, or the more
Major injury
3.0
0.9
likely absence of something to get hold of
Fatality
2.0
to regain balance.
2.0

A greater proportion of alighting accidents
are in the form of major injuries compared
with boarding accidents.
Harm per year
from PTI (BA) accidents

0.8
1.0
2.3
1.1
0.0
Alighting
accidents
Risk at the platform-train interface
0.2
0.1
Boarding
accidents
Boarding /alighting
accidents
(other/unkown)
11
Factors affecting risk
4.4
Day of week and intoxication
Chart 13.
PTI (BA) accidents, by day of week and intoxication (April 2003-September
2013)2
250
250
Accidents not involving intoxication
Accidents involving intoxication
Accident rate not involving intoxication
PTI (BA) accidents per year
185.7
172.7
177.9
200
178.4
162.8
150
150
139.2
100
100
70.9
50
50
6.3
8.3
8.4
11.5
13.0
13.4
6.3
0
0
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
PTI accident rate per billion trips in progress per year
Accident rate involving intoxication
200
Sun

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 progress3, 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 10% 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.
‘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.
3
12
Risk at the platform-train interface
Factors affecting risk
Chart 14.
PTI (not BA) accidents by day of week and intoxication (April 2003-September
2013)4
12
12
10
10
PTI (not BA) accidents per year
9.0
7.7
8
8
6.7
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.3
6
6
5.0
4
5.1
4.8
4.0
4
3.3
2.9
2
2
0
Accident rate per billion trips in progress per year
Accidents not involving intoxication
Accidents involving intoxication
Accident rate not involving intoxication
Accident rate involving intoxication
0
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
Factors affecting risk
4.5
Time of day and intoxication
Chart 15.
PTI (BA) accidents by time of day and intoxication (April 2003-September 2013)5
100
2000
Average annual number of PTI (BA) accidents
90
80
72.1
69.8
70
59.959.3
60
54.3
50
56.4
54.6
57.4
59.5
1400
57.8
1200
1000
800
36.0
28.4
30
600
17.7
20
1600
71.8
46.5
40
1800
15.8
9.8
5.8
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.7
5.0 3.51.2
4.4
4.0
0.2 3.4
2.4 2.5 2.6
0.9
0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2
400
10.7
10
0
200
Accident rate per billion trips in progress per year
Accidents not involving intoxication
Accidents involving intoxication
Accident rate not involving intoxication
Accident rate involving intoxication
0

The number of PTI (BA) accidents involving intoxication rises during the day and peaks at
around 21:00. During the four-hour period, 22:00 to 01:00, 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
0200 and 0400 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
Factors affecting risk
Chart 16.
PTI (not BA) accidents by time of day and intoxication (April 2003-September
2013)7
400
Accidents not involving intoxication
Accidents involving intoxication
Accident rate not involving intoxication
Accident rate involving intoxication
3.5
350
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.5 2.5
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
300
2.8 2.8
2.5
250
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.9
1.8
1.8
200
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
150
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.3
0.1
0.8
0.9
100
0.7
50
0.2
Accident rate per billion trips in progress per year
Average annual number of PTI (not BA) accidents
4.0
0

The number of accidents involving intoxication rises during the day and enters a
sustained peak at 20:00, remaining high until 00:00. The increasing trend is more
apparent when normalised by trips in progress.

Between 21:00 and 23:00, 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
0200 and 0400 hrs is low, therefore this data has not been included in the chart.
Risk at the platform-train interface
15
Factors affecting risk
4.6
Month of year and intoxication
Chart 17.
PTI (BA) accidents by month of year and intoxication (April 2003-September
2013)9
160
80%
Accidents involving intoxication
Accidents not involving intoxication
Monthly average passenger journeys (millions)
Lesiure travel as a percentage of all travel
140
PTI (BA) accidents per year
Passenger journeys (millions)
60%
115.3
103.4
106.7
97.0
100
90.2
89.5
80
72.1
77.0
79.0
91.1
50%
84.1
82.0
40%
60
30%
40
20%
20
10%
4.8
4.1
5.7
6.2
5.4
6.4
5.0
6.2
5.2
4.6
6.2
7.3
0
Leisure travel as a percentage of all rail travel
120
70%
0%
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

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
Factors affecting risk
Chart 18.
PTI (not BA) accidents by month of year and intoxication (April 2003-September
2013)
7
Accidents involving intoxication
Accidents not involving intoxication
6
PTI (not BA) accidents per year
5.5
5
4.3
4.1
4
3.6
3.3
3.0
3
4.2
3.9
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.2
2
1
0
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
2001 to December 2010.
Incident data since 2001 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 (2001-2010)
Incidents/day No ice Ice
Dry
1.02
1.08
Wet
1.04
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 icy10, 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 20%.
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
(2001-2010)
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)
10 Icy conditions are when temperatures fall below 1C, allowing the possible formation of ice on the
ground.
18
Risk at the platform-train interface
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 (2001-2010)
1.6
Actual accident rate
Accident rate as predicted by model
PTI accident rate (accidents/day)
1.4
Mean accident rate
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov

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 20 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.
Risk at the platform-train interface
Chart 20. Slips, trips and falls by month with
predicted rate using model based only
on weather conditions (2001-2010)
4.5
Accident rate (accidents/day)

Dec
4.0
Actual accident rate
Accident rate as predicted by model
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
19
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 08:00 and 17:00. 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 (2001-2010)
40
Average annual number of PTI (BA) accidents
Average annual number of accidents in summer
35
Average annual number of accidents in winter
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00

In the winter months, there are peaks seen in the accident rate at 08:00 and at 17:00,
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 10:00, 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.
20
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 2011 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
2008 and March 2013, 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 2008 to March 2013
Average harm from PTI injuries
(10.2 FWI per year)
Not involving
dispatched trains
90%
Involving dispatched
trains
10%
Average number of PTI fatalities
(3.2 per year)
Not involving
dispatched trains
75%
Involving dispatched
trains: Struck by train
25%

Out of the 6,666 PTI injuries occurring between April 2008 and March 2013, 54 involved
dispatched trains. While these account for only 1% of accidents, they account for 10% of
the harm (1.0 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 70% 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 2007/08, 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
2006/07
Date and
time
13/02/2007
23:42
Location
Haddenham &
Thame
Parkway
station
Age
37
Intoxication
Gender
SRM precursor
No
Male
Passenger fall between a stationary
train and platform whilst alighting
Intoxication
Gender
Passenger PTI (not BA) fatalities
2004/05
Date and
time
04/04/2003
21:35
23/08/2003
22:48
10/10/2003
21:38
06/07/2004
00:48
2004/05
07/01/2005
23:28
2004/05
11/01/2005
18:39
2005/06
25/03/2006
02:44
Clapham
Junction Station
Pembrey &
Burry Port
station
2006/07
25/06/2006
23:55
29/06/2006
16:55
Habrough
Hersham
station
2006/07
25/01/2007
15:55
Treorchy
station
15
No
Male
Cambuslang
19
Yes
Male
Glengarnock
26
Yes
Male
Hilsea station
Seaforth and
Litherland
Station
22
Yes
Male
88
No
Male
Whyteleafe
40
No
Male
London Bridge
40
No
Male
West Ealing
station
32
No
Male
Angmering
Carshalton
Beeches
Streatham
Station
16
Yes
Female
52
Yes
Male
23
No
Male
Earlsfield
Stansted
Mountfitchet
railway station
43
Yes
Male
28
Yes
Male
Langley Green
42
Yes
Male
Year
2003/04
2003/04
2003/04
2006/07
2007/08
07/11/2007
14:52
21/11/2007
22:58
2007/08
25/02/2008
12:37
2007/08
2008/09
04/10/2008
11:28
18/02/2009
15:25
23/02/2009
00:20
2009/10
11/11/2009
13:19
2008/09
2008/09
2009/10
2009/10
2009/10
2010/11
2010/11
2010/11
21/11/2009
23:53
03/01/2010
20:13
30/01/2010
06:20
05/06/2010
23:39
01/07/2010
22:52
08/07/2010
15:05
Location
Age
Manor Park
Woolwich
Dockyard
51
No
Male
26
Yes
Male
Brockley Whins
17
Yes
Male
Bushey station
North
Queensferry
station
20
Yes
Male
17
Yes
Male
43
Yes
Male
27
Yes
Female
17
Yes
Female
40
No
Male
Risk at the platform-train interface
SRM precursor
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 under the influence
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 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
23
Appendices
2010/11
23/07/2010
18:23
22/09/2010
22:22
2011/12
03/08/2011
20:00
2011/12
30/09/2011
22:17
2011/12
22/10/2011
23:28
Twickenham
station, London
Borough of
Richmond upon
Thames
Sudbury and
Harrow Road.
Clapham Jcn
station, London
Borough of
Wandsworth
Urmston,
Trafford Park,
Manchester
(Warrington
Central-Trafford
Park)
Liverpool
James Street
station,
Liverpool
(Wirral line)
15/02/2013
21:30
04/04/2013
11:22
Kennett station
Queen’s Road,
Peckham.
2010/11
2012/13
2013/14
55
No
Male
29
Yes
Male
Passenger electric shock at station
(conductor rail)
Passenger fall from platform and
struck by train under the influence
Male
Passenger struck by / contact with
moving train due to being too close to
platform edge
Male
Passenger struck by / contact with
moving train due to being too close to
platform edge
36
26
Yes
Yes
16
Yes
Female
44
Yes
Male
81
No
Female
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
2006/2007
11/01/2007 00:40
Gidea Park
33
Yes
Male
2006/2007
23/02/2007 23:00
Seven Kings
Station
42
No
Male
2007/2008
22/08/2007 22:04
Shoreham
16
No
Male
2010/2011
02/10/2010 19:35
61
No
Male
2011/2012
19/07/2011 15:27
58
No
Male
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by /
contact with moving train due to
being too close to platform edge
2011/2012
01/02/2012 14:43
Romford
station,
London
Borough of
Havering
Hayes &
Harlington
station,
London
Borough of
Hillingdon
Barnsley
Interchange
station, South
Yorkshire
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by /
contact with moving train due to
being too close to platform edge
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by /
contact with moving train due to
being too close to platform edge
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by /
contact with moving train due to
being too close to platform edge
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
Definition
Fatalities and
weighted injuries
(FWI)
The aggregate amount of safety harm. Weightings are provided below.
Fatality
Injury degree
Definition
Weighting
Fatality
Death occurs within one year of the accident.
Major injury
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.
0.1
Class 1
minor injury
Injuries to passengers, staff or members of the
public as defined in RIDDOR 1995 and
amended in April 2012 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.
0.005
Class 2
minor injury
All other physical injuries.
0.001
Class 1
shock/trauma
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.
0.005
Class 2
shock/trauma
Shock or trauma resulting from other causes,
such as verbal abuse and near misses, or
personal accidents of a typically non-fatal
outcome.
0.001
1
Hazardous event
Major injury
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.
Minor injury
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.
Passenger
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
Definition
PTI crossings
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 120 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.
Public (members
of)
RIDDOR
Safety Risk Model
(SRM)
Shock and trauma
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
26
•
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 2009-2014 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.
Risk at the platform-train interface
Appendices
Appendix 2.
Glossary
Acronym
Expansion
ATOC
Association of Train Operating Companies
DfT
Department for Transport
FWI
fatalities and weighted injuries
MDMU
midlife diesel multiple unit
MEMU
midlife electric multiple unit
NDMU
new diesel multiple unit
NEMU
new electric multiple unit
NRMI
Network Rail managed infrastructure
ORR
Office of Rail Regulation
PTI
Platform train interface
PTI (BA)
PTI accidents while boarding or alighting
PTI (not BA)
PTI accidents not while boarding or alighting
RIDDOR
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations
RIS
rail industry standard
RSSB
Rail Safety and Standards Board (its legal name is now RSSB)
SMIS
Safety Management Information System
SRMv7.5
Safety Risk Model version 7.5
SSP
Strategic Safety Plan
Risk at the platform-train interface
27