As a rider to this thread, here's a thing that may sound familiar. National statistics office reclassifies national railway infrastructure operator as part of the state sector, having been trying to get the government to do so for years.

In this case, however, it's happened in France. It is perhaps not surprising that RFF was labelled as independent, though not commercial, when created (1997), for the same reasons as Network Rail was - both were set up for similar reasons. (The surprise was that the French ever did it this way, while the Germans didn't.) But looking at the details, most of them are different.

The statisticians (Insée) do not seem to think the reform of 2014 made much difference, though it looked a lot like merging RFF back into SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) then minimally splitting them along a different line. What they have done is to look again at the accounts of RFF and SNCF Réseau, and have concluded that they do not earn enough to eventually pay off their debts. Thus they are dependent on some sugar daddy to do that, and only the state is going to put their hand on their (necessarily big, very big) wallet for that one.

This sheds a different light on this year's reform, which saw the unions arguing for all this debt to be taken on by the state, and the government reluctantly agreeing to adopt most of it in return for what they wanted - reducing the unions future influence. So, that nice M Macron and his buddies were sneakily making a virtue out a necessity. This also explains why they were in such a hurry; so as to get the whole process done this summer before the news came out.

Now, does anyone know which sector DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) Netz officially belongs to?

Having seen pairs of 802s not yet in service (or possibly the same pair?), and heard of them going into service only last month, I was not expecting the 9-car ones for at least a couple of months. However, today the 16:33 Paddington to Exeter (1C89) was formed of 802101, and it was on the juice as it ran into Reading (unlike 9-car 800s, which I've only seen using diesel). Mind you that train was the first of series, delivered from Japan for testing over a year ago, and it was promised into service in July - so it's still late.

I shall restrict myself to this summary of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) delivery dates from GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'s original (2015) franchise agreement (copied from the MARA^▸ (Master Availability and Reliability Agreement)):
5-car trains   25 May 2017 to 8 Feb 2018 (bi-mode at the time)
9-car trains   15 Feb 2018 to 6 Jul 2018   (electric at the time).

So all his stuff about the order having been changed is not exactly fake news, it just isn't true. As to why it keeps reappearing, quoted as if true and in no doubt, one of the reasons may also apply to fake news - it comforts preconceptions.

Do you think he's doing it just to annoy me?

The RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) only looked back to 2008 for previous events, and in part that's because they have only existed, and produced reports with recommendations in the present format, since 2005/6. But there is also the point that the trains, and in particular their safety systems and operating methods, have changed enough to make earlier events less relevant.

For example, that Hounslow East one was in 1993, and not only was it fatal but it was the first of three serious accidents. The next one was an elderly man dragged by his stick, and finally in 1997 at Holborn an 11-year old boy was dragged by his jacket into a tunnel and killed. Now, just before 1993 all the passenger emergency handles had been disconnected from the brakes, making them into alarms to the driver alone. After 1997, they were all changed again so they do stop the train if part of it is still in the station, but after that the driver can override it. The idea is that no-one is likely to survive being dragged in the tunnel once the train is up to speed. No doubt one could argue about that, but in this NHG case the train was already stopping before the victim got that far.

There was a previous case a bit like this, on a Victoria Line train leaving Warren Street (RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report 13/2012). That involved the train operator overriding the doors closed interlock and forgetting to shut the doors. However, in that case the operator got very confused about how the system worked in its non-automatic modes while trying to cope with a persistent but apparently false alarm from the sensitive door edges.

Given the presence of a door interlock system, I can only see a failure of that system, or its being overridden by an operator, as being the cause this time.

I may have missed or forgotten one, but the incidents I can recall where an arm or similar-sized object was not detected were on mainline trains. More specifically, the Bushey one (see above) which was on a Class 350, Newcastle in 2014 (Class 185), Hayes & Harlington in 2015 (Class 165) and Kings Cross in 2011 (Class 365). The first two of those use "sensitive edges" which can be bent out of the door plane and so not detect an arm. The last two were working to the current standard (GM/RT2473) or the previous BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) one (GO/OTS 300) which required detection of anything 25m across - not good enough to detect fingers or small hands.

The RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report lists three serious ones they investigated, all due to clothing. They also cite a few more recent ones, some of which were not officially known and were brought to them when they asked for more evidence. These are not all made clear, but also seem to be clothing (counting scarves, belts, and bag straps in that).

But ChrisB was talking about "these events", which I take to be not only tube trains.

Really? This was a cloth bag, so the thickness of your coat. I'm sure a lot of lifts would not stop far that.

Here is the report on that subject:

I would put my foot in a the way of tube train doors, but nothing smaller or softer, and only from inside. But I learned on tube trains in the 1950s and 60s, when the door shut pretty brutally.

Added quote.

Ah - my mistake, Probably due to simultaneously reading the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)'s NHG accident report (qv). Mind you, half the argument still applies.

Yesterday the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) published their report into the Notting Hill Gate incident - and very scary it is too.

This unfortunate lady managed to get her bag caught in the doors with the handles looped round her hand, in something close to the worst case for this type of accident. She had one chance to escape - to free her hand in the few seconds before the handles pulled against her weight - but none of us is much good at that kind of fast logical thought when surprised. The emergency stop facilities did work, though of course other people needed long enough to realise they had to use them. By then she had been seriously injured.

In fact three separate alarms at the same time stopped the train, but the one that perhaps should have done - one of the buttons on the platform - was not used. Apparently these buttons are very rarely used now; they suffered overuse that was seen as abuse when first installed, and now have covers which have perhaps protected them too well. So please - keep an eye out for them in the tube, in case you need to push one. When seconds count, even mental rehearsals of "what would I do?" help.

Yes, and there are even stronger reasons too. Stopping a tube train is a tunnel is never a good idea, as it makes whatever you do next more difficult and take much longer. Worse, while there is a small risk a passenger may go near the doors and fall out while the train is moving, there is a much larger risk someone will try to get out once it's stopped. I'm not sure how big the clearance is in Jubilee Line tunnels, but it's still a bad idea to go wandering off into it.

Yes and no. Complimentary does have a distinct second meaning, i.e. free of charge - which also applies to
The Coffee Shop (as it is). And then there is complementary as well ...

Agility Trains owns the two IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)/IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train)/Azuma^▸ (Brand name for Class 80x trains on LNER) fleets and is contracted to provide them to the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company). Its shareholders are:

Presumably that corresponds to ownership of the trains, though there might be something more complicated to allow for Hitachi's contributions in kind.