As a railway enthusiast, there at least one correction I wish to make: No. 5526 is a locomotive (the powered vehicle that is part of the train) and it was pulling a rake of coaches (railway jargon for a series of coaches coupled together thus forming a train). An absolute golden rule is to not use the word 'train' to indicate a separate vehicle e.g. a coach. On the other hand, I used to be a volunteer on the South Devon Railway (like the majority of these restored steam railways, the workforce on the SDR is largely voluntary) and with this in mind, I was one of the first people to hear of this incident.
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8kHi, and thank you for this video, I had not heard of this incident. F y i, a locomotove (loco for short) is a self moving vehicle which is intended to, and capable of, pulling or pushing other, none powered railway vehicles (whether carriages, wagons, "dead" locomotives cranes, or any other item of rolling stock). A "light engine" is a locomotive all by itself, not coupled to any unpowered vehicles. 2 or more carriages coupled together is known as a "rake", and 2 or more wagons coupled together is known as a "raft". HOWEVER, for the purpose of the working timetable (the one the railway people use, which covers everything that moves, as opposed to the public, passenger timetable seen at passenger stations), a "train" is anything which moves along the tracks when normal operation is in force (including a "light engine"). Locomotives ( the proper, correct term) are often referred to as "engines" (even if it's an electric locomotive, which doesn't have an engine at all), because in the early years of railways, they were often referred to as "locomotive engines", to distinguish them from stationary engines (or even marine engines). Hope this helps. :-)
@@PaulButterfield-bt3rk Hi, thanks for the comment😀 thinking about it, I 100% agree. I would never allow my child when three to go alone on a train, however as I've said previous, the mum would never have expected a hole behind the toilet door
It's NOT the three year old's fault nor his parents. Most 3 year olds are quite capable of going on their own. How disgusting of you to turn this on the boy or his parents but of course it didn't affect you so you don't see the problem. There would still have been an incident even if the child was accompanied perhaps not so serious but serious enough. Poor maintenance and bad management decisions can cost lives, in this instance it was lucky it only cost them money. You and the rest of those blaming bad parenting are utterly disgustingly ignorant.
@@saml8510 thanks for your comment, I have a 4 year old and still go with her to the toilet. However, the mums defence, the last thing she probably expected was a hole😂
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8k yeah, but regardless, she should have been keeping an eye on her child if one of the toilets was out of use regardless of whether she thought there was a hole! i'm not saying its the mums fault, but she SHOULD have kept a closer eye on her kid!
@@leslieholland2476 mark 1 carriage door open from the outside so you have to open a window to open them a 3 year old wouldn’t be able to reach the latch to open the window
@@leslieholland2476 Well, to open a carriage door you have to pull down the window, lean out and turn an external handle, tricky for an adult, let alone a child. In contrast the toilet door yielded immediately when the child pushed it, because the securing screws put in a couple of months earlier had eventually fallen out.
Hi, thanks for your input, I think you are 100% correct however it should be good practise to inform the train staff of the issue before going into service.
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8k I remember the real story about this, the woman was trying to force the door open instead of taking her son into the next carriage too use the toilet and she ignored the 'Out Of Order' sign
So, the bitter irony of the choice of keeping the coach in service because of the fear of losing revenue in the end has ended up costing the company far more, not only in fines but also probably lack of confidence in the public so not visiting. This of course on top of the terrible risk to life!
@@Spookytooth01 Hi, thanks for the comment, this is usually what happens when an accident occurs in most places. Companies cut corners to save money but end up spending more to rectify the accident. Companies should be safe above all else.
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8kYou would think so (but look at Quintinshill (alias Gretna) for example, where the signalman totally ignored the rules. Just one example).
And moreover is gives bad publicity for heritage railways in general - the last thing they need nowadays with Covid followed by coal prices having gone through the roof, no thanks to Putin.
I don't recall hearing about this incident. As an ex BR man myself, I'm astounded that such a situation occured, given health and safety legislation. I feel angry for those who were over ridden when they raised their legitimate concerns. The company suffered by the lack of proper judgement by the authority concerned, not just financially, but in reputation and credibility. I hope they were suitably dealt with individually. To the mother and child, I hope that they have suitably recovered from their ordeal. ♥️🙏♥️🙏
I can only agree with you on that (I'm from a railway family), and it's typical of some (mis)managements that the people who are actually doing the job, the people who do know what they're on about, get snubbed, ignored, and overridden by those who have the controlling positions, but don't actually have the brain power that befits the job.
@@martinsims1273 It's tricky though because here everyone was a volunteer trying to keep trains running in a situation with limited resources. The snag was that they didn't realise that locking the toilet door with a couple of screws was ok as a temporary fix but not robust for a period of over 2 months. On BR, certainly the coach would have been taken out of use at once and replaced by another one. But the SDR only had 10 carriages. Other heritage railways have similar problems, so it's a good wake-up call.
Mk 1 coaches have a wooden frame so are prone to rot. These carriages were introduced in the 1950s. They have poor collision characteristics by modern standards and are no longer used on the National Network in general use. Several poin ts here. 1 Why wasn't the toilet door bolted shut? 2 What condition is the rest of the coach underframe like? 3 Why was the coach is service in the first place? 4 Why was a toddler allowed to be unsupervised on a train.
The underframe is steel so that should be fine. The first point I think is key - some sort of lock or barrier rather than just a notice is needed. The door was in fact fixed shut by screws but this was 2 months earlier and they appear to have got loose and fallen out. The mother was directly behind the child which was how she was able to catch him at once when he fell.
Click bait, this was several years back, there was a clear sign on the toilet door saying out of use and if the young child was being properly supervised it wouldn’t have happened.
How did a brake fault on 5526 cause the floor to become corroded on one of the coaches? A vac leak on the coach (4805) won't cause the floor to corrode.
@@ivar_oslo-hr3mc The brakes on mainline British trains were pretty much all vacuum, except early electric units which were ahead of others with fancy air & EP systems. Even up to the 70s they used vacuum brakes across the network with the last vacuum braked trains being the class 101 & 121 which were in service in to the 2000s. The only differences between the traction on the SDR is with them being GWR they would operate at 25 InHg whereas LMS, Southern, LNER, and later all BR steam and early diesel locomotives would operate at 21 InHg. If there was a leak it would suck air in causing the brakes to apply. The only way I can make sense of it is if it was the opposite way round. Corrosion possibly caused the vac leak which caused the brakes to start locking on which lead to the railway's C&W department removing the floor to find even more corrosion. The heating on the other hand is steam on a lot of these so that could have caused it along with pee soaking through but it should never have gotten in to that state.
Dude this happened just 5 days after my 4th birthday, and every time i go into a bathroom in a train i always feel like the ground would break and i would fall into the train wheels
Probably because it would still be unsafe and wouldn't bear someone's weight. They thought they had secured the door adequately with screws ... but it wasn't robust enough over a 2 month period.
@@paulstubbs7678 thanks for the comment, thinking about it, a cheap section of mdf would have been better than nothing😂 probably wouldn't have taken long to make.
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8k Heck if management didn't want me to waste their time for me to cat some board, I'd hang back after work and do it in my own (unpaid) time.
The idea of locking the toilet out of use was sound but the execution was inadequate. I have visited a number of heritage lines and unfortunately I notice an increasing tendency to slack operation and poor standards in various areas. Part of the problem is that managing volunteer labour is more difficult than with paid staff, many will only do what they want to do and resent being told what to do or that they are not doing it properly, if pushed they will just leave. A red flag is if a line consistently fails to run to the published timetable for no good reason which is too common and points to general slackness which can often also be found elsewhere in the operation. if this doesn't change the RAIB will lose patience with the sector and make it much harder for them to operate which combined with other pressures will see a lot of lines close.
Regardless what people say the carriage should not have been part of the train until it was made safe. I do agree also that the parents should have been with the child at all times though that is just common sense. Glad this didn’t result in death.
as someone who works on a railway the incident is shocking mark 1 carriges are old and worn so who thought that a screw would hold is stupid great video
The mother is at fault, 1. Why would you let a 3 YEAR old go to the toilet on the other side of the coach. 2. Said 3 year old ignored very well stated sign on the door. 3. Said child also still ignored the sign and pushed the door through. The sdr is not at fault as they clearly bolted the door shut. Sure the door shouldn’t have opened but it was well stated on the door that it wasn’t meant to be opened and therefore liability goes to the mother not the sdr
Wow. A mother who lets a 3 year old wander off out of there sight in public. I hope social services have had a word. The toilet was sealed off and signed out of order. Should have been safe enough if people look after their children. I say this as a mother of 2 little children. Heritage railways are fantastic fun, but you really need to keep children under close supervision! As an aside i dont think you got a single picture of 5526 in all the stock footage recycled here!
@@DoubleDsinthedrivingseat Hi, thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, I'm not from the area and rely on the Internet and RAIB report for information. Sorry for this. I do try my best to get cctv images/ footage of most incidents and will try my upmost in the next video.
In fact the mum was following directly behind the child - just as well because otherwise she couldn't have caught him as he fell. Then we really would have had a tragic incident rather than just a scary one to learn lessons from. The door had been sealed originally but it turned out not robustly enough to last for several weeks.
My personal opinion is: The coach should have been repaired properly or the toilet door should have been screwed closed in a more secure way. Also the mother of that child should not have let the child go to the toilet on a train by themself.
Not just SDR, I wonder how many other preserved railways would have coaching stock similar to this if closely inspected for excessive corrosion. Not like Heritage railways have annual MOTs is it?
Look at all the horrible comments trying to blame the parents. You all need to take a good look at yourselves. The key point is that the carriage contained a serious danger that was not properly secured and that carriage should NOT have been in use. The blame lies entirely with the railway company's management. You'd all change your tune if it was your child though.
I would say the majority of the blame falls on the parents,how can a 3 year old read a not in use/do not use sign?,it’s their responsibility to take the child to the toilet,pretty simple really
Hmm, I'm not fond of children, and I hate lazy entitled parents, but the carriage shouldnt have been allowed to roll like that, someone could have leaned or tripped and fell against that door and have a similar result, especially as a toddler was able to push it open even though it was supposedly bolted shut...
Looking through that hole to the "tyre" the flange and running part is very poor indeed and should not have been on passenger carrying service as a degraded flange alone is prone to splitting and cracking and the bogie is fairly free to veer off into a disaster for the whole train if it jumps the frog of points or just slides off the rail on a curve :(
I read about this in Steam Railway magazine at the time and the mother was milking it for everything she could and the preservation facebook forums were full of the incident at the time, but the Somerset and Dorset staff always said the door was securely locked shut and a out of order sign was on the door. I think the mother lacked the common sense too move along to the next carriage and just was swinging on the door
Instead of blaming the mother all the time when something happens, maybe someone else could've intervened too. Y'know help each other out and all that? Being a mother is hard and sometimes help and understanding makes all the difference. You can watch your child 99.99% of the time and that one miniscule moment that you don't, they get hurt. Of course accidents happen and accidents can be prevented, but blaming anyone after the fact helps nothing!
@@iris_purpurea Hi, thanks for your comment, being a parent too two kids myself, I refrained from blaming the mother on the video. I understand that the last thing the mum would have thought is the hole being there.
the carriage should have been taken out of service and then the accident wouldn't happened no one else to themselves. and the guard is responsible safety for the passengers of the train
I cant understand why they had a carriage with a fault running. Even then they should have been able to lock the door or secure it properly. Makes you wonder how safe the rest of the train is.
This is why there should be an age limit to trains in the uk and any vehicles for that matter. It wouldn't be in that bad condition if they had no more than 20 year old trains in service.
This is a heritage line, it's supposed to be old, it's not due to age, it's due to maintenance, If it's maintained well then it would be safe, the railway should have kept the coach out of service until they repaired the floor.
Hi There, This is a tourist railway on a former Great Western Branch-line in the UK. It’s not on a regular service line and has been restored for use as a Heritage Railway only. These are generally made safe so this oversight is baffling as the carriage should not have been part of the train in that state. The mother should have accompanied their child at that age everywhere especially to a toilet but the fault ultimately lies with the Railways management.
When I was a mechanic I saw plenty of new cars with bald tyres, brakes down to metal and multiple lights not working, a machine is only as safe as the person responsible for operating and maintaining it.
@@DEVILTAZ35 So is this to do with the train operators that are in the news for the lawsuit about them operating unsafe trains? This seems like not an isolated incident.
As a railway enthusiast, there at least one correction I wish to make: No. 5526 is a locomotive (the powered vehicle that is part of the train) and it was pulling a rake of coaches (railway jargon for a series of coaches coupled together thus forming a train). An absolute golden rule is to not use the word 'train' to indicate a separate vehicle e.g. a coach.
On the other hand, I used to be a volunteer on the South Devon Railway (like the majority of these restored steam railways, the workforce on the SDR is largely voluntary) and with this in mind, I was one of the first people to hear of this incident.
@@Eddy2730 Hi, thank you so much for the comment. I will use this in future videos. 😊
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8kHi, and thank you for this video, I had not heard of this incident. F y i, a locomotove (loco for short) is a self moving vehicle which is intended to, and capable of, pulling or pushing other, none powered railway vehicles (whether carriages, wagons, "dead" locomotives cranes, or any other item of rolling stock). A "light engine" is a locomotive all by itself, not coupled to any unpowered vehicles. 2 or more carriages coupled together is known as a "rake", and 2 or more wagons coupled together is known as a "raft". HOWEVER, for the purpose of the working timetable (the one the railway people use, which covers everything that moves, as opposed to the public, passenger timetable seen at passenger stations), a "train" is anything which moves along the tracks when normal operation is in force (including a "light engine"). Locomotives ( the proper, correct term) are often referred to as "engines" (even if it's an electric locomotive, which doesn't have an engine at all), because in the early years of railways, they were often referred to as "locomotive engines", to distinguish them from stationary engines (or even marine engines). Hope this helps. :-)
The door was screwed shut but the whole of that end of the coach was corroded so the fixings didn't hold.
To be honest this is mainly just a parenting problem as the mother didn’t go with her child bearing in mind she was 3
Just what I thought! Who lets a three year old go to the toilet on a train, on their own?
The language of the RAIB report suggests that the child was a boy. (Masculine pronouns are used: his, he.)
i was just thinking this too!!!
AGREED.
@2760ade Somebody with no sense of responsibility.
Who lets a 3 year old use a public toilet on their own ?
@@PaulButterfield-bt3rk Hi, thanks for the comment😀 thinking about it, I 100% agree. I would never allow my child when three to go alone on a train, however as I've said previous, the mum would never have expected a hole behind the toilet door
This is exactly what I had in mind
Nobody should let their 3 years old kid do things like that by themselves
Thats what i thought. I have a 3 year old, I wouldn't let her go to the toilet on her own in the house never mind a train
exactly! in fact, why did you go on the train with your Child in the first place?!?! i, for one, would not!!!
It's NOT the three year old's fault nor his parents. Most 3 year olds are quite capable of going on their own. How disgusting of you to turn this on the boy or his parents but of course it didn't affect you so you don't see the problem. There would still have been an incident even if the child was accompanied perhaps not so serious but serious enough. Poor maintenance and bad management decisions can cost lives, in this instance it was lucky it only cost them money. You and the rest of those blaming bad parenting are utterly disgustingly ignorant.
I have a 3 year old, I wouldn't let her go to the toilet on her own in the house never mind a train, absolutely crazy
@@saml8510 thanks for your comment, I have a 4 year old and still go with her to the toilet. However, the mums defence, the last thing she probably expected was a hole😂
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8k yeah, but regardless, she should have been keeping an eye on her child if one of the toilets was out of use regardless of whether she thought there was a hole! i'm not saying its the mums fault, but she SHOULD have kept a closer eye on her kid!
@saml8510. That is because you are a GOOD parent !
Railways, although mostly enjoyable, are not a playground. Children need to be supervised.
@@polythenewrappedme6102 Thats What i'm SAYING!!!!!!
Yes, bit baffling really! Very poor parenting!
And what if the child had opened the door to outside and fell on the tracks.
Lack of parental supervision.
Precisely.
a 3 year old child wouldnt be able to open a carrige door
@Connor2008 she should not have been able to open the toilet door but she did so what you say is of no consequence.
@@leslieholland2476 mark 1 carriage door open from the outside so you have to open a window to open them a 3 year old wouldn’t be able to reach the latch to open the window
@@leslieholland2476 Well, to open a carriage door you have to pull down the window, lean out and turn an external handle, tricky for an adult, let alone a child. In contrast the toilet door yielded immediately when the child pushed it, because the securing screws put in a couple of months earlier had eventually fallen out.
Both are at fault
1: the SDR clearly put a sign saying out of order which was ignored
2: the SDR should have not put that carriage in service
Hi, thanks for your input, I think you are 100% correct however it should be good practise to inform the train staff of the issue before going into service.
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8k I remember the real story about this, the woman was trying to force the door open instead of taking her son into the next carriage too use the toilet and she ignored the 'Out Of Order' sign
The kid is 3 y.o, it can’t read
@@sheppardpat47 3 year olds can read just not that well and they probably only know 10 words
@@sheppardpat47which is why they should be accompanied!
So, the bitter irony of the choice of keeping the coach in service because of the fear of losing revenue in the end has ended up costing the company far more, not only in fines but also probably lack of confidence in the public so not visiting. This of course on top of the terrible risk to life!
@@Spookytooth01 Hi, thanks for the comment, this is usually what happens when an accident occurs in most places. Companies cut corners to save money but end up spending more to rectify the accident. Companies should be safe above all else.
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8kYou would think so (but look at Quintinshill (alias Gretna) for example, where the signalman totally ignored the rules. Just one example).
And moreover is gives bad publicity for heritage railways in general - the last thing they need nowadays with Covid followed by coal prices having gone through the roof, no thanks to Putin.
I don't recall hearing about this incident. As an ex BR man myself, I'm astounded that such a situation occured, given health and safety legislation. I feel angry for those who were over ridden when they raised their legitimate concerns. The company suffered by the lack of proper judgement by the authority concerned, not just financially, but in reputation and credibility. I hope they were suitably dealt with individually. To the mother and child, I hope that they have suitably recovered from their ordeal. ♥️🙏♥️🙏
I can only agree with you on that (I'm from a railway family), and it's typical of some (mis)managements that the people who are actually doing the job, the people who do know what they're on about, get snubbed, ignored, and overridden by those who have the controlling positions, but don't actually have the brain power that befits the job.
@@martinsims1273 It's tricky though because here everyone was a volunteer trying to keep trains running in a situation with limited resources. The snag was that they didn't realise that locking the toilet door with a couple of screws was ok as a temporary fix but not robust for a period of over 2 months. On BR, certainly the coach would have been taken out of use at once and replaced by another one. But the SDR only had 10 carriages. Other heritage railways have similar problems, so it's a good wake-up call.
shame the narrator doesn't know the difference between a train, a locomotive and a carriage.
It's sad that loads of people don't.
Mk 1 coaches have a wooden frame so are prone to rot. These carriages were introduced in the 1950s. They have poor collision characteristics by modern standards and are no longer used on the National Network in general use. Several poin
ts here.
1 Why wasn't the toilet door bolted shut?
2 What condition is the rest of the coach underframe like?
3 Why was the coach is service in the first place?
4 Why was a toddler allowed to be unsupervised on a train.
@@richardmarshall4322 Hi, thanks for this amazing input. I wish I had all the answers for you. Is certainly something to look into
The underframe is steel so that should be fine. The first point I think is key - some sort of lock or barrier rather than just a notice is needed. The door was in fact fixed shut by screws but this was 2 months earlier and they appear to have got loose and fallen out. The mother was directly behind the child which was how she was able to catch him at once when he fell.
Click bait, this was several years back, there was a clear sign on the toilet door saying out of use and if the young child was being properly supervised it wouldn’t have happened.
How did a brake fault on 5526 cause the floor to become corroded on one of the coaches? A vac leak on the coach (4805) won't cause the floor to corrode.
On a steam train they use steam for the brakes, not air. And steam contains water.
@@ivar_oslo-hr3mc The brakes on mainline British trains were pretty much all vacuum, except early electric units which were ahead of others with fancy air & EP systems. Even up to the 70s they used vacuum brakes across the network with the last vacuum braked trains being the class 101 & 121 which were in service in to the 2000s. The only differences between the traction on the SDR is with them being GWR they would operate at 25 InHg whereas LMS, Southern, LNER, and later all BR steam and early diesel locomotives would operate at 21 InHg. If there was a leak it would suck air in causing the brakes to apply.
The only way I can make sense of it is if it was the opposite way round. Corrosion possibly caused the vac leak which caused the brakes to start locking on which lead to the railway's C&W department removing the floor to find even more corrosion. The heating on the other hand is steam on a lot of these so that could have caused it along with pee soaking through but it should never have gotten in to that state.
@ivar_oslo-hr3mc Mk1 coaches are either air, vacuum or dual braked. In this case vacuum braked.
@ivar_oslo-hr3mc Steam trains in the UK use vacuum brakes, so if there was a leak it would just suck air in and cause the brakes to apply
Dude this happened just 5 days after my 4th birthday, and every time i go into a bathroom in a train i always feel like the ground would break and i would fall into the train wheels
@@Steamlocomotivefan52 Hi, thanks for the comment, these events are extremely rare. Stay safe😊
A five carriage steam locomotive?
No, one locomotive and a five carraige train.
Why didnt they at least fit a bit of ply over the hole?
Probably because it would still be unsafe and wouldn't bear someone's weight. They thought they had secured the door adequately with screws ... but it wasn't robust enough over a 2 month period.
Nuts, it would not take much effort at all to cut some material as a temporary floor, anything would be better than nothing.
@@paulstubbs7678 thanks for the comment, thinking about it, a cheap section of mdf would have been better than nothing😂 probably wouldn't have taken long to make.
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8k Heck if management didn't want me to waste their time for me to cat some board, I'd hang back after work and do it in my own (unpaid) time.
The idea of locking the toilet out of use was sound but the execution was inadequate. I have visited a number of heritage lines and unfortunately I notice an increasing tendency to slack operation and poor standards in various areas. Part of the problem is that managing volunteer labour is more difficult than with paid staff, many will only do what they want to do and resent being told what to do or that they are not doing it properly, if pushed they will just leave. A red flag is if a line consistently fails to run to the published timetable for no good reason which is too common and points to general slackness which can often also be found elsewhere in the operation. if this doesn't change the RAIB will lose patience with the sector and make it much harder for them to operate which combined with other pressures will see a lot of lines close.
Regardless what people say the carriage should not have been part of the train until it was made safe. I do agree also that the parents should have been with the child at all times though that is just common sense.
Glad this didn’t result in death.
The coach was safe, the toilet said out of use, end off
as someone who works on a railway the incident is shocking mark 1 carriges are old and worn so who thought that a screw would hold is stupid great video
@@Connor2008 thanks for your kind comment😊😊
The mother is at fault,
1. Why would you let a 3 YEAR old go to the toilet on the other side of the coach.
2. Said 3 year old ignored very well stated sign on the door.
3. Said child also still ignored the sign and pushed the door through.
The sdr is not at fault as they clearly bolted the door shut. Sure the door shouldn’t have opened but it was well stated on the door that it wasn’t meant to be opened and therefore liability goes to the mother not the sdr
Wow. A mother who lets a 3 year old wander off out of there sight in public. I hope social services have had a word.
The toilet was sealed off and signed out of order. Should have been safe enough if people look after their children. I say this as a mother of 2 little children. Heritage railways are fantastic fun, but you really need to keep children under close supervision!
As an aside i dont think you got a single picture of 5526 in all the stock footage recycled here!
@@DoubleDsinthedrivingseat Hi, thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, I'm not from the area and rely on the Internet and RAIB report for information. Sorry for this. I do try my best to get cctv images/ footage of most incidents and will try my upmost in the next video.
In fact the mum was following directly behind the child - just as well because otherwise she couldn't have caught him as he fell. Then we really would have had a tragic incident rather than just a scary one to learn lessons from. The door had been sealed originally but it turned out not robustly enough to last for several weeks.
Don't know if it's been pointed out but the handle could have been removed from the toilet and would have been impossible to use
My personal opinion is: The coach should have been repaired properly or the toilet door should have been screwed closed in a more secure way. Also the mother of that child should not have let the child go to the toilet on a train by themself.
@thriveforafricas Hi thanks for the comment, yes I totally agree, I think the company could have handled the entire incident differently 👍😊
It's the parents fault as no child should wander around a train coach
Not just SDR, I wonder how many other preserved railways would have coaching stock similar to this if closely inspected for excessive corrosion.
Not like Heritage railways have annual MOTs is it?
Look at all the horrible comments trying to blame the parents. You all need to take a good look at yourselves. The key point is that the carriage contained a serious danger that was not properly secured and that carriage should NOT have been in use. The blame lies entirely with the railway company's management. You'd all change your tune if it was your child though.
I take my personal responbilities as a parent very seriously.
these days peoples common sense is not that common
As a parent if you take children to heritage railways ( as I do regularly) you must always keep them under close supervision
@@DoubleDsinthedrivingseat Seems logical to me.
I would say the majority of the blame falls on the parents,how can a 3 year old read a not in use/do not use sign?,it’s their responsibility to take the child to the toilet,pretty simple really
Should have put a large panel or board to block the entire toilet door, then each day staff test it for strength.
The accident is terrible but the blame is entirely the parents fault
Hmm, I'm not fond of children, and I hate lazy entitled parents, but the carriage shouldnt have been allowed to roll like that, someone could have leaned or tripped and fell against that door and have a similar result, especially as a toddler was able to push it open even though it was supposedly bolted shut...
Agreed
Looking through that hole to the "tyre" the flange and running part is very poor indeed and should not have been on passenger carrying service as a degraded flange alone is prone to splitting and cracking and the bogie is fairly free to veer off into a disaster for the whole train if it jumps the frog of points or just slides off the rail on a curve :(
wow, Funny how i never knew about this and i've traveled on the South Devon Railway more times than i can count🤣
Hi, Thank you for your comment! I do try and cover lesser known incidents😀
I read about this in Steam Railway magazine at the time and the mother was milking it for everything she could and the preservation facebook forums were full of the incident at the time, but the Somerset and Dorset staff always said the door was securely locked shut and a out of order sign was on the door. I think the mother lacked the common sense too move along to the next carriage and just was swinging on the door
@@ThomasGAinsworth Yeah it was caused by the mothers carelessness and inability to realise the danger!
@@REALLIFEHORROR-t8k Yeah thanks for an amazing video, you earned a sub!
@GringoBaggins thank you! 😊😊
That coach should have been removed from the train before service.
Instead of blaming the mother all the time when something happens, maybe someone else could've intervened too.
Y'know help each other out and all that?
Being a mother is hard and sometimes help and understanding makes all the difference.
You can watch your child 99.99% of the time and that one miniscule moment that you don't, they get hurt.
Of course accidents happen and accidents can be prevented, but blaming anyone after the fact helps nothing!
@@iris_purpurea Hi, thanks for your comment, being a parent too two kids myself, I refrained from blaming the mother on the video. I understand that the last thing the mum would have thought is the hole being there.
the carriage should have been taken out of service and then the accident wouldn't happened no one else to themselves. and the guard is responsible safety for the passengers of the train
I cant understand why they had a carriage with a fault running. Even then they should have been able to lock the door or secure it properly.
Makes you wonder how safe the rest of the train is.
No she did no fall through, that's a bull s title ! Read the report
Scary stuff. I remember reading that RAIB report when it came out.
The mother should not have let the child go to toilet on their own
Since when does AI voices have a welsh accent?
I fell asleep half way through so monotonous 🥱 😴
@@dukeofdevon5608 Hi, thanks for your input. I'm from Wales so difficult to hide the accent. I'll try to be less monotonous for the next video😂
This carriage should have been taken out of use instead of being allowed to be in public service.
@@keith6400 totally agree, thanks for the comment😊
There was nothing wrong with the concept of putting the toilet out of use but it was done incompetently.
You said it all GWR, enough said
What's gwr got to do with the situation
This video is complete rubbush, theirs no need to slate a whole Railway due to a parents ignorance, the toilet said out order, end of story
This is why there should be an age limit to trains in the uk and any vehicles for that matter. It wouldn't be in that bad condition if they had no more than 20 year old trains in service.
This is a heritage line, it's supposed to be old, it's not due to age, it's due to maintenance, If it's maintained well then it would be safe, the railway should have kept the coach out of service until they repaired the floor.
Hi There,
This is a tourist railway on a former Great Western Branch-line in the UK. It’s not on a regular service line and has been restored for use as a Heritage Railway only.
These are generally made safe so this oversight is baffling as the carriage should not have been part of the train in that state.
The mother should have accompanied their child at that age everywhere especially to a toilet but the fault ultimately lies with the Railways management.
When I was a mechanic I saw plenty of new cars with bald tyres, brakes down to metal and multiple lights not working, a machine is only as safe as the person responsible for operating and maintaining it.
@@DEVILTAZ35 So is this to do with the train operators that are in the news for the lawsuit about them operating unsafe trains? This seems like not an isolated incident.
@evelynanderson7955
Have you ever been on a heritage railway? Or any train?