HC Deb 27 April 1937 vol 323 cc162-3
29. Mr. Lyons

asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the representations against fixed bars on railway carriage doors contained in the report on the Quintishill disaster in 1915, he proposes to make any order for their prohibition and removal in the interests of public safety?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson)

I understand that non-removable bars are fitted across the drop lights of carriages on certain lines, mainly suburban, where, owing to the width of the stock and the small clearances available, passengers leaning out of the windows would be specially liable to sustain injury; across some of the lights of certain sleeping cars where, for example, passengers have to reach upper berths; and across the large fixed windows of corridor stock. In the first two cases I am advised that the provision of bars is likely to prevent a number of accidents, whereas conditions in which their presence might have an adverse effect are likely to be extremely rare. In the third case the presence of protecting bars across these large windows should not prevent egress in case of emergency. In the circumstances in which bars are now used, it is thought undesirable to have bars which could be removed by children or other passengers.

Mr. Lyons

Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell me what difference there was between the type of bar condemned in the report issued after the disaster in 1915 and the type of bar used to-day upon the overcrowded suburban lines of the London and North Eastern Railway?

Captain Hudson

The whole point is that we consider it to be more dangerous to remove the bars than to leave them where they are.

Mr. Lyons

Has any action been taken by the Ministry in consequence of the representations made during the inquiry into the disaster at Quintishill in 1915?

Captain Hudson

I do not think that new rolling stock has such bars. It is only in certain specific cases that the bars are left in position and in those cases we consider that it would be more dangerous to remove them than to leave them where they are.