Passengers Stuck on Seaford - Brighton service for SIX hours

[ushawk]

From The Argus (Brighton and Hove) -

Rail passengers stranded on train stuck in snow for more than five hours
By Anna Roberts

Rail passengers, including three young children, were trapped on a freezing train for more than five hours after it broke down.

People said they were forced to go to the toilet in the aisles after the train got stuck in snow near Falmer on Friday.

The train affected was the 5.39pm from Lewes - which ended up being dragged back to Lewes at about 11.30pm.

People took to social networking sites to vent their frustration that it took more than five hours to get to exactly the same place where they had started.

The train had no heating, lighting or electricity for about four of the five hours it was stranded for after battery power ran out.

One person affected was East Sussex County Council worker Matt Tooke, 34, who said: “It put quite a dent in my Friday night.”

Speaking to The Argus, Mr Tooke, from Hove, said: “It was really, really hard work.

“There was no lighting, no heating and no toilets.

“People had to go to the toilet at one end of the train.

“Southern did not seem to know what they were doing.

“Their plans kept changing every five minutes.

“There were three kids on the train who behaved beautifully but it was ridiculous.

“In the end I arrived home at about midnight.”

Mr Tooke, who said there were 16 people on the train, dubbed the situation a “train apocalypse”.

A Southern spokeswoman confirmed the train had no toilet.

She said the train had set off from Seaford and got stuck close to Falmer because of the snow.

She said: “The train was trying to draw power from the line but this did not work.

“We decided it was not safe for people to get off the train as it was very icy and treacherous - for health and safety reasons.

“We are very sorry to everyone involved and have their names and addresses so we can compensate them.”

She added buses were put on to destinations including Brighton and Seaford after the passengers arrived back.

While the train was stuck on the line a replacement bus service operated, she added.

Not good to hear and i hope those on board get suitable compensation. Have heard from someone on board and that to use the toilet, they had to go out of the cab door at the back of the train. Wouldnt have been much better on a 377 either as that would have had no toilets when the back-up power went.

One question i have, why couldnt a Class 171 pull up alongside to "rescue" the passengers with a "bridge" going between the doors ?

 

[tsr]

One question i have, why couldnt a Class 171 pull up alongside to "rescue" the passengers with a "bridge" going between the doors ?

I'm not sure the bridges would work between a 171 and a 313. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

It sounds like a very nasty situation, and I hope preventative measures are taken to ensure this doesn't happen again.

 

[IanD]

Don't know which is worse - being stuck on the train or having to go back to Seaford.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

Falmer is 3.5 miles from Brighton.

Southern have a maintenance depot at Brighton, which has the services of shunter 09026.

Whuy wasn't the shunter used to rescue the "stuck" train?

 

[gazthomas]

Falmer is 3.5 miles from Brighton.

Southern have a maintenance depot at Brighton, which has the services of shunter 09026.

Whuy wasn't the shunter used to rescue the "stuck" train?

No systems (TPWS, etc.) to allow it to go main line I guess. Plus a lack of customer focus.

 

[asylumxl]

Going to the toilet in the isles?

No wonder Southern didn't want to help with passengers like that .

 

[ushawk]

Going to the toilet in the isles?

No wonder Southern didn't want to help with passengers like that .

Sloppy reporting that is (then it is The Argus and they arent brilliant).

Was out of the rear drivers door.

 

[Goatboy]

No systems (TPWS, etc.) to allow it to go main line I guess. Plus a lack of customer focus.

There must be a way around things like this in an emergency situation. Surely it could be manually signalled after closing the rest of the line? Anything is better than a train stranded in the dark with no lighting for 5 hours!

 

[cle]

Couldn't they have been walked to safety? If they're ****ing out the driver's door, it's halfway there.

And I'd expect cabs after 6 hours, not a replacement bus at midnight!

 

[ushawk]

There must be a way around things like this in an emergency situation. Surely it could be manually signalled after closing the rest of the line? Anything is better than a train stranded in the dark with no lighting for 5 hours!

It might not even be cleared for running along the line, so it cant run.

As i originally said, why couldnt a 171 pull up alongside a set of doors and have a bridge of sorts going across.

Apparently the service was recovered by the GatEx Class 73 which was sent down from London, obviously was the nearest loco. Also doesnt help as the 313s have different couplers to the rest of the fleet (excluding the 455/456 in London).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Couldn't they have been walked to safety? If they're ****ing out the driver's door, it's halfway there.

And I'd expect cabs after 6 hours, not a replacement bus at midnight!

Conditions down here were awful and there was 3 inches of snow in the area, not to mention it was very icy - so the best decision was to not evacuate. The location it was stuck didnt help either as it was on an embankment (for those who know the area, it was beside the A27 between the Newmarket Inn and the Kingston Roundabout).

I assume it was bus as thats what was there so they didnt have to wait even longer. I further assume that on arrival at Brighton, taxis were provided.

 

[455driver]

There must be a way around things like this in an emergency situation. Surely it could be manually signalled after closing the rest of the line? Anything is better than a train stranded in the dark with no lighting for 5 hours!

No there isnt, if it isnt fitted with the necessary equipment to go on the mainline then it isnt allowed, blame H&S for the "inferred risk", government meddling and stupid rules.

Send/take a non fitted loco on the mainline and its P45s all round!

 

[ryan125hst]

Sloppy reporting that is (then it is The Argus and they arent brilliant).

Was out of the rear drivers door.

That can't have been easy for the ladies!

What about health and safety? If someone fell out of the cab, they could have ended up stepping on the third rail. Is this standard procedure for a stranded train without toilets?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No there isnt, if it isnt fitted with the necessary equipment to go on the mainline then it isnt allowed, blame H&S for the "inferred risk", government meddling and stupid rules.

Send/take a non fitted loco on the mainline and its P45s all round!

Would health and safety prefer a non-mainline registered locomotive or rescue the passengers, or passengers stuck on a train without lights or heating for five hours, and having to go to the toilet out of the back cab?

What are your opinions on health and safety? I'm not saying that it isn't needed, but they do go over the top, and it has changed a lot in such a short period of time. About 7 years ago, at my primary school's sports day, we used to do a sack race. In summer 2011, I went to watch my sister compete in her final sports day before she moved up to secondary school (I finsihed secondary school that summer so was off at the time) and there was no sack race!

Another example, this time a scenario which show that it is soemtimes nessassary, is a video on You Tube of Retford station back in 1995 that I was watching a few days ago. There was a steam train on platform 1 (It was either Sir Nigel Gresley or Union of South Africa) and there were people standing on the tracks. One man was standing by the OLE mast just metres away from a 125mph Intercity 225, and there were others standing on the track at the south end of platform 1, policeman included!

 

[87015]

Send/take a non fitted loco on the mainline and its P45s all round!

Whilst I don't think sending the rod was realistic, leaving people on a train for six hours is equally unacceptable. You can do all sorts of things in an emergency - it seems strange Southern just left this sitting there for that sort of time, sounds a lot like headless chicken mode...

 

[Mojo]

Is there a senior official who can issue rule book waivers in emergency situations?

 

[ushawk]

That can't have been easy for the ladies!

What about health and safety? If someone fell out of the cab, they could have ended up stepping on the third rail. Is this standard procedure for a stranded train without toilets?

Without wishing to be rather vulgar, the ladies "did their business" in an empty rubbish bin which was emptied outside the train.

I believe the door was on the other side to where the 3rd rail was so they wouldnt have fell onto it, but still could have fell out. But there was no other alternative, usually in this case the passengers would have been detrained, but access was poor as were conditions so it would have been even more dangerous to do this.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

Is there a senior official who can issue rule book waivers in emergency situations?

There probably was, under British Rail.

Now, under the MDTR, his job has been abolished and replaced by two accountants and a lawyer...

 

[455driver]

Is there a senior official who can issue rule book waivers in emergency situations?

No of course not, why have rules (however stupid) if they can be ignored when they "get in the way".

 

[Mojo]

No of course not, why have rules (however stupid) if they can be ignored when they "get in the way".

I don't think it's stupid. London Underground has a Senior Operating Officer who issue waivers against the London Underground Rule Book, in exceptional situations. Surely if an alternative safe way of working can be established that is preferable to having customers stuck on trains for hours at end, or potentially being delivered to a dangerous situation?

There is a FOI request currently awaiting a response about the types of waivers issued: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rule_book_waivers

 

[Zoidberg]

No of course not, why have rules (however stupid) if they can be ignored when they "get in the way".

I don't think 'stupid' is the word. Rules are put in place to ensure that behaviours are in line with the results of an assessment of risk. What a request for a waiver would do is call for a suitably responsible and empowered officer to re-assess the risks as they pertain to a particular, abnormal, circumstance. A re-assessment could allow a behaviour normally against the rules to take place in 'this' particular instance.

So, having such a suitably responsible and empowered officer seems sensible to me.

 

[Train wasp]

Whilst I don't think sending the rod was realistic, leaving people on a train for six hours is equally unacceptable. You can do all sorts of things in an emergency - it seems strange Southern just left this sitting there for that sort of time, sounds a lot like headless chicken mode...

The trouble most railway managers aren't timed railwaymen and once there's a situation which involves making a decision. They don't known what to do for the best. Which then leads to absolute mayhem for passengers.

 

[Tomnick]

Whilst recognising the importance of thoroughly observing the Rules & Regulations, I think it'd be preferable for a suitably competent and senior person to issue, in writing, an appropriate modification to the method of working rather than leaving passengers stuck on a train for hours on end. Whether there's provision for that to happen already, I don't know.

 

[Smudger105e]

Say that Southern had let Cedric Wares (I used to work with him!!) out onto the mainline, and it got to London Road and derailed because the wheels are only maintained for low speed yard work? it was travelleing at its top speed of 27 1/2 mph and derailed all wheels, blocking the Lewes line in both directions at London Road, needing to call out a Recovery team, and then NR would be allocating staff for p/way and 3rd rail repairs, and then sending the bill to Southern and then... I think you get the idea!!

 

[Pumbaa]

The trouble most railway managers aren't timed railwaymen and once there's a situation which involves making a decision. They don't known what to do for the best. Which then leads to absolute mayhem for passengers.

On the contrary, a TOC recently cleared its control and installed a new operating procedure, because ex frontline staff were doing more harm than good. The best managers are those who can evaluate lots of information and act quickly, they don't necessarily need to have served time. Of course, being well informed of standard operations etc helps, but that's par for the course.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

As any use of "Cedric" is theoretical then (also theoretically) whoever was driving him would know his foibles, and if the old boy was doddery at over 5mph then they would have leashed him back accordingly! It still wouldn't have taken 5 hours to reach the stranded unit.

 

[D1009]

Say that Southern had let Cedric Wares (I used to work with him!!) out onto the mainline, and it got to London Road and derailed because the wheels are only maintained for low speed yard work? it was travelleing at its top speed of 27 1/2 mph and derailed all wheels, blocking the Lewes line in both directions at London Road, needing to call out a Recovery team, and then NR would be allocating staff for p/way and 3rd rail repairs, and then sending the bill to Southern and then... I think you get the idea!!

Surely if its maximum speed is 27.5 mph the wheels should be maintained (whatever that entails, I'm not a fitter) to be able to do that speed.

 

[chuckles1066]

Gotta love Britain in 2012 when there's a light dusting of snow.

 

[ryan125hst]

Without wishing to be rather vulgar, the ladies "did their business" in an empty rubbish bin which was emptied outside the train.

I believe the door was on the other side to where the 3rd rail was so they wouldnt have fell onto it, but still could have fell out. But there was no other alternative, usually in this case the passengers would have been detrained, but access was poor as were conditions so it would have been even more dangerous to do this.

Is there not rules/legislation or even just a recommendation that if a train with no toilets (or no working toilets) fails, it is rescued within a certain length of time? Likewise, if there is no heating or lighting, passengers must be rescued within a certain lenghth of time.

It would be a sensible thing to introduce.

 

[Goatboy]

No of course not, why have rules (however stupid) if they can be ignored when they "get in the way".

Because you can count on one hand the number of times you'd need to do such a thing over the course of a year?

 

[ushawk]

Is there not rules/legislation or even just a recommendation that if a train with no toilets (or no working toilets) fails, it is rescued within a certain length of time? Likewise, if there is no heating or lighting, passengers must be rescued within a certain lenghth of time.

It would be a sensible thing to introduce.

As i said, the normal procedure if a rescue is unable to happen for a long period is to detrain but that would have been very dangerous, especially as it was dark, snowy and very icy at the time, there was a high chance someone could have been injured. Dont forget there were children on board too.

Had the Class 73 already been at Brighton, a rescue would have been quicker, but as it would have had to come from London, drivers and pilots would have had to be found too. As ive said about the Shunter at Brighton - it might not be cleared for the route so it could cause damage to the line/stations.

 

[Flamingo]

At the end of the day, it was not a pleasant situation for the passengers and train-crew to be in, but they were recovered from what was a very infrequent type of incident in those conditions, and nobody was injured or suffered any illness as a result, so passenger safety was maintained (which is the bottom line).