Passengers Stuck on Seaford - Brighton service for SIX hours

[AndyLandy]

I am not for one minute suggesting this and the traincrew onboard the train were absolutely correct not to de-train the passengers or take it upon themselves to do anything else outside the rulebook.

But there will be a chain of command and somebody at the top of that chain of command - who should be sufficiently experienced and skilled to make difficult decisions - should be able to authorise things which in normal practice wouldn't be allowed if an emergency situation arises.

Leaving people on a train for 5 hours in this sort of circumstance simply isn't acceptable.

Quoted for Truth.

This is pretty much the same point I was making. There will be lots of rules about things you don't do in normal practice, but that you should be able to overturn in an emergency situation.

 

[maniacmartin]

I agree with Goatboy. Surely there was someone who this could have been escalated to, to sort out sooner. This was hardly a remote line - in fact it appears to be within a stones throw of a major road.

I accept that things go wrong and sometimes trains fail, but I don't think that the railways are always as quick as they should be to respond to unexpected events and roll out Plan B as it were.

 

[rebmcr]

Leaving people on a train for 5 hours in this sort of circumstance simply isn't acceptable.

It's true. Whilst I imagine there were difficulties and it wasn't negligence that caused this, it does seem rather like incompetence and lack of communication may have been a factor.

I mean, come on, 5 hours is enough time to get a loco down from Crewe. Does anybody know if the 73 was busy rescuing other trains during the time?

 

[Zoidberg]

...
This is pretty much the same point I was making. There will be lots of rules about things you don't do in normal practice, but that you should be able to overturn in an emergency situation.

And what I was getting at in post #19. Just sayin', lest I be lumped in with anyone expecting those on the ground to go against the Rules on their own initiative (but I don't think anyone has suggested that).

 

[DavyCrocket]

And what I was getting at in post #19. Just sayin', lest I be lumped in with anyone expecting those on the ground to go against the Rules on their own initiative (but I don't think anyone has suggested that).

That's why you have someone remote from the situation to take an objective look and make a real time based risk assessment based on what is happening now. This can issue a waiver to the rule book for this to happen. They decide. They do their job!

 

[Tomnick]

I am not for one minute suggesting this and the traincrew onboard the train were absolutely correct not to de-train the passengers or take it upon themselves to do anything else outside the rulebook.

But there will be a chain of command and somebody at the top of that chain of command - who should be sufficiently experienced and skilled to make difficult decisions - should be able to authorise things which in normal practice wouldn't be allowed if an emergency situation arises.

Leaving people on a train for 5 hours in this sort of circumstance simply isn't acceptable.

I agree entirely! I just took exception to the earlier suggestion, as I interpreted it, that those directly involved were being "jobsworths" for adhering to the provisions of the Rule Book. There's a lot of knowledge and experience 'on the ground', a lot that can be done within the Rule Book and the ability to sensibly and safely deal with the situation 'outside' the Rule Book if properly authorised to; ultimately, though, the big decisions are made at Control level and above - it's sometimes impossible to get a quick or reliable decision on a simple train running matter, so I'm unfortunately not surprised that it took so long to sort this one out. Just for clarity, I think the only 'rules' issue here is that of bringing the '09' out from Lovers Walk - which is an issue of route clearance and the standards governing what can operate on NR infrastructure rather than a Rule Book problem.

 

[Goatboy]

Seems odd that you can't use a shunter for a low speed emergency rescue. Would seem like the sort of thing they were originally intended for!

 

[exile]

Why do you find it hard to believe? It's enough to bring the whole country to a halt, close schools and make roads impassable, and yet you expect a train guard and driver to escort a a large number of passengers, with indeterminate health and mobility issues, in possibly inappropriate clothing and footwear, along already unstable underfoot conditions, when they are in a place of safety?

You are welcome to try, but not on my train please.

Those health issues could also have made it dangerous to stay on a freezing cold train with no food or water for 6 hours. I did mention the rescue services as an option.

Anyway - you might think this sort of thing wouldn't happen in Japan but - http://www.japantoday.com/category/...-train-without-heating-toilets-for-6-12-hours

 

[Tomnick]

Seems odd that you can't use a shunter for a low speed emergency rescue. Would seem like the sort of thing they were originally intended for!

It would indeed have got everything sorted a lot more quickly, I'd imagine. The possible lack of TPWS/OTMR/GSM-R and route clearance was presumably the issue that no-one high up in either Control was willing to find a sensible way around!

 

[SN74LS123N]

Absolutely agree with exile. A train without power may be what the rule book calls a "place of safety", but it isn't a safe place.

In winter, the passengers are at risk of hypothermia, hypo/hyperglycaemia, etc etc. In summer, on a crush loaded train, it'll be heat exhaustion instead of hypothermia. Those are very real health and safety risks to life, just as much as the risk of a broken limb slipping on ice.

Indisputably, in the first hour or two those passengers are going to be best off where they are. But, here's the thing. Each minute that passes inexorably raises the risk of such a medical emergency, and (with specific reference to those recent weather conditions) after four hours without power you're getting to the point where the initial safety evaluation becomes a liability - in all senses of the word.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Absolutely agree with exile. A train without power may be what the rule book calls a "place of safety", but it isn't a safe place.

In winter, the passengers are at risk of hypothermia, hypo/hyperglycaemia, etc etc. In summer, on a crush loaded train, it'll be heat exhaustion instead of hypothermia. Those are very real health and safety risks to life, just as much as the risk of a broken limb slipping on ice.

Indisputably, in the first hour or two those passengers are going to be best off where they are. But, here's the thing. Each minute that passes inexorably raises the risk of such a medical emergency, and (with specific reference to those recent weather conditions) after four hours without power you're getting to the point where the initial safety evaluation becomes a liability - in all senses of the word.

I wonder what would have happened if one of the passengers had a medical emergency two hours in to the situation?

 

[tsr]

I wonder what would have happened if one of the passengers had a medical emergency two hours in to the situation?

I would expect NR's response teams to assist Fire & Rescue crews (if needed), Ambulance Hazardous Area Response Teams (or whatever it's called down in Sussex) and other appropriate resources in a controlled evacuation of the casualty.

 

[SN74LS123N]

I would expect NR's response teams to assist Fire & Rescue crews (if needed), Ambulance Hazardous Area Response Team (or whatever it's called down in Sussex) and other appropriate resources in a controlled evacuation of the casualty.

Or "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", as we call it. For avoidance of doubt, getting third parties to mop up the mess caused by not resolving a stranded train in a timely manner does not absolve liability.

 

[D1009]

I would hope a joint inquiry is or has been held by Southern and Network Rail at senior management level to establish whether anything could have been done differently and to learn lessons should the situation arise again.

 

[tsr]

I would hope a joint inquiry is or has been held by South Eastern and Network Rail at senior management level to establish whether anything could have been done differently and to learn lessons should the situation arise again.

Southern?

 

[Flamingo]

Or "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", as we call it. For avoidance of doubt, getting third parties to mop up the mess caused by not resolving a stranded train in a timely manner does not absolve liability.

Who is "we"?

I'm just interested in what level of experience and knowledge you are bringing to The forum.

 

[D1009]

Southern?

Sorry, post corrected.

 

[SN74LS123N]

Who is "we"? I'm just interested in what level of experience and knowledge you are bringing to The forum.

It's just a turn of phrase. As for my level of experience and knowledge, well, I can only refer you to the evaluation of Mr 455driver:

I take it you are another one that doesnt actually know what you are talking about?:roll:

 

[Flamingo]

It's just a turn of phrase. As for my level of experience and knowledge, well, I can only refer you to the evaluation of Mr 455driver:

Ahhh, another Monday Morning Quarterback then. 20/20 hindsight is a great thing.

 

[SN74LS123N]

Ahhh, another Monday Morning Quarterback then. 20/20 hindsight is a great thing.

Well maybe, but can I take it that if there was anything *specific* I had wrong, you'd be playing the ball not the man?

 

[455driver]

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.

It works in a yard with a maximum speed of 5mph, why maintain it for any faster speed?
It costs a lot extra with zero chance of recouping the outlay, the accountants (who run todays railway) would go loopy.

SWT used to use a 73 as shunter at Bournemouth depot, it wasnt allowed on the mainline because its wheels were knack, um worn out, by your analogy they should have fitted new wheel sets (at great expense) as its maximum speed should have been 90mph.

 

[yorksrob]

Although even travelling at 5mph the shunter would have taken a lot less than six hours to move the stricken unit to a station.

 

[455driver]

*Cough*Cough* Isnt this one of the reasons as to why Network Rail took out the lease of 6 Ex Virgin Trains Class 57/3s...And then modified the couplings on 2/3 of them to take Tightlock Couplings?

Are you sure?

News to me and sods law states that the loco with the wrong coupling will be nearest the failure anyway.

 

[island]

I'm surprised there was no self-detraining.

 

[455driver]

Who is "we"?

I'm just interested in what level of experience and knowledge you are bringing to The forum.

Deleted because I dont want to be accused of picking on somebody even though they have little knowledge of what they are commenting on even though they post as if they do.

Oh bugger done it again!

 

[fgwrich]

Are you sure?

News to me and sods law states that the loco with the wrong coupling will be nearest the failure anyway.

http://carlswatson.com/Trains/Galle...stleighWorks/eastleighworks11thjuly20127.html

http://carlswatson.com/Trains/Galle...orks/and508212eastleighworks11thjuly2012.html

And is compatable, as 57303 was tested & used to move both a 317/7 & 508 around the yard. So, if they're supposed to be used for anything from Network Rail duties to thunderbird rescue work - Why couldn't one be commondered from either Tonbridge or Eastleigh?!

Note, the Dellnors have also been modified to be able to haul a Desiro or Electrostar along the mainline as shown by the Northampton - Northam - Northampton LM 350 Move & Selhurst - Brighton - Selhurst Electrostar drag, both at full mainline speeds.

 

[Howardh]

Conditions down here were awful and there was 3 inches of snow in the area,

Three inches of snow? We bloody well play cricket in that up here in Lancashire in summer!

 

[455driver]

Well maybe, but can I take it that if there was anything *specific* I had wrong, you'd be playing the ball not the man?

Maybe we (as in people that work on this god forsaken railway) get fed up with correcting assumptions made by people with little knowledge!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And is compatible, as 57303 was tested & used to move both a 317/7 & 508 around the yard.

Note, the Dellners have also been modified to be able to haul a Desiro or Electrostar along the mainline as shown by the Northampton - Northam - Northampton LM 350 Move & Selhurst - Brighton - Selhurst Electrostar drag, both at full mainline speeds.

Cheers fgwrich, that looks "odd", I do like his site but havent been on it for a while.

Okay it has been tested in the yard but has it been passed for use on the mainline?
Lets not forget all the hoops the railways have to jump through before something can be used in anger.
They will need to sort out a main res pipe that can reach the high level pipes on the 455/456s because if they dont, and the unit is dead, it will run out of air and wont be going anywhere, but even once that is done it will be 5mph only (no continuous brake) unless there is going to be some serious electrical work done (unlikely).

I was aware of the tests hauling the 377 around though.

 

[fgwrich]

Not sure about the Tightlock fitted examples, although i don't think they've had any major reason down this side to be used on the mainline - although i think one has visited Wimbledon & Stewards Lane depots and completed some shunting in there. The tests with the dellnor ones carried out in Bournemouth sounded quite impressive 4 car fine, 8 Car fine, 5 car fine, 10 car fine, 12 car fine, 14 Car! Yep.

 

[Manchester77]

http://carlswatson.com/Trains/Galle...stleighWorks/eastleighworks11thjuly20127.html

http://carlswatson.com/Trains/Galle...orks/and508212eastleighworks11thjuly2012.html

Connex lives on