Passengers Stuck on Seaford - Brighton service for SIX hours

[AndyLandy]

I'd be VERY careful about the wording if you did that. There's the risk that you're still encouraging people to get off, and authorising it. I bet the injury lawyers would still seek to find the person who said that, or the company s/he works for, responsible.

Maybe if people signed a disclaimer? Of course, nobody is going to draw up legal documents on a train and I bet the media and the 'where will it end?' brigade would have a field day if they knew TOCs had paperwork to get passengers to sign away any rights to claim if injured...

By and large, that's a massive failing of today's society. It's no surprise that people are kept in a train for six hours, given how litigious this society has become. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[transmanche]

The sort of weather that sees cars stranded and evacuated is not the weather that afflicted the train though is it?

So the weather wasn't that bad then? Even more ridiculous that the railway left passengers stuck on a cold, dark train for six hours then isn't it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But on a train its not safer to move them, never (well unless the train is on fire).

Really? Never? What's out on the track? Hungry bears?

 

[jon0844]

The weather was clearly bad (did any part of the UK not get hit by snow last week?) but not so bad that people ON a train had to get OFF the train to venture into the snow.

Is that really hard to understand?

 

[Zoidberg]

Can anyone, here, say when it'll be made known (if at all) where the responsibility lies for the decisions made, or not made, which led to the passengers and train crew having to wait six hours for rescue, and what those decisions were?

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean getting to know the names or job titles of individuals.

 

[transmanche]

The weather was clearly bad (did any part of the UK not get hit by snow last week?) but not so bad that people ON a train had to get OFF the train to venture into the snow.

That's a subjective viewpoint.

Is that really hard to understand?

No, merely curious as to just how "treacherous" it really was.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sound more like someone grossly exaggerating. If Southern was changing its mind every five minutes, for six hours, it's no wonder nothing got done. I wonder how many different options they were changing between?

I think you are the only person to take that statement literally. In the popular vernacular it's used frequently.

The sort of weather that sees cars stranded and evacuated is not the weather that afflicted the train though is it?

But it demonstrates that A-Driver's assertion was false. Unless he didn't mean his statement to be taken literally...

 

[broadgage]

The weather was fine (by the standards of any reasonable person) for walking on a reasonably level paved surface whilst wearing suitable clothing and footwear and not encumbered with unduly heavy or bulky luggage.
Even fairly heavy snow does not prevent walking on lit, paved, level surfaces if properly dressed.

It was not really suitable for walking on rough unpaved surfaces or steep slopes in the dark, and was definatly unsuitable for those clad unsuitably or with luggage.
And remember the hazard of the conductor rail, carrying a lethal voltage at ankle height and possibly concealed by snow.

Had I been on the train I MIGHT have been tempted to evacuate as I would be dressed for the conditions and equiped with a torch, and am aware of the hazards of trains and conductor rails.

I do feel however that lessons should be learnt to avoid this happening again.
Posibilities include
1) rescue of the train by a locomotive, even if this means means giving emergency "one of" permision for a non approved engine to venture at low speed onto the mainline.
2) Evacuation by foot and road, by use of a tractor or landrover and the provision of tempory lighting.

 

[jon0844]

Thanks for this. Clearly the issue is the time taken to rescue the train/passengers - not why they weren't taken off the train.

If the train had been on fire or in danger of being hit by another train, I could understand the need to get people off quick. Then it would be a case of leaving by any door/window and leaving everything behind.. and you'd have the emergency services coming by whatever means necessary.

And if that had been the case, we'd be having a very different discussion here.

 

[D1009]

Many of the suggestions in this thread have been made with the benefit of hindsight. The forum member who probably knows most about what actually happened (see post #116) is not willing for understandable reasons to disclose what options were considered before the train was eventually rescued. I am quite sure no-one involved expected the train to be there for as long as it was. Meanwhile I think the staff on the ground deserve a medal for keeping the people happy for so long.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm glad the passengers on the train involved had more sense than some of the forum members posting on this thread.

Last year, a few trains were stuck outside Newport for a few hours one Saturday night because of cable thefts. One muppet decided to do what some people on this thread advocated, and (against advice of train crew and his companions) climbed off the train and walked home. The police were at his house waiting for him, and he got done for trespass on the railway.

I would doubt that the TOC knew it was going to take five hours to rescue everybody, if they did they may have approached it differently fom the beginning, but obviously their crystal ball wasn't working in Control.

The bottom line is nobody was injured, nobody suffered any physical ill effects, all the what-if's don't change that, so that would indicate to me that the train crew handelled it ok.

 

[A-driver]

So the weather wasn't that bad then? Even more ridiculous that the railway left passengers stuck on a cold, dark train for six hours then isn't it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Really? Never? What's out on the track? Hungry bears?

Yea-if you say so.

If you had been a passenger on the train then would you know for dead certain that the other line had been blocked to traffic? If not then you could be run over by a train before the hungry bear had a chance. These also a chance you could come into contact with a conductor rail (which would be hard to see if covered in snow) and that would fry you nicely for the hungry bear. You could get your foot trapped in a moving set of points-think of it like a bear trap. You may slip on a wooden sleeper and crack your head-paralysing you for the bear, trip on the debris, cables, bonds etc found by rail lines, loose footing on the ballast etc.

Don't bother posting on here if you have nothing useful to post!

 

[DarloRich]

Has anyone considered that any spare locomotives/drivers were deployed on winter treatment trains at the time this unit failed?

 

[rebmcr]

I would doubt that the TOC knew it was going to take five hours to rescue everybody, if they did they may have approached it differently from the beginning.

Good point.

 

[jon0844]

Has anyone considered that any spare locomotives/drivers were deployed on winter treatment trains at the time this unit failed?

Or that, if said loco was on its way to hook up to the train and rescue it, it's probably best not to have a track full of people! [Clearly them being there at all would stop any 'rescue' attempt for those remaining on the train].

 

[transmanche]

If you had been a passenger on the train then would you know for dead certain that the other line had been blocked to traffic? If not then you could be run over by a train before the hungry bear had a chance. These also a chance you could come into contact with a conductor rail (which would be hard to see if covered in snow) and that would fry you nicely for the hungry bear. You could get your foot trapped in a moving set of points-think of it like a bear trap. You may slip on a wooden sleeper and crack your head-paralysing you for the bear, trip on the debris, cables, bonds etc found by rail lines, loose footing on the ballast etc.

None of which is pertinent to my post. (You appear to have assumed that I was advocating uncontrolled self-evacuation by passengers.)

Don't bother posting on here if you have nothing useful to post!

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[455driver]

spare locomotives/drivers

Whats them then?

No locos (to speak of) on the former Southern region and as for spare drivers, the accountants (who run the railways) would go loopy having all that money being wasted on drivers sitting in the messroom doing nothing.

 

[transmanche]

II would doubt that the TOC knew it was going to take five hours to rescue everybody, if they did they may have approached it differently fom the beginning, but obviously their crystal ball wasn't working in Control.

For a bit of light relief, I read the ATOC/Network Rail Good Practice Guide – Meeting the Needs of Passengers when Trains are Stranded (GPG SP01). And (based on the limited information available) it looks like the lessons learned from so many previous incidents have not been put into practice.

"Railway Undertakings may wish to provide emergency supplies of [emergency plastic bags for passengers to urinate into] on board trains not fitted with toilets or where the functioning of toilets is vulnerable to power supply failure."

"Railway Undertakings may wish to provide emergency supplies of "space blankets‟ on board trains during periods when extremely cold weather is forecast."

"Agencies external to the rail industry are potentially able to offer assistance with the evacuation of stranded passengers and/or providing them with food, drink, clothing or general rest and reception facilities. In particular, Local Authorities have a statutory duty (as Category One Responders under the Civil Contingencies Act) to respond to an emergency, including looking after people affected. [It goes on to suggest organisations such as WRVS and Red Cross suitable fro proving emergency supplies of food, drink, clothing and re-assurance] It is recommended that Network Rail Routes and Railway Undertakings maintain up to date lists of emergency contacts for each of the above organisations (along with any others active locally in the areas served that are potentially able to assist) as well as regular dialogue with them."

"[Provision of an assisting locomotive] should only be seen as the primary response when there is confidence that the needs of passengers on board the train can be adequately met until the assistance can be effected."​

Further reading suggests that a stranded train with no heat (below 5C), no light and no toilet provision does not 'meet the needs of passengers'. Overall, the suggested target is that evacuation should commence within an hour and be complete within two hours. I think in the circumstances, that would be hard to achieve - but six hours? Not acceptable.

 

[Zoidberg]

... You appear to have assumed that I was advocating uncontrolled self-evacuation by passengers ...

And on a train with no toilets - nasty!

 

[Greenback]

I agree that to take six hours to resolve a situation where passengers are on a train with no power is unacceptable.

However, sometimes there is a chain of events that is unavoidable, which means that suggested targets and passenger needs are not met. At least, not as well as we would like, or as well as they should be.

In these circumstances, there is no doubt that things will need to be looked at again. I'm also pretty sure that rescues by local farmers or allowing passengers to leave the train and fend for themselves will not be considered. The train was the best place for those passengers though, and those on board seemed to realise that at the time. Unpleasant, yes. Safer, than the alternative? Almost definitely.

 

[Trog]

If the situation is unacceptable, then I would say the TOC has failed in its duty of care, to the passengers. Holding people against their will in that situation must leave the TOC open to legal challenge.

This sort of thing keeps happening, one day our luck will run out, and someone will suffer some misadventure on a train stranded for hours. Then a Judge will make a ruling on what the law allows, and what legal rights passengers have. This will be in black and white based on the letter of what the law allows, it may not match common sense. Then who fancies being the guard on a train knowing that if help does not arrive within the next ten minutes, your choice is letting the passengers out onto the track, or being charged with false imprisonment. Some wiill no doubt scoff but the law is an ass, and your rights and what is good for you may not be the same thing.

 

[bronzeonion]

Why dont mainline TOC's decide to fit de icing tanks and sleet brushes to third rail units? Underground trains have both and the Underground coped near enough fine!

If a third or a half of a fleet of trains per class were fitted with de icing tanks, that apply de icing fluid to the third rail to stop snow settling on the rail and ice forming on it, this situation probably would not have happened! Network Rail and their de icing trains are clearly not adequate so the only solution is to do that to be honest.

Regarding bridging a 313 and a 171, any able bodied person would be able to cross that gap without a bridge. If there were no wheelchair bound passengers on the stranded train this should have been done. But of course H&S and the blame/sue culture gets in the way again, what a joke!

 

[DarloRich]

Why dont mainline TOC's decide to fit de icing tanks and sleet brushes to third rail units? Underground trains have both and the Underground coped near enough fine!

If a third or a half of a fleet of trains per class were fitted with de icing tanks, that apply de icing fluid to the third rail to stop snow settling on the rail and ice forming on it, this situation probably would not have happened! Network Rail and their de icing trains are clearly not adequate so the only solution is to do that to be honest.

Regarding bridging a 313 and a 171, any able bodied person would be able to cross that gap without a bridge. If there were no wheelchair bound passengers on the stranded train this should have been done. But of course H&S and the blame/sue culture gets in the way again, what a joke!

It is already happening on SE trains. However i doubt the TOCs have any incentive to invest in the equipment.

I dont understand this quote Network Rail and their de icing trains are clearly not adequate so the only solution is to do that to be honest.

 

[bronzeonion]

It is already happening on SE trains. However i doubt the TOCs have any incentive to invest in the equipment.

I dont understand this quote Network Rail and their de icing trains are clearly not adequate so the only solution is to do that to be honest.

Is it? Well good on them now for the rest of the 3rd rail TOCs to catch up.

What I meant by that was there are not enough of them.

 

[DarloRich]

Is it? Well good on them now for the rest of the 3rd rail TOCs to catch up.

What I meant by that was there are not enough of them.

NR are funding the fitment in a joint programme with SE.

There are several MPVs dedicated to winter treatment, the GLV's and the SITT's so there is quite good pool of equipment for SE winter treatments

 

[SussexMan]

For a bit of light relief....

A really helpful post by Transmanche, although I have to say this thread was giving me some light relief!

There was me thinking that being stuck in a train for five/six hours would have been bearable, but being stuck with young kids might not have been, so in this rapidly expanding cupboard complete with emergency toilet (wheelchair accessible if need be), blankets, torches, drinks, food (and everything else which has been suggested) we could include some toys and books for children, some colouring pens (or coloured pencils in case the pens dry out etc). I'm assuming that all trains have sufficient space for these supplies.

Getting back to Transmanche's post it does seem that Southern haven't been reading the guidance - so perhaps the passengers should be suing Southern for not following the guidance now!!!!

Incidentally I love APPENDIX B – the DYNAMIC RISK ASSESSMENT form which seems to have been put together in 10 minutes with no suggestions about how it is used to "determine the scale of the incident".

Also, I love the concept of a Stranded Passenger Champion, a role which surely is worthy of a peaked cap and a gold badge which presumably could be stored in the emergency supplies cupboard above the emergency toilet to the left of the space blankets, next to my colouring books and pencils.

 

[Flamingo]

My trains regularly have 600 people on them. Can anybody tell me where the extra freight car to store all this kit for 600 people is going to be placed within the set?

Maybe ATOC can have a Chinook on permenant standby, ready to send to any broken- down train and drop the relevant supplies?

 

[transmanche]

My trains regularly have 600 people on them. Can anybody tell me where the extra freight car to store all this kit for 600 people is going to be placed within the set?

You can concentrate people in specific carriages to keep warm (that's noted in the GPG). You use the space-blankets for the most vulnerable passengers. If your train has 600 passengers on board, I guess it probably has multiple toilets - so follow the commonsense guidance in GPG SP01. Best of all, you change the system to ensure that passengers aren't left on board a stranded train for six hours, in the dark and in freezing temperatures.

But hey, it's far easier to sneer and just say that nothing can be done. It's a little bit harder to actually do something constructive and change things for the better.

Maybe ATOC can have a Chinook on permenant standby, ready to send to any broken- down train and drop the relevant supplies?

I assume you're being flippant. However GPG SP01 actually says:

By getting supplies to the train (either by means of another train, by road, or by helicopter). To facilitate this, Railway Undertakings should consider maintaining stockpiles of emergency supplies at nominated stations on either permanently or when extreme weather/temperatures is/are forecast.​

 

[455driver]

Does anyone know for certain whether this train had power or not, either it welded itself to the 3rd rail (so had power) or got stuck on the ice (and didnt).

There seems to be a lot of assumptions made on this thread, surprise surprise.

 

[transmanche]

Does anyone know for certain whether this train had power or not, either it welded itself to the 3rd rail (so had power) or got stuck on the ice (and didnt).

Well, the only way you'll know 'for certain' is if you were on board the train. The news report quoted in the original post said the train had no power for about four hours.

 

[Flamingo]

You can concentrate people in specific carriages to keep warm (that's noted in the GPG). You use the space-blankets for the most vulnerable passengers. If your train has 600 passengers on board, I guess it probably has multiple toilets - so follow the commonsense guidance in GPG SP01. Best of all, you change the system to ensure that passengers aren't left on board a stranded train for six hours, in the dark and in freezing temperatures.

But hey, it's far easier to sneer and just say that nothing can be done. It's a little bit harder to actually do something constructive and change things for the better.

I assume you're being flippant. However GPG SP01 actually says:

By getting supplies to the train (either by means of another train, by road, or by helicopter). To facilitate this, Railway Undertakings should consider maintaining stockpiles of emergency supplies at nominated stations on either permanently or when extreme weather/temperatures is/are forecast.​

My point is that it is easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback about incidents.

You say it is easier to sneer and just say that nothing can be done. It's even easier to sit on front of your computer and say "This, and that and the other must be done" without any thought as to the "Who?", "Where?"and "How?" of it being done (not to mention the one that really starts the argument, "Who is going to pay for and maintain it all"). All you are really short of saying is "If it's not done children will die!!!".

This incident seems to have been quite unique - it is the only train that has reported being stuck for this long a period that I have heard of, but as has been repeated ad nauseum, but I will repeat in large print for the hard of thinking: NOBODY DIED, NOBODY WAS INJURED, NOBODY REQUIRED HOSPITILISATION AFTER IT, THEREFORE THEY MUST HAVE BEEN IN A SAFE LOCATION AND HAD ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT.

This might also illustrate that none of the several hundred pounds (in both cost and weight) of equipment you seem to be so keen on seemed to be necessary.

There does need to be a review of how long this took to sort out - I somehow have a feeling that this will happen. It should not have taken so long - again, I'd guess the people directly involved will receive an apology and compensation, which they deserve.

But there are things around the rail network need sorting out and money spending on much more urgently than putting 400+ tin-foil blankets, 400+ bottles of water, and 400+ plastic bags for people to urinate in on every train in the country in the off-chance one of them may be stuck somewhere.

Hell, tell us what you do for a living, and I can Google twenty different ways for you to do your job better as well (and find official reports to back this up and specify where there is poor performance), and then sit here all smug about how I had told your industry how to suck eggs!

 

[sarahj]

The shoe was welded to the rail with also damage to the boogie. To move the unit it had be cut off.

Since this incident it has been decided to run 313's as 6 cars when snow/ice is forcast. One unit has to be locked out, perhaps thats were we can store all our stuff thats needed, toilets,books, crayons, dried food