Doors not released for nearly 40 minutes at Clapham Junction

[apinnard]

This thread has turned into a bit of a slanging match. It's slightly cringeworthy. Nobody can offer a sensible explanation for the original incident and the chances are it's probably subject of an ongoing internal investigation of some sort anyway.

I think this needs to be locked.

 

[Wolfie]

This thread has turned into a bit of a slanging match. It's slightly cringeworthy. Nobody can offer a sensible explanation for the original incident and the chances are it's probably subject of an ongoing internal investigation of some sort anyway.

I think this needs to be locked.

I agree. It is sad though how many rail staff seem to think that any level of inconvenience to passengers is acceptable to benefit the TOCs.

 

[AM9]

Yes, definitely. If a train suffers a fault, no matter how minor, the driver must immediately leave the cab, walk through the train and apologise to each individual passenger. He must serve complementary snacks and drinks. Only at this point may he return to the cab to try and solve the fault, which may take a matter of seconds. Once this has been done, he must walk back through the train again, explain to everybody what has happened and how it has been resolved, and hand out delay forms. And only then, three hours later, can the train continue. Solving technical problems is just not as important as the rest.

Ah!, some common sense at last.
Also part of the essential training for drivers is to put them in the position of the following trains also stranded whilst the aforementioned driver does his essential customer care actions. They will be trained to be gentle with their passengers explaining that the needs of the first train must be served first. And so the nannying of the most precious passengers is passed down the line to the next train.
All this would make train travel a totally new experience, (actually almost pointless).

 

[Randomer]

Frankly I'm amazed nobody pulled an egress after 20-30 minutes especially when fully in the platform with no communication after the 15 Mon mark.

To the poster who suggested pulling an egress after 10 minutes, seriously? Most of my journeys currently are delayed by about that thanks to the mess of the new timetable on the North Transpennine.

 

[Jonfun]

The problem is, one minute as an industry we're banging on about how we need more staff, not less, and how we want the staff to be focussed on providing customer service; and then the other we have situations like this, and the various other incidents where passengers have been stuck on a stranded train for unnecessary lengths of time. It isn't something we do well at as an industry and the attitude of some staff doesn't help either by not taking the passengers into account when making operational decisions.

It's broadly accepted that if you're in the middle of nowhere, it might take a little while to form a recovery plan and as such passengers will generally accept that. Being stuck yards from a station - or in this case completely in it - you're just asking for people to take matters into their own hands by operating egresses etc, and whilst I don't encourage it, I can fully understand why they do when they're prevented from leaving a train in a timely manner.

 

[pompeyfan]

Just to reiterate, the issue was an ‘operational incident’ (it was a DOO train, I’m sure you can do the maths) therefore the front of the train would have been off the front of the platform after TPWS did its thing. Therefore a full door release wouldn’t have been suitable. A local door release would have been suitable if control agreed to it, but I don’t think Bombardier stock allow local door release without using the TMS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to reiterate, the issue was an ‘operational incident’ (it was a DOO train, I’m sure you can do the maths) therefore the front of the train would have been off the front of the platform after TPWS did its thing. Therefore a full door release wouldn’t have been suitable. A local door release would have been suitable if control agreed to it, but I don’t think Bombardier stock allow local door release without using the TMS.

Well, there's a design flaw!

 

[DEAN MURPHY]

Only the cab was off the platform as we had to disembark off the 1st carriage

Just to reiterate, the issue was an ‘operational incident’ (it was a DOO train, I’m sure you can do the maths) therefore the front of the train would have been off the front of the platform after TPWS did its thing. Therefore a full door release wouldn’t have been suitable. A local door release would have been suitable if control agreed to it, but I don’t think Bombardier stock allow local door release without using the TMS.

 

[pompeyfan]

Only the cab was off the platform as we had to disembark off the 1st carriage

Thanks for clarifying. I’m still of the opinion that a full door release in that situation would not have been suitable, and if the driver has just had an incident they’re probably not thinking rationally.

 

[yorkie]

This thread has turned into a bit of a slanging match. It's slightly cringeworthy. Nobody can offer a sensible explanation for the original incident and the chances are it's probably subject of an ongoing internal investigation of some sort anyway.

I think this needs to be locked.

If you wish to contact moderators please use the report button on whichever post is causing concern (if multiple posts are causing concern, report the first one or the most concerning one as appropriate) and let us know.

 

[theking]

To be honest you can't blame the station staff as they have no authority to be touching trains.

And even if they did what they could by calling control, control may not be able to do anything with that information as if what has been SPECULATED happened above then the driver would have been on the gsmr to the signaller.

Really surprised no egress was pulled especially on an Overground service.

 

[DarloRich]

I agree. It is sad though how many rail staff seem to think that any level of inconvenience to passengers is acceptable to benefit the TOCs.

Agreed - it is sad how many passengers have an over inflated sense of their own importance and an inability to look beyond the end of their nose. If, as has been suggested further up, that this was some kind of "operational incident" it is very possible the driver was not in a fit state to continue. There could well be a bigger picture.

OBVIOUSLY ( and this has to now be added as disclaimer to all posts of this type as the blindingly obvious must be stated at all times on this board) COMMUNICATION NEEDS TO BE BETTER

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - it is sad how many passengers have an over inflated sense of their own importance and an inability to look beyond the end of their nose.

A passenger railway exists to serve passengers; it exists for no other reason. This incident shows a lack of adequate procedure to avoid passenger inconvenience, which shows a lack of care towards passengers, who are the only reason the passenger railway exists. So any idea that they are the most important thing is not "over inflated", I'm afraid.

FWIW this issue would not have occurred on a guarded train (the guard could have done a local-door evacuation), but as LO is DOO that means there is a need for procedures to deal with this kind of situation more efficiently.

 

[DarloRich]

A passenger railway exists to serve passengers; it exists for no other reason. This incident shows a lack of adequate procedure to avoid passenger inconvenience, which shows a lack of care towards passengers, who are the only reason the passenger railway exists. So any idea that they are the most important thing is not "over inflated", I'm afraid.

I simply suggest there needs to be a rational and patient approach to fault finding and rectification. Many posters seem to expect instant rectification and solution. That is preposterous.

it also seems perfectly acceptable to slag off staff. One rule for one?

FWIW this issue would not have occurred on a guarded train (the guard could have done a local-door evacuation), but as LO is DOO that means there is a need for procedures to deal with this kind of situation more efficiently.

I agree

 

[ComUtoR]

A passenger railway exists to serve passengers; it exists for no other reason.

It exists to make money.

 

[reddragon]

In the absence of regular updates from the train crew / station staff, I would release the door, the time depending on circumstances long before 40 minutes!

Railway 'procedures' are no excuse to imprison people for no reason. Passengers rebel repeatedly due to poor communications and each time they do, the RAIB blame the rail operator and do not arrest the passengers!

 

[ComUtoR]

the RAIB blame the rail operator and do not arrest the passengers!

The RAIB’s investigations are entirely independent and are focused solely on safety improvement. The RAIB does not apportion blame or liability nor
enforce law or carry out prosecutions

You can read all about the RAIB here.

 

[DarloRich]

In the absence of regular updates from the train crew / station staff, I would release the door, the time depending on circumstances long before 40 minutes!

another silly posting.

Railway 'procedures' are no excuse to imprison people for no reason. Passengers rebel repeatedly due to poor communications and each time they do, the RAIB blame the rail operator and do not arrest the passengers!

Could you outline the powers of arrest vested in the RAIB? Could you also outline when the RAIB became focused on assigning blame or liability rather than improving safety?

 

[Val3ntine]

another silly posting.

Ah its alright, one of these days these guys boasting on here proudly that they’d self egress will one day be on a train somewhere unaffected, things all running well and on time when all of a sudden they’re stuck in the middle of nowhere being delayed because of the exact similar actions of someone else pulling an egress elsewhere.
On a platform or not if the driver can not immediately establish wether the door has been released on to live tracks or noto (9/10 times they can’t as it needs to be an instant decision within seconds) then the driver will put out an emergency call and stop all trains within a wide radius. Clapham junction would have affected services to and from victoria all the way out to surrey, waterloo services all the way out to portsmouth/bournemouth/reading, overground services all the way out to stratford/croydon.
All these areas affected and why? Was there an emergency? Was there an immediate threat to life? Was it life or death? Or did someone just decide they want to make alternative travel arrangments so they’ll delay thousands upon thousands of other commuters who would have otherwise been fine. Ironically probably even attempting to travel within the affected areas anyway so enivitably still being caught up in the mess they initially created.

 

[reddragon]

Ah its alright, one of these days these guys boasting on here proudly that they’d self egress will one day be on a train somewhere unaffected, things all running well and on time when all of a sudden they’re stuck in the middle of nowhere being delayed because of the exact similar actions of someone else pulling an egress elsewhere.
On a platform or not if the driver can not immediately establish wether the door has been released on to live tracks or noto (9/10 times they can’t as it needs to be an instant decision within seconds) then the driver will put out an emergency call and stop all trains within a wide radius. Clapham junction would have affected services to and from victoria all the way out to surrey, waterloo services all the way out to portsmouth/bournemouth/reading, overground services all the way out to stratford/croydon.
All these areas affected and why? Was there an emergency? Was there an immediate threat to life? Was it life or death? Or did someone just decide they want to make alternative travel arrangments so they’ll delay thousands upon thousands of other commuters who would have otherwise been fine. Ironically probably even attempting to travel within the affected areas anyway so enivitably still being caught up in the mess they initially created.

You are missing the point.

Each passenger egress event in recent years has been due to inaction by the train operator, failure to communicate with passengers in a timely manner and the simple failure to have a workable plan in place when something happens. Maybe this is due to DOO, maybe inadequate plans in place, whatever but it keeps happening and eventually people will eventually die as a result.

Nobody today will stay on a train in a platform, crammed in a packed train for 40 minutes or away from a platform for hours.

Report 16/2018: Detrainment onto live track near Peckham Rye

Bad & mis-communication by rail operator (London Overground) AND Network Rail; lack of training, lack of workable processes in place. Operator condemned for failure to have a workable process in place and for following a different set of processes to that of NR. They have no learnt from this clearly.

Quote "The incident occurred because the driver initiated the detrainment of passengers without the traction current being switched off. He did this because he was given instructions by control room staff who had misunderstood the actual location of the stranded train. The train driver and the signaller did not reach a clear understanding about the actions that were required to safely detrain the passengers. The delay caused unrest among the passengers on the train and contributed to stress and task overload of the driver, which affected his decision making. The driver’s experience and skills did not enable him to cope with these demands, and Network Rail did not effectively implement its own procedures for managing an incident involving a stranded train."

In none of these cases have passengers been arrested by the BTP or anyone else. In each case RAIB have identified poor communication / lack of workable processes by the railway, to me that is apportioning blame.

If anyone thinks that it is safe to leave passengers on a packed train in baking heat without water, in the dark & cold, well you are wrong. There will be very young or old passengers, those who are ill or pregnant, those who find confined spaces difficult but can cope for their 10 minute trip to consider. The railway must put in place an agreed timescale to resolve or to detrain and to have a safe process in place to do that.

This is not the fault of the passengers or the poor train driver trying to resolve matters but the railway industry as a whole.

Back to this incident. It was not acceptable to keep a train full of people locking in at a station on a train with no toilets for 40 mins. They should have been let off the train then they operator should have continued to resolve the problem afterwards. If only there was a plan for this!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It exists to make money.

Which it does by serving passengers. Most businesses don't last long if they operate with utter disregard for their customers.

Mind you, Northern and GTR adequately prove otherwise, I suppose...

 

[DarloRich]

I don't disagree with much of what is wrote above by @reddragon however i feel that there is an unrealistic expectation on the part of posters as to the time they should expect to remain on a broken train. Many, perhaps including @reddragon, seem to think that as soon as a train grinds to a halt the big Haynes book of railway operations is consulted, a fault identified and fixed immediately and a definitive delay time issued instantly. It simply isnt like that in the real world.

Some time has to be allowed to marshal resources to evacuate a train. This is harder and takes longer than many posters are prepared to concede. I simply ask for some realism and an attempt to understand ( or even acknowledge) some of the challenges involved.

Again and for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that recent experiences are acceptable. They are not. However I suggest that stating you would pull the handle on the doors after 10 minutes is frankly preposterous and equally unacceptable.

 

[Wolfie]

Which it does by serving passengers. Most businesses don't last long if they operate with utter disregard for their customers.

Mind you, Northern and GTR adequately prove otherwise, I suppose...

The only reason many TOCs stay in business is because they are de facto monopolies...

 

[reddragon]

I don't disagree with much of what is wrote above by @reddragon however i feel that there is an unrealistic expectation on the part of posters as to the time they should expect to remain on a broken train. Many, perhaps including @reddragon, seem to think that as soon as a train grinds to a halt the big Haynes book of railway operations is consulted, a fault identified and fixed immediately and a definitive delay time issued instantly. It simply isnt like that in the real world.

Some time has to be allowed to marshal resources to evacuate a train. This is harder and takes longer than many posters are prepared to concede. I simply ask for some realism and an attempt to understand ( or even acknowledge) some of the challenges involved.

Again and for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that recent experiences are acceptable. They are not. However I suggest that stating you would pull the handle on the doors after 10 minutes is frankly preposterous and equally unacceptable.

I don't think anyone is suggesting 10 minutes and I have no idea how long I would find acceptable to wait until the day it happens, but keeping passengers informed and up to date is a critical part of managing the situation to stop an unplanned egress and an accident

 

[Val3ntine]

You are missing the point.

Each passenger egress event in recent years has been due to inaction by the train operator, failure to communicate with passengers in a timely manner and the simple failure to have a workable plan in place when something happens. Maybe this is due to DOO, maybe inadequate plans in place, whatever but it keeps happening and eventually people will eventually die as a result.

Nobody today will stay on a train in a platform, crammed in a packed train for 40 minutes or away from a platform for hours.

Report 16/2018: Detrainment onto live track near Peckham Rye

Bad & mis-communication by rail operator (London Overground) AND Network Rail; lack of training, lack of workable processes in place. Operator condemned for failure to have a workable process in place and for following a different set of processes to that of NR. They have no learnt from this clearly.

Quote "The incident occurred because the driver initiated the detrainment of passengers without the traction current being switched off. He did this because he was given instructions by control room staff who had misunderstood the actual location of the stranded train. The train driver and the signaller did not reach a clear understanding about the actions that were required to safely detrain the passengers. The delay caused unrest among the passengers on the train and contributed to stress and task overload of the driver, which affected his decision making. The driver’s experience and skills did not enable him to cope with these demands, and Network Rail did not effectively implement its own procedures for managing an incident involving a stranded train."

In none of these cases have passengers been arrested by the BTP or anyone else. In each case RAIB have identified poor communication / lack of workable processes by the railway, to me that is apportioning blame.

If anyone thinks that it is safe to leave passengers on a packed train in baking heat without water, in the dark & cold, well you are wrong. There will be very young or old passengers, those who are ill or pregnant, those who find confined spaces difficult but can cope for their 10 minute trip to consider. The railway must put in place an agreed timescale to resolve or to detrain and to have a safe process in place to do that.

This is not the fault of the passengers or the poor train driver trying to resolve matters but the railway industry as a whole.

Back to this incident. It was not acceptable to keep a train full of people locking in at a station on a train with no toilets for 40 mins. They should have been let off the train then they operator should have continued to resolve the problem afterwards. If only there was a plan for this!

Totally agree with everything you have said buddy, 100%. There is a flaw in the system and it needs to be addressed before as you say somebody does get killed. My suspicion is that it will be then when plans are be implemented and all we have all been asking on here finally happens in regards to contingencies and how long to keep passengers stranded before doing so and so. The whole rulebook is written on past mistakes unfortunately.
But honestly there is no rail staff on here that will defend passengers being kept on trains for extreme amount of times on platformed or not, if anything it is more added stress and work on top of whatever it is that we are dealing with. But we will highlight the effects of egressing which is what I did above. What added fuel to the fire was some posters advicing people to egress and boasting that they would after 10/20 minutes. There could be someone on here who thinks “ah thats a good idea actually” and does just that. Maybe they’re the person who’s killed in doing so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who's going to get killed pulling an egress on a platformed door? Once the interlock kicks in that train is going nowhere. While if the interlock has failed, they will be evacuating anyway as passengers cannot be carried on a train without door interlock. (I have been turfed off an ATW 158 in the middle of nowhere when exactly this happened!)

 

[Val3ntine]

Who's going to get killed pulling an egress on a platformed door? Once the interlock kicks in that train is going nowhere. While if the interlock has failed, they will be evacuating anyway as passengers cannot be carried on a train without door interlock. (I have been turfed off an ATW 158 in the middle of nowhere when exactly this happened!)

Why stop at platforms? Why not do it near a platform if platform is in sight so if we can do it at platforms we can do it near them. Actually why stop there, why not a mile out from the nearest platform, we’re next to a level crossing that’s okay. Where does it stop? What’s the limit? Or should we change signs on train emergency stickers to say “It’s okay to pull this but only at platforms”
The problem is once it becomes acceptable it will lose its importance.
I mean it’s already used outside of platforms as it is imagine if it becomes the norm for passengers to use it on daily commutes if they’re at a platform longer than they like to be.
Emergency exit buttons on buses are used so regularly and it seems to have become the norm now. Driver just shuts the door again and shakes his head then forget it’s happened 10 minutes later. They do it with fast moving traffic cars lorrys and motorcycles passing on the nearside lane and they do it when the bus is next to the pavement near a bus stop. Makes no difference.

Also what about the issue of the driver having to stop all trains in a certain mile radius causing thousands upon thousands of minutes of delays to others who this particular incident had nothing to do with. The driver will not just assume it’s been egressed on the platform side because it’s at a platform. If he/she can not immediately figure out with absolute certainty that it is not unto live tracks and I mean immediately within split seconds then they will stop all trains.

 

[mmh]

Where does it stop?

I really don't believe that thinking 40 minutes is excessive is a slippery slope to anarchy on the railways.

Where does it stop? In this case, at a platform at a station with signs saying it's Britain's busiest railway station, with large numbers of station and platform staff. The failure is to not have done anything to help the passengers for so long. Like others, I'm very surprised passengers didn't self evacuate.

 

[Eccles1983]

You can move a train with the interlock failed.

I'm not sure where you thought you couldn't, the traction interlock switch is for this reason.

You could in theory have all the doors open and move a train with that switch activated.

It's not an automatic detraining anyway (at least up here) you activate the switch, ensure all doors are closed on both sides and then go with the guard patrolling the doors. To a suitable place where the passengers are dealt with.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't think anyone is suggesting 10 minutes and I have no idea how long I would find acceptable to wait until the day it happens, but keeping passengers informed and up to date is a critical part of managing the situation to stop an unplanned egress and an accident

While simple in this case I ask that posters consider some of the challenges in organising an evacuation generally. People can not simply be conjured out of the air. There aren't groups of people sat about waiting for the evacuation call. They are spread out doing their actual jobs often a long way form the location in question. It takes time to get them to site etc. Are you and others prepared to acknowledge that?

BTW you indicated you wouldn't wait 40 minutes.

Where does it stop? In this case, at a platform at a station with signs saying it's Britain's busiest railway station, with large numbers of station and platform staff. The failure is to not have done anything to help the passengers for so long. Like others, I'm very surprised passengers didn't self evacuate.

i don't disagree in this case. It should have been sorted out much sooner. However I am talking more generally. Such events don't often occur in platforms.