Passengers abandon train at Lewisham with 3rd rails still live.

[ainsworth74]

Oh no I understood you buddy, it’s just you replied directly to my comment so I wanted to highlight what I was actually addressing

Excellent

 

[Esker-pades]

So they bailed out, and had they tripped / slipped in what was seriously bad weather, and fallen on the 3rd rail before the Driver had a chance to tell the Signaller to get an Emergency Isolation, they would have been dead, no ifs no buts... dead, and that 'somewhere they needed to be' would never have happened ! THAT is the reality.

If you can't wait 30 mins on a delayed train, then don't go by train, go by road... but then expect to sit in a jam for hours and hours ! (with no delay and repay!)

Everyone is too much in a rush these days, they always have to be somewhere right 'now' !

I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that this was dangerous.

The delay was 63 minutes before the first passenger egressed. "THAT is the reality."

If I am trapped indefinitely (IE: I don't have some form of timescale for when I can leave) without the means to releive tension (as I cannot do when in a crowded train), then my anxiety increases quite rapidly. That is not a trait unique to me. Personally, I would never choose to leave the train when outside a station unless instructed by a member of staff. However, that is clearly not the case with other people. At some point, especially when in an unknown situation void of information, people will forget authority and take matters into their own hands.

 

[Taunton]

If you can't wait 30 mins on a delayed train, then don't go by train, go by road... but then expect to sit in a jam for hours and hours

I'm afraid you are behind the times, quite apart from the hyperbole here travel by road does not lead to any expectation of sitting in a jam for "hours and hours" whatsoever. I have made extensive road journeys all my life, and such a huge jam has never happened to me. And I now live in inner London, too.

Which is more than I can say for my past rail travel experience. And look at the event being reported. That really is a Pot calling the Kettle Black statement.

Time was that rail services were looked upon as something dependable in bad weather, and lines such as to Buxton or Whitby were retained in significant part because of that. Nowadays the rail service is often the first transport mode to give up in bad weather, including ludicrous abandonment of services even at just the forecast of poor weather. meanwhile everyone who was going to get the train now has to get the car out. How do we think all those quoted in the report here managed to get over to Lewisham? By road, of course.

 

[OneOffDave]

So they bailed out, and had they tripped / slipped in what was seriously bad weather, and fallen on the 3rd rail before the Driver had a chance to tell the Signaller to get an Emergency Isolation, they would have been dead, no ifs no buts... dead, and that 'somewhere they needed to be' would never have happened ! THAT is the reality.

If you can't wait 30 mins on a delayed train, then don't go by train, go by road... but then expect to sit in a jam for hours and hours ! (with no delay and repay!)

Everyone is too much in a rush these days, they always have to be somewhere right 'now' !

So how many people have to soil themselves before the railway gets their act together to evacuate them? Will the TOC pay for the dry cleaning? When you are trapped in the train for multiples of the journey time not being given any accurate information, what are you supposed to do?

They did bail out and none of them died so therefore it wasn't risky according to the evidence

 

[Robertj21a]

But I feel that is a misunderstanding of the psychology of those in that situation. I'm quite certain none of them consider it "oh well I'll just open this door using the emergency release and hop down on the track, what larks!" but they will have felt backed into a position where, in their non-expert opinion, it was the only remaining sensible choice. We can see that it is, short of the train being on fire (and even then the advice is to move to another carriage), always better to remain on board until told otherwise by staff. But to those at Lewisham?

It would seem to me that the following sequence of events easily leads someone to disregarding what they're being told and taking matters into their own hands:

1. Your journey has almost certainly been disrupted (2M50 was an hour late departing before anything else happened).
2. If you're in the rear unit of the train it's overcrowded with many people standing, conditions are already uncomfortable (but not unusually so).
3. When you did grind to a halt you've been told by a disembodied voice (the driver) that you'll be on the move shortly (that's a guess on my part but seems a reasonably safe assumption).
4. You do not get on the move shortly.
5. The disembodied voice is not able to give you any idea when you'll be on the move.
6. There are no toilets and people are still standing and did that guy just pee in a cup?
7. You've been there for an hour now and there is still no clue as to when you might actually be on the move.
8. You just want to go home, will this day never end and why can they still not tell us when we're going to be moving?
9. That's the platform of Lewisham station out there.
10. Is that the emergency door release?

And then off you go.

None of that changes that it's stupid and dangerous and everyone would be better served by remaining on board the train (it's clear from the report that the egress massively extended the delay to service recovery). But I don't think you can dismiss it as simply as people ignoring safety notices and instructions on a whim. With that chain of events I can certainly see why someone would make the decision to go lineside.

To link back some earlier thoughts that have been posted about deciding to evacuate earlier I can't help but wonder if after step seven of my list the driver had gone on the PA and said word to the effect of "I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen that we've been stuck here so long but having just spoken to my control it's been decided to evacuate the train to get you all out of here and somewhere more comfortable. We're going to get underway with the evacuation in the next fifteen minutes. Please listen out for further instructions." if that wouldn't have actually broken the chain of thoughts that lead people to give up and take matters into their own hands.

@ComUtoR made the interesting comment that the Industry is having to get to grips with the "human factors" of it's staff. But I wonder if the industry doesn't also need to get to grips with them in terms of its passengers rather than just dismissing their behaviour out of hand as being "ignoring what they're told to do".

A very sensible summary. Thank you.
.

 

[Val3ntine]

They did bail out and none of them died so therefore it wasn't risky according to the evidence

Staff ensured no train will be able to hit them and none will get electrouted. That is why no one died. And such is the case in other trespass/egress incidents.

 

[OneOffDave]

When was the last time a passenger died or was seriously injured during a similar situation? This is what Joe and Jane Commuter will think. They will believe the evidence they are aware of rather than the list of potential risks from the industry. Whether we like it or not, that is the reality of how everyday people assess risks and choose courses of behaviour.

 

[broadgage]

I said that the risks "are not that great" based on the number of people who have left stranded or broken down trains, and the fact that they almost all survived.

I agree that if you cant wait for 30 minutes, you should consider not going by train. My concern is not the LENGTH of the delay, but the CONDITIONS under which people are delayed.
I have been delayed for a lot longer than 30 minutes, and not even considered exiting. One long delay was on a slam door DC EMU, everybody had a seat, windows and doors opened, toilets still working, there was even a buffet. The delay was irritating but nothing worse.
A more recent prolonged delay was on an HST, delayed well over an hour. I was seated, enjoying refreshment, the air conditioning, toilets and lighting all worked normally, and again the delay was irritating but certainly not an emergency.

Neither of the above were remotely comparable to the Lewisham incident, despite broadly similar time scales.

I repeat that a crush loaded train without heating, lighting, or toilets, is an EMERGENCY, and needs to be treated as such with rescue arranged URGENTLY. I for one would prefer a five minute walk (despite the alleged perils thereof) to the platform over standing for hours until forced to wet or soil myself.

A train with everyone seated and normal on board services is NOT an emergency, I would prefer to remain seated in at least reasonable comfort, and taking refreshment or reading the newspaper, rather than leaving.

 

[OneOffDave]

Staff ensured no train will be able to hit them and none will get electrouted. That is why no one died. And such is the case in other trespass/egress incidents.

Therefore, the perception of the public will be that it's safe as there are mechanisms in place to protect them. As opposed to the staff directed evacuation at Peckham Rye where passengers were detrained and had to move near live 3rd rails.

 

[mmh]

I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that this was dangerous.

The delay was 63 minutes before the first passenger egressed. "THAT is the reality."

If I am trapped indefinitely (IE: I don't have some form of timescale for when I can leave) without the means to releive tension (as I cannot do when in a crowded train), then my anxiety increases quite rapidly. That is not a trait unique to me. Personally, I would never choose to leave the train when outside a station unless instructed by a member of staff. However, that is clearly not the case with other people. At some point, especially when in an unknown situation void of information, people will forget authority and take matters into their own hands.

You would never leave the train, or it would take longer for you to do so than others? I would guess the latter - everyone would give up waiting eventually.

"People will forget authority" is an interesting phrase, which I disagree with. Most people won't be thinking in terms of authority but rather what makes sense (to them, at that time, in that situation)

 

[LAX54]

So how many people have to soil themselves before the railway gets their act together to evacuate them? Will the TOC pay for the dry cleaning? When you are trapped in the train for multiples of the journey time not being given any accurate information, what are you supposed to do?

They did bail out and none of them died so therefore it wasn't risky according to the evidence

Just the 'modern world' I suppose, look after number 1, sod everyone else ! and no, no one could electrocuted, probably more by luck than anything ! of course as soon as the diver knew he would have called the Signaller who would have called the ECRO to switch off, whilst this can be done in seconds, it takes out a very wide area, and will not be switched on until everyone is accounted for !

 

[notverydeep]

Perhaps a way to understand the human factors is a thought experiment - ask yourself how long would you have waited, even as an enthusiast? Just supposing everyone else had complied with the advice, but that the situation continued unchanged with perhaps an announcement every 15 minutes that amounted to "sorry its taking ages, but I don't know when we will be moving". Be honest with yourself, is it three hours, four hours perhaps more? Then try the same question, but add that you left work in a hurry and didn't get to the toilet before boarding. Everyone will eventually get to number 10 on Ainsworth's list, it is just a matter of when. And in a population of 500+ passengers someone will be first. That doesn't mean I think it is safe, but the industry (in which I am employed) needs to plan around this basic truth as evidenced by many such occurrences...

Note that for off duty staff the equation is clearly a bit different, I assume most would if fit to do so, attempt to offer assistance to the driver.

 

[OneOffDave]

Just the 'modern world' I suppose, look after number 1, sod everyone else ! and no, no one could electrocuted, probably more by luck than anything ! of course as soon as the diver knew he would have called the Signaller who would have called the ECRO to switch off, whilst this can be done in seconds, it takes out a very wide area, and will not be switched on until everyone is accounted for !

Given the passenger's perception that no one was doing anything to help them out, what are they supposed to do? How long are they supposed to wait with no one giving them any information apart from "we'll be moving soon" which turns out to be wrong repeatedly? As mentioned up thread, on a nice comfy long distance service, waiting isn't too onerous but on a crush loaded train without toilets that threshold is much much lower. There also seems to be a focus on keeping the wider system running so those people stranded have to wait longer so other people can benefit. If the stranded passengers believe their plight is being ignored by the TOC, they will act for themselves as, from their point of view, no one is doing anything for them. Ignoring human factors like this will result in incidents like this being repeated. It need to be part of the incident response planning. In other areas of UK emergency planning there has been significant research into human factors and how populations can be encouraged to follow the best courses of action. The airline industry does it too. the rail industry seems stuck in the past of the 'company knows best'

 

[hwl]

The Joint NR /SE response to the RAIB report:
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/network-rail-and-southeastern-respond-to-raib-report#

Network Rail & Southeastern respond to RAIB report into Lewisham train disruption during heavy snow in March 2018
In a joint statement, Network Rail and Southeastern said: "The Beast from the East in 2018 brought about some of the most challenging weather conditions we've seen in the south east for more than a decade.
"Unfortunately, this led to a serious incident in Lewisham which has taught us many lessons and inspired positive change, especially in how we've prepared for this winter.
"We're really sorry to passengers who were on board for what was an unpleasant and distressing experience. Together with our colleagues at Southeastern, we've taken action to minimise the chance of this happening again.
"We have improved the way we manage extreme weather, examined ways to keep the power on when the conductor rail fails and updated our procedures for communicating with passengers during emergencies."
Following an independent report we commissioned into the Lewisham incident, published last August, Network Rail and Southeastern are:

• Delivering new training to more than 3,500 staff, including scenario simulation of major incidents to ensure staff are well-rehearsed on emergency procedures.
• Network Rail is investigating expanding the installation of conductor rail heating to include key locations, like Lewisham, which although not prone to freezing could potentially benefit from heating in extreme weather events.
• A trial of a more effective anti-icer on our fleet of snow and ice treatment trains is being tested on the Sheerness line this winter. In addition, Southeastern is exploring the use of ice-breaker shoes on some passenger trains.
• We are eagerly awaiting the results of a trial on our neighbouring Wessex route, where they are testing the use of gapping leads. These are cables that can be physically attached to the third rail, so stranded trains can continue to receive power to run toilets, lights and PA systems, for example – all serious problems encountered in the Lewisham incident.
• We’ve now deployed airwave radios to our incident response teams to enhance our command and control arrangements when managing disruption
• Network Rail and Southeastern worked with specialist consultants on planning and preparation for severe weather. This included examining the criteria needed to decide if trains should be running in extreme weather, such as the snow and icy conditions experienced in March.
• We are also improving how they communicate during extreme winter weather. This includes investment in improved systems for providing information to customers; revised protocols for communication between teams on the ground and control centres; more effective procedures for liaising between different organisations involved in any future incident.
• Adjusted our extreme weather forecasting processes to better predict ice build-up on the conductor rail. Detailed forecasts from weather experts MetDesk help formulate local action plans during adverse weather to minimise disruption to passengers. The forecasts cover not just the weather but how the conditions will impact on specific railway infrastructure such as the tracks and conductor rails. A network of hundreds of monitoring stations also provides real-time weather data, enabling Network Rail to respond to conditions as they develop in real time.
• We have invested in 20 special backpacks, which can carry heated de-icer fluid. These will be supplied to mobile operations manager depots in key locations and be used when the shoe gear of stranded trains need to be de-iced quickly to ensure power returns to the train.

 

[Bikeman78]

Given the passenger's perception that no one was doing anything to help them out, what are they supposed to do? How long are they supposed to wait with no one giving them any information apart from "we'll be moving soon" which turns out to be wrong repeatedly? As mentioned up thread, on a nice comfy long distance service, waiting isn't too onerous but on a crush loaded train without toilets that threshold is much much lower. There also seems to be a focus on keeping the wider system running so those people stranded have to wait longer so other people can benefit.

To clarify, the wider system was stuffed within 10 minutes. As soon as the 12 car Networker (2S54) stopped behind 2M50 (at 17:38) it blocked the up and down fast lines. Combined with 2V07 waiting in the platform on the down slow at St Johns (at 17:41), the only line available for movement of any sort was the up slow. From that time the only way out of Charing Cross or Cannon St was via Greenwich.

 

[Highlandspring]

When was the last time a passenger died or was seriously injured during a similar situation?

8th September 1995 at Maidenhead, a passenger operated the door egress and jumped out of an HST into the path of another doing 125mph. The train he jumped from had stopped after the leading powercar’s fuel tank fell off and caused a ball of flames from a flash fire to shoot past the windows of the leading coach and some smoke to enter the carriages. Other passengers who self-evacuated were uninjured.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Maidenhead1995.pdf

 

[duffield]

8th September 1995 at Maidenhead, a passenger operated the door egress and jumped out of an HST into the path of another doing 125mph. The train he jumped from had stopped after the leading powercar’s fuel tank fell off and caused a ball of flames from a flash fire to shoot past the windows of the leading coach and some smoke to enter the carriages. Other passengers who self-evacuated were uninjured.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Maidenhead1995.pdf

Not that similar, in that case the passenger may have had an honest belief that they were about to be burnt to death or die of smoke inhalation (obviously that belief was incorrect, but none the less, immediate danger to life from fire is one time where there is potentially a clear case for self-evacuation; in this case moving to the next coach would probably have been the correct move but it's possible in a panicy state a person could think they would be heading towards the fire, and seeing they were in the end carriage feel trapped and in immediate danger of death).

Incidentally, I think there is a case to be made for some emergency toilet provision (plastic bucket with seat?) on trains where the toilets lock out when power is lost. This provision for evacuation might prevent self-evacuation! I realize this might not help if the train was really crush-loaded but might help in some other cases.

 

[edwin_m]

Alan Williams described a very similar incident in his Modern Railways column way back in the 70s sometime. One train stopped for some reason and egress via slam doors leading to other trains being stopped and egressing and it snowballed over quite a wide area. So it's not necessarily down to the behaviour of the modern commuter.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm afraid you are behind the times, quite apart from the hyperbole here travel by road does not lead to any expectation of sitting in a jam for "hours and hours" whatsoever. I have made extensive road journeys all my life, and such a huge jam has never happened to me. And I now live in inner London, too.

Which is more than I can say for my past rail travel experience. And look at the event being reported. That really is a Pot calling the Kettle Black statement.

Time was that rail services were looked upon as something dependable in bad weather, and lines such as to Buxton or Whitby were retained in significant part because of that. Nowadays the rail service is often the first transport mode to give up in bad weather, including ludicrous abandonment of services even at just the forecast of poor weather. meanwhile everyone who was going to get the train now has to get the car out. How do we think all those quoted in the report here managed to get over to Lewisham? By road, of course.

It was easier to hook up a slammer to a diesel loco to run a skeleton service in the snow. Now with electric doors and the dreaded computer running everything, this is more difficult.

 

[yorksrob]

I said that the risks "are not that great" based on the number of people who have left stranded or broken down trains, and the fact that they almost all survived.

I agree that if you cant wait for 30 minutes, you should consider not going by train. My concern is not the LENGTH of the delay, but the CONDITIONS under which people are delayed.
I have been delayed for a lot longer than 30 minutes, and not even considered exiting. One long delay was on a slam door DC EMU, everybody had a seat, windows and doors opened, toilets still working, there was even a buffet. The delay was irritating but nothing worse.
A more recent prolonged delay was on an HST, delayed well over an hour. I was seated, enjoying refreshment, the air conditioning, toilets and lighting all worked normally, and again the delay was irritating but certainly not an emergency.

Neither of the above were remotely comparable to the Lewisham incident, despite broadly similar time scales.

I repeat that a crush loaded train without heating, lighting, or toilets, is an EMERGENCY, and needs to be treated as such with rescue arranged URGENTLY. I for one would prefer a five minute walk (despite the alleged perils thereof) to the platform over standing for hours until forced to wet or soil myself.

A train with everyone seated and normal on board services is NOT an emergency, I would prefer to remain seated in at least reasonable comfort, and taking refreshment or reading the newspaper, rather than leaving.

Spot on. The circumstances within the passenger saloons are key.

 

[John Bray]

What worries me about this incident is the rigid rules about signalling. A driver can see the conditions and sense the stress building in his passengers, but its the signaler in a comfortable chair in a warm room far away who makes the decisions, and is always likely to discount the experience of those on site. Allowing drivers to move at 1mph to compress gaps between trains seems to involve no risk to staff or equipment, and would have allowed the following trains to either detrain onto platforms or for the mainline be cleared on their different routes. A creeping train is a very effective way of showing that something is being done, and discouraging unauthorised egress.

 

[BRblue]

What worries me about this incident is the rigid rules about signalling. A driver can see the conditions and sense the stress building in his passengers, but its the signaler in a comfortable chair in a warm room far away who makes the decisions, and is always likely to discount the experience of those on site. Allowing drivers to move at 1mph to compress gaps between trains seems to involve no risk to staff or equipment, and would have allowed the following trains to either detrain onto platforms or for the mainline be cleared on their different routes. A creeping train is a very effective way of showing that something is being done, and discouraging unauthorised egress.

Really... I wish I was so lucky!
Old uncomfortable chair, box freezing in winter or boiling in summer working a mechanical frame from the 1890's...
Oh and by the way... it's those rigid rules that make UK railways one of the safest in the world.

 

[bionic]

Allowing drivers to move at 1mph to compress gaps between trains seems to involve no risk to staff or equipment, and would have allowed the following trains to either detrain onto platforms or for the mainline be cleared on their different routes. A creeping train is a very effective way of showing that something is being done, and discouraging unauthorised egress

If you tried to move Networkers in the Lewisham / Parks Bridge / Tanners Hill area at 1mph, there's a good chance you'll end up gapping them. In ice and snow its practically guaranteed.

And, after all, it was DC conductor rail issues that caused trains to be stranded in the first instance.

I think the toilet issue is a MAJOR factor here. 376s don't have them and around the time leading up to the Lewisham incident a huge amount of toilets on networkers, 375s and 700s kept overnight in SE land were locked out of use due to nobody cleaning or tanking them in sidings. A lot if trains were running about with no working toilets. This in itself stems from the cleaner who got killed at St Leonard's West Marina due to health and safety breaches by Southeastern and Wettons (both were fined millions as a result). Routinely trains were coming into service in the morning full of the previous nights newspapers, beer cans, fag butts and vomit and with toilets locked out. It's interesting to think that health and safety breaches at a depot on the south coast in 2014 contributed to what happened at Lewisham in 2018.

Here are a couple of links for those not familiar with the toilet issue around this time...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...sks-to-staff-at-cleaning-depots-a3831411.html

https://www.kentlive.news/news/southeastern-toilets-trains-1342446

 

[jon0844]

They did bail out and none of them died so therefore it wasn't risky according to the evidence

If 5 people run across a busy 4 lane motorway and nobody gets killed, does that make it safe to run across motorways?

Of course what happened here was risky. It doesn't change just because nobody got injured.

 

[ComUtoR]

A creeping train is a very effective way of showing that something is being done, and discouraging unauthorised egress.

2M48 was creeping out of the station doing its very best to keep moving. Something was being done. Passengers on 2M48 egressed TWICE.

The human factor of a very very slow moving train adds to the frustration, the station platform was still right there out the side window, it was taking so long, it felt like it was going to break down again, the next station is hundreds of yards away, they barely moved, the station platform is right there, gonna be quicker to walk... It only took 22 minutes.

The human factors involved with slow moving trains is evidenced by the sheer number of SPADS that happen at low speed.

 

[ainsworth74]

What worries me about this incident is the rigid rules about signalling.

I wouldn't touch the rules of signalling with a barge pole. They're written in blood. I would be willing to gamble that nearly every rule in the rule book can probably be traced back to accident in which someone or some people were killed or injured. Tinkering with those rules just because they get in the way seems a recipe for disaster. But more to the point the rules already contain a provision for dealing with a situation like this. Emergency Permissive working (allowing the train into an occupied block) was available but not used.

This is an open question to the floor but I'm curious to know whether signallers actually get to practice using unusual rules or procedures once they complete their training? It feels as though one of the reasons that it wasn't used here was due to a lack of familiarity with the process? In which case, rather than changing the rule book, surely it would be more beneficial to ensure that staff are not only familiar with but confident in using those more unusual procedures?

 

[OneOffDave]

If 5 people run across a busy 4 lane motorway and nobody gets killed, does that make it safe to run across motorways?

Of course what happened here was risky. It doesn't change just because nobody got injured.

But that's not how Joe and Jane Commuter will see it. They saw people getting themselves out and none of them getting killed. It doesn't matter what railway experts and enthusiasts think/know, the public will make risk judgements based on their own experience and 'gut feel'. If they see people walking off the train and getting to the nearby station without getting run over or electrocuted they will assume it's safe as that's what the evidence they are aware of is showing them. Emergency plans must take this into account and not just treat passengers like an inert block of cargo that will just sit passively in the dark without toilets for as long as the industry wants them to. The rest of the emergency preparedness sector has put significant time and money into understanding human factors and how to best influence the public into making the safest decisions and it's time the railway industry caught up or things like this will happen again and again.

 

[jon0844]

I get the point that people will do stupid things because they're, well, stupid. They are not expected to fully appreciate the dangers, so may think that if they opened the doors and looked left and right, they'd be fine. They probably aren't aware of how hard it is to walk on the ballast, or the chance of tripping. They may not consider that despite having the best intentions of not touching any rail, they could slip.

I get all that, really, but what can you do if someone sees a platform and decides to bail in a matter of minutes? Assume that once a train has stopped, people may get off at any time? That would make it near impossible to deal with issues, as you'd be seeking to evacuate a train first and THEN sort out the problems.

Naturally, if you got people off quickly but had nowhere to send them then they'd more likely want to be on the train so when it moved, they'd be moving with it. Rather than at a station with hundreds of other people now waiting for the single decker bus they managed to get, or a handful of taxis.

Giving information to people is essential, with some reassurance that they're not being forgotten. If the driver is busy doing other stuff, having a way for control to communicate via the PA system is going to be essential.

If it's known the train is crush loaded then perhaps you instigate different measures, but it still has to be done by the book. Nobody can plan around idiots being idiots, even if we can all say we understand why they did it.

 

[farleigh]

I think it is unfair to label people as idiots for egressing.

Would you label the staff dealing with the incident as 'idiots' as they did not cope with it very well?

Seems harsh to me.

 

[SamYeager]

It was easier to hook up a slammer to a diesel loco to run a skeleton service in the snow. Now with electric doors and the dreaded computer running everything, this is more difficult.

Then perhaps the industry needs to develop a system that provides equivalent functionality or reorganise its processes such that it recognises that passenger egress from crowded metro trains is far more likely to occur and move to pre-empt this. I mentioned up thread that even after 60 minutes at a stop 2M50 had still not been declared a "stranded train" so presumably nobody was even considering its evacuation.