Major delays for SWT

[Ferret]

When I was a new Guard, I was working a train up north. I had just finished a ticket check, and was aimlessly staring out of the window. I saw a man, sat on the cess of the opposite running line smoking a cigarette. It didn't feel right - he obviously shouldn't have been there, so I got the driver to stop at the next signal and report it to the box (he hadn't seen this chap at all). As he was on the phone to the signaller, a train went the other way and well, you can guess what happened next. I often wonder whether there was anything else I could have done to prevent that suicide, it's something that will stay with me for as long as I work on the railway. Who knows what was going through that guys mind, why he wanted to end it all - I will never know. I really felt for that driver from Northern though. He must've seen us stopped on the down line out of course and wondered what was going on, only for that to happen seconds later....

 

[Stigy]

I thought the one on the Alton branch happened at Farnham?

Between Bentley and Alton I believe....Or maybe between Bentley and Farnham. I forget. Eitherway, it was a particularly nasty one, not solely because of the 'one under' but because of the events leading up to it!

 

[EM2]

Last night's disruption about to be featured on BBC London Tonight...

 

[ushawk]

Yet more delays now. This time emergency services are dealing with an incident at Bitterne, causing delays of up to 50 mins. Got to feel for the staff at SWT this week, so much to deal with, shows how stressful the job can be.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I saw that in (I think) the updated BBC article.

Well if the passengers are going to de-train no matter what you do or say then as soon as you have had the juice cut off I would think ensuring that they do it in as safe a manner as possible would be a good thing - after all most guards aren’t provided with handcuffs and most passengers would complain about being handcuffed anyway.

The point is that apparently the juice wasn't off at that time though was it? The traction current was only discharged after the passengers started to go walkabout.

Of course the newspaper could well have edited the report in such a way as to give that impression, and I am sure we will soon find out if that was the case or not.

 

[Helvellyn]

I wasn't working Thursday, but was today and spoke to one of the Guards who had passengers force there way off his train. He said about two dozen people out of about 500 did that. He was walking up and down his train, keeping customers informed (not that he had much to say because nobody knew when things were going to move again). Also, it seems that those people jumping down onto the tracks delayed the restoration of the service by an hour - because the police and Network Rail had to establish everyone who had got off trains was safe. That wasn't just dangerous, but selfish. There was a real risk a fatality could have been added to the disruption. If evacuation was necessary the Driver and Guard would have organised it.

As to comments about SWT keeping customers imprisoned with no food, water or air - well no air once the power was cut off, and did they expect supplies to be air dropped in or something?


Finally, whilst I accept a suicide is a deeply distressing event for someone's family, and that an individual must be in a very dark place to do it, I do believe that it's selfish to do such an act by using the railway. Not only is it distressing for the Driver, it's equally so for the people who have to come along after and deal with it. Having seen the aftermath of one fatality at a station I can say that's it an image that doesn't scrub from the mind. All this is before we get on to the massive disruption it causes to thousands of others, so actually SWT is right to apologise for the disruption, even though it was something beyond its control. I seem to have avoided getting caught up in a lot of the disruption this week, but have been dealing with customers who've been affected.

 

[wintonian]

The point is that apparently the juice wasn't off at that time though was it? The traction current was only discharged after the passengers started to go walkabout.

Of course the newspaper could well have edited the report in such a way as to give that impression, and I am sure we will soon find out if that was the case or not.

Yes I agree, the guard should arrange for the juice to be cut off and then assist to ensure the safety of the passengers who are clearly acting in contradiction to the instructions given by an authorised member of railway staff.

 

[Minstral25]

Watching the BBC local news last night it amazed me that the pictures from the rush hour trains showed almost no standing in the trains. If that happened on my commute home on Southern people travel pressed up to the doors and if a train was stuck for hours it would cause extreme discomfort.

When this happens, I think the train companies need to develop a process to allow trains to move forward very slowly to the next station even if all signals are red so that passengers can get access to assistance if needed. Surely that can be done safely without leaving trains stuck in the middle of nowhere. This was only a signalling fault after all not a power fault until people started walking off trains.

If a station is already occupied the following trains could at least roll up close to the platform so again de-training is possible without too much problem.

 

[wintonian]

Watching the BBC local news last night it amazed me that the pictures from the rush hour trains showed almost no standing in the trains. If that happened on my commute home on Southern people travel pressed up to the doors and if a train was stuck for hours it would cause extreme discomfort.

Really?


The 17:33 off Winchester was standing in first class until Southampton and then only a couple of fee seats until I got off at Brockenhurst at least, mind you it did look as if it had been declassified what with school children sitting in there.

 

[class377man]

It depends. This may well sound heartless, but I have zero sympathy for selfish people who jump in front of trains to end their lives. I've no doubt I'm about to be shot down in flames for daring to say it - so be it. It's a selfish cowards way out giving no thought to the people left behind to deal with the aftermath. My sympathy lies with the poor driver and the BTP who have to clear up the mess....

People who commit suicide don't give a thought to the people left behind because they are severely mentally ill. You can't expect someone who wants to jump in front of a train in the first place to be of sound mind. Everybody loses out when someone jumps in front of a train but all parties deserve sympathy.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

When this happens, I think the train companies need to develop a process to allow trains to move forward very slowly to the next station even if all signals are red so that passengers can get access to assistance if needed. Surely that can be done safely without leaving trains stuck in the middle of nowhere. This was only a signalling fault after all not a power fault until people started walking off trains.

Yes, it shouldn't be that difficult to arrange - I assume the cab radios and the signal telephones would still be working so that drivers could be advised when such an action is required. It would basically involve driving slowly on sight until clear of the problem area wouldn't it?

If they can routinely have trains draw up 20 feet behind other trains in the Paris RER in rush hour ( when the normal signalling is over-ridden and a semi-automatic system which combines automatic train control with driving on sight ) then there shouldn't be a problem with using driving by sight, under the appropriate permission and circumstances, to get stranded trains out of these hours long wait situations.

 

[Old Timer]

There is a debate to be made for trains being allowed to proceed towards the nearest station or a lineside access point during times of major signalling failure.

There is also a debate to be had about NOT switching off the traction current when passengers deliberately off-train onto the track. An announcement should be made that the traction current will remain on and detraining passengers advised that thye do so against the Law and at their own risk. That would (should) in effect discharge the duty of care because these people would then be placing themselves deliberately in a situation of danger to themselves against instructions.

A legal condition of this nature would be to the benefit of the majority not the small minority who destroy any chances of the service restarting. When apprehended the Law should provide for an automatic prison sentence of say one week.

Sadly under the way of health & safety Law, and ORR regulations operate however it is unlikely that either situation will occur in the long distance future.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, it shouldn't be that difficult to arrange - I assume the cab radios and the signal telephones would still be working so that drivers could be advised when such an action is required. It would basically involve driving slowly on sight until clear of the problem area wouldn't it?

The reopened East London Line and the new Thameslink 'core route' signalling (going in now) provide a Proceed on Sight Authorisation (POSA) subsidiary aspect - this does just what you suggest, as long as route interlocking and point detection is still available. It is designed to allow the signaller to get trains moving at low speed if train detection is lost.

The hardware is the same two white lights at 45 degrees as a normal calling on signal, but they are a flashing aspect for 'POSA'.

 

[Helvellyn]

When this happens, I think the train companies need to develop a process to allow trains to move forward very slowly to the next station even if all signals are red so that passengers can get access to assistance if needed. Surely that can be done safely without leaving trains stuck in the middle of nowhere. This was only a signalling fault after all not a power fault until people started walking off trains.

Firstly, only the Down Slow lines have access to platforms at every station. Only at Woking, West Byfleet, Surbiton, Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Junction and Vauxhall can you access platforms on the Down Fast.

There are out of use platforms at Walton-on-Thames, Esher and New Malden that could have been used at a push, but they aren't lit and you'd have to get someone to them to provide access. Plus I'm not exactly sure on the state of them, nor what length train you could accommodate.

Another point to bear in mind here is that the problem was between Brookwood and Farnborough, but trains quickly started forming a queue back up the line with a train stopped at every signal. How do you draw several trains forward between stations when one is already in a platform? Remember, over 50 trains were caught up in this at one point.

Supposedly, according to a Driver I was talking to, they also lost the Cab radios in the affected area - Driver's were having to call Signallers direct on Signal Post telephones.

I know it will have been frsutrating for all those passengers who were stuck, but trying to move multiple trains forward into the same signalling sections would have caused even more problems. I only know of this happening when one train is sent to rescue another one.

 

[BestWestern]

There is a debate to be made for trains being allowed to proceed towards the nearest station or a lineside access point during times of major signalling failure.

There is also a debate to be had about NOT switching off the traction current when passengers deliberately off-train onto the track. An announcement should be made that the traction current will remain on and detraining passengers advised that thye do so against the Law and at their own risk. That would (should) in effect discharge the duty of care because these people would then be placing themselves deliberately in a situation of danger to themselves against instructions.

A legal condition of this nature would be to the benefit of the majority not the small minority who destroy any chances of the service restarting. When apprehended the Law should provide for an automatic prison sentence of say one week.

Sadly under the way of health & safety Law, and ORR regulations operate however it is unlikely that either situation will occur in the long distance future.

That's a very fair comment, and one with which I agree entirely. If people are going to treat the working railway as something completely trivial and fail to respect any of the very obvious rules which apply to them using it, the the authorities need to consider a different approach to simply pandering to these idiots and shutting everything down while they are chaperoned off, wrecking any efforts that have already been made to get things up and running again. Considering that any information they have about power isolations are totally worthless anyway unless they have personally requested the isolation, they are taking their lives into their own hands anyway. If the power happens to come back on whilst some berk is in the process of detraining, they could very easily be killed. Sadly, I also agree that such a 'radical' idea is unlikely to come to fruition any time soon :roll:

However, I do think there is a workable solution along similar lines. Rather than telling everybody that the train cannot move because the power is off, perhaps the announcements should instead simply inform people that the train cannot move due to signalling/infrastructure/train breakdown etc, that the problem is being dealth with as soon as possible and further updates will follow regularly. This should then be followed with a very stern and graffic warning that live rails with 750v are in operation, and passengers must not attempt to leave the train. Leaving the train risks death, serious injury, or prosecution, etc etc. I think that would go some way to help.

 

[jon0844]

What about where the lines are overhead? Try convincing these 'people' that there are any dangers then. Forget about steep drops, trip hazards, points or whatever.. everyone will assume that they'll be just fine and are more than capable of negotiating them.

To be fair, most probably will. But you only need one to misjudge something and it suddenly changes everything.

 

[BestWestern]

What about where the lines are overhead? Try convincing these 'people' that there are any dangers then. Forget about steep drops, trip hazards, points or whatever.. everyone will assume that they'll be just fine and are more than capable of negotiating them.

To be fair, most probably will. But you only need one to misjudge something and it suddenly changes everything.

Well yes, OLE present different issues, as of course do non-electrified lines. I still feel that a stern, slightly dramatic warning, made very clearly over the PA to be heard by all, would be a help. If people are made to appreciate that people ARE watching, and there WILL be consequences when they reach wherever it is they think they might be going, it would help to quell the irrational mindset of some. Of course, it would need to go together with a rethink of how we try to accommodate stuck passengers, with things such as crews being able to open doors if needed and suchlike.

 

[Helvellyn]

However, I do think there is a workable solution along similar lines. Rather than telling everybody that the train cannot move because the power is off, perhaps the announcements should instead simply inform people that the train cannot move due to signalling/infrastructure/train breakdown etc, that the problem is being dealth with as soon as possible and further updates will follow regularly. This should then be followed with a very stern and graffic warning that live rails with 750v are in operation, and passengers must not attempt to leave the train. Leaving the train risks death, serious injury, or prosecution, etc etc. I think that would go some way to help.

I disagree. Why lie and make out that the problems are the fault of the railway? If it's due to trespassers, or passengers getting off trains, then I believe the other passengers should know that the dealys are being caused by idiots from the general public. The railway rightly takes the blame when delays are our fault, but I don't see why we should take it when it's caused by idiots taking their lives into their own hands.

 

[passmore]

I do think the underlying problem to all of this stems from our culture of 'compensation' and that, if something goes wrong, it has to be someone else's fault.
As far as I understand it, the instructions handed out not to venture onto the line were, by the majority of passengers, heeded. Those that did venture out onto the line, people are saying, were doing so simply because of 'common sense', totally ignoring the obvious dangers of the third rail. It only would've taken one person to step onto the third rail before the litigation knell would've inevitably descended onto SWT. So could the train crews have bended to common sense when it was clear that nothing was happening or going to happen imminently? It seems in this case we will never know since no-one was injured as a result of Friday's problems.
I do believe that if a passenger had stepped onto the third rail before it was switched off then that passenger's relatives would've jumped onto the litigation bandwagon almost immediately, regardless of the clear and concise instructions given by the SWT crewmember/s and the dangers highlighted to them should they decamp the train between stations. That, to me, is a sad reflection of the way these litigation companies work and the way that personal responsibilities almost seem to be completely ignored next to the opportunity to make money out of someone. It is, at the end of the day, not SWT or the SWT crewmember's fault if a person treads onto a live rail.
As I said earlier, since no-one was injured as a result of Friday's problems, it is difficult to agree fully with either SWT's position or the position of the frustrated commuter.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think that anyone would successfully convince any court that someone who stepped out is worthy of any compensation (or their family, assuming the person fried).

Anyone can sue for anything, but most claims are thrown out early on.

God help us if such a claim DID succeed. There are clear warnings on my trains about electrified tracks, even though most of the route is overhead power (the exception being to Moorgate). There must always be a point where you've done all you can do.

Maybe they go one step further and have stickers that say 'danger of death' like some tube trains (albeit on the manual doors)? You can't get much clearer than that.

 

[BestWestern]

I disagree. Why lie and make out that the problems are the fault of the railway? If it's due to trespassers, or passengers getting off trains, then I believe the other passengers should know that the dealys are being caused by idiots from the general public. The railway rightly takes the blame when delays are our fault, but I don't see why we should take it when it's caused by idiots taking their lives into their own hands.

I agree to a point, but I was thinking more in terms of the initial explanations given in times of major disruption, quelling people's thoughts of bailing out before it actually happens. I'd also argue that telling other passengers who are 'behaving' themselves and staying on board, that their delay is becoming more lengthy because others have gotten out onto the line, is only likely to encourage more of the same. The mentality is likely to be that those others have 'escaped' and are already out in the fresh air, making progress on their journeys home, so why shouldn't we do the same. Publicising this stupid behaviour and detailing the consequences is more advisable after the event, rather than in the heat of the moment.

 

[Old Timer]

People are making a lot of this "tell people when there is major disruption" approach.

The point people are not considering, or are deliberately overlooking in order to make controversial points, is that until investigations are carried out, it is hard to determine that any incident is likely to lead to major disruption.

If you take the power failure of last week, it obviously manifested itself as a loss of indictaions in the Power Box, as well as a loss of control over signals and points on the ground. I do not know wether or not the signals were alight, but there is a strong possibility that these were unlit if the 650 supply had been broken.

In the event of a power supply failure of this nature, one of the first things that has to be done is to carry out a structured fault finding process, which will include establishing if the power is incoming from the SSP. Having also ruled out a failure within the PSB, the S&T staff will then have to go to site to track down what is alive and what is dead.

When blown fuses are replaced during such theft/vandalism incidents it is pretty normal for them to immediately blow again, and this then expands the time necessary to work out if it is an equipment failure or a power cable fault.

Thieves will obviously try to steal from isolated areas if they can which can mean a section of the cable route being walked until a break is established.

This obviously takes time, and in a darkening evening will become harder. In this area I do have every sympathy for Network Rail.

During this time it would be necessary to mobilise staff to secure points to enable trains to start to move, now of course made much harder by (a) the fact that Network Rail's organisation cannot deal with these types of incident (b) the former arrangement whereby P. Way staff would be brought in wholesale againis no longer there, (c) ridiculously rigid processes now which mean that even staff travelling on the train can no longer assist with simple tasks such as securing points, and the crazy restrictions on how many trains can be authorised to move at a time through a junction.

Take for example a personal experience. Many years ago travelling passenger the train came to a halt with a suspected OHL defect. As a competent person, I was able to travel with the Driver through the section, identify that there was minor fault and that trains may run at 20 mph to clear the section. This was done very quickly.

Compare to today where a fully qualified Infrastructure Contractor's member of staff (a) cannot assist because he is not NR staff, (b) even if he could, he is not authorised to permit trains to start moving, (c) he cannot even officially travel in the cab to assist with a line examination because he does not work for NR, and worst of all, technically he cannot eve exit the train to go onto the track to examine a fault even though all trains may be stopped because of the ridiculous planning rules which have to be complied with, and because they cannot be then the person cannot start to assist. :roll: :roll:

Within the UK, the ever increasingly tighter interpretation and individual application of broad health and safety laws into pernickity detail far and beyond what would be reasonable is also a major factor. :roll: :roll:

Sat on a train about two years ago and although I had examined the track fault and declared it safe for running, the opinion of a non-infrastructure trained Driver was held to be of greater weight. No criticism of the Driver intended but simply an illustration of a situation where a track engineers word cannot be taken anymore. Queue MOM turning up, whose presence is the equivalent of using a chocloate poker to poke a fire. Thus nothing happens until the P. Way response man arrives and confirms what was said an hour previously. :roll: :roll:

The only way to resolve the present problem would be to deep-bury all cables and only raise them through secure locations or buildings, a massively expensive and time consuming process which will use up money that could well be spent on more useful items.

An extremely long i.e. 10 year no time of for good behaviour sentence will be the only thing that solves this. The consequences to the individual have to be so personally off-putting so as to deter, which in actual fact is the whole point of a Criminal legal system anyway - surely ??????

 

[jon0844]

@BestWestern

It's a tough one. Yes, some may think 'if they have, I may as well'. Sadly that's how society seems to work today, hence more and more people breaking the law because they've become used to seeing others doing it and getting away with it. Why comply when you're ending up looking like a mug?

When the police were on TV saying they had no intention of arresting or charging those who trespassed, it does send out the message that those who bailed actually 'did the right thing' and while the others remained stuck for longer than they should, it was their fault for not making the same decision and allowing themselves to be delayed.

Surely people DO need to be arrested, charged and possibly even jailed if they don't have a very valid reason to bail - such as a life threatening situation and there was no other alternative (i.e. a packed train, so no way to alert staff). These people can always argue their case in court, after all. To simply let them all get away with it sends out the wrong message to others.

As I said before, some will think they know what they're doing. I am sure many people in this very thread would be aware of many risks and may be in a position to safely leave the train and avoid the various hazards - as well as getting off railway property as quickly as possible. But, the railway doesn't know who is who. That's not a route anyone would be wanting to go down.

@Old Timer

That makes for very sad reading, but given your experience and knowledge I can fully believe everything to be correct and a good indication of why even relatively minor incidents become much bigger problems.

I do think that there needs to be proper procedures for getting trains moving or establishing there's a major incident and then switching from trying to restart things to an organised evacuation procedure, with onward travel organised by coach or taxi, even if it may take some considerable time to organise either.

Once everyone is off the tracks, safely, then try and get on with getting things going again.

Of course this would be rare, and often a last resort, but it seems that the current thinking is 'it takes whatever it takes' and if there had been further complications, people could have - theoretically - been stuck for many more hours. At what point would someone have said 'we need to get these people off the train?'.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of passengers exiting the train, I am not sure if it is true or not, but one of the newspapers (cannot remember what one) was reporting that a member of staff led them out of the train and across the tracks safely. As I said, no idea if it is true or not, but it maybe should be considered.

Plus, in any case, I would quite happily argue that it is totally reasonable for passengers to leave the train after being stuck on it for 3 hours. Especially if they haven't been given any information about how long it will talk / what the problem is. In those situations, 3 hours would seem like an eternity!

 

[Old Timer]

Plus, in any case, I would quite happily argue that it is totally reasonable for passengers to leave the train after being stuck on it for 3 hours. Especially if they haven't been given any information about how long it will talk / what the problem is. In those situations, 3 hours would seem like an eternity!

And straight into the path of one that was now maybe running at linespeed because the signalling on the opposite line(s) may have been restored ?

That is a perfectly valid scenario because in many areas the signals on the running out end transfer to the next box before the boundary of the running in signals, sometimes vice-versa.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps the people were going to go anyway, and if an RPI can't get involved with some chav threatening staff and refusing to buy a ticket, how could a guard stop a few hundred people trying to barge through?

If someone WAS that determined, should the guard get into trouble for at least helping people - or should s/he have gone away and pretended not to have noticed? The guard could help passengers, that in his/her mind should probably be arrested, avoid the third rail or step onto a potentially live running track.

I'd hope a union would back this person fully if something happened, as long as the guard didn't actively suggest detraining to anyone!

 

[BestWestern]

@BestWetern, It's a tough one. Yes, some may think 'if they have, I may as well'. Sadly that's how society seems to work today, hence more and more people breaking the law because they've become used to seeing others doing it and getting away with it. Why comply when you're ending up looking like a mug?

When the police were on TV saying they had no intention of arresting or charging those who trespassed, it does send out the message that those who bailed actually 'did the right thing' and while the others remained stuck for longer than they should, it was their fault for not making the same decision and allowing themselves to be delayed.

Surely people DO need to be arrested, charged and possibly even jailed if they don't have a very valid reason to bail - such as a life threatening situation and there was no other alternative (i.e. a packed train, so no way to alert staff). These people can always argue their case in court, after all. To simply let them all get away with it sends out the wrong message to others.

As I said before, some will think they know what they're doing. I am sure many people in this very thread would be aware of many risks and may be in a position to safely leave the train and avoid the various hazards - as well as getting off railway property as quickly as possible. But, the railway doesn't know who is who. That's not a route anyone would be wanting to go down.

Absolutely, sending out a public indication that sort if behaviour is acceptable will only ever make things much, much worse. I've no doubt that the recent media coverage of these situations will already have done some damage to the level of common sense among many commuters. And, worse still, if completely undermines the railway staff who have to do their best to remain in charge of thier train and in control of the situation, and that is just not acceptable. Perhaps in future we should just advise the passengers to do whatever the hell they like and then phone the BTP to come and sort it out, seeing as they appear be quite happy to perpetuate this mentality.

As for those people who know what they are doing, again I agree that isn't a sensible route. Somebody is either qualified railway staff or not, and the distinction between who 'knows that they are doing' and who doesn't must stop there.

 

[WelshBluebird]

And straight into the path of one that was now maybe running at linespeed because the signalling on the opposite line(s) may have been restored ?

That is a perfectly valid scenario because in many areas the signals on the running out end transfer to the next box before the boundary of the running in signals, sometimes vice-versa.

Totally see what you are saying, but I think that is partly the problem the rail industry has. You simply cannot reasonably expect people to stay on a packed train for 3 hours without them knowing anything. You really can't. It is just not realistic.
Perhaps I'm a bit blinded / naive because I am used to being on trains where the guard / train manager stays in constant communication with the passengers and moves through the train. So I have never really been in a situation where I have been without information for so long.

 

[BestWestern]

In terms of passengers exiting the train, I am not sure if it is true or not, but one of the newspapers (cannot remember what one) was reporting that a member of staff led them out of the train and across the tracks safely. As I said, no idea if it is true or not, but it maybe should be considered.

Plus, in any case, I would quite happily argue that it is totally reasonable for passengers to leave the train after being stuck on it for 3 hours. Especially if they haven't been given any information about how long it will talk / what the problem is. In those situations, 3 hours would seem like an eternity!

I would be very suprised if any member of staff carried out any evacuation without authorisation to have done so, unless the people in question had already begun to leave the train and they were simply trying to prevent somebody being killed. Please be assured, for an almost endless list of reasons, that it is absolutely not 'totally reasonable' to leave a train after being stuck for a length of time, information or not. A working railway line is not a place for people who are not qualified to be there. Do you not think that kids who trespass on railway lines think they know what they are doing?! Yet they still get killed. Ditto for people who misuse foot crossings and suchlike because they can't be bothered to read signs or obey instructions and arrogantly assume that they know better. Again, some of them get killed. How would you feel if your mob mentality had led you to leave a stranded train and somebody amongst your 'group' was hurt or seriously injured by a train you assumed would not be approaching, or a live rail you had assumed would not be live?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I would be very suprised if any member of staff carried out any evacuation without authorisation to have done so, unless the people in question had already begun to leave the train and they were simply trying to prevent somebody being killed. Please be assured, for an almost endless list of reasons, that it is absolutely not 'totally reasonable' to leave a train after being stuck for a length of time, information or not. A working railway line is not a place for people who are not qualified to be there.

As I said above, I am simply coming at it from a passenger point of view. Its just not reasonable to expect people to sit / stand on a packed train for 3 hours without any information / interaction at all.
Perhaps I was a bit rash in saying it is totally reasonable for people to leave the train, but I can certainly understand why people would do it. A packed train is not a hugely nice place to be at the best of times for a lot of people. Let alone when you have broken down, and let alone when you have no idea what is happening and have been stuck for 3 hours.