ralphchadkirk
Established Member
There's nothing in there that I wouldn't agree with. In fact, it's irrelevant to my point. The DB managers are being prosecuted as they KNEW there was a fault with the aircon, and still allowed the train to continue.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Passengers forcing their way off stranded trains
- Thread starter EM2
- Start date
- Status
There's nothing in there that I wouldn't agree with. In fact, it's irrelevant to my point. The DB managers are being prosecuted as they KNEW there was a fault with the aircon, and still allowed the train to continue.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Old Timer
Established Member
A completely different situation but one I would like to explore with you.
Would YOU cancel the train ?.
If the answer is YES then I am quite sure there would be a possee of people on here very quickly to argue that it was the wrong decision and pointing out a whole host of factors.
What would YOU say to those people and the hundreds of passengers who would be quite content to be moving rather than sat around at stations with broadly similar conditions ?
That's such a red herring. Are you saying that no-one should ever go a for a walk in the countryside in case a plant kills them? On the whole I agree with the general gist of your argument, but you keep adding in bits that weaken it.
Last edited:
DiscoStu
Member
Well to be fair, if you're going to go sticking your foot in between the points blade and the track, you deserve to lose it. My point is that if you're careful, you'll be fine.
Use the green cross code, keep away from the tracks once you're off ... job done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I agree with you that there are serious hazards, but a bit of common sense goes a long way. There are serious hazards in most things we do. I don't think I'm wrong by saying crossing the road can be more dangerous than climbing off of a train and walking alongside the track.
I'm not saying we should open up tracks as pedestrian foot paths, I'm just saying they probably weren't in as much danger as is being made out ... if they used their common sense.
Pyreneenguy
Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 327
Save us from the experts ! If we listened to you, no one would even set foot on the street; you might trip over a paving stone or fall down a man-hole !
I would expect some if not all the passengers on the commuter train in question were capable of analysing their situation. Most would probably know exactly where the train was stranded, that there was a station close-by and that there was no great risk in descending onto the ballast and walking along the track. Obviously, people might think twice in doing the same thing at Clapham Junction !
That doesnt really add to the argument. For every suggestion in that report it goes onto say why they might not work or why they might not be practical.
EM2
Established Member
Didn't stop them at Woking a few weeks back, a much busier and more dangerous spot than Bexleyheath.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The plot thickens. According to someone on that train, the driver open the doors and told them to bail out (see the comments here):
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford_messenger/news/2011/june/27/passengers_jump_off_broken_dow.aspx
I personally do not believe that to be true, but then again, I wasn't there...
ushawk
Established Member
If it was a controlled evacuation, then why would it come up on NRE as "tresspassers on the track" ? And i wouldnt think Southeastern would lie about it.
WestCoast
Established Member
There has been a problem with the Siemens Velaro aircon for years - it seems to fail regularly after a certain temperature (something like 33C) . I was involved in a failure incident, but I was cool as the front compartment shares the driver's air con, which is separate. Nevertheless, the train was cancelled and they brought in bottled water.
That comment apparently is originally from here http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/9108238.Broken_down_train_at_Dartford_causes_travel_delays/?ref=mr
I would be also be very surprised if that anonymously posted story is true, but I am sure plenty of people with their minds already made up against Southeastern and the railway industry in general will believe it -see the responses to it on that site.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
And you can back this up with the hospital reports, and coroners inquests? No? I thought not because it's bloody stupid.
Train tracks are dangerous places. If they were in a non-ac car on the motorway, they would be in the same situation.
BTP need to start clamping down on this, before somebody gets killed on the track.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can I point out the one fault in your rant? Nobody was "forced" onto a crowded two-car train. They chose to go onto it.
I fear that until such thing does happen people will still continue to ignore the messages. People are told not to drive over level crossings. People are told not to throw things between platforms (as the idiot at Hackney did the other day with a bar of chocolate). People are told not to go over the yellow lines, not to leave unattended items, the list goes on and on an on. But still, understanding of railway policy is worryingly poor.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
ry it on my train, you will be arrested. I will restrain you myself, if need be. It has been done.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Don't say that - he's got a Phd in Economics and thus is far more qualified to tell everyone how to do their jobs, and what is right and what is wrong.
Intelligent people jump onto the railway, do they? That's news to me.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
That's all right then.Do you know, if all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they couldn't reach a conclusion?
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
you wouldn't be the only one Flamingo, I would personally tae great pleasure in seeing anyone being so stupid arrested and prosecuted, I could understand plus hours people panicking and desperate to get off but 2?? give me a break, if that what a phd in Economics qualifies you to do then I highly recommend people NOT to study it lol
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Right, for all the armchair experts, here is the professional opinion on evacuating passengers from a train.
In an emergency, the only occasion where we are advised to evacuate passengers from the train is if it is on fire. Even then, the advice is to firstly, try to evacuate passengers to another carriage on the train first. This is the advice given on the safety notices as well.
Read the RAIB report on Grayrigg, http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/081023_R202008_Grayrigg_v4r.pdf the relevant paragraphs are page 162:
How can anybody argue that if this was the conclusion when the train has derailed at high speed, that passengers need to force their way off a stationary train because it is getting a bit uncomfortable?
In an emergency, the only occasion where we are advised to evacuate passengers from the train is if it is on fire. Even then, the advice is to firstly, try to evacuate passengers to another carriage on the train first. This is the advice given on the safety notices as well.
Read the RAIB report on Grayrigg, http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/081023_R202008_Grayrigg_v4r.pdf the relevant paragraphs are page 162:
The conclusion in this situation was that passengers should have been kept on the vehicles, as it was the safest place for them.
How can anybody argue that if this was the conclusion when the train has derailed at high speed, that passengers need to force their way off a stationary train because it is getting a bit uncomfortable?
Give the man a prize! Best post in this thread.
Unfortunately for me I read it whilst supping from a glass of cider. So, Flamingo, can I send a bill to you for the 5 cotton buds and 4 sheets of kitchen roll that I had to use to clean out the cider that I spluttered all over my keyboard?
Old Timer
Established Member
Yeah right, I am obviously so wrong on the basis of your considerable experience of working on the track..
Perhaps I could benefit from your wealth of personal on track experience, just remind me what it is you do for a living ?
Of course, the response of someone who thinks the existing rules and regulations and response are satisfactory in this situation. Both situations are technically disasterous for the TOC but that court case will be fatal to the TOC Owner Company.
The TOC's are still not delivering quickly enough to sort out the situation. Too many of you are pointing out the danger of moving trains and the opportunity for rescue. After two hours, haven't we really run out of options for getting the train moving with another train. After all, these incidents have occurred on busy commuter routes in and out of London. TOC's are failing themselves to not get passengers off trains when they are left in very uncomfortable, sorry, no, dangerous conditions. Those trains are not sitting at 30 degrees, they are getting to 50 in the stifling conditions with high humidities to boot. This is a danger area for people, not an uncomfortable condition that people should stoically brush off.
The TOC's should really be taking a leadership role in this situation and it is clear that they are not. Their lack of leadership is the cause of both situations happening and they should not be surprised if a corporate manslaughter case arises out of both possible incidents. (collapsed passenger on train or dead passenger on railway line)
Unfortunately, the court of public opinion is nasty and generally against railways. Both situations show a lack of leadership by railway staff and management of the situation, which is the reason why the case against is going to fail. After all, this is going to be the same TOC that will have to write a letter to that passenger apologising for the delay and offering them travel vouchers. Oh, the irony. Both arguments will have health and safety merits and that is going to be the issue that will be fought in court. My worry is that the TOC will gain nothing out of the fine but will loose a lot more when they are sued in court.
The TOC's need to have a plan. The clock starts ticking at 30 minutes after wheel stop. It's a big white clock. The kind you have in the exam room. Each train is identified, markered and staff on board are required to identify location, numbers, criticals, crucials, immobiles, toilet facilities and temperature. This should be part of their basic training. Each train should be met by an external body in the form of a member of rail staff at 60 minutes, although paramedics should not be far behind. At 75, the decision should be taken on evacuation and this should be reviewed on 15 minute basis. Water should start to reach the train at 90. Passengers should be moving at 120.
It is this kind of guidance and the ability for passengers, the ORR and the courts to hold TOC's upto this that should drive an improvement in response.
In know what is going to happen, you're going to come up with a list of reasons why this is not feasible. Many of these can be broken down, with leadership and a plan. It certainly fails to stand up when the alternatives are not as desirable.
Leadership and communication is needed to prevent a fatality, not court action, death or rules that would not apply if all trains are at a stand. When someone finally grasps the bullet, I hope it is with a desire to self improve and not as a result of an RAIB wipeout report.
The Grayrigg reports throws up some other interesting nuggets. A lack of light is enough to encourage people to evacuate a train, as the RSSB has stated and is now part of the design standards.
And then this nasty one about how communication channels need to be swifter.
EM2
Established Member
Just two questions.
Firstly, how many trains have to be stopped before your plan gets put into action? One? Ten? Fifty?
Secondly, these 'members of rail staff' that are going to attend at the 60-minute mark to EVERY train that's stuck. Who are they, where are they coming from, what training do they have and what are they going to do when they get there?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Right, so you're going to call an ambulance to a train just because it's been stopped for 90 minutes? I can see that going down very, very will with the ambulance service. In fact, I would imagine it would be classed as hoax calls after a while.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,631
I'm reluctant to wade into this issue as I can only be strangled to death by everyone else, but in any incident where trains come to a standstill, TOCs need to be working really hard by the 60 minute mark to get passengers onto platforms otherwise this sort of thing is going to happen. You can shout at passengers all you like, it won't have any effect in the end, as has been demonstrated by these incidents.
Like the signal failure at Woking (or wherever) recently. The trespassing might have been prevented if the parties involved had stopped waiting for everything to magically start working again and tried to get passengers onto a platform. Perhaps a bad example, but you get what I'm saying.
Just my opinion.
Like the signal failure at Woking (or wherever) recently. The trespassing might have been prevented if the parties involved had stopped waiting for everything to magically start working again and tried to get passengers onto a platform. Perhaps a bad example, but you get what I'm saying.
Just my opinion.
1. One
2. Network Rail and the TOC's have a basic incident response as well as the BTP. It's a symbolic gesture, establishes communications and allows for the identification of priorities to be made. Something, which a phone call cannot make. It also allows for the risk assessment of the access route to the train to be identified as well as identifying whether other potential suppliers of aid can also provide access.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually, yes I would, as in most situations, a train gets very warm or very cold. In certain situations, an ambulance may not be needed. Of course, if the Train companies worked hard, calls for ambulances to trains would be few in number.
Last edited:
lookingforit35
Member
Class 465 do have aircon, but its not brilliant to tell the truth.
Not sure if this is correct? I've never noticed anything approaching aircon, and opening windows would most likely not be fitted if aircon was present as this negates the effect. Though I stand to be corrected!
Either way I've made my mind up. I would allow Darwin's law to prevail - let the cannon fodder climb down into mortal danger and stay put myself, enjoying the cool breeze from the open doors!! That's mostly a joke by the way as whilst I am new here I have detected a certain lack of humour on occassions...........
Is that what you honestly think staff do during times of disruption? Rather than working as hard as they can to determine where the problem is, what the problem is, how to fix it and then fix it, all whilst trying to keep the various parties involved informed as to what's happening. You think they sit there in their control rooms and signal boxes and cabs and vans just waiting for things to start working again?
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Who are these people? Are they on-call managers? Do they only do this incident response? Who's going to pay for these people and their equipment?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I can tell you right now that if you call and ambulance to every train that has been stopped the you will make yourself very very unpopular. They should only be called if someone is actually ill, or if there is a tangible reason to believe there is a threat to life. I.e, in an emergency, not just because a train has been stopped!
Old Timer
Established Member
The response just goes to show your lack of knowledge.
The railway line is home to many different species of plant that are uncommon in most areas which are used by people. My last UK Company had a Procedure outlining the risks and hazards from a variety of plants found lineside, some of which can cause blistering of the skin.
Every hazard I have listed has caused injury to staff at some point, however if on the basis of your vast knowledge of the trackside environment you want to argue that they pose no risk then please do carry on.
Well, we have a range of people like MOM's Infrastructure staff, incident response TOC staff (range from managers to guards) and the British Transport Police. All are trained to access the track already and their equipment is minimal. All have access to a car. :roll:
Other supplies like the supply of water would depend on stores and be bought on CPC's or out of slush funds where necessary.
- Status