FCC fined £75k over "absolute shambles"

[sbt]

A side comment:

Many posters are referring to the Passengers as a single block and as if they all left the train. Not every passenger left the train, those still on the train did not contribute to the problems. It only took a very small number of passengers to open, and reopen, the doors, those further back in the carriages had no choice in the matter.

I strongly suspect that the majority of passengers 'did the right thing' in conditions that the RAIB describe as 'Intolerable'. But thats all right and perfectly acceptable and FCC are 'off the hook' because other passengers behaved in a manner that is perfectly in line with usual human behaviour, thus damning those who were no more able to control them than the railway staff not on the spot were.

 

[O L Leigh]

No we aren't.

People left the train of their own volition. Who were these people? They were passengers. No-one suggested that every single passenger decamped to the track. However, as has already been outlined several times, even the RAIB identifies passenger actions as contributing to the delays which, in turn, kept the train where it was for longer meaning that passenger discomfort was prolonged. It's not a difficult chain of events to follow.

As for letting FCC off the hook, have you read anything...? Problems in their processes and procedures were identified by the RAIB and Blackfriars Crown Court found the company guilty of health and safety offences.

O L Leigh

 

[A-driver]

Ok, this is probably going to be controversial to some, but I feel compelled to say it…

It's a fundamental and critical part of their job to handle what should be a routine failure. If they allow it to get to the stage where conditions inside the train are expected to be "intolerable" (RSSB / RAIB's choice of word, not mine), they have fundamentally failed, and failed severely in meeting their duty of care and responsibilities. They deserve the extremely harsh criticism that they are getting!

Yes, some people do criticize in a way that makes it seem like they expect FCC to wave a magic wand, but that doesn't change the fact that they did fail very badly in this case.

("They" being FCC as a whole, and their senior management, not hard working people on the front lines trying to do their best in a situation that's spiralling downwards.)

So who are "they" who refer to exactly? The thing is that "they" don't exist.

If by "they" you mean control staff then let me enlighten you to the reality of who "they" are. "They" are 2 people, 1 at some time of the day, who sit in the control room or signal box to oversee the operation of the railway. When a train fails like this, "they" (yes, both of them) suddenly have to speak to the driver, the signaller, the fitters, the mom, update info to be passed on at stations, to staff etc and that is before they have started looking at the fact that that isn't the only train about. What about all the others either side of the failed unit. What about once trains start backing up and can't get out of terminal stations so start preventing other trains from getting in. Who is it down to to then start deciding where to turn trains round and deciding which trains to tun, which ones to cancel and run fast elsewhere, which trains to run straight into sidings to get them out the way etc...that's right, "they" do all that aswell. Numerous trains in the rush hour stuck over more than 100miles of track. Then they field the continuous phone calls from people like drivers trying to find out what to do with their trains, signallers trying to find out where to send trains, station staff trying to find out where trains are so that they can deal with hundreds of angry punters, customer service staff who are fielding off phone calls and tweets trying to get updates, senior management trying to find out why their train set is broken etc.

Yes, This kind of thing is part of their job BUT its an impossible set up for them. There are far to few staff in control to deal with these situations. They won't employ more as these kind of incidents are so incredibly rare that they would end up paying people to sit around doing nothing all day just so that they can help out once every 6 years when a train breaks down and further complications hinder the rescue effort.

So I disagree with you completely..."they" certainly have not failed in anything as they can only do so much.

People need to stop pointing fingers so much on this forum. It's really nasty, especially when it is so clear that those pointing the finger don't have the foggiest idea what they are on about, and that is clear from the factual inaccuracies of several posts. Yes this was a poor situation and overall was handled badly but it certainly wasnt the fault of any individuals and it is certainly fair to say that neither the driver, fitter, mom or control staff in anyway failed in their jobs during this incident. They all did everything properly and by the book using the tools available to them. That is why FCC as a company was held responsible and fined and the other staff involved all continue to work in their jobs as they did before. No blame has been passed onto any of them as none of them actually did anything wrong whatsoever on that evening.

 

[bramling]

Sure, people getting off did add to the rescue time, but it's important to consider WHY they got off. I humbly suggest that it's because they had (not unreasonably) lost all faith/confidence in FCC to rescue them, and felt that they had to self-rescue. That somewhat redirects the blame squarely back at FCC (had they handled things adequately within the first 60-90 minutes, it's far less likely that people would have resorted to self-rescue).

I'm a little unsure what FCC are actually being fined for? Is it for the incident as a whole, the self-detraining, or for the train moving with the doors open?

At the end of the day it was the passengers who chose to open the doors. In the circumstances of a heavily loaded train stuck for hours on a hot day, this part is understandable.

But I'm not sure the driver really did anything wrong to cause the train to move with the doors open. Normally when you cut out the door interlocking, a visual check must be made to ensure all train doors are closed before moving. This was done. Perhaps it wasn't totally 100% coche for the fitter to have made the check rather than the driver, though of course a fitter should and would be fully competent to make such a check. It was then the passengers who chose to again open the doors, for this part I can't really see what additional checks the railway could have done after the visual check had been made, so I don't really see it is reasonable to be fining the train company for this aspect of the incident.

One wonders had the train been fitted with opening windows whether that would have made a difference to the outcome of the incident.

 

[Taunton]

This incident is one of the most incompetently managed safety issues ever to have been reported on the railway.

In any other organisation the Chief Executive and relevant directors would have lost their positions as a result of the court case, but instead we just get a “Hey ho, we’ve changed procedures now so nothing more to say, on we go …..” type attitude from the FCC management and their ultimate owner.

The whole issue comes over as Dunderheads managing Dunderheads (which is of course what the judge said) and it would be good to know how many of those involved have been removed from any future position of responsibility.

Who was the genius who devised the primary approach to handle disabled trains in the tunnel was to move them out with another train from ahead/behind, then specified a fleet with two types of train (319 and 377) with incompatible couplings, and to cap it all then did a timetable with alternate trains formed of the alternate types, so effectively no train is capable of easily being assisted by the one behind. You don’t even find that level of stupidity in Thomas the Tank Engine stories.

The Kentish Town fitter sent to assist took 35 minutes to get to St Pancras (the next station) because, as the RAIB states, with irony, they were ‘travelling by public transport’. It’s around 10 minutes by taxi for that journey even at this time. Of course, it saves FCC a few pence to go by public transport instead.

The control staff really seemed to be making it up as they were going along, there was no worked-through strategy for a major peak hour failure on the key Thameslink section. This is not some branch line in Cornwall, it is a key cross-London trunk route handling tens of thousands of passengers per hour. You have to wonder what the incident planning team have been doing with their lives in the past.

In bad old BR days, of course, a diesel locomotive, driven by a crew who actually knew how couplings work, would have been sent down from Cricklewood and the whole lot dragged out within the hour.

It is a failing of the whole RAIB process that they are unable, by their self-imposed terms of reference, to write in their report that FCC showed incompetence, a couldn’t-care-less attitude, and posed danger to passengers, where quite obviously this had happened, and it takes a judge from outside the industry to state the blindingly obvious. For example, the report states “the conditions on train 1W95, which were uncomfortable because of crowding, lack of airflow and the heat…. ”. What this means in plain language is that passengers inside the train had collapsed through muscle fatigue after standing in crush conditions for hours with no seats available, fainted from lack of adequate air because of failed ventilation with no openable windows, and had soiled their clothes as the toilets had gone out of service.

Those who write here about passenger action being inappropriate clearly seem to think that expecting many passengers to stand up for hours in crush-loaded conditions with failed ventilation, lights and toilets is just something that a trainload of passengers are merrily expected to do. If they are professional railway staff with this attitude they really should consider whether they are in the right job.

 

[Murph]

So who are "they" who refer to exactly? The thing is that "they" don't exist.

As I said:

("They" being FCC as a whole, and their senior management, not hard working people on the front lines trying to do their best in a situation that's spiralling downwards.)

I have to assume that FCC do have senior management (the people at the top, above the controllers, moms, fitters, drivers, etc). There are a number of points in the RAIB report where it seems quite reasonable to feel that they failed.

Edit: For clarity, I don't even mean all of the senior management, just those who are responsible for the identified failures.

 

[tsr]

One wonders had the train been fitted with opening windows whether that would have made a difference to the outcome of the incident.

Some of the smaller windows by the passenger doors on some (all?) Electrostars are locked shut but can be opened. I believe this applies to the 377s that FCC use.

 

[jon0844]

...the report states “the conditions on train 1W95, which were uncomfortable because of crowding, lack of airflow and the heat…. ”. What this means in plain language is that passengers inside the train had collapsed through muscle fatigue after standing in crush conditions for hours with no seats available, fainted from lack of adequate air because of failed ventilation with no openable windows, and had soiled their clothes as the toilets had gone out of service.

Why wasn't that detailed information put in the report? I presume you were on the train and saw this first hand, as I wasn't aware until now that people had fainted, collapsed from muscle fatigue or soiled themselves.

 

[Tetchytyke]

People need to stop pointing fingers so much on this forum. It's really nasty, especially when it is so clear that those pointing the finger don't have the foggiest idea what they are on about, and that is clear from the factual inaccuracies of several posts. Yes this was a poor situation and overall was handled badly but it certainly wasnt the fault of any individuals and it is certainly fair to say that neither the driver, fitter, mom or control staff in anyway failed in their jobs during this incident.

So why were First Capital Connect found guilty of criminal offences relating to the incident, and fined £75,000 as a result, if it wasn't the company's fault?

And why did the judge, when passing judgment, comment that the incident was a "shambles" and that a "litany of mistakes were made"?

Why did the Office of the Rail Regulator, when prosecuting, comment that "The company's response significantly increased the risk of passengers independently leaving the train on to the tracks, when the safest place for them was to stay on board until told otherwise."

The "company" is comprised of individuals. If a "company" screws up so badly they get convicted of criminal offences, then that means individuals have screwed up. It's not exactly rocket science to understand this. And whilst some posters on an internet forum may not understand everything about the operation of the railways, that cannot be said for the RAIB or the ORR.

As for conditions on the train, the BBC have a video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24107132

 

[Oswyntail]

So who are "they" who refer to exactly? The thing is that "they" don't exist. ...
So I disagree with you completely..."they" certainly have not failed in anything as they can only do so much.

You have defined "they" as those whom you want to defend, then defend them. Fair enough, and we all see your point. However, when a lay person uses "they", he is generally not referring to one group, but the overall enterprise. In this case, was there a suitable contingency plan for a situation such as this (the report suggests not!) and, if there was any plan, was it put into effect properly. If, for example, standing instructions said that, if an incident occurs the first thing the (overstretched) control should do was to notify management, and they delayed doing so, then control should be criticised. Of course, as seems to be the case with this incident, it is possible that whatever plan there was was unworkable, and, one hopes, this would lead to a proper review.

People need to stop pointing fingers so much on this forum. It's really nasty, especially when it is so clear that those pointing the finger don't have the foggiest idea what they are on about....

This is an argument often used here as well, but is not necessarily valid (as it is not here). There are many people here experienced in, for instance, incident management who, while ignorant of the details of railway procedures, have valid input into the discussion. It is also very important to recognise that the railways are run primarily for the "customers" (whether passenger or freight), and so the view of the lay person as to what the priorities should have been are crucial. Sadly, this will sometimes mean that individuals are held responsible. But this does not make it "nasty".

 

[67018]

The "company" is comprised of individuals. If a "company" screws up so badly they get convicted of criminal offences, then that means individuals have screwed up.

This form of reasoning is flawed, though. It is quite possible that a unique combination of actions, processes and procedures, each individually defensible, collectively leads to an undesirable situation. Especially under unique circumstances such as this.

This is why the RAIB exists to identify causal factors and make recommendations, so that lessons can be learned and the same combination of factors is handled better in future. This is what makes things better, not assigning blame and sacking people. If you fire all the senior management every time something like this happens, watch what happens when everyone becomes totally risk averse until people complain of the resultant inconvenience due to 'Elf 'n' Safety gone mad'.

It's the job of the courts to assign blame, which they have done, and FCC have been duly punished with a fine and a load of bad publicity. What else do people suggest, public flogging?

 

[W230]

Why wasn't that detailed information put in the report? I presume you were on the train and saw this first hand, as I wasn't aware until now that people had fainted, collapsed from muscle fatigue or soiled themselves.

Taunton read it first hand in the DM - did you not see the headline? "Passengers kidnapped and held to ransom by greedy TOC".

 

[swj99]

Yes, This kind of thing is part of their job BUT its an impossible set up for them. There are far to few staff in control to deal with these situations. They won't employ more as these kind of incidents are so incredibly rare that they would end up paying people to sit around doing nothing all day just so that they can help out once every 6 years when a train breaks down and further complications hinder the rescue effort.

It's probably cheaper to just pay the fine than it would be to employ more people so that incidents such as this can be better managed in the future.

Anyway, the management has been 'rectified' so that's alright then.

The regulator said since the incident the firm had "taken steps to rectify their management of similar situations".

 

[chuckles1066]

It's probably cheaper to just pay the fine than it would be to employ more people so that incidents such as this can be better managed in the future.

Anyway, the management has been 'rectified' so that's alright then.

Ha ha ha

The textbook approach to f**k ups is this: "mistakes have been made, lessons have been learned, measures have been put in place to prevent re-occurrences".

Straight out of every corporate press release.

 

[Roverman]

If I was the RAIB I'd have the following fine structure

Fine 1: X amount
Fine 2: 10X
Fine 3: 20X
Fine 4: 50X
Fine 5: 100X

The idea being that if TOCs didn't learn their lessons (rather than just say they have) then they would be financially punished until they did. I'd also have the DOR on standby at a moments notice to take over the TOC if they really wouldn't learn.

 

[O L Leigh]

The RAIB does not exist to apportion blame or levy penalties. Honestly, I thought we'd been over this already.

O L Leigh

 

[The Box Photter]

This is an example of what happens on the fragmented railway. It is also an example of what happens when you let a bus company run a railway service. FCC is shambolic when even a minor incident occurs, but this one simply exposed the fact that First Group is not interested in running a reliable safe service for its passengers, it is only in it for the guaranteed Government cash. There has been no real investment made by the shareholders of First Group into the Thameslink line apart from the liberal daubing of purple paint on any non-brick vertical service and remedial maintenance to keep the 319s staggering on until they can get their hands on some new shiny trains financed by the taxpayer.

Mrs Box Photter was about to board the train in question at St Pancras on that evening and decided not to do so after what she described as "an explosion" happened whilst the train was in the platform. The unit should never have been allowed to proceed into the tunnel with passengers on board.

 

[caliwag]

In terms of train toilets, will the designers please get rid of this fetish of electronic button pressing. A snib showing vacant or engaged is all that's needed... in the event of a perturbation, all you need is a private space to do the biz and flush. ideally one per coach...not too much to ask for surely. It's electronics for the sake of it...very silly.

 

[tsr]

In terms of train toilets, will the designers please get rid of this fetish of electronic button pressing. A snib showing vacant or engaged is all that's needed... in the event of a perturbation, all you need is a private space to do the biz and flush. ideally one per coach...not too much to ask for surely. It's electronics for the sake of it...very silly.

The non-"accessible" toilets fitted over the years to various Turbostars and Electrostas have standard, manual hinged doors. The flush is electrically controlled, but the pan will attempt to self-empty under a certain weight of waste. Lighting in the toilet can be provided with one of the "glow sticks" provided. Therefore no electrical supply is needed in order to relieve the needs of a small handful of passengers. Unfortunately, the sewerage system will then quickly become useless because of the lack of said electrical flushing. At this point, toilet use should probably switch to the "accessible" facility, which can be accessed by manually sliding the door. This door is not particularly heavy and can be slid back again, too, to ensure privacy. I should know - I have used faulty toilets and their doors on FCC 377s. After you have exhausted these options... you have a problem...

 

[JGR]

This is an example of what happens on the fragmented railway. It is also an example of what happens when you let a bus company run a railway service. FCC is shambolic when even a minor incident occurs, but this one simply exposed the fact that First Group is not interested in running a reliable safe service for its passengers, it is only in it for the guaranteed Government cash. There has been no real investment made by the shareholders of First Group into the Thameslink line apart from the liberal daubing of purple paint on any non-brick vertical service and remedial maintenance to keep the 319s staggering on until they can get their hands on some new shiny trains financed by the taxpayer.

Nominally unified companies/bodies are also prone to internal fragmentation and silo behaviour.
Uniting all the various TOCs, NR & co, etc. under one glorious (or otherwise) banner would not automatically fix all the things you've listed.

 

[EM2]

FCC is shambolic when even a minor incident occurs, but this one simply exposed the fact that First Group is not interested in running a reliable safe service for its passengers, it is only in it for the guaranteed Government cash.

You do know that FCC is the only TOC which makes a premium payment TO the Government, don't you?

 

[O L Leigh]

The non-"accessible" toilets fitted over the years to various Turbostars and Electrostas have standard, manual hinged doors. The flush is electrically controlled, but the pan will attempt to self-empty under a certain weight of waste. Lighting in the toilet can be provided with one of the "glow sticks" provided. Therefore no electrical supply is needed in order to relieve the needs of a small handful of passengers. Unfortunately, the sewerage system will then quickly become useless because of the lack of said electrical flushing. At this point, toilet use should probably switch to the "accessible" facility, which can be accessed by manually sliding the door. This door is not particularly heavy and can be slid back again, too, to ensure privacy. I should know - I have used faulty toilets and their doors on FCC 377s. After you have exhausted these options... you have a problem...

As stated above...

There isn't much you can about the bogs unfortunately, because the flush operates by taking air from the main air system and once the pressure drops too low they simply stop working.

This is an example of what happens on the fragmented railway. It is also an example of what happens when you let a bus company run a railway service. FCC is shambolic when even a minor incident occurs, but this one simply exposed the fact that First Group is not interested in running a reliable safe service for its passengers, it is only in it for the guaranteed Government cash. There has been no real investment made by the shareholders of First Group into the Thameslink line apart from the liberal daubing of purple paint on any non-brick vertical service and remedial maintenance to keep the 319s staggering on until they can get their hands on some new shiny trains financed by the taxpayer.

There are so many myths and fallacies about the privatised railway in this statement that it is hard to know where to begin. Suffice to say that it is ill-informed enough to undermine your general point.

Mrs Box Photter was about to board the train in question at St Pancras on that evening and decided not to do so after what she described as "an explosion" happened whilst the train was in the platform. The unit should never have been allowed to proceed into the tunnel with passengers on board.

If there really was an issue that affected the safety of the train I'm sure the driver would have addressed it. That the train continued as normal in spite of what she described as "an explosion" suggests that any problem was not as dramatic as you are attempting to make out.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but FCC has invested rather a lot beyond just painting stations. Isn't it a franchise requirement (either placed upon them in the outline, or offered by FCC as an extra to have won it in the first place)?

Network Rail might own the stations, but FCC effectively lease them and have to pay to do upgrade work (or contribute towards it), so for things like new furniture, gate lines, CCTV etc.

I believe FCC is paying towards the virtual rebuild of Hatfield station, along with money from Herts County Council, Network Rail and Lord Salisbury (owner of the estate around Old Hatfield where the station resides).

FCC also spent a lot of money shortly after 2006 on various projects, as it had promised to do as part of its franchise.

And any TOC would have to do this. Many TOCs would also WANT to do it as even a 'bus operator' would know that you have to spend money to make money. To think that a private company just sits back and goes for the easy money is naive and totally off the mark. No shareholder would be happy with this policy, as the real profit comes from growth.

The problem is that there has been such huge growth, that it then introduces problems of its own. Like seeking out new rolling stock (and FCC struggled early on with only the 319s to play with on the TL side and no new stock for the GN side for a while) to cope with all the new people wanting to travel at peak times.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you fire all the senior management every time something like this happens, watch what happens when everyone becomes totally risk averse until people complain of the resultant inconvenience due to 'Elf 'n' Safety gone mad'.

It depends what you take to mean as "risk averse".

If by "risk averse" you mean "staffing the control properly and training drivers properly on the trains they drive", or "not allowing defective trains to leave the station", then I fail to see the problem with that. Whilst it would be inconvenient to keep the train in the station, it sure as hell beats letting it go 300 yards up the tunnel and then conking out.

The problem with situations like this is that the TOC doesn't need to be risk averse because the risk is not sufficient to focus minds. A £75k fine is barely more than the ticket revenue from the people on board the train that got stuck.

 

[W230]

It is also an example of what happens when you let a bus company run a railway service.

Really? Are all the staff ex-bus drivers or from a bus company or something then? Or just the management? Or neither? I would suggest that many of the staff who work for FCC worked for them under Thameslink/joined the company since but not from the bus industry but you seem to know more?

Mrs Box Photter was about to board the train in question at St Pancras on that evening and decided not to do so after what she described as "an explosion" happened whilst the train was in the platform.

The short-circuit caused by the branch in the pantograph which (probably) caused the Auto Drop Device to Operate. No danger to anyone.

I do find it intriguing how people get so wound up by "bus companies" running TOC's. I'm not even going to pretend I know how the decision making goes on behind the scenes but it seems there are many "well informed" commuters who know that bus companies = bad without any further information! "This wouldn't have happened on Virgin..."

 

[jon0844]

What does Serco know about running trains then? Around here they just tip my rubbish bins into the back of a truck every week...

 

[Tetchytyke]

What else a company does is pretty much irrelevant.

GNER, widely regarded as one of the better franchises, made their money on shipping containers.

What does Serco know about running trains then? Around here they just tip my rubbish bins into the back of a truck every week...

Well, judging by the low standards on Northern Rail...

 

[jon0844]

shipping containers.

Isn't that what we call a Pacer?

 

[LateThanNever]

Originally Posted by A-driver
Yes, This kind of thing is part of their job BUT its an impossible set up for them. There are far to few staff in control to deal with these situations. They won't employ more as these kind of incidents are so incredibly rare that they would end up paying people to sit around doing nothing all day just so that they can help out once every 6 years when a train breaks down and further complications hinder the rescue effort.

It's probably cheaper to just pay the fine than it would be to employ more people so that incidents such as this can be better managed in the future.

Anyway, the management has been 'rectified' so that's alright then.

Quite - I don't think. Personally I wonder if there is any management?
If there are so very few control staff capable of dealing with problems - then you need to have further trained staff who are capable of being called in when circumstances require - perhaps a driver or two some of whom, if the line is blocked, are likely to be sitting around with no train to drive - and also the management whose very purpose is to manage and problem solve - and who here failed to put in an appearance at all! It seems very much like a bus company to me - whose management I've never known to appear when there is a problem but simply leave it to the customer facing staff. Perhaps there is a 'Worst' school of management that they all attend-in a bunker somewhere I expect....

 

[A-driver]

Originally Posted by A-driver
Yes, This kind of thing is part of their job BUT its an impossible set up for them. There are far to few staff in control to deal with these situations. They won't employ more as these kind of incidents are so incredibly rare that they would end up paying people to sit around doing nothing all day just so that they can help out once every 6 years when a train breaks down and further complications hinder the rescue effort.



Quite - I don't think. Personally I wonder if there is any management?
If there are so very few control staff capable of dealing with problems - then you need to have further trained staff who are capable of being called in when circumstances require - perhaps a driver or two some of whom, if the line is blocked, are likely to be sitting around with no train to drive - and also the management whose very purpose is to manage and problem solve - and who here failed to put in an appearance at all! It seems very much like a bus company to me - whose management I've never known to appear when there is a problem but simply leave it to the customer facing staff. Perhaps there is a 'Worst' school of management that they all attend-in a bunker somewhere I expect....

In an ideal world there would be enough staff and equipment to sort these problems out straight away.

But we live in a real world where money is an issue, TOCs are run for profit and spending money on training and recruiting more staff who may be called into action once every few years is never ever going to happen. As has been said, paying out just over 100k in a fine every few years is cheaper than employing and training more staff.