Letting passengers off a broken down train- is this impossible?

[Howardh]

I'm not sure you are understanding the potential problems.

There are two members of staff and 500 pax. It is very easy for one of them to wander off (even if only a small proportion of that disembarks from the train). You then have to stop all trains as these people are being located. Nowhere near as easy as you might think.

The trains on one line are stopped anyway. If one coming the opposite way stops - yep, the ones behind might have to wait (or even pick up the remaining stranded passengers).

The train crew (all 2 of them) could evacuate slowly through ONE door closest to the other train, and the (2) crew from that train see them on through the one door closest to stranded train.

Or even bring them side-by-side and evacuate through an adjacent door. As for the difficulty of getting off a train onto the track and back - if the driver and guard can manage it, I bet 90% of the passengers might be just as superhuman as they. Maybe more superhuman. The remainder will have a much more comfortable passage of time waiting for help.

 

[transmanche]

There are two members of staff and 500 pax. It is very easy for one of them to wander off (even if only a small proportion of that disembarks from the train). You then have to stop all trains as these people are being located. Nowhere near as easy as you might think.

It's worth adding that (according to ATOC) it takes about 30 seconds per passenger to evacuate a train using one emergency ladder. Obviously more ladders can be used if available, but more staff would be needed to assist and supervise passengers.

 

[yorkie]

Or even bring them side-by-side and evacuate through an adjacent door. As for the difficulty of getting off a train onto the track and back - if the driver and guard can manage it, I bet 90% of the passengers might be just as superhuman as they. Maybe more superhuman. The remainder will have a much more comfortable passage of time waiting for help.

The doors won't quite be adjacent, so unless you have a suitable ramp to do a direct transfer, then it's quite a big task. Are elderly people, young children, etc "superhuman" or would you leave them on board the failed train?

There isn't any real harm asking questions, but saying things like "superhuman" and trying to trivialise the procedures, is just likely to irritate rail staff - and understandably so. Please can such comments stop now.

 

[Howardh]

The doors won't quite be adjacent, so unless you have a suitable ramp to do a direct transfer, then it's quite a big task. Are elderly people, young children, etc "superhuman" or would you leave them on board the failed train?

There isn't any real harm asking questions, but saying things like "superhuman" and trying to trivialise the procedures, is just likely to irritate rail staff - and understandably so. Please can such comments stop now.

Clearly you haven't read the thread thoroughly. It quite clearly assumes the elderly etc would STAY ON the stranded train. As would happen anyway...but under much less crowded and more comfortable conditions. If necessary food/water/medical aid could get to them - maybe much easier than if everyone were still on the train.

But in any case, if there were a fire on the train, would they be left to die? Then USE all the necessary emergency equipment to get them off, should they so wish.

I "trivialise it" because passengers like me get so fed up of the passenger being put last (or at least it always seems that way) when a little dose of common sense would put things right. There must be a handbook somewhere which says "Here are the solutions...now let's find an excuse not to use them - first to ten wins a crate of beer".

It's not trivial leaving hundreds on a stifling hot train. It wasn't the passengers that dictated windows couldn't be opened because of the "air conditioning". Remember if they were wildstock they would HAVE to be let out after a certain time....

Rant over...bed time.

 

[jon0844]

If there was a fire, people would be moved - what makes you think they wouldn't?

But there wasn't a fire.

 

[Howardh]

If there was a fire, people would be moved - what makes you think they wouldn't?

But there wasn't a fire.

Yes, but if there was - they would have HAD to be evacuated. Yet I keep being told it isn't safe to evacuate.....so if there's a fire are they being moved from a certain death to a certain death? Of course not!

If it's safe to evacuate quickly in a fire, it's just as safe to evacuate when a trains stranded.

 

[Tomnick]

Nothing's ever going to be entirely 'safe' - it's all relative. There are numerous risks associated with evacuating a trainload of passengers onto the ballast: it's generally more safe than staying on a burning train (if you can't move along the train to safely) but less safe than staying on a train that's not on fire. Simple enough?

Can you not even appreciate the difference between an emergency evacuation and a controlled evacuation?

 

[Skoodle]

If it's safe to evacuate quickly in a fire, it's just as safe to evacuate when a trains stranded.

The differences being if they had to be evacuated because of a fire, the adjacent lines will be blocked due to having the fire on the train and also hundreds of passengers wandering about in a panic. If the adjacent line is blocked there's no chance of a rescue set coming up alongside. If the passengers stay on the train, things *can* move along a lot quicker.

It's the same with the FCC train that failed. It would have been over a lot sooner had the passengers not decided to detrain themselves, with the traction current isolation that was put in place because of them!

 

[Eagle]

It's not trivial leaving hundreds on a stifling hot train.

The train wasn't stifling hot. That's been established. It wasn't a very warm day, and in fact was overcast and had been raining intermittently. Granted the internal temperature will be somewhat warmer than usual due to the overcrowding, but it's not exactly comparable to a train in direct sunlight during a heatwave, like we all had to endure last month.

 

[bb21]

Clearly you haven't read the thread thoroughly. It quite clearly assumes the elderly etc would STAY ON the stranded train. As would happen anyway...but under much less crowded and more comfortable conditions. If necessary food/water/medical aid could get to them - maybe much easier than if everyone were still on the train.

But in any case, if there were a fire on the train, would they be left to die? Then USE all the necessary emergency equipment to get them off, should they so wish.

I "trivialise it" because passengers like me get so fed up of the passenger being put last (or at least it always seems that way) when a little dose of common sense would put things right. There must be a handbook somewhere which says "Here are the solutions...now let's find an excuse not to use them - first to ten wins a crate of beer".

It's not trivial leaving hundreds on a stifling hot train. It wasn't the passengers that dictated windows couldn't be opened because of the "air conditioning". Remember if they were wildstock they would HAVE to be let out after a certain time....

Rant over...bed time.

This is getting ridiculous. I'm not sure whether you just want a rant or whether you genuinely can't see the reason why it is best that passengers remain where they are.

 

[sarahj]

I'm joining this quite late.

If there was a fire, you would first move the passengers to another coach, before doing an evacuation, once you knew that the line was secured. Not much good saving them all from a fire to have them run over or sizzled.

But I dont know what you think the train staff were doing. When trains stop for extended periods of time we are pushing for solutions, moving things along. We dont want to be stuck there. We want to get home to.
But, one of the last things we want is to dump a 1000 passengers onto the track when its safer for them to stay on board. train to train, can be done, but is difficult and slow. Having them wander down the line you have to arrange walking parties and then onward transport and deal with those that climbing down from a train is not an option. And ive done it, both by ladder and sitting on the ledge, and would not recommend it, unless realy realy ness.

And as for cases etc, they would be left behind, to be picked up later

 

[transmanche]

It's the same with the FCC train that failed. It would have been over a lot sooner had the passengers not decided to detrain themselves, with the traction current isolation that was put in place because of them!

If you're referring to the Kentish Town incident in May 2011, then passengers detrained 2h37 after the train came to a stand and 9 mins before the train eventually moved. So at worst, they delayed the train by a maximum of 8 minutes.

(If a different incident involving FCC south of the river, then it's not one I've heard about.)

 

[NightStar]

Evening, I am wondering why some of the trains seem to lose all power when they are of the diesel electric type? If the train hits someone or something why would the cars then become warm? Does the locomotive not continue to idle for the ETS or HEP alternator to supply the train with HVAC. Here in the US if our Amtrak has a incident as long as the locomotive and cars are not in danger the locomotives are left running as long as the exhaust can escape freely.

Second

When one of these trains fail why does it take so long for the TOC to do something about it? Could a dispatcher not setup for a freight locomotive or shunter to couple on if one is nearby? Sure there would be no power, But atleast the train could be dragged into the nearest station to discharge the passengers. Then maybe shunted to a siding or unused section of track at some industry for a short time till the move to a yard to be repaired.

Over here we sometimes have commuter trains that fail and Amtrak being pulled by a borrowed freight diesel from one of the freight companies so the line can be cleared and the passengers detrained safely at a station. Sometimes though buses are used when near a road or crossing.

Robert

 

[Tomnick]

Perhaps you'd benefit from reading the rest of the thread before commenting further - in particular, the bits that state that at least one power car was left running (thus providing ETS), and that an assisting loco was on its way within an hour or so (but couldn't do anything immediately)...

 

[Train jaune]

My bottom line is that six hours is just having a laugh. Contingencies should be set it motion after an hour to ensure people are out of there within three hours. Saying it was a bit cloudy and not too hot so they can be left to stew for as long as, isn't good enough

 

[michael769]

My bottom line is that six hours is just having a laugh. Contingencies should be set it motion after an hour to ensure people are out of there within three hours. Saying it was a bit cloudy and not too hot so they can be left to stew for as long as, isn't good enough

I have to agree with this. If a ToC cannot get a train moving or the passengers off in 3 hours then there is something wrong with them. And anyone who considers it is acceptable to coop people up in an immobilized train for 3+ hours under any circumstances demonstrates a astonishing lack of basic human compassion and empathy.

My proposal would be to modify Delay repay so that where the delay exceeds 3 hours passengers will be eligible to a refund of their entire fare paid for every full 5 minute period over the 3 hours that the train is stationary and they have not been decanted onto alternative transport.

I'll lay odds that under that regime they would suddenly realize that it is possible to bring aid to passengers in such circumstances....

 

[Howardh]

I have to agree with this. If a ToC cannot get a train moving or the passengers off in 3 hours then there is something wrong with them. And anyone who considers it is acceptable to coop people up in an immobilized train for 3+ hours under any circumstances demonstrates a astonishing lack of basic human compassion and empathy.

My proposal would be to modify Delay repay so that where the delay exceeds 3 hours passengers will be eligible to a refund of their entire fare paid for every full 5 minute period over the 3 hours that the train is stationary and they have not been decanted onto alternative transport.

I'll lay odds that under that regime they would suddenly realize that it is possible to bring aid to passengers in such circumstances....

*Hearty round of applause*

 

[AndyLandy]

I don't think anyone denies that 6 hours is anything other than totally unreasonable. Clearly something needs to be done to ensure that level of delay doesn't happen again. But I'm not an expert in the industry and I wouldn't presume to know enough about what that something needs to be.

However, as for these remarks about "being stuck on a train for 6 hours" being somehow dangerous, I present you with this:

Depart: 08:20 Aberdeen
Arrive: 21:42 Penzance
Changes: 0
Journey time: 13h 22

People do it. CrossCountry are expected to provide that as a through journey because some folks want to take it. People don't mysteriously die on that service, so it's perfectly clear that it's safe to be on the same train for 13+ hours. It might not be comfortable. It's certainly not my idea of fun, but it's safe.

So, how does the train being stopped magically mean that suddenly it's become a deathtrap? By all accounts, there was still power to the carriages, so the aircon was on. The buffet eventually ran out, but not immediately. And it's not like that doesn't happen on service trains from time to time.

 

[Lockwood]

I would say that their are differently psychological effects:
I am on a train that is moving for 13 hours. I know what is going on, I know where I am, I know where I'm going to be.
I am on a train stuck for 6 hours. I don't know what is happening, I know where I am, I don't know where I'll be taken next.

That then creates a stressful situation, which can lead to panic attacks, hyperventilation, etc.
Whilst this is not an immediate risk to life or limb, it does make it a less safe option than a running journey of twice the length.

 

[jb]

I'll lay odds that under that regime they would suddenly realize that it is possible to bring aid to passengers in such circumstances....

Sure they could, quite possibly by initiating detraining after maybe 30-60 minutes as a matter of course, making bad (but manageable) situations worse and quite probably causing significant numbers of serious and less serious injuries, maybe dozens of times a year. Quite possibly bringing largish areas of the network to a standstill on a regular-ish basis, too.

 

[Howardh]

I would say that their are differently psychological effects:
I am on a train that is moving for 13 hours. I know what is going on, I know where I am, I know where I'm going to be.
I am on a train stuck for 6 hours. I don't know what is happening, I know where I am, I don't know where I'll be taken next.

That then creates a stressful situation, which can lead to panic attacks, hyperventilation, etc.
Whilst this is not an immediate risk to life or limb, it does make it a less safe option than a running journey of twice the length.

Add to that if you know how long you will be on a train, eg that 13 hour journey, you can prepare for that + a couple of hours extra if need be; food, drink, topped-up mobile, razor for a shave and even bog roll if you're clever!! But you can also add to the stress, especially if you don't have a mobile phone (and some people still don't) or it's running flat/out of credit that your friends/relatives/colleagues waiting for you to arrive won't know where you are/why you haven't arrived. So there's worry about them being worried about you.

It's similar to being held up on the motorway by the police behind an incident/accident. You don't know how long you will be there, you can't go anywhere, you might not have any food/water available....:cry:

 

[bb21]

This is just going round in circles, so this thread is locked until further information comes to light.