Passenger detrainment onto electrically live line, Peckham Rye

[tsr]

It comes down to staffing levels. I know EMT had control staff out and about all over the network when they first took over, but that lasted a matter of months until people started getting promoted or moving away, and then cost control reduced staffing levels a bit and there simply weren't staff free to do such things.

Interestingly, the only Control function which comes out in a good light in this report is that of GTR, which funnily enough is one which has retained "route learning" for most of its controllers. The structure of said "route learning" is nothing like as structured as what train crew do, but it does mandate at least several days in which a controller is expected to familiarise themselves with their patch.

The manager in question at GTR would almost certainly have been familiar with the approximate layout of the lines at Peckham Rye, would have known about the typical peak time passenger numbers and the risks from detraining them at that location.

Fragmentation of the railway not helpful here of course , - as off duty staff of another company might not feel "qualified" to assist. Regrettably.

* even more helpful if they were passed out on safety stuff - but even then , it is the issue of "I do not work for your company" ......

I've stepped in on a couple of occasions with operators which definitely aren't my own, and nobody's ever had a problem with it. I work on the National Rail side of things, but I've helped out on the Tube and Tramlink before. Good customer care skills and basic knowledge, correctly applied and with the agreement of fully competent staff, can go a long way.

I have also been briefed during training that I am expected to help, wherever feasible, in the event of a train accident - and that it could potentially be a disciplinary offence if I am found not to have offered my services in the unfortunate event of any person being hit by a train on which I am a passenger, so long as I would be fit to work (ie. no drugs/alcohol in my system, not fatigued etc.). On a local basis, this concept is not just common sense - it harks back to a grim incident many years ago in which a train was involved in a fatality and some off-duty members of staff would have been able to help, but chose not to make themselves known until they waved their passes around when alternative transport was being dealt with afterwards. The company's trainers were understandably upset enough to introduce requirements during training which have never been quibbled about.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I've stepped in on a couple of occasions with operators which definitely aren't my own, and nobody's ever had a problem with it. I work on the National Rail side of things, but I've helped out on the Tube and Tramlink before. Good customer care skills and basic knowledge, correctly applied and with the agreement of fully competent staff, can go a long way.

Me too , always appreciated to be fair , and happy to help. Assisted on the tube a good number of times.....

..

 

[ChiefPlanner]

No they’re now just a bar with a terminal at each end, weighted so that it naturally falls the correct way.

Thanks for that - (always thought the hinged idea was a bit awkward when you need to do something really quickly) , - the "BR" ones were very robust and dead easy to use , along with the very solid shoe paddles.

If you read the Northwood (Met Line crash) incident in thick fog on New Years Eve , 1946 , - the "surface" trains on LT in those days did not carry them , a factor which was skated over in the report , and almost certainly cost lives as arcing and defective fire extinguishers almost certainly caused more casualties. Only deep tube line stock carried them then (apparently)

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[theageofthetra]

I was also trained to offer assistance if required, and I've always travelled on the basis that I'm there to help if anything happens (subject to the usual caveats), although it's a while since I've been needed.

The last time I (and a couple of other UK colleagues) assisted with anything was some years ago in Switzerland of all places, when a group of asylum-seeker types decided they were going to use numbers and attitude to force the (older, female) conductor not to do anything action about their lack of tickets. Strangely when three big blokes walked into the vestibule asking "Problem? Hmm?" they decided that they weren't so bolshy after all.

Good to hear. In the UK everyone would stare at their phones and pretend not to notice.

 

[Muzer]

Me too , always appreciated to be fair , and happy to help. Assisted on the tube a good number of times.....

..

Hell, one of my friends almost ended up being recruited as an honorary member of platform staff at Finsbury Park on 27th December that year when the KGX engineering works overran, and he doesn't even work in the industry!

 

[bramling]

Hell, one of my friends almost ended up being recruited as an honorary member of platform staff at Finsbury Park on 27th December that year when the KGX engineering works overran, and he doesn't even work in the industry!

I don’t mind assisting people when not at work providing they are polite. Having the decency to start with “do you work here?” goes a long way.

Any hint of indecency and they’ll be told to do one in clear terms!

 

[jfowkes]

I'm surprised that there isn't an obvious "track/OLE is live" indicator in the driver's cab on an EMU. I'm assuming there's a reason why that's not the case?

 

[bramling]

I'm surprised that there isn't an obvious "track/OLE is live" indicator in the driver's cab on an EMU. I'm assuming there's a reason why that's not the case?

There are things which can be treated as an indication, however the reason why no specific status visual is provided is because the only confirmation of the status of traction current should be that which ultimately comes from the electrical controller.

 

[edwin_m]

And if the train is gapped as in this case, the "line live" indicator would be showing it as dead!

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm surprised that there isn't an obvious "track/OLE is live" indicator in the driver's cab on an EMU.

I have one in all 3 of the current traction I sign. I can't speak for all classes.

 

[urbophile]

a group of asylum-seeker types

Stereotyping, much? What exactly is an 'asylum-seeker type' may I ask?

 

[jfowkes]

Ah, train was gapped, that was what I was missing. I understand why a driver would want to confirm the reading of any on-train indication anyway, but I was wondering why one didn't seem to be mentioned
That or I didn't read the report carefully enough.

 

[Crossover]

Ah, train was gapped, that was what I was missing. I understand why a driver would want to confirm the reading of any on-train indication anyway, but I was wondering why one didn't seem to be mentioned
That or I didn't read the report carefully enough.

This train wasn’t gapped as I understand - I think that was just used as an example of why it isn’t foolproof. In this case there was a fault in a relay that caused the leading cab to suddenly think it was keyed out (someone please correct me if I’m wrong here). That leads to some indications not working anyway

 

[bramling]

Ah, train was gapped, that was what I was missing. I understand why a driver would want to confirm the reading of any on-train indication anyway, but I was wondering why one didn't seem to be mentioned
That or I didn't read the report carefully enough.

There’s normally easy enough ways of telling if the juice is on - varies depending on the stock involved, but things like whether the saloons have full lighting, whether the cab air conditioning is running, etc. These sorts of things can give you a pretty good idea that juice is on, however the *only* thing that should be taken as proof that it is off is the word of the electrical controller, albeit this will likely be received via someone else.

In any case, an indication at the front of the train doesn’t necessarily mean the rear of the train is sitting on the same section.

 

[hwl]

This train wasn’t gapped as I understand - I think that was just used as an example of why it isn’t foolproof. In this case there was a fault in a relay that caused the leading cab to suddenly think it was keyed out (someone please correct me if I’m wrong here). That leads to some indications not working anyway

Correct

 

[jfowkes]

If it wasn't gapped, then I'm very surprised that even when under pressure and stressed the driver didn't pick up on some of those clues that the rail was still live.

Even if the cab was not active, they'd been through the train and would notice the other signs (aircon, lights etc.)?

EDIT: I realise it may seem like I'm criticising the driver - I'm not trying to, just trying to understand the situation and environment. I used to be in aviation (sort-of) and analysing risk is part of the things you do (as I'm sure it is in the rail industry). I know I'm in no place to pass judgement on the driver.

 

[bramling]

If it wasn't gapped, then I'm very surprised that even when under pressure and stressed the driver didn't pick up on some of those clues that the rail was still live.

Even if the cab was not active, they'd been through the train and would notice the other signs (aircon, lights etc.)?

EDIT: I realise it may seem like I'm criticising the driver - I'm not trying to, just trying to understand the situation and environment. I used to be in aviation (sort-of) and analysing risk is part of the things you do (as I'm sure it is in the rail industry). I know I'm in no place to pass judgement on the driver.

One thing which seems to be a factor in all these incidents is passengers playing the arse. In the Peckham case the impression I get is that this took hold quite soon.

Defect handling is a logical process, so having people interrupting that process is likely to lead to a bad outcome - especially for someone not fully up to speed. I think it’s fair to say many drivers *aren’t* at the level where defect handling is at their fingertips simply because trains are generally sufficiently reliable that they don’t get the real-world exposure on a regular basis. And of course not every defect is explicitly covered in training, in which case the only way you’ll get the train moving is either through luck or by actually understanding how the train is wired up and the effect of what you’re cutting out on the various circuits. Sometimes you’re on a hiding to nothing in the rare but not unheard of event that the train has happened to pick up two separate defects one of which cancels out the method of getting round the other! Other times you can be misled - for example on a type of train I work with the pilot light will go out if the train is off juice for 3 minutes, which is actually simply the train load shedding to preserve the battery for essential things like tail lamps and emergency lighting, however time and again this happens and people start cutting out door interlocks!

Consider the above against a background of passengers acting up, and the standard situation of phones and radios going with people wanting to know what’s going on, and it’s easy to see how someone can be pressured into missing something which with hindsight should have been obvious.

 

[Crossover]

Even if the cab was not active, they'd been through the train and would notice the other signs (aircon, lights etc.)?

I don't know how the 378's operate but it might be that being keyed out doesn't affect the internal lights, ventilation etc. What the driver did notice, from what I recall of the report, is that they observed not having door interlock (which turned out to be because of the train thinking it was keyed out)

 

[bramling]

I don't know how the 378's operate but it might be that being keyed out doesn't affect the internal lights, ventilation etc. What the driver did notice, from what I recall of the report, is that they observed not having door interlock (which turned out to be because of the train thinking it was keyed out)

It needs someone trained on these particular trains to be able to comment on the specifics.

Generally speaking main lighting is often fed via a battery charger, which allows lighting to remain on for a short period of time (perhaps something like 30 seconds) if the train goes off juice - thus avoiding lighting flickering on and off as the train passes over gaps. Whether a desk is keyed on or off shouldn’t affect main car lighting as that needs to stay on when the driver changes ends, for example. But every class of train has its own quirks and anomolies, so without knowing the trains concerned it’s impossible to say for sure what the effects would have been.

I’d suggest that there almost certainly were clues present, but with the driver being under pressure they were probably missed. In any case before taking passengers down onto the track at the very least there should have been *confirmation* of the status of traction current sought via the signaller, and an SCD laid.

 

[TRAX]

There is a good read on London Reconnections blog about that incident: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/thirty-centimetres-of-safety-an-incident-at-peckham-rye/

 

[Crossover]

It needs someone trained on these particular trains to be able to comment on the specifics.

Generally speaking main lighting is often fed via a battery charger, which allows lighting to remain on for a short period of time (perhaps something like 30 seconds) if the train goes off juice - thus avoiding lighting flickering on and off as the train passes over gaps. Whether a desk is keyed on or off shouldn’t affect main car lighting as that needs to stay on when the driver changes ends, for example. But every class of train has its own quirks and anomolies, so without being knowing the trains concerned it’s
impossible to say for sure what the effects would have been.

I’d suggest that there almost certainly were clues present, but with the driver being under pressure they were probably missed. In any case before taking passengers down onto the track at the very least there should have been *confirmation* of the status of traction current sought via the signaller, and an SCD laid.

Indeed. I speak as a layman but I have been on trains which have gone into shut down when the driver has keyed out (including a WMT 350 and longer ago an XC Voyager - the latter was a bit of a pain as it dropped the engines and stopped all the internal doors working!)

I suspect you are on to something with the last sentence - I can well imagine that in the heat of the moment with all sorts going on around, it can be easy to lose track and miss the obvious. I have certainly had it happen to me (not on the railway and not in a safety-crit role)

 

[philthetube]

There’s normally easy enough ways of telling if the juice is on - varies depending on the stock involved, but things like whether the saloons have full lighting, whether the cab air conditioning is running, etc. These sorts of things can give you a pretty good idea that juice is on, however the *only* thing that should be taken as proof that it is off is the word of the electrical controller, albeit this will likely be received via someone else.

In any case, an indication at the front of the train doesn’t necessarily mean the rear of the train is sitting on the same section.

None of these indications tell you if the juice is off or the train is gapped. You can never assume the juice is off.

 

[jfowkes]

I agree, but while the absence of those indications does not and should not imply the juice is off, the presence of them is (presumably) a very strong signal that it's on (which was the case here).

 

[bramling]

I agree, but while the absence of those indications does not and should not imply the juice is off, the presence of them is (presumably) a very strong signal that it's on (which was the case here).

Absolutely. There’s equipment on trains which simply won’t function without traction power supply. So if these things are seen or heard to be functioning then it’s fair to conclude that the juice is on, which in turn should ring alarm bells if you're about to do something which requires juice to be off and for whatever reason you're under the impression that it's off!

There's two scenarios I can readily think of where this might come into play. Firstly you're been given confirmation that juice is discharged, however there's been an error and it isn't - being aware that something is amiss might for example prevent laying a short-circuiting device onto a live rail (*). The second case is saving a lot of faffing around trying to diagnose a non-existent defect only to find out that it's actually the power off!

(* the procedure for laying one actually allows for it to be safely carried out if live, however it's still preferable not to do this for various reasons - not least because if there's been a switching error then it's best to have this resolved by the controller. This form of error is exceptionally rare, but it's not unheard of).

 

[Dieseldriver]

None of these indications tell you if the juice is off or the train is gapped. You can never assume the juice is off.

Could even be that all the shoes have been ripped off on one side.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Could even be that all the shoes have been ripped off on one side.

Which wasn't the case here. I know the driver was under pressure, but part of being a driver is to make correct decisions whilst under pressure. A driver should know that an instruction to evacuate a train onto the railway track is given by the signaller (or someone acting on a signaller's behalf, such as a Mobile Operations Manager). A TOC Control does not authorise a driver to do such a thing, regardless of how much pressure the driver is under.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Which wasn't the case here. I know the driver was under pressure, but part of being a driver is to make correct decisions whilst under pressure. A driver should know that an instruction to evacuate a train onto the railway track is given by the signaller (or someone acting on a signaller's behalf, such as a Mobile Operations Manager). A TOC Control does not authorise a driver to do such a thing, regardless of how much pressure the driver is under.

I'm not saying it was the case here. I was saying that my example is one of many reasons why the only sure way to know that traction current has been discharged is to have the correct confirmation from the ECO (usually via the Signaller).
As it happens I largely agree with you. A Driver has the responsibility for the safety of the train in these situations. It's part of the job description and a massive aspect of the job is being able to keep calm under pressure. There are many other factors that need to be looked to (workload, attitudes from other staff, training, continuous competency development amongst others). However, in this case its unbelievable that the Driver even contemplated an evacuation without being assured in the proper way that traction current had been isolated.

 

[bramling]

I'm not saying it was the case here. I was saying that my example is one of many reasons why the only sure way to know that traction current has been discharged is to have the correct confirmation from the ECO (usually via the Signaller).
As it happens I largely agree with you. A Driver has the responsibility for the safety of the train in these situations. It's part of the job description and a massive aspect of the job is being able to keep calm under pressure. There are many other factors that need to be looked to (workload, attitudes from other staff, training, continuous competency development amongst others). However, in this case its unbelievable that the Driver even contemplated an evacuation without being assured in the proper way that traction current had been isolated.

I tend to agree that it’s an almost unbelievable thing to have done.

However, I say almost, because it happened - and people can and do make major mistakes when under pressure - especially when being pressurised to resolve a situation quickly. Ironically all the driver really needed to do, once the initial defect handling proved fruitless, was nothing - wait in the cab for assistance to arrive and for a manager to take over - and keep a watch for any self-evacuation.

One aspect of the industry which I find infuriating is that pretty much every railwayman will at times in their career find themselves declining the guidance or instruction of someone else, normally someone in a control or managerial position. And in many cases this will be with good reason - they’ve been asked do something unsafe. Sometimes there isn’t anything unsavoury, merely a misunderstanding of the situation. Other times the request can come about through stupidity, or in rarer cases someone actively trying to cut corners. It does take presence of mind to stick to one’s guns and refuse to do something, especially if pressure is applied. Not everyone is comfortable with this. Likewise a lot of pressure can be applied by people who fear for their bonus / performance figures / reputation or whatever, whilst some people are are simply born panicers. Against this background we should always be a little cautious making judgements about how someone came to make a major mistake.

 

[ComUtoR]

I agree, but while the absence of those indications does not and should not imply the juice is off, the presence of them is (presumably) a very strong signal that it's on (which was the case here).

Irrespective of any indication, one way or another. The overarching rule that has been drummed into me is that you treat it as live at all times. I don't need anything in the train to indicate the current is live. Its 'always' live. Belt and Braces at all times.