Passengers abandon train at Lewisham with 3rd rails still live.

[Monty]

The first hand accounts from passengers on the stranded trains do make for interesting reading. They are justifiably heavily critical of the response to the situation from Southeastern and Network Rail.

I can see why we have rail staff here wanting the thread locked. Uncomfortable reading.

What is that comment supposed to mean? I'll think you find that most rail staff could care less if that a TOC or NR were found to be wanting in their handling of an incident such as this. The blog written by a supposed passenger seems to undermine a lot what others have said about this incident.

 

[thejuggler]

The blog also links to the document of 47 pages, plus links to hundreds of other pages in other documents on how to deal with a stranded train - whilst I'm sure its relevant such a document does not lead to a situation where a decision can be made quickly.

 

[Antman]

The first hand accounts from passengers on the stranded trains do make for interesting reading. They are justifiably heavily critical of the response to the situation from Southeastern and Network Rail.

I can see why we have rail staff here wanting the thread locked. Uncomfortable reading.

I think it's just one person who suggested that the thread be locked and I don't see why it should be uncomfortable reading for anybody, nobody seems to be blaming individual members of staff here.

 

[Bromley boy]

It's a open question whether all pax in these trains would be able to understand English, both the signage and the drivers announcements. There must be a case for automatic announcements to be recorded in 5 or 6 of the most widely spoken languages of Londoners.

Good grief. I’d have thought the last thing any whose ever been on an SE train would be asking for is more announcements !!

The first hand accounts from passengers on the stranded trains do make for interesting reading. They are justifiably heavily critical of the response to the situation from Southeastern and Network Rail.

I can see why we have rail staff here wanting the thread locked. Uncomfortable reading.

Not in the slightest. Many of us are interested to hear about what happened.

I certainly don’t find any of it uncomfortable reading.

 

[Leo1961]

The blog also links to the document of 47 pages, plus links to hundreds of other pages in other documents on how to deal with a stranded train - whilst I'm sure its relevant such a document does not lead to a situation where a decision can be made quickly.

I doubt anyone expects someone to read a forty-seven page document after the incident occurs. The document should be read as part of a training regime, and refreshed periodically. The actions it recommends should then be able to be implemented in a timely fashion should the need arise.

 

[Antman]

Because they'd turned the power off!

The power wouldn't have had to be turned off if the train had pulled forward into the platform allowing passengers off.

 

[Bromley boy]

The power wouldn't have had to be turned off if the train had pulled forward into the platform allowing passengers off.

That *might* have worked for the train that had come up Tanner’s hill and was waiting on the overbridge, but only if it had been able to roll far enough into the station to get at least one set of doors from each unit into the platform.

The train that was held on the north Kent (the steep up slope between St. John’s and Lewisham) wouldn’t have been able to do this.

The key thing here is that once people had begun to egress no movement would have been permitted whatsoever.

 

[mrmartin]

I think the core problem is the train was so heavily loaded. The risk of people detraining likely increases exponentially. There is a law in the US which requires planes to be deplaned after 3 hours, and everyone has a seat and power/toilets. For crush loaded trains it needs to be a lot quicker, especially if PA system has failed, heating has failed, etc etc.

 

[Chris M]

For those (mostly several pages back now) who keep going on about how the rule book is gospel because it has evolved to prevent unsafe situations. The rule book was followed, seemingly to the letter, on Friday yet an unsafe situation still occurred. The evidence shows therefore that the rule book was, on this occasion at least, wrong.

I haven't yet read the 47-page document linked to, but I would hope that it would be formatted in such a way that people referring to it could easily find the section(s) relevant to the incident at hand. The sections regarding hot weather, trains stranded in tunnels or miles from civilisation for example would be entirely irrelevant. There should be a plan for "passenger trains stalled near one or more stations in urban areas during cold weather." just as there should plans for passenger trains stalled in other circumstances that could be referred to when needed. Think about how airline pilots have short checklists dedicated to each potential scenario.

 

[bnm]

How wide an area was switched off to allow Network Rail staff to manual de-ice around the failed Networker?

And, from the blog linked to, it appears that the first passenger egress from the Electrostar just outside Lewisham Station was after the driver told his passengers that the current had been switched off to allow rail staff to work on the failed Networker ahead.

 

[Carlisle]

I wonder if Mr Grayling will use this as another argument for bi modes. At least then, you could have got the trains to a place of safety - ie a station.

Probably much more likely to end up with some sort of de icing device fitted near the pick up shoe, as mentioned earlier in the thread

 

[aar0]

But then if a train is at a station (same as if a plane is at a terminal) you will tend to be allowed off, anyway, the issue is trains not at stations

So the correct comparison would be a plane running out of fuel mid air... This doesn't work very well

 

[al78]

For those (mostly several pages back now) who keep going on about how the rule book is gospel because it has evolved to prevent unsafe situations. The rule book was followed, seemingly to the letter, on Friday yet an unsafe situation still occurred. The evidence shows therefore that the rule book was, on this occasion at least, wrong.

The rule book presumably evolves because of situations that happen in the past where an undesirable situation happened, and rules were either modified or added to try and prevent it happening again. Just out of interest, given that heavy snow in the UK is not unprecedented, particularly before the unusually snow free 1990's decade, have situations like last week happened in historical major snow events? What happened in January 1947, winter 1962/63, winter 1977/78, February 1979, December 1981, winter 1984/5, January 1987, winter 1995/6, December 2009, December and January 2010, February/March 2013, which are all periods of heavy snow somewhere in the UK?

 

[bramling]

For those (mostly several pages back now) who keep going on about how the rule book is gospel because it has evolved to prevent unsafe situations. The rule book was followed, seemingly to the letter, on Friday yet an unsafe situation still occurred. The evidence shows therefore that the rule book was, on this occasion at least, wrong.

One can have all the Rule Books in the world, but it's no use if there aren't sufficient - suitably trained & qualified - staff on hand to do things.

The problem with the mainline nowadays is staff are simply spread thinly on the ground. Station staff nowadays have a mainly retail and customer service role, with very little "operational" in there. There is, of course, the question of whether the cost of having such staff is justifiable on the basis that these things only happen very rarely -- and for that question there's no right or wrong answer, it's a value judgement.

Another alternative is to close the service down completely, but that seems unpopular too.

Snow requires the railway to be at the top of its game -- any slight cracks will be quickly exposed. So you need the technology to be working properly (trains and signals), staff in the right places, and perhaps most importantly staff that are well trained and know what they're doing. There simply isn't time for staff to be umming and erring over how to deal with a given situation.

 

[EM2]

I think the core problem is the train was so heavily loaded. The risk of people detraining likely increases exponentially. There is a law in the US which requires planes to be deplaned after 3 hours, and everyone has a seat and power/toilets. For crush loaded trains it needs to be a lot quicker, especially if PA system has failed, heating has failed, etc etc.

And when there is no toilet?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-needs-to-catch-up.150853/page-5#post-3068250

Let's compare with a Ryanair flight I took from Stansted to Dublin.
Checked in, got to the gate, boarded, settled down, announcement from the crew:
'There will be a delay on taking-off, as the toilet is out of service. We are awaiting a part which is arriving in from Dublin on the next arrival.'
We had to sit and wait on the tarmac, because apparently we can't fly without a functioning toilet.
We can't get off the plane and use the facilities in the terminal.
We sit on the tarmac for ninety minutes while this gets sorted.
It would have been quicker to take off on time, fly eighty minutes to Dublin and use the loos there!

 

[edwin_m]

The Rule Book addresses safety of train operations but isn't a "holistic" view of the safety of passengers. Perhaps it should include a requirement that a plan to evacuate passengers should be in effect within X minutes of stranding of a train (X depending on the loading, location and what on-train facilities are available and working). It may be that whoever made the decision to turn the power off was too focused on the immediate operational safety action to move the first train, and not enough on the implications for those on board other trains nearby or the risk of self-evacuation.

 

[Carlisle]

Station staff nowadays have a mainly retail and customer service role, with very little "operational" in there. There is, of course, the question of whether the cost of having such staff is justifiable on the basis that these things only happen very rarely -- and for that question there's no right or wrong answer, it's a value judgement.
.

Given that the current structure doesn’t need station staff for hand signalling/ trackside litter clearance/ platform edge line painting etc, all tasks they used to regularly preform, then no it would probably be poor value for money .

 

[bramling]

Given that the current structure doesn’t need station staff for hand signalling/ trackside litter clearance/ platform edge line painting etc, all tasks they used to regularly preform then no it would probably be poor value for money .

In which case, there's only really three ways to go:
1) Have the local staff and accept it's poor value for money.
2) Close the railway down completely when severe weather is forecast and there's a likelihood of trains getting stuck - e.g. high winds, snow.
3) Accept that these sorts of incidents will occur occasionally.

There's no right or wrong answer...

 

[Wombat]

Sounds appalling. There are some comments here that answer expressions of dissatisfaction with "How do you think procedures should be improved?". To which my answer is: "I've no idea, I'm a passenger". I'm entirely entitled to assert that improvements are required without also being obliged to determine what the nature of those improvements should be. There are presumably people whose job it is to examine the facts and do exactly that.

 

[Wolfie]

The Evening Standard version of the story - perhaps some of the "caring" folk on here who have advocated locking passengers in or similar should be subjected to such treatment and lets see how they would react...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...ich-became-stuck-for-four-hours-a3781911.html

 

[amcluesent]

You are left wondering if it was the London Fire Brigade who took the fabled 'initiative' to rescue the pax in hour 4 while SouthEastern Gold command would still be flapping about until a 5th or 6th hour had passed?

The ATOC document only states what many posters here have said, my emphasis -

The two biggest challenges faced...are likely to be:

Lack of information – ...various factors that need to be taken into account when determining the best course of action to take in the event of a train or trains becoming stranded. Essentially this decision needs to be informed by a dynamic risk assessment but very rarely will all relevant facts be known so there will also need to be an element of judgement.

Cultural change – the challenge of shifting the focus of the response away from railway operating considerations to meeting the needs of stranded passengers should not be underestimated. As an industry we do not always have a strong “think customer first” culture, but staff showing empathy, responsiveness and confidence in their competence will provide reassurance.

 

[Antman]

For as long as it takes for them to sort the problem out OR to arrange and organise a safe method of withdrawl.
But then I know the Rules and am willing to abide by them.

Easy to say that when you weren't there. I suspect the vast majority of people who detrained were law abiding people who had been pushed to the limit of their endurance.

 

[Llanigraham]

Easy to say that when you weren't there. I suspect the vast majority of people who detrained were law abiding people who had been pushed to the limit of their endurance.

And since you weren't there either.................................

 

[6Gman]

Clearly, things did not go well in Lewisham - my sibling told me he spotted a "large army of emergency service vehicles" on Friday, so I assumed something was very much amiss.

As for trying to attribute blame - of course the passengers never should have egressed themselves without instruction from rail or emergency staff. Had I been on that train and seen someone attempting to disembark, I would have tried to stop them, but sometimes there's not a lot you can do once mob mentality kicks in. That aside, I'm not going to say "he should have done this, she should have said that etc."

I won't, however, hear any of this "X should be fired" etc. I don't want to see people wishing or demanding unemployment of others because they "should have done something" or speculatively did something they shouldn't. Imagine you were that driver or signaller and interacting on this forum - why would you ever want to participate in a community like that?

Nobody here is in possession of all the facts. So wait for the report.

This.

 

[Taunton]

The London radio media have got their teeth into this one today, and I won't be surprised if the Mayor follows. They are now getting accounts from those on board. One described not only several hours of packed standing in the semi-dark, but no air con or ventilation and the interior stinking of urine smells from people relieving themselves between cars.

In the face of these accounts the efforts, if any, by SE management to rescue the passengers look a nonsense. I think anyone who was initially accusing these passengers in the media of criminal behaviour such as trespass is going to have to leave this event off their CV they must now be polishing up.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Someone commented about trains should be stopped at stations in times of disruption. There have been a couple of occasions recently where Southern have done this.

 

[MikeWh]

Someone commented about trains should be stopped at stations in times of disruption. There have been a couple of occasions recently where Southern have done this.

The problem with this situation is that trains coming from Charing Cross had no platforms to stop at after London Bridge. That's 10 minutes on a normal day, more like 15 last Friday with the conditions. A Cannon Street to Hayes train was held at St Johns.

 

[robbeech]

How wide an area was switched off to allow Network Rail staff to manual de-ice around the failed Networker?

And, from the blog linked to, it appears that the first passenger egress from the Electrostar just outside Lewisham Station was after the driver told his passengers that the current had been switched off to allow rail staff to work on the failed Networker ahead.

Do we think this to be the case? Out of interest how easy would it be for South Easterns report to say otherwise? How would we then know what really happened because to my mind this is a critical piece of information in determining the facts. It doesn’t change the outcome, it’s over now, there isn’t anything we can do but a differing story here might be the difference between certain requirements to change procedures being put into place and not.

 

[AlterEgo]

Let me guess: "mistakes were made, lessons have been learned, measures have been put in place to prevent a re-occurrence"?

Not a criticism of the railways per se, it's just the usual bull**** trotted out by all management in the UK when something goes badly wrong.

What else would you like to see happen?

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a open question whether all pax in these trains would be able to understand English, both the signage and the drivers announcements. There must be a case for automatic announcements to be recorded in 5 or 6 of the most widely spoken languages of Londoners.

Haha, surely a wind up.