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

[Llanigraham]

Exactly, wouldn't we all have done the same in circumstances?

Not at all!!

 

[Llanigraham]

Well, all the rail staff tend to be saying they’d stay on the train forever, in one case even if it meant having to s**t themselves.

Meanwhile most of the ordinary passenger members would probably have offloaded.

I’d have probably waited 90-120 minutes before bailing.

And why do you have to be so offensive to those with a different attitude to the rules?

 

[LAX54]

compared to Airlines, the railways are Angels !

 

[AlterEgo]

This is the danger with people having an inbuilt bias and prejudice. Do you believe I choose to stay on the train because I am rail staff ? Do you also believe that I am not an 'ordinary passenger' ?

I have spoken with a couple of Drivers who were involved. Not all trains had an egress. 'Most' do not offload. It takes a single person to egress before the rest follow and even then it is still not instant and not in droves.

Rail staff don’t see things in the same way as ordinary passengers do. I know that having been staff myself; it changes your outlook.

Not a criticism but rather an observation.

 

[ComUtoR]

Very much so. My perspective on a lot of things has changed through various employment and other life changing events. First and foremost I'm a human and act like one, much the same as everyone else. When I am at work I think like an employee and act like it. When I'm out with friends and going out an about in my personal life I think and act like an 'ordinary person/passenger' Granted I have a different perspective nowadays about he railway and that leans me more towards an understanding rather than instant outrage and blame.

But, and a big but and I cannot lie.... I would still choose to stay on the train irrespective of me being rail staff. Other things have informed my choice. I do feel that because some posters are known as being rail staff that others believe it forms their default position, when often, it doesn't. We are not clones and in my personal experience the variety of opinions across my grade and sector is astonishing.

 

[corfield]

I am assuming there is an evacuation plan at some level, and I'm ignorant of the railway management system (although noting the earlier comments on Gold/Silver/Bronze Comd with which I'm quite familiar) - but as per my original post, whilst I've sympathy with those trying to manage this - clearly they failed to do so, and the answer probably lies in a more human centric culture for planning and taking decisions, backed by training and the authority to make decisions.

Ultimately, even a semi-controlled evacuation is likely to be more effective and safer than the chaos of this incident. A driver simply telling people they could de-train, how to, and where to go and how, with someone, anyone, at the receiving end - is safer than people doing it on their own. NR and TOC/Station Staff knowing that is happening is safer than trying to repeatedly have to (no doubt in some panic!) stop plans to energise after getting reports of people around.

Explain why your one flight sounds horrible? No idea mate - write to the airline perhaps? I have however seen (in India) people self evacuating an airplane when it was clear we weren't going to go anywhere from the ground. I've personally never been on a plane where comms from the flight crew wasn't good, indeed, flying ANZ back from the US the other week (10 hr flight) I got quite annoyed at the frequency and length of the announcements which kept interrupting the film I was watching!

My comment is more grounded in the "how we consider how things might go wrong" and "how we deal with things going wrong" at an engineering/management level, rather than customer service on the spot. Although given the apparent lack of comms, that wasn't very good either.

 

[corfield]

Given the alternative was to sit squashed in, freezing and pissing myself. I'd have got off the train without being that bothered about it. Its third rail, I wouldn't cross it and it doesn't move. The train clearly isn't moving and it would be quite obvious if it did. The station is in sight, and there was access off the railway line. This is not the same as seeing level crossing gates as a chicane to drive through.

As I've alluded, I live in the aviation world, rules/policy etc. are what I live by every second of my work with vast amounts of both that I need to know, apply and enforce. But as I mentioned earlier - even if you do feel it was reckless/risky - human beings subjected to hours of the above, will, upon taking positive action (i.e. doing something), see risk very differently. Again, that is reality.

 

[AlterEgo]

And why do you have to be so offensive to those with a different attitude to the rules?

That’s quite rich coming from someone on moderation and with your post history. That’s a good one, and made me grin!

Nothing I said was offensive. It was another poster who suggested they’d rather soil themselves than egress. That was in response to a direct question put to them.

I was merely pointing out a clearly obvious difference in thinking, which I think has benefit to the thread. There seems to be an underestimation by rail staff - in the scenario at Lewisham - of passenger tolerance to being kept on stranded trains in an urban area. Clearly this underestimation - or divergence in attitudes - is not specific to Southeastern’s control staff, but rather pervades rail staff in general.

Do you see how that’s a helpful observation?

 

[Mag_seven]

Rail staff don’t see things in the same way as ordinary passengers do. I know that having been staff myself; it changes your outlook.

Rail staff could face a disciplinary or even dismissal if they bailed out and were caught/seen doing so.

 

[ComUtoR]

Nothing I said was offensive.

And none was taken.

There seems to be an underestimation by rail staff - in the scenario at Lewisham - of passenger tolerance to being kept on stranded trains in an urban area.

I disagree. We totally understand what happened and why it happened. That, I don't believe has ever really been in question. We are fully aware that the situation will escalate and that communication is vital. That different perspective we have is that we understand the dangers and liability of the situation and are much more informed than the passenger. Yet, time and time again all advice offered is simply ignored and the accusations fly about being out of touch and inflexible. Again, we consistently state and agree that part of the problem is that there is a disconnect between control, rules and us at the sharp end of an escalating situation. I don't think any of us have denied that. That deeper understanding gives us an insight that others do not have and yes, informs a lot of what we do; especially from an operational perspective.

Clearly this underestimation - or divergence in attitudes - is not specific to Southeastern’s control staff, but rather pervades rail staff in general.

It pervades BOTH passenger and staff sides. The passengers do not see the dangers and refuse to admit that they even exist. They refuse to accept that it is trespassing and whilst very much situational, the fact remains that trespass is what happened. They believe, rightly or wrongly that they have a right to access the track and the consequences are someone else's responsibility. There is also a refusal to accept that regardless of how we feel or how we want to act, we simply cannot. The calls for Drivers/Signalers/Control to simply override or ignore the rule book is shocking. That huge divergence in attitudes comes from BOTH sides.

In the Lewisham situation there was a direct consequence of people egressing onto the track and it escalated the situation each time. There is an outright refusal to see that the passenger action caused an escalation. That isn't 'victim blaming' Just a fact of what happened.

What upsets me the most is that the safety culture on the railway is all about protecting the passenger and all we do is put their safety first but to get that thrown back in your face really upsets me.

So much was going on in the background (many of the things discussed in this thread were actually happening) and the report will highlight as many facts as possible and I hope, but do not believe, that it will lead to change.

 

[AlterEgo]

Rail staff could face a disciplinary or even dismissal if they bailed out and were caught/seen doing so.

It isn’t about the consequences.

It’s about both the awareness of risk and the attitudes to it - I don’t think the consequences are a factor here.

 

[ComUtoR]

It isn’t about the consequences.

It’s about both the awareness of risk and the attitudes to it - I don’t think the consequences are a factor here.

Ever since Chris McGee went down I have found that consequences are very much at the forefront of out thoughts. If anything, it has led to greater inflexibility and a stricter adherence to rules.

An example in another thread where a poster does not appear to accept that an instruction to blow the whistle wouldn't be followed in situation A, B or C etc. When something a small as not blowing a whistle can lead to you losing your job or facing a prison sentence because you failed to follow company policy you very much think about consequence.

 

[Antman]

compared to Airlines, the railways are Angels !

Perhaps you need to try a different airline?

 

[AlterEgo]

It pervades BOTH passenger and staff sides. The passengers do not see the dangers and refuse to admit that they even exist. They refuse to accept that it is trespassing and whilst very much situational, the fact remains that trespass is what happened. They believe, rightly or wrongly that they have a right to access the track and the consequences are someone else's responsibility.

This is pretty fair, but I don’t think we will ever get to a point where a given train of, say, 300 people will definitely not egress because they all think it’s unsafe and irresponsible.

I think the railway has to be honest with itself and think about how to deal with that.

The calls for Drivers/Signalers/Control to simply override or ignore the rule book is shocking. That huge divergence in attitudes comes from BOTH sides.

The Rule Book should of course never be ignored. I was concerned at the outset that the train requesting to enter an occupied block was being denied permission to do so, because the signaller didn’t believe he was dealing with what the Rule Book would call an “emergency”. We will see what comes out in the wash but it does seem likely that permission was imminent in this case, and had to be withdrawn when passengers entered a live railway.

In the Lewisham situation there was a direct consequence of people egressing onto the track and it escalated the situation each time. There is an outright refusal to see that the passenger action caused an escalation. That isn't 'victim blaming' Just a fact of what happened.

The passenger action caused an escalation. This is not disputable; it made the situation less safe and more difficult to control.

The big question isn’t really whether individuals feel they should bail but around passenger communication. The driver of the first train to have an egress seems to have been badly let down by circumstances beyond his control.

I hope that future incidents will be dealt with more pragmatically - controllers and Gold Command should be more attuned to the low tolerance of London passengers locked on trains with clear view of the station. The fact is, they’re in an office miles away looking at screens on CCF. They don’t have a full appreciation of circumstances on the ground, like “the passengers can see the station and a road below and they’ve been here an hour”.

 

[Antman]

as said, was the heating off at all ? certainly after the power went off, but then that was almost self inflicted by the people on the train, which was about to move forward into the station, but ended up with that train giving rise to the power being switched off .
As Tio Terrry says, the advent of Twitter and FB, means that they 'think' they know what is going on, bit more than likely reading information that is way wide of the truth !

They were, quite understandably, not going to stay on a cold train when they could see Lewisham station. We're not talking about a bunch of drunken yobs just people who wanted to get home from work and presumably the vast majority are law abiding people?

 

[daikilo]

On my local network a few days ago we had a service interuption on the line. A few minutes later we had a platform announcement and just after an in-train announcement saying that operations were being progressively restarted. Most of those who got off initially reappeared and got back on.

I agree that communication is an absolute must and self-detraining must be discouraged/forbidden. In this case it obviously delayed the restart of normal ops and probably exacerbated the problem.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Seems there are, on the information published, two sensible people involved. The driver who asked to evacuate his train and the driver who asked to move into the visible platform.

 

[LAX54]

We also have to take into account the bad weather that started all this, and the roads being poor as well, the Railway have MOM's Mobile Operating Supervisors, who attend incidents, however they can only attend 1 at a time. and can only deal with one event at time, if this MOM that covered Lewisham was on another 'shout', then he would have to make that site safe first before trying to get to

Seems there are, on the information published, two sensible people involved. The driver who asked to evacuate his train and the driver who asked to move into the visible platform.

Which was in the process of being arranged and had, it seems be authorised, but overtaken by the action of the passenger(s), It was a high risk move being planned, and I would have thought needed authorisation, and risk assessed, with the train ahead still within the overlap of the next signal

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Which was in the process of being arranged and had, it seems be authorised, but overtaken by the action of the passenger(s), It was a high risk move being planned, and I would have thought needed authorisation, and risk assessed, with the train ahead still within the overlap of the next signal

Therein lies the problem. To the layman: why can't they just drive the train into the platform. To the part-informed observers: I know there are reasons and rules but just how difficult is it to get that train into the platform. To the rail staff on the forum: Well let me explain all the rules and the levels of authorisation necessary to do something which does indeed appear simple.

 

[bramling]

Seems there are, on the information published, two sensible people involved. The driver who asked to evacuate his train and the driver who asked to move into the visible platform.

It may be sensible, however just because something’s sensible doesn’t mean the resources are magically there to enable to course of action to safely take place. Without knowing what suitably trained and qualified resources were nearby and available, it’s impossible to say whether a controlled evacuation could actually have been carried out promptly.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Which was in the process of being arranged and had, it seems be authorised, but overtaken by the action of the passenger(s), It was a high risk move being planned, and I would have thought needed authorisation, and risk assessed, with the train ahead still within the overlap of the next signal

Drivers are well trained and are completely used to driving trains into occupied platforms and stopping 6' from another train, or driving up to buffers. Driving a train cautiously into an empty platform should not be something so excruciatingly difficult to organise and it's not excessively high risk for a competent driver. As I mentioned before, there is even provision in the rule book for this. It strikes me, from all of the various comments about people getting sacked or imprisoned for slightly stepping out of line, that the railway is almost paralysed by a fear of making positive decisions.

 

[MichaelAMW]

It may be sensible, however just because something’s sensible doesn’t mean the resources are magically there to enable to course of action to safely take place. Without knowing what suitably trained and qualified resources were nearby and available, it’s impossible to say whether a controlled evacuation could actually have been carried out promptly.

That may be true but the only "resource" needed to get the other train into the platform was the driver, who was obviously already available and ready.

 

[LAX54]

It now seems that authorisation had been gained to allow the train into the Station, and the Signaller and Driver were arranging this to be done, but thwarted at the last moment by the detraining and subsequent isolation of the power, now whilst an hour sounds like a long time, if this is split into two, when for the first part, it was simply waiting for the train ahead to clear section, then when it was realised it was not, arranging what was the best option for 2M50, getting it into the platform was no doubt the plan, but this takes time to authorise and ensure the move was safe, can you imagine the outcry if the Signaller and Driver had made an unauthorised move towards the station, signal and rear of train in advance, and then it had slipped past signal and hit rear of the train ahead !

 

[ComUtoR]

It strikes me, from all of the various comments about people getting sacked or imprisoned for slightly stepping out of line, that the railway is almost paralysed by a fear of making positive decisions.

Very much so. Liability has become the Sword of Damocles hanging over all of us.

Have you ever read an RAIB report ? The minutiae of detail that gets highlighted is incredible. Those small details for the basis of liability and blame. The slightest Violation of a rule the single break in a policy and it becomes the causal point.

Have you see the relations and vilification from this forum when those reports are posted ? Person X should never have done... They broke the rules !!! etc etc.

Have you read through the Fares forum ? It's littered with arguments over the smallest interpretation of the NRCOC and wobetide a staff member who doesn't know every fares restriction and clause.

Have you read the two recent court cases posted recently ? They hinge on where the TOCs liability was. Where mere seconds were counted from the distance across the platform. The cases brought rely on the TOC/Driver/Guard making a small error in dispatch procedure and therefore taking liability.

My recent download showed dispatch at a station (1/19) was less than 1 second shorter than the expected standard and I get pulled up for it. I did 76 stops that duty and I get pulled up over 1 !£$"£% second.

This culture of blame/claim has locked down industries like the railway where the cost is someones life.

 

[AlterEgo]

It now seems that authorisation had been gained to allow the train into the Station, and the Signaller and Driver were arranging this to be done, but thwarted at the last moment by the detraining and subsequent isolation of the power, now whilst an hour sounds like a long time, if this is split into two, when for the first part, it was simply waiting for the train ahead to clear section, then when it was realised it was not, arranging what was the best option for 2M50, getting it into the platform was no doubt the plan, but this takes time to authorise and ensure the move was safe, can you imagine the outcry if the Signaller and Driver had made an unauthorised move towards the station, signal and rear of train in advance, and then it had slipped past signal and hit rear of the train ahead !

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the train should be moved without authority.

There’s a good question as to why it took a whole hour to (almost) gain permission to draw the train forward into an occupied block, into a platform which could be seen. Visibility was good and the train would not need to proceed at more than walking pace.

 

[whhistle]

Or we could start acting like adults and realise that no matter what the rule book says, if people are kept in uncomfortable conditions for a long period of time, without a very good reason, they will make an attempt to leave.

And that's okay is it?
Despite at the time of getting off the train, there was no immediate threat to life, it's okay to get off the train and do whatever you want?
My limit is about 15 mins - does that mean I can get off the train at that point?
Or what about someone with ADHD who can't even reach 15 mins?
We're saying that this is all okay?
Just want to be clear.

Because if this railway byelaw is okay to be broken, then surely they all are...

I understand it must have been awful but hey - that's life. Sometimes you go through rubbish situations. Doesn't mean you can make things worse.
I mean, if this happened on an airplane, I don't think the passenger would be flying.

The other significant problem is that the more it happens (seems to be in 3rd rail land a lot - London commuters who don't care? Are they less tolerant?), the more the expectation will prevail instead of reality.
Passengers will get off the train expecting the 3rd rail to be off.
Then, if someone dies/gets badly hurt because of touching the 3rd rail, who will be in the spotlight? Network Rail. The press will happily blame NR for not turning the power off and no doubt spend taxpayers money on compo.

As other posters have touched on, takes ages to do anything unusual these days... who is to blame? Well, where there's blame there's a claim right? (in that, you have to make sure all the procedures are followed correctly. That's not a quick process.)

Don't get me wrong, there are questions that need to be asked. But lack of information (was this proven?) doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

 

[AlterEgo]

And that's okay is it?
Despite at the time of getting off the train, there was no immediate threat to life, it's okay to get off the train and do whatever you want?
My limit is about 15 mins - does that mean I can get off the train at that point?
Or what about someone with ADHD who can't even reach 15 mins?
We're saying that this is all okay?
Just want to be clear.

He isn’t saying it is okay.

He is saying it will happen.

The sooner people in a decision making capacity grip that reality the better. Yes, you’re dealing with people’s ignorance of personal risk, and their ignorance of the bigger picture.

 

[farleigh]

It is funny how opinion is so polarised i.e. all rail staff are perfect and all passengers were wrong or vice versa.

Personally, I find it perfectly understandable that people got off the train. I also now understand better why staff on the railway will not put themselves in positions where they could solve a situation, but would be held liable under the current culture on the railways.

It has been an informative thread for me in the main.

 

[Robertj21a]

It is funny how opinion is so polarised i.e. all rail staff are perfect and all passengers were wrong or vice versa.

Personally, I find it perfectly understandable that people got off the train. I also now understand better why staff on the railway will not put themselves in positions where they could solve a situation, but would be held liable under the current culture on the railways.

It has been an informative thread for me in the main.

I agree. There's been quite a lot of good, informative, stuff on this thread. I'm hoping that rail staff, and their management, recognise that passengers may well make their own arrangements after, say, 1 hour. Procedures need to allow for this.
Equally, it would be good to think that more passengers will now be better aware of the practical issues and risks involved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you read through the Fares forum ? It's littered with arguments over the smallest interpretation of the NRCOC and wobetide a staff member who doesn't know every fares restriction and clause.

No, not at all. This is an example of argument polarisation as has occurred on this thread.

What most reasonable people want with regard to the complex fares system is for a member of staff who is questioned as to whether they are correct to use the appropriate documentation available to them to verify if they are correct or not, and to show that to the passenger to confirm that they are. Or failing a will to do that, to give the passenger the benefit of the doubt rather than the disbenefit of it as is very often given by certain staff (notably VTWC barrier staff at Euston).

Not to know everything off by heart.