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

[bnm]

Analysis of rail incidents includes reference to past incidents of a similar nature.

I’ll leave you to quote the bits of the article which you think provide analysis of the Lewisham incident.

A number of accounts from passengers claiming to be involved have begun circulating. No doubt many of these will turn out to contain critical information about what went wrong and what the industry needs to change.

They are, however, by definition subjective accounts which can only ever present a single perspective on events. It is the combination of these accounts, along with those from the railway professionals involved, and the data and recording systems in play that day, that will yield the wider picture of what happened.

Those paragraphs directly refer to Lewisham, providing a brief examination of likely perspectives (both passenger and rail professional) of the incident.

... reports will highlight just how much the railway has learned – or failed to learn – from previous, similar incidents, most recently at Kentish Town, East Croydon and Denmark Hill. They will also provide some guidance on what the industry needs to do to avoid such incidents in future.

One thing that should be made clear, however, is that those conclusions will likely highlight that, as in previous incidents, the main causes were related to management and to risk, not politics.

Direct analysis ("... previous similar incidents"), and very close to a conclusion too, saying the main cause is likely related to management. And that's in spite of London Reconnection's caveat.

So, 'some' analysis. Just not 'extensive'.

 

[Bromley boy]

Analysis of rail incidents includes reference to past incidents of a similar nature.




Those paragraphs directly refer to Lewisham, providing a brief examination of likely perspectives (both passenger and rail professional) of the incident.


Direct analysis ("... previous similar incidents"), and very close to a conclusion too, saying the main cause is likely related to management. And that's in spite of London Reconnection's caveat.

So, 'some' analysis. Just not 'extensive'.

But the above doesn’t provide any analysis of the Lewisham incident at all. Discussion of background, previous incidents, likely perspectives (a rail incident will have staff and passenger perspectives, no s*** Sherlock) and an assumption of what conclusions a future report might come to are not analysis.

This article provides no analysis of the Lewisham incident which should come as absolutely no surprise given that the writer states at the outset that it is not going to comment on the Lewisham incident until investigations have taken place.

I’d suggest that should be immediately obvious to any reader with a reasonable ability at comprehension.

The big question is why you’ve used this article as the basis for your ill-informed rant above?

I note you also refer to things said in traincrew mess rooms. Can I ask when you were last in such a messroom?

 

[fowler9]

Not that myth again? Shock horror other European countries have exactly the same problems when it snows. Obviously Scandinavia, Russia, Canada etc have enough heavy snow fall to justify investing in heavy duty equipment.

Are you suggesting nobody should make any effort to get to work in the snow?

No, read what I said again. Every employer seems to think they need to provide 100% service 100% of the time. They will expect all of their staff to be in and thus the transport providers are expected to provide 100% service which is not always possible.

Just to clarify I have seen things change in the last 10 years. Around 10 years ago I was noted in company records for walking in to work when loads of people couldn't get in. A few months ago I got a stage one written warning when I was late for work when a tree blocked a major road artery to the office due to the weather. Instead of being complemented for getting in I was criticised for being late. Insane.

 

[Daz28]

The outside conditions were no worse on Friday evening than the rest of the week, when SE had managed to run a commuter service, if with disruption, it was just on the last day when the emergency timetable was introduced. The DO NOT TRAVEL seemed to refer to East Kent only, Live Departure Boards showed Orpington to London inbound trains running OK all day, as I was watching them. I didn't travel, but had no reason to think I couldn't.

The outside conditions were worse on Friday, heavy snow through the day in SE London, and very cold. The Sidcup line had been suspended for at least four hours, due to poor rail conditions. The advice from SET was don’t travel, if you are home, stay home, if you are somewhere warm stay there. Only travel if you have no other option. This advice was on twitter and their website from about 1pm onwards. Prior to that they had been advising people to travel soon, leave early as they were expecting conditions to worsen. Their twitter team had been posting videos of trains struggling to pick up power in snow, and lots of examples of conductor rail arcing to explain the problem.

There are many aspects of SET service that were suboptimal that day, but their general travel advice and communication was good, at least until the events in discussion started to unfold.

 

[John Bray]

There wasn't heavy snow in Orpington, 9 miles away, that Friday, only a smattering of light freezing drizzle, and trains were running on the SEML fine past me.

 

[Antman]

No, read what I said again. Every employer seems to think they need to provide 100% service 100% of the time. They will expect all of their staff to be in and thus the transport providers are expected to provide 100% service which is not always possible.

Just to clarify I have seen things change in the last 10 years. Around 10 years ago I was noted in company records for walking in to work when loads of people couldn't get in. A few months ago I got a stage one written warning when I was late for work when a tree blocked a major road artery to the office due to the weather. Instead of being complemented for getting in I was criticised for being late. Insane.

I don't know how you can know what every employer expects, anyway there were clearly a good many people who didn't go into work. The experience that you've mentioned might explain why many people don't bother.

 

[Paul180]

This article makes interesting reading from someone who said he was on the train.

http://buzzsteam.com/2018/03/04/southeastern-commuter-train-stuck-at-lewisham/

I’ve heard so many conflicting accounts of what happened on Friday, many of them not entirely true and obviously orchestrated by Southeastern’s press team. I thought I’d pen down what actually happened as it unfolded in-front of me from the point of view of the passenger.

 

[30907]

There wasn't heavy snow in Orpington, 9 miles away, that Friday, only a smattering of light freezing drizzle, and trains were running on the SEML fine past me.

Freezing drizzle is exactly the problem, and as I posted earlier #559 the impact of the weather was localised - as it was earlier in the week from my own observation.

 

[amcluesent]

So far, the only Southeastern employee to come out of this with any credit is the driver who asked and asked the signaller to be allowed to proceed at caution into the station under emergency permissive working

 

[millemille]

Signallers can broadcast over the PA in emergencies (generally used if the driver of a DOO train is unresponsive).

Once the batteries are exhausted (which can be as little as 30-45 mins after power is switched off) there’s no means of using the PA.

The RGS mandates that emergency battery power has to last for a minimum of 90 minutes after the loss of traction power and that certain functions (emergency lighting, emergency ventilation and PA) must work whilst the batteries are providing power.

If you have evidence that this is not the case then you need to report this, maybe CIRAS if you're not comfortable/able to report directly to the operator?

As an ex South Eastern engineering employee I can assure you that this performance is tested on routine maintenance at an appropriate periodicity and that problems with units being able to achieve this are addressed; either by battery maintenance, replacement or modification. There was an incident about 7 years ago where the traction current was discharged around Sole Street and it was reported that a 375's batteries didn't last the mandated 90 mins and all hell broke loose within SE to investigate and address it.

 

[bnm]

I'd suggest that should be immediately obvious to any reader with a reasonable ability at comprehension.

You are good at the personal slights aren't you? I've lobbed that back at you once to highlight how unnecessary it is. Why the need the question my comprehension again?

We have a difference of opinion is all. Essentially on the issue of semantics. I believe London Connections has provided 'some' analysis and highlighted that when you asked me to. You believe otherwise. That's fine, I can live with different opinions. What I don't appreciate though is belittling someone because they say things you disagree with.

As to the messroom question. Chatted with a couple of rail staff acquaintances on Monday. One of whom works for Southeastern. Some interesting opinions there, from them and their colleagues via the grapevine. 'Messroom' used in my earlier post as shorthand for the above. I was last in one during February half term. I had a nice cup of tea and some toast.

 

[Bromley boy]

You are good at the personal slights aren't you? I've lobbed that back at you once to highlight how unnecessary it is. Why the need the question my comprehension again?

We have a difference of opinion is all. Essentially on the issue of semantics. I believe London Connections has provided 'some' analysis and highlighted that when you asked me to. You believe otherwise. That's fine, I can live with different opinions. What I don't appreciate though is belittling someone because they say things you disagree with.

As to the messroom question. Chatted with a couple of rail staff acquaintances on Monday. One of whom works for Southeastern. Some interesting opinions there, from them and their colleagues via the grapevine. 'Messroom' used in my earlier post as shorthand for the above. I was last in one during February half term. I had a nice cup of tea and some toast.

I don’t think I have personally slighted you and that wasn’t my intention.

With all due respect this isn’t really something we can have a difference of opinion over, it’s there in black and white.

You have linked to a document and represented that it says something different to what it actually says, on an ordinary reading. The document itself states it undertakes no analysis and indeed it does not do so.

I have no idea what your motives are for doing so, but I will always call someone doing that out on a discussion forum.

 

[theageofthetra]

So far, the only Southeastern employee to come out of this with any credit is the driver who asked and asked the signaller to be allowed to proceed at caution into the station under emergency permissive working

Something that will hopefully appear in the independent report.

 

[Bromley boy]

The RGS mandates that emergency battery power has to last for a minimum of 90 minutes after the loss of traction power and that certain functions (emergency lighting, emergency ventilation and PA) must work whilst the batteries are providing power.

If you have evidence that this is not the case then you need to report this, maybe CIRAS if you're not comfortable/able to report directly to the operator?

As an ex South Eastern engineering employee I can assure you that this performance is tested on routine maintenance at an appropriate periodicity and that problems with units being able to achieve this are addressed; either by battery maintenance, replacement or modification. There was an incident about 7 years ago where the traction current was discharged around Sole Street and it was reported that a 375's batteries didn't last the mandated 90 mins and all hell broke loose within SE to investigate and address it.

I’m not necessarily doubting you, but I can tell you that is not the understanding most front line staff have. The “official line” in training sessions is 30-45 minutes. I’ve never had to put it to the test myself thankfully.

Is there grandfathering for the older networker stock, perhaps?

 

[theageofthetra]

The RGS mandates that emergency battery power has to last for a minimum of 90 minutes after the loss of traction power and that certain functions (emergency lighting, emergency ventilation and PA) must work whilst the batteries are providing power.

If you have evidence that this is not the case then you need to report this, maybe CIRAS if you're not comfortable/able to report directly to the operator?

As an ex South Eastern engineering employee I can assure you that this performance is tested on routine maintenance at an appropriate periodicity and that problems with units being able to achieve this are addressed; either by battery maintenance, replacement or modification. There was an incident about 7 years ago where the traction current was discharged around Sole Street and it was reported that a 375's batteries didn't last the mandated 90 mins and all hell broke loose within SE to investigate and address it.

Surely that 90 mins must be temperature dependent?- in very cold weather batteries normally drop off in performance.

Another scenario- its a Monday morning, the unit has been cut out all weekend and it ends up in a situation where the traction current is switched off for some time early in its diagrammed working-- will those batteries be fully charged?

 

[bnm]

The document itself states it undertakes no analysis

The blog post actually says, "we will avoid commenting extensively (my emphasis) on the incident."

Nowhere does it state "it undertakes no analysis". Your words, not theirs.

It was I who said it was excellent early analysis. Further clarifying that every time you questioned me, with slights about comprehension and understanding, over my use of the word 'analysis'.

Bedtime now. We've both become too (first four letters of the contentious word) over semantics.

 

[fowler9]

I don't know how you can know what every employer expects, anyway there were clearly a good many people who didn't go into work. The experience that you've mentioned might explain why many people don't bother.

Apologies. I don't know what every employer expects, I have experienced several since graduating twenty years ago. What has your experience been?

 

[Bromley boy]

The blog post actually says, "we will avoid commenting extensively (my emphasis) on the incident."

Nowhere does it state "it undertakes no analysis". Your words, not theirs.

It was I who said it was excellent early analysis. Further clarifying that every time you questioned me, with slights about comprehension and understanding, over my use of the word 'analysis'.

Bedtime now. We've both become too (first four letters of the contentious word) over semantics.

I’m afraid I do rather enjoy pedantic arguments - as I say no offence was intended.

We have both made our points and readers can draw their own conclusions about whether that document analyses the Lewisham incident being discussed.

 

[YorkshireExile]

OK, I'll stick my neck out and give the highlights of my actual experience on one of the trains.

I don't recall what the service was supposed to be, but we left Charing Cross around 17:40. I had walked to the front carriage, where there were still a few seats. By the time we deparated London bridge all seats were taken, and there were people staing between the doors, but not in the aisle. I would expect, though, that carriages further back were more full.

We ground to a halt around 17:55 at North Kent East Junction, with the front carriage on the bridge over single line section of Overground track just past Rolt Street Junction, so only a few metres short of the steps down to the section of (I presume) Network Rail/maintenance land behind Milton Court Road. That would be just under 500 metres from the platforms at New Cross.

Initially the driver told us fairly quickly that there was an issue with a train getting up Tanners Hill, and we might have to bypass Lewisham and go straight to Hither Green. There were a few disgruntled mutterings, but presumably only from those who were Lewisham-bound (idle speculation: could people have been let off at St John's in that scenario?).

By 18:20 it was getting so warm that people started taking coats off, as obviously they were dressed for the weather outside, and hadn't expected to be on a heated train for so long. The heating went off and we went to emergency lighting around 18:40. People started wrapping up again as the temperature quickly dropped. Not long after this the driver came through the carriage, as someone further back had had a panic attack or fit and pulled the alarm.

By 19:00 the driver was back in his cab, but informed us that the position of the train in front of us prevented bypassing Lewisham. More groans. Around 19:10 he informed us that people were unilaterally getting off the trains ahead.

Around 19:30 we could hear alarms going off further back as people hit the door releases on our train, and we started seeing a steady stream of people outside moving towards New Cross.

At 19:40 the driver announced that the trains behind us were going to be reversing to London Bridge. That was the trigger for someone pulling the door release in my carriage. The temperature inevitably plummeted. Within five minutes half the passengers had gone. I went over to the front set of doors, and saw the driver was on the track directing passengers towards the steps down to the land next to Milton Court Road - clearly a good call, far better than having them try to walk to New Cross.

It was fairly obvious that anyone staying on the train was going to be there a long time, and it was pointless staying just to feel virtuous, so I lowered myself down. Contrary to a lot of previous comments, it was not "dark" at all. In fact, With snow on the ground in a urban area with lots of light pollution, the ground - and especially the rails - were perfectly visible. This was some 110 minutes after we'd first stopped.

By now a lot of people were milling around on the open ground, but as I made my way down the steps there was a loud clang and a cheer went up, someone presumably having worked out that the vehicle access gates were not actually locked (as I passed I saw the padlock was still intact and secure on the bolt), and everyone streamed through. I then walked to New Cross and got a bus to Hither Green.

A few observations in no particular order:

People were reading SE Twitter feed and relaying information before the driver did, if he did at all. Unlike a few passengers, I don't fault the driver - he was obviously talking to control, not checking Twitter. This did highlight, though, the poor level of communication. People also got a bit tired of SE's insistence that everything would be fixed soon, if it wasn't for all these pesky passengers.

Some people were talking about the New Forest incident. Loudly and in detail. This undoubtedly fuelled the actions of whoever open the door, in my carriage at least. There was a guy across the aisle from me who figured himself as Mr Expert, apparently because he had relatives working on the railway. He was the biggest advocate for de-training long before it actually happened! He also said that Southeastern should let us all off and provide taxis home. You don't have to be an expert in group dynamics to recognise that it only take one or two pessimistic people to sway the mood of everyone else.

Although things didn't get grim toilet-wise in my carriage, it was starting to get uncomfortable. I don't think some previous posters have taken into account that many people will have been in transit without a break for some time, even before actually boarding the train. Certainy I left my office (government agency - we were pointedly informed that our presence at work was "essential") about an hour beforehand. When you get to a mainline station, your first thought in getting on a train that you expect/hope will get you home in under half an hour, not that you should risk missing it to nip to the loo first. I think only the fact that I'd deliberately not had anything to drink since lunch-time saved me.

 

[Antman]

OK, I'll stick my neck out and give the highlights of my actual experience on one of the trains.

I don't recall what the service was supposed to be, but we left Charing Cross around 17:40. I had walked to the front carriage, where there were still a few seats. By the time we deparated London bridge all seats were taken, and there were people staing between the doors, but not in the aisle. I would expect, though, that carriages further back were more full.

We ground to a halt around 17:55 at North Kent East Junction, with the front carriage on the bridge over single line section of Overground track just past Rolt Street Junction, so only a few metres short of the steps down to the section of (I presume) Network Rail/maintenance land behind Milton Court Road. That would be just under 500 metres from the platforms at New Cross.

Initially the driver told us fairly quickly that there was an issue with a train getting up Tanners Hill, and we might have to bypass Lewisham and go straight to Hither Green. There were a few disgruntled mutterings, but presumably only from those who were Lewisham-bound (idle speculation: could people have been let off at St John's in that scenario?).

By 18:20 it was getting so warm that people started taking coats off, as obviously they were dressed for the weather outside, and hadn't expected to be on a heated train for so long. The heating went off and we went to emergency lighting around 18:40. People started wrapping up again as the temperature quickly dropped. Not long after this the driver came through the carriage, as someone further back had had a panic attack or fit and pulled the alarm.

By 19:00 the driver was back in his cab, but informed us that the position of the train in front of us prevented bypassing Lewisham. More groans. Around 19:10 he informed us that people were unilaterally getting off the trains ahead.

Around 19:30 we could hear alarms going off further back as people hit the door releases on our train, and we started seeing a steady stream of people outside moving towards New Cross.

At 19:40 the driver announced that the trains behind us were going to be reversing to London Bridge. That was the trigger for someone pulling the door release in my carriage. The temperature inevitably plummeted. Within five minutes half the passengers had gone. I went over to the front set of doors, and saw the driver was on the track directing passengers towards the steps down to the land next to Milton Court Road - clearly a good call, far better than having them try to walk to New Cross.

It was fairly obvious that anyone staying on the train was going to be there a long time, and it was pointless staying just to feel virtuous, so I lowered myself down. Contrary to a lot of previous comments, it was not "dark" at all. In fact, With snow on the ground in a urban area with lots of light pollution, the ground - and especially the rails - were perfectly visible. This was some 110 minutes after we'd first stopped.

By now a lot of people were milling around on the open ground, but as I made my way down the steps there was a loud clang and a cheer went up, someone presumably having worked out that the vehicle access gates were not actually locked (as I passed I saw the padlock was still intact and secure on the bolt), and everyone streamed through. I then walked to New Cross and got a bus to Hither Green.

A few observations in no particular order:

People were reading SE Twitter feed and relaying information before the driver did, if he did at all. Unlike a few passengers, I don't fault the driver - he was obviously talking to control, not checking Twitter. This did highlight, though, the poor level of communication. People also got a bit tired of SE's insistence that everything would be fixed soon, if it wasn't for all these pesky passengers.

Some people were talking about the New Forest incident. Loudly and in detail. This undoubtedly fuelled the actions of whoever open the door, in my carriage at least. There was a guy across the aisle from me who figured himself as Mr Expert, apparently because he had relatives working on the railway. He was the biggest advocate for de-training long before it actually happened! He also said that Southeastern should let us all off and provide taxis home. You don't have to be an expert in group dynamics to recognise that it only take one or two pessimistic people to sway the mood of everyone else.

Although things didn't get grim toilet-wise in my carriage, it was starting to get uncomfortable. I don't think some previous posters have taken into account that many people will have been in transit without a break for some time, even before actually boarding the train. Certainy I left my office (government agency - we were pointedly informed that our presence at work was "essential") about an hour beforehand. When you get to a mainline station, your first thought in getting on a train that you expect/hope will get you home in under half an hour, not that you should risk missing it to nip to the loo first. I think only the fact that I'd deliberately not had anything to drink since lunch-time saved me.

Thanks for sharing that, doesn't sound like a bundle of laughs to say the least.

On your point about possibly stopping at St Johns I thought it was no longer possible for trains from Charing Cross to access St Johns since the Thameslink 2000 related changes? I might be wrong about that though.

 

[js1000]

I always have a problem when a train is stationary for more than an hour. What happened on this train was unacceptable on Southeastern's part and to a lesser extent the passengers who were clearly unaware that the rails were actually live.

On multiple occasions I have been on trains where a medical emergency has happened. Both occurred when the stationary train was in a queue waiting to be allocated an available platform - once outside Manchester Piccadilly and the other outside Waterloo. Once the conductor and driver had been notified, the correct protocol has been followed each and the train was prioritised over all trains with a clear run to the station where medical staff were waiting on the platform.

It seems there was a complete breakdown in communication for a service to kept like this for so long. It's why I'm also very anti-DOO even as a passenger. I've witnessed it too many times to know it endangers passengers' safety. Not to mention, train operators claim DOO will reduce costs but what will actually happen as we all can know is the TOCs will pocket the difference as profit rather than reducing fares.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps gas torches could be provided on the third rail shoes that could be used if the train is stopped on an iced up rail.

That would keep the train powered up in such a situation

 

[KingJ]

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.

As much flak as the Bi-Modes get, a very limited Diesel ability on electrics could be extremely useful in situations like this. It doesn't need to be strong enough to run at line speed, just enough to power passenger facilities (i.e. heat/light/PA/toilets) and enable a slow 'limp home' mode to the nearest safe place to unload. If the trains involved in this incident had had such a capability then possibly;

• The incident train wouldn't have become stranded just outside Lewisham - as it could have switched to diesel and limped to Blackheath - either to fully detrain passengers or back on a less icy bit of 3rd rail.
• Trains behind the incident train could have switched to diesel and permissively passed signals once the power was off, enabling them to either safely detrain at a platform or pass the incident area. (Although with passengers on the track, I can imagine that the chance of a permissive movement would be slim to none!)
• All trains could have maintained adequate passenger facilities, i.e. heat/light/PA/toilets. This would have presumably increased the time to the first detrainment, possibly allowing the entire incident to be resolved before it occurred.

Such a capability could prove to be quite useful in a lot of emergency situations - how many times have trains become stranded due to dewirements or power isolations etc? This could have also come in useful during the New Forest incident and the Kentish Town incident. Although this wouldn't solve every case of stranding, certainly in cases where the train itself is mostly fine but just missing a functioning electrical power source it could certainly help ensure comfort is maintained for passengers, prevent further complications and enable trains to get to a place where aid can be better provided - even if it means the train is 'limping' along.

Fitting a capability obviously would come with some costs - both financially and through marginally reduced performance from the extra weight. However, the ability to significantly reduce the impact of power issues and both improve passenger comfort during times of disruption and prevent any incidents from significantly worsening has to be an excellent argument for it.

Am I right in thinking that the Class 801s for the ECML have such a diesel engine fitted? I'd really love to see this as part of a procurement requirement on all new Electric rolling stock.

(I say all this with the caveat of sitting in an armchair. However, if feasible it seems like a very beneficial thing to do for a minor incremental overall cost)

The most badly affected trains were networkers and 376s These have no air conditioning and feature opening hopper windows. I don’t believe any 375s were involved (unless further up the line towards London Bridge)? They don’t tend to run through Lewisham in passenger service.

375s also have hopper windows which are normally locked shut and require a T key to open.

One 375 was caught up in this - 2R46, the 1710 from Charing Cross to Ashford International (although the front 4 coaches were an ex-Southern 377). It was stuck at the signal protecting the Tanners Hill Flydown. It lost power as well after the initial self-evacuation from the incident train, but no passengers self-evacuated from 2R46. However, compared to the other trains in the area it didn't appear to be crush loaded and I saw commentary praising the guard and driver for keeping passengers informed throughout.

https://twitter.com/dcifoyle/status/969730890946539520

 

[Bromley boy]

Perhaps gas torches could be provided on the third rail shoes that could be used if the train is stopped on an iced up rail.

Carrying flammable gas near a high voltage electric rail supply (prone to sparking) would be an obvious safety risk.

This also wouldn’t be of any use if the power had to be switched off for any other reason.

Fitting a capability obviously doesn't would come with some costs - both financially and through marginally reduced performance from the extra weight.

Unfortunately this is exactly why it won’t happen. Better back up batteries would be the way to go, over and above carting about an emergency Diesel engine + fuel supply.

One 375 was caught up in this - 2R46, the 1710 from Charing Cross to Ashford International (although the front 4 coaches were an ex-Southern 377). It was stuck at the signal protecting the Tanners Hill Flydown. It lost power as well after the initial self-evacuation from the incident train, but no passengers self-evacuated from 2R46. However, compared to the other trains in the area it didn't appear to be crush loaded and I saw commentary praising the guard and driver for keeping passengers informed throughout.

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that. I’d like to know how long the batteries actually lasted given the discrepancy between what I believe to be the case (30-45 mins) and the guaranteed 90 minutes stated above.

At a pinch I’d imagine the electrostar batteries may last longer as they are more modern stock + can load shed (but then again they use more power than networkers in the first place, so perhaps this equals out).

 

[Antman]

As much flak as the Bi-Modes get, a very limited Diesel ability on electrics could be extremely useful in situations like this. It doesn't need to be strong enough to run at line speed, just enough to power passenger facilities (i.e. heat/light/PA/toilets) and enable a slow 'limp home' mode to the nearest safe place to unload. If the trains involved in this incident had had such a capability then possibly;

• The incident train wouldn't have become stranded just outside Lewisham - as it could have switched to diesel and limped to Blackheath - either to fully detrain passengers or back on a less icy bit of 3rd rail.
• Trains behind the incident train could have switched to diesel and permissively passed signals once the power was off, enabling them to either safely detrain at a platform or pass the incident area. (Although with passengers on the track, I can imagine that the chance of a permissive movement would be slim to none!)
• All trains could have maintained adequate passenger facilities, i.e. heat/light/PA/toilets. This would have presumably increased the time to the first detrainment, possibly allowing the entire incident to be resolved before it occurred.

Such a capability could prove to be quite useful in a lot of emergency situations - how many times have trains become stranded due to dewirements or power isolations etc? This could have also come in useful during the New Forest incident and the Kentish Town incident. Although this wouldn't solve every case of stranding, certainly in cases where the train itself is mostly fine but just missing a functioning electrical power source it could certainly help ensure comfort is maintained for passengers, prevent further complications and enable trains to get to a place where aid can be better provided - even if it means the train is 'limping' along.

Fitting a capability obviously doesn't would come with some costs - both financially and through marginally reduced performance from the extra weight. However, the ability to significantly reduce the impact of power issues and both improve passenger comfort during times of disruption and prevent any incidents from significantly worsening has to be an excellent argument for it.

Am I right in thinking that the Class 801s for the ECML have such a diesel engine fitted? I'd really love to see this as part of a procurement requirement on all new Electric rolling stock.

(I say all this with the caveat of sitting in an armchair. However, if feasible it seems like a very beneficial thing to do for a minor incremental overall cost)



One 375 was caught up in this - 2R46, the 1710 from Charing Cross to Ashford International (although the front 4 coaches were an ex-Southern 377). It was stuck at the signal protecting the Tanners Hill Flydown. It lost power as well after the initial self-evacuation from the incident train, but no passengers self-evacuated from 2R46. However, compared to the other trains in the area it didn't appear to be crush loaded and I saw commentary praising the guard and driver for keeping passengers informed throughout.

https://twitter.com/dcifoyle/status/969730890946539520

I suspect most passengers on the Ashford train would have had no other way of getting to their destination if they had got off? None the less well done to the driver and guard.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Unfortunately this is exactly why it won’t happen. Better back up batteries would be the way to go, over and above carting about an emergency Diesel engine + fuel supply.

Agreed that some kind of battery back-up would be useful (and, unlike diesel, would not require fitting a whole new engine and inflammable fuel, potentially to be carted around for years on end before some time comes when it's needed).

I don't know what the state of technology is, but I would have thought even a battery that could store enough energy to enable to train to limp at say 10mph for a range of 5 miles would be enough to mitigate a high proportion of situations involving loss of power (including snow, but also damage to overhead wires). A range of 20 miles would I imagine guarantee being able to get to a station from almost any point on the network without reversing. But I don't know how big (or expensive) such a battery would need to be. (And it would require some maintenance, most obviously regularly being charged up).

 

[theageofthetra]

Agreed that some kind of battery back-up would be useful (and, unlike diesel, would not require fitting a whole new engine and inflammable fuel, potentially to be carted around for years on end before some time comes when it's needed).

I don't know what the state of technology is, but I would have thought even a battery that could store enough energy to enable to train to limp at say 10mph for a range of 5 miles would be enough to mitigate a high proportion of situations involving loss of power (including snow, but also damage to overhead wires). A range of 20 miles would I imagine guarantee being able to get to a station from almost any point on the network without reversing. But I don't know how big (or expensive) such a battery would need to be. (And it would require some maintenance, most obviously regularly being charged up).

Remind me. Who exactly signed off when the manufacturers of the new GSMR radios offered an internal battery but declined due to cost ?

 

[jon0844]

Not another strawman again. No-one has said that nobody should make any effort to get to work. Some people will be able to get to work, others who are dependent on a fragile rail network with a lack of robustness built into the system will have a significant risk of getting into difficulties. Those in the latter group arguably should decide to chance it (and take the consequences), work from home or take a day off. Unless human lives are literally dependent on you getting to work, it is not a humanitarian disaster just because you decide not to risk it for a day or two, in this country very disruptive snow very rarely lasts more than 2-3 days. If employers and their staff can't accept that very occasionally, even in the temperate UK, major deviations from climatology can significantly intervene with normal life, then they need to take a trip down reality street. It is not like it happens very often.

My wife was unable to fly the Monday before last due to the weather. The airport? Stockholm Arlanda.

Certainly a lot of Europe was affected by the weather. I was in Barcelona and it snowed there too on the Tuesday and was absolutely freezing. The snow didn't settle but it caught a lot of people out, especially as so many apartments have no proper heating.

I think a lot of people travel because they're worried about getting into trouble with their bosses, or having people say 'how did you have a problem when I got in okay?' forgetting that the weather varied a lot depending on where you were.

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed that some kind of battery back-up would be useful (and, unlike diesel, would not require fitting a whole new engine and inflammable fuel, potentially to be carted around for years on end before some time comes when it's needed).

I don't know what the state of technology is, but I would have thought even a battery that could store enough energy to enable to train to limp at say 10mph for a range of 5 miles would be enough to mitigate a high proportion of situations involving loss of power (including snow, but also damage to overhead wires). A range of 20 miles would I imagine guarantee being able to get to a station from almost any point on the network without reversing. But I don't know how big (or expensive) such a battery would need to be. (And it would require some maintenance, most obviously regularly being charged up).

I assume the batteries on existing trains (not talking about new BEMUs) are traditional lead-acid like car batteries. I wonder if substituting a battery of the same dimensions using more recent technology (and appropriate circuits for charging etc) would allow a decent upgrade in stored energy without needing extra weight or space.

 

[Steve Harris]

Carrying flammable gas near a high voltage electric rail supply (prone to sparking) would be an obvious safety risk.

Hmmmm. I wonder how a oxy-acetylene torch is lit?

Oh hang on.

With a spark !

And miraculously i still haven't managed to blow my workshop up !