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

[EM2]

Thanks for the clarification. It’s an emergency services protocol rather than a railway one.

I’ve never heard of this applied in a railway context. It doesn’t sound applicable to a situation with stranded trains where the emergency services wouldn’t be involved in the early stages. Contrast with a train crash with mass casualties where they would be.

It certainly *is* a protocol used in railway environments. Any incident that needs the appointment of a Rail Incident Officer or Station Incident Officer should use the Gold/Silver/Bronze (now usually known as Strategic/Tactical/Operational) command structure.

 

[Bromley boy]

It certainly *is* a protocol used in railway environments. Any incident that needs the appointment of a Rail Incident Officer or Station Incident Officer should use the Gold/Silver/Bronze (now usually known as Strategic/Tactical/Operational) command structure.

That’s certainly news to me. I wonder how many of the front line staff involved in the Lewisham incident knew of this.

In any case it evidently meant very little in practical terms.

 

[Daz28]

The issue is when to make the decision.

If it takes an hour to mobilise staff and evacuate a full train that is not in a platform, and the estimate for getting the train moving is half an hour, then it makes perfect sense to not evacuate the train.

If after half an hour, the estimate to get the train moving is still half an hour, then it still makes sense to not evacuate the train, despite the fact the passengers have now been stuck for an hour in total.

When the number of trains is many, the number of available staff is few and the estimate to get everybody moving is half an hour, then you can understand why the same decision was reached.

The reason why the estimate to get trains moving was always half an hour away was not related to ice or the original breakdown, as far as we know that was cleared in a reasonable time. It was the domino effect of multiple passengers self disembarking from multiple trains that led to the extended delay.

A lesson that must surely be learnt from this episode is that this behaviour should now be expected, which may lead to a different plan next time.

The particular circumstances of this event were very unusual, if not unique. Multiple trains stuck in a very complex area of the railway, with no power and no opportunity to bring in a rescue train. Add in terrible weather, poor visibility, third rail electrics and passengers on the tracks headed in multiple directions and you have a disaster waiting to happen. The fact that nobody has been reported injured or worse is one of the few positives to come out of this situation.

Looking at the positives:

1) Nobody was killed
2) Power was cut promptly once passengers were found on the track ensuring (1)
3) At least some of the train drivers tried to communicate as best they could with the information available
4) The emergency services responded well
5) SE twitter tried to keep passengers informed
6) All trains were moving 4 hours after the incident began

Looking at the negatives

1) The SET plan for emergency evacuations in this area was either not implemented or was ineffective
2) The SET plan for dealing with a broken down train near a complex junction needs reviewing
3) The training of platform staff to assist in an emergency needs rethinking
4) The communication between SET control and their drivers needs improving
5) The toilet facilities onboard metro trains needs fixing
6) The emergency timetable which led to the crush loading needs replanning
7) The on-train facilities in the event of a power failure need revisiting
8) The social media team need better training on how to react in a crisis
9) The ability of 3rd rail to cope with winter weather needs redesigning

My fear is that all of the above are too difficult which means that train companies will take the low risk approach and simply cancel services more quickly in the event of poor weather.

 

[Robertj21a]

You’re asking me to answer something meaningless in a meaningful way. I’ve explained your query about a time limit of what is “acceptable” is nonsensical in the context of a stranded train because:

1. No one can predict how long any given situation will take to resolve;
2. No one can predict how long until passengers decide to egress.

Therefore an arbitrary time limit is totally and utterly pointless.

I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand what would surely be basic common sense for most people. I’m certainly not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain it to you.

Thank you. As I had already indicated, I was now looking for others to make a more positive contribution. Perhaps if you had read what was written you might have better understood. Never mind.

To humour you, my request was to ascertain a timescale for when it might be viewed as 'reasonable' for passengers to consider leaving their train. I didn't refer to 'acceptable', nor was I requiring it to be reasonable for the TOC/rail staff. My reference to rail staff etc was that after, say, 1 or 2 hours, they should be assuming that somebody is going to egress.

I would appreciate it if you would at least have the courtesy of reading the words that are written before you start a rant in reply.

 

[farleigh]

Having a fixed time seems like a very good idea.

 

[Bromley boy]

Thank you. As I had already indicated, I was now looking for others to make a more positive contribution. Perhaps if you had read what was written you might have better understood. Never mind.

To humour you, my request was to ascertain a timescale for when it might be viewed as 'reasonable' for passengers to consider leaving their train. I didn't refer to 'acceptable', nor was I requiring it to be reasonable for the TOC/rail staff. My reference to rail staff etc was that after, say, 1 or 2 hours, they should be assuming that somebody is going to egress.

I would appreciate it if you would at least have the courtesy of reading the words that are written before you start a rant in reply.

I’ve read them.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, see my post #730 (not in response to you). There’s no such thing as “reasonable” in this context.

 

[Bromley boy]

Having a fixed time seems like a very good idea.

A fixed time for what?

 

[farleigh]

A fixed time for what?

Planning what to do regarding a possible passenger egress. Sorry I was not clear. I would say 1 hour.

 

[Northhighland]

But haven’t you answered your own question in the bit of your post I’ve highlighted?

The limit can only ever be “as quickly as possible”. How long this is is going to vary in every case according to many factors so it’s completely meaningless to impose an arbitrary 1hr/2hr limit if it simply takes longer than that for evacuation to take place, or for the train to be restarted.

If a train is derailed by a landslide in Scotland miles from anywhere, what’s the point of imposing a 2 hour limit that may not be physically achievable?

What happens if the train is on fire?

 

[Bromley boy]

Planning what to do regarding a possible passenger egress. Sorry I was not clear. I would say 1 hour.

Ok, but saying 1 hour would mean little if someone actually egressed after 5 minutes, or if nobody egressed at all. My overall point is that it depends on so many factors that you can’t predict, including where the train is/why its been stopped.

Even in the Lewisham scenario, we were told earlier that nobody egressed from the mainline train that was involved. We were also told people egressed within 30 minutes from metro trains involved in the same incident.

We are starting to go round in circles!

 

[87015]

It will be interesting to see if the investigation shows any comparison of risks (I don’t think there were injuries in either case) with the “managed” evacuation into a live running line at Peckham Rye - only down the road of course.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I am still surprised at the very limited mention of Network Rail in relation to the Lewisham events. At the risk of re-stating the blindingly obvious, when your customer (Southeastern) has a 100% electric-only fleet a usable and energised third rail isn't just a 'nice to have', it's essential!

We have still not heard any claim that conductor rail heating was fitted and working at Lewisham, despite this being one of the big initiatives after the last severe snow in the South East, around 2010. It is also not clear that Network Rail had anybody on site 'ready' when problems began.

According the very confusing account in RAIL magazine the 'first' train came to a stand just beyond Lewisham at 1734. There does not appear to be any mention of a Mobile Operations Manager being on site until around 1836. So it seems that the 'golden hour' of passenger tolerance had been exhausted before anybody really did anything to get trains moving. As a former local operations manager in Kent in BR days I find this hard to believe but have yet to see any definitive evidence to the contrary.

There is no mention in the RAIL article of any more Network Rail staff being deployed and it seemed that the only 'process' followed was to allow the incident to become a major civil emergency with large numbers of fire, police and ambulance personnel tied up assisting 9,000 passengers spread over multiple locations.

I see that many posters have suggested (or at least implied) that (what would have been a very modest number of) Southeastern station staff at Lewisham should have been competent and equipped to go on the track essentially on their own initiative (albeit in proper liaison with signallers and the electrical controller) to start pulling hookswitches, de-icing conductor rails and evacuating passengers for what would probably have been the first time in their careers, even if they had been trained and equipped with the requisite personal protective equipment.

Going back to the 'outdoor' phase of my own career I cannot say that I find this sort of scenario appealing. Although a few 'old hands' could be trusted to carry out some straightforward emergency procedures on the line, especially in relatively favourable conditions weatherwise, this was not usually a first option. I had one willing lone leading railman at a small station have a fit whilst on the track in stressful circumstances and that taught me a major lesson.

The right people to be de-icing conductor rails are those whose role takes them onto the line on a regular basis as they are 'habituated' to the hazards of the trackside environment. There are supposedly tens of thousands people (both Network Rail and contractors) with personal track safety certification in Team Orange.

Can anybody tell us how many of them were on duty at Lewisham on the fateful evening?

 

[farleigh]

Ok, but saying 1 hour would mean little if someone actually egressed after 5 minutes, or if nobody egressed at all. My overall point is that it depends on so many factors that you can’t predict, including where the train is/why its been stopped.

Even in the Lewisham scenario, we were told earlier that nobody egressed from the mainline train that was involved. We were also told people egressed within 30 minutes from metro trains involved in the same incident.

We are starting to go round in circles!

I don't disagree with you and your earlier example is illustrative. I was thinking in terms of having a viable plan so that after one hour, management were considering what to do in the case of egress.

 

[Robertj21a]

I’ve read them.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, see my post #730 (not in response to you). There’s no such thing as “reasonable” in this context.

Oh dear.......

I had prepared a lengthy response to you but gave up when I realised that we must be talking different languages.

Many thanks to others (notably Daz28) for understanding my question(s) and responding accordingly. It still seems reasonable to me that any TOC/rail staff should assume that passengers may self-egress after, say, 1 hour - and I assume that an overall plan for how to handle such a situation is already in place, and can be made effective in a short space of time.

 

[Daz28]

I am still surprised at the very limited mention of Network Rail in relation to the Lewisham events. At the risk of re-stating the blindingly obvious, when your customer (Southeastern) has a 100% electric-only fleet a usable and energised third rail isn't just a 'nice to have', it's essential!

We have still not heard any claim that conductor rail heating was fitted and working at Lewisham, despite this being one of the big initiatives after the last severe snow in the South East, around 2010. It is also not clear that Network Rail had anybody on site 'ready' when problems began.

Good point. SET were running fewer trains but longer trains, assuming that longer trains would be more resilient to ice. Are there enough pickup shoes on their trains? Sand boxes are fitted to increase grip for the wheels, but can anything be fitted to clear ice from the conductor rail? Should they have some antifreeze to spray onto the conductor rail as it moves? Or divert some of the train heating onto the shoes?

Conductor rail heating is a must, particularly in vulnerable and crucial junctions. We have gritting lorries to clear motorways, I assume Network Rail have something equivalent to clear the tracks? Are there enough of them?

Did the reduced frequency of services during the emergency timetable actually increase the risk of ice building up?

 

[Astradyne]

I don't disagree with you and your earlier example is illustrative. I was thinking in terms of having a viable plan so that after one hour, management were considering what to do in the case of egress.

According to the ATOC stranded train guidelines, linked below, passenger evacuation should be started after 1 hour and completed after 2 hours ... see Appendix C. Why were the guidelines in this document not adhered to?

https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/oodocs/atocnr gpg sp01 iss 2.pdf

ATOC/Network Rail Good Practice Guide - Meeting the Needs of Passengers when Trains are Stranded

APPENDIX C – SUGGESTED TIMELINES FROM WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A TRAIN IS STRANDED

Target 1 hour
Commence Evacuation / Assistance

Target 2 hours
Complete evacuation / Assistance

 

[Chris M]

Did the reduced frequency of services during the emergency timetable actually increase the risk of ice building up?

Yes, otherwise sleet trains would not be a thing.
AIUI the theory was that with fewer but longer trains there was less chance of any ice causing a train to become isolated from the power supply.

 

[notverydeep]

London's largest train operator fits roughly half to a third of its fleet with equipment to de-ice conductor rails (and has done so for decades). Why do the remaining fleets of trains using third rail electrification not have this equipment?

 

[KingJ]

This is the blog post http://buzzsteam.com/2018/03/04/southeastern-commuter-train-stuck-at-lewisham/

It is not pleasant reading and surprised they lasted 4 hours.

The blogger has since received a response from Southeastern, explaining their side in more detail. Interesting read - http://buzzsteam.com/2018/03/17/hel...in-stuck-at-lewisham-southeastern-s-response/

It does seem like a fairly balanced response from Southeastern overall - both acknowledging the reasons why passengers started to self-evacuate but also highlighting the risks and impact of that. They also welcome the RAIB and joint investigations, acknowledging that there are definitely lessons both for Southeastern and the wider industry to learn.

 

[SamYeager]

The blogger has since received a response from Southeastern, explaining their side in more detail. Interesting read - http://buzzsteam.com/2018/03/17/hel...in-stuck-at-lewisham-southeastern-s-response/

Reading the SE response the key bit seems to be:

The problem they had was that as the shoe gears were freed, they were immediately icing up again, and with 16 shoes for an 8-carriage train, this was quite a difficult situation.

It seems to give the impression that there was no way the stuck train was going to start moving until sufficient staff were available to free multiple shoes at the same time. I don't know how many staff were present initially but it appears that it was insufficient. Perhaps a learning point for the future is that more staff, assuming of course that they are available in the first place, will need to be sent to such incidents in freezing, snowy weather.

 

[edwin_m]

It seems to give the impression that there was no way the stuck train was going to start moving until sufficient staff were available to free multiple shoes at the same time. I don't know how many staff were present initially but it appears that it was insufficient. Perhaps a learning point for the future is that more staff, assuming of course that they are available in the first place, will need to be sent to such incidents in freezing, snowy weather.

That is a lesson to learn, picking up on the point in London Reconnections that the tendency is to assume that Plan A will always work first time. With so many things to contend with in this situation it would be reasonable to foresee that something might go wrong causing further delay, and to plan to bring all other moveable trains into places they could be safely evacuated or were clear of the isolation before shutting off the power.

 

[plcd1]

I have NOT followed the 25 previous pages of discussion in this thread. For those who may be interested South Eastern made the following presentation to London Travelwatch this morning. I've shared the link solely on the basis people may like to see what they said. There is no intent on my part to correct / amend / criticise any previous comment in this thread.

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4524&age=&field=file

 

[theageofthetra]

I have NOT followed the 25 previous pages of discussion in this thread. For those who may be interested South Eastern made the following presentation to London Travelwatch this morning. I've shared the link solely on the basis people may like to see what they said. There is no intent on my part to correct / amend / criticise any previous comment in this thread.

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4524&age=&field=file

Very interesting. So the first to evacuate were not on the train which initially caused the problems and was after 1hr+. Note also the use of a drone to check if lines were clear.

 

[matt_world2004]

So passengers from at least three trains evacuated .the conditions must have been pretty dire for that to happen.

 

[Robertj21a]

Very interesting. So the first to evacuate were not on the train which initially caused the problems and was after 1hr+. Note also the use of a drone to check if lines were clear.

Wasn't the train that caused the initial problems the one that had already left the Lewisham platform but just couldn't get fully away ?. I always understood that the first passengers to egress were from the next train, which was in sight of, but not yet at, the platform.

 

[rebmcr]

I have NOT followed the 25 previous pages of discussion in this thread. For those who may be interested South Eastern made the following presentation to London Travelwatch this morning. I've shared the link solely on the basis people may like to see what they said. There is no intent on my part to correct / amend / criticise any previous comment in this thread.

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4524&age=&field=file

The timeline emphasises the moments when the power was ready to re-energise but was pre-empted by the passenger evacuations. That's pretty southeastern-centric.

I think another angle of "time spent on a stopped train & how long it was unpowered" would make interesting viewing — I'll put the data together and chart that tonight, as the passenger-centric corrolary.

 

[Robertj21a]

The timeline emphasises the moments when the power was ready to re-energise but was pre-empted by the passenger evacuations. That's pretty southeastern-centric.

I think another angle of "time spent on a stopped train & how long it was unpowered" would make interesting viewing — I'll put the data together and chart that tonight, as the passenger-centric corrolary.

.......perhaps you should add in whether toilets were available and working too........

 

[Chris M]

Wasn't the train that caused the initial problems the one that had already left the Lewisham platform but just couldn't get fully away ?. I always understood that the first passengers to egress were from the next train, which was in sight of, but not yet at, the platform.

That's my understanding too. Certainly the driver of this train that requested, on more than one occasion, to evacuate their train.

 

[theironroad]

The RAIB have today published their outline summary into what the investigation will cover and a summary of the facts of the stranded trains and what initial actions were being taken.

Full details on RAIB as usual.

 

[LAX54]

RAIB:

In advance of the power being switched off, the signaller was in the process of seeking special permission to allow the 16:26 hrs service to pass the red signal into platform 4. This would allow detrainment of the passengers onto the platform. However, during this discussion, the signaller received an emergency call from the driver of the 16:26 hrs service advising that some passengers had opened the doors and were getting out onto the track. The signaller immediately asked the electrical control operator to switch off the power to the conductor rail in the area.

The train driver, assisted by Network Rail staff on the track, attempted to persuade passengers to re-board the train or to get clear of the track; they also advised those still on board to remain there. A short time later, British Transport Police, London Fire Service and London Ambulance service staff were called to Lewisham to assist with the passengers who were on the track. However, passengers continued to exit the 16:26 hrs service, and others alighted from the 15:56 and 17:06 hrs services. Passengers also alighted from trains that had stopped near New Cross station.

so had the first person not jumped and waited a few more minutes, it would or could have been a whole different story, but once the Emergency Isolation had been given......