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

[Bletchleyite]

I mean, if this happened on an airplane, I don't think the passenger would be flying.

The conditions described do not arise on aircraft, not least because it is illegal to have more passengers on an aircraft than seats.

People do end up on aircraft for far too long at times, but aircraft are designed for spending hours in and have the facilities for that. Full and standing commuter trains don't.

And I don't think the passengers wanted to be travelling (flying) anyway...they wanted off.

 

[notverydeep]

I shudder to think what would have been said and done if any had been electrocuted or run-over.

Many responses have criticised the communications to passengers, but in one respect, the passengers got the message. The passengers will have strongly suspected that the current was off because of the lack of heating and emergency lights. Given that the reported staff announcements said repeatedly that "the current is switched off and no trains are able to move, because there are people on the track", it isn't surprising the people remaining on board (especially those confident they could identify the conductor rail) not only concluded that the risk of being electrocuted or run over by a train was very low, but felt emboldened by the knowledge that they would be by no means the first people to self detrain. Incident response needs to be realistic about possible passenger behaviour in these sort of circumstances.

In many Eastern European countries - and I have worked in some within their railway industry - it is not uncommon for the public to walk alongside, and to cross, the railway. They do not have the same kind of fear of railways as the UK does ( a lot don't have fences to keep people out), they have a different mindset to UK nationals.

It is the UK's absolute prohibition on unauthorised access away from stations and crossings that is the exception. Unfenced railways are common in most other countries, and frequently encountered even in Western Europe and the US, away from the busiest urban corridors. In such circumstances, residents have a more 'green cross code' like approach to safety around railways and often they are adjacent to or in some countries act as rights of way for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Only for very high speed lines and lines that have ground level electrification is fencing more or less universal.

Rail staff from other countries might be rather bemused at how much disruption a trespass incident causes here. However, away from incidents like that being discussed in this thread and because of the total prohibition of access in the UK, it is sensible for UK rail operators to conclude that a trespasser is likely to be intent on vandalism or self harm.

 

[edwin_m]

Explain to me then why, when I took a flight from Hahn recently, and boarded on time, and pushed back on time, we sat on a runway for fifty minutes with not a single word from the crew before we took off? I wasn't allowed to disembark if I wanted to, I was sweltering hot with nothing to drink. I couldn't go to the toilet, because the seatbelt light was lit. But I had to lump it.

The conditions described do not arise on aircraft, not least because it is illegal to have more passengers on an aircraft than seats.

People do end up on aircraft for far too long at times, but aircraft are designed for spending hours in and have the facilities for that. Full and standing commuter trains don't.

And I don't think the passengers wanted to be travelling (flying) anyway...they wanted off.

Turned on the TV last week and there was a story about a Ryanair 737 full of passengers and crew that had apparently been forgotten about prior to taking off and left on the tarmac at Stansted. They were eventually liberated by police, phoned by the passengers and (according to Ryanair) by the crew too, who had to break into the terminal. For some reason toilets were not available during the wait of four hours or so. With the usual caution for hyperbole on such programmes, this seems to show that similar things do happen on airlines even though in my experience they are generally better than train companies at keeping people informed during delays.

 

[Chris M]

Self-evacuating from an aircraft is considerably harder than self-evacuating from a train. From a train once you open the door it is a reasonable step or jump to track level. Jump out of an aircraft onto tarmac and death is a real possibility.
There are also far more staff - a minimum of 1 cabin crew per 50 seats, whether occupied or not, plus at least two pilots. On the railway, having as many as three members of staff on a train with several hundred passengers can be unusual (and one of those is likely to be catering staff who receive minimal at best safety training)
Cabin crew also get training on how people behave in crowds, and how to de-escalate situations - do drivers and guards on the railway?

 

[2HAP]

I have spoken with a couple of Drivers who were involved. Not all trains had an egress. 'Most' do not offload.

Passengers abandoned five of the nine trains involved (Rail, issue 848). In this case, that is most offloaded.

 

[2HAP]

Location of signals

It seems to me that part of the problem is the location of signals just before a station. Surely it would make more sense to have the signals at the end of the station platform, even if this means a slight reduction in speed because an overlap may not be optimal by doing so?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think the passengers on 2M48 should receive a prize!

17:40 – 2M48 stopped by emergency brake, ice causing power issues and faults
19:06 – passengers on 2M48 self-evacuate onto tracks

That's 86 minutes for the first batch.

20:26 – more passengers from 2M48 self-evacuate onto tracks

166 minutes for the next batch.

21:36 – line confirmed clear, power restored, queue of trains begins to move within the following 10-20 minutes

236 minutes plus 10-20 until moving. How many remained on the train at this point?

 

[EM2]

Passengers abandoned five of the nine trains involved (Rail, issue 848). In this case, that is most offloaded.

How many customers decamped from those trains?

 

[2HAP]

How many customers decamped from those trains?

That information isn't available yet.

 

[EM2]

That information isn't available yet.

So we don't know if most decamped or not.

 

[Robertj21a]

So we don't know if most decamped or not.

I thought the point was that most *trains* decamped, not most *people*. Surely, it doesn't really matter how many people were involved (20 or 200 ? - does it matter), it's the number of trains affected.

 

[EM2]

I thought the point was that most *trains* decamped, not most *people*. Surely, it doesn't really matter how many people were involved (20 or 200 ? - does it matter), it's the number of trains affected.

Look at the full ComUtoR posting that 2HAP edited:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rails-still-live.161467/page-26#post-3396271
It contains a quote from AlterEgo, which states:

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

It is this use of 'most' that was being referred to:

'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.

 

[Robertj21a]

Look at the full ComUtoR posting that 2HAP edited:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rails-still-live.161467/page-26#post-3396271
It contains a quote from AlterEgo, which states:

It is this use of 'most' that was being referred to:

It also said 'probably'. I wouldn't be surprised. Even so, does it really matter how many ?

 

[Randomer]

That's 86 minutes for the first batch.

So even the first train to self evacuate did so well after the 60 minute guidelines published by RDG/NR as previously quoted (on page 35-37 of the PDF). My initial reaction on reading the thread was to think people were perhaps very hasty to evacuate. As time goes on I'm less and less convinced of this.

The RAIB report will be fascinating eventually; particuarly whether the TOC/NR had taken any notice of the guidance first agreed 4 years before (or earlier).

 

[Bletchleyite]

86 minutes if you're stood up, crammed in, freezing cold and need a wee is a *very* long time.

That's why the situation was very different between this and the near-empty Class 444s that got stuck down Bournemouth way. One of those was even in a platform (Brockenhurst, I think) presumably with doors released and people still didn't leave it until morning.

 

[EM2]

86 minutes if you're stood up, crammed in, freezing cold and need a wee is a *very* long time.

Used to do it on the terraces at football every week!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Used to do it on the terraces at football every week!

I'm led to believe that those without iron bladders had various means of avoiding the issue which wouldn't really work on trains

 

[edwin_m]

Location of signals

It seems to me that part of the problem is the location of signals just before a station. Surely it would make more sense to have the signals at the end of the station platform, even if this means a slight reduction in speed because an overlap may not be optimal by doing so?

On a busy but fairly slow line like this the signal spacing isn't much more than the train length. There is a signal at the end of the platform and the first train to get stuck did so before it left the overlap of that signal. Hence the next train was held at the previous signal, which on a quick check of a plan looks to be between 250m and 300m away and therefore a short distance on the approach to the plaform.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Did you manage to do this? Would be interesting to see.

 

[2HAP]

Thank you, edwin_m. That makes it a bit clearer.

 

[AlterEgo]

Look at the full ComUtoR posting that 2HAP edited:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rails-still-live.161467/page-26#post-3396271
It contains a quote from AlterEgo, which states:

It is this use of 'most' that was being referred to:

I was talking about “ordinary passenger *members*” as I was drawing a comparison between the response to this thread by by rail staff members and members who are just normal passengers.

Most of the “normal passengers” responses have stated they would have left the train.

 

[EM2]

Most of the “normal passengers” responses have stated they would have left the train.

Exactly. On an average train, I'd confidently lay a reasonable sum that rail staff make up a miniscule percentage of the passengers.
It would therefore follow that *most* passengers are are 'normal' passengers, and by your own reasoning *most* of them would decamp.
That's clearly not the case.

 

[AlterEgo]

Exactly. On an average train, I'd confidently lay a reasonable sum that rail staff make up a miniscule percentage of the passengers.
It would therefore follow that *most* passengers are are 'normal' passengers, and by your own reasoning *most* of them would decamp.
That's clearly not the case.

No, that is not my reasoning.

I was simply explaining that there was a disconnect in thinking between ordinary members of this board, and members who are rail staff.

The average position taken by rail staff on various issues on these forums is not representative of the tens of thousands of rail staff who aren’t members. Likewise, your average “passenger” forum member isn’t representative of the average passenger on any given train.

I didn’t ever attempt to say that “most passengers would egress”. You only need one to egress out of 500 to stop the job. This is the problem.

 

[rebmcr]

Did you manage to do this? Would be interesting to see.

I forgot — thanks for the reminder!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So, passengers on the trains whose next stop was Lewisham then either Blackheath or Hither Green bailed out (however many). Whilst the two trains whose next stop was Sevenoaks didn't. No surprise there. Rightly or wrongly, "I can see the platform, I can see the buses are running, I've only got a short distance to go if I get off here, it's cold, it's dark, I've been here an hour already and nothing has moved. I'm out of here...."

 

[exile]

I think - from the point of view of passengers on the overcrowded 2M50 - they were - and were aware they were - just outside Lewisham station. Had the train moved it would have been in the platform in a few minutes. If they detrained, they would perhaps be on the platform in 15 minutes or less. They had - I understand - received announcements that permission to move the train into the platform had been requested by not given; but not any stating what would happen, or when, to get them to the platform. In short - from their perspective - they felt abandoned by a railway which might, when it got round to it - get them off the train sometime that evening or the following morning (based on that morning's news). Given the prospect of a few more uncomfortable hours wedged on the train going nowhere, detraining and a short walk was a very attractive alternative.

Remember these trains had no toilets - so "uncomfortable" is a little inadequate to describe the situation. We're not used to being in circumstances where we are obliged to s**t ourselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember these trains had no toilets - so "uncomfortable" is a little inadequate to describe the situation. We're not used to being in circumstances where we are obliged to s**t ourselves.

Indeed. The situation would have been very different indeed if the train had had working toilets. So much so that I believe the 3 hour evacuation "rule" is wrong for a toiletless train. The presumption should be to have commenced evacuation no more than one hour after the train first came to a stand where toilets are not provided or are all non-functional. And if that is not considered to be generally achievable, all trains need toilets (and should not enter service if they are not functional) - I believe it is not legal for a plane to take off with no functioning toilet.

I would, as I've said, happily stand up in Court and justify having pulled the egress to avoid soiling my trousers after a delay of that kind of length which had no likelihood of ending any time soon.

I would also happily stand up in Court and justify having pulled the egress to avoid hypothermia. (People in cities don't dress for being stranded up a mountain, they dress for being moving when outside).

 

[theageofthetra]

The toilets would have been available. Some twerp kept the outside lock on.

 

[island]

At least one of the stuck trains was a 376 which has no toilets. Also, there are currently a lot of 465 toilets locked out of use – and it’s only one per unit.

 

[Antman]

Indeed. The situation would have been very different indeed if the train had had working toilets. So much so that I believe the 3 hour evacuation "rule" is wrong for a toiletless train. The presumption should be to have commenced evacuation no more than one hour after the train first came to a stand where toilets are not provided or are all non-functional. And if that is not considered to be generally achievable, all trains need toilets (and should not enter service if they are not functional) - I believe it is not legal for a plane to take off with no functioning toilet.

I would, as I've said, happily stand up in Court and justify having pulled the egress to avoid soiling my trousers after a delay of that kind of length which had no likelihood of ending any time soon.

I would also happily stand up in Court and justify having pulled the egress to avoid hypothermia. (People in cities don't dress for being stranded up a mountain, they dress for being moving when outside).

The case would never have got to caught, I'm pretty sure the CPS would have kicked it into touch.

I wasn't aware of any three hour rule but clearly in this situation it would have been way too long with or without toilets.