Passengers detrain themselves in Bristol area (26/09)

[BestWestern]

If the train had been as overcrowded as has been alleged, I'd question the wisdom of a decision for it to leave a station.


Unfortunately, and contrary to oft-quited belief, there is no mechanism by which a 'decision to leave a station' is based upon the loadings of the train. The railway doesn't do 'maximum capacity', and the only means by which a train would be prevented from leaving due to being heavily loaded is if a member of the crew raises objections. Any such objection however needs to be justified, and that isn't easy to do all the time that you can still close the doors and nobody is travelling in a part of the train that they shouldn't be.

Given the nature of the passengers in this particular case, I also think it very highly unlikely that a great many of them would have voluntarily got off anyway, even if asked to do so. So there would have been a very severe delay whilst awaiting police assistance and for them to persuade rowdy rebelious yobs to do as they were told.

 

[NSEFAN]

This incident shows that crowd control was necessary for the event running. Had there been a discussion between the event organisers and the train company this could have been prevented. The TOC cannot be aware of every event going on in the vicinity of their stations, so there does need to be some onus on event organisers to ensure they don't break the local transport network, potentially causing people to be put in danger in the process.

I don't think making examples of the passengers is of much help. People in large groups do stupid and sometimes dangerous things as shown by the self-detraining. Sadly I don't think there will be any legislation passed regarding event-organisers responsibilities until a group of lively attendees gets run over. :roll:

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's certainly not 'fairly regular' behaviour for passengers to decide they can't be bothered to wait for a few minutes at a signal stop.

There have been repeated incidents in and around London where passengers have let themselves off trains that have stopped due to operational incidents. It happened three times during one single operational incident at London Bridge earlier this year.

There is no consensus how long that train was actually at a stand- FGW say a few minutes, some of the passengers say significantly longer- and that partly misses the point anyway. If a number of passengers are panicking then even a fairly short stop will seem like a very long time. I suspect it was more than a "few minutes" for people, no matter how drunk, to be shouting to be let off the train.

These types of incidents keep happening. I don't think FGW could have done a great deal differently; I think the train should have been held in the station with the doors open, and I think the delays should have been apparent, but if the guard didn't know about the delays I can understand why it wasn't. "Stick more carriages" isn't an option, and nor is running more frequent trains.

So there would have been a very severe delay whilst awaiting police assistance and for them to persuade rowdy rebelious yobs to do as they were told.

I rather fear you're missing the point.

The consequences of letting that train leave and sit at a red signal 200 yards down the track were that passengers panicked, let themselves off the train and walked back to the station down the track. There was a severe delay anyway. And on top of the delay the safety of passengers and staff was compromised because of what happened.

To be blunt, if the train is in the station the only thing that people are losing is money. Another poster further up pointed out that if the train stays in the station then FGW foot the bill, if it moves 200 yards up the track someone else foots the bill. It's clear the motivation is to move the train away from a place of safety to pass the costs on to someone else in the industry.

Move the train in this sort of situation and you get passengers letting themselves off, putting everyone in far more risk. I'd rather have the BTP come along to evict a few people from a train than have the BTP come along to scrape them up off the track.

We saw the same thing after a major signalling failure at London Bridge, trains were still despatched from nearby stations only to sit for ages 300 yards up the track. One train took over two hours to get from South Bermondsey to London Bridge. It's precious little wonder people got up and let themselves out. I've seen the same thing on East Coast, my full-and-standing bank holiday Friday train being despatched from Peterborough despite a known complete signal failure a couple of miles up the line. There's no need for it, it just causes more problems.

We can wibble about "yobbos" all day long if we want, but I think that's also missing the point. Panicking crowds do not act rationally and do not act sensibly, that much is a fact and is taken into account when doing appropriate crowd management. Crowds are more likely to panic if they're under the influence of drink or drugs (not that we know these passengers were, you're just guessing based on their age).

The signs are that the industry seem very slow to understand what makes groups of passengers let themselves off trains. The industry seems stuck at the casting blame stage, rather than making strategic attempts to prevent it. The issue here, as always, is communication. The guard and driver didn't know about the delays on the other train so they moved the train from a place of safety; the passengers didn't know what was going on so they panicked and let themselves off.

The same communication issues keep getting repeated- Kentish Town is the most famous example, but the incidents at London Bridge earlier in the year are just as telling- and instead of acknowledge failings everyone seems determined to wibble about those nasty students being thuggish yobbos (and other than a bit of swearing there seems little evidence they were thuggish).

 

[Tomnick]

I'm not convinced by this business of attributing the delay differently, depending upon whether the train stayed in the platform or drew forward to the signal. Other than the fact that it'd take longer for the train to get underway once the signal cleared (but not substantially so) because of the need for the guard to do his stuff, I doubt that anyone would know any different. I don't know, however, whether the signal is even visible from the platform in this case (some posters above suggest not), and with the crew being unaware that the other train was going to be delayed and probably keen to get away from the platform before they had any problems with more passengers attempting to board - it doesn't sound unreasonable for them to have drawn forward.

 

[plymothian]

I'm not convinced by this business of attributing the delay differently, depending upon whether the train stayed in the platform or drew forward to the signal.

As the oncoming train was the cause of the single line being occupied due to being delayed, GWR would have taken the delay attribution anyway.

A YE (awaiting single line) would have been traced to [probably] a R7 (station delays due to special events).

 

[hounddog]

The TOC cannot be aware of every event going on in the vicinity of their stations, so there does need to be some onus on event organisers to ensure they don't break the local transport network, potentially causing people to be put in danger in the process.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the TOCs to be aware of all the major venues on their patch; to look at their programmes, fixture lists etc; to enquire about the expected attendances and to make whatever arrangements they can, whether that be to lay on extra capacity, extra crowd control or to advertise that they can't cope and that people should use other means of getting to and from the events.

 

[BestWestern]

There have been repeated incidents in and around London where passengers have let themselves off trains that have stopped due to operational incidents. It happened three times during one single operational incident at London Bridge earlier this year.

There is no consensus how long that train was actually at a stand- FGW say a few minutes, some of the passengers say significantly longer- and that partly misses the point anyway. If a number of passengers are panicking then even a fairly short stop will seem like a very long time. I suspect it was more than a "few minutes" for people, no matter how drunk, to be shouting to be let off the train.

These types of incidents keep happening. I don't think FGW could have done a great deal differently; I think the train should have been held in the station with the doors open, and I think the delays should have been apparent, but if the guard didn't know about the delays I can understand why it wasn't. "Stick more carriages" isn't an option, and nor is running more frequent trains.



I rather fear you're missing the point.

The consequences of letting that train leave and sit at a red signal 200 yards down the track were that passengers panicked, let themselves off the train and walked back to the station down the track. There was a severe delay anyway. And on top of the delay the safety of passengers and staff was compromised because of what happened.

To be blunt, if the train is in the station the only thing that people are losing is money. Another poster further up pointed out that if the train stays in the station then FGW foot the bill, if it moves 200 yards up the track someone else foots the bill. It's clear the motivation is to move the train away from a place of safety to pass the costs on to someone else in the industry.

Move the train in this sort of situation and you get passengers letting themselves off, putting everyone in far more risk. I'd rather have the BTP come along to evict a few people from a train than have the BTP come along to scrape them up off the track.

We saw the same thing after a major signalling failure at London Bridge, trains were still despatched from nearby stations only to sit for ages 300 yards up the track. One train took over two hours to get from South Bermondsey to London Bridge. It's precious little wonder people got up and let themselves out. I've seen the same thing on East Coast, my full-and-standing bank holiday Friday train being despatched from Peterborough despite a known complete signal failure a couple of miles up the line. There's no need for it, it just causes more problems.

We can wibble about "yobbos" all day long if we want, but I think that's also missing the point. Panicking crowds do not act rationally and do not act sensibly, that much is a fact and is taken into account when doing appropriate crowd management. Crowds are more likely to panic if they're under the influence of drink or drugs (not that we know these passengers were, you're just guessing based on their age).

The signs are that the industry seem very slow to understand what makes groups of passengers let themselves off trains. The industry seems stuck at the casting blame stage, rather than making strategic attempts to prevent it. The issue here, as always, is communication. The guard and driver didn't know about the delays on the other train so they moved the train from a place of safety; the passengers didn't know what was going on so they panicked and let themselves off.

The same communication issues keep getting repeated- Kentish Town is the most famous example, but the incidents at London Bridge earlier in the year are just as telling- and instead of acknowledge failings everyone seems determined to wibble about those nasty students being thuggish yobbos (and other than a bit of swearing there seems little evidence they were thuggish).

I completely disagree that the train was intentionally moved purely to pass on delay minutes. As anybody familiar with the 'Beach will tell you, the only reason a Bristol bound train is ever held between Clifton and Redland is to await the service in the other direction clearing the single line. That's an FGW/GWR service, there is no other regular traffic on the route. No delay 'buck passing' would have occurred by sending the train a few yards up the line to a signal, and being held there is a regular and perfectly normal occurrence. That is quite aside from the fact that the unexpected nature of the events would render such a sudden burst of mischevious foresight, from somebody sat many miles away in Swindon, somewhat unlikely.

You do make some very valid points, but they aren't applicable here.

 

[swj99]

How was this an emergency though?

It doesn't make any difference whether it's an actual emergency of not, because

people behave and react according to their perception of a situation. If a person perceives that they are stuck on a train that's going nowhere, they will act accordingly

 

[sheff1]

I completely disagree that the train was intentionally moved purely to pass on delay minutes ..... No delay 'buck passing' would have occurred by sending the train a few yards up the line to a signal,

Interesting, but at odds with this post which is presented as "fact":

Ok. Let me add a fact or 2 to this thread.

First. The method of working on a down train at Clifton Down is to leave to time but if the up train is late it's 6 on the buzzer- move up to the signal at the end of the loop. If the train waits in the platform any subsequent delay minutes are GWRs, if out on the track they're NRs. That was why the train was where it was.

 

[OxtedL]

Interesting, but at odds with this post which is presented as "fact":

I don't think they are quite contradicting each other - BestWestern has observed that the delay they were waiting for was GWR's, so in this case the delay was GWR's regardless and no-one was specifically trying to dodge delay payments.

father_jack's comment is about a more general policy of moving down to the end of the passing loop as soon as platform duties are done. This policy ensures that the train is ready to go as soon as the single line is cleared up - if it was still at the platform, then GWR could be accountable for the extra delay caused by starting from there, regardless of who's fault the rest of the delay was. The policy also stops this extra delay from happening!

Whether this is an appropriate thing to be doing on relatively short passing loops is of course debatable.

 

[Taunton]

As anybody familiar with the 'Beach will tell you, the only reason a Bristol bound train is ever held between Clifton and Redland is to await the service in the other direction clearing the single line. That's an FGW/GWR service, there is no other regular traffic on the route.

That may be the case here. But in the world of 21st Century instructions "One Size Fits All". So regardless of the common sense, I am presuming that the procedure from every station is always to go on to the signal. Who knows, here or elsewhere the New Measurement Train might be coming through. Or another operator's service. Then it can be blamed on the other side. No thinking about the local geographic position.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I completely disagree that the train was intentionally moved purely to pass on delay minutes.

I doubt that it was moved intentionally purely to pass on delay minutes, but it seems to have happened in a wider operating climate of waiting at signals not at platforms to avoid incurring delay minutes. With that sort of attitude it's only a matter of time that an issue like this would happen; it only takes one mechanical failure and everyone gets stuck 300 yards from the station.

As I've said, I seriously doubt the guard knew there were these issues before he gave the bells. I really don't think they'd have done the bells if they had. But that type of operating attitude really is tempting fate.

 

[PHILIPE]

I doubt that it was moved intentionally purely to pass on delay minutes, but it seems to have happened in a wider operating climate of waiting at signals not at platforms to avoid incurring delay minutes. With that sort of attitude it's only a matter of time that an issue like this would happen; it only takes one mechanical failure and everyone gets stuck 300 yards from the station.

As I've said, I seriously doubt the guard knew there were these issues before he gave the bells. I really don't think they'd have done the bells if they had. But that type of operating attitude really is tempting fate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was just normal practice at this location.

 

[infobleep]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was just normal practice at this location.

There were lots of things once done that are now outlawed on safety grounds. Whose of say this might one day be one of them. I'm no expert so I honestly don't know.

 

[455driver]

There were lots of things once done that are now outlawed on safety grounds. Whose of say this might one day be one of them. I'm no expert so I honestly don't know.

So you are saying they are going to prevent trains stopping at red signals! :roll:

Lets get a sense of realism here, they decided that the train wasn't crowded when they got on it, then after waiting a few minutes at a signal they decided it was dangerous and so forced the doors open and detrained!

The pictures I have seen (only a few of the inside) shows that there is still a bit of room available, it didn't leave anybody behind at the previous station so it would be fair to assume there is some room available.

 

[infobleep]

So you are saying they are going to prevent trains stopping at red signals! :roll:

Lets get a sense of realism here, they decided that the train wasn't crowded when they got on it, then after waiting a few minutes at a signal they decided it was dangerous and so forced the doors open and detrained!

The pictures I have seen (only a few of the inside) shows that there is still a bit of room available, it didn't leave anybody behind at the previous station so it would be fair to assume there is some room available.

No I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that just because something is allowed now, we mustn't assume it always will be so.

In this situation I don't know enough of the facts to judge either way. I mean detailed analysis of all the facts from an impartial point of view. That will require some work. Wonder how much such work costs? Can't be cheap.

If some good comes out of it though then perhaps it will help for the future. May be an event like this won't occur again or if so less frequently.

 

[Zoidberg]

So you are saying they are going to prevent trains stopping at red signals! :roll:

...

That's a perverse interpretation of what's been posted.

 

[455driver]

That's a perverse interpretation of what's been posted.

No more perverse than some of the other crap posted on here, why cant I join in?

 

[D1009]

I can't be bothered to go back through the thread, but I recall someone saying that the signal protecting the single line cannot be seen from Clifton Down station, and the normal procedure is to give 2 on the bell from the platform anyway. Who is correct?

 

[plymothian]

I can't be bothered to go back through the thread, but I recall someone saying that the signal protecting the single line cannot be seen from Clifton Down station, and the normal procedure is to give 2 on the bell from the platform anyway. Who is correct?

I don't know the line, but looking at various pictures, there is no starting signal, the platform is curved, the double line extends for some distance round the corner (and under bridges) before the protecting signal for the single line, and there appears to be a banner repeater on approach.

 

[bnm]

Correct. No starting signal.

Two is given and a train at Clifton Down headed to Bristol TM will draw forward to the signal protecting the single line section. A banner repeater proceeds said signal.

(By the way - one of those Wikipedia pictures is mine!)

 

[BestWestern]

Interesting, but at odds with this post which is presented as "fact":

That post that you quote is incorrect. As has already been pointed out, a Guard dispatching from Clifton towards Bristol has no indication of the signal aspect.

 

[Mintona]

I have driven on this line, and I have never ever been given '6 on the buzzer' when departing Clifton Down. The guard can't see the signal (neither can the driver) and giving 6 against a potentially green signal isn't how dispatch works. For all you know, the other train could've broken down at Stapleton Road and you'll be given a clear run to there to pass it, so you don't sit in a platform waiting for another train coz it might not come. You always get 2 on the buzzer as at most other stations, as quite often you pass the other train on the bend and the signal is green before you get there.

Waiting at the station for the other train isn't a good idea (on normal services - I can see a point for doing so in this specific situation), and would probably lead to an increase in SPADs, as the signaller is often focusing on other things than the Severn Beach line. Quite often you pass the other train in the station at Clifton Down, come around the corner and the signal (B358) is still red because the signaller is working on other things, and needs a gentle SG reminder.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I have driven on this line, and I have never ever been given '6 on the buzzer' when departing Clifton Down. The guard can't see the signal (neither can the driver) and giving 6 against a potentially green signal isn't how dispatch works. For all you know, the other train could've broken down at Stapleton Road and you'll be given a clear run to there to pass it, so you don't sit in a platform waiting for another train coz it might not come. You always get 2 on the buzzer as at most other stations, as quite often you pass the other train on the bend and the signal is green before you get there.

Waiting at the station for the other train isn't a good idea (on normal services - I can see a point for doing so in this specific situation), and would probably lead to an increase in SPADs, as the signaller is often focusing on other things than the Severn Beach line. Quite often you pass the other train in the station at Clifton Down, come around the corner and the signal (B358) is still red because the signaller is working on other things, and needs a gentle SG reminder.

Why hasn't a repeater signal been installed at the station?

 

[455driver]

Why hasn't a repeater signal been installed at the station?

Why would a repeater signal need to be installed?
Signal sighting is to do with line speeds and curvature (plus many other things), and only if any of these things falls short will a solution be looked at, one solution is a banner repeater.

They most certainly are not to do with seeing a signal from a station platform!

 

[ComUtoR]

Didn't someone already post there is already a banner repeater ?

 

[plymothian]

There is but not viewable from the platform.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regards to the signal and end of the loop, a similar situation exists at Shepley on the Penistone line. The up train (ex-HUD) usually departs Shepley and then waits at the end of the loop at Clayton West Junction for usually around a minute or two for the down train to pass. Curvature isn't an issue here but the end of the loop is almost a mile further on towards Barnsley. Waiting at Shepley though would only benefit those who are late for their train anyway!

 

[iantherev]

Similar thing happens at Axminster where Exeter bound trains depart 3 mins before the Waterloo ones. Usually they pass before the end of the loop.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's an image looking towards Stapleton Road from the Avonmouth-bound Platform at Clifton Down looking through the bridge at the station.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clifton_Down_railway_station_MMB_13_143621.jpg

You can see the banner repeater clearly in front of the first bridge beyond the station. I think the signal is just the other side of the second bridge completely out of sight from this angle. This photo is taken well to the right of a driver's position, so I suspect sighting distance of the signal itself must be very short indeed, and the overlap ahead of the signal to the junction clearance point can be no longer than about 80m, probably acceptable at the low approach speed of 25MPH. I don't know why they didn't place the signal on the approach side of the second bridge with much better visibility though. I'm not saying that would obviate the need for a banner but this seems a rather odd arrangement. Maybe the idea was to ensure the maximum possible passing loop length, clearly not necessary for regular passenger service where trains do not exceed 100m, but a long loop may be useful for diversions of mainline traffic via Avonmouth and Henbury, which I think has happened in the past and might be required again for Filton Bank 4-tracking work. Loop standage is 512m according to the Sectional Appendix. Moving the signal approach side of the bridge would lose only 20 or 30m of this.