Passengers forcing their way off stranded trains

[OxtedL]

Is that what you honestly think staff do during times of disruption? Rather than working as hard as they can to determine where the problem is, what the problem is, how to fix it and then fix it, all whilst trying to keep the various parties involved informed as to what's happening. You think they sit there in their control rooms and signal boxes and cabs and vans just waiting for things to start working again?

No. Bad wording, sorry.

However, I imagine that the tacit assumption will be that (at least for the time being) the crisis is going to be managed by letting the problem be fixed (whilst doing the other things that must be done in the situation), and then moving trains onwards. This is what seems to happen, and indeed how I would probably respond. The majority of people involved will not be in a position to do otherwise. I fully understand that waiting for the problem to be fixed is only a small part of what is going on, and disruption automatically creates a nightmare for everyone, but I was trying to suggest that those high up in the information flow need to start making the call to get passengers onto platforms at around 60 minutes, more or less regardless of how long the problem is expected to last.

 

[bluenoxid]

I can tell you right now that if you call and ambulance to every train that has been stopped the you will make yourself very very unpopular. They should only be called if someone is actually ill, or if there is a tangible reason to believe there is a threat to life. I.e, in an emergency, not just because a train has been stopped!

After an hour plus in, based on an appropriate call.

This is not a matter of being popular. You must find a dead body more popular. :roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

After an hour plus in, based on an appropriate call.

This is not a matter of being popular. You must find a dead body more popular. :roll:

No, I find the misuse of emergency resources unpopular. You stated in your original post that an ambulance would be called to every train stopped for more than an hour. Apart from the fact there wouldn't be enough resources if a failure situation like Woking was seen again, and the local NHS trust would have to declare a major incident for something that isn't a major incident, you would be pulling a resource off the road and take it to a place where there isn't a known emergency, rather than being free to answer RTC's, paed arrests and that sort of thing.

 

[EM2]

1. One

2. Network Rail and the TOC's have a basic incident response as well as the BTP.

Isn't that what's called a MOM (or LOM) who is generally the first person to an incident anyway?

 

[radamfi]

What is the protocol in successful railway countries, such as Japan and Switzerland, in dealing with such incidents? Or are 1+ hour delays so rare that it isn't even an issue?

 

[bluenoxid]

No, I find the misuse of emergency resources unpopular. You stated in your original post that an ambulance would be called to every train stopped for more than an hour. Apart from the fact there wouldn't be enough resources if a failure situation like Woking was seen again, and the local NHS trust would have to declare a major incident for something that isn't a major incident, you would be pulling a resource off the road and take it to a place where there isn't a known emergency, rather than being free to answer RTC's, paed arrests and that sort of thing.

In fact, the quote actually states.

Each train should be met by an external body in the form of a member of rail staff at 60 minutes, although paramedics should not be far behind.

It will depend on the situation but it should be a consideration after an hour. The problem we have is that the time spent trying to get a paramedic to a train is a serious chunk of the golden hour gone. Read the last quote from the RAIB report in my post on page 12 which shows that the ambulance service at Grayrigg lost a FIFTH of the golden hour. How much time is going to be lost whilst more time is lost isolating power.

 

[Flamingo]

I've been on trains which have been delayed for a few hours due to cable theft. All information possible has been given (I had letters from passengers saying how well informed they were kept), the train was well patrolled (see above), heating was working perfectly well, the buffet car was open dolling out free hot drinks, water and snacks, there were 300 empty seats on board, it was a time of night when NOBODY needed to get to anywhere, and I still had passengers climbing out the windows onto the tracks because "I'm not waiting here, I can't be bothered". So when the MOM finally restored the signaling cable, everybody had to run on caution because there were people potentially walking on the tracks.

In this situation, how do the "rugged individualists" justify passengers climbing onto the tracks?

 

[bluenoxid]

Isn't that what's called a MOM (or LOM) who is generally the first person to an incident anyway?

There are more people than that who are expected to respond to emergency incidents. Specific rail staff are sent to suicides for example.

 

[Flamingo]

In fact, the quote actually states.



It will depend on the situation but it should be a consideration after an hour. The problem we have is that the time spent trying to get a paramedic to a train is a serious chunk of the golden hour gone. Read the last quote from the RAIB report in my post on page 12 which shows that the ambulance service at Grayrigg lost a FIFTH of the golden hour. How much time is going to be lost whilst more time is wasted isolating power.

The golden hour applies to the treatment of serious casualties. Not passengers who feel a bit uncomfortable because the train is hot. Don't start throwing in buzz-words that you don't know the meaning of.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

In fact, the quote actually states.



It will depend on the situation but it should be a consideration after an hour. The problem we have is that the time spent trying to get a paramedic to a train is a serious chunk of the golden hour gone. Read the last quote from the RAIB report in my post on page 12 which shows that the ambulance service at Grayrigg lost a FIFTH of the golden hour. How much time is going to be lost whilst more time is lost isolating power.

The golden hour for trauma is a myth, and has been discredited.

 

[EM2]

There are more people than that who are expected to respond to emergency incidents. Specific rail staff are sent to suicides for example.

And if there's a major incident? Say, a complete loss of power at London Bridge? You want to send a member of staff to every single stuck train?
You could easily be talking about fifty or sixty staff, diverted away from their regular duties.

 

[Flamingo]

The golden hour for trauma is a myth, and has been discredited.

Applies in selected cases, but has so many variables that it's not a given.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And if there's a major incident? Say, a complete loss of power at London Bridge? You want to send a member of staff to everysingle stuck train?
You could easily be talking about fifty or sixty staff, diverted away from their regular duties.

There already is a second member of staff on all except DOO trains.

This could be case for saying DOO trains are not good!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Applies in selected cases, but has so many variables that it's not a given.

True, I can't actually find the paper at the moment.

 

[OxtedL]

And if there's a major incident? Say, a complete loss of power at London Bridge? You want to send a member of staff to every single stuck train?
You could easily be talking about fifty or sixty staff, diverted away from their regular duties.

I tell you what, now you have finished completely discrediting bluenoxid's idea, perhaps you can start on my slightly scaled back one, which has already been amended due to not being quite moderate enough with my wording. (Absolutely impossible to word something without causing offence to someone on these forums... )

Although I sense London Bridge would also cause me problems. London Bridge is perhaps a little more resilient than being crippled by a total failure I believe (hope...)?

 

[bluenoxid]

I tell you what, now you have finished completely discrediting bluenoxid's idea, perhaps you can start on my slightly scaled back one, which has already been amended due to not being quite moderate enough with my wording. (Absolutely impossible to word something without causing offence to someone on these forums... )

Although I sense London Bridge would also cause me problems. London Bridge is perhaps a little more resilient than being crippled by a total failure I believe (hope...)?

Is it really discredited? We have the part about the ambulance that has taken a ragging but I stated "should" not would or will be.

London Bridge is even easier. The trains are closer together, with similar access routes to them. Trains can be evacuated quicker too due to a larger number of staff being made available.

 

[AlexS]

Whenever you get stuck, people panic and want out.

And that's from the glorious experience of having been trapped at Leicester station (not even a train!) for 6 hours with a 'will it/wont it' move situation involving Central Trains, EWS, Virgin Cross Country, coupled with Network Rail refusing to allow a failed freight train to be moved, having been told the train will move shortly every 20 minutes, then nearly being knifed in the bus queue 5.5 hours later. I got a lot of vouchers out of it but the police still had to attend and a riot nearly developed.

I suppose the tipping point comes when people realise they're stuck adjacent to their destination and all of a sudden the walk of shame out the door and down the track seems more attractive - 5 minute walk and some trouble, or according to scare stories, up to 12 hours stuck on a broken train.

I still seem to be competent on the relevant rules/regs as a signalman/train guard (or so my recent reassessments suggest!) but the above is just a personal view on matters having been stuck in a similar situation as a passenger, miles from home.

 

[Old Timer]

Of course, the response of someone who thinks the existing rules and regulations and response are satisfactory in this situation. Both situations are technically disasterous for the TOC but that court case will be fatal to the TOC Owner Company..

Total tosh, any Prosecution is undertaken by the BT Police and CPS. It is nothing to do with the TOC.

Are you now suggesting that crime is only dealt with on the basis of whatt opinion such as yours dictates ?

A criminal offence remains so irrespective of what a few news-hungry reptiles might wish to think. Its a dead story after 24 hours.

By the way if you had only bothered to READ what I have written, you will have learnt that I have pointed out that there are steps that can and should be taken. As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water.......

...The TOC's are still not delivering quickly enough to sort out the situation. Too many of you are pointing out the danger of moving trains and the opportunity for rescue. After two hours, haven't we really run out of options for getting the train moving with another train. After all, these incidents have occurred on busy commuter routes in and out of London. TOC's are failing themselves to not get passengers off trains when they are left in very uncomfortable, sorry, no, dangerous conditions. Those trains are not sitting at 30 degrees, they are getting to 50 in the stifling conditions with high humidities to boot. This is a danger area for people, not an uncomfortable condition that people should stoically brush off..

Oh my word now we are at 50 degrees Centigrade :roll: Temperatures being quoted are climbing quite steadily.

The only reason temperatures should climb is if the air con goes, which is going to be the case when the traction current is switched off. In a genuine emergency steps are taekn to reduce the limits of the isolation as quickly as possible. The passengers who detrained on the SW did so in a cool evening. Pretty much every other unauthorised detrainment has been undertaken through impatience NOT because of hot temperatures, despite what you think.

...The TOC's should really be taking a leadership role in this situation and it is clear that they are not. Their lack of leadership is the cause of both situations happening and they should not be surprised if a corporate manslaughter case arises out of both possible incidents. (collapsed passenger on train or dead passenger on railway line).

Another sensationalist sentence based on a total lack of knowledge. Little tip - take 5 minutes out from writing this type of drivel and speak to the ATOC press office. There are ATOC procedures in place for such incidents. Sorry in that rather spoils your rant but I prefer to deal in fact.

...Unfortunately, the court of public opinion is nasty and generally against railways. Both situations show a lack of leadership by railway staff and management of the situation, which is the reason why the case against is going to fail. After all, this is going to be the same TOC that will have to write a letter to that passenger apologising for the delay and offering them travel vouchers. Oh, the irony. Both arguments will have health and safety merits and that is going to be the issue that will be fought in court. My worry is that the TOC will gain nothing out of the fine but will loose a lot more when they are sued in court..

Public opinion counts for nought in a Court of Law. A reading of even recent Judgements would have elicited this fact.

Public opinion has not stopped many high profile Police Prosecutions, such as for eating an apple whilst stopped in traffic, taking a drink in similar circumstances, exceeding the speed limit whilst conveying a replacement heart for a seriously ill patient.

....The TOC's need to have a plan. The clock starts ticking at 30 minutes after wheel stop. It's a big white clock. The kind you have in the exam room. Each train is identified, markered and staff on board are required to identify location, numbers, criticals, crucials, immobiles, toilet facilities and temperature. This should be part of their basic training. Each train should be met by an external body in the form of a member of rail staff at 60 minutes, although paramedics should not be far behind. At 75, the decision should be taken on evacuation and this should be reviewed on 15 minute basis. Water should start to reach the train at 90. Passengers should be moving at 120..

On the basis of what assessment ? A number of figures conveniently separated by 15 minute intervals ?

What about a train standing some miles from the nearest access point ? Medivac perhaps ? or maybe call in the RAF ?

Have you given any thought to the inability of the emergency medical services to providde this level of support ? Perhaps you should go onto one of their forums and pontificate as to why they are not going to be capable of providing this level of response.

Let me give you a little more knowledge. The US which you will agree has hotter weather than we do, and far more inaccessible areas does not consider it necessary to have a response plan of the nature you do. Yet this is the most litigious Country on earth.

...Leadership and communication is needed to prevent a fatality, not court action, death or rules that would not apply if all trains are at a stand. When someone finally grasps the bullet, I hope it is with a desire to self improve and not as a result of an RAIB wipeout report..

Leadership is not about knee-jerk reactions such as yours, it is based on facts, statistical analysis and good old fashioned experienced judgement.

If you want to make a comparison then look to the airline industry where despite many recommendations for escape hoods they are still not provided, where working hours and the fatigue of flight deck crews result in regular near miss reports of sometimes both pilots falling asleep on the flight deck duirng a flight.

A recent crash was caused by pilot fatigue. Somehow I do not see the media making the sort of hue and cry you are predicting for the Railway.

It strikes me that for some reason, you have an axe to grind, disguised thinly but still an axe.

 

[OxtedL]

Is it really discredited? We have the part about the ambulance that has taken a ragging but I stated "should" not would or will be.

London Bridge is even easier. The trains are closer together, with similar access routes to them. Trains can be evacuated quicker too due to a larger number of staff being made available.

Sorry, but it felt pretty discredited... I dunno, but I'm not going to have a go at you, I'll leave that to everyone else .

You do not want to carry out a blanket evacuation of people from trains anywhere near London Bridge. It would be an absolute bl**** nightmare to resume any kind of service afterwards.

 

[EM2]

I tell you what, now you have finished completely discrediting bluenoxid's idea, perhaps you can start on my slightly scaled back one...

It seems that you are suggesting planned evacuation of services if there's no resolution to the problem after sixty minutes.
As has been mentioned already, a controlled evacuation of a train should be an absolute last resort. And a planned evacuation of a *number* of trains is even more difficult.
I chose London Bridge because of the number of services that are in that area. If, God forbid, they lost all traction power (or even signalling) there, it would be absolute chaos and over a very wide area. Even a minor signalling fault causes untold delays and cancellations.

 

[87015]

It seems that you are suggesting planned evacuation of services if there's no resolution to the problem after sixty minutes.

Which is exactly what at least one TOCs policy is. If there is no sign of movement or rescue within an hour, get the people off the train.
Every employee gets evacuation training on induction.

 

[AlexS]

Bloody hell OT, I think you've broken the thread

 

[OxtedL]

It seems that you are suggesting planned evacuation of services if there's no resolution to the problem after sixty minutes.
As has been mentioned already, a controlled evacuation of a train should be an absolute last resort. And a planned evacuation of a *number* of trains is even more difficult.
I chose London Bridge because of the number of services that are in that area. If, God forbid, they lost all traction power (or even signalling) there, it would be absolute chaos and over a very wide area. Even a minor signalling fault causes untold delays and cancellations.

Perhaps I was hoping for something more along the lines of: Allow as many trains as possible to slowly crawl to the nearest platform, and then focus as much effort as possible on getting those that are immobilised to a platform.

I totally agree that evacuation would be an absolute nuisance, although of course you must remember that commuters disagree...

I think I may not have conveyed my ideas very well this time. I'm sure you can tear what remains apart though, feel free.

 

[talltim]

The response just goes to show your lack of knowledge.

The railway line is home to many different species of plant that are uncommon in most areas which are used by people. My last UK Company had a Procedure outlining the risks and hazards from a variety of plants found lineside, some of which can cause blistering of the skin.

Every hazard I have listed has caused injury to staff at some point, however if on the basis of your vast knowledge of the trackside environment you want to argue that they pose no risk then please do carry on.

Doesn't the 'I've had 200 years working on the railway so I know everything and you know nothing' line get boring after a while?
This is an anonymous internet forum. How do you know I'm not the guy that trains the track safety trainers? How do you know I'm not the country's top horticulturalist specialising in dangerous plants? How do you know I'm not that guy who recently walked the length of the Amazon who would find the lineside a piece of **** by comparison? As it happens, I'm none of them, but you are making that assumption. The fact that you are assuming things weakens your arguments.

I'm sure there are some nasty plants in the secluded parts of the lineside. However there are those same nasty plants in other secluded places, its kinda irrelevant.

I want to like you, you've obviously got a lot of interesting knowledge, it just sometimes come out in antagonistic way. And you've got a BN SD in you avator pic, that can only be good.

Moving on, surely the 'failed train' risk assessment must include the self-detraining passenger risk? Is it not considered a high enough risk to do something to prevent it (other than laws, which obviously aren't working)?

Is the cost of employing some people on call with a stash of water bottles higher than the extra delay cost caused by having unauthorised people lineside? It may be, but I haven't seen anyone say either way, just that 'on call people are expensive, would you want to pay for it?' Well no, but i don't want to pay for extra delays either, so which is cheaper?

 

[EM2]

Perhaps I was hoping for something more along the lines of: Allow as many trains as possible to slowly crawl to the nearest platform, and then focus as much effort as possible on getting those that are immobilised to a platform.

I totally agree that evacuation would be an absolute nuisance, although of course you must remember that commuters disagree...

I think I may not have conveyed my ideas very well this time. I'm sure you can tear what remains apart though, feel free.

Ah right, I get you now.
Main drawback to that is that once you get a train into a platform and empty it, where does it go after that, and where does the one behind it go? All the available platforms will fill up very quickly.

 

[bluenoxid]

Total tosh, any Prosecution is undertaken by the BT Police and CPS. It is nothing to do with the TOC.

The TOC will provide evidence and it is likely that will have a significant say in the matter. We also know who funds the BTP. Either way, the railways prosecute regardless

Are you now suggesting that crime is only dealt with on the basis of whatt opinion such as yours dictates ?

Of course not. Unfortunately, it is built on understanding what nasty reality can bring to the table.

A criminal offence remains so irrespective of what a few news-hungry reptiles might wish to think. Its a dead story after 24 hours.

A criminal offence has got to be prosecuted.

By the way if you had only bothered to READ what I have written, you will have learnt that I have pointed out that there are steps that can and should be taken. As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water.......

Oh my word now we are at 50 degrees Centigrade :roll: Temperatures being quoted are climbing quite steadily.

The only reason temperatures should climb is if the air con goes, which is going to be the case when the traction current is switched off. In a genuine emergency steps are taekn to reduce the limits of the isolation as quickly as possible. The passengers who detrained on the SW did so in a cool evening. Pretty much every other unauthorised detrainment has been undertaken through impatience NOT because of hot temperatures, despite what you think.

So you were carrying the thermometer there then? Oh, no you were not.

Another sensationalist sentence based on a total lack of knowledge. Little tip - take 5 minutes out from writing this type of drivel and speak to the ATOC press office. There are ATOC procedures in place for such incidents. Sorry in that rather spoils your rant but I prefer to deal in fact.

Yes, we have a procedure. Now show me a plan.

Public opinion counts for nought in a Court of Law. A reading of even recent Judgements would have elicited this fact.

Public opinion has not stopped many high profile Police Prosecutions, such as for eating an apple whilst stopped in traffic, taking a drink in similar circumstances, exceeding the speed limit whilst conveying a replacement heart for a seriously ill patient.

Oh no, it has not. Not to say that the train companies will not. But remember, there will be the threat of health and safety if remaining on the train to remember.

On the basis of what assessment ? A number of figures conveniently separated by 15 minute intervals ?

A should be timing. Fair to say, there is flexibility, but a target focuses the mind. If there are no targets, we lead to best intentions and we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

What about a train standing some miles from the nearest access point ? Medivac perhaps ? or maybe call in the RAF ?

You laugh. Read the Grayrigg report. It is now in NR's plans.

Have you given any thought to the inability of the emergency medical services to providde this level of support ? Perhaps you should go onto one of their forums and pontificate as to why they are not going to be capable of providing this level of response.

Some of us call it a major incident plan.

Let me give you a little more knowledge. The US which you will agree has hotter weather than we do, and far more inaccessible areas does not consider it necessary to have a response plan of the nature you do. Yet this is the most litigious Country on earth.

And what does that have to do with it?

Leadership is not about knee-jerk reactions such as yours, it is based on facts, statistical analysis and good old fashioned experienced judgement.

It is based on a plan. I thought that was clear. If it is kneejerk then the current set up must be a disaster in your book.

If you want to make a comparison then look to the airline industry where despite many recommendations for escape hoods they are still not provided, where working hours and the fatigue of flight deck crews result in regular near miss reports of sometimes both pilots falling asleep on the flight deck duirng a flight.

A recent crash was caused by pilot fatigue. Somehow I do not see the media making the sort of hue and cry you are predicting for the Railway.

Give them the chance. Remember, planes fly all over the world, whilst these trains are British and millions travel on them every day.

It strikes me that for some reason, you have an axe to grind, disguised thinly but still an axe.

An axe, I can by nasty, but if there is an axe to grind it is against the current blind acceptance of the status quo and the classification of passengers as idiots.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry, but it felt pretty discredited... I dunno, but I'm not going to have a go at you, I'll leave that to everyone else .

You do not want to carry out a blanket evacuation of people from trains anywhere near London Bridge. It would be an absolute bl**** nightmare to resume any kind of service afterwards.

The trains are stranded all over the place after 2 hours. I don't think we are going to be getting a service back, are we?

 

[O L Leigh]

Unbelieveable!!! I don't often lose my rag, but I'm afraid that I've reached that point (hence the red text).

I'm not wading through pages and pages of discussion, because it appears that you're all still failing to grasp the one major salient point. So, for the benefit of everyone here, I shall say it one more time. Please, pay attention because I'm not going to say it again.

Mutiny slows down assistance.

Irrespective of slip/trip hazards, electrocution or falling down an embankment, as soon as people start getting out of trains ALL movements will be stopped. That includes whatever assisting train is being sent forward to help.

Yes it's unpleasant and yes it is potentially dangerous in very hot weather, but the fastest way to resolve any situation like this is to STAY PUT, and CO-OPERATE with the traincrew. By doing so the assisting train will be able to come up and get you all moving that bit quicker.

Oh, and surely there is a place for personal responsibility. If it's a very hot day and you're out and about, why not carry a bottle of water with you whether you're on the railway or not?

O L Leigh

 

[Old Timer]

No. Bad wording, sorry.

However, I imagine that the tacit assumption will be that (at least for the time being) the crisis is going to be managed by letting the problem be fixed (whilst doing the other things that must be done in the situation), and then moving trains onwards. This is what seems to happen, and indeed how I would probably respond. The majority of people involved will not be in a position to do otherwise. I fully understand that waiting for the problem to be fixed is only a small part of what is going on, and disruption automatically creates a nightmare for everyone, but I was trying to suggest that those high up in the information flow need to start making the call to get passengers onto platforms at around 60 minutes, more or less regardless of how long the problem is expected to last.

At last a sensible post from someone !

Your comment accords broadly with my own views which are based on a lifetime on the job.

Going back to BR days any delay to a train over 60 minutes was an automatic Divisional Inquiry.

That said things were somewhat easier then.

Couplings were standardised, braking systems were still pretty much compatible, and failed trains with a brake problem could be pushed out of the way.

These days such simple measures are practically all prohibited by ORR Requirements and "Guidance" - fail to follow the guidance however and you can look out.

The transfer of the old HMRI to HSE brought with it the HSE "elf & safety culture" which has done so much to damage the Industry and has allowed safety "professionals" to remove what little ability to apply common sense that was left.

Add to that the myriad of different train control and braking systesm and we have what was always predicted - a shambles.

Unlike other Countries, we in the UK are driven by this belief that we can achieve zero accidents. This is an absurd position to be in.

As long as people are involved accidents will always happen. It does not matter how much automation is put in place, when something goes wrong it will be down to the human factor.

As an Industry, over recent years we have developed tougher and tougher rules that actually mitigate against the ability to recover from problems quickly. We knee-jerk everytime there is an incident because we have allowed the media and people such as can be seen on here to drive in "safety" processes which are both unworkable and unnecessary.

Your suggestion of moving trains to a station is feasible however trains are now not allowed to move forward with the same degree of freedom that they were during failures as in BR days. This pretty much condemns trains to standing for extended periods. We had a rule change that completely destroyed any hopes of moving trains quicker because of ONE slow speed collision due to an error. Rather than tackle the error we stopped the whole process so that only one train could move at a time and the knock-on affect from then has been incredible.

No-one in the modern culture - as demonstrated by people such as bluenoxid - dare put forward the proposition that an accident albeit foreseable is only likely to happen once in an average person's lifetime, and this should be an acceptable risk. No we have to work to no repetition in a million years, not even the nuclear industry works to that level I believe ?

 

[OxtedL]

The sheer number of people viewing this thread shows something about the issue, I think.
I maintain that evacuating any trains whatsoever near London Bridge is a truly terrifying prospect. The approaches are happily signalled in such a way that pretty much anything can in theory go anywhere as soon as life is restored, although one has to hope that this exception to all other possible scenarios never occurs...

At around 50 Celsius people on the train be starting to drop dead. Be careful.

Treat Old Timer's comments with care. He is inevitably correct, however annoying he is in being so.

And as a late addition to this post, I would like to thank OT for his treatment of my post.

I think O L Leigh has pretty much settled the argument about whether it can ever be right for passengers to evacuate a train of their own accord, may I suggest we concentrate on how TOCs etc can try and prevent this from happening rather than rattling out the same few posts again...?

 

[bluenoxid]

Doesn't the 'I've had 200 years working on the railway so I know everything and you know nothing' line get boring after a while?
This is an anonymous internet forum. How do you know I'm not the guy that trains the track safety trainers? How do you know I'm not the country's top horticulturalist specialising in dangerous plants? How do you know I'm not that guy who recently walked the length of the Amazon who would find the lineside a piece of **** by comparison? As it happens, I'm none of them, but you are making that assumption. The fact that you are assuming things weakens your arguments.

I'm sure there are some nasty plants in the secluded parts of the lineside. However there are those same nasty plants in other secluded places, its kinda irrelevant.

I want to like you, you've obviously got a lot of interesting knowledge, it just sometimes come out in antagonistic way. And you've got a BN SD in you avator pic, that can only be good.

Moving on, surely the 'failed train' risk assessment must include the self-detraining passenger risk? Is it not considered a high enough risk to do something to prevent it (other than laws, which obviously aren't working)?

Is the cost of employing some people on call with a stash of water bottles higher than the extra delay cost caused by having unauthorised people lineside? It may be, but I haven't seen anyone say either way, just that 'on call people are expensive, would you want to pay for it?' Well no, but i don't want to pay for extra delays either, so which is cheaper?

These delays are costing NR £300 per minute. Some of these events like a major failure at London can run into six or seven figures. The problem is that it is part of a money go round and human life has a seven figure cost (and even less if you see some of the fines that HSE brings sometimes)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No-one in the modern culture - as demonstrated by people such as bluenoxid - dare put forward the proposition that an accident albeit foreseable is only likely to happen once in an average person's lifetime, and this should be an acceptable risk. No we have to work to no repetition in a million years, not even the nuclear industry works to that level I believe ?

It's nasty, this modern culture stuff. Unfortunately some things have changed and responsibilty has to be clearly defined. It is not modern culture, it is part of the regulations and as low as reasonably possible is the line to be met. Nasty isn't it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unbelieveable!!! I don't often lose my rag, but I'm afraid that I've reached that point (hence the red text).

I'm not wading through pages and pages of discussion, because it appears that you're all still failing to grasp the one major salient point. So, for the benefit of everyone here, I shall say it one more time. Please, pay attention because I'm not going to say it again.

Mutiny slows down assistance.

Irrespective of slip/trip hazards, electrocution or falling down an embankment, as soon as people start getting out of trains ALL movements will be stopped. That includes whatever assisting train is being sent forward to help.

Yes it's unpleasant and yes it is potentially dangerous in very hot weather, but the fastest way to resolve any situation like this is to STAY PUT, and CO-OPERATE with the traincrew. By doing so the assisting train will be able to come up and get you all moving that bit quicker.

Oh, and surely there is a place for personal responsibility. If it's a very hot day and you're out and about, why not carry a bottle of water with you whether you're on the railway or not?

O L Leigh

Calm down. We have moved the thread on to rail response and the reasonableness of certain actions like an organised evacuation. Perhaps moving to page 12 and reading along from there.

Or

Me and Old Timer are having a punch up. Pick up the popcorn.

Oh and OT, I have an early night tonight so it won't be running into the early hours because it is another long day tomorrow.

 

[O L Leigh]

Calm down. We have moved the thread on to rail response and the reasonableness of certain actions like an organised evacuation. Perhaps moving to page 12 and reading along from there.

Or

Me and Old Timer are having a punch up. Pick up the popcorn.

Nope. This thread has just gone the way of all such threads and covers no new ground. All you're doing is driving off track into the realms of theory and seeing how far you can pee up the wall by picking holes in each other's arguments.

As diverting as all this is, the bottom line remains that the safest place to be is on the train. An evac, whether controlled or otherwise, just makes a bad situation 10 times worse because suddenly you've got potentially hundreds of passengers out of a safe, contained environment and into a dangerous one where they are free to do as they wish. Once off the train it's just a hop, skip and a jump before they all wander off to find their own way.

Plus, what then do you do with all these people now that they're no longer on-board? If the power is off it won't just be one train's worth but several. How many MOMs and TOC staff are going to be needed on a busy commuter mainline like the approaches to Waterloo if the plan is to tip all the passengers out lineside? What do you do then when the power is restored? You've already exposed hundreds of passengers to a lengthy and risky train evac, do you expose them to these delays and risks again by forcing them back up the ladder and into the train?

I'm sorry, but I'm not swayed. With the exception of a major incident the BEST solution for a speedy resolution is for the passengers to stay put. They are safe (if uncomfortable), not exposed to unnecessary additional risks and as soon as whatever problem has brought the service to a stand has been resolved the train can be on it's way immediately.

So I'm sorry, but no I won't calm down. Please don't patronise me. If you think I've got it wrong please address my points (because currently no-one has) and then we can talk about what's reasonable.

O L Leigh