Train too long for platform!

[jammmmmsssssss]

Indeed. Is there something in the water? Just need one to happen at Paddington now for all the 125mph London terminals to have had one.

Has it happened at Liverpool Street? 16 and 17 can't take a 10 car 720 or a 745

 

[Horizon22]

Has it happened at Liverpool Street? 16 and 17 can't take a 10 car 720 or a 745

Very little gets routed into P16 or P17 these days, outside the high peak and Elizabeth line diversions or booked starters.

 

[jammmmmsssssss]

Very little gets routed into P16 or P17 these days, outside the high peak and Elizabeth line diversions or booked starters.

I've seen them used a lot in disruption too

 

[Falcon1200]

Erm, I've never known any location where you get a position light into an empty platform?

It can happen, and has happened, at Glasgow Central, albeit not under normal working; When a track circuit failure in an empty platform has prevented the main aspect from clearing.

The approach speed to Euston is 40mph which drops to 25mph at the final signal.

Thanks!

 

[Undiscovered]

Is there anything that would have prevented the rear 4 doors being manually locked out and a full release given (as per the overlength procedure for many legacy traction)?

That seems really risky to me, and would take a bit of time. I'd rather do it in a controlled manner, either through local door operation or me pulling an egress and resetting when carriage clear.

Control refused. Physically, yes that could have been an option.

Depends on how busy the train was, maybe?
I wonder what would have happened if the guard had spoken to the driver (as they would have to do), come up with a plan, and then detrained passengers through accommodated doors, after making a suitable PA first?
Would the guard have been summoned for 'tea and biscuits', or variations thereof?

It's not going to be a quick process, replatforming, so surely mitigation of the risks of an uncontrolled evacuation would be proactive?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Would the guard have been summoned for 'tea and biscuits', or variations thereof?

You'd be putting yourself and your job at risk making a decision on your own in this situation. So yes, they would have been removed from their job pending investigation. Whether anything would come of that depends on how well they mitigated any safety risks.

If I was in the guards' shoes I'd be saying to control that this has happened, doors not release and this is what I'd like to do. I imagine the guard simply asked control what to do and then did as they were told.

I would imagine there's been several meetings at control/HQ regarding how to deal with this situation better should it occur in the future.

 

[Undiscovered]

You'd be putting yourself and your job at risk making a decision on your own in this situation. So yes, they would have been removed from their job pending investigation. Whether anything would come of that depends on how well they mitigated any safety risks.

If I was in the guards' shoes I'd be saying to control that this has happened, doors not release and this is what I'd like to do. I imagine the guard simply asked control what to do and then did as they were told.

I would imagine there's been several meetings at control/HQ regarding how to deal with this situation better should it occur in the future.

Fair point, given the sheer number of passengers potentially involved.

 

[Tomnick]

You'd be putting yourself and your job at risk making a decision on your own in this situation. So yes, they would have been removed from their job pending investigation. Whether anything would come of that depends on how well they mitigated any safety risks.

If I was in the guards' shoes I'd be saying to control that this has happened, doors not release and this is what I'd like to do. I imagine the guard simply asked control what to do and then did as they were told.

I would imagine there's been several meetings at control/HQ regarding how to deal with this situation better should it occur in the future.

There is, of course, always the option to refuse to work / carry out an instruction on safety grounds, if you genuinely believe that what you are being asked to do is unsafe. Given the risk of egresses being pulled, interfering with an already relatively risky procedure, and also the risk of increasingly antagonised passengers abusing the traincrew especially as they changed ends outside the station, that'd be an easy position to defend.

 

[LowLevel]

You'd be putting yourself and your job at risk making a decision on your own in this situation. So yes, they would have been removed from their job pending investigation. Whether anything would come of that depends on how well they mitigated any safety risks.

If I was in the guards' shoes I'd be saying to control that this has happened, doors not release and this is what I'd like to do. I imagine the guard simply asked control what to do and then did as they were told.

I would imagine there's been several meetings at control/HQ regarding how to deal with this situation better should it occur in the future.

The key I think is how you phrase it. In such a situation it is much easier to present to control how you are dealing with it, rather than ask for guidance.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

The key I think is how you phrase it. In such a situation it is much easier to present to control how you are dealing with it, rather than ask for guidance.

Absolutely, I find it's something that does come with experience. Not many jobs allow you to dictate to those who are in control of a situation.

I certainly am one to say 'this is what I'm going to do, any objections?'. I'm not sure who was the guard for his service, but the one thing I'm very glad of if that they were in the rear cab when the train pulled into Euston - this is something that is banned on 12 car 350s for instance. Could have so easily been a far worse situation

 

[357]

The key I think is how you phrase it. In such a situation it is much easier to present to control how you are dealing with it, rather than ask for guidance.

Yes, I agree with this fully.

However, while control might allegedly control the railway - I'd still say it's the staff on the ground who control the situation.

In this case the risk of self-detrainment seems sufficient that I'd have told control and the signaller that the shunt is going to have to wait.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2025 ==

in the rear cab when the train pulled into Euston - this is something that is banned on 12 car 350s for instance. Could have so easily been a far worse situation

I told a new Train Manager recently that the most important buzzer codes to know on their mixed-formation TOC is 1 closely followed by 2-2

 

[Lockwood]

Absolutely, I find it's something that does come with experience. Not many jobs allow you to dictate to those who are in control of a situation.

I certainly am one to say 'this is what I'm going to do, any objections?'

I usually find it gets a better result talking to control/support desks by saying "I have X problem. I have tried Y. I would like to do Z because..." rather than "I have X problem. Help."

I think it helps to show you have thought about the problem and are trying to find solutions yourself. It also seems to give a "You cannot do Z because blahblahblah. Try doing this instead" reply, which can help with future planning.


Of course, I'm saying this from a non railway background.

It does seem odd to my outsider eyes that they were not happy with the plan of getting everyone off before shunting, as that would remove a lot of variables from the equation.

However... I get people ask me for feedback on situations they have had and I find myself saying "In general, what I would aim to do is X. But I wasn't there, I didn't see the whole picture, only what you told me, so I can't give a firm comment". I think this is a mindset appropriate here... The decision as presented does not seem obvious, but there would be some reason somewhere for it to have been made.

 

[bahnause]

Yes, I agree with this fully.

However, while control might allegedly control the railway - I'd still say it's the staff on the ground who control the situation.

Where I work, incidents like this are dealt with by the on-site staff. The signaller enters the details of the incident and its effects into the system, and the back office takes care of any consequences, such as delays to follow-up services by staff or vehicles. Talking to a third party on the phone does not resolve the issue at hand.

 

[Falcon1200]

An incident like this would certainly require Control involvement, not least because of the actions of the Signaller (Network Rail ) and the Traincrew (Train Operator). Who made the decision to shunt rather than detrain first, on what grounds and after what discussion, is the issue, but unlikely to be made public.

 

[357]

Where I work, incidents like this are dealt with by the on-site staff. The signaller enters the details of the incident and its effects into the system, and the back office takes care of any consequences, such as delays to follow-up services by staff or vehicles. Talking to a third party on the phone does not resolve the issue at hand.

Indeed. However some TOCs do have a blame culture and an attitude that people should leave any decisions to someone else. If the staff involved have just screwed up then I can understand why they might have let control take the lead.

An incident like this would certainly require Control involvement, not least because of the actions of the Signaller (Network Rail ) and the Traincrew (Train Operator). Who made the decision to shunt rather than detrain first, on what grounds and after what discussion, is the issue, but unlikely to be made public.

Nobody said Control shouldn't be involved?

 

[43066]

You'd be putting yourself and your job at risk making a decision on your own in this situation. So yes, they would have been removed from their job pending investigation. Whether anything would come of that depends on how well they mitigated any safety risks.

If I was in the guards' shoes I'd be saying to control that this has happened, doors not release and this is what I'd like to do. I imagine the guard simply asked control what to do and then did as they were told.

I would imagine there's been several meetings at control/HQ regarding how to deal with this situation better should it occur in the future.

Would the best approach not simply to have been for staff to pull egresses on doors that were platformed, with passengers in un platformed carriages able to walk through the train? This wouldn’t work on non gangwayed stock where one or more entire units aren’t platformed, but shouldn’t be an issue for 350s.

Probably a safer and better option than putting up any sort of release which, if you get it wrong, would create a dangerous situation.

 

[43066]

Has it happened at Liverpool Street? 16 and 17 can't take a 10 car 720 or a 745

I’m sure it will have happened at all terminal stations at some point.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I speak as a passenger not a staff member, but WMT/LNR management have been gormless for a very long time. I’m guessing it wasn’t a particularly busy train, as otherwise I’m quite frankly astounded that more people didn’t pop the green levers.

 

[driverd]

That seems really risky to me, and would take a bit of time. I'd rather do it in a controlled manner, either through local door operation or me pulling an egress and resetting when carriage clear.

Why risky exactly? And it'd take far less time than clearing a 10 car train by local door or pulling 16 egress handles.

 

[357]

Why risky exactly? And it'd take far less time than clearing a 10 car train by local door or pulling 16 egress handles.

My preference now - and when I've done this before - is to egress one door on each coach from the outside.

It means that I know the door is on the platform as I'm on the outside - and to reset it is a simple twist of a T key on older trains or done on the TMS on newer trains.

Personally, with so much going on I don't want to risk missing locking out a door that's not platformed.

 

[Undiscovered]

Why risky exactly? And it'd take far less time than clearing a 10 car train by local door or pulling 16 egress handles.

The technicality of it, I suppose. Even though you've locked closed the doors, and they're showing locked out, you're arming and allowing door release, without all carriages accommodated in the platform.
Additionally, it doesn't fit with our SOPs, which (unless in very explicit locations and circumstances) states that you must step onto the platform first, before releasing the doors.

The key I think is how you phrase it. In such a situation it is much easier to present to control how you are dealing with it, rather than ask for guidance.

Indeed.

In a lot of situations, you have to deal with what's in front of you immediately, to the best of your ability, while working within your training, and the rule book.
I've had a few instances where things have gone amiss and, after the event, you're contacting Control to to advise them of what has happened and how it's been resolved. Fill in the report at end of day, job done.

 

[Falcon1200]

Nobody said Control shouldn't be involved?

Post #73.

 

[357]

Post #73.

Just seen that, cheers.
I guess in my opinion and experience a better choice of word would be that control deal with the consequences...

 

[800301]

My preference now - and when I've done this before - is to egress one door on each coach from the outside.

It means that I know the door is on the platform as I'm on the outside - and to reset it is a simple twist of a T key on older trains or done on the TMS on newer trains.

Personally, with so much going on I don't want to risk missing locking out a door that's not platformed.

I’m with you on that, obviously every situation is different but I think in this situation the best option would be for platform staff and guard to start egressing the platformed doors as holding passengers on a train in a busy London terminal where they will be wanting to get off is not a great idea as proven by passengers egressing, I’m quite amazed the decision was made to shunt the service with passengers still on, because presumably the same driver did the movement after just being involved in an operational incident and probably a bit shaken now being asked to make an unusual movement and possibly starting beyond the starting signal and then make another walk of shame through a train of unhappy passengers, I certainly wouldn’t be doing that, but then again the trains I drive where something like this would be possible, I have full control over what doors I open

 

[pompeyfan]

I’m not sure about WMT/LNR, but most TOC controls aren’t safety critical (or rules trained) and if there’s not already a preset incident plan for a situation then the controllers would need to seek guidance from an on call manager (driver / guards / operational standards). I would be surprised if this eventuality was not already risk assessed and that company policy for this scenario is to deal with it in the manner it was dealt with.

 

[BayPaul]

I’m not sure about WMT/LNR, but most TOC controls aren’t safety critical (or rules trained) and if there’s not already a preset incident plan for a situation then the controllers would need to seek guidance from an on call manager (driver / guards / operational standards). I would be surprised if this eventuality was not already risk assessed and that company policy for this scenario is to deal with it in the manner it was dealt with.

If this is company policy then they probably need to review their risk assessment. The chances of an incident to the driver as he/she walks the full length of the train, twice, and passengers pulling egress handles, potentially in unsafe locations or at unsafe times is clearly far greater than the benefit.

 

[Falcon1200]

I guess in my opinion and experience a better choice of word would be that control deal with the consequences...

Yes, thanks, although we don't (and probably never will) know exactly who decided and/or specified what should be done!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I’m not sure about WMT/LNR, but most TOC controls aren’t safety critical (or rules trained) and if there’s not already a preset incident plan for a situation then the controllers would need to seek guidance from an on call manager (driver / guards / operational standards). I would be surprised if this eventuality was not already risk assessed and that company policy for this scenario is to deal with it in the manner it was dealt with.

Given Rugby ROC is 90% a new team, there's a high chance this was plucked from an existing plan - can't remember the last time this actually happened at Euston - happened at New St a few years ago (platform 4c) so may not have been a Euston specific process they followed.

The new lead at Rugby ROC is new to the role but was a very well regarded ASCM prior and will not have put staff at risk or ignored possible safety issues.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2025 ==

Yes, thanks, although we don't (and probably never will) know exactly who decided and/or specified what should be done!

We do though.

Situation happened. SC called control. Control said to keep everyone onboard and to shunt across to another platform (SC to inform Driver, Driver to contact signaller, SC to liaise with platform staff/manager).

Whether the SC challenged control or suggested alternatives that were denied, that I don't know, but the decision was made by control.

 

[Falcon1200]

Whether the SC challenged control or suggested alternatives that were denied, that I don't know, but the decision was made by control.

Ok, thanks. We can but wonder what the reasoning behind that decision was, and as the Control mentioned was presumably Network Rail, what the TOC Control's involvement was.

 

[dk1]

Has it happened at Liverpool Street? 16 and 17 can't take a 10 car 720 or a 745

I’ve never known any of my colleagues (or myself) get wrong routed into 16, 17, or when it existed 18. When I was new to the Liverpool Street route in 2004 I used to cautiously round the corner (line speed 15mph) if on the up electric just incase but that didn’t last long. Would’ve been fun if they did as we wouldn’t be able to stop at that final signal (L60) in time.