[bignosemac]

Originally Posted by SouthStand

Haven't read every post, and I don't know the number of members on these forums, but am surprised 3 members were on the affected train. Seems statistically a little high!

All making their first post. No doubt coming here via a Google search having experienced the incident.

[Crossover]

Originally Posted by Daz28

Freight on those lines are pretty infrequent these days, and don't the signals switch to danger when the traction is shorted?

As others have said, this isn't the case. The two systems are separate and the signals will only return to danger when a train is detected in the section (in a number of cases, this uses track circuits/the short circuiting of them to detect a train in section, but some places are axle counters, so no amount of shorting the tracks together will bounce the signal back in such a case)

Originally Posted by TempleRyan

Is it me, or does that look like a guard on the right of this picture? https://p.twimg.com/AvTXRdsCAAIs8Sj.jpg It looks like the handheld ticket machines they carry.

Looks to me like it could be just a passenger with a laptop bag or something. Even if it is a member of train staff, it would likely be an RPI (who I believe just do revenue duties) and I'm not sure if RPI's are traction trained in the same way guards are.

[hedpe]

I have a vague recollection of seeing safety posters onboard SE trains. They explain the use of the passenger alarm and door release. I think they even state at one point - "it is safer to stay on the train" or something to that effect. However apart from this, there are no other safety posters i can recall in use. I remember FCC has a lot of information regarding safe evacuation of the train and i believe it does indeed state that it is safer to stay onboard. Now me like most other typical passengers wont bother to read such a thing in detail except when you're pressed against it during the rush hour. Drivers will often make announcements that you should look at the safety notices throughout the train.
But of course in practice what will a few posters do when it hits the fan? Our instinct is to stay alive. Fire and smoke is an immediate threat. To make up more than 4 cars on a class 466 requires joining of additional sets which do not have a corridor between them. thus if no announcements were made on the PA and the presence of smoke was evident, it is hardly surprising people jumped off.

[jonmorris0844]

I agree that smoke is likely to have people jump off.

[tsr]

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

I agree that smoke is likely to have people jump off.

This is especially so with fire service campaigns claiming that three breaths of smoke can kill (or whatever the number is these days) in more and more TV publicity, etc. People get scared by that sort of thing and will apply this logic, which is principally advertised in connection to building fires, to trains. Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to avoid smoke (it isn't, obviously), but getting through to another carriage doesn't take long and will probably be much safer.

[ushawk]

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

I agree that smoke is likely to have people jump off.

Yes, move away from the fire, but not walk unattended up a railway line. The driver told pax to move down the train, so they would be away from the fire at the back - but they just ignored him, got off and walked on a possibly live railway line with possible traffic, unattended to the next station. They would have had to walk past the fire too, i fail to see how that is safer than moving to the rear of the train, like the driver said.

[jonmorris0844]

Most people aren't idiots, but suddenly turn into sheep if there's just one.

[Daz28]

Those narrow interconnecting doors between carriages are not ideal when there are three people trying to get through at once. I hate to imagine a whole carriage of passengers trying to get through with the smell of smoke behind them, all lights off and the doors having to be manually opened due to the power off.

It's very easy with the benefit of railway experience and from the comfort of a computer screen to tell people what they should have done. It's a different proposition when you believe your life is in danger and you have to make split second decisions. The human instinct is to get out and away from danger. On this occasion it was a successful strategy.

[ushawk]

Originally Posted by Daz28

Those narrow interconnecting doors between carriages are not ideal when there are three people trying to get through at once. I hate to imagine a whole carriage of passengers trying to get through with the smell of smoke behind them, all lights off and the doors having to be manually opened due to the power off.

It's very easy with the benefit of railway experience and from the comfort of a computer screen to tell people what they should have done. It's a different proposition when you believe your life is in danger and you have to make split second decisions. The human instinct is to get out and away from danger. On this occasion it was a successful strategy.

Well they were told what they should of done by a member of railway staff, just some decided they knew better, ignored the driver and walked unattended up the line. Said it before, what if the power was off and a train ran into the people or if someone stepped on the rail - those same passengers will blame Network Rail. And to "get away from danger", they would have had to walk past the fire (was at the front of the train) - that could of easily gone bang. If you are going to evacuate, then do what the other passengers done, move away from the fire and wait for the emergency services.

This keeps happening in the London area, i think all trains need to be fitted with sheepdogs to round up all these people who think they they know better than rail staff.

[jonmorris0844]

The Manchester air disaster (well, in the ground actually) saw changes to the width of gangway that massively speeded up evacuation times. Most train gangway seem very narrow. Could a wheelchair get through all of them?

[marlon465]

Originally Posted by ushawk

Well they were told what they should of done by a member of railway staff, just some decided they knew better, ignored the driver and walked unattended up the line. Said it before, what if the power was off and a train ran into the people or if someone stepped on the rail - those same passengers will blame Network Rail. And to "get away from danger", they would have had to walk past the fire (was at the front of the train) - that could of easily gone bang. If you are going to evacuate, then do what the other passengers done, move away from the fire and wait for the emergency services.

This keeps happening in the London area, i think all trains need to be fitted with sheepdogs to round up all these people who think they they know better than rail staff.

I think this is hugely unfair. Your attitude is somewhat typical of rail experts who frequent this forum - I had watched, as had fellow southeastern commuters, the anger that was directed towards passengers when they disembarked a 100 degree carriage in Bexleyheath last year after having had two hours with minimal/no communication but alas that was/is a different incident.

Is it not a concern that those with "traction knowledge" make the automatic assumption that people can be left on the train, indefinitely, because it is the safest place for them and thus they can be trusted to stay in situ until such a time that they see fit. It strikes me as a quite worrying symptom of a poor relationship between the rail industry and its customers.

There are some inaccuracies floating around on this thread which require some correction before judgement is passed.

On southeastern trains, there are safety notices advising passengers that they are safer to remain on the train. It makes no reference to fire and faced with a thick plume of smoke one is likely to attempt to get away from it. In reference to another recent post, I do not think a wheelchair would fit between the gangway on a 465 (that is of course, if it could be easily opened without power) and presumably when a carriage load of passengers pass down the train, the toxic smoke would follow?

Furthermore, there is some condemnation that passengers ignored a member of train crew. One makes the presumption that all passengers heard the announcement made by the driver - but the evidence is that some people did not hear an announcement whilst others did - suggesting that one was made. However people may not have heard it for a variety of reasons, such as fellow passengers talking over it or from my own experiences, I would suggest that the PA system was faulty. Announcements on southeastern trains are frequently inaudible and if one can indeed tell that one is being made, they cannot be made sense of so perhaps one should not rely on passengers hearing any advice given by the driver.

Secondly, you criticise passengers for wandering 'past the fire.' I believe that the fire was out by the time that passengers had proceeded past the cab of the train. It also clearly states that passengers had gone to check on the wellbeing of the driver to see if he had managed to escape the smoke himself. As a matter of opinion, this is a brave and applaudable action rather than one for unwarranted criticism and rather contradicts the 'every man for himself' attitude that some seem to pin upon commuters.
It is likely that upon proceeding towards the cab to check on the driver's wellbeing that passengers noticed that there was no immediate threat of fire, juxtaposed to the immediate threat of ill-health from the smoke filled front carriages thus rendering being off the train and perhaps putting some distance away from the source of ignition as being the safest option in the eyes of the commuters.

I will not accept that passengers acted in anything other than a rational way.

[A-driver]

Originally Posted by marlon465

I think this is hugely unfair. Your attitude is somewhat typical of rail experts who frequent this forum - I had watched, as had fellow southeastern commuters, the anger that was directed towards passengers when they disembarked a 100 degree carriage in Bexleyheath last year after having had two hours with minimal/no communication but alas that was/is a different incident.

Is it not a concern that those with "traction knowledge" make the automatic assumption that people can be left on the train, indefinitely, because it is the safest place for them and thus they can be trusted to stay in situ until such a time that they see fit. It strikes me as a quite worrying symptom of a poor relationship between the rail industry and its customers.

There are some inaccuracies floating around on this thread which require some correction before judgement is passed.

On southeastern trains, there are safety notices advising passengers that they are safer to remain on the train. It makes no reference to fire and faced with a thick plume of smoke one is likely to attempt to get away from it. In reference to another recent post, I do not think a wheelchair would fit between the gangway on a 465 (that is of course, if it could be easily opened without power) and presumably when a carriage load of passengers pass down the train, the toxic smoke would follow?

Furthermore, there is some condemnation that passengers ignored a member of train crew. One makes the presumption that all passengers heard the announcement made by the driver - but the evidence is that some people did not hear an announcement whilst others did - suggesting that one was made. However people may not have heard it for a variety of reasons, such as fellow passengers talking over it or from my own experiences, I would suggest that the PA system was faulty. Announcements on southeastern trains are frequently inaudible and if one can indeed tell that one is being made, they cannot be made sense of so perhaps one should not rely on passengers hearing any advice given by the driver.

Secondly, you criticise passengers for wandering 'past the fire.' I believe that the fire was out by the time that passengers had proceeded past the cab of the train. It also clearly states that passengers had gone to check on the wellbeing of the driver to see if he had managed to escape the smoke himself. As a matter of opinion, this is a brave and applaudable action rather than one for unwarranted criticism and rather contradicts the 'every man for himself' attitude that some seem to pin upon commuters.
It is likely that upon proceeding towards the cab to check on the driver's wellbeing that passengers noticed that there was no immediate threat of fire, juxtaposed to the immediate threat of ill-health from the smoke filled front carriages thus rendering being off the train and perhaps putting some distance away from the source of ignition as being the safest option in the eyes of the commuters.

I will not accept that passengers acted in anything other than a rational way.

Generally passengers will think they know more than train crew anyway. There is a real attitude of 'I'm a big city lawyer and you are a measly train driver therefore I don't listen to you, you have no authority over me' etc. I understand that in a fire situation people will want out of there with no rational thought-it's basic human instinct. I don't think it helps that the only instructions from the driver are from a PA. I would Imagen that these situations are more manageable on intercity trains with greater numbers of on board staff or on airlines where you have cabin crew there as a visible, not just audible, presence. A driver telling you not to leave the train via PA will fall much more on deaf ears than a team of staff in uniform directing or herding people in an assertive manner, directly ordering those who do not do as instructed to do so etc.

It's obviously not practicle to have the staff to passenger ratio on a train that you do on planes and the driver has far more important things to do in these circumstances than shepherd passengers about and so a forced evacuation is almost inevitable. I don't see how either passengers or the railway can be blamed for this. As long as the driver took action to make the line safe after the passengers got out (I havnt heard anything suggesting that they didn't) then there arnt really any problems here. Train fires are incredibly rare.

[jonmorris0844]

As someone who regularly walks through trains into London (boarding at the back for seats and then going to the front to exit the station quicker), I've noticed that things can vary from one coach to another.

On both 365s and 317s (FCC), you might have the screens working in some and not in others. On the 313s too, you might be able to hear the PA in one and it's all quiet or muffled in another (likewise, on some 317s the announcements can be so loud that they distort and cause discomfort to passengers). The thermostats might mean only a single car has the heating on, or off, as the case might be - although that's not really life threatening.

I am not surprised that some people might say an announcement was made and others say they weren't - and not because they were merely talking over them or listening to their iPod. They're quite possibly all telling the truth depending on where they were.

Do TOCs take these things seriously for maintenance? Do they fix the broken screens? Do they do a test of the speakers THROUGHOUT the train periodically? And if they find faults, do they fix them?

In the case of FCC, I'd say no. I can tell which 317 I'm on from the screens that are broken (or partially broken, showing corrupted graphics or flickering) so they weren't fixed or replaced. If a TOC doesn't see screens/speakers as being important, how does a driver communicate in an emergency with passengers? How would a guard in similar circumstances (Assuming they don't waste valuable time having to walk through what could be a crowded train to tell people individually).

The 313s got new speakers when they got their refresh, but are we to just hope they don't fail before the next major exam or refresh? Safety notices might be kept on display, which is great, but when something actually happens we clearly all recognise that people need information there and then - not to recall what they may have read ages ago (as in days, weeks or months ago).

[Blindtraveler]

Originally Posted by BestWestern

Regarding
the lack of communication - welcome to the harsh reality of DOO (Driver Only Operation). Incidents like this are where it all falls down, as having only one trained member of staff means that the procedures come first and the passengers come last. No time to make any announcements, offer any assistance or help out in any way whatsoever, as the Driver is required to go and protect his train. Too bad if you panic and leap out into the path of another train, stand on the third rail or fall from the door somebody has opened and break your legs, if you're unlucky enough to be a passenger on board you make your own choices and hope for the best. It is incredible luck - and nothing else - that nobody came to serious grief here, an uncontrolled evacuation on DOO followed by a large group of unsupervised passengers lineside has the potential to turn into a very bad day. But never mind, at least it saves the train operator a few quid. Give it a few years and, if they get their way, this will be norm for most trains. A very worrying prospect indeed

couldnt agree more! I have no wish to spark a debate here but as a disabled traveler with no reall usefull vision at all the safety chritical yet customer focused roll of the guard matters a great deal to me and I am always on there side when some penny pinching little *** of an accountant decides a TOC should consider yet another DOO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
in the interest of fareness though I am sure there are many drivers who value there pax who after all pay there wages however as others have said safety of the train and any other trains first

[jonmorris0844]

I don't think it's practical for us to get guards back on trains. Who would agree to pay for it? Sure, I'd certainly not say no to the idea myself - but most people will stop when asked to stump up more cash (either on fares or subsidies collected from tax, possibly at the expense of other services).

So, at the very least, a driver needs to know that s/he can communicate with passengers. By the sound of it, that wasn't the case on this train - and that is something for any investigation to look at seriously.

For one, the PA system needs to work and have dual redundancy if necessary to ensure it can (almost) never fail. Modern Bombardier trains can give proper announcements in text and visual form to save the driver having to do it - so maybe that should be retrofitted to all trains? If the driver hits the emergency brake, for example, that could trigger an announcement.

What about giving a driver the means to communicate with the PA system remotely? Whether using a push-to-talk type system over GSM-R or even a simply PMR setup that allows him or her to perform urgent safety related duties and also give some reassurance to passengers? On new trains, the PA can be operated from a control room (can it not?) but that usually only happens after a long delay trying to establish contact with the driver. Meanwhile, passengers are doing their own thing.

Finally, if it's accepted that passengers are going to de-train, then it's also a chance to give one final warning about the possibility of trains still moving in the area and third rail etc. Only to be used when you know that you're not going to succeed in keeping people on the train (or when you really DO have to evacuate what might be a 12 car train on your own).

I accept the argument will be 'too expensive and incidents like this are rare' but no matter how passionate BestWestern is on getting guards back on trains, DOO is going to be here to stay - especially as and when we get more services packed in on lines.