Passengers break out of stuck train in Cambridgeshire - Page 3

westcoaster · 30th October 2010, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-11658110

Not to be rude but why only post the negative stuff, if you read the full story on the BBC you will read why the train was not evacuated, also the other running line was ok, as passengers were transferred to another train, to be taken to another station.

In this situation time is not everything, the more you rush things the worse they can become, I suppose all passenger doors MAY have been locked to stop more people leaving the train, thus slowing down the rescue service ( another train) coming to help, it's not long ago where something similar happened, and people jumped of trains delaying the restarting of trains by over another hour.

jonmorris0844 · 30th October 2010, 14:09

The second story now says the platform was 500 metres away, not a few yards. Imagine if everyone got off and walked along with trains potentially running in the other direction? What if just one tripped on the ballast, or wandered (as potentially HUNDREDS of people might well do).

Annoying as it might be, staying on the train must be wiser when there's no risk to the train (it hadn't derailed or anything).. and everyone would have been given compensation too!

ukrob · 30th October 2010, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

The second story now says the platform was 500 metres away, not a few yards. Imagine if everyone got off and walked along with trains potentially running in the other direction? What if just one tripped on the ballast, or wandered (as potentially HUNDREDS of people might well do).

Annoying as it might be, staying on the train must be wiser when there's no risk to the train (it hadn't derailed or anything).. and everyone would have been given compensation too!

I don't think people are disputing it would be safer on the train, but why it took three hours with only emergency lighting to get anything sorted out.

Failed Unit · 30th October 2010, 14:12

I know it probably wouldn't have taken as long but if it was a coach would the police have walked the passengers down the hard shoulder?
Have you ever sat on a plane waiting for a stand? I have for two hours and we could not leave our seat because of regulations. Not even to use the toilet!
If someone had got injured on the short walk to the station even if the just tripped and broke their wrist imagine the headlines. Ambulance chasers party. Unfortunately rules must override common sense now. Failure to comply can result in prison for the directors if a death occurs as a result.

jonmorris0844 · 30th October 2010, 14:24

I've been stuck on a plane for SEVEN hours waiting to get clearance to take off - and for most of that time we couldn't move, and the air con was off as they were regularly de-icing the plane. We were one of the, if not the, last plane to leave New York in February 2003 where the airport was closed for 2-3 days after, due to exceptionally bad weather.

If we'd gone back to the stand, we'd have been taken off and not flown at all - then been stuck for days - so it was probably for the best. Uncomfortable, yes, but once you've taken off, landed and got home - you can reflect on the fact that it wasn't the end of the world.

Do we know how long it was before these people decided to get off? Given the time of the first news story (7pm), it wasn't even two hours. It was probably far less, given the time to contact the BBC and for them to check some facts. For all we know, it was an hour or less - or even some bright spark hearing about the problem and saying 'the platform is only a few yards away' and going for the door after ten minutes!

Failed Unit · 30th October 2010, 14:47

I had a points failure a few years back just after Market Rasen. The train was stopped at the last signal before the fault. If anyone reading knows the area the points needed clamping at Holton-le-Moor. We were held at lissingley. Market rasen station was close and the train would have made it BUT it would have needed to pass a signal at danger into a section with a serious defect. We stood there for 3 hours before the points were clamped.

Not plessent but again imagine if we had passed the signal and something had happened. The driver was cursing wishing that when the line was resignalled the had slit the section at Market Rasen like most old school railmen had suggested!

PTF62 · 30th October 2010, 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

I presume it was an 8 or even 12-car train,

If the BBC report is correct, and it was the Kings Cross to Cambridge train that broke down outside Foxton just before 5pm, it appears it would have been a 4 car train.

And again if the BBC report is correct, it was carrying in excess of 400 passengers, on a train that seats 240-250. So 150 people standing for hours whilst FCC sort themselves out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

For all we know, it was an hour or less - or even some bright spark hearing about the problem and saying 'the platform is only a few yards away' and going for the door after ten minutes!

Utter speculation. For all we know it was two hours after the train had stopped, with the usual no announcements from FCC about what was happening and how long it would take to resolve.

And all the time a station is in view, and you are stood in a 4 car train that is rammed full with over 400 other passengers.

So if the other line was open, why did it take 1 1/2 hours to even start the operation to remove the other passengers? How long does it take to bring a train down the 7 miles from Cambridge or up from Kings Cross?

What sort of train did they bring alongside to only move 100 passengers on the first run. Or was the issue that they did not want to keep the second line closed whilst they moved all the passengers?

Why did it then take a further hour and a quarter to move another 274 passengers, if you were only transporting them 6 miles to Royston?

And then another three quarters of an hour to move the final (unspecified number)?

jonmorris0844 · 30th October 2010, 16:10

I didn't know they ran 4-car trains to Cambridge in the afternoon, especially a Friday. That would have been quite a squeeze, although it was half-term wasn't it? My trains this week were fairly empty.

500 metres is quite a long way, so the station surely wasn't in view?

The story was on the BBC website within 2 hours saying people had got off, so it was clearly 2 hours or less. Given the fact the BBC has a policy to verify information, and this wouldn't really have been a high-priority story, I am therefore of the opinion that it was probably an hour or less.

Yes, it's speculation but I happen to know a little about how the media works. The BBC, and even Sky, have tight policies in place because of previous incidents where stories have death tolls that decrease as information comes out. It means that the BBC and Sky can often be late with news as a result, although Twitter seems to have allowed them the privilege of now speculating and simply saying 'according to reports'.

Anyway, that's off topic, and I am not saying it was right - but I do think those people who got off did so far too quickly.

FCC drivers are usually very quick to give info - yet you write it as if they never do ('the usual no announcements'). I've had drivers simply say that we're held at a red to let a train pass, even if it's only a minute and perfectly normal (as in, we're probably ahead of time). We don't know if the driver did give information regularly, but that information was simply to sit tight.

I don't know the full facts yet, hence me asking lots of questions, but it does seem odd that some people have jumped to the conclusion that FCC didn't care, the driver was negligent and they should have prepared for this. When overhead lines come down, I presume someone has to check that it is safe to let other trains run? Maybe Network Rail sent out people by road, and they got held up in traffic?

jopsuk · 30th October 2010, 16:15

The "all stops" (well, from Hitchin onwards) trains have to be 4-car due to short stations- it may have been one of those. Not sure about the fast services- though the 1815 TO london is a four-car- very tight on a Friday!

Failed Unit · 30th October 2010, 16:18

The BBC website had an east coast hst on it for good measure. Ducks. I know sad.

jonmorris0844 · 30th October 2010, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by jopsuk

The "all stops" (well, from Hitchin onwards) trains have to be 4-car due to short stations- it may have been one of those. Not sure about the fast services- though the 1815 TO london is a four-car- very tight on a Friday!

It was the fast train (first stop Cambridge) that left at 1615. The slightly earlier train, actually advertised to Foxton, is overtaken and that was behind and presumably terminated at one of the previous stations without incident.

ukrob · 30th October 2010, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

500 metres is quite a long way, so the station surely wasn't in view?

As an aside, I can certainly see more than 500 meters, as almost everyone can - are you mixing up units perhaps?

It is only the length of about 22x23m coaches.

There are of course curves to take into consideration, and I don't know the particular route, but it is perfectly likely the station was in view.

philjo · 30th October 2010, 16:40

The pictures on the BBC local news last night showed passengers on a 365 (internal shots taken by one of the passengers)

I assume it was either the 15:52 or 16:15 KX to Cambridge services (both of which are booked as 4 car accorrding to the timetable)

Incidentally, was the train stopped just before or after Foxton station ?
If before, it would be in the approaches to the A10 level crossing which would have meant that the barriers were down for a very long time.......

The 17:19 Cambridge train I was waiting for at WGC was changed to Royston on the WGC screens as the train arrived.
When I got off at Letchworth the driver had announced that it was going forward to Baldock where it might wait for an extended period or possibly terminate.

the sniper · 30th October 2010, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukrob

As an aside, I can certainly see more than 500 meters, as almost everyone can - are you mixing up units perhaps?

It is only the length of about 22x23m coaches.

There are of course curves to take into consideration, and I don't know the particular route, but it is perfectly likely the station was in view.

It wouldn't have been in view from the inside of the train though, unless the passengers we're in the front cab.

ukrob · 30th October 2010, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by the sniper

It wouldn't have been in view from the inside of the train though, unless the passengers we're in the front cab.

Depends on curvature. It is pretty irrelevant anyhow.

30th October 2010, 14:09	#32
jonmorris0844 What would Bob Crow say? Established Member Join Date: 1 Feb 2009 Location: Hatfield, Hertfordshire Posts: 10,873	The second story now says the platform was 500 metres away, not a few yards. Imagine if everyone got off and walked along with trains potentially running in the other direction? What if just one tripped on the ballast, or wandered (as potentially HUNDREDS of people might well do). Annoying as it might be, staying on the train must be wiser when there's no risk to the train (it hadn't derailed or anything).. and everyone would have been given compensation too!

30th October 2010, 14:12	#34
Failed Unit Established Member Join Date: 26 Jan 2009 Location: Central Belt Posts: 3,937	I know it probably wouldn't have taken as long but if it was a coach would the police have walked the passengers down the hard shoulder? Have you ever sat on a plane waiting for a stand? I have for two hours and we could not leave our seat because of regulations. Not even to use the toilet! If someone had got injured on the short walk to the station even if the just tripped and broke their wrist imagine the headlines. Ambulance chasers party. Unfortunately rules must override common sense now. Failure to comply can result in prison for the directors if a death occurs as a result.

30th October 2010, 14:24	#35
jonmorris0844 What would Bob Crow say? Established Member Join Date: 1 Feb 2009 Location: Hatfield, Hertfordshire Posts: 10,873	I've been stuck on a plane for SEVEN hours waiting to get clearance to take off - and for most of that time we couldn't move, and the air con was off as they were regularly de-icing the plane. We were one of the, if not the, last plane to leave New York in February 2003 where the airport was closed for 2-3 days after, due to exceptionally bad weather. If we'd gone back to the stand, we'd have been taken off and not flown at all - then been stuck for days - so it was probably for the best. Uncomfortable, yes, but once you've taken off, landed and got home - you can reflect on the fact that it wasn't the end of the world. Do we know how long it was before these people decided to get off? Given the time of the first news story (7pm), it wasn't even two hours. It was probably far less, given the time to contact the BBC and for them to check some facts. For all we know, it was an hour or less - or even some bright spark hearing about the problem and saying 'the platform is only a few yards away' and going for the door after ten minutes!

30th October 2010, 14:47	#36
Failed Unit Established Member Join Date: 26 Jan 2009 Location: Central Belt Posts: 3,937	I had a points failure a few years back just after Market Rasen. The train was stopped at the last signal before the fault. If anyone reading knows the area the points needed clamping at Holton-le-Moor. We were held at lissingley. Market rasen station was close and the train would have made it BUT it would have needed to pass a signal at danger into a section with a serious defect. We stood there for 3 hours before the points were clamped. Not plessent but again imagine if we had passed the signal and something had happened. The driver was cursing wishing that when the line was resignalled the had slit the section at Market Rasen like most old school railmen had suggested!

30th October 2010, 16:10	#38
jonmorris0844 What would Bob Crow say? Established Member Join Date: 1 Feb 2009 Location: Hatfield, Hertfordshire Posts: 10,873	I didn't know they ran 4-car trains to Cambridge in the afternoon, especially a Friday. That would have been quite a squeeze, although it was half-term wasn't it? My trains this week were fairly empty. 500 metres is quite a long way, so the station surely wasn't in view? The story was on the BBC website within 2 hours saying people had got off, so it was clearly 2 hours or less. Given the fact the BBC has a policy to verify information, and this wouldn't really have been a high-priority story, I am therefore of the opinion that it was probably an hour or less. Yes, it's speculation but I happen to know a little about how the media works. The BBC, and even Sky, have tight policies in place because of previous incidents where stories have death tolls that decrease as information comes out. It means that the BBC and Sky can often be late with news as a result, although Twitter seems to have allowed them the privilege of now speculating and simply saying 'according to reports'. Anyway, that's off topic, and I am not saying it was right - but I do think those people who got off did so far too quickly. FCC drivers are usually very quick to give info - yet you write it as if they never do ('the usual no announcements'). I've had drivers simply say that we're held at a red to let a train pass, even if it's only a minute and perfectly normal (as in, we're probably ahead of time). We don't know if the driver did give information regularly, but that information was simply to sit tight. I don't know the full facts yet, hence me asking lots of questions, but it does seem odd that some people have jumped to the conclusion that FCC didn't care, the driver was negligent and they should have prepared for this. When overhead lines come down, I presume someone has to check that it is safe to let other trains run? Maybe Network Rail sent out people by road, and they got held up in traffic?

30th October 2010, 16:15	#39
jopsuk Established Member Join Date: 13 May 2008 Posts: 6,244	The "all stops" (well, from Hitchin onwards) trains have to be 4-car due to short stations- it may have been one of those. Not sure about the fast services- though the 1815 TO london is a four-car- very tight on a Friday!

30th October 2010, 16:18	#40
Failed Unit Established Member Join Date: 26 Jan 2009 Location: Central Belt Posts: 3,937	The BBC website had an east coast hst on it for good measure. Ducks. I know sad.

30th October 2010, 16:40	#43
philjo Established Member Join Date: 9 Jun 2009 Posts: 1,426	The pictures on the BBC local news last night showed passengers on a 365 (internal shots taken by one of the passengers) I assume it was either the 15:52 or 16:15 KX to Cambridge services (both of which are booked as 4 car accorrding to the timetable) Incidentally, was the train stopped just before or after Foxton station ? If before, it would be in the approaches to the A10 level crossing which would have meant that the barriers were down for a very long time....... The 17:19 Cambridge train I was waiting for at WGC was changed to Royston on the WGC screens as the train arrived. When I got off at Letchworth the driver had announced that it was going forward to Baldock where it might wait for an extended period or possibly terminate.