Use of emergency door release at stations

[swj99]

Does waiting for the police to arrest another passenger count as an emergency? I would have thought the emergency release is only sensible to use when there is immediate danger to people in that carriage (e.g. from a fire)

I don't know what the legal definition of emergency is, in the context of using an emergency door release. It's possibly quite subjective, depending on each person's own differing circumstances, and their perception of the situation.

However, I'd be hesitant in criticising anyone who did use it - after all they were being detained against their will, which clearly counts as an "emergency" in my book.

Fair comment.

Don't be silly- they aren't being held against their will

Of course they are. Anyone who has their movement curtailed, or is prevented from leaving when they wish to is being held against their will.

This is why we get so many incidents on the railway...........

I don't think so. I think the reason there are so many incidents on the railway is because there are so many degenerates around, and not enough police officers to deal with them. Also, many of the people who are caught are not really punished enough for the so called punishment to be a proper deterrent to others, and so the cycle continues.

If you're not under arrest, then you're free to go surely

Yes. I think it would be the railway company who would be on dodgy ground legally, because despite a possible request from the police, the railway has no legal authority to detain passengers.

Is that a fair comparison? Shopping centres are generally quite open places compared to a train.

I'd say so, on the basis that people could be present in either, because they wanted to be there. And are entitled to leave when they no longer wish to be there. In the case of a train, that normally happens at the end of a passenger's journey, when they wish to leave the train and go to wherever it is they wish to go to.

As many have already said-it's hardly held against their will for long-may be a min or 2 before the police are ready. What if they choose to hold you at the signal outside the station for 5-6 mins instead? Or what about often when you are held outside a busy station in the rush hour waiting for a platform? That's not false imprisoment either.

And actually the police have the power to do this do no dodgy legal ground at all. The same as they can close off roads, buildings, footpaths etc.

There is a difference between a railway employee preventing people from leaving a train by not releasing the doors, and police officers preventing people from leaving an area in which they believe a crime may have been committed. The police do have powers to restrict movement of members of the public in certain circumstances, as defined in legislation such as the Public Order Acts, but even with the best intentions in the world, railway employees do not. It’s not so much a question of whether or not the police can detain people, but whether railway employees can legally do so, and the possible legal consequences if a passenger who didn't wish to remain exited the train by using the emergency door release.

The example of a train at a red signal is a good one.
There's a big difference between leaving a train while it was standing at a red signal somewhere along a railway line, compared to when it is stopped at a station platform. Under normal circumstances, passengers wouldn’t ordinarily be entitled to leave the train whilst it was waiting at a red signal and not in a station, and the manager, guard or driver would obviously be entitled to not open the doors. However passengers would be entitled to leave a train which was standing at a station platform during a scheduled stop at which they were due to leave the train, and would be under no obligation to remain on the train. A passenger wishing to leave the train in circumstances when the doors remain closed may have no alternative but to use the emergency door release to facilitate this, and on the basis that railway employees have no powers to detain people, a fare paying passenger using the door release in order to leave a train in such circumstances would I believe have a valid defence if prosecuted for doing this.

 

[Dave1987]

I don't know what the legal definition of emergency is, in the context of using an emergency door release. It's possibly quite subjective, depending on each person's own differing circumstances, and their perception of the situation.


Fair comment.


Of course they are. Anyone who has their movement curtailed, or is prevented from leaving when they wish to is being held against their will.


I don't think so. I think the reason there are so many incidents on the railway is because there are so many degenerates around, and not enough police officers to deal with them. Also, many of the people who are caught are not really punished enough for the so called punishment to be a proper deterrent to others, and so the cycle continues.


Yes. I think it would be the railway company who would be on dodgy ground legally, because despite a possible request from the police, the railway has no legal authority to detain passengers.


I'd say so, on the basis that people could be present in either, because they wanted to be there. And are entitled to leave when they no longer wish to be there. In the case of a train, that normally happens at the end of a passenger's journey, when they wish to leave the train and go to wherever it is they wish to go to.


There is a difference between a railway employee preventing people from leaving a train by not releasing the doors, and police officers preventing people from leaving an area in which they believe a crime may have been committed. The police do have powers to restrict movement of members of the public in certain circumstances, as defined in legislation such as the Public Order Acts, but even with the best intentions in the world, railway employees do not. It’s not so much a question of whether or not the police can detain people, but whether railway employees can legally do so, and the possible legal consequences if a passenger who didn't wish to remain exited the train by using the emergency door release.

The example of a train at a red signal is a good one.
There's a big difference between leaving a train while it was standing at a red signal somewhere along a railway line, compared to when it is stopped at a station platform. Under normal circumstances, passengers wouldn’t ordinarily be entitled to leave the train whilst it was waiting at a red signal and not in a station, and the manager, guard or driver would obviously be entitled to not open the doors. However passengers would be entitled to leave a train which was standing at a station platform during a scheduled stop at which they were due to leave the train, and would be under no obligation to remain on the train. A passenger wishing to leave the train in circumstances when the doors remain closed may have no alternative but to use the emergency door release to facilitate this, and on the basis that railway employees have no powers to detain people, a fare paying passenger using the door release in order to leave a train in such circumstances would I believe have a valid defence if prosecuted for doing this.

Sorry but if a fare paying passenger pull an emergency egress handle because they thought they were being held against their will and this caused even more delays I would be asking BTP to to charge them on a byelaw offence for the deliberate use of emergency equipment in a non emergency situation. There may be very good reasons why the doors haven't been opened, and it is a byelaw offence. Every passenger agrees to abide by the bye laws when they travel.

 

[A-driver]

I don't know what the legal definition of emergency is, in the context of using an emergency door release. It's possibly quite subjective, depending on each person's own differing circumstances, and their perception of the situation.


Fair comment.


Of course they are. Anyone who has their movement curtailed, or is prevented from leaving when they wish to is being held against their will.


I don't think so. I think the reason there are so many incidents on the railway is because there are so many degenerates around, and not enough police officers to deal with them. Also, many of the people who are caught are not really punished enough for the so called punishment to be a proper deterrent to others, and so the cycle continues.


Yes. I think it would be the railway company who would be on dodgy ground legally, because despite a possible request from the police, the railway has no legal authority to detain passengers.


I'd say so, on the basis that people could be present in either, because they wanted to be there. And are entitled to leave when they no longer wish to be there. In the case of a train, that normally happens at the end of a passenger's journey, when they wish to leave the train and go to wherever it is they wish to go to.


There is a difference between a railway employee preventing people from leaving a train by not releasing the doors, and police officers preventing people from leaving an area in which they believe a crime may have been committed. The police do have powers to restrict movement of members of the public in certain circumstances, as defined in legislation such as the Public Order Acts, but even with the best intentions in the world, railway employees do not. It’s not so much a question of whether or not the police can detain people, but whether railway employees can legally do so, and the possible legal consequences if a passenger who didn't wish to remain exited the train by using the emergency door release.

The example of a train at a red signal is a good one.
There's a big difference between leaving a train while it was standing at a red signal somewhere along a railway line, compared to when it is stopped at a station platform. Under normal circumstances, passengers wouldn’t ordinarily be entitled to leave the train whilst it was waiting at a red signal and not in a station, and the manager, guard or driver would obviously be entitled to not open the doors. However passengers would be entitled to leave a train which was standing at a station platform during a scheduled stop at which they were due to leave the train, and would be under no obligation to remain on the train. A passenger wishing to leave the train in circumstances when the doors remain closed may have no alternative but to use the emergency door release to facilitate this, and on the basis that railway employees have no powers to detain people, a fare paying passenger using the door release in order to leave a train in such circumstances would I believe have a valid defence if prosecuted for doing this.

I can't really agree with much of that at all.

When you travel by train you obey the instructions given to you by rail staff, same as if you travel by plane you obey the cabin crew and pilots etc.

If held on an aircraft outside the terminal due to a delay or police request etc then you would be arrested and possibly charged with terrorism offences for trying to 'escape' from the aircraft.

This thread is becoming incredibly silly with lots of people saying things without knowing what they are talking about. If asked to wait before the doors are released then you do just that, anything else is incredibly selfish, stupid and dangerous.

I have, in the past, delayed opening doors if stopped on top of another train on a tight platform whilst I get out the cab to ensure all doors are on the platform. If someone decided to egress the doors then and found that set of doors wasn't on the platform causing them to fall out onto the track then it could cause serious injury or worse. There are a number of reasons that the door release may be delayed.

The emergancy handles are the for life or death emergencies. The OP states this incident was due to police requesting it. There is the reason and you would probably be spoken to by the police for forcing the doors or using the emrgancy egress.

Spouting all this rubbish about false imprisoment is incorrect. As I say, it's no different from being held at a red signal outside the station causing you to miss your connection-would you count that as being held against your will and demand to be let off so you could walk to the platform?

Some people on here really seem to have issues with rail staff, the police and anyone else in any kind of position of authority!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It doesn't matter whether or not the railway have the power to detain people if it is a police request to do so. In effect the police are detaining the passengers, not the railway.

 

[Lewisham2221]

It may be that they're being justifiably held against their will, but they're still being held against their will

Surely the vast majority of people detained by the police are being held against their will?

The safety posters on trains tend to state something to the effect of "You should remain on the train unless it is unsafe to do so." Being 'trapped' on a train for 2 or 3 minutes whilst the BTP deal with a situation at the opposite end of the train is hardly 'unsafe'. I think you'd have a pretty good job convincing anybody otherwise.

 

[455driver]

There was another thread on here for a similar situation but where no announcement was made - I probably would've used the emergency release if that happened (as without any announcement, I'd assume there was some kind of emergency)

It means "emergency" as in an immediate danger to YOUR health if you were to stay in that part of the train and could not move through the train to a safer part of it! :roll:

 

[swj99]

As I say, it's no different from being held at a red signal outside the station causing you to miss your connection.......

There's a big difference between leaving a train while it was standing at a red signal somewhere along a railway line, compared to when it is stopped at a station platform. Under normal circumstances, passengers wouldn’t ordinarily be entitled to leave the train whilst it was waiting at a red signal and not in a station, and the manager, guard or driver would obviously be entitled to not open the doors.

It doesn't matter whether or not the railway have the power to detain people if it is a police request to do so. In effect the police are detaining the passengers, not the railway.

I disagree. It is the railway detaining passengers at the request of the police, despite there not being, as far as I'm aware, legislation saying they are entitled to do so.

Surely the vast majority of people detained by the police are being held against their will?

The difference being that the police do have powers of arrest and detention, whereas train companies don’t.

 

[455driver]

When you buy a ticket and use the train you agree to abide by the rules (including the bye-laws), they state it is an offence to use the egress if it is NOT an emergency.

If you do not agree with that then dont use the train.
With rights come responsibilities, the trouble is everyone knows their rights but choose to ignore their responsibilities!

 

[Dave1987]

Look the facts are that using the emergency egress handle in a non emergency situation whether in the platform or not is a byelaw offence and if you did pull the egress handle because you felt like you were being inconvinienced/held against your will because the doors weren't opened when you expected then expect a nice fine for breaching the railway byelaws. Certainly if I did not release the doors on a train for passengers there would be a very good reason why not, we do not deliberately inconvinience/annoy passenegers (even though some believe we do). To have a passenger pull the egress handle to alight because they felt like they were being held against their will might make the situation you are trying to deal with 10 times worse and then that could result in people getting injured, once one person pulls an egress handle everyone starts pulling the handles and all of a sudden you have a real problem on your hands just because one person couldn't wait a few minutes.

 

[ian959]

It is the railway detaining passengers at the request of the police, despite there not being, as far as I'm aware, legislation saying they are entitled to do so.

What rubbish - the police have powers to arrest and detain therefore if they request a TOC to hold the doors on a train closed in order to facilitate an arrest, the TOC is obliged to do so and that is the end of the matter. The TOC is not detaining anyone, they are merely following a reasonable police request which the police have the authority to make under their powers. This would be evidence by the fact that did the TOC not comply with the request they could potentially be charged with obstruction.

Frankly having read most of your arguments, they are naive in the extreme.

 

[swj99]

What rubbish - the police have powers to arrest and detain therefore if they request a TOC to hold the doors on a train closed in order to facilitate an arrest, the TOC is obliged to do so and that is the end of the matter. The TOC is not detaining anyone, they are merely following a reasonable police request which the police have the authority to make under their powers. This would be evidence by the fact that did the TOC not comply with the request they could potentially be charged with obstruction.

Frankly having read most of your arguments, they are naive in the extreme.

I don't mind who ultimately has the 'right answer' here, assuming there is one, because it's not a quiz show, so points don't mean prizes, and for what it's worth, I don't think naivety enters the equation either. I'm just interested to hear some constructive, reasoned discussion. With legal matters, there's often no black and white, just greys, and most of the other colours in between, which is why the legal system in this country can sometimes be so hard to navigate, and why it generates so much argument. It would be nice if it was black and white, and simple, so everyone know exactly where they stood, but it's not like that. As each year goes by, more and more legislation and bits of paper are generated.

As you have quite correctly stated, the police do have powers to arrest. They also have powers to detain without arrest in certain limited circumstances, but private individuals do not. This, as far as I'm aware, includes railway personnel. I think this is where our views differ.
I don't think the question of whether the situation outlined in the initial post in this thread constitutes detention has been fully answered, even if the time frame in that scenario was only around 2 minutes. I'm interested to know what legislation if any, you or anyone else believe entitles railway personnel to effectively prevent people leaving a train, because I suspect that to do so may constitute detention. It might, or it might not, and as far as this thread is concerned, I don't think that point has been established yet. If anyone can add to this debate with case law, legislation, or any other information, please feel free.

 

[Clip]

As you have quite correctly stated, the police do have powers to arrest. They also have powers to detain without arrest in certain limited circumstances, but private individuals do not. This, as far as I'm aware, includes railway personnel. I think this is where our views differ.
I don't think the question of whether the situation outlined in the initial post in this thread constitutes detention has been fully answered, even if the time frame in that scenario was only around 2 minutes. I'm interested to know what legislation if any, you or anyone else believe entitles railway personnel to effectively prevent people leaving a train, because I suspect that to do so may constitute detention. It might, or it might not, and as far as this thread is concerned, I don't think that point has been established yet. If anyone can add to this debate with case law, legislation, or any other information, please feel free.

And thte BTP had requested that the doors remained closed so they have covered any private individual as you state in the part I have bolded.

Unless you are saying now that we should not pay attention to what the BTP request us to do?

Also, and this is a very salient point here, we do not know what offence was committed. This may have been a pretty serious offence against a member of the railway staff or a member of the public. I hope you're not saying that the course of action taken was wrong(in keeping the doors closed) and that some people missing a connection or being a bit late is of more concern then a potential criminal being apprehended?



Also, seeing as you seem to have this idea of people being held against there will, could you show me the relevant railway legislation that quite clearly states that as soon as a train comes to a standstill in a station platform that the doors must be released immediately?

Many thanks

Clip

 

[A-driver]

I don't mind who ultimately has the 'right answer' here, assuming there is one, because it's not a quiz show, so points don't mean prizes, and for what it's worth, I don't think naivety enters the equation either. I'm just interested to hear some constructive, reasoned discussion. With legal matters, there's often no black and white, just greys, and most of the other colours in between, which is why the legal system in this country can sometimes be so hard to navigate, and why it generates so much argument. It would be nice if it was black and white, and simple, so everyone know exactly where they stood, but it's not like that. As each year goes by, more and more legislation and bits of paper are generated.

As you have quite correctly stated, the police do have powers to arrest. They also have powers to detain without arrest in certain limited circumstances, but private individuals do not. This, as far as I'm aware, includes railway personnel. I think this is where our views differ.
I don't think the question of whether the situation outlined in the initial post in this thread constitutes detention has been fully answered, even if the time frame in that scenario was only around 2 minutes. I'm interested to know what legislation if any, you or anyone else believe entitles railway personnel to effectively prevent people leaving a train, because I suspect that to do so may constitute detention. It might, or it might not, and as far as this thread is concerned, I don't think that point has been established yet. If anyone can add to this debate with case law, legislation, or any other information, please feel free.

You are completely missing the point and frankly what you are trying to argue is complete nonsense.

A delay opening doors is NOT false imprisoment or detention or being held against ones will. It is a delay- like any other delay. End of.

If I, as a driver, pulled into a station and refused to open the doors and demanded that everyone stayed on the train for no reason then that would be along the lines of false imprisoment.

But if I pulled into the station and delayed opening the doors for any legitimate reason (as mentioned before this could be one of many including checking all doors are in the platform, a technical fault (377s often suffer this), police request, a station being shut due to overcrowding/fire alarms etc or any other legitimate reason then it is definately not being held against ones will, it is a delay in exactly the same way that being held on a failed train or at a red signal is and if you forced your way off a train after being instructed not to then you could be prosecuted.

Last week when a southern unit failed at redhill a passenger forced their way off a train stranded behind it. Was he being falsely imprisioned? No he wasn't, but because he forced his way off the train and vanished it led to the police becoming involved to search for him and went as far as getting the local police helicopter out to search for him.

It makes no difference if in a platform or not, it's never false imprisoment or anything else like that to be delayed on a train waiting for the doors to realise. Never, full stop.

Now please stop coming up with such rubbish.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What rubbish - the police have powers to arrest and detain therefore if they request a TOC to hold the doors on a train closed in order to facilitate an arrest, the TOC is obliged to do so and that is the end of the matter. The TOC is not detaining anyone, they are merely following a reasonable police request which the police have the authority to make under their powers. This would be evidence by the fact that did the TOC not comply with the request they could potentially be charged with obstruction.

Quite correct - it is in fact a criminal offence to fail to assist a police officer who requests your help. That would certainly include the circumstances being discussed in this thread.

 

[Fare-Cop]

This thread is becoming incredibly silly with lots of people saying things without knowing what they are talking about.

If asked to wait before the doors are released then you do just that, anything else is incredibly selfish, stupid and dangerous.

Some people on here really seem to have issues with rail staff, the police and anyone else in any kind of position of authority!

Quite correct - it is in fact a criminal offence to fail to assist a police officer who requests your help. That would certainly include the circumstances being discussed in this thread.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[island]

The big issue here is people who think they are too special to follow the rules that apply to everyone else.

 

[Flamingo]

This thread is developing exactly along the lines of the innumerable threads (one running at the moment) about those bloody idiots who decide to de-train themselves, with the same b***ix arguments about "It's my right as an individual" and "False imprisonment".

Anybody who wants to test the false imprisonment in court, try pulling the emergency exit handle on an airplane next time they are delayed on the Tarmac, and see how that argument plays with the dozen or so H&K wielding coppers that turn up (and don't bleat on "But an airport is different", as it's pretty much identical - actually, it's safer, there aren't big steel rails full of electricity all over the ground).

You won't have to come back to the forum to tell us what happened - we'll be able to read all about it in the news pages...

 

[jon0844]

I think many threads are from people who wouldn't actually do the things mentioned, but seem to want to just argue the rules and the rights of the railway etc.

Now, it might be that some things tested in court could find that the railway can't do certain things, or would have to change the way they did things.. but is that a good idea in every case? If someone on my train has done something illegal and the police want to speak to/arrest them then I feel no reason to stop them doing this.

Why would I suddenly argue my rights if that stops justice being done when society is already going to the dogs? To prove a point? The only point would be that I'm an idiot!

 

[sheff1]

I think many threads are from people who wouldn't actually do the things mentioned, but seem to want to just argue the rules and the rights of the railway etc.

... and is that not what a discussion forum is for .

 

[jon0844]

Well yes, if you want to discuss theories - nowt wrong with that.

However, there's no need to write things in such a way to suggest that you're going to break free because you're being held prisoner and so on.

A simple 'are they allowed to do that?' would suffice.. or accepting that even if they weren't, maybe it's okay under special circumstances?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Well yes, if you want to discuss theories - nowt wrong with that.

However, there's no need to write things in such a way to suggest that you're going to break free because you're being held prisoner and so on.

A simple 'are they allowed to do that?' would suffice.. or accepting that even if they weren't, maybe it's okay under special circumstances?

You have to expect people to be angry and vent their spleen when issues such as these occur. There are a miriad of scenarios and subsequent consequences that can arise from the "inconvenience caused by the delay".

In this instance the OP has to suck it in however it is not always such a cut and dried situation that some posters like to dole out from a top of their railway high horses.

 

[A-driver]

You have to expect people to be angry and vent their spleen when issues such as these occur. There are a miriad of scenarios and subsequent consequences that can arise from the "inconvenience caused by the delay".

In this instance the OP has to suck it in however it is not always such a cut and dried situation that some posters like to dole out from a top of their railway high horses.

High horses?

The OP asked a question. Those of us who know the answer answered. Some didn't like the answer and argued lots of rubbish about being held against their will which is factually inaccurate. Those of us who know the answer (and by that I mean are trained in it and do the job every day, not people who have read the rule book online and so think they know it all) didn't like it and started arguing about it.

It's a problem with these forums that is becoming very apparent at the moment. When ever rail staff (especially lazy, greedy overpaid drivers) try to answer a question with a factual black and white yes or no answer some font like it and try to create an argument, not a discussion.

 

[swj99]

The big issue here is people who think they are too special to follow the rules that apply to everyone else.

No, the issue is the question which was raised in the original post

can one be fined, prosecuted etc for opening a carriage door when the train is stationary at a platform?

This has resulted in a lively discussion, but has at times strayed into a sometimes heated debate, instead of the polite, civilized discussion it was probably intended to be.

I must admit laughing at the following comment, given some of the previous remarks in this thread.

however it is not always such a cut and dried situation that some posters like to dole out from a top of their railway high horses.

Anyway, it's not worth stressing about something like this, it's only the internet.

 

[Tibbs]

Quite correct - it is in fact a criminal offence to fail to assist a police officer who requests your help. That would certainly include the circumstances being discussed in this thread.

Can a police office delegate that obligation to others?

If someone walked up to me and said, 'That police officer over there told me to tell you to do x,' my reply would be 'that's interesting, but if that officer wants me to do anything they'll need to come over and tell me themselves'.

 

[Mike395]

Can a police office delegate that obligation to others?

If someone walked up to me and said, 'That police officer over there told me to tell you to do x,' my reply would be 'that's interesting, but if that officer wants me to do anything they'll need to come over and tell me themselves'.

I would imagine so, if the person doing the delegating is in a position of authority (over your particular role - as a driver, this could mean a signaller, TOC control or even platform dispatch staff) - I would assume you could still be liable for any consequences for not following police instructions.

 

[jopsuk]

Anybody who wants to test the false imprisonment in court, try pulling the emergency exit handle on an airplane next time they are delayed on the Tarmac, and see how that argument plays with the dozen or so H&K wielding coppers that turn up (and don't bleat on "But an airport is different", as it's pretty much identical - actually, it's safer, there aren't big steel rails full of electricity all over the ground).

You won't have to come back to the forum to tell us what happened - we'll be able to read all about it in the news pages...

Indeed. I was once stuck on a grounded plane for three hours. The cabin door was opened and the air stair deployed so the crew could liase with ground staff, but we were warned in no uncertain terms that the cabin crew would not bother risking injury by physically trying to stop us leaving as the police would deal with anyone that touched the tarmac.

 

[maniacmartin]

It's a problem with these forums that is becoming very apparent at the moment. When ever rail staff (especially lazy, greedy overpaid drivers) try to answer a question with a factual black and white yes or no answer some font like it and try to create an argument, not a discussion.

I don't see it like that I'm afraid. I see it as whenever people want an interesting discussion about some technical issues, some rail staff try and stifle the debate and end it abruptly in an "I work in the railway, this is the answer. End of discussion" sort of way.

 

[Dave1987]

I don't see it like that I'm afraid. I see it as whenever people want an interesting discussion about some technical issues, some rail staff try and stifle the debate and end it abruptly in an "I work in the railway, this is the answer. End of discussion" sort of way.

I'm sorry but you are talking about the improper use of emergency equipment. Rail staff (particularly drivers and guards) are experts in what is the correct and incorrect use of emergency equipment. I dont see why there is any debate as when you can use the egress handles in a non-emergency situation, the simple fact is you cannot use them apart from in an emergency situation. I don't see why you think there is any debate at all on this matter.

 

[jon0844]

That does happen at times, yes, but for the most part I don't get any 'them and us' feeling when being on this forum.

There are other rail forums that you'll very quickly realise that your opinions aren't wanted or valued!

 

[455driver]

That does happen at times, yes, but for the most part I don't get any 'them and us' feeling when being on this forum.

Really!
Funny enough us staff do when we answer a question with the definitive answer and then all the "yeah but what if there was a pregnant epileptic who has had a stroke on the train" dragging every thread off on a tangent just so they can "make their point"!

Well the answer to the OP is yes he could be fined as it is for use in an "EMERGENCY" life or death situation where it is not possible to remain in that part of the train OR move to another (safer) part of the train.

That is the answer, all the "false imprisonment", "I know my rights" bull that followed is just that, bull.

When you travel on the railways you agree to abide by the laws (including the bye-laws) so no you cannot claim that you are being held against your will because you are being held by a representative of the company who can hold you when necessary (within reason of course).