• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Letting passengers off a broken down train- is this impossible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Comstock

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Messages
535
The latest FGW breakdown is only one in a series of incidents where a train has broken down and the passengers have been trapped on board for several hours. Of course trains are going to break down, that is going to happen, and there is no easy solution to overcrowding.

Clearly we can't just let passengers off willy-nilly. But a carefully controlled procedure for allowing passengers off could do a lot to take the sting out of a situation like this. Let those without seats sit on a nearby bank, let those who need fresh air get it. And if a few can continue their journies via other means, great.

Is it really impossible to put in place a carefully controlled system for doing this? I'm a regular rail traveler but no expert, so I'm curious.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ushawk

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Messages
1,965
Location
Eastbourne
It ultimately depends on the location., simple as that. You cant detrain in the middle of nowhere with the nearest station miles away and no track access gates nearby, in that scenario its best to remain on the train. You also need to consider the type of passengers that are onboard the train, for example if you have elderly, disabled or young children onboard (which is highly likely), then its incredibly risky to have them walking along a railway line, especially if they are unable to walk very well anyway.

It does occasionally happen, notably when a train brings overhead wires down as then there is no chance of going anywhere. The area would be checked as to where the best place to detrain from and where to take the passengers too.

Basically, its more possible to do in urban areas (especially in the London area where stations are close together.....although London pax would probably force the doors open and get off after just 20 minutes) but if your in a very rural area, its best to stay onboard.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,498
Location
Norwich
Is it really impossible to put in place a carefully controlled system for doing this? I'm a regular rail traveler but no expert, so I'm curious.

Yes. There is absolutely no way any person or company involved in the railways would allow the general public to leave a train (no matter how long they have been there) unless it was in a platform or there really was no alternative.

To list but a few problems...

Trains are 5 odd feet off the ground when away from the platform. The only way off them is either by the emergency ladder or using the steps. Now I'm guessing this post has been trigged by yesterday's FGW incident. I know from experience it is bloody to find the steps under a Mk3 door even when you know where they are!

The railway is a lethal environment. If people were let out onto the track it would only be a matter of time before someone got hit by a train, electrocuted, broke a bone, got a foot trapped in points.

Traincrew will only get people off a train and onto the line if there really is no alternative. These are basically in an emergency (fire) or if that train will not be moving any time soon, so after a collision or similar.

Plus using yesterdays example. 500 people sat on a failed HST, GWML disrupted by a blocked line. 500 people sat on the bank enjoying the sun, GWML closed.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Basically, its more possible to do in urban areas (especially in the London area where stations are close together.....although London pax would probably force the doors open and get off after just 20 minutes) but if your in a very rural area, its best to stay onboard.

You way that but yet FCC passengers waited hours before "forcing" the doors open.

I think it should be a last resort, but i think some kind of rules need to be brought in. If you are metres away from a station such as Kentish Town it ridiculous to be stuck on for 3 hours.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
You can't just come up with a general procedure for this and apply it everywhere. Y would need hundreds of plans to accommodate different circumstances, passenger loadings, locations etc.

No situation is the same so it's not as simple as people think.

Plus I think it important to add that situations such as that great western train in the recent thread are very rare and its an overreaction to say that someone needs to be done etc. I'm not getting into that thread as I can't be bothered having the usual arguments with the usual know-alls who just argue for the sake of it and wont accept reasons and facts but it would have been a very rare set of circumstances to lead to a train being delayed for 6 hours like that.

At the end of the day, if the train can't move it can't move. Getting 500 passengers off with luggage, bikes, pushchairs, high heels, drunks, people with disabilities etc is a huge undertaking and would only be done once all other options are exhausted.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
You way that but yet FCC passengers waited hours before "forcing" the doors open.

I think it should be a last resort, but i think some kind of rules need to be brought in. If you are metres away from a station such as Kentish Town it ridiculous to be stuck on for 3 hours.

As I have just said above I'm not willing to get into another stupid argument over this kind of thing but a situation like the Kentish town, although not well handled, is an ever changing situation and one which they would have thought could be resolved far quicker than it actually did.

You have the benefit Of hindsight in what you have posted and if FCC knew it would turn out like that they would have walked everyone off the train straight away. They didn't, they made plans and the plans took too long to implement. Yes wrong decisions were made but when things go wrong on the railways all sorts of factors which can constantly change can alter the outcome.
 

ushawk

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Messages
1,965
Location
Eastbourne
You way that but yet FCC passengers waited hours before "forcing" the doors open.

I think it should be a last resort, but i think some kind of rules need to be brought in. If you are metres away from a station such as Kentish Town it ridiculous to be stuck on for 3 hours.

I was saying it as a joke !!

Things have ultimately changed for FCC since then although it appears that practices havent transferred to other First TOCs.
 

Comstock

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Messages
535
You also need to consider the type of passengers that are onboard the train, for example if you have elderly, disabled or young children onboard (which is highly likely), then its incredibly risky to have them walking along a railway line, especially if they are unable to walk very well anyway.

.

Oh hell yeah. My point is that in the case where the train is overcrowded, is it out of the question to allow able bodied people off, leaving more space (and better access to any limited food/water) for those very vunerable groups?


Another point, and it's one I've always wondered about. If passengers insist on getting off, legally, who is the guard to tell them 'no'? If I come to your house for coffee, and you later lock the doors and require me to remain for the weekend against my will, you are probably breaking the law, and I would probably be within my rights to break a window and escape.

Now there are probably various railway by-laws covering trespass on the line, damage to trains etc, which probably superceed those laws, but have they ever been tested in court?
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
I was saying it as a joke !!

Things have ultimately changed for FCC since then although it appears that practices haven't transferred to other First TOCs.

You say that, but I've been stuck on FCC services for extended periods of time since. Worth mentioning i commute on Thameslink. The drivers certainly seem to provide more information but control still seems slow to act.

To A-driver, where is the argument. You acknowledge it's not acceptable. You also say it isn't possible to plan, yet ATOC have guidelines for it?

I'm not suggesting blanket plan, but certainly something with time frames attached. Maybe something like a troubleshooting map e.g. "is the line equipped with live rails" then with possible scenarios after set times.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,889
One significant problem with letting passengers off the train for fresh air (or them choosing to detrain of their own accord), quite apart from the risk of injury (and compensation) whilst climbing down or back up, is that they're then at risk of wandering off and getting in the way of trains on the adjacent line or even the train coming to assist the failure.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
You say that, but I've been stuck on FCC services for extended periods of time since. Worth mentioning i commute on Thameslink. The drivers certainly seem to provide more information but control still seems slow to act.

To A-driver, where is the argument. You acknowledge it's not acceptable. You also say it isn't possible to plan, yet ATOC have guidelines for it?

I'm not suggesting blanket plan, but certainly something with time frames attached. Maybe something like a troubleshooting map e.g. "is the line equipped with live rails" then with possible scenarios after set times.

What is an extended period of time out if interest? I mean if you are held at a red for 30mins due to a fatality ahead should you walk up the track? Or 25mins? Or 10mins? It all depends on the individual situation.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
What is an extended period of time out if interest? I mean if you are held at a red for 30mins due to a fatality ahead should you walk up the track? Or 25mins? Or 10mins? It all depends on the individual situation.

Hence it needs a systematic approach.

I'd say for a fatality an extended period of time is acceptable such as 3-4 hours. In fact I have been on a FGW HST for 3 hours which hit someone at Iver.

Yes it needs planning for various outcomes, but it is far from impossible.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Hence it needs a systematic approach.

I'd say for a fatality an extended period of time is acceptable such as 3-4 hours. In fact I have been on a FGW HST for 3 hours which hit someone at Iver.

Yes it needs planning for various outcomes, but it is far from impossible.

Right, so basically plan every single eventuality taking into account exact location, exact rolling stock, exact passenger numbers, exact weather and environmental conditions, exact circumstances for the delay, exact types of people on board etc?

Get real-we are talking hundreds or thousands of options and plans needed.

The cost will never justify the benefit and you will still end up with situations which havnt been fully planned for happening.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,449
Location
UK
Why not just ask the passengers, as they will all have the perfect solution!!!

As usual, I can see from Twitter that everyone is out to attack FGW again. I assume that another TOC would have been able to perform some miracle, or perhaps we should go back to BR?

So far I've seen people suggest they should have got a shunter out, and also got people off the train (to where, I do not know).
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,889
Off the train...and onto one stopped on the adjacent line?
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Right, so basically plan every single eventuality taking into account exact location, exact rolling stock, exact passenger numbers, exact weather and environmental conditions, exact circumstances for the delay, exact types of people on board etc?

Get real-we are talking hundreds or thousands of options and plans needed.

The cost will never justify the benefit and you will still end up with situations which havnt been fully planned for happening.

Do the railways have to plan for every possible quantum super position too? ;)

Come on, it doesn't need to be THAT concise. Just rough plans, open to adaption and elaboration.
 

MarieMew

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2013
Messages
7
I understand why people are complaining; of course, nobody wants to be on that train that's delayed, or breaks down etc.

However, I too think it's just impossible to give better guidelines as to how handle a scenario like that when it arises; I certainly agree that unless in an emergency such as a fire, people should definitely not be let off the train if it's not in the station. As has been mentioned, what about any adjacent rail lines? Just because one line has been temporarily blocked or closed, doesn't mean the other one is necessarily going to be. If a train comes the other way, and a passenger decides to hop off and put their safety second to being on time, then there is the risk of another accident occurring.

Also, it depends on the incident; if someone's been hit (or jumped in front of) a train, then letting people off the train wouldn't be wise, otherwise you'd have people complaining of being traumatised, and children seeing things you wouldn't want them to.

It seems to always come down to time; people complain when transport is delayed or doesn't run, but if something goes wrong you have a legitimate reason for being late somewhere. The driver and conductor can't just let someone off the train and onto the tracks because they've got a meeting in 5 minutes.

As far I'm concerned, safety comes first. I'd rather be 3 hours late than risk getting injured.

And some delays can't be helped; an example being the downpour and flooding in November last year, which caused problems on the lines between London King's Cross and Manchester Piccadilly; this resulted in a delay of about an hour and a half. Still, it was better for me than those hoping to get to Hollyhead, where the trains had been cancelled due to the lines being badly flooded.
 

Comstock

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Messages
535
As far I'm concerned, safety comes first. I'd rather be 3 hours late than risk getting injured.

Pretty simple, surely. If you don't step onto a live track, absolutely zero risk of injury. If you choose to step onto a live track, very great risk!
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Pretty simple, surely. If you don't step onto a live track, absolutely zero risk of injury. If you choose to step onto a live track, very great risk!

Ummm... no. For a start, most passengers don't know which is the live rail (or indeed a rail which hold any discharged current), nor do they appreciate the dangers involved. It's not necessarily "choice" as much as ignorance. Then you have the possibilities of things like signalling cables being cut and electrocuting people, points changing and crushing people, oncoming trains either ripping you to shreds or dragging you around with turbulence, ballast, sleepers, security fences, steep drops, prosecution... oh, and some other dangers, too...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I understand why people are complaining; of course, nobody wants to be on that train that's delayed, or breaks down etc.

However, I too think it's just impossible to give better guidelines as to how handle a scenario like that when it arises; I certainly agree that unless in an emergency such as a fire, people should definitely not be let off the train if it's not in the station. As has been mentioned, what about any adjacent rail lines? Just because one line has been temporarily blocked or closed, doesn't mean the other one is necessarily going to be. If a train comes the other way, and a passenger decides to hop off and put their safety second to being on time, then there is the risk of another accident occurring.

Also, it depends on the incident; if someone's been hit (or jumped in front of) a train, then letting people off the train wouldn't be wise, otherwise you'd have people complaining of being traumatised, and children seeing things you wouldn't want them to.

It seems to always come down to time; people complain when transport is delayed or doesn't run, but if something goes wrong you have a legitimate reason for being late somewhere. The driver and conductor can't just let someone off the train and onto the tracks because they've got a meeting in 5 minutes.

As far I'm concerned, safety comes first. I'd rather be 3 hours late than risk getting injured.

And some delays can't be helped; an example being the downpour and flooding in November last year, which caused problems on the lines between London King's Cross and Manchester Piccadilly; this resulted in a delay of about an hour and a half. Still, it was better for me than those hoping to get to Hollyhead, where the trains had been cancelled due to the lines being badly flooded.

I think you probably mean London Euston. Otherwise, I have to agree with your post in general. Although, of course, there are specialist procedures previously touched on in this and other threads - transfer bridges, removal of passengers when there is an OHLE dewirement, etc. Some of these are available in addition to and in accordance with what I would colloquially call the "general rules", but obviously need the right sort of supervision and equipment provision - for example, you can't have people jump between trains - you need the staff, the bridge and maybe the relevant equipment to block doorways (ventilation screens) whilst passengers wait, to name but a few things.
 

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,863
It would be foolhardy, I think, to contemplate de-training people other than at stations.

Sadly (and in saying this, I fully expect a barrage of defensive response from those in the industry) the thing that went so utterly wrong here is described quite simply in these two words: six hours.

The ability for the industry to react to a failure or other incident of significance - something that is thankfully rare but nevertheless an inevitablility - has long been too poor and this latest incident indicates on the face of it that things have not improved.

Defend as much as you like. Six hours is utterly unreasonable and there is no defence for such an elapsed period. The sooner the industry accepts that this is utterly unacceptable and gears itself up to dealing with such incidents far more promptly, with the wellbeing of passengers a priority only exceeded by their safety, the better.
 

Comstock

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Messages
535
Ummm... no. For a start, most passengers don't know which is the live rail (or indeed a rail which hold any discharged current), nor do they appreciate the dangers involved. It's not necessarily "choice" as much as ignorance. Then you have the possibilities of things like signalling cables being cut and electrocuting people, points changing and crushing people, oncoming trains either ripping you to shreds or dragging you around with turbulence, ballast, sleepers, security fences, steep drops, prosecution... oh, and some other dangers, too...
.


Apologies, by live track I meant a track trains run on, which you should basically assume is any track. I didn't (just) mean live in the sense of electrically live.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Apologies, by live track I meant a track trains run on, which you should basically assume is any track. I didn't (just) mean live in the sense of electrically live.

Apologies from myself also - I wrongly assumed by "step onto" you were referring to treading on electrified rails. Such are the perils of discussing running lines on a forum! Even so, I think you will agree that most of the dangers I mentioned still apply to anyone on any track, whether or not trains are running. In addition, doubtless you'll appreciate that passengers (by and large) don't know which roads trains are still able to run on, in any given track layout/setup/design, and on which ones they can't. Even NR & TfL install signs for their own staff at many access points to provide guidance on directions of running, emergency contacts, etc. The chances of these signs and other locally relevant documents being read, taken in and acted upon by untrained passengers will be closer to nil than we might hope! No amount of dire warnings seem to work, either.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I'm in no way defending the six hours, that is unacceptable and will be seriously looked into but you could make all the plans you want and rehearse disruption procedures over and over and still end up with a situation where passengers are stuck on a train for six hours. It just depends on what happens, where you are, what the exact circumstances are etc.

There are procedures in place so making plans like has been suggested have already been done. It's just that those plans can't be applied all the time.

Lets take an incident like this one or Kentish town etc when a failed train ends up being stranded for a considerable time with passengers on.

Quite simply the incident occurs and is no more serious than any other train fault. The driver will report the fault to the box, try the obvious to rectify it and then speak to the fitters. They will then ask the driver to try a few things. Delay may have reached 30mins by now but they certainly wont be contemplating turfing people off of the train in the middle of nowhere.

They will then need to send a fitter or RSI to the train as they will be able to get a better idea from the train than over the phone. This could be another hour for them to arrive. They still aren't going to consider walking people up the track as it is very dangerous and to be done properly needs additional staff to be sent there. (By the way, the live rail isn't a major danger in evacuation-it can be isolated easily. It's everything else that is dangerous and I'm not talking 125mph trains squashing you, I'm talking minor injuries from tripping on debris, slipping on ballast which is very very hard to walk on in boots let alone trainers/flip flops, high heels etc, tripping in cables, slipping on wooden sleepers etc and then you end up with half a dozen sprained and broken ankles who can no longer continue walking to the nearest access point and that's not going into the people on the train who are unable to walk on ballast to start with!)

Fitter arrives and has a look around and comes up with a possible fix. Tries this as if it works it will still be quicker than evacuating the train. As the fitter starts work we could be a couple of hours into the delay. The fitter will need time to do the work. They may need lines blocked, electric supplies switched off, train systems shut down etc to make it safe to do the work. This all takes time. The signaller may say that they can only have the block in 15mins once a train has passed and that the current isolation will be 30mins as they need to get all the electric trains in the area into stations - you can't just switch off a few meters of electric supply in these situations, you are possibly looking at a number of miles being isolated this stranding a large number of trains).

Fitter finally starts work after almost 3 hours and it takes 30mins to do the work. They try it and it doesn't work. Fitter now tries something different so we now have to go through the above paragraph all over again.

At no point during all this is it going to be better to throw in the towel and walk people up the line for the reasons I and others have explained. They will only do this once the fitter/RSI finally decides that they can't do anything at that point. But they will constantly try different things to get it going until they can finally diagnose and fix the exact fault.

After they have fixed it 6 hours have passed and everyone suddenly becomes an expert saying "why didn't you try that first then" and "this is totally unacceptable that you abandoned us here for 6 hours".

It's a no win situation. If they got everyone off the train after 3 hours and then the fitter arrived and said "yeah, just need to push this button and it will fix it" then they will get equally negative press for forcing people to drag all their luggage, babies, dogs, buggies, old or disabled people, drunks, those with flimsy footwear e etc over what is basically a constant scree slope with numerous trip hazards, slip hazards, dangerous objects (the amount of rubbish including used syringes, dog muck etc which litters the railways is quite amazing and should someone slip over and get a dirty needle in their leg then who will be responsible?).

And then when they got them to the access point they would have a long wait for busses to arrive and then people would complain "they should have left us on the train as at least we could sit down there and it had aircon and toilets".

As for simply transferring people onto another train parked adjacent-sadly not that simple. If it were then they wound certainly do it. Too many factors to consider-for a start as said above to do that they may have to stop all work fixing the train which may be the quicker option as they would have to lift any blocks and re-energise and electrical systems if an electric train. Then you need to consider that tracks aren't always close together-they seem close when passing by but can have a big gap between which certainly couldn't be jumped by people (not safely anyway) and wouldn't be easy to bridge without rigging up ladders etc which would ideally need the fire service to assist with.

Sorry for the long post and I hope it ,ages sense and explains the problems here. No delay is intentional and they don't just say "screw the passengers, lets not rush this one", the issue is that its very easy to look back after a big delay and see what went wrong but almost impossible to see what is going to cause the biggest delay at the time.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
I have posted a suggestion on the failure thread before I came to this one re dealing with passengers for their benefit.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
It would be foolhardy, I think, to contemplate de-training people other than at stations.

Sadly (and in saying this, I fully expect a barrage of defensive response from those in the industry) the thing that went so utterly wrong here is described quite simply in these two words: six hours.

The ability for the industry to react to a failure or other incident of significance - something that is thankfully rare but nevertheless an inevitablility - has long been too poor and this latest incident indicates on the face of it that things have not improved.

Defend as much as you like. Six hours is utterly unreasonable and there is no defence for such an elapsed period. The sooner the industry accepts that this is utterly unacceptable and gears itself up to dealing with such incidents far more promptly, with the wellbeing of passengers a priority only exceeded by their safety, the better.




In fairness I think the rail industry has acknowledged that six hours is totally unacceptable.

As for detraining passengers, it obviously depends on the location but I'd certainly have been making my own arrangements if it were reasonably possible to do so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
I can understand, and agree with, everything A-Driver has written. But.....
When a break-down occurs, does someone start to arrange for the evacuation of the passengers immediately, in parallel with the arrangements for getting the train shifted? If not, then to start making those arrangements only after the couple of hours of fitters' work is what is unacceptable. OK, one hopes the efforts will be wasted, but that is better than having passengers waiting for six hours. Once again, to the untutored eye, there seems to be a focus on the rulebook to the detriment of the customer. IMHO, the rulebook needs to be rewritten to address this.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,889
The Rule Book wouldn't have prevented the evacuation of passengers, either onto a train on the same line or, preferably, alongside on the adjacent line. Remember, though, that the contents of the Rule Book are there to ensure everyone's safety.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I can understand, and agree with, everything A-Driver has written. But.....
When a break-down occurs, does someone start to arrange for the evacuation of the passengers immediately, in parallel with the arrangements for getting the train shifted? If not, then to start making those arrangements only after the couple of hours of fitters' work is what is unacceptable. OK, one hopes the efforts will be wasted, but that is better than having passengers waiting for six hours. Once again, to the untutored eye, there seems to be a focus on the rulebook to the detriment of the customer. IMHO, the rulebook needs to be rewritten to address this.

How do you arrange to evacuate passengers? It's not a sensible solution, ever. Unless there is immediate danger to life. If you are lucky enough to have stopped within a stones throw of a station then fine, you could evacuate a train full of people and luggage safely in a couple of hours or so (going by my experience of evacuating a moderately loaded train some years back which was at a stand about half a mile from a station) but if you aren't that close then its not something you can just 'organise'.

Lets take, for example, the video on the BBC news article about this FGW train where they interview passengers. At the end they interview an elderly woman. I dont mean to judge a book by its cover but how do you think she would have got on walking over ballast? I don't think people on here quite appreciate how difficult ballast is to walk on. It's not even comparable to a pebble beach-it's in no way flat, the rocks move considerably under your feet, its exhausting as your feet keep moving away from you and even people who spend a lot of time walking on ballast fall or loose their footing from time to time. Now how would that lady have reacted to being told she had to walk a few miles on that? With her luggage? Or do you degrade people like her by carrying her?

And as I asked in my post, at what point do you give up trying to fix it and go for the evacuation? Lets say you answer that as after 3 hours. So exactly 3 hours after the start of the delay you tell the fitter you a going to start evacuating the train. The fitter replies "in about 20mins ill have finished what I'm doing and it may well work". You'd be stupid to ignore that and evacuate anyway as it will take many hours (even though people on here seem to have trouble believing me on that!). So you give them another 20mins. It doesn't work and you decide to evacuate. But the fitter says they have another idea which is likely to work but may take the best part of an hour to sort out. Evacuating the train is still the last option even if you have 'organised' it and will still take longer than the hour the fitter needs so the lesser of two evils is definately to let the fitter try. Otherwise you get 500 people halfway up the track and the fitter shouts after them "done it," and everyone has to pile back on!

It's not in anyway as simple as people on here think and evacuating a train in these circumstances will never, ever be the safest, fastest or best option.

I fully accept the argument that supplies could have been brought to the train but I'm sure there are similar reasons why they were not.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Ill also add to my above post that look at the bad press they have got for this.

Now just imagine that after 3 hours they decided to evacuate the train. In doing so a passenger falls and breaks their leg on the ballast.

Now imagine the headlines. "Passengers stranded on train for 3 hours. Then they are forced to jump off a train 5 feet high onto rocks (they probably used ladders but lets be realistic with the headlines). Passenger breaks leg in shambles which is described by some as 'like a war zone'. One passenger said 'why didn't they just let us stay on the train. At least some of us had seats and there was lighting and toilets. By forcing us to walk miles on the track they have caused someone to break their leg and caused trauma for the rest of us. I had to help my 3 toddlers walk along the line, there were old people struggling to stand up, a man on crutches fell 3 times, this was a stupid and dangerous decision to make".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top