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

[IrishDave]

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.

Evacuation onto the track is certainly a minefield, but evacuation onto a train on the adjacent line has certainly happened in the past, and might well have been a good idea in yesterday's FGW breakdown.

Back in January this year, a friend of mine was on a Virgin Voyager from Birmingham to Edinburgh, which sat down with the brakes hard on about 3 miles south of Lancaster. They brought in single-line working to get trains around it, but eventually the train was declared a failure. It sounded like the computer onboard said no - as I understand it, they tried coupling another Voyager up, but the fault transferred when coupled, so the only way to move the train was to attach a 57, and for some reason that had to be done without passengers on board (at a guess, the train had to be shut down so that the 57 could release the brakes?).

So, the train in rear (which was a London-Glasgow Pendolino which should have been in front of it, but got delayed and was thus trapped behind it, and was also several hours late by this stage) was run back to the crossovers at Garstang and Catterall, and then brought alongside on the other line, and passengers transferred across - it sounded like they used a disabled ramp, but I'll see if my friend remembers. The Preston-Lancaster line does have the advantage of being absolutely ramrod straight, though; doing it on a curve would be trickier.

There is, however, one key difference with last night's FGW incident: both the Voyager and the Pendolino had automatic sliding doors. If you tried to evacuate an HST to another HST on the adjacent line, would there actually be the clearance to swing the doors open?

 

[Tomnick]

I appreciate the difficulties in evacuating to a train brought alongside (different types of train, variable sixfoot width and, of course, single lines), but I still think that's something that the industry could think about in more detail, to work towards a solution that might be more readily deployed in many situations like this one (without involving the fire brigade and narrow bridges).

 

[Oswyntail]

How do you arrange to evacuate passengers? It's not a sensible solution, ever. ...

No, of course not. But even the non-sensible approach may eventually be necessary. If one recognises that, then it should be planned for (and ways of improving the safety developed).

And as I asked in my post, at what point do you give up trying to fix it and go for the evacuation? ....

That is a management decision taking everything into account. Anyone who has ever been responsible for a team fixing things knows that the "fixers" can be wildly optimistic, and the correct response to the statement "It'll be OK by 5" is to ask "Which day?". But it doesn't matter whether you decide to evacuate after 5 minutes or five hours so long as that doesn't signal the start of planning the evacuation.

 

[Antman]

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".

It wouldn't have been as bad as "Passenger dies after being stuck on train for six hours without food/water/medication".

Would it really be beyond the realms of possibility to have had a 'rescue train' pull up alongside it in those six hours?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I appreciate the difficulties in evacuating to a train brought alongside (different types of train, variable sixfoot width and, of course, single lines), but I still think that's something that the industry could think about in more detail, to work towards a solution that might be more readily deployed in many situations like this one (without involving the fire brigade and narrow bridges).

Exactly, FGW have acknowledged that what happened was totally unacceptable and hopefully a few heads can be knocked together to come up with a plan of action should something like this happen again.

 

[Comstock]

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".

Could I just stress I'm talking about ALLOWING those who WISH to get off a broken down overcrowded train to do so. Not at all the same thing as forcibly evacuating people.


I was quite serious when, in post #9 I questioned how legal it was to refuse to allow people to get off.

 

[A-driver]

It wouldn't have been as bad as "Passenger dies after being stuck on train for six hours without food/water/medication".

Would it really be beyond the realms of possibility to have had a 'rescue train' pull up alongside it in those six hours?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If anyone was that ill or desperate for water or medication then an ambulance would have been called-possibly air ambulance if needed. Although I don't accept the argument for medication, it was only 6 hours and if you can't last 6 hours without medication you probably need to carry it with you anyway.

And yes, it probably was beyond the realms of possibility to pull a rescue train up alongside it. Go back and read my posts as I can't be bothered to keep typing the same stuff for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to read the thread before commenting.

People seem to have a hard time grasping the facts that evacuating a train onto another or onto the ground is not easy, safe or in any way quick and there are numerous factors which can cause problems. As I say, too many on here seem to think they have all the answers but infact they have no idea what They are on about and what's worse is that they refuse to listen to the reasons why!

 

[Antman]

Could I just stress I'm talking about ALLOWING those who WISH to get off a broken down overcrowded train to do so. Not at all the same thing as forcibly evacuating people.


I was quite serious when, in post #9 I questioned how legal it was to refuse to allow people to get off.

Regardless of the legal position trying to prevent people getting off the train in that situation would surely have resulted in serious disorder?

 

[A-driver]

Could I just stress I'm talking about ALLOWING those who WISH to get off a broken down overcrowded train to do so. Not at all the same thing as forcibly evacuating people.


I was quite serious when, in post #9 I questioned how legal it was to refuse to allow people to get off.

It's not legal, although it is trespassing. So you suggest opening e doors and letting people fend for themselves? So when someone trips and falls onto the line and gets run over by a train (trains will be running on adjacent lines) who is responsible?

You simply can't let people off unless you set up somewhere for them to go.

If someone forces their way off then you can't stop them but you would need to then get the lines all blocked delaying even more trains and people and get the police involved.

 

[Antman]

If anyone was that ill or desperate for water or medication then an ambulance would have been called-possibly air ambulance if needed. Although I don't accept the argument for medication, it was only 6 hours and if you can't last 6 hours without medication you probably need to carry it with you anyway.

And yes, it probably was beyond the realms of possibility to pull a rescue train up alongside it. Go back and read my posts as I can't be bothered to keep typing the same stuff for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to read the thread before commenting.

People seem to have a hard time grasping the facts that evacuating a train onto another or onto the ground is not easy, safe or in any way quick and there are numerous factors which can cause problems. As I say, too many on here seem to think they have all the answers but infact they have no idea what They are on about and what's worse is that they refuse to listen to the reasons why!

I've not read every post on here and yes I accept that evacuating a train is potentially dangerous but leaving passengers on a train for six hours is also dangerous and could have resulted in a loss of life.

 

[A-driver]

I've not read every post on here and yes I accept that evacuating a train is potentially dangerous but leaving passengers on a train for six hours is also dangerous and could have resulted in a loss of life.

Both could lead to loss of life in extreme circumstances but staying in the train is always the safer option, always, no argument.

What could cause Injury or death on the train? Nothing that couldn't also cause Injury or death off the train but plenty of things pose a danger off the train which don't exist on board.

As I said, if anyone was taken ill or began seriously dehydrating then an ambulance would have been called and they would have been helped in the same way that they would if they were making a 2 hour non stop train journey and became ill after 10 mins.

Sorry, but you can't argue that it's not safer to stay on the train. And six hours really isn't that long, people spend far longer on aircraft. And it wasn't 6 hours without food or drink either, ok supplies ran out but not at the start - havnt seen how long they were without food and water for but it may have only been an hour or so which is hardly a big deal is it?! You won't die from not eating or drinking for an hour.

Plus, those who are most at risk of dehydration and similar are also those least likely to be able to climb down a ladder off the train and walk along the ballast so you may well end up with able bodies people walki away leaving those most at risk on the train.

 

[KA4C]

It's not legal, although it is trespassing. So you suggest opening e doors and letting people fend for themselves? So when someone trips and falls onto the line and gets run over by a train (trains will be running on adjacent lines) who is responsible?

You simply can't let people off unless you set up somewhere for them to go.

If someone forces their way off then you can't stop them but you would need to then get the lines all blocked delaying even more trains and people and get the police involved.

Spot on

You cannot evacuate unless you have the means and resources to control the passengers. You would not undertake this unless you had the means to move the passengers onwards

I have been there, done that .... and got assaulted when trying to explain to someone why they could not, yet, get off

Once you loose control, you cannot re-instate normal working until everyone is accounted for

This causes further delay to other services, thereby spreading the problem around the system and to other passengers

 

[bb21]

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.

Was it a medical emergency that you desperately needed attention to? If not, then I do not think your selfish attitude helps matters at all in these situations.

You would disembark regardless thereby causing unnecassary additional delays to potentially hundreds or even thousands of other passengers due to the line having to be shut for your protection? What if there was another train already dispatched and on its way to rescue all the passengers on the failed train? Now it cannot get there because you are on the track.

It is not acceptable to be kept onboard for extended period of time, but neither are your proposed actions. There is a need for the industry to look at this incident and see how similar incidents can be dealt with in a more efficient way, however regardless of what happens in the future, getting off the train on your own initiative is never a safe option.

Regardless of the legal position trying to prevent people getting off the train in that situation would surely have resulted in serious disorder?

It doesn't appear to have happened yesterday.

Could I just stress I'm talking about ALLOWING those who WISH to get off a broken down overcrowded train to do so. Not at all the same thing as forcibly evacuating people.


I was quite serious when, in post #9 I questioned how legal it was to refuse to allow people to get off.

I actually thought about this last night, the only problem I can envisage is that the onboard staff team will have to be split into two groups. Would there really be enough of them to both supervise those who are off the train and look after those who remain, considering that there were 500 pax in total? As the driver has to remain onboard with the fitter, you only have the TM and the buffet attendant available on a weekend.

 

[Tomnick]

Evacuating via ladders, either to board another train (via ladders also?) or for road transport is clearly not a desirable option. Why should transferring across to another train be such an impossibility though? It might be difficult with the current equipment - but surely it's not beyond the ability of a cross-industry committee to come up something that should be suitable for safe use in at least most situations - possibly also acting as a wheelchair ramp to reduce the amount of kit to carry around?

 

[AndyLandy]

Could I just stress I'm talking about ALLOWING those who WISH to get off a broken down overcrowded train to do so. Not at all the same thing as forcibly evacuating people.


I was quite serious when, in post #9 I questioned how legal it was to refuse to allow people to get off.

There's a huge piece of 'duty of care' here. The vast majority of people will have no idea how dangerous a railway can be. How can they possibly make an informed decision about the best course of action?

Barring something cataclysmic, the safest place for them to be is on the train. It's not even like it was a packed commuter train with no toilets or catering, it was an Intercity HST set. I've spent over seven hours on an HST on more than one occasion (admittedly I'm talking about in-service trains that just took that long) but the principle is much the same. For sure, it probably won't be the most pleasant thing you could be doing, but it's bearable.

My only thoughts on the matter are whether is possible/practical/useful to have more Thunderbird locomotives available. If a train fails, find some way to get it into a platform, as quick as possible.

 

[telstarbox]

Clearly passengers are safer on the train unless it's on fire/hanging over a cliff etc, but is there a good reason why TOCs can't send out a 'rescue' loco or unit as soon as it looks like a lengthy delay, get the train to the nearest station to allow passengers off, then try to fix the fault once out of service?

 

[A-driver]

Evacuating via ladders, either to board another train (via ladders also?) or for road transport is clearly not a desirable option. Why should transferring across to another train be such an impossibility though? It might be difficult with the current equipment - but surely it's not beyond the ability of a cross-industry committee to come up something that should be suitable for safe use in at least most situations - possibly also acting as a wheelchair ramp to reduce the amount of kit to carry around?

I'm not answering any more questions about train to train evacuation-I have said exactly the same thing many times why it isn't done and people just aren't listening as they aren't capable of reading and understanding that it isn't as simple as they think.

Can we not have discussions on here that don't end up going in circles as people won't listen?!

 

[KA4C]

Can we not have discussions on here that don't end up going in circles as people won't listen?!

good point

 

[455driver]

but is there a good reason why TOCs can't send out a 'rescue' loco or unit as soon as

Apart from the fact that TOCs dont have any "rescue" locos or spare drivers to man them at a moments notice even if they were available.

The fact that they were able to hire a freight loco and driver at short notice on a Sunday afternoon seems to be passing "the usual suspects" by, I wonder how many road coaches they would have been able to get in the same timeframe?
Oops silly me I forget, all the coach companies have hundreds of coaches and drivers just sitting there ready to spring into action thunderbirds style at a moments notice and its only those money grabbing/couldnt care less TOCs that dont have spares isnt it! :roll:

 

[tsr]

Thee fact that they were able to hire a freight loco and driver at short notice on a Sunday afternoon seems to be passing "the usual suspects" by, I wonder how many road coaches they would have been able to get in the same timeframe?
Oops silly me I forget, all the coach companies have hundreds of coaches and drivers just sitting there ready to spring into action thunderbirds style at a moments notice and its only those money grabbing/couldnt care less TOCs that dont have spares isnt it! :roll:

FGW were advertising several different rail replacement bus routes during the disruption yesterday to which I assume you refer, including an "express" (well, hmmm, but anyway) bus link from Pewsey to Swindon.

 

[reb0118]

There is, however, one key difference with last night's FGW incident: both the Voyager and the Pendolino had automatic sliding doors. If you tried to evacuate an HST to another HST on the adjacent line, would there actually be the clearance to swing the doors open?

It might be possible to do it from the guard's van doors as they open inwards.

I've been involved in three train to train evacuations and all have proceeded without incident.

 

[Comstock]

And six hours really isn't that long, people spend far longer on aircraft.

Where they at least have a seat. In this particular case, according to one witness, there were 20-30 people in each carriage who didn't have a seat.

Plus, those who are most at risk of dehydration and similar are also those least likely to be able to climb down a ladder off the train and walk along the ballast so you may well end up with able bodies people walking away leaving those most at risk on the train.

Exactly, where they have a larger share of any available food and water and more room. I obviously realise if you are a driver you will have far more first hand knowledge than even regular passengers, but surely there is some sense in allowing those who can fend for themselves to do so.

There's a huge piece of 'duty of care' here. The vast majority of people will have no idea how dangerous a railway can be. How can they possibly make an informed decision about the best course of action?

If 'the vast majority' of people don't know how dangergous railways are, I wonder how stupid we have become as a nation. If they don't know the 'best course of action' is to stay off the tracks and climb over the nearest fence away from the railway then gawd help us all.

 

[KA4C]

but surely there is some sense in allowing those who can fend for themselves to do so.

No, for the reasons I gave earlier

 

[Tomnick]

I'm not answering any more questions about train to train evacuation-I have said exactly the same thing many times why it isn't done and people just aren't listening as they aren't capable of reading and understanding that it isn't as simple as they think.

Can we not have discussions on here that don't end up going in circles as people won't listen?!

Mine was a question for a wider discussion around failed trains, not aimed at you personally. I've read and agree with much of what you've said, and I'm well aware of the difficulties involved in getting another train alongside, especially if the adjacent line needs to be blocked to allow the fitters to work safely. If (and it's a big if, I know) Control can start making arrangements to get one alongside (even if it proves unnecessary in due course) though, it does seem a potentially sensible and relatively quick way of getting everyone off.

 

[A-driver]

Fend for themselves?!!!

For heavens sake people, lets be sensible about this. People were stuck on a train with power and refreshments for 6 hours. They weren't stranded in the middle of a desert island contemplating cannibalism!

You can't just 'release those who can fend for themselves into the wild' and look after the rest, as I keep on saying you need staff to lead the evacuation or else people will be injured, hit by trains, electrocuted etc.

They won't block the lines for an evacuation like that if it is going tone open ended which leaving people to fend for themselves will be. How do you know when all those people have reached a place of safety etc? Quite simply not enough staff on the train.

Perhaps it's time for this thred to leave fantasy world and get into the imperfect real world.

 

[455driver]

Mine was a question for a wider discussion around failed trains, not aimed at you personally. I've read and agree with much of what you've said, and I'm well aware of the difficulties involved in getting another train alongside, especially if the adjacent line needs to be blocked to allow the fitters to work safely. If (and it's a big if, I know) Control can start making arrangements to get one alongside (even if it proves unnecessary in due course) though, it does seem a potentially sensible and relatively quick way of getting everyone off.

Where does this other train come from?
Normally it will be because another train has been cancelled/pined (in this case probably at Reading) and all the passengers turfed off, the train is then sent to "rescue" the stranded passengers.
What do you think those passengers who have been turfed off would think if they then found out that the failed train has moved and they have been turfed off for nothing.

 

[bb21]

Where does this other train come from?
Normally it will be because another train has been cancelled/pined (in this case probably at Reading) and all the passengers turfed off, the train is then sent to "rescue" the stranded passengers.
What do you think those passengers who have been turfed off would think if they then found out that the failed train has moved and they have been turfed off for nothing.

It's all about minimising the overall damage.

I would imagine, for example, a Bristol-bound train turfing out all passengers at Reading and then sent for the rescue of those stranded onboard the failed train could potentially be a better solution. Of course it all depends on what the fitter said to the company as to how long it would take to fix the problem, route knowledge of the other driver, etc.

It is not ideal, but then again the way things panned out was not ideal either.

(There are other factors involved as well, I am aware. Just trying to give a simplified example.)

 

[AndyLandy]

If 'the vast majority' of people don't know how dangergous railways are, I wonder how stupid we have become as a nation. If they don't know the 'best course of action' is to stay off the tracks and climb over the nearest fence away from the railway then gawd help us all.

No, let's be serious here. I consider myself a smart person. I live in the South and I know there's an electric third rail. I know that other lines could still be open and trains could still be running. But I'd never considered walking on ballast. I was aware that the trains are a ways above the ground, so how do you get down? What if there's signalling cable there? What if there's a steep embankment up towards 'freedom', then there's the inevitable barbed wire. Even if you could make it, what about those two suitcases in the luggage rack?

Say you even successfully make it to "freedom." You're in the middle of nowhere, you don't know the area, no idea where you are or where the nearest road is and it's starting to rain. Everyone else is sat in a dry, air-conditioned passenger carriage. But not you.

You made the wrong decision. You should have stayed on the train. If you think you're smart enough to be able to make your own decision and be allowed to leave, you aren't and you're part of the problem.

 

[Comstock]

Fend for themselves?!!!

For heavens sake people, lets be sensible about this. People were stuck on a train with power and refreshments for 6 hours.

But an overcrowded train without seats, in sweltering conditions. It's that which takes this from a merely boring experience to a truly unpleasant and borderline dangerous one.

 

[455driver]

(There are other factors involved as well, I am aware. Just trying to give a simplified example.)

I agree, I was more aiming my post at the "when the train broke down they should have got things arranged quicker" type posts from the hindsight brigade.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But an overcrowded train without seats, in sweltering conditions. It's that which takes this from a merely boring experience to a truly unpleasant and borderline dangerous one.

The train had working air conditioning and water, there has been one unsubstantiated report of "20-30 people standing in every coach" which has not been proved to be true (just because some people choose to stand does not mean there were no seats available for them), have you been reading the Daily Mail by any chance? :roll:

 

[A-driver]

But an overcrowded train without seats, in sweltering conditions. It's that which takes this from a merely boring experience to a truly unpleasant and borderline dangerous one.

It doesn't look that overcrowded in the video clips. People wouldn't have been charged an upgrade to move to first class seats, we don't know it was sweltering, it has been hinted that the aircon was working, refreshments were provided until they ran out (was this after 5 minutes or 5hours 55mins?) and looking at those video clips it hardly looks like conditions were that bad as you describe, certainly nothing near the crowding on the Kentish town videos.

Sorry but this is being thrown out of all proportion. As I said, if anyone was taken ill onboard then they would get an ambulance to them, via helicopter if needed.

There was no danger from keeping people onboard, people were frustrated and uncomfortable probably but certainly not in any danger whatsoever.