• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Passengers abandon train at Lewisham with 3rd rails still live.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
4,130
Location
Reading
Modern trains are just too fragile, with over-engineered electronic control systems and flimsy door mechanisms.
I hope you'll allow me to correct you on your use of the term over-engineered there. The term refers to designing (i.e. engineering) a system to be more robust and full-featured than necessary, not less robust as I think you are implying with the reference to fragile control systems. An example of an over-engineered control system would be one that would still work in every possible extreme of weather that would ever be possible to occur in the area where the train was used. It might indeed, as a result of this, be more complex, but in a good way!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
well longer than half an hour ! and anyone walking on the track with ballast, cables, points, live rail, etc will be at risk, even more so in the dark
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Well I’m afraid your certainty is misplaced because no ScotRail trains carry any additional emergency equipment or supplies on top of what would normally be provided (saw, rope, first aid kit, ladder etc). The loco hauled stock on the far north and west highland lines used to carry an ‘emergency box’ full of Mars bars(!) but that was done away with when the trains were. No foil blankets, no thousands of litres of water, no popup toilets.

I stand corrected. In that case, as those trains could well become stranded for a very long time, they should consider it.
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
The train company advises you not to travel. The implication therefore is that if you do, be prepared for delays, disruption etc. Quite simple really. Unfortunately the situation is not black or white - either trains not running, or trains running a perfect service.

If the message was "DO NOT TRAVEL" in capitals on Southeastern's website homepage, as Bromley Boy tells us, then that is unequivocal.

It's a clear unambiguous statement. It's not implied "we advise", "be prepared". It is absolute. You therefore back it up by not giving folk the opportunity to travel.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If the message was "DO NOT TRAVEL" in capitals on Southeastern's website homepage, as Bromley Boy tells us, then that is unequivocal.

It's a clear unambiguous statement. It's not implied "we advise", "be prepared". It is absolute. You therefore back it up by not giving folk the opportunity to travel.

In that case one option would be to cease ticket sales. If you have a ticket you can attempt to use it to get home. If you don't, don't bother, as we won't let you start a journey.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
If the message was "DO NOT TRAVEL" in capitals on Southeastern's website homepage, as Bromley Boy tells us, then that is unequivocal.

It's a clear unambiguous statement. It's not implied "we advise", "be prepared". It is absolute. You therefore back it up by not giving folk the opportunity to travel.

If they can run trains they will, people need to get home, however services may be suspended at short notice. I can't believe somebody is criticising a train operator for running trains!
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
In that case one option would be to cease ticket sales. If you have a ticket you can attempt to use it to get home. If you don't, don't bother, as we won't let you start a journey.

I doubt if there would be many ticket sales going on anyway, they can't physically stop somebody starting a journey but the advice is not to do so as you may not be able to complete the journey. I don't see what the issue is quite honestly?
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
I expect the RAIB report will find that 'Gold' command was in chaos

The logs that should have been kept by Gold Command will certainly make interesting reading and will help with the learning. Particularly in terms of what rescue options were considered and when.
 

boxy321

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2016
Messages
449
Maybe they could switch the 3rd rail on at 36 or 50V and run the motors slowly while the pedestrian escapees on foot accompany alongside???

Seriously, what safe voltage could these trains down to, to keep them crawling along or back to a platform?
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
Maybe they could switch the 3rd rail on at 36 or 50V and run the motors slowly while the pedestrian escapees on foot accompany alongside???

Seriously, what safe voltage could these trains down to, to keep them crawling along or back to a platform?

I have no idea, but I reckon at a guess 400 or 500v ?
 

Signal Head

Member
Joined
26 May 2013
Messages
398
Ahh the insults again. What makes me a Tory MP because I wouldn't travel ?
No, because you answered a question that hadn't been asked, because you do not have an answer that suits you for the one that was. A typical politician's trick.

Or are you being deliberately obtuse?


It was an honest response. I would not travel. Is that not the response you required ?
No it wasn't, you sidestepped a direct question because you had no answer. The question was what would you do if on a train, not "would you travel".

Let's see if you can answer this one:
You are on a train, you have already decided to travel, no weather warnings are in place, no 'advice not to travel' has been issued, there is nothing to suggest that your journey will be interrupted or delayed.
Your train is stopped, infrastructure fault, train fault, line obstruction - the cause is irrelevant.
You've been stuck for a couple of hours, with no information as to when you may be on the move. There is no toilet available on the train, and you need to 'go'.

What do you do?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
If the message was "DO NOT TRAVEL" in capitals on Southeastern's website homepage, as Bromley Boy tells us, then that is unequivocal.

It's a clear unambiguous statement. It's not implied "we advise", "be prepared". It is absolute. You therefore back it up by not giving folk the opportunity to travel.

If they can run trains they will, people need to get home, however services may be suspended at short notice. I can't believe somebody is criticising a train operator for running trains!

Was the "DO NOT TRAVEL" message posted at the start of the day or later? If later then many people would have travelled in to work or wherever, and they all had to get home somehow. The same happened to me that day on MML.
 

sefton

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
590
An emergency isolation will knock out the power for miles around, making the situation even worse

Only if it takes the train company more than an hour to resolve the problem.

At the moment they can leave their customers stranded in unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions for many hours. A hard limit might be what is needed to inspire some advance planning to deliver a satisfactory solution.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
Only if it takes the train company more than an hour to resolve the problem.

At the moment they can leave their customers stranded in unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions for many hours. A hard limit might be what is needed to inspire some advance planning to deliver a satisfactory solution.

If you have multiple people getting off multiple trains over an area, it will take some considerable time to ensure everyone is safe, this will include searching the line for a distance to see if anyone has wandered off, if the first numpty jumped after just 30 mins, then its downhill from there, would have been interesting if someone had tripped on a TPWS or AWS cable, and broken an arm or leg, this would have been someone else taking up valuable Ambulance and Hospital time.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
I would have gotten out aswell, Im wouldn't sit for over 2 hours going no where especially if there was no loo or lights..
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
An emergency isolation will knock out the power for miles around, making the situation even worse
But that just arises because the power arrangements nowadays have such large isolation areas, done to save NR installation money on the switchgear. It's the same as removing as many of the emergency crossovers etc that they can get away with.

PA systems that have a battery life of more than 30 minutes off the power are likewise readily available but do not get specified, again to save money. This seems exacerbated by the way that in such situations there are constant reports of the PA failing before it even reaches its specified endurance. I hope the RAIB, who have repeatedly pointed this out in such events previously (eg Kentish Town), will finally take the operators to task on this shortfall. This stuff was meant to be a prerequisite of DOO.

The RAIB can also look at why these major strandings seem always to happen outside 9-5 Monday to Friday, when nobody of significant authority is around and it's left to a minimal shift staff whose training has concentrated on "you must only do what those above you have envisaged to put in your instruction book, and you must never, ever, use your own initiative".
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
I would have gotten out aswell, Im wouldn't sit for over 2 hours going no where especially if there was no loo or lights..

and if as swills says above, you had tripped and broken an arm / leg, I suppose you would blame the TOC or NetRail ? when in fact had (if its true) the person who bailed after just 30 mins, not done so, there may have been no power off, and on the move again in about 45 mins !
As for modern day power arrangments, they go way back long before NR and RT, back to BR days, when in an emergency, its neutral to neutral. (or more)
 

sefton

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
590
If you have multiple people getting off multiple trains over an area, it will take some considerable time to ensure everyone is safe,

Then the train company's planning needs to be good.

There is no sense complaining it is hard. The train companies need to realise that people WILL take matters into their own hands if they don't deliver a prompt response.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Was the "DO NOT TRAVEL" message posted at the start of the day or later? If later then many people would have travelled in to work or wherever, and they all had to get home somehow. The same happened to me that day on MML.
These arguments are just going down silly dead ends. The train companies know they have equipment which is vulnerable to failure, inter alia, in snow and ice. If these reliability risks are to be eliminated, either more money has to be spent, or services suspended during these periods of risk. The Government knows this, but does not wish to pay (through the franchise system and/or Network Rail) for a more resilient system to improve reliability a few times a year. Exactly the sort of decisions we take in our domestic lives, which end up with the occasional catastrophy.
Whether it be on the roads or the railway, the advice from Government and Train Companies was 'not to travel'. It was advice. To suggest that train companies should immediately suspend services (or the Highway Authorities impose a curfew and close all the roads) to stop all travel is just preposterous.
Everyone knew that the weather was bad and getting worse. And we all know that in these circumstances our travel may be disrupted and put to inconvenience, whether travelling on a snow filled side road, the M62 or a suburban train. This is what happens sometimes, so get over it. It has always happened.....
 
Last edited:

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Then the train company's planning needs to be good.

There is no sense complaining it is hard. The train companies need to realise that people WILL take matters into their own hands if they don't deliver a prompt response.
Do you really think train companies don't know this? And when the incident overwhelms their resources? The fact that these incidents do not occur on a frequent basis seems to suggest they have the balance nearly right.
 

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,204
Everybody going on about why an evacuation was not initiated quicker . You had several trains all stopped in the area . The amount of staff required to safely evacuate all trains together would have been immense . The priority in this situation was too de ice the 3rd rail and get trains moving . Had it been a catastrophic infrastructure failure , or a trains complete failure then efforts should be concentrated on getting pax off .

All that the passengers evacuating managed to achieve was stranding themselves at Lewisham station with no prospect of trains running for some protracted period of time .

At the time when the first passenger/s decided to leave their train NR staff had already began de icing the 3rd rail and it was likely services would have got moving again sometime soon .

I see NO justification in getting platform staff to obtain PTS for the very few occasions that it MIGHT be needed.
Platform staff that I know who are PTS trained do use it from time to time when retrieving items that passengers have dropped on the tracks at their stations .
No, we are saying that platform staff do need to be PTS trained, or at least every staffed station should have sufficient PTS-trained staff that a train stalled walking distance from that station can be safely evacuated. If there are insufficient station staff who meet the requirements then more staff need to be employed who do.

What happens then when staff shortages occur , PTS trained staff cannot make it into work because of weather disruption , should we close the station ?


Just a question.

The railway staff don't have the necessary training to evacuate passengers but the passengers evacuated themselves without a problem.

Is that statement correct?
Traincrew are trained to evacuate passengers , both in a controlled scenario and in an emergency . However the training tells you that you need adequate numbers of staff to support a controlled evacuation . One driver and hundreds of passengers is just not going to be safe . I know this evacuation passed off without any incident , but its possible that someone could have slipped or fell hurting themselves , or people have a tendency to wander off in alternative directions resulting in it being difficult to establish when the line block can be given back .

Why didn't someone invoke this from the rule book:

"20.6 Emergency permissive working
You can also make a permissive movement when the signaller tells
you that in an emergency situation on a TCB or ERTMS line your
train is authorised to enter an occupied section to use a station
platform."

so that at least part of the train could be drawn into the platform for people to detrain?

I suspect that the signalers and controllers workload was rather high at the time with focussing on trying to get trains moving and recover some sort of service .
 

lyndhurst25

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,406
Not that I'm suggesting that it is reintroduced, but was the old Manchester-Bury 3rd rail system (1200V DC side contact with, I think, some wooden shielding) more or less prone to ice problems that the Southern system? I suspect that it would be more robust. I've been trying to find a decent picture of what the 3rd rail and the collector-shoe system on the class 504s looked like, but can't.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Everybody going on about why an evacuation was not initiated quicker . You had several trains all stopped in the area . The amount of staff required to safely evacuate all trains together would have been immense . The priority in this situation was too de ice the 3rd rail and get trains moving . Had it been a catastrophic infrastructure failure , or a trains complete failure then efforts should be concentrated on getting pax off .

All that the passengers evacuating managed to achieve was stranding themselves at Lewisham station with no prospect of trains running for some protracted period

.

I suspect most sought other means of getting home ie bus. It was suggested in a news report that those who remained on board were largely those going further afield for whom there were no other options.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Everybody going on about why an evacuation was not initiated quicker . You had several trains all stopped in the area . The amount of staff required to safely evacuate all trains together would have been immense . The priority in this situation was too de ice the 3rd rail and get trains moving . Had it been a catastrophic infrastructure failure , or a trains complete failure then efforts should be concentrated on getting pax off .

All that the passengers evacuating managed to achieve was stranding themselves at Lewisham station with no prospect of trains running for some protracted period of time .

At the time when the first passenger/s decided to leave their train NR staff had already began de icing the 3rd rail and it was likely services would have got moving again sometime soon .


Platform staff that I know who are PTS trained do use it from time to time when retrieving items that passengers have dropped on the tracks at their stations .


What happens then when staff shortages occur , PTS trained staff cannot make it into work because of weather disruption , should we close the station ?

Traincrew are trained to evacuate passengers , both in a controlled scenario and in an emergency . However the training tells you that you need adequate numbers of staff to support a controlled evacuation . One driver and hundreds of passengers is just not going to be safe . I know this evacuation passed off without any incident , but its possible that someone could have slipped or fell hurting themselves , or people have a tendency to wander off in alternative directions resulting in it being difficult to establish when the line block can be given back .



I suspect that the signalers and controllers workload was rather high at the time with focussing on trying to get trains moving and recover some sort of service .

At last. Some common sense. If the 'railway' wishes to evacuate a train, it would have to be with the full panapoly of trained staff and equipment, constantly looking over their shoulder at the lawyers/media blame game, lest an injury or worse occur. Assembling such a large number of staff to deal with multiple stopped trains would take hours. If passengers egress themselves (against the advice of safety stickers displayed in the train) then the 'railway' has a defence in court later. Of course, we could go down the way of passengers requiring PTS before they travel, or they could just go by road transport where no such nonsenses would occur......
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
or they could just go by road transport where no such nonsenses would occur......

Or we convert more minor railways to tramways, where such rules don't exist. Tramlink got royally stuffed up a few months ago, and there were stacked up trams everywhere. Did people have to wait three hours to get off? No. As soon as drivers found out nothing was going anywhere any time soon, they opened the doors and people looked both ways and got off.

Another scenario when I was a kid. A points failure requiring engineering attention occurred at Ormskirk, stranding a Merseyrail train just outside for well over an hour. I was on the way to school and didn't fancy the first lesson so, with my mates, stayed put as it was a nice, solid and verifiable excuse for being late. The guard allowed a few people who were in a hurry to climb out, jump the adjacent fence to the road, and continue on their way. (In those days there was no egress fitted to Merseyrail trains, it was installed in about 1998 at the same time as the hustle alarms, though the saloon to cab doors were in those days not locked).

Nobody died nor was injured in either case.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Or we convert more minor railways to tramways, where such rules don't exist. Tramlink got royally stuffed up a few months ago, and there were stacked up trams everywhere. Did people have to wait three hours to get off? No. As soon as drivers found out nothing was going anywhere any time soon, they opened the doors and people looked both ways and got off.

Another scenario when I was a kid. A points failure requiring engineering attention occurred at Ormskirk, stranding a Merseyrail train just outside for well over an hour. I was on the way to school and didn't fancy the first lesson so, with my mates, stayed put. The guard allowed a few people who were in a hurry to climb out, jump the adjacent fence to the road, and continue on their way. (In those days there was no egress fitted to Merseyrail trains, it was installed in about 1998 at the same time as the hustle alarms, though the saloon to cab doors were in those days not locked).

Nobody died nor was injured in either case.

Quite. The amount of hot air already expounded on this incident would de-ice all the Southern conductor rails for the rest of this winter!
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
Evacuating over that junction is not easy- there was a far safer and easier option to the rear. Hopefully the investigation will look into why this wasn't explored.
What is odd is why it failed where it did. To get to that location the unit made it up one of the steeper gradients (most likely running under restricted aspects at low speed) on the UK rail network. Where it failed is on a slightly less steep downhill gradient, so unless the brakes had locked on it would easily have rolled into Lewisham at least enough to detrain from the front unit.

Again the report will hopefully explain what happened.
The train approaching Lewisham from Tanners Hill was not the broken down train. That was just beyond the end of platform 4, but just not far enough to clear the track circuit to allow the other one into platform 4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top