• 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!

Train stuck just outside ManchesterPiccadilly-Mon 10/02

Status
Not open for further replies.

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
The arrangements for rescuing stranded passengers will only be reviewed after someone is seriously hurt or killed when they have alighted onto the track after an inordinate delay. So far we have been lucky.
Or when someone is seriously hurt or killed whilst being imprisoned on a train for an inordinate amount of time. A ruptured bowel, passing out from dehydration.

Or at least I would hope any of those would lead to a review, but it would be great if one could happen before someone gets seriously hurt or ends up in a life threatening situation.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Still a very difficult location for detraining to be attempted, but yes, you would be able to see the Piccadilly platforms from the train.
Actually I don't think I can imagine many easier locations to detrain a load of people. On the Mayfield Loop side of the tracks there's the old Mayfield Depot/Station. I'm not sure how secure the fencing is, so perhaps you wouldn't be able to evacuate them through Mayfield itself, but certainly I can't think of many other locations on the railway which would provide such a convenient place for passengers to be evacuated to.
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,955
There are many significantly easier places to detrain a couple of hundred people than into Piccadilly throat then more than a quarter of a mile via a derelict site to Fairfield Street.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
So now that we have an better idea of events what would people have done differently? From what it seems the first attempt was made at recovery after 55 minutes (presumably it would have taken a little while to source the unit, the crew, get clearance to run it up to the stricken unit etc). Then after another 40 minutes or so that attempt was abandoned, with passengers starting to self evacuate minutes later, forcing a managed close to presumably live lines keeping in mind that the weather was pretty poor that day, with strong gusts and possibly rain, so conditions underfoot would have been more challenging (I'm going to assume most passengers wouldn't have been wearing footwear deemed suitable for trackside walking).

Actually I don't think I can imagine many easier locations to detrain a load of people. On the Mayfield Loop side of the tracks there's the old Mayfield Depot/Station. I'm not sure how secure the fencing is, so perhaps you wouldn't be able to evacuate them through Mayfield itself, but certainly I can't think of many other locations on the railway which would provide such a convenient place for passengers to be evacuated to.

You'd lead people into an abandoned, derelict site in weather conditions like earlier this week rather than keep them dry and relatively warm in the train?
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
So now that we have an better idea of events what would people have done differently? From what it seems the first attempt was made at recovery after 55 minutes (presumably it would have taken a little while to source the unit, the crew, get clearance to run it up to the stricken unit etc). Then after another 40 minutes or so that attempt was abandoned, with passengers starting to self evacuate minutes later, forcing a managed close to presumably live lines keeping in mind that the weather was pretty poor that day, with strong gusts and possibly rain, so conditions underfoot would have been more challenging (I'm going to assume most passengers wouldn't have been wearing footwear deemed suitable for trackside walking).



You'd lead people into an abandoned, derelict site in weather conditions like earlier this week rather than keep them dry and relatively warm in the train?
Actually it was quite a nice morning. Certainly local weather conditions would not have been a problem.
As for the Mayfield site, it's far from derilict or abandoned, apparently. However, even if it were, all you would be doing is walking people down a gently sloping gravel access road, outside the main station site.
The question mark is finding someone with the right key to open the relevant gates in order to do that. Of course, that's something that should be instigated immediately, then if it's found quickly, great, if not, well, nobody's lost anything.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Regardless of what state the Mayfield site was in, it's quite a way away from where the train came to a halt - at least for people bit suitably dressed for walking along the track. If it was adjacent to the train then maybe, but it was a lot further away then people think. Definitely not an easy option, with a not insignificant risk of passengers suffering from twisted ankles or other similar issues if they were forced into it. Walking along the ballast is never an easy option, even for those with the correct PPE.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Regardless of what state the Mayfield site was in, it's quite a way away from where the train came to a halt - at least for people bit suitably dressed for walking along the track. If it was adjacent to the train then maybe, but it was a lot further away then people think. Definitely not an easy option, with a not insignificant risk of passengers suffering from twisted ankles or other similar issues if they were forced into it. Walking along the ballast is never an easy option, even for those with the correct PPE.

Is the correct answer. Its all very well demanding swift trackside evacuation, but this comes with the risk of injury to people clambering down from the trains and along the ballast to a location that may, or may not be accessible. If anyone thinks the story was bad enough as it was, imagine the meltdown in the media, and on here if someone slipped and injured themselves. I can see it now....

"We were pushed off the train, frog marched down the line where someone slipped and injured themselves, then we we herded into an abandoned train station whilst someone tried to find out who had the keys to let us out".....

Hmmmmm....
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Is the correct answer. Its all very well demanding swift trackside evacuation, but this comes with the risk of injury to people clambering down from the trains and along the ballast to a location that may, or may not be accessible. If anyone thinks the story was bad enough as it was, imagine the meltdown in the media, and on here if someone slipped and injured themselves. I can see it now....

"We were pushed off the train, frog marched down the line where someone slipped and injured themselves, then we we herded into an abandoned train station whilst someone tried to find out who had the keys to let us out".....

Hmmmmm....
Still going to far less of a media problem for the railway than, "We were there for hours, nothing was done, so we tried to make our own way off the train, following the instructions on the safety posters, and were injured because rail staff refused to help us." It's not a media issue, it's the railway being scared of geting sued because someone gets hurt - well do you know what, touch. Sometimes, legal risks aside, you just have to do the right thing. Or at the very least offer passengers a choice.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Still going to far less of a media problem for the railway than, "We were there for hours, nothing was done, so we tried to make our own way off the train, following the instructions on the safety posters, and were injured because rail staff refused to help us." It's not a media issue, it's the railway being scared of geting sued because someone gets hurt - well do you know what, touch. Sometimes, legal risks aside, you just have to do the right thing. Or at the very least offer passengers a choice.

The passengers safety was put first. That will always be "the right thing".
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
The passengers safety was put first. That will always be "the right thing".
No, it wasn't. If the safety of the passengers on that stranded 319 had been put first, all movement would have been stopped, the wires de-energised, and passengers walked to safety.
As it was, the railway - once again - put the operational convenience of continuiing to run trains, and the risk-averse, litigation shy nature of it's management, ahead of doing the right thing.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
I'm not sure any of you have actually been on the track near Mayfield loop.

There is no walking route. The pointwork and years of rail debris means that walking it would not be for the fainthearted. It would be the absolute last option I would ever go for, unless the train was on fire I would not consider it at all.

You don't offer passengers a choice at any time on the operational railway. It's absurd to suggest that.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
No, it wasn't. If the safety of the passengers on that stranded 319 had been put first, all movement would have been stopped, the wires de-energised, and passengers walked to safety.
As it was, the railway - once again - put the operational convenience of continuiing to run trains, and the risk-averse, litigation shy nature of it's management, ahead of doing the right thing.

The issue with walking the passengers to safety is not just the overheads and the other trains, it's that the ground there itself is not safe for walking on unless absolutely necessary. The passengers were safer on the train. If it was impossible to rescue them, then things might have been different, but it wasn't. They tried the quickest option of rescuing them with the 323 pushing the 319 out - sadly that didn't work so they went with the next quickest option of getting the passengers off safely, via another train.
 

Bow Fell

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2020
Messages
257
Location
UK
No, it wasn't. If the safety of the passengers on that stranded 319 had been put first, all movement would have been stopped, the wires de-energised, and passengers walked to safety.
As it was, the railway - once again - put the operational convenience of continuiing to run trains, and the risk-averse, litigation shy nature of it's management, ahead of doing the right thing.

Just stumbled upon this thread.

I’m sorry, but that idea is ridiculous. By the time you get the adequate number of staff in place, paperwork completed, switch off of the OHL taken (what area does the switch off cover, would have to be considered) and all the passengers walked to a position of safety. That in it itself will be very, very time consuming.

You’ve now gone from 1 train stood with hundreds of passengers on to multiple trains stood with thousands of passengers involved, the risk of self evacuation is now even higher with the more trains and more passengers involved. By the time you get the OHL restored, and let any EMU’s build their air back up, we’re talking a long time here for this to be completed.

All you’ve done is moved the problem with now multiple trains stood, which will be stood for a significant length of time.

Now; if you’d have said make sure all other trains are in platforms before carrying out such a move, I’d be inclined to agree more. But I’d still say it’s very risky and should be a last resort.
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
Three and half hours stuck on a packed, broken down train is not acceptable. We've seen instances where passengers have taken matters into their own hands and released the emergency door onto live rail.

The priority from a safety perspective should have been to get those passengers off that train as quickly as possible. From reading posts on this thread it appears there was a forlorn attempt to push it into the platform with a 323 but which didn't work.

The "but it would have stopped all trains in and out of Piccadilly" doesn't really stack up and I don't personally think Network Rail would have taken that view. If anything it makes the excuse even worse with passing trains (i.e. passengers potentially releasing the doors and onto track) and it's only 150 yards from the station with multiple trains sat stationary which could potentially rescue passengers.

(also the 319s are life-expired rubbish. The sooner they are gone from the Northern network the better)
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Just stumbled upon this thread.

I’m sorry, but that idea is ridiculous. By the time you get the adequate number of staff in place, paperwork completed, switch off of the OHL taken (what area does the switch off cover, would have to be considered) and all the passengers walked to a position of safety. That in it itself will be very, very time consuming.

You’ve now gone from 1 train stood with hundreds of passengers on to multiple trains stood with thousands of passengers involved, the risk of self evacuation is now even higher with the more trains and more passengers involved. By the time you get the OHL restored, and let any EMU’s build their air back up, we’re talking a long time here for this to be completed.

All you’ve done is moved the problem with now multiple trains stood, which will be stood for a significant length of time.

Now; if you’d have said make sure all other trains are in platforms before carrying out such a move, I’d be inclined to agree more. But I’d still say it’s very risky and should be a last resort.

I wasn't suggesting just randomly turn the power off, that would be daft. Obviously make sure other trains are stopped in stations (not overly difficult in the Picc area, actually). You could then detrain all the 319 passengers through the cab end door, and walk them single file, escorted, into Piccadilly station. All of that should be achievable within 60-90 minutes, if people put their minds to it. 2 hours max. And bluntly, if it's not achievable within that time then someone needs to take a very long hard look at why it isn't.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
No, it wasn't. If the safety of the passengers on that stranded 319 had been put first, all movement would have been stopped, the wires de-energised, and passengers walked to safety.
As it was, the railway - once again - put the operational convenience of continuiing to run trains, and the risk-averse, litigation shy nature of it's management, ahead of doing the right thing.

Simple question; have you ever walked down the cess of a railway line?
 

alangla

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2018
Messages
1,178
Location
Glasgow
In terms of moving the train, this reminds me of an incident in Princes Street Gardens a couple of years ago which basically wrecked the morning peak. IIRC, 4 car 156 crossing from one side of the layout to the other stopped with an emergency brake application and wouldn’t move, no matter how many isolators were opened. That was with expert assistance sent from Haymarket depot as well. Think they finally got them going after splitting them. Sometimes with weird interlock faults the thing just won’t move, no matter what’s tried. On the various comments about pushing it in with an 08 from Longsight etc, would that be able to move it with the wheels locked & how much damage would that do to wheel & rail?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,416
I see a lot of excuses that still come back to “we don’t prioritise it enough”
It was right outside Piccadilly but still took an hour to get the first rescue attempt there?
Surely Manchester is a busy enough place that a rescue loco is justified?
 

alangla

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2018
Messages
1,178
Location
Glasgow
Surely Manchester is a busy enough place that a rescue loco is justified?
Or the other way, busy enough that there should be another compatible unit nearby? That doesn’t work if a container train decides to have a rest in P14 obviously, but for most scenarios?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Still going to far less of a media problem for the railway than, "We were there for hours, nothing was done, so we tried to make our own way off the train, following the instructions on the safety posters, and were injured because rail staff refused to help us." It's not a media issue, it's the railway being scared of geting sued because someone gets hurt - well do you know what, touch. Sometimes, legal risks aside, you just have to do the right thing. Or at the very least offer passengers a choice.

Really, you think someone getting injured whilst being evacuated, potentially needing emergency services & bringing the whole system to a halt until they could be safely moved, whilst their fellow passengers looked on from an abandoned station waiting for a security guard to let them out would have less impact through the media? I think you are kidding yourself at best I'm sorry to say.

I wasn't suggesting just randomly turn the power off, that would be daft. Obviously make sure other trains are stopped in stations (not overly difficult in the Picc area, actually). You could then detrain all the 319 passengers through the cab end door, and walk them single file, escorted, into Piccadilly station. All of that should be achievable within 60-90 minutes, if people put their minds to it. 2 hours max. And bluntly, if it's not achievable within that time then someone needs to take a very long hard look at why it isn't.

Sounds easy doesn't it? Just stop all services heading towards one of the North of England's busiest stations, making sure of course you don't end up stranding passengers coming from all over the region by doing so, then just walk the passengers along the now completely stopped tracks into the station.

Meanwhile back in reality, just making the area safe for an evacuation, i.e. stopping all incoming services in Piccadilly across the network, would easily take that long. Then you would have to ensure enough trained staff where available to a) Ensure all passengers safely disembark, b) are able to safely make the walk given that walking along tracks is not easy if you don't have the appropriate footwear, c) to ensure passengers don't wander off in the wrong direction, or become that person that knows better than the trained professionals, and finally d) to ensure all passengers have actually evacuated the train.

It is because of these safety reasons that this is rarely likely to be the first option, for lots of reasons. Firstly, and most importantly there is a greater risk of injury to passengers trackside. This should be blatantly obvious. Then there is the issue of actually stopping all trains to allow passengers to evacuate to the platforms. Piccadilly as you doubtless know is a very busy station, and even small delays through can have significant knock on effects on the whole of the local network. Stopping all trains for the best part of two hours will result in thousands of passengers milling around the station, not to mention the thousands of passengers now stuck on stopped trains around the region. Both of these could result in more problems, and even more self-evacuations from other trains, especially if people are on a stopped train watching other passengers being walked to the station. You could end up with the job being shut for hours, with people literally everywhere. And finally it is ensuring that if an evacuation becomes necessary, that there are sufficient, trackside trained staff to assist passengers who might be stressed or concerned by having to climb off a train and walk along the tracks.

This is why the first options are likely to be trying to fix & move the unit under its own power, then try to move it with a compliant unit or loco if available, all the while putting into place contingency plans to evacuate trackside as the very last resort. As I have said previously, I was once on a stopped train for over three hours following a collision. And during that time I spoke to the guard on a number of occasions about what the options where, and even volunteered to wander up and down the train keeping people up to date so that he could stay with the very distressed driver for longer. So I know first hand how frustrating it can get, but also how passenger safety is critical and why it is not a good idea to just tip punters onto the tracks without first exhausting all options that don't put them into additional risk.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Really, you think someone getting injured whilst being evacuated, potentially needing emergency services & bringing the whole system to a halt until they could be safely moved, whilst their fellow passengers looked on from an abandoned station waiting for a security guard to let them out would have less impact through the media? I think you are kidding yourself at best I'm sorry to say.

Sounds easy doesn't it? Just stop all services heading towards one of the North of England's busiest stations, making sure of course you don't end up stranding passengers coming from all over the region by doing so, then just walk the passengers along the now completely stopped tracks into the station.

Meanwhile back in reality, just making the area safe for an evacuation, i.e. stopping all incoming services in Piccadilly across the network, would easily take that long. Then you would have to ensure enough trained staff where available to a) Ensure all passengers safely disembark, b) are able to safely make the walk given that walking along tracks is not easy if you don't have the appropriate footwear, c) to ensure passengers don't wander off in the wrong direction, or become that person that knows better than the trained professionals, and finally d) to ensure all passengers have actually evacuated the train.

It is because of these safety reasons that this is rarely likely to be the first option, for lots of reasons. Firstly, and most importantly there is a greater risk of injury to passengers trackside. This should be blatantly obvious. Then there is the issue of actually stopping all trains to allow passengers to evacuate to the platforms. Piccadilly as you doubtless know is a very busy station, and even small delays through can have significant knock on effects on the whole of the local network. Stopping all trains for the best part of two hours will result in thousands of passengers milling around the station, not to mention the thousands of passengers now stuck on stopped trains around the region. Both of these could result in more problems, and even more self-evacuations from other trains, especially if people are on a stopped train watching other passengers being walked to the station. You could end up with the job being shut for hours, with people literally everywhere. And finally it is ensuring that if an evacuation becomes necessary, that there are sufficient, trackside trained staff to assist passengers who might be stressed or concerned by having to climb off a train and walk along the tracks.

This is why the first options are likely to be trying to fix & move the unit under its own power, then try to move it with a compliant unit or loco if available, all the while putting into place contingency plans to evacuate trackside as the very last resort. As I have said previously, I was once on a stopped train for over three hours following a collision. And during that time I spoke to the guard on a number of occasions about what the options where, and even volunteered to wander up and down the train keeping people up to date so that he could stay with the very distressed driver for longer. So I know first hand how frustrating it can get, but also how passenger safety is critical and why it is not a good idea to just tip punters onto the tracks without first exhausting all options that don't put them into additional risk.

If there are other options that can be accomplished within a reasonable timescale (I would say 30 mins is a reasonable maximum, in a location similar to the one in this case) then fair enough. But, if that's not the case, then an evacuation moves significantly further up the agenda. I find it frankly disturbing that you suggest that, in one of the most central, accessible locations in the country - where there are two major rail depots, and countless railway staff on hand - it would take longer than the 3.5 hours that this incident took to resolve to walk passengers off a train. In fact, to me, that's not only pathetic, it's utterly scandalous.

As for the media issue, on that, I am right. As I've said before, I know I for one would find "that train's broken down, we need to stop everything for 30 mins while we walk them all back to the station," much easier to deal with than, "there's going to be chaos all day because one train broke down." The first option shows the railway is reacting as rapidly, and proactively as possible, putting the best interests of it's passengers first. The second looks like it's just trying not to have to cancel trains, in order to avoid looking bad.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
If there are other options that can be accomplished within a reasonable timescale (I would say 30 mins is a reasonable maximum, in a location similar to the one in this case) then fair enough. But, if that's not the case, then an evacuation moves significantly further up the agenda. I find it frankly disturbing that you suggest that, in one of the most central, accessible locations in the country - where there are two major rail depots, and countless railway staff on hand - it would take longer than the 3.5 hours that this incident took to resolve to walk passengers off a train. In fact, to me, that's not only pathetic, it's utterly scandalous.

As for the media issue, on that, I am right. As I've said before, I know I for one would find "that train's broken down, we need to stop everything for 30 mins while we walk them all back to the station," much easier to deal with than, "there's going to be chaos all day because one train broke down." The first option shows the railway is reacting as rapidly, and proactively as possible, putting the best interests of it's passengers first. The second looks like it's just trying not to have to cancel trains, in order to avoid looking bad.

To be honest your aspirations are totally unrealistic, and frankly would put passengers in way more danger. Just because there are platforms and/or depots within a few hundred metres doesn't mean that you can press a button, have the entire area brought to a standstill and deploy all those railway staff to the failed unit in half an hour. And even if you could, what about the thousands of passengers you've now stranded whilst they wait for the passengers from the failed train get out of the way?? Railway staff have an obligation to all passengers, and not just those on any failed unit. Again, staying on the train whilst staff try every alternative is far safer for those passengers than scrambling across ballast.

I really don't think you've even begun to try and think this through, sorry. I think you are getting angry for all the wrong reasons.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
Good job there wasn't a fire on that train, or someone lighting up a cigarette causing a panic, or someone collapsing in the heat and requiring immediate medical attention. Apparently it's impossible to make it safe for hours.
 

L401CJF

Established Member
Joined
16 Oct 2019
Messages
1,442
Location
Wirral
Just reading through all the comments about detraining, getting them off to safety etc and taking far too long.

I don't work on the railway, but I travel occasionally and have experienced a fair bit of disruption over the years.

I thought standard procedure on the railway was to try and rescue a failed train with another first. There wasn't an emergency, the train wasn't on fire, so they arranged for a unit to come and assist. Yes it may take a while, but even if there is a unit close by which can be used, how do you know they have a spare crewe lying around at that time? They could have had to phone around for a driver to come in to work to drive it. Reading through they brought another unit as quickly as possible which might not be quick by some peoples standards. If I have read things correctly, they tried and failed, and then brought the unit along side to perform a train to train evacuation.

Its not a case of they wernt doing anything, you can't just produce a unit and a crew out of thin air and expect it to reach and rescue a failed train instantly? These things take time and I would strongly agree that it is best to stay on the train. Its inconvenient yes, but let's be honest you don't break down on a train and get stuck on it for hours every day, and in a lot of cases when you do get stuck on a train due to a failure, the rescue unit trick often works and the rest of the faffing around isn't required. These things happen.

I'd argue standing for hours in the freezing wind and rain at the side of the M6 waiting for recovery of your broken down car with no water or facilities is more inconvenient than being stuck on a dry warmish train with no facilities. Again that doesn't happen every day!
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Good job there wasn't a fire on that train, or someone lighting up a cigarette causing a panic, or someone collapsing in the heat and requiring immediate medical attention. Apparently it's impossible to make it safe for hours.

But there wasn't. Had there been an emergency then things would be dealt with differently. But then you knew that so I'm not sure what value that hypothetical situation brings to this debate apart from a bit of melodrama....
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,416
Just reading through all the comments about detraining, getting them off to safety etc and taking far too long.

I don't work on the railway, but I travel occasionally and have experienced a fair bit of disruption over the years.

I thought standard procedure on the railway was to try and rescue a failed train with another first. There wasn't an emergency, the train wasn't on fire, so they arranged for a unit to come and assist. Yes it may take a while, but even if there is a unit close by which can be used, how do you know they have a spare crewe lying around at that time? They could have had to phone around for a driver to come in to work to drive it. Reading through they brought another unit as quickly as possible which might not be quick by some peoples standards. If I have read things correctly, they tried and failed, and then brought the unit along side to perform a train to train evacuation.

Its not a case of they wernt doing anything, you can't just produce a unit and a crew out of thin air and expect it to reach and rescue a failed train instantly? These things take time and I would strongly agree that it is best to stay on the train. Its inconvenient yes, but let's be honest you don't break down on a train and get stuck on it for hours every day, and in a lot of cases when you do get stuck on a train due to a failure, the rescue unit trick often works and the rest of the faffing around isn't required. These things happen.

I'd argue standing for hours in the freezing wind and rain at the side of the M6 waiting for recovery of your broken down car with no water or facilities is more inconvenient than being stuck on a dry warmish train with no facilities. Again that doesn't happen every day!

The AA etc won’t take 3 hours to get to you.....
The issues of finding a new unit - it needs higher priority, cancel something and use that unit.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
Its not a case of they wernt doing anything, you can't just produce a unit and a crew out of thin air and expect it to reach and rescue a failed train instantly?

Had the train broken down 400 metres out of Altnabraec, people would be more sympathetic.

To break down that close to one of the largest stations in the country, one with about 45 trains an hour arriving, is what makes it incredible.

If I broke down 400m from a pub, I'd leave a note on my car and walk to the pub.

Had there been an emergency then things would be dealt with differently

Some people consider that leaving people stranded on a crowded train for hours is an emergency.

You stated
"just making the area safe for an evacuation, i.e. stopping all incoming services in Piccadilly across the network, would easily take that long."

That's concerning if the railway can't safely evacuate for 2 hours.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Had the train broken down 400 metres out of Altnabraec, people would be more sympathetic.

To break down that close to one of the largest stations in the country, one with about 45 trains an hour arriving, is what makes it incredible.

If I broke down 400m from a pub, I'd leave a note on my car and walk to the pub.

You've literally just backed my point up, thank you. Yes up to 45 trains an hour to stop & strand......

Some people consider that leaving people stranded on a crowded train for hours is an emergency.

You stated
"just making the area safe for an evacuation, i.e. stopping all incoming services in Piccadilly across the network, would easily take that long."

That's concerning if the railway can't safely evacuate for 2 hours.

See above....
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
So is it possible to evacuate a train from the mouth of Piccadilly in less than 2 hours in an emergency?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top