• 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!

Procedures modified after Lewisham egress in March 2018?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Has anyone seen a detailed analysis of what procedures have now been modified to cope with any circumstances similar to those horrendous problems at Lewisham in 2018. I hope we're not going to have another winter where passengers feel that they have no realistic alternative but to leave a train between stations.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
You can read the RAIB report and its recommendations (at the bottom of the document) here and Southeastern's internally commissioned one here

I am aware of lots of training been done internally at control centres and signalling centres about how to prevent this in future - more clarity about Emergency Pemissive Working and drivers to declare when they are stranded due to ice sooner.
 

2HAP

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
467
Location
Hadlow
There's also a Wikipedia article, titled 2018 Lewisham train strandings.
 

BasildonBob

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2019
Messages
36
Location
Reading
You can read the RAIB report and its recommendations (at the bottom of the document) here and Southeastern's internally commissioned one here

I am aware of lots of training been done internally at control centres and signalling centres about how to prevent this in future - more clarity about Emergency Pemissive Working and drivers to declare when they are stranded due to ice sooner.
Very interesting documents, thank you for the links
 

Class800

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
1,939
Location
West Country
In terms of recommendations, they never seem to make the most obvious ones - e.g. that all passenger trains should (or ideally must) convey toilet facilities
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
You can read the RAIB report and its recommendations (at the bottom of the document) here and Southeastern's internally commissioned one here

I am aware of lots of training been done internally at control centres and signalling centres about how to prevent this in future - more clarity about Emergency Pemissive Working and drivers to declare when they are stranded due to ice sooner.

Many thanks for all this. I've finally been able to read through everything. I have to say that, even to a layman, that report from Arthur D Little is excellently clear, to the point, and pulls no punches. It appears to be a very good summary of all the conflicting events, the obvious confusion between so many different parties, and the failure to follow many laid down procedures.
It's always easy to say things with the benefit of hindsight..............but if only 2M50 had been allowed on to the platform under EPW arrangements......
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
In terms of recommendations, they never seem to make the most obvious ones - e.g. that all passenger trains should (or ideally must) convey toilet facilities

Without reserve power the toilet will go out of action in short order.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
I would hope that somebody is using some common sense and looking at ways in which that might be improved.

How? You can't magic up power unless you've got replacement diesel generators about the train. Load-shredding will keep the most important functions open the longest (emergency lighting, GSMR, PA) but other aspects will lose power within 60 mins, as happened here.

The ideal situation is to have control and command aspects better organised so a train doesn't lose power for that long.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Short of putting shore power supplies literally all over the place, not much you can do.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
How? You can't magic up power unless you've got replacement diesel generators about the train. Load-shredding will keep the most important functions open the longest (emergency lighting, GSMR, PA) but other aspects will lose power within 60 mins, as happened here.

The ideal situation is to have control and command aspects better organised so a train doesn't lose power for that long.

So we already have the best there is and nothing at all that can be bettered?. I was hoping that there might have been some improvements in technology as time progressed and/or there was a bit of lateral thinking going on amongst those who thrive on difficult problems to solve.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
So we already have the best there is and nothing at all that can be bettered?. I was hoping that there might have been some improvements in technology as time progressed and/or there was a bit of lateral thinking going on amongst those who thrive on difficult problems to solve.

There's lateral thinking and then there's practical reality. I'm no expert but how else are you going to physically get the toilets to stay in service without a generator/power source of some sort? At Lewisham the drivers of some units did manually open them so they could be used but without flush.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
So we already have the best there is and nothing at all that can be bettered?. I was hoping that there might have been some improvements in technology as time progressed and/or there was a bit of lateral thinking going on amongst those who thrive on difficult problems to solve.

This is really one of those "you're solving the wrong problem" things. Yes, maybe there's a way to get enough power to keep a toilet running for a few more hours, and then a way to roll that out to all the trains and all the trackside equipment etc, but you're better off using all that money and problem solving ability on the real issue of things getting stranded in the first place.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
This is really one of those "you're solving the wrong problem" things. Yes, maybe there's a way to get enough power to keep a toilet running for a few more hours, and then a way to roll that out to all the trains and all the trackside equipment etc, but you're better off using all that money and problem solving ability on the real issue of things getting stranded in the first place.

You'll reduce infrastructure failures, but as noted at Berwick today, with damage to the OLE being caused by a party external to the railway, or in past events where a farmer has crashed into a train on a level crossing, sometimes trains end up stranded.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
This is really one of those "you're solving the wrong problem" things. Yes, maybe there's a way to get enough power to keep a toilet running for a few more hours, and then a way to roll that out to all the trains and all the trackside equipment etc, but you're better off using all that money and problem solving ability on the real issue of things getting stranded in the first place.

Thank you, that's all I needed to know that there may be a way to get enough power. I rarely believe that something is totally impossible!

Even so, it's difficult to see that all the possible stranding incidents (not just 3rd rail, or Lewisham) will miraculously vanish, or that communication with the passengers will now dramatically improve [though, obviously, I hope it does]. In which case it still seems necessary for some work to be undertaken to improve the reserve power facilities, whether for toilets or other needs.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
Forgive me, but an old fashioned gravity fed water closet never went out of service during a stranding. Granted these can run out of water, but they require no power supply.
 

Flange Squeal

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2012
Messages
1,251
Forgive me, but an old fashioned gravity fed water closet never went out of service during a stranding. Granted these can run out of water, but they require no power supply.
Not particularly pleasant for track workers though. Even if they aren't unfortunate enough to get sprayed by a flushing toilet as it passes by, they still end up having to work amongst bog roll and someone's dinner from the previous night.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
Not particularly pleasant for track workers though. Even if they aren't unfortunate enough to get sprayed by a flushing toilet as it passes by, they still end up having to work amongst bog roll and someone's dinner from the previous night.

I’m not advocating that. A gravity fed water closet can be used in conjunction with a CET tank, as the former FCC Cl317s do.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
Not particularly pleasant for track workers though. Even if they aren't unfortunate enough to get sprayed by a flushing toilet as it passes by, they still end up having to work amongst bog roll and someone's dinner from the previous night.

not true. SWTs toilets on their diesel (before their overhaul), and the small GWR toilets on Turbos are gravity fed but are still tanked. They use a lot more water though so the fresh tank empties quicker and the waste tank fills quicker.
 

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
Still nothing has been done about the ludicrous decision to install GSMR radios without their own dedicated back up batteries.
 

Swaine

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2019
Messages
8
Location
Penistone
I’m not advocating that. A gravity fed water closet can be used in conjunction with a CET tank, as the former FCC Cl317s do.

Robertj21a said further up the thread that he doesn’t believe that things are totally impossible and that some sort of temporary emergency toilet should be possible.

We then have various comments explaining why we can’t, all in the context of the existing toilet on the train, and the power and water supplies needed to run it.

One possible solution. One temporary hole in the toilet compartment floor, with a detachable cover. One temporary plastic toilet seat arrangement. Emergency conditions?....whoever’s in charge removes the cover and installs the temporary seat. The only power required is gravity! No water required. Track cleaned up later. One temporary toilet per train.

I’m not suggesting for one minute that this is done. Just pointing out that a simple low cost solution is there if needed. Sometimes we all look for the high tech solution!!
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
There's lateral thinking and then there's practical reality. I'm no expert but how else are you going to physically get the toilets to stay in service without a generator/power source of some sort? At Lewisham the drivers of some units did manually open them so they could be used but without flush.
Glad to read they did that, as someone with a long term health condition that requires access to loos.

Not sure what would happen on services with no loos but that's a subject for another discussion. I do risk traveling on services without loos.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
What I find disappointing and depressing is that everything highlighted in the two reports linked to above was also highlighted several years before after a similar incident in the Thameslink tunnel between St Pancras and Kentish Town.

The simple fact is that passenger patience is not open-ended. If a train is going to be stranded for more than 60 minutes then there needs to be a plan to control the situation. There needs to be feet on the ground to assist traincrew in managing the situation. If passengers can get reliable information and can see water/blankets/etc being delivered, they will have faith in the situation and will not self-egress.

But if they don't see anyone or hear anything, they're going to self-egress. If they feel abandoned, then you lose control.

Getting boots on the ground is even more important on long and busy trains, or DOO trains with one crew member, where train crew would struggle to manage passengers and the mechanical situation at the same time. The Kentish Town incident showed that train crew can't be expected to manage everything, and passenger issues affect the mechanical issues and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
I'm going to be the killjoy here and ask that we don't go down a DOO rabbit hole please. It's been done to death across multiple threads at this point and I'm not sure there's anything constructive or productive to any further discussion on the topic and certainly not on this thread.

Thanks :)
 

185143

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2013
Messages
4,486
Glad to read they did that, as someone with a long term health condition that requires access to loos.

Not sure shag would happen on services with no loos but that's a subject for another discussion. I do risk traveling on services without loos.
I should hope that doesn't happen on any train, loos or not! Maybe with the exception of berths on a sleeper service.
 

Tallguy

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2011
Messages
359
This is a great example of incompetent emergency planning and management. there should be emergency situation managers who are trained and authorised under the working rules to do whatever is required in these situations to solve the problems.

Procedures need to be changed to stop so many trains becoming stranded in the same place due to bad weather (remember they were running fewer trains than normal).

The moment there is a problem in this type of scenario the operational managers need to take immediate action and hold trains at the stations is possible and get the trained and authorised person who is prepared to make decisions and give instructions to sort the problem quickly to do exactly that.

Too many people standing around having a discussion about what they should do rather than doing what needs to be done.

There is also the question of failure to bad weather plan and operate de-icing etc correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

etr221

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2018
Messages
1,037
I think the main issue in this incident was how long it took 'the railway' to realise that it did actually have a significant incident happening, and that the emergency procedures necessary to deal with it needed to be initiated (which perhaps are initially getting MOM(s), etc. on site, and activating the gold/silver/bronze incident managers).

Perhaps because initially nothing much had happened: one train was just moving very slowly (it never failed, or was declared such), everything else was just held by red signals behind it.

Until passengers started self evacuating on to the track. When the railway had essentially lost control, and did have have a major incident.

As has been said multiple times, when a train is stopped away from a platform, passengers will, sooner or later, self detrain. And here they seem to have had half an hours start, in thinking about doing so, on the railway, thinking that it needed to do something so they didn't.

So perhaps the primary lesson to be learnt is that when - as soon as - a train stops away from a platform, the railway has a potentially serious incident to deal with. And within a few minutes then the escalation procedures to do so should be launched. Especially in a vulnerable or critical area such as Lewisham, and the SE mainline out of London Bridge.
 

Tallguy

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2011
Messages
359
I think the main issue in this incident was how long it took 'the railway' to realise that it did actually have a significant incident happening, and that the emergency procedures necessary to deal with it needed to be initiated (which perhaps are initially getting MOM(s), etc. on site, and activating the gold/silver/bronze incident managers).

Perhaps because initially nothing much had happened: one train was just moving very slowly (it never failed, or was declared such), everything else was just held by red signals behind it.

Until passengers started self evacuating on to the track. When the railway had essentially lost control, and did have have a major incident.

As has been said multiple times, when a train is stopped away from a platform, passengers will, sooner or later, self detrain. And here they seem to have had half an hours start, in thinking about doing so, on the railway, thinking that it needed to do something so they didn't.

So perhaps the primary lesson to be learnt is that when - as soon as - a train stops away from a platform, the railway has a potentially serious incident to deal with. And within a few minutes then the escalation procedures to do so should be launched. Especially in a vulnerable or critical area such as Lewisham, and the SE mainline out of London Bridge.

Agree totally.
 

riceuten

Member
Joined
23 May 2018
Messages
510
I think we're kind of missing the point here - that part of the reason for the "strandings" was complete lack of any sort of unified command from South Eastern. It is simply not reasonable to strand passengers with no information for hours on end. The passengers should have been detrained as soon as was practicable.

I remember in the 1990s, a Virgin Train being stranded for two and half hours because VT and Failtrack were arguing over who was responsible for rescuing the passengers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top