Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ultimately the train crew manage the train. If they refuse on the point of safety (overcrowding) then the train will be sitting at Bath and won't go anywhere until some sort of mutual agreement is sorted between Control and the crew. Seeing as the crew on the the train are critical to the movement, I know who will win...
That being said I've only once before seen that conflict being protracted - if crew were to "refuse" a call order, that's the end of the matter normally, but its incredibly rare (normally on some sort of safety reason, like here).
Also maybe there was a crew-change on route so one crew agrees it but the situation then changes? I don't think that happened here, but something to consider.
Indeed. Again speaking based on my experience, train crew basically want to get their jobs done with the minimum of hassle, and certainly aren’t going to quibble not to call orders unless there is a very good reason why (and dangerous overcrowding is certainly one such a reason). Another reason might be the signaller telling you the points have failed so you’re stuck on the through lines with no platform at the station you’re booked to call at…
This kind of thing works both ways. I had the TM call me a few weeks back and report that we had a group who had boarded the wrong train, wanting the next town along, when we were direct to London. It was agreed with control and with the signaller that we would stop additionally to let them off (additional calls, or agreements no to call can be agreed directly with the signaller in lieu of an order). It’s a question of balancing the slight delay to the service versus helping out those who have made an innocent error, plus the possible risk of someone over carried pulling a passcom which leads on to potential safety issues.
I have been following the comments on the DT story throughout the day. DT have a well-known history of criticising the railways but no-one answered the central question of why (a) passengers boarded the train earlier in the journey thinking it would call at Swindon, but (b) the train failed to call at Swindon and passengers were seemingly caught unawares. A lot of bad press coming across for GWR in this.
Ultimately the train crew manage the train. If they refuse on the point of safety (overcrowding) then the train will be sitting at Bath and won't go anywhere until some sort of mutual agreement is sorted between Control and the crew. Seeing as the crew on the the train are critical to the movement, I know who will win...
That being said I've only once before seen that conflict being protracted - if crew were to "refuse" a call order, that's the end of the matter normally, but its incredibly rare (normally on some sort of safety reason, like here).
Also maybe there was a crew-change on route so one crew agrees it but the situation then changes? I don't think that happened here, but something to consider.
Sorry if I am missing something here, but if the train crew were of the view that the train was 'dangerously overcrowded' at Bath with passengers who were expecting to alight at Chippenham and Swindon how does overcarrying them to Reading increase safety or 'solve the problem'?
Sorry if I am missing something here, but if the train crew were of the view that the train was 'dangerously overcrowded' at Bath with passengers who were expecting to alight at Chippenham and Swindon how does overcarrying them to Reading increase safety or 'solve the problem'?
They evidently believed they had given every passenger ample warning that the train would not be calling at Swindon, and there was nobody on-board who was going to want Swindon, and those passengers had alighted. Obviously that didn't match up with reality, due to the aforementioned communication mismatch.
They evidently believed they had given every passenger ample warning that the train would not be calling at Swindon, and there was nobody on-board who was going to want Swindon, and those passengers had alighted. Obviously that didn't match up with reality, due to the aforementioned communication mismatch.
And for those saying pulling the passcomm is acceptable, in my opinion it isn't. This was not a safety emergency and the knock on effects to a far greater number of passengers was huge.
Given that the train had just passed one station at which they expected it to stop, the passengers could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that the next stop might be Paddington, 77 miles further on !
This correspondence (great info by the way) has shewn that a senior NR /GWR mnager needs to carry out a full analysis and then make recommendations for future controllers, station staff and train crew to follow.
I am normally very reluctant to appear to criticise rail staff (having spent years on the front line myself in BR's day). But when making a non-routine announcement on a station or on a train it is always wise to 'see the effect'; especially these days with CCTV.
If you announce "[Apology...] This train is no longer to call at Chippenham and Swindon. If you are travelling to either of these stations please alight now for a following service, etc." you then step onto the platform and see that people are getting off.
Obviously if no-one alights you know that the announcement hasn't worked.
I am normally very reluctant to appear to criticise rail staff (having spent years on the front line myself in BR's day). But when making a non-routine announcement on a station or on a train it is always wise to 'see the effect'; especially these days with CCTV.
If you announce "[Apology...] This train is no longer to call at Chippenham and Swindon. If you are travelling to either of these stations please alight now for a following service, etc." you then step onto the platform and see that people are getting off.
Obviously if no-one alights you know that the announcement hasn't worked.
It could be that it worked in some but not others. Obviously if the train was overcrowded and people were getting on/off and generally milling around a bit lost and the platform was busy too, it may not have been as easy to see all the impacts. At some point it was clearly safe enough to dispatch though.
Also we don't know quite how overcrowded we're talking without obviously anyone being there (it sounds like very), but some people who were told about Swindon might have been really wedged in. And it was obviously more than just 1 or 2 people, which suggest somewhere the communication went wrong. Ultimately it was the train crew's call (and perhaps rightly so on the grounds of safety), and so you'd hope they'd have made absoutely certain nobody was on-board for Swindon. But I imagine it was chaotic, and if you can't walk through and check this is easier said that done. I've been in a similar situation myself and its not fun at all - at one point I thought I'd have a certain crowd of people stage a rebellion unless the service called at the next station.
This is slightly different in that it wasn't a "standard" not-to-call order. It was special stop order & then rescinded. General practice is once you've already messed around with calling patterns (and a train is boarded), don't change it again. But as stated, it was seemingly done on the grounds of safety / overcrowding.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This correspondence (great info by the way) has shewn that a senior NR /GWR mnager needs to carry out a full analysis and then make recommendations for future controllers, station staff and train crew to follow.
Already overcrowded train that was meant to stop additionally.
A desire for controllers to provide a service for a station that has been unserved for hours
Control managing multiple cancellations due to train crew shortages
The overriding argument for safety
A potential conflict between train crew and control.
Differing information given at differing times
Ultimately though, unfortunately, the passenger loses out. The root cause will ultimately be that GWR don't currently have enough working drivers on weekend, otherwise this issue would never happened in the first place.
In the carriage I was there was at least 20 people standing in the carriage and lots more in the vestibles. After calling at Swindon, a lot got off and there were only about 10 left standing in the carriage itself.
Additional stop orders were originally in place for Bath & Chippenham on 1A58 (due to the crew shortages and trains were starting at Swindon and a 2-hour gap in service), but the train was apparently by the point of Bath severely overcrowded (the fact it seeminly lost minutes 7-8 minutes there would suggest so, even accounting for the additional stop), so the crew insisted Chippenham & Swindon were then removed.
This is precisely why the train crew should NEVER be allowed to call these decisions - that should be control’s job. Down on the platform or in their cubby hole or cab the train crew simply don’t have the complete picture and cannot hope to know what passengers have been told before they boarded (and thus don’t know what the passengers expect). I can completely understand why already delayed passengers who finally believed they were on their way would be very upset if they were told to get off part way through their journey and might then take action - and it the train was already rammed it’s difficult for the average punter to understand why turfing them off early makes things better. So if this account is accurate, the train crew were primarily responsible for creating the problem and need to be held accountable. One fewer train crew in its employ would be the best approach if GWR wants to salvage something from this mess.
It may have actually been quicker for the passengers to just travel to the next stop and then come back. I know this certainly isn’t ideal but surely better than passengers delaying a whole train for over an hour before reversing, then preceding onwards and then booting everyone else off at Reading onto another packed train.
Having waited over two hours for your train at Temple Meads and seeing the obvious chaos around you on a train wedged to the rafters, would you really trust GWR enough to quietly assume they could get you up to Reading and back before the end of service on a Sunday?
A passenger travelling Bristol to Swindon would have probably been subject to a pretty intense situation for nigh on three hours. Not surprised some tempers started to fray...
This is precisely why the train crew should NEVER be allowed to call these decisions - that should be control’s job. Down on the platform or in their cubby hole or cab the train crew simply don’t have the complete picture and cannot hope to know what passengers have been told before they boarded (and thus don’t know what the passengers expect).
In the same vein. Control don't see what's happening on the ground. The may have access to the bigger picture but quite often their decisions do have consequences that affect those at the sharp end. Quite often a decision is made based on getting the trains back on time and services get caped at a moments notice. All those passengers end up trapped on platforms and crowds begin to form.
There needs to be better joined up thinking with Control, Traincrew, and station staff. All working together.
Having waited over two hours for your train at Temple Meads and seeing the obvious chaos around you on a train wedged to the rafters, would you really trust GWR enough to quietly assume they could get you up to Reading and back before the end of service on a Sunday?
A passenger travelling Bristol to Swindon would have probably been subject to a pretty intense situation for nigh on three hours. Not surprised some tempers started to fray...
As I said in my post, taking stops out of an overcrowded train that were previously agreed is risky and will only lead to passengers being confused and frustrated - and that's what happened.
I was more speaking on how I would act - I wouldn't pull a passcom in this situation.
This is precisely why the train crew should NEVER be allowed to call these decisions - that should be control’s job. Down on the platform or in their cubby hole or cab the train crew simply don’t have the complete picture and cannot hope to know what passengers have been told before they boarded (and thus don’t know what the passengers expect).
I would normally agree, except in the case that on the ground, train crew know if a situation is unsafe or not. Control can indeed see the overall picture, and it sometimes mystifies station and on-train staff why decisions are taken, but that is because it is often part of a larger overall aim. However sometimes you need that detail.
The rest of your post is general anti-crew ranting and I don't think is relevant.
Absoutely. What would have happened here is likely:
Train is to call additionally at stations - traincrew agree
Train gets to first additional station full & standing and unsafe to continue on current calling pattern.
Traincrew phone Control to advise - a discussion and a decision is taken.
Traincrew (and station as available) to advise of the further alteration.
Train departs and passengers are suitably advised (whether on platform or train).
As I said before, you generally try not to alter already altered calling patterns. Howver as the situation unfolds, and the safety/overcrowding issue at Bath is noted, unfortunately the original plan would need to be rectified accordingly. In the above, steps 4-5 weren't done satisfactorily, but nor is it an easy task when you've got a packed train and passengers no doubt desperate to confirm information and heading in all directions.
One version of the truth is vital, but its no good if you can't give to that everyone.
It's difficult for contributors coming in to pick up on everything; and the 'facts' are necessarily partial.
I throw in these 'observations':
- It looks from RTT that the train 1A58 ran broadly 'ontime' from Penzance to Bristol, including its departure from Temple Meads https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:V70270/2021-10-03/detailed
- The platform at Chippenham is narrow (and hard to control?)
- Post # 53 has three pics inside carriages with many standing; making announcements hard to see or hear?
- Poster JN114 has made helpfully full contributions to this thread, hopefully not detrimental to the careers of himself or colleagues, eg post #51
- I dare say everyone involved did their best in the circs as they saw it
- Many posters are strong on opinion; more circumspection and sympathy are in order
- Hopefully 'Lessons will be learned'; for some perspective, although many were massively inconvenienced, no-one died as far as I know.
- No-one has directed me to stats regarding the value of passcom.
This is precisely why the train crew should NEVER be allowed to call these decisions - that should be control’s job. Down on the platform or in their cubby hole or cab the train crew simply don’t have the complete picture and cannot hope to know what passengers have been told before they boarded (and thus don’t know what the passengers expect). I can completely understand why already delayed passengers who finally believed they were on their way would be very upset if they were told to get off part way through their journey and might then take action - and it the train was already rammed it’s difficult for the average punter to understand why turfing them off early makes things better. So if this account is accurate, the train crew were primarily responsible for creating the problem and need to be held accountable. One fewer train crew in its employ would be the best approach if GWR wants to salvage something from this mess.
It's quite clear from the detailed accounts given that the traincrew didn't unilaterally decide to ignore the Special Stop Orders and tell the passengers that the train wouldn't be stopping there - it was, ultimately, a decision made by Control with input from the traincrew, and in the light of the facts given in this thread, it seems a sensible, albeit very much "least worst", decision.
How else would you suggest the traincrew should seek to resolve a situation where they (who are ultimately responsible for the safety of the train and its passengers) deem that the train is too overcrowded to work forward safely?
This is precisely why the train crew should NEVER be allowed to call these decisions - that should be control’s job. Down on the platform or in their cubby hole or cab the train crew simply don’t have the complete picture and cannot hope to know what passengers have been told before they boarded (and thus don’t know what the passengers expect). I can completely understand why already delayed passengers who finally believed they were on their way would be very upset if they were told to get off part way through their journey and might then take action - and it the train was already rammed it’s difficult for the average punter to understand why turfing them off early makes things better. So if this account is accurate, the train crew were primarily responsible for creating the problem and need to be held accountable. One fewer train crew in its employ would be the best approach if GWR wants to salvage something from this mess.
The train will have already had extra passengers from Devon, as 1A28, 15:59 Paignton - Paddington was cancelled. (I can't see any mention of that in previous posts)
However, it isn't meant to be done "just because you think people are mucking about", it is meant to be done to allow the train to be stopped as soon as safely possible, rather than somewhere possibly unsafe like a viaduct or tunnel. If a driver proceeded with the view that he was just going to ignore it each time it was pulled, then that would effectively render it inoperative, which would surely not be acceptable on safety grounds.
Operating the override also helps in avoiding stoping in “safe” but not really convenient location, for example for an ambulance / police to attend.
It is much better if you carry on to next major station ( even if skipping small ones ) than stop in the middle of nowhere or little shack , with bad access .
Train crew can make that decision after communicating or finding out , what was the reason for pass com being operated .
Why not? In any other industry, if the actions of employees lead to numerous customer complaints and acres of bad publicity in the national press, they would very quickly be shown the door.
Absolutely no way should the Traincrew lose their jobs over this, they were faced with an extremely difficult and unpleasant situation that was in no way of their making (and the same applies to other staff involved). It would be interesting however to understand why an overcrowded train was deemed unsafe to go forward without the removal of some of the passengers (which was not particularly effective anyway as events at Swindon demonstrated). As I said earlier perhaps the train could have been amended to set down only at Swindon; While some waiting on the platform at Swindon would no doubt have boarded anyway they would be balanced by those alighting there. But as always with such events it is easy to be wise after the event, things are not always so clear in the heat of the moment, with doubtless other issues on the go at the time.
Why not? In any other industry, if the actions of employees lead to numerous customer complaints and acres of bad publicity in the national press, they would very quickly be shown the door.
As above, Control made the decision with input from the traincrew. It's not the controller's fault that the train was overcrowded, nor was it the fault of the traincrew. The alternative would've been for the train to stand indefinitely, and probably end up being cancelled at Bath, because the traincrew evidently deemed it unsafe (for themselves and/or for the passengers) to work the train with the passenger loadings as they were.
I was not on the train, but reading the 5 pages so far, I have come to two conclusions, for whatever reason decisions were made and then minds were changed resulting in tougher decisions and in a multi layered situation like this it was never going to end well... Unfortunately it was at the expense of fare paying passengers.... Human Factors anyone?
Also I have a sneaking suspicion that if the PA was in proper working order in every carriage then while some pax may have not heard the announcements I think most would have (Yes some will have headphones so loud you can't hear)..... I am always amazed that the PA system on trains is so flakey (even on trains only a couple of years old). Yes they are constantly moving and its a harsh environment and the handsets are used multiple times in an hour, but it's no excuse their are many sectors where PA & communications systems are in worse environments but yet work well (I speak on this matter as an ex sound engineer who worked with PA systems).
Something that hasn't been mentioned - is the Passcomm really fit for purpose? In this, and many other similar incidents there has been an extended delay as it is difficult to get all the passcomms reset, when passengers keep pulling them for various reasons. Clearly the first pull of a passcomm needs to be properly investigated, but would it not be possible for the system to be designed so that subsequent pulls can be reset from the cab, perhaps after a call to the location? As in so many incidents, just hoping for passengers to change their attitude is clearly not going to work, so systems need to change to get the train moving again as quickly as safely practical.
Something that hasn't been mentioned - is the Passcomm really fit for purpose? In this, and many other similar incidents there has been an extended delay as it is difficult to get all the passcomms reset, when passengers keep pulling them for various reasons. Clearly the first pull of a passcomm needs to be properly investigated, but would it not be possible for the system to be designed so that subsequent pulls can be reset from the cab, perhaps after a call to the location? As in so many incidents, just hoping for passengers to change their attitude is clearly not going to work, so systems need to change to get the train moving again as quickly as safely practical.
The best solution is for the railway to manage passengers better. It takes a heck of a lot to grind them down enough to start doing this. The railway simply does not have enough respect for passengers in a good many cases like this.
The railway is quite good at incident management from an operational perspective, but very, very poor indeed at the passenger side.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
