Train evacuation/detraining passengers?

[Tr4in]

Hi,

A question to train conductors and guards out there.

If there was an operational incident (i.e. spad, fail to call, wrong routed, stopped out of course). Would you de-train your train and advise passengers to board another service?

And what your reasons be for this?

My reasons for de-training as a priority for example in the event of a station overrun, the train would might have to be taken out of service for sander checks (if wsp), The driver would have to "come off of the road". That service would be terminated until crew cover?

I'm guessing it is dependant on the incident, so could be either?

 

[PupCuff]

That decision would generally be made by control. There's various circumstances where it maybe undesirable to immediately detrain customers (eg if a train's had a fatality at a station there may be body matter on the platform which requires cleaning or screening off before you want to let customers past it, and in any case there may be limited choices for onward transport from there anyway), at least if they're on the train they're likely to be reasonably comfortable and have access to toilet facilities, protection from inclement weather etc.

 

[bramling]

Hi,

A question to train conductors and guards out there.

If there was an operational incident (i.e. spad, fail to call, wrong routed, stopped out of course). Would you de-train your train and advise passengers to board another service?

And what your reasons be for this?

My reasons for de-training as a priority for example in the event of a station overrun, the train would might have to be taken out of service for sander checks (if wsp), The driver would have to "come off of the road". That service would be terminated until crew cover?

I'm guessing it is dependant on the incident, so could be either?

Control would make the decision, except in an extreme emergency where there was an immediate risk to life, though in that situation the crew would be more likely to be attempting to protect the train as their first action.

 

[skyhigh]

I presume you don't mean de-train in the normal sense (i.e. onto the lineside)?

 

[Tr4in]

Control would make the decision, except in an extreme emergency where there was an immediate risk to life, though in that situation the crew would be more likely to be attempting to protect the train as their first action.

So if there was no immediate risk to life, and there was an operational incident would control to de-train passengers? and why?

 

[Scott1]

Experiance plays a big part. When you've dealt with incidents before and in differing locations, you get a feel for how long something will take and what the alternatives are.

If, for example, your at Sheffield and your unit needs to be held then detaining may provide pleanty if alternatives fairly quickly. If your at Redcar, probably not so much.

The type of incident too, some are quick, some are slow, and some depend on who's involved, even the type of rolling stock.

Its always a dose of experiance and a bit of educated guessing. All of this assumes the train is still, at least partially, platformed. If not then its going to be a 'wait and see' job for a while, and likely the train will need to be taken into a station, unless there is absolutely no option to do this.

 

[Adlington]

Control would make the decision, except in an extreme emergency where there was an immediate risk to life, though in that situation the crew would be more likely to be attempting to protect the train as their first action.

So protecting the train is more important than preventing an immediate risk to life ???

 

[Scott1]

So protecting the train is more important than preventing an immediate risk to life ???

They, I assume, are referring to placing protection on the line, to prevent another train coming into the area whilst passe gers are evacuating. Not protecting the train itself from fire damage or something.

 

[ComUtoR]

So if there was no immediate risk to life, and there was an operational incident would control to de-train passengers? and why?

You have answered your own question.

My reasons for de-training as a priority for example in the event of a station overrun, the train would might have to be taken out of service for sander checks (if wsp), The driver would have to "come off of the road". That service would be terminated until crew cover?

No risk to life, but the decision is taken to de-train.

I'm guessing it is dependant on the incident, so could be either?

Very much so.

 

[skyhigh]

So protecting the train is more important than preventing an immediate risk to life ???

Absolutely, yes. "Protecting the train" means ensuring all train movements which may cause a hazard are stopped.

In the event of a major derailment, fire, self evacuation etc you can bet your bottom dollar I will be out following the rule book instructions and laying protection if required rather than first ensuring everyone on the train is safe and well.

Why would I go and try to fight a fire or whatever when there's the potential people could start self evacuating onto an open line and get wiped out by the first passing train?

 

[L401CJF]

Absolutely, yes. "Protecting the train" means ensuring all train movements which may cause a hazard are stopped.

In the event of a major derailment, fire, self evacuation etc you can bet your bottom dollar I will be out following the rule book instructions and laying protection if required rather than first ensuring everyone on the train is safe and well.

Why would I go and try to fight a fire or whatever when there's the potential people could start self evacuating onto an open line and get wiped out by the first passing train?

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Tr4in]

You have answered your own question.




No risk to life, but the decision is taken to de-train.



Very much so.

Thanks for this reply. See I wasn't too sure because trains that I have been on, where the driver has had an operational incident e.g. fail to call or spad . The service was terminated each time.

So I assumed the reason being was to check the train controls, gauges.. etc. And to assess the driver (e.g. incident report, d and a test.. etc.)

I'm not sure what the rules state explicitly for ops incidents but obviously it varies case by case.


I had a friend who recently had a similar questions in his final rules exam and I was confused because it isn't really a simple yes or no answer.

 

[ComUtoR]

Thanks for this reply. See I wasn't too sure because trains that I have been on, where the driver has had an operational incident e.g. fail to call or spad . The service was terminated each time.

That's just bad luck. Plenty of incidents do not require the train to be taken out of service or the Driver removed from duty.

So I assumed the reason being was to check the train controls, gauges.. etc. And to assess the driver (e.g. incident report, d and a test.. etc.)

It can be many things. One of the last things a Signaller will say to you after any incident, accident, mishap, or general oopsie is. "are you ok to continue ?" The Driver may want to be removed or be happy to run ECS instead.

I'm not sure what the rules state explicitly for ops incidents but obviously it varies case by case.

I'm not sure if the rules speak specifically about operational incidents. None initially spring to mind but there will be more specific instructions in a TOCs safety case. (there are probably some that I just can't recall at the moment)

I had a friend who recently had a similar questions in his final rules exam and I was confused because it isn't really a simple yes or no answer.

They/You may be a bit confused here. There are specific rules in which various faults and failures may require removing the train from service or where a competent person would be required. Those would also be listed somewhere and control would check the list to see if a unit can or cannot remain in service. Door regs are a good example where a train might have to be pulled from service.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Thanks for this reply. See I wasn't too sure because trains that I have been on, where the driver has had an operational incident e.g. fail to call or spad . The service was terminated each time.

You must be extremely unlucky to have been a passenger on so many trains to be involved in such incidents. That is unless you are merely guessing the reasons behind the service being terminated and have come up with the ‘juicier’ conclusion that it was down to Driver error.

 

[bramling]

So protecting the train is more important than preventing an immediate risk to life ???

Yes because if we’re talking about an extreme emergency situation (for example a derailment) then in many situations the number one risk is going to be a secondary incident occurring. In such a situation on-train staff aren’t always going to be able to make an assessment of how likely that is, so must assume a worst-case scenario.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

Like many have said this is a very broad question with too many variables to give an honest and definite answer.

Over the weekend I was involved in an incident where we had to carry out a controlled evacuation (failed freight in-front of us and another freight behind, no way of shifting our train until the failed on was rescued)

We were a stood for a good 2 hours before everything was in place, onward travel arranged, MOM had walked to train to assist and many phone calls back and forth with control/signaller to confirm everything, it’s all totally dependent on the incident and situation.

Obviously it could fall out of your hands and become an emergency evacuation, uncontrolled or, like mine, controlled and planned but it’s very difficult to answer this poll with little information given how many operational incidents there could be

 

[12LDA28C]

Thanks for this reply. See I wasn't too sure because trains that I have been on, where the driver has had an operational incident e.g. fail to call or spad . The service was terminated each time.

The reasons for the incident would dictate the course of action to be taken afterwards. No two incidents are the same, for example a driver often will not need to be relieved after having a fail to call and will often be allowed to proceed to destination, unless an allegation has been made in relation to the brakes or other equipment in which case the train may have to be taken out of service for investigation.

If the driver is at fault, again it would depend on that driver's history whether they were to be relieved immediately or not. There is no 'one size fits all' answer.

 

[Cadno]

Slightly off piste, but for utter dertain shambles look RAIB Report 07/12. Their search system is not working well. I found it by putting "Kentish Town train incident " into Google.

 

[thaitransit]

I would assume it depends on the situation and location. Something like a fire onboard the train would require an immediate stop and evacuation to the trackside as multiple lives are at risk.

Other situations like air-conditioning failure would require train to terminate at next station and passenger transferred to road coaches to complete journey.

Also the location of incident could also come into play. If its in remote areas with no communications other than satellite phone and no road access. It is likely better for passengers to stay on the train until help can reach them as you don't want passengers wondering away from the train in 50 degree heat and no civilisation within hundreds of km!

 

[12LDA28C]

I would assume it depends on the situation and location. Something like a fire onboard the train would require an immediate stop and evacuation to the trackside as multiple lives are at risk.

Other situations like air-conditioning failure would require train to terminate at next station and passenger transferred to road coaches to complete journey.

Also the location of incident could also come into play. If its in remote areas with no communications other than satellite phone and no road access. It is likely better for passengers to stay on the train until help can reach them as you don't want passengers wondering away from the train in 50 degree heat and no civilisation within hundreds of km!

Air conditioning failure would mean passengers transferred to road coaches? Not in the UK it wouldn't.

Even a fire on a train would not involve an evacuation onto the trackside in all but the most serious incidents.

 

[thaitransit]

Even a fire on a train would not involve an evacuation onto the trackside in all but the most serious incidents.

That policy certainly would result in significant loss of life. In Australia on board fire means immediate evacuation. As it simply far safer outside the train than in it that situation. The most such fire incidents here in Australia have resulted in the loss of that carriage or even multiple carriages. However such incidents are extremely rare perhaps once a decade.

 

[156421]

That policy certainly would result in significant loss of life. In Australia on board fire means immediate evacuation. As it simply far safer outside the train than in it that situation. The most such fire incidents here in Australia have resulted in the loss of that carriage or even multiple carriages. However such incidents are extremely rare perhaps once a decade.

Likely to increase with the rise of unregulated e bikes

 

[TreacleMiller]

That policy certainly would result in significant loss of life. In Australia on board fire means immediate evacuation. As it simply far safer outside the train than in it that situation. The most such fire incidents here in Australia have resulted in the loss of that carriage or even multiple carriages. However such incidents are extremely rare perhaps once a decade.

Completely not the case in the UK especially on busy multi track routes with overhead or worse, third rail electric supply.

Evacuate internally away from the fire, external only if absolutely necessary and the train is only stopped in areas to facilitate such an evacuation.

We can override emergency brake applications for this very reason. You don't want to stop on a viaduct or in a tunnel for example.

 

[L401CJF]

That policy certainly would result in significant loss of life. In Australia on board fire means immediate evacuation. As it simply far safer outside the train than in it that situation. The most such fire incidents here in Australia have resulted in the loss of that carriage or even multiple carriages. However such incidents are extremely rare perhaps once a decade.

I'm not sure that it would. I'm a guard here in the UK, our training regarding onboard fires is very situation dependent.

Upon discovering a fire we must immediately stop the train and move people away from the vicinity (usually into the next carriage if possible). If its a small fire say no larger than a bin, we are allowed to attempt to extinguish it. If the fire is successfully extinguished the train can be authorised to continue to a suitable location, provided somebody competent can travel in the affected coach to ensure it doesnt reginite (however its all situation dependent and not necessarily going to be authorised). The affected coach can be locked out of use and on a lot of the older stock the doors between the carriages can be locked to contain the fire.

The general rule in the UK is that its usually safer to remain on the train, of course if theres an immediate danger to life then an emergency evacuation can be carried out.

You definitely don't want to be evacuating unless absolutely necessary.

 

[thaitransit]

Completely not the case in the UK especially on busy multi track routes with overhead or worse, third rail electric supply.

Evacuate internally away from the fire, external only if absolutely necessary and the train is only stopped in areas to facilitate such an evacuation.

We can override emergency brake applications for this very reason. You don't want to stop on a viaduct or in a tunnel for example.

I have only seen emergency brake handles on heritage stock and some very old in service stock in Australia. Basically everything built since the 1980s includes the xpts don't have passenger accessible emergency brake handles.

However some modern trains do have emergency help buttons to signal train crew. Also most moderm trains have passenger accessible emergency door releases.

3rd rail is certainly not an issue in Australia as no railway uses it. But overhead wires are a concern especially if they have fallen.

But yes if its a small fire eg in a bin this can be handled on board but if not then it won't take long before the carriage is full of black smoke and the fire quickly spreading. This is extremely dangerous especially on all walk through stock that is common now. So it won't take long for an entire 3 car train to fill with toxic smoke thus requiring an immediate exit.

 

[12LDA28C]

That policy certainly would result in significant loss of life. In Australia on board fire means immediate evacuation. As it simply far safer outside the train than in it that situation. The most such fire incidents here in Australia have resulted in the loss of that carriage or even multiple carriages. However such incidents are extremely rare perhaps once a decade.

Utter rubbish. Any fire on board in the UK would generally be under the solebar and not in the passenger saloon, it would usually also be dealt with pretty quickly by the automatic fire bottles. Extremely rare for any kind of evacuation to be required.

 

[ComUtoR]

it would usually also be dealt with pretty quickly by the automatic fire bottles

Never heard of those. Sounds interesting. What are they ?

 

[skyhigh]

Never heard of those. Sounds interesting. What are they ?

AFFF bottles underneath the solebar positioned to discharge on the engine/fuel lines etc. It's triggered by a pyrolytic wire. There's also a manual bottle in case the auto fails.

 

[12LDA28C]

AFFF bottles underneath the solebar positioned to discharge on the engine/fuel lines etc. It's triggered by a pyrolytic wire. There's also a manual bottle in case the auto fails.

Indeed, although it would be very unusual for the automatic extinguisher to fail, I would say the manual fire bottle would be activated by the driver if the automatic one had gone off but failed to put out the fire. A driver would also have a handheld FE in the cab they could use if necessary.

 

[185]

Automatic Fire Bottles

Never heard of those. Sounds interesting. What are they ?

On most diesel stock there is an automatic fire extinguishing system, with the discharge pipe running around the underframe with little holes in. Only ever once seen it go off, on a 156 - from the front cab at 25mph, behind us looked like we were on the Hogwarts steam engine.