Gatwick Airport Station closed due to suspicious package - now to reopen shortly (22/11)

[Somewhere]

Chester??

Next stop from Gatwick

 

[Dave W]

The station exits immediately into the south terminal hence why it was closed, with the terminal closed you have no where to send the passengers who alight from trains, hence why trains failed to call.

Fine, but as you said the exclusion zone included the station. So surely running trains of hundreds of passenger into said zone (even if passing) is inadvisable.

 

[800001]

Fine, but as you said the exclusion zone included the station. So surely running trains of hundreds of passenger into said zone (even if passing) is inadvisable.

If the station exit forms part of the south terminal which has been fully evacuated, what would you like them to do with passengers who can not exit the platforms into terminal?

 

[Dave W]

If the station exit forms part of the south terminal which has been fully evacuated, what would you like them to do with passengers who can not exit the platforms into terminal?

I think you're missing my point. Trains continued to run through Gatwick, not calling, did they not?

My question is if, as you said, the station was part of the exclusion zone - how was it established that running trains through an exclusion zone (for avoidance of doubt, without stopping) was safe? It seems like no other mode of transport was allowed into the exclusion zone no matter its purpose.

So again (and this is not accusatory, rather a question of genuine interest) why is the railway different?

 

[800001]

I think you're missing my point. Trains continued to run through Gatwick, not calling, did they not?

My question is if, as you said, the station was part of the exclusion zone - how was it established that running trains through an exclusion zone (for avoidance of doubt, without stopping) was safe? It seems like no other mode of transport was allowed into the exclusion zone no matter its purpose.

So again (and this is not accusatory, rather a question of genuine interest) why is the railway different?

Because as I state above, the exits of the station lead directly into a terminal which is closed! The exits are above platform level.
So as the exits are in the terminal that is why the station closed.
A train running through would have been authorised by Police and the security services.

 

[jon0844]

The station exits immediately into the south terminal hence why it was closed, with the terminal closed you have no where to send the passengers who alight from trains, hence why trains failed to call.

You could send them all out the 'hidden' gateline on the east side and make them all wait in the nearby McDonald's or KFC....!

 

[Dave W]

Because as I state above, the exits of the station lead directly into a terminal which is closed! The exits are above platform level.
So as the exits are in the terminal that is why the station closed.

This is irrelevant to my question. I understand entirely why trains aren't stopping, I know the layout at Gatwick, I have used it many times. You said that the station is in an exclusion zone. I accepted this premise. I don't care about the station being closed. I was asking about trains passing through this exclusion zone and what set the passing trains apart from otber vehicles...

A train running through would have been authorised by Police and the security services.

Right. We are apparently getting somewhere. So what goes into that decision making? Does the railway default to "run until told otherwise" or "stop everything until told running is allowed"?

Obviously the line through Gatwick is important, so to come back to the point of my original question before it was derailed by superfluous assertions about why the station was closed (I KNOW) - what sort of parameters go into this decision making? By who? Etc.

 

[jon0844]

As soon as the station was told to close, there's zero doubt the signaller would be made aware immediately and a plan would kick in on what to do, with consultation with the emergency services on what can and can't be done.

If trains needed to stop running through they would.

My assumption here is that the south terminal was closed, and given people clearly aren't going to alight and make their way out the east side to a multistorey car park and ring road (and potentially try walking around to gain access to the closed terminal) the station had to be closed too.

Do we know that all the staff had evacuated also? There may have been staff indoors (it was after all freezing cold) and checking monitors to ensure the platforms were clear of people. Or they may have left also, even though the station wasn't under any direct threat. As such I can't see why trains couldn't continue to pass and not call.

I don't know what the suspect item was, but if it was baggage then how big could an explosive device have been to risk the railway, or indeed the road underneath/next to the terminal? Was that closed also?

(Edit: It seems local roads were closed too, and impacted buses using the airport too - as the roads were ultimately gridlocked).

 

[infobleep]

I don't know what the suspect item was, but if it was baggage then how big could an explosive device have been to risk the railway, or indeed the road underneath/next to the terminal? Was that closed also?

The BBC currently have a slightly misleading headline or were it a Reach news site, I would think it clickbait.

BBC News - Gatwick Airport: Two detained over 'suspect package' - BBC News

Gatwick Airport: Two detained over 'suspect package'

An explosive ordnance disposal team was deployed after a suspected prohibited item was found.

www.bbc.co.uk

The two were released but the headline doesn't mention that. It should have been written as

Gatwick Airport: Two briefly detained over 'suspect package'

I am assuming that doesn't breach the maximum character limit for the text headline.

I am fascinated to know what it was and why the people were released. I wonder if we will be allowed to know this.

This is irrelevant to my question. I understand entirely why trains aren't stopping, I know the layout at Gatwick, I have used it many times. You said that the station is in an exclusion zone. I accepted this premise. I don't care about the station being closed. I was asking about trains passing through this exclusion zone and what set the passing trains apart from otber vehicles...


Right. We are apparently getting somewhere. So what goes into that decision making? Does the railway default to "run until told otherwise" or "stop everything until told running is allowed"?

Obviously the line through Gatwick is important, so to come back to the point of my original question before it was derailed by superfluous assertions about why the station was closed (I KNOW) - what sort of parameters go into this decision-making? By who? Etc.

Good original question.

I suspect what was meant was that the station was closed to people hanging around but not for people passing through but people couldn't pass through as through airport was closed. Trains could however pass through as no hanging around.

Obviously, the signaller would not be able to hold the train at Gatwick Airport as it would be hanging around. So if any delay it would need to be held before or after Gatwick Airport.

There is an exit from the station to outside but I guess the pavements wouldn't cope with the number of passengers, so on safety grounds they couldn't stand around outside in the cold.

I appreciate people were doing that already but they obviously didn't wish to add to this number. I'm not sure how far away the passengers went from Gatwick Airport South Terminal once outside.

 

[jon0844]

The BBC currently have a slightly misleading headline or were it a Reach news site, I would think it clickbait.

BBC News - Gatwick Airport: Two detained over 'suspect package' - BBC News

Gatwick Airport: Two detained over 'suspect package'

An explosive ordnance disposal team was deployed after a suspected prohibited item was found.

www.bbc.co.uk

The two were released but the headline doesn't mention that. It should have been written as


I am assuming that doesn't breach the maximum character limit for the text headline.

I am fascinated to know what it was and why the people were released. I wonder if we will be allowed to know this.


Good original question.

I suspect what was meant was that the station was closed to people hanging around but not for people passing through but people couldn't pass through as through airport was closed. Trains could however pass through as no hanging around.

Obviously, the signaller would not be able to hold the train at Gatwick Airport as it would be hanging around. So if any delay it would need to be held before or after Gatwick Airport.

There is an exit from the station to outside but I guess the pavements wouldn't cope with the number of passengers, so on safety grounds they couldn't stand around outside in the cold.

I appreciate people were doing that already but they obviously didn't wish to add to this number. I'm not sure how far away the passengers went from Gatwick Airport South Terminal once outside.

I assume there's a rendezvous point for each individual terminal, which must be quite large given the possibility of clearing a very busy multi-level terminal building. I assume it's in the open and away from building structures, and given how cold it was this would have been quite unpleasant and extremely crowded.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is irrelevant to my question. I understand entirely why trains aren't stopping, I know the layout at Gatwick, I have used it many times. You said that the station is in an exclusion zone. I accepted this premise. I don't care about the station being closed. I was asking about trains passing through this exclusion zone and what set the passing trains apart from otber vehicles...

Does the railway default to "run until told otherwise" or "stop everything until told running is allowed"?

Obviously the line through Gatwick is important, so to come back to the point of my original question before it was derailed by superfluous assertions about why the station was closed (I KNOW) - what sort of parameters go into this decision making? By who? Etc.

This would have been declared a “Major Incident” declared by Sussex police (not BTP), and the person in overall control would have been a senior office from that force, nominated Gold Command. They would have taken the decisions on evacuation, and whether the railway remained open or not.

As a Major Incident - which has definitions in law - the railway would have appointed a Rail Incident Commander to liase with the Gold Command. I expect the RIC would have been a senior person in Three Bridges Control. They would have had confimation from Gold Command that a) the station was being closed but that b) it remained safe to run trains. (RIC is a formal competence). I expect the RIC would have advised the Gold Commander of the position with respect to railway operations.

A major factor in the decision making would have been the risk to the public of the suspect device exploding. I understand that there was a 100m exclusion zone, which means the suspect device had been assessed to be relatively small (as you would expect from something that could fit in suitcase). I don’t know where abouts in South terminal it was, but it is reasonable to assume that having any part of the terminal building open to members of the public would put them at some risk, and obviously when the controlled explosions were carried out you don’t want people in harms way, watching or in a position to ‘panic’. Hence evacuate the whole building, including the entrances to the station and the entrance to the north terminal link. Similarly, it must have been decided that having people on the platforms would be a risk - I suspect the platforms were outside the exclusion zone, but in any event the railway would not want to have trains stopping to disgorge passengers where they could not get out of the station. Gatwick would certainly not have wanted several thousand people in the Multi Storey.

However the risk to passengers on passing trains must have been assessed as negligible, given that they would be close to (but outside) the exclusion zone for a matter of seconds and in a metal tube offering protection, and therefore this risk would be acceptable compared to the alternative of stopping all trains and having passengers on stranded trains and overcrowded stations everywhere from the Sussex Coast to Cambridgeshire.

To summarise:
Decisions taken by the GOLD commander, in this case a senior officer from Sussex Police, based on information provided to them by the RIC, a senior manager in Three Bridges Control.

And yes, in such incidents controlled externally the railway is default keep running until advised to stop.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

To me the logic is as follows. The station platforms are not in the exclusion zone. However all ways to enter/exit the station are. The risk of trying to keep the platforms open, and so keep passengers penned in on the platforms is far too high compared to any risk arising from closing the platforms completely (to passengers) and/or closing the railway. Don’t forget closing the railway leads to passengers thinking about getting themselves off trains in an uncontrolled manner.

 

[Dave W]

This would have been declared a “Major Incident” declared by Sussex police (not BTP), and the person in overall control would have been a senior office from that force, nominated Gold Command. They would have taken the decisions on evacuation, and whether the railway remained open or not.

As a Major Incident - which has definitions in law - the railway would have had appointed Rail Incident Commander to liase with the Gold Command. I expect the RIC woild have been a senior person in Three Bridges Control. They would have had confimation from Gold Command that a) the station was being closed but that b) it remained safe to run trains. (RIC is a formal competence). I expect the RIC would have advised the Gold Commander of the position with respect to railway operations.

A major factor in the decision making would have been the risk to the public of the suspect device exploding. I understand that there was a 100m exclusion zone, which means the suspect device had been assessed to be relatively small (as you would expect from something that could fit in suitcase). I don’t know where abouts in South terminal it was, but it is reasonable to assume that having any part of the terminal building open to members of the public would put them at some risk, and obviously when the controlled explosions were carried out you don’t want people in harms way, watching or in a psotion to ‘panic’. Hence evacuate the whole building, including the entrances to the station and the entrance to the north terminal link. Similarly, it must have been decided that having people on the platforms would be a risk - I suspect the platforms were outside the exclusion zone, but in any event the railway would not want to have stations stopping to disgorge passengers where they could not get out of the station. Gatwick would certainly not have wanted several thousand people in the Multi Storey.

However the risk to passengers on passing trains must have been assessed as negligible, given that they would be close to (but outside) the exclusion zone for a matter of seconds and in a metal tube offering protection, and therefore this risk would be acceptable compared to the alternative of stopping all trains and having passengers on stranded trains and overcrowded stations everywhere from the Sussex Coast to Cambridgeshire.

To summarise:
Decisions taken by the GOLD commander, in this case a senior officer from Sussex Police, based on information provided to them by the RIC, a senior manager in Three Bridges Control.

And yes, in such incidents controlled externally the railway is default keep running until advised to stop.

Thanks for this - it was of interest to me how the railway works in the bigger picture (I have non-railway experience of crisis/major incidents). Your appraisal was exactly what I was looking for, cheers!

 

[Steveswan10]

Just out of interest, if there is say a suspicious package on a platform or bridge over a platform, is it ultimately down to the signaller if they allow trains to continue running even if told by control to continue, or can they say reasonably their not sending anything through until it's confirmed clear?

 

[Ediswan]

The BBC currently have a slightly misleading headline or were it a Reach news site, I would think it clickbait.

BBC News - Gatwick Airport: Two detained over 'suspect package' - BBC News

I'd swear (no record taken) that an earlier version of the article had a 'two released' headline.

 

[Somewhere]

Just out of interest, if there is say a suspicious package on a platform or bridge over a platform, is it ultimately down to the signaller if they allow trains to continue running even if told by control to continue, or can they say reasonably their not sending anything through until it's confirmed clear?

It's down to the police

 

[Whiggism]

How busy were the first trains that were able to call there once again?

 

[Bald Rick]

Just out of interest, if there is say a suspicious package on a platform or bridge over a platform, is it ultimately down to the signaller if they allow trains to continue running even if told by control to continue, or can they say reasonably their not sending anything through until it's confirmed clear?

A signaller would not normally hold the competence to assess a suspect package, and is rarely in a position to do so. If there is such a package that has been assessed to be a threat, then the individual assessing it would advise the signaller the outcome of their assessment (sometimes directly, but usually via control). If that assessment is that there is no material threat, and the line can be opened, and the signaller then decides not to set routes past the site, then the signaller can expect to be instructed to do so by their supervisor. If they choose not to follow that instruction, they can expect a conversation with their manager in short order, with facts will be ascertained from all parties.

Similarly for a driver.

It is exactly the same process for reopening a line after any obstruction; the signaller (or driver) is relying on the competence of the individual assessing the obstruction, and the safety of the line resulting from it.

 

[pembroke]

I was due to transit Gatwick yesterday, Redhill to Brighton around 10.40. Two points, all the rail staff, platform and train kept everyone as informed as possible. There seemed to be lots of flexibility and a good dry sense of humour and very few grumbles. Re. Horley, there used to be a footpath leading from the houses south of the station, directly to the south terminal, ( should anyone have wanted to join the chilly crowd outside the buildings).

 

[infobleep]

This would have been declared a “Major Incident” declared by Sussex police (not BTP), and the person in overall control would have been a senior office from that force, nominated Gold Command. They would have taken the decisions on evacuation, and whether the railway remained open or not.

As a Major Incident - which has definitions in law - the railway would have appointed a Rail Incident Commander to liase with the Gold Command. I expect the RIC would have been a senior person in Three Bridges Control. They would have had confimation from Gold Command that a) the station was being closed but that b) it remained safe to run trains. (RIC is a formal competence). I expect the RIC would have advised the Gold Commander of the position with respect to railway operations.

A major factor in the decision making would have been the risk to the public of the suspect device exploding. I understand that there was a 100m exclusion zone, which means the suspect device had been assessed to be relatively small (as you would expect from something that could fit in suitcase). I don’t know where abouts in South terminal it was, but it is reasonable to assume that having any part of the terminal building open to members of the public would put them at some risk, and obviously when the controlled explosions were carried out you don’t want people in harms way, watching or in a position to ‘panic’. Hence evacuate the whole building, including the entrances to the station and the entrance to the north terminal link. Similarly, it must have been decided that having people on the platforms would be a risk - I suspect the platforms were outside the exclusion zone, but in any event the railway would not want to have trains stopping to disgorge passengers where they could not get out of the station. Gatwick would certainly not have wanted several thousand people in the Multi Storey.

However the risk to passengers on passing trains must have been assessed as negligible, given that they would be close to (but outside) the exclusion zone for a matter of seconds and in a metal tube offering protection, and therefore this risk would be acceptable compared to the alternative of stopping all trains and having passengers on stranded trains and overcrowded stations everywhere from the Sussex Coast to Cambridgeshire.

To summarise:
Decisions taken by the GOLD commander, in this case a senior officer from Sussex Police, based on information provided to them by the RIC, a senior manager in Three Bridges Control.

And yes, in such incidents controlled externally the railway is default keep running until advised to stop.

This has made me wonder this entirely hypothetical scenario. If it was a fairly warm summers day but not to hot to cauae people to get sun burnt, and it was possible for passengers to exit the station via the barriers to the drop off point, would trains have been allowed to stop?

Or is there no situation where they want people outside, bar those evacuated from the airport?

On another point, did they try to clear people from the platforms yesterday by putting them on the trains? Or would that be problematic as people would try to get off.

 

[Somewhere]

This has made me wonder this entirely hypothetical scenario. If it was a fairly warm summers day but not to hot to cauae people to get sun burnt, and it was possible for passengers to exit the station via the barriers to the drop off point, would trains have been allowed to stop?

Or is there no situation where they want people outside, bar those evacuated from the airport?

On another point, did they try to clear people from the platforms yesterday by putting them on the trains? Or would that be problematic as people would try to get off.

They wouldn't want loads more people turning up than were already there, so no, they wouldn't.

 

[infobleep]

They wouldn't want loads more people turning up than were already there, so no, they wouldn't.

That's fair enough. I thought that might be the case but thought I'd ask all the same.

There would be a safe number of people that Gatwick Airport as a whole can hold outside.

I wonder if we will ever be allowed to know more details about what happened, given the traveller were allowed to continue on their travels.

 

[Somewhere]

That's fair enough. I thought that might be the case but thought I'd ask all the same.

There would be a safe number of people that Gatwick Airport as a whole can hold outside.

I wonder if we will ever be allowed to know more details about what happened, given the traveller were allowed to continue on their travels.

They tend to shut Gatwick station anyway if the trains are disrupted due to overcrowding

 

[Bikeman78]

I note that Gatwick Express branded services are not stopping at Gatwick Airport.

Makes a change from the Gatick Express branded trains running services not branded Gatwick Express.

Were they stopping at Horley instead?

I think you're missing my point. Trains continued to run through Gatwick, not calling, did they not?

My question is if, as you said, the station was part of the exclusion zone - how was it established that running trains through an exclusion zone (for avoidance of doubt, without stopping) was safe? It seems like no other mode of transport was allowed into the exclusion zone no matter its purpose.

So again (and this is not accusatory, rather a question of genuine interest) why is the railway different?

I remember the fire alarm went off at Birmingham New Street. They wouldn't let passengers down to the platforms but trains continued to arrive tipping out loads of passengers. Very disorganised.

 

[PGAT]

Were they stopping at Horley instead?

I saw one with Horley on the side destination screen although when I looked at live departures they were only stopping at Three Bridges instead

 

[infobleep]

I saw one with Horley on the side destination screen although when I looked at live departures they were only stopping at Three Bridges instead

Would they want loads of people walking between Horley and Gatwick Airport? How safe is the route if lots of people were to do it with luggage?

 

[Bikeman78]

I saw one with Horley on the side destination screen although when I looked at live departures they were only stopping at Three Bridges instead

Well that's good news. I often change at Gatwick. I wouldn't see the funny side of being carried through to Haywards Heath.

 

[infobleep]

Well that's good news. I often change at Gatwick. I wouldn't see the funny side of being carried through to Haywards Heath.

I imagine most trains didn't stop additionally at Horley or Three Bridges. Or maybe they did without advertising it.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

I imagine most trains didn't stop additionally at Horley or Three Bridges. Or maybe they did without advertising it.

Why speculate when you can do one google search?

x.com

x.com

@southernrailuk: ALL trains that call at Gatwick Airport will stop additionally at Horley and Three Bridges to keep you on the move.

 

[infobleep]

Why speculate when you can do one google search?

x.com

x.com

Other search engines are avaliable but a very good point.

I was sure when I looked on National Rail Enquries is just showed some with the Gatwick Airport stop removed but I may be misremembering what I saw.