Passengers forcing their way off stranded trains

[Pyreneenguy]

If I could get home quicker by forcing my way out, then I would. In London, you are not going to be far from a bus stop, so forcing my way out onto a local bus route would be my preferred option rather than leaving myself at the mercy of a train company. If that means endangering myself, risking a row with the BTP or causing further delay to others, then so be it. It is the fault of the train company / infrastructure company for not dealing quickly enough with the incident.

Thank-you for an honest, human approach to the problem.

 

[EM2]

Things are never so clear-cut. After two hours of waiting, I consider their actions were justified.

Even though this would inconvenience you by even longer? The good of the few outweighs the good of the many?

 

[OxtedL]

Sorry to crash in again, but I honestly don't think there's much to be gained by continuing to argue about whether or not the passengers' actions were justifiable given the circumstances, as we have already seen that self evacuation will ultimately help pretty much no-one, and all that's left to discuss now are the subjective bits on the side. That means opinions. Which pretty clearly aren't going to change. So can everyone take a step back for a bit now?

What I'm interested in myself here is why it isn't considered practical to get some kind of crawl (and platform share / queue) system going in situations with absolute meltdown (assuming the power is still on).

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Thank-you for an honest, human approach to the problem.

It's not honest because it's criminal. End of. Surreytraveller is also the one who goes through trains pulling emergency cords because he has missed his stop. He pulls many more than one to make it difficult for the crew to resolve the situation by his own admission. How would you feel if you were delayed because of thoughtless selfish actions like the above and detraining yourselves?

 

[mumrar]

2 hours already illustrates a huge defaillance in the TOC's capacity to run a railway competently.

In which case we should close all motorways and roads to/from the coastline every bank holiday weekend then!

In all the times I've heard of huge tailbacks on motorways due to an accident, I've never heard that once the road is re-opened traffic cannot move because after two hours all the drivers walked off and left their cars there.

Whilst we are discussing an extreme case in terms of railway delays, it never ceases to amaze me how people have such an inability to deal with a delayed train journey. At least 4 times a day, 5 days a week and for 52 weeks of the year you can GUARANTEE that any journey of note by road will be greatly increased by congestion delays. That's 260 days out of the 365/366 - yet because people are cocooned in their own private shiny tin can they do it every day, day in day out. Ridiculous!

 

[Old Timer]

So a question for you.
During the hour or so that normally elapses before an estimate can be given, what would YOU do. Cancel all services travelling to/from the affected area, even from long distance origins?.

To what end?.

Service recovery.
There is absolutely no point in continuing to send in train after train to an ongoing blockage.

You could ultimately end up with no services from one or both ends for last trains for example. A similar problem can apply to train crews.

It can be a better idea to clinically cancel a service on the basis that this is the best option route-wide, leaving passengers to travel on a following service.

Generally this works because the cancelled train would inevitably get caught up in possibility.

The point I am making is that a decision needs to be made. Continue sending trains towards a blockage in the hope that it clears, or start cancelling so as to preserve trains and train crew particularly to relief out of hours crews.

..What about train crew ? Are you going to leave those on the trains to fend for themselves or are you going to look at what may be necessary to be done to find them relief ?.

I don't understand your point. The crew's first duty is the safety and comfort of their passengers. It is the responsibility of their line managers to ensure they get the support and resources they need to fulfil that duty. That is clearly not happening at present - as evidence for that claim I give you the repeated incidents where trail crews are unable to keep irate passengers on trapped trains without endangering themselves..

I think you have misread or misunderstood.
Speaking to train crew on a regular basis can take a considerable amount of time. If for example we say that information to the effect that nothing has changed takes 3 minutes from start to finish of call, then that gives a potential base of speaking with 20 trains per hour. Of course some calls will take longer and there may be delays in getting response from others, so lets say that a workable arrangement of 15 calls per hour.

That means one person doing nothing but simply calling train crews every hour. If the cycle is to be repeated every 20 or 30 minutes then I am sure you can do the maths yourself. More trains will obviously alter that fact.

During this time of course nobody can contact the person making the calls and the telephone line will be continually in use.

As you would probably consider 60 minutes to be too long between calls, you will now have doubled the manpower and the telephone lines. During this period these staff are doing nothing else.

In addition to managing the normal service area, the Control will need to start making sometimes complex arrangements for relieving train crews who may be running out of time, working out the best means of operating services along the affected portion of route, and dealing with the inevitable series of passengers demanding taxis and the like for whatever reason. Again these activities take time, and there will inevitably be a delay in staff being summoned to duty if that course of action is taken. Some may well live on the route that is disrupted.

..What would YOU do about other services that they are due to operate ? Will you cancel them as well or will you try to get train crew from off duty, thus running the risk of impacting the following day's services ?.

Again to what end?.

See my comments further above.

Surely you only need 1 person to get information out to the train crews who then relay that to the passengers. Somebody somewhere surely must know what is going on????.

Addressed above I feel

…Will you make an assumption in the first hour as to the likelihood of the incident being just a simple failure rather than a theft somewhere along a line of route that can only be identified by walking it from end to end ?.

Why? How will that impact the ability to pass information onto the passengers?.

It will determine what is said and what estimate is given. Fellow posters have condemned conflicting information. This in general will be updated information that is emerging into the system through various means. For example a Signalman may well give a much updated answer to a Driver than the Driver’s Control will, simply because the information may be in the process of being passed on to the TOC Control.

In making the judgement the Control will also then be setting a strategy that can be planned..

…Will you make an immediate assumption that it will be major, implement major changes and cancellations and then discover that it will be resolved within a short period of time ?.

Why? The decision should be made when the information is available to make it or when it becomes apparent that the incident is dragging on for too long with no end in sight..

so tell me at what point DOES it become apparent ? What are your criteria ?

…Remember whatever decision YOU make will be criticised by armchair warriors such as yourself and dissected with intricacy in the comfort of absolute hindsight ?.

That I the nature of working in a business that receives a subsidy from the taxpayer (in the case of the ToCs) or is owned by the state (as is NR untilmately), which makes you accountable to the taxpayers, who are entitled to ask such questions..

No-one minds questions, what we have here however are a number of individuals who because they don’t like the response to those questions launch into criticism and try to browbeat and second-guess those who provide the answers.

In any case I wonder how many are true taxpayers ? That rules out some I guess.

…Your posts suggests that the Signalman (as it will either be them or the TOC control who will speak to them) will have nothing more to do with his/her time than sit down and drink tea This quite misses the point that both parties will be working hard to in the one case try to move trains if possible, and will perhaps be reversing trains away from the area, and in the other will be trying to set up alternative arrangements..

Can you please highlight where I said this so that I correct my post as I had no intent to make such an assertion? What I was tarrying to say is that by insulting passengers with "There is a problem on the line ahead and I have no idea when it will be fixed" and then claiming they are providing information risks giving passengers the impression that that is what is happening..

And when this turns out to be the correct answer ?

There is no situation when a definitive judgement as to the cause of a failure can be made until the location and nature of the fault is identified.

Next time you get a power cut at home, ring and demand a restoration time from the Electricity company and see what you are told.

quite misses the point that both parties will be working hard to in the one case try to move trains if possible, and will perhaps be reversing trains away from the area, and in the other will be trying to set up alternative arrangements..

I don't claim otherwise, but why not communicate those efforts to the passengers? Why is it such a secret. Surely 1 person from customer services could be co-opted into handling the information flow, thus avoiding diverting those qualified to resolve the problem, from working to do so? I'll lay odds that regular updates are being given to senior managers, why not get their PA to rely it back down the chain to train crews?.

I have already done the maths for you.

There is a fine line to be drawn between senior managers getting involved and getting in the way. In many cases the personnel dealing with the issues are well able to deal with them, What we have is a volume of work issue not a quality of decision-making issue. This belief that the presence of a senior manager makes things run better is both demeaning to the staff and indicative of a lack of experience in more senior roles.

There is a hierarchy for a reason and the way the Industry has now progressed by the direct entry of Graduates to senior positions more and more rules out their being of much or indeed any use whatsoever. This was becoming the case in BR days when such individuals held similar beliefs to yourself, by trying to become involved in things they were really not competent to judge or handle.

…

Nobody suggests that there are some areas where things cannot be improved but many of these are locked in by legal constraints..

Then those constrains should be highlighted so that we taxpayers can work with the industry to get any unreasonable obstructions removed..

Fine. Write to your MP and ask him to enquire as to whether or not overly cautious H&S rules are creating more problems than they solve. Whilst you are at it you may like to ask him why Parliament feels the need to implement measures far stricter than even the EU Directives require. French safety Law by comparison to the UK is like a child’s storybook compared to the collected works of Shakespeare.

…..Until that time major disruptive incidents - albeit not as common as people seem to believe - will occur from time to time. Like the major closures of Motorways little can be done to mitigate them without fairly major expenditure which would have to be recovered.

They will always happen no matter how much money is spent on them, it is how you handle things that go wrong that separates good managers from bad ones.

That is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the selfish actions of passengers who frustrate and seriously delay the ability to recover the train service by their irresponsible actions.

You can have the most brilliant management decisions completely torpedoed because an Alpha Male salesman type decides he is going to do what suits him irrespective of the impact on others.

 

[Speedbird2639]

And failed to ask an accurate question.

You meant to say, 'would you evacuate knowing it would be an illegal act and knowing it would make the situation worse for anyone else thus making yourself into an arrogant self-important inconsiderate t###er?

And my answer to that question wld also be "Yes"

 

[Sapphire Blue]

alpha male noun
Click to hear the UK pronunciation of this wordClick to hear the US pronunciation of this word [C usually singular]
Definition
•
specialized the most successful and powerful male in any group
•
a strong and successful man who likes to be in charge of others

(Definition of alpha male noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

Nothing wrong with being an alpha male Old Timer, I'm sure you were one a few times along the way!

 

[mumrar]

No offense meant, but, again from personal experience, the majority of staff working on the railways are hardly in the genius category !

Says the person who can't spell offence properly, or use spellcheck LOL

 

[jrhilton]

It would be interesting if a case ever did goto court based on people exiting a train like we have seen recently because of the heat etc etc.

The obvious position from the prosecution it that it was not an emergency, so passengers were wrong to exit etc.

This then presents an interesting dilemma for some of the parties involved, if it was not some sort of "emergency", and conditions are considered uncomfortably high inside the train (which all the passengers will no doubt agree on), the 1992 Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations suggests the TOC should be providing extra local cooling, fans or suitable protective clothing and rest facilities to their staff on the train at the time. This would be especially true if power is out and aircon is down and it is 30 degrees plus inside for quite a while (e.g hours).

It is hard to argue it is a rare event so they can be excuse for not planning for it, when uncomfortable conditions can be common in the summer, e.g. an old train with no aircon sitting in a station for an hour or so in the sun etc and the whole of a train is the "workplace" for the staff on it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Things are never so clear-cut. After two hours of waiting, I consider their actions were justified.

Is that your "considered" opinion based upon the safety procedures clearly set down to protect passengers from their own stupidity? You are prepared to set an arbitary time limit, after which these regulations can be deemed to be ignoreable. It must be wonderful to have such insight that the rest of us mere mortals can never aspire to.:roll::roll:

 

[bAzTNM]

I wouldn't like to be stuck there for two hours, but I wouldn't be jamming the doors open and having a wander. Definately not.

 

[EM2]

I checked the Passenger Safety Instructions on my NXEA 315 on the way home.
It quite clearly states:
'DO NOT leave the train unless instructed by a member of staff'.
It doesn't say 'You should not' or 'You are advised not' or 'It is best not'. It says DO NOT.

 

[PinzaC55]

In which case we should close all motorways and roads to/from the coastline every bank holiday weekend then!

In all the times I've heard of huge tailbacks on motorways due to an accident, I've never heard that once the road is re-opened traffic cannot move because after two hours all the drivers walked off and left their cars there.

Whilst we are discussing an extreme case in terms of railway delays, it never ceases to amaze me how people have such an inability to deal with a delayed train journey. At least 4 times a day, 5 days a week and for 52 weeks of the year you can GUARANTEE that any journey of note by road will be greatly increased by congestion delays. That's 260 days out of the 365/366 - yet because people are cocooned in their own private shiny tin can they do it every day, day in day out. Ridiculous!

Good point. And of course someone mentioned "pregnant women" who in these situations seem to be the equivalent of armed nuclear bombs. If one of these experts in evacuation could tell us how you get a heavily pregnant woman out of the train and onto the ballast then walk her maybe a mile or so to the nearest station avoiding third rails, vegetation and tripping hazards I'd love to hear it. And what of people in wheelchairs or women with children in pushchairs?

 

[OuterDistant]

In all the times I've heard of huge tailbacks on motorways due to an accident, I've never heard that once the road is re-opened traffic cannot move because after two hours all the drivers walked off and left their cars there.

To be fair, it's not quite the same thing - you can have the A/C running, you can open the windows, or you could get out of the car to walk around. In a packed train, you're just stuck.

 

[Oswyntail]

No sensible person in a well-managed situation would evacuate other than under supervision.
However, such situations could be better managed. Information is key, and too often we hear of no information being given out. And, before we hear the mantra "the staff are busy getting the train moving", it is also staff responsibility to manage the safety of the passengers, and this should include making conditions such that not even the morons think of detraining. Then, increasing ventilation - opening doors would not necessarily result in passengers getting off, especially if the information on the incident was being updated.
Then, what about having two volunteers per carriage who become responsible for keeping people calm. Sure, they cannot restrain idiots, but actually being nominated to pass on information - both ways - would leave the passengers feeling better looked after.
Incidents are infinitely varied, and "procedures" can only deal in generalisations, or risk being too prescriptive.

 

[Crossover]

I think this may well be a case of not knowing how you'd react until stuck in said situation. That said I have said no because I am well aware of dangers on a live railway (especially where electrified lines are concerned)

From reports I have read recently it sounds like trains could do to carry something so that doors could be opened for ventilation while still retaining passengers, though

 

[MadCommuter]

Yes, it is illegal, but under certain conditions I may choose to evacuate, but with giving prior notice to train crew. The law issue is irrelevant. It would be my choice to break the law, as I do everytime I drive a car above the speed limit.

 

[All Line Rover]

For the poll, I have put "Yes" even though the real answer would be "Yes or No depending on the circumstances."

If I was on a "basic" train with no toilet or water available, on a line which does not use third rail - and the train broke down - then after 2 hours (probably 1 hour), I would get off the train.

If I was on any train on a line which uses third rail, then I would not be stupid enough to try and get off the train.

None of this applies to InterCity services, as you have plenty of staff available, toilets available, and a buffet - so nothing serious could happen if the train broke down!

The simplest solution for things such as vandalism, total signal failure, etc., would be to allow trains to continue slowly (say 10mph) to the next available station. None of this "to evacuate or not to evacuate" talk would be necessary then!

 

[Proud Salopian]

If the train company clearly aren't going to get me anywhere in any sensible timeframe (I have been stuck once in rural Shropshire for 2-3 hours once, but there was relief on the way, and it wasn't too hot or overcrowded) and it is safe to do so (not electrified, either 3rd rail or overhead) and it is worth my while, then yes I would.

I know it is criminal trespass. But then keeping me prisoner on a train is not on. Train companies who simply cannot get their act together to relieve a train or its passengers within a reasonable time are taking the p***. If - which is doubtful - it ever came to court I'm sure the fine handed down would be minimal, based on the circumstances.

As for someone's earlier comment on here about honesty and criminality - the two are not directly linked. A crime is an act or an omission which is made to be a crime by the law. One can be honest and commit a crime (where strict liability is the case, for example) and one can be dishonest and not commit a crime. The courts can distinguish between trespass on the railway by a bunch of teenage yobs with spray cans in their hands and desperate, responsible adult passengers trying to get home or to work. The same offence is committed, but the sentencing would be quite different.

I'm a little stunned at how some here seem to think law-abiding is the be-all and end-all. I'm very much on the law-abiding side of society, but ultimately it is up to you if you want to break the law and run the risk of having the penalty of committing a crime handed down to you. There are times when you weigh the options up. "Do I risk 3 points on my licence to get my wife her anniversary card?" Yes = criminal, but not particularly serious = risk of 3 penalty points = no nagging wife! I can't help but suspect quite a few of the "but it's the law!!" crowd on here are actually young (under-20s) who haven't yet had to make real decisions in life yet..

 

[Kneedown]

If that means endangering myself, risking a row with the BTP or causing further delay to others, then so be it.

Is it any wonder the country is screwed with attitudes like that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No they can't. Where a Guard is provided, primary responsibilty for the safety of the passengers rests with him/her. Where a guard is not provided this responsibility devolves to the Driver. You're surely not suggesting that a Train Cleaner employed by the TOC can take charge of a situation from the Driver or Guard? They can assist if required but nothing more.

What i think OT is saying, is that although the Guard/Conductor/Train Manager or Driver on a DOO train is in overall charge, safety is the responsibility of ALL staff.
A non safety critical employee or contractor would not assume charge of a situation from someone more qualified, however if that member of staff witnessed a dangerous practice it is their duty to intervene if safe to do so, and also to report the matter.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If I was on a "basic" train with no toilet or water available, on a line which does not use third rail - and the train broke down - then after 2 hours (probably 1 hour), I would get off the train.

I hope you are also aware that there are infrastructure items on the ground which are considered live in an OLE area?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't help but suspect quite a few of the "but it's the law!!" crowd on here are actually young (under-20s) who haven't yet had to make real decisions in life yet..

Sorry, I forgot under-20's should have no opinion on anything, as they haven't made any real life decisions, and should leave things to the so-called "Grown-ups". :roll:

Is deciding a career path not a real life decision? Is deciding whether to go to uni a real life decision? Is deciding what uni to do a real life decision? Is deciding to join the army a real life decision? Of course, as you point out, the only real life decision is whether to speed in order to get one's wife a birthday card :roll:

 

[Nevasleep]

I'd only start an evacuation if I was becoming physically ill, and the staff were no help.

If somebody else started an evacuation, I probably would follow depending on the circumstances. Such as conditions inside the train, location of train, and if it appears we have been abandoned.

 

[Username]

It would be interesting if a case ever did goto court based on people exiting a train like we have seen recently because of the heat etc etc.

The obvious position from the prosecution it that it was not an emergency, so passengers were wrong to exit etc.

This then presents an interesting dilemma for some of the parties involved, if it was not some sort of "emergency", and conditions are considered uncomfortably high inside the train (which all the passengers will no doubt agree on), the 1992 Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations suggests the TOC should be providing extra local cooling, fans or suitable protective clothing and rest facilities to their staff on the train at the time. This would be especially true if power is out and aircon is down and it is 30 degrees plus inside for quite a while (e.g hours).

It is hard to argue it is a rare event so they can be excuse for not planning for it, when uncomfortable conditions can be common in the summer, e.g. an old train with no aircon sitting in a station for an hour or so in the sun etc and the whole of a train is the "workplace" for the staff on it.

Sorry, but I think you'll find that the 1992 Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations do not apply.

From the "Application of these Regulations" section:

(3) As respects any workplace which is or is in or on an aircraft, locomotive or rolling stock, trailer or semi-trailer used as a means of transport or a vehicle for which a licence is in force under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971(3) or a vehicle exempted from duty under that Act—

(a)regulations 5 to 12 and 14 to 25 shall not apply to any such workplace; and

(b)regulation 13 shall apply to any such workplace only when the aircraft, locomotive or rolling stock, trailer or semi-trailer or vehicle is stationary inside a workplace and, in the case of a vehicle for which a licence is in force under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971, is not on a public road.

 

[SWT_USER]

Under 20 by any chance raplhchandkirk?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Under 20 by any chance raplhchandkirk?

Yes. And I'm fed up of having opinions sidelined and shushed by people who consider age a measure of correctness.

 

[amcluesent]

2 hours or more then definitely, then use the satnav on my iPhone to walk to the nearest road after having belled a taxi fir pickup

 

[EM2]

The courts can distinguish between trespass on the railway by a bunch of teenage yobs with spray cans in their hands and desperate, responsible adult passengers trying to get home or to work. The same offence is committed, but the sentencing would be quite different.

Even though your actions would greatly inconvenience a much larger number of people, because no trains would be authorised to move in that area while you are still on track, so the magistrate/judge may take the view that your offence is by far the greater.
And if you're really unlucky, the magistrate/judge is one of those affected people...

...suspect quite a few of the "but it's the law!!" crowd on here are actually young (under-20s) who haven't yet had to make real decisions in life yet..

Nearly 42, and I still wouldn't do it.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Is that your "considered" opinion based upon the safety procedures clearly set down to protect passengers from their own stupidity? You are prepared to set an arbitary time limit, after which these regulations can be deemed to be ignoreable. It must be wonderful to have such insight that the rest of us mere mortals can never aspire to.:roll::roll:

Check my poll: 23 YES , 43 NO

I'm in the minority, but it's hardly a negligible minority.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Says the person who can't spell offence properly, or use spellcheck LOL

In my defence , I'm not English. I won't say what nationality I am, as it would be a further disadvantage

 

[prod_pep]

Can't be sure exactly how I'd react, but if stuck on a non-electrified line for 2 hours in searing heat on a train with no air conditioning and was feeling dehydrated, I'm pretty sure I would evacuate if others were. I make no apology for holding this opinion.