Passengers forcing their way off stranded trains

[Howardh]

Going back on topic....as a mere passenger (aka the great unwanted) I hope I am in a position to offer an opinion and a solution.

Trapped indoors in extreme heat (the Met Office in conjunction with the NHS suggest upwards of 25c) can cause distress and heatstroke/coronary failure in the elderly and other vunerable people. The fact that it hasn't yet apparently ocurred on a train doesn't mean it won't.

So - a solution. If a train is stationary for (a) more than 45' (b) in temperatures above 25c inside, then at that point water should be made available to everyone. If there is no water available on the train, then evacuation should take place. If this means switching off the live rails, so be it.

The evacuation would only take place where it is safe to do so, if evacuation cannot take place, then steps must be made to get water to the train (if an ambulance can reach the train, so can water!!).

It must also be made compulsory that (a) the passengers are fully informed about the progress or otherwise of the situation and (b) the train guard frequently patrols the carriages (to check on the welfare of the passengers) rather than stay hidden away in his cubbyhole.

 

[Surreytraveller]

So - a solution. If a train is stationary for (a) more than 45' (b) in temperatures above 25c inside, then at that point water should be made available to everyone. If there is no water available on the train, then evacuation should take place. If this means switching off the live rails, so be it.

Indeed. If the railway knows there is a clock ticking, they may decide to pull their finger out and do something.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Every employee gets evacuation training on induction.

Since when?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and the complete lack of any action from the BTP, this will presumably now become a commonplace problem whenever a train stops for more than a short while :roll: The powers that be need to get a grip on this, sooner rather than later.

The BTP are there just to keep the peace - not to harass those who've already been harassed by the railway. If the BTP where to start nicking people for escaping from the trains, it would just inflame the situation. The BTP are obviously sensible enough to realise what a farce the railway has made of the situation.

 

[313103]

It must also be made compulsory that (a) the passengers are fully informed about the progress or otherwise of the situation and (b) the train guard frequently patrols the carriages (to check on the welfare of the passengers) rather than stay hidden away in his cubbyhole.

In response to the above Howardh Could not agree with you more regarding the passengers being kept informed.

You should amend your second point to 'The train Guard (Where one is provided) to check on the welfare of the passengers.

Drop the bit about cubby holes, no trains that i know have cubbyholes installed anyway.

If you are a regular traveller in to London I think you will find the only main Line station that has a Guard on board every passenger train is London Waterloo, some like London Marylebone are 100% DOO. I would go and say that 85% of trains that run through London Bridge dont have a Guard on board.

 

[O L Leigh]

What if its single track and no power system, no bridge or tunnel or embankment. Just a dead hot train in a field. What then? What dangers are there, beyond exiting the train itself down to track level? A bunch of people stood in a field waiting hours in the fresh air. Is that worse than being stuck inside?

Since we're talking hypothetical situations, lets assume this the best case scenario.

It's just a little 2 car DMU with maybe 30 fit, able and, most importantly, co-operative passengers onboard and both a driver and guard and a couple of other members of staff travelling PASS back to their home depot. That gives a couple of people to man the ladder and help passengers down, one to escort them to a convenient access point and one to stay with them in the field in the fresh air. Assuming no accidents or mishaps, a controlled evac under such circumstances will probably take maybe 20 minutes from getting the go-ahead to clearing the train. All well and good.

Now, lets assume that the train behind our lightly-loaded DMU is an 8 car commuter train packed to the gunwales with hundreds of passengers and stuck on the top of a steep embankment in the full glare of the sun. There's just no way that a controlled evac can take place because of the safety risks posed by the steepness of the embankment and the sheer number of passengers, plus this one is a DOO service with only the one member of staff onboard.

Irrespective of how long the incident takes to resolve, that packed commuter train is going to be stuck there for an additional 20 minutes or so while the passengers from the DMU board their service again, time that is wasted and only serves to increase their misery because it is time that this service and all the others sat behind the DMU could have spent actually moving.

Now please bear in mind that we are talking about an absolute best case scenario to illustrate the point. An extra 20 minutes probably doesn't sound a lot, but that penalty is likely to be a LOT greater if this were to happen in reality because we would be talking about a much higher number of passengers, some of whom will probably not be fit and able to climb down ladders or walk along the ballast unaided, being supervised by a much smaller number of members of staff. Add in the uncooperative passengers who, for example, insist on bringing large items of luggage with them rather than leaving them on the train and the inevitable incidence of small injuries that seem to attend most train evacs, from sprained ankles upwards.

The danger, as you call it, is that all of this adds time to the total duration of an incident, time that could otherwise be spent actually travelling and getting people to where they want to be and, importantly, off the previously hot, dead train. Once an incident has been resolved we want to get trains moving again. If we're waiting for people to get back onboard again the duration of an incident immediately gets longer and the potential misery deeper.

O L Leigh

 

[NightatLaira]

Some very emotive stuff on here, but let me just throw in another few hypothetical scenarios:

1. Someone entering a diabetic coma
2. Someone in serious breathing difficulty and in need of medical oxygen
3. Someone having a sustained and serious asthma attack
4. Someone getting so panick-stricken they are causing distress to other members of the public and thereby risking a 'mexican wave' effect of chain reaction panic
5. Young children - a lot of parents would say it's simply not fair to put kids through things like this, especially if there are over-heated adult males blowing their top and acting aggressively.
6. The "Hillsborough effect" - [people coming in from adjoining carriages and scrambling to get out of a forced-open door]

All of these could be very likely scenarios in a crowded commuter train that has broken down for 2 hours in the hot sun. In consideration of these situations - when does 'doing the right thing' cross over into 'having to break the law'? The line has to be drawn somewhere - and if you draw it firmly on what the rules say - then you end up saying 'no' to all of the above - and a lot of people die.

I see the predicament of the train driver in this situation, a bit like the White Star line petty officer in the Titanic movie: trying to get all the people to line-up and queue in an orderly fashion for the lifeboats, and then all the third class passengers push the gates open and scramble for it. It's just human psychology! You wouldn't blame the third class Titanic passengers for doing what they did - so why blame 21st century passengers like Surreytraveller?



I'm not trying to make a case for anything here - I'm just pointing out some interesting parallels, some hard truths, and a lot of hypocrisy. :roll:

 

[NSEFAN]

Some very emotive stuff on here, but let me just throw in another few hypothetical scenarios:

1. Someone entering a diabetic coma
2. Someone in serious breathing difficulty and in need of medical oxygen
3. Someone having a sustained and serious asthma attack
4. Someone getting so panick-stricken they are causing distress to other members of the public and thereby risking a 'mexican wave' effect of chain reaction panic
5. Young children - a lot of parents would say it's simply not fair to put kids through things like this, especially if there are over-heated adult males blowing their top and acting aggressively.
6. The "Hillsborough effect" - [people coming in from adjoining carriages and scrambling to get out of a forced-open door]


All of these could be very likely scenarios in a crowded commuter train that has broken down for 2 hours in the hot sun. In consideration of these situations - when does 'doing the right thing' cross over into 'having to break the law'? The line has to be drawn somewhere - and if you draw it firmly on what the rules say - then you end up saying 'no' to all of the above - and a lot of people die.

I see the predicament of the train driver in this situation, a bit like the White Star line petty officer in the Titanic movie: trying to get all the people to line-up and queue in an orderly fashion for the lifeboats, and then all the third class passengers push the gates open and scramble for it. It's just human psychology! You wouldn't blame the third class Titanic passengers for doing what they did - so why blame 21st century passengers like Surreytraveller?

So a failed/delayed train is as bad as the Titanic disaster? :roll:

If the train had actually crashed, then it's a good idea to get to a place of safety. Being stuck for a few hours on a failed but otherwise safe train is hardly fatal. I didn't think commuters thought THAT highly of themselves...

I myself am asthmatic. Therefore I am prepared. I carry an inhaler. The possibility of being stuck on a train for two hours shouldn't stop me from being sensible. The same goes for someone at risk from a diabetic coma. They will know about their condition and be prepared incase it hits them, which it could well do at any moment.

As for people panicing, they need to get a grip. An ironic problem of the modern world is that we are so used to high speed things (instant relief tablets, fast food, instant meals, high speed internet, e-tickets and the rest) that we expect everything to be fast. The reality is that complex systems like rail networks take time to sort out when they break. There are people trying to get it fixed, but if it takes 2 hours then it takes 2 hours. Passengers can actually help the problem by staying put: it's one less thing to worry about!

If somebody is genuiely ill, then they can be given assistance as required. At the end of the day, however, sometimes sh#t just happens. The best thing is to deal with it calmly and sensibly. Knee-jerk reactions help nobody.

 

[Kneedown]

]Someone entering a diabetic coma
[*]Someone in serious breathing difficulty and in need of medical oxygen
[*]Someone having a sustained and serious asthma attack

Hardly reasons for people panicking and all clearing off en-masse. The logical thing to do would be to call an ambulance and administer first aid.

[*] Young children - a lot of parents would say it's simply not fair to put kids through things like this, especially if there are over-heated adult males blowing their top and acting aggressively.

Is it fair to endanger children by putting them at risk of electrocution or being struck by a passing train then?

The very simple fact of the matter is that the railway is a place that is full of potentially lethal hazards that could bite you at any time and the average passenger has no idea of those hazards or how potentially dangerous they can be.
The fact that we still get fatalities among trackworkers should demonstrate this point.

 

[NightatLaira]

So a failed/delayed train is as bad as the Titanic disaster? :roll:

No, that's not what I said: it's comparable in the sense that best way to survive both was not to panic. Remember: the titanic was an 'unsinkable ship' - and very few people at the time actually thought it was really sinking. The staff of the ship were obliging people 'to follow the rules' - those who did not, did a very similar thing to what's being described here - and received the same sort of indignation you are displaying here.

I myself am asthmatic. Therefore I am prepared. I carry an inhaler. The possibility of being stuck on a train for two hours shouldn't stop me from being sensible. The same goes for someone at risk from a diabetic coma. They will know about their condition and be prepared incase it hits them, which it could well do at any moment.

Good for you - but Im taking about a 'SERIOUS' asthma attack - hypoventiltion, hypoxia, cardiac arrest - not something an inhaler's going to sort out. Likewise with the diabetic coma - once someone's in a coma it's too late to start giving them a snickers bar!

As for people panicing, they need to get a grip.

Don't tell me tell them. I'm just illustrating a situation here.

An ironic problem of the modern world is that we are so used to high speed things (instant relief tablets, fast food, instant meals, high speed internet, e-tickets and the rest) that we expect everything to be fast. The reality is that complex systems like rail networks take time to sort out when they break. There are people trying to get it fixed, but if it takes 2 hours then it takes 2 hours. Passengers can actually help the problem by staying put: it's one less thing to worry about!

Yes, but as we've already established on here - people don't 'stay put' these days, they expect and demand a higher level of customer service than the railways are prepared to give, and society has moved on quite a bit from the 'Titanic' days 100 years ago. I.e., following the rules and sticking religiously to staff orders ain't something you're gonna be able to get passengers to do anymore. What's the point in having a law, if whenever it's needed it's always broken?

At the end of the day, however, sometimes sh#t just happens.

I quite agree with you, but tell that to the frantic woman who's tearing up an electrified lineside with a baby who's stopped breathing in their hands...

 

[bnm]

What if its not a fatality, or a car on the tracks, or a live third rail or a murder scene or any other unlikely eventuality.

What if its single track and no power system, no bridge or tunnel or embankment. Just a dead hot train in a field. What then? What dangers are there, beyond exiting the train itself down to track level? A bunch of people stood in a field waiting hours in the fresh air. Is that worse than being stuck inside?

Your forum name answers those questions.

It's just not feasible, practical or safe to have different evacuation rules for different scenarios.

The passenger information posters and leaflets alone would be too confusing.

"Do this in this situation. Do that in that situation. Don't do that unless this applies. Do do this only when this applies. If three of the DOs listed above in the DOs and DONTs apply then you may evacuate the train, but only if the DONTs c) and h) don't apply. Finally don't evacuate if it's a Tuesday morning, The Queen is in residence or there are sheep in an adjacent field."

 

[313103]

I think that in future when i am the guard on a train that is stuck, once we have reached the PPM failure mark (05.00.00 minutes) i will ask the driver to open all the train doors, allow everyone to get off and do exactly what they want to do, because as Night at laira says 'people don't stay put these days" and 'Whats the point of having a law, if whenever its needed its always broken'.

All i will do is say via the PA (so that means 50% wont hear it because they have their MP3 player plugged in and the 50% wont hear because they are busy talking about nothing on their mobile phones) that should they decide to get on the tracks that one the other line is operational, that the third rail is still live, and that we could move at anytime, if you are on the track we wont stop to pick you up, lastly but most importantly as you have decided not to follow the rules of the railway should you have an accident or even die from your action you and your family will not be entitled to compensation of any sort whatsoever.

That way then i wont have anarchy on my train. Before any starts yes i have been stuck on trains before and the longest being 5 and half hours on a train coming back from the Cup Winners Cup Final in Paris in 1995. Yet i didnt feel the need to force doors open, i didnt feel the need to sue the rail company concerned, i didnt feel the need to rant either to staff, press and internet forums. Even though i was stuck on train and had just watched my team lose in the last minute to a goal from the half way line by a player who played for our rivals, so as you can imagine i was truly peed off. I suppose that is because i was brought up in a generation of people when it isnt all about 'ME' all the time.

 

[bnm]

5½ hours? You have my sympathies. Arsenal eh? You also have my sympathies.

Singing (to the tune of the Village People's 'Go West'): "Nayim, from the halfway line, Nayim from the halfway line...."

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Good for you - but Im taking about a 'SERIOUS' asthma attack - hypoventiltion, hypoxia, cardiac arrest - not something an inhaler's going to sort out. Likewise with the diabetic coma - once someone's in a coma it's too late to start giving them a snickers bar!

If someone is arresting or in a coma then they are in no position to detraining themselves, and removing then from the train would be the stupidest and most dangerous course of action.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I'm not calling the passengers idiots, but theres always one that would accidently touch the 3rd for some reason. Its not an excuse but from the pictures the passengers were not alighting on the side where the 3rd rail was. Regardless I think its more dangerous going down onto live tracks than staying on the train.

This thread has just turned into know it alls not accepting others views but there own and not knowing what they are talking about, O L Leigh explained the safe way to do things, as a driver himself I would listen, he knows what hes talking about and idiots who think they know better telling him 'how to do things' makes no sense to me.

I think its time for the thread to end!

 

[EM2]

I'm not calling the passengers idiots, but theres always one that would accidently touch the 3rd for some reason. Its not an excuse but from the pictures the passengers were not alighting on the side where the 3rd rail was. Regardless I think its more dangerous going down onto live tracks than staying on the train.

Er, yes they were. Look at the pic again:
http://twitpic.com/5hrb0s
Look at the nearest rail.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

Er, yes they were. Look at the pic again:
http://twitpic.com/5hrb0s
Look at the nearest rail.

Opps!

Well I can tell you I'd rather be on that train. That is to near for my liking, just look how close that women is.

 

[GB]

Good for you - but Im taking about a 'SERIOUS' asthma attack - hypoventiltion, hypoxia, cardiac arrest - not something an inhaler's going to sort out. Likewise with the diabetic coma - once someone's in a coma it's too late to start giving them a snickers bar!

...and what is self evacuation going to do? Clearly if someone is in the situations you describe they will be in no fit state to evacuate and the best solution will be to get medical help to the train.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

I sincerely apologise to any forum-members who may have felt insulted by my over-zealous approach to my poll / thread.

 

[Nonsense]

I'm not calling the passengers idiots, but theres always one that would accidently touch the 3rd for some reason. Its not an excuse but from the pictures the passengers were not alighting on the side where the 3rd rail was. Regardless I think its more dangerous going down onto live tracks than staying on the train.

This thread has just turned into know it alls not accepting others views but there own and not knowing what they are talking about, O L Leigh explained the safe way to do things, as a driver himself I would listen, he knows what hes talking about and idiots who think they know better telling him 'how to do things' makes no sense to me.

I think its time for the thread to end!

Yes, if only all discussions you tire of were stopped instead of being allowed to run their course. What a world that would be. We could all nod in silent agreement...

Back on topic though. What are the main hazards on the railway?

Moving trains and exposed electrical equipment: two severe risks that can both be mitigated during a controlled evacuation. The railway is too expensive to tolerate any failure and so doing nothing, or being perceived to do nothing is simply not an option.

Passengers on the trackside is a problem for the railway, so plan for it.

 

[EM2]

Passengers on the trackside is a problem for the railway, so plan for it.

They do. They switch off the power and stop all trains until the area is declared clear.

 

[moggie]

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.

An interesting observation - of course habitual speeders will eventually end up with their 12 points and a ban (I'm not getting drawn in to other more serious potential outcomes). Perhaps the solution for habitual trespassers is for the courts to apply a form of Railway ASBO. After all, eveyone who is unhappy with their lousy train service will be saved the bother then won't they?

 

[Nonsense]

Passengers on the trackside is a problem for the railway, so plan for it.

They do. They switch off the power and stop all trains until the area is declared clear.

So this is a case of operational convenience before passenger health, safety, discomfort, distress. Utterly disgraceful.

An interesting observation - of course habitual speeders will eventually end up with their 12 points and a ban

Most habitual speeders fly past me as I trundle along at 80 mph. On the motorways the speed limit just isn't enforced because in most cases the only consequence of exceeding it is that you arrive at your destination earlier. Its just too much political effort to raise or abolish it. But thats another topic entirely.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So this is a case of operational convenience before passenger health, safety, discomfort, distress. Utterly disgraceful.

The power is turned off and the trains are stopped FOR the passengers health and safety so whilst they are wandering around it's less likely for them to be hurt.

 

[Nonsense]

The power is turned off and the trains are stopped FOR the passengers health and safety so whilst they are wandering around it's less likely for them to be hurt.

I feel that you may have misunderstood me. There are many comments in here as to why its so dangerous for the passengers to de-train themselves, but thats clearly not the case when those hazards are removed.

The passengers are off the train where they feel safer than inside the train, and the actual risks inherent in being on the track have been removed. They are therefore safer outside than in, and the objections here are based on the needs of the railway against those of the passenger.

 

[bluenoxid]

So this is a case of operational convenience before passenger health, safety, discomfort, distress. Utterly disgraceful.


Most habitual speeders fly past me as I trundle along at 80 mph. On the motorways the speed limit just isn't enforced because in most cases the only consequence of exceeding it is that you arrive at your destination earlier. Its just too much political effort to raise or abolish it. But thats another topic entirely.

Lets break down this post into its component parts.

Most habitual speeders fly past me as I trundle along at 80 mph. On the motorways the speed limit just isn't enforced because in most cases the only consequence of exceeding it is that you arrive at your destination earlier.

Notice, the word most you have put in there. Obviously there are other significant issues that speed can bring. A rise in braking distance, which makes it harder to stop for an obstruction. The result could be a collision.

The railways have to balance the safety of all parties involved including those of trespassers. In fact, all companies have to (so no deliberate wiring of the electrics to the door knobs or big unprotected holes in the roof). Therefore, the risk assessment of the operation has created a rule that stops trains moving until trespassers are cleared off the track.

Now in most circumstances, a moving train is unlikely to hit a trespasser in this scenario but the risk has been deemed too severe to allow trains to move.

Now, you say that all of the risks have been removed. Please can you outline how the following have been removed and balance it against cost and ultimately feasibility.

This has been taken from Old Timers post on page 4.

Controlled Evacuation
Firstly, how are you going to exit the train ? Jump down onto the ballast ? Yes ? Fair risk of hurting yourself or twisting an ankle or indeed worse. Not a sensible idea and definitely not a safe method.

Climb down from a driving cab ? Obviously you have never tried, and the chances of putting your foot onto a live rail as you do so are 50%.

How do you manage women, the infirm, those who cannot manipulate themselves ? Anyone who has ever tried to evacuate passengers knows that this is an awful way of detraining and only to be used as a really last resort.

Explain how you are going to walk women with their shoes on the ballast or even the cess.

How do you manage the infirm ?

How far do you think you will have to walk and where are you going to walk to ?

How are you going to walk through a tunnel ?

How do you manage someone who has an injury ?

 

[O L Leigh]

The passengers are off the train where they feel safer than inside the train, and the actual risks inherent in being on the track have been removed. They are therefore safer outside than in, and the objections here are based on the needs of the railway against those of the passenger.

Please, I believe I've addressed this point sufficiently already. Are you being wilfully obtuse or are you failing to address what I've said because you have no answer to it?

Only some of the risks of being on the track have been removed. Passengers still have to negotiate a ladder to get down off the train in the first place and, having seen a Nitwit Rail trackworker almost lose his footing walking along the cess this week, stopping train movements and isolating the traction supply only removes some of the risks associated with going lineside. However, a train evac is a risky procedure even at the best of times, which is why it's only done as the absolute last resort.

But the main reason that I have repeated over and over is that evacuating trains increases the duration of any given incident because it takes MUCH longer to get trains moving again. If everyone is onboard all the driver is waiting for is the signal to clear and then the train can be on it's way to the benefit of everyone involved. Otherwise we'd be waiting for ages for passengers to be entrained again before trains could be moved. This could easily turn your hypothetical 2 hour incident into a 5 hour incident, as I have repeatedly been at pains to point out.

Frankly I think I and my colleagues are wasting our time trying to persuade you of the folly of bailing out of a stranded train because clearly you seem to know better. I've tried at every turn to state FACTS without getting bogged down in the emotive side of the topic that you seem to be mired so deeply in. Yes it's a terrible situation when a train becomes stranded and passenger comfort takes a nose-dive, as I believe I have already said. If I am made aware of anyone with a medical or other issue that makes them particularly vulnerable to the circumstances I will do all I can to alleviate their discomfort. But I will NOT condone opening train doors and jumping out.

I will say it again for clarity's sake, the best solution for all involved in a stranding is that the train is moved as soon as is humanly possible. To permit this to happen, passengers need to co-operate, obey the instructions given to them by the traincrew and, most importantly, remain on the train.

O L Leigh

 

[Nonsense]

Lets break down this post into its component parts.


Notice, the word most you have put in there. Obviously there are other significant issues that speed can bring. A rise in braking distance, which makes it harder to stop for an obstruction. The result could be a collision.

The railways have to balance the safety of all parties involved including those of trespassers. In fact, all companies have to (so no deliberate wiring of the electrics to the door knobs or big unprotected holes in the roof). Therefore, the risk assessment of the operation has created a rule that stops trains moving until trespassers are cleared off the track.

Now in most circumstances, a moving train is unlikely to hit a trespasser in this scenario but the risk has been deemed too severe to allow trains to move.

Now, you say that all of the risks have been removed. Please can you outline how the following have been removed and balance it against cost and ultimately feasibility.

This has been taken from Old Timers post on page 4.

Quote: Controlled Evacuation
Firstly, how are you going to exit the train ? Jump down onto the ballast ? Yes ? Fair risk of hurting yourself or twisting an ankle or indeed worse. Not a sensible idea and definitely not a safe method.

Climb down from a driving cab ? Obviously you have never tried, and the chances of putting your foot onto a live rail as you do so are 50%.

How do you manage women, the infirm, those who cannot manipulate themselves ? Anyone who has ever tried to evacuate passengers knows that this is an awful way of detraining and only to be used as a really last resort.

Explain how you are going to walk women with their shoes on the ballast or even the cess.

How do you manage the infirm ?

How far do you think you will have to walk and where are you going to walk to ?

How are you going to walk through a tunnel ?

How do you manage someone who has an injury ?

All of these concerns are secondary to getting off the train in the first place and can be determined once out in the open. I seriously doubt that the decision to climb down is taken lightly.

Believe it or not, the need for the passenger to get off the train is greater than the need of the railway to keep them on it. These incidents prove that. The railway can either decry the people it has driven to act irresponsibly, or can grow a pair and accept that this will continue to happen and implement procedures to manage the situation agreeably. Tougher doors are not the answer.

In response to the speeding comment. A higher velocity will exaggerate any error of judgment, a higher speed requires a greater margin of error and its the failure to account for this which causes the problem. Not the speed. Indeed, if everyone traveled at 90 mph, the closing speed in a collision would be zero.

Incidentally, I have tried climbing out of many cabs, mostly NCB shunting locomotives and class 50's. On one occasion drew blood from my knee leaving a class 87, so I do have a taste for it.

 

[O L Leigh]

Believe it or not, the need for the passenger to get off the train is greater than the need of the railway to keep them on it. These incidents prove that. The railway can either decry the people it has driven to act irresponsibly, or can grow a pair and accept that this will continue to happen and implement procedures to manage the situation agreeably. Tougher doors are not the answer.

No it isn't, as I have already explained more than once. Likewise, if you could take the time to understand what I've been trying to say for the past few days you would see that this is also in the interest of passengers if only the mutinous minority could put aside their selfish desires.

I'm really not sure how you imagine that the railway is meant to handle these sorts of situations more agreeably. It seems I cannot say enough times why the railway would really rather you stay put under such circumstances, even in trying conditions, because it seem to have still not sunk in. If you are aiming for a situation where the railway can tolerate people going lineside then I'm afraid that the trade-off is that incidents will take MUCH longer to resolve, ultimately to the detriment of ALL involved, including those passengers whose side you claim to represent.

However, there is no way that the railways can tolerate people going lineside without compromising safety. Whether you like it or not, that is the bottom line. Where trespassers are reported trains will be cautioned or stopped in order that no-one gets killed or injured, and that is as it should be. Train evac is risky and exposes passengers to risks that they would otherwise be safe from. Going lineside is also risky for exactly the same reasons.

Frankly it seems to me that you've seen a convenient bandwagon passing by and you've jumped on it. If the Sub-Standard had reported that the traincrew had permitted passengers to bail out and then some of them had been bowled over because they'd strayed onto another line that had remained open I'm sure you'd join the hue and cry over that too. You are losing credibility in my eyes because you are simply repeating over and over that the railways should take a certain course of action because it suits your selfish agenda without taking the time to understand the situation from the other side of the fence.

If you want to have a sensible and reasoned discussion and to understand why some of the things you are demanding are impossible, impractical or unsafe then lets do it. I'm always happy to learn and to consider different ways of doing things and not at all closed off to ideas from outside. But please stop seeing this as some sort of crusade otherwise you will wear me down beyond endurance. For the past two days at least I have done nothing but repeat things I have already said many times before and the lack of engagement with what I say is becoming tiresome in the extreme. God knows I'm a patient man, but you are doing all you can to test it's limits.

O L Leigh

 

[strange6]

LOL Perhaps this could become a new aptitude test for drivers

 

[Nonsense]

O L Leigh

I'm not ignoring your posts or being deliberately obtuse. I just haven't mastered the multiquote option and I tend to reply to posts rather than posters. I apologise if I missed some of your points.

I am however focusing on the emotive issue here and ignoring the practicalities because thats the nature of the situation.

After two hours, enough had been had, and some people decided to take the initiative and I would like to think I'd do the same.

I'm not saying its not irresponsible, or wreckless or hazardous. Its not that I don't recognize the operational consequences and additional problems and time penalties incurred. What I am saying is that the book of rule and procedures should include these evacuations and accomodate the immediate "selfish desires" of the passenger.

My argument is that two hours is time enough to demonstrate to the suffering passenger that the situation is not under control and that they should not be criticized for looking to alleviate the situation themselves.

The problem isn't that they left the train, the problem is that they felt they had to leave the train and to hell with the consequences. This situation will continue to arise so long as trains fail in hot weather without adequate capacity to rescue them. So please stop blaming the passenger, they are merely people, exactly like you and me. If you wouldn't do the same under similiar circumstances then more fool you.

Focusing on the emotive though, taken to its extreme, and I have no reason to doubt that comparisons weren't drawn at the time. Lets just imagine that it wasn't a train, but a car. Also, lets imagine it wasn't passengers, lets imagine it was a dog instead. Would you criticise the dog if it escaped?

 

[O L Leigh]

I am however focusing on the emotive issue here and ignoring the practicalities because thats the nature of the situation.

Then, I am afraid to say, you have missed completely what it is I've been trying to impress on you.

The emotive and the practical work hand in hand. If you want to have a speedy resolution to an incident then the best thing you can do is to stay put and leave the emergency egress handles alone. I have yet to be caught up in a situation where people have been stranded on my train for two hours, let alone more. But if people start to bail out I can GUARANTEE you that my train will be stranded for much much longer.

I'm not saying its not irresponsible, or wreckless or hazardous. Its not that I don't recognize the operational consequences and additional problems and time penalties incurred. What I am saying is that the book of rule and procedures should include these evacuations and accomodate the immediate "selfish desires" of the passenger.

They already do. All train movements will be stopped or, at the very least, cautioned because we really don't want to bowl you over.

But you have to realise that if you're waiting for an assisting train to help you out or move the train that is blocking you in, that train will be among those also stopped. If the situation is sufficiently bad that the traction supply has to be isolated then you can immediately add at least an hour to the amount of time it will take to reach a resolution.

If you recognise that such actions are irresponsible, wreckless and hazardous and that they have operational consequences that create additional problems and time penalties, why are you even advocating such actions? The railways already have the procedures in place that you have asked for to deal with almost every eventuality. Let us get on with it so that trains can be moved and the situation relieved for ALL involved rather than defending the actions of a militant minority who see fit to bail out and cause the railways additional problems.

My argument is that two hours is time enough to demonstrate to the suffering passenger that the situation is not under control and that they should not be criticized for looking to alleviate the situation themselves.

What sort of demonstration would you like? Are you expecting the train to move within that timeframe or would you take the word of the traincrew that actions are being taken to ensure that train services will be restored as soon as is practicable?

The problem isn't that they left the train, the problem is that they felt they had to leave the train and to hell with the consequences. This situation will continue to arise so long as trains fail in hot weather without adequate capacity to rescue them. So please stop blaming the passenger, they are merely people, exactly like you and me. If you wouldn't do the same under similiar circumstances then more fool you.

Then more fool me. However, as rail staff I at least have an appreciation of what is required and certainly wouldn't be tempted to bail out.

The problem, as you identify it, is not one that the industry has any control over. People will always act as they see fit, but they do not have any understanding about the consequence of their actions. While the Sub-Standard continues to hail them as heroes people will continue to feel empowered to act in defiance of the instructions given to them by rail staff.

But let me disabuse you of this misconception. If you bail out of a train I will report you as a trespasser to the controlling signaller, the consequence of which being that assistance and relief for all those passengers you left behind WILL be delayed as a direct consequence of your selfish actions.

I am not blaming the passengers directly, but simply trying to educate you (and, by extension, everyone else reading this thread). I don't like to play this card, but I do happen to know what I'm talking about. Please trust me and my colleagues to find the best and quickest solution to whatever the problem is that has stranded your train. Granted, depending on the precise nature of the problem it might take a while before trains start to move again, but that doesn't mean that nothing is being done or that we don't care about what's happening or that we have lost control over the situation.

O L Leigh