FGW train stranded at Pewsey

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

transmanche said:
No-one doubts that they are complicated to deal with. Which is precisely why the railway needs to get better at dealing with them.

And you can't tell us that it didn't run out after the train was stationary for an hour. What we do know is that some passengers have complained of a lack of water. And as for food, even when fully stocked a train buffet will not have enough food for everyone on board - and as I noted earlier (bearing in mind the time of day) many people may not have eaten since breakfast.

That just reminds me of an episode of The Day Today.

And this is the crux of the difference of opinion. Whether or not this is a true reflection of your (and other railway staff member's) opinion, the impression you give is that is your starting point... that no-one died or was taken ill - and everything else is a bonus.

Agreed. And this is the second difference of opinion. Did FGW do everything reasonable and practicable to lessen that discomfort. I'd say on the basis of the (albeit limited) evidence available that they could and should have done more.

Now that's a very good point and it raises some interesting questions. It's been said (and I have no reason to doubt) that people were working hard to resolve the problem. Is it because everyone focuses on fixing the the thing that's broken that no-one is focusing on the comfort of the passengers?

For me it is about customer service.

Providing good customer service when everything is running tickety-boo is easy. The true test of customer service is how an organisation reacts to a problem.

The off-duty FGW staff member provided great customer service (as evidenced from the round of applause he received), but he doesn't appear to have been supported by his colleagues further up the command chain.

So yes, they were working hard to get the train moving again. And that's great. But someone should have been working equally as hard to do everything reasonably practicable to lessen the discomfort of the passengers on-board

We have quotes from passengers who talk about 20-30 standing passengers in each carriage - but we have video clips of a first class carriage which looked OK. I'm assuming that the guard would have tried to redistribute the passengers through the train to make sure every possible seat was used and giving more floorspace for people to sit down.

The thing is that you are basing your argument on what you read in the press. Journalists pouncing on people as soon as they got off the train in the way that they do, of course it's going to paint a bad picture. But the video clips clearly show it wast anywhere near as bad as described. Of course the hacked off passengers are going to vent their anger stating that there were loads standing, at least 20-30, there may have been a few standing in a couple of coaches but if it was that bad we would see from the video clips. In the Kentish town incident people were taking photos and videos of the crowded train to show how bad it was. That is what people do nowadays during disruption, just look at twitter for the photos uploaded when trains are busy or delayed. And yet I havnt seen any photos or videos of the "horrendous" conditions onboard this trains and my experience tells me that it probably wasn't anywhere near as bad as the journalists make out.

I'm happy to be proved wrong but everything which I have seen so far along with the end result suggests that it was actually rather civilised on board and apart from the frustration caused by the delay, people were looked after and as happy as one an be given the circumstances.

And as I say regarding water etc, we don't know that it wasn't on its way do we? And if people were that thirsty then it's one of the biggest things they would be moaning about in all the interviews as that is human nature.

RailUK Forums

4SRKT · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
And as I say regarding water etc, we don't know that it wasn't on its way do we? And if people were that thirsty then it's one of the biggest things they would be moaning about in all the interviews as that is human nature.

I think we can be pretty sure no water was on its way if it didn't get there in six hours. Unless it was coming from Inverness or something.

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

tsr said:
We don't, but FGW have publicly admitted that train should not have been there nearly as long as it was, so at least from a "devil's advocate" passenger point of view I would expect them to have realised that within (say) a few hours, leaving another few hours (i.e. plenty of time) to send water to the train.

Mmmm... so standing for 6 hours longer than you planned, in a train which is running out of supplies, when the toilets are no longer all working as planned, should not attract someone's attention for the provision of food and water, especially given the limited capacity of the buffet car for provisions?

What? I said that water would have been provided if needed and we do t know that it wasn't on its way or being worked on at the time so I don't understand what you are on about there. As for standing for 6 hours, I'm dire people rotated sitting on seats, sat on the floor etc, I say with a degree of certainty that no passenger spent 6 hours standing up on that train.

LateThanNever · 6 Aug 2013

TheBigD said:
Posted on another forum...

"...Some facts regarding this incident from a source in ICC Western.

15:26 Log Item created and control aware of 1A85 having suffered a loss of main res air

15:38 Both Driver & Train Manager have great difficulty with mobile phone reception. GSMR in both powercars is working perfectly and this being used as preferred method of communication,

Driver has made way to rear power car and isolated all normal things that cause problems, such as ATP, E70 brake control unit, driver returning to front power car to see if any effect. Walking route is along cess / ballast so this takes time.

A Riding Inspector (fitter) who is at Reading is requested to attend > further delayed as 1C86 14:57 Pad to Pnz which he was attempting to fix that failed at Reading. This was set swapped with an Up HST, thusly departed RDG 45 mins late without the fitter on board.....as he was still on failed train,making it fit to go ECS to Old Oak.

Fitter actually travelled on 1C88 15:57 Pad to PNZ and was logged as on site at 18:01.

16:26 DBS despatch resuce loco and TVSC will hold in Woodborough Loop pending events.

Meanwhile Driver reports still unable to maintain air and now continues to fault find (locate air leak), this entails putting parking brake on front engine revving the engine and finding the air leak, by walking down the train. This process takes time and it didn't find the fault.

Also in this process the driver injured his ankle on the ballast....but still continued and eventually drove the train!!!

17:15 Traincrew reported as finding a fractured pipe. In process of isolating. But needed block on the Down Line. Again this line was open to traffic and being in the middle of auto section, process of getting a block, doing the work, going back to powercar using GSMR was taking a long long time!!!

Train Manager goes to lay protection at rear for 1Z99 . However loco will not help if air leak not found / isolated!!!

17:41 Set sill loosing air with pipe isolated.

18:00 Fitter on site

18:20 FGW Manager on Site

18:42 1Z99 given permission to proceed to protecting signal

19:00 Fitter also unable to locate air leak...again all hampered with communication as only GSMR working.

19:49 After various fault finding and isolations fitters is confident faut is within rear powercar. Now isolating and detaching from formation.

20:09 1Z99 at protecting signal, permission given to proceed. 1Z99 moving towards the rear of the train and will couple up and push up to allow the buckeye to be unhooked between the coach and the powercar

21:06 1A85 on the move!!!

1Z99 will drag powercar to Westbury..."

This is very interesting - the bit in red particularly. So the 'fitter' (who I'd call a mechanic) didn't get there for 2 and half hours. If the car is the competition to the train and when I break down I get my money back if Green Flag don't arrive within 30 minutes then Worst Group seem to have access to only one poor 'fitter' who takes five times as long to get there as a car driver would expect. Surely the management have access to more than this one overworked chap? If he's all on his own then he desperately seems to need a mate -if not two - otherwise it seems appropriate to suggest that this is a very poor way to run a railway. Perhaps fewer new uniforms and fancy paint jobs would help to pay for more people who can actually keep the show on the (rail)road!

flymo · 6 Aug 2013

Approx location of MP 73½.

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

4SRKT said:
I think we can be pretty sure no water was on its way if it didn't get there in six hours. Unless it was coming from Inverness or something.

Or unless the onboard water ran out after 5 and a half hours and they reported supplies running low just before running out.

4SRKT · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
The thing is that you are basing your argument on what you read in the press. Journalists pouncing on people as soon as they got off the train in the way that they do, of course it's going to paint a bad picture. But the video clips clearly show it wast anywhere near as bad as described. Of course the hacked off passengers are going to vent their anger stating that there were loads standing, at least 20-30, there may have been a few standing in a couple of coaches but if it was that bad we would see from the video clips. In the Kentish town incident people were taking photos and videos of the crowded train to show how bad it was. That is what people do nowadays during disruption, just look at twitter for the photos uploaded when trains are busy or delayed. And yet I havnt seen any photos or videos of the "horrendous" conditions onboard this trains and my experience tells me that it probably wasn't anywhere near as bad as the journalists make out.

Six hours trapped on a train is horrendous. Full stop. Whether water ran out (which it must have done; I'm not buying the argument that everyone carries around enough fluid to last up to 10 hours, 'just in case') or not, it would seem by the non-appearance of any water in the space of 6 hours on an island that can be driven across at its widest point in less time than that, that no attempt whatever was made to address this likelihood.

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

LateThanNever said:
This is very interesting - the bit in red particularly. So the 'fitter' (who I'd call a mechanic) didn't get there for 2 and half hours. If the car is the competition to the train and when I break down I get my money back if Green Flag don't arrive within 30 minutes then Worst Group seem to have access to only one poor 'fitter' who takes five times as long to get there as a car driver would expect. Surely the management have access to more than this one overworked chap? If he's all on his own then he desperately seems to need a mate -if not two - otherwise it seems appropriate to suggest that this is a very poor way to run a railway. Perhaps fewer new uniforms and fancy paint jobs would help to pay for more people who can actually keep the show on the (rail)road!

Right, so you are happy to pay even higher ticket prices to have numerous fitters sitting spare at locations every few miles on the off chance that a train may break down?

I'd say that log report pretty much sums this all up. It shows the difficulties encountered in that specific situation and doesn't show incompetence for laziness to act etc at all.

4SRKT · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
Or unless the onboard water ran out after 5 and a half hours and they reported supplies running low just before running out.

Which would indicate the FGW have an inadequte procedure for this. You shouldn't reorder 'just before running out' under any circumstances, and certainly not 5 1/2 hours into what everybody except a railway employee would call an emergency.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A-driver said:
Right, so you are happy to pay even higher ticket prices to have numerous fitters sitting spare at locations every few miles on the off chance that a train may break down?

I'd say that log report pretty much sums this all up. It shows the difficulties encountered in that specific situation and doesn't show incompetence for laziness to act etc at all.

Ooooh, the bogeyman of 'higher fares' summoned up by everyone from politicians to (it seems) drivers to quieten people who suggest that the railway could be run better. Why not just tell people with a different POV to 'shut up' and be done with it?

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

4SRKT said:
Which would indicate the FGW have an inadequte procedure for this. You shouldn't reorder 'just before running out' under any circumstances, and certainly not 5 1/2 hours into what everybody except a railway employee would call an emergency.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ooooh, the bogeyman of 'higher fares' summoned up by everyone from politicians to (it seems) drivers to quieten people who suggest that the railway could be run better. Why not just tell people with a different POV to 'shut up' and be done with it?

Why are you on this forum out of interst? You seem determined to prove that this was a complete shambles and everyone involved from control managers to the buffet staff were completely incompetent and poor at their jobs. You are yet to provide any evidence for that and are ignoring all the facts about the incident and concentrating on water provisions which doesn't even appear to be a major issue.

No one is arguing with the fact that it wasn't handled as well as it could have been now that we can analyse it but I fail to see what you are getting out of coming on this thread - are you just hoping that everyone will turn around and say "yes, everyone involved did a poor job, they all need re-training, possibly sacking"?

And as for higher fares etc, yes if money wasn't an issue then things like this would not happen. But money is an issue, in all industries and is an important factor in this topic. Who will pay for the extra staff as they are rarely needed-how many times has this kind of situation occurred in the last year compared to the number of trains run in the UK?

And train faults like this are far from rare. But very few make headlines-why? Because the vast majority are dealt with very quickly as they can refer to the plans and rehearsed procedures to resolve the incident with minimal delay, discomfort and inconvenience to the passengers. But of course, in any industry, every so often there will be incidents which present more issues and which no amount of planning will resolve.

transmanche · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
The thing is that you are basing your argument on what you read in the press.

Well I have read/seen three news reports (ITV, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph). But I am basing my argument on everything I have read here, everything I have read in a similar thread about a train stranded for 3-4 hours in icy conditions with no heat or light and my own experience of being stranded on a train (thankfully for only about an hour-and-a-half, just a couple of hundred yards short of York station. It was back in GNER days and their response was fantastic. The guard did a grand job on board and the station staff got every one despatched on their onward journeys with 'empathetic efficiency'.) I am also basing my argument on the ATOC best Practice Guide for dealing with stranded trains (which I have mentioned, so i find it surprising that you feel I'm only basing my argument on press reports).

A-driver said:
But the video clips clearly show it wast anywhere near as bad as described.

I mentioned that in my previous post. Although (as I also mentioned) it was a first class carriage.

A-driver said:
And as I say regarding water etc, we don't know that it wasn't on its way do we?

No we don't. But FGW control were aware very early on that the fitter would take a long time to arrive - two-and-a half-hours as it turned out. They should have been arranging for extra supplies to be dropped off as soon as they knew that, because realistically at that point they know the train would have been standing for at least three hours before getting underway again.

ATOC Good Practice Guide for Responding to Stranded Trains said:
Within the first 60 minutes: Arrange for (additional) refreshment supplies to be available for transport to site from the most practicable location. The need for additional supplies of water/refreshments to be brought to site should be assessed, taking account of possible rescue time.

carriageline · 6 Aug 2013

I really feel for the knowledgable staff here, poor old A-Driver is actually going round in circles. Many times has it been posted answers to people's "solutions" yet no one reads them, and posts up the same crap saying "why wasn't food or drink taken"

Like I said before, I imagine they was contemplating it. But it imagine they thought when the fitter turned up, the train would be rolling again soon. When it wasn't, I imagine he was telling them that he would have it fixed in half hour/trying one more thing, ring me in half hour etc.

The same with evacuating, why would they bother when from the info on the ground is saying the train could be moving in the time it would take to arrange an evacuation, never mind get staff to over see it, line blockages, isolations etc. the driver, who is a highly trained individual, probably walked on ballast quite a few times, hurt him self. So how would everyone else handle it, who doesn't have a clue what they are dealing with, wearing stilettos etc

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, when looking back 6 hours is a long time, although in the situation I doubt it was a long time, when waiting for things to happen, people to contact.

From the log, the rescue loco was looped quite early on IIRC?

4SRKT · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
Why are you on this forum out of interst? You seem determined to prove that this was a complete shambles and everyone involved from control managers to the buffet staff were completely incompetent and poor at their jobs. You are yet to provide any evidence for that and are ignoring all the facts about the incident and concentrating on water provisions which doesn't even appear to be a major issue.

No one is arguing with the fact that it wasn't handled as well as it could have been now that we can analyse it but I fail to see what you are getting out of coming on this thread - are you just hoping that everyone will turn around and say "yes, everyone involved did a poor job, they all need re-training, possibly sacking"?

And as for higher fares etc, yes if money wasn't an issue then things like this would not happen. But money is an issue, in all industries and is an important factor in this topic. Who will pay for the extra staff as they are rarely needed-how many times has this kind of situation occurred in the last year compared to the number of trains run in the UK?

And train faults like this are far from rare. But very few make headlines-why? Because the vast majority are dealt with very quickly as they can refer to the plans and rehearsed procedures to resolve the incident with minimal delay, discomfort and inconvenience to the passengers. But of course, in any industry, every so often there will be incidents which present more issues and which no amount of planning will resolve.

YOU are the one ignoring what I have written. All my criticisms have been about the failure to ameliorate the situation, rather than the technicalities of dealing with the failure itself, which I admit I know not enough about. Still, easier to lump all critics together rather than see what they as individuals have said.

One of the reasons I am on this forum (apart from enjoying it mostly, and having as much right as you to be on it, despite, shock horror, NOT WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY!!!), is to occasionally express my disappointment that the railway is still largely populated by operators with no concept that they actually work in a customer led industry. Excusifying for failure is the norm, and is IMHO much more prevalent in the railway than anywhere else. This is especially obvious at times like these, where the "no-one's died, so what's the problem?" mentality comes to the fore. This needs to be challenged, even though it's usually clearly pointless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Jay_g said:
I really feel for the knowledgable staff here, poor old A-Driver is actually going round in circles. Many times has it been posted answers to people's "solutions" yet no one reads them, and posts up the same crap saying "why wasn't food or drink taken"

He *hasn't* answered that point though. All he's said is "you don't know it wasn't on the way", to which he may as well have added "n-yer, n-yer" at the end. It clearly was not on the way or would have got there in the time. His points about all the technical stuff are entirely valid and I've agreed with them throughout.

tsr · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
What? I said that water would have been provided if needed and we do t know that it wasn't on its way or being worked on at the time so I don't understand what you are on about there. As for standing for 6 hours, I'm dire people rotated sitting on seats, sat on the floor etc, I say with a degree of certainty that no passenger spent 6 hours standing up on that train.

It clearly was needed, as it ran out during the incident (the time at which it ran out is irrelevant, as when the water should have been despatched, there was no knowing whether or not the water would run out 5 minutes or 5 hours before the incident ended).

Maybe it was worked on, but the point is that the stock on the train was insufficient to allow passengers to have drink during part of a protracted situation during which at least a few people would have felt the need for this very basic amenity!

As for people moving seats... I hope they did swap. But the railway should not have to assume people will do this or should have to do so when forced into such a situation. It would have been uncomfortable for everyone in any case, because shuffling round a HST for an extra 6 hours is not exactly what most people find enjoyable on their weekend afternoons. Perhaps everyone stood for an average of 2 or 3 hours. That's bad enough, to be honest, when you have no idea when you're going to get moving again!

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

transmanche said:
Well I have read/seen three news reports (ITV, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph). But I am basing my argument on everything I have read here, everything I have read in a similar thread about a train stranded for 3-4 hours in icy conditions with no heat or light and my own experience of being stranded on a train (thankfully for only about an hour-and-a-half, just a couple of hundred yards short of York station. It was back in GNER days and their response was fantastic. The guard did a grand job on board and the station staff got every one despatched on their onward journeys with 'empathetic efficiency'.) I am also basing my argument on the ATOC best Practice Guide for dealing with stranded trains (which I have mentioned, so i find it surprising that you feel I'm only basing my argument on press reports).

I mentioned that in my previous post. Although (as I also mentioned) it was a first class carriage.

No we don't. But FGW control were aware very early on that the fitter would take a long time to arrive - two-and-a half-hours as it turned out. They should have been arranging for extra supplies to be dropped off as soon as they knew that, because realistically at that point they know the train would have been standing for at least three hours before getting underway again.

For a start we are not talking about a train stuck in the ice or an hours delay on a gner train. We are talking about to specific incident which was different to those ones.

You are only strengthening my argument of "armchair experts" by bringing up that ATOC guide. Great, so you can read a set of guidelines. Well done you. Reading those kind of things and actually putting them into practice when faced with an incident such as this one unfolding infront of you is very very different. And you will only ever know that from experiencing it.

Harpers Tate · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
...You are yet to provide any evidence for that...

So, in your opinion, six hours isn't evidence?

Hint: it is!

It's all the evidence anyone needs to show this was shambolic. This was not a major incident at all. Nothing crashed or fell of the track or (etc...). A train broke down and it took six hours before people onboard were moved.

In the timetable of events quoted some way back, one thing is wholly conspicuous by its absence. And that's anything - anything at all - that suggests consideration to the people onboard.

Now, on the other hand, IF, high up the list of events, minutes after the incident was reported, an entry read: incident manager began to formulate contingency plan to remove passengers; and IF after, say two hours (as an utter maximum) that plan had kicked in and people were being evacuated (onto an adjacent train, for example; whatever fits the location) then I might have some more sympathy.

transmanche · 6 Aug 2013

Jay_g said:
Many times has it been posted answers to people's "solutions" yet no one reads them, and posts up the same crap saying "why wasn't food or drink taken"

Oh they are being read, but they are not adequate to explain FGW's response. And asking why wasn't more food or drink dropped off isn't 'crap!'

Jay_g said:
Like I said before, I imagine they was contemplating it. But it imagine they thought when the fitter turned up, the train would be rolling again soon.

And like I said before; they knew very early on that in all likelihood it would be at least three hours of the train being stationary before it would be able to get going. A three hour delay is also a long time - time enough to suggest more food and water is needed.

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

4SRKT said:
YOU are the one ignoring what I have written. All my criticisms have been about the failure to ameliorate the situation, rather than the technicalities of dealing with the failure itself, which I admit I know not enough about. Still, easier to lump all critics together rather than see what they as individuals have said.

One of the reasons I am on this forum (apart from enjoying it mostly, and having as much right as you to be on it, despite, shock horror, NOT WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY!!!), is to occasionally express my disappointment that the railway is still largely populated by operators with no concept that they actually work in a customer led industry. Excusifying for failure is the norm, and is IMHO much more prevalent in the railway than anywhere else. This is especially obvious at times like these, where the "no-one's died, so what's the problem?" mentality comes to the fore. This needs to be challenged, even though it's usually clearly pointless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He *hasn't* answered that point though. All he's said is "you don't know it wasn't on the way", to which he may as well have added "n-yer, n-yer" at the end. It clearly was not on the way or would have got there in the time. His points about all the technical stuff are entirely valid and I've agreed with them throughout.

Firstly I wasn't asking why you were here to be offensive or because I don't think you have the right, I was asking as you come across as being determined that everyone involved in this should hang their heads in shame.

As for provisions of water etc, I feel you are taking it too far. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any desperate need for water, and as I keep saying to answer the point, they most certainly would have provided it if needed. They definately would have been constantly monitoring conditions, most probably is the off duty staff member in the videos, and they would never have let it get to the point of people starving or dehydrating.

It just appears that you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. If people were dehydrating and reports were coming out of people being made ill by the situation then I would agree with you completely but the fact that everyone was ok shows that this wasn't a major Failiure in the incident.

VP185 · 6 Aug 2013

Harpers Tate said:
So, in your opinion, six hours isn't evidence?

Hint: it is!

It's all the evidence anyone needs to show this was shambolic. This was not a major incident at all. Nothing crashed or fell of the track or (etc...). A train broke down and it took six hours before people onboard were moved.

In the timetable of events quoted some way back, one thing is wholly conspicuous by its absence. And that's anything - anything at all - that suggests consideration to the people onboard.

Now, on the other hand, IF, high up the list of events, minutes after the incident was reported, an entry read: incident manager began to formulate contingency plan to remove passengers; and IF after, say two hours (as an utter maximum) that plan had kicked in and people were being evacuated (onto an adjacent train, for example; whatever fits the location) then I might have some more sympathy.

Do you seriously think, that the timetable of events posted on here are a word for word transcript of every conversation that was had?
Do you think that the controllers and those involved typed their every thought down?

sbt · 6 Aug 2013

For further info - the approximate (very approximate) location on an OS Map.

1:50,000: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/idld.srf?X=418315&Y=161747&A=Y&Z=120&lm=1

1:25,000: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/idld.srf?x=418315&y=161747&z=120&sv=418315,161747&st=4&ar=y&mapp=idld.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=651&ax=418315&ay=161747&lm=0

Max · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
As for provisions of water etc, I feel you are taking it too far. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any desperate need for water, and as I keep saying to answer the point, they most certainly would have provided it if needed. They definately would have been constantly monitoring conditions, most probably is the off duty staff member in the videos, and they would never have let it get to the point of people starving or dehydrating.

It just appears that you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. If people were dehydrating and reports were coming out of people being made ill by the situation then I would agree with you completely but the fact that everyone was ok shows that this wasn't a major Failiure in the incident.

I think you might have missed the point slightly. From what I have read, 4SRKT was not suggesting that this was the case. Even if passengers are not dehydrated, is it really unreasonable to expect FGW to provide basic provisions like water in such circumstances, for the sake of goodwill? Would it take somebody to keel over with dehydration for the matter to be taken seriously?

A-driver, were you at the scene? From your posts you'd think that you were an eyewitness but somehow I don't think this is the case.

On the other side of the coin, I accept that we don't have the full story and I'm sure the railways did try to deal with the problem as quickly as possible (though management's response would suggest that this might not be the case). Though realistically, will we ever have perfect information in these debates? Probably not, and that's why these forums for debate exist. I haven't read any mindless criticism of railway staff in this thread, just a number of people suggesting how things might be done more efficiently.

4SRKT · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
Firstly I wasn't asking why you were here to be offensive or because I don't think you have the right,

Love me, love my style

A-driver said:
I was asking as you come across as being determined that everyone involved in this should hang their heads in shame.

No, not everyone, and certainly not anyone involved in dealing with the train itself. My gripe isn't even particularly with the management on the ground, who clearly cocked up, but it's understandable in the chaos. The problem is the obvious lack of an amelioration plan for the comfort of passengers, and the frustrating dismissal of this on this Forum.

455driver · 6 Aug 2013

TimSYoung40145 said:
Why was 59202 able to tow the stricken power car back to Westbury, but wasn't able to drag the whole consist back to Westbury to detrain passengers?

it was dragged back at about 10mph (as far as I can make out) so would have taken a considerable time, once the 59 had turned up it would have been quicker to uncouple the power car and run the rest of the train onwards rather than drag it all backwards. Also once you have dragged it back to Westbury what do you do with the train and passengers?

flhh66555 · 6 Aug 2013

Harpers Tate said:
In the timetable of events quoted some way back, one thing is wholly conspicuous by its absence. And that's anything - anything at all - that suggests consideration to the people onboard.

Now, on the other hand, IF, high up the list of events, minutes after the incident was reported, an entry read: incident manager began to formulate contingency plan to remove passengers; and IF after, say two hours (as an utter maximum) that plan had kicked in and people were being evacuated (onto an adjacent train, for example; whatever fits the location) then I might have some more sympathy.

Now I might be wrong and opening a can of worms, but I, like the others on here who work on the railway would know that when someone suggested putting time and effort into an evacuation plan so early the answer would be: why, it will be moving again soon? / Trains break down everyday, its the nature of the beast and usually delays are kept to a minimum by people who know the job at hand. I accept the delay was unacceptable but I really have to conclude in hindsight it was just an unfortunate sequence of events. you can not plan for this sort of thing. anyway some of you seem to hate FGW and some support them. I don't know who is right or wrong but this thread has lost its interest to me.

4SRKT · 6 Aug 2013

Max said:
I think you might have missed the point slightly. From what I have read, 4SRKT was not suggesting that this was the case. Even if passengers are not dehydrated, is it really unreasonable to expect FGW to provide basic provisions like water in such circumstances, for the sake of goodwill? Would it take somebody to keel over with dehydration for the matter to be taken seriously?

A-driver, were you at the scene? From your posts you'd think that you were an eyewitness but somehow I don't think this is the case.

On the other side of the coin, I accept that we don't have the full story and I'm sure the railways did try to deal with the problem as quickly as possible (though management's response would suggest that this might not be the case). Though realistically, will we ever have perfect information in these debates? Probably not, and that's why these forums for debate exist. I haven't read any mindless criticism of railway staff in this thread, just a number of people suggesting how things might be done more efficiently.

I think I may have become a focus for A-driver because I've been posting a lot about this issue. The fact that I think he's right about most things he's said has not stopped him conflating me with other posters demanding to know why the train wasn't evacuated or suggesting passengers should wander off by themselves.

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

Max said:
I think you might have missed the point slightly. From what I have read, 4SRKT was not suggesting that this was the case. Even if passengers are not dehydrated, is it really unreasonable to expect FGW to provide basic provisions like water in such circumstances, for the sake of goodwill? Would it take somebody to keel over with dehydration for the matter to be taken seriously?

A-driver, were you at the scene? From your posts you'd think that you were an eyewitness but somehow I don't think this is the case.

On the other side of the coin, I accept that we don't have the full story and I'm sure the railways did try to deal with the problem as quickly as possible (though management's response would suggest that this might not be the case). Though realistically, will we ever have perfect information in these debates? Probably not, and that's why these forums for debate exist. I haven't read any mindless criticism of railway staff in this thread, just a number of people suggesting how things might be done more efficiently.

I was not at the scene but I have been involved as a driver in a similar incident (admittedly not as 'bad' as this one but with similarities and faced similar criticism from passengers even though all that could be done was being done so I believe I have a very good idea what was happening here and what the scene was like).

My point is that basic provisions were provided. There was food and water on the train, ok it ran out but we can't debate if more water should have Ben provided until we know when it ran out.

I am mearly suggesting that if the lack of water had been a real issue then we would know about it. The quotes that the water ran out have been rather casual, slipped in amongst other complaints. If they truly were left without water for an unacceptable length of time then every passenger would be coming off that train fuming about that. Plus the train crew would certainly have demanded water be provided for themselves if it was a real problem and at that point they would certainly get water to the passengers to.

Antman · 6 Aug 2013

4SRKT said:
Love me, love my style

The problem is the obvious lack of an amelioration plan for the comfort of passengers, and the frustrating dismissal of this on this Forum.

That's what gets me, to the poor sods stuck on that train for the best part of six hours it certainly was a major incident, rather like the TV ad (green flag I think?) that depicts a car breakdown as a major emergency for those involved.

Were the police contacted at any point during the six hours I wonder? I think they may have been able to come up with a plan to get people onto alternative transport or at very least ensure there was adequate food and water for those stuck on board.

transmanche · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver said:
You are only strengthening my argument of "armchair experts" by bringing up that ATOC guide. Great, so you can read a set of guidelines. Well done you. Reading those kind of things and actually putting them into practice when faced with an incident such as this one unfolding infront of you is very very different. And you will only ever know that from experiencing it.

Yes it is difficult. But if the people working for the TOC whose job it is to put those guidelines into practice are unable to do the job, then they need to be a) better trained or b) replaced.

As I said before it's when things go wrong that's the true test of a company's service. A "s**t happens" attitude isn't good enough.

One doesn't need to be an "armchair expert" to realise that as soon as it is established that the train is unlikely to be moving for three hours, that sending extra water is a good idea. One just needs to have some common sense. Continuing to defend the lack of additional water supplies being delivered undermines the other arguments you make (some of which are valid).

As it happens I have spent plenty of time working in crisis management, albeit in a different industry'. So I have plenty of experience of balancing the different pressures involved in; a) understanding the problem, b) finding the cause of the problem, c) fixing the problem, d) what do we do to minimise the impact on the customers and e) how do we keep customers informed - and deploying your limited resource to achieve the best balance in the shortest time possible.

No doubt you'll say this experience doesn't count as it wasn't in the railway industry and continue to dismiss me as an "armchair expert". But the railway industry isn't unique; crisis management is crisis management. It's about balancing the three different aspects - you have to do the a), b) and c) in sequence and d) & e) should be undertaken in parallel. The crux of the issue here is that all the effort appears to go into a), b) and c) and not enough effort goes into d) or e)

A-driver · 6 Aug 2013

4SRKT said:
I think I may have become a focus for A-driver because I've been posting a lot about this issue. The fact that I think he's right about most things he's said has not stopped him conflating me with other posters demanding to know why the train wasn't evacuated or suggesting passengers should wander off by themselves.

I'm not trying to personally argue with you and agree that water should be provided during lengthy delays but I can't sit back and watch you argue that nothing was done to provide water when we don't have any facts as to how long the onboard supplies lasted for or what was actually being done for the benefit of passenger comfort behind the scenes.

I can only go on the end result, perhaps they did nothing and just got lucky that no one became ill and I'm happy to be proved wrong with evidence. I just think you are being a little unfair to suggest that the passengers were just ignored and can assure you that they would have kept a very close eye on the domestic situation.

flhh66555 · 6 Aug 2013

A-driver, I think you are wasting your time mate.

As for Crisis management, Jesus, its the railway and here we have some one saying D and E were not being carried out. I am sure I read that the driver and then subsequently the fitter were in fact trying to fix the fault. You see its not someone in an office hundreds of miles away that fixes is it?
like I said I had enough of this now. its too repetitive. and sorry I am pro rail and I know what goes on behind the scenes.

FGW train stranded at Pewsey

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Attachments

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member