EM2
Established Member
Not since 1964. Funnily enough, most people were using cars, so they stopped running the trains...Didn't trains used to run on Boxing day?
Not since 1964. Funnily enough, most people were using cars, so they stopped running the trains...Didn't trains used to run on Boxing day?
National shortage of diesel stocks, quite simply put. It is a strategic management issue and you can probably pin the blame on the government for that for penny-pinching and the lack of long-term visions from years gone by.
How would Asda cope if 300 people suddenly went shopping in one of their stores on a Saturday afternoon without warning, do you think they would magic up enough staff to open all the tills with 5 minutes notice?
Yeah, when there are perfectly good 442's and locos sitting around looking for a use... *grabs coat and runs*So I guess at the end of the day FGW deliberately arranged trains to be a short and overcrowded as possible and ensured it got stuck for as long as possible as all the staff just wanted a good laugh at the discomfort of the punters.
What we don't know is what the driver knew at the moment (s)he took power at Clifton station. If he knew that it was likely that he would be stopped for a long time before reaching Redland then I agree that staying at Clifton would have been the better option.
I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that was the case.
Not according to some it wasn't!
Can you define 'a long period' please?
They get down B&Q and buy a long extension lead!This threads got very silly now. Seriously, suggesting Bristol area uses SWT stock from Clapham?! How, get the passengers to push the coaches along as they wont be able to get power around Bristol due to the lack of electrification!
Yeah, when there are perfectly good 442's and locos sitting around looking for a use... *grabs coat and runs*
Lots of your "the railway is at fault' or 'the railway should do something' wibble, now actually come up with a viable, workable solution!Clearly, then, there is a gap or breakdown in communications. Perhaps there should be some way of monitoring platform crowding further along the route to allow a controller or the signaller (or the driver) to make a decision about whether to hold a train in the platform, or cancel stops before it's too late for pax to change. Perhaps Redland could've briefly been made exit-only, which in my view would've been preferable to making a train run fast past a crowded platform.
Clearly it was long enough for people to panic or get fed up.
This is the funny thing about transporting human members of the public. They don't behave like mechanical equipment. They don't behave according to operational rule books. They become confused. They don't like being confined in a stationary train with no control over the situation and no way out. They can, and do, panic in certain conditions, and not after some arbitrary time limit of minutes-packed-in-at-a-given-density.
I'm of the view that any stop between station calls should be avoided where possible, particularly on very crowded trains. Clearly in many cases they are not avoidable, so the Driver or the Guard should act very quickly to reassure passengers that they will be moving again as quickly as possible, and operations staff should, wherever possible, provide an opportunity for a train to be brought alongside a platform and the doors opened to allow passengers to alight if they wish.
But the bottom line is that prevention is better than cure, and if the Railway wants to prevent passengers self-evacuating, perhaps they should put more effort into preventing conditions where passengers want to self-evacuate.
You do realise we're talking about a minor branch line with (generally) unstaffed stations?Clearly, then, there is a gap or breakdown in communications. Perhaps there should be some way of monitoring platform crowding further along the route to allow a controller or the signaller (or the driver) to make a decision about whether to hold a train in the platform, or cancel stops before it's too late for pax to change. Perhaps Redland could've briefly been made exit-only, which in my view would've been preferable to making a train run fast past a crowded platform.
Or, alternatively, event organisers should put more effort into working with transportation providers (the railway being only one) to make sure that there's a workable plan, rather than leaving punters to fend for themselves, as appears to have happened here.But the bottom line is that prevention is better than cure, and if the Railway wants to prevent passengers self-evacuating, perhaps they should put more effort into preventing conditions where passengers want to self-evacuate.
...presumably with closed-circuit television cameras? Is it too much to ask for someone to actually monitor the output of these cameras, and, in the event of something unusual happening, crowd control measures to be imposed and staff deployed? (TfL seem to be able to do it on the mainly-unstaffed DLR stations.)You do realise we're talking about a minor branch line with (generally) unstaffed stations?
No-one was saying the event organisers shouldn't have done more (clearly they should.) But as soon as the railway realised something was going on, they should've done better too. Indeed, it seems First Bus was aware of the event taking placeso why didn't they inform (First) Great Western? One presumes the event was well advertised in the local areapresumably no GWR staff saw these and thought, "maybe I should check to see if our planning team have spoken to the organisers"?Or, alternatively, event organisers should put more effort into working with transportation providers (the railway being only one) to make sure that there's a workable plan, rather than leaving punters to fend for themselves, as appears to have happened here.
Lots of your "the railway is at fault' or 'the railway should do something' wibble, now actually come up with a viable, workable solution!
The event organisers specifically stated on their website that they were working with the local bus companies. No such mention of the train companies - they just say 'the nearest station is' and leave it at that.Indeed, it seems First Bus was aware of the event taking placeso why didn't they inform (First) Great Western? One presumes the event was well advertised in the local areapresumably no GWR staff saw these and thought, "maybe I should check to see if our planning team have spoken to the organisers"?
The event organisers specifically stated on their website that they were working with the local bus companies. No such mention of the train companies - they just say 'the nearest station is' and leave it at that.
This is fair. But it shouldn't matter where. Assuming there is CCTV at the stations, which is presumably being monitored by someone, someone must have been aware of an increase in passenger volume.It's also worth noting that the problem didn't occur at the closest station, but three stations down the branch, rather than main, line so I'm sure that GWR was as surprised at the events as everyone else is.
Same parent company but it isn't clear how much communication there is (or is allowed) between them. Competition and cartel laws and all that.The impression I had was that First Bus and Great Western Railway were part of the same group of companies. Could First Bus not have informed GWR of the upcoming event, or advised the organisers to get in touch with them? Perhaps this is something both GWR and First Bus can look into in the future.
It would appear that this did actually happen - to an extent - as the OP later amended his story to say that the train was being held at a signal due to crowding at Redland station (rather than due to crowding on the train he was on). There's limits to what GWR could do in those circumstances however - they can see that there is a problem, but it will take time to call up the staff and get them to the station. And in the meantime, people are already on crowded trains stopped at red signals...This is fair. But it shouldn't matter where. Assuming there is CCTV at the stations, which is presumably being monitored by someone, someone must have been aware of an increase in passenger volume.
No, and ime I have regularly found that for a fixture attracting a larger than usual crowd, I am turned away from pubs because they are too full.
No, it's because the pubs aren't big enough (or, I suppose, that there aren't enough pubs). I can't see the point you're trying to make.But not because they haven't got enough staff to staff the capacity they do have.
Not since 1964. Funnily enough, most people were using cars, so they stopped running the trains...
No, it's because the pubs aren't big enough (or, I suppose, that there aren't enough pubs). I can't see the point you're trying to make.
Using the bizarre logic being displayed by some comments on this thread it looks as if some posters think Asda would be able to 'borrow a shop' from Tesco or another operator in the same business!! :roll:
That seems to be the appropriate parallel with FGW borrowing rolling stock from C2C etc.
No.This threads got very silly now. Seriously, suggesting Bristol area uses SWT stock from Clapham?!
I'm of the view that any stop between station calls should be avoided where possible, particularly on very crowded trains. Clearly in many cases they are not avoidable, so the Driver or the Guard should act very quickly to reassure passengers that they will be moving again as quickly as possible
No. Staffing is only one factor that needs to be considered - and actually would be the easiest to resolve.The point is that this incident occurred because the existing capacity wasn't used for want of extra staff and the odd extra or longer train.
I don't know if you're London based, but this is a very London-centric way of thinking. On many branch lines the Saturday service provision is almost exactly the same as the weekday.It's just that if SWT have spare stock off peak it's reasonable to expect another TOC to also have spare stock off peak.
It's silly that people won't get this idea that peak usage is normally greater than off peak.
I'm of the view that any stop between station calls should be avoided where possible, particularly on very crowded trains. Clearly in many cases they are not avoidable, so the Driver or the Guard should act very quickly to reassure passengers that they will be moving again as quickly as possible, and operations staff should, wherever possible, provide an opportunity for a train to be brought alongside a platform and the doors opened to allow passengers to alight if they wish.
I think it's down to the difference between speed signalling and route signalling.I agree in principle, though it seems a "UK thing" that signalling infrastructure isn't closely tied with where the stations are. In mainland Europe, it appears usual that "signalboxes" are found actually within the station building, and blocks coincide with the locations of stations, so if you're sitting and waiting it is almost always in a station. The UK never seemed to work like that pretty much from day one.
We're not talking about lots of extra trains, just one extra or one longer train would have done. From just one of the depots in the area.No. Staffing is only one factor that needs to be considered - and actually would be the easiest to resolve.
Finding the units will be the biggest consideration - as repeatedly stated above, there just isn't that much spare diesel stock sitting around. 445driver gave the situation at his depot where there was only one spare unit on a Saturday (and that would be required as a backup). Finding the paths - Redland station sits on a single line section, even assuming that you can find the stock it may not be possible to run it as the current Saturday service provision is basically the same as weekdays.
And I'll point out again that this problem occurred at Redland Station which is almost 3km away from the site of the festival. If anything, GWR would have been expecting problems at Stapeleton Road which is less than 1km away.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't know if you're London based, but this is a very London-centric way of thinking. On many branch lines the Saturday service provision is almost exactly the same as the weekday.
One extra train would just have shifted the problem to the next one.We're not talking about lots of extra trains, just one extra or one longer train would have done. From just one of the depots in the area.
I think it's down to the difference between speed signalling and route signalling.
With speed signalling you need a starter signal, as the train will typically be signalled to a stop at the station. That isn't required with route signalling.