• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Southeastern train passengers stuck for 3 hours as train fails yards from Victoria

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
It has to be the Train or Rolling Stock Operating Company's responsibility to recover their own train when it breaks down. Getting the stranded passengers to pay for it is (and should never be) a thing that happens.

you and I will pay for it via our fares.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
24 Mar 2009
Messages
592
In theory, yes. However, the specifics of the situation mean that such a rescue is not always possible.

What? There was no compatible unit in the vicinity of Victoria station at the time? I realise this could have meant that another train might be delayed whilst the ECS is being used to effect a rescue, but as the only alternative seems to be to leave passengers on a train for 3 hours, I'd consider the use of another unit to be the lesser of many evils. If passengers had been told "don't worry, you'll be stuck here for 20 minutes, please stay put and don't try to get off" they'd probably have complied.

In the event, passengers now know that if their train becomes disabled in any way, they're likely to be stuck wherever that is for more an an hour (and possibly more) due to the railway's continual inability to learn from it's own mistakes. This makes them more likely to de-train themselves, thus putting themselves at risk and causing mass disruption to all traffic in the vicinity.

The passengers can't be blamed for having such a low opinion of the railway authorities to deal with what can boil down to very routine and avoidable incidents leaving them stranded with no heat, light or working toilet facilities.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Let's say that SouthEastern have 3 dedicated thunderbird locos based at various locations across their network (for argument's sake, I'll say Grove Park, Ramsgate and Gillingham). They would have to be crewed from the first train of the day ~5am to the last ~2am. Those 21 hours would be covered by 3 shifts of 2 people per shift. That's 6 people per day, or 20 people in total to cover absences. Say that each one of those people is on £50k a year. That's £1 million of extra wages.
I don't know how much it costs to maintain 3 dedicated thunderbird locos.

SouthEastern had 178 million passengers over the last annual period. That works out as ~0.5p per journey for wages. It would need to cost £7.9million to maintain the thunderbirds for each journey to cost an additional 5p (the minimum by which tickets could go up), or £8.9million in total for each increase of 5p per journey.

This is without even considering the Thameslink passengers that run on SouthEastern metals (the London Bridge to Rainham section, for example).

Now, add in the fact that TOC's probably wouldn't have their own micro-pool of thunderbirds and it would be likely that there would be sharing between TOCs given the few times that a thunderbird is required. Therefore, these Thunderbirds would be covering more journeys than I have outlines above meaning that the amount required to raise fares would be higher.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
What? There was no compatible unit in the vicinity of Victoria station at the time? I realise this could have meant that another train might be delayed whilst the ECS is being used to effect a rescue, but as the only alternative seems to be to leave passengers on a train for 3 hours, I'd consider the use of another unit to be the lesser of many evils. If passengers had been told "don't worry, you'll be stuck here for 20 minutes, please stay put and don't try to get off" they'd probably have complied.

In the event, passengers now know that if their train becomes disabled in any way, they're likely to be stuck wherever that is for more an an hour (and possibly more) due to the railway's continual inability to learn from it's own mistakes. This makes them more likely to de-train themselves, thus putting themselves at risk and causing mass disruption to all traffic in the vicinity.

The passengers can't be blamed for having such a low opinion of the railway authorities to deal with what can boil down to very routine and avoidable incidents leaving them stranded with no heat, light or working toilet facilities.
Please refer to other posts in this thread.
This one in particular:
They did look, and the GTR Class 73 would have been sent (which would have been the second time that week that it had been used as a Thunderbird), but it would have made very little difference to the timescales - it may even have made things worse in the long run.

Another Networker was sent but took time to couple up due to air pressure issues affecting the coupling, caused by people pulling egresses on the stricken train (although nobody seems to have actually left the train of their own accord). The same problems then prevented a brake release. Using traction interlock / emergency bypass switches would not have helped, as you still need to physically check all doors are secure before moving, which would have been a nightmare. So eventually service controllers realised the train would not be movable with passengers on it, without physically locking them in (which was considered), so everyone had to be evacuated. Once everyone was then clear of the train, the problems were sorted quickly.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
If rude is your style - so be it.

I was trying to illustrate a point about information changing. Those steps don't occur in isolation. I assumed that would be obvious.
Obviously not, being as I wasn't the only person to comment on it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
And if you spoke to people like that in person, you'd probably end up with a smack on the nose! However, if rude is your style - so be it.

get real! As i said: If you think that is rude you must lead a very sheltered life.

Obviously not, being as I wasn't the only person to comment on it...

it is clear that on this board you must very clearly state the blindingly obvious.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
As i said: If you think that is rude you must lead a very sheltered life.
In my book accusing someone of doing something they haven't done is impolite and rude. It seems your standards are somewhat lower. How nice.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
Let's say that SouthEastern have 3 dedicated thunderbird locos based at various locations across their network (for argument's sake, I'll say Grove Park, Ramsgate and Gillingham). They would have to be crewed from the first train of the day ~5am to the last ~2am. Those 21 hours would be covered by 3 shifts of 2 people per shift. That's 6 people per day, or 20 people in total to cover absences. Say that each one of those people is on £50k a year. That's £1 million of extra wages.
I don't know how much it costs to maintain 3 dedicated thunderbird locos.

SouthEastern had 178 million passengers over the last annual period. That works out as ~0.5p per journey for wages. It would need to cost £7.9million to maintain the thunderbirds for each journey to cost an additional 5p (the minimum by which tickets could go up), or £8.9million in total for each increase of 5p per journey.

This is without even considering the Thameslink passengers that run on SouthEastern metals (the London Bridge to Rainham section, for example).

Now, add in the fact that TOC's probably wouldn't have their own micro-pool of thunderbirds and it would be likely that there would be sharing between TOCs given the few times that a thunderbird is required. Therefore, these Thunderbirds would be covering more journeys than I have outlines above meaning that the amount required to raise fares would be higher.

A good start but not quite full employment cost. You need to consider Pension, NI, leave, sick, training, bonus, transport, equipment, PPE etc on top of your wage. I also doubt the TOC would look to buy their own loco's. I suspect they would hire the service in including staffing. That would potentialy negate the need to employ people and transfer the risk of service failure onto your contractor.

I agree the costs are not massive, however it offers a TOC a chance to bump up their profits by over egging the pudding. Perhaps I am just more cynical than many here.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,746
It surprises me that thee are so few shoes on EMU's, is there a reason for this, underground stock has many more shoes and I cannot see why shoes on the second car could not be linked back to the leading one, if new build a not very expensive solution the the problem.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
It surprises me that thee are so few shoes on EMU's,

I drive both 465s and 700s Even with the increased number of shoes on a 700 they still 'gap' Same with a 376. It has additional shoes but can still find a gap.

underground stock has many more shoes

Do they 'gap' ?

I think you have to take a two pronged approach. Increase the number of shoes on a unit and decrease the gap opportunities. Areas like Vic suffer so much because of the pointwork and the constant crossing over all the time. There are gaps coming out and some that only crop up depending on which platform your on and which section you get sent out. I suppose there is a potential to restrict specific movements out to also reduce the gapping issues. Same with stock allocation. There was an issue at a different location with a specific stock type and length that gapped almost daily. It took more than a few weeks and incidents before a simple stock change removed the problem permanently.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,084
Surely the answer is a fleet of 230s ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
What? There was no compatible unit in the vicinity of Victoria station at the time? I realise this could have meant that another train might be delayed whilst the ECS is being used to effect a rescue, but as the only alternative seems to be to leave passengers on a train for 3 hours, I'd consider the use of another unit to be the lesser of many evils. If passengers had been told "don't worry, you'll be stuck here for 20 minutes, please stay put and don't try to get off" they'd probably have complied.

In the event, passengers now know that if their train becomes disabled in any way, they're likely to be stuck wherever that is for more an an hour (and possibly more) due to the railway's continual inability to learn from it's own mistakes. This makes them more likely to de-train themselves, thus putting themselves at risk and causing mass disruption to all traffic in the vicinity.

The passengers can't be blamed for having such a low opinion of the railway authorities to deal with what can boil down to very routine and avoidable incidents leaving them stranded with no heat, light or working toilet facilities.

You'd be hard pushed to rescue any train within an hour at the very best of times !
 
Joined
21 May 2014
Messages
723
You'd be hard pushed to rescue any train within an hour at the very best of times !

I've been on a train where the passengers were rescued probably within an hour, if not, it wasn't much longer. And close to a station, too. A few years back I was on a local stopping London Midland service (class 323) between Brum and Wolves and we stopped a few hundred metres short of platform 5. Something to do with a pigeon and a transformer, overhead lines out. At the same time a 150 was standing at platform 3. They turfed the passengers off the 150, and sent it down and back up to stop alongside us. A wheelchair ramp was laid to bridge the gap between the doors, and we transferred onto the 150, which bought us the remaining few metres into platform 1. Job done.

I'm aware the layout at Wolverhampton is probably a lot simpler than Victoria and we were perhaps lucky that there was a diesel unit to hand, but it proves that it can be done.
 
Joined
24 Mar 2009
Messages
592
Please refer to other posts in this thread.
This one in particular:

Fair point, but passengers were pulling the door controls because THEY WEREN'T KEPT INFORMED. How difficult would it have been for the driver to leave the inner sanctum of their cab and walk down the train telling passengers what was going on. Most passengers are reasonable people, but keep them (literally) in the dark and they take matters into their own hands. It happened at Lewisham and at Dock Junction on Thameslink, simply because the railway was so busy doing "railway things" the people in charge forgot to keep their customers informed.

It's not the 1940's anymore. Passengers aren't content to defer to authority in the form of some spotty oik wearing a fluorescent orange vest. They demand (and deserve) to be told why they're not getting home, quickly and with updates at regular intervals. It's how things work in the 21st Century, but unfortunately the railways are struggling to keep up.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Fair point, but passengers were pulling the door controls because THEY WEREN'T KEPT INFORMED. How difficult would it have been for the driver to leave the inner sanctum of their cab and walk down the train telling passengers what was going on. Most passengers are reasonable people, but keep them (literally) in the dark and they take matters into their own hands. It happened at Lewisham and at Dock Junction on Thameslink, simply because the railway was so busy doing "railway things" the people in charge forgot to keep their customers informed.

It's not the 1940's anymore. Passengers aren't content to defer to authority in the form of some spotty oik wearing a fluorescent orange vest. They demand (and deserve) to be told why they're not getting home, quickly and with updates at regular intervals. It's how things work in the 21st Century, but unfortunately the railways are struggling to keep up.

Because, as this discussion about an incident at Peckham Rye shows, drivers have other problems to worry about.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Fair point, but passengers were pulling the door controls because THEY WEREN'T KEPT INFORMED. How difficult would it have been for the driver to leave the inner sanctum of their cab and walk down the train telling passengers what was going on. Most passengers are reasonable people, but keep them (literally) in the dark and they take matters into their own hands. It happened at Lewisham and at Dock Junction on Thameslink, simply because the railway was so busy doing "railway things" the people in charge forgot to keep their customers informed.

It's not the 1940's anymore. Passengers aren't content to defer to authority in the form of some spotty oik wearing a fluorescent orange vest. They demand (and deserve) to be told why they're not getting home, quickly and with updates at regular intervals. It's how things work in the 21st Century, but unfortunately the railways are struggling to keep up.

Don't agree with this at all. It is not in any member of train crews interest not to inform passengers. Train crew know only too well the risk of punters decamping onto the track. This was a DOO train. The driver would have been up to their eyes in contacting the signaller and fleet control as well as actually trying to fix the fault - some of which would involve walking about or shutting down the unit and rebooting it. Yes, drivers should talk to passengers and keep them informed, of course they should. But a driver is up to their neck in it in as situation like this and can't make announcements while doing everything else on top. Short and succinct PAs as and when the driver can get round to it are the order of the day. Many people have no idea what the driver has on their plate in situations like these. Obviously if the train had a guard the punters would have far more chance of regular announcements, as well as on board reassurance, but the authorities don't want guards. They want the driver to do it all. In this situation it sounds like the driver was doing it all, that's why the punters didn't get too many announcements.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Don't agree with this at all. It is not in any member of train crews interest not to inform passengers. Train crew know only too well the risk of punters decamping onto the track. This was a DOO train. The driver would have been up to their eyes in contacting the signaller and fleet control as well as actually trying to fix the fault - some of which would involve walking about or shutting down the unit and rebooting it. Yes, drivers should talk to passengers and keep them informed, of course they should. But a driver is up to their neck in it in as situation like this and can't make announcements while doing everything else on top. Short and succinct PAs as and when the driver can get round to it are the order of the day. Many people have no idea what the driver has on their plate in situations like these. Obviously if the train had a guard the punters would have far more chance of regular announcements, as well as on board reassurance, but the authorities don't want guards. They want the driver to do it all. In this situation it sounds like the driver was doing it all, that's why the punters didn't get too many announcements.

A clear announcement should be made to all the passengers on the train if there is to be any hope of avoiding further problems. I see no reason why - in 2018 - it's not possible for any such blanket communication to come from any well-informed source (who may not necessarily be the driver). If it means that modifications are needed to enable remote access to each train's PA system then so be it - they need to get on with it asap.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Announcements don't stop people pulling egresses. All it takes is one selfish idiot - and there are a lot of them about - and it's game over.

Once the egress is pulled it's time to start blocking lines, turning off the juice and the driver being unable to release the brakes until they've reset the egress.

I completely agree that announcements are important but they will not stop south London's finest from egressing trains. The reason Lewisham was so exacerbated was people constantly egressing without thinking of the fact that each time they did that they were stranding all trains in the area for even longer. But what did they care? They jumped off and went home, probably filming it for a bit of instant gratification hit-generation on Twitter in the process. Meanwhile, the post mortem blames it all on a driver who may, or may not, have made announcements.

Like I say, all it takes is one idiot. In suburban London DOO Land people pull egresses for fun. You won't stop it with a few PAs.
 
Joined
24 Mar 2009
Messages
592
Don't agree with this at all. It is not in any member of train crews interest not to inform passengers. Train crew know only too well the risk of punters decamping onto the track. This was a DOO train. The driver would have been up to their eyes in contacting the signaller and fleet control as well as actually trying to fix the fault - some of which would involve walking about or shutting down the unit and rebooting it. Yes, drivers should talk to passengers and keep them informed, of course they should. But a driver is up to their neck in it in as situation like this and can't make announcements while doing everything else on top. Short and succinct PAs as and when the driver can get round to it are the order of the day. Many people have no idea what the driver has on their plate in situations like these. Obviously if the train had a guard the punters would have far more chance of regular announcements, as well as on board reassurance, but the authorities don't want guards. They want the driver to do it all. In this situation it sounds like the driver was doing it all, that's why the punters didn't get too many announcements.

Sounds like it was the driver's fault in the first place for "gapping" the unit by not travelling at the correct speed over the offending section of track. Have questions been asked about the driver's route knowledge and proficiency in driving that type of EMU? Once it had been established that the unit was stuck, what did the driver have to do, other than becoming another passenger to the remainder of the three hours?
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
It should be possible with GSM-R for signallers and controllers to tap in to the train PA system and make announcements to punters but I've never heard of it actually being utilised.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
Sounds like it was the driver's fault in the first place for "gapping" the unit by not travelling at the correct speed over the offending section of track.

It's clearly Network Rails fault for designing track with gaps and the designers fault for not adding additional collector shoes :rolleyes:
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Sounds like it was the driver's fault in the first place for "gapping" the unit by not travelling at the correct speed over the offending section of track. Have questions been asked about the driver's route knowledge and proficiency in driving that type of EMU? Once it had been established that the unit was stuck, what did the driver have to do, other than becoming another passenger to the remainder of the three hours?

I don't know the circumstances of the gapping. There are many faults and scenarios that could cause a train to come up in a heap completely out of a drivers control. If it comes up in a heap outside Vic there is a good chance of being screwed. Route and traction knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with it!

What I do know (from official sources) is the driver changed ends and was able to release the brakes to roll back into the station when some bright spark pulled an egress, locking the brakes back on, and basically stranding themselves and everyone else on the train for hours.

You have just made a a huge assumption without any facts. If the first egress hadn't been pulled they'd have got the train back into the platform much sooner.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
It's clearly Network Rails fault for designing track with gaps and the designers fault for not adding additional collector shoes :rolleyes:

Don't forget to also blame the guards for being abolished on the route in the 1990s as well as Stevenson for inventing the Rocket, and Bob Crow probably had a hand in it too, from beyond the grave! :D
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
Sounds like it was the driver's fault in the first place for "gapping" the unit by not travelling at the correct speed over the offending section of track. Have questions been asked about the driver's route knowledge and proficiency in driving that type of EMU? Once it had been established that the unit was stuck, what did the driver have to do, other than becoming another passenger to the remainder of the three hours?

Shall we get a grip of ourselves? Can you not identify, even as a guess, some of the jobs a driver might be up to?

Personally I bet he couldn't wait to crack open his brew flask, get his feet up and read the paper/have a kip.

This board at times...........
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
Announcements don't stop people pulling egresses. All it takes is one selfish idiot - and there are a lot of them about - and it's game over.

Once the egress is pulled it's time to start blocking lines, turning off the juice and the driver being unable to release the brakes until they've reset the egress.

Just because a response to a problem isn't perfect, doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/134/Nirvana-Fallacy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top