Avanti explains oxenholme incident

[Bletchleyite]

National Rail website says both have full time staff available. Maybe there was a staff shortage at Oxenholme on this occasion

"Full time" doesn't extend to 2 hours after the normal last train. That will only ever be covered by overtime, and this is by no means the first time this sort of thing has happened.

I'm not entirely sure why, given the semi-indoor nature of stations and the risk of escaping onto the track, a locked railway station is not required to have an emergency exit openable at any time, e.g. a push bar or a "break glass for key" arrangement. Perhaps it should.

 

[Kite159]

So in summary it was all the fault of those pesky passengers not believing that a fleet of taxis will be waiting for them at Penrith and they won't simply get dumped there with any member of staff doing a disappearing act pretty sharpish once the train had gone leaving passengers to try and figure out how to get back towards Oxenholme.

If they wanted passengers in taxis then I agree it would have made more sense to offload them at Lancaster as it's a larger station.

But whenever did the railways put passengers first?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But whenever did the railways put passengers first?

Therein lies the problem.

There is absolutely no chance the taxis would have been provided in a timely manner (if at all) at Penrith. Penrith is too small to have enough taxis. The only way you'd get enough taxis at Penrith is by asking a taxi firm from Carlisle or Preston/Lancaster to send some there. The same issue would be there at Oxenholme for the Windermere passengers (rather than those for Kendal who could mostly just walk, it's not that far and is downhill), which is why Lancaster would be the right place.

This situation just showed utter unthinking contempt for passengers, which is becoming increasingly common.

 

[Bantamzen]

Therein lies the problem.

There is absolutely no chance the taxis would have been provided in a timely manner (if at all) at Penrith. Penrith is too small to have enough taxis. The only way you'd get enough taxis at Penrith is by asking a taxi firm from Carlisle or Preston/Lancaster to send some there. The same issue would be there at Oxenholme for the Windermere passengers (rather than those for Kendal who could mostly just walk, it's not that far and is downhill), which is why Lancaster would be the right place.

This situation just showed utter unthinking contempt for passengers, which is becoming increasingly common.

And this is exactly where airline style checklists would help reduce the chance of it happening. So where there is any change to path, timings or calling points both driver and TM / guard confirm with each other that they agree on what they understand the changes to be, and then one confirms the same with control. Then either control makes everyone else that needs to know the changes (and preferably why for comms to passengers), again confirming with each other that they all agree on what the changes are, & what needs to happen to ensure the passengers are provisioned for. And if anything else changes, the process is restarted.

 

[BrianW]

Therein lies the problem.

There is absolutely no chance the taxis would have been provided in a timely manner (if at all) at Penrith. Penrith is too small to have enough taxis. The only way you'd get enough taxis at Penrith is by asking a taxi firm from Carlisle or Preston/Lancaster to send some there. The same issue would be there at Oxenholme for the Windermere passengers (rather than those for Kendal who could mostly just walk, it's not that far and is downhill), which is why Lancaster would be the right place.

This situation just showed utter unthinking contempt for passengers, which is becoming increasingly common.

I posted this earlier on a thread about Driver recruitment- it relates to both:

As an interested observer and now occasional passenger customer I am finding this thread informative and see it in relation to a number of other threads. 'Management' these days has become 'leadership' in terms of how it is referred to- a kind of inflation. Note the job titles used in relation to the Oxenholme 'incident'.

I see the Peter Principle at work- people promoted to their level of incompetence- not perhaps their fault but to be expected, as with applicants to become drivers. Attractive salary, etc. Any selection process will include a number of steps at which an applicant may 'fail'. I appreciate, in both senses, the possibility of training/ coaching to get a candidate 'over the line'- especially when there are important, mission-critical short-term shortages that can't be filled by agency workers or staff transferred from other duties.

But I'm hearing, here and in the media, about poor management and mistreatment of 'valued colleagues'- that's got to stop. It happens in organisations with blame-cultures (like watching a football team in chaos!) and people under stress. Neither of those things is good. Neither is it ok to 'lower the bar' and take on drivers that are unsuitable, eg wrong attitude. I want to feel safe and be safe when I travel- the ultimate in 'customer experience'.

I also agree re the taxis, which is another example of not putting the customer first. IIRC the letter referred to people being able to sort out about taxis themselves at Penrith. Maybe that was intended to suggest that taxis would be there waiting on individual instructions??

 

[Bletchleyite]

And this is exactly where airline style checklists would help reduce the chance of it happening. So where there is any change to path, timings or calling points both driver and TM / guard confirm with each other that they agree on what they understand the changes to be, and then one confirms the same with control. Then either control makes everyone else that needs to know the changes (and preferably why for comms to passengers), again confirming with each other that they all agree on what the changes are, & what needs to happen to ensure the passengers are provisioned for. And if anything else changes, the process is restarted.

Agreed, and that can be applied to many things on the railway, most notably the unacceptably high number of assistance failures.

"Do you know the name of the person to whom you have handed over responsibility for the wheelchair user? Write it here. If not, you must not leave the passenger nor allow any relevant train to be dispatched until you have established this".

As an interested observer and now occasional passenger customer I am finding this thread informative and see it in relation to a number of other threads. 'Management' these days has become 'leadership' in terms of how it is referred to- a kind of inflation.

The irony being that many such managers don't show any leadership; Avanti's former MD seems to be a good example of a manager who is absolutely not a leader.

 

[43066]

So where there is any change to path, timings or calling points both driver and TM / guard confirm with each other that they agree on what they understand the changes to be, and then one confirms the same with control. Then either control makes everyone else that needs to know the changes (and preferably why for comms to passengers), again confirming with each other that they all agree on what the changes are, & what needs to happen to ensure the passengers are provisioned for. And if anything else changes, the process is restarted.

Which is basically what happens, it’s communicated to the driver and guard who confirm with each other (either a call additionally/not to call order or a call from the signaller via the GSMR) . That will have no bearing on whether the station had been left open or not.

I’m surprised the train crew were even aware it was closed (possibility due to a lack of dispatchers/lights off?), usually you’re gone within a minute or so if running late.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oxenholme is quite a small station, it's quite possible that people would have reached the gates (particularly those on the "off side" in the subway) and gone back to the train to remonstrate/put their foot in the door to keep the staff there in the time of a regular station call.

 

[43066]

Oxenholme is quite a small station, it's quite possible that people would have reached the gates (particularly those on the "off side" in the subway) and gone back to the train to remonstrate/put their foot in the door to keep the staff there in the time of a regular station call.

Makes sense, thanks.

 

[MDB1images]

I’m surprised the train crew were even aware it was closed (possibility due to a lack of dispatchers/lights off?), usually you’re gone within a minute or so if running late.

Agree,
I suspect a lack of dispatcher would have been the only initial indicator something was amiss to the Guard,
No doubt when the Guard phoned control enquiring of the dispatchers whereabouts the error came to light.
Reading what people on here say subsequently happened I suspect the Controllers decided the safest and quickest way to get the passengers off a locked up station was to get them to Penrith where perhaps the on call manager may have already been waiting the trains arrival to let the Penrith passengers out the station, or even the night supervisor from Carlisle would have been sent to Penrith with 8 seater taxis etc which would be easier to source from that area.

 

[ScottGallagher]

If one of the passengers called the fire brigade, surely they would have turned up and cut the padlock off, and sent Avanti a hefty bill ?

 

[ComUtoR]

If one of the passengers called the fire brigade, surely they would have turned up and cut the padlock off, and sent Avanti a hefty bill ?

Why would the fire brigade send Avanti a bill ? It would be a genuine emergency as people are trapped.

I'm aware of companies being fined for repetitive false alarms but not for a genuine emergency.

 

[185143]

Why would the fire brigade send Avanti a bill ? It would be a genuine emergency as people are trapped.

I'm aware of companies being fined for repetitive false alarms but not for a genuine emergency.

Presumably because it's a genuine emergency that was completely avoidable caused entirely by Avanti's failing?

 

[43066]

Presumably because it's a genuine emergency that was completely avoidable caused entirely by Avanti's failing?

Many (most?) genuine emergencies are completely avoidable!

 

[Horizon22]

But no one seems to want to use GSM-R for all the powerful things it can do.

In my area they seem terrified of ever using berth triggered messages, I've never seen a Contact Control message, I've never seen a text message and I've never seen the fabled "Wait" with the actual reason which it can apparently do.

It could be used to actually deal with the issue of traincrew being the last to find out in these situations but people seem so terrified of it that it just ends up being a cab mounted SPT.

“Contract Control” is firmly engrained at a few places, and has proven extremely useful in my experience, especially when the signaller attempts to route ahead trains that are to be terminated or diverted as previously agreed!

A couple of observations:

- the 'incident' was getting on for three weeks ago now. Is there not a 'definitive' timeline of who did (or did not) do what when, not to attach blame but for learning from.

- several contributors here have put forward good proposals e.g re confirming understandings and actions; gate locks; concern for (we) aged, unable to climb fences; 'help points'; 'tannoy'; 'gold controller'; ...

- that many who are relatively new to the thread find it understandably difficult to search back to what has already been posted (that's not a criticism, just an observation)

I imagine we will never know the answers or the detailed timeline - no doubt there’s an internal Avanti investigation of some sort, but I find it unlikely these details would ever make it into the public domain.

 

[DarloRich]

To sum up:

Cock up not conspiracy. Comms breakdown within TOC. Slightly silly effort to deflect/dissemble by blaming passengers for not following silly plan put in place but not adequately communicated to passengers. Lots of hot air. No harm done. ( thankfully)

 

[Watershed]

To sum up:

Cock up not conspiracy. Comms breakdown within TOC. Slightly silly effort to deflect/dissemble by blaming passengers for not following silly plan put in place but not adequately communicated to passengers. Lots of hot air. No harm done. ( thankfully)

Of course it's not a conspiracy. But to put this down as "no harm done" is ridiculous. There will have been passengers there who were seriously inconvenienced. Some may even have felt anxious, nervous etc.

And to say the PR statement was "slightly silly" is also giving them far more credit than they're due. They're not some one-man-band. They're a big company with PR people. It really shouldn't be that hard to put together a response that gives a sincere (looking) apology rather than the "ifpology" they gave.

It's been an absolute shambles from start to end and it's utterly symbolic of everything that's wrong with Avanti at the moment.

 

[Bantamzen]

To sum up:

Cock up not conspiracy. Comms breakdown within TOC. Slightly silly effort to deflect/dissemble by blaming passengers for not following silly plan put in place but not adequately communicated to passengers. Lots of hot air. No harm done. ( thankfully)

Don't forget that there are lessons to be learnt here. Given the way timetables are rattling apart with monotonous regularity, its probably only a matter of time before this happens again. Which is why Avanti should be more honest and say "we messed up, but here's what we are putting in place to prevent it". Something as simple as installing a way to exit the station from inside in a case like this, or the even simpler idea of just not locking the gate.

 

[DarloRich]

Of course it's not a conspiracy. But to put this down as "no harm done" is ridiculous. There will have been passengers there who were seriously inconvenienced. Some may even have felt anxious, nervous etc.

I meant, more by luck than management, no harm came to anyone. It easily could have.

Don't forget that there are lessons to be learnt here.

Absolutely!

"we messed up, but here's what we are putting in place to prevent it".

I agree 100% - that is what should have been said. it seems such an obvious statement to make.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I agree 100% - that is what should have been said. it seems such an obvious statement to make.

It's PR 101. As it is it just antagonises passengers and gives the local MP (who is actually a really good constituency MP, which is why he's still there) a bit more ammo.

I'm surprised stations don't have a push-bar emergency exit. There are any number of reasons why they would be sensible.

 

[Mojo]

If one of the passengers called the fire brigade, surely they would have turned up and cut the padlock off, and sent Avanti a hefty bill ?

I’ve been involved with a number of incidents where customers have been locked in a closed station and the fire brigade have never attended.

 

[janb]

I’ve been involved with a number of incidents where customers have been locked in a closed station and the fire brigade have never attended.

They did rescue the couple trapped at Nelson (with ladders) after Police had tried and failed to get anybody else. https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/couple-locked-in-nelson-railway-station-2812289

 

[43066]

To sum up:

Cock up not conspiracy. Comms breakdown within TOC. Slightly silly effort to deflect/dissemble by blaming passengers for not following silly plan put in place but not adequately communicated to passengers. Lots of hot air. No harm done. ( thankfully)

Indeed. Ultimately the passengers were offered the choice of continuing on the train in complete safety, albeit having been inconvenienced, some close to climb over the gates (which I’ll admit is likely what I would personally have elected to do).

It would have been a much bigger deal had the train departed, had they been left in freezing conditions etc.
It’s really not that different to situations where trains are rendered unable to call at a particular station mid-journey for operational reasons.

I’ve been involved with a number of incidents where customers have been locked in a closed station and the fire brigade have never attended.

It’s very rare but not the first time it’s happened, and I doubt it will be the last. If it wasn’t for a publicity seeking MP’s involvement I doubt we would even be reading about it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. Ultimately the passengers were offered the choice of continuing on the train in complete safety, albeit having been inconvenienced

Debatable. There wouldn't have been taxis at Penrith - I think we can be close to sure of that. Potentially kipping on a park bench might have been the only option for some.

This should have been dealt with at Lancaster, and that it wasn't was a very serious error which itself put people at risk. Not something to brush off.

Your view is the classic "stranding people doesn't put them in danger" the railway loves at the moment, and it's totally false.

 

[43066]

Debatable. There wouldn't have been taxis at Penrith - I think we can be close to sure of that. Potentially kipping on a park bench might have been the only option for some.

We don’t know that. Some passengers elected to continue on the train, what happened to them?

This should have been dealt with at Lancaster, and that it wasn't was a very serious error which itself put people at risk. Not something to brush off.

Not disagreeing they a mistake was made (and as we all know poor communication generally is the issue in these situations). But it put people at risk of inconvenience mostly.

Your view is the classic "stranding people doesn't put them in danger" the railway loves at the moment, and it's totally false.

They weren’t stranded, they could have simply continued on the same train (had they been you’d have more of a point). I don’t agree that anyone was “put in danger” at any stage. Unfortunately these threads always degenerate into hyperbole and righteous indignation.

 

[Bantamzen]

Debatable. There wouldn't have been taxis at Penrith - I think we can be close to sure of that. Potentially kipping on a park bench might have been the only option for some.

This should have been dealt with at Lancaster, and that it wasn't was a very serious error which itself put people at risk. Not something to brush off.

Your view is the classic "stranding people doesn't put them in danger" the railway loves at the moment, and it's totally false.

Indeed, leaving passengers with possibly no way of onward travel when there were potentially better alternatives isn't acceptable really.

 

[DarloRich]

Unfortunately these threads always degenerate into hyperbole and righteous indignation.

indeed - but that is the fuel of any forum or message board!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They weren’t stranded, they could have simply continued on the same train (had they been you’d have more of a point).

To Penrith, where there wouldn't have been enough (or possibly even any) taxis to take them back to Oxenholme/Windermere. Thus stranding them there. It's not London, with Ubers at beck and call.

Potentially even the same thing could happen as Penrith gets locked up. Carlisle?

I don’t agree that anyone was “put in danger” at any stage.

We don't know that. Penrith is a nice place, but a lone young female stuck there due to no taxis or no funds for one?

Unfortunately these threads always degenerate into hyperbole and righteous indignation.

Rightful, you mean. It used to be possible to trust the railway not to strand you. It's no longer possible. Sure, in London or MK you can get a taxi and pursue a refund later, but you can't in a rural area.

This isn't acceptable. One stranding due to the railway's fault is a very serious matter. Let alone multiple.

 

[InOban]

Surely in common with any other public building, stations should have emergency exits in case of fire?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely in common with any other public building, stations should have emergency exits in case of fire?

I think it's because you can seek safety at a platform end, but I would agree that there should be a means of easy escape from any public area of any kind, even outdoor, if it is not staffed 24/7/365 and there is any possible legal* way a person could end up inside it while closed (e.g. a large park locked overnight unless they do a full search of it before locking to check nobody's fallen asleep in a corner).

* If someone breaks in, they can break out again if needs be.