Does being stranded for several hours constitute false imprisonment?

[londonboi198o5]

What does surprise me is that the TOC Controls don’t keep a database of all the experts that seem to frequent threads like this, so they can give them a call and get it sorted under ten minutes!

Well said always amazes me the armchair experts who seem to (think) they know everything yet know very little

 

[Highlandspring]

As a Controller there is a risk that you become focused on overcoming a series of seemingly minor setbacks and lose the overall picture. For example, consider a points failure which traps a train in the middle of nowhere with no forward route available. It’s 12:00, ETA for a MOM to operate the points is 20 minutes and ETA for S&T technicians is 30 minutes. Would you consider evacuating the train at this time? No of course not.

The MOM arrives on site at 12:23 and is on the track at the failed points at 12:30. She tells you she can’t find the point clamps, or that one of them is seized. She says it’ll take another 20 minutes to walk down to the next cabinet to get another clamp and return to the points. Do you start evacuation at this point? Probably not.

The S&T turn up at 12:45 because the traffic was busy in town. By the time they’ve got their gear on and are signed into the MOM’s line blockage they start looking at the points at 12:52. More or less straight away they tell you that the blades are obstructed by a damaged huck bolt and they don’t have the tools to remove it. This means the points can’t be operated by the MOM either, so now you need the Pway to come out as the bolt is their responsibility. By the time you contact the Pway first on call it’s 13:02 and the train has been standing for an hour. Do you evacuate now?

The Pway first on call tells you he is only 10 minutes away but when he gets on site at 13:15 he has a look at the bolt and tells you he’ll need a disc cutter to remove it and that he will have to go back to the depot to get it. Traffic in town is really bad so it’s going to be at least another half an hour until he can get back to site to start cutting it off. That takes us to 13:45, almost 2 hours after the train first came to a stand. Do you consider an evacuation now?

What I’m getting at is it’s easy to get drawn into a long series of “just another 20 minutes...” type delays and before you know it a couple of hours has passed. If you knew right at the start of an incident that a train was going to be trapped for 2+ hours you would have no hesitation in getting staff out to evacuate the passengers but usually you don’t have that luxury. Considering evacuation as part of a dynamic risk assessment is supposed to be an iterative process which starts within minutes of a trapped train being identified and carried out cooperatively between Network Rail and the TOC involved. Evacuating passengers, some of whom may require special assistance, onto another train or to track level is not without risk and requires sufficient staff on site to be carried out safely. It may even require the emergency services to attend. Staff who are assisting with an evacuation are not able to carry on fault finding or repairing, so once the decision to evacuate is made then work to rectify a fault will be suspended unless other staff can be found to assist.

A good Controller will keep all this in mind when deciding how an incident should be managed as the situation changes but this “boiling frog” approach of allowing just another 15 or 20 minutes to pass is something that really has to be actively watched out. Sometimes it’s really hard knowing when exactly to make the call.

 

[pedr]

I think it’s that “just a bit longer” problem which means I think there ought to be some sort of fixed rule, so that if a train has been stationary for x (45 minutes?) the evacuation process should begin - at least the jobs of contacting everyone necessary, finding out if there are any particular factors to take account of relating to passengers or location, etc. The main effort can still be to get the train moving but if that’s the only plan until the point that the people working on that decide that they’ve failed and there’s no way to move the train today/in the next hour then you are going to end up with more incidents of people stranded on trains far longer than turns out to be sensible.

 

[vinnym70]

I assume also that the physical location of the train plays a big part in the equation beyond the resolution of the immediate technical issues?

Middle of nowhere, third rail, with little or no ability to get alternative transport near to the train (no lighting, middle of a field, etc) means de-training is an altogether trickier affair.
Middle of town with good lighting, no third rail, good availability of alternative transport and easy accessibility for the passengers down from the track makes a lot of difference.

In addition, time of day is probably another common sense factor - daylight or darkness? availability of coaches/taxis for disembarking passengers? availability of staff to conduct evacuation?

I think this is actually a very difficult question to answer in real-world terms. But I don't for one minute think that any delays (especially those for safety reasons) constitute false imprisonment. Those delayed may obviously feel it might be the case but were they to step out the train onto a live third rail then a few hours of "false imprisonment" seems like a small price to pay to me and the link below is possibly of interest to the whole conversation, despite being in the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47375076

 

[6Gman]

I assume also that the physical location of the train plays a big part in the equation beyond the resolution of the immediate technical issues?

Middle of nowhere, third rail, with little or no ability to get alternative transport near to the train (no lighting, middle of a field, etc) means de-training is an altogether trickier affair.
Middle of town with good lighting, no third rail, good availability of alternative transport and easy accessibility for the passengers down from the track makes a lot of difference.

In addition, time of day is probably another common sense factor - daylight or darkness? availability of coaches/taxis for disembarking passengers? availability of staff to conduct evacuation?

I think this is actually a very difficult question to answer in real-world terms. But I don't for one minute think that any delays (especially those for safety reasons) constitute false imprisonment. Those delayed may obviously feel it might be the case but were they to step out the train onto a live third rail then a few hours of "false imprisonment" seems like a small price to pay to me and the link below is possibly of interest to the whole conversation, despite being in the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47375076

Yep. 40 hrs in four feet of snow puts 4 or 5 hrs in Yorkshire into context!

 

[Llanigraham]

I think it’s that “just a bit longer” problem which means I think there ought to be some sort of fixed rule, so that if a train has been stationary for x (45 minutes?) the evacuation process should begin - at least the jobs of contacting everyone necessary, finding out if there are any particular factors to take account of relating to passengers or location, etc. The main effort can still be to get the train moving but if that’s the only plan until the point that the people working on that decide that they’ve failed and there’s no way to move the train today/in the next hour then you are going to end up with more incidents of people stranded on trains far longer than turns out to be sensible.

Fine idea, BUT, whilst that might work in most urban areas now transfer the incident to (say) 1 mile northeast of Cynghordy station on the Heart of Wales line. The nearest MOM could easily be 2 hours away, a TOC fitter also 2 hours away and the nearest road access over 2 miles away across inhospitable countryside.
And this is not a made-up incident, it happened on a train I was on a couple of years ago. We were there for well over that time and no-one was put-out. We just accepted that there was no way of getting off for a while.

 

[njamescouk]

Imprisonment needs malicious intent, loss of liberty, and rejection of due process.

looks like an open and shut case to me, Victorian bylaws notwithstanding.

 

[muz379]

As a Controller there is a risk that you become focused on overcoming a series of seemingly minor setbacks and lose the overall picture. For example, consider a points failure which traps a train in the middle of nowhere with no forward route available. It’s 12:00, ETA for a MOM to operate the points is 20 minutes and ETA for S&T technicians is 30 minutes. Would you consider evacuating the train at this time? No of course not.....

I think from my experience one thing that would be beneficial and would provide controllers with reliable information about the time it will take to get things moving would be better/more/any training in fault finding for MOMS . Fairly often you will see a control log exactly like what you have just provided , MOM arrives pretty promptly after a problem is reported but has to wait for S&T and then Pway or OLE before a full diagnosis of the problem can be reached . If the MOM had a better idea of what they are looking at they might be able to call in the required resources quicker .

I appreciate that this might not be possible for more complex things like complex signalling equipment , but certainly with much less complicated bits of kit like points .

I think it’s that “just a bit longer” problem which means I think there ought to be some sort of fixed rule, so that if a train has been stationary for x (45 minutes?) the evacuation process should begin - at least the jobs of contacting everyone necessary, finding out if there are any particular factors to take account of relating to passengers or location, etc. The main effort can still be to get the train moving but if that’s the only plan until the point that the people working on that decide that they’ve failed and there’s no way to move the train today/in the next hour then you are going to end up with more incidents of people stranded on trains far longer than turns out to be sensible.

In my experience to be fair control are usually pretty good at gathering information about number of passengers and information about any mobility impaired passengers pretty much as soon as an incident which is expected to lead to a train being stuck for an extended period of time is reported .

as for a hard and fast 45 minute rule , as has already been said evacuations often take away the Pway / S&T staff and MOM that are repairing the issue thus making it impossible to run trains for even longer . It is a hard balance sometimes , and its not one that is always got right . In some locations 45 minutes wont even long enough for the MOM to get on site and begin the process of assessing the problem .

Trains and infrastructure have a nice tendency to fail in the most inconvenient of places .

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I had a bad one at Hanslope one Sunday afternoon when was a keen and fresh Operations Manager for NLR - a 321 brought the overheads down and the unit was trapped for over 2 hours - smashed cab window , vulnerable passengers etc etc..not well handled.

So I called a joint enquiry - the driver and guard thought they were going to be in trouble. Far from it.I wanted to make it clear we were about to learn and do better.We did - set targets of 1 hour , train to train transfer boards and a much better response to passenger needs. More importantly , forced the "retail" so called on call managers to get out and assist to help the operations staff. It really worked.

Nothing like direct action - and it was Railtrack at the time , and they did their bit. To be fair , the locals had the old "BR" culture at local level.

 

[al78]

It is not exactly uncommon that traffic gets stuck in a motorway jam for hours on end, with no access to refreshments, toilets, etc.

Is it not? I've only been stuck in traffic for a couple of hours maximum (and i mean stuck as in completely stationary for that length of time), both times when an accident occurred minutes ahead of me, one of which required the air ambulance and the closure of the motorway. Every other time I have been stuck in traffic, the queue has inched forward periodically, meaning I either (eventually) reach a service station or a junction where I can exit the motorway and take my chance on the A roads (which won't all be congested). I've driven enough on motorways to have experienced pretty much the full spectrum of congestion, highly extreme events excepted.

To answer the OP I don't think it is. If it is objectively the safest thing to do to keep passengers on the train then they have to do that. It could be argued that releasing the passengers in such a situation would be negligence. It has happened on aircraft that people have been stuck on the plane for hours for some reason when the plane is at the terminal.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

What is most annoying is when a train is stopped at a station it isn't booked to call at and it is known there will be a long delay yet they still won't let you alight there.

 

[thenorthern]

As with any criminal case there is the presumption of innocence and its up to the prosecution to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty.

For a false imprisonment prosecution to be successful the prosecution would need to show that there was intent by a TOC to false imprison someone without any justification and without the consent of the people. Given that a TOC could argue in their defence that a person leaving a train when it isn't in a station is dangerous also that a TOC didn't intend to false imprison passengers it was factors beyond their control I can't see a jury being convinced that it would constitute as false imprisonment.

In simple terms no keeping passengers on a train because its broken down or because the line is blocked is not false imprisonment.

 

[47271]

nowadays when there is trouble, trains are supposed to be held in stations where possible

This is very much my experience of significant holdups. In the past few years it's become far more common for all but the immediately affected trains to be stopped in stations and not allowed to form a dense queue back from the incident. So the OP's seemingly irrelevent report of something that happened twelve years ago has at least allowed us to draw comparisons.

I've been indirectly affected by two line blockages at Beattock in the past month, in the first my train was held as far back as Preston for two hours, and earlier this week we were halted and cancelled at Carlisle. A pain, but at least I could walk away and do something else of my choosing. And I had a fatality at Milton Keynes around a year ago that had us stopped at Warrington, on the face of it a huge queue, but actually just a sensible response if large numbers of passengers had to be detrained. We were on our way again within the hour in that particular case.

Let's not forget that we're now building electric trains that have the capability to drive themselves out of trouble when the power's off.

I'm not saying that a flaked out Voyager in Cornwall would have a happier conclusion now over then, but in general things have moved on a huge amount since 2007.

 

[diffident]

As with any criminal case there is the presumption of innocence and its up to the prosecution to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty.

For a false imprisonment prosecution to be successful the prosecution would need to show that there was intent by a TOC to false imprison someone without any justification and without the consent of the people. Given that a TOC could argue in their defence that a person leaving a train when it isn't in a station is dangerous also that a TOC didn't intend to false imprison passengers it was factors beyond their control I can't see a jury being convinced that it would constitute as false imprisonment.

In simple terms no keeping passengers on a train because its broken down or because the line is blocked is not false imprisonment.

Exactly that. I couldn't put it better myself. The two key factors would be "intent" and "liability". Neither could be proved against any single part of the railway system in the circumstances.

If you somehow managed to get locked into a train station overnight, that "could" be different, but again, questions would be asked of the person too in such circumstances.

 

[Rail Blues]

No it doesn't

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Whilst it doesn't, as these videos show failing to keep passengers updated of breakdowns and delays can lead to unauthorised and dangerous evacuations of the train. In addition to that where it is possible to get a train into a station either by authorising it to pass a danger signal or by turning it around, this should be done.

 

[Gems]

If I'm stuck in a traffic jam on the M1 is that false imprisonment?

There's a new module in the rule book covering 'uncontrolled evacuations' It's because these days people tend to just pile out and off down the track anyway. As I guard I'm not going to stop them, I won't encourage them, I won't assist them, and I will warn them of the possible consequences, but hey, adults make adult decisions. It just becomes rather amusing when you see a woman in high heels trying to walk on ballast and the nearest exit point without fence climbing is three miles away.

 

[broadgage]

IMHO, part of the problem is modern trains.
Back in the old days, trains broke down but could in many cases be hauled or propelled by another train or by a rescue locomotive, most failures were fairly simple loss of power, whether steam, diesel, or electric.

These days, many failures seem to be "computer says no" when some real or imagined fault locks the brakes on. Attaching another unit can result in both being stuck.
And of course each new generation of train seems to be incompatible with existing types, so less opportunity for rescue by the following service.

Newer trains are also far more unpleasant to be stuck in for hours.
Sealed windows and locked doors are most unpleasant in hot weather.
Toilets if provided at all are out of order without electric power.

Back in the old days I recall a prolonged delay on a slam door EMU. The windows all opened, even the doors were opened on the side away from other traffic, the toilets still worked, the buffet was still open.
A new train with locked doors, sealed windows, no buffet, and locked toilets would be far worse.

On todays railway, a prolonged stoppage really needs to be treated as an emergency and not simply as a delay.
Rescue needs to be arranged or at least escape needs to be permitted a lot more quickly than at present.
Factors that need to be considered include on board conditions.
Are significant numbers standing?
Are toilets available?
Is it very hot or very cold on board ?
Is lighting available, if not in daylight.

Best case, evacuation NOT urgent. Everyone seated, engine running, heating or air conditioning available, lighting working, toilets working. In such circumstances, the delay is regrettable, but rescue not urgent. Conditions are no worse than with the train moving.

Worst case, crush loaded train, no toilets, darkness, no refreshments. In such circumstances rescue is URGENT due to the conditions, and in such conditions, IMHO, rescue should be actively considered in the first hour, and be a legal requirement after 120 minutes.
A good example of this was last years strandings in the Lewisham area. To keep passengers locked on crush loaded services , in the dark, without toilets, for hours was simply unacceptable. I too look forward to reading the report into that incident.

 

[6Gman]

Sigh...

In green ink?

 

[6Gman]

Worst case, crush loaded train, no toilets, darkness, no refreshments. In such circumstances rescue is URGENT due to the conditions, and in such conditions, IMHO, rescue should be actively considered in the first hour, and be a legal requirement after 120 minutes.

I agree with the vast majority of the posting above, but it has to be accepted that "rescue" or evacuation is very, very difficult in many locations on the network.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[tiptoptaff]

Seconded.

There's a tendency here (and elsewhere) to assume that a train in this situation will be close to a major road which is easily reached along a paved track from a nearby crossing, with a big city easily accessible and therefore lots of emergency service personnel who can deal with the incident if it's beyond the railway's capabilities. Sometimes I'm sure that's exactly what does happen.

On the other hand I was involved in an incident equidistant many years ago between two small towns, each 15 miles away; the train was at a stand two miles from the nearest level crossing, the nearest road was over a mile away from the railway and even farm tracks petered out half-a-mile away meaning access involved either walking two miles down the track from that level crossing or half-a-mile across a muddy field.
The small town aspect meant that with the exception of one fire engine with a retained crew from the nearby town, emergency services were coming from the nearest city, half-an-hour on blues-and-twos, and even the local retained crew didn't get to the incident much faster than the main response. The railway's own responders mostly came from further afield, so arrived well after the emergency services.
Evacuation wasn't easy; the police had to set up a shuttle using one of their 4x4s to take 3 or 4 people at a time across the field as there was no way people could realistically have walked it.

The incident didn't even make the local press, let alone the national media! Nowadays it would have 24/7 coverage and the ex-perts here would be having a field day telling us how we'd done everything wrong.

I'm sure they would be complaining our strategic reserve of hovercraft weren't deployed to cross the boggy field. Or that the crew didn't give piggybacks to ferry everyone to the level crossing.

 

[LAX54]

What annoys me is when they only trap you for 29 minutes and you can't claim Delay Repay

The TOC (and NR) are trying to get things moving asap, if that is 28 mins or 29 mins then so be it, then a good job has been done, I suppose what they could do, is sit on their hands for 10 mins, so that Delay/Repay kicks in !

 

[LAX54]

At least you can get out of your car and pee on the verge rather than wet yourself. The people around Lewisham and St Johns last year didn't have that option and apparently some ended up wetting themselves where they stood. Hopefully the RAIB report will be out soon.

And of course part of the reason, were passengers taking the law into their own hands ! once one person had jumped ship, then it was on a rapid, very rapid decline,

 

[LAX54]

I'm sure they would be complaining our strategic reserve of hovercraft weren't deployed to cross the boggy field. Or that the crew didn't give piggybacks to ferry everyone to the level crossing.

I shall put that suggestion forward, a Network Rail (or TOC) branded Hovercraft, and for difficult areas, a NR Incident Response branded Chinook

 

[TurbostarFan]

If I'm stuck in a traffic jam on the M1 is that false imprisonment?

There's a new module in the rule book covering 'uncontrolled evacuations' It's because these days people tend to just pile out and off down the track anyway. As I guard I'm not going to stop them, I won't encourage them, I won't assist them, and I will warn them of the possible consequences, but hey, adults make adult decisions. It just becomes rather amusing when you see a woman in high heels trying to walk on ballast and the nearest exit point without fence climbing is three miles away.

In such a scenario I can understand but I would like to ask whether you would at least try and speak to the people onboard and try to get them to remain where they are? If I were a guard that is exactly what I would do.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[broadgage]

I agree with the vast majority of the posting above, but it has to be accepted that "rescue" or evacuation is very, very difficult in many locations on the network.

Rescue or escape was obviously particularly challenging at Lewisham, that district being noted for its isolation, lack of roads, and lack of emergency services availability.

Talking more generally, and NOT about any particular incident, I still hold the view that if conditions on board are bad (too hot, too cold, overcrowded, lack of toilets, dark etc) then evacuation, or rescue, or relief supplies, should be mandatory after two hours at the very most, quicker is better.
If the railway industry cant manage this, then the emergency services will be needed, or as a very last resort, the armed forces.
To those who consider that this would be an unreasonable burden on the emergency services or the armed forces, I point out that advocates of the rail industry state how very rare such events are.

I must stress that I consider that rescue or relief is only urgent in those cases where conditions on board are bad and/or getting worse. Under more benign conditions with everyone seated, and with heating, lighting, air conditioning, and toilets all working, then remaining on board is more reasonable.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[Bletchleyite]

My experience in other industries is that the last thing that you need when trying to fix a time critical issue is people flapping around demanding how long it will take to fix. To which the real answer usually is "five minutes longer than if you hadn't interrupted me!"

Of course a proper communication plan would at least reduce the number of people asking! The railway is very bad at that (though not as bad as some airlines, though I'd say easyJet were now much better than the railway).