Does being stranded for several hours constitute false imprisonment?

[Bletchleyite]

I'd merely suggest that you are unaware of how restricted the availability is of both emergency services and armed forces nowadays.

Then the railway needs to open its wallet and have adequate provision to do it themselves.

And as soon as a train becomes stranded in a manner that *might* require an evacuation, the process needs to be started - not waiting until they've had a fitter faff about for an hour. It can always be stood down.

We also need to return to the idea that if disruption is known about, trains are so far as possible brought to a stand not at the last signal before it, but at the *platform* before it, with at least local door being permitted to be released for anyone who's had enough and wants to make their own onward arrangements. I've seen that done to good effect on the WCML, but it isn't thought about enough. Obviously if it's unexpected you can't do that, but you can do it as soon as you know it'll be a while.

 

[TurbostarFan]

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).

That is 100% true. This isn't simply a matter of keeping the customer happy, it has vital safety implications.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Yes. Yes you would. Realistically your scenario is going to mean a delay of over an hour - it could easily extend to two with things only going a bit wrong.

You would have the staff and teams called in and on standby, ready in their vehicles with a plan already in place as to how. As it got a bit later, you might start deploying them to location ready.

You can always stand them down.

What you outline is the precise root of the problem. Things don't have to be done in a serial manner.

 

[FGW_DID]

Well, we certainly have some prime contenders for the “on call armchair expert” list!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, we certainly have some prime contenders for the “on call armchair expert” list!

My job is IT service management process and tooling (18 years experience). While I don't have expertise in incident management on the railway, I do have considerable expertise in IT incident management, which does have a fair bit of commonality when you are looking at major incidents. So I am not just an armchair expert, I think more there are approaches taken in other industries that the often over-conservative railway industry neglects to consider.

A lot of businesses aren't great at major incident management...which does of course provide us some good business opportunities! The problem here seems to be primarily not considering something to be a potential major incident before it has become one.

 

[bramling]

I'd merely suggest that you are unaware of how restricted the availability is of both emergency services and armed forces nowadays.

Having essentially untrained people crawling over the track would probably be counter-productive in many cases anyway.

The solution to all these issues is having well-trained railway staff available, but this costs money and one has to ask the question how much are we prepared to pay for a resource which won't be used often. There's no right or wrong answer to that one.

 

[diffident]

My job is IT service management process and tooling (18 years experience). While I don't have expertise in incident management on the railway, I do have considerable expertise in IT incident management, which does have a fair bit of commonality when you are looking at major incidents. So I am not just an armchair expert, I think more there are approaches taken in other industries that the often over-conservative railway industry neglects to consider.

A lot of businesses aren't great at major incident management...which does of course provide us some good business opportunities! The problem here seems to be primarily not considering something to be a potential major incident before it has become one.

I completely agree with all of your points @Bletchleyite, the issue as I can see it, is *someone* has to make a decision, quickly and decisively, but from what I can tell, no management at NR or TOC's, let alone the DfT would want to stick their neck on the line to make such a decision because of potential ramifications, and ultimately, money.

That's not how the system should be run.

 

[LAX54]

Yes. Yes you would. Realistically your scenario is going to mean a delay of over an hour - it could easily extend to two with things only going a bit wrong.

You would have the staff and teams called in and on standby, ready in their vehicles with a plan already in place as to how. As it got a bit later, you might start deploying them to location ready.

You can always stand them down.

What you outline is the precise root of the problem. Things don't have to be done in a serial manner.

Just to muddy the waters, where do they get the staff ready in their vehicles ? as 90% of the time they will already be out on another job somewhere. if they are on a job that is service affecting, do they leave that, and get ready for this 'maybe' call ?

Don't forget one MOM will cover some 60 / 70 + track miles, and the S&T will cover similar, the PWAY of course after 1600/1700 will not be on duty.

In most 'failure' situations the MOM will already have been called to site to assist anyway, but there is little he can do on his own if it turns sour

NR could have more staff on duty, just in case, but then who pays the extra wages ?

In the past, when we have had failures in our area, that may need assistance, it is was, or is not, uncommon, to terminate a train and detrain, then send this onwards towards the failure just in case, but then that also opens the complaints food gates that they have been turfed off a train, and have to wait for the next one which could be 30 mins / 60 mins

In an ideal world, staff would be ready to act within 15 mins or so, but that seems uneconomic.

There is no easy answer.

and I have no doubt that in the back of the railways mind, when deciding to evacuate, if someone gets hurt, then sure as hell that person will claim damages !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to muddy the waters, where do they get the staff ready in their vehicles ? as 90% of the time they will already be out on another job somewhere. if they are on a job that is service affecting, do they leave that, and get ready for this 'maybe' call ?

They certainly need to be aware that they may need to leave that job, at which point they can start "rounding things off" so leaving it would be possible at short notice. If leaving it wouldn't be possible at short notice, they are the wrong staff or there are not enough of them.

90% of the time seems high, and I'd suggest that does indeed mean there are not enough "response teams" to ensure a timely response to a major incident.

NR could have more staff on duty, just in case, but then who pays the extra wages ?

Between the farepayer and Government, of course, like any other cost.

In the past, when we have had failures in our area, that may need assistance, it is was, or is not, uncommon, to terminate a train and detrain, then send this onwards towards the failure just in case, but then that also opens the complaints food gates that they have been turfed off a train, and have to wait for the next one which could be 30 mins / 60 mins

Passengers will whine whatever happens, but passengers whining (but being on stations and able to leave the station if they wish) are less of an issue than passengers who are effectively imprisoned. Basic triage.

In an ideal world, staff would be ready to act within 15 mins or so, but that seems uneconomic.

Is the fire service uneconomic?

and I have no doubt that in the back of the railways mind, when deciding to evacuate, if someone gets hurt, then sure as hell that person will claim damages !

So?

 

[diffident]

...and I have no doubt that in the back of the railways mind, when deciding to evacuate, if someone gets hurt, then sure as hell that person will claim damages !

That's the cost of doing business in any industry, not exclusive to the railways.

 

[Llanigraham]

I
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 would refer you to my earlier post.
That time limit might be fine in an urban area but transfer it to some remote part of the Heart of Wales or the west coast of Scotland and tell me how you are going to make it stick there?

 

[Llanigraham]

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.

I wonder how you intend to pay for the Forces to attend?
I know from my volunteering with a large 4x4 Response team that even at times of flood or snow the Army now expect to be paid for their help. That is one of the reasons the 4x4 Response Teams are so busy at those times.
And I do know that several of the Teams have been in touch with Network Rail offering their services in times of need, but have not been taken up.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes. Yes you would. Realistically your scenario is going to mean a delay of over an hour - it could easily extend to two with things only going a bit wrong.

You would have the staff and teams called in and on standby, ready in their vehicles with a plan already in place as to how. As it got a bit later, you might start deploying them to location ready.

You can always stand them down.

What you outline is the precise root of the problem. Things don't have to be done in a serial manner.

Again, great in an urban area, but what about in the middle of Wales or in the west of Scotland?
And how many staff do you think are sitting around doing nothing waiting for an "incident"?

 

[jon0844]

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

I can't be the only person on a train, or plane, that when delayed will eventually start to hope a problem persists just a bit longer to trigger compensation!

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 !

Yes please!

 

[EM2]

And as soon as a train becomes stranded in a manner that *might* require an evacuation, the process needs to be started

That surely encompasses any passenger train that unexpectedly stops?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That surely encompasses any passenger train that unexpectedly stops?

Not really. Most trains that stop do so for a fairly innocuous reason.

The point to start arranging for the possibility of an evacuation is probably the point that any kind of external intervention (e.g. fitters, S&T technicians) is seen as necessary.

As in - we'll send the fitters to see if they can fix it, but at the same time start planning how we will evacuate if they are unsuccessful, so when they notify that they will require a few hours to fix the plan is already in place and the staff identified, so it's just a case of "pressing go".

 

[Eccles1983]

My job is IT service management process and tooling (18 years experience). While I don't have expertise in incident management on the railway, I do have considerable expertise in IT incident management, which does have a fair bit of commonality when you are looking at major incidents. So I am not just an armchair expert, I think more there are approaches taken in other industries that the often over-conservative railway industry neglects to consider.

A lot of businesses aren't great at major incident management...which does of course provide us some good business opportunities! The problem here seems to be primarily not considering something to be a potential major incident before it has become one.

Managing a "crisis" from a desk is miles away from dealing with hundreds of people in dangerous circumstances. Evacuations should be avoided at all costs. You seem to think it should be foremost. That's the difference between desktop and reality incidents.

You are an armchair expert in the finest form. You've never dealt with a human major incident, from an operational or command perspective.

I speak from 20 years of previous experience of dealing with major incidents. Not an it crash. Real major incidents with multi agency involvement, deaths and serious trauma.

Even an incident at one of the major airports is going to take at least 50 minutes before enough people are going to be their before a controlled evacuation can take place.

 

[Eccles1983]

And as a final point - the cost implications would be monumental in comparison to the cost benefit.

 

[Highlandspring]

What makes you think this isn’t the case already?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Managing a "crisis" from a desk is miles away from dealing with hundreds of people in dangerous circumstances. Evacuations should be avoided at all costs.

I fundamentally disagree. Keeping people on trains for hours on end, particularly trains with no water supply or toilets, is not acceptable. The processes need to be designed such that this does not happen.

And yes, it needs to be "managed from a desk" in some form (even if that desk is in the back of a response vehicle on site). Not doing so results in the kind of communication issues that directly resulted in deaths at Grenfell, where people were told by 999 agents to remain in place even after the decision had been made to abandon that advice.

Even an incident at one of the major airports is going to take at least 50 minutes before enough people are going to be their before a controlled evacuation can take place.

I'm not clear what air travel has to do with it.

And as a final point - the cost implications would be monumental in comparison to the cost benefit.

I again do not agree.

 

[Zerothebrake!]

To the Op, maybe I can shed some light as to the cause(s) of your delay on 1M49 that day..

1/ The 221 Voyager working the service had 2 engines traction isolated out of 5 coming off of Laira depot that morning.

2/ When coming back from Penzance with 1M49 another engine reverted to idling leaving Camborne - and the other two did the same thing after Bodmin Parkway rendering the train a complete failure on Largin bank.

3/ Single line working was implemented over the down main between Lostwithiel and Largin - which is why you saw other trains passing.

4/ When the assisting Voyager eventually arrived from Plymouth the two sets wouldn't couple due to the severity of the gradient.

5/After several attempts a coupling was made and permission was obtained to proceed towards Largin and Plymouth.

6/On arrival at Liskeard somebody pulled the pass com while the train was at a stand with the doors released so that had to be reset before the train could continue.

7/ The train failed again as a pair at Menheniot (right on the viaduct!) with a PWM fault - which basically means that the two sets were not communicating with each other through the coupler, but subsequent attempts to uncouple and recouple were unsuccessfull so there we now had the unenviable situation of having two trains in a signal section.

8/ As it was now a number of hours after the initial failure at Largin, the traction motors had cooled down sufficiently on the failed set for power to be regained so the assisting unit carried on to Plymouth on it's own with the rear set following it once the signallers pemission had been obtained.

It was an unbelievable chain of events really - but that's exactly what happened as I was the Driver.

 

[FGW_DID]

One for the OP:

People trapped in a stuck lift for an hour or more, are they being falsely imprisoned by the owners of the building?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One for the OP:

People trapped in a stuck lift for an hour or more, are they being falsely imprisoned by the owners of the building?

If you're talking lifts, it's certainly to me the responsibility of the operator of the building to ensure there is some kind of facility for attendance in emergency within a reasonable time period where the lifts are in service.

 

[6Gman]

To the Op, maybe I can shed some light as to the cause(s) of your delay on 1M49 that day..

1/ The 221 Voyager working the service had 2 engines traction isolated out of 5 coming off of Laira depot that morning.

Given that both Cornwall and (in particular) Devon have gradients is it normal practice to do this?

I know from a Driver on the Marches Line that a 3-car 175 operating on two engines was considered acceptable. Until a second one failed on Llanfihangel Bank!

 

[superkev]

My daughter in law was stuck on a 333 outside Leeds for over 4 hours the other Monday (there is a thread on this somewhere) when the wires came down. Rescued by a pacer and gangplanks eventually from the adjacent track. Totally unacceptable to me.
I suspect the problem is staff do not practice various scenarios enough or not at all so when something goes wrong it's not like clockwork as it should be.
Not helped by probably the worst feature of privatisation I.e. every class of train seem to have different couplings.
Incredibly I hear Northerns new CAF train won't couple to there CAF built 333s.
K

 

[Eccles1983]

I fundamentally disagree. Keeping people on trains for hours on end, particularly trains with no water supply or toilets, is not acceptable. The processes need to be designed such that this does not happen.

And yes, it needs to be "managed from a desk" in some form (even if that desk is in the back of a response vehicle on site). Not doing so results in the kind of communication issues that directly resulted in deaths at Grenfell, where people were told by 999 agents to remain in place even after the decision had been made to abandon that advice.



I'm not clear what air travel has to do with it.



I again do not agree.

The airport thing - not an airtravel is a prime example of a major incident and how long a response takes.

We have armed officers at airports. However I know from experience that to co-ordinate a response to an incident and before the first wave of responders turn up to assist is around 50 minutes.

This from a static location, with numerous plans already in place. The cost of this is over 20 million pounds a year. For one static location.

Now considering the railway is vast, how much do you think it will cost to have dedicated teams on 24/7 cover?

You can live in a dream world where money is no object. However reality is a cruel mistress .

 

[Zerothebrake!]

Given that both Cornwall and (in particular) Devon have gradients is it normal practice to do this?

I know from a Driver on the Marches Line that a 3-car 175 operating on two engines was considered acceptable. Until a second one failed on Llanfihangel Bank!

I don't think that a set with two engines out has been sent into Cornwall since..

 

[RT4038]

If you're talking lifts, it's certainly to me the responsibility of the operator of the building to ensure there is some kind of facility for attendance in emergency within a reasonable time period where the lifts are in service.

Yes, but they may take 2 hours to get to the building, and then 3 hours to sort the problem out.

 

[EM2]

Not really. Most trains that stop do so for a fairly innocuous reason.

But that’s not known at the time. I’ve lost count of the number of information emails I’ve seen that mention ‘the driver is attempting a reboot’ or similar.

The point to start arranging for the possibility of an evacuation is probably the point that any kind of external intervention (e.g. fitters, S&T technicians) is seen as necessary.

So that would be every S&T failure then, as an example? Because you can be pretty sure that if points aren’t moving or a signal is stuck at red, then there’s a train stopped nearby.
And as well as a reboot, you often read ‘the driver is discussing the issue with the Fleet Controller’, so is that an external intervention?

As in - we'll send the fitters to see if they can fix it, but at the same time start planning how we will evacuate if they are unsuccessful, so when they notify that they will require a few hours to fix the plan is already in place and the staff identified, so it's just a case of "pressing go".

See above.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>