FGW delay: "Never apologise, never explain"

[Goatboy]

but it seems wrong that mankind can land a man on the moon, but can't rescue passengers from a failed train in a reasonable time.

Seriously?

 

[A-driver]

You don't need to know anything about the railways to have an instinctive "feel" that this shouldn't be as hard as people are making it, or to know that for almost everything (in all walks of life) anything is do-able if given enough focus/money/effort.

As I said, those of us who have evacuated trains and actually been there and done it can tell you as a fact with absolutely no argument whatsoever that your instinctive feel is utter rubbish.

What I said in my post is fact. You can not evacuate a train in 5-10 mins. End of.

Yes, the industry could spend thousands investing in ramps to bridge between trains making this very quick and easy but what a waste of money for the one occasion every decade that this happens!

As I said before, some of us on here know what we are talking about and you can instinctively feel whatever you like but you are wrong!

 

[dcsprior]

but it seems wrong that mankind can land a man on the moon, but can't rescue passengers from a failed train in a reasonable time.

Seriously?

Yes. Its a good benchmark whenever you hear that something "isn't possible".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, the industry could spend thousands investing in ramps to bridge between trains making this very quick and easy

So, in other words, just as I said: You don't need to know anything about the railways to [...] know that for almost everything (in all walks of life) anything is do-able if given enough focus/money/effort.

Shame its taken many posts saying that I have no right to an opinion because I don't work in the railways before we found that we both actually agreed with each other.

but what a waste of money for the one occasion every decade that this happens!

I believe this is not the first thread in the last six months discussing passengers being stuck on a failed train for over two hours.

 

[455driver]

An hour to move passengers onto one of the other trains that the original article mentioned overtook the failed one? Five to ten minutes seems more likely. Also, is the track at this point 2- or 4- track? Surely if its 4-track, then other services can continue to run.

Of course, there's probably loads of health and safety rules which prevent this - doubtless designed to protect people who're too stupid to walk a few yards between tracks without wandering in front of a moving train, or otherwise becoming contenders for a Darwin Award.

So you reckon it takes 20 minutes to stop another train (which will probably be as full of passengers as the failed one) on an adjacent line, get the ladder out and transfer every passenger from the failed train do you!

Remember a lot of trains will only have a driver on board, some will have a driver and guard while a few (long distance one) will have ticket examiners, stewards, buffet staff etc on board, remember that only the driver and guard (where provided) will be PTS trained and so able to carry out the evacuation, rules is rools innit!

While the driver is carrying out the evacuation who is trying to fix the train?
Of course if you mean evacuate the train after the driver has confirmed that the train is a complete failure then that will take more than 20 minutes for a start!

To predict some of the replies - no I've never worked on the railway

Plainly!
But have you ever worked (on your own) with a few hundred of the great British public screaming at you in any situation?

I very much doubt it!

I believe this is not the first thread in the last six months discussing passengers being stuck on a failed train for over two hours.

Both/ all in the same part of the Country?

How many spare locos and drivers do you think it would take to provide adequate coverage for the whole Country?

 

[Flamingo]

You don't need to know anything about the railways to have an instinctive "feel" that this shouldn't be as hard as people are making it, or to know that for almost everything (in all walks of life) anything is do-able if given enough focus/money/effort.

If enough money was available, every train could have another one running behind it, empty, just in case in broke down.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, with the greatest of respect, try reading the posts from people who know what they are talking about, and reflect on their comments, before posting. There may be something useful that you can bring to the arguement, but at the moment it is not apparent what that is.

 

[A-driver]

Yes. Its a good benchmark whenever you hear that something "isn't possible".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So, in other words, just as I said: You don't need to know anything about the railways to [...] know that for almost everything (in all walks of life) anything is do-able if given enough focus/money/effort.

Shame its taken many posts saying that I have no right to an opinion because I don't work in the railways before we found that we both actually agreed with each other.



I believe this is not the first thread in the last six months discussing passengers being stuck on a failed train for over two hours.

No, we don't agree on this at all!

Its not the only thread about this but this is a big country and it only happens every so often on each region/operator.

My point is its not worth all that expense. If you told people you were putting up train fares to provide ramps etc incase the train is stranded there would be a riot...'I have been commuting this line for 30 years and never been stuck on a train and now I have to pay extra just incase!'

Or are you volunteering to find your ideas yourself?

I suppose ideally every region would have a helicopter base. Probably at least 10 helicopters at each base with pilots and technicians for each one on 24/7 cover. If a train fails then within 5 mins the helicopters will be sent out to lift all the coaches and fly them to the next station. Its only the greedy train operators stopping this from happening-after all, if they can put man on the moon they can fly broken trains around under helicopters can't they...!

 

[Ferret]

Goatboy, since when are the roads free?! I must've imagined paying all that money in road tax and fuel duty since I learned to drive all those years ago.

The comparison *is* relevant, regardless of your woefully inaccurate opinion.

 

[Andrewlong]

No, we don't agree on this at all!

Its not the only thread about this but this is a big country and it only happens every so often on each region/operator.

My point is its not worth all that expense. If you told people you were putting up train fares to provide ramps etc incase the train is stranded there would be a riot...'I have been commuting this line for 30 years and never been stuck on a train and now I have to pay extra just incase!'

Or are you volunteering to find your ideas yourself?

I suppose ideally every region would have a helicopter base. Probably at least 10 helicopters at each base with pilots and technicians for each one on 24/7 cover. If a train fails then within 5 mins the helicopters will be sent out to lift all the coaches and fly them to the next station. Its only the greedy train operators stopping this from happening-after all, if they can put man on the moon they can fly broken trains around under helicopters can't they...!

A question (and please those in the railway industry don't bite my head off because I am only a commuter who pays your wages!) - what was done to empty the trains during the 1999 Ladbroke Grove incident when there were burning coaches and severely injured people?

 

[Tomnick]

I am only a commuter who pays your wages!

Aha, thanks, when some overtime's missing out of my pay packet, I know who to chase for it now .

More seriously, there's a difference between a controlled evacuation and an emergency one. It's hopefully clear that, if it is necessary to quickly evacuate a train (after exhausting other options like moving along the train to unaffected vehicles), it might not be possible to provide the necessary protection (from other trains on adjacent lines) in time. If you've not got that protection, or anywhere to (safely) remove the passengers/punters/wage-payers to, then it's far safer to remain on the train until such time as the above can be arrange or, preferably, the failed train can be assisted forward, if there's no immediate danger.

 

[A-driver]

A question (and please those in the railway industry don't bite my head off because I am only a commuter who pays your wages!) - what was done to empty the trains during the 1999 Ladbroke Grove incident when there were burning coaches and severely injured people?

Firstly I don't buy the 'I pay your wages' argument. (I won't be dragged into any arguments over it either).

Secondly think this through. Were trains still running out of paddington during ladbroke grove? I don't think so!

Serious incidents like ladbroke grove are completely different. They are emergencies. Everything is stopped. The lines will be clear of any traffic, all electrical supply turned off and the emergency services will take over.

An event like a failed train as described here...no one is in any danger what so ever if they stay on the train. After a big collision / derailment the entire job is stopped. After a single train breaks down everything possible will be done to keep other trains running on other lines around the failed train. No one on the failed train is injured or dying or burning. It's uncomfortable yes but not dangerous in the slightest.

Are you seriously suggesting that if a train breaks down the entire section of line should close to allow the stranded passengers to walk off the train?

Once again you haven't read any other posts as your question has been answered numerous times. 500 people stranded safely on a failed train will just have to wait as there are many thousands of other passengers on other trains and stations and they won't stop them travelling for an hour or 2 just to let the stranded 500 walk away!

Next question...

 

[dcsprior]

But have you ever worked (on your own) with a few hundred of the great British public screaming at you in any situation?

No I've not, thankfully. The closest I ever came was about 13 years ago when I worked in the catering department of Stirling University, including staffing the function bars (i.e. not the Student Union ones) in the summertime. Trade was often unpredictable, so it was rarely worth putting more than one member of staff on - meaning that there were a handful of occasions where I did suddenly have 80+ Open-Uni students to serve and no-one else on with me. Nothing bad ever happened, and as a 19-year old I never stopped to consider that a roomful of half-cut people could actually turn nasty - but nowadays I would probably not choose to do that again.

No-one should be giving abuse to any member of staff anywhere for things outwith their control

To be honest, I hadn't thought of trains with only one member of staff. Although I use the railways a lot (Edinburgh to London and back for the 44 or so non-holiday weeks every year - so ~35k miles/yr) its not something I experience often... though to be fair, this was an FGW train which I believe are similar to EC

rules is rools innit!

Yeah. As I've said repeatedly, I know nothing about the railway from the inside - but from the outside, it does seem like they have an awful lot of rules.

Or are you volunteering to find your ideas yourself

No, because I don't know anything about railways

My point is that surely something can be done by the hardworking and intelligent men & women of the railway if given some more resources / incentive / etc.

 

[A-driver]

That was a typo in my post that you quoted and answered. I meant to ask if you would be willing to FUND your ideas yourself.

And the man and women who work on the railway have looked into all options. They have to be balanced with cost effectiveness.

Trust what people have already said in answer to your posts on here. We do know what we are talking about and you seem to be implying that the industry doesn't know what it's doing. If you honestly believe that they can transfer people onto other trains in 10mins then think that but you are miles off.

 

[455driver]

I suppose ideally every region would have a helicopter base. Probably at least 10 helicopters at each base with pilots and technicians for each one on 24/7 cover. If a train fails then within 5 mins the helicopters will be sent out to lift all the coaches and fly them to the next station. Its only the greedy train operators stopping this from happening-after all, if they can put man on the moon they can fly broken trains around under helicopters can't they...!

I assume you will be using Chinooks for this and if so will their registrations be added to the spotters books?

I wonder how long it would take to "clear" them?

 

[A-driver]

I assume you will be using Chinooks for this and if so will their registrations be added to the spotters books?

I wonder how long it would take to "clear" them?

Definately chinooks-I tho it a bit unrealistic to expect smaller helicopters to lift a train full of people-do be sensible if you are making suggestions...

And the theme tune to thunderbirds should be played down the trains PA whilst they are flying to the train to keep passengers updated on what's happening. Should the recording be Unavaliable then the driver has to sing it whilst they are sitting around doing nothing waiting for rescue.

I suggest they are crewed by a pilot and an 'assistant' to be winched down with the ropes to attach to the train. They should probably be referred to as a Flight And Rail Technician. They will work along side the RSI, TM, MOM DM etc...

It just shows how little the railways care for their passengers that something like is isn't already in place all over the UK. I mean in all seriousness it's only going to coast a few million and lets face it, the UK railways make far more than that in profit...

 

[455driver]

Should the recording be Unavaliable then the driver has to sing it whilst they are sitting around doing nothing waiting for rescue.

If I started singing down the PA then I could well understand the passengers carrying out an emergency evacuation, even at a 1000 feet!

 

[Mike395]

Whilst there are lot of valid points being made and it's been a good debate for the most part up until now, can we please stop with the personal comments. They do nothing to help your argument or contribute to the debate. I am just in the process of clearing up a few posts adding nothing to the topic at hand.

Thanks

 

[455driver]

I am just in the process of clearing up a few posts adding nothing to the topic at hand.

Thanks

I expect my PM reminder shortly!
I know I should put up with all the "I pay your wages" bull manure but it does wind me up!

Edit-
Got it at 1941, pity the post I bit at is still there, not surprised though! :roll:

 

[Mr Spock]

I expect my PM reminder shortly!
I know I should put up with all the "I pay your wages" bull manure but it does wind me up!

I know what you mean, it used to wind me up even 40 years ago.

 

[Squaddie]

Goatboy, since when are the roads free?! I must've imagined paying all that money in road tax and fuel duty since I learned to drive all those years ago.

The comparison *is* relevant, regardless of your woefully inaccurate opinion.

With all due respect, the rail industry has complete control over what runs on its tracks, and when, and the level of maintenance that is carried out on those vehicles. On the other hand, there is very little (in fact, effectively no) control over who uses the roads, and so delays and accidents are to be expected.

Breakdowns are inevitable, and sometimes there will be a major foul-up similar to the one described in this article, but they happen far too frequently on the UK's railways, and the inconvenience and misery is compounded by the TOCs' apparent inability to learn how to deal with them.

 

[dcsprior]

Trust what people have already said in answer to your posts on here. We do know what we are talking about and you seem to be implying that the industry doesn't know what it's doing. If you honestly believe that they can transfer people onto other trains in 10mins then think that but you are miles off.

I hope I've not implied that the people who work in the rail industry don't know what they're doing. I'm sure that each individual is probably doing their very best in almost every situation.

However the industry as a whole seams to make a meal out of sorting out things like this - I don't know for certain that this is the case, but it certainly seems like it. I don't know why this could be, could it be a mixture of risk-aversion, cost, an over-abundance of rules, fragmented structure, perverse incentives, etc...

 

[A-driver]

However the industry as a whole seams to make a meal out of sorting out things like this - I don't know for certain that this is the case, but it certainly seems like it. I don't know why this could be, could it be a mixture of risk-aversion, cost, an over-abundance of rules, fragmented structure, perverse incentives, etc...

No, it's not th case even if it does seem like it.

And it's not down to any of the things you have suggested-it's down to what is practicle/possible and going to have the least effect to the majority of people.

I'm not going around in circles saying the same points to you as you appear to be ignoring the reasons. They have been explained very clearly multiple times to you so just read all my previous posts in the thread-they should answer all your questions.

 

[dcsprior]

I'm not going around in circles saying the same points to you as you appear to be ignoring the reasons. They have been explained very clearly multiple times to you so just read all my previous posts in the thread-they should answer all your questions.

Indeed, I agree we're not going to get anywhere quickly, this will be my last post on this topic.

Sorry if it seems like I'm ignoring you're (valid) points, I'm not - but rather I think we're talking about two subtly different things. I keep being given reasons why it is impossible/difficult to do better - whereas I'm saying two things:

• that it shouldn't be this difficult - that its not beyond the wit of man to make it easier
• that perhaps priorities are wrong (i.e. better to avoid one 3-hour delay than avoid 20 half-hour delays, even if it makes the total delays far worse)

 

[Goatboy]

Goatboy, since when are the roads free?! I must've imagined paying all that money in road tax and fuel duty since I learned to drive all those years ago.

The difference is that M6 Toll excepted you don't pay for a journey. You pay nobody to go from A to B at a certain time. Sure you pay for various things to enable you to make a journey if you wish, but it's not paying specifically for that journey. You don't log your journey details with somebody and pay the fare they request as a result.

A road is an inanimate object on which you can drive your own vehicle (You can use it free of charge if you choose to use certain vehicles, too).

When travelling by rail (or bus, or coach, or plane, or boat) you are purchasing a specific service - the transport of you from A to B. THIS is the crucial difference between rail service and roads.

The comparison *is* relevant, regardless of your woefully inaccurate opinion.

It really isn't, how can it possibly be?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know I should put up with all the "I pay your wages" bull manure but it does wind me up!

You shouldn't put up with it at all. Passengers don't pay your wages. Your employer does and anyone who seems to think they pay your wages simply because they buy a service which you help to provide should be disregarded.

 

[A-driver]

Indeed, I agree we're not going to get anywhere quickly, this will be my last post on this topic.

Sorry if it seems like I'm ignoring you're (valid) points, I'm not - but rather I think we're talking about two subtly different things. I keep being given reasons why it is impossible/difficult to do better - whereas I'm saying two things:

• that it shouldn't be this difficult - that its not beyond the wit of man to make it easier
• that perhaps priorities are wrong (i.e. better to avoid one 3-hour delay than avoid 20 half-hour delays, even if it makes the total delays far worse)

Short of coming up with a contingency plan for every single eventuality it's no where near as simple as you think it is. I'm afraid you are living in a fantasy world where everything is perfect and money and practicalities aren't an issue.

The railway industry has done a huge amount of work on managing disruption, they don't just bury their heads in the sand like people think they do. But the railways are incredibly complicated, nothing like a road network or even an airline. Trains have to run on fixed, totally in-flexible pathways. When things go wrong it's like a juggling act and there is no way at all to please everyone.

Sorry to keep arguing but you are completely detached from any sense of reality in your posts!

 

[sheff1]

I disagree and so does the research the industry conducted into this.

The exact details arnt relevant to the majority. 'A train fault' is more than enough info.

Do you have a link for this research ?

I would want more (not full) details and would not consider 'a train fault' as being more than enough - a minimum until more details are known in my book.

A quick straw poll down the pub found the majority view, by a large amount, matched mine - so I wonder who was asked in the research.

 

[Goatboy]

Do you have a link for this research ?

I would want more (not full) details and would not consider 'a train fault' as being more than enough - a minimum until more details are known in my book.

A quick straw poll down the pub found the majority view, by a large amount, matched mine - so I wonder who was asked in the research.

I don't see how knowing more than 'a train fault' helps anyone other than interested enthusiast. A train fault is a train fault, it doesn't really matter what it is unless you want to use the information to guess how long it'll be and whether its terminal.

 

[sheff1]

I don't see how knowing more than 'a train fault' helps anyone other than interested enthusiast. A train fault is a train fault, it doesn't really matter what it is unless you want to use the information to guess how long it'll be and whether its terminal.

That is exactly why I, and others, want the information. As has been said, people's prime concern is how long the delay might be. If the type of fault is known an educated (or uneducated ) guess can be made as to it's relative severity.

'We need to reset the computer' after an unexpected stop is likely to take less time than when 'the brakegear has been damaged after hitting an object' for example.

Same applies to 'technical issue' - has a door alarm gone off or have the brakes jammed on ?

I have heard all of these, and more, and even to a non-enthusiast/non-techie such as myself they are helpful.

 

[Stats]

Goatboy, since when are the roads free?! I must've imagined paying all that money in road tax and fuel duty since I learned to drive all those years ago.

Clearly you have, as road tax hasn't existed in this country since 1937...

 

[island]

Goatboy, since when are the roads free?! I must've imagined paying all that money in road tax and fuel duty since I learned to drive all those years ago.

Vehicle excise duty and mineral oil duty are not hypothecated.

 

[jon0844]

I have every respect for Simon Calder, although he did some work for FirstGroup in 2006, he is not frightened to criticise them when they screw up.... a quality long vanished in the likes of the slowly-dying Rail magazine, which is now 50% filled with adverts from TOCs and Roscos - advertising revenue the magazine are desperate to keep by not upsetting those advertisers. Even it's former hatchet-job man Christian Wall-Mart seems reluctant to criticise some of the train companies.

No harm in picking up on incidents like this and reporting 100% truthfully. If no information was given, I find that totally out of order.

However, where's the balance? To me it seems like a story to attack FGW, especially if it's from someone who probably uses the services a lot and has a bit more of a relationship with them.

I bet he has been on other services where information WAS given, so why not mention that? It's fine to highlight an incident, but it's just as vital to point out that it was perhaps a one off - still not acceptable - but not an article that will just be used by the anti-FGW brigade. I've been on FGW services, and indeed First-run services (Heathrow Connect) where I've been told that we're delayed because of a freight train, that the signaller has allowed it to go ahead and will now delay us all the way to Paddington etc... but at the same time, I've been on a train where we were just terminated at Hayes & Harlington with no info, and I needed to get to Heathrow (but the TM did guide me and others up to get a bus, which was far quicker than waiting to see if any more trains would run).

If something like that happened to me on FCC, I'd say so too - but I hope everyone would know that I'd point out that it was an exception to the rule. I've been on services where FCC drivers have given regular information, and some drivers are not afraid to give quite detailed explanations about things - while others are totally silent when the PA system has been proved to work earlier on. Even if someone doesn't understand any reason, that doesn't really matter as they know they've been told a reason and can accept that at least the train staff must know what's going on.

Clearly train staff aren't putting their feet up while control says 'Sorry we're on a break' but people DO want some sort of reassurance that a problem is being investigated even if it might seem bloody obvious to staff.

Irrespective of research, I'd say that everyone wants to be told something. By all means make it 100% clear that you can't say when you'll be moving again, but if its your own train that has broken down - you can at least say so. If someone has to come out to look at it, then you can say that too.

In fact, information is quite easy to give and I can't see any harm in doing so. And if someone is going to moan even then, let them do so. MOST passengers are not rude, arrogant, arses and will side with staff over the moaner on the carriage that wants to just rant.

But if you don't give info, the only 'info' being passed around will be from those moaners! Suddenly you've got everyone telling everyone how bad the TOC is, how terrible the railway is, how it couldn't happen in Japan and it's high time we go back to British Railway.

Yes, the industry could spend thousands investing in ramps to bridge between trains making this very quick and easy but what a waste of money for the one occasion every decade that this happens!

What if the train broke down on a curve, or there's a wider gap between tracks..? Even doing that couldn't guarantee a quick and easy 'evacuation' and such a ramp would likely need side rails to stop someone falling off.

that perhaps priorities are wrong (i.e. better to avoid one 3-hour delay than avoid 20 half-hour delays, even if it makes the total delays far worse)

I can say that having experienced a day of delays with EasyJet, when their main computer went down so hardly any flights operated - they'll screw over those who were delayed than delay anyone else.

In other words, they cancelled most flights on a single day. The next day, their computers were back online with planes all over the place. What they did was ran the scheduled flights on the next day as normal, so as not to inconvenience them at all. Those who had been delayed on the Sunday were told it could be days until they might fly, but were of course offered refunds (that's what I am sure the airline hoped people would opt for).

So, I'd say that it's probably more sensible to keep a delay to just one train for as long as it takes than to suddenly delay loads more.