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

FGW train stranded at Pewsey

Status
Not open for further replies.

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
A simple and logical answer as to the failure to obtain water is that nobody knew how long the train would be there and would not be expecting it to be standing for the length of time it was.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Captain Chaos

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2011
Messages
835
Whilst the delay is indeed unacceptable and regrettable, it would appear to be a sequence of very unfortunate events which has created this big problem. People say that evacuation should have been made but the problem with events like this is that there is an expectation by those trying to fix the problem that the problem shall be fixed 'soon' and all will be well, so why evacuate? While we all have the benefit of hindsight this doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable stance to be taking. Why would you evacuate a train you are trying to fix if there is no immediate danger? It's worth pointing out too that this delay could well have been considerably less if it wasn't for the fact that the company issued mobile phones were not working (no signal, not much you can do about that), the TM's personal phone I understand also ran flat (so that option was out of the window too rather quickly) and the only other method of communication was via the GSM-R. Given that it would mean walking up and down the full length of the train in order to investigate or try something and then report back would add a big chunk of time I would have thought.

The breakdown at Reading would not have helped matters either. I am sure there are lessons to be learnt from this. The provision of refreshments will I am sure be looked into. But from what I can gather on the whole from what I have seen is that this does appear to be mostly a sequence of unfortunate events. We will likely not see something like it again (hopefully) for quite some time.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
My point is that basic provisions were provided. There was food and water on the train, ok it ran out but we can't debate if more water should have Ben provided until we know when it ran out.
You're missing the point. Waiting until it runs out is not acceptable. The very latest time that additional water should have arrived is on the same train that dropped off the fitter. (Because FGW control knew before he set off that that even if he got the failed train going quickly, it would have been at a stand for three hours.)

Even if it turns out later that the extra water wasn't needed it demonstrates to the passengers that something is being done and that they haven't been abandoned. Surely you can realise that psychologically this is important and helps the on-board team in managing the situation.

(500 people that feel 'something is being done' are going to far easier to deal with than 500 people who feel they have been abandoned.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A simple and logical answer as to the failure to obtain water is that nobody knew how long the train would be there and would not be expecting it to be standing for the length of time it was.
I seem to be repeating myself a bit here. The partial log posted upthread shows that FGW knew very early on that the fitter would not arrive on-scene until the failed train had been at a stand for two-and-a-half hours. That already is a long time. Then add in some time for him to fix the problem, and you're talking about three hours minimum before the train gets underway.

As soon as FGW control realised that, they should have started making arrangements to get extra food/water to the stranded train.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
You're missing the point. Waiting until it runs out is not acceptable. The very latest time that additional water should have arrived is on the same train that dropped off the fitter. (Because FGW control knew before he set off that that even if he got the failed train going quickly, it would have been at a stand for three hours.)

Even if it turns out later that the extra water wasn't needed it demonstrates to the passengers that something is being done and that they haven't been abandoned. Surely you can realise that psychologically this is important and helps the on-board team in managing the situation.

(500 people that feel 'something is being done' are going to far easier to deal with than 500 people who feel they have been abandoned.)

If the fitter arrived after 3 hours and the train was still well stocked with food and water why waste more time sourcing more to have put on that train? 99% of the time when a fitter attends a failed train they get it moving again very quickly. They know the traction inside out and have very good systems in place for diagnosing and recognising faults. It is normally a case of fitter getting under train with spanner, tweaking the parking break and everyone carries on 3 hours late on a train with a well stocked buffet.

If they thought for a moment that they may be looking at a delay of 6 hours they would have sent provisions in with the fitter.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I seem to be repeating myself a bit here. The partial log posted upthread shows that FGW knew very early on that the fitter would not arrive on-scene until the failed train had been at a stand for two-and-a-half hours. That already is a long time. Then add in some time for him to fix the problem, and you're talking about three hours minimum before the train gets underway.

As soon as FGW control realised that, they should have started making arrangements to get extra food/water to the stranded train.

Obviously that last it was added after my reply was posted but as I say, the time for the fitter to fix the problem would be minimal, nothing compared to the current 3 hour delay. It is very very unusual to take this long to fix something once a fitter has arrived. As I said above, 99% of the time the fitter will get it working again almost immediately.

And as I said, within the first 3 hours the buffet was probably more than adequately stocked to last until the train was able to move again.
 

TG

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
96
Location
second star on the right and straight on until mor
Whilst the delay is indeed unacceptable and regrettable, it would appear to be a sequence of very unfortunate events which has created this big problem. People say that evacuation should have been made but the problem with events like this is that there is an expectation by those trying to fix the problem that the problem shall be fixed 'soon' and all will be well, so why evacuate? While we all have the benefit of hindsight this doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable stance to be taking. Why would you evacuate a train you are trying to fix if there is no immediate danger? It's worth pointing out too that this delay could well have been considerably less if it wasn't for the fact that the company issued mobile phones were not working (no signal, not much you can do about that), the TM's personal phone I understand also ran flat (so that option was out of the window too rather quickly) and the only other method of communication was via the GSM-R. Given that it would mean walking up and down the full length of the train in order to investigate or try something and then report back would add a big chunk of time I would have thought.

The breakdown at Reading would not have helped matters either. I am sure there are lessons to be learnt from this. The provision of refreshments will I am sure be looked into. But from what I can gather on the whole from what I have seen is that this does appear to be mostly a sequence of unfortunate events. We will likely not see something like it again (hopefully) for quite some time.

very well put...

whilst i really canne be bothered to read all 25 pages of "armchair expertise" on this subject, i do wonder how many claiming this should have happened and that should have happened are actually fully trained traincrew(?) my guess is hardly, if not any.... i doubt many were even on board that particular service to know what actually took place and only have hear'say and gossip to base their "ideas" on.... six hours is exceptional yes, but unless you are trained to deal with a situation like that, or where actually there, you canne really comment.... also hindsight is a wonderful gift, unfortunatly we are not all superheroes blessed with this power!!! :roll:
 
Last edited:

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
As for Crisis management, Jesus, its the railway and here we have some one saying D and E were not being carried out. I am sure I read that the driver and then subsequently the fitter were in fact trying to fix the fault. You see its not someone in an office hundreds of miles away that fixes is it?
Did I say that it was? Just highlighting that someone somewhere (possibly 'someone in an office hundreds of miles away') has the responsibility to make sure those things happen as well.

Just because it's the railway doesn't mean you can ignore the d) and e).

For context I said that crisis management:
  • a) understanding the problem,
  • b) finding the cause of the problem,
  • c) fixing the problem,
  • d) what do we do to minimise the impact on the customers and
  • e) how do we keep customers informed
- and deploying your limited resource to achieve the best balance in the shortest time possible.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Only fitter available over at Reading and had to wait for the next train west? Swindon is 30 minutes drive in a company van away from the lane that apparently was alongside the line. Is there really not a fitter available for FGW at Swindon, of all places?
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
Only fitter available over at Reading and had to wait for the next train west? Swindon is 30 minutes drive in a company van away from the lane that apparently was alongside the line. Is there really not a fitter available for FGW at Swindon, of all places?

Why would there be a fitter at Swindon?
Was he doing his shopping there?

The only places fitters will be based is Old Oak Common, Reading, Bristol, Swansea, Laira and Penzance, possibly a couple at Par and that would be about it.
 
Last edited:

VP185

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2010
Messages
344
This is just a thought, but did the train really run out of water?

Could it not be that the crew onboard realise they were running low and then started rationing it? Maybe a crate or two was kept stored in the power cars in case someone really needed it rather than people helping themselves to bottled water because it was free! Even it was half a dozen bottles
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
And as I said, within the first 3 hours the buffet was probably more than adequately stocked to last until the train was able to move again.
That's pure speculation - you have no idea what the buffet stock levels were like.

I direct you again to ATOC's own guidance:

ATOC said:
Within 60 minutes: Arrange for (additional) refreshment supplies to be available for transport to site from the most practicable location.

It doesn't say "if supplies are low" or "if you think the delay is going to be six hours". It says do it.

Especially as at that time they knew the delay was going to be a minimum of three hours (yes, hopefully no more than three hours, but three hours is still a very long delay)
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I've answered that already.

When? You mean when you said it should be done as a just Incase? Even though these things are common and routine and very very rarely take this long to sort out. Where do you draw the line on the just Incase? No one thought for a second that the fitter would take so long to come up with a solution. And why would they? Experience tells you that it won't.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
If the fitter arrived after 3 hours and the train was still well stocked with food and water why waste more time sourcing more to have put on that train? 99% of the time when a fitter attends a failed train they get it moving again very quickly. They know the traction inside out and have very good systems in place for diagnosing and recognising faults. It is normally a case of fitter getting under train with spanner, tweaking the parking break and everyone carries on 3 hours late on a train with a well stocked buffet.

If they thought for a moment that they may be looking at a delay of 6 hours they would have sent provisions in with the fitter.
The words 'waste' and 'time' are the ones to look out for here folks. That's 'WASTE' and 'TIME'. As in providing water *just in case* during the best opportunity to do so would be a *waste of time*.

Welcome to where the customer comes first. I give up.
 

VP185

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2010
Messages
344
Only fitter available over at Reading and had to wait for the next train west? Swindon is 30 minutes drive in a company van away from the lane that apparently was alongside the line. Is there really not a fitter available for FGW at Swindon, of all places?

There are a number of 'travelling fitters' that ride over the FGW network. They are not van based or are at a fixed location. Trains don't always break down next to roads and in the event the fitter may be required to accompany a failed train.
We've had instances of a train failure and a train fitter has been two trains behind it.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
The words 'waste' and 'time' are the ones to look out for here folks. That's 'WASTE' and 'TIME'. As in providing water *just in case* during the best opportunity to do so would be a *waste of time*.

Welcome to where the customer comes first. I give up.

I wish you would read things properly and actually think before spouting the rubbish you are.

Why delay things even further to wait for enough water to be loaded onto a train before getting a fitter there when the train may well, for all you know, have plenty of water already on it, enough to last another hour anyway which is more than enough time for the fitter to fix it.

You have taken words in my post out of context to fuel your very weak argument that the customer is not considered in any of this. Of course the fact that they were doing anything at all to get the train moving was for the benefit of those customers and the thousands of others stranded around the west of England by the blocked line.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
very well put...

whilst i really canne be bothered to read all 25 pages of "armchair expertise" on this subject, i do wonder how many claiming this should have happened and that should have happened are actually fully trained traincrew(?) my guess is hardly, if not any.... i doubt many were even on board that particular service to know what actually took place and only have hear'say and gossip to base their "ideas" on.... six hours is exceptional yes, but unless you are trained to deal with a situation like that, or where actually there, you canne really comment.... also hindsight is a wonderful gift, unfortunatly we are not all superheroes blessed with this power!!! :roll:

And unless you can be bothered to read the thread you can't really comment.

Next!
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018

Here, in the post you responded to:

You're missing the point. Waiting until it runs out is not acceptable. The very latest time that additional water should have arrived is on the same train that dropped off the fitter. (Because FGW control knew before he set off that that even if he got the failed train going quickly, it would have been at a stand for three hours.)

Even if it turns out later that the extra water wasn't needed it demonstrates to the passengers that something is being done and that they haven't been abandoned. Surely you can realise that psychologically this is important and helps the on-board team in managing the situation.

(500 people that feel 'something is being done' are going to far easier to deal with than 500 people who feel they have been abandoned.)

You mean when you said it should be done as a just Incase? Even though these things are common and routine and very very rarely take this long to sort out.
Are three hour delays 'very common'? Because the relevant point that you seem to be ignoring is that they knew very early on that the fitter would not get there and get the train underway in anything less than three hours.

Where do you draw the line on the just Incase?
I'd say following the ATOC guidance is a good, sensible basis. I mean that's why they wrote the best practice guidelines. (I appreciate that they are guidelines not rules; but having gone to all that effort to produce them, you'd think that ATOC members would actually bother to follow them.)

No one thought for a second that the fitter would take so long to come up with a solution. And why would they? Experience tells you that it won't.
But they knew it would be at least three hours, which is long enough.
 

Captain Chaos

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2011
Messages
835
This is just a thought, but did the train really run out of water?

Could it not be that the crew onboard realise they were running low and then started rationing it? Maybe a crate or two was kept stored in the power cars in case someone really needed it rather than people helping themselves to bottled water because it was free! Even it was half a dozen bottles

Indeed. I haven't read anywhere as to exactly what point supplies were becoming low. It could well have been after the fitter was dispatched for all we know! (Though if anyone does have a link where this can be confirmed it would of course be greatly appreciated). Surely the train crew should be applauded for rationing the bottles and giving them only to people of genuine need rather than just saying "help yourselves". Could have been staring at a much worse scenario imo.
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
Here, in the post you responded to:


Are three hour delays 'very common'? Because the relevant point that you seem to be ignoring is that they knew very early on that the fitter would not get there and get the train underway in anything less than three hours.

I'd say following the ATOC guidance is a good, sensible basis. I mean that's why they wrote the best practice guidelines. (I appreciate that they are guidelines not rules; but having gone to all that effort to produce them, you'd think that ATOC members would actually bother to follow them.)

But they knew it would be at least three hours, which is long enough.

But, ill say this again as you didn't read it before obviously, if there were plenty of supplies already onboard to last over 3 hours why send more? They knew it would be 3 hours. Fine. And the buffet has plenty of water left to last 4 let's say-so why on earth would you send more? No one there would ave thought In their wildest dreams it would take an extra 3 hours to sort!

And stop waving that stupid ATOC guide around. Just quoting stuff from that isn't helpful and as I said before, just shows you to be no more than someone who 'read it on google'.

Putting that stuff into practice is different, it's a guide not a rule book and I'm not going to continue arguing based on some guide you have found whilst trawling the Internet.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
I wish you would read things properly and actually think before spouting the rubbish you are.

Why delay things even further to wait for enough water to be loaded onto a train before getting a fitter there when the train may well, for all you know, have plenty of water already on it, enough to last another hour anyway which is more than enough time for the fitter to fix it.

You have taken words in my post out of context to fuel your very weak argument that the customer is not considered in any of this. Of course the fact that they were doing anything at all to get the train moving was for the benefit of those customers and the thousands of others stranded around the west of England by the blocked line.

I thought there weren't fitters sitting around everywhere? One would have to be found and at the very least waited for the next service train to take him to the site. This time could have been used productively to source water without further delays. The fact that you casually use the words 'waste' and 'time' in this context is very revealing. Probably unintentionally so, bt revealing nonetheless.

You speak as though fixing the technical issues and dealing with the passengers were mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:

TG

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
96
Location
second star on the right and straight on until mor
And unless you can be bothered to read the thread you can't really comment.

Next!

i've read enough "armchair expertise" as i said and threads like this are always full of know-it-alls versions of what they think happened and what they would have done... blah blah blah!!

i never said i hadn't read the thread, i said i hadn't read all 25 (now 26) pages of it and the drivel it contains!!!! :D

now kindly remove yourself from you high horse!! ;)
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
i've read enough "armchair expertise" as i said and threads like this are always full of know-it-alls versions of what they think happened and what they would have done... blah blah blah!!

i never said i hadn't read the thread, i said i hadn't read all 25 (now 26) pages of it and the drivel it contains!!!! :D

now kindly remove yourself from you high horse!! ;)

I am wondering what you think the internet is actually FOR?? ;)
 

A-driver

Established Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
4,482
I am wondering what you think the internet is actually FOR?? ;)

Apparently for people to have pointless arguments based on no fact where they refuse to listen to reasoning from people who do actually know what they are on about!

That and looking at pictures of naked ladies.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Why delay things even further to wait for enough water to be loaded onto a train before getting a fitter there.
Why would it cause any extra delay?

According to the partial log, the fitter travelled from Reading on the 15:57 PAD-PNZ (I don't know what time it left Reading, but it was scheduled to leave at 16:32) as he was working on the 14:57 PAD-PNZ which eventually left Reading at approx 16:15.

So that's plenty of time to rustle up some water to put it on board the 16:32 from Reading. Heck with some quick decision-making it could even have been put on board before it left Paddington!
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
And stop waving that stupid ATOC guide around. Just quoting stuff from that isn't helpful and as I said before, just shows you to be no more than someone who 'read it on google'.

Putting that stuff into practice is different
Sorry, that's not an acceptable excuse.

The guide is there for a reason. It's there for dealing with exactly this sort of incident. And 'reading it on google' (whatever that is) means that having read and understood it (and using my other experience) I can take an informed part in this debate. The old you-don't-work-for-the-railway-so-you-can't-understand argument doesn't wash. This is basically just problem-solving, not rocket science or some special railway hocus-pocus.

If the people working in FGW control cannot 'put that stuff into practice' then quite possibly they're in the wrong job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
Don't know if this has already been mentioned but this was also on the log at about 1940..

We are also stopping a service opposite to replenish the buffet at the request of the guard
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Don't know if this has already been mentioned but this was also on the log at about 1940..
Well that's really good to know something was done. About four hours too late - but better than nothing!
 

sbt

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2011
Messages
268
As a customer and someone who is involved in advising planners I have to say that the most striking thing from the log is the response time for the Fitter and Manager.

There may well be good reasons for it taking 2.5 hours for the Fitter to arrive but even if he fixed the fault instantly on arrival and the passengers are of no account that is a long time for a main line to be blocked.

It took even longer for the Manager to arrive.

It is also striking that the Fitter took 1.75 hours after arrival to confirm that the fault was on the rear of the two Power Cars. At 1 hour after his arrival he was reported as unable to locate a leak reported as located by the Train Crew prior to his arrival. Again this may be due to good reasons but it does like like a lot of duplication of effort.

Even if you leave the passengers out of the equation this is far from being FGWs finest hour.


Poor Comms appears to have been an issue. If the fault finding required consultation with more expert personnel or those with access to manuals I'm surprised that the Fitter, and maybe even the Train Crew, didn't have access to manuals or Check Lists - these days its relatively easy to put them on a Tablet.

It also highlights a more general issue - poor Mobile reception on rural lines. If the railways are going to use Mobiles for operational, all be it not immediately Safety Critical, tasks then this is a problem. Bear in mind that delay in shifting a stranded train extends the time for which abnormal working is in place and abnormal (I don't know the proper railway term) whilst basically safe does entail a small (and I do acknowledge it is small) amount of extra risk. Aggregated over lots of lines over time this extra risk is probably non-negligible.


Considering Resupply and Evacuation it speculate (and I acknowledge that I am speculating) that the exact location may have been a factor in the decision making. It is quite likely that, in that area, the train was stopped on an embankment, which would have complicated both of those options. Referring to communications issues, even uncertainty about whether this was the case would influence decision making. Also water for 500 people is not a small amount. Even so, it is a non-perishable item available from numerous outlets.

However it takes staff on, or close to, site to organise and implement and this appears to be exactly what FGW did not have. Many of the comments regarding the practicality of various options refer to lack of staff. Which raises questions in my mind as to what, if any, 'Mutual Aid' agreements are in place within the industry to deal with incidents that are outside the local capacity of a given organisation. Obviously there are limits, for example sharing Fitters might be a problem, in particular if they are not trained on the relevant equipment type, and ideally you would want YOUR manager to be the 'On Scene Commander'. But staff qualified to work trackside and able to 'lift and shift' and/or supervise is a different matter - even after taking the fact that 'spare' staff are relatively rare. Hopefully this will be something that FGW etc consider. For example it may not be economic for FGW to carry an extra Mobile Manager that is used one weekend in 10 on the books but it might be if one was shared between several operators (working on the basis that they would hand over control on the arrival of the relevant operators staff).


I have to say that the comments from non-railway industry posters (like myself) are probably heavily coloured by the feeling that we, the passenger, are often the 'Forgotten Element' in incidents. This is something that is improving but our experience has taught us that scant regard is often shown for our welfare or comfort when making decisions when problems occur, even in recent years. We therefore tend to assume that when nothing is done it is because nothing was considered, or that insufficient effort was put in - this is because experience, built up over many incidents, has taught us that this is (or was) the case. This is definitely unfair to most staff on the ground and possiblely unfair in this case but this is what we assume because this is what we experience year on year.

'Nobody died' is obviously the first priority but as a passenger you often get the feeling that that is as far as consideration for passengers goes. The needs of passengers may have been considered in this case but we have no evidence they were. They may not have been considered in this case but again we have no evidence that this was the case. However the experience of passengers is that they often aren't, so we tend to assume, in the case where there is no evidence either way, that they haven't been.

Unfortunately in their efforts to show that the solutions put forward by non-industry posters are rarely as simple to implement as the posters think some of the railway staff give the impression that they think that the role of the passenger in an out of course incident should be to be grateful that the industry gives 'nobody dies' any consideration and beyond that we should sit (or stand) still, shut up and put up with anything the industry throws at us, like good non-perishable cargo, whilst they get on with the important technical stuff. The problem is that we are perishable, some more than others, and are not passive agents.


As for things like this being impossible to plan for. My job relates to military planning, that which does not survive contact with the enemy. All that means is that you have to build some flexibility into your plan. You also factor in human behaviour and capabilities. If staff in technical posts tend to focus on fixing the original problem (and they do, to the extent that several aircraft have crashed after perfectly survivable faults) then you set cutoff times beyond which you stop manging the cause and start managing the consequences. If higher management tend to get overly focused on one solution to a problem then you build 'consider other options' and cutoff times into check lists and procedures (just as aircraft checklists contain the step 'Fly the Aeroplane' at regular intervals).

Its blatantly untrue that you cannot plan for such events. What is having Fitters and Mobile Managers available but part of the implementation of a plan to deal with unexpected incidents? If there was no plan then they would not exist. Its clear that some sort of plan is in place, the question is is it the right plan, implemented properly and can it be improved. Now I accept that it may be that everything that could be planned for or done was done in this incident, but that is very different form it being impossible to plan for.
 

TG

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
96
Location
second star on the right and straight on until mor
If the people working in FGW control cannot 'put that stuff into practice' then quite possibly they're in the wrong job.

well if you think that you can do better using google than a trained professional then why don't you apply for a control job.... Hmmmmm, didn't think so!!

sorry, i just get frustrated with people who think 'cos they read something on the internet that they know more than the person doing the job.... its one thing having the knowledge but its another thing putting it into practise when you have a million other things to deal with too!!!!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top