• 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!

Passengers abandon train at Lewisham with 3rd rails still live.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
I am a Signaller, and I would NOT have told the train to pass the signal with the other one within yards of the next signal !

Well surely somebody higher up should have taken that decision?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Emergency permissive working to allow more than one train in section is definitely a tool able to be used, even if (and in fact mostly used when) it’s all gone hideously wrong. It can take a fair bit of time to implement - but may still be the most appropriate tool to deal with otherwise stranded trains. Permissive working does rely on drivers making sure they can stop short of obstructions, in any case.

There are two major downsides, however: trains have to be able to draw enough power to move - and it’s sometimes no good if the train has several units connected in multiple without through-gangways, as people in the rear unit(s) could still end up stuck outside a platform and pulling egress handles.
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
I am a Signaller, and I would NOT have told the train to pass the signal with the other one within yards of the next signal !

Well I'm not passed in signalling regs, but if it could be confirmed that the platform was clear then I don't see the issue especially in a situation where a train has been held for a long time. Passing a signal will inevitably mean the driver moves at caution prepared to stop etc etc.
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
Emergency permissive working to allow more than one train in section is definitely a tool able to be used, even if (and in fact mostly used when) it’s all gone hideously wrong. It can take a fair bit of time to implement - but may still be the most appropriate tool to deal with otherwise stranded trains. Permissive working does rely on drivers making sure they can stop short of obstructions, in any case.

There are two major downsides, however: trains have to be able to draw enough power to move - and it’s sometimes no good if the train has several units connected in multiple without through-gangways, as people in the rear unit(s) could still end up stuck outside a platform and pulling egress handles.

But by the sound of it, the train had cleared the platform and signal, just not the overlap, so emergency permissive working wouldn't really apply as there was no train ahead in the platform.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
The "rule book" is there for a reason and should have provision for dealing with emergencies.
And that rule book has evolved after decades, with amendments after every major incident, which is why there are now things like Red Zone working, and not working within a certain distance of the platform edge.
And despite what has been mentioned on this thread by some posters, safety overrides everything. That's why, for example, even though I know that the timetabled service has finished, and can see on track diagrams that there is no train within ten miles of where I am, I still have to request a block if I need to retrieve something from the track.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I am a Signaller, and I would NOT have told the train to pass the signal with the other one within yards of the next signal !

I understand your dilemma - but who exactly could have authorised it ?
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
I will be interested to find out (If ever we do) what was told to the passengers on the trains where people just got off.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
I am a Signaller, and I would NOT have told the train to pass the signal with the other one within yards of the next signal !

I'm genuinely interested in what instruction and training there is for dealing with an unfolding emergency situation like this. There must be a chain of command and a plan surely?

Otherwise there is a risk of a chain of multiple failures and the inevitable consequences would be self evacuation by passengers in dangerous locations.

If the only plan is to make all trains remain stationery for 1,2,3 or unlimited hours, until power is restored, this plan is inadequate.

Surely we need a plan of careful co-ordinated movements to get trains to safer places where rescue can be made.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
The lack of empathy and humility staff across the network seem to have shown paying customers in this case is simply staggering. This incident just fills me with utter contempt for those who work on the railway and yet defend what happened. Despite being a privatised industry, this incident merely seems to reinforce the idea that the railways still behaves like a nationalised industry, in which employees seem to think they can still get away with not doing what's right 'because it's more than my job's worth' or because the rulebook doesn't permit it. When the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan, people should be doing what is necessary to make things right not replying on those crutches.

It boils down to two things. Communication with your customers, and using your initiative. Neither seem to have happened. We have an industry waylaid by a rule book that stifles staff from doing what's right for passengers. It wouldn't happen in true private industry, because if it did then ultimately the business would start to collapse. But of course those in the railway can go home at the end of the day with warm fuzzy feelings because they know come what may and however their industry treats passengers, the railway will still be here tomorrow.

Some of the more rediculous things suggested that happe on this topic, that a true customer-focused business would not countenance include:
  • Train drivers not using the PA - crazy, they're customers not self-loading cargo. Keep them informed. PA broken - train driver needs to get off their ass and go back to the coaches to tell passengers what's happening. Set mandatory intervals for drivers talking to customers, and if they won't do it fire them.
  • Control not talking to train crews. What's GSMR for? We solved the problem of 'control' talking to aircraft anywhere in the world in the airline industry 20 years ago. Why is it so difficult for railways over a few miles? If they won't talk, find replacement employees who will.
  • Signallers not knowing how to use GSMR general broadcast. Teach them. And if they can't master it, fire them or move them to a job they can manage.
  • DO NOT TRAVEL - simply preposterous at any time of day other than first thing because some people will already have started their journey or already be at work. They have no choice but to travel.
  • Station staff lacking PTS. Train them - don't care if it costs, because it's worth it to avoid these sorts of problems (or it would be if the railway was a business that could fail with enough adverse publicity). Do it after normal working hours if needs be. Make it a condition of new station staff contracts, and if they can't meet the medical requirements don't hire them.
  • Accusing customers of trespassing if they detrain. Appaling. So I pay you to use your services, you fail to deliver, and then you try to persecute me for walking away from your business. Madness. If you'd have sorted the problem before your customers got edgy, or at least kept them fully informed, the problem probably wouldn't have arisen.
It really saddens me that the railways still seem to be run for the convenience / in the interests of the industry and the staff, rather than the customers who effectively pay the wages of those who work within it. Until this attitude changes, there will be little improvement. This incident - and the reaction of railway staff responding to this topic - seems to point to the idea that the railway still behaves like it is always right, and the customer is always wrong. It's about time it started finding reasons to do the right thing for customers, rather than hide behind excuses.
But if this was true private industry, thus incident would not have happened in the first place - fares have not covered costs for many years, so the system would have been bankrupt and closed a long time ago. Likewise, the cost of providing your kind of golden 'customer service' simply cannot be afforded - you might not care what it costs, but your government on your behalf does, and they decide the financial priorities of the country, and this is not one of them. You get what you pay for.
DO NOT TRAVEL (or actually 'advised not to travel) has to be an option - this will cut down the number of passengers travelling, and warn those that do that disruption is possible/likely. If the train company believes that it cannot operate a service (perfectly in your belief) , cannot afford to take the sort of measures that would ensure a perfect service in all circumstances, then the only option is shutdown when the risk is too great.
There are always lessons to be learnt when any incident occurs, and hopefully there are some to be learnt from this. However, sacking everybody will definitely not be the answer.
When the customers start realising that they are not paying the full cost of the service, are not quite paying for all of the staff wages, and therefore cannot expect the full refinements of 'true' private industry service then they will perhaps be more appreciative of what they have got......... ha!ha!
Clearly you are not in a front line position where your every move can be questioned retrospectively, and actions deemed wrong possibly the subject of litigation, humiliation, criminal charges, destruction of career etc etc. If you were, you wouldn't be suggesting words like 'initiative' but backing up conformity with procedures and rule book to cover your backside
 
Last edited:

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,754
I understand your dilemma - but who exactly could have authorised it ?

It's covered by the Rule Book, and discussed with Control, once the driver has declared himself a failure, will go back and put out assistance protection (dets) to stop any errors,the asissting train will draw forward into station, stop, detrain, and then get permission to pass signal protecting the failure, by which time the other Driver will be at the dets with a red light too, hopefully another Ops staff member around to help as well in bad weather, now whilst it seems like the Signaller could have cut corners and let the train into the station, it would have been a dangerous thing to do.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Emergency permissive working to allow more than one train in section is definitely a tool able to be used, even if (and in fact mostly used when) it’s all gone hideously wrong. It can take a fair bit of time to implement - but may still be the most appropriate tool to deal with otherwise stranded trains. Permissive working does rely on drivers making sure they can stop short of obstructions, in any case.

There are two major downsides, however: trains have to be able to draw enough power to move - and it’s sometimes no good if the train has several units connected in multiple without through-gangways, as people in the rear unit(s) could still end up stuck outside a platform and pulling egress handles.

I did wonder that, I once had a delay of about 3 hours on a Lincoln Central - Grimsby Town train. The train was held about 1 mile before Market Rasen station, the points failure was at Holton-Le-Moor about 2 miles after the station.

The driver at the time said that he couldn't pass to continue for Market Rasen because once he had got to the station to detrain us all it would actaully cause more problems than it resolved to recover the service. he did note that it was a shame the signal at Market Rasen was removed during resignalling.

The recovery plan was to send us back to the nearest cross over points and then send us on the wrong line to Market Rasen, but they needed network rail staff to assist. Again seemed odd that they could terminate us on the wrong line but I guess they could then send it the unit back to Lincoln in the normal way. As it happens they fixed the points before the people who needed to assist arrived.
 

baz962

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
3,283
Surely the solution is to, as far as possible, provide walkways alongside all running lines, and improve the granularity of DC sectioning so the rail on the line the train is on can be isolated without collapsing the whole network.

Essentially more track paralleling huts and improved comms with the electrical control room.

Would it help, there are pavements, pedestrian lights and crossings everywhere in everyday life, and i see people not bothering and crossing everywhere but, allday everyday.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
It's covered by the Rule Book, and discussed with Control, once the driver has declared himself a failure, will go back and put out assistance protection (dets) to stop any errors,the asissting train will draw forward into station, stop, detrain, and then get permission to pass signal protecting the failure, by which time the other Driver will be at the dets with a red light too, hopefully another Ops staff member around to help as well in bad weather, now whilst it seems like the Signaller could have cut corners and let the train into the station, it would have been a dangerous thing to do.

so could the above approach have been an option in this case?
 

N/100

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2016
Messages
50
If the message was "DO NOT TRAVEL" in capitals on Southeastern's website homepage, as Bromley Boy tells us, then that is unequivocal.

It's a clear unambiguous statement. It's not implied "we advise", "be prepared". It is absolute. You therefore back it up by not giving folk the opportunity to travel.

I kept a fairly close eye on the website and it most definitely was not the message.

In mid to late afternoon the message - for the Sevenoaks and beyond services at least - was to travel as soon as possible, which with the benefit of hindsight turned out have been the worst possible outcome.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Some quite staggering generalisations and insults to railway staff there.



It's your nirvana of private enterprise and the the franchises desire to profit maximise and enhance shareholder value that is leading to a relentless drive to cut costs and reduce staffing across the railway.

.

And don't forget Government desire to reduce the railway subsidy burden on taxpayers.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
The lack of empathy and humility staff across the network seem to have shown paying customers in this case is simply staggering. This incident just fills me with utter contempt for those who work on the railway and yet defend what happened. Despite being a privatised industry, this incident merely seems to reinforce the idea that the railways still behaves like a nationalised industry, in which employees seem to think they can still get away with not doing what's right 'because it's more than my job's worth' or because the rulebook doesn't permit it. When the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan, people should be doing what is necessary to make things right not replying on those crutches.

It boils down to two things. Communication with your customers, and using your initiative. Neither seem to have happened. We have an industry waylaid by a rule book that stifles staff from doing what's right for passengers. It wouldn't happen in true private industry, because if it did then ultimately the business would start to collapse. But of course those in the railway can go home at the end of the day with warm fuzzy feelings because they know come what may and however their industry treats passengers, the railway will still be here tomorrow.

So if I understand you correctly... Even though the railway has a rule book built up with hundreds of years of experience of what works what is safe, and which is written to ensure that mistakes that have been made in the past and have caused injury and death, when something difficult happens this should be thrown out of the window because 'customer service'?

There is a reason why rail travel in the UK is as safe as it is, and as a consumer this is a benefit of the product - what is less respected is the principal drawback; if something does occur it is almost always safest (as well as quickest for everyone) to stay onboard. If that isn't a cost:benefit the consumer wants to take on, then they shouldn't buy the product (which is of course the logical conclusion of your 'true private industry' argument).

The railway is not unique in this respect, you may for instance recall the cruise ship industry has made distinct changes to its operating procedures after the Costa Concordia disaster - principally that you shouldn't allow the customers to drink alcohol before they've received their safety briefing!

In terms of information a key problem is that customers will claim they have 'no information' if the reality is that they have information they do not like, or if the information does not define in precise minutes when things will happen. People need to respect the choice they have made to consume the product, and, quite frankly, if they don't like it stop buying it.
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
It's covered by the Rule Book, and discussed with Control, once the driver has declared himself a failure, will go back and put out assistance protection (dets) to stop any errors,the asissting train will draw forward into station, stop, detrain, and then get permission to pass signal protecting the failure, by which time the other Driver will be at the dets with a red light too, hopefully another Ops staff member around to help as well in bad weather, now whilst it seems like the Signaller could have cut corners and let the train into the station, it would have been a dangerous thing to do.

I guess you missed my post in #333 in reply to your post.

Not sure why you've brought assistance protection into this. The train ahead had cleared the signal, just not the overlap.

By authorising the driver standing at the signal to the rear into the empty platform does not require any sort of assistance protection .

Tbh, it almost sounds like you're doubting the competence of the driver standing at the signal to the rear to stop at the next signal ..??????

Edit: I've think I've answered the scenario via s.3.4 of TS2 TCB Regs which is it is permitted with SB supervisor or ops control authorisation.
 
Last edited:

amcluesent

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Messages
877
Perhaps the lesson learned from this will be that the net lowest risk option is to trigger a 'proceed to station at caution' directive from Gold command and signallers can then inform drivers, with the message being repeated on social media to inform pax.

It's clear that with the vast majority of pax having access to social media, they can be better informed than the driver that the system is in chaos. Risk assessments that were made decades ago need to be reviewed accordingly
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Perhaps the lesson learned from this will be that the net lowest risk option is to trigger a 'proceed to station at caution' directive from Gold command and signallers can then inform drivers, with the message being repeated on social media to inform pax.

It's clear that with the vast majority of pax having access to social media, they can be better informed than the driver that the system is in chaos. Risk assessments that were made decades ago need to be reviewed accordingly
Probably with some improvement to the reliability of PA systems too!
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
In terms of information a key problem is that customers will claim they have 'no information' if the reality is that they have information they do not like, or if the information does not define in precise minutes when things will happen. People need to respect the choice they have made to consume the product, and, quite frankly, if they don't like it stop buying it.
Apologies but I disagree. Certainly not in every circumstance but I have sat on trains for over 30 mins with no announcements but the PA system was working just fine and there were crew on board "Report anything suspicious etc". That is just bad service.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
I did wonder that, I once had a delay of about 3 hours on a Lincoln Central - Grimsby Town train. The train was held about 1 mile before Market Rasen station, the points failure was at Holton-Le-Moor about 2 miles after the station.

The driver at the time said that he couldn't pass to continue for Market Rasen because once he had got to the station to detrain us all it would actaully cause more problems than it resolved to recover the service. he did note that it was a shame the signal at Market Rasen was removed during resignalling.

The recovery plan was to send us back to the nearest cross over points and then send us on the wrong line to Market Rasen, but they needed network rail staff to assist. Again seemed odd that they could terminate us on the wrong line but I guess they could then send it the unit back to Lincoln in the normal way. As it happens they fixed the points before the people who needed to assist arrived.
I can top that one.

On Eurostar once, coming back from Paris. Some sort of failure in Kent saw us put into a special siding at Cheriton which is technically still in France. We were informed we were going back to France to be put on a ferry!

A passenger revolt stopped that idea, and eventually a fleet of coaches turned up to transfer us to Waterloo where we would pass through customs etc. At Waterloo they dropped us on the street outside, so presumably any illegals legged it. A very nice man from Eurostar asked us where we were going. I said Stockport so he put me and the wife in a free taxi home, "but help yourself to free sandwiches and drinks before you set off".

A few days later free return ticket vouchers turned up in the post with apologies.

THAT was customer service, especially as I am retired staff!
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
The lack of empathy and humility staff across the network seem to have shown paying customers in this case is simply staggering. This incident just fills me with utter contempt for those who work on the railway and yet defend what happened. Despite being a privatised industry, this incident merely seems to reinforce the idea that the railways still behaves like a nationalised industry, in which employees seem to think they can still get away with not doing what's right 'because it's more than my job's worth' or because the rulebook doesn't permit it. When the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan, people should be doing what is necessary to make things right not replying on those crutches.

It boils down to two things. Communication with your customers, and using your initiative. Neither seem to have happened. We have an industry waylaid by a rule book that stifles staff from doing what's right for passengers. It wouldn't happen in true private industry, because if it did then ultimately the business would start to collapse. But of course those in the railway can go home at the end of the day with warm fuzzy feelings because they know come what may and however their industry treats passengers, the railway will still be here tomorrow.

Some of the more rediculous things suggested that happe on this topic, that a true customer-focused business would not countenance include:
  • Train drivers not using the PA - crazy, they're customers not self-loading cargo. Keep them informed. PA broken - train driver needs to get off their ass and go back to the coaches to tell passengers what's happening. Set mandatory intervals for drivers talking to customers, and if they won't do it fire them.
  • Control not talking to train crews. What's GSMR for? We solved the problem of 'control' talking to aircraft anywhere in the world in the airline industry 20 years ago. Why is it so difficult for railways over a few miles? If they won't talk, find replacement employees who will.
  • Signallers not knowing how to use GSMR general broadcast. Teach them. And if they can't master it, fire them or move them to a job they can manage.
  • DO NOT TRAVEL - simply preposterous at any time of day other than first thing because some people will already have started their journey or already be at work. They have no choice but to travel.
  • Station staff lacking PTS. Train them - don't care if it costs, because it's worth it to avoid these sorts of problems (or it would be if the railway was a business that could fail with enough adverse publicity). Do it after normal working hours if needs be. Make it a condition of new station staff contracts, and if they can't meet the medical requirements don't hire them.
  • Accusing customers of trespassing if they detrain. Appaling. So I pay you to use your services, you fail to deliver, and then you try to persecute me for walking away from your business. Madness. If you'd have sorted the problem before your customers got edgy, or at least kept them fully informed, the problem probably wouldn't have arisen.
It really saddens me that the railways still seem to be run for the convenience / in the interests of the industry and the staff, rather than the customers who effectively pay the wages of those who work within it. Until this attitude changes, there will be little improvement. This incident - and the reaction of railway staff responding to this topic - seems to point to the idea that the railway still behaves like it is always right, and the customer is always wrong. It's about time it started finding reasons to do the right thing for customers, rather than hide behind excuses.

That is the most insulting, ill-informed, ill-mannered and preposterous post here!
You have proved that you haven't read any of the comments of the PROFFESIONAL railway workers here and none absolutely nothing about how and why the railways do things.
 

John Bray

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2018
Messages
29
It worries me that the railway procedures are so risk averse and give so little discretion to staff. Creeping into the station would have defused the situation in the second train, creeping past the train 3/4 up the Tanner's Hill junction would have cleared the mainline. Eliminating all possible risk with train movements is all very well, but what if the consequence is stress related illness with the passengers, or unauthorized evacuation accidents.Panic attacks, heart attacks and urinary problems could all be occurring on the train, but that would acceptable because it not directly caused by driver or signaler action? It scares me that the culture seems to have signallers arrested and court-martialled if they do anything unusual.

All safety rules need to be flexible and and allow for human frailty. Its what I'd expect of bus drivers and ferry crews, why not railway staff.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
It worries me that the railway procedures are so risk averse and give so little discretion to staff.

Isn't this what you have GOLD command on duty for?

These are your most experienced operational managers who are paid to make important decisions and judgements.

These people have the experience to be able to make those important decisions. They should also have more information available to them that individual drivers or signallers.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Isn't this what you have GOLD command on duty for?

These are your most experienced operational managers who are paid to make important decisions and judgements.

These people have the experience to be able to make those important decisions. They should also have more information available to them that individual drivers or signallers.

So, we assume that GOLD was fully involved ?? - if they are the 'super authority' why then did it take so long ??
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
Apologies but I disagree. Certainly not in every circumstance but I have sat on trains for over 30 mins with no announcements but the PA system was working just fine and there were crew on board "Report anything suspicious etc". That is just bad service.

I would agree that is poor service.

However I would be very, very surprised if a DOO driver at Lewisham didn't make an announcement if delayed for any significant length of time. Even forgetting about customer service for a minute, even the most disinterested driver does not want passengers to start egressing!

I've heard second hand that at least one of the drivers involved was virtually pleading with passengers not to egress!
 

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
3,725
I think it was 2M48 - stuck just after Lewisham. 2M50 was then stuck just before Lewisham - pictured in #766. 2S54 was on the Tanners Hill Flydown and the rear was foul of the points - blocking 2R46, 2H50 etc from going down the fasts to Orpington. Attached was how things were looking at 18:29.

(This is all just based off looking at the signalling maps across the evening and various pictures on Twitter though, I could be totally wrong).

This may have been covered elsewhere in the thread (there are rather a lot of posts now), but I was under the impression that it was 2S54 that was having the problems (going up Tanners Hill). I was on 2R46 and speaking to the driver* and he said he had been told it was inching along at very slow speed; he implied it was the one right in front anyway, or maybe I just inferred it. It's definitely correct that 2S54 was not fouling the points, but it was in the signal overlap. Hence we in 2R46 (the 17.10 Charing Cross - Ashford) could not proceed (nor could stuff in the opposite direction).

There's some video of people bailing from 2S54 after about an hour (I think) and crossing the fasts and the up slow / up Cannon street (not sure which is correct) to get on to the platform at St Johns, and I had thought that was the first self-evacuation. That's we thought on the night, in any case; our information was from a mix of Twitter and the driver / guard.

*after we had been stopped for ages
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top