Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
Depending when it happened... Could they have got the brakes off by that point, once the power had been off for a while and the main res pressure had dropped?
-
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.
- Thread starter theironroad
- Start date
- Status
Depending when it happened... Could they have got the brakes off by that point, once the power had been off for a while and the main res pressure had dropped?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
But its totally justified for a passenger to be on the track. Maybe he needed the toilet ? For whatever reason, the passenger has made a decision to walk across the track. Why is he a muppet and others not ?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The passenger at East Croydon was not in any danger or discomfort on the original platform, and there was a perfectly safe if slightly longer route to the other one. Many of the passengers at Lewisham were in a state of discomfort and may have thought they were in danger and that there was no other means to escape than to climb down onto the track.
The passengers motivation has not been stated. The passenger believed they were justified in crossing the track. Ergo they should have the complete backing of others in their actions. Maybe the toilet on that platform was out of order ?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
He could have used the footbridge.
NSEFAN
Established Member
I don't think that's quite what people are saying about Lewisham...
And ? What does that matter ? The passenger feels that their actions are justified and made a conscious decision to walk across the track. Why is one justification better than the other ? The passengers justification seems to be all that matters.
Who decides which justification is correct. If a passenger wants to criss the track then why are their actions wrong. Clearly by this threads posts, the justification of the passenger is the only factor that is important.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If that is your genuine view, I reiterate my view that some staff's opinions are irreconcilable with passengers'.
There is no comparison between a lazy person who can't be bothered to use the footbridge (with lifts) and people who want to exit a train in which they are freezing to death and urinating on the floor.
Chris M
Member
Either you are trolling or you really have not understood a single one of the posts you are referring to.
If you can't see the difference between someone self-evactuating a crush-loaded, stalled train after some considerable time (several hours in some cases) and someone walking across the tracks from one platform to another when neither is overcrowded, there is no immediate danger from remaining on the platform (no fire, no bomb, no madman with an axe, nobody wielding an assault rifle, etc*) and there is at least one perfectly safe alternative route between the two points then I'm frankly not sure how you manage to function in the real world.
*And to be clear, crossing the live railway tracks would not necessarily be justified in all these situations either. It would depend on the specific circumstances and what other options are available (I'm not very familiar with the layout of the station or how much space there is either off either end.)
But there is. It is because one passenger seeks to justify their actions for their own personal reason. We cannot see from the video that the person who decided to cross the track made that decision based on them feeling threatened, discomfort, distress or whatever reason. That justification is important. If that person feels that they needed to use the toilet and the quickest way was to cross the track then they have used the same justification as others on this thread. Even so, there is little difference between the action taken. Both lead to someone being on the track for their own personal reasons.
What you aren't prepared to accept is that their justification for doing so does not align with yours.
My personal opinion is very very clear for all to see and I'm sure that you can see my viewpoint. I believe neither actions are justified and I am very black and white in that respect. However, there are those that only see that the passenger are right to egress onto the track for one reason but not others because they cannot justify that action from the passenger; yet the behavior is identical. Who decides which is acceptable behavior or not ? Who decides if one 'human factor' is greater than the other ?
If one lazy passenger should have used the footbridge then why are other lazy passengers allowed to egress because they need to loo ? Why are you willing to accept one over the other purely because you have unilaterally decided to justify one over the other ?
Who decides how long is acceptable ? The point in which some decided to use the track is different for everyone. I would argue that the pint in which they decided to ergress is based on their immediate need. You have waited an hour for the loo and are about to soil yourself so you egress. The time spent waiting is immaterial. The point in which you decide is the key factor. Maybe that person crossing the track at that point in time decided that they had waited enough. Who gets to decide how long is enough ? If that is decided that its 2 hrs, then is anyone who egresses or crosses the track in the wrong ? 5hrs ? 20 minutes ? It's an arbitrary number.
The same with an packed train. There is no immediate danger yet people will egress onto the track. If you want to play the overcrowding card then what iff the platform was dangerously overcrowded. Can someone then decide to cross using the track based ont he platform being crowded ?
Self evacuation isn't safe. Are you suggesting it is ? The passengers believed that the proximity to the station granted them safety. A controlled evacuation would have been the safe option. Both passengers acted based on their perception of safety. Crossing the track, according to some posters here, is perfectly safe.
I function fine thanks. But cheers for the insult.
Are you suggesting that the reason why someone is on the track is only justified in certain circumstances ? What circumstances do you feel are acceptable for someone to go onto the track ?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The safety posters displayed on every train describe the circumstances when passengers may need to exit onto the track, and give safety instructions on how to do so. Essentially they encourage people to remain on the train if safe to do so but recognise the possible need to go onto the track if there is no alternative. It is also presumably acceptable for passengers to go onto the track if authorised to do so by staff.
There might also be a justification to cross the tracks at East Croydon if for example a train was on fire at platform 1 with no other safe space, or in case of a terrorist attack. I personally would not hesitate to cross the tracks if it looked like the best way of escape from a marauding shooter, as the risk would probably be less than remaining within range of a terrorist.
Chris M
Member
This is about the only sensible question you asked, and the answer is that it depends on the circumstances. Real life is not black and white.
If the platform is dangerously overcrowded and the best way to escape that is to cross the tracks, then yes possibly. However in most circumstances there will be safer ways to escape - such as back up/down the stairs/ramps to the footbridge/subway or off the ends of the platforms (where in my experience there is almost always some space that is still clear of the running lines).
No, but there are circumstances in which it is safer than remaining on the train (e.g. the train is on fire), and there are circumstances where passengers perception of the risks combined with other factors mean that for them self-evacuating is seen as the best option. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant - they are human beings and will act like human beings, regardless of whether you want them to act differently or not.
They (correctly) identified the station as a place to be that was both safe and preferable to the place they were currently. The judged the risks of getting there were sufficiently low that it was worth taking those risks.
I thought you said that being on the track was never safe and never acceptable? You can't have it both ways.
A controlled evacuation would statistically involve less risk, but as nobody was injured in the uncontrolled evacuation it was not actually less safe in the circumstances.
Safe, risk-free and acceptable are all different.
In this case the person crossings the tracks did so safely, but his action was incredibly risky and not acceptable.
In the case of the Lewisham self-detrainment, the actions were risky but turned out to be safe and in the circumstances were acceptable.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not sure quite where the line is, but I *don't* think the use of the egress in the case of the Lewisham train was unacceptable in principle because the passengers had effectively been disregarded for hours.
At some point you have to decide that help isn't coming and you are going to have to fend for yourself.
That is not in any way comparable to a decision to cross the track at a station.
Chris M
Member
Yes, exactly this. It is sometimes acceptable for a passenger to be on the track, it sometimes isn't. It depends on the circumstances.
I can't give a definitive list because I can't think of all the possible circumstances that could exist - every situation is different. But to give some examples:
- They were authorised by a member of staff, (e.g. as part of a controlled evacuation)
- It is safer than remaining on a train (e.g. the train is on fire)
- They have been detained on a train for an unacceptably long time (how long this is varies with the circumstances, see many previous posts on this thread) and there is no prospect of a controlled evacuation within a reasonable (ditto) timeframe
- It is the best option available for escaping (what is genuinely perceived to be) an unsafe situation (e.g. what happened at Dalston Kingsland last year)
- They are there unintentionally (e.g. they fell or were pushed off a platform)
- They are helping someone who is on the track.
- They are using a level crossing.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,739
The passenger is justified in being on the track if they are in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude that they were justified in being on the track.
Excellent post. This is the point.
Chris M
Member
Indeed, very well and concisely put.
However there is it seems significant disagreement on this thread about whether people were, at Lewisham, justified in being on the track. With, generally, rail staff saying "no" and passengers saying "yes". Both groups consider themselves to be reasonable.
Should it ever go to a trial though, the determination would be made up by a jury who would statistically be exceedingly unlikley to comprise more than 1 person who worked on the railway in any capacity.
Totally agree. IMO it would be laughed out of court.
amcluesent
Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 877
Having followed this thread, seems to me the majority of rail staff just repeat the mantra that 'rules' say pax must never go onto the track; I recall one poster claiming he'd prefer to defecate in his trousers than break railway by-laws
Last edited by a moderator:
What we have to remember is that rules on the railway are generally there for staff to know inside and out and to follow them at all times. Passengers are expected to follow rules also (I.e - Do not trespass on the railway). But of course this rule is broken occasionally hence there’s another rule in itself for staff when this happens - Uncontrolled evacuation, emergency switch off stop all trains in the vacinity- which is what happened.
If a Driver or Guard went onto the lineside without first informing the signaller and getting a block/authority number he/she would most likely be dismissed and could possibly face court. Passengers egressing usually not so, perhaps a fine if it is a lone person for no apparent reason and causes mass delays but a situation like Lewisham with mass persons most likely not.
The reality is that this is most likely going to happen again in future similar situations, railway staff WILL always follow and enforce the rules and the public may or may not listen to what’s being instructed of them. That’s always how it’s going to be and to combat this it’s down to the people higher up. Some have suggested a generic rule that trains must be evacuated or put into stations after a certain time limit. South Western Railway have also got a good head start of stating they wish to have toilets on all trains and are replacing trains without. It’s decisions like this that will be a step into preventing situations like this
If a Driver or Guard went onto the lineside without first informing the signaller and getting a block/authority number he/she would most likely be dismissed and could possibly face court. Passengers egressing usually not so, perhaps a fine if it is a lone person for no apparent reason and causes mass delays but a situation like Lewisham with mass persons most likely not.
The reality is that this is most likely going to happen again in future similar situations, railway staff WILL always follow and enforce the rules and the public may or may not listen to what’s being instructed of them. That’s always how it’s going to be and to combat this it’s down to the people higher up. Some have suggested a generic rule that trains must be evacuated or put into stations after a certain time limit. South Western Railway have also got a good head start of stating they wish to have toilets on all trains and are replacing trains without. It’s decisions like this that will be a step into preventing situations like this
That’s because that is the world we have to work in. It’s said that bad rules are there to be broken. Passengers might get away with that, rail staff would face discipline, end of career, possible charges etc. And the general feeling is we’d be hung out to dry. So we can’t do what seems like the more sensible option or use our initiative. Drivers are even scared to open doors on a fast train that has been stranded at a station out of course these days! In many places the rules are carefully worded to seemingly ensure that staff are damned if they do etc.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Correct, we staff will stick to the Rules, because our jobs depend on it, and in a worst case scenario even our freedom. I am quite sure that any other person who works in a similar rule based situation would do exactly the same. I am quite sure that where you work also has rules that you have to stick to.
I suspect Railway work attracts people who like order and rules (and that's no criticism), and they probably obey rules more than others in society in their private lives. But they need to understand that many other people don't view authority in the same way, and are likely to seek more radical solutions to problems.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
The issue here is that the Rule Book goes give provision for a train to move into an already occupied section to reach a station platform and we don’t yet know why this wasn’t done. The Rule Book says that this may be done in “an emergency”, which remains undefined.
This is not particularly helpful as the Rule Book seems to state that you must already *have* an emergency to perform this move. It doesn’t explicitly permit the move in order to *prevent* an emergency like passengers egressing onto a live third rail.
amcluesent
Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 877
We can only give the RAIB our insights - https://forms.dft.gov.uk/raib-incident-reporting/
It’s more about the railway wanting people who CAN follow rules and don’t just act impulsively. If the rules aren’t up to the job, which I would argue they frequently are not, that doesn’t mean we can just abandon them and follow instinct or apparent common sense.
I wouldn’t say my colleagues are more likely to obey rules in their private lives either!
Daz28
Member
Yes we do.
At the time the first train got stuck, the decision was made to clear the ice and get everyone moving again with the expectation that this would be the quickest resolution.
By the time the option of moving the train into an occupied section was the best solution, the power was off and passengers were on the tracks, which meant nothing was moving.
The weather was poor and worsening, the Sidcup line was already closed so to have made a premature decision to evacuate the trains would have closed the Bexkeyheath line also and guaranteed a large number of people not getting home easily. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if passengers had stayed on the trains there was a reasonable chance that they would have got home with perhaps an hours delay.
There are plenty of learning points, particularly around communication, decision making once passengers were on the line, contingency plans, staffing levels, the role the emergency timetable had in causing the overcrowding and the wisdom of running trains less frequently when ice is a problem.
- Status