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

[island]

It's a open question whether all pax in these trains would be able to understand English, both the signage and the drivers announcements. There must be a case for automatic announcements to be recorded in 5 or 6 of the most widely spoken languages of Londoners.

No, there mustn’t. With all the wibble coming out of tannoys on the railway about terrorism, slippery platforms, Penalty Fares, and the Thameslink programme, the last thing we need is five times more announcements for people to tune out of.

 

[fusionblue]

No, there mustn’t. With all the wibble coming out of tannoys on the railway about terrorism, slippery platforms, Penalty Fares, and the Thameslink programme, the last thing we need is five times more announcements for people to tune out of.

Down the Sevenoaks/Sutton lines the screens on the 700s don't have enough time to scroll through all the information fully (calling pattern x2, see it say it sorted, loading indicator, something else i've definitely missed?) before the system interrupts it with "We are shortly arriving at [station]" only to then restart the cycle. If you was to add several languages of the calling pattern verbally then the train would literally never stop talking.

 

[theironroad]

No, there mustn’t. With all the wibble coming out of tannoys on the railway about terrorism, slippery platforms, Penalty Fares, and the Thameslink programme, the last thing we need is five times more announcements for people to tune out of.

While I don't think more audio announcements are the way forward, there's no reason why the visual displays on trains couldn't show announcements in other languages, whether that's the announcements that play automatically or the pre-recorded/programmed ones that can be activated by the driver or guard as appropriate. This may be more help in tourist areas because as far as possible long term UK residents should be learning at least attempting to learn English.

 

[CarlSilva]

How long before the RAIb report comes out ?

I escaped from Lewisham. So can you. Send £200 to find out how.

 

[AlterEgo]

How long before the RAIb report comes out ?

They don’t publish a deadline. It’ll take as long as it takes.

 

[theironroad]

How long before the RAIb report comes out ?

If it's one of their full reports, rather than a digest, it will be months.

 

[2HAP]

A full RAIB report is usually in the region of 12 months from the event to publication.

 

[Taunton]

A full RAIB report is usually in the region of 12 months from the event to publication.

Gerry Fiennes wrote, in "I Tried to Run a Railway", that as a junior manager he turned out for most of the night to a derailment, passed by his office at the end around 7am only to find a message from HQ to say they expected a full report and conclusions from him by 10am. That morning.

 

[DarloRich]

Gerry Fiennes wrote, in "I Tried to Run a Railway", that as a junior manager he turned out for most of the night to a derailment, passed by his office at the end around 7am only to find a message from HQ to say they expected a full report and conclusions from him by 10am. That morning.

that is an entirely different scenario to an RAIB report. I doubt the internal demand within a company for information on an accident being required PDQ has changed.

 

[YorkshireExile]

Well it should have been! It's a hanging offence to leave those unlocked.
I wonder if someone from the train had an Abloy key and opened it. I don't know if train crew carry them. I know those gates well, it's the access to the (former) relay room.

You're no doubt right. As I said, I only presumed they were unlocked, although at the time it seemed unlikely to me.

 

[Tio Terry]

Gerry Fiennes wrote, in "I Tried to Run a Railway", that as a junior manager he turned out for most of the night to a derailment, passed by his office at the end around 7am only to find a message from HQ to say they expected a full report and conclusions from him by 10am. That morning.

Really? Interesting. No email or internet in Gerry's day's. Wonder how they messaged him? No Mobile Phones or pagers. Teletext and NR teleprinters in telegraph offices only. Wonder what the media used was, carrier pidgeon?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Really? Interesting. No email or internet in Gerry's day's. Wonder how they messaged him? No Mobile Phones or pagers. Teletext and NR teleprinters in telegraph offices only. Wonder what the media used was, carrier pidgeon?

They would have had a runner - someone from the nearest telephone. ......

 

[LAX54]

I joined the Railway in 1972, the quality of info rec'd in times of strife, and revised train workings was far more reliable then, with no email/wifi/bluetooth etc than we have today ! with all the resources that everyone now has, the distribution of information, correct information, is sometimes severely lacking !

 

[John Bray]

Railways are poor at quick solutions to anything, hardly surprising given solutions are expected to last decades. Mobile app developers are very quick to do so, and consumers quick to adopt them, and will pay for good ones.

The railway provides an API to train running information, the app uses GPS over a 5 minute rolling window to identify the service and mobile internet to request updates to the service, displayed silently in the language of the users' choice.

No need for bluetooth, wifi, noise pollution, endless scrolling display messages etc

And drivers need to be issued with a smartphone to have a customised app with full railway info, with a rule they should not play with it while driving the train or temporarily stopped at signals. But it would be so useful to give them updates on disruption to their current and future trains

 

[Northhighland]

Lots of posts still coming, and it is hard to judge the overall feeling but (if I read it correctly) the consensus of posters seems to be that the railway dealt with this incident very well in the circumstances?

Honestly, anyone who thinks this was handled well is on need of some customer care training. No service provider can treat people like this. It is inconceivable that anyone can think leaving customers in such a situation for this length of time is anything other than appalling. If this is the way employees of the railway think about customers no wonder passengers feel the way they do. No service provider will survive long term treating people like that.

 

[farleigh]

Honestly, anyone who thinks this was handled well is on need of some customer care training. No service provider can treat people like this. It is inconceivable that anyone can think leaving customers in such a situation for this length of time is anything other than appalling. If this is the way employees of the railway think about customers no wonder passengers feel the way they do. No service provider will survive long term treating people like that.

Oh sorry - I was asking the question really. A few of the posters seemed to be saying that rail staff were not at fault. To be fair there were others who questioned if they did the best that they could

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh sorry - I was asking the question really. A few of the posters seemed to be saying that rail staff were not at fault. To be fair there were others who questioned if they did the best that they could

I don't think the front-line staff were deserving of much if any criticism. But the system did not handle the issue properly by any stretch of the imagination. Under near enough no circumstances is keeping people on a toiletless train for three hours acceptable - and that to me is the problem.

 

[Robertj21a]

I don't think the front-line staff were deserving of much if any criticism. But the system did not handle the issue properly by any stretch of the imagination. Under near enough no circumstances is keeping people on a toiletless train for three hours acceptable - and that to me is the problem.

I don't recall anyone responding to my query (a long time back!) as to what delay would most people find 'acceptable'. I suggested a maximum of 1 hour if there was no communication as to likely progress, or 2 hours if communication was good (and most 'reasonable' people could see that everything possible was being done).
I appreciate that any artificial timescale would be affected by the actual location (out in the wilds or near a platform), weather conditions and whether 3rd rail/diesel or whatever (not that all pax would know anyway).
It's not so much just an acceptance that 1, or 2 hours with communication, should be some form of recognisable limit for trapped passengers - it seems that there needs to be an upper limit that is clearly unacceptable, to just about anyone. We've had some comments on here to the effect that passengers should just wait - 4, 6, 8 hours etc. Utterly ridiculous except in incredible circumstances.
What do others, particularly rail staff, feel is a sensible upper limit for most circumstances ?

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't recall anyone responding to my query (a long time back!) as to what delay would most people find 'acceptable'. I suggested a maximum of 1 hour if there was no communication as to likely progress, or 2 hours if communication was good (and most 'reasonable' people could see that everything possible was being done).
I appreciate that any artificial timescale would be affected by the actual location (out in the wilds or near a platform), weather conditions and whether 3rd rail/diesel or whatever (not that all pax would know anyway).
It's not so much just an acceptance that 1, or 2 hours with communication, should be some form of recognisable limit for trapped passengers - it seems that there needs to be an upper limit that is clearly unacceptable, to just about anyone. We've had some comments on here to the effect that passengers should just wait - 4, 6, 8 hours etc. Utterly ridiculous except in incredible circumstances.
What do others, particularly rail staff, feel is a sensible upper limit for most circumstances ?

But haven’t you answered your own question in the bit of your post I’ve highlighted?

The limit can only ever be “as quickly as possible”. How long this is is going to vary in every case according to many factors so it’s completely meaningless to impose an arbitrary 1hr/2hr limit if it simply takes longer than that for evacuation to take place, or for the train to be restarted.

If a train is derailed by a landslide in Scotland miles from anywhere, what’s the point of imposing a 2 hour limit that may not be physically achievable?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Only slightly off topic, and in the hope of providing light relief from a serious topic, all this reminded me of an excellent sketch on The Day Today about a stranded train:

(Stranded train bit starts at 1:40, and continues later in the episode)

 

[Robertj21a]

But haven’t you answered your own question in the bit of your post I’ve highlighted?

The limit can only ever be “as quickly as possible”. How long this is is going to vary in every case according to many factors so it’s completely meaningless to impose an arbitrary 1hr/2hr limit if it simply takes longer than that for evacuation to take place, or for the train to be restarted.

If a train is derailed by a landslide in Scotland miles from anywhere, what’s the point of imposing a 2 hour limit that may not be physically achievable?

No, I haven't answered my own question, or I wouldn't have asked it.......

A landslide in Scotland would seem to be a bit nearer unusual/exceptional circumstances rather than a train near a platform in Lewisham. I'm sure it's quite obvious to most others on this thread that there are some fairly 'normal' issues where passengers are stuck in trains and, despite the best efforts of all parties involved, the delay starts to increase.
I'm guessing that after, say, 2 hours then some passengers might consider leaving the train (I'm still not sure that rail staff/management realise that!). Is that reasonable or just plain stupid ?

Would it be reasonable to assume that the issue is at least escalated to a much higher authority after, say, 1 hour ?.

Who/what is this 'GOLD' authority that has been referred to in the past ? - I'm assuming it's a most senior manager with absolute authority to prioritise whatever is necessary ?

 

[telstarbox]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold–silver–bronze_command_structure

 

[Bromley boy]

No, I haven't answered my own question, or I wouldn't have asked it.......

It’s a completely meaningless question, for the reasons you’ve explained in your own post.

A landslide in Scotland would seem to be a bit nearer unusual/exceptional circumstances rather than a train near a platform in Lewisham. I'm sure it's quite obvious to most others on this thread that there are some fairly 'normal' issues where passengers are stuck in trains and, despite the best efforts of all parties involved, the delay starts to increase.

Yes agreed. Every incident is different. Being stuck on a train is never “normal” and it can never be predicted exactly where or why this will happen. Hence arbitrary time limits on what is or isn’t acceptable are simply meaningless because they will bear no relation to how long it actually takes to resolve the issue.

I’m not sure why you’re struggling to grasp that.

I'm guessing that after, say, 2 hours then some passengers might consider leaving the train (I'm still not sure that rail staff/management realise that!). Is that reasonable or just plain stupid ?

After 2 hours, or after 30 minutes, they might start leaving the train. Or they might stay on it all night as with the recent SWR incident. It’s reasonable to expect that might happen, it’s plain stupid to put an arbitrary time frame on it.

Would it be reasonable to assume that the issue is at least escalated to a much higher authority after, say, 1 hour ?.

What “much higher authority” are you suggesting? International Rescue, MI5, God?!

Who/what is this 'GOLD' authority that has been referred to in the past ? - I'm assuming it's a most senior manager with absolute authority to prioritise whatever is necessary ?

No idea. I’ve never heard of GOLD authority.

 

[Bromley boy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold–silver–bronze_command_structure

Thanks for the clarification. It’s an emergency services protocol rather than a railway one.

I’ve never heard of this applied in a railway context. It doesn’t sound applicable to a situation with stranded trains where the emergency services wouldn’t be involved in the early stages. Contrast with a train crash with mass casualties where they would be.

 

[Robertj21a]

It’s a completely meaningless question, for the reasons you’ve explained in your own post.



Yes agreed. Every incident is different. Being stuck on a train is never “normal” and it can never be predicted exactly where or why this will happen. Hence arbitrary time limits on what is or isn’t acceptable are simply meaningless because they will bear no relation to how long it actually takes to resolve the issue.

I’m not sure why you’re struggling to grasp that.



After 2 hours, or after 30 minutes, they might start leaving the train. Or they might stay on it all night as with the recent SWR incident. It’s reasonable to expect that might happen, it’s plain stupid to put an arbitrary time frame on it.



What “much higher authority” are you suggesting? International Rescue, MI5, God?!



No idea. I’ve never heard of GOLD authority.

Thanks for that input, you can cut out the sarcasm. Sorry if I had assumed that you knew more than you did.

To correct some of your comments, being stuck on a train is actually very 'normal'. It becomes abnormal when the time becomes excessive - hence my basic query. I appreciate that you will refuse to answer meaningfully, but I'd still invite others on the forum to suggest whether it becomes reasonable for passengers to consider leaving the train after, say, 1 hour (or 2 hours if there's good communication).
The railway itself (TOC/management) need to understand that these things will actually happen, and the availability of social media, Open train times etc just reinforces the likelihood of others taking their own actions. So far, the general response from many rail staff is that you just sit there waiting for them to sort it all out - at what stage does the management realise that passengers may self-evacuate ?

 

[sefton]

Thanks for the clarification. It’s an emergency services protocol rather than a railway one.

I’ve never heard of this applied in a railway context. It doesn’t sound applicable to a situation with stranded trains where the emergency services wouldn’t be involved in the early stages.

Well it certainly explains why it appears to the customers that times of disruption nobody is in control and everyone is out to ensure they defend their targets and take a "not my job mate" approach.

 

[Bromley boy]

Thanks for that input, you can cut out the sarcasm. Sorry if I had assumed that you knew more than you did.

To correct some of your comments, being stuck on a train is actually very 'normal'. It becomes abnormal when the time becomes excessive - hence my basic query. I appreciate that you will refuse to answer meaningfully, but I'd still invite others on the forum to suggest whether it becomes reasonable for passengers to consider leaving the train after, say, 1 hour (or 2 hours if there's good communication).
The railway itself (TOC/management) need to understand that these things will actually happen, and the availability of social media, Open train times etc just reinforces the likelihood of others taking their own actions. So far, the general response from many rail staff is that you just sit there waiting for them to sort it all out - at what stage does the management realise that passengers may self-evacuate ?

You’re asking me to answer something meaningless in a meaningful way. I’ve explained your query about a time limit of what is “acceptable” is nonsensical in the context of a stranded train because:

1. No one can predict how long any given situation will take to resolve;
2. No one can predict how long until passengers decide to egress.

Therefore an arbitrary time limit is totally and utterly pointless.

I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand what would surely be basic common sense for most people. I’m certainly not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain it to you.

 

[Bromley boy]

Well it certainly explains why it appears to the customers that times of disruption nobody is in control and everyone is out to ensure they defend their targets and take a "not my job mate" approach.

For front line staff it’s not so much about defending targets as about not ending up being fired or sent to prison.

But yes there is undoubtedly an issue with slow speed of decision making. This is largely due to centralisation of authority, a blame culture, stripping those few front line staff who remain of any authority to make decisions etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't recall anyone responding to my query (a long time back!) as to what delay would most people find 'acceptable'. I suggested a maximum of 1 hour if there was no communication as to likely progress, or 2 hours if communication was good (and most 'reasonable' people could see that everything possible was being done).

I would go with those times for a train fitted with functioning toilets.

I would say one hour under all circumstances for a train with no toilet facilities, or where power loss has rendered them unusable.

 

[Bromley boy]

I would go with those times for a train fitted with functioning toilets.

I would say one hour under all circumstances for a train with no toilet facilities, or where power loss has rendered them unusable.

I had someone egress off an off-peak, lightly loaded and toileted train after 5 minutes the other day (the train had been brought to a stand by an emergency call, with PA announcements duly made). So apparently 5 minutes was unacceptable to them. You simply cannot predict how long it will take.

I struggle to understand the point of discussing a time that is “acceptable” in this context. Acceptable to whom? The decision to egress is subjective and depends on far too many variables to make any time limit meaningful.

It also bears no relation to how long it may take to get rescue services to the stranded train, or to organise an evacuation, irrespective of whether people have egressed, so means precisely nothing in practical terms - reference the SWR train the other day.