Passengers break out of stuck train in Cambridgeshire

[Failed Unit]

No, but what I've been trying to explain is
a Perhaps why the people did what they did
b they weren't (despite some wild claims on here) in any real mortal danger
c a handful compared to the total number quoted walked
d no rail staff encouraged them or gave permission for them to walk and I
ceratinly wouldn't have
e I'm not the only one to question the amount or quality of information given
f they didn't have to walk far - 500 yards is a figure that's been quoted
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes they would, and that's how and why you (and unfortunately, many others) don't understand what it's like to be cooped up on a train which is basically a sealed unit. All the time the passengers are being talked to it sounds like someone's trying and caring. As I remarked earlier, always be sincere even if
you don't really mean it.

Assumptions are dangerous. You should perhaps read my posts. Yes I have for 3 hours waiting for a points failure to be fixed. So yes I know!

 

[Aictos]

Assumptions are dangerous. You should perhaps read my posts. Yes I have for 3 hours waiting for a points failure to be fixed. So yes I know!

I've been stuck on a failed 91 for 3 hours with no air conditioning which despite not being midday was still not a pleasant experience with the Thunderbird coming from London and being stuck behind a All Stations service as far as Hitchin, no idea why the Peterborough Thunderbird wasn't used but I guess there were reasons at the time.

What should have taken 30 minutes from Stevenage to Peterborough took about 3 hours!

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Thank you. That clearly outlines my position too.

I know that The Barlow Boy doesn't like me quoting the Rules, but unfortunately that's something he's going to have to get over. Because you don't know that the OLE is isolated and earthed until the ECO confirms it and because you can't be sure just what the punters will do if they bail-out you have to stick by the Rules. You can't just go making things up on the fly just to suit a particular situation.

It is not an emergency situation and, as an emergency evac is not appropriate, you try and keep everyone safely tucked up on board. FCC had clearly decided to go for a controlled evac onto other trains, and this is what they implemented. It was just unfortunate that a few selfish passengers delayed this assistance by choosing not to wait any longer.

Equally, it is difficult to mount a critical attack on the railways when not in full possession of the facts. I really don't understand why The Barlow Boy is still banging the same old drum because even he concedes that people will take matters into their own hands no matter how well a situation is being dealt with.

O L Leigh

Passengers were wrong to detrain.
No railstaff should ever recommend passengers to take matters into their own hands.
Notwithstanding the above some passengers did.
Walking along the cess to Foxton station wasn't that far or dangerous, if it was people would have been hurt.
Flooding? If the line was flooded why were trains running? I've never known that line suffer from flooding.
Railstaff cannot physically stop people detraining. It'll happen again somewhere else one day.
Only people who know where they are will detrain, otherwise they'll stay put as they have no idea where to head for - it's logical.
This is the line that I've constantly peddled, what's your argument?

 

[GB]

Passengers were wrong to detrain.

Correct

No railstaff should ever recommend passengers to take matters into their own hands.

Agreed

Notwithstanding the above some passengers did.

correct

Walking along the cess to Foxton station wasn't that far or dangerous, if it was people would have been hurt.

Just becuase on this occassion no one got hurt does not at all remove the risk. I very rarely get injured at work but that does not make my job any less dangerous

Flooding? If the line was flooded why were trains running? I've never known that line suffer from flooding.

There is a certain degree that trains are allowed to run during flooding. Walking in flood water brings its own problems as you cannot see where or what your stepping on and flood water can easily make underfoot conditions worse than normal

Railstaff cannot physically stop people detraining. It'll happen again somewhere else one day.

No one has suggested (I think) that anyone can physically stop it

Only people who know where they are will detrain, otherwise they'll stay put as they have no idea where to head for - it's logical.

Not true and that is a big assumption on your part. People can and do act like sheep in these conditions and once one person makes a decision, others will find it easier to follow.

This is the line that I've constantly peddled, what's your argument?

.....

 

[SouthStand]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out. Just because they de-trained, doesn't mean they necessarily would've had to walk trackside back to the station. Presumably they could've walked on whatever land runs alongside the track.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out. Just because they de-trained, doesn't mean they necessarily would've had to walk trackside back to the station. Presumably they could've walked on whatever land runs alongside the track.

Bit tricky between Shepreth and Foxton.

 

[O L Leigh]

Passengers were wrong to detrain.
No railstaff should ever recommend passengers to take matters into their own hands.
Notwithstanding the above some passengers did.
Walking along the cess to Foxton station wasn't that far or dangerous, if it was people would have been hurt.
Flooding? If the line was flooded why were trains running? I've never known that line suffer from flooding.
Railstaff cannot physically stop people detraining. It'll happen again somewhere else one day.
Only people who know where they are will detrain, otherwise they'll stay put as they have no idea where to head for - it's logical.
This is the line that I've constantly peddled, what's your argument?

You assume too much knowledge, some of which is demonstrably incorrect. Your arguments have been based largely on conjecture. If you re-read my posts so far you will see that I have never necessarily disagreed with you. The thrust of my posts has been to question you on the basis for your assumptions, such as an your incorrect assumptions about the safety of downed OLE and now your confident statement that flooding should result in a line closure.

As someone who has been stuck between stations for almost two hours due to a signal black-out and suffered a bail-out, what does rankle a little bit is your suggestion that somehow the TOC/staff/rail industry as a whole was "asking for" a bail-out because of the way the incident was handled. I'm afraid that's rubbish. It can be a factor in deciding whether or not people choose to bail, but the fact of people bailing-out does not automatically mean that the staff lost control.

What has also been causing me some consternation is the one thing that I have repeated over and over, and the one thing that has failed to draw comment from you. FCC have been taking a pounding because of the time it took to resolve this incident and get all the stranded passengers on their way, but having passengers wandering along the line will have resulted in train movements being stopped. This would have delayed the assisting trains and, as a consequence, the controlled evacuation that FCC had decided upon.

O L Leigh

 

[The Barlow Boy]

You assume too much knowledge, some of which is demonstrably incorrect. Your arguments have been based largely on conjecture. If you re-read my posts so far you will see that I have never necessarily disagreed with you. The thrust of my posts has been to question you on the basis for your assumptions, such as an your incorrect assumptions about the safety of downed OLE and now your confident statement that flooding should result in a line closure.

As someone who has been stuck between stations for almost two hours due to a signal black-out and suffered a bail-out, what does rankle a little bit is your suggestion that somehow the TOC/staff/rail industry as a whole was "asking for" a bail-out because of the way the incident was handled. I'm afraid that's rubbish. It can be a factor in deciding whether or not people choose to bail, but the fact of people bailing-out does not automatically mean that the staff lost control.

What has also been causing me some consternation is the one thing that I have repeated over and over, and the one thing that has failed to draw comment from you. FCC have been taking a pounding because of the time it took to resolve this incident and get all the stranded passengers on their way, but having passengers wandering along the line will have resulted in train movements being stopped. This would have delayed the assisting trains and, as a consequence, the controlled evacuation that FCC had decided upon.

O L Leigh

Which is why I've repeated and repeated that bailing out of a train is wrong wrong wrong. What you don't seem to understand - yet other posters do - is that when passengers bail out it's because they've had enough of a combination of length of wait and lack of information. It's an act of desperation that's not undertaken lightly. Look how many trains do fail between station and wait for assistance, the incidence of pasengers bailing out is miniscule. I've repeatedly said that traincrew should keep talking to passengers even though they've nothing to add to the previous. Once again, you must understand - because it's logical basic common sense - people aren't going to bail out unless they think that they can get somewhere, there's no point in going otherwise. Just have a look at every incident of passengers in Britain bailing out of train - every one has been near to a station. I was on an HST that had failed at Challow some years ago. We were there about an hour and a half. No-one even mentioned getting out, why? Because Challow's in the middle of nowhere.

 

[O L Leigh]

What you don't seem to understand - yet other posters do - is that when passengers bail out it's because they've had enough of a combination of length of wait and lack of information.

And you have assumed that passengers choose to bail-out for no other reason; that a bail-out is a sign that the railway lost control of the situation.

Please do not continue to patronise me. I know why passengers bail-out because it's happened to me when I got stuck between stations, and I can assure you that there was no lack of information on that day. It may have appeared to the passengers that nothing much was happening to alleviate the situation and yet I was communicating with the signaller and control on a regular basis to chase up progress and remind them that I was still stuck, and to pass that information on to the passengers.

It's an act of desperation that's not undertaken lightly. Look how many trains do fail between station and wait for assistance, the incidence of pasengers bailing out is miniscule. I've repeatedly said that traincrew should keep talking to passengers even though they've nothing to add to the previous. Once again, you must understand - because it's logical basic common sense - people aren't going to bail out unless they think that they can get somewhere, there's no point in going otherwise. Just have a look at every incident of passengers in Britain bailing out of train - every one has been near to a station.

See above.

Please can you take a moment to read and understand what I've been (repeatedly) saying right the way through this thread, because so far you seem to have failed to do so. I can't say anything differently or make things any clearer for you. I have already said that I am not necessarily in disagreement with you, and yet you keep coming back and trying to tell me that I don't understand what I'm talking about. Well let me tell you, friend, that I understand perfectly well.

**EDIT**

And at this point I'm going to bow out. There isn't anything more I can add without further repetition and that adds nothing. Think what you will and believe what you will but please don't try telling me I don't understand. My patience is now exhausted.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

I don't believe these people (which might have been one person plus some sheep) bailed because FCC had lost control of the situation. I think they bailed because they just didn't want to wait around.

The picture has been painted that the train was dark, cramped and with no working toilets. People were about to die of starvation and the driver was up in the cab playing Angry Birds on his iPhone... so, some decided they had to get out.

The reality is more likely that information was given, but someone knew a station was close. Maybe phone up for a mate to come and pick them up and sod everyone else. A few others then opted to join him/her, not caring if the train was going to get going soon or another train would come to rescue them.

I've been on delayed trains and, having looked up other services, can get a rough idea of how long it may be - even before the driver confirms it. Perhaps these people figured that wires down would mean a long delay, so it wasn't even worth waiting to find out more information. I'd be of the opinion that wires down would mean a delay of at least an hour, so I am sure that these people bailed long before they 'needed to'.

 

[Greenback]

I think you're right. I think the idea that telling people every few minutes that you have nothing to tell them will prevent them trying to get out of the train, is a bit flawed.

 

[jon0844]

I'm almost willing to put money on a few people assuming it would be a long delay (and, that would suggest that the driver must have said what had happened), and deciding not to hang around to find out how long it might take.

Does anyone actually know when they bailed? Was it after waiting for an hour or two (no longer, as the BBC had done its story by then), or was it after 15 minutes when someone thought 'Hang on, I can walk to Foxton and get a cab home'?

Given my knowledge of how the BBC works, I'd say that to have the story up by 7.10pm, it could have been up to an hour to establish some facts and verify that something had happened. So, my guess is these people bailed without waiting very long at all.

I also think they must have been told what had happened in order to decide that it was worth jumping off and avoiding a potentially long delay.

 

[Greenback]

That makes sense. In reality, it may not take very long for someone to decide, particularly if they lived in the area, that they could be home quicker by jumping out than staying put. This would also tie in with the driver having told the passenger sof the possibility of a lengthy delay.

At the end of the day, it's all guesswork and if's though.