Passengers self-detrain from LO train 15 July 2019

[O L Leigh]

Given the scarcity of details regarding this incident, I suspect that the need for a controlled evac was brought about by preceding uncontrolled evac. When people start piling out of trains of their own volition the incident has just escalated and it’s time to be making an emergency call and isolating the traction current if necessary (and it is if there’s CRE in the immediate vicinity). Once this happens control of the situation has passed out of the hands of the railway and you’re now in the position of having to deal with a stranding.

It seems the reason for the initial train failure is unknown, but the suspicion seems to be that it failed to change over from one traction supply to the other. That being the case, I’m sure the driver will have firstly carried out fault finding, independently first and then with the help of fleet support, before any thought to declaring the train a failure. Once this happens the first port of call would be to arrange for an assisting train to move the failure out of the way. As has happened in past strandings, passengers leaking out of the failed train immediately puts the kybosh on the whole enterprise making it harder to provide relief to the many by getting the failed train moving.

As much as folk on this forum like to think the railways should be run differently or that an evac should be carried out within a predetermined period of time, I’m afraid that such procedures are unhelpful. Train evac is time-consuming, risky, takes a heavy toll on resources and delays the return to normal operations. Therefore they are considered a last resort when all else fails, and only then when all the necessary resources have been put in place. Having teams of people capable of dealing with a train evac simply isn’t realistic. I’ve been on the rails for 14 years and have never been involved with one, so to expect the industry to maintain teams of people on-call to deal with an evac is daft; likewise the idea that these people can be taken away from other tasks during a period of disruption.

 

[underbank]

to expect the industry to maintain teams of people on-call to deal with an evac is daft

Leaving people trapped for hours, some of them passing out and others having panic attacks is also "daft" so what's the solution? In many cases, we're not talking about slight inconvience. People passing out due to lack of air con or ventilation is a serious H&S failure and there needs to be a solution.

 

[DarloRich]

Like most people, I can see where I am walking - and I frequently walk on much more tricky terrain than a railway track (and will almost certainly be wearing hiking boots rather than high heels!).

I am sure you do. However most commuters or train users don't and they are certainly not wearing hiking boots on the 0700 to Euston. It will be fun climbing down in high heels or mens brogues. Mine have a leather sole. That should provide lots of grip out on the ballast.

Out of interest do you have much experience of walking on railway track? I find it quite difficult and tiring actually.

Nobody is saying that it is always reasonable to walk along the track. But there are circumstances where it presents a low risk to a reasonably competent able-bodied person - and people can see that for themselves. At least understanding that will help to reduce the risks of passengers evacuating.

I disagree. Without proper supervision and guidance people should not be on the track. Despite you view it is a risky environment especially for those who couldn't coordinate their hiking boots with their suit that morning. The fact you and others refuse to acknowledge this is one of the reasons people think bailing out is ok. Unless their is an imminent risk to life you are safer on the train.

Guard & driver from both trains - there were no other people involved.
Just in case the correct procedure was not strictly followed, perhaps I shouldn't say where it was.

Right. 4 people. I can think of several others involved in making that decision off the top of my head. I am assuming this wasn't a full 12 car train

 

[DarloRich]

Leaving people trapped for hours, some of them passing out and others having panic attacks is also "daft" so what's the solution? In many cases, we're not talking about slight inconvience. People passing out due to lack of air con or ventilation is a serious H&S failure and there needs to be a solution.

I agree, however how often is that really going to happen in this country?

 

[O L Leigh]

Leaving people trapped for hours, some of them passing out and others having panic attacks is also "daft" so what's the solution? In many cases, we're not talking about slight inconvience. People passing out due to lack of air con or ventilation is a serious H&S failure and there needs to be a solution.

I wouldn’t normally respond to a post that quotes me out of context, but since you raise the point...

Given that there is no way of knowing whether or not people were “passing out” or “having panic attacks” as a result of this incident or whether this is simply the use of emotive language to make the industry look uncaring, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps you’re over-inflating the situation. I cannot deny that the conditions must have been unpleasant, but you’re making a leap.

And why was the train stuck for so long? Probably because the traction current had to be turned off due to the uncontrolled evac that had just happened. If they hadn’t have needed to do that it’s quite possible that an assisting train could have been brought up and the whole shebang moved to a platform where everyone could get off quickly and safely and, most importantly, within a reasonable time.

But that wasn’t the point I was trying to make in the sentence you quoted from my earlier post. My point was, as @DarloRich understands, that maintaining specialist teams to deal with the rare occurrence of a train evac is an inefficient use of staff resources.

 

[Taunton]

The trains have 186 seats. If there were 500-600 passengers then there were two passengers standing for every one seated. It was peak period Monday pm, in summer afternoon temperatures, and maybe it hasn't been realised just how busy the West London Line has become; not that many years ago there was no service at all here.

One of the things that the "let 'em stand, pack 'em in" approach leads to is this. Are people really expected to STAND UP for hours? The writers above seem to think they are seated and become dissatisfied with it. Having to stand for this length of time, so crushed in fact that any movement would be difficult, is surely a key part of the problem.

Technical problems have afflicted the railway for the longest time, but what increasingly has happened is the length of time taken to resolve a stranding goes ever upwards, assisting locomotives disappear, staff are increasingly embargoed from going on the lines, the train behind has incompatible couplings, continuing elimination of useful emergency crossovers to save Network Rail money, someone hasn't got the right hi-viz, etc, and it just seems to take longer and longer to fix things.

One day there's going to be a fatality in an extended train stranding, which will come to the attention not of rail managers or the rail-oriented RAIB, but to the Coroner and the general public.

 

[tony_mac]

Out of interest do you have much experience of walking on railway track? I find it quite difficult and tiring actually.

Not very much, but enough to know that I would prefer a 100m walk along a track to 3+ hours standing in a roasting hot train with no toilets - I'm obviously not the only person who thinks that.

The fact you and others refuse to acknowledge this is one of the reasons people think bailing out is ok.

Exactly - people think that bailing out is ok because it appears to be reasonably safe to them - that needs to be acknowledged. Just saying 'it's not safe because you don't know the risks' doesn't cut it. Neither does 'but you might fall over'.

Right. 4 people. I can think of several others involved in making that decision off the top of my head. I am assuming this wasn't a full 12 car train

There were obviously other people involved in the decision, but not onsite. No, not a full 12 car train.

 

[Chris M]

i suggest that is trying and failing to fix the problem, moving as many trains as possible out of the way, turning off the power, locating and mobilsing the staff needed to rescue people and then working out the safest way to do the job. There will also be a bit of delay in communicating between the various bodies and companies involved.

It is too long but at least I know why. Other simply aren't prepared to acknowledge reality.

Just because we say that the current situation is not good enough and that trying to fix a problem and mobilising to evacuate passengers if the problem can't be solved should happen in parallel is very not not failing to acknowledge reality.

To evacuate passengers from a train you need a few people in various control rooms remote from the scene dealing with power, train movements, etc. but how many people do you actually need on the ground and what skills do they need?
Obviously everyone on the track should be PTS trained, but then everybody who works on or adjacent to the operational railway should be PTS trained (if they currently aren't then that's a quick win right there), but what else?
You'll need at one person who knows how to get people out of the train (deploy any steps, find the ladder, etc, depending on stock) - the driver and any other onboard staff will know that and they're guaranteed to be in the right place.
You might need one person to hold a ladder in the right place, but that's not exactly skilled and the driver should be able to do it if nobody else.
You might need someone to ensure that passengers leave the train in orderly fashion - anyone, even a passenger, could do this. They don't even need to be PTS trained. One or more of these people can count people as they leave the train.
You need at least one person who knows where the access point is and at least one person who knows how to open it. They can be the same person. It doesn't seem like this is a particularly tricky thing to arrange. Even more so if the access is a station or level crossing.
You might need one or more people guiding passengers to the access point and making sure they don't tread on anything that shouldn't be trod on (for whatever reason). The number of people will obviously depend on the distance to the access point and what's between the train and it, but what skills beyond PTS is needed? Possibly not everyone doing the job even needs PTS.
You will need someone at the access point to count those that arrive. This person definitely doesn't need PTS training.
Having someone at the access point who knows how to get to the public highway, has knowledge of what and where alternative transport is, has delay repay forms, etc. is desirable but not essential.
In short, other than a ladder (which should be on the train if needed) and hi vis jackets (every railway employee should have at least one), I don't see what special skills or equipment is necessary. So there should be no need for anyone to go back to base, change vehicles, etc. Having the ability to cancel work and get people off the track and safely signed out, etc. before the scheduled end of work should be an essential part of any safe system of work regardless of why it's done, so that shouldn't pose any obvious issues.
So I don't see how any of this is impossible to arrange, while problem resolution is ongoing, with just a tiny bit of attitude other than "It can't be done".

 

[DarloRich]

Exactly - people think that bailing out is ok because it appears to be reasonably safe to them - that needs to be acknowledged. Just saying 'it's not safe because you don't know the risks' doesn't cut it. Neither does 'but you might fall over'.

I am happy to acknowledge people think that. It doesn't change the fact they are wrong. It isnt as safe or easy as it looks. While i am sure people could safely walk on the track i would rather they didn't unless they absolutely had to.

Just because we say that the current situation is not good enough and that trying to fix a problem and mobilising to evacuate passengers if the problem can't be solved should happen in parallel is very not not failing to acknowledge reality.

That. Is. What. Happens. Today.

To evacuate passengers from a train you need a few people in various control rooms remote from the scene dealing with power, train movements, etc. but how many people do you actually need on the ground and what skills do they need?
Obviously everyone on the track should be PTS trained, but then everybody who works on or adjacent to the operational railway should be PTS trained (if they currently aren't then that's a quick win right there), but what else?
You'll need at one person who knows how to get people out of the train (deploy any steps, find the ladder, etc, depending on stock) - the driver and any other onboard staff will know that and they're guaranteed to be in the right place.
You might need one person to hold a ladder in the right place, but that's not exactly skilled and the driver should be able to do it if nobody else.
You might need someone to ensure that passengers leave the train in orderly fashion - anyone, even a passenger, could do this. They don't even need to be PTS trained. One or more of these people can count people as they leave the train.
You need at least one person who knows where the access point is and at least one person who knows how to open it. They can be the same person. It doesn't seem like this is a particularly tricky thing to arrange. Even more so if the access is a station or level crossing.
You might need one or more people guiding passengers to the access point and making sure they don't tread on anything that shouldn't be trod on (for whatever reason). The number of people will obviously depend on the distance to the access point and what's between the train and it, but what skills beyond PTS is needed? Possibly not everyone doing the job even needs PTS.
You will need someone at the access point to count those that arrive. This person definitely doesn't need PTS training.
Having someone at the access point who knows how to get to the public highway, has knowledge of what and where alternative transport is, has delay repay forms, etc. is desirable but not essential.
In short, other than a ladder (which should be on the train if needed) and hi vis jackets (every railway employee should have at least one), I don't see what special skills or equipment is necessary. So there should be no need for anyone to go back to base, change vehicles, etc. Having the ability to cancel work and get people off the track and safely signed out, etc. before the scheduled end of work should be an essential part of any safe system of work regardless of why it's done, so that shouldn't pose any obvious issues.
So I don't see how any of this is impossible to arrange, while problem resolution is ongoing, with just a tiny bit of attitude other than "It can't be done".

I give up. It is so simple. If only someone had thought of all this............................

 

[O L Leigh]

So I don't see how any of this is impossible to arrange, while problem resolution is ongoing, with just a tiny bit of attitude other than "It can't be done".

I’m not sure that anyone has suggested that “it can’t be done”. For myself, I’m simply trying to point out that, while it can be done, it is the last resort, and for very good reasons. The best outcome is actually to move the whole train, with everyone on it, to a place of safety as quickly as can be arranged.

 

[Antman]

I have been detrained. Onca preserved railway when the coupling didn’t do its job any more. And the loco and first carriage puffed happily away Les in the rest of us at a stop in the countryside.

It was a panic from everyone on that railway. And ended up with local Fire brigade to get us off the carriages, down to track level and an emergency road coach.

There were still people wandering around in front of the stock, going to look at the front, crossing tracks, disregarding instructions and generally making a nuisance of themselves. They were just as bad getting on the coach on the road side....

And that’s the problem, most of us would be perfectly Safe detraining, would take precautions and it’d be fine. Others would be on their phones, filming it with earphones on, wandering everywhere and a lack of brains (see airline evacuations where people block the aisles to get their hand luggage off (that Russian fool in the blazing airline recently springs to mind)). And the rules have to be set for those with less understanding and common sense. Having said that, no toilets, warm weather and potentially no AC would make people want to do something..... maybe there’s a case for one toilet on a full length 345 ?

 

[Dr_Paul]

If North Pole station had been rebuilt, then the change in electrical supply could be done there, as at Acton Central, and the problem would not have arisen. A station at North Pole would be useful for the local population, but that's for another thread I guess.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Could 378's not join together in an emergency? Get the preceding train (empty of course) to drag the errant train back to Kenny O

Or is that too simplistic?

 

[Bromley boy]

Could 378's not join together in an emergency? Get the preceding train (empty of course) to drag the errant train back to Kenny O

Or is that too simplistic?

In theory, yes, the units can couple mechanically and electrically, but it would all depend on the circumstances - the rescuing unit would need to be terminated somewhere convenient, passengers detrained and a wrong direction move towards the stricken unit authorised.

That’s assuming the train ahead was another 378, it may well not have been.

Rescuing is generally preferable to evacuating so the fact it apparently wasn’t attempted might suggest it wasn’t operationally possible on this occasion.

 

[mmh]

I am happy to acknowledge people think that. It doesn't change the fact they are wrong. It isnt as safe or easy as it looks. While i am sure people could safely walk on the track i would rather they didn't unless they absolutely had to.

I suspect some of the people being blasé about walking on ballast never have. I did perhaps 3 times a week for years at a stile foot crossing until it was closed. I was young, able bodied and relatively fit, yet it was still awkward. And this was simply going directly across a simple two track line with no visible cables, let alone electrification. Rails are also higher than I think many people realise as they're rarely viewed close up.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I suspect some of the people being blasé about walking on ballast never have. I did perhaps 3 times a week for years at a stile foot crossing until it was closed. I was young, able bodied and relatively fit, yet it was still awkward. And this was simply going directly across a simple two track line with no visible cables, let alone electrification. Rails are also higher than I think many people realise as they're rarely viewed close up.

Lots of trip hazards - not as easy as it looks, uneven ballast - easy to get blase and lose one's footing - especially if one is in a hurry.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Unfortunately that's not true. Third rail is generally, but not always, the side away from platform faces, but elsewhere could be either side, and from the train you can't see it so don't know where it is. It deliberately alternates sides to even out pickup shoe wear and to allow overlap between sections of rail to reduce the possibility of gapping.

You also may be on a more than two track route and not on an outer line.

The third rail is on the six-foot side all the way from the station to its end, apart from through the crossover.

 

[mmh]

The third rail is on the six-foot side all the way from the station to its end, apart from through the crossover.

Which station are you describing? This isn't universally true. Making any assumption about the location of the third rail is, at best, foolhardy.

 

[ess]

There is something about the change of traction 'feeling' while on these trains which feels like you've suddenly become stranded, miles from anywhere. Particularly on the Southern services the heavy clunk and power down noises along with the pan up/down process and then silence.......... until the train reboots from the new power supply. Could this feeling exacerbate the potential for passengers to detrain early? Could the trains retain some cooling noises or something to avoid the silence during the long reboot process?

 

[PermitToTravel]

Which station are you describing? This isn't universally true. Making any assumption about the location of the third rail is, at best, foolhardy.

The West London Line between Shepherd's Bush station and North Pole junction, where this incident happened.

 

[O L Leigh]

Rescuing is generally preferable to evacuating so the fact it apparently wasn’t attempted might suggest it wasn’t operationally possible on this occasion.

I think that in this instance the impediment was not technical but rather that the traction supply needed to be turned off due to the punters evacuating themselves off the train and on to the track. Otherwise I’m sure an assisting train could have been sourced fairly easily. I’m sure the RAIB will let us all know in due course.

Of course, the assisting train could have come from behind and pushed the duffer forward, thereby removing the need for a wrong-direction move.

 

[randyrippley]

90 minutes to evacuation does seem a sensibly quick one given the lack of toilets on a LO service.

given the lack of toilets "evacuation" is probably an unfortunate phrase to use...

 

[Taunton]

. Otherwise I’m sure an assisting train could have been sourced fairly easily. .

The whole issue with these recurring strandings (Kentish Town, Pewsey, etc etc) is that this does not happen.

If the passengers had not let themselves out, just what was the operator's plan to handle it. How much longer would they have been left there?

 

[Chris M]

If North Pole station had been rebuilt, then the change in electrical supply could be done there, as at Acton Central, and the problem would not have arisen. A station at North Pole would be useful for the local population, but that's for another thread I guess.

At least from what has been made public, we don't know that the change in electrical supply is what caused the train to be stranded (we don't even know if it was a power issue at all) - it's just a supposition based on the approximate location of the incident.
Anyway, the original plan apparently was for the OHLE to carry on to Shepherd's Bush station and the changeover to be done there. However this would have required immunising the signalling on the Hammersmith and City line (which crosses above the West London Line between North Pole and Shepherd's Bush). The decision was taken that it wasn't worth the expense as the new signalling on the H&C was imminent...

 

[Chris M]

I suspect some of the people being blasé about walking on ballast never have. I did perhaps 3 times a week for years at a stile foot crossing until it was closed. I was young, able bodied and relatively fit, yet it was still awkward. And this was simply going directly across a simple two track line with no visible cables, let alone electrification. Rails are also higher than I think many people realise as they're rarely viewed close up.

Following an injury last August, I'm no longer always perfectly steady on my feet so I walk with a stick. When I went to the open day at Crewe depot in June I found that walking on ballast was a lot harder now than it had been for me previously (e.g. the Old Oak Common depot open day). Should I ever need to be evacuated onto the track I'm going to need to take it very slowly. However what matters for situations like this is to get the situation resolved in one of the only two possible ways before the first people self-evacuate. That's always going to be relatively fit and able bodied people in their late teens to mid-late 30s, regardless of who else is on the train, but given enough time everyone who is physically capable of self-evacuating will do so.

All the rail staff throwing their hands up and saying "but we do all this already" or "it can't be done" - clearly what is being done currently isn't working so the railway has three choices - (1) do nothing and accept that incidents like this will happen and that at some point someone will be injured or worse, (2) stop trains getting stranded in the first place, (3) change something so that you always get the train moving or detrain passengers before they leave of their own accord. I suspect that (2) is not realistic so that leaves (1) or (3) - which is it going to be?

 

[O L Leigh]

If the passengers had not let themselves out, just what was the operator's plan to handle it. How much longer would they have been left there?

The plan would no doubt have been to send an assisting train to attach to the failure and move it out of the way with everyone on board, the same as for any other failure. Had the passengers not let themselves out, I suspect that the situation would have been resolved in less time, not more.

All the rail staff throwing their hands up and saying "but we do all this already" or "it can't be done" - clearly what is being done currently isn't working so the railway has three choices - (1) do nothing and accept that incidents like this will happen and that at some point someone will be injured or worse, (2) stop trains getting stranded in the first place, (3) change something so that you always get the train moving or detrain passengers before they leave of their own accord. I suspect that (2) is not realistic so that leaves (1) or (3) - which is it going to be?

The railways took Option 2 many many years ago in the form of drawing up train assistance procedures, as I have been saying repeatedly. However, if passengers start letting themselves out then all train movements will be stopped, including the assisting train. As the on-train safety posters tell you, stay on the train and follow the instructions given to you by the train crew and help will be sent. If you start thinking that you know better and take matters into your own hands then rescue will take longer to arrive and the situation will escalate.

I keep saying this and it keeps being ignored, but incident resolution requires a partnership between staff and passengers. It’s not about setting arbitrary targets during which some predefined action must happen otherwise it’s all out onto the track. Just because you don’t see something happening it does not mean that nothing is happening. The common factor in all of these strandings, the reason why help took so long to arrive, the reason why these incidents became newsworthy is because the passengers thought they knew better and escalated the incident by taking matters into their own hands.

 

[DarloRich]

All the rail staff throwing their hands up and saying "but we do all this already" or "it can't be done" - clearly what is being done currently isn't working

that isnt what is being said at all. What is being said is that it isnt as easy or straightforward as you and others would like to believe. It is all well and good coming up with self determined targets but if you need the MOM in 20 minutes and he is 40 minutes away through traffic what are you going to do?

 

[hwl]

that isnt what is being said at all. What is being said is that it isnt as easy or straightforward as you and others would like to believe. It is all well and good coming up with self determined targets but if you need the MOM in 20 minutes and he is 40 minutes away through traffic what are you going to do?

The traffic in that area can be pretty grim so 30 to 45 minutes minimum.

 

[Bromley boy]

(1) do nothing and accept that incidents like this will happen and that at some point someone will be injured or worse, (2) stop trains getting stranded in the first place, (3) change something so that you always get the train moving or detrain passengers before they leave of their own accord. I suspect that (2) is not realistic so that leaves (1) or (3) - which is it going to be?

Always?!

What about if people decide to egress after five minutes?

 

[Roast Veg]

Certainly the publicity around this and the Lewisham incident may provoke further detrainments in the future as well, which might require a publicity campaign to remind people of the hazards associated with the live railway.

There are instances where passengers can prove to be much more patient, such as the incident near Corby about a month ago, where two trainloads of people stuck it out with no supplies on an HST for many hours - but they had toilets, were in the middle of nowhere, and it was beyond flooded outside!