Southeastern train passengers stuck for 3 hours as train fails yards from Victoria

[Robertj21a]

Announcements don't stop people pulling egresses. All it takes is one selfish idiot - and there are a lot of them about - and it's game over.

Once the egress is pulled it's time to start blocking lines, turning off the juice and the driver being unable to release the brakes until they've reset the egress.

I completely agree that announcements are important but they will not stop south London's finest from egressing trains. The reason Lewisham was so exacerbated was people constantly egressing without thinking of the fact that each time they did that they were stranding all trains in the area for even longer. But what did they care? They jumped off and went home, probably filming it for a bit of instant gratification hit-generation on Twitter in the process. Meanwhile, the post mortem blames it all on a driver who may, or may not, have made announcements.

Like I say, all it takes is one idiot. In suburban London DOO Land people pull egresses for fun. You won't stop it with a few PAs.

Announcements will definitely reduce the likelihood of egress. Why are you so, seemingly, against better communication ?
It may well be that passengers will still, eventually, take matters into their own hands but good communication is likely to give a worthwhile extra period of time before that's inevitable.

 

[DarloRich]

Announcements will definitely reduce the likelihood of egress. Why are you so, seemingly, against better communication ?
It may well be that passengers will still, eventually, take matters into their own hands but good communication is likely to give a worthwhile extra period of time before that's inevitable.

I don't think anyone is against better communication! That would be ludicrous l. However better communication is not the panacea so.e seem to think it is. What it will do is buy more time.

As an aside I agree entirely about remote access to the pa system. Why this isn't a given is beyond me.

 

[The Box Photter]

Shall we get a grip of ourselves? Can you not identify, even as a guess, some of the jobs a driver might be up to?

Personally I bet he couldn't wait to crack open his brew flask, get his feet up and read the paper/have a kip.

This board at times...........

In the airline industry, following any plane crash, there is an investigation. The investigation is comprehensive and looks at all the events leading up to the crash. Studies show that 80% of commercial airline crashes are caused by pilot error. The other 20% are down to mechanical failure or unsafe flying conditions. There are two types of pilot error, according to Aviation Safety Magazine: tactical errors, which are related to a pilot’s poor actions or decisions, often caused by fatigue, inebriation or lack of experience; and operational errors, related to problems with flight instruction and training.

Given the extensive and costly training undertaken by commercial pilots, which still results in 80% of accidents being caused by pilot error, why do you presume that train drivers should be able to exhibit a lower percentage of accidents caused by their actions than airline pilots?

I know that trying to persuade "Londoners" to all do something in unison is like trying to herd cats. But, the percentage likelihood of an uncontrolled egress is going to increase exponentially the longer the passengers remain "trapped" on the train without reliable and credible information. You can't argue against that, it has been proven by experience time and time again. It's only the railway "professionals" who seem to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand who won't recognise one of the potential solutions. You can't point to any example where keeping passengers informed has prevented an egress because the level of reassurance needed by passengers to prevent it has not been attempted yet.

 

[Robertj21a]

I don't think anyone is against better communication! That would be ludicrous l. However better communication is not the panacea so.e seem to think it is. What it will do is buy more time.

As an aside I agree entirely about remote access to the pa system. Why this isn't a given is beyond me.

Thank you.

It is the absence of remote access to the PA system that seems particularly odd. If there's still a problem (in 2018 ... ) then it should be sorted, as a matter of urgency.

 

[Esker-pades]

In the airline industry, following any plane crash, there is an investigation. The investigation is comprehensive and looks at all the events leading up to the crash. Studies show that 80% of commercial airline crashes are caused by pilot error. The other 20% are down to mechanical failure or unsafe flying conditions. There are two types of pilot error, according to Aviation Safety Magazine: tactical errors, which are related to a pilot’s poor actions or decisions, often caused by fatigue, inebriation or lack of experience; and operational errors, related to problems with flight instruction and training.

Pilot error is far too simplistic a way to look at these things. It is far too easy for an investigation to say:
"A pilot made a mistake which cause the plane to crash. This pilot is now dead. Case closed."

However, if one looks deeper (as many air crash investigators do), one finds that there is more to it than meets the eye.
For example, the way that the software, controls etc. are set out leads the pilot to makes the wrong decision, or poor company practice or any number of other factors. So, whilst the reason is put down to "pilot error", the actual causes are far more complicated than that. (See various sources, including this from File on 4.)

Given the extensive and costly training undertaken by commercial pilots, which still results in 80% of accidents being caused by pilot error, why do you presume that train drivers should be able to exhibit a lower percentage of accidents caused by their actions than airline pilots?

There are many more things to go wrong with flying a plane than driving a train. I have already called into question your statistics.

I know that trying to persuade "Londoners" to all do something in unison is like trying to herd cats. But, the percentage likelihood of an uncontrolled egress is going to increase exponentially the longer the passengers remain "trapped" on the train without reliable and credible information. You can't argue against that, it has been proven by experience time and time again. It's only the railway "professionals" who seem to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand who won't recognise one of the potential solutions. You can't point to any example where keeping passengers informed has prevented an egress because the level of reassurance needed by passengers to prevent it has not been attempted yet.

I ask you to read this thread on an incident at Peckham Rye. It shows that a contributing factor to the driver's poor decision making/communication was due to having to constantly keep irate passengers informed. A driver already has an awful lot to think about in such a situation.

We do not know what caused the train to come to a stand yet.

 

[ComUtoR]

It is the absence of remote access to the PA system that seems particularly odd. If there's still a problem (in 2018 ... ) then it should be sorted, as a matter of urgency.

As bionic already mentioned. The system already exists and is fitted. It is (iirc) a requirement of DOO. In all my years of driving I have never known it to be used.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Sounds like it was the driver's fault in the first place for "gapping" the unit by not travelling at the correct speed over the offending section of track. Have questions been asked about the driver's route knowledge and proficiency in driving that type of EMU? Once it had been established that the unit was stuck, what did the driver have to do, other than becoming another passenger to the remainder of the three hours?

'What did the Driver have to do?'
Your deliberately inflammatory remark has just shown your complete lack of Railway knowledge (specifically in relation to the roles and responsibilities that rest with a Train Driver). There's plenty that a Driver has to be doing in a scenario such as this. Its not like when you break down and call out the AA to fix it for you

As bionic already mentioned. The system already exists and is fitted. It is (iirc) a requirement of DOO. In all my years of driving I have never known it to be used.

As a non DOO Driver I've seen it used twice. Once was when I was in a siding with a booked wait of 25 minutes. Was in the toilet in the unit when the Signallers voice came over the PA because he needed to speak to me!

 

[reddragon]

It's clearly Network Rails fault for designing track with gaps and the designers fault for not adding additional collector shoes

Southern Railway actually!

 

[AlterEgo]

It should be possible with GSM-R for signallers and controllers to tap in to the train PA system and make announcements to punters but I've never heard of it actually being utilised.

It is not technically possible to do that. Yet.

 

[bionic]

I love the way I can say in a post that I believe communication is important, yet someone can quote the same post saying they don't know why I'm against better communication! I've worked on the railway for years and seen all of this stuff first hand. People who clearly don't have the first clue about how railways work, or the roles and responsibilities of the staff, are completely disregarding basic facts and making ridiculously deluded assumptions based on their own prejudices. A mate of mine was driving one of the trains at Lewisham. He made loads of PAs. People still egressed. That's my point. It might buy you a few minutes but it only takes one idiot and the job is knackered. I'm not saying drivers shouldn't make PAs, I'm dating it's not as important as many are making out because the jokers who pull them don't give a monkey's and cannot be reasoned with.

 

[Dieseldriver]

It is not technically possible to do that. Yet.

It is. Its one of the requirements for a train to run DOO for starters. It was a feature which CSR had and its a feature of the current GSMR system.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is. Its one of the requirements for a train to run DOO for starters. It was a feature which CSR had and its a feature of the current GSMR system.

Whoops - my fault. You are correct.

 

[Dieseldriver]

No worries. It is a good feature but one which I don't feel is used to its fullest potential For example, with a DOO train you could surely have a controller making announcements as the situation develops in the case of a fault, major disruption or even fatality to keep the pressure off the Driver.
In the event of a fault you could say 'the Driver is currently walking up and down the train in the process of rectifying the fault. Please follow his/her instructions and try not to distract them. They need to be able to concentrate on this task to try and get you all on the move as safely and as quickly as they can. If anyone has any queries or needs advice please tweet, text or call us for more information. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance at this time and we are very sorry for the inconvenience to your journey'. This is my main issue with DOO, in these scenarios the Driver is put under an incredibly amount of stress from all angles whilst performing tasks which are safety critical and out of the ordinary. My personal stance is anti DOO but where DOO exists, there is absolutely no excuse for leaving the Driver literally on their own to deal with these situations when we have the technology to assist them.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

What? There was no compatible unit in the vicinity of Victoria station at the time? I realise this could have meant that another train might be delayed whilst the ECS is being used to effect a rescue, but as the only alternative seems to be to leave passengers on a train for 3 hours, I'd consider the use of another unit to be the lesser of many evils. If passengers had been told "don't worry, you'll be stuck here for 20 minutes, please stay put and don't try to get off" they'd probably have complied.

I suppose if the brakes were stuck "on" (as part of the fail-safe mechanism), guessing it would be difficult to get a spare 465 out the shed and push (or drag) the errant unit...would that be so?

But odd re the gapping issue - how many years have modern 4-car units been in and out of the station?

 

[Robertj21a]

I love the way I can say in a post that I believe communication is important, yet someone can quote the same post saying they don't know why I'm against better communication! I've worked on the railway for years and seen all of this stuff first hand. People who clearly don't have the first clue about how railways work, or the roles and responsibilities of the staff, are completely disregarding basic facts and making ridiculously deluded assumptions based on their own prejudices. A mate of mine was driving one of the trains at Lewisham. He made loads of PAs. People still egressed. That's my point. It might buy you a few minutes but it only takes one idiot and the job is knackered. I'm not saying drivers shouldn't make PAs, I'm dating it's not as important as many are making out because the jokers who pull them don't give a monkey's and cannot be reasoned with.

Your comment 'you won't stop it with a few PAs' sounded to me as if you'd already dismissed the idea. I'm pleased to see that you agree it may save a few minutes (the general view being that every minute counts).

So why isn't the PA system used to its full extent ?

By the way, I'm not talking about just the Lewisham, or Peckham, incidents. Passengers will, nowadays, egress from trains after a period of time if nothing *appears* to be happening and/or they're not being told anything.

 

[The Box Photter]

Pilot error is far too simplistic a way to look at these things. It is far too easy for an investigation to say:
"A pilot made a mistake which cause the plane to crash. This pilot is now dead. Case closed."

However, if one looks deeper (as many air crash investigators do), one finds that there is more to it than meets the eye.
For example, the way that the software, controls etc. are set out leads the pilot to makes the wrong decision, or poor company practice or any number of other factors. So, whilst the reason is put down to "pilot error", the actual causes are far more complicated than that. (See various sources, including this from File on 4.)



There are many more things to go wrong with flying a plane than driving a train. I have already called into question your statistics.



I ask you to read this thread on an incident at Peckham Rye. It shows that a contributing factor to the driver's poor decision making/communication was due to having to constantly keep irate passengers informed. A driver already has an awful lot to think about in such a situation.

We do not know what caused the train to come to a stand yet.

Thank you for the usual "You don't work on the railway so your opinion isn't valid" condescending response. My facts came from an independent study from 2013. Your comment confirms the fact that the more complex you make any job, the easier it is to make a mistake.

 

[bramling]

I love the way I can say in a post that I believe communication is important, yet someone can quote the same post saying they don't know why I'm against better communication! I've worked on the railway for years and seen all of this stuff first hand. People who clearly don't have the first clue about how railways work, or the roles and responsibilities of the staff, are completely disregarding basic facts and making ridiculously deluded assumptions based on their own prejudices. A mate of mine was driving one of the trains at Lewisham. He made loads of PAs. People still egressed. That's my point. It might buy you a few minutes but it only takes one idiot and the job is knackered. I'm not saying drivers shouldn't make PAs, I'm dating it's not as important as many are making out because the jokers who pull them don't give a monkey's and cannot be reasoned with.

This is an excellent post. Unfortunately, there are times when all the PAs in the world make zero difference. Some people don't listen to announcements, others don't understand them, others simply ignore any advice they're given and think they know best. The self-egressing definitely seems to be a London thing, so perhaps it might be worth considering what factors in the London area might make this sort of thing more prone to occurring.

Having a guard on the train might help a bit in providing reassurance, and perhaps subconsciously *some* people might be dissuaded from acting up knowing that there is someone in authority watching over them, but again that comes to nothing if the guard can't physically get through the train. The Lewisham report does mention that there were fewer issues on some of the crew-operated trains involved, but it also mentiones that they were generally less crowded IIRC.

 

[maniacmartin]

I would suggest that one reason PA announcements are not always effective is that people don't always believe them. There's only so many times that you can be told "we'll be on the move shortly" before you lose faith in announcements. Control being able to make PA announcements directly would really help here. I've been on a DLR train when control make a direct PA announcement, so there's no reason why the heavy rail network shouldn't have the ability to do it.

I would be interested to know how much fragmentation of the railway has affected response times to this sort of incident. To someone who does not work on the railways, it seems crazy that we have so many different types of stock, all needing different training to be able to operate, and not electrically or even mechanically able to couple together. Couplings on newer units should have been specified to be backwards compatible across all TOCs and fleets when ordered, and all DMU/EMUs should have a mode whereby they can be a dumb wagon and powered/brakes controlled etc from a rescue unit. That way any other passenger train and its staff that is nearby could be comandeered as a rescue train without having to wait for a special unit to be sourced from far away, and rescue times could be greatly reduced.

 

[Esker-pades]

Thank you for the usual "You don't work on the railway so your opinion isn't valid" condescending response. My facts came from an independent study from 2013. Your comment confirms the fact that the more complex you make any job, the easier it is to make a mistake.

At no point did I ever say that. If that was my argument, my comment wouldn't be valid because I do not work on the railway. I would appreciate if you could engage with the points made rather than providing a stock response.

 

[Robertj21a]

This is an excellent post. Unfortunately, there are times when all the PAs in the world make zero difference. Some people don't listen to announcements, others don't understand them, others simply ignore any advice they're given and think they know best. The self-egressing definitely seems to be a London thing, so perhaps it might be worth considering what factors in the London area might make this sort of thing more prone to occurring.

Having a guard on the train might help a bit in providing reassurance, and perhaps subconsciously *some* people might be dissuaded from acting up knowing that there is someone in authority watching over them, but again that comes to nothing if the guard can't physically get through the train. The Lewisham report does mention that there were fewer issues on some of the crew-operated trains involved, but it also mentiones that they were generally less crowded IIRC.

I would hope that passengers on a train which is clearly at a standstill, for an extended period, are far more likely to actually listen to any announcement. They may usually disregard the standard type of routine babble but I'm sure a good many will actually listen if they feel there is a risk of being stranded for, potentially, hours.
I'm more interested in why no rail staff seem interested in pursuing the rather obvious need for the PA to be used remotely, by someone who can properly clarify the situation.

 

[bramling]

I would hope that passengers on a train which is clearly at a standstill, for an extended period, are far more likely to actually listen to any announcement. They may usually disregard the standard type of routine babble but I'm sure a good many will actually listen if they feel there is a risk of being stranded for, potentially, hours.
I'm more interested in why no rail staff seem interested in pursuing the rather obvious need for the PA to be used remotely, by someone who can properly clarify the situation.

Unfortunately experience tells otherwise - some people still don't listen. As stated elsewhere, it only takes one to start things off.

It's certainly feasible from a technical point of view to have a remote PA, but it doesn't solve the issue described above. And it relies on someone in a room somewhere knowing what's happening on the ground, which isn't always strictly the case either.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Maybe this is a case for an automated announcement (driver presses a button in the cab) that would "call attention" and then something along the lines of "we are sorry, but there is a fault on this train that the driver is trying to rectify...this could take some time" so that passengers are alerted early and the driver can get on with his other duties. Is this really a daft idea or could there be some merit to this?

Whatever the communication however (and already stated), many don't listen and many don't hear as they're listening to music from their mobile devices. But lack of communication will mean passengers will take the law into their own hands ...

 

[ComUtoR]

Maybe this is a case for an automated announcement (driver presses a button in the cab) that would "call attention" and then something along the lines of "we are sorry, but there is a fault on this train that the driver is trying to rectify...this could take some time" so that passengers are alerted early and the driver can get on with his other duties. Is this really a daft idea or could there be some merit to this?

Again, this is something that is already built into the PIS system.

 

[transmanche]

The self-egressing definitely seems to be a London thing, so perhaps it might be worth considering what factors in the London area might make this sort of thing more prone to occurring.

Regular travellers might feel that this sort of lengthy delay happens too often. If you have previously been caught in a 2-3 hour delay (or know someone who has) you might have an increased tendency to want to extricate yourself from the situation - especially when you are quite literally (and I mean literally, not figuratively) within spitting distance from a platform.

This incident reminds me of a similar one involving a pair of 377/5s between St Pancras and Kentish Town back in May 2011. (RAIB report available here.) There the RAIB noted in para 42 that "the driver was authorised to operate the traction interlock switch [...] to carry out a short 'pull test'. The train driver, who was focused on the task in hand, did not make any announcement to passengers that the pull test was to be undertaken." It goes on to say that 30-40 passengers (all of whom had been stranded for almost three hours on a hot day with no air-con or toilets on a crowded train) had left the train.

It does further note that passengers in the rearmost carriages would not have heard the PA, as it had failed in that part of the train. But let's concentrate on when it can be useful. As others have noted, it's not fair to expect a driver who is focused on resolving a problem to make PA announcements. But it is a reasonable expectation to have someone responsible for making announcements to passengers via the GSM-R system. I don't know if there's a back channel for a TOC's control to patch into the signaller's GSM-R link to the train - even a station announcer would be fine - so long as they are well-informed and can this keep passengers updated with progress.

I think that people are less frustrated by delays when they have useful information, rather than just general information. So, rather than just saying "we're working hard to get you going again", tell them something like "The things that collect the electricity from the live rail are not making contact, we need to reset the brake system so we can roll back into the platform. It should take x minutes to do this. I understand your frustration, but please don't pull the emergency alarms as it means we have to start the process all over again." Sometimes just a little bit of information can make all the difference.

 

[Carlisle]

Southern Railway actually!

Exactly, gapping is unfortunately a known problem almost since third rail came into use and probably very rarely the traincrews fault, so you’d expect it by now to have gained a much more rehearsed and refined response procedure as opposed to the extremely unusual (for London) freak weather related incident at Lewisham last winter,

 

[bramling]

Regular travellers might feel that this sort of lengthy delay happens too often. If you have previously been caught in a 2-3 hour delay (or know someone who has) you might have an increased tendency to want to extricate yourself from the situation - especially when you are quite literally (and I mean literally, not figuratively) within spitting distance from a platform.

This incident reminds me of a similar one involving a pair of 377/5s between St Pancras and Kentish Town back in May 2011. (RAIB report available here.) There the RAIB noted in para 42 that "the driver was authorised to operate the traction interlock switch [...] to carry out a short 'pull test'. The train driver, who was focused on the task in hand, did not make any announcement to passengers that the pull test was to be undertaken." It goes on to say that 30-40 passengers (all of whom had been stranded for almost three hours on a hot day with no air-con or toilets on a crowded train) had left the train.

It does further note that passengers in the rearmost carriages would not have heard the PA, as it had failed in that part of the train. But let's concentrate on when it can be useful. As others have noted, it's not fair to expect a driver who is focused on resolving a problem to make PA announcements. But it is a reasonable expectation to have someone responsible for making announcements to passengers via the GSM-R system. I don't know if there's a back channel for a TOC's control to patch into the signaller's GSM-R link to the train - even a station announcer would be fine - so long as they are well-informed and can this keep passengers updated with progress.

I think that people are less frustrated by delays when they have useful information, rather than just general information. So, rather than just saying "we're working hard to get you going again", tell them something like "The things that collect the electricity from the live rail are not making contact, we need to reset the brake system so we can roll back into the platform. It should take x minutes to do this. I understand your frustration, but please don't pull the emergency alarms as it means we have to start the process all over again." Sometimes just a little bit of information can make all the difference.

The key bit being *can* make the difference, but not always.

An example tonight. Underground trains comes to a stand in the middle of a tunnel. Driver makes numerous excellent announcements asking people to check they’re not leaning against a door. Eventually staff walk through and find someone sitting with their leg jammed up against a door which can clearly be seen pushed open by an inch. When spoken to by staff, just some mumbling back in a foreign language. PAs will deal with some people some of the time, but not everybody all the time. It only takes one to act up, and sheep mentality means others will follow.

 

[transmanche]

The key bit being *can* make the difference, but not always.

I think @al78 expressed it best upthread:

Just because a response to a problem isn't perfect, doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

 

[transmanche]

Exactly, gapping is unfortunatly a known problem since third rail came into use and probably very rarely the traincrews fault, so you’d expect it by now to have gained a much more rehearsed and refined response procedure as opposed to the extremely unusual (for London) freak weather related incident at Lewisham last winter,

I can't remember if this has been mentioned upthread already.

LU trains seem to have more collection shoes per unit (thus reducing the chance of being gapped) and also can use 'gap leads' to connect the train to the live rails should it get gapped. Do 'gap leads' exist on the national network? And if not, is there any specific reason they're not used?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't remember if this has been mentioned upthread already.

LU trains seem to have more collection shoes per unit (thus reducing the chance of being gapped) and also can use 'gap leads' to connect the train to the live rails should it get gapped. Do 'gap leads' exist on the national network? And if not, is there any specific reason they're not used?

LU of course don't have bus bars, so there is a shoe per power bogie out of necessity. Typically on a mainline EMU, with a few exceptions, all the shoes are connected together so provided one is on the juice all the motors will work.

 

[transmanche]

LU of course don't have bus bars, so there is a shoe per power bogie out of necessity.

Of course! I forgot about that. Class 313 units have a shoe on each bogie in the motor cars for the same reason, don't they?