• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Train stuck just outside ManchesterPiccadilly-Mon 10/02

Status
Not open for further replies.

billh

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2015
Messages
224
Would it not have been possible to send an 08 and ,if necessary,an adapter coupling (they do have these don't they?) from Longsight to move the train to Picc or some other convenient platform? Perhaps the admin. required to do this would take too long?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
You are making the error of assuming that the only way passengers can come to harm is by pulling the egress, and on a full-and-standing train with no water or functioning toilets this is totally false.

The error in our assumptions is at best equivalent.

In stranded train scenarios train operators are constantly evaluating and weighing the risks associated with staying put vs (what would in this case have been a highly disruptive) evacuation. That includes whether toilets, water etc are available.

Inconvenient, yes - very. Unsafe - no, because the highly qualified people employed to do so assessed it as safer than letting people on to the track.

It’s never good that the public are trapped on a stranded train - if it’s gotten to that stage the operator already could have done better. But the underestimating of how risky an evacuation to the ballast is here is staggering - for example how many passengers pick up minor injuries (normally from slips/falls) in a controlled evacuation - that’s despite being walked almost hand in hand by the response staff to the access point.
 

47550

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2017
Messages
176
Location
Manchester
Unfortunately this incident is another indictment of the state of the railways around Manchester.

Fortunately trains don’t fail completely very often but they do and it will happen again. Where is the contingency planning for such an event ? The location should have helped speed up the resolution - this wasn’t some remote spot or in the middle of a tunnel with difficult access but within easy reach of Longsight, Ardwick and Piccadilly meaning that the equipment necessary to detrain passengers would have been close by.

Why didn’t the 66 that was on Longsight (or even one of the resident 08s !) shove the 319 into Piccadilly or even run round to drag it in. Of course that would mean some disruption to the other lines while this was arranged but there was disruption anyway and it would have been cleared much quicker.

Communication with travellers was also p**s poor. I was at Oxford Road about 12.00 and the PIS on platform 2 was still expecting the 8-26 to Liverpool to be the next train to arrive (this was the stricken unit). The station departures board was showing just about every train delayed or cancelled and there was no mention of my train (the 12.21 to Southport) at all even though it ran more or less on time. All Liverpool trains seemed to be cancelled (why this when one unit has failed ?) and virtually nothing was running to Preston (or so it seemed). No idea why or what the alternatives were for passengers.

Later around 5-15 there was still chaos at Piccadilly not helped by an incident which meant no trains were running to or from the Airport. The PIS on platform 14 at Piccadilly regularly changed its mind about which train was the next to arrive and the 1715 to Chester told passengers not to board on the platform PIS. I’d be amazed if no one got on the wrong train.

Rant over.
 

47550

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2017
Messages
176
Location
Manchester
PS - I thought the 319s do have end doors from when they worked in the Moorgate tunnels that would have allowed passengers to detrain to the front or rear. Would have needed another 319 for passengers to get onto (must have been one at Stockport). Of course I agree with all the other comments about doing this safely.
 

Mitchell Hurd

On Moderation
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
1,648
If I'm very honest, 2 and a half hours is a long time yes. But it's not the worst case scenario we've seen there's worse trains to be stuck in than a 319 with open windows.

If it was like 5 hours or more then that's different.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If toilet facilities are unavailable (which with a modern electronic bog they would be if the power was off as it appears from the photos it was) an hour may be too long unless the train carries emergency toilet facilities e.g. a "Bog in a Bag" or similar. Do any trains carry such things?

It's also gender discrimination - I'm sure blokes will have "used" the corridor connection if necessary but it's not as easy for a woman.

I find it both interesting and alarming that (also in disability cases) the railway does not seem to consider people "self evacuating" in a different sense than pulling the egress to be worthy of considerable effort to avoid.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
I find it both interesting and alarming that (also in disability cases) the railway does not seem to consider people "self evacuating" in a different sense than pulling the egress to be worthy of considerable effort to avoid.

That’s not what anyone has said. It is considered. In this instance it was still safer to stay on the train.

The risks are weighed. Even a controlled evacuation of persons onto the track is much, much more dangerous - actual, life threatening kind of danger - than being without a toilet for a couple of hours.

If, as has been suggested upthread that a lateral evacuation was eventually done (which will have taken significant manpower to achieve), then at some point the tipping point in the ongoing risk assessment of the stranded train tipped to the best course of action being a risky and disruptive lateral evacuation. That decision won’t have been taken without consideration of all the factors.

Safety must come before convenience at ALL times - not just the safety of those onboard, but safety of responders, safety of passengers on other trains that may become stranded by a protracted and disruptive evacuation.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Safety must come before convenience at ALL times - not just the safety of those onboard, but safety of responders, safety of passengers on other trains that may become stranded by a protracted and disruptive evacuation.

Therefore it is acceptable for passengers to have to wet themselves?

As that is precisely what you are saying and it is not an acceptable attitude.

(This could of course be worked around in another way e.g. by providing emergency "bog in a bag" facilities and bottled water on ALL trains - but this is not done which is unacceptable)
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
In short, yes.

You cannot put people in harm’s way just because a stranded train doesn’t have a toilet. Trackside is a hazardous enough environment without it being one of the worst storms in the past 20 years outside.

If that’s an unacceptable attitude to have in your eyes so be it.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Even a controlled evacuation of persons onto the track is much, much more dangerous - actual, life threatening kind of danger - than being without a toilet for a couple of hours.
I'm not convinced I by that, I'm sorry.
Simply because, as we've seen I don't know how many times now, a controlled evacuation may be a risk, but it's much less of a risk than an uncontrolled one. I know that, in this incident, I was actively considering how I would get myself off the train I was on, if it didn't move. Had it not been for the specific location we were stopped in (had we, for example, been stopped half a mile back towards Salford Crescent) I would have done. And I'm certain, giving the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth, that I would not have been alone.
Aside from the issue of sanitary facilities, medical problems, etc. much, much more thought needs to go into how these situations can be resolved more rapidly.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
It’s not practical, or particularly safe to do a controlled train to ballast evacuation at the location - you’d potentially strand thousands to “rescue” hundreds who don’t necessarily need rescuing.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I'm unrepresentative of a lot of passengers in this respect. I would have had far, far more tolerance for the railway saying, "sorry, broken down train, we need to make everything wait here for a bit while we shift it," than I have for the farcical situation that happened yesterday.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
I'm not convinced I by that, I'm sorry.
Simply because, as we've seen I don't know how many times now, a controlled evacuation may be a risk, but it's much less of a risk than an uncontrolled one. I know that, in this incident, I was actively considering how I would get myself off the train I was on, if it didn't move. Had it not been for the specific location we were stopped in (had we, for example, been stopped half a mile back towards Salford Crescent) I would have done. And I'm certain, giving the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth, that I would not have been alone.
Aside from the issue of sanitary facilities, medical problems, etc. much, much more thought needs to go into how these situations can be resolved more rapidly.

You’re not convinced that a risky controlled evacuation is safer than not having access to a toilet?

Ive acknowledged an uncontrolled evacuation is the worst case scenario already, but it’s a risk that isn’t difficult to manage with good communication; and the generally selfless patience of the vast majority of passengers prevails - most accept that they’d be making the situation far, far worse if they were to leave the train without permission. It’s disappointing to read you feel yourself above such sensibilities.

The railway does need to improve - it always needs to improve. But a need for improvement does not and must not overrule safety. People always ask why it took so long to evacuate the train - the simple answer is it wasn’t safer to do it any quicker.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
In short, yes.

Then frankly I think the railway has an attitude problem with them considering operations more important than their customers. Mind you, this is by no means the only place I have seen this - it pervades the organisation, and it's one of the things that is caused by it being guaranteed funding.

So, if it is known that people will repeatedly be kept on trains without water or toilet facilities for over an hour, why do trains not ALL carry bottled water and "bog in a bag" emergency toilet facilities?

Because the railway has utter contempt for its passengers, that's why. Because it costs money and hassle to arrange it, and they can't be bothered. Because it doesn't think people wetting themselves is a serious matter.

I'm sorry, it is a disgrace. Just like the way it treats disabled people who end up in this position because they do not deliver on their legal responsibilities.

Toilet urgency is a disability. It is only a matter of time before the railway is seriously strung up over this kind of thing and it simply cannot come too soon.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
You’re not convinced that a risky controlled evacuation is safer than not having access to a toilet?

Ive acknowledged an uncontrolled evacuation is the worst case scenario already, but it’s a risk that isn’t difficult to manage with good communication; and the generally selfless patience of the vast majority of passengers prevails - most accept that they’d be making the situation far, far worse if they were to leave the train without permission. It’s disappointing to read you feel yourself above such sensibilities.

The railway does need to improve - it always needs to improve. But a need for improvement does not and must not overrule safety. People always ask why it took so long to evacuate the train - the simple answer is it wasn’t safer to do it any quicker.
I don't feel myself 'above' anything. As I explained earlier in the thread, throughout the ~90 minutes the train I was on was stationary, there was not a single communication from the guard or anywhere else.
I don't doubt that, had I had an understanding of what was happening based on full and Frank information from the train company (in my case, Northern), I would have felt very differently. But, as is all go often the case, I wasn't told anything at all.

In fairness to our guard, it did transpire that he had tried to make announcements, but that the train PA was defunct. We discovered this when, as we eventually arrived at Deansgate, he was confronted in the platform by a group of understandably irate passengers wanting to know why it had just taken them roughly an hour and a half - standing, in many cases - to get there from Salford Crescent.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
Then frankly I think the railway has an attitude problem with them considering operations more important than their customers. Mind you, this is by no means the only place I have seen this - it pervades the organisation, and it's one of the things that is caused by it being guaranteed funding.

Safety before Convenience. Neither scenario has any benefit to operations, or infers any attempt to put operations first.

Unless you’re suggesting the railway should take a cavalier attitude towards the safety of its staff by forcing an inadequate number of them out onto the track to conduct an evacuation into a hazardous environment in severe weather?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Safety before Convenience. Neither scenario has any benefit to operations, or infers any attempt to put operations first.

Unless you’re suggesting the railway should take a cavalier attitude towards the safety of its staff by forcing an inadequate number of them out onto the track to conduct an evacuation into a hazardous environment in severe weather?

My view is that the railway needs to spend money on more standby teams able to conduct evacuations and equipment to ease such evacuations, and on the provision of emergency toilet facilities ("bog in a bag") and bottled water on ALL trains for the event of such a stranding.

Things need to change.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
I don't feel myself 'above' anything.

You stated that had you been in a different location, you would have egressed yourself from the train, contrary to notices on the train that instruct you to remain onboard and await instructions from staff unless your life is in immediate danger. So evidently you feel you’re above the rules in order to even contemplate ignoring that one.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
My view is that the railway needs to spend money on more standby teams able to conduct evacuations and equipment to ease such evacuations, and on the provision of emergency toilet facilities ("bog in a bag") and bottled water on ALL trains for the event of such a stranding.

Things need to change.

Agreed on all points. Again I’ve already acknowledged that the railway needs to improve its response multiple times in this thread now.

That doesn’t change my earlier stance though that safety has - HAS - to come first.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I don't feel myself 'above' anything. As I explained earlier in the thread, throughout the ~90 minutes the train I was on was stationary, there was not a single communication from the guard or anywhere else.
I don't doubt that, had I had an understanding of what was happening based on full and Frank information from the train company (in my case, Northern), I would have felt very differently. But, as is all go often the case, I wasn't told anything at all.

In fairness to our guard, it did transpire that he had tried to make announcements, but that the train PA was defunct. We discovered this when, as we eventually arrived at Deansgate, he was confronted in the platform by a group of understandably irate passengers wanting to know why it had just taken them roughly an hour and a half - standing, in many cases - to get there from Salford Crescent.
Are we talking a separate incident here? Suggested upthread it was somewhere near Longsight.

There is risk itself and there is the perception of risk. In this case, based on what I think I know from previous posts, everyone was out of physical danger, there was certainly no risk of excessive heat and with a large number of people on board probably not of getting too cold either. The risk from trackside evacuation would be a very real one of a broken ankle or similar, considering that people with various levels of fitness and types of footwear would be asked to climb down a metre or more and walk on a rough surface. There would also be a small risk of something more serious, for example if someone wanders off and can't be stopped by the limited number of staff.
Against that staying on the train carries the risk associated with not being able to use the toilet - to put it bluntly, loss of dignity but no actual danger. Perhaps we should consider how toilets on modern trains can be made useable in some form when the power goes off, even if they just revert to acting as buckets? If someone is at risk of seizure or similar then they are probably more likely to have one if they are out on the track than on the train.

I do agree that keeping people informed is essential and seems to have fallen down badly in the incident described above.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
Perhaps we should consider how toilets on modern trains can be made useable in some form when the power goes off, even if they just revert to acting as buckets?

The door motor would disengage on most designs of power-door toilet, so unless it’s already mechanically locked out of use, the door should slide open by hand fairly easily - at which point it could be used exactly as you describe. No flush, no door lock, no handwashing, but there if someone is desperate.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
My view is that the railway needs to spend money on more standby teams able to conduct evacuations and equipment to ease such evacuations, and on the provision of emergency toilet facilities ("bog in a bag") and bottled water on ALL trains for the event of such a stranding.

Things need to change.

OK, I'll bite! :E

How many staff would you need to cover anything up to around 20,000 journeys a day over nearly 16,000km of network? A breakdown could occur literally anywhere on the network, so I suppose you'd need enough staff to evac anything up to 1,600 passengers (on a 12 car 700) safely, and I assume in a timescale much less than the 2.5 hours or so that it took in Manchester? Then where would you store the water, who would be responsible for it's security until needed, and who would be responsible for handing it out in the case of a failure? The same would go for handing out, and disposing of the 'bog in a bags'. And that's all before we consider what would happen if a unit sat down somewhere like Blea Moor, where it might literally be hours before any rescue unit could get up there. What if there were multiple failures in one area? Do you need backup crews to the rescue crews, and maybe backup crews for the backup crews.

Now there is nothing wrong in expecting TOCs/NR to have contingencies to get to water to a failed unit where needed, or assisting passengers that urgently need to relieve themselves. But expecting what I can only assume would be thousands of staff sitting around on the off chance that a unit fails within their local area, whilst trains carry more provisions than a cruise ship crossing the Atlantic, is very much overkill.

Train failures or collisions can be frustrating for passengers, and things at the time always seem to take way longer than you'd like, especially if these occur later in the day when you might have onward connections. But you also have to be realistic, every incident has to be treat on it's own merits, there is no generic solution.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Interesting you mention Blea Moor - it did used to be the case that trains on the S&C carried an emergency kit including water precisely because rescue could take a long time.

Who would give it out? The guard or OBS of course; most trains have these.

Why would it be thousands of staff? Across the whole network it would be more like a few hundred, which sounds a lot but in reality isn't.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Would it not have been possible to send an 08 and ,if necessary,an adapter coupling (they do have these don't they?) from Longsight to move the train to Picc or some other convenient platform? Perhaps the admin. required to do this would take too long?

Would be a lot easier if there was a standard (mechanical and braking) coupler...I still think the railway should move this way for DMUs and EMUs with the same braking systems at least.

Go back 50 years and it'd just have been shoved into a terminal platform at Picc by whatever was stuck behind it.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Interesting you mention Blea Moor - it did used to be the case that trains on the S&C carried an emergency kit including water precisely because rescue could take a long time.

Who would give it out? The guard or OBS of course; most trains have these.

Why would it be thousands of staff? Across the whole network it would be more like a few hundred, which sounds a lot but in reality isn't.

It is if you consider they would have to be on standby for every minute that services could run, so that would need at least 2-3 shifts at least. Didn't know that about Blea Moor though, although having emergency kits spaced close enough that train crews could walk there and back in a reasonable timescale is again not going to be practical.
 

kc_

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2019
Messages
132
Location
North West England
Would be a lot easier if there was a standard (mechanical and braking) coupler...I still think the railway should move this way for DMUs and EMUs with the same braking systems at least.

Go back 50 years and it'd just have been shoved into a terminal platform at Picc by whatever was stuck behind it.

Didn't they try coupling another 319, but failed?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is if you consider they would have to be on standby for every minute that services could run, so that would need at least 2-3 shifts at least. Didn't know that about Blea Moor though, although having emergency kits spaced close enough that train crews could walk there and back in a reasonable timescale is again not going to be practical.

The kits were carried on board, I think the same for the Far North and probably other such lines.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,025
Location
West Wiltshire
You stated that had you been in a different location, you would have egressed yourself from the train, contrary to notices on the train that instruct you to remain onboard and await instructions from staff unless your life is in immediate danger. So evidently you feel you’re above the rules in order to even contemplate ignoring that one.

You are contradicting yourself, instructions from staff. There was a unit with dead PA (as per post above) but a guard made no attempt to come around and tell people, that's not instructions, that's hiding from passengers. I'm old enough to remember trains without PA and guard would walk the train telling every seating bay what latest was (even if someone had to hike to nearest signal post phone to find out first).

No point providing notices if staff aren't going to do what it says.
Thus the Railway provided rules which it wasn't prepared to stick to.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
You stated that had you been in a different location, you would have egressed yourself from the train, contrary to notices on the train that instruct you to remain onboard and await instructions from staff unless your life is in immediate danger. So evidently you feel you’re above the rules in order to even contemplate ignoring that one.
There's a difference between feeling that I am 'above' something, and making a deliberate and conscious decision to break a rule because I feel that it is in my best interest, and potentially that of others, to do so. It's important to remember that nobody on that train knew what was happening - there could have been a crash, a fatality, god forbid even a terrorist attack, or worse. There comes a point where, in the absence of any information, taking matters into your own hands is the correct course of action.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
You are contradicting yourself, instructions from staff. There was a unit with dead PA (as per post above) but a guard made no attempt to come around and tell people, that's not instructions, that's hiding from passengers. I'm old enough to remember trains without PA and guard would walk the train telling every seating bay what latest was (even if someone had to hike to nearest signal post phone to find out first).

No point providing notices if staff aren't going to do what it says.
Thus the Railway provided rules which it wasn't prepared to stick to.

There's a difference between feeling that I am 'above' something, and making a deliberate and conscious decision to break a rule because I feel that it is in my best interest, and potentially that of others, to do so. It's important to remember that nobody on that train knew what was happening - there could have been a crash, a fatality, god forbid even a terrorist attack, or worse. There comes a point where, in the absence of any information, taking matters into your own hands is the correct course of action.


Breaking it down a bit - the Guard not patrolling with a broken PA is pretty poor - although as you yourself conceded the guard was apparently oblivious to the faulty nature of the PA. I can’t see where the railway has breached the rules it’s trying to enforce here?

Coming to the notices I refer to - they’re all worded slightly different but typically it just says to await instructions from staff. It doesn’t put a time limit on it. It doesn’t even say it has to be the on train staff. It just says wait. If your life is in immediate danger you will be acutely aware of that fact - up until that point you are always safer on the train - even in any of the scenarios listed above.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Coming to the notices I refer to - they’re all worded slightly different but typically it just says to await instructions from staff. It doesn’t put a time limit on it. It doesn’t even say it has to be the on train staff. It just says wait. If your life is in immediate danger you will be acutely aware of that fact - up until that point you are always safer on the train - even in any of the scenarios listed above.

Correct, but again failure to communicate, provided the staff are not busy (and in a multi-hour stranding they will not be for the entirety of it), is unacceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top