When should you self-evacuate a train

[Fawkes Cat]

1) Has any member of this list been in a position where they needed to seriously consider detraining?
2) Has any member of this list been in a position where - once in full possession of all facts - detraining was the best option?

I very strongly suspect that the answer to (1) is 'no' and I more than very strongly suspect that the answer to (2) is also 'no'. So (a) follow the advice that seems to be in most carriages these days - it's almost certainly safer to stay on the train, and (b) spend your time worrying about something more likely to happen - what to do when you win the lottery jackpot or something.

 

[Intermodal]

By not having these type of on-board staff properly trained seems to be a bit of a disaster waiting to happen (not that I want one to happen - ever).

You open a can of worms with that one - particularly regarding stuff like DOO, staffing levels, etc, which I do not want to go into here.

The fact is, many railway operators have operated in such a manner for numerous years and such incidents are almost unheard of. Look at the London Underground and the Overground - both are DOO and they have a good safety record. I can appreciate it may "sound bad" but the reality is not so bad at all.

 

[Mugby]

'Safety information posters are displayed in the ends of each carriage. Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with these'

Of course, everyone does this and everyone remembers exactly what it says.
Sudden emergency?? Mmm, now let me think, what did it say on that safety poster? Yeah, right!

 

[Jonfun]

To be honest, I find that a bit worrying, and potentially a bit of a failure of the railway in general.

To your average or occasional passenger, during an emergency a 'train staff' member in uniform (contracted or otherwise) is in ‘authority’ and I am sure would be expected to have been trained and know about safe evacuation (even the basics) if needed. Particularly with, as has been pointed out many times upthread, the number of hazards to disembarking passengers.

I know they are different in many ways, but passengers on an aircraft would look to cabin crew (who are all thoroughly trained and re-trained in evacuation in differing circumstances) to take the lead in the cabin evacuation. But then on a train have to hope to god that the lady who was selling the tea a few minutes ago 'may have had some training' (or not as the case maybe) in order to help evacuate them safely, or at least make a decision about whether they should/should not evacuate - ie a dynamic risk assessment.

By not having these type of on-board staff properly trained seems to be a bit of a disaster waiting to happen (not that I want one to happen - ever).

Alan.

Some TOCs are better than others at training onboard staff in emergency procedures. At our place the onboard staff are trained in evacuation, making emergency calls etc, but I know a number of other TOCs don't. I've always made the argument that there should be a consistent industry standard of training for onboard staff so you know that if that member of staff is working on the train, they'll have been trained in x y and z.

 

[Esker-pades]

Some TOCs are better than others at training onboard staff in emergency procedures. At our place the onboard staff are trained in evacuation, making emergency calls etc, but I know a number of other TOCs don't. I've always made the argument that there should be a consistent industry standard of training for onboard staff so you know that if that member of staff is working on the train, they'll have been trained in x y and z.

As someone who is looking to join the railway at some point in my life, I find that concerning. Personal experience tells me that I act very differently when I am in authority and know what to do compared to the times when I am unsure. I hope the TOC I end up with is one that gives all the training.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't all this "wait and call 999" risking a Grenfell scenario?

No. A train is more like a house in that sense - letting the situation develop is not likely to prevent you leaving. If you are concerned it might, go and stand right by the doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you really want to detrain at Ais Gill in a sub zero blizzard?

Depends. At this very moment I am on a train on the WCML fully equipped for such a scenario (having gone deliberately into such conditions yesterday up a big hill )

Bit niche, though, I accept. But in my current state of equipment, yes, I'd rather stick my crampons on and head for the nearest pub.

Some TOCs are better than others at training onboard staff in emergency procedures. At our place the onboard staff are trained in evacuation, making emergency calls etc, but I know a number of other TOCs don't. I've always made the argument that there should be a consistent industry standard of training for onboard staff so you know that if that member of staff is working on the train, they'll have been trained in x y and z.

For me in particular First Aid.

My counterpoint would be that there are safety systems and procedures set up to deal with this exact scenario and every safety-critical member of train crew knows the very first thing they must do in the event of a train accident is check if any other lines are blocked, and if they are, stop trains on the affected lines. With GSMR nowadays this is an instant process at the press of a button. There is the slight grey area where you derail right into an oncoming service that doesn't have a chance to stop - in that case it is unlikely you'd have time to evacuate beforehand anyway and it'd probably be safer to be on the train when it is hit rather than next to the train.

Exactly this situation arose when a Desiro hit a landslip on the south WCML and derailed just inside a tunnel. Shortly afterwards it was hit by another train. Everyone survived with minor injuries, but had anyone pulled the egress and jumped out (even on the nearside) they'd have been squashed. A bit of a nasty situation particularly had the guard also been incapacitated, as I doubt everyone would have sat there for all that long with no signal to call for help, even if the signaller would have had a good idea something was wrong when it remained in section for a long time.

 

[TurbostarFan]

The reason I created this thread is that I'm curious as to what the safety information posters mean when they give advice on how to safely self-evacuate the train in the event that it "becomes necessary".

 

[EM2]

The reason I created this thread is that I'm curious as to what the safety information posters mean when they give advice on how to safely self-evacuate the train in the event that it "becomes necessary".

When you are instructed to do so.

 

[DanDaDriver]

So you can name to me and describe the one piece of OHL lineside equipment which sits on the ground and can, in certain circumstances, and an incident where evacuation is an option could be one, can be energised up to the full 25kV?

I can name it, describe it and tell you what it does. But I don’t know that I’d want to have to identify it in the general spaghetti junction you get in the cess.

Which is why I’d stay on the train, and I say that as someone with actual PTS (not off a YouTube video )

 

[bramling]

1) Has any member of this list been in a position where they needed to seriously consider detraining?
2) Has any member of this list been in a position where - once in full possession of all facts - detraining was the best option?

I very strongly suspect that the answer to (1) is 'no' and I more than very strongly suspect that the answer to (2) is also 'no'. So (a) follow the advice that seems to be in most carriages these days - it's almost certainly safer to stay on the train, and (b) spend your time worrying about something more likely to happen - what to do when you win the lottery jackpot or something.

I don't think anyone can say it's "almost certainly" safer to say on the train. In *most* situations is will be, however I can think of four scenarios where it certainly would be advisable to consider evacuating ASAP:

(1) If fire is spreading and moving to another carriage for whatever reason doesn't offer refuge.
(2) the train has been involved in an accident and is in imminent danger of being struck by another tran
(3) the train has for whatever reason come to rest on a structure which is now unsafe, e.g. a river bridge or viaduct
(4) during an "active shooter" or "bladed weapon" terror incident.

 

[TurbostarFan]

I don't think anyone can say it's "almost certainly" safer to say on the train. In *most* situations is will be, however I can think of four scenarios where it certainly would be advisable to consider evacuating ASAP:

(1) If fire is spreading and moving to another carriage for whatever reason doesn't offer refuge.
(2) the train has been involved in an accident and is in imminent danger of being struck by another tran
(3) the train has for whatever reason come to rest on a structure which is now unsafe, e.g. a river bridge or viaduct
(4) during an "active shooter" or "bladed weapon" terror incident.

Why is a river bridge or viaduct unsafe?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is a river bridge or viaduct unsafe?

I think he means if that structure *was* unsafe, e.g. the train has stopped on a bridge which has already started to wash away.

Unlikely that a passenger would see that in enough time, though.

FWIW, as I posted above, case (2) actually happened in the LM incident and passengers were better on board than in the path of the other train or being squashed against the tunnelside by it.

I think the most likely one for me would be spreading fire in a train like a Class 700 with no doors between coaches. Yes, they do have anti-smoke ventilation, but if that had failed it would quickly get nasty. That, and as someone else said if the train was on its side and quite obviously going nowhere.

 

[TurbostarFan]

I think he means if that structure *was* unsafe, e.g. the train has stopped on a bridge which has already started to wash away.

Unlikely that a passenger would see that in enough time, though.

FWIW, as I posted above, case (2) actually happened in the LM incident and passengers were better on board than in the path of the other train or being squashed against the tunnelside by it.

That is a fair point, thank you.

 

[sheff1]

'''''

 

[Deafdoggie]

The safety information posters say to remain on board unless unsafe to do so. Even then, first advice is to move to another carriage if possible.
The Class 390 that came off in Cumbria had some who self-evacuated, but it took the emergency services a lot longer to find them, than it did to find the train! That said, it took them a while to locate the train. Lessons learned though, the emergency services now place more reliance on location from landline calls which A) are a fixed known location, and B) are more likely to be from someone who knows where they are!
Also, neither the first class staff nor shop staff were safety trained as such. But all knew best advice was to remain onboard & no one self-evacuated from their coaches.

 

[bramling]

Why is a river bridge or viaduct unsafe?

I’m thinking of a scenario where either the bridge has been damaged as part of the incident, or if the bridge was already damaged for example as part of a flood. I’m thinking of the incident on the Central Wales Line in the 1980s - in that incident staying put certainly wasn’t the best course of action, and in fact the reluctance of one or more passengers to move ultimately cost a number of lives.

 

[jopsuk]

The onboard safety posters, on all trains, from my memory recommend staying on board unless the carriage is on fire, and moving to an adjacent carriage in the first instance if that is the case.

 

[DanDaDriver]

Why is a river bridge or viaduct unsafe?

Because it’s potentially pitch black and chaotic. You could quite easily jump down from the carriage and go over the side of the river bridge or viaduct.

 

[oversteer]

Fascinated to know.. what’s the line side 25kV equipment ? I promise not to touch it.

 

[whhistle]

You could say 'Get off if you think you're going to die' but everyone's perception of mortal danger is different.

There's been plenty of cases of people thinking they're rescuing themselves only to actually have gone into headless chicken mode and either seriously hurt or killed themselves when they'd have been quite safe where they are.

And this is it.

If my life was at immediate risk, IE fire, I'd be running away and making a dynamic risk assessment while I was getting away from the area.

If my life isn't in immediate danger, I'd still be making that dynamic risk assessment but with less priority on getting out.

What I detest though is people who then try and claim for tripping over something near the railway when it was their own choice to exit the train (IE, no immediate threat to life).

 

[underbank]

When you are instructed to do so.

I think the problem arises when there is no one giving credible instructions/advice, i.e. as the OP says, where neither the guard nor driver are able to communicate. When you're left on your own, not knowing what is happening, you're not going to just sit there if you feel you are in mortal danger. You want to be given authorititive information/instructions and need to be able to see that rescue is in progress.

 

[underbank]

The stay put advice at Grenfell was sound for the building in its as built condition, as it remains so for many high rise buildings. It was the modifications to the building that exasperated the fire and nullified the effectiveness of stay put.

Agreed, but the "stay put" advice stayed in place far too long - the residents were given duff information to stay where they were when it was blatantly obvious the building fire couldn't be put out. As early as 1.29, the building was basically lost and the fire unstoppable (as per expert witness statements to the inquiry) . Those who ignored fire brigade advice and took their own decisions (listened to advice over the phone from friends/relatives outside the tower) mostly escaped. That has done untold damage to public confidence in the emergency services. If you feel you're in mortal danger, you really need to be able to trust those in authority to give you the right information. If information/communication is difficult or the person at the other end of the phone doesn't really give confidence that they know the situation, you're far more likely to take things into your own hands, for better or for worse. Unfortunately, recent situations of passengers being trapped on broken down trains for far too long without proper communication is also likely to do untold harm.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, but the "stay put" advice stayed in place far too long - the residents were given duff information to stay where they were when it was blatantly obvious the building fire couldn't be put out. As early as 1.29, the building was basically lost and the fire unstoppable (as per expert witness statements to the inquiry) . Those who ignored fire brigade advice and took their own decisions (listened to advice over the phone from friends/relatives outside the tower) mostly escaped. That has done untold damage to public confidence in the emergency services. If you feel you're in mortal danger, you really need to be able to trust those in authority to give you the right information. If information/communication is difficult or the person at the other end of the phone doesn't really give confidence that they know the situation, you're far more likely to take things into your own hands, for better or for worse. Unfortunately, recent situations of passengers being trapped on broken down trains for far too long without proper communication is also likely to do untold harm.

Have a listen to the Enquiry Podcast the BBC are doing. The level of incompetence and disorganisation was shocking - they simply were not prepared for a large fire of that nature, which is quite worrying. As ever, the individuals were doing their best, many risking their lives, but despite the (archaic[1]) system not because of it.

[1] I do not understand, and never have, why the emergency services do not come under one single system of control from start to finish. Few major incidents only require one of them.

 

[krus_aragon]

the residents were given duff information to stay where they were when it was blatantly obvious the building fire couldn't be put out.

Blatantly obvious to those on the scene, but not neccesarily those in the call centres. That's one of the many things the inquiry's looking at.

 

[krus_aragon]

The lasting impression I have from onboard safety posters is to stay put unless I can't. If I have to move, I should stay on the train.

And there's the existence of wooden ladders, glow sticks and window hammers, but they're in varying locations on different stock.

I reckon that's enough to be going on unless and until a calamity happens.

 

[Highlandspring]

Fascinated to know.. what’s the line side 25kV equipment ? I promise not to touch it.

A detached red bond. You also get live 25kV feeder cables in linside troughing.

 

[TheEdge]

Fascinated to know.. what’s the line side 25kV equipment ? I promise not to touch it.

Red bonds. They are part of the current return on the OHL, normally they are to be left alone but not lethal but if they are damaged, say, after an accident, they can be up to 25kV

 

[Highlandspring]

if they are damaged, say, after an accident, they can be up to 25kV

Like damaged RC they can get to well over 25kV depending on how many trains are in section at the time.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Because it’s potentially pitch black and chaotic. You could quite easily jump down from the carriage and go over the side of the river bridge or viaduct.

In which case all the more reason not to self-evacuate the train. Many thanks.