Should only the ultra-continent travel by train in bad weather?

[Mike Storey]

Are you suggesting that there are certain locations where, if a train becomes stranded, the passengers are doomed to remain on the train whatever the circumstances?! Surely, having read the description of the conditions aboard the train, you are not still arguing that the passengers were selfish and should just have stayed put, regardless of the medical emergencies which would have been inevitable? If evacuations are impossible in some locations, this should be taken account of when deciding whether to operate a train service in extreme weather.

 

Some locations?? I am struggling to think of a route where this would not apply, at least at one location. Your recommendation continues to be then, at the sight of uncertain weather forecasts, whether it be the extent, localities or timing of snowfall, ice build-up, wind speeds, gusting speeds and direction, leaf-fall, heat or cold likely to affect OHLE tension or 3rd rail traction component failure, atmospherics likely to have effect on digital or analogue communications integrity, rainfall intensity possibly causing localised or widespread flooding, or high tides possibly affecting coastal or estuary (especially London) routes, that all services should be immediately suspended, pending absolute certainty on conditions.

 

I calculate that makes us able to run a full train service on a mild Wednesday in early June.

 

Seriously, all decisions about daily operation are best, educated guesses, balancing the needs of passengers and freight against the likelihood of nemesis, using experience. No doubt the RAIB investigation will conclude that some better decisions could have been taken in this particular instance. Well, feck me. What a revelation. I feel certain that the office-based, guardians of life and limb, who count amongst their number only a (very honourable) few who have ever had to make real time decisions in their lives, will ensure no commuter ever has to make a reasoned, risk-based decision themselves, ever again. The primary decision made by many, according to statements on here, is that getting to work is paramount above all risks, and that such risks as may exist, should be obviated by the carrier, despite the unreality. I can accept that from a nurse, fire-person or similar. From others, I MUST get to work or I will be sacked, whatever the conditions, and you MUST get me there, whatever the conditions, and I will blame you for all my ills if you do not, does not sit comfortably with the other main theory, that the TOC should not have run at all.

 

Which is right?

[locoholic]

Some locations?? I am struggling to think of a route where this would not apply, at least at one location. Your recommendation continues to be then, at the sight of uncertain weather forecasts, whether it be the extent, localities or timing of snowfall, ice build-up, wind speeds, gusting speeds and direction, leaf-fall, heat or cold likely to affect OHLE tension or 3rd rail traction component failure, atmospherics likely to have effect on digital or analogue communications integrity, rainfall intensity possibly causing localised or widespread flooding, or high tides possibly affecting coastal or estuary (especially London) routes, that all services should be immediately suspended, pending absolute certainty on conditions.

 

I calculate that makes us able to run a full train service on a mild Wednesday in early June.

 

Seriously, all decisions about daily operation are best, educated guesses, balancing the needs of passengers and freight against the likelihood of nemesis, using experience. No doubt the RAIB investigation will conclude that some better decisions could have been taken in this particular instance. Well, feck me. What a revelation. I feel certain that the office-based, guardians of life and limb, who count amongst their number only a (very honourable) few who have ever had to make real time decisions in their lives, will ensure no commuter ever has to make a reasoned, risk-based decision themselves, ever again. The primary decision made by many, according to statements on here, is that getting to work is paramount above all risks, and that such risks as may exist, should be obviated by the carrier, despite the unreality. I can accept that from a nurse, fire-person or similar. From others, I MUST get to work or I will be sacked, whatever the conditions, and you MUST get me there, whatever the conditions, and I will blame you for all my ills if you do not, does not sit comfortably with the other main theory, that the TOC should not have run at all.

 

Which is right?

I just find it astonishing that whilst the rail industry has become almost totally risk averse in some aspects of operation with, for instance, new stations not allowed to be built on curves, it is acceptable to allow passengers to stew for several hours crammed in like sardines with no means of evacuation, thus taking the gamble that there will never be a medical emergency, fire or terrorist attack at that location. Crazy double standards!

[phil-b259]

I just find it astonishing that whilst the rail industry has become almost totally risk averse in some aspects of operation with, for instance, new stations not allowed to be built on curves, it is acceptable to allow passengers to stew for several hours crammed in like sardines with no means of evacuation, thus taking the gamble that there will never be a medical emergency, fire or terrorist attack at that location. Crazy double standards!

 

The two are not remotely comparable.

 

That station will be on a curve - and thus present a hazard to passengers boarding / alighting due to large gaps between the carriage and the platform 365 days a year! Moreover that is a planned Hazard which will exist for as long as the station remains open.

 

The number of days a year the UK gets sufficiently extreme weather to cause trains to stall is rarely beyond the teens with some years seeing it in single digits. We do not run a railway planning to freeze (or boil) passengers for hours on end while they are crammed into stranded trains.

 

You do the maths as it were (eg. 500 station users per day x 365 = 182500 or 1000 x 6 = 6000) and work out which presents a grater risk factor overall.

 

Also if leaving passengers to "stew for several hours like Sardines" is apparently so acceptable, then please explain why the RAIB, South Eastern & Network Rail are all investigating the incident, or why ATOC (or whatever they are called these days already have procedures designed to prevent this (admittedly more focused on summer days where passengers being subjected to excessively high temperatures has led to incidents). If we believe your nonsense non of these measures are necessary.....

 

At the end of the day the incident at Lewisham shouldn't have happened. Is it right that passengers were put in that situation? no of course not, but equally the railway industry also did not set out to deliberately make people suffer. As with all RAIB style inquires, I have no doubt flaws will exist in procedures, the decisions of individuals will be found wanting, and the level of priority given to certain tasks - but all this is still a case of 'cock up' rather than 'conspiracy'.

Edited March 13, 2018 by phil-b259

[locoholic]

The two are not remotely comparable.

 

That station will be on a curve - and thus present a hazard to passengers boarding / alighting due to large gaps between the carriage and the platform 365 days a year! Moreover that is a planned Hazard which will exist for as long as the station remains open.

 

The number of days a year the UK gets sufficiently extreme weather to cause trains to stall is rarely beyond the teens with some years seeing it in single digits. We do not run a railway planning to freeze (or boil) passengers for hours on end while they are crammed into stranded trains.

 

You do the maths as it were (eg. 500 station users per day x 365 = 182500 or 1000 x 6 = 6000) and work out which presents a grater risk factor overall.

 

Also if leaving passengers to "stew for several hours like Sardines" is apparently so acceptable, then please explain why the RAIB, South Eastern & Network Rail are all investigating the incident, or why ATOC (or whatever they are called these days already have procedures designed to prevent this (admittedly more focused on summer days where passengers being subjected to excessively high temperatures has led to incidents). If we believe your nonsense non of these measures are necessary.....

 

At the end of the day the incident at Lewisham shouldn't have happened. Is it right that passengers were put in that situation? no of course not, but equally the railway industry also did not set out to deliberately make people suffer. As with all RAIB style inquires, I have no doubt flaws will exist in procedures, the decisions of individuals will be found wanting, and the level of priority given to certain tasks - but all this is still a case of 'cock up' rather than 'conspiracy'.

My only observation would be that if you are correct, and what happened at Lewisham was so bad, why have several people on here who are apparently railwaymen directed so much bile at the "selfish" passengers who decided to de-train, whilst refraining from criticism of any of the people who allowed this situation to drag on far too long?

[Oldddudders]

My only observation would be that if you are correct, and what happened at Lewisham was so bad, why have several people on here who are apparently railwaymen directed so much bile at the "selfish" passengers who decided to de-train, whilst refraining from criticism of any of the people who allowed this situation to drag on far too long?

I speak as one who did 38 years in the industry, including a spell more than 40 years ago as Traffic Regulator in the London Bridge signalbox that then, presumably now, controls Lewisham. A couple of years later I covered the post of SM at Lewisham for a short time. I was SM at Dartford for a couple of years, then Operating Assistant for the South Eastern Division for several years until Divisions were abolished. I know, and am confident others here know, how we would have handled this dreadful situation safely and effectively, as well as rather more expeditiously.

 

But that was then, when staff were more numerous by some margin, and all but a few - anyone above Railman grade - were trained and deemed competent to walk the track and ‘do things’. As I have already emphasised, the current configuration of roles, rights and responsibilities, not least having regard to legal costs if people overstep their prescribed boundary and then get it wrong, simply means that no single person was responsible for deciding to detrain, and making it happen safely. BR didn’t always get it right, but the roles and responsibilities were at least clear.

 

We all understand why people detrained. The delay and discomfort were ridiculous, of course. But they did immediately place themselves in a position of substantial danger, from multiple risks - uncertain terrain under the snow, third rail, and oncoming trains. We are lucky indeed that no serious injuries have been reported.

[Oldddudders]

BR didn’t always get it right, but the roles and responsibilities were at least clear.

As an example of the latter, I recall a comparable incident in about 1971, when an early Up Morning Peak service lost traction current in the Balcombe area, due to icing on the con rail. The entire Sussex Coast service was thus bottled up behind it. The Divisional Manager, a very senior figure, did - as Mike Storey referred earlier - what was seen to be the right thing by going up into the signalbox in rear of the blockage, at Haywards Heath. But by so doing he effectively took control of the situation and everyone else accordingly awaited his direction - which was not forthcoming. Some hours passed before matters were resolved, I think - and the following week the DM found himself moved to some post in the Freight hierarchy. It remains to be seen whether the present Enquiry produces evidence of comparable individual shortcoming.

[Grovenor]

But they did immediately place themselves in a position of substantial danger, from multiple risks - uncertain terrain under the snow, third rail, and oncoming trains.

But then people place themselves in similar positions of danger everytime they go out of their front doors and are mostly capable of evaluating the situation and taking appropriate care. The problem here is that we have chosen to place an almost absolute requirement on the railway to protect everyone from any hazard. The pendulum has swung to far.

Regards

[phil-b259]

My only observation would be that if you are correct, and what happened at Lewisham was so bad, why have several people on here who are apparently railwaymen directed so much bile at the "selfish" passengers who decided to de-train, whilst refraining from criticism of any of the people who allowed this situation to drag on far too long?

 

Because the act of detraining was a selfish act. We understand why passengers felt inclined to do it - but they did not have to consider the wider effects of their actions unlike railways staff.

 

Being selfish is considering the needs of yourself as more important than the needs of others.

 

At the end of the day all humans are selfish to a degree - if they wern't then society as a whole couldn't exist - Very few people chose to give away all the money they earn or deliberately avoid indulging in hobbies like building a model railway (which does not usually bring anything of benefit to others).

 

As has been revealed there were at least 4 other stalled trains in he area occupying the minds of railway staff as well as the incident train. In such a situation it is necessary to consider the wider picture - for example maybe one of the other stranded trains was of grater priority in the overall scheme of things - say it had a particularly vulnerable person on board or getting it shifted would remove a key blockage allowing many other services to run.

 

We have also explained that when folk retrain in an uncontrolled manor then large areas end up having to have train movements halted and the traction power turned off (thus depriving thousands of other passengers of  heating / cooling and being stranded themselves).

 

This 'selfish' mentality is not confined to bad weather - if a piece of signalling equipment fails, there is a track defect, a person commits suicide*, a bridge gets bashed or a train simply brakes down, individual commuters will frequently berate staff / companies for cancelling / amending services. I recall a segment in the 1990s BBC documentary "Old, Dirty & Late" where a traincrew supervisor revealed they had to hide the identification of the crew mess room on the station as angry commuters were coming up and demanding "you have got loads of lazy drivers in here get one of them to crew my train" - rather ignoring that (i) if you pinch one of those drivers then someone elses train may be cancelled and (ii) The drivers present may not have the necessary route knowledge anyway.

 

*Suicides undertaken on the railway are most definitely a selfish act as subjecting traincrew / passengers / track workers to honorific injuries is something none of those groups are equipped to deal with. To a certain extent emergency service staff can usually expect to be involved in traumatic experiences while undertaking their jobs and as such are better able to cope with such things.

[phil-b259]

But then people place themselves in similar positions of danger everytime they go out of their front doors and are mostly capable of evaluating the situation and taking appropriate care. The problem here is that we have chosen to place an almost absolute requirement on the railway to protect everyone from any hazard. The pendulum has swung to far.

Regards

 

While this may well be true, until railway staff get an exemption from being hulled up in front of a judge and being prosecuted for taking a chance then they will continue to develop the necessary levels of Hazard protection.

 

As ever its not a 'railway' problem - its a problem with society at large and he degree to which they want the legal system to function.

[Mike Storey]

I just find it astonishing that whilst the rail industry has become almost totally risk averse in some aspects of operation with, for instance, new stations not allowed to be built on curves, it is acceptable to allow passengers to stew for several hours crammed in like sardines with no means of evacuation, thus taking the gamble that there will never be a medical emergency, fire or terrorist attack at that location. Crazy double standards!

 

So neither you nor anybody else, it seems, are prepared to declare whether it is right to continue running as long as possible, albeit at significant risk, but try to assist both "essential" passengers, and those many who feel their jobs would be at risk otherwise, or just completely stop, at no risk and thus no criticism of the handling of such incidents, but helping nobody?

 

It would appear that the only response is that such an incident should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. That requires major additional resource and investment, most of which would not be used, most of the time. But nobody wants to pay the extra for that to happen.

[scouser]

I wonder if all of the heated folk on here would be happy if the railways took the same attitude as is shown on the roads?

Here nobody takes responsibility for any of the deaths and injuries.

Maybe the railways should say that if a train is held for longer than, say 20 minutes, then the doors will be opened. Any person who steps outside of the door is no longer the responsibility of the railway or any of its' employees!

You are responsible for any eventuality, not us.

I've always found that people who are annoyed by any health and safety rules soon change their attitude if the accident involves themselves!

[locoholic]

Because the act of detraining was a selfish act. We understand why passengers felt inclined to do it - but they did not have to consider the wider effects of their actions unlike railways staff.

 

Being selfish is considering the needs of yourself as more important than the needs of others.

 

Your obstinate refusal to attach any blame to the railway staff is astonishing, when this was clearly a cock-up of a sizeable magnitude.

 

All I would add is that your obsession with selfishness should also be extended to whoever was meant to be dealing with the situation at Lewisham - their selfish desire to avoid the danger of disciplinary action or prosecution (which you referred to in a previous post) by departing from whatever operating protocol they were following, regardless of the dreadful conditions on the trains they were responsible for. The needs of those "others" stuck on the trains for hours obviously didn't figure highly enough in their thinking!

[locoholic]

So neither you nor anybody else, it seems, are prepared to declare whether it is right to continue running as long as possible, albeit at significant risk, but try to assist both "essential" passengers, and those many who feel their jobs would be at risk otherwise, or just completely stop, at no risk and thus no criticism of the handling of such incidents, but helping nobody?

 

It would appear that the only response is that such an incident should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. That requires major additional resource and investment, most of which would not be used, most of the time. But nobody wants to pay the extra for that to happen.

Firstly, I thought it had been established that there is no differentiation between "essential" passengers and anyone else! If a passenger train arrives at the platform, the passengers are entitled to assume that it is safe to board it and, if anything untoward happens, they will be looked after in a timely manner.

 

Secondly, the argument about nobody wanting to bear the cost of investing in staff and equipment for use in emergencies is a complete red herring, and has no place in a safety-conscious industry like the railway.

 

You seem to be another of those unwilling to admit that a cock-up has occurred. It will be interesting to read the official report into these multiple de-training incidents, and see what the reaction of the railway is.

[locoholic]

I wonder if all of the heated folk on here would be happy if the railways took the same attitude as is shown on the roads?

Here nobody takes responsibility for any of the deaths and injuries.

Maybe the railways should say that if a train is held for longer than, say 20 minutes, then the doors will be opened. Any person who steps outside of the door is no longer the responsibility of the railway or any of its' employees!

You are responsible for any eventuality, not us.

I've always found that people who are annoyed by any health and safety rules soon change their attitude if the accident involves themselves!

On the contrary - the police think nothing of closing a motorway for hours after an accident, trapping motorists for hours, and anyone who tries to be "selfish" by escaping down the hard shoulder is severely dealt with, so your analogy is not valid.

[scouser]

Your obstinate refusal to attach any blame to the railway staff is astonishing, when this was clearly a cock-up of a sizeable magnitude.

All I would add is that your obsession with selfishness should also be extended to whoever was meant to be dealing with the situation at Lewisham - their selfish desire to avoid the danger of disciplinary action or prosecution (which you referred to in a previous post) by departing from whatever operating protocol they were following, regardless of the dreadful conditions on the trains they were responsible for. The needs of those "others" stuck on the trains for hours obviously didn't figure highly enough in their thinking!

"Their selfish desire to avoid the danger of disiplinary action or PROSECUTION" is in your mind obviously different from the "selfish actions " of people having to get to work to avoid being sacked regardless of conditions.

IT IS NOT THE DRIVERS FAULT!

 

Regarding the next post about nobody accepting the costs , this is not a red herring at all!

These people who will not spend the necessary money are the whole cause! Red herring my backside...

[scouser]

On the contrary - the police think nothing of closing a motorway for hours after an accident, trapping motorists for hours, and anyone who tries to be "selfish" by escaping down the hard shoulder is severely dealt with, so your analogy is not valid.

It is completely valid. The police don't give a toss about the people who are stranded, often for hours. And the highways department take no responsibility for the accident. Does that explain it for you?

[royaloak]

Your obstinate refusal to attach any blame to the railway staff is astonishing, when this was clearly a cock-up of a sizeable magnitude.

 

All I would add is that your obsession with selfishness should also be extended to whoever was meant to be dealing with the situation at Lewisham - their selfish desire to avoid the danger of disciplinary action or prosecution (which you referred to in a previous post) by departing from whatever operating protocol they were following, regardless of the dreadful conditions on the trains they were responsible for. The needs of those "others" stuck on the trains for hours obviously didn't figure highly enough in their thinking!

What should the rail staff on site have done?

 

The fact the passengers who detrained themselves got back on the train instead of making their own way to Lewisham station tells me that Evacuation (controlled or otherwise) simply wasnt an option no matter how long the train had been stood there.

 

Passengers who were warned not to travel unless it was essential decided (in great numbers) to ignore that advice and travel, but hey it was only advice so simply ignore it eh, after all it isnt their problem when it goes wrong is it, I wonder who all the car passengers stuck on Halden Hill (A38) or the A30 were blaming for getting stuck, I bet it wasnt themselves same as none of these passengers are willing to accept any responsibility for getting stuck?

 

Why do you think they were advised not to travel?

It certainly wasnt for fun was it.

 

Please come up with a workable solution bearing in mind none of the passengers who detrained themselves made it to Lewisham station!

 

Anyone can sit behind their keyboard after the event saying this, that or the other should have been done but havent actually got a clue of about the ramifications of deciding on a course which increases the risk of injury to the passengers this isnt the 1960s anymore and personal responsibility is dead and buried, any injuries those passengers suffer while following your instructions are your responsibility.

 

Also remember those decisions you make will have to explained in Court when some numpty decides to ignore your instruction and then injures themselves, in fact even if they have followed your instructions implicitly but still get injured you will have to explain your decision to remove people from a safe (although uncomfortable) train and take them into a hazardous environment bearing in mind all the hazards were hidden under a couple of feet of snow!

[locoholic]

It is completely valid. The police don't give a toss about the people who are stranded, often for hours. And the highways department take no responsibility for the accident. Does that explain it for you?

And the railway staff didn't seem to "give a toss" about the hundreds of passengers trapped on the trains in the snow! What is your point?

[royaloak]

Your obstinate refusal to attach any blame to the railway staff is astonishing, when this was clearly a cock-up of a sizeable magnitude.

 

All I would add is that your obsession with selfishness should also be extended to whoever was meant to be dealing with the situation at Lewisham - their selfish desire to avoid the danger of disciplinary action or prosecution (which you referred to in a previous post) by departing from whatever operating protocol they were following, regardless of the dreadful conditions on the trains they were responsible for. The needs of those "others" stuck on the trains for hours obviously didn't figure highly enough in their thinking!

So what should have been done then!

[royaloak]

And the railway staff didn't seem to "give a toss" about the hundreds of passengers trapped on the trains in the snow! What is your point?

Uh there were also railstaff stuck on the trains you know, or dont they count?

 

Again I ask, would you be willing to bet your job and/or freedom by making a decision in that situation?

 

You ask a lot of questions but dont provide any answers!

[locoholic]

What should the rail staff on site have done?

 

The fact the passengers who detrained themselves got back on the train instead of making their own way to Lewisham station tells me that Evacuation (controlled or otherwise) simply wasnt an option no matter how long the train had been stood there.

 

Passengers who were warned not to travel unless it was essential decided (in great numbers) to ignore that advice and travel, but hey it was only advice so simply ignore it eh, after all it isnt their problem when it goes wrong is it, I wonder who all the car passengers stuck on Halden Hill (A38) or the A30 were blaming for getting stuck, I bet it wasnt themselves same as none of these passengers are willing to accept any responsibility for getting stuck?

 

Why do you think they were advised not to travel?

It certainly wasnt for fun was it.

 

Please come up with a workable solution bearing in mind none of the passengers who detrained themselves made it to Lewisham station!

 

Anyone can sit behind their keyboard after the event saying this, that or the other should have been done but havent actually got a clue of about the ramifications of deciding on a course which increases the risk of injury to the passengers this isnt the 1960s anymore and personal responsibility is dead and buried, any injuries those passengers suffer while following your instructions are your responsibility.

 

Also remember those decisions you make will have to explained in Court when some numpty decides to ignore your instruction and then injures themselves, in fact even if they have followed your instructions implicitly but still get injured you will have to explain your decision to remove people from a safe (although uncomfortable) train and take them into a hazardous environment bearing in mind all the hazards were hidden under a couple of feet of snow!

Several people on here have pointed out that the stranded train could have been taken past the signal until at least some of it was in the platform. The evacuation could then have been easily accomplished.

 

Alternatively, another train could have been brought alongside.

 

Alternatively, the current could have been switched off after an hour, when it became obvious that the time limit set out in the operating guidelines was going to be exceeded, and the train evacuated with help from the emergency services as happens in any other emergency situation (& this was an emergency, wasn't it?).

 

What actually happened, according to press and social media reports, was that there was a total failure both to act in a timely way and to keep the passengers informed, so that you inevitably had passengers from not one but several trains walking around on the track at various locations, making it impossible to move any train. Not the fault of the drivers at all. But who is meant to be in charge in such situations?

[royaloak]

As long as the train had power they had lights, heating and toilets o not exactly 3rd world conditions, once somebody self evacuated the power would have had to be turned off so limited light, no heat and (eventually) no toilets.

 

They would have needed power to move the train but does anyone actually know if it was practical or possible to talk past the signal and get onto the platform or are they just assuming it was possible?

 

Train brought alongside and then what?

Your decision your responsibility!

 

The passengers that detrained all got back on the train because they couldnt get to the station, but you still go on about evacuation as if it was viable, <repeating myself again> the fact all the detrained passengers got back on the train would indicate to me that evacuating was not a viable option!

 

I am sure the press and sowshow meeja have reported all the facts in a completely unbiased manner and they have complete knowledge of the rules, regulations, laws etc, just as they always do!

Edited March 14, 2018 by royaloak

[Trog]

But that was then, when staff were more numerous by some margin, and all but a few - anyone above Railman grade - were trained and deemed competent to walk the track and ‘do things’. As I have already emphasised, the current configuration of roles, rights and responsibilities, not least having regard to legal costs if people overstep their prescribed boundary and then get it wrong, simply means that no single person was responsible for deciding to detrain, and making it happen safely. BR didn’t always get it right, but the roles and responsibilities were at least clear.

 

As an example of the above in the 1980's as an STO a relatively lowly ranked member of the BR Area Civil Engineers P-Way technical staff in addition to permission to do techy things like stressing, working with tampers, track design, controlling excavating machinery, ballast cleaners etc etc. I also had the following qualifications Engineering Supervisor ( so I could be in charge of a work site), Person in Charge of Possession (So I could hold a possession in my own right), Look Out, Loads Examiner (For loading plant and materials on wagons.), a ticket allowing me to open a track at any speed up to the linespeed after engineering work. Most of these I did not use often as they were really the domain of the Supervisory Staff. But if for any reason we were short of supervisors or in an emergency, I could fill in so the work could still go on. This was not unusual most of my colleagues had similar portfolios, I would be rather surprised if there were many or even any Network Rail or contractors staff these days with such a range of tickets. The attitude then was that come hell or high water, we were going to get the job done.

[scouser]

And the railway staff didn't seem to "give a toss" about the hundreds of passengers trapped on the trains in the snow! What is your point?

My point is that the railway staff at the point of the problem could not do something, or they would have. It wasn't because they didn't

give a toss. They have to follow the rules, to quote Judge Dredd, It's the law!

This seems to be a fact you cannot grasp.

The people on the train were in an uncomfortable situation not a life or death situation. I've been stuck on a train for four hours, at no time was my life threatened.

What I'm suggesting is that you may prefer it if the rules were changed to match the road! Then everyone can do what they like.

What wonderful coarse of action would you suggest?

[caradoc]

Several people on here have pointed out that the stranded train could have been taken past the signal until at least some of it was in the platform. The evacuation could then have been easily accomplished.

 

Alternatively, another train could have been brought alongside.

 

Alternatively, the current could have been switched off after an hour, when it became obvious that the time limit set out in the operating guidelines was going to be exceeded, and the train evacuated with help from the emergency services as happens in any other emergency situation (& this was an emergency, wasn't it?).

 

What actually happened, according to press and social media reports, was that there was a total failure both to act in a timely way and to keep the passengers informed, so that you inevitably had passengers from not one but several trains walking around on the track at various locations, making it impossible to move any train. Not the fault of the drivers at all. But who is meant to be in charge in such situations?

 

Rather than blaming, on the basis of press and social media reports, the railway and its staff, it might be better to wait for the outcome of the various enquiries, so that proper conclusions can be reached, instead of slandering people who are not able to explain their actions here or defend themselves.