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

[Mike Storey]

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.

 

Quite. As a Traffic Manager (re-named Asst Station Manager) Grade D supervisor, I had PICOP, ES, Look Out, Flagman, point winder/pumper etc, tickets (which was fantastic for weekend overtime). Plus full SM's Rules, Regs and Signallers' Local Instructions annual re-exams. But the reason for all that was not that we had enough people for any situation, but because we did not have enough people for any situation!! But we certainly had more then than it appears they do now, to deal with most incidents, planned or unplanned. But there is no way we would have had enough to deal with the situation which is the subject of this thread, until we had dragged people in across other Divisions. Quite how they would have got there is another matter.

[Mike Storey]

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?

 

Your fantasy is complete. Let's see how many of your "alternatives" or perfect solutions transpire in the official investigations. If more than one emerges as viable, you can call me "Meier".

 

You continue, as with almost all your non-modelling posts (your modelling posts are excellent and I bow to your skills and experience there), to assume some kind of world wide conspiracy to ensure you and your kin have the most unpleasant possible journeys possible, at any time, in any conditions, at the highest prices possible. You may be right on the last of those, but otherwise, I really cannot believe an intelligent person would be able to reach the conclusions that you have.

[locoholic]

Your fantasy is complete. Let's see how many of your "alternatives" or perfect solutions transpire in the official investigations. If more than one emerges as viable, you can call me "Meier".

 

You continue, as with almost all your non-modelling posts (your modelling posts are excellent and I bow to your skills and experience there), to assume some kind of world wide conspiracy to ensure you and your kin have the most unpleasant possible journeys possible, at any time, in any conditions, at the highest prices possible. You may be right on the last of those, but otherwise, I really cannot believe an intelligent person would be able to reach the conclusions that you have.

Instead of just chucking insults, why don't you explain why what I've written is "fantasy"?

[locoholic]

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!

Once again you seem to be arguing that an evacuation was impossible. If the train had been immobilised by a derailment, for instance, there would have been no choice but to evacuate the train! Are you suggesting that the hundreds of passengers would have been left there until the snow had melted?!

 

If the railway now lacks the resources to deal with such a situation in a timely way, it is inherently unsafe. Money will have to be spent and procedures will have to be changed.

 

I like the way you are so dismissive of the reports of what the passengers experienced, too. Of course they don't know all the railway rules and regulations - why should they? But they can tell the time, and realise that they have been standing in a crowded train for three hours with no toilets.

[bimble]

Railway workers 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?

 

 

fixed it for you... what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander...

 

but no doubt that after investigations, various recommendations will be made, and when we next have weather like that in four or five years we'll find out if anyone recalls them at the time.

[Mike Storey]

Instead of just chucking insults, why don't you explain why what I've written is "fantasy"?

 

I have, several times already, above. But you ignore them only to raise the same points again, but slightly differently.

 

Much the same as the average Peterborough Rail Users Meeting......I am fore-armed, you see. 

[phil-b259]

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!

 

Given what went on, I would be extremely surprised if there was no "blame" as you put it to be shared round amongst various elements of the railway industry that evening.

 

However unlike you, or the tabloid press you are doing a very good impression of, I prefer to wait until I see the results of the investigation before casting slurs about people 'in charge' on the night.

 

If people or procedures are to be found wanting then the RAIB will tell us.

 

WHEN the various reports are published AND WE KNOW WHAT WENT ON BEHIND THE SCENES - not just what passengers posted on twitter etc. we shall have a better idea whether there was some sort of conspiracy to keep passengers stranded on a freezing train as you maintain.

 

However you are likely to be disappointed - as based on previous railway industry 'incidents', it is quite likely that the outcome of said investigation will find the length of time that passengers were stranded was more as a result of lots of small errors by individuals working under significant pressure lining up to generate a much bigger crisis - also known as the "Swiss cheese theory"

 

Finally, its obvious you have never worked in a safety critical industry (or the military) with your cavalier attitude to rules and procedures. The whole point of safety critical industries is they have the very real ability to kill people if things are not done according to procedures - something that is very unlikely to occur if you work in investment banking, law, insurance, retail, etc.

 

As a fellow broadcast engineer said to me once, "If I screw up badly then people can't watch TV' and the company loses loads of money. If you screw up badly as a S&T engineer people WILL DIE and you will go to prison". Might be worth thinking a bit about that before being so quick to say rail staff were being 'selfish' particularly as you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your theories*

 

* Twitter is not evidence, nor are internet blogs, etc - they are OPINIONS and any 'facts' they may contain are restricted to what that person actually experienced at the time.

[caradoc]

Once again you seem to be arguing that an evacuation was impossible. If the train had been immobilised by a derailment, for instance, there would have been no choice but to evacuate the train! Are you suggesting that the hundreds of passengers would have been left there until the snow had melted?!

 

If the railway now lacks the resources to deal with such a situation in a timely way, it is inherently unsafe. Money will have to be spent and procedures will have to be changed.

 

I like the way you are so dismissive of the reports of what the passengers experienced, too. Of course they don't know all the railway rules and regulations - why should they? But they can tell the time, and realise that they have been standing in a crowded train for three hours with no toilets.

 

As has already been stated, until it was 100% clear that the train involved, AND the others affected by this incident, could not possibly be moved, the safest place for the passengers was on the train; Yes, it was crowded, and unpleasant, I don't think any contributors to this topic are doubting that, but it was not unsafe, which wandering about unsupervised on an electrified operational railway in darkness and snow certainly is. And how many staff should the railway employ, standing around doing nothing for 99.5% of the time, just in case an incident like this should occur - I doubt there was ever a time when this number of trains and passengers could have been dealt with without massive delay and inconvenience. I think you seriously underestimate the challenges involved in dealing with this incident, and seriously overestimate the resources available.

[jjb1970]

Unless people are intimately familiar with the applicable rules and regulations as well as with railway operations it is difficult to hold an opinion either way, other than to recognise it was an unfortunate incident and that hopefully "lessons will be learned" to avoid a repeat.

 

I don't know railway rules but I have worked in safety critical industries with rules and it is worth making the point that rules are mandatory, i.e. it is not up to employees to decide when and if they pay attention to the rules. The rules I do know included provision for cases where the rules could not or should not be applied, but even then there were tight controls including procedures on how that was done, authorisation to deviate etc. If a normal member of staff deviates from rules without going through the correct process for not applying them then if anything goes wrong (and even if nothing goes wrong) they risk ending up in a world of the proverbial.

 

And there are good reasons for this culture, people should consider the possible consequences if people were empowered to just do stuff according to whether or not it seemed to be a good idea. There is a balance between control of work and strangling initiative but in safety critical industries and processes tight control of work and operations is essential. We learnt that lesson from counting corpses (it's quite instructive to look at the safety record of early railways, nowadays the railways are rightly seen as a model of transport safety, it wasn't always the case). Nowadays we take high standards of safety for granted to such an extent that "elf 'an safety" has become almost a dirty word which I find rather sad.

[scouser]

A good example of what happens when people ignore rules is the banking collapse in 2008. We are all still paying for that!

[locoholic]

...as based on previous railway industry 'incidents', it is quite likely that the outcome of said investigation will find the length of time that passengers were stranded was more as a result of lots of small errors by individuals working under significant pressure lining up to generate a much bigger crisis - also known as the "Swiss cheese theory"...

 

...Twitter is not evidence, nor are internet blogs, etc - they are OPINIONS and any 'facts' they may contain are restricted to what that person actually experienced at the time.

In a safety critical like the railway is it essential that there is a clear command structure precisely in order to prevent the "swiss cheese" scenario. If the current fragmented structure of the railway allows lots of small errors to accumulate, then the report into the Lewisham incident must address this issue, otherwise it will keep happening until there is loss of life.

 

What "people actually experience at the time" is EXACTLY what constitutes evidence. The idea that only railwaymen are qualified to comment on an event which involves hundreds of members of the public seems to be rife on here, and is a dangerous kind of snobbery that leads to the labelling of passengers as "selfish tw_ts" instead of treating them as the victims of the incident, and is quite possibly a contributory factor in what happened at Lewisham.

 

If that mentality is followed, the slavish adherance to the "the safest place is on the train" mantra means that staff would feel justified in locking the doors, leaving passengers for how long - four hours, eight hours, in a packed train with no toilets?

 

I started this thread because I was interested to learn what people's opinion was concerning how long it was reasonable to keep passengers in the conditions endured by those at Lewisham. I have been genuinely shocked by the lack of empathy shown by some on here who are allegedly railway staff towards the passengers who use the railway.

[phil-b259]

In a safety critical like the railway is it essential that there is a clear command structure precisely in order to prevent the "swiss cheese" scenario. If the current fragmented structure of the railway allows lots of small errors to accumulate, then the report into the Lewisham incident must address this issue, otherwise it will keep happening until there is loss of life.

 

 

 

Which is precisely why organisations like the RAIB exist! However history shows us that the Swiss Cheese theory is hardly unique to the railway industry - the shipping industry, aeronautical industry and many industrial processes over the centuries have shown that it takes a major incident for the deficiencies to become apparent and changes to be made. We have already explained how following a mass stranding & uncontrolled de-training event at Kentish Town on a scorchingly hot summers day lead to certain changes in attitudes / procedures and the same will most likely be the case when the reports into the Lewisham incident are published.

 

 

What "people actually experience at the time" is EXACTLY what constitutes evidence. The idea that only railwaymen are qualified to comment on an event which involves hundreds of members of the public seems to be rife on here, and is a dangerous kind of snobbery that leads to the labelling of passengers as "selfish tw_ts" instead of treating them as the victims of the incident, and is quite possibly a contributory factor in what happened at Lewisham.

 

 

It does not provide evidence of the whole situation. Yes it tells us what conditions on that particular train was like and what the train driver said over the PA, but It DOES NOT tell us what was going on in control, how many NR /SE staff were available, how many other stranded passengers on other trains there were, whether any of the passengers on said other trains was in grater need of assistance to to medical issues, how road conditions affected staff deployment, etc.

 

To understand how, why and whether certain decisions (including leaving passengers trapped on the stranded train so close to a station) requires a FULL UNDERSTANDING of the circumstances. As I read once, if you see someone sat cross legged in the street wearing nothing but a loin cloth, then such conduct will seem strange and worthy of ridicule to observers. Once it is explained to you however that said person is convinced they are the reincarnation of Ghandi then the true nature of the situation is revealed and ridicule is not the most suitable way to react.

 

As I have remarked human beings ARE SELFISH BY NATURE - otherwise we wouldn't have evolved to where we are today! Even most 'kind and generous' acts are not truly that because they are done with the desire of furthering what might be termed a 'collective selfishness'. For example a tribe may work hard to gather supplies which they share amongst themselves. On the surface all very fair / generous of everyone, but in doing so it ensures that the whole tribe becomes better able to withstand attacks from neighbouring tribes compared to if each individual kept everything for themselves. Ergo that individual tribe is better off, but the wider human population might well be worse off and thus that individual tribe are ultimately committing a selfish act  - even if we understand and sympathise with their actions.

 

Fast forward several millennia, to a train stranded at Lewisham and the same processes are at play. To those stranded on the train, they are naturally the important ones having been crammed into a freezing train and with a driver telling them he would love to take a certain course of action. From their perspective it may not seem like a selfish act to detrain themselves, However none of those on the train are privy to the wider picture. As with the ancient tribe described above while we understand the motives of the passengers and can see how it works for them, it does not follow that said course of action is beneficial to ALL and is quite likely to be the reason requests by the driver to evacuate were declined by their control.

 

Ultimately it all comes down to perspective - and in general the travelling public have very little understanding of that concept be it railways or life in general. Something that may be seen as entirely logical at a local level, when an examination of the wider situation shows it to be actually not in the best interests of the wider community. For example 'garden grabbing' to build houses may well seem like a noble thing to do t a local level to prevent expansion into the countryside, however if the reduction in natural ground cover results in increased flooding (this link has been proved by research) then the act of selling a bit of your garden could be said to be a Selfish act.

 

 

 

If that mentality is followed, the slavish adherance to the "the safest place is on the train" mantra means that staff would feel justified in locking the doors, leaving passengers for how long - four hours, eight hours, in a packed train with no toilets?

 

 

Look, we get that it may well be uncomfortable and embarrassing locked in a crowded train with toilets for several hours, but please tell me the last time someone died from wetting themselves? By contrast people DO die from electrocution, being hit by moving objects, blows to the head (which may be caused by falling over and whacking your head on the rail etc).

 

Safe, in the railway context means being able to walk away with your body intact - it does not mean looking pretty.

 

 

I started this thread because I was interested to learn what people's opinion was concerning how long it was reasonable to keep passengers in the conditions endured by those at Lewisham. I have been genuinely shocked by the lack of empathy shown by some on here who are allegedly railway staff towards the passengers who use the railway.

 

Railway staff cannot 'forget' their training simply because it sounds nice on internet forums. Our reactions to situations are shaped by the rules by which we must adhere to - and generally speaking if folk have a problem with obeying said rules then they don't tend to stay within the industry. As has been repeatedly explained those rules are logical and perfectly satisfactory 99% of the time and as yet I have not seen any evidence from a safety perspective that says they are flawed - stranded trains or not. They may not result in the most comfortable or humane conditions for passengers but they were safe while on board the train.

 

That does not of course prevent rail staff expressing sympathy at the plight of passengers but empathy is only really possible if you have no railway industry knowledge. The word Empathy means ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’, which is obviously not the case if your training and conditioning leads you to believe that remaining on the train was the safest (if not a comfortable) option.

 

However what is true is that many rail staff have expressed Sympathy at the plight passengers found themselves in. The word Sympathy means ‘feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune’ and I don't think anyone is suggesting that the passengers involved did not suffer as a result. This is very different from the 'couldn't care less' syndrome that has been pushed by certain persons on this forum and elsewhere.

[kevinlms]

Well this thread is getting some absolute polar views & some of the discussion is far from pleasant to read. Terms like 'selfish passengers' and 'couldn't give a toss' have been raised.

 

Personally, I don't think the passengers were selfish, but concerned. Nor is it likely, that any railway staff really 'couldn't give a toss'.

 

 

I wonder how many of the 'trapped' passengers, wished they had taken notice of the travel warning and reconsidered their travel plans? Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

[The Stationmaster]

In a safety critical like the railway is it essential that there is a clear command structure precisely in order to prevent the "swiss cheese" scenario. If the current fragmented structure of the railway allows lots of small errors to accumulate, then the report into the Lewisham incident must address this issue, otherwise it will keep happening until there is loss of life.

 

What "people actually experience at the time" is EXACTLY what constitutes evidence. The idea that only railwaymen are qualified to comment on an event which involves hundreds of members of the public seems to be rife on here, and is a dangerous kind of snobbery that leads to the labelling of passengers as "selfish tw_ts" instead of treating them as the victims of the incident, and is quite possibly a contributory factor in what happened at Lewisham.

 

If that mentality is followed, the slavish adherance to the "the safest place is on the train" mantra means that staff would feel justified in locking the doors, leaving passengers for how long - four hours, eight hours, in a packed train with no toilets?

 

I started this thread because I was interested to learn what people's opinion was concerning how long it was reasonable to keep passengers in the conditions endured by those at Lewisham. I have been genuinely shocked by the lack of empathy shown by some on here who are allegedly railway staff towards the passengers who use the railway.

 

Have you any evidence that there isn't 'a clear command structure'.  And can you explain how 'the current fragmented structure of the railway allows small errors to accumulate' when everybody in the industry with the necessary qualification works to the same basic Rules & Regulations?  Any problem arising from the involvement of different organisations is down to the inquiry to establish but I do wonder if it would actually find much more than the sort of communication (or lack of) problems that were just as present in BR days as they are today; the inquiry process will answer that question.

 

It's up to those examining and assessing the incident to decide that,  However the situation back in BR days was in many respects little different from this one.  Passengers start to bail out on ground level electrified lines equals turn off the traction current as soon as it is known that is happening and don't restore it until competent people have got to the vicinity of the site and made sure no passenger remains in a position of danger.  That can take a very long time on a multiple track railway and it needs quite a lot of qualified people to carry out the task and they have to get to site.  

 

Clearly in virtually all circumstances the 'safest place' will inevitably be on the train - just imagine (as has happened) a passenger bailing out and coming into contact with another train passing at a speed in excess of 100mph or think of one tripping on a conductor rail in the dark or snow and providing a convenient path to earth for the traction current.  Safety is in many respects not necessarily an absolute term but comes in different levels, as we establish with a risk assessment, and the worst possible situation is one in which people are exposed to a potentially fatal situation - and you can't get much nearer to that than by wandering about on a railway line.  The discomfort of being on a crowded trains, with or without a toilet, is for most people a long way from a situation which not only offers considerable potential for death but also offers a fairly high potential for it occurring.

 

Incidentally when we talk about comparative risk we should not overlook the risk potential in drawing a train forward into a signal section (or station platform) occupied by another train. Such a movement always has a potential for collision to occur (they have) and the risk of such a collision occurring during severe weather is always much greater - as experience has shown over many years (which is one reason why in places it was banned during adverse weather conditions such as those at the time of this incident).  So again we come back to comparing one level of risk and the potential outcome against other levels of risk and their potential outcomes and unless we work our way through the numbers for the various possible scenarios none of us know the answer in respect of these comparative risks although one could make a judgement based on experience and anyone with experience of walking around on a live railway line is likely to steer clear of an option which exposes untrained people to that level of risk.

 

And whatever the numbers come out as at the end of the day the various available courses of action depend, often critically, on the availability of people to allow them to happen.

[locoholic]

Have you any evidence that there isn't 'a clear command structure'.  And can you explain how 'the current fragmented structure of the railway allows small errors to accumulate' when everybody in the industry with the necessary qualification works to the same basic Rules & Regulations?  Any problem arising from the involvement of different organisations is down to the inquiry to establish but I do wonder if it would actually find much more than the sort of communication (or lack of) problems that were just as present in BR days as they are today; the inquiry process will answer that question.

 

It's up to those examining and assessing the incident to decide that,  However the situation back in BR days was in many respects little different from this one.  Passengers start to bail out on ground level electrified lines equals turn off the traction current as soon as it is known that is happening and don't restore it until competent people have got to the vicinity of the site and made sure no passenger remains in a position of danger.  That can take a very long time on a multiple track railway and it needs quite a lot of qualified people to carry out the task and they have to get to site.  

 

Clearly in virtually all circumstances the 'safest place' will inevitably be on the train - just imagine (as has happened) a passenger bailing out and coming into contact with another train passing at a speed in excess of 100mph or think of one tripping on a conductor rail in the dark or snow and providing a convenient path to earth for the traction current.  Safety is in many respects not necessarily an absolute term but comes in different levels, as we establish with a risk assessment, and the worst possible situation is one in which people are exposed to a potentially fatal situation - and you can't get much nearer to that than by wandering about on a railway line.  The discomfort of being on a crowded trains, with or without a toilet, is for most people a long way from a situation which not only offers considerable potential for death but also offers a fairly high potential for it occurring.

 

Incidentally when we talk about comparative risk we should not overlook the risk potential in drawing a train forward into a signal section (or station platform) occupied by another train. Such a movement always has a potential for collision to occur (they have) and the risk of such a collision occurring during severe weather is always much greater - as experience has shown over many years (which is one reason why in places it was banned during adverse weather conditions such as those at the time of this incident).  So again we come back to comparing one level of risk and the potential outcome against other levels of risk and their potential outcomes and unless we work our way through the numbers for the various possible scenarios none of us know the answer in respect of these comparative risks although one could make a judgement based on experience and anyone with experience of walking around on a live railway line is likely to steer clear of an option which exposes untrained people to that level of risk.

 

And whatever the numbers come out as at the end of the day the various available courses of action depend, often critically, on the availability of people to allow them to happen.

The ability of small errors to combine and produce an incident such as the one at Lewisham was not my suggestion. I merely pointed out that if that is the current state of play on today's railway, then it is not appropriate for a safety-critical industry like the railway.

[scouser]

It is going to get interesting when we have driverless trains. This is much closer than may be thought. They are in use and spreading in other parts of the world.

[royaloak]

Rail staff need to get to work so people who need to travel can, somebody who works in an office or shop doesnt need to, why cant people understand the fact that people who are relied upon to transport others have a higher need to get to work than others who are not relied upon.

fixed it for you... what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander...

 

but no doubt that after investigations, various recommendations will be made, and when we next have weather like that in four or five years days we'll find out if anyone recalls them at the time.

Fixed that for you!

[royaloak]

 Nor is it likely, that any railway staff really 'couldn't give a toss'.

Due to certain posters who obviously think we should risk being sacked or sent to prison because the nice warm train has got stuck, I dont any more, next time I will stay at home drinking beer laughing at all the passengers (most of whom dont need to travel anyway) stuck on the freezing cold platforms because the station staff decided to listen to the advice not to travel as well so werent there to open up the waiting rooms!

 

Instead of driving a train to the end of the line with no way of getting back to my home depot, like I did this time!

 

I look forward to the report about the Lewisham incident to find out exactly when the train toilets went out of action and whether certain tw@ter users posted accurate information about it, being stuck on a train with no heat, no light and no toilets for 3 hours is rather different from being stuck on a train with light, heat and toilets, and whether the self evacuating passengers had any bearing on the loss of power!

[locoholic]

Due to certain posters who obviously think we should risk being sacked or sent to prison because the nice warm train has got stuck, I dont any more, next time I will stay at home drinking beer laughing at all the passengers (most of whom dont need to travel anyway) stuck on the freezing cold platforms because the station staff decided to listen to the advice not to travel as well so werent there to open up the waiting rooms!

 

Instead of driving a train to the end of the line with no way of getting back to my home depot, like I did this time!

 

I look forward to the report about the Lewisham incident to find out exactly when the train toilets went out of action and whether certain tw@ter users posted accurate information about it, being stuck on a train with no heat, no light and no toilets for 3 hours is rather different from being stuck on a train with light, heat and toilets, and whether the self evacuating passengers had any bearing on the loss of power!

Seeing as how it was your very first post on this thread that lowered the tone so spectacularly by referring to the passengers who detrained after three hours as "selfish tw@ts", your sense of martyred indignation is wholly unjustified!

[royaloak]

Seeing as how it was your very first post on this thread that lowered the tone so spectacularly by referring to the passengers who detrained after three hours as "selfish tw@ts", your sense of martyred indignation is wholly unjustified!

Those passengers soon got back on the train because they couldnt get to the station, so what were the staff (one driver) supposed to do instead, once they got on the track the power would have had to be turned off and with a big hole in the side (where they had pulled the egress handle) the train would have got very cold very quick so yes they were selfish tw@s, try answering a question or two I have asked you!

 

I am reading a slightly different version of events where the train toilets, heating and lighting were still working and the passengers decided to self evacuate anyway (I wonder where the truth actually lies), best wait for the report and its suggestions which no doubt wont work in the real world.

 

I am still waiting for those viable alternatives of yours, no rush!

[Guest]

GIVE IT A ####### REST.

 

I'll report my own post so maybe a moderator can bang some virtual heads together.