Growth in passenger numbers continues

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

simonw said "certainly not safe".  I regard safe as "no threat of death or injury". What you describe is certainly unpleasant, and I wouldn't want to be on such a service. But I wouldn't regard it as unsafe.

......how would you assess the ability to undertake an emergency evacuation in the event of (for example) fire in a grossly overcrowded train?  A potential scenario on a daily basis.

[broadgage]

simonw said "certainly not safe".  I regard safe as "no threat of death or injury". What you describe is certainly unpleasant, and I wouldn't want to be on such a service. But I wouldn't regard it as unsafe.

Agree.

Rail can be a most unpleasant mode of travel when grossly overcrowded, but actually dangerous ? How many have died as a result ?

The only circumstances that I can think of when crowding could be actually dangerous would be in case of substantial delay in hot weather and combined with lack of air conditioning.
That could kill, and I fear that one day it will, but AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) it has never happened yet.

To avoid danger in such circumstances, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) the railway needs to give more attention to prompt evacuation of failed or badly delayed trains especially when this occurs in hot weather and when air conditioning is not available.
One of the few merits IMO^▸ (in my opinion) of the new IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is the fitting of limited diesel power to the electric trains, in order that air conditioning may be supplied when the wires come down.

I would hope that sufficient rolling stock will be available to eliminate standing on long distance services UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. I fail to see how standing can be totally eliminated under abnormal circumstances.
For example if the trains leaving at 09-00, at 09-30, at 10-00 and at 10-30 are expected to be 90% full, what happens if the 09-00 is cancelled at the last minute ? It would take most of the day for an hourly service of trains already 90% full to clear everyone without a lot of standing.
For major sporting events, one would hope that extra or longer trains would be put on, but what happens if the railway plan for 5,000 extra passengers, but 8,000 turn up ? Standing though regrettable would be preferable to telling 3,000 that they cant go to the match.

[broadgage]

simonw said "certainly not safe".  I regard safe as "no threat of death or injury". What you describe is certainly unpleasant, and I wouldn't want to be on such a service. But I wouldn't regard it as unsafe.

......how would you assess the ability to undertake an emergency evacuation in the event of (for example) fire in a grossly overcrowded train?  A potential scenario on a daily basis.

It does appear to be a theoretical risk, but how many people have died in train fires in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) in recent decades ? and was overcrowding a factor in even a single fatality ?
The risk appears insignificant in practice, and arguably getting less year on year as new trains are more fire resistant, and electric traction is (very slowly !) replacing diesel power.

[John R]

That's a good question.

Firstly, in terms of risk assessment, I'd look at the likelihood of such an emergency evacuation being needed. Pretty low I'm guessing, although clearly not zero.

Then I'd consider the likelihood of the speed of the evacuation being critical. You mention fire, and that's probably the only one where speed is of the essence.

Then I'd look at the impact on the overcrowding of the train in terms of time taken for people to evacuate, and the potential delay in terms of fatality/serious injury.

Once I'd done all that, I would judge the overall probability in terms of passenger kilometres and probably conclude that the risk is so minutely small that it is worth taking. As the alternative would be to impose additional costs on the industry that would result in increased fares, more people travelling by road, and more road accidents as a result.

There hasn't been a fatality or serious injury (as a result of an rail related incident) of an on train passenger for nearly 9 years now, despite many trains being seriously overcrowded on a regular basis. The track record speaks for itself.

 

[grahame]

It does appear to be a theoretical risk, but how many people have died in train fires in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) in recent decades ? and was overcrowding a factor in even a single fatality ?

One death at Ladbroke Grove was attributed to the fire after the collision.  And I recall (but I can't find the reference) that people may have moved forward in the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) so been standing in coach H.    But then the ultimate is to have trains seated-only, and with people required to remain in their seats until the train has come to a complete halt. 

[onthecushions]

My experience of train crowding is that it is self-regulating. When a train becomes too full extra passengers choose not to try to board. This is most noticeable on LUL^▸ (London Underground Ltd) and no staff intervention is needed other than to allow the doors to be closed. The JNR of course employs "pushers".

As far as collision safety is concerned you are probably safer jammed together than flying the length of an empty carriage into shards of glass at the end.

Bombay/Mumbai 12-car trains rated at 3500 capacity regularly disgorge >5000 at VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises), even with the 25kV OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") limiting numbers.

OTC