Thames Turbo Sunday Crush

[whole diary]

[Lee]

More than 300 rail passengers squeezed into two coaches from Oxford to London - because First Great Western failed to provide the booked train (link below.)
http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.2046409.0.300_crush_into_twocar_train.php

An InterCity 125 High Speed Train, with eight coaches and seats for about 500 people, should have been used on Sunday afternoon.

But a two-car Thames Turbo train was used instead, due to a "basic error", said FGW^▸ (First Great Western) managers yesterday.

The Turbo had only 186 seats, which meant it was standing room only for about 50 passengers in each coach.

Richard Smith (FGW) said there were a "high number of standing passengers" on the train, but he added that customers were getting on and off along the route, so the total of 300 people might have changed.

He said:

"This was certainly not acceptable and we have launched an internal investigation.

"There is no legal limit in terms of the total number of standing passengers and the Rail Safety and Standards Board says there is no evidence to say that standing passengers are at risk."

[Phil]

"There is no legal limit in terms of the total number of standing passengers and the Rail Safety and Standards Board says there is no evidence to say that standing passengers are at risk."

That's interesting... I'm sure I'm not alone in having experienced a severe delay on a train leaving Temple Meads because of overcrowding, and being told "the driver refuses to leave the station until some people get off". And I don't blame him, either - I'm not easily scared, but it was positively dangerous in those carriages.

I have a feeling the Rail and Safety Standards Board probably need to amend or at least qualify that statement to reflect the possibility of extreme situations occurring.

[Lee]

Yes, indeed an interesting quote from FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

I also wonder how this particular journey compared with DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) guidance :

The Department^s general requirements for crowding are that passengers should not be expected to stand for more than 20 minutes.

[vacman]

It's down to the guard and driver how many people they think it's safe to carry.

[Chris from Nailsea]

There is an excellent, well sourced and comprehensive item on the whole subject of 'crowding', on Insider's blog, at http://indefenceoffirstgreatwestern.blogspot.com/2008/01/up-close-and-personal.html .

To avoid duplication, I won't reproduce any of the text here, but it's well worth a look if you want some more background information on this clearly rather emotive subject.

(Thanks to Insider for this - again!)

[smokey]

"There is no legal limit in terms of the total number of standing passengers and the Rail Safety and Standards Board says there is no evidence to say that standing passengers are at risk."

That's interesting... I'm sure I'm not alone in having experienced a severe delay on a train leaving Temple Meads because of overcrowding, and being told "the driver refuses to leave the station until some people get off". And I don't blame him, either - I'm not easily scared, but it was positively dangerous in those carriages.

I have a feeling the Rail and Safety Standards Board probably need to amend or at least qualify that statement to reflect the possibility of extreme situations occurring.

The RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) are really up against it on the issue of standing in trains, Many passengers don't like the new high-backed seats fitted on Refurbished HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s and units however the alternative was to fit seat belts, now what problems that would cause, if passengers had to wear seat belts, standing passengers would have to be banned.

Whilst overcrowding is not nice, it's actually bad for business, Joe public have media driven images that all trains are packed and vast numbers of the public JUST DON'T use trains, something like 50% of the public never use trains.

On the issue of safety there is evidence (depoending on impact speed) that in some conditions a packed train is safer than an empty one, I've  been in a Train crash and was stood in the isle walking towards the exit doors when due to the train stopping dead I went flying almost half way down the carriage, someone who crashed into a partition need hospitial attention.

The other forgotten Issue with overcrowding is that if passengers are left behind standing at a station to await the next train you get overcrowded platforms and that causes it's own dangers.

[Lee]

I would like to make clear that I was quoting Richard Smith of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) regarding this.

[Btline]

That Mr Cole is wrong.

Chiltern Railways have refreshed ALL of their trains.

How dare FGW^▸ (First Great Western) lie.

[Steve44]

This Happens all too often recently.  I must say, i think it's Ludacrous that on a sunday the one fast train Oxford get an hour to London calling at Didcot, Reading and Slough is ran by not only a 3 car Turbo, but is a service from Hereford/malvern/Worcester.  These services are usually almost full by the time they reach Oxford, and half the time by a train that is just too small for a long distance service. I understand they are going through a Major over-haul of their HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) but this is just rediculous.  You have to fight for a seat, and it can't be nice for those travelling from Hereford to have to dread the mad rush they have to face when the train gets to Oxford.  Luckily, i normally board the train at Charlbury, so it's rare that i haven't got a seat, but it's uncomfortable for all when you are surrounded by 10s of standing customers.  Even when Adelantes were regularly running the service, there was still just as much overcrowding.  Oxford is a big place, and even though this has been happening on the hour, every hour on the hourly frequency of fast trains to London on a sunday for a very long time, still nothing has been done. 

I'm new to this site, this is just something that has annoyed me for a long time!

[Btline]

Welcome to the site, Steve!

Let's hope that with refreshed HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) coming in, that overcrowding should cease.

First can then look at punctuality!

[Lee]

"There is no legal limit in terms of the total number of standing passengers and the Rail Safety and Standards Board says there is no evidence to say that standing passengers are at risk."

That's interesting... I'm sure I'm not alone in having experienced a severe delay on a train leaving Temple Meads because of overcrowding, and being told "the driver refuses to leave the station until some people get off". And I don't blame him, either - I'm not easily scared, but it was positively dangerous in those carriages.

I have a feeling the Rail and Safety Standards Board probably need to amend or at least qualify that statement to reflect the possibility of extreme situations occurring.

The RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) are really up against it on the issue of standing in trains, Many passengers don't like the new high-backed seats fitted on Refurbished HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s and units however the alternative was to fit seat belts, now what problems that would cause, if passengers had to wear seat belts, standing passengers would have to be banned.

Whilst overcrowding is not nice, it's actually bad for business, Joe public have media driven images that all trains are packed and vast numbers of the public JUST DON'T use trains, something like 50% of the public never use trains.

On the issue of safety there is evidence (depoending on impact speed) that in some conditions a packed train is safer than an empty one, I've  been in a Train crash and was stood in the isle walking towards the exit doors when due to the train stopping dead I went flying almost half way down the carriage, someone who crashed into a partition need hospitial attention.

The other forgotten Issue with overcrowding is that if passengers are left behind standing at a station to await the next train you get overcrowded platforms and that causes it's own dangers.

Interesting quote from the comments section of the I Hate First Great Western Blog (link below) :
http://ihatefirstgreatwestern.blogspot.com/2007/10/you-cant-sit-down-not-even-if-you-pay.html#comment-c953537236053019674

I refuse to stand if there are no seats in cattle class. I sit in first and politely ask the conductor to find me a seat in the cheap section. If he cannot I politely tell him that I require safe passage and that the railway has a duty of care towards me. It is very dangerous to be standing on a speeding train and if something should cause the train to stop and I was standing, I would be in a very dangerous situation where I could incur serious injury. Sitting in a seat is a far safer option. (A medical professional explained all this to me)

[zebedee]

Hmmm, that last post - can't really see the argument there, if everyone did that, it would be chaos.  If they are that worried about train safety, then they should drive - oh hang on, that's actually more dangerous.  Best stay at home then, oh hang on - most accidents happen in the home!

[Tim]

It's down to the guard and driver how many people they think it's safe to carry.

Is it not rather unfair to place the resonsibility on them?  presumably if someone died from overcrowding it would be them in trouble.

[zebedee]

I think the responsibility is at least 50% down to the individual - if you see a train is over-crowded, you don't have to get on it.  Don't get me wrong, I hate having to stand on trains - I have to stand on the train into Exeter some mornings, but I think to just sit down in first class and demand a seat is not helpful, in fact, it's very selfish - much better that person finds an alternative way of travelling if they are that bothered.

Put it this way, my wife travelled from Newton Abbot to Plymouth on Saturday with our three (young children) the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) was packed out so she had to stand in the vestibule.  She made that decision.  However, judging by this persons attitude she had even more of a case to pile into first class (as she was responsible for 3 other lives as well as her own).  The argument doesn't stand up at all - its like taking your Vauxhall Nova along to a Volvo garage and demanding a XC90 because it's alot safer....

"It is very dangerous to be standing on a speeding train" - only if it crashes!  It's very dangerous to throw yourself it to a pit of starving lions or stick your head near a whirling circular saw....let's get some perspective!

[Lee]

I think the responsibility is at least 50% down to the individual - if you see a train is over-crowded, you don't have to get on it.  Don't get me wrong, I hate having to stand on trains - I have to stand on the train into Exeter some mornings, but I think to just sit down in first class and demand a seat is not helpful, in fact, it's very selfish - much better that person finds an alternative way of travelling if they are that bothered.

Put it this way, my wife travelled from Newton Abbot to Plymouth on Saturday with our three (young children) the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) was packed out so she had to stand in the vestibule.  She made that decision.  However, judging by this persons attitude she had even more of a case to pile into first class (as she was responsible for 3 other lives as well as her own).  The argument doesn't stand up at all - its like taking your Vauxhall Nova along to a Volvo garage and demanding a XC90 because it's alot safer....

"It is very dangerous to be standing on a speeding train" - only if it crashes!  It's very dangerous to throw yourself it to a pit of starving lions or stick your head near a whirling circular saw....let's get some perspective!

I take it that we can be fairly certain you disagree with the I Hate First Great Western blog comment then