Stranded passengers detrain onto tracks - incident at Lewisham, 2 Mar 2018

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

With the Lewisham incident, allowance has to be made for the quite horrendous weather on the evening in question, but it must be considered a given that these sorts of incidents are most likely to occur during periods of major disruption and control centres (both NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)) should be staffed appropriately and local operations staff available at key locations so that these sorts of instances can be dealt with better.  Neither is the case at the moment.

II makes a very good point about appropriate staff being available.

One of the problems with the modern railway is how few staff ir needs to run trains. Also with the split between Network Rail and TOC staff you don't have staff qualified to go trackside unlike like in my day when there were lots more drivers, guards station staff, loco shed staff to man the breakdown cranes, S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) technicians, signalmen, PW^▸ (Permanent Way) staff  etc. Plus spare locos and units all available locally to assist.

The bean counters would have fits if there were a vast number of emergency crews hanging around waiting for incidents it means when there is widespread disruption there is no one to help the poor driver (and guard) if they get stuck.

I'm not sure I know what the answer is but it needs some changes to procedures to stop people being trapped on trains especially near stations. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Somewhat belatedly, RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) have announced ...

Hmm. 

Going off at a little bit of a tangent here: A website called Death by Health and Safety refer to RAIB as 'Read About It Belatedly', and so they monitor and report on timescales.

[ChrisB]

That was 5 days ago

[Chris from Nailsea]

I didn't say it wasn't. 

I merely picked up on a point made, that it does seem to take a while for the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) to update us: the original incident occurred on 2 March, but it wasn't until 13 March (eleven days later) that the RAIB announced that they will be investigating.

That is all. 

[ChrisB]

what was the hurry? Why is that a problem?

[Chris from Nailsea]

I would have thought that the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) would probably want to make contact with witnesses as soon as possible, while the actual incident was still fresh in their minds, rather than being clouded by subsequent press coverage, for example.

The incident was referred to the RAIB on 3 March 2018, so they had plenty of time to think about it.

[ellendune]

I have always imagined that before taking the decision to instigate an expensive formal investigate, RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) have a quick look to see whether the incident was serious enough or had exposed potential failings that warranted such an investigation. So the intervening days were for them to make preliminary enquiries and obtain internal approval to proceed to a detailed investigation. 

That way they spend their limited resources in the best possible fashion and the short delay is to allow proper management of our public money. 

[ChrisB]

Also, I'm sure that the notification date/time doesn't mark the actual start of their work.

[GBM]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stranding-of-trains-and-self-detrainments-at-lewisham?utm_source=e4373fe1-11f3-4fbb-ad4b-3f2463e612b0&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

Stranding of trains and self-detrainments at Lewisham

Investigation into the stranding of trains and self-detrainments at Lewisham, 2 March 2018.

At about 17:30 hrs on Friday 2 March 2018, the delayed 15:56 hrs Southeastern service from London Charing Cross to Dartford encountered difficulty in drawing electric current due to ice on the conductor rail, while attempting to depart from platform 4 at Lewisham station.

The following train, the delayed 16:26 hrs Southeastern service from London Charing Cross to Dartford, was then held at a red signal on the approach to platform 4 at Lewisham station. This train was held around a coach length from platform 4, because the track section that included that platform was still occupied by the 15:56 hrs service.

The train behind that, the delayed 17:06 hrs Southeastern service from London Charing Cross to Orpington, was consequently held at a red signal on the incline between Tanners Hill junction and Lewisham Vale junction. This train was 12 coaches long and its rear coaches blocked the fast lines at Tanners Hill junction. A total of four trains heading away from London and two trains heading towards London were stopped on the fast lines as a result of this. Two further trains were held on the slow lines in St Johns and Lewisham stations as a result of the congestion.

The 15:56 hrs service continued to make insufficient progress out of Lewisham station to clear the track section for the signalling to allow the 16:26 hrs service into platform 4. By 18:30 hrs Network Rail staff had arrived to help clear the ice from the conductor rail ahead of the 15:56 hrs service. The signaller and electrical operators were making preparations to locally isolate the power to allow the de-icing to start.

In advance of the power being switched off, the signaller was in the process of seeking special permission to allow the 16:26 hrs service to pass the red signal into platform 4. This would allow detrainment of the passengers onto the platform. However, during this discussion, the signaller received an emergency call from the driver of the 16:26 hrs service advising that some passengers had opened the doors and were getting out onto the track. The signaller immediately asked the electrical control operator to switch off the power to the conductor rail in the area.

The train driver, assisted by Network staff on the track, attempted to persuade passengers to re-board the train or to get clear of the track; they also advised those still on board to remain there. A short time later, British Transport Police, London Fire Service and London Ambulance service staff were called to Lewisham to assist with the passengers who were on the track. However, passengers continued to exit the 16:26 hrs service, and others alighted from the 15:56 and 17:06 hrs services. Passengers also alighted from trains that had stopped near New Cross station.

A controlled evacuation of the 15:56 and 16:26 hrs services to the Lewisham station platforms took place between about 20:00 hrs and 20:45 hrs. It then took some time for Network Rail and the emergency services to confirm that all passengers and staff were clear of the track in the affected area. Power was restored at 21:36 hrs and most trains were back on the move by about 22:00 hrs.

Our investigation into the incident will determine the sequence of events and the actions of those involved. It will also include consideration of:

the reasons for the trains becoming stranded and measures used to manage this
the emergency preparedness arrangements for cold weather
the processes used to manage the stranded trains and how standard rail industry guidance was applied
how passengers were briefed and kept informed, including the part played by mobile phones and social media
the plan for managing the safety of detrained passengers and recovering railway operation, and how this was applied (including liaison with the emergency services)
the high level management of the event by Network Rail and Southeastern
Although the investigation will focus on the events near Lewisham, it will also identify other serious stranding events that occurred on the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail network during the 1 and 2 March 2018.

Our investigation is independent of any investigation by the railway industry, or by the industry’s regulator, the Office of Rail and Road.

We will publish our findings, including any recommendations to improve safety, at the conclusion of our investigation. This report will be available on our website.

Apologies to Mods as it's outside FGW^▸ (First Great Western)-land but I find the subject very interesting.  Feel free to move or remove.

I can certainly understand passenger frustrations if no news (or little news) is coming their way at the end of a long working day.

Happened on a smaller scale this morning.  Our daughter text to say their inbound to Brighton had stopped but no communication from the driver.
On checking open and real time trains, yes, things were static.  Twitter from Southern showed trespassers on the line at Brighton and all trains stopped..
Their driver then announced the same.
Following NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and Southern on Twitter, BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) were sent to investigate.
The train in front was turned around at Hove, so all moved along one signal.
BTP apprehended a person and gave permission for Brighton movements.
As I was at home and had time to follow the situation I was able to keep daughter updated.
She did say there was minimal information from the train announcements, but the driver didn't have the same channels to view as I did at home.
All he knew was what he was being being told by signalling control I guess.
Around a 45 minute delay



Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN. 

[stuving]

Apologies to Mods as it's outside FGW^▸ (First Great Western)-land but I find the subject very interesting.  Feel free to move or remove.

Better to move it to the existing thread on this incident.

[bobm]

Your wish is my command.... 

[stuving]

As I was expecting, the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)'s narrative corrects a few details I'd gleaned from various earlier reports. Mostly that's just in the timing, but also I'd not realised they had decided to move train 2 (2M50) into P4 at Lewisham before killing the power and trying to clean up the third rail under train 1 (2M48).

I had already concluded that should have been done sooner, and any work to move train 1 would have to be given a lower priority. Working on its third rail would mean closing the line through P3, which probably rules out any trains to stations on that line from Dartford. Without knowing how wide an area of track would be affected by turning the power there off, I can't say if it would be worth trying.

The alternative is to leave it, and train 2 at P4, and reroute subsequent Dartford via Bexleyheath trains via Bexley. That gets every other train moving within five minutes, but it would mean evacuating train 1 onto the cess just outside the station.  At least you can concentrate all staff on that one train if no others need evacuation. It is close to the station, on plain line, with the third rail in the six-foot. Of course it would be a lot easier if the train behind could be coupled and they all had gangways...

What I based that on was this:

1. Southeastern were operating their Key Route Strategy Timetable, with many fewer trains. There were only 2 tph through Lewisham P4, rather than the usual 12. This Dartford service was interrupted, so the last train before train 1 was 100 minutes earlier. That probably explains (at least in part) why this track in particular iced up, and means that the same may be true further along.

2. With fewer trains and with disruption, what trains ran were very very crowded. That, as well as the lack of toilets on them, raises the priority of getting them to a platform ASAP. Moreover, in known icing conditions a high priority must also be given to getting trains moving over all lines to stop those icing up too. (Though I haven't actually heard of any other train-stopping icing as a result.)

3. Once a general evacuation of any train starts, for whatever reason, it puts a delay of an hour or more into a complete evacuation. According to Southeastern, after the first few jumpers from train 2 they did get everyone off the track within 15 minutes, but that suggests to me there weren't many and they were close to P4.

4. At every stage in this incident, and in general on the London suburban network, by far the best evacuation method is at a platform. All trains bar train 1 were at all times within a few minutes of reaching a platform, and only prevented by a Chinese puzzle built out of trains and interlockings with train 1 as its key.

5. It isn't clear how early train 1 fully cleared P4, though it certainly never cleared the signal overlap. From whenever that was, it became possible to unblock the whole puzzle apart from train 1 and the line through p4. That option should have retained as a "banker" and a time fixed for it to start if train 1 didn't get going, worked out backwards from the time every train has reached a platform. That time can then be given via drivers to passengers, as in: "we will get you to a station by 18:45, provided no-one gets onto the track which will delay the whole process for an hour or more".

6. I'm sure Dartford via Bexleyheath passengers don't like their trains being sent via the Bexley leg, even if it is for the greater good. However, with the two lines only a mile and a bit apart, plus the option of doubling back at Dartford (if that line is kept open - which rules out working on the third rail near Lewisham P4), it's a limited extra delay for them.

I wonder if RAIB will agree with my conclusions ...

[broadgage]

I used to live in the Lewisham area, and have had several interesting phone conversations with former neighbours about this incident.
There is a very generally held view that "the railway" provides a poor, and worsening service even when times are normal, and that it fails miserably to cope with anything out of the ordinary.
Subjective impressions are that reliability has plummeted and overcrowding got much worse.

Regarding this particular incident rather than general dissatisfaction, the main point made was that more escapes are likely in future incidents. No number of soothing announcements will keep people on board for long in appalling conditions.
"everyone knows" that frequent soothing announcements actually mean a prolonged delay.

The gross overcrowding and lack of toilets was hugely criticised. The new trains have no toilets, this is called progress, and the toilets on the older trains are kept locked "because people would otherwise expect toilets on the new trains"
One neighbour stated that "they" (railway staff and management) had no idea just how bad were conditions on board.

The reduced train service was very heavily criticised, it being suggested that a more frequent service would have prevented snow or ice building up. It would certainly have reduced the overcrowding, and allowed passengers to p1ss only into their own shoes rather than other peoples as well !

One victim reported that several passengers had wet or soiled themselves, apart from the gross indignity of being treated thus, how are such victims to continue their journey ? A bus or taxi driver would likely refuse to convey someone with soiled clothing.

Another neighbour who was on one of the trains stated that the railway should be liable to criminal prosecution for the inhuman and degrading way in which people were treated.
Imagine the outrage if prisoners were treated like that ! Cram a few dozen into a van meant for six, no seats, toilets or heating or even lighting, then lock them in for a few hours.
It would never be allowed, but trains are different.

Hearing these reports from former neighbours has reinforced my view that the whole incident was handled very badly indeed.

I ask the following of any railway employees reading this. Talking not of generalities, but of this actual incident, after what time should passengers have been allowed off the train?

In my view, the stranding of a crush loaded train without working toilets should be regarded as an emergency and not simply as a delay.

Looking ahead, it is my view that all new trains should have toilets. And that all new electric trains should have batteries or diesel engines to permit of limited movement in case of snow, ice, wires down etc.

[grahame]

Looking ahead, it is my view that all new trains should have toilets. And that all new electric trains should have batteries or diesel engines to permit of limited movement in case of snow, ice, wires down etc.

There is sense in that sort of thing, provided that it does not raise the cost of the train so high that it prices out marginal services.

Is there room for an accessible toilet on a 139?

[broadgage]

Looking ahead, it is my view that all new trains should have toilets. And that all new electric trains should have batteries or diesel engines to permit of limited movement in case of snow, ice, wires down etc.

There is sense in that sort of thing, provided that it does not raise the cost of the train so high that it prices out marginal services.

Is there room for an accessible toilet on a 139?

Not realistically, but firstly 139s are an existing design not a new build, and secondly it could reasonably be argued that they are more akin to buses or trams than to proper trains.
In the case of buses, "keep them on board no matter what" is unrealistic and passengers can soon get off if the vehicle gets stick.
Not certain about trams, treat as buses if street running. Trams running along rail routes would seem to be at risk of a Lewisham type incident, though I have not heard of it happening.
"keep them on board no matter what" seems to be a main line railway policy, including the suburban bits, but perhaps not applied to trams ?