Was the front of the train actually in the platform ? If it was than passengers should have been allowed to alight. Keeping them on the train under such circumstances sounds like a case of "because we can".
If the front of the train was not in the platform, then how far was it ?
This sort of incident reinforces my long held view that ALL new and refurbished electric trains should include a diesel engine or a battery to permit of low speed operation when the wires come down, or the conductor rail ices up, or the traction current is turned off, or fails.
This thread really needs a photograph that shows the position of train and platform.
Far too many questions to ponder over with only a very vague description from the
OP▸ .
IF it was that train that was involved directly in a fatality you can understand why it was not de-trained.
If not, evacuation earlier might have been much better DEPENDING on how close the front of the train was to the platform.
IF it was a
DOO▸ service then a driver has an incredible amount to do and take in, especially if it was their train that hit the trespasser, and when the
PA▸ fails it can be difficult to walk through a train in such circumstances when there is no other way of keeping people informed. It highlights how having a second member of staff on board is so useful in such situations. If it wasn’t a DOO service then there in little or no excuse for not keeping passengers better informed.
Some modern
EMU▸ ’s go into ‘load shedding’ quite quickly after power is cut to the train. The PA should be one of the last things to go. In such a scenario I would argue lighting is actually quite a low priority these days as pretty much everyone has a phone and/or watch with a torch. That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be desirable to have longer lasting battery supplies or an emergency engine like the Class 801’s.
