[Article] 300 stranded as 'ghost' train departs with single passenger

Ham'nd'egger

Zynks wrote: »

Well, not really. I have a mechanical engineering background, but I didn't even get very technical in my thinking to make that statement with a high degree of confidence

But if you prefer I can put it in another way: Have you noticed that pilots always get out of the plane for a quick inspection before take off? And, they have a muuuuch longer distance to walk and climb that a train driver to step out of the train.

I will put to you a much better way; no, you haven't ever driven a train or plane

As to a pilot checking a plane, I can't say I have ever noticed but a pilot has a co-pilot to remain in the cabin and the captain is over the whole plane; a guard is over the train and it's driver.

Zynks

OK, OK, you guys win. The driver is at no fault whatsoever. He did exactly what he had to do as per the guidelines. Phew!

...so did the officers beside the lake in the UK... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7006412.stm

Hamndegger wrote: »

I will put to you a much better way; no, you haven't ever driven a train or plane

Obviously you are not interested in establishing what is more complex. Your intention is to discredit my statement.

In any case, it is very unlikely we will find someone to clarify this point. But, if we take the training required to become a train driver or a commercial airline pilot, this might clarify the issue:

Commercial Airline Captain (http://www.connexions-direct.com/jobs4u/index.cfm?pid=64&catalogueContentID=669)

The minimum qualification required for an airline pilot ...involves passing written examinations for the ATPL and doing 200 hours of flight training, including flight tests. Pilots are awarded the full ATPL when they have 1,500 hours of flying experience...Pilots usually start work as a co-pilot, working alongside a training captain on short-haul flights. They have to take refresher training and tests every six months, throughout their career....After about five years' experience they can apply to be a co-pilot on long-haul flights. Promotion to captain usually requires at least 2,500 flying hours.

Railway Train Driver (http://www.connexions-direct.com/jobs4u/index.cfm?pid=64&catalogueContentID=680)

There are no set qualifications to become a railway train driver but train operating companies look for a good standard of education, such as some GCSEs/S grades or equivalent....Training usually takes up to a year and is based in company training centre. Practice driving will take place under the supervision of a driver training instructor. Trainees may work towards an NVQ/SVQ at Level 2 in Rail Transport Operations (Driving)....Train drivers may move on to become driver instructors or driver managers. Some go on to general management in the rail industry.

I still think that guy should get a desk job!

LemmingMuppet

I reckon it's the blind guy's fault for not having sensed he was the only one on the train and should have pulled the emergency brake chord as soon as it started moving off.

corktina

mr Zynks, you obviously no nothing about railway operations, so why not leave it to people who do to sort it out...

Schuhart

KC61 wrote: »

I would imagine that the train would pick up quite a few pax en route as it calls at every Intercity station en route between Dublin and Thurles bar Newbridge. It is the principal evening service from these stations to Limerick and provides a connection at Thurles for passengers from intermediate stations travelling to Cork and Kerry. It would therefore accomodate students returning to UL, UCC, etc.

In fairness, I’m not arguing with the clarification that a few people might have joined the train at one of the intermediate locations. At the same time, I really, really think that there’s no obligation on us to make excuses for IE. This really was a stunning operational mistake, involving a waste of resources. The idea of sending a fully fuelled and staffed train across the country without the bulk of its passengers is simply dumb, and I think we have to keep that at the centre of our minds.

Just to show I’m not ignoring your point, I did have a quick look at the IE map. From what you say, it stops at Kildare, Monasterevin, Portalington, Portlaoise, Ballybrophy, Templemore and Thurles. I note you don’t seem to have any firm information on how many intermediate passengers embark. But is it fair to say that if the typical Dublin passenger load is 300, only a handful of people are likely to embark at any of those towns – ie, Portlaoise (to pick the town that strikes me as the largest out of that lot) is not going to generate dozens of passengers, if Dublin only generates a couple of hundred. I’d speculate that it would be generous to guesstimate that even a few dozen joined the train from all those stations combined – perhaps one of our knowledgeable posters might confirm what a reasonable expectation is here.

I just have a feeling the difference is not going to be material.

Zynks

corktina wrote: »

mr Zynks, you obviously no nothing about railway operations, so why not leave it to people who do to sort it out...

Hmmm, constructive, very constructive argumentation. :rolleyes:

Ham'nd'egger

Schuhart wrote: »

Just to show I’m not ignoring your point, I did have a quick look at the IE map. From what you say, it stops at Kildare, Monasterevin, Portalington, Portlaoise, Ballybrophy, Templemore and Thurles. .

Portarlington would allow passengers from the Westport/Ballina and Galway services to travel south; Waterford services may connect at Kildare.

Schuhart

Hamndegger wrote: »

Portarlington would allow passengers from the Westport/Ballina and Galway services to travel south; Waterford services may connect at Kildare.

Indeed. But what I'm more interested in is how many passengers this actually yields, destined for Limerick, on a Sunday evening.

For the sake of argument, I checked the train from Westport. Its service would not seem to intersect with the Limerick departure in question. So this connectivity would seem somewhat theoretical.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I find this search for a reason to excuse the expense of sending a fully functioning train out of Heuston without its passengers a little strange. Why the need to invent vast numbers of people joining the service along the route, when I think we guess just from our travels that damn all people get on at the stops in between.

parsi

Zynks wrote: »

Have you noticed that pilots always get out of the plane for a quick inspection before take off? And, as you pointed out, their cabin work is far more complex than in a train.

Well flying to/from Berlin over the last few days I didn't notice the captain sticking his head in the cabin to check that people were there. He accepts when someone tells him they are there.

You will also notice that the Pilots inspection takes place before passengers board so another dodgy argument.

Of course the qualified pilots have landed in the wrong spot (eirjet) but that's another story.

zynks wrote:

...and he failed to spot 300 people standing on the platform right beside the train while doing it :rolleyes:

If the folk were standing on the platform alongside him then they'd be some muppets to not be on the train eh ? The passengers were down at the end of the platform behind the barriers. Along with the other hordes of people that are coralled in Heuston.

zynks wrote:

I've observed train drivers in other countries and in busy stations they frequently step out of the train and check what's going on. It takes only a few seconds. Not a big deal, and rather sensible. The mad part is that in Ireland it probably has to be written in their contract that they have to do it.

What are you talking about ? Do you think that everytime a driver is given the right-away that he has to get out and have a gawk at the train. The guard gives the right-away after he is certain that the train is ready to go. The driver will depart upon receipt of the right-away and if the signals are set appropriately.

I've never seen drivers anywhere "frequently step out of the train" and God knows I've spent a lot of time on trains.

parsi

Schuhart wrote: »

, when I think we guess just from our travels that damn all people get on at the stops in between.

Well if you get the Up trains a shocking load get on at intermediate stops and probably get off the Down trains.

Thurles usually seems to supply reasonable loads in all directions.

corktina

Zynks wrote: »

Hmmm, constructive, very constructive argumentation. :rolleyes:

but to the point..

.first of all you claim the driver should be put behind a desk and then when you are corrected, suddenly its the Guard who should suffer that fate....anyone with an ounce of railway knowledge would know that its the platform staff who misunderstood each others signals and not the train crew.

It wasnt intended to be an arguement of any kind...simply a plea to you to desist

Schuhart

parsi wrote: »

Well if you get the Up trains a shocking load get on at intermediate stops and probably get off the Down trains.

Which I take it means, in this case, the intermediate stops might have been the destination of an amount of the people left behind in Heuston. But its unlikely that any sizeable amount of people got on at the intermediate stops bound for Limerick.

(Sorry to be dragging this out - its just that I'm sort of surprised to see it raised as if it excuses the mistake. I suppose I'm just trying to get to that place where we all say 'yeah, maybe a few got on in Thurles, but basically we're talking about a fully fueled and staffed train leaving the bulk of its passengers behind. What a waste.')

parsi wrote: »

Thurles usually seems to supply reasonable loads in all directions.

But are there any figures on that? Like we've 300 people left behind in Heuston. Would twenty have got on in Thurles, typically? More than than? Less? Does anyone have any solid information?

Again, apologies on making so much of the point. I just really, really find it hard to see the need for us to be evasive about this or to go to lengths to invent something to make this bizarre episode look reasonable.

deRanged

parsi wrote: »

What do you mean ?

You were standing on a platform. A train pulled in. You got on and it went back the way it came ?

not quite.
Cobh/Cork train - I'm heading to Cork, train goes to Cobh instead.
It's usually down to confusion with a replacement bus. I remember one time they sent a bus to Cobh to do a direct run to Cork, and a train down to Glounthaune to collect Little Island and Glounthaune passengers. I hopped onto the train in Glounthaune (having checked with the ticket and station guys that it was the correct one), train heads to Cobh. Apparently the bus had left someone in Cobh. Sure enough, we picked up one passenger in Cobh.

parsi

Ah I get you now - it went back to pick up a strandee "we marines never leave a man behind"....

@Schuhart - I haven't a notion of load figures. You are right that it cannot be used to justify what happened. It was more than likely a fairly empty train whih must have made folk at the intermediate stops happy when they saw they had a choice of seats.

John R

Schuhart wrote: »

Which I take it means, in this case, the intermediate stops might have been the destination of an amount of the people left behind in Heuston. But its unlikely that any sizeable amount of people got on at the intermediate stops bound for Limerick.

(Sorry to be dragging this out - its just that I'm sort of surprised to see it raised as if it excuses the mistake. I suppose I'm just trying to get to that place where we all say 'yeah, maybe a few got on in Thurles, but basically we're talking about a fully fueled and staffed train leaving the bulk of its passengers behind. What a waste.')But are there any figures on that? Like we've 300 people left behind in Heuston. Would twenty have got on in Thurles, typically? More than than? Less? Does anyone have any solid information?

Does it really matter? The fact is that the train had to go to Limerick anyway, otherwise they would have been a train short on Monday morning and even more people would have been inconvenienced. Once it had left Heuston there was no reason not to serve all the other stations for whomever was expecting it at those stops.

Schuhart wrote: »

Again, apologies on making so much of the point. I just really, really find it hard to see the need for us to be evasive about this

No one is being evasive, it is just that the point you are making is not correct. No money was lost as the same number of trains ran as were scheduled to run and they carried all the passengers they would have anyway. What you are suggesting is that they should have taken the opportunity to save the fuel costs by terminating the train which on the surface sounds valid but operationally would not have been possible.

The only lost revenue was the decision to offer partial refunds which if the delay was only 30mns as suggested sounds like a PR exercise.

Schuhart wrote: »

or to go to lengths to invent something to make this bizarre episode look reasonable.

TBH I think a number of people here are being completely OTT over this. It was an isolated error on the part of a few members of staff that caused only a moderate level of inconvenience to the passengers involved. There was no breach of safety rules and at no point was anyone put in danger from it.

It was a simple case of human error, a miscommunication occoured and due to a number of circumstances it wasn't corrected. The proper despatch procedures were carried out just at the wrong time.

I can't help wondering if all the holier-than-thou posters here are a new evolution of human beings that never make a mistake? If as I suspect they are not and if they were willing to be honest about it they too have made an error or two while working then maybe they ought to cop on and get some perspective about this incident.

FFS yesterday an Aircoach service crashed in Cork, luckily causing only minor injuries but that doesn't seem to warrant a thread at all while this incident has the usual level of CIE-bashing hysteria.

John R

Zynks wrote: »

Hmmm, constructive, very constructive argumentation. :rolleyes:

No. Just a simple and concise statement of fact along with a helpful suggestion to stop you from proving yourself even more ignorant of the facts than you already have done.

I think Mark twain said it best: “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”


There are several transport professionals along with numerous well-informed enthusiasts on this board, you simply are not going to be able to make ridiculous un-informed comments like the ones you have without being corrected.

Your 3-word response to the question "Have you ever driven a train or plane" says all that is needed to about your knowledge and attitude.

Zynks wrote:

Well, not really.

It says that no, you have not done either. However despite your lack of any first hand knowledge (and obvious scant second hand knowledge) you believe you are in a position to second guess those that have spent years in training and practice based on you studying engineering and having traveled on trains and planes as a passenger.

Zynks

corktina wrote: »

first of all you claim the driver should be put behind a desk and then when you are corrected, suddenly its the Guard who should suffer that fate....

I never changed my view about the driver, and never made reference to any guard.

corktina wrote: »

anyone with an ounce of railway knowledge would know that its the platform staff who misunderstood each others signals and not the train crew.

Maybe I don't have the "ounces" of wisdom that seem to be required to have an opinion around here, but in any industry I know, the man controlling the "go button" ultimately has a higher responsibility, and should be expected to go beyond doing things strictly by the book. I don't see why you have such a problem with my view. We could just agree to disagree.

corktina wrote: »

It wasnt intended to be an arguement of any kind...simply a plea to you to desist

Maybe you should apply to become a mod. In the meantime, while following the rules, I seem to be entitled to express my views without being attacked. Disagreement should promote healthy discussion. Your approach is not constructive, to say the least. Thus your plea is rejected.

Allow me to point out you have the option of adding people to your ignore list in the user CP. It is less confrontational than telling people to "desist", which is not your prerogative anyway.

Zynks

John R wrote: »

FFS yesterday an Aircoach service crashed in Cork, luckily causing only minor injuries but that doesn't seem to warrant a thread at all while this incident has the usual level of CIE-bashing hysteria.

No, I don't think it is "CIE-bashing hysteria". It is a reflection of the public feeling towards a company that consistently abuses its monopoly position, totally ignoring that a public service is supposed to serve the public, not the opposite. It is widely perceived that the interests of the public are not very high on CIE's priorities, and not noticing 300 people left behind is just a perfect and tangible example of that.

And if telling critics of this system and their failures to shut up, calling them ignorant and stupid is the best argumentation you can come out with, well, what can I say...

Three more things:
- I couldn't find your input on the "conflicts of interest" thread. Such input would help avoid people assuming bias in your views when you are angrily defending CIE and hoping people's attention diverts to a private operator.
- My reply that seems to bothered you so much (starting with "well, not really") was to a question if I had "driven a train AND plane to qualify said statement", not OR as you suggest. I thought the question was redundant since the answer was obvious, thus I opened my response in an informal manner - I hope it didn't cause as much inconvenience as it seems to have.
- The Aircoach skidded on ice. Human and system failures inside a monopoly holding organisation are far more interesting.

corktina

Zynks wrote: »

I never changed my view about the driver, and never made reference to any guard.

see posts 47 and 54....

Ham'nd'egger

Zynks wrote: »

- My reply that seems to bothered you so much (starting with "well, not really") was to a question if I had "driven a train AND plane to qualify said statement", not OR as you suggest. I thought the question was redundant since the answer was obvious, thus I opened my response in an informal manner - I hope it didn't cause as much inconvenience as it seems to have..

I merely asked about both if you had driven both as you were eager to compare both driver skills. Eventually, we ascertained that you have driven neither and would be unsure as to what you were talking about

Victor

OK, chill out folks.

SeanW

Zynks wrote: »

OK, OK, you guys win. The driver is at no fault whatsoever. He did exactly what he had to do as per the guidelines. Phew!

I'm not normally one to defend anything to do with Irish Rail, but serously WTF?

The driver's job is to drive the train. Full stop. In fact, he's not supposed to leave his locomotive or driving cab while he is in charge of it - for any reason - he could have been dismissed had he done any of the vague things you hinted at! He is supposed to follow the instructions of the train guard (if any) and others in charge. On this occasion, those others screwed up big time.

Do you seriously expect the driver to walk up and down the carraiges of every train before heading out (which would in and of itself be a dereliction of duty) just to make sure the guard and platform staff did make a heretofore unprecedented screw up?

I hope to **** you don't have anyone working for you!

Run_to_da_hills

How would the 22000 compare to a supertrain ?

Zynks

This is all it would have taken to avoid the issue.



Sure, probably not in the duties of the driver, and based on the reactions here, my expectation seems to be totally unrealistic, so let's just agree to disagree.

I am honestly not looking for trouble. I just like people who go the extra mile in their work, something that Ireland would benefit a lot from if it became a common practice.

Peace.

corktina

the crew on 73096 are looking back fro the Guards signal to proceed....it is not their job to look to see if they are leaving anyone behind or doors are open etc.....similarly the Guard will be looking for a signal from the station staff that their work is done before giving the nod to the driver (having checked the signal aspect where practical...) the Driver also must check the signal before proceeding.

The driver had he been able to see the concourse queue would not have known which train they were waiting for....had he have done so and refused to accept the guards signal to proceed, i think he WOULD have been in for a bit of disciplinary....because 999999 times out of 1000000 (or a lot more...he would have been wrong.

Schuhart

John R wrote:

Does it really matter? The fact is that the train had to go to Limerick anyway, otherwise they would have been a train short on Monday morning and even more people would have been inconvenienced. Once it had left Heuston there was no reason not to serve all the other stations for whomever was expecting it at those stops.

Well, I’d suggest it does matter that they sent a largely empty train down without its passengers. To be honest, I’m find the reluctance to accept that a little surreal. Contrast with the attitude in the airline industry. It may well be necessary to fly a largely empty plane somewhere. But you’d weep from the lost opportunity to carry passengers.

I’d say again – if there is really no issue here, does that mean they should cancel the Limerick service and load them all onto the Cork train every night? Or do they need to keep them both as a mutual backup - because you never know when we might forget to put the passengers on before letting the train off?

John R wrote:

No one is being evasive, it is just that the point you are making is not correct. No money was lost as the same number of trains ran as were scheduled to run and they carried all the passengers they would have anyway.

See above – the conclusion from what you are saying is the Limerick service should be stopped. Resource was most certainly misallocated if the passengers were left behind. And I take it you agree (as this is really why I was persisting in the point) that the handful of Limerick-bound people who might have gotten on at intermediate stations would not materially alter the situation.
Perhaps you’ll understand, its not just that this was a mistake. It’s the search for pretty weak excuses that I find puzzling.

John R wrote:

What you are suggesting is that they should have taken the opportunity to save the fuel costs by terminating the train which on the surface sounds valid but operationally would not have been possible.

Not necessarily. What I’m suggesting is the loss was incurred at the moment the train passed the point of no return. I’m perfectly willing to believe there was no operational way of bringing it back – but that’s quite different to saying there’s no waste involved.

John R wrote:

The only lost revenue was the decision to offer partial refunds which if the delay was only 30mns as suggested sounds like a PR exercise.

Which simply is lost money – I can’t see the problem in acknowledging this.

John R wrote:

I can't help wondering if all the holier-than-thou posters here are a new evolution of human beings that never make a mistake? If as I suspect they are not and if they were willing to be honest about it they too have made an error or two while working then maybe they ought to cop on and get some perspective about this incident.

Right back at you. I cannot see this being laughed off as a mistake. If we tolerate the idea that a train traversing the country without its passengers is no big deal, I suggest we’ve parted company with commonsense.

markf909

I'm amazed at the usual IE apologists on the board trying to laugh this this one as a small error.

This is a major cock-up, if 300 passengers can be abandoned in the main inter city station, how can we be sure that minor issues such as trains leaving/arriving on time, staff being customer focused and friendly, information being made to passengers in the event of a delay will ever be solved.

God forbid, that something safety critical could ever happen in the blase manner this did.

IE seems to be a management vacuum, apart from Dick Fearn and chief apologist Barry Kenny, who the hell runs things there?

Victor

markf909 wrote: »

I'm amazed at the usual IE apologists on the board trying to laugh this this one as a small error.

Who?

IE seems to be a management vacuum, apart from Dick Fearn and chief apologist Barry Kenny, who the hell runs things there?

Recently there have been a bunch of vacancies http://www.railusers.ie/passenger_info/whoswho.php

trellheim

here's a stupid question. Why didn't the train turn around and come back ?

Yes - it's a Mark 3 set and the loco needs to run round [ if it wasn't pushpull ] ... Inchicore has lots of places you can do that ... presumably there's other places down the line too.

Yes people farther down the line will need to wait a little longer

but the true test of professionalism is realising when a mistake has been made and fixing it properly. The press would also have been better


unless I'm missing something like the driver running out of hours to work the train, or the tea in the trolley getting cold, this sounds practical.

But hey, I work in the real world, where proper solutions are needed or your arse is out the door.

Ham'nd'egger

trellheim wrote: »

here's a stupid question. Why didn't the train turn around and come back ?

Yes - it's a Mark 3 set and the loco needs to run round [ if it wasn't pushpull ] ... Inchicore has lots of places you can do that ... presumably there's other places down the line too.

Simply put, the train would need to obtain permission from Central Traffic Control (CTC) to firstly halt it's journey, giving reason for same. Given that it takes about 5 minutes to get to Inchicore and about a minute to halt, then 10 minutes to prepare and turn to loco and test brakes, this action alone would take 15 minutes . CTC would then need to ensure that the train would not be blocking up other trains, not only on the down section but on the up section and that it would have a clear path to travel back to Heuston, another 5 minutes. If the train was past Inchicore, then the looping points would be less common to come across and times longer. Reversing back would not be an option given the distances being travelled.

From here, the signalman in Heuston would then need to accept the loco and route it into a platform that is free to take it (not to mention it's route out of the station and into the control of CTC). A pilot loco would either have to then shunt the train to release the loco to the front or a new loco would need to be assigned to take the train, yet more time and with other trains ready to go, all or one can be held up.

Or they could all get onto the Cork train as they did.