Northern line train evacuation at Clapham Common

[Lewisham2221]

They didn't know that all evidence available at the time was that they very much needed to get off

So in a matter of seconds, an entire train load of people all saw and smelt exactly the same signs of fire? Or some people in one carriage smelt/saw what they thought was smoke, reacted as they thought appropriate - by pulling the passcom, shouting "fire", and attempting to get off the train - which then lead to the rest of the train, who's only "evidence" of a "fire" was someone else saying there was one, self evacuating? That is literally a definition of panic, which is what my response was referring to.

 

[Jonny]

I find it highly amusing that many of the people watching this incident and criticising the response from staff are the same people who on other days are asking for driverless trains and unmanned stations.

I've often thought that there are significant shortfalls in LU train evacuation - not only the lack of selective door opening but also situation with egress handles.

I agree they shouldn't be on the inside, as too often I can see them being pulled in a tunnel and someone trying to squeeze down the side of the train, but egress handles on the outside that could be operated by someone on the platform could have helped here and could be a lifesaver in other situations. (Before someone mentions butterfly cocks, they aren't labeled and the public don't know what they are)

You can put secondary locking in that locks the doors when the train is moving and auto-releases when the train is stopped, maybe spring-load to release by default. Also it should be easy to drop the current via a train's systems so as to create a high-capacity short circuit to activate the circuit breakers (or even have a short-circuit bar drop onto the conductor rails. Evacuate-ability has to be the top priority.

 

[WAB]

You can put secondary locking in that locks the doors when the train is moving and auto-releases when the train is stopped, maybe spring-load to release by default. Also it should be easy to drop the current via a train's systems so as to create a high-capacity short circuit to activate the circuit breakers (or even have a short-circuit bar drop onto the conductor rails. Evacuate-ability has to be the top priority.

Not sure you want people self-evacuating into such a narrow tunnel, and to rely on an automatic system to kill the power...

 

[Tetchytyke]

in an emergency peopleneed to follow staffinstructions. Panicking helps noo e and makes the situation worse as an be seen on this occasion.

155 people died in a fire in a tunnel on a funicular in Austria just over 20 years ago. The 12 people who survived were the ones who didn’t sit and wait for instructions.

Being unable to open doors or break windows contributed to those deaths too.

I’d not be sitting and waiting for the flames to lick around my toes.

 

[Taunton]

Merseyrail fitted egress handles in 1998 (previously it was just the external cocks). The Underground needs to catch up.



How often are egresses pulled in the tunnel on Thameslink or Merseyrail? How many injuries have been caused? The shallow Tube at least is the same thing.

To be precise, the previous 1938/56 Wirral electric units (replaced by the aforementioned type in 1985) always had this, and I don't recall any issue of misuse. The communication device was a short handle which presumably exhausted the Westinghouse air brakes, and which was clearly labelled that 'after 30 seconds the doors can be pulled apart'. Presumably the air doors were on the same circuit as the air brakes.

Given that these trains were effective clones of what the same manufacturers were doing for London Underground in the late 1930s, was the same system employed there?

 

[BJames]

So in a matter of seconds, an entire train load of people all saw and smelt exactly the same signs of fire? Or some people in one carriage smelt/saw what they thought was smoke, reacted as they thought appropriate - by pulling the passcom, shouting "fire", and attempting to get off the train - which then lead to the rest of the train, who's only "evidence" of a "fire" was someone else saying there was one, self evacuating? That is literally a definition of panic, which is what my response was referring to.

If someone shouts fire I would usually assume it's because they think there's a fire, nobody's shouting that for no reason. Hearing that, smelling what you think is smoke - even if this is two or three people shouting this, that's enough for a rational person to go into self-preservation mode. If I was on that train I would be taking steps to exit however possible.

Staying calm and awaiting instructions is a nice theory, but in practice however, as mentioned above, there is a sign on the platform that is telling people to evacuate. You can smell smoke. How anyone can see the actions taken in the above video as anything other than rational behaviour is beyond me. Suggestions of identifying people for criminal damage are bizarre.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Irrespective of whether some posters believe human behaviour was irrational the fact is in a crisis human behaviour can rapidly change especially when overwhelmed with a situation that appeared to be a threat to life with no communication to say otherwise. As it turns out underlying problem appears to be minor but look at how the situation played out very rapidly deteriorating looking at the footage shared around the internet. The safety authorities (RAIB/ORR) should use it as an opportunity to review the event and determine whether existing processes, procedures and design of the trains are fit for purpose and not wait for a more significant event to occur. For all the testing you can do with human guinea pigs these are under controlled conditions not ones when the unexpected comes out of the blue thats when human behaviour is hard to predict but self preservation will be a significant driver.

 

[bramling]

To be precise, the previous 1938/56 Wirral electric units (replaced by the aforementioned type in 1985) always had this, and I don't recall any issue of misuse. The communication device was a short handle which presumably exhausted the Westinghouse air brakes, and which was clearly labelled that 'after 30 seconds the doors can be pulled apart'. Presumably the air doors were on the same circuit as the air brakes.

Given that these trains were effective clones of what the same manufacturers were doing for London Underground in the late 1930s, was the same system employed there?

The difference with LU trains is that emergency exit is provided through the cabs. Mainline trains generally don’t have this, as on most mainline trains the cab doors are locked with no means of emergency access.

I would imagine LU’s risk assessment alludes to emergency exit being possible through cabs, the possibility of moving to another car, and of course that LU trains have very stringent fire standards.

This situation does seem to be a hangover from the end of guards, as in those days there would have been staff at the rear of the train who would have been able to use the butterfly cocks.

In theory it should have been possible for station staff to reach the train quickly, but in practice there will be reasons why this might not always be possible. It’s also worth noting that open-air LU stations can be left with no staff.

 

[Turtle]

Given the damage caused to the train following the unauthorised evacuation hopefully at least some of the passengers can be identified and charged with criminal damage and or pursued civilly for damages.

in an emergency peopleneed to follow staffinstructions. Panicking helps noo e and makes the situation worse as an be seen on

Given the damage caused to the train following the unauthorised evacuation hopefully at least some of the passengers can be identified and charged with criminal damage and or pursued civilly for damages.

in an emergency peopleneed to follow staffinstructions. Panicking helps noo e and makes the situation worse as an be seen on this occasion.

So in a matter of seconds, an entire train load of people all saw and smelt exactly the same signs of fire? Or some people in one carriage smelt/saw what they thought was smoke, reacted as they thought appropriate - by pulling the passcom, shouting "fire", and attempting to get off the train - which then lead to the rest of the train, who's only "evidence" of a "fire" was someone else saying there was one, self evacuating? That is literally a definition of panic, which is what my response was referring to.

You can pontificate, at your leisure, as much as you like but real life shows that quick action can save lives. Fortunately this situation turned out to be less serious than originally thought. Clapham Common was my local station for 23 years and I always disliked its narrow island platform.

 

[Lewisham2221]

If someone shouts fire I would usually assume it's because they think there's a fire, nobody's shouting that for no reason. Hearing that, smelling what you think is smoke - even if this is two or three people shouting this, that's enough for a rational person to go into self-preservation mode. If I was on that train I would be taking steps to exit however possible.

Staying calm and awaiting instructions is a nice theory, but in practice however, as mentioned above, there is a sign on the platform that is telling people to evacuate. You can smell smoke. How anyone can see the actions taken in the above video as anything other than rational behaviour is beyond me. Suggestions of identifying people for criminal damage are bizarre.

You can pontificate, at your leisure, as much as you like but real life shows that quick action can save lives. Fortunately this situation turned out to be less serious than originally thought. Clapham Common was my local station for 23 years and I always disliked its narrow island platform.

Just to be clear, I'm not condemning the actions of the passengers here at all. I certainly never suggested, or agreed, that anybody should be investigated for causing criminal damage.

In my first post, I simply questioned - out of genuine interest- what could have happened in a matter of seconds to convince an entire trainload of people of the need to evacuate.

My second post was justifying my (and others) use of the word "panic".

 

[Dave W]

In my first post, I simply questioned - out of genuine interest- what could have happened in a matter of seconds to convince an entire trainload of people of the need to evacuate.

The Internet is a barren place where innocent statements look malicious. However, to be clear:

Getting off a train that they didn't need to get off...

Are you saying this was a question of genuine interest? It looks fairly loaded to me.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Just to be clear, I'm not condemning the actions of the passengers here at all. I certainly never suggested, or agreed, that anybody should be investigated for causing criminal damage.

In my first post, I simply questioned - out of genuine interest- what could have happened in a matter of seconds to convince an entire trainload of people of the need to evacuate.

No pun intended but words spread like wildfire in a crowded situation with majority of people not likely to question what they are hearing especially when you also have visual cues all around you of people rushing past you and a train thats been bought to an unexpected stop.

 

[Dave W]

No pun intended but words spread like wildfire in a crowded situation with majority of people not likely to question what they are hearing especially when you also have visual cues all around you of people rushing past you and a train thats been bought to an unexpected stop.

The urgency issue has been mentioned above but if someone tears down the carriage of a confined tube train, possibly in tunnel, are you politely sitting there waiting for someone "in charge" to tell you what to do or acting in your own (and possibly others') best interests?

As I said earlier in thread I'd hope I'd step up, tell people not to panic, work out a safe (non destructive) egress and go that way. In practice, I'd probably be deep in headphones until it was too late to take any sort of charge and just follow the crowd. If I'd had a couple of pints I'd definitely defer responsibility and be on the first chopper out of Saigon. That's the reality this situation appears to have landed in.

 

[Lewisham2221]

If I was on a train and everybody started screaming that there was a fire and trying to get off, would I just sit there, cool and calm, as if nothing was happening? Hell no! I would probably  panic and follow the rest of them, just like people on the train in question. Never said I wouldn't. Just asked what caused the initial panic, and went on to justify my use of the word panic.

 

[321over360]

Given the damage caused to the train following the unauthorised evacuation hopefully at least some of the passengers can be identified and charged with criminal damage and or pursued civilly for damages.

in an emergency peopleneed to follow staffinstructions. Panicking helps noo e and makes the situation worse as an be seen on this occasion.

Why should they (the passengers) be prosecuted for Criminal Damage when they are presently scared for their lives.

The more important questions to be asked as a result of this incident is:
1) What did LU Station Staff do at the point the first call point was activated on the platform? Did they go to investigate properly or observe on CCTV only?
2) Why were LU Staff not tackling what could have been a serious incident onboard a Deep Level Tube Train?
3) What was the Driver of the Train Doing? 1995 Stock have onboard screens like all stock since the 1992 stock which I believe activate platform cameras on approach and dont go off until the train has fully left the station so surely they would be aware something was going on at the rear of their train?

Pinning a Criminal Damage charge on ordinary passengers who if i was on that train would have been in an extremely panic stricken state because they broke a couple of windows in going for the wrong people. As ive watched one of the footage from the incident and there is no LU Staff visible at the side of that carriage! So saying "follow staff instructions" is a bit of an ask when there wasnt any staff to follow the instructions of. Both passengers on the platform and onboard the train were the only persons doing anything.

 

[bahnause]

Taking the initiative can save your own and others' lives. But it can also endanger your life and the lives of others. Therefore, it is important to keep a cool head and think briefly about what you are doing and why you are doing it. In the end, you are responsible for your own actions. This applies to both staff and passengers.

I hope there will be more information about this incident. From the video I can't understand what happened and why.

 

[Taunton]

The difference with LU trains is that emergency exit is provided through the cabs. Mainline trains generally don’t have this, as on most mainline trains the cab doors are locked with no means of emergency access.

That was not a difference to the old Wirral trains described, because they provided a boldly marked emergency exit through the cabs as well, with a 'break glass' type door handle from the saloon into the cab.

 

[Dstock7080]

The more important questions to be asked as a result of this incident is:
1) What did LU Station Staff do at the point the first call point was activated on the platform?
3) What was the Driver of the Train Doing? 1995 Stock have onboard screens like all stock since the 1992 stock which I believe activate platform cameras on approach and dont go off until the train has fully left the station so surely he would be aware something was going on at the rear of their train?

1) the station went into automatic evacuation mode as more than one platform device was activated.
3) probably dealing with multiple passenger alarms via the PEA talkback from the leading cab

 

[Mojo]

The safety authorities (RAIB/ORR) should use it as an opportunity to review the event and determine whether existing processes, procedures and design of the trains are fit for purpose and not wait for a more significant event to occur.

Bear in mind that the RAIB investigated, what on the face of it, was a very similar incident at Holland Park almost ten years ago, and did not make any recommendations with regard to customer operation of emergency door open facility.

 

[bramling]

That was not a difference to the old Wirral trains described, because they provided a boldly marked emergency exit through the cabs as well, with a 'break glass' type door handle from the saloon into the cab.

The front door was a retrofit for when the Loop tunnel opened; they didn’t have it from new.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm sure someone will already have said this, but what an awful station for it to happen at of all of them, with those famously narrow platforms. A panic stampede on those... the thought is quite terrifying.

 

[thomalex]

Given the damage caused to the train following the unauthorised evacuation hopefully at least some of the passengers can be identified and charged with criminal damage and or pursued civilly for damages.

in an emergency peopleneed to follow staffinstructions. Panicking helps noo e and makes the situation worse as an be seen on this occasion.

What an absurd thing to say. Have you seen the video? There was genuine panic and people weren't smashing and climbing out of windows for the fun of it.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Given the damage caused to the train following the unauthorised evacuation hopefully at least some of the passengers can be identified and charged with criminal damage and or pursued civilly for damages.

This is just such an abysmal thing to say and so very stupid. What would you have done, stayed in your seat and opened up a newspaper?

 

[185143]

This is just such an abysmal thing to say and so very stupid. What would you have done, stayed in your seat and opened up a newspaper?

Maybe not, but I doubt I'd have been amongst the first off onto that platform voluntarily in those circumstances.

 

[Edsmith]

I'm sure someone will already have said this, but what an awful station for it to happen at of all of them, with those famously narrow platforms. A panic stampede on those... the thought is quite terrifying.

It's not the best place for it to have happened but I don't think there was any "panic stampede"!

 

[Chris M]

The more important questions to be asked as a result of this incident is:
1) What did LU Station Staff do at the point the first call point was activated on the platform? Did they go to investigate properly or observe on CCTV only?
2) Why were LU Staff not tackling what could have been a serious incident onboard a Deep Level Tube Train?

In addition to the replies given by Dstock7080 in post 78, note that unless staff happened to be on the platform at the right moment (and the evidence suggests they were not) then they would need to make their way from probably either the ticket hall area or the control room (I don't know where this is at Clapham Common, but its often near the ticket hall) to the platforms. I'm not overly familiar with Clapham Common station but this is likely to take at least 1-2 minutes in ideal conditions. A hundred or more people moving in the opposite direction trying to leave the station as quickly as they can is far from ideal conditions.
Note also that a staff member who is in the ticket hall when the when the station goes into evacuation mode will likely instinctively start performing those duties required in the ticket hall during an evacuation (e.g. I believe the ticket gates need to be released by a member of staff pushing the emergency open button, and the staff member may or may not be immediately adjacent to that).
Finally, I happened to be at Aldgate when then the Inspector Sands message began. A member of staff immediately left the gateline and went to a staff-only area (I presume the control room) before quickly re-emerging and proceeding to the outer rail platform. I presume this was because they needed to first find out which call point had been activated. This added maybe 30 seconds to the response time, but in a situation like this it would make getting the platform harder because more people would be in the way.

 

[bramling]

Why should they (the passengers) be prosecuted for Criminal Damage when they are presently scared for their lives.

The more important questions to be asked as a result of this incident is:

These are reasonable questions to ask, however there are also reasonable answers.

1) What did LU Station Staff do at the point the first call point was activated on the platform? Did they go to investigate properly or observe on CCTV only?

One call point would normally cause inspector sands. The evacuation would be triggered by a second call point, or by station staff deciding to press the evacuate button on the fire panel. After inspector sands staff are required to investigate, however if the system goes into evacuate then that becomes staff’s primary responsibility. What happened here will depend on what happened after a first call point was operated, and in particular whether a second was operated, and how soon after the first.

Generally speaking, if the system goes into evacuate then it’s a case of evacuate first and investigate later, and of course the small matter of ensuring LFB are called.

2) Why were LU Staff not tackling what could have been a serious incident onboard a Deep Level Tube Train?

Staff would likely have been in the booking hall area. In the first instance the station supervisor would be investigating why a call point has been operated. Depending on where the fire panel is this might or might not be within sight of the CCTV.

There was always likely to be a delay in staff reaching the platform, simply because the platform is not routinely staffed. This is likely to have been further extended by the crowd of people moving the other way.

3) What was the Driver of the Train Doing? 1995 Stock have onboard screens like all stock since the 1992 stock which I believe activate platform cameras on approach and dont go off until the train has fully left the station so surely they would be aware something was going on at the rear of their train?

In the first instance, we assume the train was stopped by one or more handles being pulled. The driver’s first responsibility will be to inform control, and then to use the facility to try and speak with passengers in the car concerned. This may well have become more awkward if multiple handles were operated. If there was a suggestion of smoke, the driver will likely have requested traction current discharge, which will have taken some time during which time the driver couldn’t be doing anything else as the procedure has to be followed accordingly. Beyond that, short of passing details to control and requesting station staff attend, there is little else the driver could immediately do, especially if unaware of exactly what was happening.

I would say it’s a reasonable assumption that control will have been aware, and at the very least will have requested station staff attend. That’s pretty standard practice.

Pinning a Criminal Damage charge on ordinary passengers who if i was on that train would have been in an extremely panic stricken state because they broke a couple of windows in going for the wrong people.

I posted before that I wonder how many Underground users give much thought to what to do in an emergency situation. For their part, LU don’t have much in the way of safety notices - unlike mainline.

 

[Rogmi]

These are reasonable questions to ask, however there are also reasonable answers.



One call point would normally cause inspector sands. The evacuation would be triggered by a second call point, or by station staff deciding to press the evacuate button on the fire panel. After inspector sands staff are required to investigate, however if the system goes into evacuate then that becomes staff’s primary responsibility. What happened here will depend on what happened after a first call point was operated, and in particular whether a second was operated, and how soon after the first.

Generally speaking, if the system goes into evacuate then it’s a case of evacuate first and investigate later, and of course the small matter of ensuring LFB are called.




Staff would likely have been in the booking hall area. In the first instance the station supervisor would be investigating why a call point has been operated. Depending on where the fire panel is this might or might not be within sight of the CCTV.

There was always likely to be a delay in staff reaching the platform, simply because the platform is not routinely staffed. This is likely to have been further extended by the crowd of people moving the other way.



In the first instance, we assume the train was stopped by one or more handles being pulled. The driver’s first responsibility will be to inform control, and then to use the facility to try and speak with passengers in the car concerned. This may well have become more awkward if multiple handles were operated. If there was a suggestion of smoke, the driver will likely have requested traction current discharge, which will have taken some time during which time the driver couldn’t be doing anything else as the procedure has to be followed accordingly. Beyond that, short of passing details to control and requesting station staff attend, there is little else the driver could immediately do, especially if unaware of exactly what was happening.

I would say it’s a reasonable assumption that control will have been aware, and at the very least will have requested station staff attend. That’s pretty standard practice.



I posted before that I wonder how many Underground users give much thought to what to do in an emergency situation. For their part, LU don’t have much in the way of safety notices - unlike mainline.

The 95 stock car 'air conditioning' (forced air blown in through vents in the car), used to be an intermittent nuisance, especially after it started getting warmer and the AC came into use after a long time of being idle. Trains were tipped out at various times due to 'smoke' in the car which turned out to be the crap being blown out by the fans. Proably cased by poor maintenance. Don't know if it improved over the years since I left, but I doubt it!. The in-cab proper air conditioning (chilled air) wasn't much better, often noisy, smelly, or blowing out warm air. With no windows to open, the offside cab door was usually cut out and the train run with it open. Surprisingly, very little dust was blown in the cab in the tunnel sections.

 

[cemdog]

An awful lot on LUL seems to rely on a solid belief that there simply won’t be a fire - no extinguishers within the cars, no egress equipment, etc. All of that is fine, as long as there isn’t a fire. If people believe that there is, whether or not that belief is founded, the resulting mass panic to get out is inevitable!

it's certainly not a good policy, but I believe the extinguishers were taken out of service due to anti social behaviour + the very little risk of a fire starting physically in the carriage

 

[SECR263]

I assume that RAIB have no interest in this incident as cannot see any activity on their behalf. A pity as it seems some investigation needs to be carried out. Any TFL investigation won't be published as no doubt Mayor Khant will sit on it.