Severe delays 'passengers refusing to leave defective train'

Interesting, but absolutely no useful information in the links.

The 'passengers refuse to leave train' would be interesting in a 'man bites dog' sort of way, but the are precisely zero details about that aspect of the story in either of the links.

Yet another example of the atrocious standard of what passes for journalism, nowadays - just tedious waffle and twitter links.

On the many many occasions the class 315s along the Shenfield to Liverpool Street line (yes I know different train), have reached Ilford of a morning rush hour, only for the doors to be repeatedly blocked by passengers refusing to move down, or to alight... there is part of me that would understand should a driver declare a failure if they are unable to get the doors to close due an an obstruction, be that mechanical.... or human !

It is a D stock though... how liable are they (from recent events) to be liable to door failures...??

If you want to send a thank you via the website (and I encourage you to), just note the direction and approximate time at a given station and anything you remember about the driver (gender, accent, etc) then it should make its way to the right person.

edit: Noting whether it was a D or S stock may help too.

As you can see.... I'm liable to persistently use the the term 'liable' in every sentence... and then liable to curse my lack of poof reading afterwards

So reading into the above, as soon as people stopped blocking the door the issue was resolved, and the train was not actually defective?

I wonder what the driver was saying before the train got taken out of service.

was the train particularly packed? or was there one disruptive passenger preventing a door from closing?

I have heard passengers been told that "if people do not stop obstructing the doors then this train will be taken out of service because of defective doors"

This creates a 'I'm more powerful then you' situation of driver vs passengers, with driver pee'd off because he can't move the train and passengers pee'd off because they can't board the train.

If the train getting taken out of service had been preceded by threats to remove it from service because people were blocking the doors, this may have inflamed the passengers.

All pure speculation but there must have been a bit more to it

No.... this is never a "I'm more powerful then you situation". The train operator has a timetable to keep to. Delays are inconvenient for passengers (how might others waiting on platforms further west of Plaistow have felt ??).... and at worst dangerous, with overcrowding being caused on platforms further east (trying to head towards London)... causing more frustration/frayed tempers !!



There always is a bit more to it.... so speculation is rarely helpful... or accurate !

Of course, the average passenger doesn't always realise that by attempting to save time by crowding into a packed train, they end up slowing down the service which has a knock on effect. The irony is that if they'd waited for the train behind, they would've got to their destination more quickly.

Passengers may pay the fares, but for me there can never be a question of who has more say on the operation of the train, and that's the driver.
In my view, a driver has every right to threaten to take the train out of service if the passengers don't behave themselves.

I am sorry for my speculative comments. I was just curious to understand how the situation developed because it was quite rare - trains get withdrawn from service not infrequently without passengers refusing to leave the train. Obviously these were a group of particularly irresponsible passengers. Of course safety is in the hands of the T/op and passengers must follow instructions. The passengers were 150% at fault for their behaviour and responsible for the delay.

The reason for the train getting withdrawn from service is irrelevant - the passengers should have followed instructions.

But it is just ironic if the train was put back into service at the next station.

Storm in a teacup springs to mind (caused by passengers) - there must be a bylaw which makes it an offence to 'fail to follow instructions of railway staff' or something to that effect?

I suggested it was a human obstructing a door purely on the basis that the train re-entered service at the next station.

Yes ok, once the train was fully detrained the defect was no longer present, but how would the driver have known this while the passengers refused to get off? It is only once the train is fully detrained (thus all doors are now closed) and the driver returns to the cab that they'll know whether or not the pilot light has returned.


When I was assaulted at Barking one of those involved was prosecuted under a bye law for holding a door open. I don't know which actual bye law was used though.

I'm sure the S Stock had similar issues. At least that is what I recall when they first came out and drivers informing people to not lean on the doors!