Cable theft at Paddington causes severe disruption - 23 June 2010

[whole diary]

[inspector_blakey]

Yes, that's technically true. But I think in those sorts of situations the guard can really find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do you take a train out with too many people on board, or do you refuse to work it until somebody has got off? "Refusal to work" will cause additional disruption in what's already a bad situation (imagine the reaction of several hundred people waiting on an overcrowded train when they're told that it won't depart because the guard has refused to work it) but there may be non-neligible safety risks in the event of really gross overcrowding.

I've seen this happen in practice, a few years back on "T4 on the beach" weekend at Weston Super Mare. First train from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to WSM (or maybe it was BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), but that's fairly immaterial) on Sunday morning is always relatively late in the morning, and this one was disrupted by over-running engineering works en route. It was full by Didcot, then got progressively worse through Swindon and Chippenham. At Bath, where I alighted, the train manager was trying to order people off because she said it was not safe to carry on. Guess what...? Nobody budged an inch. After a five minute stand off I guess she decided that the lesser of the two risks was to dispatch the train rather than have it standing there blocking the main line for even longer, all the while with more passengers trying to squeeze on.

Circumstances like those yesterday can put staff in an impossible position sometimes, and I don't envy them having to make those kinds of decisions. But there are all kinds of risk factors that come into consideration: there may be a risk in taking out a severely overcrowded train. However, there may be an even bigger risk in not doing so - for example, what is the risk of turfing almost 1000 passengers off an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) onto a concourse that may already be overcrowded as more and more people turn up for their journeys home and find severe service disruption going on. At Paddington that could have implications for people backing up into the underground, on stairways, etc etc.

It can be a real catch 22 situation, and I don't for one second suggest that I have any real answers, just trying to give an idea of the different factors that have to come into play. Whenever you have huge crowds of people congregating due to disruption, there is a risk that is unavoidable (fainting, panic attacks, stampedes or worse). Once you're in that situation, it's a question of managing the risk as best you can, since it isn't going to go away until the backlog of people has cleared. So yes, it may certainly not be ideal taking out a grossly overcrowded train, but under the circumstances it could be one of the least bad options available.

[johoare]

The Train Manager is in charge of the train, there isn't really any need for drivers to communicate with the public. Regarding the dangerous crowding, as you were there do you think there would have been a riot if people at Paddington were turned away considering the chaos.?

Ok well people were technically turned away as no one else could get on and then we sat there for quite a while longer with people trying to.. There was no riot..
I only asked as I've questioned before overcrowding on trains and was told  (by FGW^▸ (First Great Western))that it's up to the train manager when they consider it to be dangerous or not... I always guessed that was FGWs stock answer.. I guess now we know 

[johoare]

Yes, that's technically true. But I think in those sorts of situations the guard can really find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do you take a train out with too many people on board, or do you refuse to work it until somebody has got off? "Refusal to work" will cause additional disruption in what's already a bad situation (imagine the reaction of several hundred people waiting on an overcrowded train when they're told that it won't depart because the guard has refused to work it) but there may be non-neligible safety risks in the event of really gross overcrowding.

I've seen this happen in practice, a few years back on "T4 on the beach" weekend at Weston Super Mare. First train from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to WSM (or maybe it was BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), but that's fairly immaterial) on Sunday morning is always relatively late in the morning, and this one was disrupted by over-running engineering works en route. It was full by Didcot, then got progressively worse through Swindon and Chippenham. At Bath, where I alighted, the train manager was trying to order people off because she said it was not safe to carry on. Guess what...? Nobody budged an inch. After a five minute stand off I guess she decided that the lesser of the two risks was to dispatch the train rather than have it standing there blocking the main line for even longer, all the while with more passengers trying to squeeze on.

Circumstances like those yesterday can put staff in an impossible position sometimes, and I don't envy them having to make those kinds of decisions. But there are all kinds of risk factors that come into consideration: there may be a risk in taking out a severely overcrowded train. However, there may be an even bigger risk in not doing so - for example, what is the risk of turfing almost 1000 passengers off an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) onto a concourse that may already be overcrowded as more and more people turn up for their journeys home and find severe service disruption going on. At Paddington that could have implications for people backing up into the underground, on stairways, etc etc.

It can be a real catch 22 situation, and I don't for one second suggest that I have any real answers, just trying to give an idea of the different factors that have to come into play. Whenever you have huge crowds of people congregating due to disruption, there is a risk that is unavoidable (fainting, panic attacks, stampedes or worse). Once you're in that situation, it's a question of managing the risk as best you can, since it isn't going to go away until the backlog of people has cleared. So yes, it may certainly not be ideal taking out a grossly overcrowded train, but under the circumstances it could be one of the least bad options available.

Sorry in advance for quoting it all (too late to narrow it down).. But surely FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should make sure it's possible for someone on the train, when it's overcrowded, to make an announcement? That is what worries me about passenger safety should there be an emergency with all those people on board?

[willc]

An article in the current issue of Modern Railways says that the new customer information system being installed by First Capital Connect will be loaded with a library of emergency timetables to use for screens and announcements when they have problems, such as the tunnel under central London being closed, splitting the route into shuttles to the north and south.

Does anyone know whether the new CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will have similar scenarios ready to go, such as trains from further west being turned back at Reading, losing use of one pair of lines during the peak, cable theft crippling signals, etc?

[IndustryInsider]

I'm not sure, Will.  Though I would imagine it would be an easier task on a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) like First Capital Connect where, especially on the Thameslink route, there's a more clockface pattern of services, and that would lend itself better to an amended timetable - especially if it was a simple scenario as the tunnel being shut and splitting the north/south service into shuttles.

I know that basic work on contingency timetables has been done by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to deal with a number of the commonest scenarios, i.e. turning back at Reading/Ealing Broadway etc., but I don't think it's specific enough that you would want to upload the timetables to the CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) as circumstances vary so much.  For example if there's a block between Maidenhead and Slough the frequency of the shuttle service you might be able to offer between Slough and Paddington depends on how many sets you have that side of the problem.  Granted, that's less of an issue now that several Turbos are usually stabled at Old Oak Common outside of the peak hours, but it could still mean changes to a prepared emergency timetable.  Also, the amount of fuel in the trains, the location and number of guards/drivers and so on, make it virtually impossible to enforce a fully prepared timetable.

There is still a lot that can be done with provision of information, and the removal of dedicated Train Crew Supervisors at some of the larger stations (Oxford, Reading, Paddington etc.,) along with long-gone dedicated station announcers & local CIS operators at stations like Oxford and Slough has not helped the situation in recent years.  It's a shame, as benefits gained by steps to improve the flow of information over the last ten or so years, such as pagers, mobile telephones, help points and so on have been somewhat countered by those changes for the worse.

Though I'm interested to hear of FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect)'s plans for their new system, I would be very interested to see how it works in practice!

[Tim]

I take all the points about overcrowding and the driver unable to make announcements.  I would have thought though that the ability for someone (guard or driver I don't care who) to make announcements at all times would be a matter of safety. 

Remember when the Eurostars got stuck in the tunnel.  the only real risk to passenegrs was when they started opening the doors and wondering about.  What might have prevented the passengers from doing this?  more information from the staff.  Annoucements are about providng information, but in an abnormal situation even when there is no information to provide they do also provide reassurance to nervous passengers that there is a technical problem rather than an disaster.  Some people panic in abnormal sitautions (and start thinking about terrorism or crashes or whatever).  Panic passengers do stupid things like faint or open doors. 

Anyway - hope thay catch the thieves.  I bet they where wearing Hi Vis.   

[IndustryInsider]

I agree with Tim - especially given that there is a handset in the driver's cab, there should be a means for them to make announcements on the train - even if in emergencies only!  I can only assume that the design of the system (dating from the late 70's) precludes this from happening without a lot of money being spent?  More modern trains all have this feature as far as I know, for example the Class 180's do.

Turbo's obviously have the ability for drivers to make announcements, as can somebody in the back cab of the train.  It's even possible for the signaller to make announcements on the train by patching through via the Cab Secure Radio system, so that on a D.O.O. train where the driver has been incapacitated, it is still possible for somebody to give the passengers information.  I presume this is also the case on all other D.O.O. routes?

[smokey]

I thought it was due to power cuts...how on earth can someone not see that amount of cabling going missing and how does it affect the railway FOR THAT AMOUNT OF TIME?

Doesn't the railways/FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have a control room with alarms which could action a resposne asafp? I was stood at Slough at 13:10 I can't believe this was still ongoing 6 hours later (a bit like that tennis match!)

So some B*****D's steal signal cable about 15.00hrs, and Network Rail expect to get back to Normal around 22.00

WELL DONE NR^» (Network Rail - home page).

Right there are four Basic types of cable in trackside troughs.

Fibre Optic (scrap Value Nil)

Mult-core phone cable (scrap value Pence)

Mult-core Signal Cable (scrap value ^10 for 100 metres if stripped, just not worth it.)

Power Cable running with 650volts in it (scrap valve for 100 metres if stripped down about ^200-^500 for 100 metres).

Have a guess which the Low Lifes go for, problem is they pull it out with a 4X4 and this cable rips apart the mult core signal cable as it's pulled out.

NR have to locate and get to site new power cable, new signal cable that has to be repaired Very carefully by ONE gang and their work checked by a Second gang. Since Clapham Junc accident signal work has to be checked by a second group of engineers.

Considering the work involved I'm amazed that repairs ONLY take 6 hours.

[willc]

I don't think it's specific enough that you would want to upload the timetables to the CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) as circumstances vary so much. 

It couldn't be any worse than the screens at Oxford still trying to show the normal timetable, albeit with cancelled and delayed all over the place, despite the service being nothing of the sort, seven hours after the cable was severed. I appreciate that each situation is different, with rolling stock and staff all over the place, but having some sort of fallback plan has surely got to be better than either displaying information that bears no relation to what's actually happening, or no information at all, which seems to be where we are at present.

[Tim]

Power Cable running with 650volts in it (scrap valve for 100 metres if stripped down about ^200-^500 for 100 metres).

Surely this cable is only on third-rail electrified routes?  Even on those routes I'd be surprised if it ran in the same trough as signalling cable - wouldn't that cause interference problems?

[IndustryInsider]

I don't think it's specific enough that you would want to upload the timetables to the CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) as circumstances vary so much. 

It couldn't be any worse than the screens at Oxford still trying to show the normal timetable, albeit with cancelled and delayed all over the place, despite the service being nothing of the sort, seven hours after the cable was severed. I appreciate that each situation is different, with rolling stock and staff all over the place, but having some sort of fallback plan has surely got to be better than either displaying information that bears no relation to what's actually happening, or no information at all, which seems to be where we are at present.

I think possibly the best solution for some stations, with the staffing levels available, is for a summary of what service is operating at that particular station to be displayed rather than actual trains and 'on time', 'delayed', 'cancelled' etc. 

For example if the lines are closed at Maidenhead and a 30-minute shuttle is operating Slough all stations to Padd, then the screens at Langley, Iver, West Drayton would display a message saying something along the lines of 'There is severe disruption due to xxxx at Maidenhead.  The normal timetable has been suspended and a special service is operating between Slough and London Paddington at approximately 30-minute intervals calling at all stations.  These trains are due to leave here at 22 and 52 minutes past the hour towards Slough and 12 and 42 minutes past the hour towards Paddington.  Please note that these timings are subject to short notice amendments.  Please ask a member of staff or use one of the 'Help Points' for more information.'

Much better than displaying nothing, and not specific enough to mean that what is being displayed has no bearing whatsoever on the actual service being provided.  The templates for those scripts could be loaded into the system and amended by the CIS operator as appropriate.  Obviously at larger stations you would need the back-up of constant announcements and staff on the platforms, but it's better for them than having wrong information displayed and having to constantly correct it.

[paul7575]

Power Cable running with 650volts in it (scrap valve for 100 metres if stripped down about ^200-^500 for 100 metres).

Surely this cable is only on third-rail electrified routes?  Even on those routes I'd be surprised if it ran in the same trough as signalling cable - wouldn't that cause interference problems?

No, 650 volt AC - [corrected - shouldn't have guessed if unsure  ] is the normal BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) trackside power supply, all over the country. That's signalling, telecoms, heaters, AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System) etc etc.

DC^▸ (Direct Current) traction power supplies mean more big cables again, fortunately for some reason they seem not to be such a popular target - I expect because even the scrotes armed with hacksaws and croppers realise they aren't going to trip the breakers, as the protection arrangements are designed to allow for the 1000s of Amps drawn by trains in normal operation.

Paul

[Tim]

Thanks for the correction.  I didn;t know that

Tim

[Electric train]

Signaling supplies are distributed as ac and not dc,  ac allows the use of step down transforms to 110v etc.  While 650 v ac is the most common there are areas in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) that use 440 v ac. 

For the techie minded who know BS7671 the 650v systems are usually an IT system and the 440 v TNC (for the non techie http://www.arca53.dsl.pipex.com/index_files/elect4.htm  )

[Tim]

Stupid question I am sure, but I assume that the signalling and Comms use low voltage DC^▸ (Direct Current) for operating and that the 650/440 AC is just for power distribution?  Where is the AC distibuted to (surely it is only signal boxes that need the AC supply??.