Thameslink Delays - 18th July '17

[Alteran Ancient]

Looks like it's been a bit of a sticky morning for Thameslink today.

To start, a signaller error caused the SE 1K89 terminator to land in Platform 2, blocking the northbound services. This was further exacerbated by a following 700 running the TL 2O06 having fouled the points just outside, preventing the service from leaving. As 375s are forbidden north of Blackfriars, the only way it could go is south.

This meant that 2O06 had to reverse in order for the trapped train to escape Blackfriars and free up P2 for northbound services.

...and since then, looks like a train went wrong at Farringdon - not sure about the details of that, though.

Here, have a now-rare sight of a 375 parked in Platform 2 at Blackfriars:
http://i.imgur.com/kvDzKvr.jpg

How could the effects of this been mitigated, or could any changes be made in order to prevent a similar delay from happening in the future?

 

[bonzawe]

Looks like it's been a bit of a sticky morning for Thameslink today.

To start, a signaller error caused the SE 1K89 terminator to land in Platform 2, blocking the northbound services. This was further exacerbated by a following 700 running the TL 2O06 having fouled the points just outside, preventing the service from leaving. As 375s are forbidden north of Blackfriars, the only way it could go is south.

This meant that 2O06 had to reverse in order for the trapped train to escape Blackfriars and free up P2 for northbound services.

...and since then, looks like a train went wrong at Farringdon - not sure about the details of that, though.

Here, have a now-rare sight of a 375 parked in Platform 2 at Blackfriars:
http://i.imgur.com/kvDzKvr.jpg

How could the effects of this been mitigated, or could any changes be made in order to prevent a similar delay from happening in the future?

The obvious mitigation would be that the driver sees the wrong route set and stops, contacting the signalmen to reset the route.

 

[SPADTrap]

The obvious mitigation would be that the driver sees the wrong route set and stops, contacting the signalmen to reset the route.

It was not a wrong route :roll:

The driver signs all platforms and was routed into a reversible platform.

 

[Antman]

It was not a wrong route :roll:

The driver signs all platforms and was routed into a reversible platform.

Do 375's normally use platform 2 to reverse? I've never seen it before. I can well imagine the disruption this little incident will have caused.

 

[GW43125]

Do 375's normally use platform 2 to reverse? I've never seen it before. I can well imagine the disruption this little incident will have caused.

It's unusual, but perfectly acceptable.

 

[tsr]

It certainly was not acceptable. Classed as a wrong route given and taken. However, ultimately I suspect it is likely to boil down to signaller error (as above) because although the driver should have expected to go into a bay, going into a platform which could still accommodate them was not dangerous or off-route. The issue was not just that the stock could not go north, but also that the preferred option in the circumstances (given another train came to a stand immediately to the rear which blocked the option to go straight back south out of the platform) was to run ECS to City Thameslink, change ends and go south from there, but the driver did not sign that route.

Further to this, a Class 700 on 1G63 then broke down with power issues heading northbound at Farringdon, and could only take power from the country end cab, so it had to be sent ECS to Three Bridges.

 

[SPADTrap]

It certainly was not acceptable. Classed as a wrong route given and taken. The issue was not just that the stock could not go north, but also that the preferred option in the circumstances (given another train came to a stand immediately to the rear which blocked the option to go straight back south out of the platform) was to run ECS to City Thameslink, change ends and go south from there, but the driver did not sign that route.

What if the other platforms were blocked? Leave the 375 sitting outside is a better option? The route came off for a platform the driver signs and knew to be reversible. I can't see the driver being held to a wrong route on their record. From what I read this is also reflected.

 

[tsr]

What if the other platforms were blocked? Leave the 375 sitting outside is a better option? The route came off for a platform the driver signs and knew to be reversible. I can't see the driver being held to a wrong route on their record. From what I read this is also reflected.

Edited to clarify before I even saw your post - I quite understand where you're coming from, too - but unfortunately, from the data in front of me, it has stuff about being wrong-routed all over it. I also very much hope it won't be put on the driver's record, but there you go.

As for trains sitting outside Blackfriars, unfortunately it's not unheard of, and may be necessary to avoid blocking other routes - as clearly seen here!

 

[ComUtoR]

It certainly was not acceptable.

Why not ? I'm not aware of any restriction preventing it and the service was booked into the station and arrived into the station.

Classed as a wrong route given and taken.

I've had this done to me. (20mins sitting on platform 2 in the evening peak) It didn't get classed as a wrong route and nothing was said. I suspect that this is more to do with blame culture than an actual operating incident (wrong route)

However, ultimately I suspect it is likely to boil down to signaller error (as above) because although the driver should have expected to go into a bay, going into a platform which could still accommodate them was not dangerous or off-route.

So its not off-route but classified as a wrong route ?

The issue was not just that the stock could not go north, but also that the preferred option in the circumstances (given another train came to a stand immediately to the rear which blocked the option to go straight back south out of the platform) was to run ECS to City Thameslink, change ends and go south from there, but the driver did not sign that route.

375's aren't allowed to go north. Even if the Driver signed the route it wouldn't matter. They don't sign it because nothing they drive goes north.

Any idea how this was resolved ?

Did the unit sitting outside go into the bay and then the 375 head back ?

 

[SPADTrap]

Any idea how this was resolved ?

Did the unit sitting outside go into the bay and then the 375 head back ?

It was set back to allow the 375 to depart I think.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

Any idea how this was resolved ?

Did the unit sitting outside go into the bay and then the 375 head back ?

700044 was made to reverse out of sight, and then the 3x375 made its escape.

I'm not familiar with 700s getting this close with Platform 2 already occupied, but if I could read the number from the platform, then I must imagine it was too close. It's a bit pointless Platform 2 being bi-directional if you cannot actually get out in the other direction during normal operation.

 

[ComUtoR]

Thanks guys.

24tph.....

 

[Bald Rick]

The prevention of such situations is, of course, Automatic Route setting via Traffic Management systems. It is very, very rare for ARS to give a wrong route (although it does happen).

For the record it was a wrong route, as the route should have been set to a terminal platform. I don't think the driver will be held to account though, although in such situations a quick call to the Bobby to say 'are you sure?' often helps.

 

[Surreytraveller]

It was not a wrong route :roll:

The driver signs all platforms and was routed into a reversible platform.

Exactly. Just because a train is signalled into a platform its not booked into doesn't make it a wrong route. Otherwise you'd constantly have chaos at terminal stations.

 

[ComUtoR]

T
For the record it was a wrong route, as the route should have been set to a terminal platform. I don't think the driver will be held to account though, although in such situations a quick call to the Bobby to say 'are you sure?' often helps.

The Driver can't be held to account as from their perspective the route is correct. It's only 'wrong' from the Signallers and booked platform perspective. If you asked a Driver how many times their expected and even booked platform is changed you would be surprised at how common it is.

I agree a quick call would have been better and in that situation challenging the route is something the Driver should have done.

We are not given platforms on our schedules and neither are we given next workings when relieved. We have also been told not to challenge and to trust that the Signaller knows what they are doing. Victoria Drivers were specifically told not to challenge permissive workings, even if they had unusual train lengths !!

If you challenged each move into a station the delays caused would rack up. Some of us have had so many unusual moves that it becomes an expectation. Stock changes, service disruption etc etc. New Drivers are taught that the system works perfect and that you go where signalled.

I challenge less than I used to and partly because sometimes the Signaller is less than friendly and will 'remind you' that you can be routed via X and today that was what he was doing.

We either accept it or challenge everything. It's hard to balance when to challenge a route, especially into stations; terminal or otherwise.

 

[tsr]

The prevention of such situations is, of course, Automatic Route setting via Traffic Management systems. It is very, very rare for ARS to give a wrong route (although it does happen).

For the record it was a wrong route, as the route should have been set to a terminal platform. I don't think the driver will be held to account though, although in such situations a quick call to the Bobby to say 'are you sure?' often helps.

Ta! You've basically said what I was about to - I suspect we have been reading similar reports (perhaps via different sources), so we're singing from the same hymn sheet.

Ultimately, if there is severe disruption or you are operating to a revised diagram, obviously as a member of crew you'd expect things to be somewhat different and you might not be able to predict which platform would be best used or avoided. However, there are times such as this incident where not only has the signalling side of things messed up, but although the platform still serves the right route for passengers and can accommodate the train, it was not a sensible place to be routed and I know many a driver who'd query this sort of thing. I've even had drivers query green signals leading them to places which were perfectly valid routes, but which were inappropriate because the controlling signaller had just brought them to a stand out-of-course to advise them of severe disruption. Just because it seems obvious that it's safe to proceed doesn't actually mean it's a sensible place to go.

Having done many a tough shift with constant opportunities to be offered the wrong thing by signals, and having been a victim of quite substantial errors, I do know how hard it is to judge situations, so I am very sympathetic to people who make errors or react wrongly to them. I'd far rather see lessons learnt instead of people blamed, and this could result in useful advice to crew and signallers, if handled properly.

 

[carriageline]

It's technically not a wrong route. I can't remember the exact wording/description, but it's along the lines of if a train is offered a route which is off course, and/or it can't make its final destination.

The train was booked to go to Blackfriars, it made it to Blackfriars, just not the best platform choice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alteran Ancient]

The staff I've spoken to seem to have decided that this was a combination of "wrong route given" plus "wrong route accepted". Whilst I'd accept that being given a route to Platform 2 is abnormal, I also am aware that it is a valid platform and assuming signal clearance hadn't been so hastily given to the following train that boxed-in the 375 in the first place, that the impact would have been minimal.

I accept that mistakes are made and accidents can happen from time to time, but there should always be contingency in place to minimise any fallout that could occur when mistakes do happen.

A possible option could be to drop the restriction of 375s going into City Thameslink to reverse over the points. A 12-coach 375 wouldn't fit into Smithfield, but there's nothing stopping it from reversing in City TL. Would it simply be a matter of getting the drivers to sign the route, or is there a physical limitation preventing the 375s from doing this? I know the OHLE starts there, but third rail remains available as far as Farringdon.

 

[swt_passenger]

A possible option could be to drop the restriction of 375s going into City Thameslink to reverse over the points. A 12-coach 375 wouldn't fit into Smithfield, but there's nothing stopping it from reversing in City TL.

A 375 is foul of the overhead in City T/L. It's why the OHLE wasn't made fully live through City T/L while the 375s were still using the sidings.

 

[Bromley boy]

A 375 is foul of the overhead in City T/L. It's why the OHLE wasn't made fully live through City T/L while the 375s were still using the sidings.

I think you may be thinking of 465s.

 

[david737]

A 375 is foul of the overhead in City T/L. It's why the OHLE wasn't made fully live through City T/L while the 375s were still using the sidings.

Don't understand that when 377/387's run through there & they are virtually the same train.

 

[swt_passenger]

Don't understand that when 377/387's run through there & they are virtually the same train.

Different roof mounted aerials has been the usual answer. I'm only quoting various NR documents though, so please don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Driver can't be held to account as from their perspective the route is correct. It's only 'wrong' from the Signallers and booked platform perspective. If you asked a Driver how many times their expected and even booked platform is changed you would be surprised at how common it is.

I agree a quick call would have been better and in that situation challenging the route is something the Driver should have done.

We are not given platforms on our schedules and neither are we given next workings when relieved. We have also been told not to challenge and to trust that the Signaller knows what they are doing. Victoria Drivers were specifically told not to challenge permissive workings, even if they had unusual train lengths !!

If you challenged each move into a station the delays caused would rack up. Some of us have had so many unusual moves that it becomes an expectation. Stock changes, service disruption etc etc. New Drivers are taught that the system works perfect and that you go where signalled.

I challenge less than I used to and partly because sometimes the Signaller is less than friendly and will 'remind you' that you can be routed via X and today that was what he was doing.

We either accept it or challenge everything. It's hard to balance when to challenge a route, especially into stations; terminal or otherwise.

I agree that changing a platform at a station is usually not a case for a wrong route, and drivers should not challenge.

However the circumstances are a little different in this particular instance. The driver concerned would surely have known that a route into P2 for that service was very unusual, give that the rolling stock would not be permitted past the platform, and in all likelihood the driver would not have signed the route past the platform anyway. He/she would also have known that the morning peak at Blackfriars has a lot of trains heading to the TL core.

It's roughly the equivalent of a Pendolino to Manchester being routed into P14 at Picadilly in the morning peak.

Agreed that the delays would have been much reduced had the following service not been signalled up also.

 

[ComUtoR]

I agree that changing a platform at a station is usually not a case for a wrong route,

There is no 'usually' It really isn't a wrong route for us. The Driver arrived at the correct station and would be able to change ends and return.

and drivers should not challenge.

Which is the big elephant in the room. We should not challenge and shouldn't have to consider it. We have nothing on our schedules to determine platform or route.

Knowing when to challenge and when not to is a very fine line. It is hard for me to say or justify either way but I can give some insight to why we do or don't challenge.

However the circumstances are a little different in this particular instance.

They are and I would agree. Unfortunately ...

The driver concerned would surely have known that a route into P2 for that service was very unusual,

...Unusual workings are surprisingly common. There is a few 'what if' at play here too. I run this route almost daily and I have been dropped into P2 to turnback before. I was booked to be relieved and I accepted the platform. The unit sat there in the peak for 20 minutes waiting my relief. I had no idea where the unit was going after or when my relief would be turning up. Quite often when we challenge you are told that there is X,Y, and Z happening and that we haven't been informed. As this happens all to frequent, we get used to unusual workings. It may have even been the case the Driver had been routed into P2 before.

I know it sounds crazy but some of us are very much in the dark and just drive our units and happily go about our day. We don't all travel regularly or know the service inside out. I haven't been to Bedford for an age but I sign it. I have zero idea about how busy it is or what the typical working are. I would accept any platform (except the wireless ones)

give that the rolling stock would not be permitted past the platform, and in all likelihood the driver would not have signed the route past the platform anyway.

Half and half here. My concern is my route and my workings. I drop units onto many many platforms where I don't sign where they connect. My expectation is that everything is correct and the next working would be picked up. From my perspective; 'past the platform' is no concern as I regularly do such movements.

I haven't been to Bedford for an age but I sign it... I don't sign past it so should I challenge the platform on arrival ? The last time I went there the local shunter was awol and they couldn't move my unit. I was also blocking another unit waiting outside. How would I have known ?

The unit restriction is at the end of the platform so clearly there is both an expectation that you could be booked into 2 and back out and such a movement is allowed. If a unit isn't allowed past the platform then why not restrict entry ? Which is also why I don't see it as something to specifically challenge or that the ability to go beyond the platform is even a consideration. I think restricting them to the bay would also cause a potential issue in the long term. For as long as your allowed on P2 to change ends then this will happen again. As I say, it happened to me too.

He/she would also have known that the morning peak at Blackfriars has a lot of trains heading to the TL core.

That's an assumption. Its hard for me to say how frequent their Drivers come up this way. I'm here daily so I'm pretty clued up. Others come up less than once a month. There are places I sign where I rarely go. This again, is something we deal with so any unusual working may not appear so if we go there infrequently.

There is also so much service disruption up there that the Driver could have simply assumed his booked platform was occupied. Sometimes we go in and out the bay on a weekend and we go permissive working, right next to a clear platform.

It's roughly the equivalent of a Pendolino to Manchester being routed into P14 at Picadilly in the morning peak.

I couldn't comment. I'm from the Glorious South

Agreed that the delays would have been much reduced had the following service not been signalled up also.

Which I was surprised about. Aren't they all controlled signals up there ? At what point did the Signaller realise what happened ?

As another point to chew over. Should the Driver behind have also challenged their signal ? Would they have known the 375 wouldn't be able to exit ?

My biggest bugbear with the railway is how disconnected we all are. This is a perfect example. It is also something where those outside the industry or those with more intimate knowledge (such as yourself) can't believe something like this happened.

Personally I think its more about the delay minutes caused than any operational issues.

 

[bramling]

I agree that changing a platform at a station is usually not a case for a wrong route, and drivers should not challenge.

However the circumstances are a little different in this particular instance. The driver concerned would surely have known that a route into P2 for that service was very unusual, give that the rolling stock would not be permitted past the platform, and in all likelihood the driver would not have signed the route past the platform anyway. He/she would also have known that the morning peak at Blackfriars has a lot of trains heading to the TL core.

It's roughly the equivalent of a Pendolino to Manchester being routed into P14 at Picadilly in the morning peak.

Agreed that the delays would have been much reduced had the following service not been signalled up also.

I see it as the signaller's error whatever way.

If it was the case that the signaller intended to route the train into Platform 2, then it was an error not holding the following train far enough back. If the initial routing into platform 2 was unintended, then that's also down to the signaller as it was a fully permissible route for the train to take. Reading between the lines I'm guessing it was the second of these scenarios.

Had the driver queried the route, there would still have been a delay, firstly whilst the conversation connected and took place, and then whilst the signal was put back.

24tph feels like a pipe-dream...

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair points ComUtoR.

Bedford is a bit different, as all the platforms are effectively terminating platforms for electric trains.

All told, I would have a tenner on a brief coming to all drivers of SE services that if their service is routed into 2, to ring the signaller unless they have had prior advice.

Re the second train, yes the signals are all controlled, but can all be set to auto. I don't know what the case was here - if they were in auto then it is pretty clear what happened. If not, you can imagine that if a signaller made a genuine error thinking the train should go into platform 2, it would be fairly straightforward to continue routing trains behind until the call came.

 

[ComUtoR]

Fair points ComUtoR.

Bedford is a bit different, as all the platforms are effectively terminating platforms for electric trains.

From my perspective, it's the same. Both platforms terminate on a through route which I don't sign. Both accept the traction and there are no restrictions.

All told, I would have a tenner on a brief coming to all drivers of SE services that if their service is routed into 2, to ring the signaller unless they have had prior advice.

Probably. I wonder who will swallow the resulting delay. Will it now be a wrong route not accepted and the Signaller takes 100% ? If we are specifically told to challenge then we are causing the delay so should we accept it ?

I spoke with the Driver today and got more information about what happened and why. I also found out that this is about money. NR want it as a wrong route accepted so its split 50/50. SE have rightfully told them where to correctly route it

Nothing is happening to the Driver.

Many thanks for the usual thoughtful replies BR. Always good conversing with you.