Operational Incident at Blackfriars

[IanXC]

Reasons for delays are announced based on what the delay attribution system says.

If there is a train failed without power, and there’s a pantograph on the floor, it will usually go down to a fault with the power supply, (Code I1), or possibly an electrification operational incident under investigation (OI). These will be announced as an issue with the power supply or overhead lines, both by auto announcers and any manual announcements.

After a little investigation, it becomes apparent what happened, and the incident was reallocated to being down to the driver. The delays are reallocated to this code (TG). However, for obvious reasons (same as with SPADs and other driver errors) they are announced as operational incidents.

If only delays were attributed that quickly! Its much more common to see information provided by TOC Customer Information desks being used in creating delay incidents than the other way around. Plus as JN114 stated, there is no automated link, or even mapped list from one to the other.

The only delay reason that really annoys me is " .... due to late arrival of the incoming service" - a Waterloo favourite. OK - so why was that, then?

Thats a local decision - such a reason isn't in the main Darwin feed list of reasons: https://wiki.openraildata.com/index.php/Darwin:Late_Running_reason_codes_and_text

Na the worst is what I heard at Bristol Parkway yesterday. Something to the effect of "due to a short notice change to the timetable". Well yes. But no mention of the real reason (overrunning engineering works).

The difference being that 'a short notice alteration to the timetable' should mean a plan to amend the service has been put in place before the start of service due to a known issue. Whereas 'overrunning engineering works' should be something that has happened unexpectedly.

 

[AM9]

Na the worst is what I heard at Bristol Parkway yesterday. Something to the effect of "due to a short notice change to the timetable". Well yes. But no mention of the real reason (overrunning engineering works).

But neither of which make any difference to a delayed passenger on the day, apart from any finger-pointing rant opportunities.

 

[Mawkie]

The District Line today was citing “delays due to train cancellations”, which is a non statement similar to your example. The actual reason (I would imagine) was lack of train crew.

Correct. "The line advertised delays at various times of the day due to the unavailability of Train Operators. This resulted with the line being suspended Earl’s Court to Kensington Olympia service from 14:00 to utilise the train operators on the core District line services."

Additionally, a door irregularity occurred at Victoria in the late morning and "service recovery was impeded by the non-availability of train operators".

 

[WelshBluebird]

But neither of which make any difference to a delayed passenger on the day, apart from any finger-pointing rant opportunities.

This is where the industry and passengers opinions differ I think. To regular passengers, something as generic as "a short notice change to the timetable" basically sounds like bull and people feel they are being fobbed off when they hear it. Yes it technically doesn't make a difference to the disruption caused but it very much makes a difference to how people feel about it. Think about it - if my train is severally delayed or cancelled then by very definition its a short notice change to the timetable. So basically that reasoning just sounds like you are being told the train is disrupted because the train is disrupted.

The difference being that 'a short notice alteration to the timetable' should mean a plan to amend the service has been put in place before the start of service due to a known issue. Whereas 'overrunning engineering works' should be something that has happened unexpectedly.

Why the need for the difference in terms of passenger accouncements though?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Another Waterloo favourite is "cancelled due to congestion", which really means we're going to skip your stop, leaving several hundred intending passengers behind, thereby transferring the congestion from the tracks (which is "Control's" problem) to the platform (where it becomes a crowd control problem for the station staff - who it seems are Not Allowed to communicate with the omnipotent deities in Control.)

 

[Falcon1200]

Another Waterloo favourite is "cancelled due to congestion", which really means we're going to skip your stop, leaving several hundred intending passengers behind, thereby transferring the congestion from the tracks (which is "Control's" problem) to the platform (where it becomes a crowd control problem for the station staff - who it seems are Not Allowed to communicate with the omnipotent deities in Control.)

Thanks, I never realised I was an omnipotent deity ! (Before I retired of course). I admit to on occasion arranged for trains to run express, ie missing stops, but always for a good reason, where disrupting the passengers on one train saves ongoing delay throughout the day to far more people. But it has to be done sensibly, taking account of passenger loadings, and arranged in advance, not at the last second, so that everyone knows what is happening.

 

[colchesterken]

Train spotter not engineer----How about a non electrified bar fixed down from wire/bar level to a couple of inches above coach roof and a spring clip to catch the pan when it is lower than its lowest in normal use, connected in some way to the ABB for release !!

 

[AM9]

Train spotter not engineer----How about a non electrified bar fixed down from wire/bar level to a couple of inches above coach roof and a spring clip to catch the pan when it is lower than its lowest in normal use, connected in some way to the ABB for release !!

But this wasn't an issue where the pantogrph was caught by something that was lower than it's lowest safe position. I believe that the clearance below the building that was struck was well within the normal operating height above the track, it's just that the pantograph was high, 'looking for a wire to contact' so to speak. I can't see any mention of which train it was (the distance between the pantographs of an 8-car unit is about 86m and about 166m on a 12-car unit), and I estimate that the distance between the tunnel mouth and the office building that was struck is about 118m, so one the rearmost pantograph lost contact with the supply at the mouth, the train would have slowed tro a stop pretty quickly (givin that it is a 1:29 gradien upto Blackfriars. Thus I imagine that it was a 700/1 unit.

 

[JN114]

The unit involved was 700044

 

[LAX54]

But this wasn't an issue where the pantogrph was caught by something that was lower than it's lowest safe position. I believe that the clearance below the building that was struck was well within the normal operating height above the track, it's just that the pantograph was high, 'looking for a wire to contact' so to speak. I can't see any mention of which train it was (the distance between the pantographs of an 8-car unit is about 86m and about 166m on a 12-car unit), and I estimate that the distance between the tunnel mouth and the office building that was struck is about 118m, so one the rearmost pantograph lost contact with the supply at the mouth, the train would have slowed tro a stop pretty quickly (givin that it is a 1:29 gradien upto Blackfriars. Thus I imagine that it was a 700/1 unit.

assuming the distance was so small, that the ADD was still activating (Pan shoots upwards, then falls down on top of the unit) when it found the building ?

 

[swt_passenger]

assuming the distance was so small, that the ADD was still activating (Pan shoots upwards, then falls down on top of the unit) when it found the building ?

That’s exactly what is being assumed. It’s what I suggested in post #17, based on what was explained in these forums when it happened before.

 

[Jim]

A lot of time management will get them to change the excuse just to stamp their authority and to justify their existence in life

Or perhaps the incident started with a power tripping, before the full details were then aquired ?

 

[AM9]

That’s exactly what is being assumed. It’s what I suggested in post #17, based on what was explained in these forums when it happened before.

The picture of the pantograph touching the roof in Blackfriars station looks to me like there is even sufficient clearance for the station to be wired conventionally (obviously not needed though). The office building currently over the station was built between 2009 and 2012 and I assume that by then, it would have to comply with the new minimum clearances required for OLE so there would be no problem clearing a pantograph that had dropped so there must have been a very slow dropping as the trains rarely ascend the gradient at anything above 40mph.

 

[BayPaul]

The only delay reason that really annoys me is " .... due to late arrival of the incoming service" - a Waterloo favourite. OK - so why was that, then?

I don't mind that one - it gives a decent indication that the delay is probably going to increase by about 10 mins from what is currently shown (because chances are the train has lost its path), but probably not more. If they said "Due to a broken down train", then it means I have no idea about whether the train is now repaired and en-route, or if it is still sat down somewhere waiting for an engineer.

 

[cnjb8]

So does the 3rd rail start at Farringdon and the OHLE end at just north of Blackfriars, meaning that between these two locations they have two power sources but due to the software they can’t take power from both at the same time?

 

[Surreytraveller]

So does the 3rd rail start at Farringdon and the OHLE end at just north of Blackfriars, meaning that between these two locations they have two power sources but due to the software they can’t take power from both at the same time?

Trains get two chances. Switch from overhead to third rail at Farringdon. If it doesn't work, go forward to City Thameslink and try again. Meanwhile the following train gets held at Farringdon in case the first train fails to switch over at City Thameslink.
If it fails at City Thameslink, driver changes ends and goes back north.
And same in the other direction - first attempt at City Thameslink, then forward to Farringdon for a second attempt

 

[Horizon22]

I'd be fairly sure, (but obviously can't prove it as I haven't seen your data from the surveys you've quoted), that getting home/to work/where ever is priority number one.

Do I need to know it's a signal passed at danger? No.
Will it change anything if I do? No.

I'm fifty something lapsed teenage spotter, who now uses the railway for business a lot, (at least until March 2020). I just need to know when, and how to get where I'm going.
IMHO the ones who want to know the detail are very much at the niche end, spotter level.

I never said it wasn't; I just said that when there is a delay, the majority of passengers would like to know some core details about why it was delayed. I believe it was a Transport Focus survey about disruption.

 

[bramling]

I never said it wasn't; I just said that when there is a delay, the majority of passengers would like to know some core details about why it was delayed. I believe it was a Transport Focus survey about disruption.

Of course they do. Information empowers people to make informed decisions. I think some people are losing sight of this in their desire to make this an enthusiasts versus everyone else matter, when it really isn’t that at all.

 

[Davester50]

I never said it wasn't; I just said that when there is a delay, the majority of passengers would like to know some core details about why it was delayed. I believe it was a Transport Focus survey about disruption.

Transport Focus:

What are passengers’ priorities for journey information?

Across both rail and bus, the key priorities were around potential disruption, and planning for alternatives.
This reinforces our other research on disruption.
Most passengers wanted to be aware of their viable alternative routes before they travel.
The communities plan for the worst when it comes to journey information, anticipating a delay, cancellation or diversion, and will want to see this reflected in their journey planning tools. The reassurance that a route is running smoothly is valuable information in and of itself.
Top three priorities for journey information
Has anything gone wrong?
What is the impact of the delay?
What are my alternatives?

Page 8 of 13 of Transport Focus National Rail personalised disruption messages pdf

Funnily enough, nowhere in the presentation refers to additional detail such as more than "Operational Incident".
TF seem to be in agreement that it's not a priority, and the things I mentioned earlier are. I'll duck out of the debate now, and leave it at that.

 

[cnjb8]

Trains get two chances. Switch from overhead to third rail at Farringdon. If it doesn't work, go forward to City Thameslink and try again. Meanwhile the following train gets held at Farringdon in case the first train fails to switch over at City Thameslink.
If it fails at City Thameslink, driver changes ends and goes back north.
And same in the other direction - first attempt at City Thameslink, then forward to Farringdon for a second attempt

Thank you

 

[Bald Rick]

The office building currently over the station was built between 2009 and 2012

If you mean Blackfriars, the office building immediately south of the station was built in the 70s. It was refurbed in the mid 00s and again this year.

 

[AM9]

If you mean Blackfriars, the office building immediately south of the station was built in the 70s. It was refurbed in the mid 00s and again this year.

I thought the station (and the building on top of it) was rebuilt when the tracks were slewed in the late naughties. If it is a '70 structure, do you know what the clearance is over the tracks.

 

[IanXC]

This is where the industry and passengers opinions differ I think. To regular passengers, something as generic as "a short notice change to the timetable" basically sounds like bull and people feel they are being fobbed off when they hear it. Yes it technically doesn't make a difference to the disruption caused but it very much makes a difference to how people feel about it. Think about it - if my train is severally delayed or cancelled then by very definition its a short notice change to the timetable. So basically that reasoning just sounds like you are being told the train is disrupted because the train is disrupted.

Why the need for the difference in terms of passenger accouncements though?

"A short notice change to the timetable" is intended to indicate that an amended timetable is in place, as in, there is a definite plan in place for what is happening, yes this alteration applies but the service should otherwise be stable.

Almost all other reasons should indicate that there is disruptive event ongoing at that time, such that other alterations, delays and cancellations can be expected.

This timetable reason was introduced post May 2018 timetable change if that gives it any context.

 

[Horizon22]

Page 8 of 13 of Transport Focus National Rail personalised disruption messages pdf

Funnily enough, nowhere in the presentation refers to additional detail such as more than "Operational Incident".
TF seem to be in agreement that it's not a priority, and the things I mentioned earlier are. I'll duck out of the debate now, and leave it at that.

That's a very niche survey about personalised distribution and choice of contact for the information. Anyway, it wasn't actually Transport Focus but this much bigger survey comissioned by the DfT

On Page 6:

During severe disruptions the most required information was about connections or alternative routes as well as the cause of disruption.

For both normal and severe disruptions participants most want ‘correct’ (30%) and ‘clear’ (25% for normal, 23% for severe) information. 61% prefer very detailed information on the disruption and 37% quite detailed information.

80% said it was very important that the train company be honest even if that means saying they do not know what is happening. 80% wanted additional information on causes of disruption with signal and points failures (71%), engineering works (67%) and knock-on delays (62%) the most sought-after information.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought the station (and the building on top of it) was rebuilt when the tracks were slewed in the late naughties. If it is a '70 structure, do you know what the clearance is over the tracks.

The station got rebuilt 2008-2012, but that office block was left alone. It’s been there since trains went to Holborn Viaduct. During the rebuild it was occupied by the Thameslink Programme, which afforded an excellent method of obtaining up to date progress reports!

I don’t know the clearance over the tracks, other than it’s not high enough for a train with a fully extended pantograph.

 

[AM9]

The station got rebuilt 2008-2012, but that office block was left alone. It’s been there since trains went to Holborn Viaduct. During the rebuild it was occupied by the Thameslink Programme, which afforded an excellent method of obtaining up to date progress reports!

I don’t know the clearance over the tracks, other than it’s not high enough for a train with a fully extended pantograph.

OK thanks, - I wasn't living anywhere near London in those days.

I realised that (there aren't may overhead structures that would clear a fully extended pantograph), - It was as a result of me commenting on @colchesterken's suggestion that a pantograph is clipped down once it goes below it's minimum operating height. Knowing how low they do operate, (I remember many times standing on the old Kings Cross TL station platforms seeing the 319 pantographs get very close the fibreglass rod that pushed the wires down under the footbridge there). What surprises me is the time that it takes for the thing to drop back is longer than a 700 takes to climb to the office building even at 30-40mph.