Major delays for SWT

[radamfi]

By all means warn passengers of the risk of walking across tracks, but once passengers get off then they do so at their own risk. Don't turn off the third rail. It seems perfectly OK to walk alongside moving trains in Switzerland and that is not exactly a third world country. In fact they know a thing or two about how to run trains there. Although they don't use third rail there.

 

[Old Timer]

In my personal opinion, the problem is the way that rules and regulations these days have become so dictatorial as to prevent the use of common sense.

Years ago, the Drivers would have moved forward signal by signal until they eventually reached a station or a train in front. These days the instructions are to sit where you are until told to do something.

Again requirements for the passing of only one signal at a time adds considerable delays, compared to a situation where years ago, as the front trains were cleared, the following train would be given a series of signal sections, thus leaving him to drive at a reasonable speed. I dont recall many accidents at all where collisions occurred in such situations.

Whereas the old Southern in most cases had trains that could mechanically couple up the gangways thus allowing trains in the rear to be used to walk through to the station, differing types of stock and the lack of frontal gangways pose a problem.

To this has to be added the fact however that major power failures were actually quite rare under BR, because the theft element was not there.

There are no simple answers anymore. I remember when a delay of over 60 minutes to a failed train was an automatic Inquiry. These days delays of up to 2 hours are the norm.

One thing I do find completely brain hurting is that Drivers and others seem to be surprised when the bang up electrically amd mechanically to a failed unit and find that they cannot release the brake ?????

Can someone explain please ????

We knew this in BR days in the 1980s, so the train in rear coupled up and pushed using the emergency schrader hose, with the unit in front raising the EBS. I see ORR Regulations now make this a no-no, although as far as I know no accident has ever occurred in such circumstances.

So, when you know the fault will transfer, why go up behind and knacker up the assisting train ? :roll: :roll::roll: :roll::roll:

 

[Ferret]

Absolutely, sending out a public indication that sort if behaviour is acceptable will only ever make things much, much worse. I've no doubt that the recent media coverage of these situations will already have done some damage to the level of common sense among many commuters. And, worse still, if completely undermines the railway staff who have to do their best to remain in charge of thier train and in control of the situation, and that is just not acceptable. Perhaps in future we should just advise the passengers to do whatever the hell they like and then phone the BTP to come and sort it out, seeing as they appear be quite happy to perpetuate this mentality.

As for those people who know what they are doing, again I agree that isn't a sensible route. Somebody is either qualified railway staff or not, and the distinction between who 'knows that they are doing' and who doesn't must stop there.

Yup, well done BTP - another fine example of why they are viewed as being a waste of space.

 

[passmore]

People are making a lot of this "tell people when there is major disruption" approach.

The point people are not considering, or are deliberately overlooking in order to make controversial points, is that until investigations are carried out, it is hard to determine that any incident is likely to lead to major disruption.

[\QUOTE]

But that's exactly what happened on Friday: an incident, in this case a signalling problem, led to 'major disruption'. How can you say people are deliberately overlooking that? As far as I understand it, information about the signalling disruption was conveyed as best it can by the SWT crewmembers involved. The crux of the debate seems to be the passengers who chose to 'take matters in their hands'.

All it would've taken is for someone to be injured as a result of Friday's problems for the debate stalemate to be broken, in this case, whether it was 'right or wrong' for the passengers to use common sense and ignore the official instructions or whether it was 'right or wrong' for the crewmembers to be so dogged with the rules. As grim as it sounds, the problem with modern society today is that common sense does not prevail whenever accidents happen and if one of the said passengers trod onto the live rail before it was switched off, common sense goes right out of the window.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Deleted

 

[BestWestern]

In my personal opinion, the problem is the way that rules and regulations these days have become so dictatorial as to prevent the use of common sense.

Years ago, the Drivers would have moved forward signal by signal until they eventually reached a station or a train in front. These days the instructions are to sit where you are until told to do something.

Again requirements for the passing of only one signal at a time adds considerable delays, compared to a situation where years ago, as the front trains were cleared, the following train would be given a series of signal sections, thus leaving him to drive at a reasonable speed. I dont recall many accidents at all where collisions occurred in such situations.

Whereas the old Southern in most cases had trains that could mechanically couple up the gangways thus allowing trains in the rear to be used to walk through to the station, differing types of stock and the lack of frontal gangways pose a problem.

To this has to be added the fact however that major power failures were actually quite rare under BR, because the theft element was not there.

There are no simple answers anymore. I remember when a delay of over 60 minutes to a failed train was an automatic Inquiry. These days delays of up to 2 hours are the norm.

One thing I do find completely brain hurting is that Drivers and others seem to be surprised when the bang up electrically amd mechanically to a failed unit and find that they cannot release the brake ?????

Can someone explain please ????

We knew this in BR days in the 1980s, so the train in rear coupled up and pushed using the emergency schrader hose, with the unit in front raising the EBS. I see ORR Regulations now make this a no-no, although as far as I know no accident has ever occurred in such circumstances.

So, when you know the fault will transfer, why go up behind and knacker up the assisting train ? :roll: :roll::roll: :roll::roll:

A big part of this problem no doubt is the ever-increasing plethora of incompatible rolling stock types being introduced onto the network, many of which are completely incapable af assisting anything but another of 'their own'. However, common sense does sometimes prevail; I recall an incident involving a failed FGW Class 158 around Southampton Central. Train failed, mainline blocked, not good. Assistance came in the form of a 158 or 159 from SWT, which was hooked up to the rear of the failure, which had it's EBS raised and was pushed into a siding, out of the way. Relatively quick solution to a potential nightmare situation, and a fine example of two TOC's working together to everyone's advantage. Alas, it's a shame things often aren't so smooth! :roll:

 

[Old Timer]

But that's exactly what happened on Friday: an incident, in this case a signalling problem, led to 'major disruption'. How can you say people are deliberately overlooking that? As far as I understand it, information about the signalling disruption was conveyed as best it can by the SWT crewmembers involved. The crux of the debate seems to be the passengers who chose to 'take matters in their hands'.

The point I was trying to make is that until certain actions have been taken, there is no way of knowing that it will lead to major disruption. The matter could well have been a blown fuse that could have been replaced rapidly in the lineside location cabinet and trains would have started running again. There was obviously a period of time before it became apparant that the failure was much more than that. I suspect this was about 1 to 1&1/2 or maybe 2 hours into the initial incident.

All it would've taken is for someone to be injured as a result of Friday's problems for the debate stalemate to be broken, in this case, whether it was 'right or wrong' for the passengers to use common sense and ignore the official instructions or whether it was 'right or wrong' for the crewmembers to be so dogged with the rules. As grim as it sounds, the problem with modern society today is that common sense does not prevail whenever accidents happen and if one of the said passengers trod onto the live rail before it was switched off, common sense goes right out of the window.

By "common sense" you mean the decision by people who have absolutely no knowledge of the railway, its dangers and the serious risks of injury, to go down onto a mulitple track railway, in the dark with live electrified lines.

Ye Gods.

If THAT is "common sense" in the UK then thank God I work abroad.

As a Railway Professional with decades of on track experience, I can assure you that I would be extremely wary of descending onto the track in such situations, without a clear knowledge of the location or at least a good understanding as to whether or not trains were running and the traction current was on.

Crew members are not "dogged" by Rules. The Rules are there to ensure the safety of both the Railway and its passengers.

If YOU had ever had to detrain passengers and walk them for some distance then you would quickly realise that this is the very last resort of all. Indeed it can take considerably longer than simply waiting.

Imagine if you will a scenario of a train standing 3 miles from the nearest station or exit from the track ? A not uncommon situation.

Firstly someone walking on the track for the first time will probably average about 2 miles per hour at best, more for the elderly and ladies in the normal styles of shoes that they wear, indeed you will not get very far in ladies shoes at all, so this puts the mockers on about 50% of the people being able to walk along the track at a reasonable pace.

Clambering down from the train onto the track will almost certainly result in someone twisting an ankle or worse, even those using a ladder can suffer injury.

Consider how people will cross the Conductor rails ? It is something of a skill to those who work in third rail areas, and certainly not something to be done by the uninitiated, many of whom would not be dressed suitably to cross over the rails in anycase.

Even the most basic analysis of an unauthorised detrainment will reveal all sorts of dangers even to the untrained eye.

Detrainments led by groups of Alpha males with an over inflated estimate of their knowledge, and filled with the sanctimony of taking command by using "common sense" are disasters waiting to happen.

It is not clear whether you agree or disagree, but as far as I am concerned detrainment by Four by Four driving, Alpha males overdosing on Testosterone and self-righteousness, and eager to create another story upon which they can dine out and amuse their identical cronies in the local pub is not a sustainable solution.

I have my views as to what is but I suspect they will not form the written Manifesto of a major Party any day soon

 

[thefab444]

Well said.

I have my views as to what is but I suspect they will not form the written Manifesto of a major Party any day soon

Makes a change!

 

[Old Timer]

Well said.

Makes a change!

Still fulfilling the perception everyone has of you I see.

Most reassuring for them I think if not somewhat boring at the same time.

 

[455refurb]

Complicated rules & procedures notwithstanding, surely one of the main issues here is around communication. Taking on board all those points about what is involved in a detraining, surely it would have been considered in the normal course of these situations given the duration of the incident. I personally do not think it is reasonable for passengers to have been expected to remain on a stationary train for the length of time that they were, seemingly with little or no information. However do we know SWT were in full possession of the facts?

I do not work in the railway industry but troubleshooting, fault-finding, operations and service restoration (in an engineering capacity, but in a different field) are central to my job. I am well aware of how long it can take to troubleshoot some faults, particularly when you're getting misleading or conflicting information from a number of different sources (control panels, technical readouts and the like), but where I work communication is very central to what we do and without it, operations would grind to a halt. If I am working in the field, people make decisions around service restoration & disaster recovery based on what I tell them, equally if I am working in the control room it can be me making those decisions based on information I get from my engineering colleagues.

Do we really know that SWT control were getting a steady stream of information from the infrastructure side (Network Rail / subcontractors etc) so that they were in full position of the facts? Had they have been, they could well have been in a position to make qualified decisions such as whether to detrain passengers depending on what SWT's own disaster recovery / incident management procedures dictated. Without that information it must have been difficult to know what to do.

Some reports were of complete chaos in SWT control, which I don't doubt, but this may have been symptomatic of a lack of information or conflicting information. If you have a good appraisal of the situation, you can then make qualified decisions rapidly, to the agreed incident plan for the severity of the problem you are facing. But it all comes back to communication, and right from the top down at every level of SWT & Network Rail this smacks of there being very little.

There is also the issue surrounding the experience of the staff on duty in SWT control that night. This was a major incident which would have challenged even well seasoned members of staff. I have been in control rooms when the proverbial has hit the fan in a big way and believe me it is not a nice feeling.

It is unsurprising the passengers detrained themselves after being stuck for so long without any information or seeming hope of resolution. They would probably have expected to have either started moving or been taken off by that time - the only option left in that situation was to take matters into their own hands.

One final thought, the member of staff who helped the passengers did the right thing IMO - as a guard I would not fancy my chances up against a large number of determined passengers, he/she did the right thing by making sure the decamp happened as safely as possible and they didn't kill themselves.

 

[passmore]

The point I was trying to make is that until certain actions have been taken, there is no way of knowing that it will lead to major disruption. The matter could well have been a blown fuse that could have been replaced rapidly in the lineside location cabinet and trains would have started running again. There was obviously a period of time before it became apparant that the failure was much more than that. I suspect this was about 1 to 1&1/2 or maybe 2 hours into the initial incident.

By "common sense" you mean the decision by people who have absolutely no knowledge of the railway, its dangers and the serious risks of injury, to go down onto a mulitple track railway, in the dark with live electrified lines.

Didn't the news article on the BBC say that some of the passengers on one service did detrain though?

It was clear to the passengers that did detrain that the power was off and that there was no immediate risk (in their eyes). However, if one of the passengers, who you rightly say the majority have no 'railway knowledge', suffered an injury as a result, is it right that they should have the option of suing SWT for a decision that, whilst I think it's the 'common sense' decision, is ultimately foolish since no-one on that service is likely to have any professional railway experience whatsoever? I think not, since they know they have no professional railway knowledge and by detraining in such an obviously dangerous location, the risks jump twofold.

Like I said earlier, it's impossible to say whether their decision to detrain, as stupid as it was, was foolish since hindsight (a wonderful thing!) has shown that no-one suffered injury, serious or otherwise, as a result of their clear impatience. I fully agree with the majority on here that their decision to walk along a track a night was stupid, but since no-one died/injured....

 

[DarloRich]

The problem is that passengers seem to expect the PWAY people to pull a big book off a shelf, turn to page 1145 and quote 145 minutes to repair an electrical cable fault, restore signalling and re energise the 3rd rail.

Then an announcement be made on the train to the effect that “this train will be stood for 145 minutes while job#44567 in the Haynes Manual of Railway Operations is carried out . Therefore this train will arrive at Orpington ( or wherever) at 2159.


Then an announcement be made every, say 10 minutes, saying job#44567 is 7.5% completed. etc.

You cant do that. It isn’t that simple I am afraid. Passengers need to understand this. Sometimes things take a long time to sort out. Yes; it isn’t nice to be crammed on a train for long periods of time. BUT it is better you stay uncomfortable there than be dead after being hit by a train or from touching the third rail - wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Madge Wildfire]

I know nothing about signalling systems, but do they have to use copper cable?

What about fibre optics? I have had cable tv for well over 15 years, and always assumed that if tv/telephone/internet comms can be sent down it, then a computerised signalling system ought to be able to do the same.

Forgive me if I am making some very naive assumptions.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I know nothing about signalling systems, but do they have to use copper cable?

What about fibre optics? I have had cable tv for well over 15 years, and always assumed that if tv/telephone/internet comms can be sent down it, then a computerised signalling system ought to be able to do the same.

Forgive me if I am making some very naive assumptions.

Fibre optic can't carry power, and anyway, the thieves won't check whether it's copper or fibre optic, they'll cut and run.

 

[passmore]

The problem is that passengers seem to expect the PWAY people to pull a big book off a shelf, turn to page 1145 and quote 145 minutes to repair an electrical cable fault, restore signalling and re energise the 3rd rail.

Then an announcement be made on the train to the effect that “this train will be stood for 145 minutes while job#44567 in the Haynes Manual of Railway Operations is carried out . Therefore this train will arrive at Orpington ( or wherever) at 2159.


Then an announcement be made every, say 10 minutes, saying job#44567 is 7.5% completed. etc.

You cant do that. It isn’t that simple I am afraid. Passengers need to understand this. Sometimes things take a long time to sort out. Yes; it isn’t nice to be crammed on a train for long periods of time. BUT it is better you stay uncomfortable there than be dead after being hit by a train or from touching the third rail - wouldn’t you agree?

I would, but then I would also sympathise with those who chose to detrain, hence why I think the debate is going to continue to go round in circles.

 

[jon0844]

Fibre optic can't carry power, and anyway, the thieves won't check whether it's copper or fibre optic, they'll cut and run.

Road signs of no value now have stickers saying just that, and I am sure that eventually even the thickest thief will suss out that they've stolen something that nobody will give them any money for.

But, it's a moot point if the cable needs to carry power as the fibre optic would only carry signals to turn the signals on/off, not power them.

What's the solution for that, given someone will always accept stolen cable no-questions-asked? Bury the cables deep underground? How much would that cost?

 

[Madge Wildfire]

Fibre optic can't carry power, and anyway, the thieves won't check whether it's copper or fibre optic, they'll cut and run.

Thanks, I didn't realise that, although I suspected there must be a simple reason for fibre optic not being used.

 

[EM2]

It was clear to the passengers that did detrain that the power was off and that there was no immediate risk (in their eyes)

It is NEVER clear that the power is off, unless you have been told that categorically by the person that switched it off.

 

[thefab444]

What's the solution for that, given someone will always accept stolen cable no-questions-asked? Bury the cables deep underground? How much would that cost?

I thought of that, but it's not just the cost of burying the cables, but also digging them up again each time maintenance/fault fixing needs to be performed.

 

[dviner]

I thought of that, but it's not just the cost of burying the cables, but also digging them up again each time maintenance/fault fixing needs to be performed.

Also - making sure that you don't cut through the cable (or another) while you're digging it up; have you dug up the right cable? I've got a new cable for that route - do I just start a new trench somewhere or do I find the others and bury this one with them? Is the insulation suitable for direct burying? Do I have to start armouring the cable (mind you, that would slow down the thieves!).

So, instead of burying the cables directly, you sink ductwork into the formation to contain the cables - that helps get around some of the above problems, but brings it's own set: putting down enough ducts to allow for future expansion, creating access chambers to get to the ducts and provide take-offs for the cables. Running a new or replacement cable now needs drawropes in the ducts otherwise you'll have to use rods to pull in a drawrope. Next you have to make sure that you'll be able to get a winch near the access chamber to pull in the heavier cables. Pulling in cables can damage existing cables due to friction. Also, you've got ready-made rat runs, the need to deal with flooded ducts and access chambers and also the need to perform gas-testing before accessing the underground structures.

You start getting to the point that it's cheaper to replace the cables when they've been nicked!

 

[Old Timer]

Burying cables is the ultimate solution, indeed this was how signalling cables were installed years ago.

The weaknes is in the necessity to take the cables up from the ground as they would have to exit the ground in a secure manner.

As I said earlier however the real answer is to make the penalty for the crime far more than someone is prepared to pay. A handful put away for maybe 10 or 15 years as an example to others would stop the rot pretty quickly.

That said far more needs to be done to identify and deal with the rogue scrap merchants, and again a lonmg prison term with the automatic bankruptcy of the business to pay compensation if not to the Railway then to the Treasury would soon stamp out the problem.

Unfortunately we have now been wrapped in cotton wool and programmed by the "liberals" that there are too many sanctimonious heart bleeders to make a fuss about long sentences.

You can imagine the paroxyms at the Mirror/Guardian/Independent/and the broadcasting arm of the Guardian.

 

[Helvellyn]

Totally see what you are saying, but I think that is partly the problem the rail industry has. You simply cannot reasonably expect people to stay on a packed train for 3 hours without them knowing anything. You really can't. It is just not realistic.
Perhaps I'm a bit blinded / naive because I am used to being on trains where the guard / train manager stays in constant communication with the passengers and moves through the train. So I have never really been in a situation where I have been without information for so long.

Please don't take what the press were saying literally! I've spoken to a lot of workmates who were working that night and they were walking trains, making announcements. They couldn't say how long the trains would be stopped, or exactly what the problem was, because Network Rail took a few hours to discover it was attempted cable theft. I also know one Guard couldn't walk through the train, because he'd opened the end doors to let air in because he had no air-conditioning so couldn't leave them unattended.

 

[BestWestern]

At the risk of sounding dim, is there not a way of installing cable in pre-set 'sections', with some type of 'easy break' connection between each length? This would make it easier for them to be ripped up, admittedly, but surely also a lot easier and quicker to replace? Some kind of sensor should then be possible at each connection point, which would identify a break in the cable and provide an immediate warning of scumbag activity, as well as allowing fault-finding to be far more efficient if the stuff does get nicked. Given a warning as soon as the first length is unhooked, there's at least half a chance that BTP or NR chaps could be well on their way to the scene before a truckload of cable is loaded. It might also allow a more effective method of laying cables in a secure sub-terrain level troughing, with some type of secure access point at each connection in the cable, allowing a section to be 'disconnected' at each end and then removed/replaced fairly painlessly by P-way when needed, but giving thieving pikies a harder time than they currently have. Or is that just a load of rollox?!

 

[Goldfish62]

Complicated rules & procedures notwithstanding, surely one of the main issues here is around communication. Taking on board all those points about what is involved in a detraining, surely it would have been considered in the normal course of these situations given the duration of the incident. I personally do not think it is reasonable for passengers to have been expected to remain on a stationary train for the length of time that they were, seemingly with little or no information. However do we know SWT were in full possession of the facts?

I do not work in the railway industry but troubleshooting, fault-finding, operations and service restoration (in an engineering capacity, but in a different field) are central to my job. I am well aware of how long it can take to troubleshoot some faults, particularly when you're getting misleading or conflicting information from a number of different sources (control panels, technical readouts and the like), but where I work communication is very central to what we do and without it, operations would grind to a halt. If I am working in the field, people make decisions around service restoration & disaster recovery based on what I tell them, equally if I am working in the control room it can be me making those decisions based on information I get from my engineering colleagues.

Do we really know that SWT control were getting a steady stream of information from the infrastructure side (Network Rail / subcontractors etc) so that they were in full position of the facts? Had they have been, they could well have been in a position to make qualified decisions such as whether to detrain passengers depending on what SWT's own disaster recovery / incident management procedures dictated. Without that information it must have been difficult to know what to do.

Some reports were of complete chaos in SWT control, which I don't doubt, but this may have been symptomatic of a lack of information or conflicting information. If you have a good appraisal of the situation, you can then make qualified decisions rapidly, to the agreed incident plan for the severity of the problem you are facing. But it all comes back to communication, and right from the top down at every level of SWT & Network Rail this smacks of there being very little.

There is also the issue surrounding the experience of the staff on duty in SWT control that night. This was a major incident which would have challenged even well seasoned members of staff. I have been in control rooms when the proverbial has hit the fan in a big way and believe me it is not a nice feeling.

It is unsurprising the passengers detrained themselves after being stuck for so long without any information or seeming hope of resolution. They would probably have expected to have either started moving or been taken off by that time - the only option left in that situation was to take matters into their own hands.

One final thought, the member of staff who helped the passengers did the right thing IMO - as a guard I would not fancy my chances up against a large number of determined passengers, he/she did the right thing by making sure the decamp happened as safely as possible and they didn't kill themselves.

Well said. I do agree with your comments. I've been told by a member of SWT traincrew who used to be in senior management in another industry that communication downwards to traincrews in the event of disruption is appalling. The vast majority (unfortunately there are some exceptions) of SWT traincrew seem to do to their level-best in such situations, but they are constantly being let down from above.

I wonder if this is why they seem to be so much less happy in their jobs than, say, crews working on Southern? Just a casual observation.

 

[infobleep]

I have an interest experience related to Thursday evening train delays. I often catch a fast train from Harrow & Wealdstone to Euston and then an underground to Waterloo and train to Guildford. The times I leave vary but that that evening I just missed the 17.54 so decided to get the 17.59 to Clapham Junction.

This meant I wouldn't pick up the 18.30 from Waterloo to Guildford. So I'd just get the next train. On route I read about the train problems due to signal failure between Waterloo and Clapham Junction. Arriving at Clapham Junction, a late running 18.27 to Exeter was extremely packed. No one else could get on board. So we were told to wait on the station.

Whilst waiting 2 trains passed through the station. These are not normally booked to call at Clapham Junction but both were not full and could have picked up the waiting passengers, which had grown in number compared to normal. So why they couldn't change their stopping patterns I don't know. I do object to stopping patterns not being alerted during delays.

After the second one left I decided i'd had enough of waiting and besides whats to say the next train booked to stop at Clapham Junction does just happen to be full. I decided to go up to Waterloo because trains were running up with only minor delays getting to Waterloo. With a travel card, such things are possible.

Once at Waterloo I boarded the 18.45, which left 23 minutes late. As we headed down the line the train got slower and slower. To the guards credit, he informed us that he had no credible reason for our delay. I admired his honesty. I don't mind trains being late but I do object to trains being late without any reason given. Within 5 minutes the driver told us of problems at Farnborough. I've since read about the ones outside Woking.

Now the 18.45 is the only fast train of the day to Portsmouth Harbour which stops at West Byfleet. So as we got near to West Byfleet we crossed over to platform 3 (or is it 1 - it's the island platform). I don't know if it normally stops at platform 2 but tonight it didn't. Soon we were off again but still slowly.

We arrived into Woking on platform 1 and departed there. That must be a very rear event for a Guildford south bound train, so I enjoyed that. I arrived into Guildford an hour late and headed off to social I was attending in a near by pub. Just after 11pm I left the pub and walked across Guildford station footbridge.

Before I did so I saw a 19.08 train to Portsmouth Harbour listed as arriving at 23.15! This was only a certain 18.30 from Waterloo! Remember that train I missed? I even asked one of the station staff as I thought it surely must be a screen error. But no it wasn't. I then read about all the problems in the news and couldn't believe that my train was only an hour late into Guildford, yet a train which normally would leave 15 minutes before the one I was on, arrived over 4 hours 45 minutes late! It's as if we were given privileged treatment. How lucky was I!

I've since asked for a refund and in my letter I said, although I am claiming the refund for that evening, I actually would have preferred to be able to claim it for an incident the following Monday. On that day I missed my connection across London because the train into Waterloo was 5 minutes late. I didn't have a problem with it being late but I did have a problem with no one saying what it was late.

Communication to passengers, even if it's a I don't no what is going on, often reassures them more than remaining silent. Some staff are great at making announcements, such as the guard on the 18.45, who I prised in my letter, whilst others just don't bother, such as the guard on the 7.29 from Woking, who without knowing either guard name, I also referred to in my letter.