Signalling problems Guildford/ Reading / Waterloo 18/07 lines

[Goldfish62]

SWR were responding to people on twitter this morning saying the infrastructure is nothing to do with them

I despair. How on earth can they be so useless?

 

[TheManBehind]

I despair. How on earth can they be so useless?

The joys of a PR department that aren't entirely connected with operational realities?

 

[Leight]

What is going on at Waterloo?

Forgot to snap a picture but the "celebrate 200 years of the railway at Waterloo" text next to a sea of delays and cancellations was rather ironic

 

[Goldfish62]

Forgot to snap a picture but the "celebrate 200 years of the railway at Waterloo" text next to a sea of delays and cancellations was rather ironic

That would have made a classic photo.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Same fault sadly as on Saturday. Seems to be quite elusive. 05:30 Weymouth is still sitting cushy at Waterloo.

Was Friday afternoon's failure the same fault as well?

 

[ewsclass]

Was Friday afternoon's failure the same fault as well?

Believe so, according to an earlier post. I Would be interested to know what from an interlocking perspective could cause this. Maybe a TDM failure to that portion of the remote interlocking at the Waterloo Interlocking REB?

 

[Leight]

That would have made a classic photo.

If anything it adds to the Waterloo experience, [insert Three Men in a Boat reference]

 

[Phil R]

It would be wooden dollars, but I'm not aware of it going, someone may know more.

Re Schedule 8, yes, it continues for the time being. NR and the TOCs are separate legal entities (companies) even if they have the same ultimate owner.
You'd hope though that there's not so much labouring of pedantry in the process, but rather more focussing on value-added aspects.

 

[Goldfish62]

You'd hope though that there's not so much labouring of pedantry in the process, but rather more focussing on value-added aspects.

Exactly. Hendy has said in more than one recent interview that he expects the blame game to stop with the nationalised operators and with SWR in particular to work with NR from Day 1 as if they're already one organisation. This message clearly hasn't got through to the "X" team!

 

[WolvertonWorks]

Exactly. Hendy has said in more than one recent interview that he expects the blame game to stop with the nationalised operators and with SWR in particular to work with NR from Day 1 as if they're already one organisation. This message clearly hasn't got through to the "X" team!

BBC report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg3le2mxk8o says:

SWR and Network Rail have apologised for the disruption and said in a joint statement: "Later this afternoon we expect to restore a reliable train service on our routes to Reading and Windsor & Eton Riverside, as well as our suburban routes."

Also, a quote from an American tourist:

Dan Cokely, visiting from the US, said he boarded and then had to get off several trains on his journey from Waterloo to Southampton:"I am frustrated," he said."This is my third time using British Rail of some sort and third disruption".

This doesn't look good for the many tourists wanting to use the train to see Windsor Castle, who may not be aware of alternative routes to Windsor and Eton Central (WNC) rather than Windsor & Eton Riverside (WNR)

 

[akm]

Exactly. Hendy has said in more than one recent interview that he expects the blame game to stop with the nationalised operators and with SWR in particular to work with NR from Day 1 as if they're already one organisation. This message clearly hasn't got through to the "X" team!

Maybe he should write to that team's line management, asking them what action they are taking in respect of that team, and asking for confirmation that the team understand that what they say in the media reflects on their employment.

 

[TheManBehind]

Exactly. Hendy has said in more than one recent interview that he expects the blame game to stop with the nationalised operators and with SWR in particular to work with NR from Day 1 as if they're already one organisation. This message clearly hasn't got through to the "X" team!

Maybe he should write to that team's line management, asking them what action they are taking in respect of that team, and asking for confirmation that the team understand that what they say in the media reflects on their employment.

Social media teams typically follow wording guidance they're given by management - I wouldn't exactly call it proportionate to threaten someone with the sack for following the instruction they're given by their seniors, particularly for something as minor as wording on a tweet. Typically the guidance is given by senior levels anyway, and tends to change with the wind in my experience...

 

[Falcon1200]

Being an ex-SWR control bod, I can tell you that that is utterly unworkable without already thinning out the service and dealing with the masses of crew who would need to be shuttled back and forth.

Also an ex-Controller, although never for a railway as busy as Waterloo (Scotland in my case, with different challenges).Contingency Plans are workable when the disruption occurs just after the service has shut down for the night, giving Control time to arrange and disseminate the amended train plan. If it happens once the service has started things are not so simple, and losing half the platforms at a station as busy as Waterloo must be close to unmanageable. The number of trains and Traincrew displaced as already mentioned will be immense.

Which is not to make excuses for the railway, signalling failures such as this should simply not happen - And especially should not happen twice. The design and reliability of the system needs forensic examination.

 

[Horizon22]

Being an ex-SWR control bod, I can tell you that that is utterly unworkable without already thinning out the service and dealing with the masses of crew who would need to be shuttled back and forth. Trains are every 2-3 minutes in the up direction in the morning - but can take upwards of 5 minutes to empty out at places like Clapham and Wimbledon, which aren't even long enough to accomodate the largest trains. You then also need to account for crossing back over to the down lines on the reverse (which you're unlikely to be able to do if your train is already longer than the platform), so the train needs to move on toward Waterloo or go into a depot which the driver may not sign.

And that's before looking at what we're actually going to do with 1000 people you've just turfed off at these stations who wanted to be in Central London, not zone 3, and the impact it has on the networks around it.

All of this needs to be managed by a single TSM and mostly by phone call to signallers, stations, and guards. On average I saw a TSM make and implement around 1 decision every 3-4 minutes at quickest, and usually closer to 5 minutes by the time they'd managed to get hold of the guard who didn't have their phone on or lost their signal. They're also dealing with call-ins because crew want to know what's going on, or want to confirm their service actually is terminating because they've seen it on Tyrell but don't trust it.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't better solutions - of course there are. Rapid timetable replanning, AI-supported problem solving, automated diagram notifications for service changes, ATSMs to support logging and tracking, more crew and increased route knowledge, full-crew working and simpler diagramming - but these all cost money because they reduce efficiency, and money is the one thing the railway isn't getting much of at the moment. Every year it's "net subsidy reduction", which typically means marketing works because it has a positive ROI, but things that don't have an ROI that can be realised within 12 months are not likely to happen.

Apologies if this comes off as a bit of a rant - I promise it's not, but more of a look at railway realities at a strategic level. The complaint is a valid one, and yes, there should be more opportunities to curtail services at sensible locations, but ultimately, this is a decision taken at political levels, when there are other, more pressing requirements for government money.

There is likely an immediate contingency plan for partial or complete losses of platforms at Waterloo. And the service pattern would indeed have to be thinned, and the plan would probably tell you what service groups and what is cancelled / terminated short etc.

However, this is very different - as you know - to having an off-the-shelf train service plan for the various stock if it terminates at Clapham Junction / Wimbledon / Surbiton etc. Trains step up, don't form their booked workings, shunt, crew are displaced etc.

What the industry does need to be better on is not the actual contingency plans themselves - which prescribe the number of tph and the service patterns - but the practicalities of doing so with the stock and crew constraints. These need to be developed somewhat in advance and flexibility of crew arrangements required to pull them off diagrams sooner so long as they don't trip over the usual issues (late PNBs / finish at wrong destination).

Workload is of course another issue, but having the fundamental, 'off-the-shelf' "train service plan for the SX contingency plan 24A" already available to utilise and share, can surely help massively. But it can't be done on the fly with the train service controllers who are already firefighting the issue - it's another issue entirely to essentially make VSTPs for the rest of the day.

 

[markle]

Just announced at Waterloo that the issue is back. Same affected platforms: 1-14.

 

[Jimini]

Just announced at Waterloo that the issue is back. Same affected platforms: 1-14.

Crivens!

 

[E16 Cyclist]

Signalling is back at Waterloo again, the worrying part is it seems to have self rectified so limited confidence on how long it’ll last

 

[NSEWonderer]

They'll try and do a deep dive this night but the problem has proven quite elusive sadly. Would expect some notice of warning for travel tomorrow incase.

 

[Deepgreen]

Signalling is back at Waterloo again, the worrying part is it seems to have self rectified so limited confidence on how long it’ll last

It is a huge concern that more and more complex and centralised systems are capable of disabling huge chunks of the railway, with solutions being elusive. I am afraid I take the assertion that "the works will improve the reliability/resilience of the railway" which usually accompanies major engineering works with a growing bag of salt!

 

[fwsmVor]

Woohoo, a free Travelcard for my day trip!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==

I'm on 1P67 sitting in Waterloo. The guard just got on the tannoy and said they (driver and guard) were meant to be clocking off at Waterloo but they're working it down to Portsmouth instead, which made me feel like a round of applause but that would have made me look a bit silly. RTT didn't know where the units were until they turned up at p10 vice 16. All a bit "old railway" from what I've heard of it!

 

[Annetts key]

It is a huge concern that more and more complex and centralised systems are capable of disabling huge chunks of the railway, with solutions being elusive.

Intermittent, erratic occasional failures are always an absolute pig to track down. If it's working when you get there, you can't fix something that is currently not broken. You can only try and replace / fix what you think may have been the cause... Although sometimes you may have data or information that points you towards something or away from something.

As I said elsewhere, the modern systems suffer from "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" (link).

I am afraid I take the assertion that "the works will improve the reliability/resilience of the railway" which usually accompanies major engineering works with a growing bag of salt!

There has always in recent times (from privatisation) been a large amount of bull, err, "marketing" contained in remarks like "the works will improve the reliability/resilience of the railway".

BR WR S&T department, when I started in 1987, told all new employees that the aim was to get as close as possible to zero failures. They wanted to only use equipment that was as safe and reliable as possible. That's why the railway normally used old proven technology.

But after privatisation money or rather, saving it became far more important, so reliability started to become second place. The powers that be, just wanted "good enough", no more. The aim for zero failures was gone. The same applied to maintenance work. We were actually told to walk on past equipment that we thought may fail and instead add it to the work bank or if it was more serious, inform the line manager who would make the decision. The result was often, leave it, I'll arrange for another team to look at it later. Mostly, later did not mean the same day...

So "new works" were more often than not more about rationalisation, reducing maintenance costs and replacing equipment that had not been properly maintained. Granted, some did add some extra facilities. It depended somewhat on where the money was coming from. But the new equipment may or may not be more reliable than what it replaced. Certainly, some types of brand new equipment was eventually (after many units of the same type had failed in service) found to have suffered from manufacturing defects. One make of SSI datalink modules for example were considered to be much less reliable than the other make.

Plus, if the maintenance was not good enough, new equipment will degrade quicker than it should. As will new equipment that cannot withstand the environment. The U.K. weather is harsh to electrical and electronic equipment.

 

[Winthorpe]

Intermittent, erratic occasional failures are always an absolute pig to track down. If it's working when you get there, you can't fix something that is currently not broken. You can only try and replace / fix what you think may have been the cause... Although sometimes you may have data or information that points you towards something or away from something.

As I said elsewhere, the modern systems suffer from "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" (link).


There has always in recent times (from privatisation) been a large amount of bull, err, "marketing" contained in remarks like "the works will improve the reliability/resilience of the railway".

BR WR S&T department, when I started in 1987, told all new employees that the aim was to get as close as possible to zero failures. They wanted to only use equipment that was as safe and reliable as possible. That's why the railway normally used old proven technology.

But after privatisation money or rather, saving it became far more important, so reliability started to become second place. The powers that be, just wanted "good enough", no more. The aim for zero failures was gone. The same applied to maintenance work. We were actually told to walk on past equipment that we thought may fail and instead add it to the work bank or if it was more serious, inform the line manager who would make the decision. The result was often, leave it, I'll arrange for another team to look at it later. Mostly, later did not mean the same day...

So "new works" were more often than not more about rationalisation, reducing maintenance costs and replacing equipment that had not been properly maintained. Granted, some did add some extra facilities. It depended somewhat on where the money was coming from. But the new equipment may or may not be more reliable than what it replaced. Certainly, some types of brand new equipment was eventually (after many units of the same type had failed in service) found to have suffered from manufacturing defects. One make of SSI datalink modules for example were considered to be much less reliable than the other make.

Plus, if the maintenance was not good enough, new equipment will degrade quicker than it should. As will new equipment that cannot withstand the environment. The U.K. weather is harsh to electrical and electronic equipment.

I’m pretty sure everyone in whatever industry will recognise this situation. Not just your one.

New technology gives massive benefits. But it isn’t really ‘smart’. Its resilience depends on testing. That’s the boring and potentially expensive bit. It can be considered an unnecessary expense.

The fact is the more testing you do the better.

And what I mean by tests, is exploring all the scenarios and what will happen with each. In software development you write tests then write code to pass all the tests. The more the better. But not everyone wants that.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Being an ex-SWR control bod, I can tell you that that is utterly unworkable without already thinning out the service and dealing with the masses of crew who would need to be shuttled back and forth. Trains are every 2-3 minutes in the up direction in the morning - but can take upwards of 5 minutes to empty out at places like Clapham and Wimbledon, which aren't even long enough to accomodate the largest trains. You then also need to account for crossing back over to the down lines on the reverse (which you're unlikely to be able to do if your train is already longer than the platform), so the train needs to move on toward Waterloo or go into a depot which the driver may not sign.

And that's before looking at what we're actually going to do with 1000 people you've just turfed off at these stations who wanted to be in Central London, not zone 3, and the impact it has on the networks around it.

All of this needs to be managed by a single TSM and mostly by phone call to signallers, stations, and guards. On average I saw a TSM make and implement around 1 decision every 3-4 minutes at quickest, and usually closer to 5 minutes by the time they'd managed to get hold of the guard who didn't have their phone on or lost their signal. They're also dealing with call-ins because crew want to know what's going on, or want to confirm their service actually is terminating because they've seen it on Tyrell but don't trust it.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't better solutions - of course there are. Rapid timetable replanning, AI-supported problem solving, automated diagram notifications for service changes, ATSMs to support logging and tracking, more crew and increased route knowledge, full-crew working and simpler diagramming - but these all cost money because they reduce efficiency, and money is the one thing the railway isn't getting much of at the moment. Every year it's "net subsidy reduction", which typically means marketing works because it has a positive ROI, but things that don't have an ROI that can be realised within 12 months are not likely to happen.

Apologies if this comes off as a bit of a rant - I promise it's not, but more of a look at railway realities at a strategic level. The complaint is a valid one, and yes, there should be more opportunities to curtail services at sensible locations, but ultimately, this is a decision taken at political levels, when there are other, more pressing requirements for government money.

Thats a fair enough rant and thank you for taking the trouble to give some background to why things are not as simple as they look. I know im trading on my old BR days where on my line we had a train crew supervisor at the station and between them the area manager and the box they would cobble something up and tell control what they were doing. Of course all that local resource has long gone and train crew can't operate on the timesheet will take it guv principle anymore. So it sounds like control is resourced for steady state and modest disruption only? That said we didn't have delay repay in those days or as they used on Friday night just send us your taxi bill let alone the adverse impact these situations have on the ad hoc traveller which has equal potential to mess with revenue projections.

Perhaps the consolidation of NR and SWR controls at some point will result in the resources being redeployed within control to provide more bandwidth although I suspect not.

 

[godfreycomplex]

It would be wooden dollars, but I'm not aware of it going, someone may know more.

Exactly how isn’t finalised yet, but it’s going

 

[frankmoh]

Has it been fixed as of now?

 

[The Planner]

Exactly how isn’t finalised yet, but it’s going

Which says to me its hanging around for a few years yet.

 

[Horizon22]

So it sounds like control is resourced for steady state and modest disruption only?

If it was resourced for situations like this, you'd easily need 3x as many staff. Who for 95% of the time will be doing very little. Control resourcing is definitely important, but there is a balance.

 

[Recessio]

Absolutely horrendous tonight. Eventually a stopper to Guildford got converted to non-stop Guildford only, about 42 late. Feel sorry for anyone living at the intermediate stations though.

 

[NSEWonderer]

T3 Possession unsurprisingly has been setup to get to the root of this issue. Hopefully the night team solve it. Best of luck to them.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

What's the situation this morning? I have to travel from Portsmouth back to London