-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thameslink core - broken down train (24/3)
- Thread starter Joe Paxton
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tsr
Established Member
It really didn't keep it moving yesterday, though, especially south of the Thames where the service was all but wiped out or massively delayed - partly because the plan only seemed to be implemented just before the proper service recovery phase, so all the different plans bunched up. The decision wasn't made until the peak had begun and rescue efforts were well underway.
Split service can certainly be an elegant solution for longer blocks, for example major failures of infrastructure spanning 24 hours or longer, and it should still allow alternative routes to be used - on that I would certainly agree. The fact that the TL route to London Bridge will still be paralleled by the Northern Line from 2018 is also still a bonus, even if that area of the Tube is usually very warm and very busy!
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Split service usually mean "game over" for the day in terms of through services. One of the biggest issues is the dominance of Bedford train crew depot - right at the far end of the line , so a stranded BF driver south of the block seems (and is) a long way from home.
Diesels by the way are not allowed in the core without a full isolation and earthing - and when they were - it was limited to 33 and 73 only......
Diesels by the way are not allowed in the core without a full isolation and earthing - and when they were - it was limited to 33 and 73 only......
bramling
Veteran Member
You're never going to get a split service implemented smoothly at the drop of a hat. First of all the crewing needs to be sorted out, unpicking all the crews from their original disrupted duties and working out how the special service is going to be crewed from the resources as they are at that moment. Then you've got to think about the trains, and how you're going to match up the number of trains on the railway at that moment with the numbers needed for the special service, who's going to put the surplus ones away and where, and later on how you're going to finish with the right number of trains in the right places for tomorrow's start-up. All this has to be done within the parameters of crewing agreements. Bear in mind the phone lines will already be going mental as a result of the disruption, and the fact that all of the above will need to be managed by a very small number of stretched individuals, and remember it's a dark art that those individuals can only really learn from experience rather than training.
Last edited:
OFFDN
Member
At one point on Friday morning, the 73 at Stewart's Lane was being prepared for use...
It might simply be mythological memories...but FCC were better at split service. As I said it helps keep people moving.
- I've zero faith in alternative routes northbound - the advice is to take e.g. GN trains and use public bus services that are either low frequency or non-existent after a certain time. Multiple trains of passengers will not all get taxis and I'd still be stranded 20 miles from home and significantly delayed.
- If St P and Blackfriars are used, then drivers aren't stranded. They - as the passengers do - hop on the tube. The trains are tho...but bays/sidings/other drivers are meant to fill that void?
- I understand that in the morning it's reasonable to be reluctant to switch to split service but you're stuck with it for the rest of the day - but if you end up making the decision later... It's not even evident that GTR have a standard plan to stand up to work through how to implement. In the morning it might be the wrong call. In the evening it often feels like it would be the right call more than GTR make it (e.g. pantograph coming down events). Only using it for 24hr+ disruption is too cautious.
bramling - If FCC managed to get the hang of it (and I understand it's not simply flicking a switch), there is no obvious reason GTR can't.
- I've zero faith in alternative routes northbound - the advice is to take e.g. GN trains and use public bus services that are either low frequency or non-existent after a certain time. Multiple trains of passengers will not all get taxis and I'd still be stranded 20 miles from home and significantly delayed.
- If St P and Blackfriars are used, then drivers aren't stranded. They - as the passengers do - hop on the tube. The trains are tho...but bays/sidings/other drivers are meant to fill that void?
- I understand that in the morning it's reasonable to be reluctant to switch to split service but you're stuck with it for the rest of the day - but if you end up making the decision later... It's not even evident that GTR have a standard plan to stand up to work through how to implement. In the morning it might be the wrong call. In the evening it often feels like it would be the right call more than GTR make it (e.g. pantograph coming down events). Only using it for 24hr+ disruption is too cautious.
bramling - If FCC managed to get the hang of it (and I understand it's not simply flicking a switch), there is no obvious reason GTR can't.
I had an interesting experience the day before, Wednesday, trying to get from City to Hendon on the 17:48 stopper. This was only a 4-car so got pretty rammed, even at CTK. Then for a while wouldn't start, various announcements, eventually failed, de-trained and shunted into siding. Next came an 8-car fast, then the 18:02 stopper 8 minutes late. This was also rammed, and moved to Farringdon.
Here a farce began. Both train and platform absolutely rammed of course. Driver announced that "because there was no guard", he would not move until everyone moved back behind the yellow line and there were sufficient platform staff to guarantee a safe departure.
Now I understand and appreciate a soundness in this in that movement with a rammed platform pressing against a train could be disastrous, and with the double curvature at Farringdon the monitors perhaps don't give a comprhensive view of every door. However, people did move back despite the pressure, station staff walked up and down giving the all-clear but still the driver wouldn't move. For about 12 minutes, during which time more and more people were entering the platform increasing the pressure and danger, and those unfortunates standing in the carriages had to tolerate increasingly uncomfortable and potentially dangerous conditions.
In short, that driver's intransigence (and the cynic in me perhaps uncharitably inferred alternative motivations and hypocrisy from the "no guard" comment and continued refusal to move), actually massively increased the risk from manageable, had he taken off slowly as soon as platform staff gave the OK, towards potentially lethal.
I know there are plenty of drivers who do their best to run the service as smoothly as possible with passenger interest at heart; and then there are others.
Here a farce began. Both train and platform absolutely rammed of course. Driver announced that "because there was no guard", he would not move until everyone moved back behind the yellow line and there were sufficient platform staff to guarantee a safe departure.
Now I understand and appreciate a soundness in this in that movement with a rammed platform pressing against a train could be disastrous, and with the double curvature at Farringdon the monitors perhaps don't give a comprhensive view of every door. However, people did move back despite the pressure, station staff walked up and down giving the all-clear but still the driver wouldn't move. For about 12 minutes, during which time more and more people were entering the platform increasing the pressure and danger, and those unfortunates standing in the carriages had to tolerate increasingly uncomfortable and potentially dangerous conditions.
In short, that driver's intransigence (and the cynic in me perhaps uncharitably inferred alternative motivations and hypocrisy from the "no guard" comment and continued refusal to move), actually massively increased the risk from manageable, had he taken off slowly as soon as platform staff gave the OK, towards potentially lethal.
I know there are plenty of drivers who do their best to run the service as smoothly as possible with passenger interest at heart; and then there are others.
And so there has been ac/DC changeover on Thameslink for 29 years. Throughout that time whatever trains running through have had issues with changeovers (319s, Electrostars) so it is not surprising that the occasional issue arises albeit at a lower incidence with the new trains.
I have actually been in a train that was temporarily stranded on the NLL at the Westway changeover and I've probably only travelled that line a dozen times so it can happen anywhere and it isn't confined to a particular train type or a particular section of track.
It's the driver's call as it is him who will be held responsible for any injury to the public however impatient some of them may be getting. If anybody should be criticised for the event, it is the station staff who should have prevented more passengers from entering the platform. LU handles that situation regularly so there's no excuse. If their manning levels don't make that possible, then the staff should do what they can to reduce the very real risk on an overcrowded platform with obscured views for the staff that were present. The driver attempted to do just that and is being criticised for that.
carriageline
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 1,897
Most Locos can't go through the core with the AC on.
There is a question being raised whether a loco is able to safely rescue a 12 car unit in certain situations.
The issue was compounded by some peculiarities unique to the core!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a question being raised whether a loco is able to safely rescue a 12 car unit in certain situations.
The issue was compounded by some peculiarities unique to the core!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bramling
Veteran Member
The irony is that this may well be a much more regular scenario when many more services are stuffed through the Thameslink core, especially with people wanting to stand by the doorway positions to maximise their odds of securing the seat of their choice.
Try preventing access to platforms like Farringdon where there are multiple access points.
bramling
Veteran Member
Two words - James Street.
The driver was, quite reasonably, looking after his own back, as well as the safety of passengers. If something were to happen, the interview is bound to go along the lines of "so the CCTV views show you didn't have a clear view and therefore it wasn't safe for you to start your train, yet you did". One can bet the TOC wouldn't be supportive either, as it's far easier to allow blame to be attached to an individual than have your own company procedures found to be deficient.
Yes it is frustrating, but safety must come first. It's a downside of living in a country with such a high population density.
Last edited:
Crossovers not so helpful when the train is sat across it.
Given the nature of the fault, a loco would most likely have had exactly the same problem as the rescue unit.
Even then, there is the small matter that almost all locos are banned through the TL core, and the handful that are permitted must have the OLE isolated (and not just turned off). Which would take a couple of hours to arrange and wouldn't be so good for any other train down there.
Precisely, given that the cost of making Farringdon safer would be astronomical, the TOC would just deploy enough platform staff to comply with whatever safety regulations resuting from high passenger numbers. In a hard-nosed business environment, that would be seen as cost effective solution, rather than directors standing in the dock.
As for a driver trading the safety of hundreds of passengers for the personal convenience of a few impatient individuals, it's good to know that isn't the case. They will just have to get over it!
I have only one vested interest in this, - as a farepaying passenger, I have never had any other connection with the railway.
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
What do you propose your platform staff will actually do? The driver needs to carry out an effective safety check before departing. This is *very* difficult when the platform is crowded with people waiting for a following service.
You may be aware of the recent dragging incident at Clapham South investigated by the RAIB, where similar circumstances applied. That platform was staffed at the time with a member of staff positioned just a few metres from where the incident occurred.
Large numbers of passengers waiting on a platform for a following service is asking for trouble - another disbenefit of the Thameslink Programme.
bramling - from memory doorway positions aren’t marked at the core TL stations so unless you’re very savvy you still have to guess and don’t get so much bunching. The variety of 4/8/12 car services means just noting the position from the previous service doesn’t work either.
If it’s rammed, chances of a seat at Farringdon aren’t great - City Thameslink is much better. Your main hope is just to get on the train (which 700s are better at).
12 cars are much better at Farringdon the platforms are more spacious for the last 4 carriages (but the 8 cars don’t overlap this more generous space)
If it’s rammed, chances of a seat at Farringdon aren’t great - City Thameslink is much better. Your main hope is just to get on the train (which 700s are better at).
12 cars are much better at Farringdon the platforms are more spacious for the last 4 carriages (but the 8 cars don’t overlap this more generous space)
bramling
Veteran Member
Well, at my local station I can assure you 100% the regular commuters know *exactly* where to stand such that little queues form at the door positions, this goes on between about 0630 and 0930. This is with at one point last year 5 different stock types and a mix of 6, 8 and 12 car formations, all of which stop at slightly different places. Some people get to the platform up to 15 minutes early, even for services where there are normally plenty of seats. It will be the same people travelling home in the evening... (and boarding rolling stock which has a reduced seating capacity compared to today's trains)
Last edited:
Just reporting my observations from 15+ years of Thameslink commuting...regular commuters fall into the 'very savvy' camp. Plenty of other passengers that don't.
Completely not allowed. I couldn't care if platform staff are giving the 'ok' or not. Drivers not allowed to take that as being safe to depart. If platform staff are involved in dispatch then they must hold a valid dispatch licence. They would then give a bat/flag to the Driver to dispatch or use CD/RA if provided.
Blackfriars - CD/RA
City - CD/RD
Farringdon - DOO
St Pancras - DOO
Personally I think all of them should be CD/RA. It would resolve a fair amount of dispatch issues with monitor sighting, platform curvature, and very busy platforms.
They are not responsible for heavy rail operation and their staff are not trained for such duties. Although they are the main operator, GTR is the SFO for the heavy rail part. This arrangement also exists at a number of other GTR stations.
To be clear, if dispatch duties are necessary then it will be the TOC who has to supply staff.
Supercoss
Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 458
Incorrect , 31 , 33/2 or ED permitted , emergency switch off required and BTET required , but no earthing required, problem is electrical section is City Thameslink to St Pancras Low Level (inc) and St Pancras Low Level to Kentish Town, As each line is a separate feed an emergency switch off then prevents anything else running within that area so makes stalled train recovery a bigger deal as you then can't opertae and weave around it, in the quoted case you could have run Bi-Di Clerkenwell crossovers to Blackfriars
Given the problems the power changeover all too often causes, would it be feasible to extend the DC through to Kentish Town (where there are three platforms), and do the changeover there? At least then the failed train can be worked around with the minimum of fuss, and is also a short, limpable distance from Cricklewood Depot.
No DC extensions allowed these days.
Far better to extend the ac to Blackfriars (through platforms only). That would benefit the supply to trains climbing from city station and as a bonus, prevent the recurrence of a pantograph not dropping when transferring to DC and damaging the roof.
Exactly the same as LU does, firstly control access to the platform before it gets unsafe, then when it is a potential hazard, provide appropriate dispatching assistance to the driver.
As the prime recommendation was to provide refuge space under the platform edge for such events, the RAIB was presumably generally satisfied with the dispatching support at Clapham South. So if LU can provide adequate staffing, so can GTR, assuming that there isn't any 'NIH' culture that can't be tackled!
The variation in destinations/calling patterns is an issue that requires careful management of passenger numbers on such a narrow platform. No problem is insurmountable though. As the poster who raised this issue (paul332) was inconvenienced by the delay caused by the platform crowding, the solution may cause occasional minor delays to passengers when they are required to wait for a minute of two to access the platform(s), - just as happens daily on various central London tube stations.
Those who think that their lives are so busy that an occasional 30s or 1 minute delay is just too drastic, would probably soon change their travel habits, (or maybe revise their own perceptions of self-importance).
bramling
Veteran Member
Okay, so control access to the platform. That may be easy enough at St. Pancras, but not so easy at Farringdon where there are multiple entrances. Furthermore, if you start controlling access to the southbound Thameslink platform, you've now created a problem on the adjacent Met platform. The people still have to go somewhere, they don't just disappear into thin air! And whilst this is going on, more trainloads are arriving every couple of minutes on the interchanging lines.
Yet the incident still happened. As I said before, with the member of staff standing just metres away, and unaware of the unfolding incident until it was too late. The incident was only picked up because the driver happened to observe something of concern on his in-cab monitor after the train had started moving. How will your whizzo dispatch staff stop a train if something happens at this point? LU's monitors continue broadcasting to the driver until the full length of the train has left the platform of course.
I think you'll find it would need to be a bit more than 30s or 1 minute to be effective. Indeed, you can end up with the entire station in chaos, and possibly the surrounding streets too. Ever used Holborn in the peak hours? And, of course, with many of the Thameslink services being half-hourly, miss the train and it's a half-hour delay. In that situation I'd certainly be making sure I maintain my spot on the platform to ensure I get a seat when the train eventually does arrive.
LU's crowd control is a little different because generally their platforms clear very quickly, mainly because there's less variation between destinations. Only the Northern Line has a divide very close to London, and even then you're still talking about a train every 4-6 minutes to each route. Thameslink is a completely different ball game - at least five different service groups heading north, much less frequent than LU. And many more people travelling further and therefore keen to secure a seat.
Last edited:
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,243
Managed by LU overall, but loads of TOC staff about as well.
- Status