ECML Disruption - Saturday 27th December

[455driver]

It sounds like it was part of a whole "snowballing over-runs" syndrome, i.e. the initial over-run caused drivers to run out of hours, which delayed getting the trains shifted when the work needed them to be, which led to a vicious cycle of more over-runs and more drivers running out of hours and more delays moving the trains and so on. Not the only factor, of course, but it illustrates how problems pile up.

And that the initial problem wasnt caused by a lack of drivers!

 

[najaB]

I hoped I'd caught that - can't even call it a typo...

LOL. Guess I was a little to fast for you.

 

[Tomnick]

What would be the usual expectations and processes for signalling staff if they arrive at work to discover that a large number of services are unexpectedly terminating at a station for which they have responsibility? Would they be expected to simply use their best judgement as to how to manage the situation or to contact relevant staff to find out if there is a contingency plan? (Clearly in the short term in such a situation, faced with an immediate problem of services waiting outside the station, staff may well need to use their judgement, but I mean in terms of finding out plans for management of the ongoing situation.)

The relevant Controls will be working hard to come up with a workable plan to manage the service in terms of the bigger picture - what's going to be turned back, what can run through, where the crews are and so on. It's then down to the signalmen to do their best to put this into practice, making their own decisions at a more local level with, of course, the cooperation of the traincrews, station staff and so on. In the very short term, whilst Control are thinking, they'll need to do their best to manage the situation - most likely trying to keep things moving where possible, or getting trains into platforms if it's a proper job-stopper.

This wasn't one of those situations though - the plan (to shunt EC trains to the Down side) had seemingly already been formulated, but for some reason wasn't put into place - perhaps it wasn't communicated properly, or perhaps the reasons behind it weren't made clear in that communication (so the staff on the ground just saw a seemingly pointless shunt, and decided to turn straight back from the Up Fast, not appreciating the potential crowd control issues!).

 

[amcluesent]

Whilst all the drivers involved were cooperative and committed to completing the project, they reached their maximum shift duration limits, which for safety reasons cannot be exceeded.

That's the crux of it. All too typical of tick-box mentality of 'elf'n'safety, it's not like drivers had been doing anything but sitting in the cab drinking tea and reading the papers! No driver was mentally and physically drained after hour upon hour of effort.

 

[najaB]

That's the crux of it. Tick-box mentality of 'elf'n'safety, it's not like they'd been doing anything but sitting in the cab drinking tea and reading the papers!

Have a Google for 'normalisation of risk'. It doesn't only kill astronauts.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

One thing has struck me as missing from all the discussion since the events of 27th December, and is also missing from the report. It is the role of the Department (DfT).

We all know that the 'private' Railtrack was replaced by a public body, NR, independant from government but managed at arms length. We also know that the programme of works to be carried out before the end of the Control Period was discussed long ago between NR and the Department. We also know that the Department elected that these works (not just in London but elsewhere) would be carried out at Christmas. I don't know, but will guess, that a risk analysis of these decisions to implement such an intensive programme across several locations over the same few days was shared between the Department and NR.

During one of the media interviews, Carne surmised that the works could have been carried out at other times of year or over longer possessions, and did so without accepting responsibility for the decision - but neither did he blame the Department. It's actually possible to read the report as a criticism of the Department by its silence in naming the responsible body. I see that a similar tone appears in the report. Remarks such as this from his foreward seem to hint that it wasn't NR's choice at all: "The timing of these events, over the Christmas holidays, has also made us question traditional thinking. While our industry has historically seen the ‘quieter times’ of railway use as the natural time to carry out essential project works, I believe that it is appropriate to challenge some of this thinking."

Anyone else see the 'dead hand' of government as the devil who no one will name?

 

[EM2]

Anyone else see the 'dead hand' of government as the devil who no one will name?

The Shadow Secretary for Transport, Michael Dugher MP, has been ranting about the Government's (lack of) involvement pretty much since Boxing Day.

 

[amcluesent]

Have a Google for 'normalisation of risk'.

Britons used to be proud of a 'Dunkirk spirit', not something you ever see or hear of now.

 

[EM2]

Britons used to be proud of a 'Dunkirk spirit', not something you ever see or hear of now.

I've read some cobblers in my time... :roll:

 

[najaB]

Britons used to be proud of a 'Dunkirk spirit', not something you ever see or hear of now.

It's clear from that post that you don't know what normalisation of risk is. So no point in replying directly to your comment.

 

[PG]

That's the crux of it. All too typical of tick-box mentality of 'elf'n'safety, it's not like drivers had been doing anything but sitting in the cab drinking tea and reading the papers! No one was mentally and physically drained after hour upon hour of effort.

I'm sure the drivers on the forum will be along shortly to further enlighten you (if they consider for one second that you are being serious) but in the meantime safety comes first. Doesn't matter that said drivers may have (in your words) been sitting about drinking tea and reading the papers they will still be getting fatigued if they've been on duty for a period of time - that's why there are rules to limit how long their overall working day is. A train hauling 400 tonnes of stone is equally as capable of causing injury in the hands of a tired driver as is a train carrying 400 passengers!

Try a search for Hidden report/Clapham Junction... :roll:

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Any one spot the enclosed map of the possession area which sows the closed (1954) Alexandra Palace and Palace Gates branches .....no wonder they had a job in giving up the block.

 

[wensley]

The Telegraph is reporting a shortage of drivers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...il-chaos-caused-by-lack-of-train-drivers.html

Not passenger train drivers, but freight drivers to move engineering trains. Is that a new one?

No, it's mentioned in the summary of what went wrong in the NR report and it's something that was raised on Boxing Day as one of the causal factors when NR spoke to the TOCs to explain what was being faced on the 27 December at Holloway (the conference call is referred to in the report also).

The issue appears to be that as the work slipped the haulage plan for the engineer's trains was out of line with what was happening at site, then as crews ran out of hours the problem got worse - it wasn't a cause as people have explained but it made the situation worse - continuous manning of engineering trains would have helped avoid this but then I guess someone in the project team would have to justify the cost against the risk of ending up where they did.

At the end of the day the safety of the job couldn't be compromised to save a few hours in what was already a serious overrun.

 

[ExRes]

That's the crux of it. All too typical of tick-box mentality of 'elf'n'safety, it's not like drivers had been doing anything but sitting in the cab drinking tea and reading the papers! No driver was mentally and physically drained after hour upon hour of effort.

I take it that this is your idea of a joke, ha ha very droll if it is, extremely worrying if it's actually a serious comment

 

[petersi]

That's the crux of it. All too typical of tick-box mentality of 'elf'n'safety, it's not like drivers had been doing anything but sitting in the cab drinking tea and reading the papers! No driver was mentally and physically drained after hour upon hour of effort.

I do not work on the railways but from TV documentaries can see the following

Work sites are dangerous places and you need to be understand them to be safe

Tired people are more likely to make mistakes. I now that if I have a long day I not as sharp at the end of the day.

The most Important aspect of any work site EVERYONE GOES HOME at the end of the day.

 

[Railman]

Does anyone think with all the Gold control and silver controls, joint site controls and national project controls on top of all the usual control offices that are involved in the normal operational railway, there might have been too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

 

[TUC]

Does anyone think with all the Gold control and silver controls, joint site controls and national project controls on top of all the usual control offices that are involved in the normal operational railway, there might have been too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Except that if someone had tried to call more Indians into work unexpectedly on Boxing Day, what would the response have been?

 

[talltim]

Except that if someone had tried to call more Indians into work unexpectedly on Boxing Day, what would the response have been?

Nigel Farage would have been upset?

 

[infobleep]

It came pretty close at times (I agreed to "revisit" the topic and lost my bonus. ).
I'm not particularly vindictive, but once it gets to the Daily Mail and MPs you are lucky to avoid some of the mud sticking.
In this case I suspect SSL (Balfour Beatty/Alstom) will be under as much pressure as NR for the Paddington problems.

NR is in the strange position of being both the government's whipping boy (overruns) and "get out of jail card" (Dawlish) simultaneously.
I do think the daggers are being unsheathed for perceived assorted Network Rail failings.
There's a limit to the number of times you can post cost increases/delays to the Treasury.

If one project underruns and saves money, does the treasury off set that against one that might overrun?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One thing has struck me as missing from all the discussion since the events of 27th December, and is also missing from the report. It is the role of the Department (DfT).

We all know that the 'private' Railtrack was replaced by a public body, NR, independant from government but managed at arms length. We also know that the programme of works to be carried out before the end of the Control Period was discussed long ago between NR and the Department. We also know that the Department elected that these works (not just in London but elsewhere) would be carried out at Christmas. I don't know, but will guess, that a risk analysis of these decisions to implement such an intensive programme across several locations over the same few days was shared between the Department and NR.

During one of the media interviews, Carne surmised that the works could have been carried out at other times of year or over longer possessions, and did so without accepting responsibility for the decision - but neither did he blame the Department. It's actually possible to read the report as a criticism of the Department by its silence in naming the responsible body. I see that a similar tone appears in the report. Remarks such as this from his foreward seem to hint that it wasn't NR's choice at all: "The timing of these events, over the Christmas holidays, has also made us question traditional thinking. While our industry has historically seen the ‘quieter times’ of railway use as the natural time to carry out essential project works, I believe that it is appropriate to challenge some of this thinking."

Anyone else see the 'dead hand' of government as the devil who no one will name?

But if it was busier around this time the train companies would know that via their passenger usage figures. I often read on here that it is quieter over Christmas.

May be it's different for long distance services but South West Trains run less trains between Christmas and the new year and they wouldn't be doing that if it was busy as usual.

Of course it may be that Christmas is busier than a standard weekend but would it be possible to split this work over several weekends?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If one project underruns and saves money, does the treasury off set that against one that might overrun?

At the beginning of a 5-year plan, there is some hope of the one offsetting the other over the period.
We are still in year 1 of CP5, so it's not curtains.
But I think the pointers are all going the wrong way (not to mention work from CP4 overrunning into CP5).

In the discussion of responsibility, the DfT might be told about the major Christmas programme, and might have to make adjustments to franchise contracts as a result, but I doubt it gets to endorse particular plans.
The ORR, on the other hand, will be deeply involved.
It has its talons into all of NR's activities and projects as part of the CP5 financial settlement.
They will be the ones who might well fine NR for the project mis-management.
All very counterproductive really.

 

[najaB]

Nigel Farage would have been upset?

You, sir, owe me a keyboard. Post of the day!

 

[455driver]

That's the crux of it. All too typical of tick-box mentality of 'elf'n'safety, it's not like drivers had been doing anything but sitting in the cab drinking tea and reading the papers! No driver was mentally and physically drained after hour upon hour of effort.

And your point is?
Come on spit it out!

 

[Bald Rick]

Does anyone think with all the Gold control and silver controls, joint site controls and national project controls on top of all the usual control offices that are involved in the normal operational railway, there might have been too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

1) there isn't a national project control.
2) joint site control is another name for the on duty programme planner, Sat in a portakabin (other relocate ale buildings are available) with the project plan on his/her laptop.
3) gold command is one person, and usually the on call senior manager. Silver is another person, and usually a manager on shift or the duty control manager. Both of these are involved in the normal operation of the railway.

 

[455driver]

Britons used to be proud of a 'Dunkirk spirit', not something you ever see or hear of now.

And who gets the blame when it all goes wrong!

What a <deleted>!



Wheres the winker (misprint) smillie when you want it! :roll:

 

[Tomnick]

Britons used to be proud of a 'Dunkirk spirit', not something you ever see or hear of now.

I don't know about drivers (I suspect that similar applies), but there is a process to allow safety-critical staff to break Hidden in exceptional circumstances if they're happy to - one example (not dissimilar) on our side being where a signalman's relief hasn't turned up after he's worked twelve hours. You might be disappointed to learn that this sort of thing does indeed happen from time to time, and that people do indeed stay back and help in most cases. Why didn't it happen here? The drivers in question might have booked on at silly o clock in the morning, or worked right through the night, and be very tired as a result (I know that I wouldn't feel fit to stay on for long after a night shift, especially a twelve hour shift). We might be talking about them staying on for four or five hours on top of their twelve. Who knows?!

You, sir, owe me a keyboard. Post of the day!

Seconded!

 

[455driver]

Britons used to be proud of a 'Dunkirk spirit', not something you ever see or hear of now.

And who gets the blame when it all goes wrong!

What a <deleted>!



Wheres the winker (misprint) smillie when you want it! :roll:


Oh and as for your 'Dunkirk spirit', where lives at risk? :roll:

 

[Tomnick]

(other relocate ale buildings are available)

Now that's an establishment that I like the sound of. I wonder whether it affected the quality of the decisions being made though?

 

[455driver]

Except that if someone had tried to call more Indians into work unexpectedly on Boxing Day, what would the response have been?

Hic!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nigel Farage would have been upset?

Very good!

 

[CallySleeper]

Finally Sherlock the BBC wading into the thread:

Rail disruption caused by bad planning, Network Rail says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30778488

Equipment failure and bad planning for delays caused the disruption to rail travellers over Christmas, a report by Network Rail has said.

However, I can't decide whether Mr Carne stating that "Ninety-nine per cent went to plan" is him poorly using a figure of speech, or downright lying.

 

[Aictos]

My question is why when the powers to be had decided on how the platforms were going to be used at Finsbury Park ie Plat 4 for Arrivals and Plat 5 for Departures was there a on the ground decision to instead just use Plat 4 for both Arrivals and Departures?

Surely someone must have realized that wasn't a good idea when they came up with it, if they struck with the agreed plan by the powers to be then might not the station have to be closed due to overcrowding?