• 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!

TfL denies FOI request about train performance statistics over concerns of terrorism

Joined
2 Jun 2023
Messages
881
Location
Richmond
Made an FOI request about the acceleration and braking statistics of the 2024 Stock to TfL and they’ve decided to deny it under the grounds that it might be used by terrorist organisations (section 38(1)(b) and 24), linking a tribal from 2011 (http://informationrights.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i968/2013_02_28; Decision; EA.2012.0127.pdf).

Very strange decision in my opinion considering how much data is already out there that would arguably be of significantly more use to someone with bad intentions, such as track diagrams.

They haven’t even been consistent with this through the years either, like with this FOI for the 1995 stock where they happily give the statistics. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transp.../foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-3487-1819

Question 1: Does Tfl happen to have the original Pre TBTC 1995 stock train peformance rating? As in the acceleration and deceleration rate per m/s, the braking rates. I have already looked at the official released rolling stock pdf and this information is not on there.
Answer: The 1995 TS service braking system provided analogue control of the deceleration between 0 and 1.15 m/s/s. This was controlled by the driver’s movement of the traction brake controller. The maximum acceleration rate is 1.2 m/s/s.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
5,049
Location
County Durham
I struggle to see how that tribunal ruling is relevant, it’s a completely different question. I would appeal the request and cite the previous request for the same info for 1995 stock that they answered. Worth noting that they provided that info for the 1995 stock more recently than the tribunal ruling they’re citing as a reason not to provide the requested info for the 2024 stock.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
29,134
Location
Redcar
You could always ask for an internal review and then appeal to the ICO, on it's face it seems like a somewhat strange decision.
 

Joe Paxton

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2017
Messages
2,744
OP, you haven't shared the exact wording of your request (nor indeed the reply from TfL) - whilst it seems unlikely, I just wonder if there might be something specific in your request that has caused concern.

That said, on the face of it it does seem like something has gone awry at their end. I think the advice to ask for a review makes sense.


Ah, false "national security" claims, a classic

Though I don't think TfL as an organisation has much form for spuriously rejecting FOI requests using such rationale.
 
Joined
2 Jun 2023
Messages
881
Location
Richmond
OP, you haven't shared the exact wording of your request (nor indeed the reply from TfL) - whilst it seems unlikely, I just wonder if there might be something specific in your request that has caused concern.
My questions were:
"1. What is the acceleration rate of the 2024 Stock

2. What is the deceleration rate of the 2024 Stock

3. Is, similar to trains on other lines, the acceleration of the train restricted under conventional signalling and only unlocked when that is replaced? If so, what is the locked acceleration?

4. If available, is there are traction effort graph of the 2024 stock?
"

Their response was:
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 30 March 2025 asking for information about the 2024 tube stock.



Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy.



However, in accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply the information you have requested, as it is subject to statutory exemptions to the right of access to information, under Section 38(1)(b) and Section 24 of the FOI Act.

In this instance the exemptions have been applied as disclosure of the information you have requested would be likely to adversely affect the safety and security of TfL employees and members of the general public as well as national security.

Disclosure of this information to you has to be regarded as a disclosure to ‘the public at large’. This information could potentially be obtained and utilised by individuals who may wish to use this detailed level technical information to cause disruption or harm to TfL’s network.

Disclosure of information could compromise security and safety preparedness and would place members of the public and TfL staff at risk by highlighting areas on the network which could be susceptible to being targeted. It is our concern that the release of details about the operating environment could be combined with other information already in the public domain to help plan an attack.

Whilst we make no suggestion that you would use the information for anything other than your own personal interest, the London Underground system and our other networks are attractive terrorist targets for several reasons including their importance to London and the knock on effect to the nation’s economy if they are disrupted, the publicity gained from attacking an iconic transport system and the attractiveness of the system for a mass casualty attack due to its open, mass transport nature. It is also important to the functioning of London and its economy.

The use of these exemptions is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities, but in this instance the public interest in applying the exemption, in order to minimise risks to operational resilience, safe operation of the London Underground network, the welfare of TfL staff and members of the general public, outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

In applying this exemption we have taken into account the tribunal decision referred to in the following link: http://informationrights.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i968/2013_02_28;%20Decision;%20EA.2012.0127



If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.





Yours sincerely,
-----
I struggle to see how that tribunal ruling is relevant, it’s a completely different question. I would appeal the request and cite the previous request for the same info for 1995 stock that they answered. Worth noting that they provided that info for the 1995 stock more recently than the tribunal ruling they’re citing as a reason not to provide the requested info for the 2024 stock.
You could always ask for an internal review and then appeal to the ICO, on it's face it seems like a somewhat strange decision.
Thanks for the advice, I'll look into making an appeal.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
5,049
Location
County Durham
My questions were:
"1. What is the acceleration rate of the 2024 Stock

2. What is the deceleration rate of the 2024 Stock

3. Is, similar to trains on other lines, the acceleration of the train restricted under conventional signalling and only unlocked when that is replaced? If so, what is the locked acceleration?

4. If available, is there are traction effort graph of the 2024 stock?
"

Their response was:

-----


Thanks for the advice, I'll look into making an appeal.
Your 3rd question is probably where they thought the tribunal ruling would back them up. If you refined the question to remove any mention of signalling and instead asked for the acceleration when being manually driven and theoretical maximum acceleration if automated, it may force them to answer it.
 
Joined
2 Jun 2023
Messages
881
Location
Richmond
Your 3rd question is probably where they thought the tribunal ruling would back them up. If you refined the question to remove any mention of signalling and instead asked for the acceleration when being manually driven and theoretical maximum acceleration if automated, it may force them to answer it.
They answered a very similar question in the 1995 stock FOI request, where it was asked:
Question 1: Does Tfl happen to have the original Pre TBTC 1995 stock train peformance rating? As in the acceleration and deceleration rate per m/s, the braking rates. I have already looked at the official released rolling stock pdf and this information is not on there.
And they replied with:
Answer: The 1995 TS service braking system provided analogue control of the deceleration between 0 and 1.15 m/s/s. This was controlled by the driver’s movement of the traction brake controller. The maximum acceleration rate is 1.2 m/s/s.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
5,049
Location
County Durham
They answered a very similar question in the 1995 stock FOI request, where it was asked:

And they replied with:
Notably the word ‘signalling’ is absent from that request however, so even though it’s effectively the same question they appear to have interpreted it differently. That is where I suspect they have picked issue.

It’s nitpicking but unfortunately that’s fairly common with public bodies when it comes to responding to freedom of information requests. Some will go out of their way to try and find a reason to withhold info, though I should clarify I’m not suggesting that this is what TFL are doing.
 

GFE

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2024
Messages
48
Location
HA4
Perhaps TFL have started "pushing back" a bit on the seemingly increasing number of FOI requests?
The Engineers that would have to be diverted to collate/present such info are at a crucial stage of the project and are already upto their necks.
If you feel the effort is justified, perhaps also explain why this info is important to you
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,189
Location
West Wiltshire
I wonder if question 3 is the one they don't like, and maybe the words "unlock" and "locked", triggers some form of security pushback. Could be seen as getting keys to use to hack them

Maybe if it had been phrased as is there a lower restriction or capped at lower rate when in temporary manual mode wouldn't have raised flags
 
Last edited:

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
5,049
Location
County Durham
Perhaps TFL have started "pushing back" a bit on the seemingly increasing number of FOI requests?
The Engineers that would have to be diverted to collate/present such info are at a crucial stage of the project and are already upto their necks.
If you feel the effort is justified, perhaps also explain why this info is important to you
That doesn't change their legal obligation towards FOI and there is absolutely zero requirement for someone to justify their request. For every FOI request TFL has to answer it unless there’s a valid reason for them not to answer it, ‘diverting engineers’ (which this wouldn’t do anyway as TFL should have this data supplied by Siemens) is not a valid reason so long as the man hours cost is under whatever the legal threshold is for an FOI request.
 

Dave W

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2019
Messages
666
Location
North London
That doesn't change their legal obligation towards FOI and there is absolutely zero requirement for someone to justify their request. For every FOI request TFL has to answer it unless there’s a valid reason for them not to answer it, ‘diverting engineers’ (which this wouldn’t do anyway as TFL should have this data supplied by Siemens) is not a valid reason so long as the man hours cost is under whatever the legal threshold is for an FOI request.

For TfL the man hour limit will be £450, with a notional £25ph applied - so 18 hours (the limit for central and legislative bodies is 24 hours, for what it's worth). I doubt it takes that long to dig the answer out of the engineering manuals.

I am occasionally asked to respond to FOIs (not in this field I hasten to add) and my default position is that I will interpret the question as literally as you've asked it. That's not being difficult or maliciously withholding info - all FOI responders have is the text on an email and I have to take that at face value. I wouldn't choose to hide behind a tribunal decision unless I was on absolutely rock solid ground.

They answered a very similar question in the 1995 stock FOI request, where it was asked:

And they replied with:

Like posters above I think the wording of question 3 is the sticking point. I don't think the 95 stock question you referred to here is similar enough and yours could be interpreted as taking too much of an interest in a control system.

I don't think this is a big bad faceless public sector organisation deliberately going out of their way to cause trouble - perhaps someone being overzealous or misinterpreting the rules. An appropriately worded appeal asking to reconsider feels the right course of action.
 

Railguy1

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2016
Messages
167
You may in the future also want to ask an AI to rephrase first drafts of questions in the style of successful FOIs.
 

Top