ECML Disruption - Saturday 27th December

[petersi]

Finsbury Park copes with huge crowds when Arsenal have been playing at home, but the difference there is that there are the staff on the ground to sort it out.

Big difference is most Arsenal supports do not carry large suit cases. The spiral stair cases that link the main line and tube lines are not Baggage or push chair friendly.

A large percentage of arsenal supports will be familiar with the station as they will go several times a year.

Arsenals flows are tidal not in both directions at the same time.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Basically they stacked the engineering trains up, and when each one was done with it was driven off. Because the works overran the drivers ran out of hours, which meant that the full/used-up engineering trains couldn't be moved. This meant they couldn't move the next train into place, meaning they couldn't start the next bit of work, meaning the overrun got worse, meaning more drivers ran out of hours...

 

[talltim]

Problem with the privatisation system. In BR times, drivers, on the whole, had greater variety of traction knowledge and they would have been able to find some to take over the delayed engineering trains, even if it meant pulling them off passenger turns

 

[Tomnick]

Perhaps the key difference between the 27th and the Arsenal is that there's a clear peak flow in a single direction either side of a match in the latter case, which at least avoids the conflict between opposing crowds. The two lines with a platform face on both sides wouldn't have helped - only one line (the Up Fast) can be used for both arrivals from the north and departures back to the north, and that's just a single platform face. It might have avoided much of the chaos if they'd adopted the later method of working (detrain on the Up Fast, shunt across to the Down Fast to start back from there) from the beginning for EC trains - but would probably have required some additional crowd control to avoid the congestion in the subway.

I'm looking forward to reading the report anyway. I wonder whether it makes any mention of the TOCs' actions, and their lack of crowd control?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Big difference is most Arsenal supports do not carry large suit cases. The spiral stair cases that link the main line and tube lines are not Baggage or push chair friendly.

The fact that the spiral staircases were not closed says everything you need to know about the lack of organisation at that station.

Arsenal crowds may be more "tidal", but my point is that they pre-arrange queuing outside of the station on match days. There are still plenty of people trying to leave the station even after a match at the Emirates Stadium. Crowding at Finsbury Park was identified as a major risk factor on the conference call at 1830 Boxing Day- the report says so- yet seemingly GTR did absolutely nothing to mitigate that risk. I know things may have been limited given it was 1830 on Boxing Day, but they should have had enough advance warning to get something sorted.

 

[talltim]

I wonder if the fact that the Muswell Hill branch to Alexandra Palace was included in the possession (map, page 14 of the report) confused matters?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wonder if the fact that the Muswell Hill branch to Alexandra Palace was included in the possession (map, page 14 of the report) confused matters?

I hadn't noticed that! The fact that they seem to think Highgate tube sidings are part of the possession, as well as a two-mile parkland walk, might be a bit of an issue...

The worst bit of the report for me is this:

Unfortunately there was then a short term breakdown in communication about how to handle the longer distance trains that were the due to start arriving and departing. It was agreed locally between the station staff and the King’s Cross signal box that they would also arrive and depart from platform 4, whereas the plan agreed by all parties the previous night was that they would depart from platform 5. As a result, passengers were unable to get off London-bound trains on to platform 4 due to the platform already being occupied by northbound passengers.

 

[Zoidberg]

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?

Indeed, just reading that on page 19 of the report.

 

[talltim]

Does anyone know which FOC/s ran the engineering trains? I know the large crane was being picked up by a Colas driver.

 

[455driver]

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?

Not really a surprise to be blaming the militant, overpaid drivers rather than the actual cause is it though! :roll:

 

[talltim]

Not really a surprise to be blaming the militant, overpaid drivers rather than the actual cause is it though! :roll:

Did you read the link? It doesn't blame them at all, just said that aren't/weren't enough
Mind you, you are sounding quite militant....

 

[455driver]

Did you read the link? You are sounding quite militant....

Yeah I read the link, the actual content is rather different from the headline isnt it, but it still doesnt change the fact that the headline is still the same old misleading sh*t from the same old sh*t paper wasters!

Oh and being p*ssed off is different from being militant! :roll:

 

[Tomnick]

To be fair to them (for once), the article does include the quote suggesting that the driverchaps were all very cooperative but couldn't have gone over their hours even if they'd wanted to! Interesting to see that the hastily arranged contingency plan did appear to recognise the risk of the Up Fast platform becoming overcrowded, and that they intended to shunt EC trains over to the Down side right from the beginning. It certainly shows the importance of looking at the bigger picture (in this case, crowd control), or referring decisions up the tree where appropriate, before making decisions (in this case, to turn back straight from the Up Fast) purely on a train running basis.

 

[mr_moo]

Hi everyone,

The report that Mark Carne promised following the significant over-runs at King's Cross and Paddington after Christmas has today been published:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2...er-disruption-investigation-report-published/

On 27 December thousands of passengers using King's Cross and Paddington services, many of whom were travelling home after visiting friends and family, suffered severe delays and disruption.

Network Rail launched an immediate investigation into what went wrong and today publishes its findings.

Mark Carne, chief executive, said: "The report highlights what went wrong and it is quite clear that there are areas that could have been done better. Equally, our contingency plans should have protected the travelling public from any problems we had and our industry service recovery could have done more to minimise the impact of disruption.

"We sincerely apologise for the disruption over the festive period and we are determined to learn the lessons so that we can continue to make the improvements the travelling public deserve."

 

[najaB]

Hi everyone,

The report that Mark Carne promised following the significant over-runs at King's Cross and Paddington after Christmas has today been published:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2...er-disruption-investigation-report-published/

Yes, the previous 20 or so posts have been discussing the report.

The most interesting part of it to me is that it was a shortage of drivers that took the project from approximately 4 hours behind, to 15 hours behind schedule.

 

[amcluesent]

I read Carne is 'determined to learn the lessons'. He would say that, wouldn't he...:roll:

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hi everyone,
The report that Mark Carne promised following the significant over-runs at King's Cross and Paddington after Christmas has today been published:

Some fascinating detail about the projects concerned and the huge level of planning involved.
The Select Committee will be floundering in technicalities when they interview the culprits.
As I read it, the Rail report was pretty much on the money.
Basically it's contingency planning (equipment, drivers, TOC interface) that went wrong at King's Cross and contractor management (NR/SSL) at Old Oak Common.
The grim result will be more week-long possessions outside holiday periods.
But then we've heard all that before (didn't work at Watford, did it?).

I was amused(?) to learn that the Paddington management teams included veterans of the WCRM programme.
I didn't notice a resignation among the apologies, just "lessons learned".

 

[DarloRich]

Some fascinating detail about the projects concerned and the huge level of planning involved.
The Select Committee will be floundering in technicalities when they interview the culprits.
As I read it, the Rail report was pretty much on the money.
Basically it's contingency planning (equipment, drivers, TOC interface) that went wrong at King's Cross and contractor management (NR/SSL) at Old Oak Common.
The grim result will be more week-long possessions outside holiday periods.
But then we've heard all that before (didn't work at Watford, did it?).

I was amused(?) to learn that the Paddington management teams included veterans of the WCRM programme.
I didn't notice a resignation among the apologies, just "lessons learned".

Who should resign? Does that help? Should some one be taken out and beaten with sticks in the street to assuage the public anger? :roll:

Should you resign when things go wrong in your work?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Who should resign? Does that help? Should some one be taken out and beaten with sticks in the street to assuage the public anger? :roll:
Should you resign when things go wrong in your work?

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.

 

[TUC]

There are two key issues which are mentioned, but not satisfactorily addressed in the report.
1. The difficulties in communicating the revised plan with Go Via. Rail magazine also referenced this, claiming that GVT's controllers were not contactable until they came on duty at 2000 on 26 December. Even recognising it was Christmas, a basic aspect of emergency planning involves having identified key senior staff who are contactable. The report does not address whether GVT had this in place and, if not, why.
2. The report advises that the plan to have ECML services terminate at platform 4 in Finsbury Park and depart from platform 5 was not communicated to local signalling and other staff. It does not explain why, as soon as it became clear that this plan was not being followed, someone did not immediately contact these staff and tell them what needed to be done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who should resign? Does that help? Should some one be taken out and beaten with sticks in the street to assuage the public anger? :roll:

Should you resign when things go wrong in your work?

Well said. Yes there needs to be investigations and lessons genuinely learned when things go wrong but it really is time, not just with rail but with all high profile businesses, that people stood up and said that no one is going to give into the blood lust of the mob, and that most of them have never themselves had to take decisions and risks at the level of those they are criticising

 

[455driver]

yeah a few redundancies would really help wouldnt it, then we can have people with less experience in charge next time, I cant any problems there, can you?

With any big eff up, it isnt one thing that goes wrong but lots of differnet things, these then lead to other problems (such as the drivers running out of hours) and it just snowballs from there.

How many times do these big jobs go right compared to going wrong?
Okay it going wrong once is bad enough but sometimes sh*t happens, whether lessons will be learnt (and who pays for it) remains to be seen.

General comment-
A lot of the problems are that nobody knows exactly what will be found until the diggers go in, find something that wasnt expected and that will delay the job and everyone is then trying to get back on schedule/reduce the scope to fit the remaining time.

 

[SamYeager]

In a sense the Kings Cross problems with drivers running out of time seems to have been unfortunate. That said it does appear that senior management didn't realise early enough how big a delay that issue would become.

The problem with SSL certainly seems to be a bigger issue since they had already had overruns previously. It seems NR's main mitigation will be to increase the amount of margin allowed when undertaking major signalling works.

 

[455driver]

The drivers running out of hours was in reaction to the over-run, not the cause of it!

 

[najaB]

The report advises that the plan to have ECML services terminate at platform 4 in Finsbury Park and depart from platform 5 was not communicated to local signalling and other staff. It does not explain why, as soon as it became clear that this plan was not being followed, someone did not immediately contact these staff and tell them what needed to be done.

They may well have, but from reports on the day it didn't take long for a queue of trains to build up. It may have taken a while to get the right trains in the right place to implement the plan.

 

[SamYeager]

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.

Rather than the "sack somebody" mentality perhaps there needs to be a rather more explicit" reduction/removal of senior management bonuses" process. Whilst this time the top boss copped the flack it would probably be better in future for his immediate staff (eligible for bonuses) to be in the firing line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The drivers running out of hours was in reaction to the over-run, not the cause of it!

As I understand the report this is true for the initial drivers running out of time. However the knock on effect of this was to greatly increase the overall over-run time and it is this fact that was not realised early enough by management.

 

[swt_passenger]

How many times do these big jobs go right compared to going wrong?
Okay it going wrong once is bad enough but sometimes sh*t happens, whether lessons will be learnt (and who pays for it) remains to be seen.

They point out within the report that they normally assume a 95% probability of not overrunning. (Hope no-one saw the beginners mistake in my first attempt!)

 

[najaB]

They point out within the report that they normally assume a 95% probability of overrun.

To be more accurate, a 95% chance of it not overrunning! They did say that they could go higher, but that would involve additional costs.

 

[TUC]

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.)

 

[AndyNLondon]

The drivers running out of hours was in reaction to the over-run, not the cause of it!

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.

 

[swt_passenger]

To be more accurate, a 95% chance of it not overrunning! They did say that they could go higher, but that would involve additional costs.

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