• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Flooding at Farringdon

Status
Not open for further replies.

LBSCR Times

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2013
Messages
617
Location
Sussex born and bred
I wonder if this is connected with the oft-vaunted SWT/NR alliance? I.e. better communications between NR and the TOC lead to better communications with the customer?

An Alliance is a total distraction.

Consider this, any service incident / alteration through the core:-
Incident management from Farringdon and north is dealt with by NR Derby.
South of Farringdon to Herne Hill is NR Kent, and south of Herne Hill is NR Sussex.
Train service management throughout the core is a mixture of all three, depending on where the service is going to / from!
And you can guess what NR internal politics are like!

GTR Control is located in Three Bridges ROC, where, ultimately the route signaling wil be controlled from.

So, just picture all the phone calls etc required......

Whereas SWT and NR are in the same office.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
An Alliance is a total distraction.

Consider this, any service incident / alteration through the core:-
Incident management from Farringdon and north is dealt with by NR Derby.
South of Farringdon to Herne Hill is NR Kent, and south of Herne Hill is NR Sussex.
Train service management throughout the core is a mixture of all three, depending on where the service is going to / from!
And you can guess what NR internal politics are like!

GTR Control is located in Three Bridges ROC, where, ultimately the route signaling wil be controlled from.

So, just picture all the phone calls etc required......

Whereas SWT and NR are in the same office.

The Alliance will see the Core under one area of NR and the TOC being in the same office, so it's no distraction but a real actual solution. It fact is already happened with all Thameslink control staff now under one roof with Sussex.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
The Alliance will see the Core under one area of NR and the TOC being in the same office, so it's no distraction but a real actual solution. It fact is already happened with all Thameslink control staff now under one roof with Sussex.
To me, a non expert, an alliance seems perfect way forward. Collaborative working can only be good.

I wonder how well this situation would be handled if their was an alliance already.

To be fair to South West Trains I think the communications were getting better even before the alliance was announced.
 

user15681

Established Member
Joined
3 Jun 2012
Messages
1,355
When will we hear more about this?

For Sevenoaks Thameslink services tomorrow (Thursday 29th), I'm told the service will be the same as Monday's, operating half hourly Sevenoaks to Blackfriars only, calling at all stations. XX:00 and XX:30 from SEV to BFR, XX:12 and XX:42 from BFR to SEV. Again, though, this is not official and do check later or in the morning with the websites/Twitter.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
The Alliance will see the Core under one area of NR and the TOC being in the same office, so it's no distraction but a real actual solution. It fact is already happened with all Thameslink control staff now under one roof with Sussex.
Well that's good to hear. Things can only improve!
 

Stats

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2009
Messages
943
A bit odd. GTR would bill the track authority ie network rail. I would expect an announcement like that to come from NR?
It has come from NR
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...sive-bill-for-Thameslink-disruption-225a.aspx
Thames Water face massive bill for Thameslink disruption

Downloads

Wednesday 28 Jan 2015
London & South East

Thames Water faces a multi-million pound bill for a burst water main and several other leaks from other water pipes since Friday evening.


Severe disruption has continued all day and Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and Network Rail will once again have to close the rail route between St Pancras and Farringdon tonight (from 9pm).

Passengers are advised to expect severe delays in the evening peak. Over 1,000 trains have been cancelled since the first main burst on Friday with a further 133 hours of combined delays to those trains which have been running. Each train can carry up to 750 passengers. People make up to 200,000 journeys on Thameslink every weekday.

Since the first water main burst on Friday, Thames Water has found a further four leaks. Although these are said to be fixed, water is still coming into the tunnel.

Phil Verster, route managing director, Network Rail, said: “Passengers have suffered a lot this week as a result of Thames Water’s burst and leaking pipes. We continue to work with Thames Water but the overwhelming extent of the continued flooding made it unsafe to run normal through services between London St Pancras and London Blackfriars since Sunday.

“We have several high output pumps operating but the service is still hugely delayed. We expect Thames water to reimburse passengers, train operators and Network Rail for the significant consequences of these water leaks.”

Stuart Cheshire, GTR’s Passenger Service Director for Thameslink, said: “Passengers have been very patient but, like us, that patience has been utterly exhausted. These recurring leaks have to stop. Our passengers want a reliable service and we want to give it to them.

“Tonight our passengers will have another very difficult journey home. We will have to thin out our services before cancelling them altogether between St Pancras and Farringdon. We are arranging for buses to run between the Great Northern route and Thameslink as well as for our tickets to be accepted by all other operators. Please visit thameslinkrailway.com for the latest information.

“Passengers can claim compensation for their delayed journeys at thameslinkrailway.com/delayrepay.”
 

Abpj17

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2014
Messages
1,007
So glad I left early suspecting it may be chaos - even at 4.30 St P wasn't looking good, very long days

Since the first water main burst on Friday, Thames Water has found a further four leaks.

and just :o

(do they mean bill to compensate NR/TL or a bill simply to do the fixes required)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Until Monday at the earliest, though the core is shut all weekend due to planned engineering works.

It's a case of getting the best available units south of the block!

I hate to say it, but if the core is going to be shut at the weekend anyway, they might as well close it for the rest of the week to provide some certainty/get into routine of split service
 

Rich McLean

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2012
Messages
1,684
So glad I left early suspecting it may be chaos - even at 4.30 St P wasn't looking good, very long days



and just :o

(do they mean bill to compensate NR/TL or a bill simply to do the fixes required)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I hate to say it, but if the core is going to be shut at the weekend anyway, they might as well close it for the rest of the week to provide some certainty/get into routine of split service

NR will bill for the lot. Thames Water must be hoping that their insurance will pay out, if not and they are forced to pay, they may go bust. Either way, expect a high price rise in water rates.

The core will be closed from 2100hrs tonight until at least start of service Monday morning
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
NR will bill for the lot. Thames Water must be hoping that their insurance will pay out, if not and they are forced to pay, they may go bust. Either way, expect a high price rise in water rates.

The core will be closed from 2100hrs tonight until at least start of service Monday morning

As a company that makes over £250m profit a year it is certainly not in danger of going bust paying a few million in compensation to Network Rail
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
NR will bill for the lot. Thames Water must be hoping that their insurance will pay out, if not and they are forced to pay, they may go bust. Either way, expect a high price rise in water rates.

The core will be closed from 2100hrs tonight until at least start of service Monday morning

I doubt that Thames Water will go bust even if they had to fork out £100 million.

It would make an interesting court case. For damage to track and trains it is I would have thought open and shut. However most of the costs will be train delays etc. which are indirect/consequential losses.

As Network rail will only have pay the train company millions of train delays as they "chose" to enter into a contract with GTR to pay them vast sums of money if the track was closed (many years after the water main and railway were built), winning a court case for these consequential losses will prove interesting methinks if Thames water contest the damages.

As a comparison, if you work from home and your house was flooded due to a burst water main stopping you from working and you had to consequently pay £5,000 liquidated damages due to late delivery of the work you contracted to do (which you couldn't do because your house was flooded), your chances of getting that money back off the water utility would, I suspect, tend to zero.

Of course there may also be clauses in the track access contract that mean train delays are null and void in such situations, in which case GTR are left holding the baby and would then have to prove that they lost revenue (which since all season ticket holders get as compensation is vouchers for further train travel might be a tad difficult). One reason why a business interruption insurance is widely offered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_interruption_insurance
 
Last edited:

mrmatt

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2012
Messages
114
Location
Flitwick
I understand this. My comment was related to the previous poster who said that trains won't be dispatched if they would end up partly on a platform, which doesn't make much operational sense outside slam door stock to me. There is not much difference between a train mainly off the platform with doors locked and not going to be opened, and a train wholly on the platform when the doors are locked and are going to stay that way.

This was discussed on a post maybe 9 months back on unsafe guard releases (obviously being DOO its not quite the same on TL), I interpreted it as being a fairly hard and fast rule but it sounds like it isn't.

However if ATO knows the train in front isn't moving wouldn't it make more sense to hold it in the platform? Dispatching on a yellow normally wouldn't have the effect it did but the system should have the information available to it to make that decision.

I would argue it would have made more sense to keep the train there for people to get on rather than have it half stuck out meaning passengers had to wait for an even more disrupted service.
 

lev441

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2005
Messages
77
Thameslink have now confirmed the news that the core will be shut from 21:00 until at least the end of thursday evening
 

bicbasher

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2010
Messages
1,748
Location
London
The 0545 Dover to Blackfriars and 0741 Orpington to Blackfriars are diverted to Victoria in the morning.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Does this water main not, in effect, carry the River Fleet? If this is the case, what an irony that the last new London Underground line built was originally going to be called the Fleet Line in homage to it. If not, forget I spoke.
 

lev441

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2005
Messages
77
I have a question. Why is thameslink (and FCC previously) so poor at giving out information during disruption? Why do the apps/live running boards contradict the actual train service? Its just so frustrating.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Of course there may also be clauses in the track access contract that mean train delays are null and void in such situations, in which case GTR are left holding the baby and would then have to prove that they lost revenue (which since all season ticket holders get as compensation is vouchers for further train travel might be a tad difficult). One reason why a business interruption insurance is widely offered.

This is where it gets interesting. Because GTR didn't and won't lose any revenue. All revenue (including delay payments) goes to DfT. I can imagine some interesting forthcoming 'discussions' between Government and Thames Water / Ofwat.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
This is where it gets interesting. Because GTR didn't and won't lose any revenue. All revenue (including delay payments) goes to DfT. I can imagine some interesting forthcoming 'discussions' between Government and Thames Water / Ofwat.

Who covers the additional costs (delay repay to passengers, hire of coaches, staff overtime, taxis for displaced drivers, dealing with additional unnecessary complaints, etc)? Are these costs deducted from revenue before it's passed to the government, or does GTR have to pay these expenses out of their share of the revenue?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To be honest I'm glad they've closed the core. My journey home on Monday, when it was closed, was a lot better than last night or this evening when it was open. Until the leaks are fixed once and for all, it makes more sense to split the service.
 

acmw421

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2014
Messages
47
I doubt that Thames Water will go bust even if they had to fork out £100 million.

It would make an interesting court case. For damage to track and trains it is I would have thought open and shut. However most of the costs will be train delays etc. which are indirect/consequential losses.

As Network rail will only have pay the train company millions of train delays as they "chose" to enter into a contract with GTR to pay them vast sums of money if the track was closed (many years after the water main and railway were built), winning a court case for these consequential losses will prove interesting methinks if Thames water contest the damages.

As a comparison, if you work from home and your house was flooded due to a burst water main stopping you from working and you had to consequently pay £5,000 liquidated damages due to late delivery of the work you contracted to do (which you couldn't do because your house was flooded), your chances of getting that money back off the water utility would, I suspect, tend to zero.

Of course there may also be clauses in the track access contract that mean train delays are null and void in such situations, in which case GTR are left holding the baby and would then have to prove that they lost revenue (which since all season ticket holders get as compensation is vouchers for further train travel might be a tad difficult). One reason why a business interruption insurance is widely offered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_interruption_insurance

There was a case on this four years ago, when Network Rail sued a lorry firm after one of their HGV drivers struck a bridge causing a track blockage (I forget where... there was also some ECML overhead wire disruption in a joined action against another company). The courts held that it was possible to recover for economic loss when it was foreseeable and flowed directly from physical loss (caused by the lorry striking the bridge), and that that economic loss included, potentially, loss of future business. They thought in this case that it was foreseeable that striking railway property would lead to economic loss to NR, and so Network Rail were able to get £1m in damages to cover the cost of the track access charge repayments, even though the actual physical damage in that instance was something in the region of £5,000. So, providing that the measure of damages is fair and reasonable, Thames Water won't be able to escape the effect of that case if they don't settle the claim - unless they've got some very wily (and expensive, no doubt) lawyers to argue it.

Edit: here's a summary of the case, Network Rail v Conarken:

http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=5730&parent_id=3865
 
Last edited:

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
Does this water main not, in effect, carry the River Fleet? If this is the case, what an irony that the last new London Underground line built was originally going to be called the Fleet Line in homage to it. If not, forget I spoke.

Apparently not. It is a water main that feeds a hospital and homes.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
There was a case on this four years ago, when Network Rail sued a lorry firm after one of their HGV drivers struck a bridge causing a track blockage (I forget where... there was also some ECML overhead wire disruption in a joined action against another company). The courts held that it was possible to recover for economic loss when it was foreseeable and flowed directly from physical loss (caused by the lorry striking the bridge), and that that economic loss included, potentially, loss of future business. They thought in this case that it was foreseeable that striking railway property would lead to economic loss to NR, and so Network Rail were able to get £1m in damages to cover the cost of the track access charge repayments, even though the actual physical damage in that instance was something in the region of £5,000. So, providing that the measure of damages is fair and reasonable, Thames Water won't be able to escape the effect of that case if they don't settle the claim - unless they've got some very wily (and expensive, no doubt) lawyers to argue it.

Edit: here's a summary of the case, Network Rail v Conarken:

http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=5730&parent_id=3865

An interesting and quite scary precedent. I suspect occupiers of houses next to things like railway lines and electricity substations may get a nasty financial shock on insurance renewal once the implications of that precedent dawn on insurers.
 

Abpj17

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2014
Messages
1,007
Does this water main not, in effect, carry the River Fleet? If this is the case, what an irony that the last new London Underground line built was originally going to be called the Fleet Line in homage to it. If not, forget I spoke.

No; the water main carries clean water to businesses and homes. The rivers are routed through the waste pipes/sewers.

But, the Thameslink line pretty much follows the Fleet.

http://cdn.londonist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Fleetrivermap.jpg is the best map I could find.

Stop me when you recognise the names ;) - one of the sources is in Hampsted, then it runs through Kentish Town, St Pancras, Kings Cross, Farringdon, and flows into the Thames at Blackfriars...

If you're familiar with that area, Farringdon Road is essentially the valley the Fleet ran through - which is why you get such a height difference to have the Holborn Viaduct (not far from the north exit of City Thameslink) going over Farringdon Road.

http://www.londonslostrivers.com/river-fleet.html has a good amount of detail including...
The construction of the Metropolitan line in 1862 railway buried the Fleet along Farringdon Road although the river created problems later that year when the sewer burst causing a large section of the arches lining the tunnel to collapse.

and http://www.londoncanals.uk/rivers/flt02.html kinda contradicts that - but some interesting stuff for railways enthusiasts...

http://www.londoncanals.uk/rivers/flt01.html also contains some good pictures. The description mentions it veers east at cowcross and farringdon road (so basically, it used to flow through where the station is now...)
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Homeowners need to be negligent to get sued, as a general rule. SWT tried to sue a householder last year for consequential loss after their train hit a branch on the line. They lost.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
This is where it gets interesting. Because GTR didn't and won't lose any revenue. All revenue (including delay payments) goes to DfT. I can imagine some interesting forthcoming 'discussions' between Government and Thames Water / Ofwat.

I think one can surmise that there have already been a few , frank conversations on this subject.

The route is one of the oldest (if not the oldest Metropolitan) rail routes in the World. Built by the Met Rly in 1863 - expanded for the Widened lines in 1868 from memory , the cuttings and right of way is vested in LUL - with the tracks split between the Circle / Met at high level and BR / NR below. Both routes were split in 1933 / 1948 and eventually segregated by resignallings in the the 1960's for the Met , and 197x for what is now the the Thameslink routes. Basically , I believe - LUL is the "landlord" and it is fair to say the co-operation and concerns from LUL has been really good. (to the extent of using their system drains to feed of surplus water onto adjacent channels via the Central line !)

Just goes to show how complex the issues are these days.

Clearly - difficult times for rail operators and passengers. The latter probably do not appreciate the challenges.

A really heartening thing is the good feedback from passengers about the attitude and information that the drivers (who have had to run the gauntlet of of flood water now for days in a practical manner - with some severe disruption to their work schedules) and the stamina of the NR staff who can be seen patrolling , monitoring and taking action as the trains ran past them in that constrained tunnel) - let alone the signallers and others who have patched the service up and balanced stock and so in the small hours.

Not a job for armchair critics I think ..
 

fusionblue

Member
Joined
10 May 2012
Messages
326
For Sevenoaks Thameslink services tomorrow (Thursday 29th), I'm told the service will be the same as Monday's, operating half hourly Sevenoaks to Blackfriars only, calling at all stations. XX:00 and XX:30 from SEV to BFR, XX:12 and XX:42 from BFR to SEV. Again, though, this is not official and do check later or in the morning with the websites/Twitter.

Thameslink have put up the timetable PDF and the entire sevenoaks route is blank. Again :roll:
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
A really heartening thing is the good feedback from passengers about the attitude and information that the drivers (who have had to run the gauntlet of of flood water now for days in a practical manner - with some severe disruption to their work schedules) and the stamina of the NR staff who can be seen patrolling , monitoring and taking action as the trains ran past them in that constrained tunnel) - let alone the signallers and others who have patched the service up and balanced stock and so in the small hours.

I have been impressed with Thameslink staff - they've really upped their game since the disruption before Christmas. Like many people I've been delayed every night this week, and had to stand on overcrowded, slow trains. But the staff along the way have been nothing but helpful and positive. At St Albans tonight the RPIs were handing out Delay Repay forms at the barrier - not something I've seen before.

I was a bit surprised at the tone of the joint Network Rail/Thameslink press release. It is clear that Thameslink are very, very frustrated with the situation.

Phil Verster, route managing director, Network Rail, said: “Passengers have suffered a lot this week as a result of Thames Water’s burst and leaking pipes. We continue to work with Thames Water but the overwhelming extent of the continued flooding made it unsafe to run normal through services between London St Pancras and London Blackfriars since Sunday.

“We have several high output pumps operating but the service is still hugely delayed. We expect Thames Water to reimburse passengers, train operators and Network Rail for the significant consequences of these water leaks.”
Of course there is no mechanism for passengers claiming reimbursement from Thames Water - I assume this statement really means they expect Thames Water to cover the cost of the Delay Repay compensation.
 

Class377

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
444
Thameslink have now confirmed the news that the core will be shut from 21:00 until at least the end of thursday evening

And why did it take them so long to confirm this? We knew about it on this forum by early afternoon, and if commuters were told at that time they would have been able to organise the journey home. As it stands, it feels last minute and a slap in the face for their bread-and-butter customers.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
And why did it take them so long to confirm this? We knew about it on this forum by early afternoon, and if commuters were told at that time they would have been able to organise the journey home. As it stands, it feels last minute and a slap in the face for their bread-and-butter customers.

Ummm it was all over BBC London travel news (as I was on my commute home at 16:30). It would've been on BBC Travel website.

Anyway if it allows the incompetent Thames water (and believe me they are known for being useless at actioning on burst mains), to finally trace the source of the leak and fix it, then that's no bad thing.
 
Last edited:

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
Homeowners need to be negligent to get sued, as a general rule. SWT tried to sue a householder last year for consequential loss after their train hit a branch on the line. They lost.

Presumably then that applies to anyone (and applied to lorry drivers insurers in that precedent)

This would presumably also mean that NR would have do demonstrate negligence by Thames Water which might not be that easy.

And further complicating it is that NR are only the tenants as chiefplanner has pointed out so would presumably have to sue their landlords LUL and the success of that might well depend on the lease terms.

In turn it would be even more complex for LUL to sue Thames Water for consequential consequential losses.

Methinks if Thames Water don't cough it could get very messy as the sum involved will be so high that no private company would unless advised by their lawyers that they have no chance of defending the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top