Major line-side fire between Wembley and Watford Jnc 15 Sept 2017

[Bletchleyite]

Need to get to Chester later today from London. Looks like best bet is East Coast Kings X to Doncaster then TPE to Stockport and thence to Chester either via Crewe or direct. Any better or faster suggestions?

Chiltern to Brum then ATW.

 

[DarloRich]

Perhaps there should be a law about it? No gas cylinders to be present without a temporary licence with x metres of a railway line?

but it is almost unenforceable.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Very difficult to do without Watford North and people now shy away from Watford as it doesnt cope well with lots of punters in one go.

Are you saying that this four-track main line is effectively screwed when it comes to offering some form of temporary service between MK and Watford Jcn?

If so, the world's gone mad. This is the UK's most important single rail route. And 30 miles or so of undamaged, high value infrastructure, along with associated rolling stock and crews are unusable over this section? It's truly shocking that the railway has come to this.
There should be a government order to build Alyesbury - Calvert - MK asap to allow some relief in the future to ease any repeat situation.

 

[TimboM]

Have to be deseil, so maybe Voyagers or this mornings sleeper arrivals. I suppose it was too late for the lowland last night to be diverted?

Yes - see the Sleeper thread e.g. post #4803

Also the fire started just as 1S26 was leaving Euston (LFB reported first call at 23:47, 1S26 departs 23:50) so it was almost at the incident site when the scale of the fire became apparent and the job stopped. It was then stranded at Harrow & Wealdstone for best part of 2 hours when the power was isolated. Unfortunate timing for 1S26 and not a lot else that could be done other than drag the train back into Euston via 66030 (which is where the "180L" timings between Willesden and Camden come from on RTT) and let passengers sleep there before getting the first VTEC trains north from Kings X.

 

[furnessvale]

Perhaps there should be a law about it? No gas cylinders to be present without a temporary licence with x metres of a railway line?

You will have to go a long way to find a more ardent fan of railways than me, but why should railways get such special treatment?

I would certainly want such a law to apply to the vicinity of my house where I expect to sleep safely each night without being blown up!

 

[The Planner]

Are you saying that this four-track main line is effectively screwed when it comes to offering some form of temporary service between MK and Watford Jcn?

If so, the world's gone mad. This is the UK's most important single rail route. And 30 miles or so of undamaged, high value infrastructure, along with associated rolling stock and crews are unusable over this section? It's truly shocking that the railway has come to this.
There should be a government order to build Alyesbury - Calvert - MK asap to allow some relief in the future to ease any repeat situation.

An hourly train to Aylesbury (which is what it will be) isnt going to be able to move that volume of people.

 

[70014IronDuke]

but it is almost unenforceable.

Why so?

You could say that it's pretty much unenforceable to ban handguns without super-strict controls.

It's certainly what some would say in the US, but we know some countries do it fairly effectively.

BTW, I'm not saying banning gas cylinders from within, say, 100m of a railway would be a good thing. It may be just too costly in economic terms. I'm just tossing the idea out there for discussion. But it seems fires near railway lines + gas cylinders as a reason for stopping all trains happens far more often that I would expect - at least once a year. And this has huge economic effects too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does seem to me that more crossovers on the slow lines are needed, e.g. Watford North as noted.

 

[DarloRich]

It does seem to me that more crossovers on the slow lines are needed, e.g. Watford North as noted.

and i don't think anyone disagrees - the problem is that people ( many of whom who post here) would have complained very loudly if the line was shut to allow their installation when there was another London route closed due to a land slip.

 

[Bletchleyite]

and i don't think anyone disagrees - the problem is that people ( many of whom who post here) would have complained very loudly if the line was shut to allow their installation when there was another London route closed due to a land slip.

Fair point, is the plan to install it later?

Surprised LM aren't running to Tring, I think they can turn there?

 

[DarloRich]

Why so?

You could say that it's pretty much unenforceable to ban handguns without super-strict controls.

It's certainly what some would say in the US, but we know some countries do it fairly effectively.

BTW, I'm not saying banning gas cylinders from within, say, 100m of a railway would be a good thing. It may be just too costly in economic terms. I'm just tossing the idea out there for discussion. But it seems fires near railway lines + gas cylinders as a reason for stopping all trains happens far more often that I would expect - at least once a year. And this has huge economic effects too.

but how would you, practically, enforce it? The real world and the ideal world are very different places!

 

[70014IronDuke]

An hourly train to Aylesbury (which is what it will be) isnt going to be able to move that volume of people.

Sure. No question. But because of this you arrange with Chiltern (or whoever they are in 8 years time) that in the event of a closure like today that they arrange extra, longer trains between Aylesbury and MK - albeit to the detriment of normal services in terms of overcrowding.

The railway these days seems to run on the ethos of "We have a serious problem - stop all trains and bustitute". *

You say Watford can't cope with large numbers of people - but what about the hordes waiting for buses at MK?

* An exception was the VT WC diversions via Dumfries when the bridge went over the Clyde a year or two back.

 

[DarloRich]

Are you saying that this four-track main line is effectively screwed when it comes to offering some form of temporary service between MK and Watford Jcn?

If so, the world's gone mad. This is the UK's most important single rail route. And 30 miles or so of undamaged, high value infrastructure, along with associated rolling stock and crews are unusable over this section? It's truly shocking that the railway has come to this.

not at all - but practical considerations must intrude. How do you get me from Watford to London? how do you get me from Euston to Watford? How do you get the staff to and form the new change over locations? How do you get the staff TO work? etc

Is the bus from MK not the best, quickest and easiest option for passenegers?

( appreciate this doesn't help anyone south of MK and some form of local service should be considered)

There should be a government order to build Alyesbury - Calvert - MK asap to allow some relief in the future to ease any repeat situation.

Great. sign contracts today, ready for trains in about 5 years. Not sure that will help me get home tonight or offer help to anyone south of MK. Also i wonder how you get your Pendolino down that route.................

You say Watford can't cope with large numbers of people - but what about the hordes waiting for buses at MK?
.

terrible at MK what with the massive square and bus interchange right outside the station. Almost like it was designed for lots of people to use................

 

[AndrewE]

It does seem to me that more crossovers on the slow lines are needed, e.g. Watford North as noted.

I think that probably applies all round the country! Sydney Bridge Junction (I think it was called) was taken out completely, so the slow/goods lines between Crewe and Sandbach can only be used to and from the Basford Hall area. If a train fails between Crewe station and Sandbach the whole passenger job stops in that direction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

( appreciate this doesn't help anyone south of MK and some form of local service should be considered)

Quite, I can't see any reason why they couldn't have provided something for LBZ->MK commuters, of which there are some. A single 4-car unit shuttling between Tring and MKC south bay would deal with that.

 

[TimboM]

but how would you, practically, enforce it? The real world and the ideal world are very different places!

Time will tell, but I suspect there were other highly combustible materials in the factory/warehouse for it to go up like that. The cylinders only seem to have added some large bangs to the fire, rather than being the main cause.

Anyway, the point being if there were such laws (which I agree aren't practical) then it'd arguably need to extend to any highly combustible materials (which gets even more unfeasible).

 

[70014IronDuke]

You will have to go a long way to find a more ardent fan of railways than me, but why should railways get such special treatment?

Maybe because, unlike roads, there is usually zero flexibility when it comes to rail, as per this incident.
Maybe in any case any such law should apply to motorways. I dunno. It's just a suggestion.

I would certainly want such a law to apply to the vicinity of my house where I expect to sleep safely each night without being blown up!

Sure. I have no argument with you there.

 

[parkender102]

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/171562.aspx should help

Thanks - my ticket says 'Valid only via London' but the National Rail website says all restrictions lifted so should be OK to use Farnborough North to Reading on GWR.

 

[DarloRich]

Time will tell, but I suspect there were other highly combustible materials in the factory/warehouse for it to go up like that. The cylinders only seem to have added some large bangs to the fire, rather than being the main cause.

Anyway, the point being if there were such laws (which I agree aren't practical) then it'd arguably need to extend to any highly combustible materials (which gets even more unfeasible).

exactly.

 

[sk688]

I live in Hatch End , near the site of the fire and even from that far away it was still visible , and looked huge , with plumes . Loads of fire engines though , so should hopefully be under control

 

[QueensCurve]

I think that probably applies all round the country! Sydney Bridge Junction (I think it was called) was taken out completely, so the slow/goods lines between Crewe and Sandbach can only be used to and from the Basford Hall area. If a train fails between Crewe station and Sandbach the whole passenger job stops in that direction.

The slows only connect to the Crewe Independent Lines.

It is all the more galling that the fast lines on that stretch are unidirectional when they are bidirectional from Sandbach to Stockport.

Was bidirectional signalling left out at a time when Sydney Bridge Junction was still in situ but then not backfitted after the junction was removed?

 

[70014IronDuke]

not at all - but practical considerations must intrude. How do you get me from Watford to London? how do you get me from Euston to Watford? How do you get the staff to and form the new change over locations? How do you get the staff TO work? etc

I'm not saying it would be a panacea to all passengers' needs. I'm saying you have passengers who want to travel between MK and Watford Jcn, you have four tracks connecting them, stock, crews and I don't know what available, and it is not acceptable to simply say: "All trains stopped" over this section of route. If they cant' run a skeleton service of, say, 2 TPH, then things should be done to ensure if (and when) similar events take place they jolly well can do so.

Is the bus from MK not the best, quickest and easiest option for passenegers?

I don't know, do you? But I'm not saying do not offer this option. It may well be needed as part of an emergency operation. Just it should not be the only thing on offer.

Great. sign contracts today, ready for trains in about 5 years. Not sure that will help me get home tonight or offer help to anyone south of MK. Also i wonder how you get your Pendolino down that route.................

Hmmmm. Yeah. I suppose so. I'd not thought of any of those things at all. You'd clearly need to be a genius to do so.

... terrible at MK what with the massive square and bus interchange right outside the station. Almost like it was designed for lots of people to use................

Having never visited MK railway station from the outside, I have or had no idea. This is without doubt a great sin of ommision on my part. You are clearly a well-travelled, thoughtful man to have taken all these things in in your life.

 

[AndrewE]

The slows only connect to the Crewe Independent Lines. [Nowadays]

It is all the more galling that the fast lines on that stretch are unidirectional when they are bidirectional from Sandbach to Stockport.
[I was going to make that point too, having now checked in the 1000-odd page Sectional appendix.]

Was bidirectional signalling left out at a time when Sydney Bridge Junction was still in situ but then not backfitted after the junction was removed?

I think the junction was taken out at the time of the re-build, I assumed to save money, but I can't understand why they didn't put in bi-directional signalling at the same time. Talk about a self-inflicted wound!

 

[AY1975]

Yes - see the Sleeper thread e.g. post #4803

Also the fire started just as 1S26 was leaving Euston (LFB reported first call at 23:47, 1S26 departs 23:50) so it was almost at the incident site when the scale of the fire became apparent and the job stopped. It was then stranded at Harrow & Wealdstone for best part of 2 hours when the power was isolated. Unfortunate timing for 1S26 and not a lot else that could be done other than drag the train back into Euston via 66030 (which is where the "180L" timings between Willesden and Camden come from on RTT) and let passengers sleep there before getting the first VTEC trains north from Kings X.

Does anyone know whether tonight's Sleepers will go ECML? I suppose at least for tonight they'd be able to give better notice of the diversion.

According to Real Time Trains, last night's southbound Highland Sleeper (1M16) terminated at Preston at 04.30 and the southbound Lowland (1M11) at Milton Keynes at 06.21 (why couldn't 1M16 also continue to MKC, I wonder?).

I would presume that passengers on 1M16 were either provided with road transport for the rest of the journey, or told to continue their journey via alternative routes (e.g. Manchester, Sheffield then EMT, or Birmingham then Chiltern).

In the past, when the Caledonian Sleepers have been unable to run because of unforeseen circumstances such as this, they have usually provided replacement road coaches for seated passengers, with berth passengers being offered a choice of road transport or staying in a hotel and then travelling on daytime trains (or maybe flying if they had an urgent business appointment).

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not saying it would be a panacea to all passengers' needs. I'm saying you have passengers who want to travel between MK and Watford Jcn, you have four tracks connecting them, stock, crews and I don't know what available, and it is not acceptable to simply say: "All trains stopped" over this section of route. If they cant' run a skeleton service of, say, 2 TPH, then things should be done to ensure if (and when) similar events take place they jolly well can do so.

It is clear you don't like having your views challenged but you haven't answer the exam question. How do you get me from Watford to/from Euston? How do you get the train to and from Watford and how do you ensure it is used, mainly by passengers for intermediate stations rather than Euston passengers?

You are also thinking about the issue only with a view to considering a journey by rail. Surely the sensible thing to do is to consider the whole picture. Then answer for most might be - don't take me to Watford. Put me on a bus at MK.

CLEARLY there should be some form of service running south of MK to serve the intermediate stations. The problem is where to turn it around and how to make it work with one depot worth or train crew and trains short becuase of the blockage. We might have a crossover at Watford North but for a landslip and a desire to avoid voluble critics wailing and gnashing their teeth ( perhaps such as yourself) about inconvenience with two routes closed.

I don't know, do you? But I'm not saying do not offer this option. It may well be needed as part of an emergency operation. Just it should not be the only thing on offer.

Well I think I do know. What with having used such a route several times. It is much easier ( and i think quicker) to go to Luton by bus form MK than stagger down to Watford and then be left there. However I know that this means making heinous suggestion: using another mode of transport to rail but in situations like this a rail only view wont help passengers go about their business

Hmmmm. Yeah. I suppose so. I'd not thought of any of those things at all. You'd clearly need to be a genius to do so.

it seems you hadn't as you simply went for the straight forward moans and complains about the lack of diversionary routes. BTW the financial loss here wont cause the government to fund a network of such routes. Also complaining about what we should have wont fix the problems we do have today. How do people get home from work tonight? THAT is the issue not diversions.

Having never visited MK railway station from the outside, I have or had no idea. This is without doubt a great sin of ommision on my part. You are clearly a well-travelled, thoughtful man to have taken all these things in in your life.

Sarcasm. sweet. But still no idea how to get to/from Watford. The option of busing from MK/Northampton to the MML is a senisble option to move as many people as quickly as possible with the least ( albeit still massive) amount of inconvenience.

 

[All Line Rover]

For a fire near Harrow to result in no service whatsoever between Hemel / Berkhamsted / Leighton Buzzard and Milton Keynes is appalling.

 

[TimboM]

Does anyone know whether tonight's Sleepers will go ECML? I suppose at least for tonight they'd be able to give better notice of the diversion.

According to Real Time Trains, last night's southbound Highland Sleeper (1M16) terminated at Preston at 04.30 and the southbound Lowland (1M11) at Milton Keynes at 06.21 (why couldn't 1M16 also continue to MKC, I wonder?).

I would presume that passengers on 1M16 were either provided with road transport for the rest of the journey, or told to continue their journey via alternative routes (e.g. Manchester, Sheffield then EMT, or Birmingham then Chiltern).

In the past, when the Caledonian Sleepers have been unable to run because of unforeseen circumstances such as this, they have usually provided replacement road coaches for seated passengers, with berth passengers being offered a choice of road transport or staying in a hotel and then travelling on daytime trains (or maybe flying if they had an urgent business appointment).

Take a look at the Caley Sleeper thread where there's posts covering most of this...

As for ECML diversions tonight, the usual challenges of paths, drivers etc. will need to be overcome - and also the fact 92010 and the ex-1M11 stock is sat in the loop at Kings Langley so not going anywhere until the line past the scene is open (and then will need servicing/prep time etc.)

And if they can overcome all those obstacles, to run both services via ECML they'd also need to get another loco in traffic for both trains to work back to Wembley and reverse as only had three operational last night.

One going via ECML may be more feasible, but suspect the situation will be kept under review as the day develops. You'd hope by late evening they'd have at least some working past the scene.

 

[DarloRich]

For a fire near Harrow to result in no service whatsoever between Hemel / Berkhamsted / Leighton Buzzard and Milton Keynes is appalling.

Considering I & others had to pay for a cab to work I agree! - but it is very easy simply to say that. What are the operational challenges? What is stuck on the line south. I think the sleeper is at Kings Langley wanting to go back to the depot and both loops at Blethcley have freights parked in them for instance. Personally I think any service would have to terminate at Tring due to track layout etc.

What if the decision has been made, say, for LM to focus on providing a north facing service from MK with Virgin dealing with Brum northwards?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Considering I & others had to pay for a cab to work I agree!

From Fenny?

Walk to Tesco (10 mins if that) thence the 1, 5 or 6 to CMK (I forget which route it is at the moment).

Though I do think nothing LM south of MKC is ludicrous.

Thinking on, there is a facility to terminate slow-line trains at Hemel, it's been done on many occasions.

 

[DarloRich]

From Fenny?

Walk to Tesco thence the 1, 5 or 6 to CMK (I forget which route it is at the moment).

Wasn't at Fenny this morning sadly or I would have got the bus. Stayed with a friend at LB last night. There was a group of us so it wasn't that expensive.