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

[Flying Snail]

I was told it was unlikely I would be reimbursed the taxi fare to Berkhamsted (£30).

Would it be unreasonable for London Midland to own a small fleet of coaches (say 15) for these kind of eventualities? Maybe train a few drivers to drive coaches?

Yes it would be unreasonable as well as being pointless. You would need several hundred coaches to come close to providing a meaningful replacement for the southern WCML in capacity terms.

These complaints always come down to individuals wanting 1 coach put on at the time and journey they want to make. It doesn't work like that, advertise a partial replacement for a service you can't even provide 10% replacement capacity and all you will do is create chaos with hordes of passengers unable to travel anyway.

As for your claim for taxi fares, who'd want to run a railway? Some random fools on one of the thousand of rail adjacent sites causes your business to be shut down and not only do you suffer massive disruption but suddenly every passenger wants £££ in compensation, money you most likely will never recover from the people responsible in the first place.

 

[Albion91]

Yes it would be unreasonable as well as being pointless. You would need several hundred coaches to come close to providing a meaningful replacement for the southern WCML in capacity terms.

These complaints always come down to individuals wanting 1 coach put on at the time and journey they want to make. It doesn't work like that, advertise a partial replacement for a service you can't even provide 10% replacement capacity and all you will do is create chaos with hordes of passengers unable to travel anyway.

As for your claim for taxi fares, who'd want to run a railway? Some random fools on one of the thousand of rail adjacent sites causes your business to be shut down and not only do you suffer massive disruption but suddenly every passenger wants £££ in compensation, money you most likely will never recover from the people responsible in the first place.

I dont expect ££££ in compensation. I expect no compensation at all. I expect that when ive already paid London Midland for my journey to work that they cover the cost of my journey to work. If they choose not to provide rail replacement buses, however valid that choice may be, then I expected them to pay for my transport to work.

 

[Elecman]

That's right next to Headstone Lane TSC and SSP, I was only there on Wednesday morning right next to that building.

 

[All Line Rover]

I dont know about the possibilities in terms of what trains could feasibly run, but I found it very frustrating this morning that, at 6.20am, many hours after the incident, ticket office staff at Leighton Buzzard could not provide any transport, advice, or useful information at all for people not gong to London. (Even those going to London seemed to be met with the advice of 'drive to Thameslink or Chilterns - not much good for those without a car)

I was told it was unlikely I would be reimbursed the taxi fare to Berkhamsted (£30).

If you hold a ticket guaranteeing to transport you to Berkhamsted, and London Midland fails to transport you to Berkhamsted, the reasonable cost you incur in getting to Berkhamsted must be indemnified by London Midland. An exception would be if the contract for travel had been frustrated (since the ticket would no longer guarantee to transport you to Berkhamsted), but I would hope that given the public service nature of the railway, and the foreseeability that railway lines periodically need to close as a result of various unexpected external factors (the primary such factor being failures of equipment that is the responsibility of Network Rail), no court would consider the contract to be frustrated.

 

[All Line Rover]

As for your claim for taxi fares, who'd want to run a railway? Some random fools on one of the thousand of rail adjacent sites causes your business to be shut down and not only do you suffer massive disruption but suddenly every passenger wants £££ in compensation, money you most likely will never recover from the people responsible in the first place.

As far as I'm aware, Govia is not operating the LM franchise as a result of being held to ransom. It takes the benefit of profits, it runs the risk of losses.

Note that, given the obsence contractual complexity of our privatised railway, it may be that Network Rail (taxpayers) ends up footing the bill, from having to indemnify London Midland for failing to keep the line open (it being irrelevant that the reason for the line being closed is not Network Rail's fault). If this is so in the present instance, all the more reason for passengers to claim taxi fares from LM (otherwise LM gets the benefit of a large indemnity payment without having to provide any service to its customers!).

 

[SprinterMan]

Before you read this, please be aware that this is just speculation and likely to be incorrect. This in no way represents the views of my employer, or those of the security agencies and is likely just a coincidence.

There have been 3 big lineside fires today that caused closures. This one at Harrow, one between Ipswich and Needham Market and one at Arlesey. All 3 of these are reported to involve gas cylinders. This morning's attempted terrorist attack at Parsons Green seems to have involved a bomb made out of a gas cylinder. I hope to god none of these are connected, but it does seem weird. I am almost certainly wrong, but I am still frightened.

 

[LAX54]

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?

That would upset rather a lot of people that have gas powered BBQ's !

 

[LAX54]

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.

So you run a train on what looks like an unaffected section, a gas canister explodes, shoots across the track, hits the train, kills a passenger / driver, that is acceptable ?

I am sure if the passengers were warned before departure, they would not go anywhere near the train..IF you could someone to drive it !

 

[LAX54]

To shorten an Emergency Isolation, you need staff to do the switching, those staff will be out on other jobs with isolations, those possessions will need to be given up, isolations given back, then make their way to the affected area, as far as I can work out this was done, and it was shortened, but if the FB say it is too dangerous to run, then there will be no service even on what looks like an unaffected section, ie: propane gas cylinders possibly shooting across the line !

 

[SpacePhoenix]

On Open Train Times at the time of the incident it had something like "-999" in some of the sections, could that be a signallers note to themselves that firefighters were trackside so that there was no chance of the OLE being re-energised? btw, i know that 3rd rail tracks have got the for lack of a better description the "short circuiting bar", is there an equivalent for OLE that can be used to guard against accidental re-energising of the OLE?

 

[Antman]

So you run a train on what looks like an unaffected section, a gas canister explodes, shoots across the track, hits the train, kills a passenger / driver, that is acceptable ?

I am sure if the passengers were warned before departure, they would not go anywhere near the train..IF you could someone to drive it !

He was clearly referring to the section between Milton Keynes and Watford Junction which is nowhere near the fire.

 

[Stampy]

..... is there an equivalent for OLE that can be used to guard against accidental re-energising of the OLE?

When the OLE came down near me a year or so ago, they put (for want of a better word) Jump Leads on the OLE - presumably to ground any current or to protect against re-energisation???

Somebody will be better "in the know", I'm sure....

 

[Bald Rick]

When the OLE came down near me a year or so ago, they put (for want of a better word) Jump Leads on the OLE - presumably to ground any current or to protect against re-energisation???

Somebody will be better "in the know", I'm sure....

Earthing leads, to do exactly as you suggest.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

On Open Train Times at the time of the incident it had something like "-999" in some of the sections, could that be a signallers note to themselves that firefighters were trackside so that there was no chance of the OLE being re-energised? btw, i know that 3rd rail tracks have got the for lack of a better description the "short circuiting bar", is there an equivalent for OLE that can be used to guard against accidental re-energising of the OLE?

Earthing straps - to be used only by specially qualified staff.

 

[LAX54]

He was clearly referring to the section between Milton Keynes and Watford Junction which is nowhere near the fire.

My mistake, sorry, however the OHL was 'off' under Emergency conditions C/S of Watford to Wembley.

 

[Dolive22]

If you hold a ticket guaranteeing to transport you to Berkhamsted, and London Midland fails to transport you to Berkhamsted, the reasonable cost you incur in getting to Berkhamsted must be indemnified by London Midland. An exception would be if the contract for travel had been frustrated (since the ticket would no longer guarantee to transport you to Berkhamsted), but I would hope that given the public service nature of the railway, and the foreseeability that railway lines periodically need to close as a result of various unexpected external factors (the primary such factor being failures of equipment that is the responsibility of Network Rail), no court would consider the contract to be frustrated.

While that's the normal position, there are certain exclusion clauses etc. in the contract which limit your rights, and I think the contract may also define what you buy as the rights to travel on what services they do run.

I'm apparently quite an extreme advocate of the right to contractual performance, and I certainly go further than the Court of Appeal does, but I don't think we're ever likely to get around or get rid of these clauses. An almost complete exclusion of liability for non-performance of the principal duty under the contract, in a deal between a consumer a business, on the standard terms of the business, is pretty egregious, but the bill for compensation would eventually end up in the DfT budget through lower premiums and increased subsidies for franchises, and I don't see a government ever letting that happen. It is also really the only way to run a railway, practically.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Probably classed under "force majeur" as an external incident in the hands of the emergency services , so frustrating as it is (and my son had to drive from SAC - Hemel - no trains and then to Milton Keynes and back) , was also much inconvenienced.


NR had few options to run even shuttle services - when the priority was to clear the main lines and dig out 2 stranded LM services - this they did very well when the Fire and Rescue Services gave the all clear - demolishing the threatening burn out buildings from the rail side in an impressive 2 hours.

Bad incident all round.

 

[AM9]

While that's the normal position, there are certain exclusion clauses etc. in the contract which limit your rights, and I think the contract may also define what you buy as the rights to travel on what services they do run.

I'm apparently quite an extreme advocate of the right to contractual performance, and I certainly go further than the Court of Appeal does, but I don't think we're ever likely to get around or get rid of these clauses. An almost complete exclusion of liability for non-performance of the principal duty under the contract, in a deal between a consumer a business, on the standard terms of the business, is pretty egregious, but the bill for compensation would eventually end up in the DfT budget through lower premiums and increased subsidies for franchises, and I don't see a government ever letting that happen. It is also really the only way to run a railway, practically.

To be honest, how much compensation (and more importantly, from whom) do people expect when a major crash on a trunk road or motorway causes hours of delay or aborted journeys. There's not much difference with a complete closure of a rail route. NR didn't cause it, they had no means of preventing it so why should public funds compensate everybody's inconvenience.
It's just part of everyday living in a developed economy.

 

[A Challenge]

Yes, but if there is a motorway crash you aren't restricted to main roads only, and can use B roads,of which there is no rail equivalent.

 

[GB]

Yes, but if there is a motorway crash you aren't restricted to main roads only, and can use B roads,of which there is no rail equivalent.

Not much help if you are already on the motorway when the crash occurs or your stuck in tail backs on other roads because they are clogged by all the extra traffic.

 

[Albion91]

To be honest, how much compensation (and more importantly, from whom) do people expect when a major crash on a trunk road or motorway causes hours of delay or aborted journeys. There's not much difference with a complete closure of a rail route. NR didn't cause it, they had no means of preventing it so why should public funds compensate everybody's inconvenience.
It's just part of everyday living in a developed economy.

I don't think NR should have to reimburse me. I think London Midland should. Nothing to do with compensation ; simply reimbursement of the cost of a journey from Leighton Buzzard to Berkhamsted because they hadchosen not to provide alternative transport.

 

[Albion91]

To be honest, how much compensation (and more importantly, from whom) do people expect when a major crash on a trunk road or motorway causes hours of delay or aborted journeys. There's not much difference with a complete closure of a rail route. NR didn't cause it, they had no means of preventing it so why should public funds compensate everybody's inconvenience.
It's just part of everyday living in a developed economy.

A better analogy would be if you paid hundreds of pounds a month to rent a car. Due to them discovering a manufacturing defect in your model, they recall your car; but don't bother to provide you with an alternative car or agree to cover the cost from a rival company.

And should you seek compensation for the service not provided, you find out that they have split up the monthly cost of the car and worked out you are eligible only for compensation for your 20 minutes journey which amounts to £4.

 

[LAX54]

Yes, but if there is a motorway crash you aren't restricted to main roads only, and can use B roads,of which there is no rail equivalent.

You can, but in reality they will be a waste of time, as they will be clogged to a standstill with those diverting away from the MWAY and the cars that would normally wish to use that road, so even more people affected !
The other day the M25 was shut at the Tunnel, Tailbacks to beyond Junction 4, and to the other side of Junction 28 the other way, plus all surrounding routes clogged to a standstill !