Procedures modified after Lewisham egress in March 2018?

[Dr Hoo]

If controllers do not have stock experience and no trackside experience then they are being asked to deal with things which they do not have the knowledge to sort.

Where they generally shine is it getting the service back when the issue has been fixed, not in sorting the initial issue if that involves equipment failure.

Spot on. A point far less widely appreciated than it should be.

 

[Horizon22]

During 2 lengthy chats respectively with a driver during a lengthy delay and with a customer services staff member after the same, they both expressed frustration that one of the main issue was being unable to get information from control...because control were too busy addressing the issue.

Both also expressed the possibly contentious viewpoint that Control staff (at FCC and GTR) were rarely ex-drivers, but usually people who had come up the signalling staff side and hence, perhaps, "did not fully appreciate the passenger perspective".

I recall that fateful evening a year or two back where, due to a software glitch, a huge number of trains were stranded on the ECML, because the TSGN trains wouldn't restart after a break in power, and required the in person attendance at numerous locations for technicians to do so. At least an hour was wasted, as I recall, because management couldn't decide what the best option was.

That is always a problem - information should flow through various "hubs" ideally, but people cut out the middle man go direct to the source that already has 10 phone calls queued whilst already contacting the necessary individuals to get the show moving again. It's not ideal for say staff at Lewisham to hear it 3rd hand, but the key parties are the driver, MOM, signaller and possibly controller. But station hubs are quite useful

Do any posters on here actually work in a railway control room? I get the impression this is turning into a bit of an echo chamber and it’s a tad unfair that control staff are unable or willing to defend themselves. I’m sure they’re well aware improvements can and need to be made, but having shadowed on a day where the brown stuff properly hit the fan they certainly try

Yep.

There is a practical problem as I listed above. Firstly that when you really get into a scenario like Lewisham your workload doesn't say double from normal, it goes up 10x. Everyone wants information at the same time. And unless you have a bank of competent qualified people ready to step in to help manage the situation available spare 24/7, there will be communication bottlenecks. Nothing will be able to change that unfortunately. However, some controllers are not proactive to the point at which its gone from "oh this isn't great" to "a critical decision needs to be made". If you do read the full report you'll see it took over 40 minutes before the Incident Controller and the responsible controller was even aware there was a problem. Some of this goes down to a lack of proactiveness but I was working this day in the region and everything was going wrong everywhere. I can understand not picking it up straight away. What would have helped is the following:

1) The signaller not to presume everything was running normally and to push every train right up to the closing signal which blocked the entire Lewisham area.
2) The SSM to have been forthright in his call about the stranded train (departing Lewisham 2M48) when speaking to control rather than "issues".
3) Control to have acted soon and following their own guidleines about stranded trains (stuck 2M50) on a 376 which is known not to have toilets.
4) The command structure to have worked appropriately.
5) Southeastern's passenger information wasn't consistent and angered people (being called "tresspassers")

Many of the above have been learnt and new policies implemented. It was unfortunate every train was just slightly too long to overlap signals.

Don't get me wrong I think there are several individuals who - despite being in a position which is often advertised as requiring calmness under pressure - are not up to it when it gets really bad and get focused in one very specific detail and try to fix that. It was noted that the SE/NR team didn't hold any timeouts to assess the situation and look at the wider picture. They were firefighting the whole time and hence they were lurching from issue to issue with no holistic plan.

If controllers do not have stock experience and no trackside experience then they are being asked to deal with things which they do not have the knowledge to sort.

Where they generally shine is it getting the service back when the issue has been fixed, not in sorting the initial issue if that involves equipment failure.

You need some stock experience, but tell me why exacting trackside experience is necessary? Controllers will be aware of limitations on the infrastructure, areas of concern on the network, core stock details. They are not stock technicians/engineers/fitters and there are plenty of people either within a control room or a depot who are a call away for a driver. I know many controllers who regularly go out to visit their network and speak to local hubs (although not happening recently of course).

Edits: mainly due to my spelling and grammar.

 

[CaptainBen]

The most readily addressable issue, from what I can remember of the reports I've read, was planning for the best-case scenario. When the initial problem occurred with the first train struggling to draw power and move, a plan was developed to remedy this. If that had worked, then the situation is some inconvenient disruption but nothing more. However, no-one seems to have asked "What if Plan A doesn't work? What's Plan B?" until the Plan A had failed. Only then was the next case considered.

Repeat for Plans C,D,E... and two hours later you've compounded the original problem, delayed putting a functioning solution into place, and catalysed a whole pile of new problems. So the original 'inconvenient disruption' has turned into a major incident with trains and annoyed passengers all over the place.

Solution - start planning some contingency scenarios while the first fix is being implemented. If it works, fine. If not, at least you have a backup plan in motion.

 

[Horizon22]

IIRC it's signallers who can communicate directly with the passengers on DOO stock, in case the driver (for whatever reason) is incapacitated.

Some control rooms can use the GSMR, or put a scrolling PIS message on trains. Southern can do this and believe SE can now. Not helpful when the train loses power though (PIS likely one of the first to be load-shed)

 

[Taunton]

Where they generally shine is it getting the service back when the issue has been fixed, not in sorting the initial issue if that involves equipment failure.

Unfortunately it is commonly recognised that the time taken to recover from various given incidents is progressively getting longer and longer.

This was indeed one of the things behind the whole Delay Minutes approach in the first place. It was felt that there was increasingly less concern given to restoring the service after something happens. It's known that these things do happen from time to time, what was a driver was some incentive not to say 'Oh well, it will all recover by the morning, let's wait until then'.

We can all see at the moment the accident scene at Stonehaven, where the time taken to restore service seems to be going to be the same number in months as it would have been a generation or two ago in days.

 

[ComUtoR]

or put a scrolling PIS message on trains. Southern can do this and believe SE can now.

Which SE units can have the PIS remotely set please ?

 

[Horizon22]

Which SE units can have the PIS remotely set please ?

For SE I was referring for Control staff to contact driver with GSMR.

Unfortunately it is commonly recognised that the time taken to recover from various given incidents is progressively getting longer and longer.

This was indeed one of the things behind the whole Delay Minutes approach in the first place. It was felt that there was increasingly less concern given to restoring the service after something happens. It's known that these things do happen from time to time, what was a driver was some incentive not to say 'Oh well, it will all recover by the morning, let's wait until then'.

We can all see at the moment the accident scene at Stonehaven, where the time taken to restore service seems to be going to be the same number in months as it would have been a generation or two ago in days.

Well such is the case when you're run progressively more and more trains. It does take longer because there's less capacity so each subsequent train gets delayed rather than 1 or 2. Also depends when, where, what the incident is of course. And a "generation ago", safety was nowhere near as important if a line was to reopen after a fatal accident. Even then, I think Ladbroke Grove and Southall took several weeks.

 

[ComUtoR]

Cheers.

 

[RT4038]

The most readily addressable issue, from what I can remember of the reports I've read, was planning for the best-case scenario. When the initial problem occurred with the first train struggling to draw power and move, a plan was developed to remedy this. If that had worked, then the situation is some inconvenient disruption but nothing more. However, no-one seems to have asked "What if Plan A doesn't work? What's Plan B?" until the Plan A had failed. Only then was the next case considered.

Repeat for Plans C,D,E... and two hours later you've compounded the original problem, delayed putting a functioning solution into place, and catalysed a whole pile of new problems. So the original 'inconvenient disruption' has turned into a major incident with trains and annoyed passengers all over the place.

Solution - start planning some contingency scenarios while the first fix is being implemented. If it works, fine. If not, at least you have a backup plan in motion.

That is all very well, but if putting Plan A into action is taking a lot of your time, whilst various other nearby issues also require a Plan A, where is the time to be thinking about Plan B? I suspect no-one seems to have asked 'What if Plan A doesn't work?' because everyone was focused and deployed on putting Plan A into action, otherwise Plan A would not have got off the ground, let alone Plan B.

 

[Robertj21a]

That is all very well, but if putting Plan A into action is taking a lot of your time, whilst various other nearby issues also require a Plan A, where is the time to be thinking about Plan B? I suspect no-one seems to have asked 'What if Plan A doesn't work?' because everyone was focused and deployed on putting Plan A into action, otherwise Plan A would not have got off the ground, let alone Plan B.

Isn't that the whole point ? You can't assume that just a Plan A will definitely work, someone should also be looking at a Plan B at the same time.

 

[Taunton]

And a "generation ago", safety was nowhere near as important if a line was to reopen after a fatal accident.

I think this is something of an urban legend. I'm not aware of any safety issues that happened in the clear-up after a serious accident.

 

[DorkingMain]

Do any posters on here actually work in a railway control room? I get the impression this is turning into a bit of an echo chamber and it’s a tad unfair that control staff are unable or willing to defend themselves. I’m sure they’re well aware improvements can and need to be made, but having shadowed on a day where the brown stuff properly hit the fan they certainly try

I don't think it's an echo chamber as such. At the end of the day, the perspective of the driver who was on the train when the Lewisham incident occurred is as valuable as the perspective of control. I'm also not trying to make this "control are useless and we should get rid of them" - they serve an incredibly value purpose like you say.

Nonetheless, the things raised here are an issue, and one that nearly any traincrew will consistently tell you. The reasoning for that I'm not able to give you - perhaps it's caused by downward pressure from senior management, perhaps it's caused by lack of experience, etc. - that perspective *would* be useful. I don't think the perspective of traincrew who have struggled with incidents like these and know how and why they occur is an echo chamber though.

 

[Busaholic]

I think this is something of an urban legend. I'm not aware of any safety issues that happened in the clear-up after a serious accident.

Nor me. The difference now, viewed perhaps more cynically, is to lay the aftermath on more thickly for P.R. reasons, as a consequence of the fragmentation of the industry, with each part seeking to minimalise their own company's involvement in anything which might be held to be detrimental to their image, no matter how tarnished that might already be.

 

[181]

Even then, I think Ladbroke Grove and Southall took several weeks.

I think they count as modern accidents in terms of how long the line was closed for. At Clapham Junction in 1988 it was less than 48 hours, which suggests that it was in the 1990s that things changed.

 

[Taunton]

I think they count as modern accidents in terms of how long the line was closed for. At Clapham Junction in 1988 it was less than 48 hours, which suggests that it was in the 1990s that things changed.

These were indeed recent privatisation era events, both the accident cause and the clear up after them.

 

[RT4038]

Isn't that the whole point ? You can't assume that just a Plan A will definitely work, someone should also be looking at a Plan B at the same time.

In theory yes, but I suspect that in reality all the available 'someones' are working to put Plan A into action (and dealing with other issues). The danger is that taking people off implementation of Plan A to think about Plan B just ensures that Plan A doesn't work (or is much slower in realisation).

Nor me. The difference now, viewed perhaps more cynically, is to lay the aftermath on more thickly for P.R. reasons, as a consequence of the fragmentation of the industry, with each part seeking to minimalise their own company's involvement in anything which might be held to be detrimental to their image, no matter how tarnished that might already be.

Well since the whole country is into the blame game, looking for scapegoats and compensation / punitive action, this attitude is hardly surprising! It is not only their own company's involvement, but also their own personal backsides. Try being in this position and you'll soon find out!

 

[HSTEd]

Do modern units have space under the sole bar not used with other equipment?

I ask because some BR era units did, as do some of the CAF modern electrics, based on the unscientific survey of watching them pass whilst standing on the platform at Oxford Road?

Perhaps a mitigation might be to specify that every new unit should fill all available space within the loading gauge not usd by passengers or other equipment with batteries.

 

[Taunton]

Perhaps a mitigation might be to specify that every new unit should fill all available space within the loading gauge not usd by passengers or other equipment with batteries.

An item which seems to recur in reports (Kentish Town, this one and others) is that specified capabilities of battery retention is not even reached, and things start shutting down well before expected. The Kentish Town unit was nearly new. It seems that someone comes up with a none-too challenging specification, and the manufacturer then makes a minimalist attempt at it that doesn't even get there, except maybe with factory-fresh batteries when initially tested. If the train was specified as 100mph and after a year or two it could only get up to 50mph, there would be words said. Why not in this case?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Nor me. The difference now, viewed perhaps more cynically, is to lay the aftermath on more thickly for P.R. reasons, as a consequence of the fragmentation of the industry, with each part seeking to minimalise their own company's involvement in anything which might be held to be detrimental to their image, no matter how tarnished that might already be.

Similar behaviour used to go on in BR's day, of course. The Sectors were happy to let the Regions take the flak (while they still existed). The Operations function would be happy to deflect blame onto Fleet, Permanent Way, Civils, Electrification or Signalling if at all possible. Lower levels of management would blame higher levels for budget cuts leading to vacancy gaps. The BRB would be happy to brief against the DfT for lack of investment or PTEs for delayed decision making. Technical functions could brief against outside suppliers. Various outside parties such as trespassers, vandals or even unruly passengers could also be blamed. We have long seen 'outsiders' from Dr Beeching to Bus Bandits held responsible for the industry's failings.

There was plenty of blame shovelled around as far back as the unfortunate events during the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway in 1830 or the fact that Trevithick's new steam locomotive caused an disproportionate amount of track damage at Penydarren in 1804.

 

[AngusH]

One thought that occurs reading this,

How often do drivers, signallers, train engineers and controllers get a joint training excise (paper/model based, or perhaps with simulations). I know there are emergency services exercises, but for the sort of non-life critical broken down train events?


i.e. Send groups off for a couple of days to hotel and sit in a room and get to know each other and practice all of the most likely things to go wrong.

Make it actual workers vs umpires though, not competitive against each other.

 

[PupCuff]

One thought that occurs reading this,

How often do drivers, signallers, train engineers and controllers get a joint training excise (paper/model based, or perhaps with simulations). I know there are emergency services exercises, but for the sort of non-life critical broken down train events?


i.e. Send groups off for a couple of days to hotel and sit in a room and get to know each other and practice all of the most likely things to go wrong.

Make it actual workers vs umpires though, not competitive against each other.

Unfortunately in a lot of rail businesses there isn't the slack in resources to take x controllers off the desk for a couple of days to do these kinds of exercises. Where there is slack to run exercises they tend to involve the very serious incidents where liaison with emergency services etc is required.

Lessons learnt exercises are another thing that aren't universally done in the industry - if when we'd had a particularly bad incident we sat down a week or so afterwards to look at what we could have done better and what decisions led to things not going the way we'd like then that would help influence changes to checklists and procedures for if such an incident happens again. Unfortunately there can be a culture of incident reviews being dismissed by the staff 'on the ground' or 'at the desks' as trying to blame the staff handling it at the time for handling it wrong, which isn't how it works, or at least, should work.

 

[43066]

One thought that occurs reading this,

How often do drivers, signallers, train engineers and controllers get a joint training excise (paper/model based, or perhaps with simulations). I know there are emergency services exercises, but for the sort of non-life critical broken down train events?


i.e. Send groups off for a couple of days to hotel and sit in a room and get to know each other and practice all of the most likely things to go wrong.

Make it actual workers vs umpires though, not competitive against each other.

Simple answer: never!

 

[AngusH]

I suspected as much alas.

Too often a little slack really helps, but is difficult to justify to the management.

 

[Busaholic]

In theory yes, but I suspect that in reality all the available 'someones' are working to put Plan A into action (and dealing with other issues). The danger is that taking people off implementation of Plan A to think about Plan B just ensures that Plan A doesn't work (or is much slower in realisation).



Well since the whole country is into the blame game, looking for scapegoats and compensation / punitive action, this attitude is hardly surprising! It is not only their own company's involvement, but also their own personal backsides. Try being in this position and you'll soon find out!

Different era, different organisation but I was the designated scapegoat as trainee manager at London Transport for something utterly outside my control; my resignation on principle quickly followed, even though I had no alternative lined up. I was fortunate to land on my feet in a good job in local government just up the road from 55 Broadway.

 

[bb21]

I suspected as much alas.

Too often a little slack really helps, but is difficult to justify to the management.

Not just the management, try persuading the DfT who hold the purse strings you need a bigger headcount for this reason.

It ain't cheap if you want this rolled out across the business and on a regular basis.

 

[Horizon22]

One thought that occurs reading this,

How often do drivers, signallers, train engineers and controllers get a joint training excise (paper/model based, or perhaps with simulations). I know there are emergency services exercises, but for the sort of non-life critical broken down train events?


i.e. Send groups off for a couple of days to hotel and sit in a room and get to know each other and practice all of the most likely things to go wrong.

Make it actual workers vs umpires though, not competitive against each other.

Tabletop exercises I know have been done, never been involved personally.

 

[Robertj21a]

A bit worrying that a number of points have been raised in just this one thread for which there may still be no plan for improvement. I hope I'm proved wrong.

 

[43066]

A bit worrying that a number of points have been raised in just this one thread for which there may still be no plan for improvement. I hope I'm proved wrong.

In the end it’s a balancing act.

Strandings are very inconvenient, but they happen once in a blue moon, and affect an infinitesimal number of passengers. They will inevitably happen again. Lewisham was a particularly bad one involving multiple trains - but seems like a one off due to the location/circumstances on the day/bad luck etc.

In terms of reducing risk to life on the railway, how much time, effort and money should be spent on naval-gazing about stranding incidents, as opposed to shoring up embankments, closing level crossings etc.?

 

[RT4038]

A bit worrying that a number of points have been raised in just this one thread for which there may still be no plan for improvement. I hope I'm proved wrong.

Not really - the rail industry is not going to pay for toilets or battery power to be fitted to trains, or more control or station staff or training for the very occasional problems caused by bad weather. It is not cost effective. The solution will be more advisories not to travel in poor weather, and more suspension of service in bad weather, to manage the risk. This is the direction that the railway (and the wider society) has been travelling anyway, and this will just push these policies further along. Gone are the days when 'getting through' were paramount. Not that this will be friendly to the non-complaining sections of the travelling public!

 

[43066]

Not really - the rail industry is not going to pay for toilets or battery power to be fitted to trains, or more control or station staff or training for the very occasional problems caused by bad weather. It is not cost effective. The solution will be more advisories not to travel in poor weather, and more suspension of service in bad weather, to manage the risk. This is the direction that the railway (and the wider society) has been travelling anyway, and this will just push these policies further along. Gone are the days when 'getting through' were paramount. Not that this will be friendly to the non-complaining sections of the travelling public!

The irony is, I remember on the morning of the day Lewisham happened, posters on this very forum were moaning about the warnings from SE not to travel being over the top and scaremongering!