• 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!

Thameslink Chaos (07/11/11)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
Driving to work takes me on average 30 mins less each way than public transport - that's an hour a day, five days a week. If time is money then I should multiply the hourly rate of pay times 5 and deduct that off car running costs and petrol before comparing it to another season ticket. I am also actually finding the drive less stressful than FCC and LOROL day in day out. The promise of a seat once the 12 car trains arrive still seems in the distance while I can have one every day if I drive.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Minstral25

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2009
Messages
1,768
Location
Surrey
There never was a plan to use 4 platforms. A major ommission IMHO. Just look at today. And all that backing up on to GN just north of Kings Cross all too soon.

That section between Kentish Town and Blackfriars, while excellent in theory, has no fall back plan for when things go wrong.

St Pancras wouldn't have to be much bigger to fit a third and fourth track down the sides. 2 extra faces and more importantly, somewhere to put failed trains.

Those sidings in Snow Hill, what would it take to make them passing loops?

Track Circuits....with the hugh costs involved and the potential knock-on effects when it goes wrong (all too often) surely it would be cheaper and more reliable to use human signals. Surely 20 guys with walkie talkies or even shouting at each other would be more reliable and cheaper.


I agree that a four track station at both St Pancras and Blackfriars would be sensible. Not just for dumping failed trains but as somewhere to turn trains round when it goes wrong.

I've said several times that the Thameslink program is flawed in this way, brilliant when it runs and a total nightmare whenever there is a problem - I've always guessed it is designed by an accountant to a cost not a railway person to an operating strategy. There is just no recovery plan.

As of last week I now rely on the core to get me home from City Thameslink to East Surrey, today was quite a shock, my train was running 2 hours late but I'm glad to say an earlier one was as well so I only missed one connection at East Croydon and got a seat all the way :D - something that would have been rare at London Bridge
 

Furrball

Member
Joined
9 May 2011
Messages
561
Whilst not an ideal solution, and completely reliant upon stock being in the right places to be able to do it, but I do wonder why the T/L line was not split and operated as two halves. Bedford to KTN/STP or even some to Farringdon assuming reversal was possible and then running Blackfriars -South.

Might have given half a chance of operating a sensible service come the evening peak. At least it would have removed the risk of further major delays through City TL.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I've said several times that the Thameslink program is flawed in this way, brilliant when it runs and a total nightmare whenever there is a problem - I've always guessed it is designed by an accountant to a cost not a railway person to an operating strategy. There is just no recovery plan.

Additional platfroms at St P would be phenomenally expensive, even if designed from the off. Like £1/2billion expensive, even if it was physically possible without shifting the LL station 200 yards further north (which I doubt). Rather a cost for the occasional screw up.

What the Thameslink programme does give is bi-di signalling through the core section, to be able to keep moving around failures like today. Unfortunately it was some of the kit installed for the bi-di that failed today (commissioned hours previously), rather proving the point that, often, the more infrastructure you provide for contingencies, the more there is to go wrong.
 

12CSVT

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
2,612
Those sidings in Snow Hill, what would it take to make them passing loops?

Not possible. There are too many structures in the way, including the extended platforms at Farringdon which are currently under construction.
 

ole man

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2011
Messages
739
Location
LEC5
Correct, there is just no room to do anything with snowhill sidings, over the weekend the crossover was taken out and plain lined at City Thameslink, all of phase 2 commissioning work was going ok when i left at 04.00 monday morning.
I've been told it was track circuit failure that caused the delays.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
so why did a simple track circuit failure cause such ridiculousness? isn't the usual practice to authorise them to pass the signals at danger? That would cause delay, obviously, but on earth would it cause 2 hour delays?? I really do think that someone in management ought to explain why this was the case.
 

ole man

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2011
Messages
739
Location
LEC5
I will find out more today as to why there was that amount of delays, i've a meeting to discuss what went wrong, and basically who's fault it is.
All i know is that there was 8 new signals installed over the weekend, a crossover taken out at City Thameslink as well as other signals installed between Clerkenwell Tunnels and City Thameslink.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
so why did a simple track circuit failure cause such ridiculousness? isn't the usual practice to authorise them to pass the signals at danger? That would cause delay, obviously, but on earth would it cause 2 hour delays?? I really do think that someone in management ought to explain why this was the case.

This is what I was thinking yesterday, hopefully we will get more information as to why eventually.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
so why did a simple track circuit failure cause such ridiculousness? isn't the usual practice to authorise them to pass the signals at danger? That would cause delay, obviously, but on earth would it cause 2 hour delays?? I really do think that someone in management ought to explain why this was the case.

There will be an enqury of course - but in that location , points would need to be clipped and secured , before passing signals at danger could be authorised.
 

12CSVT

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
2,612
so why did a simple track circuit failure cause such ridiculousness? isn't the usual practice to authorise them to pass the signals at danger? That would cause delay, obviously, but on earth would it cause 2 hour delays?? I really do think that someone in management ought to explain why this was the case.

Probably the age old problem of West Hampstead and Victoria PSBs not talking to each other. This has been the case since the Thameslink route opened in the 1980s.
 

Tomonthetrain

Established Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
1,290
Probably the age old problem of West Hampstead and Victoria PSBs not talking to each other. This has been the case since the Thameslink route opened in the 1980s.

Not wanting to sound stupid but why not have a signalling centre controlling thameslink in its whole?
 

Smoggy

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
64
I suppose it does help if you install Traction Return bonds rather than S&T bonds around the S&C at City Thameslink . . . .
Along with the 'accidental' removal of an operational LOC at the weekend, cutting straight through all the cabling, it hasnt been such a good weekend for our signalling friends!
 

Minstral25

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2009
Messages
1,768
Location
Surrey
Additional platfroms at St P would be phenomenally expensive, even if designed from the off. Like £1/2billion expensive, even if it was physically possible without shifting the LL station 200 yards further north (which I doubt). Rather a cost for the occasional screw up.

What the Thameslink programme does give is bi-di signalling through the core section, to be able to keep moving around failures like today. Unfortunately it was some of the kit installed for the bi-di that failed today (commissioned hours previously), rather proving the point that, often, the more infrastructure you provide for contingencies, the more there is to go wrong.

Really £1/2 bn - at St Pancras they could have easily started the Grade separation in the Box by making it bigger and using the platforms - one for GN and one for Mid with a cross over at the end of the box and island platforms. Surely if done up front it may have been cheaper or similar price than building separate small boxes for the grade separation.

At Blackfriars having the platforms that terminate be extended to cross onto the lines from City Thameslink would have cost more for extra tunnel/footbridge but not the massive sums you suggest.

Both of which would improve running when there is an issue in the core which will happen and the cost of which to the economy is considerable each time it does
 

ole man

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2011
Messages
739
Location
LEC5
You know quite a lot, send me a PM with what went on? i was there doing the traction return bonding, but i have been cleared of any blame
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Really £1/2 bn - at St Pancras they could have easily started the Grade separation in the Box by making it bigger and using the platforms - one for GN and one for Mid with a cross over at the end of the box and island platforms. Surely if done up front it may have been cheaper or similar price than building separate small boxes for the grade separation.

At Blackfriars having the platforms that terminate be extended to cross onto the lines from City Thameslink would have cost more for extra tunnel/footbridge but not the massive sums you suggest.

Both of which would improve running when there is an issue in the core which will happen and the cost of which to the economy is considerable each time it does

The curve at the south end of STP LL precludes turnouts (certainly without restricting linespeed to the extent that 24tph becomes impossible), so the turnouts to imaginary island platforms would have to be roughly halfway along the current platforms, i.e. shifting the whole station approx 150-200m north. Aside from giving tube passengers an even longer walk, this would then make the tunnels to the GN start 200m further north (assuming no connections at the north end). The tunnels to the GN are already steeply graded - you can see that today - and it is likely the link to the GN would then not be possible without rebuilding part of the ECML.

Then the real difficult bit - roughly doubling the width of the box. On one side is the Fleet river, on the other is Midland Road. With St Pancras directly above. Of course anything is possible, but I suspect the engineering involved in construction of a larger box would have entailed much more disruption during construction. And a lot, lot more money.

There are already places to turn round trains back to the north - West Hampstead, Kentish Town, St Pancras, site of KX Thameslink, even Farringdon as of this weekend just gone. But all the infrastructure in the world doesn't help one jot if you don't manage the service.
 

Bedpan

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
Harpenden
I suppose it does help if you install Traction Return bonds rather than S&T bonds around the S&C at City Thameslink . . . .
Along with the 'accidental' removal of an operational LOC at the weekend, cutting straight through all the cabling, it hasnt been such a good weekend for our signalling friends!

Please explain to the uninitiated, what are Traction Return bonds, S & T bonds (ie what is the difference), S&C and LOC please?

I would hve thought three platforms at St Pancras and three through platforms at Blackfriars would have been possible and would have done the trick, so as to allow (at St Pancras) trains to arrive from the Midland and GN lines simultaneously and turn back if necessary at times of disruption without having to wait for the platform to clear. 4 platforms would be more of a luxury than an absolute necessity though, and northbound trains would be automatically be spaced out after stopping previously at other stations in the core.

On Monday, why didn't they start turning back at Kentish Town?

A similar chaos occurred a few years ago in Thameslink days after the London Bombers' car was found in the car park at Luton station. Then every Northbound train was terminated at St Albans, using the turnback siding there, resulting of a queue of trains back to London. Some trains ran empty from St Albans to Harpenden to turn back there, but for some reason no passangers were carried to/from Harpenden, enhhancing the overcrowding on the inadequate rail replacement buses running north from St Albans.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Serious request coming....

Someone I know is involved in the review of this incident. Apparently one part of the review is to look at how information was got to passengers affected by the incident.

So if anyone on here was directly affected on the day, please can you post your experiences here, or PM me if you prefer, and I'll pass it on. Specific interest is on what announcements were made at stations and on trains, info provided by CIS, what was available on line (National rail, FCC website, twitter etc.), and what if any was most useful.

All anonymous, nothing will be quoted, it's to get some background.

To kick it off, the driver of my train in the morning (0656 ex Bedford) did a great job with clear and helpful announcements; the info whilst waiting for a train in the evening was not so good, not helped by the boards at St Pancras. (2 successive trains were 4 car without warning)
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
So if anyone on here was directly affected on the day, please can you post your experiences here, . . .
I was, and posted my observations at StP and at Blackfriars in post #25.

I also used KingsCross (TL), Finsbury Park, Alexandra Palace and Moorgate stations during that time and neither saw nor heard any news of the disruption at those 4 stations. I did find myself explaining the matter to two colleagues hoping to use Blackfriars who had not been aware of any issues until we met.

I could expand a little if you wish to contact me for any detail which you might need.
 

12CSVT

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
2,612
On Monday, why didn't they start turning back at Kentish Town?

Simple answer - politics.

By attempting to run the full service (even though it was obvious to all that it was impossible to achieve) FCC could claim maximum compensation from Network Rail for the delays.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Simple answer - politics.

By attempting to run the full service (even though it was obvious to all that it was impossible to achieve) FCC could claim maximum compensation from Network Rail for the delays.

BUT Network Rail would have to agree to the request, no company can choose to do what they like regardless of what the issue was.

Plus even if some trains could have been turned back at either Kentish Town or St Pancras Upper Level, there still would have been a backlog of trains waiting to use either stations to turnround, this isn't helped by the fact that when St Pancras was re-built it lost valuable platforms to the International and High Speed services with the remaining platforms being very much in demand by East Midlands Trains.

Least when the GN services do start to head onto Thameslink metals then if something like this was to occur again, Thameslink bound services can be diverted and terminated short at Kings Cross.
 

ole man

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2011
Messages
739
Location
LEC5
The Happy people of Londonshire not having much luck or fun down on Thameslink at the moment.
These problems are only to be expected, there is that much infrastructure work going on around the Thameslink area, though im sure the locals wouldnt agree
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
I don't suppose it would be helpful if i said this never happened in the days of semaphores and Absolute Block, would it? I wouldn't want to be thought of as a luddite, heaven knows.
 

David Sinnett

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2008
Messages
146
I was on the 7.58 ex Bedford to E&C which, fairly unusually, used the slow all the way down. Once into a stand at around Radlett, the driver announced that the signallers had broadcast to all trains there was a multilpe track circuit fault. This was repeated several times with the driver apologising he had no further information. Eventually we crept into WHT where the driver advised a quicker route would be via LU or buses and then I detrained at KT to join LU as it appeared we'd be there for some time.
Must say the driver did make clear announcements and did sound as erm, put out as the passengers.

It was interesting passing Cricklewood to see so many EMT and FCC trains parked up and it was obvious that the fast lines were being kept clear in order not to impact on EMT services. I did wonder why, though, the occasional FCC couldn't shoot in and out of STP to off load. 2 mins only would be needed and shouldn't interrupt EMT unduly.

What time did the incident kick off? Perhaps FCC stopping at Luton would have been better and the pax could have been taken in on EMT?
 

Bedpan

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
Harpenden
Yes, the drivers are generally very good indeed at providing as helpful information as possible to peoplr on their trains.

Re terminating at Luton - In the good old days long before privatisation I'm sure that that is what would have happened, with the fast trains making additional stops.

However its the same old chaotic shambles re communication from FCC generally though. I don't know why they have these inquiries after disruption, nothing ever changes. (Although maybe its a bit unfair of me to say that as I don't know what's happening at stations). Both the FCC website and the service disruption section of the National Rail website indicate that there are no FCC trains between West Hampstead Thameslink and St Albans, whilst the Live departures/arrivals section clearly shows that they are - admittedly a reduced service but the departure times from all the stations clrearly show that some trains are running through. Maybe they mean that there are no trains arriving at and departing from stations between West Hampstead and St Albans (which appears to be the case) , but that is not what they actually say .

The last time this sort of thing happened to a member of my family, they ended up going to Hatfield expecting to find a bus to St Albans, (after going to St Pancras, then waklking to Kings Cross and waiyting for a train there) only to find that the by the time they and some other passengers reached Hatfield the buses were no longer running as the problem had been resolved.
 

Tomonthetrain

Established Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
1,290
I dread to think about the odds on it failing tomorrow! First Saturday in months its open throughout the core iirc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top