Thameslink 'Congestion' Sat 23 Feb

[DynamicSpirit]

Does anyone know what happened today on the Thameslink core?

I was on the 12:49pm ex Bedford. We got significantly delayed coming into London, and then stopped additionally at Kentish Town. The guard (driver?) over the intercom said the delay was due to congestion around St. Pancras, and the additional stop was due to there being so few services today (which didn't quite seem to fit in with the suggestion of congestion!).

At any rate, when we got to St. Pancras, we (a Southbound train) stopped on the Northbound platform. The Southbound platform was occupied by an empty train, although there were still a fair few people waiting on that platform. That would certainly explain the congestion!

Broken down train? Something else?

Useful at any rate that St. Pancras is evidently geared up to allow wrong-line running.

 

[TFN]

Broken down train at St Pancras. Single line working between St Pancras and Farringdon.

The broken down train might have been pulled into Three Bridges sidings as a 700 was pulling another 700 through Gatwick Airport station later on in the evening.

Luckily it was a reduced timetable with no Peterboroughs/Horshams, Cambridge's, reduced Rainhams, and no Orpingtons otherwise it would have been even worse!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ah, thanks, so it was that. Yes lucky it was a Saturday I guess.

I was looking at the Saturday timetable today - hadn't realised before how much reduced Saturdays are compared to Monday-Friday on the London-Bedford route. Luton only 2tph (Thameslink, not counting EMT) down from 6tph, which seems very severe. I can imagine that broken down train would have caused utter chaos on a normal Mon-Fri timetable.

 

[Bedpan]

There are two northbound cancellations at harpenden at the moment (00.38 and 00.42) both said to be due to a passenger being taken ill. Interesting to note that after running a half hourly service all day, around this time of night there are or rather should be departures at 00.38, 0042, 00.57 and 01.02. Better that, I suppose, than running ecs up to Bedford.

 

[sga962]

Lots of disruption today:
points failure at gatwick reappeared in the morning
9v37 had a DOO fault and then a brake release issue that meant it sat in platform A for ages until rescued.
Level crossing failure at Mitcham Eastfields
Passenger collapsed on 9V66
a couple of potentially suicidal people scattered throughout the day at various locations

and that's just the TL specific stuff

 

[The Box Photter]

Does anyone know what happened today on the Thameslink core?

I was on the 12:49pm ex Bedford. We got significantly delayed coming into London, and then stopped additionally at Kentish Town. The guard (driver?) over the intercom said the delay was due to congestion around St. Pancras, and the additional stop was due to there being so few services today (which didn't quite seem to fit in with the suggestion of congestion!).

At any rate, when we got to St. Pancras, we (a Southbound train) stopped on the Northbound platform. The Southbound platform was occupied by an empty train, although there were still a fair few people waiting on that platform. That would certainly explain the congestion!

Broken down train? Something else?

Useful at any rate that St. Pancras is evidently geared up to allow wrong-line running.

I was on the train immediately behind the one that couldn't release its brakes at St Pancras. We were halted at 1150 and eventually entered the station wrong line at about 1235. Everyone seemed remarkably calm and stoic, even though the train was full & standing because of the half-hourly Saturday "service". Our driver made numerous announcements, even though she didn't really have much information to give and she had then to walk the length of the train to the rear cab to set back so we could move over to the down line.

It wasn't brilliant, but under the circumstances the response was OK. It was surprising, however, that when I returned home, the 1642 Blackfriars to Bedford and the following train were "all-stations" to Bedford because all the St Albans stoppers had apparently been cancelled. GTR really need to get their act together and improve their ability to respond to problems like this. The default option seems always to be to revert to running all-stations to Bedford. I also don't understand how it is possible for a train to sit down with brakes stuck on and there be no quick way to release them so the line isn't blocked for over an hour. Given the constraints of the Thameslink Core, surely the design of the train should have included a way of releasing the brakes quickly in emergency situations.

The one saving grace was that although we were stuck in a tunnel, the lights stayed on and there were working toilets on the train so there was a low risk of uncontrolled passenger egress.

 

[ComUtoR]

Useful at any rate that St. Pancras is evidently geared up to allow wrong-line running.

Broken down train at St Pancras. Single line working between St Pancras and Farringdon.

There is no 'wrong line running' or 'single line working'. The Core section is bi-directional.

9v37 had a DOO fault and then a brake release issue

What is a DOO fault please ?

 

[jamesst]

Just out of interest why does the service start so late from Blackfriars on a Sunday morning? Engineering requirements?

 

[DPQ]

Just out of interest why does the service start so late from Blackfriars on a Sunday morning? Engineering requirements?

Network Rail have standard maintenance times until 09.15 on Sundays between Kentish Town (platforms 1 & 2) and London Bridge (Platforms 4 & 5) / Herne Hill.

All the morning services have to run into alternative termini (London Bridge platforms 2 & 10 - 15, Victoria platforms 1 - 7, St Pancras platforms 1 - 4 and Kings Cross)

 

[Surreytraveller]

Just out of interest why does the service start so late from Blackfriars on a Sunday morning? Engineering requirements?

As well as the engineering requirements, it allows route knowledge retention of diversionary routes

 

[Surreytraveller]

What is a DOO fault please ?

At a rough guess, something wrong with the cameras or screens?

 

[Surreytraveller]

Does anyone know what happened today on the Thameslink core?

I was on the 12:49pm ex Bedford. We got significantly delayed coming into London, and then stopped additionally at Kentish Town. The guard (driver?) over the intercom said the delay was due to congestion around St. Pancras, and the additional stop was due to there being so few services today (which didn't quite seem to fit in with the suggestion of congestion!).

At any rate, when we got to St. Pancras, we (a Southbound train) stopped on the Northbound platform. The Southbound platform was occupied by an empty train, although there were still a fair few people waiting on that platform. That would certainly explain the congestion!

Broken down train? Something else?

Useful at any rate that St. Pancras is evidently geared up to allow wrong-line running.

You might want to change the thread title, as it says 'today', but obviously it isn't today!

 

[bramling]

I also don't understand how it is possible for a train to sit down with brakes stuck on and there be no quick way to release them so the line isn't blocked for over an hour. Given the constraints of the Thameslink Core, surely the design of the train should have included a way of releasing the brakes quickly in emergency situations.

Careful with that one ... if the brakes are stuck on then there's normally a reason for it, perhaps failure of an important piece of safety equipment on the train, or with the brake system itself. Brakes can be isolated, however one *really* doesn't want to be isolating the brakes on a whole train at the drop of a hat without giving the situation some serious thought.

 

[carriageline]

Plus it then needs hauling, at 5mph!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You might want to change the thread title, as it says 'today', but obviously it isn't today!

Good point. Obviously, it was 'today' when I created the thread, but isn't anymore. I've edited the title.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There is no 'wrong line running' or 'single line working'. The Core section is bi-directional.

OK, understood that the terminology I was using may have not been the technically correct terminology.

What should I call it, that would be understood correctly by both professionals and lay people who read the forum, in this kind of situation?

 

[A Challenge]

Surely it is single line working (I'd have thought), but it can't by running the wrong way for the signalling when the signalling is set up for both directions.

 

[Sunset route]

OK, understood that the terminology I was using may have not been the technically correct terminology.

What should I call it, that would be understood correctly by both professionals and lay people who read the forum, in this kind of situation?

Running Reversible on the opposite line, perhaps?

I was working SLW early this morning, with a pilotman, passing signals at danger, using route cards for the correct position of my points and having the trains travelling in the wrong direction to which the signals were facing.

Using Reversible signalled lines is far much simpler.

 

[tsr]

The lengthy and pedantic term would be bi-directional working on reversible lines.

Lines where bi-directional manoeuvres are signalled are typically named “reversible”, in the event that the line’s name does actually happen to reflect any reference to how they are worked. For example, a particular line on a given route might be called the “Down Main Reversible” if it is signalled for trains to work in either direction.

However, not all lines are so called, even if bi-directional signalling is provided. This is especially the case where every line in the immediate area is bi-directional (and as such there is no differentiation needed); in the case of sidings, single lines and bay platforms; or if there is a short turnback facility on a line which is otherwise signalled for moves in one direction only.

 

[ComUtoR]

What should I call it, that would be understood correctly by both professionals and lay people who read the forum, in this kind of situation?

There is no 'wrong' and that's what kinda throws the professional side out as we can make a 'wrong' direction move or use Single Line working in the wrong direction. Anything protected by signals or signalled normally is in the 'right' direction. If I was signalled 'reversible' I never really think of it as being wrong. I think if you said they were going reversible or using bi-directional then it would be understood clearly. For the Core you cold state they were using the Up or Down Moorgate. So if you said they were only running trains on the Down Moorgate I think that too would be completely understood.

As tsr highlights; you can also get line names that are called 'reversible'. Into Victoria (eastern side) you have an Up Chatham, Down Chatham and Chatham Reversible. So if you were going into Victoria you would say you were 'On' the 'Reversible' rather than 'going' reversible.

Surely it is single line working (I'd have thought), but it can't by running the wrong way for the signalling when the signalling is set up for both directions.

'Single line working' is where you have a problem on the line (typically a blockage of some sort) and you have to use one line exclusively. It is a line that is signalled in a single direction (the right direction) and has no protection from signals in the other direction. As Sunset points out, you need a Pilotman, pass signals at danger, points clipped, SLW tickets, Hand-Signallers, flags, etc etc to act as protection for trains running in the 'wrong direction'

Compare that to where you have a 'single line' where there is literally just the one line and trains run in both directions. As this is signalled in both directions there is no right or wrong way. This is where the line is bi-directional. (FYI this is known as 'working of a single line')

Not forgetting SIMBIDS (simplified bi-directional)

There is a school of thought where if you are on a 'single line' you think of it as being 'bi-directional' and where you have multiple lines but some are as tsr describes and you think of it as being 'reversible' This is because trains typically only run in one direction. Going into London Bridge on 2 Reversible you are typically signalled towards London in the morning peak and away from London in the late peak. The Chatham reversible into Vic is more dependent on what service you are on as anything going Via the Atlantic you want the 'Reversible' The Core typically runs as an up and down and that would be considered the 'normal' direction. Anything else is just 'Unusual' 'Opposite' 'Reverse' or 'Bi'

Welcome to the railway, where safety critical communication is important and you need to have a 'clear understanding' at all times.

Don't get me started about Corbets Lane Junction, Junction indicators that show a diversionary but keep you on the main line, Signals that are 'clear' 'off/on', Fast lines that are slower than slow ones, position lights, ground position lights and the pesky ones that run away..

 

[The Box Photter]

Plus it then needs hauling, at 5mph!

5mph would have been a damn sight quicker than being stuck in the tunnel north of St Pancras for almost 50 minutes and it would have removed the cork from the bottle neck that is the Core. What they need is a Thunderbird loco with a compatible coupler stationed in Smithfield Sidings for just such an eventuality. Units sitting down in the Core still seems to be a remarkably common occurrence.

I know that such a loco would need a crew and that it would cost "money" but that should be written into the management contract and the operator should meet the cost to provide operational flexibility and to maintain the service.

I suggest a Class 73 would fit the bill nicely.

 

[Bald Rick]

5mph would have been a damn sight quicker than being stuck in the tunnel north of St Pancras for almost 50 minutes and it would have removed the cork from the bottle neck that is the Core. What they need is a Thunderbird loco with a compatible coupler stationed in Smithfield Sidings for just such an eventuality. Units sitting down in the Core still seems to be a remarkably common occurrence.

I know that such a loco would need a crew and that it would cost "money" but that should be written into the management contract and the operator should meet the cost to provide operational flexibility and to maintain the service.

I suggest a Class 73 would fit the bill nicely.

There is a 73 nearby, and that was considered. However there is always a 700 nearer. You couldn’t keep a 73 in Smithfield, as that then blocks the siding for a 700 (which is much more likely to be used).

The 5mph is a red herring - that refers to the speed of a train being towed unbraked. Given that the train in question couldn’t get its brakes off, that wasn’t going to happen quickly.

 

[sga962]

What is a DOO fault please ?

DOO = Driver only operation so a DOO fault is an issue with bodyside cameras or cab screens

 

[ComUtoR]

DOO = Driver only operation so a DOO fault is an issue with bodyside cameras or cab screens

Not sure I'd call that a DOO fault but thanks for the reply.

 

[Firestarter]

Not sure I'd call that a DOO fault but thanks for the reply.

What would you call a DOO fault before this thread gets closed?

 

[Surreytraveller]

DOO = Driver only operation so a DOO fault is an issue with bodyside cameras or cab screens

I agree. Unless there is a fault with the driver who is operating a DOO train maybe?

 

[ComUtoR]

What would you call a DOO fault before this thread gets closed?

Nothing. There isn't anything I'd call a DOO fault.

Camera/CCTV screen I can understand and I kinda get it but even those I'd specifically state them as exactly what they are. ie Camera or CCTV screen fault. Why call it something else ? The DOO part is odd (IMHO) because neither specifically prevents the unit from staying in service. They could easily run between staff dispatched stations.

700s have cameras either side so 1 side failing could just prevent that side release. I've run trains with failed cameras/doors on one side because you don't actually need them at any stop. There are also front facing cameras, rear facing cameras, internal cameras, and a pantograph camera. So 'camera fault' leaves me a bit wanting.

'Cab Screens' (to me) isn't specific enough. There are 3 sets of screens (5 individual screens) and only 1 set is for dispatch. So in a 700 when someone says there is a 'screen' fault I think 'which one ?'

If the logic behind it being a 'DOO' Fault is because it's a fault with the 'DOO equipment' then are you going to include the PA ? As if that fails on a DOO service the train cannot continue. There are a few other faults that would require a 'Competent Person' and where that could be a Guard, because its DOO then the unit has to be removed from service.

'DOO Fault' (for me) is akin to 'Operational Incident' It's a generic umbrella term with little meaning. I was hoping that there was a deeper explanation and that @sga962 knew what the fault actually was.

If I called Fleet and asked told them I had a 'DOO fault' They would ask me what the hell am I talking about.

I faulted a unit today. There was a 'Major Alarm' that wouldn't reset. Anyone who signs these units will be thinking 'which one ?'

 

[Surreytraveller]

Nothing. There isn't anything I'd call a DOO fault.

Camera/CCTV screen I can understand and I kinda get it but even those I'd specifically state them as exactly what they are. ie Camera or CCTV screen fault. Why call it something else ? The DOO part is odd (IMHO) because neither specifically prevents the unit from staying in service. They could easily run between staff dispatched stations.

700s have cameras either side so 1 side failing could just prevent that side release. I've run trains with failed cameras/doors on one side because you don't actually need them at any stop. There are also front facing cameras, rear facing cameras, internal cameras, and a pantograph camera. So 'camera fault' leaves me a bit wanting.

'Cab Screens' (to me) isn't specific enough. There are 3 sets of screens (5 individual screens) and only 1 set is for dispatch. So in a 700 when someone says there is a 'screen' fault I think 'which one ?'

If the logic behind it being a 'DOO' Fault is because it's a fault with the 'DOO equipment' then are you going to include the PA ? As if that fails on a DOO service the train cannot continue. There are a few other faults that would require a 'Competent Person' and where that could be a Guard, because its DOO then the unit has to be removed from service.

'DOO Fault' (for me) is akin to 'Operational Incident' It's a generic umbrella term with little meaning. I was hoping that there was a deeper explanation and that @sga962 knew what the fault actually was.

I faulted a unit today. There was a 'Major Alarm' that wouldn't reset. Anyone who signs these units will be thinking 'which one ?'

Trouble is, the reason for the delay as posted by someone on this forum has probably gone through a dozen people, each one not quite fully understanding what the person previous to them said. Therefore, 'DOO fault' is about as close as you are going to get to the reason, and it is quite reasonable for someone to think it is something to do with cameras or screens.
If you are driving a train that develops a fault, you are going to have a much more explicit idea as to what the defect is than someone twelve degrees of separation away

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm not saying its unreasonable. Just that it didn't make sense to me. Hence asking for clarification. I often find there are many knowledgeable people on the forum so I always ask and sometimes; I learn stuff™

Should I not ask in the future ? Should people who actually do know the answer keep it secret ?

 

[The Box Photter]

There is a 73 nearby, and that was considered. However there is always a 700 nearer. You couldn’t keep a 73 in Smithfield, as that then blocks the siding for a 700 (which is much more likely to be used).

The 5mph is a red herring - that refers to the speed of a train being towed unbraked. Given that the train in question couldn’t get its brakes off, that wasn’t going to happen quickly.

But if the brakes won't release, there's no point in coupling another 700 to it. In fact there's a risk that the brake fault could migrate to the rescue unit if the fault is in the dodgy unit's software.

If the preferred option IS to rescue by using another 700, our unit was right behind, so why couldn't we buffer up and push the errant unit out of the way?

Sounds like the "rescue by using another 700" option will always be scuppered by the operator's reluctance to use an in service train to rescue a failed one, or to turn a working unit into another failed one.