On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:18:15 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

[big snip]
Thanks for all this, Paul.

LU seem to have given up putting out any press releases about such
incidents, leaving us to depend on the Evening Standard. It used to be
the case that whenever there was a serious delay or a slow evacuation, a
press release was put out which gave some information to explain what
happened and why, and also to apologise and demonstrate concern for its
passengers. All good customer service practice. But nowadays, they
seem to want to bury the bad news unless it's really bad (derailment
etc.) Do stations on the line affected still get printed posters with a
message from Tim O'Toole or the line boss, which also used to happen in
earlier years?

My thoughts / comments are as follows

a) I still see posters apologising for poor service. There was certainly
one from Tim O'Toole the other Monday when the service in the AM peak
was diabolical. He didn't mince his words on the poster IIRC. I guess
there may have been a view which said constant apology posters
re-inforce a negative view amongst passengers long after a problem has
been resolved - this probably ties in with the "severe delays, minor
delays, good service" messages that are used instead to tell people what
is happening *now* rather than 6 hours ago. It is a delicate balancing
act and (IMO) we don't always get it right.

b) You can't win with the Evening Standard. They, like many others, will
watch the website travel news pages and will also hear via other sources
as to what has gone wrong. Engineering Overruns are a favourite subject
and the bad press reports cause real headaches in the Infracos - witness
the changes within Metronet. The ES will merrily report whatever they
want about delays depending on how many column inches are spare IMO.

c) There is unrelenting pressure on loads of people to stop these delays
happening and to improve everyone's performance. The Infracos do not
hesitate to sack people who are not performing and there is that climate
of fear for a lot of key people in LU. There are certainly very robust
discussions about the delays and underlying problems.

My own experience is that some lines are considerably better than before
in terms of not having the breakdowns in the first place. Some lines are
good at dealing with problems when they do occur but that is often down
to the facilities (sidings, crossovers etc) that are available to
controllers. However some lines are worse than ever and no matter how
accomplished the LU side of the house might be in managing the immediate
aftermath of the failure the nature of the failure wrecks the service
for hours. Overall it is improving and the causes of failures and
improved management processes are being put in place but I fully
understand why the passengers are rightly ****ed off both that they are
delayed and that the rate of progress is not fast enough.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

I only have partial information and this is put here in good faith. I'm
not getting into a slanging match with *anyone* as to the rights and
wrongs as I would expect there to be a full investigation.

Paul, thanks for that - much appreciated and so much more helpful and
informative than certain others.

Ian

Paul Corfield wrote:


b) You can't win with the Evening Standard. They, like many others, will
watch the website travel news pages and will also hear via other sources
as to what has gone wrong. Engineering Overruns are a favourite subject
and the bad press reports cause real headaches in the Infracos - witness
the changes within Metronet. The ES will merrily report whatever they
want about delays depending on how many column inches are spare IMO.

I have to say that the Evening Standard is one of the worst newspapers
I have ever had the misfortune to have to buy. Their unrelenting
negativity is soul sapping, it's almost like reading a paper written by
children.
I am going off topic slightly, but as a newspaper they have no idea
about transport policy. That said, neither do I, but I don't claim to
speak for London. Old trains are bad, old buses are good, new buses are
bad, Oyster is bad, congestion is bad, congestion charge is bad (their
admission that the CC was working was so begrudging...), speeding is
bad, speed cameras are bad etc. etc.

I did wonder briefly if that is why LU stopped the press releases - the
ES is going to put its spin on anything anyway, I seem to remember that
when the "thetube" website was up and running there were more press
releases. Perhaps a TfL decision?

On 4 Jun 2005 17:25:18 -0700, "ONscotland"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:


b) You can't win with the Evening Standard. They, like many others, will
watch the website travel news pages and will also hear via other sources
as to what has gone wrong. Engineering Overruns are a favourite subject
and the bad press reports cause real headaches in the Infracos - witness
the changes within Metronet. The ES will merrily report whatever they
want about delays depending on how many column inches are spare IMO.

I have to say that the Evening Standard is one of the worst newspapers
I have ever had the misfortune to have to buy. Their unrelenting
negativity is soul sapping, it's almost like reading a paper written by
children.

Well possibly but their negativity matches a lot of the public mood if
people have experienced awful journeys. They need to sell newspapers so
they write in a way that will generate sales.

I am going off topic slightly, but as a newspaper they have no idea
about transport policy. That said, neither do I, but I don't claim to
speak for London. Old trains are bad, old buses are good, new buses are
bad, Oyster is bad, congestion is bad, congestion charge is bad (their
admission that the CC was working was so begrudging...), speeding is
bad, speed cameras are bad etc. etc.

Well I have yet to find any newspaper that understands transport and the
implications from particular decisions or options. Regrettably that
simply matches where transport lies in terms of overall importance to
the politicians - i.e. near the bottom of the pile - despite transport
affecting everyone's lives in some way.

People don't like change which is why you get some of the stories that
you do. People also expect every system to work perfectly all the time,
every time so when one doesn't it's time to attack.

The most glaring "change of heart" is over the congestion charge. The ES
had nicely built up a "disaster of biblical proportions" approach to the
charge and were obviously hoping for a disaster at the start. The fact
there wasn't one, in terms of traffic congestion, wrecked that approach
and their response has been muted. I can't begin to imagine how much the
Mayor was laughing at their miscalculation.

I did wonder briefly if that is why LU stopped the press releases - the
ES is going to put its spin on anything anyway, I seem to remember that
when the "thetube" website was up and running there were more press
releases. Perhaps a TfL decision?

All of the press releases - regardless of mode - are now on the TfL part
of the website. There are more press releases than every before - they
seem to be pouring forth at an alarming rate.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...es/default.asp

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

However, (theres always a but), Boltar is not aware of the other 20+
incidents that occured on the Central line that day that were dealt with
quickly with minmal delays.

You're right , I wasn't aware. But that doesn't make the big screw-ups
any better.

You may be surprised to learn that on the Thursday evening, the Victoria
line suffered a points failure that left trains in tunnels but prompt action
from Managers, Train ops and station staff had all detrained, including
bringing trains up behind one another for people to walk through, within 30
minutes. Yes Boltar, thats passing a signal at danger..........which is

Kudos to them. So why did it take 90 mins to do it on the central line?
If you know its going to take a good length of time to move a train why
not just get the passengers out anyway? Passengers should always be
the first priority, they are after all the reason the underground
exists
but unfortunately a lot of LU staff treat us as if we're just a bloody
nuisance
messing up the smooth running of their lifesize trainset. Obviously
some
passengers can be a right pain in the arse and I wouldn't want to have
to
deal with them , but lets not forget that people work for LU out of
choice,
its not a gulag. And if they don't like it and can't be bothered, they
should go get another job.

B2003

Its one thing to dismiss the OP's attitude as being needlessly negative
and ignorant of relevant information; quite another to be equally
dismissive of those seeking futher information.

I'm only negative because I have to use the damn system to get into
work every day and literally every week theres some problem on one
of the lines I have to use. Last year I ended up working at another
office
for 6 months which required driving along the north circular during
rush hour , and let me tell you it was FAR less stressful than using
the tube (not to mention a lot quicker to do an equivalent distance).
If I could drive into work now , believe me , I would as I've had a
gutful
of the underground with its lousy service, ignorant staff and
extortionate fares.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
However, (theres always a but), Boltar is not aware of the other 20+
incidents that occured on the Central line that day that were dealt with
quickly with minmal delays.

You're right , I wasn't aware. But that doesn't make the big screw-ups
any better.

You may be surprised to learn that on the Thursday evening, the Victoria
line suffered a points failure that left trains in tunnels but prompt action
from Managers, Train ops and station staff had all detrained, including
bringing trains up behind one another for people to walk through, within 30
minutes. Yes Boltar, thats passing a signal at danger..........which is

Kudos to them. So why did it take 90 mins to do it on the central line?
If you know its going to take a good length of time to move a train why
not just get the passengers out anyway?

From what Paul said I thought they thought they could get the service
back within less time but it ended up taking 90 minutes because a
couple of bodge attempts didn't work. Presumably - if the bodge
attempts had worked it would have been quicker to bodge and continue
than getting everyone off, checking for people, bodging then restarting
the service. One hopes that in very hot weather and crush packed
trains the attitude would have been different.

Out of interest - on a D stock train (has a red button but no mic. or
speaker) how would someone having a panic attack / becoming dehydrated
get assistance if the train was stopped in a tunnel? What would the
driver do if the button was pressed? How would (s)he know what the
problem was?

09.26 - Marble Arch - Points Failure, passengers stuck on stalled
train. The failure of 3702 points to normalise at Marble Arch eastbound
caused
the Central Line to be suspended between White City and Holborn from
09.26
until 12.18. Initially, three eastbound trains were stalled in section
between Lancaster Gate and Marble Arch. To try to clear the fault, a
train in
Marble Arch platform was worked in and out of the sidings, however when
the
failure persisted, traction current was discharged to allow the Station

Supervisor to secure the points for through running. The London
Ambulance Service
was advised and an ambulance sent to Marble Arch as a precautionary
measure
The first stalled train (No 33), was authorised to work forward under
failure conditions into the platform at Marble Arch. Passengers having
been on
the train between stations for 25 minutes.
At 10.01, train 33 was authorised to move forward, and the Train
Operator reported a loud bang whilst traversing the points, when in the
platform
at Marble Arch. The following train, (No 5) when authorised through,
stopped short of the points reporting that they had been secured in the
wrong
position [just as a suggested can happen in the "Why does LU take so
long to deal with
a signal failure thread] This train and a further two trains were then
queued in the
tunnel and at 10.16 BT Police were advised. Formal Incident Management

(Na100) was declared with DSM Sparrow appointed Silver Control. A
special service
was introduced west of White City and east of Holborn to all
destinations.
With technical staff assessing the damage to the points, two of the
three trains 3 and 42 were authorised to work back to Lancaster Gate,
Approximately 1000 passengers were detrained to the platform by 10.45.
Once the points were re-secured the remaining train was worked forward
into
Marble Arch platform, detraining 500 passengers at 11.08.
Subsequently 20 passengers were reported to have been attended to by
ambulance crews.
One female having fainted aboard a train was advised to go to hospital
but
decided to continue her journey following water refreshment.
The service remained suspended whilst technical staff made temporary
repairs to the points and track circuits. Signalling code was
re-established and services resumed to severe delays at 12.18, with a
temporary speed
restriction in place over the damaged point work. The special service
pattern was withdrawn at 13.25 and timetable recovery commenced, with
only 2 cancellations at the 15.00 snapshot. A good serviced was
restored at
15.40, and a full service offered for the evening peak. Engineer's
train 570
was cancelled in consequence as staff worked on the points (3702)
during
engineering hours.

In message .com,
writes

(snipped to the salient time-related matters)

09.26 - Marble Arch - Points Failure
To try to clear the fault, a train in Marble Arch platform was worked
in and out of the sidings, however when the failure persisted, traction
current was discharged to allow the Station Supervisor to secure the
points for through running.

The first stalled train (No 33), was authorised to work forward under
failure conditions into the platform at Marble Arch. Passengers having
been on the train between stations for 25 minutes.

A long delay, but so far understandable.

At 10.01, train 33 was authorised to move forward, and the Train
Operator reported a loud bang whilst traversing the points, when in the
platform at Marble Arch. The following train, (No 5) when authorised
through, stopped short of the points reporting that they had been
secured in the wrong position

But here we reach the critical matter. Who made this mistake? Were they
supervised or checked? Did anyone realise that if this procedure went
wrong (which it did) then matters could escalate to critical?

snip the rest. Human fallibility is understandable, but to make such a
mistake when trying to recover from an emergency is a very serious error
indeed. In many professions (surgery, air traffic control, etc) such an
action would, after investigation, be likely to result in dismissal and
a review of procedures.

Will that be the case for LU?

Thanks for the report - but it catalogues errors more than inspiring
confidence from lessons learnt
--
Paul Terry

In message , Paul Terry
writes
At 10.01, train 33 was authorised to move forward, and the Train
Operator reported a loud bang whilst traversing the points, when in
the platform at Marble Arch. The following train, (No 5) when
authorised through, stopped short of the points reporting that they
had been secured in the wrong position

But here we reach the critical matter. Who made this mistake? Were they
supervised or checked? Did anyone realise that if this procedure went
wrong (which it did) then matters could escalate to critical?

Question:
If the points had been initially secured in the wrong position (which I
find hard to believe), why did the Train Operator of Train 33 not notice
this before traversing them? Surely he'd have been travelling at a speed
where he could stop short if they weren't.
Presumably, given the description, the trains were moving over them in a
trailing direction, so his train running through the points probably did
them no good whatsoever.
--
Daniel (a.k.a Spyke)
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. Replace the bit before the
@ with 'daniel' to get through. The opinions expressed in this post do not
necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.