On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:41:29 +0000, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

Sorry but in the example of that I am most familiar with which is
Walthamstow Central, the announcements have been very clear and people
carry on in robot mode and take no notice. I have even told people
alighting from a One West Anglia train that there's no tube and still
they get off and carry on. It is not always the fault of the station
staff or the driver. Some people will not be told and you cannot assume
that every announcement is telling you something incorrect.


You mean like on the 7th July telling everyone it was an electrical
problem for at least an hour !!

Oh for ****'s sake. The electric surge story was fabricated by the
security services to avoid panic. Of course it wasn't factually
correct, but you can't blame the public transport operators for that.

In article ,
Ken wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:41:29 +0000, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:
You mean like on the 7th July telling everyone it was an electrical
problem for at least an hour !!

Oh for ****'s sake. The electric surge story was fabricated by the
security services to avoid panic.

No it wasn't. It was a speculation by the LUL controllers as to what
could have happened to cause several different simultaneous incidents.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

David Boothroyd wrote:

No it wasn't. It was a speculation by the LUL controllers as to what
could have happened to cause several different simultaneous incidents.

Why do they need to speculate ? If an explosion happens in a LUL tunnel,
it is going to create on almighty bang. Everybody within range will know about
it almost immediately. Don't they have cameras ? People who report to them ?
How come it took the LUL controlers 1h or so to find-out that it had been an
explosion ?

Richard [in PE12]

Endymion Ponsonby-Withermoor III wrote:
David Boothroyd wrote:

No it wasn't. It was a speculation by the LUL controllers as to what
could have happened to cause several different simultaneous
incidents.

Why do they need to speculate ? If an explosion happens in a LUL
tunnel, it is going to create on almighty bang. Everybody within range
will
know about it almost immediately. Don't they have cameras ? People
who report to them ? How come it took the LUL controlers 1h or so to
find-out that it had been an explosion ?

Because the symptoms were indicative of massive power failures and no one on
the spot was in a position to tell them otherwise for about twenty minutes.
A terrorist attack is not the first thing that comes to mind.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:27:12 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

No it wasn't. It was a speculation by the LUL controllers as to what
could have happened to cause several different simultaneous
incidents.

Why do they need to speculate ? If an explosion happens in a LUL
tunnel, it is going to create on almighty bang. Everybody within range
will
know about it almost immediately. Don't they have cameras ? People
who report to them ? How come it took the LUL controlers 1h or so to
find-out that it had been an explosion ?

Because the symptoms were indicative of massive power failures and no one on
the spot was in a position to tell them otherwise for about twenty minutes.
A terrorist attack is not the first thing that comes to mind.

I think there are two issues being confused here. There's no reason to
doubt that TPTB at LU spent the first 20 minutes (or hour or however
long) thinking a power surge was responsible for the incidents.
However, the public were told for *hours* afterwards that it was just
a power surge. For the whole morning, news organisations were
variously reporting up to 7 explosions on the Underground and up to 3
on buses, while being kept completely in the dark by official sources.
There was a definite witholding of information, be it at the behest of
LU, or the security services, or whoever.

I'm not particularly complaining, just trying to clarify.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:29:24 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:27:12 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

No it wasn't. It was a speculation by the LUL controllers as to what
could have happened to cause several different simultaneous
incidents.

Why do they need to speculate ? If an explosion happens in a LUL
tunnel, it is going to create on almighty bang. Everybody within range
will
know about it almost immediately. Don't they have cameras ? People
who report to them ? How come it took the LUL controlers 1h or so to
find-out that it had been an explosion ?

Because the symptoms were indicative of massive power failures and no one on
the spot was in a position to tell them otherwise for about twenty minutes.
A terrorist attack is not the first thing that comes to mind.

I think there are two issues being confused here. There's no reason to
doubt that TPTB at LU spent the first 20 minutes (or hour or however
long) thinking a power surge was responsible for the incidents.
However, the public were told for *hours* afterwards that it was just
a power surge. For the whole morning, news organisations were
variously reporting up to 7 explosions on the Underground and up to 3
on buses, while being kept completely in the dark by official sources.
There was a definite witholding of information, be it at the behest of
LU, or the security services, or whoever.

I'm not particularly complaining, just trying to clarify.

Given that the whole picture was confused for days why is it considered
so dreadful (not by you necessarily given your comment above) that it
took hours for an official "story" to be provided? I know we are all
desperate for news NOW! due to 24 hour news channels but it is simply
not practical or in many cases desirable.

Surely the initial priorities are to get the injured out and treated, to
be clear what people are dealing with, get people out of potential
harm's way and then NOT to induce mass panic in the populace who were in
Central London? Then the system has to be checked to make sure it is
safe for the resumption of trains.

The Police take over the handling of these situations and I do not
consider LU can be considered to be some sort of culpable party to any
accusations of media manipulation. It's quite clear from what Tim
O'Toole had to say at the time that his intent was not to scare people
away from using the tube - indeed he wanted people to go about the
system as normal. Hence the minor miracle of most of the network being
up and working next day. I think it is fair to say that Londoners were
grateful for that, I certainly was, and were also very appreciative of
how Tube & Infraco staff dealt with the incident and then worked to
restore the damaged parts of the network.

We are having company wide briefings with Tim at present and part of the
session has a film about 7/7 in it. This not only forces people to face
up to the trauma but also helps people understand what was done, by whom
and allows Tim to say thank you. While it was a bit tough to be reminded
of it I thought the thank you to be most appropriate - and not really
for office people like me but those who drive the trains, work in the
stations, manage the operations etc who were in the front line that day.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:

We are having company wide briefings with Tim at present and part of
the session has a film about 7/7 in it. This not only forces people
to face
up to the trauma but also helps people understand what was done, by
whom
and allows Tim to say thank you. While it was a bit tough to be
reminded
of it I thought the thank you to be most appropriate - and not really
for office people like me but those who drive the trains, work in the
stations, manage the operations etc who were in the front line that
day.

Hear, hear.

I note that a number of coppers involved on 7th July have received awards.
Does anyone know if TfL/LU will be making similar awards to their members of
staff who were on the ground and publicising the fact?

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:29:24 +0000, asdf
wrote:



I think there are two issues being confused here. There's no reason to
doubt that TPTB at LU spent the first 20 minutes (or hour or however
long) thinking a power surge was responsible for the incidents.
However, the public were told for *hours* afterwards that it was just
a power surge. For the whole morning, news organisations were
variously reporting up to 7 explosions on the Underground and up to 3
on buses, while being kept completely in the dark by official sources.
There was a definite witholding of information, be it at the behest of
LU, or the security services, or whoever.

Thank you.

First of all, how can a 'power surge' cause a major explosion on one
train but not all of the others fed by the same substation? And there
were several trains. So, a system-wide 'surge'? Again, why would most
trains be unaffected?

And just how would the power supply apparently 'surge'? Maybe the grid
voltage could have shot up suddenly, but how? Wouldn't other
recipients of electricity (including National Rail electric services
in the London area) have noticed? And wouldn't the power supply, and
the trains, have had some protection?

The thing is I can't put my hand on any sources ATM, but I'm certain
that the authorities have said that the story was fabricated. And why
not?

"Ken" wrote in message
...

First of all, how can a 'power surge' cause a major explosion on one
train but not all of the others fed by the same substation? And there
were several trains. So, a system-wide 'surge'? Again, why would most
trains be unaffected?

And just how would the power supply apparently 'surge'? Maybe the grid
voltage could have shot up suddenly, but how? Wouldn't other
recipients of electricity (including National Rail electric services
in the London area) have noticed? And wouldn't the power supply, and
the trains, have had some protection?

Firstly, the story wasn't fabricated. Having been at Liverpool Street at the
time, standing in the main booking hall when the explosion occurred, I went
to the control room to take charge of the incident. As the control room
staff had already started the evacuation I contacted the Central Line
controller to advise them we were evacuating and for trains to non-stop,
stating there'd been a "rather large bang". The indications at the time at
that station, and other stations who were phoning us to find out what had
happened had the same symptoms as when a 22KV cable in a tunnel at Earls
Court failed. Obviously those who were receiving more information from other
parts of the network would have soon realised that as there were multiple
incident sites at the same time something far worse had happened, but I
would guess they were too busy dealing with life-saving at multiple sites to
give the press an update.

Incidentally, having seen the site at Aldgate, I was technically correct
regarding the 22kv cable, as it had, indeed, been vaporised.

"asdf" wrote in message
...

I think there are two issues being confused here. There's no reason to
doubt that TPTB at LU spent the first 20 minutes (or hour or however
long) thinking a power surge was responsible for the incidents.
However, the public were told for *hours* afterwards that it was just
a power surge. For the whole morning, news organisations were
variously reporting up to 7 explosions on the Underground and up to 3
on buses, while being kept completely in the dark by official sources.
There was a definite witholding of information, be it at the behest of
LU, or the security services, or whoever.

Having seen some of the tactics the media, especially the foreign press
adopted to try and get "exclusive footage" of the incident sites I am so
glad nobody updated the media. We had a few more pressing concerns, like
trying to save lives and evacuating customers from trains stuck in tunnels.