In article , Edward Cowling
London UK writes
WAGN had the usual electrical problems at Moorgate so we got diverted
to Kings Cross.

One train failed at Moorgate. The following train was sent in to couple
to it and draw it clear, but the fault transferred to it. That meant the
service was in the hands of the fitters.

[I was on the first 313 to be diverted to King's Cross, having
transferred from a KX service at Finsbury Park :-].

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message
...
On 26 Mar 2006 02:21:29 -0800, wrote:

Whoever cooked this idea up should see the misery of lost
tourists with suitcases and mothers with young children.

What's worse -- the 'misery' of being lost (and only lost until you ask
a member of staff for directions, at that) or the misery of seeing that
young child go under a train?

What is the point of asking staff for directions? All they canl say
is, effectively 'go away', ie off the station, so you are no longer
our responsibility.

That's not true at all. I've had lots of great directions from Underground
staff. I think your generalisation is a bit inaccurate.

Can I make a plea that London Transport trust the public
to behave sensibly on full platforms and please shut
stations as a last resort ?!

London Underground can't trust people to behave sensibly on full or
busy platforms because people prove every working day that they can't
be trusted to do it. I'm sure we've all seen people refuse to pass down
the platform, block entrances and exits in large groups and do other
things to endanger safety. I doubt I am the only one who is amazed by
the people who, upon seeing that a station is closed for an emergency
try to argue their way past the staff and into the station so that they
can continue their journey.

That was not the subject if complaint. The point is that a platform
approaching congestion is not of itself a reason for emergency
clearance. Further entry should be blocked but there is not an
imminent emergency which requires evacuation.

That's not what he was saying. He was pointing out that people act like
asses on the tube. And he's right - they'll do the most ridiculous things.
Standing so the platform is blocked is dangerous, as people trying to get by
can accidentally force people, or be forced, onto the track. Stopping
people from entering the station doesn't help at all - people will keep
pushing down towards the platforms, and if the volume of trains isn't
sufficient to remove people from the platform to counter the crush, people
will end up on the track. Not to mention if there was a fire. Evacuations
without the risk of death are always preferrable to those with.

Can I make a plea to members of the public to trust London Underground
to use their experience to keep people safe, even if they sometimes err
on the side of caution and sometimes you can't understand why they are
doing what they are doing?

Yes, provided we can trust them to distinguish between a crowd and a
real emergency.

It was a real emergency. If something wasn't done, there very well could
have been one or more people under a train, and LU would be getting their
asses handed to them by various parts of the public. They're erring on the
side of caution, as public backlash has demonstrated that's the best way for
everyone.

dave

--
Peter Lawrence

d wrote:
That was not the subject if complaint. The point is that a platform
approaching congestion is not of itself a reason for emergency
clearance. Further entry should be blocked but there is not an
imminent emergency which requires evacuation.

That's not what he was saying. He was pointing out that people act like
asses on the tube. And he's right - they'll do the most ridiculous things.
Standing so the platform is blocked is dangerous, as people trying to get by
can accidentally force people, or be forced, onto the track. Stopping
people from entering the station doesn't help at all - people will keep
pushing down towards the platforms, and if the volume of trains isn't
sufficient to remove people from the platform to counter the crush, people
will end up on the track. Not to mention if there was a fire. Evacuations
without the risk of death are always preferrable to those with.

While I agree in general that stopping people entering an Underground
station wouldn't avoid the risk of dangerous congestion, the OP was
talking about the KXSP Metropolitan line station. This is an unusual
case, in that the ticket barrier does directly control platform access
and so closing the barrier would have addressed the risk adequately.

It would be perfectly reasonable for LUL to have a system-wide rule to
avoid ambiguity, saying that in such cases the station must be closed,
rather than either relying on staff judgement or having an enormously
complicated set of station-by-station closure criteria. However, as
with the enforcement of the non-smoking rule on open-air LUL ex-BR
stations[*], it's also reasonable for people to get a bit frustrated
when there seems to be no justification for the rule's applicaiton in a
particular situation.

(see also endless discussions about fare-dodgers vs honest passengers
forced to miss their train because they're not allowed through the
barriers)
[*] I'm thinking of the late 1980s when the rule was introduced and
when smoking outside of enclosed spaces was generally considered
acceptable, here. I'm aware attitudes have now changed so that even
smoking in a bus queue is frowned upon...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org