| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at
Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. However, what I'd really like to comment on was the way in which this was handled at Euston, which was downright poor in a number of significant and potentially dangerous ways. A bit of background, when I arrived at Euston at about 1805 everything was showing "delayed" and the concourse was absolutely packed. Rather than stand around in it I headed to platform 11 to board what claimed to be the 1724 Silverlink service, on which I sat listening to various announcements (sensibly sending some IC passengers to alternative services) for a while. About an hour later, an announcement was made that platforms 8-11 would be closed and that people should return to the concourse. This was said to be due to dangerous overcrowding, which was not evident from where I was sitting. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. It didn't, however, go anywhere. After a conversation with another member of staff I was told that the BTP had instructed them to evacuate the platform area "for safety reasons" and they were just following orders, though they themselves thought it was a bad idea. I and about 100 others decided to ignore this, however, and remain on platform 8, where no further hassle was given bar faces being pulled by staff who seemed to have pretty much given up. Now this is where I have an issue. The BTP had reportedly told the Silverlink staff to evacuate more people to the concourse which was already dangerously full of people. Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present - it'd be better to plan in advance which would be the first trains out following a blockage (most sensible would probably be for those to be the first ones that got stuck, and to pre-emptively cancel some later ones) and get people on board until they were full, and only then to block the concourse like that? Surely the most important objective is to avoid huge crowds forming, given that the trains were not themselves a dangerous location? (and even had a bomb been involved it could have affected fewer people distributed around trains with the protection of the trains themselves?) Even if the trains were not to go out in that order, they could then be evacuated one at a time, which would be far better? Thoughts? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Jul 12, 9:47?pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. However, what I'd really like to comment on was the way in which this was handled at Euston, which was downright poor in a number of significant and potentially dangerous ways. A bit of background, when I arrived at Euston at about 1805 everything was showing "delayed" and the concourse was absolutely packed. Rather than stand around in it I headed to platform 11 to board what claimed to be the 1724 Silverlink service, on which I sat listening to various announcements (sensibly sending some IC passengers to alternative services) for a while. About an hour later, an announcement was made that platforms 8-11 would be closed and that people should return to the concourse. This was said to be due to dangerous overcrowding, which was not evident from where I was sitting. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. It didn't, however, go anywhere. After a conversation with another member of staff I was told that the BTP had instructed them to evacuate the platform area "for safety reasons" and they were just following orders, though they themselves thought it was a bad idea. I and about 100 others decided to ignore this, however, and remain on platform 8, where no further hassle was given bar faces being pulled by staff who seemed to have pretty much given up. Now this is where I have an issue. The BTP had reportedly told the Silverlink staff to evacuate more people to the concourse which was already dangerously full of people. Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present - it'd be better to plan in advance which would be the first trains out following a blockage (most sensible would probably be for those to be the first ones that got stuck, and to pre-emptively cancel some later ones) and get people on board until they were full, and only then to block the concourse like that? Surely the most important objective is to avoid huge crowds forming, given that the trains were not themselves a dangerous location? (and even had a bomb been involved it could have affected fewer people distributed around trains with the protection of the trains themselves?) Even if the trains were not to go out in that order, they could then be evacuated one at a time, which would be far better? Thoughts? Neil Again, if the Croxley Link was in place there would have been an (albeit slower) alternative way to disperse passengers to Watford Junction, in both directions! Burkey |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On 12 Jul, 21:47, (Neil Williams)
wrote: Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. The nationalrail.co.uk live arr/dep boards information is doing sterling service in keeping abreast of the situation: "SITE UNAVAILABLE The Live Departure Boards web site is currently closed whilst it undergoes routine maintenance. Please try again later. The System is expected to be available again at 11 PM." No doubt there are pressing reasons why "routine maintenance" cannot be undertaken at times of minimum train operations. -- gordon |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Jul 12, 9:47 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. However, what I'd really like to comment on was the way in which this was handled at Euston, which was downright poor in a number of significant and potentially dangerous ways. A bit of background, when I arrived at Euston at about 1805 everything was showing "delayed" and the concourse was absolutely packed. Rather than stand around in it I headed to platform 11 to board what claimed to be the 1724 Silverlink service, on which I sat listening to various announcements (sensibly sending some IC passengers to alternative services) for a while. About an hour later, an announcement was made that platforms 8-11 would be closed and that people should return to the concourse. This was said to be due to dangerous overcrowding, which was not evident from where I was sitting. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. It didn't, however, go anywhere. After a conversation with another member of staff I was told that the BTP had instructed them to evacuate the platform area "for safety reasons" and they were just following orders, though they themselves thought it was a bad idea. I and about 100 others decided to ignore this, however, and remain on platform 8, where no further hassle was given bar faces being pulled by staff who seemed to have pretty much given up. Now this is where I have an issue. The BTP had reportedly told the Silverlink staff to evacuate more people to the concourse which was already dangerously full of people. Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present - it'd be better to plan in advance which would be the first trains out following a blockage (most sensible would probably be for those to be the first ones that got stuck, and to pre-emptively cancel some later ones) and get people on board until they were full, and only then to block the concourse like that? Surely the most important objective is to avoid huge crowds forming, given that the trains were not themselves a dangerous location? (and even had a bomb been involved it could have affected fewer people distributed around trains with the protection of the trains themselves?) Even if the trains were not to go out in that order, they could then be evacuated one at a time, which would be far better? Thoughts? When you finally got going, which line did you use through Harrow? I've just looked at the service disruptions on National Rail, and the last update (timed at 21.58) says that disruption is expected until 23.00, Silverlink Metro is now stopping at Harrow, but County and Southern aren't. I'm not sure what BTP's rationale was (assuming it really was them who made the decision), but without more information it would be unfair to be too critical - after all, we seldom do criticism of BTP on here, do we? |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
|
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Jul 12, 10:02 pm, " wrote:
The nationalrail.co.uk live arr/dep boards information is doing sterling service in keeping abreast of the situation: "SITE UNAVAILABLE The Live Departure Boards web site is currently closed whilst it undergoes routine maintenance. Please try again later. The System is expected to be available again at 11 PM." No doubt there are pressing reasons why "routine maintenance" cannot be undertaken at times of minimum train operations. They seem to be back in action now. Still significant delays on arrivals at MKC. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Neil Williams wrote:
Rather than stand around in it I headed to platform 11 to board what claimed to be the 1724 Silverlink service, on which I sat listening to various announcements (sensibly sending some IC passengers to alternative services) for a while. About an hour later, an announcement was made that platforms 8-11 would be closed and that people should return to the concourse. This was said to be due to dangerous overcrowding, which was not evident from where I was sitting. There are surely plenty of real contingencies that are not self-evident from certain viewpoints. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire. It didn't, however, go anywhere. Presumably because it couldn't. If, as you say, nothing was moving, then I imagine that when, on the concourse, the first train out is announced, there would be a mad rush for it (commuters being leopard-like). TPTB at least can carry out some sensible flow control if they know that the train they are allowing people to go to is empty. If, OTOH, the train has an indeterminate number of people aboard already, then how could they know how many people it would be safe to allow through? (Oh yes, I know, get someone to count them! But presumably they would reason that once things start to move they wouldn't want to be wasting time doing things like that when there is a much more simple way of determining the answer , as in removing everyone from the train and telling them to vacate the platform.) -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633064.html (50 010 at Leamington Spa, Oct 1987) |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:27:44 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote: Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire. It was quite obvious that it was not a fire[1]; it had been explained quite clearly over the PA what was going on, and I felt that joining the masses in the concourse could have put me in danger or at the very least more discomfort than remaining on the platform. I was not the only one taking that view. [1] If they use "Fatality at Harrow and Wealdstone and resulting overcrowding" as a means of identifying a fire over the PA then they are very, very stupid. No, Inspector Sands was not called. (Oh yes, I know, get someone to count them! But presumably they would reason that once things start to move they wouldn't want to be wasting time doing things like that when there is a much more simple way of determining the answer , as in removing everyone from the train and telling them to vacate the platform.) Easier? Yes. Safer and more effective? No. It seemed like a manifestation of the typical South East "keep them on the concourse and tell them at the last minute" nonsense. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil
Williams gently breathed: Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present What high risk of a bomb attack? Seriously, the risk presented by the recent, utterly incompetent attempts at "terrorism" is about the same as being struck by a falling meteor at the exact same moment you win your fourth lottery jackpot in a row. See The Register for a very thorough debunking of the "threat" from the recent "car bombs" by a former bomb disposal expert. People really should learn to analyse risk sensibly, and not go along with the "security panic" that some would use simply as an excuse to curtail civil liberties. -- - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net Hard Rock, Leeds http://www.hard-rock.org.uk Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP! http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incidentplanning and the BTP
Pyromancer wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil Williams gently breathed: Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present What high risk of a bomb attack? Seriously, the risk presented by the recent, utterly incompetent attempts at "terrorism" is about the same as being struck by a falling meteor at the exact same moment you win your fourth lottery jackpot in a row. LOL! See The Register for a very thorough debunking of the "threat" from the recent "car bombs" by a former bomb disposal expert. People really should learn to analyse risk sensibly, and not go along with the "security panic" that some would use simply as an excuse to curtail civil liberties. -- Moving things in still pictures! |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:27:44 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote: Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire. I felt that joining the masses in the concourse could have put me in danger or at the very least more discomfort than remaining on the platform. I was not the only one taking that view. No doubt. But that does not necessarily make it the cleverest thing to do. For every circumstance in which you might foresee a more comfortable and safer existence on the platform, there is probably a converse. (Oh yes, I know, get someone to count them! But presumably they would reason that once things start to move they wouldn't want to be wasting time doing things like that when there is a much more simple way of determining the answer , as in removing everyone from the train and telling them to vacate the platform.) Easier? Yes. Safer and more effective? No. Why are you convinced it was safer? You have only mentioned "the high risk of a bomb attack at present", and when all is said and done, you were talking about London, rather than Baghdad. The risk from a bomb is surely infinitesimal in any normal sense of perspective. OTOH, there is a much higher risk of being knifed in London, and I would have thought that particular risk reduced in crowds. There are, of course, times when it is probably in one's interest to go against the flow, but I am not convinced this was one of them. When some contingency of this kind arises, it is almost certainly a safer assumption these days that there has been some relevant contingency planning done in advance than that there hasn't. And therefore, counter-intuitive though it must seem at times from the perspective of one of the milling hordes, it is more likely that it will be safer to do as one is bidden than not. It seemed like a manifestation of the typical South East "keep them on the concourse and tell them at the last minute" nonsense. I guess I don't like that any more than you do, and sadly it isn't a South-East thing exclusively - indeed, didn't the SE get the idea from Blackpool ? ;-) -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683766.html (143 612 at Maesteg, 2 Jul 1999) |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Jul 13, 9:39 am, Chris Tolley wrote:
No doubt. But that does not necessarily make it the cleverest thing to do. For every circumstance in which you might foresee a more comfortable and safer existence on the platform, there is probably a converse. This is probably true. As it turned out, neither was safer, however it was more comfortable remaining on the platform with about 100 people there than joining the hordes. When the trains started to be announced, I deliberately ignored the first one out because that was where most of the hordes would be (and it fortunately went from an off- platform) and took the second, which was also from an off-platform but more easily accessible with the crowds on the concourse reduced, and on which there were plenty of seats. (What that does show is that the Silverlink operation has tons of spare capacity, which is of benefit when things go wrong as well as on a daily basis, which just shows that it *can* be done even in London and the South East if the will and money is there). It does, admittedly, say something about my personality (and the personalities of the other 99), I imagine, which is that I don't like being told what to do but I do accept reason. "Can you leave this train because we're going to send it to the depot to clear platforms for more arrivals" would have me off straight away. "Get off because we have decided to evacuate the platforms" has me questioning what's going on. Some consider that a strength, others a weakness - one thing is for sure I wouldn't ever fit in the armed forces. The operators need to consider that in their dealing with people, and they often don't. Why are you convinced it was safer? You have only mentioned "the high risk of a bomb attack at present", and when all is said and done, you were talking about London, rather than Baghdad. The risk from a bomb is surely infinitesimal in any normal sense of perspective. OTOH, there is a much higher risk of being knifed in London, and I would have thought that particular risk reduced in crowds. This is true, though I would consider Euston platforms 8-11 in the evening peak to be as an unlikely a location for a knifing as the concourse. However, unhappy, packed crowds are a lot more dangerous than no crowds in general - think football mobs. And from a pure customer service perspective, there were 8 cars of passengers who were mostly happy sitting on the train to wait which were turned into 8 cars of unhappy passengers and several hacked off members of staff who got moaned at by a good proportion of said unhappy passengers. I guess I don't like that any more than you do, and sadly it isn't a South-East thing exclusively - indeed, didn't the SE get the idea from Blackpool ? ;-) Maybe so. The fact that they normally do not do that on the Silverlink operation (as its own little island at Euston) makes its use in the evening peak far more civilised than the other operations that do do it. I hope London Midland do not change this, and I wish VT would join them and start advertising platforms as soon as the train was ready[1] rather than uniformly a few minutes before. [1] In my view "ready"="inbound passengers are off" for the Euston VT operation. It'd be far better to have passengers spread up the platform with a few waiting by each door for them to be released once cleaning was complete than it is to keep them on the concourse and have them run at the last minute. Indeed, on a different basis, one of the reasons I really like Schiphol airport is that it advertises gates as soon as they are known rather than 2 minutes beforehand. Thus, those who wish to get there early can do, which reduces queueing and the rush. Not conducive to keeping everyone in the BAA shopping centre, but a good professional way to run an airport. Neil |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message ... Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire. It didn't, however, go anywhere. Presumably because it couldn't. If, as you say, nothing was moving, then I imagine that when, on the concourse, the first train out is announced, there would be a mad rush for it (commuters being leopard-like). Lemming - like shurely? Paul |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
In message , at 10:47:26 on Fri, 13 Jul
2007, Paul Scott remarked: If, as you say, nothing was moving, then I imagine that when, on the concourse, the first train out is announced, there would be a mad rush for it (commuters being leopard-like). Lemming - like shurely? I expect so. There's not enough room in the disused lavatories for that many commuters. -- Roland Perry |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Pyromancer" wrote in message ... Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil Williams gently breathed: Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present What high risk of a bomb attack? Seriously, the risk presented by the recent, utterly incompetent attempts at "terrorism" is about the same as being struck by a falling meteor at the exact same moment you win your fourth lottery jackpot in a row. Actually its about 1 in 12 million right now. Your chance of being killed by a meteor is more, but winning the lottery four times is less :) Cheers James |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Neil Williams writes:
"Get off because we have decided to evacuate the platforms" has me questioning what's going on. especially as you were not on the platform but on a train. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On 13 Jul, 15:46, Graham Murray wrote:
Neil Williams writes: "Get off because we have decided to evacuate the platforms" has me questioning what's going on. especially as you were not on the platform but on a train. And whatever it was it wasn't the 17.24, because that was trapped on the down slow at Wembley Central. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message .. . Neil Williams wrote: It seemed like a manifestation of the typical South East "keep them on the concourse and tell them at the last minute" nonsense. I guess I don't like that any more than you do, and sadly it isn't a South-East thing exclusively - indeed, didn't the SE get the idea from Blackpool ? ;-) Yes, the excursion platforms at Blackpool Central! -- Ken Ward Join the group that puts Marine Environment before aching backs! @ |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "Chris Tolley" wrote in message ... Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire. It didn't, however, go anywhere. Presumably because it couldn't. If, as you say, nothing was moving, then I imagine that when, on the concourse, the first train out is announced, there would be a mad rush for it (commuters being leopard-like). Lemming - like shurely? It's because of the Lemmings we have to have announcement like "Mind the Gap".... -- Ken Ward Join the group that puts Marine Environment before aching backs! @ |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:07:17 -0700 someone who may be Neil Williams
wrote this:- It does, admittedly, say something about my personality (and the personalities of the other 99), I imagine, which is that I don't like being told what to do but I do accept reason. That makes you a "dangerous intellectual" to those who follow the cult of Stalin. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Ken Ward wrote:
I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the lines through was "Body parts on the platform". Presumably disconnected body parts. Body parts on the platform per se shouldn't be a reason to close a station! ;-) |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Ken Ward" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 12, 9:47 pm, (Neil Williams) I've just looked at the service disruptions on National Rail, and the last update (timed at 21.58) says that disruption is expected until 23.00, Silverlink Metro is now stopping at Harrow, but County and Southern aren't. I'm not sure what BTP's rationale was (assuming it really was them who made the decision), but without more information it would be unfair to be too critical - after all, we seldom do criticism of BTP on here, do we? I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the lines through was "Body parts on the platform". Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow. Kevin |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message ... Ken Ward wrote: I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the lines through was "Body parts on the platform". Presumably disconnected body parts. Body parts on the platform per se shouldn't be a reason to close a station! ;-) That seems not to apply at Euston though :-( -- Ken Ward Join the group that puts Marine Environment before aching backs! @ |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"zen83237" wrote in message ... I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the lines through was "Body parts on the platform". Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow. I don't have that information but, I would presume all traffic was suspended until evidence and the clean up were concluded. It is not normally accepted that BTP, Undertakers or clean up staff are expected to dodge moving trains in the course of their jobs or have commuters walking amongst them. -- Ken Ward Join the group that puts Marine Environment before aching backs! @ |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:07:17 -0700 someone who may be Neil Williams wrote this:- It does, admittedly, say something about my personality (and the personalities of the other 99), I imagine, which is that I don't like being told what to do but I do accept reason. That makes you a "dangerous intellectual" to those who follow the cult of Stalin. Or as was said on Monty Python. There's nothing more dangerous that an Intelligent Sheep! -- Ken Ward Join the group that puts Marine Environment before aching backs! @ |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incidentplanning and the BTP
Jack Taylor wrote:
Ken Ward wrote: I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the lines through was "Body parts on the platform". Presumably disconnected body parts. Body parts on the platform per se shouldn't be a reason to close a station! ;-) Well, if it's a good enough reason to close a motorway for six hours, why not spread the grief! -- Moving things in still pictures! |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Neil Williams" wrote About an hour later, an announcement was made that platforms 8-11 would be closed and that people should return to the concourse. This was said to be due to dangerous overcrowding, which was not evident from where I was sitting. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. It didn't, however, go anywhere. I can think of some good reasons why a train which has been indefinitely delayed at its starting point should be cleared and locked out of use. Unfortunately the reason you were given was not one of them - so if they had a good reason they should have told you the truth and acted firmly but politely to clear the train. The train crew may have been running out of hours - unless another crew had been assigned to take over they would have to shut down and secure the train. Control may have wished to recover the service by running the first train able to leave fast to, say, Milton Keynes - so it wouldn't be overwhelmed by hordes for all stations along the line, who could have been directed to a second train a few minutes later. They wouldn't want there to be passengers on the train for intermediate stations, who may miss announcements, or who may wish to try to leave the platform as a full trainload are trying to join the train. Peter |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:43:45 +0100, "zen83237"
wrote: Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow. A report I have seen says the Up Main - the person was under a Virgin train. No idea what platform number that is but I'm sure someone else on group does know. -- Paul C |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
In reply to news post, which Peter Masson
wrote on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 - Control may have wished to recover the service by running the first train able to leave fast to, say, Milton Keynes - so it wouldn't be overwhelmed by hordes for all stations along the line, who could have been directed to a second train a few minutes later. They wouldn't want there to be passengers on the train for intermediate stations, who may miss announcements, or who may wish to try to leave the platform as a full trainload are trying to join the train. I was on the 17:58 from MKC to Euston. The staff at MKC warned of delays, but we shot along to just past Hemel when we stopped. We were held for about an hour. The driver told us there was a fatality at Harrow and all lines were blocked. He advised we were to Terminate at Watford as all trains were, but we had to wait to get into the station. I was making my plan to get to Watford Met as the train moved from the fast to the slow and went into Watford, everyone stood up to get off, but the driver said he had been given the all clear and we then shot on at line speed to Euston. Our train was not full, there were two Virgin trains at Watford and many people on platform 9 which we passed, I bet they were "please" we did not stop to pick them up, I know I would have been annoyed, especially as we slowed right down to go through Watford -- Matthew P Jones www.ThisIsAmersham.com www.amersham.org.uk www.metroland.org.uk Don't reply directly it will not be read. You can reply to knap AT Nildram then dot co then dot uk |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Matthew P Jones" wrote He advised we were to Terminate at Watford as all trains were, but we had to wait to get into the station. I was making my plan to get to Watford Met as the train moved from the fast to the slow and went into Watford, everyone stood up to get off, but the driver said he had been given the all clear and we then shot on at line speed to Euston. Our train was not full, there were two Virgin trains at Watford and many people on platform 9 which we passed, I bet they were "please" we did not stop to pick them up, I know I would have been annoyed, especially as we slowed right down to go through Watford What you couldn't have known is whether there were full trains behind yours booked fast to Euston, whose passengers would not have been pleased to have to stop behind yours while it picked up at Watford, or trains close behind yours booked to call at Watford which could equally well pick up passengers off terminated trains. Peter |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... "Matthew P Jones" wrote What you couldn't have known is whether there were full trains behind yours booked fast to Euston, whose passengers would not have been pleased to have to stop behind yours while it picked up at Watford, or trains close behind yours booked to call at Watford which could equally well pick up passengers off terminated trains. Peter When did the TOCs give any thought to how pleased the passengers would be. More likely they were thinking about the cost of stopping at the station. Simon |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:29:10 -0700, mikestone
wrote: And whatever it was it wasn't the 17.24, because that was trapped on the down slow at Wembley Central. Thinking about it it was probably the 17:54. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:32:36 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote: Control may have wished to recover the service by running the first train able to leave fast to, say, Milton Keynes - so it wouldn't be overwhelmed by hordes for all stations along the line, who could have been directed to a second train a few minutes later. They wouldn't want there to be passengers on the train for intermediate stations, who may miss announcements, or who may wish to try to leave the platform as a full trainload are trying to join the train. What actually happened was that the train concerned ended up as the 1936 (I think) all stops to Tring, which is the only one[1] that was no use to me! That said, it was still no reason why it needed locking OOU, and I'm fairly sure that sets do remain with doors open at Euston with no traincrews on board. (The usual approach at EUS for SS services is not to lock anything out of use - it's advertised and available for boarding as soon as it comes in). [1] My season is MKC-EUS but I normally travel from Bletchley. As I'm not paying for it I kept it as that because it gives me the flexibility to take a VT or SS fast and double back if that would be useful, which had the train concerned been fast to MK (or Bletchley, as I thought more likely) I would have taken regardless. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
simon wrote:
When did the TOCs give any thought to how pleased the passengers would be. More likely they were thinking about the cost of stopping at the station. Thanks to Mr Major's vision of the railways, the latter is deemed to be the method of measuring the former. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12198542.html (66 027 at Winwick, 23 Feb 2005) |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Ken Ward wrote:
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message .. . Neil Williams wrote: It seemed like a manifestation of the typical South East "keep them on the concourse and tell them at the last minute" nonsense. I guess I don't like that any more than you do, and sadly it isn't a South-East thing exclusively - indeed, didn't the SE get the idea from Blackpool ? ;-) Yes, the excursion platforms at Blackpool Central! Well, then. there's a lesson from history. It's a coach park now, innit? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486557.html (50 030 at Rowsley, 22 Apr 2005) |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Neil Williams wrote:
Maybe so. The fact that they normally do not do that on the Silverlink operation (as its own little island at Euston) makes its use in the evening peak far more civilised than the other operations that do do it. I hope London Midland do not change this, and I wish VT would join them and start advertising platforms as soon as the train was ready[1] rather than uniformly a few minutes before. [1] In my view "ready"="inbound passengers are off" for the Euston VT operation. Nah, you've got to give them time to do the outbound reservations thing as well. On my recent ride from Euston to Crewe, we were able to board 25 minutes before departure, which was most civilised. I don't know how long the train had been standing there, though. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589932.html (08 269 at Stratford Depot, 11 Jul 1981) |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:14:47 GMT someone who may be "Ken Ward"
wrote this:- I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the lines through was "Body parts on the platform". Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow. I don't have that information but, I would presume all traffic was suspended until evidence and the clean up were concluded. Most stations with several platforms, including this one, have buildings over part of the length of the platforms which will restrict the spread and will also screen the clear up operation, provided of course that the person was struck where the buildings are. Thus it may be possible for trains to initially run through the station on other lines and later on call at some of the platforms when suitable arrangements have been made. Whether this was possible or not we don't know. The fact that it was not done is not conclusive proof that it was not possible. It is not normally accepted that BTP, Undertakers or clean up staff are expected to dodge moving trains in the course of their jobs or have commuters walking amongst them. Nobody has suggested this. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:33:31 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote: Nah, you've got to give them time to do the outbound reservations thing as well. They could do that while passengers queue by the locked doors, having given them chance to spread out along the train. That's how it would work at most other non-South-East terminals. On my recent ride from Euston to Crewe, we were able to board 25 minutes before departure, which was most civilised. I don't know how long the train had been standing there, though. That seems quite unusually early. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
In reply to news post, which Peter Masson
wrote on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 - "Matthew P Jones" wrote What you couldn't have known is whether there were full trains behind yours booked fast to Euston, whose passengers would not have been pleased to have to stop behind yours while it picked up at Watford, or trains close behind yours booked to call at Watford which could equally well pick up passengers off terminated trains. Indeed, I don't, I do know a slow train passed us before we got into Watford. We were not booked to stop at Watford, but we were lightly loaded so one wonders if there was an option to use our train to clear passengers from Watford. No matter, I still reckon the passengers at Watford would have been annoyed as we slowed almost to a stop before accelerating away. -- Matthew P Jones www.ThisIsAmersham.com www.amersham.org.uk www.metroland.org.uk Don't reply directly it will not be read. You can reply to knap AT Nildram then dot co then dot uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk