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.

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

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

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?

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:14:35 -0000,
wrote:

When you finally got going, which line did you use through Harrow?

The down fast. From where I was sitting I couldn't see anything
blocking the slows, though I couldn't see the DC lines at all as I was
on the wrong side of the train to do so. I can only assume that
evidence was moved to a suitable location on the station which
resulted in it remaining closed, or that evidence had been
"distributed", as it were, about the station a bit much for it to
reopen immediately.

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 just opened it for discussion as it seemed to be a classic case of
preventing the platforms getting too full - only they *weren't* too
full, the concourse was! It was also relevant that the people sitting
on the train were quite happy there (and were kept up to date by
announcements which could be heard fairly well), and turfing everybody
off just resulted in each member of staff getting a gobful from
several of them.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

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.

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)

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.

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

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!