| Non-motoring > Who'd be a train company? | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Harleyman | Replies: 27 |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 00:19
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
For all their much-reported failings, there are times when I feel sorry for firms like Network Rail. It's a given that maintenance has to be done on the railway, and that permanent way is in fact anything but. It's also, to my mind, sensible to plan this maintenance to be carried out at times when such work will cause minimum disruption to businesses, both freight and passenger, and the two-day window over Christmas has to be that ideal time. For as long as I can remember, there have been no train services on either Christmas Day or Boxing Day; yet I'm still encountering people whining about this because it makes their journey across London, to watch a vitally important football match, somewhat more difficult. That's right; not impossible, just more difficult. Another given is that in any major civil engineering project where time is of the essence, something will go wrong; the best-laid plans of MICE and men in fact. There will undoubtedly follow a great hue and cry about how appalling these civil engineers are, and how dare they shut the railway for another day. People might miss out on the sales, you know; scandalous. It's Saturday after all, another normal working day in the City....... isn't it? This fuss goes on every year, without blooming fail. I do wish that the directors of Network Rail would have the guts to turn round and say, "Listen you lot. If we're gonna fix this railway properly we need to shut it. So you lot shut it too". I'm convinced that some people use public transport in the singular hope that they might be inconvenienced. Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 27 Dec 14 at 01:11
|
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 00:31
Who'd be a train company? - CGNorwich
|
|
"I'm convinced that some people use public transport in the singular hope that they might be inconvenienced." If you use the Norwich Liverpool street line there is no need to hope. It's an absolute certainty that you will be inconvenienced on an almost daily basis. No trains at Christmas is the least of the problems. Train on Monday was 2 hours late (overhead line damage. Train the week before was cancelled and next one only had half the usual number of carriages. Network Rail are an absolute joke. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 00:52
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
Shortage of carriages or non-arrival of train due to cancellation is not the fault of Network Rail but that of the TOC. If overhead lines get damaged they have to be repaired, obviously, or you get no trains at all. It's not a five minute fix either. I'm fully aware that the rail system is a long way from being perfect. I simply get very exasperated when I read some of the public's reactions to a situation where they're evidently doing their best to improve things. I know also that Network Rail have done themselves few favours in the past, but really they do seem to be on a hiding to nothing. The public get more than enough warning about these kind of works yet to read some of the complaints you'd think nobody had even said a single word about them! Remember Dawlish Warren? Twas the same "joke" Network Rail who organised that repair job too. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 08:39
Who'd be a train company? - Bromptonaut
|
|
There's a massive hue and cry over this. Kings Cross is London's busiest station according to one newspaper. It's not, that's Waterloo. In terms of the capital's 'Inter City' stations Euston and Paddington carry more. The really big numbers of course are at stations south of river that handle massive daily commuter flows - a job done by the tube in north London. Nationally LKX is 9th, with Birmingham NS at 8th. It only handles about 10% more passengers than Leeds City. Services WILL operate but starting/terminating at Finsbury Park. That's the next station, two stops up the line on the tube. Unlike repairs round here nobody spends an hour on a bus. 'The Park' will probably struggle as a terminus station but there's capacity for a 'reduced saturday' service. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 27 Dec 14 at 08:42
|
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 09:19
Who'd be a train company? - Stuartli
|
|
>> Train on Monday was 2 hours late (overhead line damage. Train the week before was cancelled and next one only had half the usual number of carriages. Network Rail are an absolute joke. >> Hardly the fault of Network Rail that overhead line damage delayed your train. Presumably it was repaired ASAP as a result of its efforts? Worth a reminder of what Network Rail's role is all about: www.networkrail.co.uk/about-us/ |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 09:36
Who'd be a train company? - CGNorwich
|
| Network rail blame the train companies. The train companies blame Network Rail and they both blame the government and demand more subsidies and the poor old passenger pays through the nose for appalling service. It's a total shambles |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 09:54
Who'd be a train company? - Zero
|
|
>> Hardly the fault of Network Rail that overhead line damage delayed your train. Yes it is. The Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) is owned and maintained by Network Rail. The catenary usually gets tangled with a passing pantograph because it has become out of spec. it becomes out of spec because it was thrown up on the cheap was the railway was nationalised. Last edited by: Zero on Sat 27 Dec 14 at 09:54
|
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 09:49
Who'd be a train company? - Zero
|
|
>> For all their much-reported failings, there are times when I feel sorry for firms like >> Network Rail. They planned a 48 hour window to do the Kings Cross / East Coast work. - That included contingency. Now they need another 24 hours - thats a 50% project overrun usually not seen in civil engineering projects, even in the UK, but often, very often, on Notwork Fail. Project overruns are common, currently running at over 40% of projects, a record that would get project teams sacked in any other industry. To claim it merely inconveniences those "going to the sales" is pathetically trite, huge amounts of TOC revenue will be lost, revenue that has to be paid by NR to the TOCs in the form of fines, The ECML is a vital artery, and its true little impact will be to business travellers, but families trying to get home will be badly inconvenienced. To be fair, NR (as opposed to their predecessor Railtrack, who were criminally dangerous, irresponsible, corrupt and lethal) do a generally good day to day job with the ageing underfunded infrastructure they inherited, a stark advert of the glory of Nationalised Industries at its worse. The Dawlish recovery was a triumph, and as an organisation they now have an incredible open and commercial attitude, such that I can (and have obtained) access to their IT systems for all manner of operational activities and data. They have carried out a large infrastructure project at Reading, moving the railway, moving roads, moving the station, putting in high speed overpasses, all with with minimum unplanned disruption. They do however, with a matter of some urgency need to sort out some of their their project teams. specifically those employed in the London and North Eastern Region who are usually those who fail most often. (Yes NR is regionalised and Yes there still is an LNER) |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 10:01
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
>> To claim it merely inconveniences those "going to the sales" is pathetically trite, huge amounts >> of TOC revenue will be lost, revenue that has to be paid by NR to >> the TOCs in the form of fines, The ECML is a vital artery, and its >> true little impact will be to business travellers, but families trying to get home will >> be badly inconvenienced. >> The point I'm making is that the possibility of delay was known about by the travelling public well in advance, and if they don't have the mental capacity to remember what has happened in every previous year and then work out that this one's going to be bigger with consequently far more chance of cock-up and late finishing, then IMO they damn well deserve to sit on the platforms and freeze. Fail to plan, plan to fail is the old adage and that applies just as much to customers as to the railways. I hear similar crap every time airports get hit by bad weather; it happens FFS, get over it. To be fair, NR (as opposed to their predecessor Railtrack, who were criminally dangerous, irresponsible, >> corrupt and lethal) do a generally good day to day job with the ageing underfunded >> infrastructure they inherited, a stark advert of the glory of Nationalised Industries at its worse. >> The Dawlish recovery was a triumph... Indeed. The public have very short and selective memories when they're even mildly inconvenienced. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 10:10
Who'd be a train company? - CGNorwich
|
|
If your attitude to paying customers is typical then Network Rail has even bigger problems than I imagined. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 10:24
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
>> If your attitude to paying customers is typical then Network Rail has even bigger problems >> than I imagined. >> CG, I accept that there are parts of the network which need far more work than others, and your own line is a case in point. I do however get tired of people blaming the operating companies (be they airlines, railways, buses or taxis) for things which they themselves should have taken into account when planned their journeys. It's not as if this is a one-off event; this maintenance goes on over the Christmas holiday every damn year, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. I'm not a regular rail user it has to be said, but I do use trains at times and I can only remember one occasion when I experienced any kind of delay; that when someone had decided to jump under a train somewhere in Berkshire a couple of years ago which halved the regular service for a morning on FGW. Thankfully I'd planned me journey to allow for an extra hour in London so I had plenty of leeway to catch my Eurostar to Paris. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 10:58
Who'd be a train company? - CGNorwich
|
|
"I do however get tired of people blaming the operating companies (be they airlines, railways, buses or taxis) for things which they themselves should have taken into account when planned their journeys. It's not as if this is a one-off event; this maintenance goes on over the Christmas holiday every damn year, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone." If it happens regularly, which it does with monotonous regularity, then the company should surely make more realistic estimations of the time it takes to complete works. To sell tickets for a journey which is likely to be impossible in the vague hope that the work might just be completed in time is downright irresponsible if not fraudulent. And its not the rail companies job to judge whether or not their customers journeys are necessary. They are selling a service, not doing us a favour. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 11:12
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
>> If it happens regularly, which it does with monotonous regularity, then the company should surely >> make more realistic estimations of the time it takes to complete works. OK. This year we had an ideal opportunity for a four-day shutdown (two public holidays followed by a weekend) to really get some serious work done but can you imagine the fuss if they had? I'd also suggest that the public needs to be a little more realistic in its expectations. Zero has quite rightly pointed out that NR is doing a lot of good work and started from a very low base in terms of infrastructure quality. It's neither quick nor cheap and if people want a modern railway they're going to have to put up with this kind of inconvenience until it's actually installed. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 10:18
Who'd be a train company? - Zero
|
|
>> The point I'm making is that the possibility of delay was known about by the >> travelling public well in advance, and if they don't have the mental capacity to remember >> what has happened in every previous year and then work out that this one's going >> to be bigger with consequently far more chance of cock-up and late finishing, then IMO >> they damn well deserve to sit on the platforms and freeze. If a company states that a service will be unavailable from x to y the public have every right to expect the service to be available on Z. Surely the "mental capacity" problem lies with Network Rail who should document their previous failures and have learned from them and had the sense to incorporate that on future projects, don't you think? Its not the publics job to second guess. The TOC's who rostered stock and paid crews to run on that day must be similarly suffering from the "mental capacity" block as well then. Fail to plan, plan >> to fail is the old adage Indeed, one that NR failed to accept. >> and that applies just as much to customers Never. Ok you can plan for a missed train, but should never have to accept a 24 hour blanket overrun. >> I hear similar crap every time airports get hit by bad weather; >> it happens FFS, get over it. Different argument. The airports don't shut down for 48 hours planned work, when was the last time you heard of an airport shut down for an extra 24 hours to install lights or re tarmac? The snow argument is simple, we don't deal with snow because usually we don't have to, and if you wanted us to be able to you would have to play 50% more for your flight. Last edited by: Zero on Sat 27 Dec 14 at 10:22
|
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 10:31
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
The service is available; however it's more on buses than on trains. That does not mean no service as the media are reporting. You may not have to accept it, but you should have the foresight, based on previous experience, to reasonably assume that there's a possibility of it happening and plan accordingly. You yourself see far more of the railway at close quarters than I do, so you must know how much work goes into these possessions, and how easy it is for one small cog of the machine to fail. For example, a hydraulic failure on a mobile crane; it's down for only an hour, but that knocks onto the next job, etc. With the best will in the world, and indeed the best planning, stuff happens. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 10:41
Who'd be a train company? - Zero
|
|
>> You yourself see far more of the railway at close quarters than I do, >> so you must know how much work goes into these possessions, and how easy it >> is for one small cog of the machine to fail. For example, a hydraulic failure >> on a mobile crane; it's down for only an hour, but that knocks onto the >> next job, etc. With the best will in the world, and indeed the best planning, >> stuff happens. Indeed, I have developed a good understanding of the railway at close quarters, including engineering possessions as well as emergency engineering work and restrictions. As an ex project manager and service manager (not civil infrastructure granted) I also have an insight into the project process, root cause analysis and customer expectations. As I said one thing stands out. Some regions get the plaudits, and some fail with monotonous regularity. The higher echelons of NR should have worked this out by now. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 15:07
Who'd be a train company? - Ambo
|
|
>> >> I hear similar crap every time airports get hit by bad weather It doesn't take much - "Less than an inch falls but flights and trains are cancelled" as The Telegraph reported on December 6th 2012. |
|
Sat 27 Dec 14 22:34
Who'd be a train company? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> It doesn't take much - "Less than an inch falls but flights and trains are >> cancelled" as The Telegraph reported on December 6th 2012. An inch of wet snow/slush on a runway is a big problem affecting both braking action and take off performance. Sweeping it off takes time. Even our less used airports are susceptible to diversions in such cases; holding fuel is limited. East Midalnds was diverting early yesterday eveninig as was Liverpool and (later) Leeds Bradford. At Heathrow or Gatwick where runway utilisation in peak is close to 100% ANY loss of availability is going to result in cancellations. |
|
Sun 28 Dec 14 10:11
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
>> >> An inch of wet snow/slush on a runway is a big problem affecting both braking >> action and take off performance. Sweeping it off takes time. >> Z disagreed with me earlier when I likened this to the train delays; but surely the point is that just like the Christmas railway shutdown this happens every year and to listen to folk wailing about it you'd think it was a once in a lifetime phenomenon. |
|
Sun 28 Dec 14 10:52
Who'd be a train company? - Zero
|
|
>> Z disagreed with me earlier when I likened this to the train delays; Didn't disagree that snow was an issue at Airports. It also has known mitigation, but that which is deemed too costly for the benefit so nothing is done about it. Were that cost benefit ratio to change - something would be done. >> the point is that just like the Christmas railway shutdown this happens every year and >> to listen to folk wailing about it you'd think it was a once in a >> lifetime phenomenon. Indeed, every year, so you would have thought that they would be able to do it right by now wouldn't you. It was a 60 hour full line possession, that incurred a 16 hour overrun (thats a physical 25% overrun) due to late arrival of a large kirow crane from another job and problems isolating the OHLE. The problem on Saturday were further compounded by the fact that Finsbury Park does not have the track capacity or passenger capacity to act as a temporary terminus, causing line backups and stock location issues in the following days. Clearly the isolation could have been tested in the early hours of the previous night, the crane could have been pre positioned earlier, and a some from of overrun recovery plan could have been in place with service termination staggered up the line. Services could have been diverted to other london termini, except we have poor track linkage capacity between termini, and drivers are not signed off on the routes. Drivers not being certified on diversionary routes is becoming a big issue. This one is firmly in the hands of the TOCs who wont invest in the required training. |
|
Sun 28 Dec 14 11:04
Who'd be a train company? - Harleyman
|
|
Thanks for the clarification on the circumstances Z; Network rail could perhaps have saved themselves a lot of grief by being a bit more up-front with the facts. I'd have bet good money on a crane being involved somewhere in the mix though. I do agree regarding the problem of driver route learning; something which ironically was much less of a problem under a nationalised railway. Problem with Finsbury Park is of course that it is a major interchange in its own right. Whilst trains are running through it it's fine but as you say it's not suited to being a terminus, they only needed to read O.S. Nock's history of the GNR to suss that one out. |
|
Mon 29 Dec 14 09:52
Who'd be a train company? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Clearly the isolation could have been tested in the early hours of the previous night, >> the crane could have been pre positioned earlier, and a some from of overrun recovery >> plan could have been in place with service termination staggered up the line. There will be full reports to the Regulator and to Ministers. No doubt, albeit with 20/20 hindsight, those who organised the work will be criticised and some careers kebabbed. A good starting point though will be the 'Informed Sources' column in February's Modern Railways. Roger Ford was one of the first with the facts after the Rugby overrun a few years ago. The ORR report on that and other problems over same weekend (New Year 2008) is here: orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2068/352.pdf An issue there was shortage of skilled people. No mention of that here but I'd not be surprised if the late arrival of the crane was due to it's being later than planned off another job. Isolation not working is deeply worrying though; it's something that often has to be done immediately in an emergency. Any contingency that involved buses was going to be affected by the holidays and the number already in use at other works, particularly the long planned Watford blockade. >> Services could have been diverted to other london termini, except we have poor track linkage >> capacity between termini, and drivers are not signed off on the routes. Longer distance diversions (Eg sending West Yorkshire traffic via St PAncras and Sheffield) are hampered by requiring co-operation of other TOCs. During the MK rebuild previous Midland operator refused to take Northampton traffic at Wellingborough requiring bustitution for a whole fortnight. >> Drivers not being certified on diversionary routes is becoming a big issue. This one is >> firmly in the hands of the TOCs who wont invest in the required training. Indeed. London Midland's driver shortages a few years ago were in part due to 'poaching' by Cross-Country who did little training themselves. |
|
Sun 28 Dec 14 10:46
Who'd be a train company? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Different argument. The airports don't shut down for 48 hours planned work, when was the >> last time you heard of an airport shut down for an extra 24 hours to >> install lights or re tarmac? Bananas and elephants. An airfield, by definition, is surrounded by open space. Loads of room for people to work on the runway's periphery and there's scope to lose taxi routes one at a time even if need to back track runway impacts capacity. Nothing unusual though about closing segments of runway for work with declared lengths reduced. There's a lengthy AAIB report somewhere regarding a near miss when Manchester was operating under such constraints. Compare that with working on Victorain infrastructure where even now exact details of construction are not fully documented. East coast wiring was not first job done on cheap either. Take Ledburn Junction on the WCML, which as Z will know is key to integrating long and medium distance services for the first/last 40 miles out of London. Because the Victorians built it on the cheap, with insufficient space between some sets of rails, much engineering in area requires possession of all four tracks. Birmingham' s recent runway extension was significantly late in delivery. In fact I don't think the full suite of improvements surrounding the project are in place now. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 28 Dec 14 at 10:46
|
|
Sun 28 Dec 14 10:55
Who'd be a train company? - Zero
|
|
>> Compare that with working on Victorain infrastructure where even now exact details of construction are >> not fully documented. East coast wiring was not first job done on cheap either. Take >> Ledburn Junction on the WCML, which as Z will know is key to integrating long >> and medium distance services for the first/last 40 miles out of London. Because the Victorians >> built it on the cheap, with insufficient space between some sets of rails, much engineering >> in area requires possession of all four tracks. Which is why we need HS2, not for the speed but for the capacity. Be no under no illusions - we will build that "on the cheap" as well. Last edited by: Zero on Sun 28 Dec 14 at 10:55
|
|
Sun 28 Dec 14 17:34
Who'd be a train company? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> There's a lengthy AAIB report somewhere regarding a near miss when Manchester was operating under >>such constraints. This one: www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/3-2006%20G-XLAG.pdf Reading it makes the blood run cold so near were two accidents. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 28 Dec 14 at 17:36
|
|
Mon 12 Jan 15 17:40
Who'd be a train company? - Zero
|
|
The report on the delay. www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=8712&SizeId=-1 |
|
Wed 14 Jan 15 14:19
Who'd be a train company? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The report on the delay. >> >> www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=8712&SizeId=-1 Interesting read Z. Thanks for posting. The link above has stopped working. Now at tinyurl.com/lpvveue The only difference in the long URL is id the ID= number. Presumably they'verepublished it on the site for some reason. If it moves around again it's accessible from www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk Paddington looks very much like negligence or incompetence with signal testing and associated paperwork. The KX one is more interesting; classic 'one thing on another'. Starts with a delay in getting the OHLE isolated and certificated as such but that should have been recoverable. Not much in report about late arrival of a crane but there were certainly equipment failures. Main amongst these were constant breakdowns of (new and untested) 'log grabs' used to load scrap rails, sleepers etc onto trains for carting away. By time that was done the job 4hrs+ plus adrift. There was still an opportunity to recover, albeit impacting on long term durability of new track, by reducing the scope of the works to partial rather than complete replacement of ballast. That option was rejected even though criteria for doing so were only met using contingency. It finally went irrevocably t*ts up when further delay due to two badly loaded waste trains resulted in a domino effect of drivers being 'out of hours'. Plans were then made, using a standard contingency plan for KX being isolated, to run services from Finsbury Park. The plan had one platform for long distance arrivals and another for departures with trains being shunted from one to other, probably being cleaned and serviced at same time. Staff and signallers at Finsbury Park ignored that with result that trains arrived on a platform already packed with departing passengers. As I suspected, any attempt to use buses to mitigate impact was stuffed - there were none available. The perennial and seemingly insoluble problem during major disruption, lack of accurate and consistent passenger information, further complicated the issue. In the end pretty much everybody got away but many of them on grossly overcrowded trains and many hours late. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 14 Jan 15 at 14:20
|
|
Wed 14 Jan 15 15:11
Who'd be a train company? - Bromptonaut
|
|
The transport select committee was today grilling the C/Ex and Operations managers of Network Rail: www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16946&wfs=true |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
