ECML Disruption 02/11 - Huntingdon / Edinburgh

[NorthEastern]

Isn’t the heart of this the ongoing removal of backup and isolation systems and locations ? For example Glasgow is in some ways luckier in there being 2 major unconnected terminus stations, so when there is a failure at one there is the possibility of going somewhere from another. Much discussion in this thread of the various options for northbound travellers from other London termini.

However, as “Joe Public” it is hard to understand why there isn’t the possibility of for example passing control of a single locked section - for example into Edinburgh Park or even Platform 0 at Haymarket - to another control location to allow shuttle working or some form of service resilience (given the interaction with the trams at both of those places).

Obviously the answer is all in one way or another “money” - but as others have said, the language used in the “Do not travel” warnings sometimes seems to suggest lots of holidaymakers who will simply lay down their suitcases and pop back when the railway is ready for them, rather than for the vast majority who find themselves living and working routinely long distances from their home, and who really need a solution as to what they will do that night. Even cities such as Edinburgh cannot possibly absorb all the passengers on all routes from 4.30pm onwards in hotels etc. I wonder whether citylink had resource to double up any of the journeys on the 900 …

It also begs the question when all those nasty dirty diesel trains are removed from the network …. What then for those poor folks at Huntingdon ?

On the subject of the 900 bus, a colleague told me that she knew of some people in Edinburgh who had to wait 4 hours to catch a 900 back to Glasgow on Thursday evening. I don’t know if any extra buses were actually laid on.

 

[notverydeep]

Isn’t the heart of this the ongoing removal of backup and isolation systems and locations ? For example Glasgow is in some ways luckier in there being 2 major unconnected terminus stations, so when there is a failure at one there is the possibility of going somewhere from another. Much discussion in this thread of the various options for northbound travellers from other London termini.

However, as “Joe Public” it is hard to understand why there isn’t the possibility of for example passing control of a single locked section - for example into Edinburgh Park or even Platform 0 at Haymarket - to another control location to allow shuttle working or some form of service resilience (given the interaction with the trams at both of those places).

Obviously the answer is all in one way or another “money” - but as others have said, the language used in the “Do not travel” warnings sometimes seems to suggest lots of holidaymakers who will simply lay down their suitcases and pop back when the railway is ready for them, rather than for the vast majority who find themselves living and working routinely long distances from their home, and who really need a solution as to what they will do that night. Even cities such as Edinburgh cannot possibly absorb all the passengers on all routes from 4.30pm onwards in hotels etc. I wonder whether citylink had resource to double up any of the journeys on the 900 …

It also begs the question when all those nasty dirty diesel trains are removed from the network …. What then for those poor folks at Huntingdon ?

It also begs the question, what the use of all those ‘donkey engines’ that added weight and cost to the 800 series trains was, if it wasn’t to get around situations like this one…?

 

[thejuggler]

Having submitted my refund claim I can say that LNER are well on the ball as the refund has already been approved and processed.

 

[dk1]

Having submitted my refund claim I can say that LNER are well on the ball as the refund has already been approved and processed.

With all the disruption in the last week I’d imagine they a past checking or caring if having to do it manually and just say “pay it, pay it, pay it” in most cases.

 

[zwk500]

It also begs the question, what the use of all those ‘donkey engines’ that added weight and cost to the 800 series trains was, if it wasn’t to get around situations like this one…?

It's worth pointing out that as the Edinburgh issue was signalling, not power, the traction type makes no difference.

For the single point of failure criticism - it's a fair one, but how often does something like this happen, and does that justify maintaining a decentralised railway? Equally, you'd have still had a box responsible for the Edinburgh area even if you broke it down a bit more, and if that had a major power failure knocking it out it'd have been of little benefit to be able to run trains a few stations further on.

 

[DunsBus]

On the subject of the 900 bus, a colleague told me that she knew of some people in Edinburgh who had to wait 4 hours to catch a 900 back to Glasgow on Thursday evening. I don’t know if any extra buses were actually laid on.

I had to chuckle at the advice being given to catch local buses. Anyone heading to Berwick would have been sunk as the last bus to there leaves Edinburgh at 6pm.

 

[notverydeep]

It's worth pointing out that as the Edinburgh issue was signalling, not power, the traction type makes no difference.

Indeed, I was thinking more of the Peterborough to Huntingdon OLE issue, which I was slightly affected by, rather than the Edinburgh failure…

 

[800001]

Indeed, I was thinking more of the Peterborough to Huntingdon OLE issue, which I was slightly affected by, rather than the Edinburgh failure…

The line was blocked! Ohl
Damage, bits hanging down, and 2 trapped trains (Thameslinks).

 

[notverydeep]

The line was blocked! Ohl
Damage, bits hanging down, and 2 trapped trains (Thameslinks).

Absolutely, my point is simply that the donkey engines were not really worth the extra cost, complexity and energy use, because even in the incidents their proponents had in mind, in practice they don’t really help…!

 

[TreacleMiller]

Absolutely, my point is simply that the donkey engines were not really worth the extra cost, complexity and energy use, because even in the incidents their proponents had in mind, in practice they don’t really help…!

Except they do....

The 19:00 that left KX on 1/11 was on the Donkey through the OLE damaged section. Would have cancelled otherwise.

There are also Depot moves that involve using it due to unwired shunts or departure lanes.

The Donkey has got me out of at least two failures in the last 12 months, so their value is there.

 

[notverydeep]

Except they do....

The 19:00 that left KX on 1/11 was on the Donkey through the OLE damaged section. Would have cancelled otherwise.

There are also Depot moves that involve using it due to unwired shunts or departure lanes.

The Donkey has got me out of at least two failures in the last 12 months, so their value is there.

Fair enough. Looking at the signalling map throughout the Huntingdon incident it seemed to me that little use had been made of this capability, but I am happy to be corrected…

 

[zwk500]

Fair enough. Looking at the signalling map throughout the Huntingdon incident it seemed to me that little use had been made of this capability, but I am happy to be corrected…

You do have to balance it against the need to make the line safe, and then you have to get the trains with said capability to the damaged area. But the donkey engines have come in rather handy on a number of occassions, and 1 incident unable to maximise use would not devalue them (although there's an argument they should be looking to replace it with batteries soon given the uses they have seen).

 

[TreacleMiller]

You do have to balance it against the need to make the line safe, and then you have to get the trains with said capability to the damaged area. But the donkey engines have come in rather handy on a number of occassions, and 1 incident unable to maximise use would not devalue them (although there's an argument they should be looking to replace it with batteries soon given the uses they have seen).

There is talk of batteries being added to the 801 fleet in addition to the single generating unit they already have. Not by the TOC but by Hitachi. Apparently there's an option in the design to convert to full bi-mode operation or a large battery system. That's off topic mind you.

 

[Deepgreen]

And also a railway where a lot less people are being killed every year by trains running into the back of eachother.

Yes, of course, but the risk-aversion goes far beyond safety - it goes to commercial savings from avoiding delays when an excuse exists to down tools. The NDL was a classic case - the whole line closed for the day when a moderate breeze occurred (not exaggerating - I live here) and with no obstructions actually reported as far as I could find, forcing many onto the roads in very wet conditions - far more likely to incur acccidents than the railway running.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, of course, but the risk-aversion goes far beyond safety - it goes to commercial savings from avoiding delays when an excuse exists to down tools. The NDL was a classic case - the whole line closed for the day when a moderate breeze occurred (not exaggerating - I live here) and with no obstructions actually reported as far as I could find, forcing many onto the roads in very wet conditions - far more likely to incur acccidents than the railway running.

Do you have any evidence that decision making is being based on commercial decisions and not the railway's duty of care? Remembering that the Railway is not responsible for how displaced passengers drive on the roads.

 

[Jozhua]

The railway is becoming more and more fragile as technology makes trains ever more delicate, and railway and non-railway infrastructure which should be robust appears not to be. As a crude comparison, in the steam age, mechanical signalling was more or less immune to the weather and trains which did not rely on any external power source (and which were simple to operate and repair) pushed through almost anything, but that resilience to external factors has steadily ebbed away. On top of all that, there is now the corporate risk-aversion that sees whole routes closed as a precaution against possible severe weather, whether that materialises or not. The net effect is a railway that now probably has the lowest resilience in its history.

And also a railway where a lot less people are being killed every year by trains running into the back of eachother.

Risk aversion is good when it comes to avoiding incidents like Stonehaven from happening again. That's no good for anyone.

I understand when the network has to close sections of track for repair, or reduce speeds due to flooding (essentially proceed at caution), but outright telling people not to travel is probably not going to do anything. Especially given the backdrop of regular strikes and the fact they do these "do not travel" warnings multiple times across the year (or twice in a month in this case)!

Isn’t the heart of this the ongoing removal of backup and isolation systems and locations ? For example Glasgow is in some ways luckier in there being 2 major unconnected terminus stations, so when there is a failure at one there is the possibility of going somewhere from another. Much discussion in this thread of the various options for northbound travellers from other London termini.

However, as “Joe Public” it is hard to understand why there isn’t the possibility of for example passing control of a single locked section - for example into Edinburgh Park or even Platform 0 at Haymarket - to another control location to allow shuttle working or some form of service resilience (given the interaction with the trams at both of those places).

Obviously the answer is all in one way or another “money” - but as others have said, the language used in the “Do not travel” warnings sometimes seems to suggest lots of holidaymakers who will simply lay down their suitcases and pop back when the railway is ready for them, rather than for the vast majority who find themselves living and working routinely long distances from their home, and who really need a solution as to what they will do that night. Even cities such as Edinburgh cannot possibly absorb all the passengers on all routes from 4.30pm onwards in hotels etc. I wonder whether citylink had resource to double up any of the journeys on the 900 …

It also begs the question when all those nasty dirty diesel trains are removed from the network …. What then for those poor folks at Huntingdon ?

This lastest trip I made during a "do not travel" was discretionary, but I decided to check the trains were running and take the risk. It wasn't great, but I got where I needed to go. The trip prior, I was on business in London and there was no warning when I left in the morning (around 6am), but when I was returning at around 7/8pm, there were warnings not to travel! I'd had a busy day, so the first I knew of it was the huge crowd of people at St Pancras.

So, I could:
A)Try and continue and take the risk of being stranded partway, but potentially get home.
or
B) Choose to remain stranded in London, with the potential of still being unable to travel on Saturday either.

London hotels aren't particularly cheap, so I decided to proceed with my journey regardless.

 

[Mainliner]

This lastest trip I made during a "do not travel" was discretionary, but I decided to check the trains were running and take the risk. It wasn't great, but I got where I needed to go.

As did I on Friday, after having checked and seen that most trains were running. My outward booked LNER train was cancelled, but I managed to get on an earlier TPE train. On the return, my booked train was the cancelled LNER Stirling train, but I caught another LNER train at around the same time, with standing room only from York, but got a seat at Darlington.

On these occasions, it depends where and when you are travelling - if I had been travelling most of the length of the ECML, I would probably have reconsidered, but if time isn’t critical, and one is prepared to wait, catch different trains, or stand, “Do not travel” may not be appropriate for all passengers.

 

[NorthEastern]

I had to chuckle at the advice being given to catch local buses. Anyone heading to Berwick would have been sunk as the last bus to there leaves Edinburgh at 6pm.

I suddenly remembered the bus to Berwick as a possible get-me-nearly-home option, but only after the last one for the day had already departed….

 

[noddingdonkey]

One interesting point from my delayed journey with GC on Thursday through Huntingdon, the Guard apologised for the lack of PA updates as he had been up front with the driver carrying out an inspection of the OLE.

Presumably the crew didn't sign electric traction so are all drivers and guards trained to identify issues with the knitting or is it more of a common sense thing?

 

[Adam0984]

One interesting point from my delayed journey with GC on Thursday through Huntingdon, the Guard apologised for the lack of PA updates as he had been up front with the driver carrying out an inspection of the OLE.

Presumably the crew didn't sign electric traction so are all drivers and guards trained to identify issues with the knitting or is it more of a common sense thing?

All drivers and TMs (or whatever a TOC wants to call them) are rules trained for any electric lines or rails they encounter on their routes whether their trains use them or not. As for the TM accompanying the driver it's a case of 2 pairs of eyes are better than one especially in suboptimal conditions (darkness and bad weather etc)

 

[dk1]

One interesting point from my delayed journey with GC on Thursday through Huntingdon, the Guard apologised for the lack of PA updates as he had been up front with the driver carrying out an inspection of the OLE.

Presumably the crew didn't sign electric traction so are all drivers and guards trained to identify issues with the knitting or is it more of a common sense thing?

It’s just looking for anything out of the ordinary. None of us are experts on the OHL. I once had a catering lady come up front with me between Liverpool Street & Forest Gate on a class 170 when I was asked to examine the overheads for sagging in extreme heat. I was going to struggle to drive and check them when there are up to six lines.

 

[357]

All drivers and TMs (or whatever a TOC wants to call them) are rules trained for any electric lines or rails they encounter on their routes whether their trains use them or not. As for the TM accompanying the driver it's a case of 2 pairs of eyes are better than one especially in suboptimal conditions (darkness and bad weather etc)

I think it's still a rule that in hours of darkness or low visibility you can't be asked to inspect the overheads without assistance.
Pretty sure it's just overheads and doesn't cover other types of inspection. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[TreacleMiller]

One interesting point from my delayed journey with GC on Thursday through Huntingdon, the Guard apologised for the lack of PA updates as he had been up front with the driver carrying out an inspection of the OLE.

Presumably the crew didn't sign electric traction so are all drivers and guards trained to identify issues with the knitting or is it more of a common sense thing?

Very much a common sense thing.

As part of PTS drivers and gaurds are trained to identify parts of the OLE and what they should look like and where they should be. It's not difficult and would be easy to spot a defect.

Just got to go slow and ideally have a second set of eyes with you. I've used my gaurd for this as checking 8 sets of wires across 4 tracks isn't easy.. Whilst driving...

 

[NorthEastern]

Having submitted my refund claim I can say that LNER are well on the ball as the refund has already been approved and processed.

The speedy approach might be because it’s not LNER who are responsible for the delays in this case . If someone else is paying, then just approve without checking too much!

 

[Gaelan]

The speedy approach might be because it’s not LNER who are responsible for the delays in this case . If someone else is paying, then just approve without checking too much!

Not strictly - LNER receive a lump sum from Network Rail for the disruption, which isn't tied to the amount they end up paying out for delay repay.

Of course, in reality these days it's all the DfT's money being shuffled around - but that's the case for any sort of disruption.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Not strictly - LNER receive a lump sum from Network Rail for the disruption, which isn't tied to the amount they end up paying out for delay repay.

Does that mean that LNER could conceivably "profit" from a situation where another party is deemed to be at fault?

Of course, in reality these days it's all the DfT's money being shuffled around - but that's the case for any sort of disruption.

Essentially, a "wooden dollar" money-go-round?!

 

[Gaelan]

Does that mean that LNER could conceivably "profit" from a situation where another party is deemed to be at fault?

I believe so, yes.

Essentially, a "wooden dollar" money-go-round?!

Yep. I believe it goes something like this:

• Passengers pay fares to a ticket retailer (which may or may not be LNER), who takes a small cut. For LNER-only tickets, the remainder all goes to LNER; for other tickets, this is distributed among various operators based on an estimate of services you're most likely to take.
• LNER (owned by the DfT via DfT OLR Holdings) passes 100% of fares back to the DfT.
  • Any other operators that received part of your ticket pass 100% of the fare back to the DfT too; post-COVID, this includes even the private ones.
• The DfT pays LNER (owned by the DfT via DfT OLR Holdings) a fixed amount to run its services (for private operators, this there are some variable incentive payments, based on factors including ticket revenue; I'm not sure if this is the case for publicly owned operators).
• The DfT pays Network Rail (a non-departmental body of the DfT) a fixed annual grant.
• LNER (owned by the DfT via DfT OLR Holdings) pays Network Rail (a non-departmental body of the DfT) track access charges for each train they run.
• Network Rail (a non-departmental body of the DfT) pays LNER (owned by the DfT via DfT OLR Holdings) compensation for any disruption.
  • If this disruption was caused by another TOC, that TOC (either private, owned by the DfT, or owned by a devolved body) pays Network Rail compensation.
• LNER pays you delay repay for any disruption.

 

[Stuart21]

Except they do....

The 19:00 that left KX on 1/11 was on the Donkey through the OLE damaged section. Would have cancelled otherwise.

There are also Depot moves that involve using it due to unwired shunts or departure lanes.

The Donkey has got me out of at least two failures in the last 12 months, so their value is there.

I was on this train from KGX. I can confirm the donkey engines were used. We arrrived in Newcastle at approx 0030 where the train was cancelled. The driver for the Newcastle to Edinburgh leg was stuck in Edinburgh. No replacement busses were put on as we were told the A1 was blocked and the alternative A68 also blocked. I had to get a hotel in Newcastle at my own expense. Not refunded yet.

I am told that the power outage was caused by damage to the grid in Canonmills area of Edinburgh where demolition work is taking place. A manhole cover was not replaced properly and this allowed water into the cable trunk causing a short circuit. The ensuing 'bang' caused several manholes to be blown in Dundas Street and a power cut in a large area of the New Town. This would also supply the sginalling centre.