Paddington Station 24/7 - Channel 5

[F Great Eastern]

quite a mixture of everything tonight, but interesting to see some of the wheel changing process and technology that is used to sense wheel problems.

 

[rebmcr]

S02E01 now on CH5

Strangely, listed as S03E01 on My5.

 

[GodAtum]

Shame the station staff where made to look like fools by management not being able to make up their minds on train calling patterns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shame the station staff where made to look like fools by management not being able to make up their minds on train calling patterns.

The station manager was also made to look risk averse with his "I'm not putting my name to opening the station" line which senior management then overruled. Though the real problem there is caused by Paddington, like so many other stations, having a ridiculous tiled floor. Concrete or tarmac, or knobbly tiles (the kind you get at swimming pools), wouldn't look as nice but would not be slippery.

 

[GodAtum]

The station manager was also made to look risk averse with his "I'm not putting my name to opening the station" line which senior management then overruled. Though the real problem there is caused by Paddington, like so many other stations, having a ridiculous tiled floor. Concrete or tarmac, or knobbly tiles (the kind you get at swimming pools), wouldn't look as nice but would not be slippery.

i am always slipping in Victoria as I have leather soled shoes.

 

[plymothian]

Again, proof that as usual during service recovery, decision making and communication is a total farce.

 

[hexagon789]

Again, proof that as usual during service recovery, decision making and communication is a total farce.

Is it really as bad as that, it seemed like utter chaos sometimes with things changing back-and-forth and platform staff not always being kept in the loop as it were?

 

[221129]

Is it really as bad as that, it seemed like utter chaos sometimes with things changing back-and-forth and platform staff not always being kept in the loop as it were?

That is a pretty accurate summary of how it is most of the time for us.

 

[hexagon789]

That is a pretty accurate summary of how it is most of the time for us.

Must be pretty hectic at times, I asked as because it's a television programme I wondered if they way they had put it all together simply made it seem more chaotic and busy than it necessarily is.

 

[Dhassell]

Is it really as bad as that, it seemed like utter chaos sometimes with things changing back-and-forth and platform staff not always being kept in the loop as it were?

Getting information is really bad. I remember waiting around 20 minutes for someone to pick up the phone at Swindon Control Room to tell us what was going on, because it was so busy with others trying to find out

 

[hexagon789]

Getting information is really bad. I remember waiting around 20 minutes for someone to pick up the phone at Swindon Control Room to tell us what was going on, because it was so busy with others trying to find out

It must be a right madhouse at times.

 

[edwin_m]

Having said that I'm sure the editors of the series gather vast amounts of footage where nothing much happens, and edit it down so the programmes focus on the more "interesting" bits, which tend to be where something goes wrong. I also find it hard to believe that when person A with a camera pointing at them phones person B, so often there just happens to be a camera pointing at person B too, so I can't help thinking there must be some "re-enactment" in that sort of situation.

 

[hexagon789]

Having said that I'm sure the editors of the series gather vast amounts of footage where nothing much happens, and edit it down so the programmes focus on the more "interesting" bits, which tend to be where something goes wrong. I also find it hard to believe that when person A with a camera pointing at them phones person B, so often there just happens to be a camera pointing at person B too, so I can't help thinking there must be some "re-enactment" in that sort of situation.

That's what I felt - that some of it must be if not "rehearsed" at least edited to make it seem livelier.

 

[Mojo]

Episode 2, about half way in there was a bridge bash. The Mom got in the lorry and said that the lorry was “three metre ten” then the camera showed a photo of the bridge sign which said 3.8m. Did that confuse anyone else? The lorry driver apparently got a ticket, so was the sticker in the cab wrong or did the Mom get it wrong?

 

[alxndr]

Episode 2, about half way in there was a bridge bash. The Mom got in the lorry and said that the lorry was “three metre ten” then the camera showed a photo of the bridge sign which said 3.8m. Did that confuse anyone else? The lorry driver apparently got a ticket, so was the sticker in the cab wrong or did the Mom get it wrong?

The impression that I got was that the lorry was 3.10m, the bridge was 3.8m, and so there was no way that the lorry was going to fit under the bridge. The driver should have been aware of this from the signage in the cab, hence the ticket for driving without due care and attention (IIRC).

 

[transmanche]

Episode 2, about half way in there was a bridge bash. The Mom got in the lorry and said that the lorry was “three metre ten” then the camera showed a photo of the bridge sign which said 3.8m. Did that confuse anyone else?

The impression that I got was that the lorry was 3.10m, the bridge was 3.8m, and so there was no way that the lorry was going to fit under the bridge. (IIRC).

I'm with Mojo on this one.

3.10m = 3m and 10 cm. 3.8m - 3m and 80cm. So if the lorry was 3.10m, then it should have had a good 70cm clearance!

 

[alxndr]

I'm with Mojo on this one.

3.10m = 3m and 10 cm. 3.8m - 3m and 80cm. So if the lorry was 3.10m, then it should have had a good 70cm clearance!

Ah, yes, I see what you're saying now, you're quite right. I think I was thrown by the way he stated the height of the bridge being "only" 3.8m (and probably not helped by the fact I should really be going to bed right now).

"Yeah it confirms the height inside the cab is 3 meters 10. And obviously the height of the bridge is only 3 meters 8 so..."

 

[hexagon789]

I'm with Mojo on this one.

3.10m = 3m and 10 cm. 3.8m - 3m and 80cm. So if the lorry was 3.10m, then it should have had a good 70cm clearance!

That confused me as well. It was plain to see the lorry was too high but not what it's height actually was.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Anyone got a screenshot? I'm pretty sure the subtitle said 3.08m and the editor didn't linger on the actual sign long enough for me to see it properly to compare...

 

[plymothian]

Definitely 3.8 m 12'-9'' on the bridge sign.
The MOM also definitely states "confirmed the height inside the cab is 3 metres 10 and obviously the bridge height is only 3.8 so..."

Is 3.8 m being interpreted as 3 metres 80 centimetres or [incorrectly as] 3 metres 8 centimetres? I would suggest the second.

Taking the imperial 12'-9'' = 3.88m (ie 3 metres 88cm), so a 3 metres 10cm (10'-2'') high lorry has more than enough room.

 

[GusB]

Anyone got a screenshot? I'm pretty sure the subtitle said 3.08m and the editor didn't linger on the actual sign long enough for me to see it properly to compare...

I noticed the discrepancy too, but I thought I'd mis-heard. The sign on the bridge shows 3.8m / 12'-9", and the MOM definitely does say that the sign in the cab says "three metres ten". Perhaps whoever put the sign in the cab got their metric and imperial units mixed up, but even 3m 10" would have been wrong!

EDIT: If the driver was paying attention, and the sign in the cab said 3.10m. it's likely that the bridge height was misinterpreted as 3.08m. Either way, a ticket for driving without due care was probably the right course of action.

 

[transmanche]

If the driver was paying attention, and the sign in the cab said 3.10m. it's likely that the bridge height was misinterpreted as 3.08m. Either way, a ticket for driving without due care was probably the right course of action.

Here's a screenshot from the programme, the sign definitely shows 3.8m (12' 9" which, as stated, is actually 3.88m but rounded down to 3.8m), If the lorry is 3.10m (as quoted by the MOM), then I really don't see how they can justify giving the driver a ticket.

So either the height information in the lorry is wrong, or the sign is wrong.

 

[GusB]

Here's a screenshot from the programme, the sign definitely shows 3.8m (12' 9" which, as stated, is actually 3.88m but rounded down to 3.8m), If the lorry is 3.10m (as quoted by the MOM), then I really don't see how they can justify giving the driver a ticket.

So either the height information in the lorry is wrong, or the sign is wrong.

Aye, you're right enough. I'm getting muddled up now! If it clearly says 3.10m in the cab then it suggests that the sign in the cab was incorrect, in which case it would be unfair to penalise the driver.

Perhaps there should be guidance on how these notices are written. If it says 3.10m in the cab, and 3.8m on the bridge, there is potential for some confusion if the driver is used to dealing with heights in feet and inches. 3'8" is clearly lower than 3'10", for example. Those not used to dealing in metric may misinterpret how the digits after the decimal point are read (although we've been dealing with metric for long enough that people should know!). Maybe if the bridge sign stated 3.80m it would make things a little clearer.

 

[hexagon789]

Here's a screenshot from the programme, the sign definitely shows 3.8m (12' 9" which, as stated, is actually 3.88m but rounded down to 3.8m), If the lorry is 3.10m (as quoted by the MOM), then I really don't see how they can justify giving the driver a ticket.

So either the height information in the lorry is wrong, or the sign is wrong.

Well the lorry was in quite a state afterwards, so if it was under height the driver must've hit the side or something to cause that level of damage.

 

[rebmcr]

I guess the MOM role doesn't require primary school-level Maths?

 

[hexagon789]

I guess the MOM role doesn't require primary school-level Maths?

One hopes not!

 

[Mojo]

If it says 3.10m in the cab, and 3.8m on the bridge, there is potential for some confusion if the driver is used to dealing with heights in feet and inches. 3'8" is clearly lower than 3'10", for example.

But however, the confusion with the existing signage would be to underestimate the height of the bridge and thus road vehicle operators would not use it if that were the case.

 

[plymothian]

Based on what was said and the video evidence of the bridge height in the programme, the driver should not have been charged (3.1m high lorry vs 3.8m high bridge).

However, the lorry clearly had hit the bridge.
The cab is a Mercedes Axor, which is 3.2m high alone; the average height of the 18T curtainsider is 3.9 -4m high.
The height plate clearly does not tally.

 

[Mojo]

It looked to me however as if the tractor/cab of the lorry passed under the bridge fine, it was just the trailer.
I'm presuming the sign in the cab would have been only applicable to the height of the tractor, and not the trailer which was higher.

 

[edwin_m]

It looked to me however as if the tractor/cab of the lorry passed under the bridge fine, it was just the trailer.
I'm presuming the sign in the cab would have been only applicable to the height of the tractor, and not the trailer which was higher.

From previous discussions on here I think the driver is responsible for knowing the height of the trailer and behaving accordingly. If so it was right to give the driver a ticket even if the rationale as stated on the programme was wrong. Presumably if the ticket was incorrect the driver would have successfully appealed, and like on those police chase programmes there would have been an update broadcast to say so. Otherwise the programme is effectively blaming the the driver (or possibly the company, who were identifiable from the footage) for something that wasn't their fault.