MIG wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
MIG wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
"Businesses and residents in London's West End are facing the threat of
a second day of power cuts as engineers work to fix faults in the
system.

On Thursday more than 3,000 people were without electricity as four
faults and a high-demand for air conditioning put extra pressure on the
grid.

Power was cut off in different parts of Soho for four hours at a time."

Mo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5222996.stm


I presume this 'second day' of power cuts is a follow up to last
saturday's problems.


It must be a follow-up to yesterday (Thursday)'s power cuts, affecting
much of London.

My post was with regards to yesterday's power cuts, when I posetd at
8:30 this morning today's power cuts (i.e. friday's) had not yet
happened - today's problems makes that three days of trouble in central
London.


I meant that the BBC's reference to a "second" day of power cuts
(initially only expected) was based on Thursday being the first. They
referred to how many people had been affected on Thursday, and then
said that people faced a further day, which turned out to be true. I
don't think there was any reference to Sunday's problems.


OK, I understand now.

Also it appears that the BBC news story was updated after the problems
on friday occurred, so the story I read and subsequently linked to in
my friday morning post is no longer the same one you'll get now if you
visit the URL, it has morphed as the anticipated problems became a
reality over the course of the day.

But as you rightly point out, neither the BBC article you can read now,
nor the one I read in the morning has any reference whatsoever to
sunday's problems.


I found it amusing that Oxford Circus closing was part of the headline.
Oxford Circus station closes several times a day every single day,
leaving people spilling out into the street in front of the traffic,
whatever the weather.

You can't rely on travelling from there in the evening rush hour till
about 1930.


I avoid Oxford Circus in the rush hour so I don't have that much
experience of that happening. I guess I was tying in the power cut
story to the topic of transport of this newsgroup!


I used to walk from Oxford Circus to Charing Cross, if heading south,
rather than even bother to try.

When the entrance to Bond Street was closed for escalator repairs and
Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road were constantly closed due to
"overcrowding", and all the buses were packed, walking was the only
realistic way to leave the Oxford Street area.

I wonder how many road accidents were caused by the crowds spilling
out, compared with any risk from being allowed into the stations? (OK,
veering a bit off the topic now, but reference to Oxford Circus
closing, as if it was ever open, got me going.)


Oxford Circus to Charing X isn't far and one can take the interesting
route through Soho as well. Plus I think walking should be encouraged
for journeys of that distance.

Oxford Street and its surrounds are a magnet for people, I don't think
it's realistically possible to ensure there's capacity for everyone at
these stations at the busiest times. I'd far rather stations were
closed than end up with some kind of subterranean crush and panic. I
don't think there's any significant extra danger regarding road
accidents if this happens - in that part of central London there's
always people spilling out onto the street. Far better a crowd above
ground where it can disperse than a crowd below ground where it can't.

Mizter T wrote:
MIG wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
MIG wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
"Businesses and residents in London's West End are facing the threat of
a second day of power cuts as engineers work to fix faults in the
system.

On Thursday more than 3,000 people were without electricity as four
faults and a high-demand for air conditioning put extra pressure on the
grid.

Power was cut off in different parts of Soho for four hours at a time."

Mo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5222996.stm


I presume this 'second day' of power cuts is a follow up to last
saturday's problems.


It must be a follow-up to yesterday (Thursday)'s power cuts, affecting
much of London.

My post was with regards to yesterday's power cuts, when I posetd at
8:30 this morning today's power cuts (i.e. friday's) had not yet
happened - today's problems makes that three days of trouble in central
London.


I meant that the BBC's reference to a "second" day of power cuts
(initially only expected) was based on Thursday being the first. They
referred to how many people had been affected on Thursday, and then
said that people faced a further day, which turned out to be true. I
don't think there was any reference to Sunday's problems.


OK, I understand now.

Also it appears that the BBC news story was updated after the problems
on friday occurred, so the story I read and subsequently linked to in
my friday morning post is no longer the same one you'll get now if you
visit the URL, it has morphed as the anticipated problems became a
reality over the course of the day.

But as you rightly point out, neither the BBC article you can read now,
nor the one I read in the morning has any reference whatsoever to
sunday's problems.


I found it amusing that Oxford Circus closing was part of the headline.
Oxford Circus station closes several times a day every single day,
leaving people spilling out into the street in front of the traffic,
whatever the weather.

You can't rely on travelling from there in the evening rush hour till
about 1930.


I avoid Oxford Circus in the rush hour so I don't have that much
experience of that happening. I guess I was tying in the power cut
story to the topic of transport of this newsgroup!


I used to walk from Oxford Circus to Charing Cross, if heading south,
rather than even bother to try.

When the entrance to Bond Street was closed for escalator repairs and
Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road were constantly closed due to
"overcrowding", and all the buses were packed, walking was the only
realistic way to leave the Oxford Street area.

I wonder how many road accidents were caused by the crowds spilling
out, compared with any risk from being allowed into the stations? (OK,
veering a bit off the topic now, but reference to Oxford Circus
closing, as if it was ever open, got me going.)


Oxford Circus to Charing X isn't far and one can take the interesting
route through Soho as well. Plus I think walking should be encouraged
for journeys of that distance.

Oxford Street and its surrounds are a magnet for people, I don't think
it's realistically possible to ensure there's capacity for everyone at
these stations at the busiest times. I'd far rather stations were
closed than end up with some kind of subterranean crush and panic. I
don't think there's any significant extra danger regarding road
accidents if this happens - in that part of central London there's
always people spilling out onto the street. Far better a crowd above
ground where it can disperse than a crowd below ground where it can't.


The trouble is that there isn't a level playing field when it comes to
safety on different transport systems. If likely safety dips below a
certain level on the Underground, people are simply kicked out into a
situation where the normal level of safety is far lower. The attitude
seems to be "better that several are injured off my patch than one is
injured on my patch".

There certainly isn't any indication that TfL or LU cares at all about
what they are doing. If they are routinely closing the station, why
not consider means of protecting the one overcrowded platform while
allowing access to the other five, instead of casually slamming the
external gates in people's faces over and over? It must put staff in
danger, when they do this to some irate "customer" once too often
(another health and safety issue).

I once mentioned at an open meeting the need for "joined-up thinking"
on the overall safety of transport in this type of situation. Dave
Wetzel suggested the HSE ultimately being made responsible for road
transport safety. I don't know if that would be the appropriate agency.

MIG wrote:
Mizter T wrote
(snip)

Oxford Circus to Charing X isn't far and one can take the interesting
route through Soho as well. Plus I think walking should be encouraged
for journeys of that distance.

Oxford Street and its surrounds are a magnet for people, I don't think
it's realistically possible to ensure there's capacity for everyone at
these stations at the busiest times. I'd far rather stations were
closed than end up with some kind of subterranean crush and panic. I
don't think there's any significant extra danger regarding road
accidents if this happens - in that part of central London there's
always people spilling out onto the street. Far better a crowd above
ground where it can disperse than a crowd below ground where it can't.


The trouble is that there isn't a level playing field when it comes to
safety on different transport systems. If likely safety dips below a
certain level on the Underground, people are simply kicked out into a
situation where the normal level of safety is far lower. The attitude
seems to be "better that several are injured off my patch than one is
injured on my patch".

There certainly isn't any indication that TfL or LU cares at all about
what they are doing. If they are routinely closing the station, why
not consider means of protecting the one overcrowded platform while
allowing access to the other five, instead of casually slamming the
external gates in people's faces over and over? It must put staff in
danger, when they do this to some irate "customer" once too often
(another health and safety issue).

I once mentioned at an open meeting the need for "joined-up thinking"
on the overall safety of transport in this type of situation. Dave
Wetzel suggested the HSE ultimately being made responsible for road
transport safety. I don't know if that would be the appropriate agency.


Whilst I appreciate your general point about the difference in how
risks are assesed on different forms of transport I'll again say that I
really don't think the situation your presenting relates to the reality
- you seem to be suggesting that Tube users who are prevented from
entering the station because of overcrowding instead find themselves in
this deadly world above ground. I've no experience of road accidents
occuring when stations are closed - I think your over-egging that
argument frankly, nor have I seen scenes of people being crushed in
crowds near station entrances. The pavements around Oxford Street and
surrounds are often bulging anyway, and people survive.

Regarding your suggestion of trying to keep the station open but block
off one platform - this is interesting, but I think in many cases the
practicalities would prevent this. There are many interconnecting
passages in Tube stations, all of which would have to be controlled to
only let people out rather than in, which would lead to potentially
dangerous crowds of people queueing to get onto that one platform. Any
suggestion that you could dissuade people heading for that one platform
from entering a station is a bit pie-in-the-sky IMO - if the station is
open they will come. Plus I think problems of overcrowding are perhaps
likely to be spread somewhat across all platforms in a station.

Regarding your comment that closing the station might put Tube staff at
risk, I've two related points. Passengers are the ones being protected
when Tube stations close when busy, any argument that staff might be at
risk is to basically ignore the reason why crowded stations close - to
protect lives. Which leads on to my second point - most passengers are
perfectly well aware of this - when I've been waiting outside a closed
station there's just a stoical calm, people know there's no point in
arguing because they realise it's in their best interests.

You should listen to Bob Kiley being interviewed by NPR for his
somewhat astonished account of seeing this for the first time - he
thought they'd be a riot at Victoria station, but everyone just queued
quietly [1]. At Victoria (and perhaps other stations?) there's a CCTV
monitor at an entrance that shows a view of the Tube platform to
provide a visual reinforcement of the message that the station is
overcrowded.

Last point about Health and Safety. HM Railway Inspectorate is no
longer part of the HSE - it's now part of the Office of Rail
Regulation. As I said at the beginning I have some time for questions
over how the risks associated with different transport modes are
assessed, though I think some of the more extreme suggestions are a bit
crackpot.

Mizter T wrote:

MIG wrote:
Mizter T wrote
(snip)

Oxford Circus to Charing X isn't far and one can take the interesting
route through Soho as well. Plus I think walking should be encouraged
for journeys of that distance.

Oxford Street and its surrounds are a magnet for people, I don't think
it's realistically possible to ensure there's capacity for everyone at
these stations at the busiest times. I'd far rather stations were
closed than end up with some kind of subterranean crush and panic. I
don't think there's any significant extra danger regarding road
accidents if this happens - in that part of central London there's
always people spilling out onto the street. Far better a crowd above
ground where it can disperse than a crowd below ground where it can't.


The trouble is that there isn't a level playing field when it comes to
safety on different transport systems. If likely safety dips below a
certain level on the Underground, people are simply kicked out into a
situation where the normal level of safety is far lower. The attitude
seems to be "better that several are injured off my patch than one is
injured on my patch".

There certainly isn't any indication that TfL or LU cares at all about
what they are doing. If they are routinely closing the station, why
not consider means of protecting the one overcrowded platform while
allowing access to the other five, instead of casually slamming the
external gates in people's faces over and over? It must put staff in
danger, when they do this to some irate "customer" once too often
(another health and safety issue).

I once mentioned at an open meeting the need for "joined-up thinking"
on the overall safety of transport in this type of situation. Dave
Wetzel suggested the HSE ultimately being made responsible for road
transport safety. I don't know if that would be the appropriate agency.


Whilst I appreciate your general point about the difference in how
risks are assesed on different forms of transport I'll again say that I
really don't think the situation your presenting relates to the reality
- you seem to be suggesting that Tube users who are prevented from
entering the station because of overcrowding instead find themselves in
this deadly world above ground. I've no experience of road accidents
occuring when stations are closed - I think your over-egging that
argument frankly, nor have I seen scenes of people being crushed in
crowds near station entrances. The pavements around Oxford Street and
surrounds are often bulging anyway, and people survive.

Regarding your suggestion of trying to keep the station open but block
off one platform - this is interesting, but I think in many cases the
practicalities would prevent this. There are many interconnecting
passages in Tube stations, all of which would have to be controlled to
only let people out rather than in, which would lead to potentially
dangerous crowds of people queueing to get onto that one platform. Any
suggestion that you could dissuade people heading for that one platform
from entering a station is a bit pie-in-the-sky IMO - if the station is
open they will come. Plus I think problems of overcrowding are perhaps
likely to be spread somewhat across all platforms in a station.

Regarding your comment that closing the station might put Tube staff at
risk, I've two related points. Passengers are the ones being protected
when Tube stations close when busy, any argument that staff might be at
risk is to basically ignore the reason why crowded stations close - to
protect lives. Which leads on to my second point - most passengers are
perfectly well aware of this - when I've been waiting outside a closed
station there's just a stoical calm, people know there's no point in
arguing because they realise it's in their best interests.

You should listen to Bob Kiley being interviewed by NPR for his
somewhat astonished account of seeing this for the first time - he
thought they'd be a riot at Victoria station, but everyone just queued
quietly [1]. At Victoria (and perhaps other stations?) there's a CCTV
monitor at an entrance that shows a view of the Tube platform to
provide a visual reinforcement of the message that the station is
overcrowded.

Last point about Health and Safety. HM Railway Inspectorate is no
longer part of the HSE - it's now part of the Office of Rail
Regulation. As I said at the beginning I have some time for questions
over how the risks associated with different transport modes are
assessed, though I think some of the more extreme suggestions are a bit
crackpot.


D'oh! Forgot the link to the Bob Kiley NPR interview...

[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1123838

Mizter T wrote:
MIG wrote:
Mizter T wrote
(snip)

Oxford Circus to Charing X isn't far and one can take the interesting
route through Soho as well. Plus I think walking should be encouraged
for journeys of that distance.

Oxford Street and its surrounds are a magnet for people, I don't think
it's realistically possible to ensure there's capacity for everyone at
these stations at the busiest times. I'd far rather stations were
closed than end up with some kind of subterranean crush and panic. I
don't think there's any significant extra danger regarding road
accidents if this happens - in that part of central London there's
always people spilling out onto the street. Far better a crowd above
ground where it can disperse than a crowd below ground where it can't.


The trouble is that there isn't a level playing field when it comes to
safety on different transport systems. If likely safety dips below a
certain level on the Underground, people are simply kicked out into a
situation where the normal level of safety is far lower. The attitude
seems to be "better that several are injured off my patch than one is
injured on my patch".

There certainly isn't any indication that TfL or LU cares at all about
what they are doing. If they are routinely closing the station, why
not consider means of protecting the one overcrowded platform while
allowing access to the other five, instead of casually slamming the
external gates in people's faces over and over? It must put staff in
danger, when they do this to some irate "customer" once too often
(another health and safety issue).

I once mentioned at an open meeting the need for "joined-up thinking"
on the overall safety of transport in this type of situation. Dave
Wetzel suggested the HSE ultimately being made responsible for road
transport safety. I don't know if that would be the appropriate agency.


Whilst I appreciate your general point about the difference in how
risks are assesed on different forms of transport I'll again say that I
really don't think the situation your presenting relates to the reality
- you seem to be suggesting that Tube users who are prevented from
entering the station because of overcrowding instead find themselves in
this deadly world above ground. I've no experience of road accidents
occuring when stations are closed - I think your over-egging that
argument frankly, nor have I seen scenes of people being crushed in
crowds near station entrances. The pavements around Oxford Street and
surrounds are often bulging anyway, and people survive.


I accept your points, but traffic accidents around Oxford Circus are
actually quite frequent, ambulances called to people hit by buses etc.
It would simply make sense to minimise the risk rather than carelessly
expose a mass of people to it at once. It's the careless NIMBY
attitude of LU that upsets me.


Regarding your suggestion of trying to keep the station open but block
off one platform - this is interesting, but I think in many cases the
practicalities would prevent this. There are many interconnecting
passages in Tube stations, all of which would have to be controlled to
only let people out rather than in, which would lead to potentially
dangerous crowds of people queueing to get onto that one platform. Any
suggestion that you could dissuade people heading for that one platform
from entering a station is a bit pie-in-the-sky IMO - if the station is
open they will come. Plus I think problems of overcrowding are perhaps
likely to be spread somewhat across all platforms in a station.


The issue here is that no one is even going to bother to try, as long
as they can get away with dealing with the inadequacy of the
Underground by just chucking people out.into the street.

If there was some kind of joined-up thinking on the overall safety of a
journey across London, maybe the pie wouldn't be so high in the sky.

Even better, of course, would be to run trains to take the people away.
But does it really make sense to stop people using the Central Line
just because the Victoria Line has a delay in one direction? Doesn't
this then guarantee overcrowding on the other lines, once the mass of
people is allowed in? Wouldn't this be an obvious problem to try to
solve by some minor redesign? Evidently not, as long as they can just
close the station.

I wish I could close my office and have a break every time there were
too many phone calls.

MIG wrote:



Whilst I appreciate your general point about the difference in how
risks are assesed on different forms of transport I'll again say that I
really don't think the situation your presenting relates to the reality
- you seem to be suggesting that Tube users who are prevented from
entering the station because of overcrowding instead find themselves in
this deadly world above ground. I've no experience of road accidents
occuring when stations are closed - I think your over-egging that
argument frankly, nor have I seen scenes of people being crushed in
crowds near station entrances. The pavements around Oxford Street and
surrounds are often bulging anyway, and people survive.


I accept your points, but traffic accidents around Oxford Circus are
actually quite frequent, ambulances called to people hit by buses etc.
It would simply make sense to minimise the risk rather than carelessly
expose a mass of people to it at once. It's the careless NIMBY
attitude of LU that upsets me.


I can assure you that this "NIMBY attitude" you feel LUL staff have is not
reality. Each station closure needs a report written stating the
cirumstances and phone calls to and from management. Whilst I agree that
the risk of someone being hit by a bus increases if the tube is closed,
people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. At the end of the
day, if somebody does get run over by a bus, the time it takes to deal with
that type of accident is far less than somebody under a train, especially
if they did not intend to be there! So it could be argued that the risk
overall is lowered as somebody being run over by a bus does not affect as
many people as would be the case as somebody under a train at Oxford Circus
on the Victoria Line requiring the line to be suspended between Victoria
and Warren Street.


Regarding your suggestion of trying to keep the station open but block
off one platform - this is interesting, but I think in many cases the
practicalities would prevent this. There are many interconnecting
passages in Tube stations, all of which would have to be controlled to
only let people out rather than in, which would lead to potentially
dangerous crowds of people queueing to get onto that one platform. Any
suggestion that you could dissuade people heading for that one platform
from entering a station is a bit pie-in-the-sky IMO - if the station is
open they will come. Plus I think problems of overcrowding are perhaps
likely to be spread somewhat across all platforms in a station.


The issue here is that no one is even going to bother to try, as long
as they can get away with dealing with the inadequacy of the
Underground by just chucking people out.into the street.


Next time you are around at the weekend, take a look at places like
Liverpool Street when there engineering work between there and Baker
Street. Despite the amount of signs, public address announcements, barriers
and staff people still attempt to go to the westbound circle line platform.
I have, as a test, positioned noticeboards forcing people to have to walk
round them and despite an announcement playing at the time, have asked me
if the Metropolitan Line is running, despite all of these.

If there was some kind of joined-up thinking on the overall safety of a
journey across London, maybe the pie wouldn't be so high in the sky.

Even better, of course, would be to run trains to take the people away.
But does it really make sense to stop people using the Central Line
just because the Victoria Line has a delay in one direction? Doesn't
this then guarantee overcrowding on the other lines, once the mass of
people is allowed in? Wouldn't this be an obvious problem to try to
solve by some minor redesign? Evidently not, as long as they can just
close the station.


Closing a station such as Oxford Circus results in crowds dispersing safely.
Those wanting to travel westbound on the Central Line walk to Bond Street,
those east to Oxford Circus. Northbound Victoria line customers head north
towards Warren St / Euston / Kings Cross, those going south head to Green
Park.

I wish I could close my office and have a break every time there were
too many phone calls.

Phones don't end up under trains if there are too many of them on your desk,
unlike too many people on a platform.

Robin Mayes wrote:
MIG wrote:



Whilst I appreciate your general point about the difference in how
risks are assesed on different forms of transport I'll again say that I
really don't think the situation your presenting relates to the reality
- you seem to be suggesting that Tube users who are prevented from
entering the station because of overcrowding instead find themselves in
this deadly world above ground. I've no experience of road accidents
occuring when stations are closed - I think your over-egging that
argument frankly, nor have I seen scenes of people being crushed in
crowds near station entrances. The pavements around Oxford Street and
surrounds are often bulging anyway, and people survive.


I accept your points, but traffic accidents around Oxford Circus are
actually quite frequent, ambulances called to people hit by buses etc.
It would simply make sense to minimise the risk rather than carelessly
expose a mass of people to it at once. It's the careless NIMBY
attitude of LU that upsets me.


I can assure you that this "NIMBY attitude" you feel LUL staff have is not
reality. Each station closure needs a report written stating the
cirumstances and phone calls to and from management.



Sorry to go into Evening Standard mode, but if that's true, then the
staff at Oxford Circus must never do any work other than filling in
written reports about station closures. Does this really apply to
every entrance closure and gateline closure while the station remains
technically open?

I know from direct experience that the entrances to Oxford Circus close
several times a day as routine. Do these count as station closures and
require paperwork?

I recall a situation when there was absolutely torrential rain outside,
during which traffic conditions were dangerous and one would not be
likely to trek off to another station. We had the gates slammed in our
faces as usual. There was no sense of emergency. I went over to the
exit-only stairs and went inside to shelter (others hadn't thought of
this).

I stood there dripping and asked the staff why people couldn't at least
be allowed to come into the ticket hall to shelter. They didn't
respond, and just stood around with a "dunno mate" attitude. They
didn't even explain what rules required an external barrier rather than
gateline closure.

If I didn't know better I would suspect that they were having a break
and laughing up their sleeves at the people stuck outside. No chance
of any of them coming outside in the rain to explain.

Whatever the safety rules are right now, this is not an acceptable
solution to "overcrowding" and alternatives should be sought.

Kev wrote:
I'd love somebody to convince me that I can cut my home energy use by
20% due to more efficient use of power. The bulk of people affected at
the moment are of course businesses and I don't see them giving up
their air conditioners.

Well, I fitted power saving bulbs to all of our lights at home (well,
not the halogens but I suppose I could get LED ones for them) and that
has made a huge difference. Not just in consumption terms, but cost.
Mind you, it's not just about saving the planet, as it also means I can
be slightly less worried about leaving lights on.

The garden has a mix of LED lights that are the newer super-bright type
and very effective. The decking lights are LEDs and there's not much
else in the house to take a lot of power (besides the electric oven,
microwave and kettle). The portable air conditioner we have also sucks
power, but isn't on all the time.

At least by saving energy where possible, you're not making as much
impact as you otherwise might have been (and 60-100Watt light bulbs
quickly add up).

I'd love to fit solar panels to the roof to make myself more
self-sufficient. I am sure they could provide enough power for a lot of
my total consumption, although the cost of installing them probably
makes them prohibitive. Am I paying to potentially save money, or to
save the environment (ignoring the environmental cost of producing the
panels in the first place).

If offices had to turn off all computers and lights when shut, that
would make a massive difference. Even the air conditioning can be
turned off in an empty building, with a timer that will start it ahead
of its reopening to allow sufficient cooling. Perhaps this would need
enforcing, and there lies another problem! The thing is, reducing
consumption should be more important than finding new ways of
generating power.

Jonathan

MIG wrote:
I know from direct experience that the entrances to Oxford Circus close
several times a day as routine. Do these count as station closures and
require paperwork?

My guess is a station closure is only when everyone has to leave, not
when a gate prevents access but still allows those inside to continue
as normal (and presumably for others to leave as normal, without being
guided out like it is an emergency).

It is annoying when an entrance closes to regulate the flow, but I
fully understand why it is necessary. Perhaps Oxford Circus can get
some sort of shelter by the steps for those forced to wait?

Jonathan

On 30 Jul 2006 14:50:11 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:

If I didn't know better I would suspect that they were having a break
and laughing up their sleeves at the people stuck outside. No chance
of any of them coming outside in the rain to explain.

I don't think that is a particularly fair comment but then you did say
you were in Evening Standard mode.

Whatever the safety rules are right now, this is not an acceptable
solution to "overcrowding" and alternatives should be sought.

Would you like to advise what alternatives you would like to see
implemented other than allowing people to pour into a station that
cannot cope with any more people at certain times?

It should be borne in mind that even the very slightest of delays on one
line at peak times can cause Oxford Circus (and other places) to become
dangerously overcrowded very, very quickly. In such circumstances there
is no benefit whatsoever in allowing yet more people to enter and thus
compound the crush.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!