"Ken Ward" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 12, 9:47 pm, (Neil Williams)
I've just looked at the service disruptions on National Rail, and the
last update (timed at 21.58) says that disruption is expected until
23.00, Silverlink Metro is now stopping at Harrow, but County and
Southern aren't.

I'm not sure what BTP's rationale was (assuming it really was them who
made the decision), but without more information it would be unfair to
be too critical - after all, we seldom do criticism of BTP on here, do
we?


I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the
lines through was "Body parts on the platform".



Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow.

Kevin

"zen83237" wrote in message
...



I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the
lines through was "Body parts on the platform".



Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow.


I don't have that information but, I would presume all traffic was suspended
until evidence and the clean up were concluded.

It is not normally accepted that BTP, Undertakers or clean up staff are
expected to dodge moving trains in the course of their jobs or have
commuters walking amongst them.


--
Ken Ward

Join the group that puts Marine Environment
before aching backs! @

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:14:47 GMT someone who may be "Ken Ward"
wrote this:-

I understand the reason for a complete closure of the station and the
lines through was "Body parts on the platform".

Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow.

I don't have that information but, I would presume all traffic was suspended
until evidence and the clean up were concluded.

Most stations with several platforms, including this one, have
buildings over part of the length of the platforms which will
restrict the spread and will also screen the clear up operation,
provided of course that the person was struck where the buildings
are. Thus it may be possible for trains to initially run through the
station on other lines and later on call at some of the platforms
when suitable arrangements have been made.

Whether this was possible or not we don't know. The fact that it was
not done is not conclusive proof that it was not possible.

It is not normally accepted that BTP, Undertakers or clean up staff are
expected to dodge moving trains in the course of their jobs or have
commuters walking amongst them.

Nobody has suggested this.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:43:45 +0100, "zen83237"
wrote:

Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow.

A report I have seen says the Up Main - the person was under a Virgin
train. No idea what platform number that is but I'm sure someone else on
group does know.
--
Paul C

On Jul 13, 10:21?pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:43:45 +0100, "zen83237"
wrote:

Which platform, there are 6 of them to choose from at Harrow.

A report I have seen says the Up Main - the person was under a Virgin
train. No idea what platform number that is but I'm sure someone else on
group does know.
--
Paul C

The Up Fast at Harrow & Wealdstone is Platform 4.

burkey

Neil Williams wrote:

Rather than stand around in it I headed to platform 11 to board what
claimed to be the 1724 Silverlink service, on which I sat listening
to various announcements (sensibly sending some IC passengers to
alternative services) for a while.

About an hour later, an announcement was made that platforms 8-11
would be closed and that people should return to the concourse. This
was said to be due to dangerous overcrowding, which was not evident
from where I was sitting.

There are surely plenty of real contingencies that are not self-evident
from certain viewpoints.

A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train
chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU.

Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire.

It didn't, however, go anywhere.

Presumably because it couldn't.

If, as you say, nothing was moving, then I imagine that when, on the
concourse, the first train out is announced, there would be a mad rush
for it (commuters being leopard-like). TPTB at least can carry out some
sensible flow control if they know that the train they are allowing
people to go to is empty. If, OTOH, the train has an indeterminate
number of people aboard already, then how could they know how many
people it would be safe to allow through? (Oh yes, I know, get someone
to count them! But presumably they would reason that once things start
to move they wouldn't want to be wasting time doing things like that
when there is a much more simple way of determining the answer , as in
removing everyone from the train and telling them to vacate the
platform.)



--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633064.html
(50 010 at Leamington Spa, Oct 1987)

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:27:44 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire.

It was quite obvious that it was not a fire[1]; it had been explained
quite clearly over the PA what was going on, and I felt that joining
the masses in the concourse could have put me in danger or at the very
least more discomfort than remaining on the platform. I was not the
only one taking that view.

[1] If they use "Fatality at Harrow and Wealdstone and resulting
overcrowding" as a means of identifying a fire over the PA then they
are very, very stupid. No, Inspector Sands was not called.

(Oh yes, I know, get someone
to count them! But presumably they would reason that once things start
to move they wouldn't want to be wasting time doing things like that
when there is a much more simple way of determining the answer , as in
removing everyone from the train and telling them to vacate the
platform.)

Easier? Yes. Safer and more effective? No.

It seemed like a manifestation of the typical South East "keep them on
the concourse and tell them at the last minute" nonsense.

Neil

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

Neil Williams wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:27:44 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Ah, so you had not followed the instructions. Good job it wasn't a fire.

I felt that joining the masses in the concourse could have put me in
danger or at the very least more discomfort than remaining on the
platform. I was not the only one taking that view.

No doubt. But that does not necessarily make it the cleverest thing to
do. For every circumstance in which you might foresee a more comfortable
and safer existence on the platform, there is probably a converse.

(Oh yes, I know, get someone to count them! But presumably they would
reason that once things start to move they wouldn't want to be
wasting time doing things like that when there is a much more simple
way of determining the answer , as in removing everyone from the
train and telling them to vacate the platform.)

Easier? Yes. Safer and more effective? No.

Why are you convinced it was safer? You have only mentioned "the high
risk of a bomb attack at present", and when all is said and done, you
were talking about London, rather than Baghdad. The risk from a bomb is
surely infinitesimal in any normal sense of perspective. OTOH, there is
a much higher risk of being knifed in London, and I would have thought
that particular risk reduced in crowds.

There are, of course, times when it is probably in one's interest to go
against the flow, but I am not convinced this was one of them. When some
contingency of this kind arises, it is almost certainly a safer
assumption these days that there has been some relevant contingency
planning done in advance than that there hasn't. And therefore,
counter-intuitive though it must seem at times from the perspective of
one of the milling hordes, it is more likely that it will be safer to do
as one is bidden than not.

It seemed like a manifestation of the typical South East "keep them on
the concourse and tell them at the last minute" nonsense.

I guess I don't like that any more than you do, and sadly it isn't a
South-East thing exclusively - indeed, didn't the SE get the idea from
Blackpool ? ;-)

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683766.html
(143 612 at Maesteg, 2 Jul 1999)

On Jul 13, 9:39 am, Chris Tolley wrote:

No doubt. But that does not necessarily make it the cleverest thing to
do. For every circumstance in which you might foresee a more comfortable
and safer existence on the platform, there is probably a converse.

This is probably true. As it turned out, neither was safer, however
it was more comfortable remaining on the platform with about 100
people there than joining the hordes. When the trains started to be
announced, I deliberately ignored the first one out because that was
where most of the hordes would be (and it fortunately went from an off-
platform) and took the second, which was also from an off-platform but
more easily accessible with the crowds on the concourse reduced, and
on which there were plenty of seats.

(What that does show is that the Silverlink operation has tons of
spare capacity, which is of benefit when things go wrong as well as on
a daily basis, which just shows that it *can* be done even in London
and the South East if the will and money is there).

It does, admittedly, say something about my personality (and the
personalities of the other 99), I imagine, which is that I don't like
being told what to do but I do accept reason. "Can you leave this
train because we're going to send it to the depot to clear platforms
for more arrivals" would have me off straight away. "Get off because
we have decided to evacuate the platforms" has me questioning what's
going on. Some consider that a strength, others a weakness - one
thing is for sure I wouldn't ever fit in the armed forces. The
operators need to consider that in their dealing with people, and they
often don't.

Why are you convinced it was safer? You have only mentioned "the high
risk of a bomb attack at present", and when all is said and done, you
were talking about London, rather than Baghdad. The risk from a bomb is
surely infinitesimal in any normal sense of perspective. OTOH, there is
a much higher risk of being knifed in London, and I would have thought
that particular risk reduced in crowds.

This is true, though I would consider Euston platforms 8-11 in the
evening peak to be as an unlikely a location for a knifing as the
concourse. However, unhappy, packed crowds are a lot more dangerous
than no crowds in general - think football mobs. And from a pure
customer service perspective, there were 8 cars of passengers who were
mostly happy sitting on the train to wait which were turned into 8
cars of unhappy passengers and several hacked off members of staff who
got moaned at by a good proportion of said unhappy passengers.

I guess I don't like that any more than you do, and sadly it isn't a
South-East thing exclusively - indeed, didn't the SE get the idea from
Blackpool ? ;-)

Maybe so. The fact that they normally do not do that on the
Silverlink operation (as its own little island at Euston) makes its
use in the evening peak far more civilised than the other operations
that do do it. I hope London Midland do not change this, and I wish
VT would join them and start advertising platforms as soon as the
train was ready[1] rather than uniformly a few minutes before.

[1] In my view "ready"="inbound passengers are off" for the Euston VT
operation. It'd be far better to have passengers spread up the
platform with a few waiting by each door for them to be released once
cleaning was complete than it is to keep them on the concourse and
have them run at the last minute.

Indeed, on a different basis, one of the reasons I really like
Schiphol airport is that it advertises gates as soon as they are known
rather than 2 minutes beforehand. Thus, those who wish to get there
early can do, which reduces queueing and the rush. Not conducive to
keeping everyone in the BAA shopping centre, but a good professional
way to run an airport.

Neil

Neil Williams writes:

"Get off because we have decided to evacuate the platforms" has me
questioning what's going on.

especially as you were not on the platform but on a train.