|
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at
Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. However, what I'd really like to comment on was the way in which this was handled at Euston, which was downright poor in a number of significant and potentially dangerous ways. A bit of background, when I arrived at Euston at about 1805 everything was showing "delayed" and the concourse was absolutely packed. 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. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. It didn't, however, go anywhere. After a conversation with another member of staff I was told that the BTP had instructed them to evacuate the platform area "for safety reasons" and they were just following orders, though they themselves thought it was a bad idea. I and about 100 others decided to ignore this, however, and remain on platform 8, where no further hassle was given bar faces being pulled by staff who seemed to have pretty much given up. Now this is where I have an issue. The BTP had reportedly told the Silverlink staff to evacuate more people to the concourse which was already dangerously full of people. Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present - it'd be better to plan in advance which would be the first trains out following a blockage (most sensible would probably be for those to be the first ones that got stuck, and to pre-emptively cancel some later ones) and get people on board until they were full, and only then to block the concourse like that? Surely the most important objective is to avoid huge crowds forming, given that the trains were not themselves a dangerous location? (and even had a bomb been involved it could have affected fewer people distributed around trains with the protection of the trains themselves?) Even if the trains were not to go out in that order, they could then be evacuated one at a time, which would be far better? Thoughts? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Jul 12, 9:47?pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. However, what I'd really like to comment on was the way in which this was handled at Euston, which was downright poor in a number of significant and potentially dangerous ways. A bit of background, when I arrived at Euston at about 1805 everything was showing "delayed" and the concourse was absolutely packed. 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. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. It didn't, however, go anywhere. After a conversation with another member of staff I was told that the BTP had instructed them to evacuate the platform area "for safety reasons" and they were just following orders, though they themselves thought it was a bad idea. I and about 100 others decided to ignore this, however, and remain on platform 8, where no further hassle was given bar faces being pulled by staff who seemed to have pretty much given up. Now this is where I have an issue. The BTP had reportedly told the Silverlink staff to evacuate more people to the concourse which was already dangerously full of people. Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present - it'd be better to plan in advance which would be the first trains out following a blockage (most sensible would probably be for those to be the first ones that got stuck, and to pre-emptively cancel some later ones) and get people on board until they were full, and only then to block the concourse like that? Surely the most important objective is to avoid huge crowds forming, given that the trains were not themselves a dangerous location? (and even had a bomb been involved it could have affected fewer people distributed around trains with the protection of the trains themselves?) Even if the trains were not to go out in that order, they could then be evacuated one at a time, which would be far better? Thoughts? Neil Again, if the Croxley Link was in place there would have been an (albeit slower) alternative way to disperse passengers to Watford Junction, in both directions! Burkey |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On 12 Jul, 21:47, (Neil Williams)
wrote: Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. The nationalrail.co.uk live arr/dep boards information is doing sterling service in keeping abreast of the situation: "SITE UNAVAILABLE The Live Departure Boards web site is currently closed whilst it undergoes routine maintenance. Please try again later. The System is expected to be available again at 11 PM." No doubt there are pressing reasons why "routine maintenance" cannot be undertaken at times of minimum train operations. -- gordon |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Jul 12, 9:47 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: Unfortunately someone saw fit to throw themselves under a train at Harrow and Wealdstone at the height of the evening peak this evening (around 1720 I believe). This, as you might guess, caused quite a lot of chaos at Euston, and resulted in me getting back about 2 hours late following us getting stuck behind a failed VT at Watford to add insult to proverbial injury. However, what I'd really like to comment on was the way in which this was handled at Euston, which was downright poor in a number of significant and potentially dangerous ways. A bit of background, when I arrived at Euston at about 1805 everything was showing "delayed" and the concourse was absolutely packed. 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. A further 15 minutes later, a member of staff came through the train chucking everyone off (fairly rudely), and the unit was locked OOU. It didn't, however, go anywhere. After a conversation with another member of staff I was told that the BTP had instructed them to evacuate the platform area "for safety reasons" and they were just following orders, though they themselves thought it was a bad idea. I and about 100 others decided to ignore this, however, and remain on platform 8, where no further hassle was given bar faces being pulled by staff who seemed to have pretty much given up. Now this is where I have an issue. The BTP had reportedly told the Silverlink staff to evacuate more people to the concourse which was already dangerously full of people. Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present - it'd be better to plan in advance which would be the first trains out following a blockage (most sensible would probably be for those to be the first ones that got stuck, and to pre-emptively cancel some later ones) and get people on board until they were full, and only then to block the concourse like that? Surely the most important objective is to avoid huge crowds forming, given that the trains were not themselves a dangerous location? (and even had a bomb been involved it could have affected fewer people distributed around trains with the protection of the trains themselves?) Even if the trains were not to go out in that order, they could then be evacuated one at a time, which would be far better? Thoughts? When you finally got going, which line did you use through Harrow? 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? |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
|
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
On Jul 12, 10:02 pm, " wrote:
The nationalrail.co.uk live arr/dep boards information is doing sterling service in keeping abreast of the situation: "SITE UNAVAILABLE The Live Departure Boards web site is currently closed whilst it undergoes routine maintenance. Please try again later. The System is expected to be available again at 11 PM." No doubt there are pressing reasons why "routine maintenance" cannot be undertaken at times of minimum train operations. They seem to be back in action now. Still significant delays on arrivals at MKC. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
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) |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
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. |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incident planning and the BTP
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil
Williams gently breathed: Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present What high risk of a bomb attack? Seriously, the risk presented by the recent, utterly incompetent attempts at "terrorism" is about the same as being struck by a falling meteor at the exact same moment you win your fourth lottery jackpot in a row. See The Register for a very thorough debunking of the "threat" from the recent "car bombs" by a former bomb disposal expert. People really should learn to analyse risk sensibly, and not go along with the "security panic" that some would use simply as an excuse to curtail civil liberties. -- - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net Hard Rock, Leeds http://www.hard-rock.org.uk Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP! http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com |
Oh dear - commuter services out of Euston today, poor incidentplanning and the BTP
Pyromancer wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil Williams gently breathed: Surely this is completely the wrong approach given the high risk of a bomb attack at present What high risk of a bomb attack? Seriously, the risk presented by the recent, utterly incompetent attempts at "terrorism" is about the same as being struck by a falling meteor at the exact same moment you win your fourth lottery jackpot in a row. LOL! See The Register for a very thorough debunking of the "threat" from the recent "car bombs" by a former bomb disposal expert. People really should learn to analyse risk sensibly, and not go along with the "security panic" that some would use simply as an excuse to curtail civil liberties. -- Moving things in still pictures! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk