Major delays/cancellations, Paddington to Reading, 20 December 2012 and ongoing ...

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

Are fires in equipment cabinets common? If not two on the network on consecutive days (Hayes and Brighton) seems odd.

[eightf48544]

I did say a peak time service. The more stops you put in though the more delays you cause. Oxford fast services should still have been calling at Slough once an hour. It wasn't a half hourly 2-carriage service either, most were 3, the maximum length they can be. They should all have been 3 really though.

When we've had major disruptions in the past the stopping services have always been split at Reading with 5/6 between Reading and Padd, not sure what was West Reading but assumme 3 if going through to Oxford. Even 6 got very full after Slough.

"Both FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railways in general are rapidly becoming fair weather weekday only railways".....a superb description! ....and don't forget that after 9pm-ish during the week you have to get off at Slough/Maidenhead to get a bus between the smaller stations....apparently to allow engineering work to take place...the benefits of which I am sure we all look forward to!!!

One of the problems with engineering work on the Relief Lines between Slough and Reading which seems to hvae been going on for the last 10 years at least is that although Taplow has 4 platforms trains are not allowed to stop on the  mains because the tracks too high. Although I con provide evidence of both HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and Turbos stopping so they should have grandfather rights. 

I agree with you it's annoying to have to catch a bus from Slough to Taplow when you know the train could stop. Just be thankful you are not travelling from Reading when it can take 11/2 hours to get from Reading to Taplow as you have to go via Slough and the bus connections are not good.

If trains stopped at Taplow then it makes bus provison for Burham easier You have a bus from Taplow vai Burnham for ex Reading passengers and Burnham London passnegers and teh return caters for London Burnahm and Burnham Reading passengers. 2 buses on circulation would cover the service.
 
Welcome to the forum Taplowgreen good to have another champion of our station. 

[IndustryInsider]

I did say a peak time service. The more stops you put in though the more delays you cause. Oxford fast services should still have been calling at Slough once an hour. It wasn't a half hourly 2-carriage service either, most were 3, the maximum length they can be. They should all have been 3 really though.

Huge mistakes were made.  Funnily enough, the local service out of Paddington was just about spot on in principle given the number of paths available, but several trains were running around as 2-cars.  To suggest that three is the maximum length doesn't cut the mustard with me I'm afraid.  They should all have been 6-car (or 5-car at the very least).  Should Appleford or Culham get in the way then there's time to lock/unlock the other portion at Didcot with no/minimal delay - it happens daily on a couple of scheduled services.  Or cancel the stops at Appleford and Culham and run a shuttle 2-car Turbo service, or buses/taxis. 

The priority is maximising the seating for available paths during disruption like that, and to hell with the likes of Culham and Appleford as a concern - so if you have 6 paths an hour available, you run:

1) Two local services at say xx:27 and xx:57 (all stations PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-RDG^‡(resolve) with a 6-car Turbo - extend them to Oxford if you want, or run a RDG-OXF^» (Oxford - next trains) shuttle separately),
2) Hourly PAD-SWA^» (Swansea - next trains) service calling the normal stops and DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains). 
3) You run an hourly PAD-BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) service with the normal stops and DID
4) You run an hourly PAD-PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains)/PNZ service,
5) You run an hourly PAD-OXF calling at SLO, MAI^▸ (Maidenhead station), RDG and DID (and possibly on to the Cotswolds) using a 6-Car Turbo until Oxford or a HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

From an LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) crew resourcing perspective you rip up the normal diagrams and get Oxford depot to cover Worcester, Banbury and services as far as Reading.  You get Paddington depot to cover most of the Paddington to Reading services, and you get Reading depot to cover their branch work and the remainder of the Reading to Paddington stuff.  As it was, drivers were all over the place trying to stick to their original diagrams where most of the work was either delayed or cancelled.

Those that said we used to do it better are quite correct - there were more staff on overnight to work out amended service plan for the next day for a start.  The service offered was pathetic.  Whatever happened there would have been mass disruption, but we made it a hell of a lot harder that it could have been for staff and passengers alike.

[Electric train]

Are fires in equipment cabinets common? If not two on the network on consecutive days (Hayes and Brighton) seems odd.

Serious equipment failure eg major component or cable failing does happen an given the vast number of equipment cabinets and cables on the National network there are actually quite few.  Catastrophic failures where equipment gets destroyed are extremely rare Nationally through genuine faults more often its due to vandalism

Systems are designed to be robust signalling systems supplies working on an N-1 principle and some locations such as large Signal Boxes N-2 is used critical systems will have either battery back up or UPS support; however no matter how well systems are designed and built there are weak points which we work to eliminate through risk analysis but how far to go a 1 in 10 year event, a 1 in 20 year event 1 in 50 1 in 100 as you work that out the cost increases exponentially.  ................. well that part of my day job explained  

[ellendune]

Are fires in equipment cabinets common? If not two on the network on consecutive days (Hayes and Brighton) seems odd.

Serious equipment failure eg major component or cable failing does happen an given the vast number of equipment cabinets and cables on the National network there are actually quite few.  Catastrophic failures where equipment gets destroyed are extremely rare Nationally through genuine faults more often its due to vandalism

Systems are designed to be robust signalling systems supplies working on an N-1 principle and some locations such as large Signal Boxes N-2 is used critical systems will have either battery back up or UPS support; however no matter how well systems are designed and built there are weak points which we work to eliminate through risk analysis but how far to go a 1 in 10 year event, a 1 in 20 year event 1 in 50 1 in 100 as you work that out the cost increases exponentially.  ................. well that part of my day job explained  

Thanks, same cost consideration goes for flooding how far for 1 in 10 year etc - depends on the consequences of flooding. 

[grahame]

... risk analysis but how far to go a 1 in 10 year event, a 1 in 20 year event 1 in 50 1 in 100 as you work that out the cost increases exponentially.  ...

But if each event is just once in every "n" years and there are lots of elements, they add together as the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals, don't they?  (assuming the failures are independent)

With 100 pieces of equipment / items that can fail along the length of a railway, and with each have a 1 event in 15 year average failure rate, I calculate that there's going to be a failure every 1.8 months.   But change two of those items into things that happen more often - let's say an annual flood at Cowley Bridge and the sea wall giving problems twice a year, and your average failure rate becomes a failure every 1.25 months.   Now add in "person hit by train" somewhere outside London, 6 times a year, and you're going to see a failure to run the normal service every 0.75 of a month.

Investing lots of money into making your 98 items fail just once every 50 years rather than every 15 years, and the 0.75 becomes 1.09;  not a brilliant return for an awful lot of money.

The real gains come in sorting things out quickly, mittigating, and reducing the common occurrences.  You can also add in some more preventative maintenance.  And I'm going to speculate that if a piece of equipment's only going to fail once in 50 years, the people who come to fix it will be so out of practise it will take longer anyway ...

[ellendune]

From Christian Wolmar December 22nd, 2012 Times available on his website

Rain Is Feeble Excuse For Rail Chaos

Yesterday we saw another addition to the long litany of railway excuses. ^We are sorry for the fire caused by water^ was the explanation for no fewer than three fires in signalling cabinets that resulted in wrecked getaway plans for thousands of rail passengers.

Well, we all know that it^s not a good idea to pour water on electrical equipment, but it has rained on the railway ever since the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, opened in 1830. So the anger felt by passengers that yesterday^s chaos was the result of ^water ingress^ into lineside signalling cabinets was understandable.

You would have thought that over the past 182 years, the railways would have developed ways of sealing off electrical equipment from the vagaries of the weather It^s been a bad holiday period for Network Rail. Yesterday^s hold-ups were principally on the London^Brighton line and the Great Western, but earlier in the week services on the East Coast line out of King^s Cross were badly delayed on two successive days because of overhead line problems.

Overall, after several years of improving performance, delays this year have been increasing, mostly because of the wrong sort of weather. To someone who has just spent two weeks on the Trans-Siberian, which runs like clockwork in temperatures that would freeze most of the points on the British system, that excuse seems lame.

The delays in Cheshire, Derbyshire and several other places were more understandable as they were caused by flooding on the tracks. But here again, information was lacking. The Office of Rail Regulation has only this month berated the industry for failing to provide consistent advice at times of disruption. Sometimes passengers can get more information through their smartphones than by asking members of staff. It^s time for the railways to join the 21st century.

There are international standards for the water resistance of electrical enclosures IPx1 (light rain) up to IPx8 (permanent immersion under pressure). IP65 (dust proof and resistant to low pressure jets from all directions) is commonly used in my sector. Where does the railway pitch its protection level?

[Electric train]

Are fires in equipment cabinets common? If not two on the network on consecutive days (Hayes and Brighton) seems odd.

Serious equipment failure eg major component or cable failing does happen an given the vast number of equipment cabinets and cables on the National network there are actually quite few.  Catastrophic failures where equipment gets destroyed are extremely rare Nationally through genuine faults more often its due to vandalism

Systems are designed to be robust signalling systems supplies working on an N-1 principle and some locations such as large Signal Boxes N-2 is used critical systems will have either battery back up or UPS support; however no matter how well systems are designed and built there are weak points which we work to eliminate through risk analysis but how far to go a 1 in 10 year event, a 1 in 20 year event 1 in 50 1 in 100 as you work that out the cost increases exponentially.  ................. well that part of my day job explained  

Thanks, same cost consideration goes for flooding how far for 1 in 10 year etc - depends on the consequences of flooding. 

Current project I am working on has to risk for 1 in 50 year, 1 in 120 and 1 in 500 year flooding its not how to prevent them its more the level in ingress and the what is damaged; if a piece of kit can be moved to reduce the risk without effecting normal operation then it is.

... risk analysis but how far to go a 1 in 10 year event, a 1 in 20 year event 1 in 50 1 in 100 as you work that out the cost increases exponentially.  ...

But if each event is just once in every "n" years and there are lots of elements, they add together as the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals, don't they?  (assuming the failures are independent)

With 100 pieces of equipment / items that can fail along the length of a railway, and with each have a 1 event in 15 year average failure rate, I calculate that there's going to be a failure every 1.8 months.   But change two of those items into things that happen more often - let's say an annual flood at Cowley Bridge and the sea wall giving problems twice a year, and your average failure rate becomes a failure every 1.25 months.   Now add in "person hit by train" somewhere outside London, 6 times a year, and you're going to see a failure to run the normal service every 0.75 of a month.

Investing lots of money into making your 98 items fail just once every 50 years rather than every 15 years, and the 0.75 becomes 1.09;  not a brilliant return for an awful lot of money.

The real gains come in sorting things out quickly, mittigating, and reducing the common occurrences.  You can also add in some more preventative maintenance.  And I'm going to speculate that if a piece of equipment's only going to fail once in 50 years, the people who come to fix it will be so out of practise it will take longer anyway ...

The key is to reduce the amount of maintenance an item requires, with an item that has a 1 in 50 year failure rate it should have been renewed.  All assets have an expected life most electrification and plant items have a 35 year life expectancy however items, some components within a system my be replaced 2 or 3 times in the full life of the major item they are part of. 

There is a complex matrix used for renewals a lot of it is condition based and there is also route classification, all this has to be agreed with the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) who underwrite Network Rails B^30 deficit 

[ellendune]

In my sector key electrical equipment in flood risk areas that is not water resistant to an appropriate has to be sited above the 1 in 200 year flood level.

[johoare]

That does make me wonder....I did ask today and was told that trains being displaced was the reason that they could only find 2 (out of very many carriages that I know are used in the rush hour) to operate the emergency half hour timetable between Reading and Paddington (mid morning today in my case)...

Could they possibly have operated a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) on the local services using SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) at stations with short platforms or would this have caused additional delays?

There were at least quite a few peak HSTs making extra stops at Maidenhead and Twyford to ease the crush on the local trains. They were limited to 3 carriages because of short platforms Didcot Parkway-Oxford but putting a 2-car unit out seems stupid.

Not during the middle of morning when I was travelling they weren't.. Just a half hourly 2 carriage service.. I think a Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough stopping HST or even just Slough (I'd have changed there onto it) would have meant that people closer in could actually have got on a train..

I did say a peak time service. The more stops you put in though the more delays you cause. Oxford fast services should still have been calling at Slough once an hour. It wasn't a half hourly 2-carriage service either, most were 3, the maximum length they can be. They should all have been 3 really though.

Why not 5 or 6 though? Or are there stations along the way that can't take that length train?

[Southern Stag]

Some of the stations Didcot Parkway-Oxford can only take 3 carriages. If the service was split at Reading though more capacity could be provided on the stopping services which I guess was much needed. There are other solutions that Industry Insider mentioned above as well.

[Electric train]

In my sector key electrical equipment in flood risk areas that is not water resistant to an appropriate has to be sited above the 1 in 200 year flood level.

Difficult to do in tunnels and deep cuttings.  Some equipment like AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System) / TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) transponders, point machines can only go at track level, track circuits and the connections boxes are by default at rail level there are maximum lead lengths for all these from the relays driving them.

This equipment is IP56 rated to go to IP67 or 68 puts a disproportional cost on the equipment and the skill levels and costs in maintaining the higher IP levels.

Where there a known risk of flooding of an area flooding equipment is located above or away as best it can be, the problem with many parts of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railway network it was built at the bottom of river valleys, this was the easiest engineering solution 150 / 200 years ago.

[woody]

More bad news I am afraid.Just heard live on Radio Devon as I type that the booms erected across the tracks at Cowley Bridge have given way under the weight of rising flood waters and the track and ballast is now again being washed away.The Environment Agency said that the river Exe was due to peak at 09.00 this morning.With further landslips at Teiegnmouth yesterday this is very bad news for the southwests long suffereng rail users.

[TaplowGreen]

The engineering aspect is interesting but it seems that our railways can't cope with rain (extreme flooding notwithstanding), ice, snow, hot weather, cold weather, leaves etc etc.....basically nature.

There are no effective contingency plans.....it just seems to take one signal failure or other routine event and everything grinds to a halt and stranded passengers are treated with at best indifference, at worst contempt......organisations from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) down to the lowliest member of staff could benefit from learning from the airlines rather than wallowing in their comfortable monopoly......I have seen people literally weeping with frustration at stations over the last few days and I personally know of people whose employers are losing patience with their late/non arrivals through no fault of their own.

Information is scant and easier obtained by checking websites rather than speaking to the member of staff at the station/on the platform (if one can be found).

There is no excuse for this failure in one of the wealthiest nations on Earth.....God knows what Brunel would think....the point that other nations with much harder conditions run a reliable railway is well made.

Rail is a basic part of national infrastructure and it seems we cannot cope.

[Jonty]

I suspect that IKB^▸ (Isambard Kingdom Brunel), if alive, would be chuffed to see his railway still doing sterling service...