Network Rail is failing.

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

The Telegraph reporting that Andrew Haines was on board the train involved in the incident with the overhead wires, the 1830 1C28 Paddington to Cardiff with 900 passengers onboard. So he would have had firsthand experience how it was all handled.

900 passengers…the train must have been absolutely packed.

RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) reports

1C28 1830 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
This service was cancelled due to a problem with the electrified line (I1).

No departure time from Paddington.

Unable to tell you why RTT is now showing no departure for 1C28. It wasn’t last evening showing it had departed Paddington.

[TaplowGreen]

The Telegraph reporting that Andrew Haines was on board the train involved in the incident with the overhead wires, the 1830 1C28 Paddington to Cardiff with 900 passengers onboard. So he would have had firsthand experience how it was all handled.

900 passengers…the train must have been absolutely packed.

No doubt he was comfortably ensconced in 1st class, but I do look forward to his explanation as to why 1000s of passengers were left stranded in cold, dark trains for up to 4 hours with no water or toilet facilities, and also how he intends to ensure that the infrastructure in the Thames Valley will be made fit for purpose swiftly, rather than its current state which resembles Coco the clown's car.

Perhaps he's put himself forward to be interviewed on tonight's news bulletins?

[stuving]

RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) reports

1C28 1830 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
This service was cancelled due to a problem with the electrified line (I1).

No departure time from Paddington.

Unable to tell you why RTT is now showing no departure for 1C28. It wasn’t last evening showing it had departed Paddington.

The service as a whole was entered yesterday as (from LiveRail):
22:59:27   Cancelled   At Paddington. Reason I1 [Overhead line/third rail defect] AT ORIGIN

That may not have been literally true, but then it hadn't got anywhere that was anywhere. I can see why RTT may show (since late last night) exactly what that says.

LiveRail also has TRUST^▸ (Train Running System TOPS) data that still show:
Paddington     5                  Depart  18:30 On time      
ROYAL OAK JUNCTION          Pass     18:32 1 Late         
Portobello Junction (London) Pass      18:37 5 Late      
... then cancelled throughout.

That TRUST data may have been captured at the time and removed since, I don't know.

[IndustryInsider]

900 passengers…the train must have been absolutely packed.

No doubt he was comfortably ensconced in 1st class…
[/quote]

Nobody would be comfortably ensconced on a train with 900 people on board.  Not even the manager driving the train.

[stuving]

Following the Beast from Lewisham. there was a lot of looking into how to manage strandings, especially multiple ones in the cold and dark. This is one of the results: "Guidance Note – Meeting the Needs of Passengers Stranded on Trains".

It's full of common sense - more so than you might expect - though that doesn't necessarily make it easy to implement. To pick one random example:

8.7.5 Railway undertakings should have in place contingency arrangements for when passengers are stranded on trains with no access to a functioning toilet.

[bradshaw]

Andrew Haines has issued a statement on LinkedIn. See it via this Twitter link of Ross Lydall? It is worth reading.

https://x.com/rosslydall/status/1733163335296659487?s=61&t=VlafMC5gF9tidw36b1Y8JQ

Photos of message now added

[plymothian]

I do look forward to his explanation as to why 1000s of passengers were left stranded in cold, dark trains for up to 4 hours with no water or toilet facilities,

That is not his concern as Network Rail; TfL^» (Transport for London - about) are responsible for the (lack of) response and facilities.

and also how he intends to ensure that the infrastructure in the Thames Valley will be made fit for purpose swiftly, rather than its current state which resembles Coco the clown's car.

Whereas this is within his scope.

[ray951]

I do look forward to his explanation as to why 1000s of passengers were left stranded in cold, dark trains for up to 4 hours with no water or toilet facilities,

That is not his concern as Network Rail; TfL^» (Transport for London - about) are responsible for the (lack of) response and facilities.

and also how he intends to ensure that the infrastructure in the Thames Valley will be made fit for purpose swiftly, rather than its current state which resembles Coco the clown's car.

Whereas this is within his scope.

That may technically be true, but isn't the fragmentation of the railways, as you describe, a major problem and it gives to many people an excuse to pass the buck so that no-one takes responsibility and nothing changes.

I would hope that employees of NR^» (Network Rail - home page), GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), tfl, etc. worked together to ensure that those passengers on stranded trains were communicated with and evacuated as soon as possible.

Until the fragmentation of the railways is resolved then things will not improve for passengers and costs will continue to rise.

[Henry]

 Excuse my ignorance, but this 'overhead line problem' seems to be a regular occurance into
 Paddington.
 Does Euston/Kings Cross etc. have the same problems, or are their OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) any different to the one's
 at Paddington ?
 Once again, excuse my ignorance but being a 'Southern Man' my knowledge of OHL is limited !

[grahame]

 Excuse my ignorance, but this 'overhead line problem' seems to be a regular occurance into
 Paddington.
 Does Euston/Kings Cross etc. have the same problems, or are their OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) any different to the one's
 at Paddington ?
 Once again, excuse my ignorance but being a 'Southern Man' my knowledge of OHL is limited !

As I understand it, the overhead lines from Paddington to Airport Junction were put in for the Heathrow Express, robust enough for a diddy little emu four times an hour.   They now have to take rather more than that.  I believe there may be a question relating to spans over all tracks so that one goes, all go.

Written from armchair - experts, please correct if wrong

[IndustryInsider]

As I understand it, the overhead lines from Paddington to Airport Junction were put in for the Heathrow Express, robust enough for a diddy little emu four times an hour.   They now have to take rather more than that.  I believe there may be a question relating to spans over all tracks so that one goes, all go.

Yes, that’s broadly correct.  Though the ‘headspan’ wiring was a cheap British Rail scoped design that was also used on certain sections of the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) where much more electric traction was expected…and it’s failed on that line on many occasions, too.

Certain bits of the original design on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) have been strengthened, but some remain, especially in the 40/50mph sections out to Ladbroke Grove.

Though from what I’ve heard it wasn’t the direct fault of the infrastructure in this case.  I expect full details will be revealed soon.

[Electric train]

As I understand it, the overhead lines from Paddington to Airport Junction were put in for the Heathrow Express, robust enough for a diddy little emu four times an hour.   They now have to take rather more than that.  I believe there may be a question relating to spans over all tracks so that one goes, all go.

Yes, that’s broadly correct.  Though the ‘headspan’ wiring was a cheap British Rail scoped design that was also used on certain sections of the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) where much more electric traction was expected…and it’s failed on that line on many occasions, too.

Certain bits of the original design on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) have been strengthened, but some remain, especially in the 40/50mph sections out to Ladbroke Grove.

Though from what I’ve heard it wasn’t the direct fault of the infrastructure in this case.  I expect full details will be revealed soon.

The electrification out of Paddington through Portobello Jcn is actually portal and not headspan, although there are still across track spanwires but its not the same as the headspan used on the ECML.   It was not a "cheap" BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) solution, the design and use of headspan was driven by the usual pressures from Government to reduce costs.

I do look forward to his explanation as to why 1000s of passengers were left stranded in cold, dark trains for up to 4 hours with no water or toilet facilities,

That is not his concern as Network Rail; TfL^» (Transport for London - about) are responsible for the (lack of) response and facilities.

and also how he intends to ensure that the infrastructure in the Thames Valley will be made fit for purpose swiftly, rather than its current state which resembles Coco the clown's car.

Whereas this is within his scope.

That may technically be true, but isn't the fragmentation of the railways, as you describe, a major problem and it gives to many people an excuse to pass the buck so that no-one takes responsibility and nothing changes.

I would hope that employees of NR^» (Network Rail - home page), GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), tfl, etc. worked together to ensure that those passengers on stranded trains were communicated with and evacuated as soon as possible.

Until the fragmentation of the railways is resolved then things will not improve for passengers and costs will continue to rise.

Andrew Haines is regarded as the Rail Industry lead, not only CEO^▸ (Chief Executive Officer) of Network Rail he is also CEO of GBR^▸ (Great British Railways).  He will engage and work with other rail industry leaders from the ToCs, TfL, NR to learn lessons and ensure "we do better in the future"

I am sure he has had robust discussions with the Wales and Western Region senior team

[trainbuff]

Personal opinion.

Network Rail are failing left, right and centre. It's time for Andrew Haines to start by, at the very least, making public apologies.

We only really highlight problems on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), and to a lesser extent SWR^» (South Western Railway - about), lines on this forum, but there have been far too many instances of infrastructure failures in this part of the world in recent weeks. The weather can't be blamed for all of them. Looking wider there has major disruption in all parts of the country recently where the cause has been infrastructure related.

Under no circumstances should people should be stranded on trains for four hours plus, on a mainline in a densely populated part of the country. Tonight's fiasco wasn't on a rural branch line miles from anywhere. I fully understand the self-evacuations that took place. I would've done the same. Mealy mouthed apologies in the media from a nameless 'Network Rail spokesperson' just isn't good enough.

It's time Andrew Haines was in front of a Select Committee explaining himself. Preferably before there's an infrastructure failing that costs lives. I believe the situation currently really is that serious. Also, if it's budgetry constraints that are part of the cause of these failings then whoever is this week's SoS for Transport needs to be hauled before Committee too.

The network is falling apart. And I'm bloody angry about it. 

What is happening on the Western and Wales Region specifically in the Thames Valley area recently is not wholly representative of the rest of Network Rail.

Andrew Haines if he were to appear before a select committee he would say give the Rail Industry GBR^▸ (Great British Railways).  By the way he does has regular meetings with the Rail Minister, I suspect he and the Regional Managing Director were on conference calls with the Minster last night.

The decision to evacuate passengers is not one taken lightly, track level is a very hazardous environment, track ballast is not easy to walk on, there are cables, catch pits and much more which is a challenge to experienced track workers. There has to be a plan of where do you take people to exit the railway and then you need to assist them to a safe place.  
Where people left to long, yes.
Could water, food have been provided probably  
The fact that the public address on the Elizabeth Line train stopped working fairly quickly needs to be looked at.
There are no "Thunder Birds" for class 387 and 345 trains unlike class 800 which have engines so can self rescue.  Should there be a "Thunder Bird" based at Old Oak Common, Northpole or Reading

On another forum it's stated that GWRs class 57 was requested as a rescue loco as it has a universal coupling available, however as the ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) bruvvers are taking industrial action this request wasn't met.

I think its wrong to blame ASLEF that no class 57 was working. They advised GWR of the strike. Its the maintenance, and lack of toilets, Guards, all financial cost cutting effects which should be blamed. The railway is an investment, like roads, not a subsidy and it generates economic activity wherever it goes. The real fault lays at the hands of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and Government in general

[jdw.wor]

We have to presume there will be other incidents as well as OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) issues in the future and there will be a continuing need to evacuate trains on running lines. For me the major question coming from this incident is why does it still take a ridiculous amount of time to "free" the passengers. I would like to have an accurate and true diary of management action starting from the time the OHL problem was reported.
I ask this as someone who has "moons ago" been the manager on site evacuating trains on the South Western Division (time clue there) of the Southern Region. On one occasion I had to attend a review at divisional headquarters called solely to discover why it took 75 mins to evacuate a train near Shalford Junction.
With respect, I do not want to hear answers which major on health and safety, these restraints have always existed (more so on the third rail region!) Perhaps the sharing of the "emergency control management" structure might reveal the something.

[JayMac]

Andrew Haines has issued a statement on LinkedIn.

A start. But mainly for the benefit of industry colleagues. Something much more public is needed from him.