Post by Nortube on Jan 29, 2015 20:56:38 GMT
The flooding last week between Kings Cross St Pancras and Farringdon has really screwed the Thameslink service up. Given the appalling service that Thameslink has provided since they took over FCC (I'd never have thought things could be worse than FCC, but I was wrong), this is one thing that actually isn't their fault. Having said that, there seem to be very many people who think that Thameslink are handling their side of it very badly as far as up to date passenger informations etc. is being given to passengers.
The line was flooded in a dip in the tunnel. This obviously affects signalling because the track circuits will not work correctly, water creating a circuit between the two running rails makes the system think that the track is occupied.
The reason for the flooding was due to a burst 16" water main and the water seeping onto the track. Fair enough, these things happen, but it just developed into a farce from that point on, with nobody seeming to know what was going on. Trains were initially being run through the water at different times. Now, surprise surprise, Thameslink are saying that the reason for reduced availability and reduced train lengths (apart from the multitude of planned cancellations) is because water damaged equipment on / under the train!
The latest in the farce is that now Thameslink are saying that, although the burst water main was there responsibility, most of the following problems, such as the amount of flooding and the water not running away even after they'd repaired the burst, was because Network Rail hadn't maintained the drainage system and that it was now blocked solid and thus couldn't allow the water to drain away.
Nothing surprises me. I don't know how the water got onto the track originally. I got the impression that it gradually seeped onto the track from the burst rather than a sudden flooding of the track. If it seeped in, then the water should have drained away as quick as the drainage system could cope. If the water suddenly poured in, then there is a chance that the sudden rush could have carried extra debris with it which helped to block the system.
Various info here;
On twitter - FarringdonTrains
[ CLick here ]
Thames Water press release:
[ Click here ]
The line was flooded in a dip in the tunnel. This obviously affects signalling because the track circuits will not work correctly, water creating a circuit between the two running rails makes the system think that the track is occupied.
The reason for the flooding was due to a burst 16" water main and the water seeping onto the track. Fair enough, these things happen, but it just developed into a farce from that point on, with nobody seeming to know what was going on. Trains were initially being run through the water at different times. Now, surprise surprise, Thameslink are saying that the reason for reduced availability and reduced train lengths (apart from the multitude of planned cancellations) is because water damaged equipment on / under the train!
The latest in the farce is that now Thameslink are saying that, although the burst water main was there responsibility, most of the following problems, such as the amount of flooding and the water not running away even after they'd repaired the burst, was because Network Rail hadn't maintained the drainage system and that it was now blocked solid and thus couldn't allow the water to drain away.
Nothing surprises me. I don't know how the water got onto the track originally. I got the impression that it gradually seeped onto the track from the burst rather than a sudden flooding of the track. If it seeped in, then the water should have drained away as quick as the drainage system could cope. If the water suddenly poured in, then there is a chance that the sudden rush could have carried extra debris with it which helped to block the system.
Various info here;
On twitter - FarringdonTrains
[ CLick here ]
Thames Water press release:
[ Click here ]