Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[The Stationmaster]

13 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Mike,  as I mentioned above, the 802 was able to maintain hotel power throughout and get itself back into Paddington but not until the OLE had been made safe and debris removed from the roof of the unit.

 

NR have very detailed maps which not only include details of the railway but also all the emergency access points to the railway which are easily accessible to all staff.

Fait enough about emergenvcy access points Mike but if you don't know your way round the back doubles and side roads of West London and you get stuck in traffic it;s a heck of lot harder to get to somewhere like Barlby Road in a hurry

[Mike_Walker]

13 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The lack of toilets begs the question of what people are meant to do if stuck on a train for several hours. The choices would appear to be to soil oneself (bad enough for urine but much worse for a number two), use a bottle if it's pee time and hope nobody screams, let it out on the vehicle floor or force the doors open and detain. It's unrealistic to think people can hold it in indefinitely.

It does beg the question: would the toilets be useable if there was no power supply?  Gone are the days of a simple door with a bolt and a simple flush.  Today they are as complex as the rest of the trains!

[Ron Ron Ron]

49 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

The DfT had no part in specifying the 803s, they were acquired by First Group for their open access operation.  They do have a battery capability to limp to a suitable place for evacuation should the main power supply fail.

 

I didn't suggest they had any part in specifying the Lumo units.

However I assume that DafT have the final say in what operators are allowed to run on the network.

Clearly, the impetus behind the IET spec. wasn't translated into a strategic network requirement for all new trains.

That was the point of my comment.

 

.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

It does beg the question: would the toilets be useable if there was no power supply?  Gone are the days of a simple door with a bolt and a simple flush.  Today they are as complex as the rest of the trains!

 

That's a point stressed by many railway people commenting on "another forum".

The lack of toilets is a complete red herring in this episode.

Power operated toilets are disabled in the load shedding.

 

 

.

[Michael Hodgson]

17 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Eventually passengers started forcing open doors so they could relieve themselves (no toilets on the EL 345's and no power to operate the toilets on the HEX 387's and GWR IET). before starting de-training en-masse.

Probably not a good idea to do that in third rail areas when you don't know if the power has been isolated! 😵

Results could be a bit like a patent that was taken out in the 19th century to stop dogs urinating against lamp posts

[Michael Hodgson]

39 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The lack of toilets begs the question of what people are meant to do if stuck on a train for several hours. The choices would appear to be to soil oneself (bad enough for urine but much worse for a number two), use a bottle if it's pee time and hope nobody screams, let it out on the vehicle floor or force the doors open and detain. It's unrealistic to think people can hold it in indefinitely.

There comes a point in any emergency when it is totally unreasonable to believe that passengers will refrain from taking matters into their own hands.   Where that point lies will depend to a large extent on the type of emergency, obvious hazards and the information provided (or not provided) to them by staff who should have a better grasp of both the situation and the risks. 

 

Trains have emergency exits for a reason, and it the punters believe they are in an emergency, they will use their inititiative.  Public address used intelligently can help those at the sharp end to contain the situation, but depending on how long it takes, lack of toilets or even lack of catering will force the hand of those endeavouring to persuade passengers to stay put and await a possibly more appropriate action initiated by officialdom.

[Ron Ron Ron]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

There comes a point in any emergency when it is totally unreasonable to believe that passengers will refrain from taking matters into their own hands.   Where that point lies will depend to a large extent on the type of emergency, obvious hazards and the information provided (or not provided) to them by staff who should have a better grasp of both the situation and the risks. 

 

Trains have emergency exits for a reason, and it the punters believe they are in an emergency, they will use their inititiative.  Public address used intelligently can help those at the sharp end to contain the situation, but depending on how long it takes, lack of toilets or even lack of catering will force the hand of those endeavouring to persuade passengers to stay put and await a possibly more appropriate action initiated by officialdom.

 

I totally agree.

 

I'm reading elsewhere, that following Lewisham and other incidents, NR were told in a report (...it might be from the ORR ?) that human factors and human behaviour had not been adequately factored into any emergency, or contingency planning.

I think this extends all the way back in history, through BR and beyond.

 

Without adequate information, and proactive people management, passengers are going to do what they think necessary in such situations, whether through calculation (flawed or not), belligerence, or in a panic.

Most passengers don't know about all the potential dangers involved if leaving a train unsupervised, nor would they understand about OHLE or 3rd Rail.

Why should they?  

They're not required to undertake emergency training before being allowed to travel.

 

Speaking as a lay-person, I am sure there are lots of procedures and processes in place to deal with incidents like this, but clearly there are serious shortcomings that may serve to demonstrate that those procedures are either inadequate, or fundamentally flawed, when it comes to the aspect of dealing with stranded passengers.

Blaming it on the availability of resources doesn't absolve any apparent fundamental failing.

I would hope this incident should serve to highlight another gaping hole in railway safety culture, but as nobody died (thankfully), I do wonder to what extent and depth the "inquiry" will go.

 

 

.

 

.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[stewartingram]

Regarding no communication to passengers with updates - when the batteries go flat I assume the train is completely dead. So 1) how could the driver get updates from control with no radio? and 2) even if he somehow got an update, how could he tell the passengers - no PA? I doubt very much that he would wander off through the train (if indeed he is allowed to leave his cab?

Edited December 9, 2023 by stewartingram

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

.Please don't cast aspersions about the abilities someone you do not know.

 

That was not the intention - and moreover I am well aware that in an industrial dispute it’s in the interests of a trade union to latch on to any incident and spin it to their own advantage.

 

But statistically speaking a person doing something 5 days a week is (assuming complacency doesn’t creep in) going to ha e a better chance of spotting something out of the ordinary than a person doing something 1 day a week even if the latter is still considered competent.

 

The above doesn’t just apply to train drivers - the principle of the more you do a task the better you will be at noticing when somethings not quite right can be applied to virtually all aspects of life.

 

Therefore while I don’t doubt Driver instructors are fully conversant with a route in terms of what railway standards require, given the ratio of instructors to drivers is not 1:1 then it’s quite possible they may miss something which a regular driver might not.

 

Therefore while in this particular incident agree the claims made by ASLEF are nonsense it doesn’t mean it’s a complete fantasy as a general point to consider when things go wrong.

 

Certainly from an infrastructure maintainer viewpoint the amount of screw ups where unfamiliarity with the location / equipment / historic trends has resulted in preventable errors even though the persons are officially ‘competent’ does make me question cooperate statements….

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

Blaming it on the availability of resources doesn't absolve any apparent fundamental failing.

.

Yes and no

 

It’s all very well having a wonderful contingency plan with all details accounted for…. but if you don’t have the people on the ground who can be mobilised quickly to ACTION all those wonderful things you have said you can do it’s all a bit pointless having your wonderful plan in the first place.

 

The brutal truth is there simply aren’t enough boots on the ground to cope with more than one train evacuation at a time within NR ( if you can get help from the fire brigade then that might up the number to two) and when you have 6/7 trains to deal with that will inevitably mean delays.

 

At one time the railway had lots of maintenance staff on duty to cover potential failures during peak hours - but they have been whittled away as successive been counters have demanded cuts and increases in productivity*….

 

More recently NR have, at the DfTs behest, been slashing the number of maintenance staff on the books claiming that ‘smarter working practices means they don’t need as many people while the ban on working with lookouts means more and more folk are working nights as that’s the only time they can be ‘productive’

 

The brutal truth is the railway industry (and particularly NR) has far too many chiefs obsessed with pretty graphs / pdfs / swanky plans / PR rubbish and far too few front line staff.

 

 

*seeing as you generally cannot get gaps between to do maintenance in the peaks staff on duty at peak times will inevitably have low productivity.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

25 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

It’s all very well having a wonderful contingency plan with all details accounted for…. but if you don’t have the people on the ground who can be mobilised quickly to ACTION all those wonderful things you have said you can do it’s all a bit pointless having your wonderful plan in the first place.

 

Contingency plans need to be tested from time to time to ensure they are workable.

 

For unlikely contingencies, that means a formal planned test, conducted in the first place to establish and remedy any inadequacies, and periodically to ensure that they remain workable, as the physical environment and staff awareness are likely to have evolved.

 

For more probable contingencies (like breakdowns and dewirements), that periodic planned testing becomes unnecesary, but management does have to be aware of the need to address failings in the light of experience, and adjust accordingly.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm probably one of only a very few people on RMweb who have had any involvement in an emergency that led to a train evacuation - which included passengers jumping out.  The incidemta was fire on an HST due to a ruptured fuel tank and I saw it start - about halfna mile from me so I was able to quicly contact reading panel from  an SPT the panel supel Supervisopr knew me so knew I wasn't an idiot messing about and so we instantly closed all four running lines about half a mile on one side of the site and just over a quarter of a .mile on the other side.  

 

That was the easy bit.  The difficult bit came next and fortunately the local Asst AM  On Call got to the site within about 10-15 minutes, two or three other operating trained folk from the Area team arrived within a further 5 minutes or so and I was already marshalling those passengers who had run along the line towards me - getting them safely clear of the line and making sure they didn't move.

 

A human chain of operating a staff was then formed to evacuate the passengers to the nearest station which was also the nearest easy road access site and had a car park where they could be gathered and checked to make sure no one was missing 0 inso far as those passengers present knew.  Akk four lines then had to be searched for some distance in each direction from the train and including tb yard connections in order to be able to once again get trains on the move.  In an uncontrolled detraining  - which is how this one had started - people go everywhere but fortunately only a handful had gone the other way and it only took about 30-40 minutes to round them up.

 

Lesson 1 (repeated some time later after a passenger got out of another HST that was on fire and was killed by a train on the adjacent line) 

Detraining from a train stopped and in trouble, of whatever sort, has to be carefully controlled - that's why notices now tell passengers to listen to announcements.  And it is where on-train PA is essential

Lesson 2.  You always need far more people than you might think you need to safely supervise emergency detraining and escorting passengers to a place of safety.  The people doing that need to know the area for their own safety and in order to best handle evacuation from the lineside.

Lesson 3.  If uncontrolled detraining has occurred there can be a considerable area to search before lines can be reopened even if the initial emergency has passed and trains could otherwise move.

Lesson 4.  If there is more than one train to deal with you need even more trained people on the ground to carry out what applies in Lessons 2 and 3.

Lesson 5.  The longer it takes trained staff to get to the site the larger and harder the whole process becomes particularly when uncontrolled detraining has taken place

And never forget that there are doors on both sides of a train.

 

None of this is some sort of mystic art - it should be included in local emergency plans with procedures and responsibilities clearly identified plus appendices listing method of contact for all of those qualified/competent to assist.  If, back in1978, I could manage most of that in my Area Emergency Plan to such a standard that an HMRI made  positive comments about it during his Inquiry into the sleeping car fire at Taunton it hardly ought to be difficult for one of today's railway managers - whichever concern they work for.  And it could be construed from Section 19 of ROGS (Risk Assessments) that they have a legal responsibility to do so and that also definitely means that id t should be included in the relevant Safety Plan for that railway/area..

 

[jamie92208]

Reading  Mike's comments above one modern resource that could be invaluable is a helicopter with Forward Looking Infra Red.  I used one to locate a missing limb after a fatality. It would be very easy to scan the area for people even if NR didn:t have one available BTP should be able to request help from the local Police air support. 

 

Jamie

Edited December 9, 2023 by jamie92208

[iands]

3 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Regarding no communication to passengers with updates - when the batteries go flat I assume the train is completely dead. So 1) how could the driver get updates from control with no radio? and 2) even if he somehow got an update, how could he tell the passengers - no PA? I doubt very much that he would wander off through the train (if indeed he is allowed to leave his cab?

The GSMR has a separate battery to all the other on-board systems, so (in theory) comms should still be possible for a period of time after other power supplies have failed (I think the back-up period is 4 hours, but I'll need to dig out my documentation to confirm).

[ess1uk]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

Certainly from an infrastructure maintainer viewpoint the amount of screw ups where unfamiliarity with the location / equipment / historic trends has resulted in preventable errors even though the persons are officially ‘competent’ does make me question cooperate statements….

 

Amen

[RJS1977]

7 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

That's a point stressed by many railway people commenting on "another forum".

The lack of toilets is a complete red herring in this episode.

Power operated toilets are disabled in the load shedding.

 

 

.

 

To quote a very wise Scottish engineer:

 

"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drains!"

[Michael Hodgson]

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Reading  Mike's comments above one modern resource that could be invaluable is a helicopter with Forward Looking Infra Red.  I used one to locate a missing limb after a fatality. It would be very easy to scan the area for people even if NR didn:t have one available BTP should be able to request help from the local Police air support. 

 

Jamie

Before he retired, my brother was a pilot who spent most of his career flying Search & Rescue helicopters in northern Scotland.  Naturally he worked with police and other emergency services, although the RAF's SAR has since been largely privatised.  I think he would tell you  the police would be unlikely to be able to offer much support if the objective was merely to get the railway moving again.  That's not the responsibility of the police, and they have a lot of other duties such as trying to catch villains, although they might be more co-operative when necessary to search for known missing persons, especially if vulnerable.  But if you just want to make sure it's safe to re-open the line, I think you would need to use a railway-owned or chartered aircraft.

 

These days, drones would be far more cost-effective.

[jjb1970]

These days drones cost peanuts and while electro-optical technologies still have a cost they're not the exotic preserve of military users they once were. I would have thought NR would already be using them for various inspection tasks, we were using them in electricity to inspect wind turbines and large structures well over a decade ago. Port authorities and maritime administrations use them with instruments to check ship engine exhaust emissions in their waters.

[DY444]

On 08/12/2023 at 21:03, phil-b259 said:

 

It might only be a 5 minute spin to Sutton but Sutton station itself is a bit constrained! It only has one pseudo bay platform (one of the Epsom Downs ones) and no loops or turn back siding - plus a frequent Southern & Thameslink service to boot.

 

Of course that 5 minutes running time may well also eat into drivers rest periods (so more drivers needed) and would likely need an extra train or two as well.

 

In an ideal world rather than running to Sutton having the Overground running to East Croydon would probably be more useful (particularly as DfT mandated cuts have caused the removal of Southern stopping services between East Croydon and Sydenham therefore requiring two changes to get between Forrest Hill and East Croydon where their used to be a direct train. However much like Sutton, East Croydon doesn't have the platform space to do this - but West Croydon has its bay and the turnback siding...

 

If the Belmont turnback ever happens the constraints on Sutton station *should* be eased. 

 

Running the overground to East Croydon rather than extend it to Sutton/Belmont would also be entirely consistent with TfL's long standing attitude to transport in Sutton, which is make residents pay through the nose for the council tax transport levy and get hardly anything in return.  After all it's vital that Sutton retains its distinguished and long held record of having the worst public transport in London and amongst the highest council tax (6th highest out of the 32 boroughs last year).  TfL also skilfully managed to ensure that NR retained 3 aspect signals at existing locations between West Croydon and Sutton during the Sutton area resignalling a few years ago to help its quest.  I mean even the wall of death had extra signal sections added for no obvious reason but the Wallington line where it actually mighty have helped?  No chance.

Edited December 10, 2023 by DY444

[jamie92208]

15 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Before he retired, my brother was a pilot who spent most of his career flying Search & Rescue helicopters in northern Scotland.  Naturally he worked with police and other emergency services, although the RAF's SAR has since been largely privatised.  I think he would tell you  the police would be unlikely to be able to offer much support if the objective was merely to get the railway moving again.  That's not the responsibility of the police, and they have a lot of other duties such as trying to catch villains, although they might be more co-operative when necessary to search for known missing persons, especially if vulnerable.  But if you just want to make sure it's safe to re-open the line, I think you would need to use a railway-owned or chartered aircraft.

 

These days, drones would be far more cost-effective.

For me it was very easy as I was the duty Inspector in a county force and we were dealing with the fatality as BTP were some way away. so just ordered up the force helicopter.  I hadn't thought about the advances in drone technology but they would probably be a lot easier to deploy.  Regardless of that I think that using FLIR from whatever means is probably the quickest way to locate people near the scene of an incident. 

 

Jamie

[phil-b259]

 

23 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

These days, drones would be far more cost-effective.

 

22 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

These days drones cost peanuts and while electro-optical technologies still have a cost they're not the exotic preserve of military users they once were. I would have thought NR would already be using them for various inspection tasks, we were using them in electricity to inspect wind turbines and large structures well over a decade ago. Port authorities and maritime administrations use them with instruments to check ship engine exhaust emissions in their waters.

 

Network Rail do indeed have Drone teams which are used for infrastructure inspection (viaducts mainly, though obviously things like station roofs can also be covered).

 

However these teams are small in number and cover a huge area because you don’t need to inspect structures anywhere near as frequently as other railway assets (assuming no defects are found) - so you won’t have the Drone team sitting round in the evening peaks near London just in case you a mass de-training event happens.

 

(Note, NR, as with many companies considers Drone operators to be specialists and only those staff who are members of the Drone teams are permitted to deploy them. In layman’s terms that means that basically all those why might be called on to deal with / assist with a de-training event are not going to have access to a Drone)

 

Similarly Network Rail does actually have a helicopter team - and much like the national grid uses helicopters with thermal imaging equipment to inspects its Pylons the NR helicopter will follow electrified rail lines looking for overheating / defective traction equipment. But as with the drone team this helicopter has to cover huge swathes of the country and is not going to be available to deploy in a mass des-training incident.

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

If the Belmont turnback ever happens the constraints on Sutton station *should* be eased. 

 

Running the overground to East Croydon rather than extend it to Sutton/Belmont would also be entirely consistent with TfL's long standing attitude to transport in Sutton, which is make residents pay through the nose for the council tax transport levy and get hardly anything in return.  After all it's vital that Sutton retains its distinguished and long held record of having the worst public transport in London and amongst the highest council tax (6th highest out of the 32 boroughs last year).  TfL also skilfully managed to ensure that NR retained 3 aspect signals at existing locations between West Croydon and Sutton during the Sutton area resignalling a few years ago to help its quest.  I mean even the wall of death had extra signal sections added for no obvious reason but the Wallington line where it actually mighty have helped?  No chance.

There has long been an aspiration for the Wimbledon loop to go to 4TPH - indeed it even got proposed to do exactly that during the Thameslink timetable planning where they sought to do away with the left - right shuffle south of Blackfriars by having Wimbledon loop services curtailed at Blackfriars (but go up to 4TPH) and SE services which terminated at Blackfriars be completely absorbed into Thameslink.
 

This very sound proposal got rejected after the politically well connected commuters of the loop threw a huge hissy fit that they would no longer have direct trains to City Thameslink and the politicians vetoed it - but given the very same politicians still whinge and moan about the poor service round the loop maybe NR future proofed themselves in case saner minds prevail in future.
 

There is also a possibility that the previous signalling arrangements around the Wimbledon loop caused timetabling problems - given the way Thameslink links the MML, the ECML, the BML, plus Wimbledon loop trains have to cross SE on the flat at Horne Hill and thread their way through Southern services at Tulse Hill I can see that extra signals might well be helpful.

 

As for W - Croydon to Sutton, IIRC that gets more than 4TPH anyway and the politicians don’t seem quite as vocal about it- and as a general rule unless Polticans start making a fuss the NR are not going to speculatively enhance the signalling they provide any more than the LNWR did over a century ago!

 

As we keep telling modellers signalling is expensive so railways will only invest what is needed (or what the politicians say is needed)….

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

 

Network Rail do indeed have Drone teams which are used for infrastructure inspection (viaducts mainly, though obviously things like station roofs can also be covered).

 

However these teams are small in number and cover a huge area because you don’t need to inspect structures anywhere near as frequently as other railway assets (assuming no defects are found) - so you won’t have the Drone team sitting round in the evening peaks near London just in case you a mass de-training event happens.

 

(Note, NR, as with many companies considers Drone operators to be specialists and only those staff who are members of the Drone teams are permitted to deploy them. In layman’s terms that means that basically all those why might be called on to deal with / assist with a de-training event are not going to have access to a Drone)

 

Similarly Network Rail does actually have a helicopter team - and much like the national grid uses helicopters with thermal imaging equipment to inspects its Pylons the NR helicopter will follow electrified rail lines looking for overheating / defective traction equipment. But as with the drone team this helicopter has to cover huge swathes of the country and is not going to be available to deploy in a mass des-training incident.

While NR may well decide not to employ a large team of drone operators, I would have thought that having an emergency cover deal with a company such as Sky-Futures would be worthwhile. Or is it, once again, that other government departments are higher up the pecking order than NR?

Bernard

[adb968008]

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

There has long been an aspiration for the Wimbledon loop to go to 4TPH - indeed it even got proposed to do exactly that during the Thameslink timetable planning where they sought to do away with the left - right shuffle south of Blackfriars by having Wimbledon loop services curtailed at Blackfriars (but go up to 4TPH) and SE services which terminated at Blackfriars be completely absorbed into Thameslink.
 

This very sound proposal got rejected after the politically well connected commuters of the loop threw a huge hissy fit that they would no longer have direct trains to City Thameslink and the politicians vetoed it - but given the very same politicians still whinge and moan about the poor service round the loop maybe NR future proofed themselves in case saner minds prevail in future.
 

There is also a possibility that the previous signalling arrangements around the Wimbledon loop caused timetabling problems - given the way Thameslink links the MML, the ECML, the BML, plus Wimbledon loop trains have to cross SE on the flat at Horne Hill and thread their way through Southern services at Tulse Hill I can see that extra signals might well be helpful.

 

As for W - Croydon to Sutton, IIRC that gets more than 4TPH anyway and the politicians don’t seem quite as vocal about it- and as a general rule unless Polticans start making a fuss the NR are not going to speculatively enhance the signalling they provide any more than the LNWR did over a century ago!

 

As we keep telling modellers signalling is expensive so railways will only invest what is needed (or what the politicians say is needed)….

Almost have separate threads here.

 

but turning Wimbledon to sutton, from Morden South to Northern Line makes more sense. Demolish / replace the single lane road bridge above Sutton station, plus knock down a store room at the platform, and change a kebab shop to make an entrance from the main street and you have space for a tube platform 0.

Maybe have a short extension of Wimbledon tram to a terminal platform at Morden South.

 

As for the Wallington line… finish heavy rail into new platforms in the old West croydon  carriage sidings, plus p1. These could be step free due to the sunken nature of the access street.

Demolish the rest of the station down to ground level.

Bring trams into the old through platforms at their natural level.

Things removes trams from the street, allows a wider bus station and give a whole tram, bus, rail step free interchange.

Then reinstate Bandon Halt as a tramstop, run trams upto Sutton, and on up the downs branch, or go street level, and down the high street.

If Southern need a turn backpoint… build the once planned centre platforms at Cheam… the space is still available and waiting after 90 years !

 

nothing like this would ever happen of course.. as its about improvements and comfort rather then revenue.

The Sutton residents are grumbling, there murmours of a SutExit movement seeking to remove Sutton from London, especially as the bus service is shrinking and the Police is being run down to provide less local, more to Croydon and seeing the uptime in crime as a result.

 

The area is being mugged by growth in scrotes, central London politicians, even fuel companies exploiting the poor public transport / high car ownership requirements…

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/23975932.sutton-one-expensive-places-petrol-uk/

 

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by adb968008

[009 micro modeller]

5 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

but turning Wimbledon to sutton, from Morden South to Northern Line makes more sense. Demolish / replace the single lane road bridge above Sutton station, plus knock down a store room at the platform, and change a kebab shop to make an entrance from the main street and you have space for a tube platform 0.

Maybe have a short extension of Wimbledon tram to a terminal platform at Morden South.

I might have missed something here but would you still have Thameslink (or some other National Rail service) between Wimbledon and South Merton/Morden South or just the tram? The latter would (as currently set up) probably need to reverse at Wimbledon. And don’t some trains currently go round to Sutton and then continue back towards London, rather than going back via Wimbledon?