HEATHROW 123 YESTERDAY

[Deleted]

When i arrived at 123 around 1400 , i noticed a VERY strong smell of burning , there was a supervisor looking into the machine room on the platfrom (underneath the escalators ) and muttering something into his radio about evacuating the station .
although there was no visible smoke, the smell of something overheating in that room was VERY strong, i went and dialled XXX and reported this , as i went east, to my suprise , i didnt hear anything on the radio about any evacuation or suspension at all

When i returned to heathrow on my 2nd half i spoke to the same supervisor who happend to be on the platform, i asked him what came of this earlier incident , he replied " my dsm didnt want to shut the station as there was too many flights landing " .... the machine room will be looked at during engineering hours tonight "

beggars belief doesnt it ? putting revenue b4 the safety of the punters , maybe the dsm in question had forgotten what happened at kx . thats because 19 years ago he was probably still in nappies


EDIT (by Colin): Internal telephone number edited, as it should remain internal!!

[Deleted]

I'm surprised that a passenger didn't unilaterally plunge the fire alarm!

[Colin]

Certainly sounds worrying......

[Tubeboy]

you would like to think the dsm in question respected the judgement of the supervisor, obviously not! I have always understood the closure of a station rests with the supervisor but have to fully justify their reasons for doing so. If something did happen then the dsm would be moved sharpish, probably a cushy desk job at sqe or noc.

[Colin]

You have a good point there (been a while since I worked on stations - the memory is fading ;D ;D) - the station supervisor is legally responsible for his or her station, unless the duty station manager signs the station logbook and formally takes charge.

The station supervisor [assuming he/she felt it neccesary] should have taken action without the need to "take advice" from a manager - like I said, if that manager has not signed the station log book, they are not incharge. Had anything come of this, the station supervisor would be holding his/her P45.

[Deleted]

tubeboy said:

you would like to think the dsm in question respected the judgement of the supervisor, obviously not! I have always understood the closure of a station rests with the supervisor but have to fully justify their reasons for doing so. If something did happen then the dsm would be moved sharpish, probably a cushy desk job at sqe or noc.

If I was the Supervisor I would have exited stage left, having given the keys to the DSM

[Tomcakes]

Couldn't the supervisor have asserted *their* judgement and set the fire alarm off, after all they are on the scene and can see it rather than being on the end of the phone. Rather worring that managers appear to think that people shouldn't be delayed a bit, though it won't make any difference how delayed you are if you're fried to a crisp!1

[yellowsignal]

couldnt he have called for some tech guy to look at the equipment in that room or shut off the power to the escalator?

[Deleted]

I see your point, and it would be nice to have it as simple as that, but first of all you need to get all the bureaucracy sorted: the DSM etc, needs to find out WHO is responsible for maintaining that equipment, get permission to enter the room concerned, get permission to isolate the equipment, then get a job number for the call out/repair, plus there is the point that there needs to be X amount of escalators in service at x time....

I'm probably wrong on a few things....may be some of you stations guys can come in here and clarify the 'tree of events' for such an occurence...

[Tubeboy]

Yes t/o 92, that sequence of events is about right. The responsibility lies ultimately with the supervisor, maybe he felt pressurised by the dsm to keep the station open. Despite the huge disruption that might ensue [especially at this particular station], you should always err on the side of caution. you cant get a bollocking for upholding safety.

[prjb]

Perhaps the DSM attended and checked the situation himself? He may even have called the ECC (Engineering Call Centre) and acted on advice. Another thought is that this might possibly be a known problem which had occured before and the DSM was aware whilst the Supervisor wasn't, if the S/S was a relief man then this is a likely scenario. Just throwing up a few alternatives.
There isn't a great deal of bureaucracy involved in this scenario really. The S/S informs the DSM of a fault or incident and the S/S or DSM calls the SSR ECC. From that point on the ECC handle the situation and despatch a suitable technician to resolve the problem. If deemed dangerous then the S/S or DSM would not need to seek authorisation to isolate any piece of equipment, they could just shut off the power. If the loss of that equipment resulted in a station closure then the S/S and DSM would manage the situation accordingly.
I don't think that the DSM was interested in revenue when he referred to flights. More likely that he was talking about customer disruption for those coming into Heathrow and moreover those travelling west in order to catch flights out.
It is highly unlikely that a DSM (or any manager for that matter) would over rule staff on the ground without good cause. The S/S must have been unsure of what to do or he would have acted immediately and closed the station. Instead he appears to have either called his DSM to site or asked for advice over the phone. Whatever happened the DSM and S/S must have decided that safety was not an issue in order for the station to remain open. If this wasn't the case then the Technician would have raised the alarm when he arrived.
A full Electronic Incident Reporting Form (EIRF) would have also been filled out and submitted too, which would detail the incident and decisions taken. If there was a breach of procedures or a danger to the public (which I seriously doubt there was), it would have been picked up and dealt with one way or the other.