FEATURE: DAVID TAYLOR
Cannon Street Max Q Size (ppl)
Max Waiting Time (min)
Charing Cross Max Q Size (ppl)
Max Waiting Time (min)
900 25
Bank Max Q Size (ppl) Max Waiting Time (min)
500 15
150 5
Extract from the multi- station model for events in Greenwich Park
Waterloo East Max Q Size (ppl)
Max Waiting Time (min)
250 10
London Bridge Max Q Size (ppl)
Max Waiting Time (min)
Maze Hill Greenwich
50 5
Greenwich Park
Blackheath
discussions – providing the evidence base and focus to support collective decisions across organisations.
I would expect the end of this stage to represent at least 80% of the solution – and for most stations, sufficiently robust analysis will have been done. This allows planning for details such as staffing, signage and barriers to be organised in good time.
Simulation and Real-World Testing
For the most complex or critical stations, simulation models can provide more sophisticated analysis and assurance. The coming together of different pedestrian flows can be assessed within a plan of the space, with emergent outcomes such as congestion and queuing. Videos, including in 3D, can powerfully communicate the situation to high-level decision makers, and to staff for training.
Although these models are powerful, care should be taken to remember that they are based on forecast demand and other parameters and inputs, around which may be some variance or risk. I have often seen them presented as the single ‘truth’ based on inputs that have not been substantiated. Real-world experience of events and spectator behaviour, as well as practical station operations, is needed to create good models and interpret the results with the right degree of scepticism.
A live test is the final ‘simulation’ option. Whether restricting usual people flows, or using volunteers in more expensive exercises, sometimes a live test is the only
WWW.THECONNECTSERIES.CO.UK
During London 2012, a dedicated ‘Analytics’ team brought together and analysed data – including mobile phone tracking – to provide evidence and insights to senior managers, staff on the ground, and even press offi cers.
way to deal with exceptional complexity or risk. Testing access to the Javelin service at St Pancras is an example of the potential value: the operational plan to pre-load the platforms with known volumes of people was essential to the success of the Javelin. Observation of the behaviour of groups, the walk speeds of people in the context of an event and the detailed way in which they navigate the space, all helped refine the operational plan in a way not possible using computer models.
Operational support: live monitoring and analytics
The final stage – and a clear lesson from the Games – is the live monitoring of crowds. This is particularly valuable for multi-day events such as the Olympics, or for annual
or regular events, when observation during an event can help adjust the forecast demand and expected operation for the next day or year in the light of actual outcomes.
During London 2012, a dedicated ‘Analytics’ team brought together and analysed data – including mobile phone tracking – to provide evidence and insights to senior managers, staff on the ground, and even press officers. The tracking of mobiles was an innovative source of incredibly rich real-time information based on the actual travel patterns of individual (but anonymous) spectators – a topic that deserves its own discussion.
The Analytics team was widely recognised as providing valuable operational information across the network and for the Games organisers, as well as supporting communication to spectators, Londoners and the media. A similar approach was used during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and future opportunities are being explored as part of the Games’ Legacy.
Summary
Rail transport was a headline safety and reputational risk going into London 2012. The years of investment and planning made sure that the headlines were good news. In my view, the approach I’ve outlined was a key part of this success, supporting stakeholders with the evidence and responsive analysis to help create station overlay plans that not only worked, but worked well, with enhanced reputation for the event organisers and transport providers alike.
RailCONNECT 51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84