Case study
A rail signalling contractor after a line closure
Advising a signalling contractor through a nine-day closure of a commuter line, a safety investigation and a public hearing.
The situation
In October 2019 a fault in newly installed signalling equipment closed a busy commuter line for nine days. About 140,000 journeys a day were disrupted. The equipment had been installed by our client, a signalling contractor, and the line’s operator said so on the first morning.
A safety investigation followed, and in 2021 a public hearing at which the contractor’s engineers gave evidence.
What we did
We advised the contractor to apologise on the first day, plainly, and worked with its lawyers on wording that did not anticipate the investigation. The contractor then published a short update at 07.00 and 17.00 every day of the closure, saying what had been done since the last one and what would be done before the next, until the line reopened.
For the hearing two years later we prepared the contractor’s engineers to give evidence, which mostly meant helping them say “I don’t know” when they did not know.
From the work
We regret any inconvenience caused to passengers.We are sorry. The fault was in equipment we installed, and we are working with the operator to reopen the line.
Outcome
The line reopened on the ninth day. The investigation found that the fault lay in a component supplied to the contractor, and described the contractor’s public updates during the closure as clear and prompt. The contractor has since retained us for its readiness work.
Twice a day for nine days, we said what we had done. By the fourth day people were reading them.
Case studies are published with our clients’ agreement and without their names. Details that would identify a client have been left out or changed.