|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 11, 2010 13:41:10 GMT
I don't recognise the acronym LFEPA - who are (or were?) they? London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Part of the Greater London Authroity and run the London Fire Brigade. Oh how we love TLAs and FLAs, of course I remember it as the LFCDA! (London Fire and Civil defence Authority)
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 11, 2010 22:54:05 GMT
I do not know if open section counts with the three station rule. When I have time I will try and find out. I added it mainly to give a fare view of the minimum. The main reason for the three station rule is that in case of emergency a train can de-train its passengers to safety. This can not be done if a station is unstaffed and subsequently locked up. Also if a train is stuck and needs assistance from station staff the time to walk would be considerable if such gaps appears. I would say though stations like West Finchley can be unstaffed but still remain open to the public and therefore be a means of escape which would negate most arguments for open-section to adhere to the three station rule. As I said earlier, and by your own explanation and interpretation of the rules, the 3-station rule applies to deep-level / single track tube lines, and not to sub-surface or surface running lines. In single-track tube tunnels there are not many places to go except forwards (if exiting from the front of a train) or backwards. In dual-track areas, you have more than one choice, and sometimes (but not always) the other line can provide a means of evacuation, by using another train.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2010 23:59:30 GMT
I do not know if open section counts with the three station rule. When I have time I will try and find out. I added it mainly to give a fare view of the minimum. The main reason for the three station rule is that in case of emergency a train can de-train its passengers to safety. This can not be done if a station is unstaffed and subsequently locked up. Also if a train is stuck and needs assistance from station staff the time to walk would be considerable if such gaps appears. I would say though stations like West Finchley can be unstaffed but still remain open to the public and therefore be a means of escape which would negate most arguments for open-section to adhere to the three station rule. As I said earlier, and by your own explanation and interpretation of the rules, the 3-station rule applies to deep-level / single track tube lines, and not to sub-surface or surface running lines. In single-track tube tunnels there are not many places to go except forwards (if exiting from the front of a train) or backwards. In dual-track areas, you have more than one choice, and sometimes (but not always) the other line can provide a means of evacuation, by using another train. Where is the three station rule though?
|
|
|
Post by splashdown on Oct 12, 2010 8:31:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2010 14:40:26 GMT
Although the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was repealed by the Regulatory Reform (fire Safety) Order 2005. The Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations have also been repealed by the 2005 order but only recently. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/subsurfacerailsafety.pdfThe 2005 order introduced the fire risk assessment and the rule book and compliance with it, is widely used to reduce risk.
|
|
|
Post by splashdown on Oct 13, 2010 9:18:14 GMT
It is all very complicated as after the King Cross fire it was felt that new rules should come in quickly hence the attachment to the 1971 law.
London Underground management also felt they wanted to add to their legal requirement and actually made safety a top priority increasing the minimum required staff and staff training. Modern technology has made some of the recommendations obsolete hence the changes in legislation and LUL want to reduce staff (cost) numbers.
I can update a little more about the rule in that I have been reliably informed it does exist but does not relate to open section stations. Which means Archway to High Barnet can work with only five members of staff. I was being too generous so have saved the general public another 25 to 40 grand depending on the grade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2010 12:11:22 GMT
It is all very complicated as after the King Cross fire it was felt that new rules should come in quickly hence the attachment to the 1971 law. London Underground management also felt they wanted to add to their legal requirement and actually made safety a top priority increasing the minimum required staff and staff training. Modern technology has made some of the recommendations obsolete hence the changes in legislation and LUL want to reduce staff (cost) numbers. I can update a little more about the rule in that I have been reliably informed it does exist but does not relate to open section stations. Which means Archway to High Barnet can work with only five members of staff. I was being too generous so have saved the general public another 25 to 40 grand depending on the grade. I’ve got one of my DMTs on the case trying to dig out the exact wording of the three station rule as I can't find it in the Rule Book. The term “section 12” comes from the clause in the FPA 1971 which allows amendments and the FP(SRS) Regs 1989 were introduced under it. They put into place all the recommendations of the Fennel Report, not sure if LUL were as enthusiastic as you suggest as I don't think they actually implemented any changes apart from a complete smoking ban until after the regs went through, nearly two years after the fire. If memory serves me any change to the minimum staffing level has to be approved by the LFEPA but as that now comes under the GLA and the Mayor I'm sure they will have no problem cutting numbers. From what I read here it looks as if they already have been reduced since when I worked stations; every day my choice to go on the front end looks better and better.
|
|
|
Post by harlesden on Oct 13, 2010 13:00:49 GMT
I remember one evening in 1993 or 1994 when Tooting Broadway had to close because the only staff on the station would have been the Station Supervisor and myself (booking clerk), and during those glorious days when the actual booking clerk grade existed, I was not certified to perform any duties below booking hall level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2010 20:07:48 GMT
I remember one evening in 1993 or 1994 when Tooting Broadway had to close because the only staff on the station would have been the Station Supervisor and myself (booking clerk), and during those glorious days when the actual booking clerk grade existed, I was not certified to perform any duties below booking hall level. Oooo, very pre-compnay plan! SAMFs or whatever they call them these days have to hold the same license as SAs, fire, track access, etc, which is why they count towards the min. staff level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2010 8:34:49 GMT
Okay, brace yourselves, it would appear there is no “three station rule”.
Having found nothing my friendly DMT had a chat with the nice people at Operational Standards who informed him that it was in the Working Reference Manual (OS IE100 we think) but it was omitted from the current Rule Book for various reasons and was to be reviewed at a later date at Functional Council level.
Now with all the kerfuffle up on the Northern Line it would appear that it will be discussed sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by splashdown on Oct 21, 2010 9:38:18 GMT
I have also not been able to find any information about this rule so am coming to the same conclusion. I was making enquiries along the same lines as your DMT so I expect I will hit a brick wall now.
Maybe if someone still has copies of the old Working Reference Manual they can have a browse.
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 21, 2010 9:45:36 GMT
You've both found out just before me, that the rule itself no longer exists on paper. I was hoping to dig out a copy of the rule as it was in the reference manual (as that was the last place I saw it too) but alas they have all gone off to be pulped - including a copy I thought I had stored in the loft So along with a couple of other rules we've been trying to track down at work (signals with failing theatre-type route indicators being one) this one has been "omitted" leaving a grey area. Older staff are "aware" of what should be done, but nobody has any official guidance - often leaving people covering theirselves and shutdowns taking longer to clear.
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Oct 21, 2010 10:13:04 GMT
So along with a couple of other rules we've been trying to track down at work (signals with failing theatre-type route indicators being one) this one has been "omitted" leaving a grey area. Older staff are "aware" of what should be done, but nobody has any official guidance - often leaving people covering theirselves and shutdowns taking longer to clear. Or, as was the case with a certain reversing siding, just carry on using it regardless!
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 22, 2010 8:36:35 GMT
Or, as was the case with a certain reversing siding, just carry on using it regardless! On the contrary, it took the might of the "older" and more experienced amongst us (me included) to demonstrate to the younger generation that not all RI's are wired into the safety signalling circuit. The signal department confirmed this was the case with that location, and so although there was no covering rule or procedure (anymore) the necessary paperwork covered the way in which the siding was used. So the siding was never used "regardless." ;D
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Oct 22, 2010 9:20:07 GMT
On the contrary, it took the might of the "older" and more experienced amongst us (me included) to demonstrate to the younger generation that not all RI's are wired into the safety signalling circuit. The signal department confirmed this was the case with that location, and so although there was no covering rule or procedure (anymore) the necessary paperwork covered the way in which the siding was used. So the siding was never used "regardless." ;D Book 6 s3.2 'irregular indications' covered it off rather nicely but unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to "demonstrate" that. ;D Although those counterparts of mine that did may have been more amenable if any of what you've posted was communicated to us in an official format, rather than some hastily worded memo from a DMT which neglected to offer any such assurances. Speaking of communiques, I'm still waiting for the official line on those LISMFs!
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 22, 2010 10:09:05 GMT
Book 6 s3.2 'irregular indications' covered it off rather nicely but unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to "demonstrate" that. ;D Although those counterparts of mine that did may have been more amenable if any of what you've posted was communicated to us in an official format, rather than some hastily worded memo from a DMT which neglected to offer any such assurances. Speaking of communiques, I'm still waiting for the official line on those LISMFs! Indeed it was an "irregular indication" which of course should be treated as a signal failure. There are numerous ways in which we deal with signal failures - they are not all included in the rule book. The full information (including a detailed explanation from a signals manager) was emailed out to all DMTs. A notice was also emailed out for them to post in the late-notice case. Even with official guidance, official paperwork and the like, some (including DMTs) took it upon themselves to stand firm on their own beliefs and not operate through the area. We fully justified the safety and integrity of the system of working through the failure. Those who were against operating it never demonstrated a reasonable cause for not doing so - they just believed it was unsafe even though we had the proof it wasn't. As for the LIS matter, that case is long closed. This is not the place to discuss it as it hasn't been brought up on here before, but let me assure you that after attention was brought, the matter was internally investigated, and given the nature of the request and what it initially achieved, no further action was taken - although recommendations were made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2010 23:14:43 GMT
Hmmm, bit puzzled as to what "ways" you have in mind ...perhaps the "we" in this case is referring to Service Control or even how signal technicians will "deal with" it.
However a Train Operator can only accept instructions for their part in dealing with it, that are in accordance with a method set out in the rule book (anyone who does otherwise risks their job!)
(For a shunt signal with a defective route indicator (ie. a signal with an irregular indication as stated by a poster above) and for which no route proving/route card/route secure is available, this must be by scotch and clip on the route concerned.)
Though i sort of get the impression some repeat failure is being referred to here (?) which clearly ought to be sorted by the relevant technical staff rather than the dreaming up of dodgy workarounds communicated by a memo (!) which is of no effect anyway (it would require an Operational Standards Notice) !)
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 26, 2010 11:00:54 GMT
There were OS endorsed communications issued at the time - except it appears some were not shown to drivers. And it was certainly not a dodgy work-around.
Nobody had to work against the rules. I was one person who asked the signallers to carry out the procedure. Therefore I placed myself quite near the top of the chain. I'm not about to throw my career away.
When I said there are various ways in which "we" deal with failures I was referring to the operation of the railway as a whole. Now it could be waiting 2 minutes and applying the procedure. It could be securing the route. It could be a route card procedure. Fixing of a failure is up to the signals department. Getting a railway moving by using a safe, secure and vetted procedure (even if they forgot to print it in the main rule book) is our (as in us on the operational side) role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2010 19:53:37 GMT
Ahhh right.... I think....
...please don't see any critisism from me in your (MetControl) handling of any specific situation. I can't fully understand what you (your team) have done anyway and I'm always keen to expand my knowlegde of (legitimate) ways of handling given scenarios though I accept that full discussion may not be appropriate in a public forum.
As Instructors it's our job to train T/Ops on what they can and can't do in a specific scenario, including (I am afraid) where they may be inadvertently "wrong footed" by persons senior to them (again no reference to MetControl or anyone in specific and certainly no suggestion of intentional misdirections coming from anywhere or anyone!!!)
Having pieced together a scenario from the posts in this thread, and in the absence of any specific clarity on what had occured it seemed in order to state, for the benefit of any T/Ops and the general information of any interested readers (and NOT to be seen as directed at MetControl who is amply aware of our rules) how a T/Op should be trained to handle it.
Hence, if a hypothetical shunt signal with a theatre type route indicator, displays a clear shunt aspect with no route shown on the theatre type route indicator this must be treated as a signal with an irregular indication and treated as a danger signal (Rule book 6 S3.2 as identified by MetDriver). If a train is to be worked past this danger signal Rule book 5 S8 gives the methods by which this can be done (not Central or Victoria Lines). If no Route Proving, Route Card or Route Secure is available then points must be scotched and clipped. variation from this may, of course, be by way of a specific direction in the relevant Line Supplement or by way of Operational Standards notice. Otherwise variation can be by The Rostered Duty Officer who must base this upon a REAL TIME assessment as well as keep written records. (I can't see any other legitimate way of dealing with it, but then no-one's perfect and if some other compliant way has been found it could be worth teaching!)
Naturally it doesn't matter if a rule used to exist for a scenario if it doesn't exist now (readers should note the old rule book called "The Working Reference Manual" was very prescriptive and covered all sorts of scenarios, however it was ludicriously cumbersome, not issued to T/Ops and impossible for the average T/Op to remember in adequate detail, this was simplified into the present rule books, which are much more user friendly, though this has resulted in some procedures being less specific and some not covered at all). A scenario not covered by the existing rules is of course subject to being handled by any expedient safe method.
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 27, 2010 9:16:10 GMT
This could turn into a very elongated discussion, and for the most part would result in me having to state the cases of more than one grade. It is also within a thread concerning industrial action, which by its nature could have some raw nerves exposed to talk of "rule adaptation" etc. etc.
Let's just say, as you have mentioned, there used to be the Reference Manual which was huge. Now there is the rule book which in comparison is tiny. Lots an lots of things were left out. In fact so much was left out that it's a wonder we actually operate a railway anymore.
There are sometimes occasions where no single rule will fit, and several "pieces" of other rules have to be combined to effect a solution. Nothing is done lightly. Nothing is done just to avoid hassle at our end. Nothing is ever done unless it is 110% safe - on my watch at least, I've already said that I value my career. If I lost anyone else their career, then I don't think I could continue in my present role either.
The scenario in question is more or less as you state. A shunt signal (which could show a clear aspect) had it's associated theatre-type route indicator fail. For the first train it failed for, the signal was treated as failed, and the route secured.
Subsequent to this, the signal department were contacted (after me and a couple of others who "remember" the old procedures prompting management) to find out if the indicator was part of the safety signalling circuit, or merely a "nice to have" information tool. The latter was found, and official documentation - sufficient to cover anyone using the adopted procedure - was issued.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 11:29:49 GMT
Thank you for the insight MetControl. With apologies for my furthering a discussion that has wandered from the "strike topic"!
|
|