|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 31, 2008 9:05:13 GMT
The Picc has been suspended Ruislip - Uxbridge since yesterday, due to "faulty communications equipment" at Uxbridge. The Met doesn't appear affected.
What is the problem - are they a platform down at Uxbridge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 11:45:26 GMT
Piccadilly line train radios switch to the Metropolitan line radio frequencies between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge. Presumably something has occured that means that somewhere between Ruislip and Uxbridge, the radio interface between the Picc line trains and the Met control is not stable enough to be relied on. Trains cannot continue in passenger service if the train radio system is faulty, hence the shutdown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 11:51:48 GMT
Aren't both lines on Connect now though?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 15:10:04 GMT
They both are and the dispatcher unit at rayners lane can access both the met and picc trains
|
|
|
|
Post by peanuts on Jul 31, 2008 15:15:24 GMT
The Connect cell for the Uxbridge area malfunctioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 15:44:06 GMT
All clear given at around 11:15 with T.256 the first Picc to go all the way through to Uxb, Yippe!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 19:23:26 GMT
I was on a Piccadilly line train to Uxbridge this morning at about 8.15am. I got off at Ruislip but the train continued in service to Uxbridge anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 22:54:52 GMT
Aren't both lines on Connect now though? Yes, but that's no guarantee that both stocks would necessarily be affected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 22:55:55 GMT
In these circumstances, if all drivers had handheld radios would the service need to be suspended?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 0:53:15 GMT
In these circumstances, if all drivers had handheld radios would the service need to be suspended? My understanding is: It would come down to the decision of the line controller (or service manager, perhaps...). Because it's not tunnel section, they could possibly run a service if handhelds were correctly working and they could prove that every driver had one that was charged and correctly set up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 6:30:52 GMT
The line controller (or SM) does not have the authority to over-rule the rulebook (even though some of them sometimes try it on).
If there is a radio systems failure (ie- more than one train affected in a certain area) then trains must be worked empty through the section and a handsignalman placed on each station headwall. If it affects only one station, trains can remain in service but only one train must be allowed to enter the area affected at any one time. There is no mention of handhelds for drivers in the "failure of train radio" procedure except for when it is only one train affected (and therefore not a systems failure anyway).
Thats my interpretation of our recently watered-down Bible anyway.
Obviously, curtailing the job at Ruislip would be more practical and sensible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 7:13:11 GMT
Thats my interpretation of our recently watered-down Bible anyway. Quite correct, if read as it is written then it is quite clear that all parties have specific tasks and if carried out then no problems should arise. Watered down may be a little harsh, as this is supposedly plain English to make it easier to understand! Certainly no point running empty trains to Uxbridge and return other than to balance the service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 8:19:25 GMT
Okay, that's me misremembering part of the R&P course already, then. *g*
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Aug 1, 2008 10:17:33 GMT
The line controller (or SM) does not have the authority to over-rule the rulebook (even though some of them sometimes try it on). If there is a radio systems failure (ie- more than one train affected in a certain area) then trains must be worked empty through the section and a handsignalman placed on each station headwall. If it affects only one station, trains can remain in service but only one train must be allowed to enter the area affected at any one time. There is no mention of handhelds for drivers in the "failure of train radio" procedure except for when it is only one train affected (and therefore not a systems failure anyway). Thats my interpretation of our recently watered-down Bible anyway. Obviously, curtailing the job at Ruislip would be more practical and sensible. Has double manning been abandoned nowadays then due to lack of available staff? Or would it still occur should the radio systems fail for long enough? |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Aug 1, 2008 11:25:55 GMT
The line controller (or SM) does not have the authority to over-rule the rulebook (even though some of them sometimes try it on). If there is a radio systems failure (ie- more than one train affected in a certain area) then trains must be worked empty through the section and a handsignalman placed on each station headwall. If it affects only one station, trains can remain in service but only one train must be allowed to enter the area affected at any one time. There is no mention of handhelds for drivers in the "failure of train radio" procedure except for when it is only one train affected (and therefore not a systems failure anyway). Thats my interpretation of our recently watered-down Bible anyway. Obviously, curtailing the job at Ruislip would be more practical and sensible. Has double manning been abandoned nowadays then due to lack of available staff? Or would it still occur should the radio systems fail for long enough? A second person is no good if the radio does not work though! Of course in tunnel "OPO" sections they would still need a second man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2008 11:52:47 GMT
A second person is no good if the radio does not work though! Of course in tunnel "OPO" sections they would still need a second man. The current rule book does not differentiate between tunnel and open sections with regard to failure of train radio. Therefore double manning would not be necessary in connection with a failure of the train radio. The provisions with the working of trains during localized or system failures covers the situations with regards to the various code alerts if applied correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Aug 1, 2008 15:07:25 GMT
A second person is no good if the radio does not work though! Of course in tunnel "OPO" sections they would still need a second man. The current rule book does not differentiate between tunnel and open sections with regard to failure of train radio. Therefore double manning would not be necessary in connection with a failure of the train radio. The provisions with the working of trains during localized or system failures covers the situations with regards to the various code alerts if applied correctly. If in a tunnel section with OPO, if the OPO alarm is not working due to a radio failure, then it should be double manned, just like a deadmans or tripcock failure. |
|
|
|
Post by gypsy78 on Aug 4, 2008 11:46:49 GMT
get ready for seltrac
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Aug 4, 2008 19:19:47 GMT
How did this shutdown affect peak-hour service, since some Piccies are scheduled to reverse at Ruislip? Wouln't have that placed a strain on the siding between Ruislip and Ickenham?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2008 22:46:05 GMT
How did this shutdown affect peak-hour service, since some Piccies are scheduled to reverse at Ruislip? Wouln't have that placed a strain on the siding between Ruislip and Ickenham? When there are booked Ruislip reversers running (ie, in the peak), they'll just divert the Uxbridge trains to Northfields to reverse. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 5, 2008 19:42:32 GMT
How did this shutdown affect peak-hour service, since some Piccies are scheduled to reverse at Ruislip? Wouln't have that placed a strain on the siding between Ruislip and Ickenham? When there are booked Ruislip reversers running (ie, in the peak), they'll just divert the Uxbridge trains to Northfields to reverse. Which no doubt pleases the T/OP, who gets a very long layover! Suppose it's too much effort to send them to South Harrow, then layover in the sidings until their booked eastbound departure time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2008 21:49:07 GMT
South Harrow is a bit of a frustrating one for passengers, don't forget - one stop short of where they need to be for the change to the Met!
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Aug 5, 2008 23:12:55 GMT
South Harrow is a bit of a frustrating one for passengers, don't forget - one stop short of where they need to be for the change to the Met! And so is Northfields, if they are going on to Uxbridge or planning to change to an EB Met @ Rayners Lane. ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2008 23:50:14 GMT
And so is Northfields, if they are going on to Uxbridge or planning to change to an EB Met @ Rayners Lane. ;D With Northfields they get to change at Acton; frustrating, but not as frustrating as being within sniffing distance... If you go to South Harrow, the mentality tends to be "Well, it's only one stop further, why can't you go there!" |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 6, 2008 0:49:40 GMT
Would still be a far better use of resources, rather than having a train sit in Northfields depot for the best part of an hour!
It may be frustrating for the Rayners Lane and beyond passengers, but at least it gives those wating stations from Ealing Common to South Harrow a better service.
|
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Aug 6, 2008 4:13:17 GMT
I think any train would be better sent to S.Harrow than Northfields. South Ealing and Northfields are already served by a good service. Busy stations such as Ealing Common, Alperton, Sudbury Tn etc would benefit from S.Harrow services. Yes it might be a problem for the interchange, but at least S.Harrow to Ealing Cmmn will get a EB service into town, whereas Uxb-Rayners have the Met, which I believe most people on that section travelling into town, would rather use anyway!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2008 13:22:16 GMT
Has double manning been abandoned nowadays then due to lack of available staff? Or would it still occur should the radio systems fail for long enough? A second person is no good if the radio does not work though! Of course in tunnel "OPO" sections they would still need a second man. But a second person could have a tin can with a bit of string to another tin can...why we would have loads of them going all over to all sorts of people. Think of the money it would save, and help recycling. |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Aug 6, 2008 13:30:51 GMT
A second person is no good if the radio does not work though! Of course in tunnel "OPO" sections they would still need a second man. But a second person could have a tin can with a bit of string to another tin can...why we would have loads of them going all over to all sorts of people. Think of the money it would save, and help recycling. That is Connect 2020. Connect 2030 is going that bit more hi-tevch and using pigeons as I understand, or seagulls borrowed from Head Office ;D ;D ;D |
|
