|
|
Post by happybunny on Oct 16, 2008 13:10:52 GMT
As many of you may be aware, there was a PUT at ECT yesterday on the District. According to TFL's website this caused the Circle line to be suspended, and the District to be suspended between Embankment and Ealing/Richmond/Wimbledon and Olympia. Also the Edgware Road to Wimbledon service was shut down. This is a very large suspension area!
Firstly, why could they not run the service as far as South Ken reversing trains W-E via the wrong-road starter there?
Secondly, would it not have been possible to run a shuttle between Wimbledon and PG with a few trains? And would it not have been possible to run trains between Richmond/Ealing and West Ken (opening section switches if necessary) .. or at least between Ealing and Acton Town?
Also surely this incident highlights the benefits training District drivers on the section between Gloucester Road and High St Ken via the Circle would bring.
This would have enabled them to run the service through the city to High St via Gloucester Rd middle platform. Also it would have enabled District drivers to run between Edgware Road and say Mansion Hse keeping some sort of service going there..
It would provide so much more flexibility in cases of service disruption at Earls Court, to train drivers this route.
Does anyone agree?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 13:18:41 GMT
I think initially the District line did run as far as South Ken but then they changed it to Embankment.
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Oct 16, 2008 14:11:22 GMT
Firstly this incident occured on Tuesday, not yesterday.
Whilst I see your point about the use of the Circle between Gloucester Rd and HSK, the number of occasions when this would be used would probably not justify the work involved in getting the training done and then the maintaining of route knowledge.
Having read the incident report I think it's fair to say that everyone involved had their hands full just trying to get the incident resolved without trying to do all the 'add ons' you're suggesting.
There were already wrong direction moves, detrainments etc. etc. being sorted out and (though I haven't the information in front of me) these may also have influenced the suspension between South Ken and Embankment.
All in all there were enough issues to be sorted out without trying to pull rabbits out of hats to keep relatively smal services running for very little benefit to anyone involved.
|
|
TMBA
you like images? check this out - http://www.flickr.com/photos/upminsterthroughtheyears/sets/
Posts: 364
|
Post by TMBA on Oct 16, 2008 14:13:05 GMT
I think initially the District line did run as far as South Ken but then they changed it to Embankment. The District did run as far as South Ken eventually and then it was cut back to Embankment and this was mainly due to power supply problems in the Earls Court area caused mainly due to section switches having to be opened to isolate the Earls Court area, the reason for this is because some of Earls Court is fed from Notting Hill gate and from South Ken hence the shutdown being such a large area. An example is if say for instance something happens at High Street Ken on the inner and they need the power off in that area, then while you may be waiting outside Earls court on the east the power will go off because it feeds such a large area, I have experienced this before. The Wimbledon branch was shut down and suspended because of the amount of trains on that branch - remember the incident took place at 0945 and the peak was just finishing with lots of trains about and lots of drivers going to meal relief. There has been incidents in the past where District drivers have been told to go to Gloucester Road and reverse to High Street platform 2 with a pilotman and then reverse to Earls Court westbound, but of course this puts the District stock the wrong way round and then they have to turn it again using High Street and this again causes delay to both the District and Circle lines - not very practicle The same applied to the Richmond and Ealing branches and I was stuck at Ealing Common and was told to put the train into Ealing Common depot and wait on it for further instructions, this I did and waited 2 hours. Earls Court is a rather large and very busy area and unfortunately if any incident takes place in that area it will invariably go belly up for the rest of the day. I hope this explains it a little more for you. Any one else care to comment? TMBA |
|
|
|
Post by rrbs on Oct 16, 2008 14:19:31 GMT
There is no means of reversing west to east from/to GRD at High Street via platforms 3 and 4. It would need to be a reversal from platform 2. The upshot is you'd end up taking your D-stock to Edgware Rd, which its not approved for. So, no point in District divers signing that corner of Cromwell Rd Jn. May be with S7 there could be a vague case....
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Oct 16, 2008 14:41:33 GMT
**most of the replies above were posted whilst I was typing mine - but I'll leave it as I think it's all still relevant** As many of you may be aware, there was a PUT at ECT yesterday on the District. According to TFL's website this caused the Circle line to be suspended, and the District to be suspended between Embankment and Ealing/Richmond/Wimbledon and Olympia. Also the Edgware Road to Wimbledon service was shut down. This is a very large suspension area! Indeed it was, reflecting the importance of any problems at Earls Court and the knock on effect it can have. Firstly, why could they not run the service as far as South Ken reversing trains W-E via the wrong-road starter there? Because traction current was taken off South Ken - Earls Court both roads, and trains were already stalled in the area. The stalled trains were between stations and, being peak time, had 500 - 600 passengers on each - so they were a priority over service recovery. The service was reversed at South Ken w-e some time later, once section switches were opened at Gloucester Road, the section being fed from the South Ken end only. Secondly, would it not have been possible to run a shuttle between Wimbledon and PG with a few trains? Possibly, but you have to consider whether Parsons Green could have coped with the passenger numbers - don't forget, this was peak time initially - indeed would a shuttle service cope or even be all that useful? Also, there are no trip cock testers, so how safe would the train service have been? And would it not have been possible to run trains between Richmond/Ealing and West Ken (opening section switches if necessary) .. or at least between Ealing and Acton Town? Again I would say pretty much the same as with the Wimbledon branch, trip cock testers aside. From what I read of the daily reports, I presume this did occur later on in the incident. Also surely this incident highlights the benefits training District drivers on the section between Gloucester Road and High St Ken via the Circle would bring. This would have enabled them to run the service through the city to High St via Gloucester Rd middle platform. Also it would have enabled District drivers to run between Edgware Road and say Mansion Hse keeping some sort of service going there.. It would provide so much more flexibility in cases of service disruption at Earls Court, to train drivers this route. Does anyone agree? Yes and no really - don't forget, traction was initially off South Ken to Gloucester Road; you only have platform 2 at High Street to reverse trains back to Gloucester Road, so you wouldn't have much of a service and you couldn't run Circles as the reversers would get in the way. You also mention running what was left of the Wimbleware service, Edgware Road to Mansion House - you'd probably have four trains, five at best, and you also want to reverse the service at High Street - I just cannot see that working at all. Whilst service recovery/provision is important - to be fair to service control, they did initially have a lot on their plate with regard to the initial incident and the stalled trains. Reading the daily reports (I'm on nights this week) and looking at the timescales stated, it looks to me like they did the best they could given the circumstances. I think initially the District line did run as far as South Ken but then they changed it to Embankment. Wrong way round - as stated above, a service couldn't be run to South Ken initially as the traction current was off South Ken to Earls Court. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Oct 16, 2008 14:48:35 GMT
There is no means of reversing west to east from/to GRD at High Street via platforms 3 and 4. It would need to be a reversal from platform 2. The upshot is you'd end up taking your D-stock to Edgware Rd, which its not approved for. So, no point in District divers signing that corner of Cromwell Rd Jn. May be with S7 there could be a vague case.... Why would D stocks end up at Edgware road?  Trains can reverse, as you say, from platform 2 to both Earls Court and Gloucester Road! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 15:11:45 GMT
yep ED12 rt1 is to gloucester road and ED12 rt2 is to earls court
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Oct 16, 2008 15:14:49 GMT
There is no means of reversing west to east from/to GRD at High Street via platforms 3 and 4. It would need to be a reversal from platform 2. The upshot is you'd end up taking your D-stock to Edgware Rd, which its not approved for. So, no point in District divers signing that corner of Cromwell Rd Jn. May be with S7 there could be a vague case.... Don't quite get your comments here! As you say trains could be reversed from P.2 at HSK so why the reference to Edgware Road - they wouldn't have needed to go near it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 15:17:41 GMT
they would do if past attempts to clear ed12 fails again
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Oct 17, 2008 8:45:55 GMT
they would do if past attempts to clear ed12 fails again Point taken , but it would not be the original plan to go beyond HSK! |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,440
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 17, 2008 10:58:20 GMT
Are C&H drivers road trained for reversing moves at HSK? If so could they not run such a service with C stocks?
|
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Oct 17, 2008 11:04:33 GMT
I believe they are, including reversing IR to OR via Triangle sdg
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 17, 2008 11:55:40 GMT
yep ED12 rt1 is to gloucester road and ED12 rt2 is to earls court Yup - did that move in a 38TS once to turn it. I seem to remember there's a picture of it standing in Plat 2 at High St. Anyone remember seeing it? |
|
|
|
Post by littlecog on Oct 17, 2008 14:48:12 GMT
I think initially the District line did run as far as South Ken but then they changed it to Embankment. The District did run as far as South Ken eventually and then it was cut back to Embankment and this was mainly due to power supply problems in the Earls Court area caused mainly due to section switches having to be opened to isolate the Earls Court area, the reason for this is because some of Earls Court is fed from Notting Hill gate and from South Ken hence the shutdown being such a large area. Why are the current sections laid out and fed such that this becomes a problem? Given the obvious knockons from problems at Earls Court, it seems curious for there not to be - say - platform-aligned sections or sub-gaps which can be isolated without affecting the rest of the line? Even if this is only a retrofit at significant junctions, it can't hurt, surely! |
|
|
|
Post by Colin D on Oct 17, 2008 15:28:01 GMT
The District did run as far as South Ken eventually and then it was cut back to Embankment and this was mainly due to power supply problems in the Earls Court area caused mainly due to section switches having to be opened to isolate the Earls Court area, the reason for this is because some of Earls Court is fed from Notting Hill gate and from South Ken hence the shutdown being such a large area. Why are the current sections laid out and fed such that this becomes a problem? Given the obvious knockons from problems at Earls Court, it seems curious for there not to be - say - platform-aligned sections or sub-gaps which can be isolated without affecting the rest of the line? Even if this is only a retrofit at significant junctions, it can't hurt, surely! The trouble is, with this sort of incident the train won't stop in a predetermined area and if it straddles the gap would that not feed the section in the station. I know older stock (62 and earlier) this would happen, not sure of newer stock. Seems you could finish up with a whole lot of gaps that may still not help the situation. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Oct 17, 2008 16:16:52 GMT
Why are the current sections laid out and fed such that this becomes a problem? Given the obvious knockons from problems at Earls Court, it seems curious for there not to be - say - platform-aligned sections or sub-gaps which can be isolated without affecting the rest of the line? Even if this is only a retrofit at significant junctions, it can't hurt, surely! Generally speaking, section switches are ahead of platforms, otherwise their usefulness would indeed be limited - however, like 'Colin D' says, trains could end up at an infinite number of different positions so I'd imagine trying ensure they're in places to benefit a given scenario would be an impossible task. As for the traction current sections themselves, they are wholly dependent on the locations of sub stations - these are fairly significant structures and in turn there are only so many places you site one. Having a service affecting incident at Earls Court will always cause major problems as every single District line train passes through there on it's journey - that will always remain the case, unfortunately. and if it straddles the gap would that not feed the section in the station. I know older stock (62 and earlier) this would happen, not sure of newer stock. Stocks don't have Bus lines these days, and most gaps are larger than a single car, so the chances of livening up a dead section are quite low - not impossible granted, but low. Because of this, we are now able to motor across a rail gap after consultation with the line controller, if required. |
|
|
|
Post by littlecog on Oct 17, 2008 17:46:42 GMT
Why are the current sections laid out and fed such that this becomes a problem? Given the obvious knockons from problems at Earls Court, it seems curious for there not to be - say - platform-aligned sections or sub-gaps which can be isolated without affecting the rest of the line? Even if this is only a retrofit at significant junctions, it can't hurt, surely! Generally speaking, section switches are ahead of platforms, otherwise their usefulness would indeed be limited - however, like 'Colin D' says, trains could end up at an infinite number of different positions so I'd imagine trying ensure they're in places to benefit a given scenario would be an impossible task. Friend of a friend used to work as a line controller, but resigned stating that if she wanted to deal with suicides that often, she'd work in a hospital. ;D It's hardly an uncommon scenario, and given the ways of getting onto the track are somewhat limited, a clustering of subgaps around Earls Court and the adjacent junctions doesn't seem a bad idea...? (A sub gap, it seems, is an independently controllable part of a current section - is this correct? They get mentioned often enough by the PMs at work as the limits of the protection they've booked.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2008 18:10:15 GMT
Several issues seem to come into play here ... When there is a service disruption, there seems to be an incredible relluctance to operate section switches and get as much of a service running as possible (you don't have to run all the service to the maximum extent, but reversing trains at High Street, South Ken and Embankment gets them reversed a whole lot quicker than using a single reversing point, in the process keeping a service flowing better ! However I certainly agree with the fact that when it "kicks off" Service Control is under some serious pressure. Resourcing is a difficult issue, when nothing is going on a single controller is fine, but when things start to occur, the controller needs to be doing way too many things at the same time, personally I think more controllers need to be employed and available at each single moment for when they are really needed. (I have witnessed a controller juggling so many balls in the air at once it was an incredible sight) I think District operators should should routinely be route trained to reverse from Gloucester Road to and from High Street. We are talking about one signal (or) and three (ir) siganls ..hardly complex. I route learned it and performed it a few weeks back. After all we route learn the Piccadilly fast line Barons Ct - Ealing Common. I don't think we can be thinking about not routing trains just in case an asset may fail ! There should be an expectation an asset will perform as it is supposed to, or there is no point having it. (and if it did fail the D would just have to detrain at HSK and run empty to Edgware Road to reverse.) Said asset performed just fine when I used that too a few weeks back ! The provision of maximum shuttles can be of benefit so a shuttle PG to Wimbledon would, say enable a resident of Wimbledon Park to get to Wimbledon for a SWT train. A Hornchurch - Upminster shuttle enables a resident of Hornchurch to go to Upminster and use a C2C train. Not to mention customers who wish to make a local journey. There is no doubt a disruption at Earl's Court is catastrophic for the District line, and the effects of this PUT were felt way into the evening ! Given the public nature of this forum I shall refrain from commenting in detail upon the stupid reform a DMT attempted to force upon me, suffice to say a word with the excellent Service Controller provided a more sensible option !  |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 17, 2008 18:33:56 GMT
I seem to remember there's a picture of it standing in Plat 2 at High St. Anyone remember seeing it? There's two photos of Train 080 at High Street Ken and one at Earl's Court on 26/7/70 in UNDERGROUND 5. |
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 17, 2008 20:05:50 GMT
I seem to remember there's a picture of it standing in Plat 2 at High St. Anyone remember seeing it? There's two photos of Train 080 at High Street Ken and one at Earl's Court on 26/7/70 in UNDERGROUND 5. I don't have any "UNDERGROUND"s before No 6. Can you scan in the picture? |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 17, 2008 20:53:28 GMT
(A sub gap, it seems, is an independently controllable part of a current section - is this correct? They get mentioned often enough by the PMs at work as the limits of the protection they've booked.) I'm open to correction on this one, but I always understand that 'sub gaps' is a contraction of substation gaps, located at the feed end by substations. There are also traction current gaps, or sectionalisation gaps which are located away from the feeds. Using North Greenwich (I can't remember a Distict example off the top of my head as an example), there are both substation gaps and traction current gaps. The substation gaps are in the approach side of platform on both the EB and WB - separating the feeds Canada Water - North Greenwich, and North Greenwich - Canning Town. However, the 'middle road' has traction gaps at both ends, because it isn't directly fed from a substation - the middle road can be fed from either the WB or EB (only one at any one time) via a section switch. Sectionalistation gaps occur when the feed is some distance away from the gaps in the juice rails - Waterloo (Jubilee) WB is an example of this - the gap is again on the approach to the platform, but the feed is some way away. The 'colour' of the traction current section changes at a substation gap or sectionalisation gap, i.e. it is separately fed either side of the gap - this isn't the case with a traction current gap, the 'colour' is the same both sides - fed from the same place, but able to be isolated. EDIT: I've found an example of a District sectionalisation gap - it's on the WB road from West Brompton- between REC10/EC9 B and where the Olympia/West Ken converge at Earls Court. The gap is some way from the feed - or at least it was in 1966 (looking at the last alterations before programme machine working came in). |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Oct 18, 2008 6:44:46 GMT
(A sub gap, it seems, is an independently controllable part of a current section - is this correct? They get mentioned often enough by the PMs at work as the limits of the protection they've booked.) In terms of protection arrangements, sub gaps are the actual traction current sections....from one substation to the next. Say for example this weekend's engineering works on the District line - part of the protection arrangements will include traction current being off, and is usually defined by taking whole traction current sections, ie: - Upminster - Hornchurch
- Hornchurch - Dagenham Heathway
- Dagenham Heathway - Upney
**apologies in advance if I'm teaching anyone to 'suck eggs', but here follows a basic lesson on traction current and section switches!** Traction current sections are supplied by sub stations at intervals along a given line, with the sections in between known as traction current sections. They can be manipulated by using section switches (the yellow boxes you see along the line track side) - there are three types: - Section switch - used to divide a traction current section into smaller sections
- Changeover switch - used to switch power from one source to another (ie, a siding usually fed from one line can be fed from another)
- Isolation switch - usually only used for sidings
It's important to remember that section switches can only be opened or closed with the traction current supply turned off - and it is done manually at the track side by those of station supervisor grade or above only. Most traction current sections are 'double end fed' [from a sub station at each end], so if a section switch was opened in the middle of a traction current section (they are of course usually closed at all times), and power was restored from only one substation at one end, you would have successfully isolated the other half of the section. Once the incident requiring the isolation is concluded, power can be restored to the other half of the section using the sub station at that end, with the section switch still open, and trains will quite happily run all day long. I hope all that makes sense, and you (anyone reading this) can see the difference between traction current sections, otherwise referred to as sub gaps, and what role section switches play. EDIT: I've found an example of a District sectionalisation gap - it's on the WB road from West Brompton- between REC10/EC9 B and where the Olympia/West Ken converge at Earls Court. The gap is some way from the feed - or at least it was in 1966 (looking at the last alterations before programme machine working came in). Indeed that is still the case. |
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Oct 18, 2008 7:03:49 GMT
I think this thread has reached a conclusion about line control during disruption. It has always been evident to me that line controllers are asked to perform far too many tasks when the smelly stuff hits the fan. A second controller can be useful but more than that and you run the risk of them doing contradictory things due the frenzy going on all around. I believe training is vital but I also think that some people are 'natural' and others (like me) would never be able to do it well.
Whilst resisting the temptation to start this bit with "why in MY day" (which I've now done anyway) it does appear that the opening of section switches appears to be a lost art and I'm suspicious this has come about since the greater separation between the 'trains' and 'stations' sides of the business. I don't think many station supervisors feel confident to do it and the line controllers lack the confidence they'll (the SSs) will get it right. The end result, it doesn't happen and the railway generally suffers. I don't blame anyone on the ground for this, the stations bosses get no kudos for their staff helping out the trains people, they are focussed more on the immediate customer-facing stuff. Maybe LU has lost the big picture in this regard?
I am aware of an attempt to make the operation of section switches done remotely, has this happened? I am at least five years out of date.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Oct 18, 2008 7:39:18 GMT
There are some 'remotely operated' section switches, but not many.
Whilst opening section switches is most certainly the last option these days - I suspect changes in legislation, particularly the electricity at work act, also have a hand in it....
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Oct 18, 2008 11:11:59 GMT
There are some 'remotely operated' section switches, but not many. Whilst opening section switches is most certainly the last option these days - I suspect changes in legislation, particularly the electricity at work act, also have a hand in it.... I'm sure that's the case, indeed I remember being taught on the SI's course at the RTC that, in an emergency, these could be operated under load! |
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Oct 18, 2008 11:25:08 GMT
I never taught that. I remember the "turn away from it" words when you were to pull the knife blade open but this was only taught (according to my trainer at least) to protect your eyes if someone had screwed up and current was still flowing through the switch. I do believe there was something about opening a SS with current 'on' if there was no way to contact the substation control room and it was vital (e.g: arcing) to isolate immediately. It was all a bit primitive by today's standards I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlecog on Oct 18, 2008 15:53:35 GMT
I hope all that makes sense, and you (anyone reading this) can see the difference between traction current sections, otherwise referred to as sub gaps, and what role section switches play. It does - thank you! So, why are there so few automated section switches? |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,893
|
Post by towerman on Oct 18, 2008 18:04:23 GMT
Central & Jubilee have motorised section switches and I believe they are being installed on the Victoria as part of the upgrade.On the Jubilee main line section switches are only operated with traction current off but in SMD they can be operated under load.Re the blade type section switches there was no requirement for traction current to be off before they were opened or closed,The Electricity at Work Act changed all that,now it's gone too far the other way current even has to be off for de-icing even though the handles of the brushes and scrapers are made of a non conductive material-wood.
|
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Oct 18, 2008 20:03:31 GMT
Does that mean that a T/Op needs to get TC off before going onto the track to scrape - scrape a few yards - get back in the cab - arrange for a re-charge - move forward a bit - arrange for discharge - get out and scrape a bit ...........?
If so, surely the rules effectively negate the whole purpose of the process?
|
|
