C Stock failure Victoria tonight

The first failure was due to a C stock shoe which was removed from the track, the second was following a +earth.

I knew there would be some comment about an "open access" or "foreign" train plus a signal issue. Just about the worst time for it to happen as well ....

Thanks for clarification and detail. Presume some extra time made on the 0027 late runner - do you get a taxi home in those circumstances ?

Personally I was on T.3 w/b. Should have arrived at Ealing Bdwy at 00:56.......

I arrived at Ealing Common at 01:50.

I say no more

the failure was caused by tin foil bridging the postive and running rail blowing the 2 track relays to nothing more then just a empty case

sometimes if you keep just changing the fuses sometimes it justs melt itself but trouble with that you run the risk of blowing the relay up but in this case the track circuits had the wrong rating fuses anyways this is way the relay went bang before the fuses did

usually incoming and outgoing track fuses are rated at 2A feed fuses being rated at 4A it used to be 3A and 5A but this was changed

Is it different to what you've described some time ago?

To be fair to that particular C stock driver, the line controller (LB) instructed "all drivers" several times over the radio "not to call up if they were being held at signals - all trains were blocking back and drivers were to simply wait for signals to clear".

On that basis alone, you can't blame the said driver for doing what he did.

The line controller then announced to all & sundry via the radio that there had been "a further delay of 20 minutes owing to a Circle line driver not bothering to apply the rule for 20 minutes". That, IMHO, was out of order.

So what were the signallers & said line controller doing for those 20 minutes?

I also heard (I never had the misfortune to pass through the area) that there were no staff present at Sloane Square [to advise which signals were failing] - so where did this piece of paper come from?

The controller certainly felt this information was on a need to know only basis as he stated on more than one occasion, again via the radio, that "drivers would know which signals had failed when they reached them" - not bad going when you consider his previous instruction to not call up!

Hmm...............it was a badly handled situation whatever really happened and it's about time the service control managers took more of an interest in what goes on in such situations (ie, manage incidents instead of leaving controllers in charge that don't realise when there is a need to step back and take stock of the overall situation ).

The line controller then announced to all & sundry via the radio that there had been "a further delay of 20 minutes owing to a Circle line driver not bothering to apply the rule for 20 minutes". That, IMHO, was out of order.

So what were the signallers & said line controller doing for those 20 minutes?

I am full of "law" at the moment, relating to negligence and telecoms problems. This is purely coincidental. I therefore echo, with utmost respect to all concerned, what Colin said. However, have been enlightened by JTD's comments.

the embankment / mansion house / tower hill / kings cross desk is not always covered and the other signallers just leave the sites and do not touch it what so ever

Possibly (assuming this piece of paper did exist) - but as has been touched upon elsewhere, now that we have Connect, the line controllers quite often ignore a call request.........................and the area in question is a tunnel section with no signal post telephones (we don't have phones in auto areas). Bearing in the mind the controllers instruction to await clear signals as trains move up & not call up, coupled with little or no communication available..........

Put yourself in that Circle driver's position. You suspect the info you have is wrong, you cannot communicate & you've been told that any signal you come across will clear as & when the section ahead clears.

What would you do?



EDIT: there's summink not right here - I'm a District driver defending the actions of a Circle driver ;D ;D

Exactly.

I rest my case M'lud!!

Yes that's the rule - but.....



So do you play it by the rule book, or do you comply with the line controllers instructions?

My view, which I think is obvious by now, is that I would have done what the Circle driver did.

I suppose there would come a point when, as a driver, you think to yourself 'sod the controller, let's see how far I can get by applying the rule'. Without being in the situation, and without the benefit of hindsight, I honestly couldn't say when that point may be.

I had do Wimbledon & back (to Earls Court) during this failure - it took me 1h 40m to do that (as you know adw, it should have taken 50minutes tops to do that) - I think the longest I spent at any one signal was probably 15 minutes...............and it never crossed my mind to apply the rule once.

Essentially it is the same.

What has occured recently is that if previously advised a Train Operator can commence his procedures immediately upon arrival at a signal which he has been told is failing, rather than waiting a prescribed period before this commences.

However one might encounter another signal remaining at danger. The T/Op should now commence his procedure in the normal way. This is the reason for my comment. The said Circle driver was at an automatic signal. Irrespective of Colin's comments (which I can see, but which does not override the procedure) the T/op concerned should have commenced his procedure after two minutes - irrespective of what he has heard on the radio.

For the benefit of non LU staff readers, let me explain the 'rule' on this a little more.......

On arrival at an Automatic signal which is displaying a 'danger' aspect, the driver must stop and secure his train. After two minutes he should make enquiries to ascertain the reason for the delay. It could of course be that he will be told that the signal is working normally and that there is a train ahead - if so, he will wait for the signal to clear.

However, if the Controller advises that the signal appears to have failed, he will be told to 'apply the appropriate procedure'. The short version is that the driver will pass the signal at danger, and carry out a VERY prescribed set of actions to allow him to work the train forward.

If however, the T/Op is unable to contact the Controller, he may pass an automatic signal remaining at danger on his own authority. His actions will be essentially the same, at least until he reaches a point where he can 'fess up' to what he has done.

However - and this is the most important part - having passed this failed/displaying a red aspect signal, the train will be operated at a speed where it can be stopped short of any obstruction (whatever this may be!) and ther is trainbourne equipment to ensure that certian speeds cannot be exceeded.

These rules are here for a purpose; life is easier (but no more dangerous!) when they are applied correctly.

Colin - I don't think you're assertiona here re the Controllers comments is correct, nor the actions of the station staff (or lack of!).

Apply the procedure - 'end of' IMHO

What would happen if the train passed a signal at danger and there was one ahead - would the driver come to a stop short of the one ahead? Then what? Would he move ahead when the train in front moved?