District line forced to close???

Before I even got to work today there was a staff communications bulletin on the intranet saying it was all greatly exaggerated, there is no threat to close or bring legal action against LU.

As I mentioned to someone regarding it earlier, if people are getting excited over 3 SPADs, what would they say if they found out how many there really were...

You are wrong to assume that signallers phones are not recorded. I am aware of some that weren't but in general terms all strategic telephone lines (including SPTs) into all control rooms are recorded along with train radio and tunnel telephone conversations. It is also the case that phones on stations (not all stations) are recorded automatically where facilities exist. You may or may not be aware of all the levels of audio surveillance throughout the system which include 'live' rooms that are also monitored and recorded for security and operational purposes.

Recorded control room telephones have existed for more than two decades in all control rooms.

Not all telephones are recorded, such as signalphones. However at the time, you are likely to have another phone line open where the mic will be recording.

As I've already said it's....

Frankly if there had been some serious "incidents" or "breach of safety" on the line that many of us here work upon, we'd be well aware of it. The fact is there wasn't and hasn't been !

I have to say that whilst I'm sure the reporting of this is heavilly sensationalised, I also get the impression that if The Railway Inspectorate is as concerned as is suggested then they simply don't understand how LUL railways work in specific regard to the safety systems both train and track bound, mechanical and electrical.

Whilst the incidents they refer to do not appear to have been handled to the letter of the rule book, they were handled in an entirely safe and more practical manner, if anything it is because the rule book, when simplified to make it more user friendly, didn't make proper provision for every conceivable unique situation that may occur, such as these, that some practical extrapolation is sometimes going to be required.

In all the jumping up and down what seems to have been missed is what took place was an entirely safe and better process for dealing with the occurances and the rule books should probably be updated to reflect them.

Any subsequent write up is a summary of what occurred if there are minor differences between recollections of what went on and what actually went on, well, to be honest, so what. In such innocuios matters the relevant manager would not be cross examining one persons word against another and spending a fortune exhuming audio or video material. The summary is just a note of events, not a sworn affidavit of evidence.

Of course the older type of signal phones are not recorded, as was shown during a recent "near miss" on the District/Piccadilly Lines where there was no direct evidence of the driver/signaller conversation.

As regards not securing points, which was referred to in the newspaper report, revised procedures such as "route cards" and "route proving" are increasingly reducing the need for this.

Having re-read the article, for me the most worrying thing is that whatever actually happened appears not to have always been documented accurately. Regardless of whether it was actually safe or not.

In my mind, if I found records proven to be an inaccurate representation of events, it would set alarm bells ringing and make me feel obliged to probe further. How could trust other safety critical reports? Surely it is expected, in any system, that you review events and learn lessons. Its quiet difficult to do that if they aren't recorded properly.

For example - China Airlines flight 611, crashed due to metal fatigue. A tail strike, 17 years earlier, was repaired by a slight deviation from the rule book, but recorded exactly as the rule book had stipulated. Some 17 years later, when they recovered the plane, they found out the repair had not been done as documented. So when records had been reviewed over a 17 year period, lessons could not be learned in hindsight, because people had trusted the recorded events 17 years earlier.

Similarly, if LU chose to analyze how all previous SPADS had been handled in 10 years time, they might not notice trends etc. if things hadn't always been recorded as they happened. That could be one tiny, but nevertheless important factor, in an incident that could occur many years later.

The newspaper story does seem sensationalized, but nevertheless I think there is something to be probed - because it can only improve safety.

As I said I am aware of some that were not recorded, originally all speech lines in Earls Court control room were recorded to multitrack tape recorders. This was achieved by tapping a pair off each speech circuit, all telephones and train radio. However, when I relocated all the Earls Court SPT panels from beneath the signalman's diagram it was evident that those circuits were not being recorded.



Yep I dare say they have no idea about route securing.

Before any LU staff berate me, I have tried to keep the explanations below simple so that all readers can understand the gist of the different methods available!!


Scotching & Clipping

Scotching & Clipping is a manual method of securing a set of points in position. A scotch is wedged between the blades on the open side and a clip is used to literally clip the closed blades together. Trains can then pass through without a green signal being required, though they must have the relevant authority first (as with all of these procedures).

Scotching & Clipping is a time consuming process and can only be done by specific grades. Traction Current may also have to be switched off as well, thus the impact on the train service is usually very undesirable. Other methods of getting trains through failure areas (or perhaps after a SPAD or such like) quicker have therefore been developed and are covered below...

Route Proving

Route Proving is a new procedure and is therefore irrelevant in terms of the newspaper article as it came in after the incidents referred to.

Route Proving is, in simple terms, where you have a set of points from one track to another, and a signal on each track that reads across them. Providing one of the signals is green, and a train is held at the signal, the points cannot move (the green signal confirms a route is set up). Another train at the other signal can therefore pass it at danger (with authority) as we know for a fact the points cannot move. This saves time as it removes the need to manually scotch & clip the points.

There is a lot more to it though, and it can only be used at designated sites.

Route Card Working

Route card working is available in some older signal cabins (Whitechapel, Edgware Road, Hammersmith, Harrow on the Hill and Rickmansworth *I think*).

This is where, if a signal fails to read over points but the signaller has the indications of where points are lying on his frame, he can use route cards which are held in the cabin. These cards detail what indications he must have on the frame for certain routes, meaning that manual Scotching & Clipping can be avoided. Another signaller, or the local Station Supervisor/Duty Manager has to witness that the indications correspond with the relevant route card.

Most areas cannot use route card working because of program machines, computerised signalling or push buttons - the older cabins use levers separately for points & signals which is why they can use this procedure.

Route Secure (sometimes also called Remote secure)

Route Secure is used in areas opposite to Route card working, essentially, though it is certainly not available everywhere - for example the District line does not have it at all!!

In selected areas, there will be a blank box capable of showing the letters 'RS' - there will also be an 'RS' visual on the signallers diagram. Should a signal fail to read over points, the signaller can try the 'RS' visuals. Both the trackside and diagram 'RS' visuals must illuminate - this will then prove the points are set & locked and remove the need for manual scotching & clipping.

The route card procedure has changed a bit, now you don't need anyone to check which collars you've put on, just confirm with the controller which card is in operation and that they check it against the cards they have in the control room. The signaller contacts the controller every time route card is to be used, the controller authorises it, the signaller tells the driver. Signaller must mention four things to driver: That route card working is in use, the signals involved, the start and finish point of the route card and for the driver to repeat the information back. Much easier indeed than securing up

Are you sure?