|
|
Post by Geoffram on Jan 11, 2013 5:59:24 GMT
It was peak hour on an Edgware via Charing Cross. All fine until we got to the junction at Camden Town where the Barnet branch joins the Edgware branch. The train stopped at a signal that, after about 10 minutes of inaction, we were informed had become faulty. The driver then explained that he was going to have to reverse the train to "see what the problem was". It's at that moment I wished that guards hadn't been phased out, because the poor driver had to walk the length of the train to drive it a few metres northbound. This appeared to take some doing with a PA announcement saying "this train is about to depart" several times without any success. Eventually, he did get it moving and we set off northbound. We stopped, and the driver came back down to the front again for a few minutes. Obviously, this wasn't far enough because he had to come back through the train again to move it another few metres northbound. I thought by now, we must have been pretty near to Camden Town, and my mind kept going to all the trains behind that had been fouled by this: the only route that was clear was Barnet via Bank, and this was at the height of the evening rush. To be fair to the driver, in addition to walking several times up and down the train, he did keep us informed the whole time what he was doing. Eventually, it appears he was able to do what he needed to do, and, with the problem apparently solved, we set off southbound again.
This whole process took about 45 minutes, and when we reached Warren Street, the platform was competely empty. Obviously, they had informed the public that the service was suspended.
Can any of you drivers out there explain what was going on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 7:28:43 GMT
From what you have written it sounds like a wrong directional move, but you seem to have your northbound and southbound mixed up so I'm a bit confused??? The walking back and forth would be so that the driver could check he has completed the move to the limit the controller has specified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geoffram on Jan 11, 2013 22:42:17 GMT
Sorry, there was a key word that got lost from my opening sentence: we were headed on an Edgware southbound via Charing Cross. When the signal fouled us up, the driver drove twice in the reverse direction, i.e northbound back towards Camden Town. It was if he had to leave the signal clear. It seemed to fix the problem, because we then resumed our southbound journey, but after a delay of about 45 minutes. What I was wondering was the purpose of effectively having to reverse the train clear of the signal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 23:10:45 GMT
did the train come to a very sudden stop at the start of the incident if so it could be an overrun of the signal at danger its often quicker easier and safer to move a train back behind the signal following strict safety procedures in order to get moving again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 0:38:12 GMT
did the train come to a very sudden stop at the start of the incident if so it could be an overrun of the signal at danger its often quicker easier and safer to move a train back behind the signal following strict safety procedures in order to get moving again ... or if it was not a sudden stop, perhaps the signal was cleared for the wrong route, and the driver realised a bit too late? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 7:56:18 GMT
Sorry, there was a key word that got lost from my opening sentence: we were headed on an Edgware southbound via Charing Cross. When the signal fouled us up, the driver drove twice in the reverse direction, i.e northbound back towards Camden Town. It was if he had to leave the signal clear. It seemed to fix the problem, because we then resumed our southbound journey, but after a delay of about 45 minutes. What I was wondering was the purpose of effectively having to reverse the train clear of the signal. Ah, that makes it clearer  I think that what you've experienced there is a SPAD and the driver has been told to set back behind the signal. Once that's done correctly and the signal clears the driver can continue at normal line speed. Other than that he would have needed to continue at slow speed which (presumably) was thought to have been more disruptive. I doubt they were planning on the set back taking 45 minutes though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 9:20:09 GMT
SPAD. Set back the first time wasn't far enough hence the need to change ends again.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 12, 2013 15:53:13 GMT
did the train come to a very sudden stop at the start of the incident if so it could be an overrun of the signal at danger its often quicker easier and safer to move a train back behind the signal following strict safety procedures in order to get moving again One of the downsides of automatic signalling! Had it been possible to replace all signals in the area to danger to hold all other trains, the need to reverse might've been obviated in favour of simply proceeding to the next signal(s) at walking pace and perhaps saving 25 minutes. Of course in the event of a wrong diverging route having been selected and a train taking the turnout before realising the error the only options are either to take the incorrect route or to set back regardless of the signalling type. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 12, 2013 18:25:13 GMT
did the train come to a very sudden stop at the start of the incident if so it could be an overrun of the signal at danger its often quicker easier and safer to move a train back behind the signal following strict safety procedures in order to get moving again One of the downsides of automatic signalling! Had it been possible to replace all signals in the area to danger to hold all other trains, the need to reverse might've been obviated in favour of simply proceeding to the next signal(s) at walking pace and perhaps saving 25 minutes. Of course in the event of a wrong diverging route having been selected and a train taking the turnout before realising the error the only options are either to take the incorrect route or to set back regardless of the signalling type. In this case there were points both in front of and behind the train, so the only options were a wrong direction move (to avoid the need to secure points) or manually securing the points. Although 29 minutes was a long time, bear in mind that this was a tricky location in the middle of the Camden Town junction, and 29 minutes is a price worth paying if that is what it takes to complete the procedure safely, which it was. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 13, 2013 4:16:43 GMT
One of the downsides of automatic signalling! Had it been possible to replace all signals in the area to danger to hold all other trains, the need to reverse might've been obviated in favour of simply proceeding to the next signal(s) at walking pace and perhaps saving 25 minutes. Of course in the event of a wrong diverging route having been selected and a train taking the turnout before realising the error the only options are either to take the incorrect route or to set back regardless of the signalling type. In this case there were points both in front of and behind the train, so the only options were a wrong direction move (to avoid the need to secure points) or manually securing the points. Although 29 minutes was a long time, bear in mind that this was a tricky location in the middle of the Camden Town junction, and 29 minutes is a price worth paying if that is what it takes to complete the procedure safely, which it was. Yes I suspected that points were involved although I was not certain of the exact location which appeared to be given as beyond the Camden area. I would not have been bothered by 29 minutes but upthread the reported delay was 45 minutes which is not excessive for the area involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Geoffram on Jan 13, 2013 17:42:34 GMT
I was in about the fourth carriage, and this was stopped just at the junction southbound where the High Barnet branch joins the Edgware branch. I'm assuming the front of the train was just before the crossover north of Mornington Crescent.
I have to say I think I would recognise a SPAD by the sudden braking and release of air; this seemed a more leisurely stop. The driver also said there was a fault with the signal, but then he'd never admit to the whole train that he'd passed a red signal would he?
He had to drive north twice. It seemed as if the first time wasn't far enough. Would this seem to suggest I'm wrong and it was a SPAD and he hadn't pulled the train clear enough of the signal?
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 13, 2013 20:04:56 GMT
I was in about the fourth carriage, and this was stopped just at the junction southbound where the High Barnet branch joins the Edgware branch. I'm assuming the front of the train was just before the crossover north of Mornington Crescent. I have to say I think I would recognise a SPAD by the sudden braking and release of air; this seemed a more leisurely stop. The driver also said there was a fault with the signal, but then he'd never admit to the whole train that he'd passed a red signal would he? He had to drive north twice. It seemed as if the first time wasn't far enough. Would this seem to suggest I'm wrong and it was a SPAD and he hadn't pulled the train clear enough of the signal? It's more than 20 years since I worked in that area so I cannot recall the exact layout or signalling. Once a train has passed a signal replacing blockjoint, setting back is one way of resolving the issue whether the route taken was cleared and was either correctly or incorrectly set or whether the signal was passed at danger. As it is not a 'normal' signalled move to set back there will generally be no marker or fixed red light to indicate to the driver how far to travel in the wrong direction, thus more than one attempt to restore the train to a position in rear of the signal may be required. |
|
