|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Aug 18, 2018 21:25:32 GMT
59TS ran away from Queen's Park in engineering hours back in the 80s due to an incorrectly fitted rail anchor,was a miracle no maintenance staff were killed,think the train came to rest about three stations down the SB. Was this the one where the P way staff should have been on the track working and were actually skiving and ended up getting the sack for not being killed? If that is true, then surely by the same train of thought, whoever did not fit the anchor correctly should have got a commendation for bringing to light the skiving track staff? |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Aug 19, 2018 20:09:34 GMT
Today is actually the eighth anniversary of that incident. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feae5274a428d00015b/R092011_110615_Highgate.pdfThe brakes on the rail grinder had indeed failed safe, but had then been released manually in order to tow it away northbound (wrong line) back to Highgate sidings. (It was, of course, coupled to a train with working brakes before its own brakes were released). But during towing, the emergency coupling failed and the unbraked train rolled away down the hill towards central London. It must have passed several train stops but, with no working brakes, they had no effect. The runaway started just north of Highgate station, at which time there was a southbound passenger train standing at Archway - (the report doesn't say, but it must have entered service there, using the reversing siding, as the southbound line from Highgate was blocked by the broken down train). By the time it got to Tufnell Park the runaway was 46 seconds behind. The driver of the passenger train was then instructed to run non-stop (and given a clear road!) until further instructions (or presumably Morden, if that came sooner!). By Camden Town the passenger train had gained a little on the runaway (despite slowing to observe the speed restrictions - derailing would not have made a bad situation worse) and was diverted to the City branch with just enough time to switch the points to route the runaway towards Charing Cross. At this point the previous Charing Cross branch train had just left Warren Street A set of points near Mornington Crescent were deliberately set against it to slow it down, and this, plus the short uphill section into Warren Street, was enough to bring it to a stand there, where someone was able to get aboard and secure it. (Had the slight rise at Warren Street not been enough to stop it, it is downhill from there almost all the way to Kennington) The question is whether the passenger train could have been driven in automatic mode fast enough to stay ahead of the runaway - if the automatic system had insisted on pausing at each station it would probably have made the difference - the available margin to change the points between the trains at Camden Town was a matter of seconds. What is the drop between Highgate and the lowest point it traversed? It seems odd that a vehicle could go that distance, and, apparently, at speeds fairly close to line operating speeds, purely from gravity - although clearly it did! When the 59's were in service there was a coasting board as you left East Finchley, you only accelerated to around 20mph before reaching this, the rest of the acceleration was left to gravity. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 19, 2018 20:15:03 GMT
What is the drop between Highgate and the lowest point it traversed? It seems odd that a vehicle could go that distance, and, apparently, at speeds fairly close to line operating speeds, purely from gravity - although clearly it did! When the 59's were in service there was a coasting board as you left East Finchley, you only accelerated to around 20mph before reaching this, the rest of the acceleration was left to gravity. That was very liberally interpreted! I remember being on trains that accelerated in full parallel from East Finchley to some point before Highgate! |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Aug 20, 2018 21:28:16 GMT
Quite a long way before highgate as there was a speed controlled signal in the tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by PiccNT on Aug 20, 2018 21:50:47 GMT
Quite a long way before highgate as there was a speed controlled signal in the tunnel. Only installed after the 1938's used to fill Highgate station with brake dust! |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Aug 22, 2018 9:01:30 GMT
Was this the one where the P way staff should have been on the track working and were actually skiving and ended up getting the sack for not being killed? If that is true, then surely by the same train of thought, whoever did not fit the anchor correctly should have got a commendation for bringing to light the skiving track staff? Talking of narrow escapes, I hear that very recently a section of the Bakerloo line between Queens Park and Kensal Green became energised whilst there was still a P-way gang in the section during an engineering possession. Luckily no-one was hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Aug 22, 2018 19:36:55 GMT
If that is true, then surely by the same train of thought, whoever did not fit the anchor correctly should have got a commendation for bringing to light the skiving track staff? Talking of narrow escapes, I hear that very recently a section of the Bakerloo line between Queens Park and Kensal Green became energised whilst there was still a P-way gang in the section during an engineering possession. Luckily no-one was hurt. Don't they use earthing straps? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 22, 2018 19:59:07 GMT
Talking of narrow escapes, I hear that very recently a section of the Bakerloo line between Queens Park and Kensal Green became energised whilst there was still a P-way gang in the section during an engineering possession. Luckily no-one was hurt. Don't they use earthing straps? Even if they do, presumably they have to remove them before the possession ends? |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Aug 22, 2018 20:26:55 GMT
Don't they use earthing straps? Even if they do, presumably they have to remove them before the possession ends? Well, one would have thought that they would keep both the live rails shorted to ground, and have a well insulated tool or tools to unhitch the last straps once the section being worked on was known to be clear, so that if the power did return prematurely, it would just cause a circuit breaker to trip. Keeping line workers safe from live current should be, systemically, at least, fail safe, with a well designed system. |
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Aug 22, 2018 21:23:27 GMT
Folks the incident on the Bakerloo line remains under internal investigation, so if we can please leave discussion around that here it would be appreciated, in line with Forum Rule 7.3. It's also off topic for this thread!. 7.3 (Serious Incidents and/or Major Events) Serious incidents or other major events such as derailments, crashes, fires, weather, terrorist, etc (to give a few examples - this list is not exhaustive) can also prove to be a particularly difficult subject, especially in the early stages. These type of events will always lead to speculation and internal investigations. As a result the following applies on this forum: - (7.3a) Forum staff members will confirm the facts when they have them to hand, though it may be some time time before this is possible.
- (7.3b) LU staff that are directly involved in an incident may post a brief outline if they feel it is appropriate - however as with our one under rule above, details of a fatal incident are not allowed in case of any prejudice at a future inquest.
- (7.3c) Discussion will be at the discretion of the forum staff, however in most cases once the facts have been confirmed, a given thread will most likely be locked to prevent non factual speculation.
- (7.3d) Should an official report be released, a request can be made to a member of forum staff to have a link added to the original locked thread. For further discussion after an official report has been released, a new thread should be started.
Info: Given that this type of incident/event will be subject to official lines of enquiry and/or investigation, it is important that we do not allow this forum to become involved with speculation that would detract from the facts. Information may or may not be found within websites elsewhere on the internet - just because it's on another website, it doesn't mean it is factually correct or that we'll allow it here; again the forum staff cannot 'police' other websites, but we are responsible for what appears on this forum.
If you are in any doubt at all as to whether your post may contravene rules 7, 7.1, 7.2 or 7.3, please seek the advice of a forum staff member first.
|
|
