Suspended due to h&s reasons?

defective deadman on a lot of the C stock apparently.

Odd - I don't recall hearing about any problems with the deadman on C stocks...

Well I do!

apparently a driver released the deadman in a motoring position (it de-energised/went off), but then he depressed it again and it reset and he continued motoring without having to restroke the tbc to off and release. (a massive failure of safety equipment).

as word got around, more drivers attempted this and found it to be the case on more than one train. as a result a mass refusal to work has taken place on H&S grounds and, as far as i know, everythings gone back to depot for checks.

I was on a "C" this morning that was going at a fairly good pace on a straight section of track in the open, visibility good etc.

As we approached a station there was loud noise from under the car and we seemed to decelerate very quickly - I wondered at first if the emergency brake had been deployed, but we stopped in the correct place, dwell time normal and continued the journey.

I don't know if anyone else on the train noticed this or if they did, even cared, but I thought it odd and having read this thread, wonder if the two things could be related?

And the next signal happens to be a station starter with a 5mph overlap but the train hits it at 40...

It's obviously very unlikely that this problem would actually cause a collision, but then railway history is littered with example of the very unlikely happening with tragic consequences. This may or may not be a real issue, but I would not rush to dismiss it.

On older stocks, like the A Stock, if you dropped the handle in a motoring position, you had to shut off before the deadman valve would reset and restore air. The purpose was as stated by Dave.

On C Stock, I was not in the habit of dropping the deadman in motoring [grins smugly to himself] I was more used to dropping it in braking to make the bl**dy thing stop"!

If the C Stock was originally designed to replicate the old BTH controllers, I am (almost) sure C Stock would require the driver to restore to off & release before you could remotor. I also have this vague recollection that the controller was specially positioned to prevent someone slumping over it as a result of a medical emergency. They didn't design it to prevent air restoration as it was difficult with a microswitch operated deadman valve which was intended to go ATO one day.

Legally yes, but......................

I can't quite understand the difference between this issue, and the situation where a driver slumped over the handle without ever letting go of it, or holding onto it as he was passing out to steady himself and ending up on top of it.

Surely the most critically important thing's are that the train stops when the handle is released suddenly (which it would) and that the train would be tripped if it went through a red signal (which it would)?

So that's all?

I was under the impression that the deadman wasn't working at all! From what's been described here, it sounds like the deadman works perfectly, albeit with a minor quirk. Hardly the enormous H&S risk that has been portrayed by some...

Indeed

Not at all - not doing much work, granted; but certainly not a day off. The H&C (& Circle) drivers are being 'held till their time' at their respective depots..........partly cos management can do that and partly 'just in case the service were to resume'. Dunno about Acton District drivers; but the Earls Court District drivers were being usefully employed on 5 useful extra / ad-hoc D stock workings (Wimbledon to High Street Kensington). As I saw them around mid day, I assume these were made up from the inter-peak stablers - so I don't know what the plan is for the peaks... ........

The extra D stocks had some strange numbers though; all in the 400's but not sequential. I observed: 472, 470, 461, 427, 423 (even more bizarrely, they were in that order!!).

In response to both happybunny and deals19 I think the underlying issue is not that the TBC is not working at all, it is not working as it should do (and as we have always been told how it works).

I think what I want to be reassured about is that this is the only fault with the system - or has it somehow been incorrectly wired and this also impacts on some other function. The device should be 'failsafe' - as it stands this not entirely the case.

As far as I'm aware there was no instruction from the unions (any of them) to withdraw the service; I believe the problem was passed around by word of mouth and drivers took there own decisions - they decided to refuse to operate the trains on the grounds of Health and Safety, and the decision was then taken by 'fleet' to withdraw all trains for safety checks.

Although I understand the frustrations of the travelling public, can you imagine the outcry if something had occured and it was discovered after an incident?

For myself, I'm not one to over-react to these issues, but I think I'd be reluctant to operate a C Stock alone until this is resoved; in the short term possibly double manning could be an answer, though this would also probably meaning halving the number of trains in service as there aren't sufficient 'spares' around to cover this.

I think the problem is that at the moment no-one knows how long this problem has been in existence, AFAIK it's only just been identified; that's not to say it hasn't been around for 'some time'.


Possibly - but it still has to be organised to work; it's not as simple as just putting a second operator on the train - the duties will have to be worked out as to who is available when and not to compromise the rest of the service. I think the decision on this will probably depend on what the estimate for the fleet to be checked transpires to be.

In which case the T/Op should apply an Emergency Brake - not 'drop the handle'. OK - we all know it happens, but it is not the same (and does not have the same effect) as a proper Emergency application.

Trainees who do this are soon 'corrected', believe me.