Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 9:25:21 GMT
My lovely missus has just called to say she's stuck on a westbound train that is now reversing into Barking. Been on the thing for a couple of hours or so and busting. There are many passengers (sorry customers) on the train who are absolutely fed up as the service is no longer seen as reliable and probably because their phones are out of power ! Anybody know what the cause is ? It can't all be down to money.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on May 14, 2008 9:48:08 GMT
According to the TfL web site there's a signal failure between Dagenham East and Barking and there was also an earlier failure in the West Ken area.
I'd guess it was the former that affected here.
|
|
|
Post by rayb on May 14, 2008 10:18:17 GMT
FWIW, the whiteboard at DAH was telling of multiple signal failures between BAR and UPM and that the service was suspended in both directions (as at 09:45). I'd left home a little later than normal to avoid the backlog from the eariler problems at West Ken. Oh well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 10:39:08 GMT
I know nuffink about signal failures, but surely over the years, better procedures must have evolved to clear the backlog ! Train drivers can see for a long way in front to move the train forward - above aground only I guess - knowing that they won't run into one in front. Surely they can proceed under their own judgement with the signal's safeguards turned 'off'. (wait's for the flak)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 11:07:08 GMT
There really is no way to evolve a quicker procedure for passing failed signals without compromising safety. Running into the train in front is only part of the issue - there is also a derailment risk.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on May 14, 2008 11:32:21 GMT
adw has absolutely hit the nail on the head - it's entirely a safety issue.
If any process was introduced that would compromise this aspect it would result in us being publically castigated by just about every Health and Safety organisation involved in the running of the railway.
Problems on LU are always preceived to be worse than anywhere else because of the volume of trains and the intencity of the service it operates; I'm afraid I can't see a SAFE alternative to resolve these occurences - believe me all staff find these falures as annoying and stressful as the travelling public do!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 16:37:33 GMT
Ah well I tried. Guess I'll have to start blaming BJ instead of KL !
|
|
|
Post by c5 on May 14, 2008 17:06:14 GMT
Yes - A very bad day!
The problem at Barking was a power failure in the IMR (which moves the levers that operates the points and signals) at one point the was also a problem at Earl's Court with blocking black to Acton Town and to Richmond - delaying the London Overground service!
As to passing signals at danger, there have been various accidents over the years that have required the current rules to be what they are - there is a website somewhere where you can read the accident reports into the like of the central line train going in the back of another after passing a danger signal under rule! Everything goes right back many years!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on May 14, 2008 18:30:51 GMT
The website is the Railways Archive - www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/The report into the accident at Stratford in 1953 where 12 passengers were killed after one Central Line train ran into the back of the one in front after applying the stop and proceed rule, is at www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=293 I recall that there has been a thread about other similar accidents at the same location before. I'm sure that someone better skilled in the art of locating past threads than me will link to it when they read this.
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on May 14, 2008 18:36:17 GMT
Also, there was I believe a incident at Victoria, involving a Circle line train. This happened in the rush hour and made the problems worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 23:14:32 GMT
I heard rumour today of an "incident" at Victoria - best not post the details on a public forum. The rumour mill was pretty quiet on this one though so only know what was supposed to have happened but not who the driver was, whether they followed the correct procedure or what happened to them afterwards.
Personally, I got half my duty cancelled due to all of the above so you won't hear a bad word said about it here!
|
|
|
Post by peanuts on May 15, 2008 5:07:47 GMT
RayB,
Do you know if Point to Point working was implemented between Barking and Upminster ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2008 7:51:28 GMT
i was invovled in all 3 failures it all started at 04:40 with a track failure between gloucester road and earls court on the westbound sorted that by 05:19 never got on the track till 05:05 because of protection arrangements then once done that got told of another track failure between gunnersbury and turnham green on the eastbound typical it had to be our first track circuit not network rails grrrrrrrr both of these failures were actually identical with a broken track connection to the rail (i wonder if any p-way in area ummmm) then got back to earls court finally at 06:30 just about to go home then we get reports of SPADS on WB34 starter at west ken westbound this was caused by the trainstop head not going down properly due to lack of air caused by a loose air connection but again due to protection requirements didnt get on the track till 07:33 in fact all the 3 failures at the west end of the district were actually quite simple but due to the operating department wanting to run trains (god knows why ) there was abit of delay to them being fixed the trainstop at WB34 was changed last night as it was past its best and yes it was planned to be changed that night not because of the failure what happened during the day
|
|
|
Post by c5 on May 15, 2008 8:20:18 GMT
RayB, Do you know if Point to Point working was implemented between Barking and Upminster ? Point to point working is hardly ever put in as it requires too much organisation and staff, and is not always the best option!
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on May 15, 2008 8:32:37 GMT
RayB, Do you know if Point to Point working was implemented between Barking and Upminster ? Point to point working is hardly ever put in as it requires too much organisation and staff, and is not always the best option! Indeed in twelve years in the signalling grades I have only ever seen it implemented once in response to a signal failure and that failure remains the largest I have ever been involved with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2008 11:17:06 GMT
If you can say, to the intruiged - what is point to point working?
|
|
|
Post by c5 on May 15, 2008 13:45:29 GMT
If you can say, to the intruiged - what is point to point working? To put it very simply - one train in a given section, say between signal A794 and A804. The plus point is that the signals between can be ignored (if points are involved they must be secured though) and the tripcock can be cut out. It requires forms, 2 supervisors/operating officials, handsignalmen and a direct communication (be it radio) between the start point supervisor and exit point supervisor. The time, train number and leading car number of each train are noted on entering the section, then checked leaving the section. I'm sure that someone will be along to fill in the big gaps!
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on May 15, 2008 14:03:44 GMT
If you can say, to the intruiged - what is point to point working? To put it very simply - one train in a given section, say between signal A794 and A804. The plus point is that the signals between can be ignored (if points are involved they must be secured though) and the tripcock can be cut out. It requires forms, 2 supervisors/operating officials, handsignalmen and a direct communication (be it radio) between the start point supervisor and exit point supervisor. The time, train number and leading car number of each train are noted on entering the section, then checked leaving the section. I'm sure that someone will be along to fill in the big gaps! Yeah, thats basically it. I have never seen P-P working in pratice though, it is pretty rare, as Harsig has commented. Have you ever been involved in it "Bananaman"?
|
|
|
Post by c5 on May 15, 2008 14:12:32 GMT
To put it very simply - one train in a given section, say between signal A794 and A804. The plus point is that the signals between can be ignored (if points are involved they must be secured though) and the tripcock can be cut out. It requires forms, 2 supervisors/operating officials, handsignalmen and a direct communication (be it radio) between the start point supervisor and exit point supervisor. The time, train number and leading car number of each train are noted on entering the section, then checked leaving the section. I'm sure that someone will be along to fill in the big gaps! Yeah, thats basically it. I have never seen P-P working in pratice though, it is pretty rare, as Harsig has commented. Have you ever been involved in it "Bananaman"? Nope! Never!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2008 14:38:16 GMT
And linespeed is achieved (or could be) while going through the section, as the tripcock is cut out, as is the slow-speed circuit, presumably?
|
|
|
Post by c5 on May 15, 2008 15:40:31 GMT
And linespeed is achieved (or could be) while going through the section, as the tripcock is cut out, as is the slow-speed circuit, presumably? Errm. - at least I think that's a yes! Just had a quick look at the "rule" book and it does not explicitl say that. The official introduction to the procedure is: Point to point working allows a train service to operate through an area where the signalling is defective or there is temporarily no signalling. Trains are authorised under strictly controlled conditions to proceed from the start point to the exit point, ignoring all signals in between, and with the tripcock and associated equipment (where fi tted) cut out. The principle of point to point working is that there must only be one train in the affected section at any time. Train movements are controlled by a start point supervisor at the start of the section, and an exit point supervisor at the end of the section. The exit point supervisor is responsible for authorising a train to enter the section, once the previous train has left the exit point. A secure communication link must be available between the start point and exit point supervisors. The section can start and end anywhere where there are places of safety for the start point supervisor and exit point supervisor to stand. A service manger will authorise the introduction of point to point working. It cannot be used on the following parts of the railway: • between Finchley Central and Mill Hill East • between Kensington (Olympia) and Earl’s Court • between Surrey Quays and New Cross • between Surrey Quays and New Cross Gate • between Chalfont & Latimer and Chesham • on the District Line between Putney Bridge and Wimbledon • on Network Rail infrastructure. Equipment needed: • point to point working forms • a train register for point to point working • a handlamp (or a red fl ag, a green fl ag and yellow fl ag) • scotches and clips (if required).
|
|
|
Post by chrish on May 15, 2008 16:06:58 GMT
And linespeed is achieved (or could be) while going through the section, as the tripcock is cut out, as is the slow-speed circuit, presumably? Errm. - at least I think that's a yes! Just had a quick look at the "rule" book and it does not explicitl say that. Errr.. having just looked at my rule book, it confirms what I thought (which is rather nice for a change! ;D )... 15mph over plain track, and 10mph over points
|
|
|
Post by c5 on May 15, 2008 16:12:06 GMT
Thanks Chris!
I was having a quick look through!
Don't spose you have found anything about taking a release have you? ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2008 17:42:00 GMT
speaking of bad days on the Distress line, there was a signal failure at Putney Bridge, one of the trains seemed to have spent almost 20 minutes outside the station,
|
|
|
Post by c5 on May 15, 2008 17:54:11 GMT
speaking of bad days on the Distress line, there was a signal failure at Putney Bridge, one of the trains seemed to have spent almost 20 minutes outside the station, Indeed. There were points involved that needed to be secured. The Service Controller must instruct the Service Operator (or Service Controller on some lines or sections of lines) as to what points are to be secured. The Service Operator must then arrange for the Station Supervisor at Putney Bridge (or an Operating Official if they are about) to secure the points via Scotch & Clip. The person going on the track must arrange their own protection as there is no guarantee that the signal will remain at danger. Then when the Supervisor confirms that the route has been secured, the train can be authorised past the signal by the Service Operator using either the Signal Post Telephone or by the Station Supervisor under the Service Operator's authority. So the whole thing takes 15-20 mins to get going!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on May 15, 2008 20:31:51 GMT
it sounds like there ought to be a simpler way of doing it. could not some responsible person instruct the train operator waiting at the failed signal to do the scotching and clipping, using their train as the protection?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2008 20:38:18 GMT
I believe only certain people are allowed to use the scotch and clips.
|
|
|
Post by rayb on May 15, 2008 20:55:36 GMT
"The principle of point to point working is that there must only be one train in the affected section at any time. Train movements are controlled by a start point supervisor at the start of the section, and an exit point supervisor at the end of the section. The exit point supervisor is responsible for authorising a train to enter the section, once the previous train has left the exit point."
To all intents and purposes, this sounds like a form of "Moving Block" signalling. Has there been "Official Consideration" to either adapting/modifying the existing controls or allowing the installation of additional controls to allow P-P working?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on May 15, 2008 21:28:39 GMT
it sounds like there ought to be a simpler way of doing it. could not some responsible person instruct the train operator waiting at the failed signal to do the scotching and clipping, using their train as the protection? Points clips are not carried on trains................(certainly not on NR). They have to be brought to site.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on May 15, 2008 21:43:39 GMT
To all intents and purposes, this sounds like a form of "Moving Block" signalling. Has there been "Official Consideration" to either adapting/modifying the existing controls or allowing the installation of additional controls to allow P-P working? Point to Point is emphatically not a form of Moving Block, apart from the fact the the 'block' that is worked point to point can be moved around to suit the limits of the service disruption.
|
|