|
|
Post by RM5chris on Aug 13, 2010 15:21:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Aug 13, 2010 18:46:44 GMT
No matter what people say LU did all they could to make peoples safety their priority once that train came detached. I'm sure people moaned when there train was suddenly sent down the Bank Branch but what would they prefer being injured and having to go to hospital for shock or Injury or being a bit late for work, i would choose the 2nd option of being a bit late for work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2010 5:47:15 GMT
No matter what people say LU did all they could to make peoples safety their priority once that train came detached. I'm sure people moaned when there train was suddenly sent down the Bank Branch but what would they prefer being injured and having to go to hospital for shock or Injury or being a bit late for work, i would choose the 2nd option of being a bit late for work. There was a moajor safety failure though. Every single safety measure failed and only luck avoided a major disaster. The first action TTfL should take is to stop operating engineering trains whilst passenger services are operational as clearly they have no adequate safety measures in place for engineering trains at present. The fact that an engineering train ean out of control for several miles demonstrates that. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Aug 17, 2010 8:17:05 GMT
No matter what people say LU did all they could to make peoples safety their priority once that train came detached. I'm sure people moaned when there train was suddenly sent down the Bank Branch but what would they prefer being injured and having to go to hospital for shock or Injury or being a bit late for work, i would choose the 2nd option of being a bit late for work. There was a Major safety failure though. Every single safety measure failed and only luck avoided a major disaster. The first action TTfL should take is to stop operating engineering trains whilst passenger services are operational as clearly they have no adequate safety measures in place for engineering trains at present. The fact that an engineering train ean out of control for several miles demonstrates that. I presume that the battery loco is fitted with a trip-cock? It must have been running on the "wrong line", otherwise the trip-cock would have stopped it. Happen a few years ago on the Piccadilly, when a driver "turned hi train" drove it up the wrong line!! |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 17, 2010 11:10:15 GMT
There was a Major safety failure though. Every single safety measure failed and only luck avoided a major disaster. The first action TTfL should take is to stop operating engineering trains whilst passenger services are operational as clearly they have no adequate safety measures in place for engineering trains at present. The fact that an engineering train ean out of control for several miles demonstrates that. I presume that the battery loco is fitted with a trip-cock? It must have been running on the "wrong line", otherwise the trip-cock would have stopped it. Happen a few years ago on the Piccadilly, when a driver "turned hi train" drove it up the wrong line!! We know from the press release that the engineering train was emergency coupled but became seperated, this suggests that maybe a detachable coupling was in use (but not fitted properly), it also suggests that no through brake was in use across the emergency coupling (because the brake hose would have broken off, and lack of pressure would have applied the brakes). If the hose was fitted the valves must have been shut, and no guard was available to open any emergency brake valve (otherwise he could have stopped the train before it eventually got to dip in line profile) Until report is published difficult to know exactly what happened, but normally engineering trains have a loco at each end so you could theoretically move the train using rear loco (if front one had failed) without needing to get another train to tow it. Any towing train would have to be sent wrong road to collect the failed train. Any following train used for pushing would have same problem as using rear loco, (line clear status would have to be sent from front as cab is now part way along combined train). Tripcocks would only stop the train if it ran through a red signal, (or too fast through a timed speed restriction), but as the line was apparently cleared for the runaway, it might not have encountered a red signal. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2010 22:14:38 GMT
On the News tonight, they revealed that the runaway was 49 seconds from hitting the passenger train, too close for comfort.
|
|
|
|
Post by RM5chris on Aug 19, 2010 15:08:40 GMT
From BBC London news....Video showing how close a runaway London Underground train was to a full passenger train in front of it has been leaked to BBC London. Tom Edwards reports news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8927000/8927700.stmHowever it is not footage of the actual train but from a screen on one of the control signal panels (if that is the correct term?). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2010 16:22:46 GMT
I presume that the battery loco is fitted with a trip-cock? It must have been running on the "wrong line", otherwise the trip-cock would have stopped it. Happen a few years ago on the Piccadilly, when a driver "turned hi train" drove it up the wrong line!! We know from the press release that the engineering train was emergency coupled but became seperated, this suggests that maybe a detachable coupling was in use (but not fitted properly), it also suggests that no through brake was in use across the emergency coupling (because the brake hose would have broken off, and lack of pressure would have applied the brakes). If the hose was fitted the valves must have been shut, and no guard was available to open any emergency brake valve (otherwise he could have stopped the train before it eventually got to dip in line profile) Until report is published difficult to know exactly what happened, but normally engineering trains have a loco at each end so you could theoretically move the train using rear loco (if front one had failed) without needing to get another train to tow it. Any towing train would have to be sent wrong road to collect the failed train. Any following train used for pushing would have same problem as using rear loco, (line clear status would have to be sent from front as cab is now part way along combined train). Tripcocks would only stop the train if it ran through a red signal, (or too fast through a timed speed restriction), but as the line was apparently cleared for the runaway, it might not have encountered a red signal. Norrmally you would expect that the signals would be set to red & the traction power cut. There was an in service train in front so presumably cutting the power was not an option but it is unclear as to why the signals behind the train could not be set to red. The implication is the runnaway had no trip valve so the Red signals would not have stopped it. It appears to have had no dead mans handle neither |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2010 16:33:00 GMT
We know from the press release that the engineering train was emergency coupled but became seperated, this suggests that maybe a detachable coupling was in use (but not fitted properly), it also suggests that no through brake was in use across the emergency coupling (because the brake hose would have broken off, and lack of pressure would have applied the brakes). If the hose was fitted the valves must have been shut, and no guard was available to open any emergency brake valve (otherwise he could have stopped the train before it eventually got to dip in line profile) Until report is published difficult to know exactly what happened, but normally engineering trains have a loco at each end so you could theoretically move the train using rear loco (if front one had failed) without needing to get another train to tow it. Any towing train would have to be sent wrong road to collect the failed train. Any following train used for pushing would have same problem as using rear loco, (line clear status would have to be sent from front as cab is now part way along combined train). Tripcocks would only stop the train if it ran through a red signal, (or too fast through a timed speed restriction), but as the line was apparently cleared for the runaway, it might not have encountered a red signal. Norrmally you would expect that the signals would be set to red & the traction power cut. There was an in service train in front so presumably cutting the power was not an option but it is unclear as to why the signals behind the train could not be set to red. The implication is the runnaway had no trip valve so the Red signals would not have stopped it. It appears to have had no dead mans handle neither I haven't seen any reliable reports as to WHAT kind of engineer's train this was. One normally expects some flatbed type wagons topped and tailled by a couple of battery locos. I am fairly sure these can operate 'in traffic' and carry all the normal safety featres for the line(s) in question. Perhaps it was the Track Recording Train, but the same applies are far a safety is concerned. Otherwise, was it some other piece of specialised kit, and if so, why was it not 'escorted' by the requisite battery locos, especially given the 'in service' nature of the operation? Given that the 'incident' will be the subject of a RAIB investigation, but one cannot help feeling that LUL have been less than forthcoming so far. Given also that they WILL claim that the full circumstances will be reported to the RAIB, but in the meantime the Evening subStandard and bigmouth Bob Crow WILL have a field day in the meantime. Poor move by LUL, could have done MUCH better! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2010 16:44:31 GMT
The engineers' vehicle involved was a rail grinder, there's a photo of it on the RAIB incident brief on their website.
As the grinder was making a Wrong Direction Move (from north of Archway towards Finchley on the southbound line), any trip cocks on the train would have been cut out (to prevent rear tripping). That is part of the procedure for performing a WDM.
However, I am not entirely sure that the said vehicle has tripcocks fitted, as it usually operates only in Engineering Hours in a Specified Area and is moved from its depot to another line via top and tailed battery loco which are tripcock/ATP fitted, but as I say I'm not 100% about the grinder.
It is also unclear whether or not the grinder was coupled to the 95TS using only a mechanical coupler and no air, thus with a break away, automatic brakes would not apply, also not quite sure why the handbrake could not be applied or had no affect.
The whole decision making process should make for interesting reading, especially from a higer level, and why they decided to pull, rather than push!
A comment on the Evening Standard comments sums it up rather well, especially when rank and file operational staff are loosing their jobs for errors too!
"A TfL spokesman said: “Safety is our top priority and events surrounding the incident remain under investigation.
They forgot to add 'and we are doing the best arse covering exercise you will ever come across'
Richard Parry must be the first head to roll, '35mph maximum speed' indeed! The line speed on various parts of the Northen is 45mph Mr Parry obviously you know little or nothing about the Company you work for!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2010 17:13:14 GMT
The engineers' vehicle involved was a rail grinder, there's a photo of it on the RAIB incident brief on their website. As the grinder was making a Wrong Direction Move (from north of Archway towards Finchley on the southbound line), any trip cocks on the train would have been cut out (to prevent rear tripping). That is part of the procedure for performing a WDM. However, I am not entirely sure that the said vehicle has tripcocks fitted, as it usually operates only in Engineering Hours in a Specified Area and is moved from its depot to another line via top and tailed battery loco which are tripcock/ATP fitted, but as I say I'm not 100% about the grinder. It is also unclear whether or not the grinder was coupled to the 95TS using only a mechanical coupler and no air, thus with a break away, automatic brakes would not apply, also not quite sure why the handbrake could not be applied or had no affect. The whole decision making process should make for interesting reading, especially from a higer level, and why they decided to pull, rather than push! A comment on the Evening Standard comments sums it up rather well, especially when rank and file operational staff are loosing their jobs for errors too! "A TfL spokesman said: “Safety is our top priority and events surrounding the incident remain under investigation. They forgot to add 'and we are doing the best arse covering exercise you will ever come across' Richard Parry must be the first head to roll, '35mph maximum speed' indeed! The line speed on various parts of the Northen is 45mph Mr Parry obviously you know little or nothing about the Company you work for!" Yes, in early reports I thought I had seen 'wrong way working' mentioned, but have heard very little since. Thank you for shedding a little more 'fact' on the matter, especially concerning the 'arse covering' excercises at LUL! ;D ;D The same could be said of a specialist forum to which I originally turned for information, but in their haste to be seen as 'company men', you would have thought the incident never happened! I agreed with the sentiment that 'speculation' (not unknown, even on this forum  ), would do more harm than good, but I would have thought that the admin and moderators could have published 'factual' information there as an when it came to light.  Regrettably, they chose to bury head in sand and expose posterior for kicking!   |
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 19, 2010 23:03:32 GMT
Well, none of us knew anything at all!!! Although i did see the track recorder at Tower Hill the day before and it seemed to e running fine then. In fact, first i heard of this was Monday after i returned from Plymouth |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2010 5:35:20 GMT
The engineers' vehicle involved was a rail grinder, there's a photo of it on the RAIB incident brief on their website. As the grinder was making a Wrong Direction Move (from north of Archway towards Finchley on the southbound line), any trip cocks on the train would have been cut out (to prevent rear tripping). That is part of the procedure for performing a WDM. However, I am not entirely sure that the said vehicle has tripcocks fitted, as it usually operates only in Engineering Hours in a Specified Area and is moved from its depot to another line via top and tailed battery loco which are tripcock/ATP fitted, but as I say I'm not 100% about the grinder. It is also unclear whether or not the grinder was coupled to the 95TS using only a mechanical coupler and no air, thus with a break away, automatic brakes would not apply, also not quite sure why the handbrake could not be applied or had no affect. The whole decision making process should make for interesting reading, especially from a higer level, and why they decided to pull, rather than push! A comment on the Evening Standard comments sums it up rather well, especially when rank and file operational staff are loosing their jobs for errors too! "A TfL spokesman said: “Safety is our top priority and events surrounding the incident remain under investigation. They forgot to add 'and we are doing the best arse covering exercise you will ever come across' Richard Parry must be the first head to roll, '35mph maximum speed' indeed! The line speed on various parts of the Northen is 45mph Mr Parry obviously you know little or nothing about the Company you work for!" That contradicts what LU are sayng as they repoted there was a passenger train in front. THat would hardly be traveliing the wrong way. It would also break every rulle in the book to run a train in the wrong direction whilst the line is operational Only under emergency conditions is wrong way working on operationl lines and only then under the strictest control There appear to have been some very serious breachs of procedures & practices & LU seem to be staying very quiet on this |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2010 7:01:20 GMT
The correct procedure for a Wrong Direction Move does appear to have been applied.
Keeping it simply, it requires protection in the direction of the WDM.
WDM can be performed in Traffic Hours (how else would certain SPaDs, wrong signals being accepted where the train is too big etc etc be dealt with!?!).
To clarify, the passenger train 107 left the siding and went south, north of it on the southbound line was the defective grinder and the assisting 95 train stock. The plan was to WDM northbound on the southbound line. Protection would have been provided where required north of the train. There is no requirement (per the LU rule book) to protect in the direction that the train will not run, unless there could be a conflicting move.
According to the daily report of the line's Service Manager that was leaked, the LIM (Line Incident Manager - who is a rostered manager who the line's performance manager who looks after a train depot, station group or service control) and the LU RDO (Rostered Duty Officer - who is a line general manager or above and can work around the confines of the Rule Book, providing that they provide evidence of their risk assesment of the situation) both agreed to the plan.
I don't know much about the Northern, luckily.
As to other aspects of t
|
|
), would do more harm than good, but I would have thought that the admin and moderators could have published 'factual' information there as an when it came to light. 
