Another Near LU Train Crash

[Deleted]

A Tube train was sent into the path of another train during Wednesday morning's rush hour, it has emerged.

The driver of the Hammersmith and City Line train realised it had been wrongly switched to an eastbound track shortly after leaving Plaistow station.

Transport for London (TfL) said the train was stopped immediately and the nearest eastbound train was held at a red light almost 1km away at West Ham


Serious conserns are now being raised as to safety standards on LU when such fubdermental failures are occuring

[john]

Sept 10, 2010 6:02:52 GMT bob said:

A Tube train was sent into the path of another train during Wednesday morning's rush hour, it has emerged.

The driver of the Hammersmith and City Line train realised it had been wrongly switched to an eastbound track shortly after leaving Plaistow station.

Transport for London (TfL) said the train was stopped immediately and the nearest eastbound train was held at a red light almost 1km away at West Ham


Serious conserns are now being raised as to safety standards on LU when such fubdermental failures are occuring

To me, that says a human error on the signalman's part. Knowing how busy that stretch can be, surely it's understandable for this to happen? The mistake was realised, rectified and an accident avoided. Though, i'm also not 100% on the District and H&C singals though I think we have a District Line driver on here??

[vjaska]

Sept 10, 2010 13:19:14 GMT john said:

Sept 10, 2010 6:02:52 GMT bob said:

A Tube train was sent into the path of another train during Wednesday morning's rush hour, it has emerged.

The driver of the Hammersmith and City Line train realised it had been wrongly switched to an eastbound track shortly after leaving Plaistow station.

Transport for London (TfL) said the train was stopped immediately and the nearest eastbound train was held at a red light almost 1km away at West Ham


Serious conserns are now being raised as to safety standards on LU when such fubdermental failures are occuring

To me, that says a human error on the signalman's part. Knowing how busy that stretch can be, surely it's understandable for this to happen? The mistake was realised, rectified and an accident avoided. Though, i'm also not 100% on the District and H&C singals though I think we have a District Line driver on here??

I read this in the Evening Standard yesterday and it said that neither the driver or signalman were to blame. It said it was some kind of failure and that after the line was closed, they managed to recreate the fault. The train was the 1st out of the siding for a few days as it was closed the day before .

[john]

Sept 10, 2010 13:59:21 GMT vjaska said:

Sept 10, 2010 13:19:14 GMT john said:

To me, that says a human error on the signalman's part. Knowing how busy that stretch can be, surely it's understandable for this to happen? The mistake was realised, rectified and an accident avoided. Though, i'm also not 100% on the District and H&C singals though I think we have a District Line driver on here??

I read this in the Evening Standard yesterday and it said that neither the driver or signalman were to blame. It said it was some kind of failure and that after the line was closed, they managed to recreate the fault. The train was the 1st out of the siding for a few days as it was closed the day before .

That would be the signal upgardes they're carrying out on the line for the new rolling stock then Think it was down between Aldgate/Aldgate East and Barking (Eastbound)/Upney (Westbound)

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2010 13:59:21 GMT vjaska said:

Sept 10, 2010 13:19:14 GMT john said:

To me, that says a human error on the signalman's part. Knowing how busy that stretch can be, surely it's understandable for this to happen? The mistake was realised, rectified and an accident avoided. Though, i'm also not 100% on the District and H&C singals though I think we have a District Line driver on here??

I read this in the Evening Standard yesterday and it said that neither the driver or signalman were to blame. It said it was some kind of failure and that after the line was closed, they managed to recreate the fault. The train was the 1st out of the siding for a few days as it was closed the day before .

A single failure should not allow such an incident to happen and critical systems are normally design to fail safe

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2010 13:19:14 GMT john said:

I think we have a District Line driver on here??

You do indeed, but I don't visit here everyday...

I can't really say too much owing to official investigations, but your comment about the signalling upgrade work isn't far wide of the mark

[john]

Sept 12, 2010 20:03:21 GMT colin said:

Sept 10, 2010 13:19:14 GMT john said:

I think we have a District Line driver on here??

You do indeed, but I don't visit here everyday...

I can't really say too much owing to official investigations, but your comment about the signalling upgrade work isn't far wide of the mark

That's what I thought. It really does go to show that, in cases like this, you shouldn't always assume the worst

[Deleted]

It was a fundamental failure of the signalling system. No staff error on the part of the train or signal operators.

John,
Just wondering why you put the blame initially at the door of the signal operator?

[vjaska]

Sept 13, 2010 21:02:22 GMT @thedoctor said:

It was a fundamental failure of the signalling system. No staff error on the part of the train or signal operators.

As I thought, the Evening Standard was correct ;D

[beaver14uk]

That will be a first

Sept 13, 2010 21:25:15 GMT vjaska said:

Sept 13, 2010 21:02:22 GMT @thedoctor said:

It was a fundamental failure of the signalling system. No staff error on the part of the train or signal operators.

As I thought, the Evening Standard was correct ;D

[john]

Sept 13, 2010 21:02:22 GMT @thedoctor said:

It was a fundamental failure of the signalling system. No staff error on the part of the train or signal operators.

John,
Just wondering why you put the blame initially at the door of the signal operator?

Based purely on the pressure they work under on that stretch of line. I've only been involved with the Underground in a passenger capacity, but it must be hard controlling that line when you can have trains running past at every 2-3 minutes.

Oh, and I have heard some daft stories of NR signalmen from a drivers perspective from my dad too

[Deleted]

The signalling system via the interlocking should prevent what happened happen. The only time a signal operator could cause an incident such as this is if they told the train to go past a red signal, of their own accord, or just cocked it up.

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2010 10:28:41 GMT @thedoctor said:

The signalling system via the interlocking should prevent what happened happen. The only time a signal operator could cause an incident such as this is if they told the train to go past a red signal, of their own accord, or just cocked it up.

It is worring indeed that such critical failures of the highest level seem to be becoming common on LU. As you say there would need to be at least two failures for such an event to occur. It would be also pretty near impossible for atrain to be put on a conflicting path without manual intervention by a signalman . THe normal automated system would not allow it. In an emergency a train has to seek clearance from the control roon before being allowed to proceed at 5mph along the line in the wrong direction.

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2010 16:52:32 GMT bob said:

Sept 14, 2010 10:28:41 GMT @thedoctor said:

The signalling system via the interlocking should prevent what happened happen. The only time a signal operator could cause an incident such as this is if they told the train to go past a red signal, of their own accord, or just cocked it up.

It is worring indeed that such critical failures of the highest level seem to be becoming common on LU. As you say there would need to be at least two failures for such an event to occur. It would be also pretty near impossible for atrain to be put on a conflicting path without manual intervention by a signalman . THe normal automated system would not allow it. In an emergency a train has to seek clearance from the control roon before being allowed to proceed at 5mph along the line in the wrong direction.

It couldn't even be done manually. It would be communicated via a Wrong Direction Move procedure, if you wanted a train to run in the wrong direction. Then they'd do, what they'd do for that to be carried out correctly.

Plaistow is a manually operated site, albeit with King (Through) working for when trains are just passing by.

You seem to have become confused by automatic and manual operation too!

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2010 19:36:05 GMT @thedoctor said:

Sept 14, 2010 16:52:32 GMT bob said:

It is worring indeed that such critical failures of the highest level seem to be becoming common on LU. As you say there would need to be at least two failures for such an event to occur. It would be also pretty near impossible for atrain to be put on a conflicting path without manual intervention by a signalman . THe normal automated system would not allow it. In an emergency a train has to seek clearance from the control roon before being allowed to proceed at 5mph along the line in the wrong direction.

It couldn't even be done manually. It would be communicated via a Wrong Direction Move procedure, if you wanted a train to run in the wrong direction. Then they'd do, what they'd do for that to be carried out correctly.

Plaistow is a manually operated site, albeit with King (Through) working for when trains are just passing by.

You seem to have become confused by automatic and manual operation too!

The automatic systems do not allow wrong way working with therefore it is manual. A driver has to have specific instructions to proceed along a line incthe wrong direction and then only at walking pace. They probably have to manually raise the trip lever as well as the train would be going over the ramps in the wrong direction.

Even when the signalling is manually operated interlocks and other safety measures should prevent a train being sent down a wrong line