London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · December 12th 17, 02:30 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:05:47 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:33 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:45:10 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:24:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I'd lay a lot of money on the ****wits not listening to the weather
forecast
and not spraying deicer on the power rails or sending up a train with
any
kind of brush on it. Then next morning, "Oooo, theres snow on the rails,
train
won't move! Quick, lets blame the power supply and make it sound like
its
someone elses fault!"

So how would you describe a problem where the snow/ice prevents the power
from getting from the rail to train?

I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power
supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

A power supply problem which affected different lines on parts of the
network
seperated by 20 miles. Hmm, lets think about the likelyhood of that for a
second vs the didn't-bother-to-clear-snow-from-the-rails scenario...

Which "different lines on parts of the network seperated (sic) by 20
miles"?

Umm, amersham and cockfosters? Actually make that 25 miles.

I didn't say anything about Cockfosters. I mentioned the Piccadilly
line Uxbridge branch. I realise you're very parochial, but perhaps
even you know that Picc and Met share that branch.

So what? There were a number of "power supply problems" over the network.
Now either you're naive enough to believe all these substations failed due to
some snow, or alterntively its a load of BS to cover up not enough de-icing
trains being sent around the network. Take your pick.