On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:31:27 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
The fault probably presented itself initially as a signal that wouldn't
wouldn't clear, as a broken rail means a track circuit failure.

Fair enough.

The distiction between 'signal failure', 'points failure', and
'broken rail' is usually pretty acadmeic to customers anyway: what
they care about is 'when is the next train?'. Getting that correct
is much more important that the root cause analysis - and as someone
stuck on the Central that day, I don't think they got that part
wrong at all.

I'm not sure it is academic. Signal failures happen all the time and I'm sure
most people are sick of hearing that excuse and just wonder why they don't
replace the signals that keep going wrong (hello Arnos Grove) with new kit.
A broken rail however I think everyone would understand is a major failure
and sometimes will just happen. Though inspecting the track a bit better
might help.

B2003

On 11 Jan, 20:52, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:31:27 +0000

Mike Bristow wrote:
The fault probably presented itself initially as a signal that wouldn't
wouldn't clear, as a broken rail means a track circuit failure. *

Fair enough.

The distiction between 'signal failure', 'points failure', and
'broken rail' is usually pretty acadmeic to customers anyway: *what
they care about is 'when is the next train?'. *Getting that correct
is much more important that the root cause analysis - and as someone
stuck on the Central that day, I don't think they got that part
wrong at all.

I'm not sure it is academic. Signal failures happen all the time and I'm sure
most people are sick of hearing that excuse and just wonder why they don't
replace the signals that keep going wrong (hello Arnos Grove) with new kit.

In article ,
d wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:31:27 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
The fault probably presented itself initially as a signal that wouldn't
wouldn't clear, as a broken rail means a track circuit failure.

Fair enough.

The distiction between 'signal failure', 'points failure', and
'broken rail' is usually pretty acadmeic to customers anyway: what
they care about is 'when is the next train?'. Getting that correct
is much more important that the root cause analysis - and as someone
stuck on the Central that day, I don't think they got that part
wrong at all.

I'm not sure it is academic.

When I'm trying to get to work in the morning, I don't usually care
what the problem is. The only think I care about is "when is the next
train?" - if it's more than X minutes away, then I'll catch a bus to Y
and get a different train.

Signal failures happen all the time and I'm sure
most people are sick of hearing that excuse and just wonder why they don't
replace the signals that keep going wrong (hello Arnos Grove) with new kit.

Because it's not just the signals that go wrong - many things will
present initially as a signal failu broken rails; points failures;
shopping trolley lobbed on the track; too much water; rodents eating
cables or criminals stealing them; block joints failing; or even a
blown bulb. Replacing the signals or the signalling system
wouldn't help with many of those failure modes.

Basically, signalling failures are often caused by the signalling system
working as designed in the face of somethine else failing.

Therefore fixing "the signals" might not help - it's not "the signals"
that's broken!

A broken rail however I think everyone would understand is a major failure
and sometimes will just happen. Though inspecting the track a bit better
might help.

Additional engineering works has no disbenefit to the travelling
public (as the managment of the O2 would testify), and can be done
for free.

Cheers,
Mike

--
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com