"Alan Ben It" wrote in message

On Sep 10, 11:38 am, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message



On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:53:12 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
20:05:28 on Thu, 9 Sep 2010,
remarked:

You would have thought the signal allowing trains out of the bay
platform would be interlocked to the points being set correctly
for the route over the crossover, wouldn't you?

Even in the presence of a fault condition (which they've apparently
admitted)?

So much for signals being failsafe. Failsafe unless the failsafe
fails. Which it obviously did.

Surely it was still failsafe? No trains were signalled to collide
with each other.

Yes they were. One train was on the line working in the wrong
direction. Would you drive the wrong way on a motorway?

But would the signals have stayed green if the trains approached each
other closely enough to collide?

Recliner wrote on 10 September 2010
12:50:33 ...
"Alan Ben wrote in message

On Sep 10, 11:38 am, wrote:
wrote in message



On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:53:12 +0100
Roland wrote:
In message5ZudnY273pDFGRTRnZ2dnUVZ7qSdn...@giganews. com, at
20:05:28 on Thu, 9 Sep 2010,
remarked:

You would have thought the signal allowing trains out of the bay
platform would be interlocked to the points being set correctly
for the route over the crossover, wouldn't you?

Even in the presence of a fault condition (which they've apparently
admitted)?

So much for signals being failsafe. Failsafe unless the failsafe
fails. Which it obviously did.

Surely it was still failsafe? No trains were signalled to collide
with each other.

Yes they were. One train was on the line working in the wrong
direction. Would you drive the wrong way on a motorway?

But would the signals have stayed green if the trains approached each
other closely enough to collide?

But after passing the wrongly-set points, the train departing from
Plaistow was travelling west on the eastbound track, and would not have
any signals to see. I'm not sure if it would have been back-tripped, but
the train that ran backwards downhill on the Northern some years ago
because the driver was asleep wasn't tripped for several stations IIRC.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:53:12 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:05:28
on Thu, 9 Sep 2010, remarked:

You would have thought the signal allowing trains out of the bay
platform would be interlocked to the points being set correctly for
the route over the crossover, wouldn't you?

Even in the presence of a fault condition (which they've apparently
admitted)?

So much for signals being failsafe. Failsafe unless the failsafe fails.
Which it obviously did.

Exactly. If there was a fault with the points, he should have been on stop
and proceed at least, if allowed to move at all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Alan Ben It wrote:

Boltar seems to know what he's talking about.


They do say there's a first time for everything. ;-)

On Sep 10, 1:11*pm, wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:53:12 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:05:28
on Thu, 9 Sep 2010, remarked:

You would have thought the signal allowing trains out of the bay
platform would be interlocked to the points being set correctly for
the route over the crossover, wouldn't you?

Even in the presence of a fault condition (which they've apparently
admitted)?

So much for signals being failsafe. Failsafe unless the failsafe fails.
Which it obviously did.

Exactly. If there was a fault with the points, he should have been on stop
and proceed at least, if allowed to move at all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

It was the equipment that was faulty.The points moved when they
shouldn't have. The failsafe of having points set and locked with a
green signal (in this instance) failed..
No procedure was carried out. That's all that can really be said until
the RAIB report comes out. When will it be a trilogy?

Some people within LU are fearful that a Clapham Junction type event
is round the corner

In message
, at
04:44:08 on Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Alan Ben It
remarked:
Surely it was still failsafe? *No trains were signalled to collide with
each other.

Yes they were. One train was on the line working in the wrong
direction.

And what makes you think the train coming towards it had not been
stopped as a result of the erroneous train occupying a track circuit (in
that sense "ahead of the correctly routed train")?

Just curious; I haven't seen this detail discussed, have you?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote on 10 September 2010 15:04:42 ...
In message
, at
04:44:08 on Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Alan Ben
remarked:
Surely it was still failsafe? No trains were signalled to collide with
each other.

Yes they were. One train was on the line working in the wrong
direction.

And what makes you think the train coming towards it had not been
stopped as a result of the erroneous train occupying a track circuit (in
that sense "ahead of the correctly routed train")?

Just curious; I haven't seen this detail discussed, have you?

The Evening Standard said that there were two signals between the two
trains, both at red, and that a TfL sokesman had said "The nearest
eastbound train was stationary at red signals almost a kilometre away at
West Ham." But of course, as I pointed out in my post at 13:10 today,
those signals only controlled eastbound trains. There would have been
no signals controlling the westbound train on that track after it left
Plaistow. It was only stopped thanks to the driver's alertness.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , at 16:06:36 on Fri, 10
Sep 2010, Richard J. remarked:

The Evening Standard said that there were two signals between the two
trains, both at red, and that a TfL sokesman had said "The nearest
eastbound train was stationary at red signals almost a kilometre away
at West Ham." But of course, as I pointed out in my post at 13:10
today, those signals only controlled eastbound trains. There would
have been no signals controlling the westbound train on that track
after it left Plaistow. It was only stopped thanks to the driver's
alertness.

But surely that's what the much-vaunted "route knowledge" (of where the
relevant signals should be) is all about - drivers knowing they are on a
bit of track they shouldn't be.
--
Roland Perry

On 10 Sep, 17:23, Roland Perry wrote:


But surely that's what the much-vaunted "route knowledge" (of where the
relevant signals should be) is all about - drivers knowing they are on a
bit of track they shouldn't be.
--
Roland Perry

I think we're rather running on luck here - a lot of the holes in the
Swiss cheese lined up, but crucially the Mark 1 eyeball saved the day
in time. If it had been at night and the driver hadn't realised they
were on the wrong road (as happened at Norton Fitzwarren 1940, where
the driver also had working ATC) then perhaps the Mark 1 eyeball would
have come into play at 40mph 800m closer to the other train, and then
what? Clearly a wrong side failure with one of the fundamental
principles of railway safety since 1889, and thus entirely justifying
a hoo ha. Something's not right at LU these days.

Tom

On 10 Sep, 15:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:44:08 on Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Alan Ben It
remarked:

Surely it was still failsafe? *No trains were signalled to collide with
each other.

Yes they were. One train was on the line working in the wrong
direction.

And what makes you think the train coming towards it had not been
stopped as a result of the erroneous train occupying a track circuit (in
that sense "ahead of the correctly routed train")?

Just curious; I haven't seen this detail discussed, have you?

The question I hinted at way back was whether there would be any
signalling or tripping affecting the wrong-way train. Obviously,
being on the wrong track was something that the driver was likely to
notice, but would the right-way train, stopped by a red light and
occupying the track ahead, make any difference?