Thank you London Underground
 

On 15/07/2011 02:01, Clive wrote:
In message
,
W14_Fishbourne writes
However, I am a bit mystified why the door interlocking doesn't (a)
just prevent power being taken when a door is open rather than, as the
implication is here, (b) allowing power to be taken then cutting it
off if a door is open. Presumably interlocking of type (b) also covers
the event of a train door coming open while the train is moving,
giving two levels of protection for the price of one.

As I said in an earlier post, I think that the driver may have thought
that he had an indication that the doors were closed. When he hit the
release button, the train may have tried to take off, but the lack of a
door circuit cut out the traction control circuits.

In my time on both the Northern and Central lines trains were frequently
moved around depots with the doors wide open, if only to get some fresh
air through them.

That's because the driver had turned on the bypass switch.

Thank you London Underground
 

In message ,
" writes
In my time on both the Northern and Central lines trains were frequently
moved around depots with the doors wide open, if only to get some fresh
air through them.
That's because the driver had turned on the bypass switch.
Neither the 38 or 62 stock that I worked on had any kind of interlock to
cut power if any door was open.
--
Clive

Thank you London Underground
 

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 02:19:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message ,
" writes
In my time on both the Northern and Central lines trains were frequently
moved around depots with the doors wide open, if only to get some fresh
air through them.
That's because the driver had turned on the bypass switch.
Neither the 38 or 62 stock that I worked on had any kind of interlock to
cut power if any door was open.

AFAIR the only interlock was (allegedly) with the guard's bell.

Thank you London Underground
 

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 02:19:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message ,
" writes
In my time on both the Northern and Central lines trains were
frequently moved around depots with the doors wide open, if only to
get some fresh air through them.
That's because the driver had turned on the bypass switch.
Neither the 38 or 62 stock that I worked on had any kind of interlock
to cut power if any door was open.

AFAIR the only interlock was (allegedly) with the guard's bell.

Surely the first stock to have a door to traction control interlock was
the 1967 stock?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thank you London Underground
 

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
Neither the 38 or 62 stock that I worked on had any kind of interlock to
cut power if any door was open.
AFAIR the only interlock was (allegedly) with the guard's bell.
There was no interlock, the doors could be opened at any time, any place
without affecting traction current to motors or anything else.
--
Clive

Thank you London Underground
 

On 15/07/2011 01:09, Ross wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:43:52 +0200 [UTC], Neil Williams wrote:

[...]
And weren't DB using a Rheingold set recently?

Yes indeedy, but I never managed to get over for a ride. :-(

Köln - Hamburg, I think it was, northbound Thurs (or Fri. not sure),
back Sun. Bog standard IC train but the Rheingold stock dragged by
103.245.

A Real Train, none of this white worm junk. ;-)

Aha, so that's what I spotted in a siding north of Hamburg in April.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Thank you London Underground
 

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:21:22 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
Neither the 38 or 62 stock that I worked on had any kind of interlock to
cut power if any door was open.
AFAIR the only interlock was (allegedly) with the guard's bell.
There was no interlock, the doors could be opened at any time, any place
without affecting traction current to motors or anything else.

.... except the guard's bell. When the guard was still located within
the passenger compartment you would often see one digit on that button
at the same time as or before the door close button was being pressed
by another digit (not to be confused with the use of two buttons to
open the doors). If the doors failed to close properly then the driver
did not get the bell.

Thank you London Underground
 

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
.. except the guard's bell. When the guard was still located within
the passenger compartment you would often see one digit on that button
at the same time as or before the door close button was being pressed
by another digit (not to be confused with the use of two buttons to
open the doors). If the doors failed to close properly then the driver
did not get the bell.
Whilst it is true that Guards used to keep their fingers on both the
door close and the bell button together so that it would ring as soon as
all the doors were closed, door bounce was not unknown and a train could
set off with a door partially open. Every pair of double doors had one
which was spring loaded to allow anyone to extract their hand in
emergency, but if that door is the one in the direction of travel then
the person with their arm in the door stood no chance. I can remember
sitting on a train because the train in front of me had had just such an
accident, and the gentleman involved didn't stand a chance, he was
splattered over the headwall. We waited about an hour and a half for
the police to attend and then for the headwall etc. to be cleaned up and
we were instructed to tell the passengers that there had been an
incident, no more.
--
Clive

Thank you London Underground
 

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:10:06 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
.. except the guard's bell. When the guard was still located within
the passenger compartment you would often see one digit on that button
at the same time as or before the door close button was being pressed
by another digit (not to be confused with the use of two buttons to
open the doors). If the doors failed to close properly then the driver
did not get the bell.
Whilst it is true that Guards used to keep their fingers on both the
door close and the bell button together so that it would ring as soon as
all the doors were closed, door bounce was not unknown and a train could
set off with a door partially open.

Indeed. It always seemed strange that LU were allowed to get away with
a single bell as a start signal with AFAIAA no confirmation response
from the driver long after a safer practice had been established on
BR. As well as the circumstances you describe, a single bell allows
for the signal to be given just as a danger is observed which on BR
would still have to be followed by the second press before the driver
moved off. IMU there was no LU equivalent to a BR stop/one-bell signal
(and if a door bounced open or the detection circuit failed it would
not have been possible) leaving only the emergency brake valve
available for use.

Every pair of double doors had one
which was spring loaded to allow anyone to extract their hand in
emergency, but if that door is the one in the direction of travel then
the person with their arm in the door stood no chance. I can remember
sitting on a train because the train in front of me had had just such an
accident, and the gentleman involved didn't stand a chance, he was
splattered over the headwall. We waited about an hour and a half for
the police to attend and then for the headwall etc. to be cleaned up and
we were instructed to tell the passengers that there had been an
incident, no more.

Thank you London Underground
 

On 15/07/2011 22:58, wrote:
On 14/07/2011 00:15, Spyke wrote:
On 13/07/2011 22:58, wrote:


I'm not quite sure about that, to be honest. I once saw a YouTube video
of an excursion train, I think a 38 stock. The train had come into
Camden Town and was holding at the platform for the starter signal,
obviously with its doors shut.

IIRC, people on the platform were confused about why the train wasn't
opening it doors, oblivious to the fact that the rolling stock was
completely out of the ordinary. The train itself was probably shorter
than usual.

Indeed, this happens on a regular basis on the 38TS tours, especially at
central London stations (with tourists who may believe that LU still run
75 year old stock on a daily basis).

Happens in Buenos Aires.


The oldest stock I've seen in passenger service in Buenos Aires is the
late 60s Toshiba units. Though I suspect some of the metre gauge stock
may be older.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail