Thank you London Underground
 

Not to hijack the post, and I hope this doesn't sound *too* much like a plug, but the organisation I work for has just launched http://www.FixMyTransport.com, which would be an ideal platform to post issues like this - and gives you a very good chance of getting an answer.

The site was designed to make it very easy to report an issue, whether that be open doors, broken toilets, missing timetables or rude drivers. The issue is both sent to the correct operator, and posted on the website, hopefully creating a degree of accountability. There's also the option of rallying others to your cause, if it's a longterm or recurrent problem.

Public service announcement over - hope it's useful. :)

Thank you London Underground
 

Pat O'Neill wrote on 11 July 2011 21:27:16 ...

"Richard wrote in message
...
wrote on 11 July 2011 20:38:18 ...

Surley isn't too much to ****ing ask to have a safety cut, doors open,
train
can't go. Even I could design that.
You must work for LUL to support them for a safety failure.

If you'd confined your post to the fact that the train departed with the
doors open instead of ranting on and on about other things, you wouldn't
have had that reaction.

A train departing with open doors is serious, so perhaps you can tell us
more about the incident. Was it just one door that stayed open or were
they all open? Were they fully open or partly closed? Did you or anyone
else in your car press the alarm button as soon as the train moved with
doors open?

Sounds to me like an incident that RAIB should take an interest in.

RAIB would be very interested

They are indeed. RAIB issued a bulletin this morning (5 Aug 2011):
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/...ren_street.cfm

The sequence of events seems to have been as follows:
- Driver attempts to depart from Oxford Circus
- Train detects something caught in door (sensitive edge activation) and
stops itself.
- Driver establishes that nothing significant is actually caught, so
disables sensitive edge detection and proceeds to Warren Street.
- At Warren Street, where the platform is on the other side, the
sensitive edge activation from Oxford Street is still present, so "the
driver isolated safety systems which allowed the train to move with the
doors open". It's not clear from the brief summary whether this meant
he disabled the sensitive edge detection again or isolated the system in
some other way.

The RAIB investigation "will include an examination of the sequence of
events leading up to the incident, the driver’s training and competence,
and the implementation of sensitive edge doors on the new Victoria Line
trains (including the associated control system)".

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Thank you London Underground
 

On Jul 17, 12:27*pm, wrote:
*From:* Clive
*Date:* Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:21:22 +0100

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

Being able to motor with the doors open had great advantages - for example
departing the depot in the afternoon after the train had been standing in
the heat since the AM stabling at Morden. At least this let some fresh air
into the train, as long as you remembered to close the doors before the
train reached the wash (it wasn't unknown for a train to get a good
washing inside as well!).

The most useful feature of their being no interlock was that the driver
could "notch up" (attempt to motor with the brakes on) in order to attempt
to shake a sticky door shut. Technically, this was forbidden, but most
drivers did it. It saved the Guard or driver having to walk down the train
to give the door a kick when it was partly stuck in the crap that used to
collect on the door runners of the 38 and 59 stock. Unfortunately, it was
not so easy to notch up on the 72 stock because the motor and brake were
on one handle (CTBC) and so it became an art to be able to begin to motor
and then quickly apply the brake. The effects wasn't as good, though.

One thing I used to find as a driver was that because that you would often
go into auto pilot mode. When you got to station X, you could remember
stopping at station A, but nothing of what happened anywhere in between. A
red signal or something unusual would bring you back to normal.
One problem this caused was that, coming out of auto pilot, you suddenly
thought "did I get a bell?" and then looked out of the fire extinguisher
window (38 stock) or the (inevitable) spy hole on the 59 stock door to see
if you could see if the doors were closed.

Guards being quick on the bell combined with slow drivers was another
problem, and this was often associated with the bounce you mentioned -
either contact or door. A Guard would get the pilot light and give the
bell, only to find the pilot light lost. The correct procedure would then
be to call the driver over the (mostly) crap Loudaphone or pull the handle
down before re-opening and closing the doors or leaving the train.
A driver might be slow starting because he was rolling a fag or poring his
tea. The usual thing a driver sid if there was a delay before he was ready
to go was to notch up for another bell, just to make sure it was still OK
to go. Some drivers didn't do it and just started when they were ready.

There have been several cases in the past where the Guard, after giving
the bell and then lost his pilot light, has got off the train to go deal
with the problem door and meanwhile the driver has started the train and
left the Guard on the platform. The train then going off to the next
station minus a Guard and with the Guards door open. Passengers rarely
pulled the handle down when this happened. The first that a driver knew
anything was wrong was when he arrived at the next station and the doors
didn't open. There was no train radio until a few years before the 59
stock left the Northern line, so there was no way of contacting the
driver.

Roger

So, to tie all this in with my distantly recollected observations,
could you clarify how the interlock with the bell worked?

I can recall a 1962 stock train trying to start, and instantly cutting
out, because the driver seemed to have preempted the bell. Then the
bell rang (I was at the front) and it set off OK. Also, presumably
the bell wouldn't work if the guard's pilot light wasn't on (even if
only briefly due to the bounce scenario).

But you don't need a bell to start from a signal stop etc.

Thank you London Underground
 

In message
, MIG
writes
I can recall a 1962 stock train trying to start, and instantly cutting
out,
There weren't any interlocks on 62 stock, you've imagined it.
--
Clive

Thank you London Underground
 

In article ,
(Clive) wrote:

In message
,
MIG writes
I can recall a 1962 stock train trying to start, and instantly cutting
out,
There weren't any interlocks on 62 stock, you've imagined it.

Huh? Interlocks in the guard's bell circuit came in with the 1938 stock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thank you London Underground
 

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Clive) wrote:
In message
,
MIG writes
I can recall a 1962 stock train trying to start, and instantly cutting
out,
There weren't any interlocks on 62 stock, you've imagined it.
Huh? Interlocks in the guard's bell circuit came in with the 1938 stock.
No they didn't, I've worked on both 38 stock on the Northern, and 62
stock on the central, and neither have any interlock that interferes
with traction current when the doors are open.
There are contacts through each door circuit that allow the guards light
to illuminate as soon as the doors are closed so a door bounce will give
a "ting" to the driver, but because of the way they work, only one in
each double will be spring loaded for four inches. The 62 stock had
the advantage that when the doors were open an orange light was lit on
top of each car so a guard would know instantly were a door would be
stuck.
--
Clive

Thank you London Underground
 

In article ,
(Clive) wrote:

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Clive) wrote:
In message
,
MIG writes
I can recall a 1962 stock train trying to start, and instantly cutting
out,
There weren't any interlocks on 62 stock, you've imagined it.
Huh? Interlocks in the guard's bell circuit came in with the 1938 stock.
No they didn't, I've worked on both 38 stock on the Northern, and 62
stock on the central, and neither have any interlock that interferes
with traction current when the doors are open.
There are contacts through each door circuit that allow the guards
light to illuminate as soon as the doors are closed so a door bounce
will give a "ting" to the driver, but because of the way they work,
only one in each double will be spring loaded for four inches. The
62 stock had the advantage that when the doors were open an orange
light was lit on top of each car so a guard would know instantly were
a door would be stuck.

I think we're agreeing. I was talking of a bell-only interlock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thank you London Underground
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:34:33 +0100
Clive wrote:
There weren't any interlocks on 62 stock, you've imagined it.
Huh? Interlocks in the guard's bell circuit came in with the 1938 stock.
No they didn't, I've worked on both 38 stock on the Northern, and 62
stock on the central, and neither have any interlock that interferes
with traction current when the doors are open.

So the trains could be driven normally even if all the doors were open?

I'm pretty sure I remember times when a train tried to move and the power
cut out because there were door issues.

B2003

Thank you London Underground
 

In message , d
writes
So the trains could be driven normally even if all the doors were open?
Yes on 38 and 62 stock. I've not worked on any other and can't
therefore say.
I'm pretty sure I remember times when a train tried to move and the power
cut out because there were door issues.

--
Clive

Thank you London Underground
 

On 2011-08-15 13:05:01 +0000, d said:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:34:33 +0100
Clive wrote:
There weren't any interlocks on 62 stock, you've imagined it.
Huh? Interlocks in the guard's bell circuit came in with the 1938 stock.
No they didn't, I've worked on both 38 stock on the Northern, and 62
stock on the central, and neither have any interlock that interferes
with traction current when the doors are open.

So the trains could be driven normally even if all the doors were open?

I'm pretty sure I remember times when a train tried to move and the power
cut out because there were door issues.

B2003

Sometime a driver would very briefly apply power in an attempt to shake
loose a sticking door.