|
Thank you London Underground
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:40:04 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote: A while back I was on that old EMU which used to come out to play on the Great Eastern, and the staff were struggling to convince passengers it was a real service and they wouldn't have to pay extra for it. I saw someone miss a Marple train formed of 101 685 at Manc Picc ages ago as they thought (only exclaiming this after departure) it was "their museum piece". And weren't DB using a Rheingold set recently? Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
Thank you London Underground
Mizter T wrote:
(Both times I'd already hit my cap but in other circumstances I'd have wound up paying twice needlessly.) When a bus is terminated short then passengers should be able to get a transfer ticket from the driver in order to continue their journey on another bus - however these often don't seem to be proffered by the driver without prompting. (On a recent occasion when the bus was terminated short a controller at the bus stop shepherded all the pax on the bus going nowhere across to another bus that had just arrived at the stop, having conversed with the driver.) Any idea what was going on in the first example you give? No - the driver just announced the bus was being taken out of service and opened the middle & rear doors (it was a bendy). It would not have been easy to reach the driver because of the flow and the front doors not being open. But I doubt everyone could have fitted onto a single other bus arriving at the stop so the driver conversing with other drivers would not have made much difference either. |
Thank you London Underground
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. ;-) -- Ross Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else - unless I make it clear that I am... |
Thank you London Underground
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:40:04 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: A while back I was on that old EMU which used to come out to play on the Great Eastern, and the staff were struggling to convince passengers it was a real service and they wouldn't have to pay extra for it. I saw someone miss a Marple train formed of 101 685 at Manc Picc ages ago as they thought (only exclaiming this after departure) it was "their museum piece". Surely, when they were still using 101s on the Marple service they only used 101s on it? That was certainly the case when I took a picture in 2000 - see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosenst...ains/other.htm -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Thank you London Underground
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. 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. -- Clive |
Thank you London Underground
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:01:40 +0100, 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. 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. In pre-OPO times it was not uncommon for trains to leave the carriage shed at Queens Park with the doors open during the Summer. |
Thank you London Underground
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. |
Thank you London Underground
On 14/07/2011 13:26, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
On Jul 14, 1:09 pm, "Mizter wrote: wrote: wrote: I remember reading an anecdote on here years ago (god knows whether it was true) that once when an LU engineering train stopped at a still open station a few of the passengers tried to get onto the wagons. No doubt just happy to get a seat. Presumably thought they'd missed the last train, and just happy to take any escape route. I recall a story of an angry bloke trying to get himself and his family into the cab of a freight train (or light?) locomotive at I think Wandsworth Rd station, which seems bizarre enough to be true. Some people are clearly far too stupid to be allowed to travel. He probably insisted that the freight carry HIM and HIS family. |
Thank you London Underground
wrote in message ... On 14/07/2011 00:15, Spyke wrote: 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. In a couple of years, on present plans, 75 year old LU stock will be used on a daily basis - on Island Line. Peter |
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
|
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 |
Thank you London Underground
On 16/07/2011 19:49, Graeme Wall wrote:
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. I thought one of the lines was known for continuing to run some equipment from at least the '20s. |
Thank you London Underground
On Jul 16, 7:11*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
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. - Show quoted text - Would it not be the case that the reason this system was kept in place is that it actually worked? I do not recall hearing too many tales of people falling out of trains or being drgagged along the platform. If you give a driver "one" on the bell he has to react, the thinking time required to acknowledge the bell - that means I need to brake, then put the brake "in". is surely longer than a guard standing by a "handle" seeing a problem and simply operating that handle. That takes away the need for the delay in driver reaction and the time taken for the gaurd to acknowledge it and operate the bell has been used pulling the hanndle. Other may have anecdotes from before my cranking days to suggest otherwise, but it seems to me to have been a fairly efficient system. Richard |
Thank you London Underground
*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 |
Thank you London Underground
|
Thank you London Underground
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 01:53:17 -0700 (PDT), Fat richard
wrote: On Jul 16, 7:11*pm, Charles Ellson wrote: 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. - Show quoted text - Would it not be the case that the reason this system was kept in place is that it actually worked? Like "stop and proceed", another Underground specialty with a string of lethal consequences over the years ? I do not recall hearing too many tales of people falling out of trains or being drgagged along the platform. If you give a driver "one" on the bell he has to react, the thinking time required to acknowledge the bell - that means I need to brake, then put the brake "in". is surely longer than a guard standing by a "handle" seeing a problem and simply operating that handle. Half the time the guard was not standing on the same side as the emergency brake, the other times he was still not that close to it. That takes away the need for the delay in driver reaction and the time taken for the gaurd to acknowledge it and operate the bell has been used pulling the hanndle. Other may have anecdotes from before my cranking days to suggest otherwise, but it seems to me to have been a fairly efficient system. |
Thank you London Underground
On 16/07/2011 21:32, wrote:
On 16/07/2011 19:49, Graeme Wall wrote: 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. I thought one of the lines was known for continuing to run some equipment from at least the '20s. That may be the Trochita which is some 1000 miles from Buenos Aires.[1] I also got the Toshibas too old, they were mid 70s I gather. [1] A line that is currently suffering from volcanic ash, an excuse even BR hadn't thought of. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Thank you London Underground
On 17/07/2011 21:45, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 16/07/2011 21:32, wrote: On 16/07/2011 19:49, Graeme Wall wrote: 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. I thought one of the lines was known for continuing to run some equipment from at least the '20s. That may be the Trochita which is some 1000 miles from Buenos Aires.[1] I also got the Toshibas too old, they were mid 70s I gather. No, no, I was referring specifically to rolling stock on the Buenos Aires Metro [1] A line that is currently suffering from volcanic ash, an excuse even BR hadn't thought of. Give it some time. |
Thank you London Underground
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:01:40 +0100, 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. 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. In pre-OPO times it was not uncommon for trains to leave the carriage shed at Queens Park with the doors open during the Summer. I saw a Central Line train parked in a siding with what looked like the doors open on both sides last week during the hot spell. Pretty sure it was at Debden. Wish they could have done the same on the train I was using, the ventilation is appalling when hot. |
Thank you London Underground
"Neil Williams" wrote in message .net... On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:40:04 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: A while back I was on that old EMU which used to come out to play on the Great Eastern, and the staff were struggling to convince passengers it was a real service and they wouldn't have to pay extra for it. I saw someone miss a Marple train formed of 101 685 at Manc Picc ages ago as they thought (only exclaiming this after departure) it was "their museum piece". On a similar note when they turned out a 101 for a Hadfield train the passengers didn't believe it. They all stood further along the platform assuming a 305 would arrive in front of the 101 until the driver poked his head out of the cab window a couple of minutes before departure. John |
Thank you London Underground
Like "stop and proceed", another Underground specialty with a string of lethal consequences over the years ? Generally the stop and proceed rule works fine and is used thousands of times a year on the Underground. The problem is mostly driver error with the driver going too fast (too fast so that they can't stop short of any obstruction - e,g, a train in front) or resuming speed too soon (at a wrong signal). Most of the staff errors have been overcome over the year by fitting Speed Control After Tripping (SCAT) to trains which limits the speed to about 9mph after resetting the tripcock. In fact it always used to be taught that the speed after applying the rule was "3 to 5mph" or "so you can count the sleepers". Roger |
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
|
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
|
Thank you London Underground
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk