Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Have I jinxed the railway? Having firstly broken an Overground 172
(see previous post) I later witnessed the signaling balls up of the year on my way home. Arrived at London Bridge (low level) to switch to an FCC Thameslink on the high level at 20:30. I checked the times prior and I should of had a comfortable 15 minute connection between arriving at LB from my SN service and the 20:45 FCC service. As I walked down from the subway to P6 for my FCC service I noticed two SE trains waiting outside London Bridge for a platform; one was a Metro (465) service and the other a Mainline (375) service. Strangely, I began to notice them both moving towards the station in sync and upon closer inspection the signaler had set the Mainline in to the booked P6 and the Metro bi-directionally in to P5 which is normally used exclusively by down (country) FCC Brighton and SE Hastings/ Tunbridge/Ramsgate trains. Common sense? Yes but not in this instance... To clear P5 immediately for trains in the opposite direction the signaler had set the road for the Metro to go ahead of the Mainline in P6 in towards Charing Cross. Now here comes the balls up... That Metro was supposed to *terminate* at London Bridge in P3! So, there's now a Metro in P5 which is supposed to terminate but has mistakenly been given the road towards CX and a Mainline in P6 genuinely headed for CX that now has to wait for the signal on P5 to be set back before it can proceed towards Borough Market Junction and CX. Someone's dropped a humongous testicle. The Metro terminator formed the 20:05 back to Dartford but the PIS screens hadn't updated and still show it as the 19:57 FCC to Brighton! (see mobile pic below). Lots of passengers running down the stairs in a hurry believing this SE train to Dartford is in fact an FCC train to Brighton. Fair play on the dispatch staff who shouted to those who boarded that it wasn't the right train. http://i1342.photobucket.com/albums/...ndonbridge.jpg Now there's a second problem! An announcement from the station states the signaler cannot cancel the route for the P5 terminator because the points have now stuck at the London-end of London Bridge, meaning the Mainline in P6 along with both my FCC train and about 3 other SE services behind, plus all services the London-end of LB are all now stuck with a points failure. Talk about a bad day? The driver of the Dartford terminator was changing ends and I asked what happened and he informed me the signaler mistakenly thought he was a CX train and didn't realise he was in fact a terminator supposed to go in P3. It's possible to reverse in P5 and the driver correctly assumed it was a mere platform alteration. It was only when the signal pulled off towards Charing Cross did he realise the signaler had made a mistake. Eventually after 15 minutes of nothingness, the points at the London- end of LB are finally reset and allowing the Mainline in P6, the following other SE trains and my FCC train, plus all down (country) traffic to begin flowing again. My booked 19:45 to Bedford didn't arrive until almost 20:15 and had been sitting outside LB for approximately 25 minutes. All that chaos caused by the one mistake of a mere platform change. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Edit. Opening paragraph should be arriving at LB at 19:30 and catching
19:45 FCC service, not an hour later! |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/11/2012 00:01, djxc6 wrote:
Edit. Opening paragraph should be arriving at LB at 19:30 and catching 19:45 FCC service, not an hour later! Further edit, it is "should HAVE" *not* "should OF" -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 18, 9:29*am, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/11/2012 00:01, djxc6 wrote: Edit. Opening paragraph should be arriving at LB at 19:30 and catching 19:45 FCC service, not an hour later! Further edit, it is "should HAVE" **not* "should OF" Signalling has two ls. Quintishill was a more substantial signalling balls up. ian |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/11/2012 13:51, ian batten wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:29 am, Graeme wrote: On 18/11/2012 00:01, djxc6 wrote: Edit. Opening paragraph should be arriving at LB at 19:30 and catching 19:45 FCC service, not an hour later! Further edit, it is "should HAVE" *not* "should OF" Signalling has two ls. Quintishill was a more substantial signalling balls up. And has an "n" :-) -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/11/2012 13:55, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/11/2012 13:51, ian batten wrote: On Nov 18, 9:29 am, Graeme wrote: On 18/11/2012 00:01, djxc6 wrote: Edit. Opening paragraph should be arriving at LB at 19:30 and catching 19:45 FCC service, not an hour later! Further edit, it is "should HAVE" *not* "should OF" Signalling has two ls. Quintishill was a more substantial signalling balls up. And has an "n" :-) Two... -- Phil Cook |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/11/2012 14:19, Phil Cook wrote:
On 18/11/2012 13:55, Graeme Wall wrote: On 18/11/2012 13:51, ian batten wrote: On Nov 18, 9:29 am, Graeme wrote: On 18/11/2012 00:01, djxc6 wrote: Edit. Opening paragraph should be arriving at LB at 19:30 and catching 19:45 FCC service, not an hour later! Further edit, it is "should HAVE" *not* "should OF" Signalling has two ls. Quintishill was a more substantial signalling balls up. And has an "n" :-) Two... Doh! -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message ...
Further edit, it is "should HAVE" *not* "should OF" ...... definitely not the latter but the former could also be "should've". ;-) |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 17, 11:51*pm, djxc6 wrote:
Harldy and "ultimate" problem. Actually one of the *ultimate* signalling difficulties - if not the UK all time ultimate difficulty - would occur about 1 km to the west of London Bridge where it is possible to grid lock Borough Market Junction triangle with three 12car trains in the wrong place ... the layout is such that the rear of each one of the three trains obstructs the route of another ... and it is not just the route is locked but track unoccupied, it is the rear of the train is literally on the tracks in front of another. -- Nick |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 17, 11:51*pm, djxc6 wrote:
Hardly an "ultimate" problem. Actually one of the *ultimate* signalling difficulties - if not the UK all time ultimate difficulty - would occur about 1 km to the west of London Bridge where it is possible to grid lock Borough Market Junction triangle with three 12car trains in the wrong place ... the layout is such that the rear of each one of the three trains obstructs the route of another ... and it is not just the route is locked but track unoccupied, it is the rear of the train is literally on the tracks in front of another. -- Nick |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
London Waterloo to London Bridge Crossrail | London Transport | |||
Waterloo to London Bridge for cheapjacks (London Terminals ticket) | London Transport | |||
LEZ phase 3 for vans and minibuses scrapped - Boris has no balls | London Transport | |||
Diversion of the South London Line from London Bridge | London Transport | |||
East London Line - what happens to the London Bridge services? | London Transport |