Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.

Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?

Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?

On 26/06/2020 00:48, Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.


Isn't Richmond now TfL, Overground?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldnÂ’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
arenÂ’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you canÂ’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and canÂ’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didnÂ’t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing pointsÂ…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.

Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?

Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?


Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?


AFAIK the shared sections will retain lineside signalling (similar
arrangement to the Central line with an additional aspect for ATO trains,
though in this case I believe it will be blue rather than white); but the
resignalling of Harrow and north thereof is currently on hold.

I would expect trainstops to be retained, or possibly TPWS to be fitted
instead.

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system?


In the early days of TW Metro, IIRC BR freight trains still used one of the
lines (outside of the Metro service hours?). Most of the other instances I
can think of involve non-NR services venturing onto NR lines under NR
signalling; TW to Sunderland, and Sheffield tram-train.

More widely there are two accepted types of tram-train operation - the
Karlsruhe Model where suitable tramway vehicles operate over the railway
network, and the Zwickau Model where suitable railway vehicles operate over
the tramway network https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwickau_Model.
Another example is Nordhausen where certain services from the Harz network
run through onto the tram network.

Further afield, I can't comment on the signalling arrangements but certain
lines in Japan meet the rest of your requirements. A few JR trains a day
run through onto the Kyoto Tango Railway (holders of JR passes are required
to pay an additional charge on board).

Metro systems in Japan involve a lot of through running. My reference for
the following is mostly the three Japanese editions of the rather fabulous
Schwandl series of tramway/metro books:

Kyoto metro Tozai line has through running to the Keihan Keishin line.
Within Kyoto this had been a street-running line (separate from the city's
tram network and crossing it on the level! Several pictures of this section
are online if you have the patience to feel Japanese Wikipedia through
google translate), and was put underground at the opening of the metro line
along the same route; the far end of the Keihan Keishin line still has a
street running section.

Fukuoka metro Kuko Line has through running onto JR's Chikuhi line - 8tph
off-peak (15tph peak) on the metro section, with 4tph extending 12km over
JR metals, 1tph of which continues a further 32km! These services are
operated with JR stock with toilets whereas the services which don't run
beyond the metro section use metro stock without toilets.

Ten of Tokyo's 13 metro lines feature through-running. Schwandl says "The
concept of reciprocal through-running has been developed to a unique degree
in Japan". The fragmented ownership of Tokyo's rail network has resulted in
a system designed to protect the independence and revenues of the companies
involved, whilst delivering a more efficient and convenient service,
reducing congestion and transfer traffic at termini. "Each operator remains
responsible for run all services on their own network with rolling stock
for through services pooled in proportion to the car-kms covered on their
respective tracks. [...] Trains pass from system to system but crews
generally stay on their home territory."

I guess the equivalent would be Crossrail (or Hammersmith and City) having
through running to (say) fast services to Oxford, Basingstoke via Reading,
Southend, Chelmsford and Rochester, with 345s, 387s, SWR stock, c2c stock,
GA and SET stock all through-running to each destination, worked by the
appropriate TOC's crews over their own tracks!

I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.


Yes I think that's right, and both sections have both TPWS and trainstops.
The DC line used to be similar to the Met in that all NR stock had to have
trainstop equipment (though on the DC line double-manning of driving cabs
was an acceptable alternative), but now AIUI it is TPWS-fitted.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 07:51:47 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/06/2020 00:48, Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.


Isn't Richmond now TfL, Overground?

LU starts at the junction with the District Line NE of Gunnersbury.
Overground services run (almost?) exclusively on NR metals. Richmond
station is managed by SWR, Kew Gardens and Gunnersbury (like other
stations served only by LU and LO together) are managed by LU.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 07:51:47 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/06/2020 00:48, Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldnÂ’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
arenÂ’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you canÂ’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and canÂ’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didnÂ’t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing pointsÂ…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.


Isn't Richmond now TfL, Overground?

LU starts at the junction with the District Line NE of Gunnersbury.
Overground services run (almost?) exclusively on NR metals. Richmond
station is managed by SWR, Kew Gardens and Gunnersbury (like other
stations served only by LU and LO together) are managed by LU.


Yes, I think LO track is all maintained by NR, though the ELL is still
owned by TfL.

I assume tripstops are fitted on track shared with LU trains.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn?t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren?t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can?t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can?t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn?t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points?). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.

Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?

Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?


Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.

I know. But is there train protection for the other operators on these
sections?

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn?t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren?t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can?t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can?t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn?t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points?). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.

Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?

Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?


Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.

I know. But is there train protection for the other operators on these
sections?


The DC line (Queens Park to H&W) used to require tripcock fitted NR stock
(or with special arrangements, dual-manned cabs), but is now TPWS fitted.
The others have TPWS.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:43:29 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Robert wrote:
Evening all,

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748

It will be interesting to see what happened here.

"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.

The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.

An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.

No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.

The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."


I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.

What I know about the incident is as follows:

The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn?t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).

For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.

The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.

Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren?t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can?t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can?t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn?t apply, of course.

Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.

Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.

For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.

From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.

Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points?). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.

Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?

Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?


Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.

I know. But is there train protection for the other operators on these
sections?


The DC line (Queens Park to H&W) used to require tripcock fitted NR stock
(or with special arrangements, dual-manned cabs), but is now TPWS fitted.
The others have TPWS.

OK.