Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:59:40 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote: snip the rest. Human fallibility is understandable, but to make such a mistake when trying to recover from an emergency is a very serious error indeed. In many professions (surgery, air traffic control, etc) such an action would, after investigation, be likely to result in dismissal and a review of procedures. Will that be the case for LU? As I said elsewhere this sort of failure will require a Formal Investigation to be undertaken with clear actions and Board Level tracking of those actions. It is not possible to say what will happen to those who may be found to have made a mistake. It is all too easy to reach a judgment from reading the daily report extract that was posted in the preceding post. As to exactly what happened and why that will be for the formal investigation. Thanks for the report - but it catalogues errors more than inspiring confidence from lessons learnt ![]() Which is all that is to be expected for a report written for the next day's management report. It can not and does not go into the required level of detail for such a serious incident. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tunnel and at 10.16 BT Police were advised. Formal Incident Management
(Na100) was declared with DSM Sparrow appointed Silver Control. A special service was introduced west of White City and east of Holborn to all destinations. With technical staff assessing the damage to the points, two of the three trains 3 and 42 were authorised to work back to Lancaster Gate, Approximately 1000 passengers were detrained to the platform by 10.45. Why did it take 30 mins to decide to move the trains back? Why not do this immediately? How long does it take to examine a set of points? We're talking 1000 people here stuck in a sweatbox. Once the points were re-secured the remaining train was worked forward into Marble Arch platform, detraining 500 passengers at 11.08. Subsequently 20 passengers were reported to have been attended to by ambulance crews. One female having fainted aboard a train was advised to go to hospital but decided to continue her journey following water refreshment. Like I said it a previous post , if it had been a hot day god knows what could have happened. This simply isn't good enough whatever the reasons. The passengers welfare should come first, they should not be treated like a bunch of cattle than can wait for ages in unpleasent conditions while staff faff around trying to fix a fault and hide behind their procedures if anyone questions their approach. B2003 |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Firstly, thanks to bowroaduk for the copy of the report - speaking as the
man on the platform, it's great when we get to hear the story behind the messes we get in; being kept in the dark really adds insult to injury. On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Boltar wrote: tunnel and at 10.16 BT Police were advised. Formal Incident Management (Na100) was declared with DSM Sparrow appointed Silver Control. A special service was introduced west of White City and east of Holborn to all destinations. With technical staff assessing the damage to the points, two of the three trains 3 and 42 were authorised to work back to Lancaster Gate, Approximately 1000 passengers were detrained to the platform by 10.45. Why did it take 30 mins to decide to move the trains back? Why not do this immediately? Because it was thought that it would be possible to keep the trains going forward. If it had been possible to resolve the problem quickly - as on the Victoria line the other day - then it would be hugely preferable to do that, resulting in nothing but a five minute delay, rather than to reverse and detrain, delaying 1500 people by however long it took them to get into the station, get off the train, then catch another, plus another several thousand people in the trains behind them by however long it took to do all that. As it happened, it wasn't possible to resolve the problem quickly, it took until about 1016 to determine this, and people suffered a longer delay than if they'd been detrained immediately. However, it couldn't have been known at 0926 that this would happen. The managers took a gamble, and lost, but it was a sensible gamble. Also, where do you get this 30 minute figure from? The interval from 1016 to 1045? That wasn't decision-making, that was the actual doing of it - 1016 is, from the sound of it, when the managers decided that they weren't going to be able to fix the problem quickly, and ordered the reversal of the trains; 1045 is the time by which this was completed. I don't think that's an outrageous length of time to get 1000 people off two trains under these conditions. How long does it take to examine a set of points? We're talking 1000 people here stuck in a sweatbox. The points failed at 0926; the first train was authorised to have a go at the points at 1001. That means it took 35 minutes to diagnose the problem, decide what to do, work a train in and out of the siding, determine that it hadn't been fixed, switch off the power, get someone to the points, fix the points, get him back, switch on the power and determine that everything seemed okay to move. I don't think that's an unreasonable amount of time. One thing that i do wonder about, though: immediately after the failure at 0926, we're told "Initially, three eastbound trains were stalled in section between Lancaster Gate and Marble Arch"; we find out later on that the first is number 33, the second is number 5, and that there's one more train behind that (we're not told the name, but from what comes later, i'd guess it was number 3). Now, after the first train (number 33) has got over the points and they've broken again, and the second train (number 5) has approached the points, we're told "This train and a further two trains were then queued in the tunnel" (the train i'm thinking is number 3, plus what i assume is number 42). So, there are now two trains behind number 5 - implying that between in the time between the failure and number 5's attempt at the points, a fourth train entered the section. Why on earth was a train allowed to enter a section of tunnel leading to points which were known to be broken, with three trains ahead of it? I appreciate that the station supervisor at Marble Arch thought he'd solved the problem, but until the points were in a known good state, they should have been treated as broken. That train could have been emptied much faster if it had been waiting at the platform, time would have been saved, and unnecessary suffering prevented. Also, i'm not sure what was happening with trains further back than Lancaster Gate, but it seems to me that it would have made sense to bring the last train in the queue back to the station as soon as the problem was detected. If it was resolved, it could have started going forward again, and since the time to reach Marble Arch would have been dominated by the time taken for the queue to empty, no time would have been lost. If it had not, it would have made detraining that little bit quicker, plus it would have given passengers the opportunity to leave the train instead of waiting. Anyway, i'm sure LU will be investigating fully. tom -- It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Like I said it a previous post , if it had been a hot day god knows
what could have happened. It wasnt,so shut up your moaning, Were you on the train ? So what you moaning for ? |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Tom
Anderson writes Also, i'm not sure what was happening with trains further back than Lancaster Gate, but it seems to me that it would have made sense to bring the last train in the queue back to the station as soon as the problem was detected. Reversing a train isn't trivial. Apart from the issue of the driver having to walk through a crowded train, you lose signal protection because the line isn't set up for bidirectional working. So you need to *ensure* that the next train isn't going to move even if it gets a green signal. In the case of the Central, reversing also means driving in Restricted Manual, because there are no codes for that direction. Stopping the next train is also harder, because there may be no signal between it and the station. Overall, it could easily take 15 to 20 minutes to get a train reversed to the previous station. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Hempsey" wrote in message ... Like I said it a previous post , if it had been a hot day god knows what could have happened. It wasnt,so shut up your moaning, Were you on the train ? So what you moaning for ? It's the only activity that gives him pleasure. |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson writes Also, i'm not sure what was happening with trains further back than Lancaster Gate, but it seems to me that it would have made sense to bring the last train in the queue back to the station as soon as the problem was detected. Reversing a train isn't trivial. Apart from the issue of the driver having to walk through a crowded train, Aha, i'd not thought of that! you lose signal protection because the line isn't set up for bidirectional working. So you need to *ensure* that the next train isn't going to move even if it gets a green signal. In the case of the Central, reversing also means driving in Restricted Manual, because there are no codes for that direction. Stopping the next train is also harder, because there may be no signal between it and the station. Overall, it could easily take 15 to 20 minutes to get a train reversed to the previous station. I see. Are you saying that they actually did what i suggested, and it's just that this took a long time to do, or that what i suggested is a bad idea? If the latter, i don't (yet!) agree with you:if the line ahead is blocked, then the train would otherwise only spend those 15 to 20 minutes sitting in a tunnel, so you might as well start pulling it back. How long does it take to switch from reversing to going forward again? If it's a long time, that would matter, since deciding to reverse the train would mean a significant delay if the blockage was cleared quickly. If it's not a long time, then you might as well start reversing the train, then send it forward again if the chance arises. Interesting that both this and the H&C problem we were going over a week ago are situations where the impact of failures was amplified by shortcomings in signalling. Not that the signalling is broken, but if it had been better - if there had been overlap protection on the H&C, and if the Central line was signalled for reversible use - the effect of the mechanical failure could have been contained far better. Of course, there are powerful historical and economic factors shaping LU's signalling - i'm not accusing anyone of incompetence - but it drives home how important this stuff is to running a reliable, high-frequency railway. I hope LU have a serious plan for transitioning the entire network to a signalling system that isn't basically out of the 19th century, and that can handle this sort of thing more smoothly. tom -- SAWING CHASING CRUNCHING ROBOTIC DEMOLITION |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:58:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: Why on earth was a train allowed to enter a section of tunnel leading to points which were known to be broken, with three trains ahead of it? I appreciate that the station supervisor at Marble Arch thought he'd solved the problem, but until the points were in a known good state, they should have been treated as broken. That train could have been emptied much faster if it had been waiting at the platform, time would have been saved, and unnecessary suffering prevented. This is a guess as I've seen no other information on this incident. Happy to be corrected by any Central Line drivers if I haven't got the full knowledge of what happens with the Central Line in these situations. Policy is to try to get trains berthed in platforms if at all possible. With the peak service on the Central it is likely you will get trains between stations in the tunnels. The points at Marble Arch would have been "scotched and clipped" to fix them in the appropriate direction (i.e. for the normal line running and not the siding). Once this was confirmed the trains then receive instructions to move at normal speed as the line is automatically operated. Once the first train started to move the system would then progressively move the following trains and thus it is more than likely that another train would end up between stations. The presumption would be that "through running" had been restored. What no one expected was that the points would be in the wrong position and then be clonked by the first train through. Also, i'm not sure what was happening with trains further back than Lancaster Gate, but it seems to me that it would have made sense to bring the last train in the queue back to the station as soon as the problem was detected. If it was resolved, it could have started going forward again, and since the time to reach Marble Arch would have been dominated by the time taken for the queue to empty, no time would have been lost. If it had not, it would have made detraining that little bit quicker, plus it would have given passengers the opportunity to leave the train instead of waiting. The queue in such a situation would be jam all the way back to White City as that is the next nearest turning point. Reversing trains (i.e.back up the tunnel as opposed to crossing over to the other line) is not a normal procedure and where there are computerised systems they are normally set to detect reversible moves as "illogical" and to take appropriate action to prevent such moves. As Clive said you need to take special steps to prevent all other train movements if you decide to reverse a train against its normal mode of operation. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:58:32 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: Why on earth was a train allowed to enter a section of tunnel leading to points which were known to be broken, with three trains ahead of it? The points at Marble Arch would have been "scotched and clipped" to fix them in the appropriate direction (i.e. for the normal line running and not the siding). Once this was confirmed the trains then receive instructions to move at normal speed as the line is automatically operated. Once the first train started to move the system would then progressively move the following trains and thus it is more than likely that another train would end up between stations. The presumption would be that "through running" had been restored. What no one expected was that the points would be in the wrong position and then be clonked by the first train through. That's what i thought. The problem, i'd say, is that the presumption was rather premature - it seems a little rash to declare the full restoration of through running before any trains had actually managed to run through! Thanks for the info, though. Also, i'm not sure what was happening with trains further back than Lancaster Gate, but it seems to me that it would have made sense to bring the last train in the queue back to the station as soon as the problem was detected. If it was resolved, it could have started going forward again, and since the time to reach Marble Arch would have been dominated by the time taken for the queue to empty, no time would have been lost. If it had not, it would have made detraining that little bit quicker, plus it would have given passengers the opportunity to leave the train instead of waiting. The queue in such a situation would be jam all the way back to White City as that is the next nearest turning point. So what happened on the day in question? We know the two trains which were between Lancaster Gate and Marble Arch reversed and detrained, but where did they go after that, and what happened to the trains between White City and Lancaster Gate? Reversing trains (i.e.back up the tunnel as opposed to crossing over to the other line) is not a normal procedure and where there are computerised systems they are normally set to detect reversible moves as "illogical" and to take appropriate action to prevent such moves. As Clive said you need to take special steps to prevent all other train movements if you decide to reverse a train against its normal mode of operation. Very true. tom -- Remember when we said there was no future? Well, this is it. |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
It should be pointed out that this is only a PRELIMINARY report. It is
marked as such on the investigation. There will be further details/changes as the investigator continues. I think it a shame the person who posted it did not point that out to the group. Mal wrote in message oups.com... 09.26 - Marble Arch - Points Failure, passengers stuck on stalled train. The failure of 3702 points to normalise at Marble Arch eastbound caused the Central Line to be suspended between White City and Holborn from 09.26 until 12.18. Initially, three eastbound trains were stalled in section between Lancaster Gate and Marble Arch. To try to clear the fault, a train in Marble Arch platform was worked in and out of the sidings, however when the failure persisted, traction current was discharged to allow the Station Supervisor to secure the points for through running. The London Ambulance Service was advised and an ambulance sent to Marble Arch as a precautionary measure The first stalled train (No 33), was authorised to work forward under failure conditions into the platform at Marble Arch. Passengers having been on the train between stations for 25 minutes. At 10.01, train 33 was authorised to move forward, and the Train Operator reported a loud bang whilst traversing the points, when in the platform at Marble Arch. The following train, (No 5) when authorised through, stopped short of the points reporting that they had been secured in the wrong position [just as a suggested can happen in the "Why does LU take so long to deal with a signal failure thread] This train and a further two trains were then queued in the tunnel and at 10.16 BT Police were advised. Formal Incident Management (Na100) was declared with DSM Sparrow appointed Silver Control. A special service was introduced west of White City and east of Holborn to all destinations. With technical staff assessing the damage to the points, two of the three trains 3 and 42 were authorised to work back to Lancaster Gate, Approximately 1000 passengers were detrained to the platform by 10.45. Once the points were re-secured the remaining train was worked forward into Marble Arch platform, detraining 500 passengers at 11.08. Subsequently 20 passengers were reported to have been attended to by ambulance crews. One female having fainted aboard a train was advised to go to hospital but decided to continue her journey following water refreshment. The service remained suspended whilst technical staff made temporary repairs to the points and track circuits. Signalling code was re-established and services resumed to severe delays at 12.18, with a temporary speed restriction in place over the damaged point work. The special service pattern was withdrawn at 13.25 and timetable recovery commenced, with only 2 cancellations at the 15.00 snapshot. A good serviced was restored at 15.40, and a full service offered for the evening peak. Engineer's train 570 was cancelled in consequence as staff worked on the points (3702) during engineering hours. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Jubilee line - broken again | London Transport | |||
Oxford Street trams - again - again | London Transport | |||
Circle Line up the spout again | London Transport | |||
Central Line To Close (again) | London Transport | |||
Northern Line - again! | London Transport |