On 6 Nov, 09:04, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
Obviously it must have taken Crossrail, since going round the NLL would
involve climbing uphill.

I'm assuming there an Acme giant spring handily parked in the
platforms at Southall?

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 6 Nov, 14:00, Ken wrote:
On 6 Nov, 10:20, alanG wrote:



Clive D. W. Feather scribbled with quill and ink on parchment: I've just received an email telling me:

The RAIB is carrying out an investigation into an incident when a
road rail engineering machine ran away from Brentford to Romford on
4 November 2007.

Obviously it must have taken Crossrail, since going round the NLL would
involve climbing uphill.

So they mean Romwood, not Romford then?

Ho ho!


Details he
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/...ons_register/0...
[Brentwood & Romford named correctly!]


I'm sure that in the past I've read Mr Perry's words about how
difficult it was working for a company based in Brentfword, as
deliveries would regularly turn up in Essex when they should have been
in West London... or was the Mr Perry regularly turning up in West
London when he should have been in Essex...

On 6 Nov, 22:42, Mizter T wrote:
On 6 Nov, 14:00, Ken wrote:

On 6 Nov, 10:20, alanG wrote:

Clive D. W. Feather scribbled with quill and ink on parchment: I've just received an email telling me:

The RAIB is carrying out an investigation into an incident when a
road rail engineering machine ran away from Brentford to Romford on
4 November 2007.

Obviously it must have taken Crossrail, since going round the NLL would
involve climbing uphill.

So they mean Romwood, not Romford then?

Ho ho!



Details he
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/...ons_register/0...
[Brentwood & Romford named correctly!]

I'm sure that in the past I've read Mr Perry's words about how
difficult it was working for a company based in Brentfword, as
deliveries would regularly turn up in Essex when they should have been
in West London... or was the Mr Perry regularly turning up in West
London when he should have been in Essex...

My parents live in a district of East Kilbride called St. Leonards.
It is quoted on the street name signs, underneath the actual street
name. But don't put it on a postal address, or their mail will end up
going via E. Sussex!

--
Ken

In message . com, at
14:42:52 on Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Mizter T remarked:
I'm sure that in the past I've read Mr Perry's words about how
difficult it was working for a company based in Brentfword, as
deliveries would regularly turn up in Essex when they should have been
in West London... or was the Mr Perry regularly turning up in West
London when he should have been in Essex...

The latter. We were in Brentwood, and things were constantly being
addressed to Brentford. Part of the problem was that many of our
suppliers were in the Thames Valley, and Brentford Nylons (different
industry) had a high profile advertising campaign.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 6, 8:30 pm, "john doe" wrote:
since the report mentions a MEWP (mobile elevating working platform) it was
probably one of thesehttp://www.readypower.co.uk/products/32, i have MC'd
these myself in worksites in this area, usually for balfour beatty OHL.

Ah , makes sense now. I assumed it was a Unimog type vehicle where the
road tyres actually sit on the rails.

B2003

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, BH Williams wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

Clive D. W. Feather scribbled with quill and ink on parchment: I've
just received an email telling me:

The RAIB is carrying out an investigation into an incident when a
road rail engineering machine ran away from Brentford to Romford on
4 November 2007.

Would someone be interested in reminding me why the RAIB and HSE or
whoever do parallel investigations?

IIRC, the RAIB investigations are into the cause of the incident, and ways
of avoiding a future recurrence, and not in bringing a prosecution of a
'guilty party'- indeed, I believe that evidence given to them cannot be used
in a prosecution. This followed HSE handling of certain cases, where certain
parties were advised by their lawyers not to volunteer evidence in case they
incriminated themselves.

Fair enough. But does this require two entirely separate investigations?
How about doing the HSE/police bit, and then handing the results to the
RAIB to be extended with non-evidence evidence? Or allowing people to make
supplementary non-evidence statements when talking to the HSE? Are the
goals or methods of the two investigations sufficiently different that
this wouldn't work - aren't they both basically trying to find out what
happened? I suppose there would be practical problems in carrying out an
investigation where some of your evidence could be used in court and some
couldn't. And if the two bodies share information effectively, i suppose
there's little downside to them both working at once.

tom

--
If it ain't broke, open it up and see what makes it so bloody special.