On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:27:18 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:40:04 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 14 Apr, 22:23, "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote:
There's an elevated Limit of Shunt signal at the Richmond end of the
Up platform (no. GB507). As you say, there are no routes reading up to
it. It's fitted with a trainstop and it's there to prevent trains
setting back wrong road to Richmond without authority.

And you can see a photo of it on page 15 of this 5 MB PDF:
http://www.irse.org.hk/chinese/newsl...ary%202007.pdf

And also a comprehensive explanation.

Including that the offending move (as done on at least two previous
occasions) being prevented is a train returning to Richmond "wrong
line" in error rather than proceeding past the crossover at the London
end of the station and using that crossover to return to Richmond on
the Down Line.

So is it exactly the sort of set up the RAIB revealed is not 'cost
effective' following the incident at Camden Town?

The circumstances were slightly different. IIRC Camden Town involved a
one-off incident of a driver setting off "wrong line" after forgetting
which way he and the train were facing while at Gunnersbury there was
a (repeated?) misunderstanding of an instruction from a remote
signaller concerning a train being sent back by the same route (but
not wrong line). I haven't got the details of the Camden Town incident
to hand but one thing possibly missed by the driver was that before he
set off he failed to check the platform starter; had he done so then
its absence should have indicated something was wrong. For practical
purposes he seems to have compounded the event by doing a one-man
"ding-ding and away".

On 15 Apr, 19:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
I haven't got the details of the Camden Town incident
to hand but one thing possibly missed by the driver was that before he
set off he failed to check the platform starter; had he done so then
its absence should have indicated something was wrong. For practical
purposes he seems to have compounded the event by doing a one-man
"ding-ding and away".

He checked the platform repeater in the in-cab CCTV.

(which is against the rules, but not a SPAD)

U

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

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:37:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On 15 Apr, 19:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
I haven't got the details of the Camden Town incident
to hand but one thing possibly missed by the driver was that before he
set off he failed to check the platform starter; had he done so then
its absence should have indicated something was wrong. For practical
purposes he seems to have compounded the event by doing a one-man
"ding-ding and away".

He checked the platform repeater in the in-cab CCTV.

(which is against the rules, but not a SPAD)

But clearly not the same as checking the signal which was not in front
of him.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:37:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I haven't got the details of the Camden Town incident
to hand but one thing possibly missed by the driver was that before he
set off he failed to check the platform starter; had he done so then
its absence should have indicated something was wrong. For practical
purposes he seems to have compounded the event by doing a one-man
"ding-ding and away".

He checked the platform repeater in the in-cab CCTV.

(which is against the rules, but not a SPAD)

But presumably passing the fixed 'STOP' sign is a SPAD?

On Apr 15, 8:37 pm, wrote:
On 15 Apr, 19:56, Charles Ellson wrote:

I haven't got the details of the Camden Town incident
to hand but one thing possibly missed by the driver was that before he
set off he failed to check the platform starter; had he done so then
its absence should have indicated something was wrong. For practical
purposes he seems to have compounded the event by doing a one-man
"ding-ding and away".

He checked the platform repeater in the in-cab CCTV.

(which is against the rules, but not a SPAD)

You'd think he might have remembered which side the platform was on
and which door he got out of when he arrived. Was the man half asleep?

B2003

On 16 Apr, 13:28, Boltar wrote:
You'd think he might have remembered which side the platform was on
and which door he got out of when he arrived. Was the man half asleep?

But the problem was that he did remember. Camden has two northbound
platforms in essentially an island formation, albeit separated by
passageways. When he switched to other train he got in what have
looked to him like the same end, but was actually the south end.

U

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

On Apr 16, 2:15 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 16 Apr, 13:28, Boltar wrote:

You'd think he might have remembered which side the platform was on
and which door he got out of when he arrived. Was the man half asleep?

But the problem was that he did remember. Camden has two northbound
platforms in essentially an island formation, albeit separated by
passageways. When he switched to other train he got in what have
looked to him like the same end, but was actually the south end.

Oh I see , I thought he went back into the same train after going for
a pee or something. Still , even so , it seems a strange mistake to
make.

B2003

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:02:16 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:15 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 16 Apr, 13:28, Boltar wrote:

You'd think he might have remembered which side the platform was on
and which door he got out of when he arrived. Was the man half asleep?

But the problem was that he did remember. Camden has two northbound
platforms in essentially an island formation, albeit separated by
passageways. When he switched to other train he got in what have
looked to him like the same end, but was actually the south end.

Oh I see , I thought he went back into the same train after going for
a pee or something. Still , even so , it seems a strange mistake to
make.

Not with the lack of the visual references surrounding an open air
station which would make the result of such a momentary aberration
"upstairs" rather more obvious. The scenery in a tube station is 100%
manufactured and consequentially many of the visual references at
different locations can be similar if not identical.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:02:16 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:15 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 16 Apr, 13:28, Boltar wrote:

You'd think he might have remembered which side the platform was on
and which door he got out of when he arrived. Was the man half asleep?

But the problem was that he did remember. Camden has two northbound
platforms in essentially an island formation, albeit separated by
passageways. When he switched to other train he got in what have
looked to him like the same end, but was actually the south end.

Oh I see , I thought he went back into the same train after going for
a pee or something. Still , even so , it seems a strange mistake to
make.

Not with the lack of the visual references surrounding an open air
station which would make the result of such a momentary aberration
"upstairs" rather more obvious. The scenery in a tube station is 100%
manufactured and consequentially many of the visual references at
different locations can be similar if not identical.

To a point. To head for the north end of a train and end up at the south
does require a pretty catastrophic failure of one's internal sense of
direction, and it's not as if the route between the platforms is that
complicated. There's also the fact that he drove off in a direction which
didn't have a green starter next to it. You're right that it's easier to
get confused underground than overground, or indeed when wombling free,
but i still don't think it's easy, and this was still a "strange mistake
to make".

tom

--
Taking care of business

Boltar wrote:
On Apr 15, 8:37 pm, wrote:
On 15 Apr, 19:56, Charles Ellson wrote:

I haven't got the details of the Camden Town incident
to hand but one thing possibly missed by the driver was that before he
set off he failed to check the platform starter; had he done so then
its absence should have indicated something was wrong. For practical
purposes he seems to have compounded the event by doing a one-man
"ding-ding and away".
He checked the platform repeater in the in-cab CCTV.

(which is against the rules, but not a SPAD)

You'd think he might have remembered which side the platform was on
and which door he got out of when he arrived. Was the man half asleep?

B2003

The RAIB report explains how this occurred and is well worth a read.
Basically an unusual crew change took place at Camden Town so the driver
did not get out of the train and back into it but came from another
platform. In those circumstances it is inevitable that such a mistake
happen eventually. This has been accepted and procedures detailed in
the RAIB report should prevent this happening again.