Does a week go by anymore when there isn't a serious train failure on it?
And I think we all know which type of train.

B2003

On Feb 21, 2:05*pm, wrote:
Does a week go by anymore when there isn't a serious train failure on it?
And I think we all know which type of train.

B2003

Rather like on Saturday morning when a signal failure suspended the
line between Walthamstow Central and Seven Sisters..., just as the
replacement buses for the Central Line engineering works were bringing
extra passengers to Walthamstow....

You couldn't make it up.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:42:34 -0800 (PST)
Paul wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:05=A0pm, wrote:
Does a week go by anymore when there isn't a serious train failure on it?
And I think we all know which type of train.

B2003

Rather like on Saturday morning when a signal failure suspended the
line between Walthamstow Central and Seven Sisters..., just as the

It always makes me laugh when they quote "signal failure" on an ATO worked
line. It seems to be a catch all excuse for any cock up.

B2003

In message , at 09:43:35 on Tue, 22 Feb
2011, d remarked:
It always makes me laugh when they quote "signal failure" on an ATO worked
line. It seems to be a catch all excuse for any cock up.

Signal*ing* failure, perhaps? They still have to know where the trains
are, and send them instructions, even if there aren't any little red and
green lights by the trackside.
--
Roland Perry

On Feb 22, 9:39*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:43:35 on Tue, 22 Feb
2011, remarked:

It always makes me laugh when they quote "signal failure" on an ATO worked
line. It seems to be a catch all excuse for any cock up.

Signal*ing* failure, perhaps? They still have to know where the trains
are, and send them instructions, even if there aren't any little red and
green lights by the trackside.

Quite. That's what "signal failure" is used to mean on the
Underground.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Feb 22, 1:05*am, wrote:
Does a week go by anymore when there isn't a serious train failure on it?
And I think we all know which type of train.

Bathtub much?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:15:10 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:05=A0am, wrote:
Does a week go by anymore when there isn't a serious train failure on it?
And I think we all know which type of train.

Bathtub much?

Eh?

B2003

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:14:41 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:39=A0pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:43:35 on Tue, 22 Feb
2011, remarked:

It always makes me laugh when they quote "signal failure" on an ATO work=
ed
line. It seems to be a catch all excuse for any cock up.

Signal*ing* failure, perhaps? They still have to know where the trains
are, and send them instructions, even if there aren't any little red and
green lights by the trackside.

Quite. That's what "signal failure" is used to mean on the
Underground.

Except they're usually quite specific about where - "signal failure at
tottenham hale" and so forth.

And even if the signals have failed in one small area I see no reason why
the trains can't be driven manually for a short distance while being
monitored by the line controller. A somewhat better solution that just
closing an entire section of the line.

B2003

On 23 Feb, 09:44, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:14:41 -0800 (PST)

john b wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:39=A0pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:43:35 on Tue, 22 Feb
2011, remarked:

It always makes me laugh when they quote "signal failure" on an ATO work=
ed
line. It seems to be a catch all excuse for any cock up.

Signal*ing* failure, perhaps? They still have to know where the trains
are, and send them instructions, even if there aren't any little red and
green lights by the trackside.

Quite. That's what "signal failure" is used to mean on the
Underground.

Except they're usually quite specific about where - "signal failure at
tottenham hale" and so forth.

And even if the signals have failed in one small area I see no reason why
the trains can't be driven manually for a short distance while being
monitored by the line controller. A somewhat better solution that just
closing an entire section of the line.

B2003

It isn't quite as simple as that. If the normal "signalling" system
fails, the system defaults to the next level of safety - manual
driving at 10mph. This is all very well but if every train has to
pass through an area where the signalling isn't responding normally at
this speed, the numbers of passengers waiting at stations quickly gets
to dangerous, even life-threatening levels. The only safe way of
dealing with this is to close parts of the line.

I'm afraid the existing lines in London can't cope with the number of
people who want to travel. It will get a little easier when Crossrail
opens but we desperately need a new South-west to North-east line
(Chelsea-Hackney). It should have been built 10 years ago but at
£300million a mile, the government didn't and still doesn't have the
money for it.
TP

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:12:56 -0800 (PST)
Tubeprune wrote:
It isn't quite as simple as that. If the normal "signalling" system
fails, the system defaults to the next level of safety - manual
driving at 10mph. This is all very well but if every train has to
pass through an area where the signalling isn't responding normally at
this speed, the numbers of passengers waiting at stations quickly gets
to dangerous, even life-threatening levels. The only safe way of
dealing with this is to close parts of the line.

But if its only a small section of signalling thats failed it shouldn't
make too much of a difference going at 10mph. And station staff can always
close entrances to limit the number of people on a platform as is done all the
time at victoria anyway. And its not as if the passengers all just go home,
the overcrowding will just move elsewhere - buses, mainline stations etc.
I just get the feeling that LU always takes the easy option.

I'm afraid the existing lines in London can't cope with the number of
people who want to travel. It will get a little easier when Crossrail
opens but we desperately need a new South-west to North-east line
(Chelsea-Hackney). It should have been built 10 years ago but at
=A3300million a mile, the government didn't and still doesn't have the
money for it.
TP

I'm not sure chelsea really needs a whole new line given the close proximity
of a lot of tube stations down there already, but the hackney area could
do with one. A branch off the current victoria line from KX would probably
cover it.

B2003