|
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
The interim report into the Camden Town derailment is available from the
link below (48 pages): http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...n-derailment-I nterim-Report.pdf with a brief summary at: http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...es/0311/28.asp The link for the final Hammersmith derailment report is he http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...ersmith-Invest igation-report.pdf although it doesn't wan to appear for some reason. The Hammersmith report is 43 pages long. Links to both reports are via the press release page below: http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...p?#hammersmith Roger |
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
wrote in message
... The interim report into the Camden Town derailment is available from the link below (48 pages): http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...n-derailment-I nterim-Report.pdf with a brief summary at: http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...es/0311/28.asp The link for the final Hammersmith derailment report is he http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...ersmith-Invest igation-report.pdf although it doesn't wan to appear for some reason. The Hammersmith report is 43 pages long. Links to both reports are via the press release page below: http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...p?#hammersmith The Camden Town report makes for an interesting read, but doesn't seem to state how permanent the current service patterns are. Do they plan to permanently sever the Northern line into two separate lines? If so, they'll need to seriously redesign Camden Town as at the moment it doesn't seem to cope too well with the large number of passengers changing there. Daniel. |
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
|
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
Didn't you read the press release? It makes clear the intention to restore the Northern Line service: "The current Northern line service sees trains running Edgware to Morden via Bank only and High Barnet to Morden via Charing Cross only. London Underground and Tube Lines are working to reintroduce a full service on the line as soon as possible and hope to be able to do this early in the New Year." The press release seems to disagree with the Interim Report which says: This service pattern is being delivered by the current team of Train operators whose duties are designed around the integrated service pattern operated before the derailment. Thus the train service is currently being delivered in an inefficient manner. A new timetable designed around the dedicated branch service pattern is in production, aimed at being available in January 2004. I think we are going to have the split service for many months to come. David |
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
|
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:26:11 -0000, "Heliomass"
wrote: "Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message ... In article , (David Walters) wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Colin Rosenstiel wrote: Didn't you read the press release? It makes clear the intention to restore the Northern Line service: "The current Northern line service sees trains running Edgware to Morden via Bank only and High Barnet to Morden via Charing Cross only. London Underground and Tube Lines are working to reintroduce a full service on the line as soon as possible and hope to be able to do this early in the New Year." The press release seems to disagree with the Interim Report which says: This service pattern is being delivered by the current team of Train operators whose duties are designed around the integrated service pattern operated before the derailment. Thus the train service is currently being delivered in an inefficient manner. A new timetable designed around the dedicated branch service pattern is in production, aimed at being available in January 2004. I think we are going to have the split service for many months to come. Ouch! Missed that. Ah, that explains it! I only read the full release and skipped the short summary (oops!). Strange that the two disagree? Anyway, LU seem to not have put up any adverts at their stations about a full service being resumed, so I can only assume that their hoping people will forget about it until LU decide to restore services. No that is absolutely not the reason. The Camden report is an interim report. The conclusion about the root cause is not 100% yet as more testing is needed to check that a problem with the train bogie was not the cause. When people definitely know what went wrong then the correct fix can be applied, commissioned and approved by the safety authorities. Work is proceeding on designing a revised set of points so that a replacement can be manufactured and installed as soon as practicable once the root cause is confirmed. I do not know what is planned if some other root cause is determined. The timetable issue is based around the current operation being an adaptation of the old one with a number of trains cancelled. This is causing problems with irregular headways and capacity issues south of Kennington. The timetable is being rewritten to provide a much better organised and regular timetable while the fixed routes are in place. Once the work is done to restore the old routes at Camden then the timetable in place before the incident can be reintroduced. -- Paul C Admits to Working for London Underground! |
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
wrote in message ...
The interim report into the Camden Town derailment is available from the link below (48 pages): http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...n-derailment-I nterim-Report.pdf What worries me with the Camden Town accident other than the major part of the accident was that one of the doors was pulled off the 5th carriage and the corner ripped away. The doors were ripped off in the central line accident too. IMO its just sheer good luck that no one was standing near or leaning on these doors because if they had they'd probably be dead. I genuinely think that perhaps LUL or their contractors re-evaluate having outside mounted doors on future trains. Ok maybe they make maintenance a bit easier but is that worth the risk to passengers if they're ripped off? I don't think so. B2003 |
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:46:52 +0000 (UTC),
wrote: The interim report into the Camden Town derailment is available from the link below (48 pages): http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...n-derailment-I nterim-Report.pdf with a brief summary at: http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...es/0311/28.asp The link for the final Hammersmith derailment report is he http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...ersmith-Invest igation-report.pdf although it doesn't wan to appear for some reason. The Hammersmith report is 43 pages long. Links to both reports are via the press release page below: http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...p?#hammersmith Roger Interesting reads. Seems like the Ulta-sonic testing system only uses 90deg probes as a crack like that at Hammersmith would have been readily identifiable once in the web using a 60 or 30. The pictures are quite classic for slow stress corrosion cracking. Seems like Hammersmith is showing a massive problem in Maintainance management and communication. The Camden one seems to me to be a bit wooly. It keeps coming back to track lubrication with indications that may have prevented the incident whilst keeping on noting that lubrication is only incorporated in standards for track and wheel wear considerations. Then states good practice wold have resulted in the blade being lubricated. You can't have it two ways. In my own field there are good practice things which can be hinted at during works but have to be accepted that are not part of any standard. Either there should have been a recomendation there for lubrication to be incorporated in the standards for safety, especially where wheel lifting is a possiblity, or the point dropped out of the report. As it is it is left hanging, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. You don't have to do it, but if you don't and things go pear shaped then this report can be held against you sort of thing. I was surprised at the involvement of the heroic part played by (by all mentions in the report) the Rev. inspector. Seems that person was a real hero of the hour. However, are they trained for trackside and tunnel access? Surprised me if so and if not then definitley taking the risk of becoming another accident statistic. Bit of a management conundrum. Reward, ignore or retrain? Seems from both of them that there is a problem with site management at the scene. The management plan sems to OK(ish) when the Gold controller is installed but quite open before. The impression I got from the report was that the scenes became a bit of a three ring circus for senior management to go and make like tourists before and wander all over the forensic at will. I would have expected that the senior operations person there, t/op, Stn manager/whatever, should be given an automatic overall management of the scene set in stone to regulate access/egress until the E.M.U get there, when the EMU shift leader takes the role. They to have the power to tell directors and the like to leave the scene. This then to be passed to the Gold/Silver/Broze controller on arrival. Even then the reports seem to indicate that there is a lack of enpowerment to contol access and to the site. Keith J Chesworth www.unseenlondon.co.uk www.blackpooltram.co.uk www.happysnapper.com www.boilerbill.com - main site www.amerseyferry.co.uk |
Camden Town and Hammersmith derailments - reports available
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk