In message
, at
06:26:47 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, MIG
remarked:
I did assume that maybe the works overran because
the train had run away, but maybe there were other problems.

Perhaps they over-ran because the train broke down, which was why it was
being towed away...
--
Roland Perry

On Aug 13, 3:09*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
06:26:47 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, MIG
remarked:

I did assume that maybe the works overran because
the train had run away, but maybe there were other problems.

Perhaps they over-ran because the train broke down, which was why it was
being towed away...

The broken down train and tow-away elements of this story are new i.e.
the BBC story has been updated - which is why earlier comments made by
MIG and myself now seem as though we never read the story (because at
the time of posting we hadn't read those parts of the story coz they
weren't there).

In message
, at
07:28:21 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:
I did assume that maybe the works overran because
the train had run away, but maybe there were other problems.

Perhaps they over-ran because the train broke down, which was why it was
being towed away...

The broken down train and tow-away elements of this story are new i.e.
the BBC story has been updated - which is why earlier comments made by
MIG and myself now seem as though we never read the story (because at
the time of posting we hadn't read those parts of the story coz they
weren't there).

Those elements were there originally iirc. What's fundamentally changed
(I think) is that originally it said that the broken down train chased
the towing train, which would have meant it was being towed southwards
not northwards - which had it been true, might have explained the lack
of collision because the towing train would be clearing the track ahead.
--
Roland Perry

I've just been listening on the BBC site to an interview with Richard
Parry of LU, in which he said "we'd attempted to slow the train down as
it came through Mornington Crescent by using the points there". Is
there a crossover there? Perhaps the thinking was that switching to the
northbound track would move it clear of the queue of southbound trains
in front of it, as well as slowing it down, or even derailing it.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 13, 3:42*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
07:28:21 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:

I did assume that maybe the works overran because
the train had run away, but maybe there were other problems.

Perhaps they over-ran because the train broke down, which was why it was
being towed away...

The broken down train and tow-away elements of this story are new i.e.
the BBC story has been updated - which is why earlier comments made by
MIG and myself now seem as though we never read the story (because at
the time of posting we hadn't read those parts of the story coz they
weren't there).

Those elements were there originally iirc.

Err, ok, I suppose I may have just read the text quoted by the OP
rather than clicking through to the site, though I'd normally do the
latter if possible (and it's sloppy if I didn't do that, can't
remember though).


What's fundamentally changed
(I think) is that originally it said that the broken down train chased
the towing train, which would have meant it was being towed southwards
not northwards - which had it been true, might have explained the lack
of collision because the towing train would be clearing the track ahead.

On 13 Aug, 17:57, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 13, 3:42*pm, Roland Perry wrote:





In message
, at
07:28:21 on Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:

I did assume that maybe the works overran because
the train had run away, but maybe there were other problems.

Perhaps they over-ran because the train broke down, which was why it was
being towed away...

The broken down train and tow-away elements of this story are new i.e.
the BBC story has been updated - which is why earlier comments made by
MIG and myself now seem as though we never read the story (because at
the time of posting we hadn't read those parts of the story coz they
weren't there).

Those elements were there originally iirc.

Err, ok, I suppose I may have just read the text quoted by the OP
rather than clicking through to the site, though I'd normally do the
latter if possible (and it's sloppy if I didn't do that, can't
remember though).

I'd read the story before the link was posted here. I don't think so
much detail was included then, but I could be wrong. I didn't check
again when the link was given.

Anyway, there will be a report eventually.

This evening the High Barnet branch was apparently running again, but
the Charing Cross branch wasn't. Seems to be out for the evening.

"MIG" wrote in message
...

I'd read the story before the link was posted here. I don't think so
much detail was included then, but I could be wrong. I didn't check
again when the link was given.

Anyway, there will be a report eventually.

This evening the High Barnet branch was apparently running again, but
the Charing Cross branch wasn't. Seems to be out for the evening.

There's an explanation going around that they intentionally ran the train [a
track grinding train modified from tube stock] through a set of trailing
points near Mornington Crescent to take some of the speed off, ie set the
points for the other line.

This could damage the points, depending on the exact type used there.

Paul S

"MIG" wrote in message
...

This evening the High Barnet branch was apparently running again, but
the Charing Cross branch wasn't. Seems to be out for the evening.

According to the TfL site the CX branch is now open. I wonder how they
got the runaway train out of the way without messing up the rest of the
line?

Peter Smyth