Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was, either human
error or mechanical failure. Interesting that it happened the morning
after the strike, although that may have nothing whatsoever to do with
it.

In article
,
Paul wrote:

Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was

It was a woman driver.

E.

On 2010\09\09 13:52, eastender wrote:
In article
,
wrote:

Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was

It was a woman driver.

Yes, she probably turned the steering wheel the wrong way.

On 09/09/10 13:34, Paul wrote:
Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was, either human
error or mechanical failure. Interesting that it happened the morning
after the strike, although that may have nothing whatsoever to do with
it.

From the limited information in the article, it sounds like a signaller
set the wrong route and the interlocks correctly prevented any
conflicting movements. Doesn't sound like a safety issue to me.

-roy

"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/10 13:34, Paul wrote:
Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was, either human
error or mechanical failure. Interesting that it happened the morning
after the strike, although that may have nothing whatsoever to do with
it.

From the limited information in the article, it sounds like a signaller
set the wrong route and the interlocks correctly prevented any conflicting
movements. Doesn't sound like a safety issue to me.

Not according to The Standard's version, FWIW:

"There is no suggestion that the train driver involved - who behaved "by the
book" - nor the signalman in charge of that section of track were to blame
in any way."

"A fault has been found with the signalling equipment controlling the
points. Investigators were able to recreate the fault while the line was
shut down yesterday. The siding where the train changed direction had not
been used since Monday and was out of action during Tuesday's 24-hour
strike. It was the first train to use it after services started up again."

Paul S

On 9 Sep, 14:12, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Roy Badami" wrote in message

...

On 09/09/10 13:34, Paul wrote:
Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was, either human
error or mechanical failure. Interesting that it happened the morning
after the strike, although that may have nothing whatsoever to do with
it.
From the limited information in the article, it sounds like a signaller
set the wrong route and the interlocks correctly prevented any conflicting
movements. *Doesn't sound like a safety issue to me.

Not according to The Standard's version, FWIW:

"There is no suggestion that the train driver involved - who behaved "by the
book" - nor the signalman in charge of that section of track were to blame
in any way."

"A fault has been found with the signalling equipment controlling the
points. Investigators were able to recreate the fault while the line was
shut down yesterday. The siding where the train changed direction had not
been used since Monday and was out of action during Tuesday's 24-hour
strike. It was the first train to use it after services started up again."

Paul S

But maybe the fault that put the train there still didn't cause a
disaster due to the track being occupied?

I mean, if the train was crossing the track rather than joining it
(which it would have done), the train coming the other way would still
have to be held.

How the "wrong line" train would be signalled or tripped is another
matter I suppose.

As far as I know there are no "sidings" at Plaistow, but there is a
bay platform on the Eastbound side, requiring departing trains to
cross the eastbound track on the flat.

The Standard's report says "It is the third train safety alert in three
months", which had me wondering what the other two were. I remember the
runaway rail grinder on the Northern Line, which the Standard mentions,
but it says that "the same 90-tonne train [i.e. the grinder] was
involved in a similar incident six weeks earlier on the Jubilee line".
I don't remember that one at all. Did I miss it or is this yet another
blunder by Dick Murray?

I note that in the online version of the story, the alleged Jubilee line
"similar incident" has become a "similar drama", and they've added
"although a London Underground spokeswoman denied the train was out of
control", which suggests that it was something quite different.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...n-rush-hour.do
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 10 Sep, 09:46, "Richard J." wrote:
I note that in the online version of the story, the alleged Jubilee line
"similar incident" has become a "similar drama",

"drama" indeed. When I was at school, "drama" meant acting something
that wasn't real. It was based on made up words and made up actions.
Perhaps the word "drama" is, actually, appropriate for the "news"
source!

:-)

PhilD

--

"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/10 13:34, Paul wrote:
Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was, either human
error or mechanical failure. Interesting that it happened the morning
after the strike, although that may have nothing whatsoever to do
with
it.

From the limited information in the article, it sounds like a
signaller set the wrong route and the interlocks correctly prevented
any conflicting movements. Doesn't sound like a safety issue to me.

It shouldn't be possible to set a route from the bay platform onto the
eastbound line as the line is not bidirectional.

Peter Smyth

On 9 Sep, 18:47, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Roy Badami" wrote in message

...

On 09/09/10 13:34, Paul wrote:
Just saw this on BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11242084

It is not clear from the report what the problem was, either human
error or mechanical failure. Interesting that it happened the morning
after the strike, although that may have nothing whatsoever to do
with
it.

From the limited information in the article, it sounds like a
signaller set the wrong route and the interlocks correctly prevented
any conflicting movements. *Doesn't sound like a safety issue to me.

It shouldn't be possible to set a route from the bay platform onto the
eastbound line as the line is not bidirectional.

Peter Smyth

Leaving the bay platform, there's a short stretch wrong-way on the
eastbound track before the crossover. So the points must have been
set as if a train was entering the bay, rather than leaving it and
taking the crossover.