One of the board papers for the 22nd Sept meeting is a four page summary of
the recently discussed incidents:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-Incidents.pdf

Includes the Northern line Rail Grinding Train runaway, and it turns out a
previous incident on the Jubilee line with the same train! .

Also the Plaistow signalling irregularity, which was quickly found to have
been caused by 'a defective component'. Here they report that the train was
correctly back tripped, and ISTM this confirms that the 'trains on collision
course' scary headlines were indeed wrong, as both trains were stopped by
the signalling system.

"...checks have been undertaken and ensured that similar components are not
present at other sites potentially affected by modifications."

Interesting stuff...

Paul S

On 21 Sep, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
One of the board papers for the 22nd Sept meeting is a four page summary of
the recently discussed incidents:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-LU-Safety-Inc...

Includes the Northern line Rail Grinding Train runaway, and it turns out a
previous incident on the Jubilee line with the same train! * .

"In the 20 July incident on the Jubilee line, the RGT failed for the
first time since its first use by TL on LU infrastructure in 2002. The
RGT was recovered using out-of-service Jubilee line passenger trains
to, first, propel and then, later, tow the RGT from West Hampstead to
Neasden Depot. This caused a number of difficulties and resulted in
serious delays to the Jubilee line service until around 10.20 hrs."

It would be interesting to know what the 'difficulties' were with the
recovery of the RGT after the first falure. It is a bit odd that
there should have been two failures within short period, given the
generally good reliability of the machine.

On Sep 21, 5:43*pm, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 21 Sep, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:

One of the board papers for the 22nd Sept meeting is a four page summary
of the recently discussed incidents:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-Incidents.pdf

Includes the Northern line Rail Grinding Train runaway, and it turns out a
previous incident on the Jubilee line with the same train! * .

"In the 20 July incident on the Jubilee line, the RGT failed for the
first time since its first use by TL on LU infrastructure in 2002. The
RGT was recovered using out-of-service Jubilee line passenger trains
to, first, propel and then, later, tow the RGT from West Hampstead to
Neasden Depot. This caused a number of difficulties and resulted in
serious delays to the Jubilee line service until around 10.20 hrs."

It would be interesting to know what the 'difficulties' were with the
recovery of the RGT after the first falure. *It is a bit odd that
there should have been two failures within short period, given the
generally good reliability of the machine.

Sounds as though whatever broke didn't then get fixed properly.

On 21/09/10 16:54, Paul Scott wrote:

Also the Plaistow signalling irregularity, which was quickly found to
have been caused by 'a defective component'.

ITYM 'an incorrect component'

-roy

"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/10 16:54, Paul Scott wrote:

Also the Plaistow signalling irregularity, which was quickly found to
have been caused by 'a defective component'.

ITYM 'an incorrect component'

Thanks - sorry about that - probably thinking of the previous discussions as
I wrote it...

Paul S

On 21/09/10 18:36, Mizter T wrote:

Sounds as though whatever broke didn't then get fixed properly.

Temporary repair pending arrival of a part maybe?

In either case, the first failure should have taught them "if this thing
breaks, we have problems recovering it, so in future, we need a plan for
recovering it" and that obviously didn't happen until the second
incident where the "make it up on the spot" plan failed so catastrophically.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

On 21/09/10 20:57, Paul Scott wrote:


"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/10 16:54, Paul Scott wrote:

Also the Plaistow signalling irregularity, which was quickly found to
have been caused by 'a defective component'.

ITYM 'an incorrect component'

Thanks - sorry about that - probably thinking of the previous
discussions as I wrote it...

In many ways an incorrect component is rather less disturbing than a
defective component, as the latter would indicate a wrong side failure.
Obviously incorrect installation or maintenance is still a concern,
but at least we now have a better idea as to the underlying cause.

Also, in that context, the comment about checking that similar
components are not present at other sites makes more sense.

-roy

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On Sep 21, 5:43*pm, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 21 Sep, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:

One of the board papers for the 22nd Sept meeting is a four page summary
of the recently discussed incidents:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-Incidents.pdf

Includes the Northern line Rail Grinding Train runaway, and it turns out a
previous incident on the Jubilee line with the same train! * .

"In the 20 July incident on the Jubilee line, the RGT failed for the
first time since its first use by TL on LU infrastructure in 2002. The
RGT was recovered using out-of-service Jubilee line passenger trains
to, first, propel and then, later, tow the RGT from West Hampstead to
Neasden Depot. This caused a number of difficulties and resulted in
serious delays to the Jubilee line service until around 10.20 hrs."

It would be interesting to know what the 'difficulties' were with the
recovery of the RGT after the first falure.

Possibly mainly the bleedin' obvious[TM] as it was in daytime during
the week and passenger services would have been suspended in the
vicinity of the recovery and consequently elsewhere.

*It is a bit odd that
there should have been two failures within short period, given the
generally good reliability of the machine.

Sounds as though whatever broke didn't then get fixed properly.

On 21 Sep, 23:31, Charles Ellson wrote:

Possibly mainly the bleedin' obvious[TM] as it was in daytime during
the week and passenger services would have been suspended in the
vicinity of the recovery and consequently elsewhere.

I interpreted that differently, i.e. there was some expected
difficulty with the recovery, not just that the recovery caused
delays, which would, obviously, have caused delays.

In message , at 23:31:41 on
Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:

"In the 20 July incident on the Jubilee line, the RGT failed for the
first time since its first use by TL on LU infrastructure in 2002. The
RGT was recovered using out-of-service Jubilee line passenger trains
to, first, propel

something obviously happened during the propelling

and then, later,

how much later, and why the delay?

tow the RGT from West Hampstead to Neasden Depot. This caused a
number of difficulties and resulted in serious delays

trying not to conflate difficulties and delays, so what were the
difficulties?

to the Jubilee line service until around 10.20 hrs."

It would be interesting to know what the 'difficulties' were with the
recovery of the RGT after the first falure.

exactly

Possibly mainly the bleedin' obvious[TM] as it was in daytime during
the week and passenger services would have been suspended in the
vicinity of the recovery and consequently elsewhere.

West Hampstead to Neasden is only 3 miles.

Assuming the RGT broke down before 5am, that's an extremely long time to
get it there.
--
Roland Perry