In article ,
wrote:
The correct announcement
should have been "We ignored the weather forecast because we're ****wits and
now our trains are snowed in"

That would contravine the railway bylaws (section 6). I therefore
doubt that any reasonable person could consider it the correct
announcement. Want to try again?


--
Mike Bristow

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

Also the Central line east of Leytonstone. Ice on the conductor
rails was the only thing I thought was likely; but the snow started
after the service and I'd've thought the current would have warmed
the rail enough to melt it - it wasn't _that_ cold, after all. What
do you speculate was the root cause? I'm struggling to come up with much
that seems plausible to me.



--
Mike Bristow

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:37:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
The correct announcement
should have been "We ignored the weather forecast because we're ****wits and
now our trains are snowed in"

That would contravine the railway bylaws (section 6). I therefore

Yeah, I'm sure they pay attention to every fine detail of railway law when
it comes to snow clearing.

doubt that any reasonable person could consider it the correct
announcement. Want to try again?

No. Because its EXACTLY what happened last time in 2013.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:24:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I'd lay a lot of money on the ****wits not listening to the weather forecast
and not spraying deicer on the power rails or sending up a train with any
kind of brush on it. Then next morning, "Oooo, theres snow on the rails,
train
won't move! Quick, lets blame the power supply and make it sound like its
someone elses fault!"

So how would you describe a problem where the snow/ice prevents the power
from getting from the rail to train?


I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

A power supply problem which affected different lines on parts of the network
seperated by 20 miles. Hmm, lets think about the likelyhood of that for a
second vs the didn't-bother-to-clear-snow-from-the-rails scenario...

wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:24:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I'd lay a lot of money on the ****wits not listening to the weather forecast
and not spraying deicer on the power rails or sending up a train with any
kind of brush on it. Then next morning, "Oooo, theres snow on the rails,
train
won't move! Quick, lets blame the power supply and make it sound like its
someone elses fault!"

So how would you describe a problem where the snow/ice prevents the power
from getting from the rail to train?


I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

A power supply problem which affected different lines on parts of the network
seperated by 20 miles. Hmm, lets think about the likelyhood of that for a
second vs the didn't-bother-to-clear-snow-from-the-rails scenario...

Which "different lines on parts of the network seperated (sic) by 20
miles"?

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:37:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
The correct announcement
should have been "We ignored the weather forecast because we're ****wits and
now our trains are snowed in"

That would contravine the railway bylaws (section 6). I therefore

Yeah, I'm sure they pay attention to every fine detail of railway law when
it comes to snow clearing.

You misunderstand. Your proposed announcment breaches the bylaws;
therefore no reasonable person can consider it the correct annoucment
- even if your understanding of the root cause is correct.

--
Mike Bristow

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:24:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I'd lay a lot of money on the ****wits not listening to the weather forecast
and not spraying deicer on the power rails or sending up a train with any
kind of brush on it. Then next morning, "Oooo, theres snow on the rails,
train
won't move! Quick, lets blame the power supply and make it sound like its
someone elses fault!"

So how would you describe a problem where the snow/ice prevents the power
from getting from the rail to train?


I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

A power supply problem which affected different lines on parts of the network
seperated by 20 miles. Hmm, lets think about the likelyhood of that for a
second vs the didn't-bother-to-clear-snow-from-the-rails scenario...

Which "different lines on parts of the network seperated (sic) by 20
miles"?

Epping and Amersham were both affected, and are about 30 miles apart
as the crow flies, and 44 miles apart by track kilometerage.

--
Mike Bristow

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:45:10 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:24:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I'd lay a lot of money on the ****wits not listening to the weather
forecast
and not spraying deicer on the power rails or sending up a train with any
kind of brush on it. Then next morning, "Oooo, theres snow on the rails,
train
won't move! Quick, lets blame the power supply and make it sound like its
someone elses fault!"

So how would you describe a problem where the snow/ice prevents the power
from getting from the rail to train?


I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

A power supply problem which affected different lines on parts of the
network
seperated by 20 miles. Hmm, lets think about the likelyhood of that for a
second vs the didn't-bother-to-clear-snow-from-the-rails scenario...

Which "different lines on parts of the network seperated (sic) by 20
miles"?

Umm, amersham and cockfosters? Actually make that 25 miles.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:33 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:45:10 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:24:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I'd lay a lot of money on the ****wits not listening to the weather
forecast
and not spraying deicer on the power rails or sending up a train with any
kind of brush on it. Then next morning, "Oooo, theres snow on the rails,
train
won't move! Quick, lets blame the power supply and make it sound like its
someone elses fault!"

So how would you describe a problem where the snow/ice prevents the power
from getting from the rail to train?


I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

A power supply problem which affected different lines on parts of the
network
seperated by 20 miles. Hmm, lets think about the likelyhood of that for a
second vs the didn't-bother-to-clear-snow-from-the-rails scenario...

Which "different lines on parts of the network seperated (sic) by 20
miles"?

Umm, amersham and cockfosters? Actually make that 25 miles.

I didn't say anything about Cockfosters. I mentioned the Piccadilly
line Uxbridge branch. I realise you're very parochial, but perhaps
even you know that Picc and Met share that branch.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:02 +0000, Mike Bristow
wrote:

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:24:05 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
I'd lay a lot of money on the ****wits not listening to the weather forecast
and not spraying deicer on the power rails or sending up a train with any
kind of brush on it. Then next morning, "Oooo, theres snow on the rails,
train
won't move! Quick, lets blame the power supply and make it sound like its
someone elses fault!"

So how would you describe a problem where the snow/ice prevents the power
from getting from the rail to train?


I don't think that was the problem. I think it was genuinely a power supply
problem, as it also affected the Piccadilly line Uxbridge branch. Later,
when the Met line was running again, the Amersham branch continued to be
affected, and that might have been more to do with snow/ice on the running
and conductor rails.

A power supply problem which affected different lines on parts of the network
seperated by 20 miles. Hmm, lets think about the likelyhood of that for a
second vs the didn't-bother-to-clear-snow-from-the-rails scenario...

Which "different lines on parts of the network seperated (sic) by 20
miles"?

Epping and Amersham were both affected, and are about 30 miles apart
as the crow flies, and 44 miles apart by track kilometerage.

I mentioned Uxbridge, not Epping.