"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

One thing that i do wonder about, though: immediately after the failure at
0926, we're told "Initially, three eastbound trains were stalled in
section between Lancaster Gate and Marble Arch"; we find out later on that
the first is number 33, the second is number 5, and that there's one more
train behind that (we're not told the name, but from what comes later, i'd
guess it was number 3). Now, after the first train (number 33) has got
over the points and they've broken again, and the second train (number 5)
has approached the points, we're told "This train and a further two trains
were then queued in the tunnel" (the train i'm thinking is number 3, plus
what i assume is number 42). So, there are now two trains behind number
5 - implying that between in the time between the failure and number 5's
attempt at the points, a fourth train entered the section.

Why on earth was a train allowed to enter a section of tunnel leading to
points which were known to be broken, with three trains ahead of it?

Still cant tell...as i said above its only a preliminary report. However
there was a question regarding a faulty radio in control that may have meant
the T/Op got a signal and left.
Wait for final report for all the details it may be different - I'm sure
bowroaduk@yahoo will oblige.

Mal

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Malcolm Pinnell wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Why on earth was a train allowed to enter a section of tunnel leading
to points which were known to be broken, with three trains ahead of it?

Still cant tell...as i said above its only a preliminary report. However
there was a question regarding a faulty radio in control that may have
meant the T/Op got a signal and left. Wait for final report for all the
details it may be different - I'm sure bowroaduk@yahoo will oblige.

Good point. I do hope we hear when it gets more solid. I fully expect my
concerns to be proved entirely misplaced!

tom

--
never mind your fingers, i've got blisters on my brain