On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:21:58 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:50 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Got the Vic at Finsbury Park, heading for Euston. Got as far as King's
Cross more or less alright. Then got an announcement: "this train is
being held here, as there is planned engineering work at Victoria; the
engineers will be on the line for about ten minutes". Got off and
headed over to the Northern line, to get to Euston; as i went down the
escalator, heard an announcement that the Victoria line was now
suspended.

Firstly, any idea what it was about?

Signal failure at Victoria according to the TfL realtime page. (Also
faulty train at Warren Street, although I'm not sure if that was
later).

Warren St was later - line ended up suspended H&I - Brixton.

Righto.

Secondly, am i right in assuming the "planned" was a mistake?

Sounds like it: engineering work, yes, but not planned!

Planned in the sense that LU allowed them on to the tracks but not
planned in the sense of a long planned possession.

Genius! So is there also unplanned engineering work, where the navvies
just bundle past the platform staff and fix things before anyone can stop
them, then?

There was a signal failure that was traced to a problem with the cables.
In such circumstances it is essential that track staff are allowed on to
the track to investigate, identify the fault and then repair or replace
the cable. Obviously no one plans to have a failure so any requirement
for a possession to effect a repair is unplanned ! I wonder if I get
another gold star from Mizter T for that explanation?

As this happened at Victoria it was more complex to deal with partly
because the area has a number of points / crossovers. In addition the
fact that these points are not available to turn trains round makes the
impact on the service much greater thus requiring a bigger part of the
line to be suspended.

There was then a problem with a failed train near Euston which required
all the passengers to be evacuated. This caused the line suspension to
be increased in extent. And then to cap it all off there was a further
problem with signals at Victoria. All in all a bloody awful day on the
Victoria line for those who got caught up in it all.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:21:58 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:50 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Then got an announcement: "this train is being held here, as there
is planned engineering work at Victoria; the engineers will be on
the line for about ten minutes".

Secondly, am i right in assuming the "planned" was a mistake?

Sounds like it: engineering work, yes, but not planned!

Planned in the sense that LU allowed them on to the tracks but not
planned in the sense of a long planned possession.

Genius! So is there also unplanned engineering work, where the navvies
just bundle past the platform staff and fix things before anyone can stop
them, then?

There was a signal failure that was traced to a problem with the cables.
In such circumstances it is essential that track staff are allowed on to
the track to investigate, identify the fault and then repair or replace
the cable. Obviously no one plans to have a failure so any requirement
for a possession to effect a repair is unplanned !

Maybe they should - then they could have all the failures at night, when
it wouldn't disrupt the service.

Hmm. Seriously, that might work. If there are known conditions that tend
to push almost-failed systems into failure, such as rapid switching, power
spikes, brownouts, vibration, etc, then it might be possible to generate
those deliberately during maintenance time to root out weedy components.
Although if this is possible, i would imagine it's already being done.

Cheers for the info once again, Mr C.

tom

--
Crazy week so far, which at one point involved spewing down the inside
of my jeans! -- D

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:21:18 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:21:58 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:50 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Then got an announcement: "this train is being held here, as there
is planned engineering work at Victoria; the engineers will be on
the line for about ten minutes".

Secondly, am i right in assuming the "planned" was a mistake?

Sounds like it: engineering work, yes, but not planned!

Planned in the sense that LU allowed them on to the tracks but not
planned in the sense of a long planned possession.

Genius! So is there also unplanned engineering work, where the navvies
just bundle past the platform staff and fix things before anyone can stop
them, then?

There was a signal failure that was traced to a problem with the cables.
In such circumstances it is essential that track staff are allowed on to
the track to investigate, identify the fault and then repair or replace
the cable. Obviously no one plans to have a failure so any requirement
for a possession to effect a repair is unplanned !

Maybe they should - then they could have all the failures at night, when
it wouldn't disrupt the service.

Hmm. Seriously, that might work. If there are known conditions that tend
to push almost-failed systems into failure, such as rapid switching, power
spikes, brownouts, vibration, etc, then it might be possible to generate
those deliberately during maintenance time to root out weedy components.
Although if this is possible, i would imagine it's already being done.

Most of the things you suggest would probably require trains to run
which rather defeats the main object of engineering hours. There is a
lot of inspection and checking that goes on to make sure rails and track
components are fit for use as well as permanently repairing things (like
power and signal cables) which might have had a temporary fix during
traffic hours. In addition certain track repairs to remove temporary
speed restrictions can only happen at night - the same applies to
swapping things out like defective blockjoints and trainstops.

Oh and then you've got to add on upgrade related works on top of all of
that.

If you did some of the tests you suggest and they caused a serious
failure it is possible that a line would not start on time and there'd
be an overrun of engineering hours which for certain lines can wreck the
service for many hours. Overruns are also hugely unpopular with
passengers.

Cheers for the info once again, Mr C.

OK.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 15 Feb, 19:12, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 17:09:50 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:



On 14 Feb, 18:27, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:50 +0000, Paul Terry

wrote:
In message , Tom
Anderson writes

(snip)

Secondly, am i right in assuming the "planned" was a mistake?

Sounds like it: engineering work, yes, but not planned!

Planned in the sense that LU allowed them on to the tracks but not
planned in the sense of a long planned possession.
Are you sure you're not practising for an appearance before the
Assembly's transport committee Paul?!

Not that I'm aware of. Thankfully Mr O'Toole usually gets that job.
--
Paul C


Always good to have the right O'Toole for the job.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:12:13 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On 14 Feb 2007 17:09:50 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:

On 14 Feb, 18:27, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:50 +0000, Paul Terry

wrote:
In message , Tom
Anderson writes

(snip)

Secondly, am i right in assuming the "planned" was a mistake?

Sounds like it: engineering work, yes, but not planned!

Planned in the sense that LU allowed them on to the tracks but not
planned in the sense of a long planned possession.

Are you sure you're not practising for an appearance before the
Assembly's transport committee Paul?!

Not that I'm aware of. Thankfully Mr O'Toole usually gets that job.

That's why we pay him: to tell the politicians how Metronet/Tubelines
have screwed up this time!

On 15 Feb 2007 14:25:58 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:

On 15 Feb, 19:12, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 17:09:50 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:



On 14 Feb, 18:27, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:50 +0000, Paul Terry

wrote:
In message , Tom
Anderson writes

(snip)

Secondly, am i right in assuming the "planned" was a mistake?

Sounds like it: engineering work, yes, but not planned!

Planned in the sense that LU allowed them on to the tracks but not
planned in the sense of a long planned possession.
Are you sure you're not practising for an appearance before the
Assembly's transport committee Paul?!

Not that I'm aware of. Thankfully Mr O'Toole usually gets that job.
--
Paul C


Always good to have the right O'Toole for the job.

**groan**

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:50 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Got the Vic at Finsbury Park, heading for Euston. Got as far as King's
Cross more or less alright. Then got an announcement: "this train is
being held here, as there is planned engineering work at Victoria; the
engineers will be on the line for about ten minutes". Got off and
headed over to the Northern line, to get to Euston; as i went down the
escalator, heard an announcement that the Victoria line was now
suspended.

Firstly, any idea what it was about?

Signal failure at Victoria according to the TfL realtime page. (Also
faulty train at Warren Street, although I'm not sure if that was later).

Warren St was later - line ended up suspended H&I - Brixton.

Righto.

Secondly, am i right in assuming the "planned" was a mistake?

Sounds like it: engineering work, yes, but not planned!

Planned in the sense that LU allowed them on to the tracks but not
planned in the sense of a long planned possession.

Genius! So is there also unplanned engineering work, where the navvies
just bundle past the platform staff and fix things before anyone can stop
them, then?

Well, I've seen some of our more "gung-ho" ERU lads come pretty close...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.