In article ,
Ben wrote:
Walter Mann wrote:
========
1(9) Accidents or incidents which could have lead to deaths or serious
injuries or 2m euros worth of damage to trains, infrastructure or
environment, but did not do so. If in doubt notify.

========

I find it difficult to think of any incident which wouldn't fall into such a
category

Hints and allegations?

I'll be singing that all day now...

Watch out for that boy ... no, the one in the bubble over there ...

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself

On Jun 14, 9:20 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" c...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article .com,
Boltar writes

One wonders why the motorman didn't notice there was no signal at that
end of the platform.
You'd think he might have noticed something like that. What did he
do , see there was no signal at all and just thought "ooh , that must
mean green"?

Um, no signal *does* mean green. Unlit signal - not the same thing -
means red.

Having said that, I can't offhand think of any LU station that doesn't
have a starting signal at the end of the platform.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:


There is a rumour that there was a Fixed Red Light but this was
"bagged" over. Dont know about the associated train stop but within
the past few months contractors working for Tube Lines have concreted
one over in error that caused delays to the train service.

Stations without station starters are Croxley (Southbound) and
Chesham, some others do have them a fair way out of the platform.

You'd think he might have noticed something like that. What did he
do , see there was no signal at all and just thought "ooh , that must
mean green"?

Um, no signal *does* mean green. Unlit signal - not the same thing -
means red.

Um, actually, no signal means that whatever the last signal meant is
still in effect. Like, y'know, yellow.
--
Mark Brader | "Red lights are not my concern.
Toronto | I am a driver, not a policeman."
| --statement made after collision, 1853

In article .com, BRB
Class 465 writes
However, railway signalling is designed to prevent *unsafe* situations
from arising. A train ending up on the wrong route isn't really
unsafe, merely inconvenient (with certain exceptions, for example if
the train is too large to fit into a tunnel).

And that sort of exception *is* catered for by the signalling (e.g. with
height detectors connected to the signals).

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Jun 14, 9:37 pm, (Mark Brader) wrote:
You'd think he might have noticed something like that. What did he
do , see there was no signal at all and just thought "ooh , that must
mean green"?
Um, no signal *does* mean green. Unlit signal - not the same thing -
means red.

Um, actually, no signal means that whatever the last signal meant is
still in effect. Like, y'know, yellow.
--
Mark Brader | "Red lights are not my concern.
Toronto | I am a driver, not a policeman."
| --statement made after collision, 1853


Not if it is in the opposite direction!

Paul Scott quotes the RAIB web site:

"At approx 17:35 hrs a northbound Northern Line train was incorrectly
signalled into the High Barnet platform at Camden Town when it was scheduled
to go to Edgware. To minimise passenger delay the following High Barnet
train was signalled into the Edgware platform, and arrangements were made to
exchange passengers and crews between the two trains. When the train in the
High Barnet platform was ready to depart it set off in a southerly direction
for a short distance; the driver saw the lights of the next northbound
train, which was standing at a signal, and stopped the train."

On the Toronto subway system, it happens fairly regularly that the crew on
one train will swap places with the crew on a train going the other way.
I assume this is done in order that a crew without enough time remaining
on-shift to work a full return trip can do a partial one and still finish
at the right place. The TTC uses two-person crews, the guard riding two
cars from the rear of each train and becoming the driver when the train
reverses. So the swap-over is fairly fast if the trains reach the station
at the same time *and* it's one where the layout allows the crew members to
easily reach the opposite platform; otherwise it can take several minutes.

Is it also a common practice in London for drivers to swap between trains
for this reason? If so, it is easy to see how a mental lapse could cause
this near-accident: a driver who changes en route to the train on the
"opposite" platform is usually going to proceed the other way, but in this
specific case it was the same way, not the other way.

I remember another case in London of a near-accident due to an incorrect
reversal. As I recall, this was on the Piccadilly Line at King's Cross
St. Pancras, maybe around 1990. A driver was told to unload his passengers
and reverse on the crossover, but he thought that he'd already passed the
crossover before entering the station. So instead of pulling forward with
the empty train to clear the points and then reversing, he reversed in the
station. The signalling system did not prevent this unusual error, but
the driver of the following train saw him coming and pinched the Drico
wires to cut off the power and prevent a crash.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "To err is human, but to error requires a computer."
| -- Harry Lethall

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On 14 Jun, 21:20, "Clive D. W. Feather" c...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

Um, no signal *does* mean green. Unlit signal - not the same thing -
means red.

Does it?
No signal when there should be one, as you pointed out = unlit signal
= red.

On 14 Jun, 21:58, (Mark Brader) wrote:

On the Toronto subway system, it happens fairly regularly that the crew on
one train will swap places with the crew on a train going the other way.

It's fairly common on a number of systems; I've seen 'stock and crew'
changes (as the practice is known in London) happen in Stockholm on a
number of occasions.

It tends to be used as a way of getting defective trains back to
depots early, as well as sorting crews out after service
interruptions.

On 14 Jun, 13:34, "Paul Scott" wrote:
What might have happened here then


'London Underground insisted that such incidents, while worrying to
the public, were "incredibly rare." '

Nice to know that LU apparantly sees no reason to feel worried itself.
I'm not convinced that the driver of the stationery northbound train
would be entirely indifferent to the unexpected approach of a train
proceeding towards him from the north. Filling his pants would perhaps
be a more likely scenario. Have there not also been "incredibly rare"
cases of trains "running away" in the "wrong" direction unchecked
because trainstop devices are set up on the premise that if trains are
going to do something naughty they'll always have the courtesy to do
it whilst proceeding forwards in the correct direction of travel?

--
gordon

Nick Leverton wrote:

1(9) Accidents or incidents

Hints and allegations?


Watch out for that boy ... no, the one in the bubble over there ...

But have you noticed the way the camera follows you in slo-mo?