Curiosity about delays
 

On Jul 6, 6:06 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Offramp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:10 pm, "Nicola Redwood" nicolaexternal-
wrote:

I believe some of the longest delays may be removed by recent
changes to the LUL Rule book.

Such as?

I believe there is a new idea about Wrong Direction Movement; the new
concept is in all cases tp carry on to the next station.

In cases where there is a signal failure at a station starter there
are also new rules. The intention is that that these new rules will
speed up service.

Curiosity about delays
 

On Jul 6, 11:30 pm, Offramp wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:06 pm, "Richard J." wrote:

Offramp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:10 pm, "Nicola Redwood" nicolaexternal-
wrote:
I believe some of the longest delays may be removed by recent
changes to the LUL Rule book.

Such as?

I believe there is a new idea about Wrong Direction Movement; the new
concept is in all cases tp carry on to the next station.
No change there yet, except that it now needs to be authorised by the
Service Manager, and that the rear tripcock does not need to be cut
out. Any points will still need to be secured and an Operating
Official (as the person in charge) is still requied, to walk from the
station in the rear, after ensuring that adequate protection and
handsignalmen have been appointed.



In cases where there is a signal failure at a station starter there
are also new rules. The intention is that that these new rules will
speed up service.
Only on stations/lines with working Platform Edge Doors or In Cab
CCTV. The Train Operator will still need to receieve specific
authority from the person in the Signal Operator role if it is a Semi
Automatic, via Signal Post Telephone (if it works), Station Supervisor
or on the Northern and Central via Cab Secure Radio. Even then, if
points are involved they must be secured by Scotch & Clip - unless the
Train Operator can see a Route Secure Visual illuminated.

Curiosity about delays
 

"chunky munky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 11:30 pm, Offramp wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:06 pm, "Richard J." wrote:

Offramp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:10 pm, "Nicola Redwood" nicolaexternal-
wrote:
I believe some of the longest delays may be removed by recent
changes to the LUL Rule book.

Such as?

I believe there is a new idea about Wrong Direction Movement; the new
concept is in all cases tp carry on to the next station.
No change there yet, except that it now needs to be authorised by the
Service Manager, and that the rear tripcock does not need to be cut
out. Any points will still need to be secured and an Operating
Official (as the person in charge) is still requied, to walk from the
station in the rear, after ensuring that adequate protection and
handsignalmen have been appointed.


Are the changed rules about wrong direction movement anything to do with
report RAIB issued into the incident at High St Ken on 29 Apr 2006. Seems
as though many involved were pretty clueless about the old procedures.

http://tinyurl.com/2w49l6

Paul

Curiosity about delays
 

On Jul 7, 11:51 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"chunky munky" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jul 6, 11:30 pm, Offramp wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:06 pm, "Richard J." wrote:

Offramp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:10 pm, "Nicola Redwood" nicolaexternal-
wrote:
I believe some of the longest delays may be removed by recent
changes to the LUL Rule book.

Such as?

I believe there is a new idea about Wrong Direction Movement; the new
concept is in all cases tp carry on to the next station.
No change there yet, except that it now needs to be authorised by the
Service Manager, and that the rear tripcock does not need to be cut
out. Any points will still need to be secured and an Operating
Official (as the person in charge) is still requied, to walk from the
station in the rear, after ensuring that adequate protection and
handsignalmen have been appointed.

Are the changed rules about wrong direction movement anything to do with
report RAIB issued into the incident at High St Ken on 29 Apr 2006. Seems
as though many involved were pretty clueless about the old procedures.

http://tinyurl.com/2w49l6

Paul

More or less.... YES!

Also Station Supervisors MUST now be familiarised in the areas that
they are qualified to work (also following an incident with Traction
Current, a one-under and the London Ambulance Service). I don't know
how far LUL have got so far in starting this.

Eventually they want this new Connect Radio to replace a lot of work
done by Secure Telephones and Station Supervisors..... but the system
is not very good and potentially a deathtrap for mis-communication.

Regarding the incident at High Street Kensington. Communication and
geographically knowledge were key factors in my opinion. Also a Duty
Manager went by road to High Street, when they should have walked
along the track, after affording adequate protection.

Curiosity about delays
 

In message . com,
chunky munky writes

Also Station Supervisors MUST now be familiarised in the areas that
they are qualified to work (also following an incident with Traction
Current, a one-under and the London Ambulance Service). I don't know
how far LUL have got so far in starting this.

Oh yes, I know all about this one, don't I!
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Curiosity about delays
 

"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
...
In message . com, chunky
munky writes

Also Station Supervisors MUST now be familiarised in the areas that they
are qualified to work (also following an incident with Traction Current, a
one-under and the London Ambulance Service). I don't know how far LUL have
got so far in starting this.

Oh yes, I know all about this one, don't I!

One would hope that DSMs will be made slightly more familiar with their area
as well, that poor woman still hasn't got the curls out of her hair...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change jealous to sad to reply.

Curiosity about delays
 

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"chunky munky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 11:30 pm, Offramp wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:06 pm, "Richard J."
wrote:

Offramp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:10 pm, "Nicola Redwood" nicolaexternal-
wrote:
I believe some of the longest delays may be removed by recent
changes to the LUL Rule book.

Such as?

I believe there is a new idea about Wrong Direction Movement;
the new concept is in all cases tp carry on to the next station.
No change there yet, except that it now needs to be authorised by
the Service Manager, and that the rear tripcock does not need to be
cut out. Any points will still need to be secured and an Operating
Official (as the person in charge) is still requied, to walk from
the station in the rear, after ensuring that adequate protection and
handsignalmen have been appointed.

Are the changed rules about wrong direction movement anything to do
with report RAIB issued into the incident at High St Ken on 29 Apr
2006. Seems as though many involved were pretty clueless about the
old procedures.

http://tinyurl.com/2w49l6

Hmm. According to the track diagram in that report you can't get from
Earl's Court platform 1 to Gloucester Road!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Curiosity about delays
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"chunky munky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 11:30 pm, Offramp wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:06 pm, "Richard J."
wrote:

Offramp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:10 pm, "Nicola Redwood" nicolaexternal-
wrote:
I believe some of the longest delays may be removed by recent
changes to the LUL Rule book.

Such as?

I believe there is a new idea about Wrong Direction Movement;
the new concept is in all cases tp carry on to the next station.
No change there yet, except that it now needs to be authorised by
the Service Manager, and that the rear tripcock does not need to be
cut out. Any points will still need to be secured and an Operating
Official (as the person in charge) is still requied, to walk from
the station in the rear, after ensuring that adequate protection and
handsignalmen have been appointed.

Are the changed rules about wrong direction movement anything to do
with report RAIB issued into the incident at High St Ken on 29 Apr
2006. Seems as though many involved were pretty clueless about the
old procedures.

http://tinyurl.com/2w49l6

Hmm. According to the track diagram in that report you can't get from
Earl's Court platform 1 to Gloucester Road!

So what - I don't think the point of the report is to study the routes
available from Earls Court to Gloucester road, is it?

Paul

Curiosity about delays
 

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"chunky munky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 11:30 pm, Offramp wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:06 pm, "Richard J."
wrote:

Offramp wrote:

Are the changed rules about wrong direction movement anything to
do with report RAIB issued into the incident at High St Ken on 29
Apr 2006. Seems as though many involved were pretty clueless about
the old procedures.

http://tinyurl.com/2w49l6

Hmm. According to the track diagram in that report you can't get
from Earl's Court platform 1 to Gloucester Road!

So what - I don't think the point of the report is to study the
routes available from Earls Court to Gloucester road, is it?

It does claim to be the track diagram of the area, that's all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel