Power Cut
 

In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
Does anyone know if trains were evacuated between stations, or did Greenwich
kick in as planned to provide enough power to move trains into stations?

I was on a train between Highgate and Archway. The driver applied
"the rule" [1] a few times (and there's an automated announcment
for it, I was semi-amused to note).

Thank goodness the Goblin has DMUs!

[1] Go past red signal, get tripped, crawl to next signal.

--
Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no
sneaky eating each other.
-- FW (should I worry?)

Power Cut
 

Roger the cabin boy wrote:
Listening to LBC tonight a spokesman from LUL was quoted as saying
something like, - the Greenwich power stn was available as a backup
after the initial cut BUT because people were being detrained through
tunnels it was unsafe to do so until they were certain no one was on
the line. I also think the power was brought back on in stages to
prevent an overload.

If that is true, there is something seriously wrong with their procedures
for a power outage. There's no point in having a standby power station that
can be powered up quickly if they start detraining people into the tunnels.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Power Cut
 

CJG wrote the following in:


In message , Roger the
cabin boy writes
Listening to LBC tonight a spokesman from LUL was quoted as saying
something like, - the Greenwich power stn was available as a
backup after the initial cut BUT because people were being
detrained through tunnels it was unsafe to do so until they were
certain no one was on the line. I also think the power was
brought back on in stages to prevent an overload.

Genius planning of the night #381:
Get everyone to get off the trains straight away. Then when the
power came back on 30mins later leave it off for another hour to
make sure they didn't fry a commuter when they turned it back on.


Isn't it better advice to keep the commuters on the train until
they are sure the power isn't coming back on within 30mins?

I'm sure that if they'd done that you'd complain that they'd left
people on trains. In fact isn't this basically what you were doing
here?

"I mean its bad enough the **** service (Ken Livingstone has confirmed
the service is **** before anyone comments) but to be stuck on a tunnel
deep underground in the dark."

It would probably be something like:

Genius planning of the night #382:
Leave everyone on the trains, terrified in dark tunnels for half an
hour while those incompetent and lazy LUL staff turn the power back on.
It's no wonder that people attack them, LUL are so awful that their
staff practically deserve all the criminal acts of violence people
commit against them.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

Power Cut
 

3518+3227 wrote:
Richard J. wrote in message ...
If that is true, there is something seriously wrong with their
procedures for a power outage. There's no point in having a
standby power station that can be powered up quickly if they
start detraining people into the tunnels.

I suspect that what they really mean is that Greenwich probably *was*
brought into use, but that it wasn't possible to switch power on to
many sections of line because people had already been detrained.

I can see no good reason why the detraining of passengers should
prevent Greenwich being brought into use.

Small matter of electrocution perhaps? My point is that if Greenwich is
meant to burst into life with its fast-start gas turbines, doesn't that mean
that traction current can be restored in a matter of a few minutes? If so,
they should not proceed to detrain passengers on to the tracks straight away
because then they can't use the traction supply when Greenwich provides it.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Power Cut
 

In message , Richard J.
writes

Small matter of electrocution perhaps? My point is that if Greenwich is
meant to burst into life with its fast-start gas turbines, doesn't that mean
that traction current can be restored in a matter of a few minutes?

I'm not sure it does. According to the "Emergency Supply Plan" for
London Underground on the Seeboard PowerLink website:

To allow all the Underground's power supplies to be taken from
the National Grid - Powerlink successfully completed a project
prior to the closure of Lots Road. This included the
installation of battery inverter units for emergency lighting
and other essential supplies in control rooms and sub-surface
stations together with the refurbishment of generating units at
Powerlink's Emergency Power Station providing power for
essential pumps, deep lifts and escalators.

No mention there of Greenwich being able to supply traction current, but
merely power to help evacuate the system and stop it flooding.

--
Paul Terry

Power Cut
 

In message , 3518+3227
writes
I can see no good reason why the detraining of passengers should
prevent Greenwich being brought into use.

Even L.U staff don't have enough hatred for commuters to electrocute
them.
--
CJG

Power Cut
 

CJG wrote in message ...
Even L.U staff don't have enough hatred for commuters to electrocute
them.


Bringing the power station into life does not mean that power supply is restored to the tracks straight away.

The Underground system is divided up into small sections, to which power is switched on and off from the control room at Long Acre, Leicester Square.

Surely it then simply becomes a matter of keeping the sections where passengers have been detrained dead, and livening up the other sections as and when it is required to move a train?

Power Cut
 

From: Rupert Goodwins
Date: 28/08/2003 20:48 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

that there was no service anywhere
on the Underground, and that they had no idea whether anything would
be running again tonight.

Not very impressive!

No, I agree. But business as usual as far as private sector cowboys are
concerned, so we take it or leave it :-)