Not screeching to a halt
 

Noisy trains at Bank close platforms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7937678.stm

E.

Not screeching to a halt
 

On Mar 11, 5:07*pm, eastender wrote:
Noisy trains at Bank close platforms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7937678.stm

E.

I didn't realise the first time I heard the story that trains had
carried on running through.

The problem with the tracks was either dangerous or it wasn't, but
locking out the complaining passengers and keeping on running is
surely on the lines of responding to a smoke alarm by taking the
batteries out.

It's reported in a mocking way "closed because trains were too loud"
as opposed to people being concerned that there was a problem with the
track.

Another time that there were strange noises on the Central Line, they
were ignored and a train derailed at Chancery Lane. Then of course
you got grave reporting about complaints being ignored.

Not screeching to a halt
 

On Mar 11, 8:37*pm, MIG wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:07*pm, eastender wrote:

Noisy trains at Bank close platforms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7937678.stm

E.

I didn't realise the first time I heard the story that trains had
carried on running through.

The problem with the tracks was either dangerous or it wasn't, but
locking out the complaining passengers and keeping on running is
surely on the lines of responding to a smoke alarm by taking the
batteries out.


And what if the screeching is at such a high level that it is
potentially damaging to the hearing of people on the platforms,
without the track being dangerous itself? The noise wasn't ignored, as
the track lubrication problem was fixed and the station reopened; this
is nothing like taking the batteries out of a smoke alarm.

Not screeching to a halt
 

On Mar 11, 8:47*pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:37*pm, MIG wrote:





On Mar 11, 5:07*pm, eastender wrote:

Noisy trains at Bank close platforms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7937678.stm

E.

I didn't realise the first time I heard the story that trains had
carried on running through.

The problem with the tracks was either dangerous or it wasn't, but
locking out the complaining passengers and keeping on running is
surely on the lines of responding to a smoke alarm by taking the
batteries out.

And what if the screeching is at such a high level that it is
potentially damaging to the hearing of people on the platforms,
without the track being dangerous itself? The noise wasn't ignored, as
the track lubrication problem was fixed and the station reopened; this
is nothing like taking the batteries out of a smoke alarm.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another report I saw suggested that the noise levels were not
measured.

But there is something very odd about the way that safety is perceived
and dealt with at Bank ever since the escalator work started.

Not screeching to a halt
 

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And what if the screeching is at such a high level that it is
potentially damaging to the hearing of people on the platforms,
without the track being dangerous itself? The noise wasn't ignored, as
the track lubrication problem was fixed and the station reopened; this
is nothing like taking the batteries out of a smoke alarm.
#
This is not a new problem, but deserves to be taken seriously. I have
been on the platform at Bank in the past (at least five years ago)
when the screeching was so loud that it hurt my ears. Now I'm a 50+
guy who's attended a few gigs in his time and used to have a serious
habit of headphones so loud that they hurt after, perhaps, 30 units of
alcohol.

There is a story here. It's not health and safety gone mad: it's why
the level of maintenance is inadequate.

Not screeching to a halt
 

wrote ...
The problem with the tracks was either dangerous or it wasn't, but
locking out the complaining passengers and keeping on running is
surely on the lines of responding to a smoke alarm by taking the
batteries out.

It was never dangerous - except to the ears of the complaining passengers;
removing them from the platforms was the only way to protect their delicate
ears.

I don't see where your analogy applies.

What alternative was there, except for closing the line completely until
lubricated - which would not only have served the complainers, but would
have also inconvenienced all the other (non-complaining) passengers?

Only asking!
--

Andrew

Interviewer: Tonight I'm interviewing that famous nurse, Florence
Nightingale
Tommy Cooper (dressed as a nurse): Sir Florence Nightingale
Interviewer: *Sir* Florence Nightingale?
Tommy Cooper: I'm a Night Nurse

Campaign For The Real Tommy Cooper

Not screeching to a halt
 

On Mar 12, 12:07*am, Uncle Toby wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And what if the screeching is at such a high level that it is
potentially damaging to the hearing of people on the platforms,
without the track being dangerous itself? The noise wasn't ignored, as
the track lubrication problem was fixed and the station reopened; this
is nothing like taking the batteries out of a smoke alarm.

#
This is not a new problem, but deserves to be taken seriously. I have
been on the platform at Bank in the past (at least five years ago)
when the screeching was so loud that it hurt my ears. Now I'm a 50+
guy who's attended a few gigs in his time and used to have a serious
habit of headphones so loud that they hurt after, perhaps, 30 units of
alcohol.

There is a story here. It's not health and safety gone mad: it's why
the level of maintenance is inadequate.

I don't know if it was dangerous or not.

My point was that the tone of the reporting was to mock the fact that
LU responded to reports of noises, and to recall the different tone of
reporting when LU didn't respond to reports of noises (different
situation obviously).

The fact that trains continued running with people excluded just adds
mystery to it all. It could be sound levels, but these were not
apparently measured. I wonder if people "complaining" were asked if
they wanted the station closed?

Not screeching to a halt
 

On Mar 12, 3:50*am, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
wrote ...

The problem with the tracks was either dangerous or it wasn't, but
locking out the complaining passengers and keeping on running is
surely on the lines of responding to a smoke alarm by taking the
batteries out.


Careful how you quote. I didn't write that.

Not screeching to a halt
 

On Mar 12, 7:47*am, MIG wrote:
On Mar 12, 12:07*am, Uncle Toby wrote:





On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And what if the screeching is at such a high level that it is
potentially damaging to the hearing of people on the platforms,
without the track being dangerous itself? The noise wasn't ignored, as
the track lubrication problem was fixed and the station reopened; this
is nothing like taking the batteries out of a smoke alarm.

#
This is not a new problem, but deserves to be taken seriously. I have
been on the platform at Bank in the past (at least five years ago)
when the screeching was so loud that it hurt my ears. Now I'm a 50+
guy who's attended a few gigs in his time and used to have a serious
habit of headphones so loud that they hurt after, perhaps, 30 units of
alcohol.

There is a story here. It's not health and safety gone mad: it's why
the level of maintenance is inadequate.

I don't know if it was dangerous or not.

My point was that the tone of the reporting was to mock the fact that
LU responded to reports of noises, and to recall the different tone of
reporting when LU didn't respond to reports of noises (different
situation obviously).


Your point seemed to be to question LU's reponse, not the reporting of
it. Especially as you also made comments on safety at Bank during the
current works.

The fact that trains continued running with people excluded just adds
mystery to it all. *It could be sound levels, but these were not
apparently measured. *I wonder if people "complaining" were asked if
they wanted the station closed?

How do you know sound levels were not measured? Noisy rails on a curve
do not make unsafe trains, but might mean an unsafe environment around
those trains. In fact, there may be monitoring already in place, of
the lubrication system, if not the noise. If there have been
complaints, then surely the correct response is to remove the people
and investigate, rather than waiting for an engineer to arrive, take a
measurement, and say 'yep, there's a problem', then closing the
station and potentially having damaged a few thousand people's
hearing. The people inside the train will have been partially
insulated from the external noise.

Not screeching to a halt
 

On 12 Mar, 08:29, wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:47*am, MIG wrote:





On Mar 12, 12:07*am, Uncle Toby wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And what if the screeching is at such a high level that it is
potentially damaging to the hearing of people on the platforms,
without the track being dangerous itself? The noise wasn't ignored, as
the track lubrication problem was fixed and the station reopened; this
is nothing like taking the batteries out of a smoke alarm.

#
This is not a new problem, but deserves to be taken seriously. I have
been on the platform at Bank in the past (at least five years ago)
when the screeching was so loud that it hurt my ears. Now I'm a 50+
guy who's attended a few gigs in his time and used to have a serious
habit of headphones so loud that they hurt after, perhaps, 30 units of
alcohol.

There is a story here. It's not health and safety gone mad: it's why
the level of maintenance is inadequate.

I don't know if it was dangerous or not.

My point was that the tone of the reporting was to mock the fact that
LU responded to reports of noises, and to recall the different tone of
reporting when LU didn't respond to reports of noises (different
situation obviously).

Your point seemed to be to question LU's reponse, not the reporting of
it. Especially as you also made comments on safety at Bank during the
current works.

I think it's right that there was response, but I am a bit bewildered
by the nature and timing of it.


The fact that trains continued running with people excluded just adds
mystery to it all. *It could be sound levels, but these were not
apparently measured. *I wonder if people "complaining" were asked if
they wanted the station closed?

How do you know sound levels were not measured?

It was reported that they weren't. (So maybe not true.)

Noisy rails on a curve
do not make unsafe trains, but might mean an unsafe environment around
those trains. In fact, there may be monitoring already in place, of
the lubrication system, if not the noise. If there have been
complaints, then surely the correct response is to remove the people
and investigate, rather than waiting for an engineer to arrive, take a
measurement, and say 'yep, there's a problem', then closing the
station and potentially having damaged a few thousand people's
hearing. The people inside the train will have been partially
insulated from the external noise.

Did the problem arise so suddenly that it had to be done in the rush
hour, particularly if there was monitoring of the lubrication system?

A sudden, unexpected increase in noise, might well mean a misaligned
track or something for all I know. I can't see how anything to do
with the tracks could be investigated in detail while trains were
running.

But if it was known for certain that the problem was lubrication, by
means of some kind of remote monitoring, why deal with it at that time
of day?

Still, it's a press story, so almost guaranteed not to be true.