Not screeching to a halt
|
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
|
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. |
Not screeching to a halt
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:07:50 +0000, eastender
wrote: Noisy trains at Bank close platforms. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7937678.stm Would there have been any platform staff at the time? They are the ones whose hearing would have been affected if there was screeching with every train. -- Roger |
Not screeching to a halt
On 12 Mar, 13:53, MIG wrote:
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. Bank Central line is always noisy, due to the tight curvature, indeed, it is one of the tightest curves on the Underground. The lubrication is not there to allow trains to run safely (they'd do that anyway), but to allow them to run more quietly. It would be quite hard to investigate track noise without the trains running and if any equipment can be fixed whilst trains are still running then surely it should be. 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? Surely you deal with any problem when occurs, time of day shouldn't matter. As the closure was only of the platforms to passengers, not of the line itself, it wasn't a big issue in the overall scheme of things. Still, it's a press story, so almost guaranteed not to be true. I certainly agree with that sentiment. I think that people would be amazed at the number of incidents on the underground that occur each day and that don't get reported in the press. |
Not screeching to a halt
In article
, MIG wrote: Still, it's a press story, so almost guaranteed not to be true. I've just been through Bank and used the west bound Central Line platform - trains quiet as a mouse. In fact, I saw a mouse - not there but at High Street Ken. E. |
Not screeching to a halt
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:30:56 +0000, Roger
wrote: Would there have been any platform staff at the time? They are the ones whose hearing would have been affected if there was screeching with every train. Notably, today's London ****e contained letters complaining both that LUL closed the station and that they didn't close it soon enough. So it must have been *fairly* bad. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk