London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 11th 09, 05:07 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 24
Default Not screeching to a halt

Noisy trains at Bank close platforms.

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

E.

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 11th 09, 08:37 PM posted to uk.transport.london
MIG MIG is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,154
Default 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.
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 11th 09, 08:47 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2006
Posts: 100
Default 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.
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 11th 09, 09:05 PM posted to uk.transport.london
MIG MIG is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,154
Default 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.
  #6   Report Post  
Old March 12th 09, 03:50 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 288
Default 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


  #7   Report Post  
Old March 12th 09, 07:47 AM posted to uk.transport.london
MIG MIG is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,154
Default 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?
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 12th 09, 08:18 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2006
Posts: 100
Default 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.
  #9   Report Post  
Old March 12th 09, 08:29 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2006
Posts: 100
Default 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.
  #10   Report Post  
Old March 12th 09, 01:53 PM posted to uk.transport.london
MIG MIG is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,154
Default 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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When transport came to a halt That hard winter thearklightreturns London Transport 0 June 2nd 10 07:54 PM
It's not big, it's not clever - "Source who works for TfL" picks onpoor gullible journalist Mwmbwls London Transport 2 December 13th 07 11:36 AM
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District? Boltar London Transport 41 October 26th 03 09:04 PM
Expensive Tramlink halt Alan \(in Brussels\) London Transport 2 August 12th 03 10:05 AM
Not to Do With London Transport CJG London Transport 2 July 30th 03 07:52 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017