Suspended due to h&s reasons?

[jamesb]

Two entire lines suspended for health and safety reasons, according to the shouty man at King's Cross... This seems to happen more frequently these days...

[Deleted]

Says due to a lack of available trains on TfL site...

Any ideas what's going on?

[Deleted]

defective deadman on a lot of the C stock apparently.

[Deleted]

I was just about to ask if it was stock related.

[Deleted]

Odd - I don't recall hearing about any problems with the deadman on C stocks...

[jamesb]

It's a bit of a disaster... How do these problems suddenly spring up and cause the entire line to shut...? The trains have been running for years without 'whatever this is', and suddenly many become defective at once??

[Deleted]

theonekea said:

Odd - I don't recall hearing about any problems with the deadman on C stocks...

Well I do!

[Deleted]

I imagine its more a case of a couple being defective and drivers refusing to drive on H&S grounds, which is fair enough!

[Deleted]

apparently a driver released the deadman in a motoring position (it de-energised/went off), but then he depressed it again and it reset and he continued motoring without having to restroke the tbc to off and release. (a massive failure of safety equipment).

as word got around, more drivers attempted this and found it to be the case on more than one train. as a result a mass refusal to work has taken place on H&S grounds and, as far as i know, everythings gone back to depot for checks.

[District Dave]

IIRC isn't that how the original design was intended to work? Looks like someone's perhaps reverted to the original design?

I'm not quite convinced of where the issue comes in? The driver drops dead and releases the deadman - train stops. Oh - OK - driver's corpse now slumps over TBC and train proceeds to next red signal where it's tripped.......

[rayb]

I was on a "C" this morning that was going at a fairly good pace on a straight section of track in the open, visibility good etc.

As we approached a station there was loud noise from under the car and we seemed to decelerate very quickly - I wondered at first if the emergency brake had been deployed, but we stopped in the correct place, dwell time normal and continued the journey.

I don't know if anyone else on the train noticed this or if they did, even cared, but I thought it odd and having read this thread, wonder if the two things could be related?

[Deleted]

districtdave said:

IIRC isn't that how the original design was intended to work? Looks like someone's perhaps reverted to the original design?

I'm not quite convinced of where the issue comes in? The driver drops dead and releases the deadman - train stops. Oh - OK - driver's corpse now slumps over TBC and train proceeds to next red signal where it's tripped.......

In addition to agreeing with Dave, and without knowing the exact issue involved I would have thought each train can be tested on the road in seconds and then just those found defective need further attention (whether then or later) ??

[Deleted]

districtdave said:

I'm not quite convinced of where the issue comes in? The driver drops dead and releases the deadman - train stops. Oh - OK - driver's corpse now slumps over TBC and train proceeds to next red signal where it's tripped.......

And the next signal happens to be a station starter with a 5mph overlap but the train hits it at 40...

It's obviously very unlikely that this problem would actually cause a collision, but then railway history is littered with example of the very unlikely happening with tragic consequences. This may or may not be a real issue, but I would not rush to dismiss it.

[swedishblue]

rayb said:

I was on a "C" this morning that was going at a fairly good pace on a straight section of track in the open, visibility good etc.

As we approached a station there was loud noise from under the car and we seemed to decelerate very quickly - I wondered at first if the emergency brake had been deployed, but we stopped in the correct place, dwell time normal and continued the journey.

I don't know if anyone else on the train noticed this or if they did, even cared, but I thought it odd and having read this thread, wonder if the two things could be related?

What you have heard is the T/Op releasing the deadman (or in some cases it pops up) to assist the train to stop. Probably coming in a bit too fast with the train not fully under control.

[tubeprune]

districtdave said:

IIRC isn't that how the original design was intended to work? Looks like someone's perhaps reverted to the original design?

I'm not quite convinced of where the issue comes in? The driver drops dead and releases the deadman - train stops. Oh - OK - driver's corpse now slumps over TBC and train proceeds to next red signal where it's tripped.......

On older stocks, like the A Stock, if you dropped the handle in a motoring position, you had to shut off before the deadman valve would reset and restore air. The purpose was as stated by Dave.

On C Stock, I was not in the habit of dropping the deadman in motoring [grins smugly to himself] I was more used to dropping it in braking to make the bl**dy thing stop"!

If the C Stock was originally designed to replicate the old BTH controllers, I am (almost) sure C Stock would require the driver to restore to off & release before you could remotor. I also have this vague recollection that the controller was specially positioned to prevent someone slumping over it as a result of a medical emergency. They didn't design it to prevent air restoration as it was difficult with a microswitch operated deadman valve which was intended to go ATO one day.

[jamesb]

From reading the speculations about the nature of the problem, could a partial service be safely restored theoretically on at least one of the lines if there were two drivers in every cab? The second one could remove the first one should s/he become incapacitated in an inconvenient position...

[Phil]

Legally yes, but......................

[Deleted]

From the BBC website -http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7015423.stm

The said:

A TfL spokeswoman said: "Local trade union safety representatives have raised concerns about the design of the traction brake controller on the C stock trains used on these lines.

"As always, we are addressing the safety concerns of the trade unions.

"However, these trains have been in safe operation for over 25 years, and there is no reason for the service to the public to be disrupted whilst we seek to address the issues raised."

Is this the case? Is it the design and they have they always behaved like this? If so, then why has it now become an issue.

If not, then the BBC/TFL spokesperson should be shot!

[jamesb]

I can't quite understand the difference between this issue, and the situation where a driver slumped over the handle without ever letting go of it, or holding onto it as he was passing out to steady himself and ending up on top of it.

Surely the most critically important thing's are that the train stops when the handle is released suddenly (which it would) and that the train would be tripped if it went through a red signal (which it would)?

[Colin]

I have to say I'm with Dave & Aspect on this one - I can't see the need for a total 'grounding' of C stocks.

95ts and their trip problems - fair enough.
92ts and the motors falling off - fair enough.
C stock's deadman WORKS, but restrokes in a motoring position - and?


I take adw's point about relying on tripping at station starters - but.........even though the overlap is shorter, the train will still be tripped - so it will be slowing with emergency brakes applied; any collision [however unlikely] would IMHO be at very slow speed. I'm sure you've released the deadman at some time or other whilst trying to make up for misjudging a station stop - maybe even used the red handle whilst in your capacity as an I/O - so you'll be well aware that C stocks do stop pretty quickly when in emergency mode. So fair comment, but not enough in my book to keep 'em off the road.

jamesb said:

From reading the speculations about the nature of the problem, could a partial service be safely restored theoretically on at least one of the lines if there were two drivers in every cab? The second one could remove the first one should s/he become incapacitated in an inconvenient position...

rbruce1314 said:

Legally yes, but......................

Actually double manning is irrelevant in this instance. The supposed issue is that the deadman will restroke without leaving a motoring position............double manning would only apply if the deadman failed to work completely - which is not the issue at all as it works fine.

[Deleted]

So that's all?

I was under the impression that the deadman wasn't working at all! From what's been described here, it sounds like the deadman works perfectly, albeit with a minor quirk. Hardly the enormous H&S risk that has been portrayed by some...

[Deleted]

To me this just seems like another reason for Comrade Bob to get on his soapbox and cause yet more mayhem. Does he actually use the tube?

OK there is an issue over the handle but from what is being said on here and it is the design and has always been the case. Why is it suddenly a major issue now?

I cannot believe 2 lines are completely shut down until who know when, over an issue which has always been the case.

I guess those T/Ops are enjoying a day off and getting paid for it!

[Colin]

theonekea said:

So that's all?

I was under the impression that the deadman wasn't working at all! From what's been described here, it sounds like the deadman works perfectly, albeit with a minor quirk. Hardly the enormous H&S risk that has been portrayed by some...

Indeed

deals19 said:

I guess those T/Ops are enjoying a day off and getting paid for it!

Not at all - not doing much work, granted; but certainly not a day off. The H&C (& Circle) drivers are being 'held till their time' at their respective depots..........partly cos management can do that and partly 'just in case the service were to resume'. Dunno about Acton District drivers; but the Earls Court District drivers were being usefully employed on 5 useful extra / ad-hoc D stock workings (Wimbledon to High Street Kensington). As I saw them around mid day, I assume these were made up from the inter-peak stablers - so I don't know what the plan is for the peaks... ........

The extra D stocks had some strange numbers though; all in the 400's but not sequential. I observed: 472, 470, 461, 427, 423 (even more bizarrely, they were in that order!!).

[happybunny]

It is crazy... really really is..... madness!!! only on LU would this happen. The trains are obviously safe, I really feel sorry for the poor people relying on these lines every day... In theory could they use 4 car A's and even 3 car D's on the H&C or Circle in the short term? Know it will probs never happen but cud it ?

[District Dave]

In response to both happybunny and deals19 I think the underlying issue is not that the TBC is not working at all, it is not working as it should do (and as we have always been told how it works).

I think what I want to be reassured about is that this is the only fault with the system - or has it somehow been incorrectly wired and this also impacts on some other function. The device should be 'failsafe' - as it stands this not entirely the case.

As far as I'm aware there was no instruction from the unions (any of them) to withdraw the service; I believe the problem was passed around by word of mouth and drivers took there own decisions - they decided to refuse to operate the trains on the grounds of Health and Safety, and the decision was then taken by 'fleet' to withdraw all trains for safety checks.

Although I understand the frustrations of the travelling public, can you imagine the outcry if something had occured and it was discovered after an incident?

For myself, I'm not one to over-react to these issues, but I think I'd be reluctant to operate a C Stock alone until this is resoved; in the short term possibly double manning could be an answer, though this would also probably meaning halving the number of trains in service as there aren't sufficient 'spares' around to cover this.

[Tomcakes]

If it's been like that for years... what is the problem? If there is a slight fault, why not rectify it on a rolling programme, doing one train at a time? Or is it the unions playing the H&S card so they can cause more trouble?

districtdave said:

For myself, I'm not one to over-react to these issues, but I think I'd be reluctant to operate a C Stock alone until this is resoved; in the short term possibly double manning could be an answer, though this would also probably meaning halving the number of trains in service as there aren't sufficient 'spares' around to cover this.

Isn't half the normal service better than nothing?

[District Dave]

tombeevers said:

If it's been like that for years... what is the problem?

I think the problem is that at the moment no-one knows how long this problem has been in existence, AFAIK it's only just been identified; that's not to say it hasn't been around for 'some time'.

tombeevers said:

Isn't half the normal service better than nothing?

Possibly - but it still has to be organised to work; it's not as simple as just putting a second operator on the train - the duties will have to be worked out as to who is available when and not to compromise the rest of the service. I think the decision on this will probably depend on what the estimate for the fleet to be checked transpires to be.

[swedishblue]

Speaking as someone who drove these trains for years, non refurb and refurb, this problem has always been there. When driving along in a motoring position on a bumpy section of track, the deadman can sometimes pop up and then reset again instantly while still in a motoring position. However, the speed that this happens is so quick, it's less than a second. The latch inside the deadman is not popping up as it should because of the speed this happens. This is not a problem or fault with the deadman. If the deadman is released due to a T/Op collapsing, it will work as normal. Everyone I've spoken to who is an ex C stock driver is aware of this, as are probably most of the "Professionals" who are taking this action now.

[District Dave]

swedishblue said:

What you have heard is the T/Op releasing the deadman (or in some cases it pops up) to assist the train to stop. Probably coming in a bit too fast with the train not fully under control.

In which case the T/Op should apply an Emergency Brake - not 'drop the handle'. OK - we all know it happens, but it is not the same (and does not have the same effect) as a proper Emergency application.

Trainees who do this are soon 'corrected', believe me.

[happybunny]

So I gotta ask, the trains are now re-entering service, but what has changed since they were taken out? What modifications have been made?