Suspended due to h&s reasons?

[Chris M]

According to the TfL Website, they (TfL) have "reassured the trades unions about their concerns over safety."

www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/6094.aspx

The live travel news shows the H&C is back up and running (allegedly without even minor delays) but the Circle and Wimblewares are still suspended.

[Deleted]

Having thought further about this subject since my last posting ...

I entirely agree with DD over the remote chance of a T/Op releasing the deadman and then collapsing upon it, that train would then be tripped should it pass a red signal aspect, as Colin says there is an even remoter chance that a compromised 5mph overlap at a station starter could result in a collision if the preceeding train had been brought to a halt just beyond that starter.

However it does occur to me that there remains a greater risk, that the train continuing to motor with an incapacitated train operator, could seriously exceed the designated speed limit on some of our tight curves or junctions and as a result derail with the possible serious consequences !

However I don't see why it was necessary for the whole lot to be suspended. I do agree with JamesB in that I can't see why they couldn't double man the trains. Suspend the Circle line and use the operators to maintain some sort of reduced service on the H & C.

There has always remained the outside possibility that an incapacitated train operator may collapse onto the deadmans handle without ever releasing it. I assume that is why the design was changed with D stock and subsequent stocks to a twist design, which can not be accidentally engaged by an incapacitated operator.

[Colin]

Hmm........

Well it's certainly rather mysterious that all is now well again. Perhaps it's now been realised that with the best will in the world, the design of the CTBC on a C stock is as safe as it can be. It's never been questioned before, nor been the result of a mishap (that I know of anyway) in almost 30 years - so let's be realistic, just what are the chances of something so drastic ever happening? You've most likely got more chance of winning the lottery jackpot.

Anyway, yes the D stock brought improved design - but, well, lets's have a list of questions I've thought up:

• what about the 67ts on the Vic, 72ts on the Bakerloo and the 73ts on the Picc? Ok I haven't got the first clue as to whether or not these stocks are anywhere near close to having a similar issue, but is it possible they may have a similar inherent design issue?
  
• Has this type of CTBC on any rail stock (NR or LUL) ever had this type of design?
  
• If there is another stock with the same potential issue (current or long since dead), was it ever implicated in an incident of the type envisaged in this thread?
  

I suspect the answers will be yes, yes, and no - so what was the last 24 hours really all about?

[Deleted]

I can answer for a 1967 stock on the Victoria, that doesn't have a dead mans handle at all. It has a vigillance button. The button must be depressed with the right hand whilst the train CTBC is worked with the left hand. It is totally impossible for an incapacitated train operator to continue to depress this vigillance button which requires substantial pressure to remain engergised.

It's function remains possible on the Victoria only because of the limited amount of manual driving. It would not be feasable for normal operations, as every T/Op would be off sick with RSI. It is awkward and substatial pressure is needed to maintain operation. The D stock design is way, way better !

[Deleted]

districtdave said:

IIRC isn't that how the original design was intended to work?

Not on the C stock, Dave.

I've driven C stock (granted it was unrefurbished and in the dim and distant past). If dropped, the TBC would lock in the raised position until moved back to Off and Release.

[Deleted]

deals19 said:

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?

FYI: The driver who first raised the issue was the local ASLEF rep and the issue was dealt with by the Trains Safety Council members of both ASLEF and RMT. As far as I know Bob Crow had absolutely nothing to do with this dispute.

[Deleted]

Well 72 stock on Bakerloo doesn't have this feature and I've never felt the lack.

I was pondering this last night, it's interesting that on the District the use of the TBC for worried (i.e. a step down from emergency) braking is not allowed when over here it's perfectly acceptable. I remember two IOs commenting on the efficacy of briefly dropping and relatching the handle when the train is going a mite too fast in the platform. Please note: 'a mite'. Natch, emergency would be used if there were actual problems.

There have been a couple of comments from Bakerloo drivers that it is frowned upon by the management but I've used it during a TD-whatever (driving test) and not an eyelid was batted.

So not only do we have differences in "safety" features on the trains but we have differences in accepted driving styles.

[jamesb]

In my very simplistic mind (having never been anywhere near the driving cab of a train), in an emergency situation, e.g. somebody is jumping in front of the train, every second counts.

Rather then having to move the TBC to the emergency brakes position, doesn't it make more sense if simply releasing it applies the full emergency brakes?

If you were frazzled and panicked, isn't it possible you could rotate the TBC in the wrong direction, i.e. away from the emergency brake? Looking at the photo of one, what happens if you slam it round the the emergency position, but go past it, to the shutdown position?

[Deleted]

No. By pushing the brakes to emergency both brakes (EP and Westinghouse) are deployed and if the train is going at certain speeds then also the Rheo brake. By letting go of the handle only the deadman is going off. Oddly enough, some peeps were discussing this the other day and they reckon after some experimenting with empty trains that the difference in braking ability might be as much as a full car. In an emergency that might be a significant difference.

Possibly a driver might push the handle the wrong way if they were stressed but to be honest, braking becomes instinctive after a while. Rounding a corner to see an unexpected red somewhat hones instinctive braking in the right direction. People might make a mistake in the same way that the driver of a car might press down on the accelerator in error but I think the frequency of that happening must be quite small in either case.

Not sure how other TBCs are arranged but for 72s the shutdown/emergency distinction doesn't really matter. When shutting down the train the TBC is pushed into emergency to discharge trainline air. Until that is discharged it's not possible to put it into the shutdown position. So in reality, emergency and shutdown are the same thing or if you put it another way, shutdown doesn't exist until emergency has happened. Not a great explanation but it probably gets the general idea across.

[Deleted]

jamesb said:

Looking at the photo of one, what happens if you slam it round the the emergency position, but go past it, to the shutdown position?

On the 73s you can't put it into shutdown until the selector barrel is put into the 'Off' position.

DOC

[jamesb]

gappe said:

No. By pushing the brakes to emergency both brakes (EP and Westinghouse) are deployed and if the train is going at certain speeds then also the Rheo brake. By letting go of the handle only the deadman is going off. Oddly enough, some peeps were discussing this the other day and they reckon after some experimenting with empty trains that the difference in braking ability might be as much as a full car. In an emergency that might be a significant difference.

Possibly a driver might push the handle the wrong way if they were stressed but to be honest, braking becomes instinctive after a while. Rounding a corner to see an unexpected red somewhat hones instinctive braking in the right direction. People might make a mistake in the same way that the driver of a car might press down on the accelerator in error but I think the frequency of that happening must be quite small in either case.

Thank's for the explanation! What I meant was, when the TBC was designed, why was it not designed so that when you release it, you get all the full emergency brakes... So that, to save every second, all the driver has to do, if he is stunned by a sudden obstruction, is release the handle to apply the emergency brakes. Maybe this isn't relevant, because it would make no difference anyway... I just wondered...

[Deleted]

Just to add to/clarify what gappe has said - if you let go of the deadman then the trainline air is dumped leading to a brake application that comes on gradually (albeit it still pretty rapidly) as the air pressure reduces. Putting the TBC in emergency does the same thing but ALSO gives a full EP application immediately, so using emergency ought to stop the train a bit quicker.

It's impossible to go straight to shutdown - it doesn't matter how hard you whack the handle round, it will only go as far as emergency.

EDIT: To answer the second point (made while I was typing the above!) the EP brake is not failsafe and in any case I suppose it would be added complexity to wire the deadman into the EP brake circuit as well. Similarly, if a train gets tripped it will only dump the trainline air, no EP application.

[Deleted]

72's and C69/77's have identical TBC's. In fact the mechanics of the 2 trains are pretty much identical bar a few differences like reverse lockout (72 only), door mcb's (C) instead of fuses (72), the fact that you don't have to change fuses on C stock but you do on 72's etc. Having driven both stocks there is absolutely no difference in the TBC so I would say that it is entirely possible the same thing could happen on the Bakerloo Line.

[plampin]

I think that the idea of no trains or broken down trains is a cover up, for example a few weeks ago, there was congestion in the edgeware road area, what should have been said was that there were no drivers which was the truth

[Deleted]

Holy thread revival batman!

[Deleted]

hardcastle said:

Holy thread revival batman!

Indeed. Saves me starting a new one

I wonder if there isn't a reluctance to attribute delays & cancellations to staffing issues.

A few days ago Bayswater passengers were regaled with "Severe delays on the Circle line due to points failure at Edgware Road. Good service on all other lines.

How can a points failure there affect Circles but not H&C and/or Wimblewares?

[Deleted]

It takes longer to get trains through the station, so they get rid of the circles so they can cope without the H&C/District getting screwed?

Just a guess/.

[c5]

hardcastle said:

It takes longer to get trains through the station, so they get rid of the circles so they can cope without the H&C/District getting screwed?

Just a guess/.

Indeed.

As the Circle runs through stations served by other lines, they are often diverted to cover the H&C or cancelled to free up spare train operators if there is service disruption.