Page 1 of 1
| Ooooops 01/08/2012 at 22:56 #34554 | |
Quizman
276 posts |
From the BBC news website London 2012: London Bridge rail services delayed A Southern Railway spokesman said the delays were caused when a train was signalled into the wrong platform at the station. The 10-carriage train arrived at a platform intended for trains with eight carriages. "It meant the train had to be sent back along the track, which caused congestion," the spokesman said. Ummmm operator or signalling error? 
Last edited: 01/08/2012 at 22:57 by Quizman Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 01/08/2012 at 23:29 #34556 | |
|
John
884 posts |
Operator, I expect. It's happened quite often at Victoria, including one this week so I hear. It normally happens when there have been a large number of stock changes and platform alterations and the signaller has lost track of the number of coaches he or she has in the platforms. Matt knows all about the amount of stock changes that are regularly generated at Victoria. The driver should have realised that he or she had been routed into a platform that was too short to accommodate their train and challenged the signaller. Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 07:50 #34559 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
reminds me of the time a HST was signalled into P5 at derby and the driver accepted the route
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply The following user said thank you: peterb |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 10:43 #34563 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
" said:Matt knows all about the amount of stock changes that are regularly generated at Victoria.The number of stock changes Southern do at Victoria in times of disruption is CRAZY! I've seen the night shift arrive (at 20:30) to find 13 pages of them, before. It does get to the stage where the signaller will refuse to do any more changes at once because of the increased possibility of making an error, such as putting too many coaches into one platform. South West Trains manage to write out stock changes at Waterloo by showing how to alter the platforming of the service to enable a stock change to take place. Southern just say "we want these units swopped" and leave all platforming decisions up to the signaller on Panel 1. It can lead to chaos, especially when the changes include unscheduled splits (requiring a platform that is either even or odd based on the side the pipes are on a 455 or 442 EMU) and joins (where re-platforming can tie you in knots). Especially remembering to cross train from the fast line (to access platforms 12-19) to the slow line (to access platforms 3-15) [or vice-versa] to enable trains to get to their joining portion. All in all, chaos that seems to occur every day, but some days it just seems impossible. It's much more fun when there is so much disruption (Remember the South Croydon landslip?) that it's a case of "we have this stock, we have this driver [+ guard?], he signs this route, he can make this service." Basically, making it up as you go along! Without the station control point (where John works), we signallers would be absolutely lost! John, sound about right? Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 11:40 #34564 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:John, sound about right?Spot on. " said: The number of stock changes Southern do at Victoria is CRAZY! I've seen the night shift arrive (at 20:30) to find 13 pages of them, before. Annoyingly, a great deal of these stock changes are to get units back to Selhurst at the end of the day for an exam. The GENIUS system tracks unit mileage, meaning impending exams are known about well in advance... so why on earth was that unit allocated to an Epsom or Caterham finish in the first place!? :huh: The Southeastern operation, thankfully, is very different as our maintenance planners publish a stock telex in the early hours of the morning listing every unit that is low on miles, has an operating restriction, or requires maintenance, and the service that it needs to go on to get it back to depot. Result? Hardly any stock changes. Sometimes I can go an entire week without having to change units over in the platforms. What also helps is that we have the luxury of the 10 road Grosvenor Carriage Sidings, which means that during times of perturbation we can usually dispose of dumped stock to the shed, freeing up valuable platform space and safeguarding against mistakes such as the one at London Bridge. Poor old Matt doesn't have that luxury. If the crew of an 8 car train become displaced, he's stuck with that train and must work around it. :evil: " said: It's much more fun when there is so much disruption that it's a case of "we have this stock, we have this driver [+ guard?], he signs this route, he can make this service." Basically, making it up as you go along!It's great fun when control loses the plot so entirely that we have no choice but to step in and take over. That sort of "flying by the seat of your pants" working gives me a great sense of satisfaction, but so rarely happens on the Eastern side these days...  We really need a Victoria ASC sim with a chaos setting - you up for it, Matt? 
Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 15:35 #34585 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
In reality, although the Signalman would have been responsible for the initial error (probably see below), the Driver is not blameless either as he should know the length of his train and where it will fit, and stop and query the route. It is possible that the Signalman may not have known it was a ten-car train. I have seen plenty of occasions where Signalmen are expecting a train of x length according to all their sources (WTT, Trust, etc.), but it actually turns up being different. Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 15:56 #34588 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
NB: At Victoria (Central side) [Platforms 9-19] the platforms are all 12 coaches long. It *can* be possible to fit 14 coaches into platforms 18 & 19 (maybe 9, too), but only in an absolute emergency and with permission from someone higher up the food chain. " said: ...the Driver is not blameless either as he should know the length of his train and where it will fit, and stop and query the route. At Victoria, if a Driver of a train longer than 4 coaches gets the calling-on aspect, they will usually query the route, unless they are booked to join-up upon arrival. There can be up to 8 coaches on the buffer-stops and the calling on aspect will still show a proceed. Any more than 8 and the signal will not come off. " said: It is possible that the Signalman may not have known it was a ten-car train. I have seen plenty of occasions where Signalmen are expecting a train of x length according to all their sources (WTT, Trust, etc.), but it actually turns up being different. The station workings show how long the expected arriving train should be. We don't have time to check TRUST for every train, so rely upon these daily orders. I recently had a train come up from Eastbourne (and no, not a join at Hayward's Heath) that was booked to be 8 coaches long, and gave it the calling-on aspect on top of 4 coaches on the buffer stops. The driver called up on the CSR to query the route, as he was actually 12 coaches long! I am so glad he queried the route, as 16 coaches in 12 coach platform in the evening peak is not something I would ever want to be responsible for! I assume that the recent incident at London Bridge was either linked to stock-changes or just one of those rare human errors that anyone can make. Last edited: 02/08/2012 at 15:57 by mfcooper Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 17:06 #34595 | |
DriverCurran
688 posts |
"Result? Hardly any stock changes. Sometimes I can go an entire week without having to change units over in the platforms" That sounds like a challenge to me John :-p Think next I hear your tones on the other end of the phone, lots of stock step ups, think putting an up Orpington on a down Dartford then back on to the original diagram when they are next at Victoria, just so you don't feel left out lol. Paul You have to get a red before you can get any other colour Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 17:50 #34596 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:That sounds like a challenge to me John :-p Think next I hear your tones on the other end of the phone, lots of stock step ups, think putting an up Orpington on a down Dartford then back on to the original diagram when they are next at Victoria, just so you don't feel left out lol.:cheer: That manoeuvre used to be a Lofty speciality back when the Orps were half-hourly off peak. Whenever the Orp got knocked on its way up, the Dartford would go straight in for it. Regular as clockwork. Actually, come to think of it, "the Judge" might well be the TSM most likely to issue stock changes. He's pretty proactive when it comes to correcting variations. Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 02/08/2012 at 20:44 #34602 | |
|
DriverCurran
688 posts |
I have been known in the days of 'The core' closures of doing 3 way step ups with Orpington, Sevenoaks and Ashford services :p Paul You have to get a red before you can get any other colour Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 07/08/2012 at 14:09 #34726 | |
|
John
884 posts |
Another operating incident disrupting Southern services today, this time at Brighton.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: guidomcc |
| Ooooops 07/08/2012 at 21:43 #34742 | |
|
Hooverman
306 posts |
What a way to start your late shift on panel 6. Thank god I had my car and was earlies on panel 1A :-)
Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 07/08/2012 at 22:20 #34743 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts 
|
Many years ago I watched a porter dump a string of BRUTEs on the track at Paddington in front of a mid-evening peak departure as he misjudged the turning circle at the far end of the platform. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 08/08/2012 at 00:18 #34744 | |
BarryM
2158 posts |
" said:What a way to start your late shift on panel 6. Thank god I had my car and was earlies on panel 1A :-)Is that platform 5/6 at Brighton? Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 08/08/2012 at 08:36 #34752 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:Is that platform 5/6 at Brighton?6/7 
Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 08/08/2012 at 09:51 #34757 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
" said:" said:John, sorry, I was referring to the island platform the train was on. Trying to visualise with the sim.Is that platform 5/6 at Brighton? Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Last edited: 08/08/2012 at 09:56 by BarryM Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 08/08/2012 at 17:31 #34771 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
" said:Many years ago I watched a porter dump a string of BRUTEs on the track at Paddington in front of a mid-evening peak departure as he misjudged the turning circle at the far end of the platform.From my days towing them around the Severn Valley, Brutes were a nightmare to control at the best of times. Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 17/08/2012 at 09:55 #34978 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Back to putting long trains in short platforms. There was a little nasty hidden in the panel that replaced the L frame at Waterloo in the early '80s (around 1983/4 from memory?) It came about as a result of the interaction of technicalities and politics. When the panel was being designed it was intended to have 3 workstations - Windsor, Main Fast and Main Slow. Each workstation had its own "ring" in the interlocking. (Some here know a great deal more than me about what a ring is; as an operator what I know is that once an entrance button is pressed, all other entrance functions in the ring are disabled and all exit buttons are primed to wait for a press.) One ring is usually one signalman's control area. Where a route passes from one ring to another, there's an exit button at the join and a corresponding entrance button where it enters the other person's panel, although they tend not to be called entrances & exits as the route requires all 4 to be pressed. At some point in the design process, it was decreed by the operators that Waterloo could be worked by 2 signalmen off-peak, so the Main Slow and Main Fast panels should be combined. (No-one really thought through how 2 men would work around each other on one NX panel, but hey, this was management whizz-kids we're talking about.) However, it was a bit late for the engineers, who'd already got the interlocking designed and would've had to delay the project unacceptably if they'd gone back & redesigned it for 2 rings. But they did as they were told and put the main line rings on a single panel. But there were no intermediate buttons. What that meant was that if the MS man had a long train coming up for one of "his" platforms and the MF man had a short train to couple in a platform in the MS ring, they could both press their entrance buttons, then if the MF man got to his exit first the interlocking would call the route from the active MS entrance in preference to the exit called by the MF man. Apparently there was more than one occasion where it was only the MS man's alertness that saw a route setting before he'd actually pressed his exit to prevent either a train being signalled into a platform too short for it or a 2-minute timeout in the middle of the morning peak. I think they got it sorted before control went to the new panel at Wimbledon. Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 22/08/2012 at 12:00 #35104 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
A ring is what you say; an interlocking circuit that collects together all the buttons that a signaller could operate and switches them between "want an entrance" and "want an exit" states. It's called that because on at least one geographical interlocking technology (Westinghouse, I think), there's a literal ring of cables: a daisy-chain of cables links all the button modules together, and cables run from each end of the chain to the ring control module. (A module is a pre-designed block of relays and associated wiring that does a specific function. So all ring control modules are identical, there are two or three types of button module, two or three types of points module, and so on.) I'm puzzled by the rest of your story. Putting two rings on a single panel is easy enough - all this stuff is in the relay room anyway - and doesn't involve an interlocking change. On the contrary, removing the intermediate buttons is itself a significant interlocking change. And putting one button into two rings (so that signallers on separate rings can both set a route to it) is not trivial. But if both signallers could really press entrance buttons at the same time *and both flash* then that implies that there were two rings. If you then put an exit button into both rings, having to decide which ring is driving it then becomes an obvious design issue to consider. Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 22/08/2012 at 14:23 #35110 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
Panel 1 at Victoria has 4 rings, split fast and slow, london and country side of Battersea Pier Jn. Therefore, with routes from both the up slow and the up fast to platforms 12-15, and being able to press both the up fast and up slow home signal entrance buttons at the same time, you have to be careful not to press the exit on 12-15 in case the wrong one gets routed. I *think* it's meant to route the first entrance button pressed, but I don't like doing it. And with 4 rings, in theory you could have 4 people working the panel. So when everything goes "Pete Tong", you can throw another body on the panel and keep trains moving. I have seen 3 people on panel 1 before, albeit briefly (One on the CSR, one at the Country-end and one at the London-end). For completeness, Panel 2A has 4 rings [Clapham Jn, Latchmere Jn's, Ken O, North Pole], Panel 2B has 2 [Balham, Streatham], Panel 3 has 3 [Tulse Hill, Crystal Palace, Streatham], and Panel 4 has 3 [Wimbledon, Sutton and the Epsom Downs branch]. Don't know about the Eastern side. Last edited: 22/08/2012 at 14:23 by mfcooper Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 23/08/2012 at 09:43 #35135 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
" said:Point taken. The story comes from my father, who was Relief Area Movements Inspector and was covering Waterloo soon after the panel was commissioned; sadly he's no longer around to ask for further & better particulars. " said:
That's what I understood the position was. " said: If you then put an exit button into both rings, having to decide which ring is driving it then becomes an obvious design issue to consider. Quite so... whatever the technicalities, there was clearly a design issue that wasn't considered. (And seeing mfcooper's post following it looks as if that particular design issue was a feature of the late '70s/early '80s on the Clockwork Railway.) I do know the local movements inspectorate were somewhat less than impressed, but as usual the poor so-and-so's who had to do the job were never consulted before the bean counters did their worst... Log in to reply |
| Ooooops 24/08/2012 at 13:20 #35162 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Panel 1 at Victoria has 4 rings, split fast and slow, london and country side of Battersea Pier Jn. Therefore, with routes from both the up slow and the up fast to platforms 12-15, and being able to press both the up fast and up slow home signal entrance buttons at the same time, you have to be careful not to press the exit on 12-15 in case the wrong one gets routed. I *think* it's meant to route the first entrance button pressed,Eek! The sensible thing to do would be to disable the button when both rings are in "looking for exit" state. Log in to reply |