|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on May 12, 2014 7:18:21 GMT
The coming together of 2 S Stock. Mr Bootle, who is LU's District Line manager, said there were no injuries in the collision on 1 May, which was caused because of a "very slight movement of the tracks."
'Very slight movement of the track' who is he trying to kid..... Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on May 12, 2014 12:24:28 GMT
The coming together of 2 S Stock. Mr Bootle, who is LU's District Line manager, said there were no injuries in the collision on 1 May, which was caused because of a "very slight movement of the tracks."
'Very slight movement of the track' who is he trying to kid..... Well it does happen but it's the wrong time of year and it has been nowhere near hot enough or for long enough to move the track. The track possibilities are poor P-Way maintenance, bad drainage, repacking or rerailing without proper gauging. If only one train was affected they can be ruled out which leaves problems with the stock itself, one of the two trains that collided on the basis that there was only a single incident, or the manner in which it was driven or reacted thereto. I would imagine that being relatively new trains the characteristics of the individual trains of the stock would be quite consistent so I my initial thought would be that speed was an issue leading to excessive lateral movement. Even so one would have to question how well the stock was suited to the railway and just how comprehensive the track gauging was before its introduction with particular regard for the necessary minimum clearances. One has to wonder if 'passing train movements' were carried out and at what speeds such checks were made if so. Surely a review of line speed was undertaken throughout during tests with prototypes to identify and correct or otherwise mitigate potential collision. |
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on May 14, 2014 8:33:03 GMT
"n a letter to staff he said: "LU engineers are now working to modify the track to ensure that this incident is not repeated."
A picture comes to mind of a long line of P-Way staff, all lying in the six foot, trying to push the offending track back :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on May 14, 2014 10:01:49 GMT
"n a letter to staff he said: "LU engineers are now working to modify the track to ensure that this incident is not repeated." A picture comes to mind of a long line of P-Way staff, all lying in the six foot, trying to push the offending track back :-) It's an interesting picture but LU no longer has 'a long line of P-Way staff' unless things have changed. The trend was for P-Way staff to be let go apart from one or two and for the P-Way managers to use contractors e.g. Cleshar on the Picc for P-Way and Vegetation, they also had cleaning contracts on stations IIRC, there were also the specialists such as Tracklube to maintain the rail greasers. Reconditioning and most rerailing was outsourced to Grant Rail and other contractors although a small in house team was kept for routine maintenance rerailing and emergency work. If the track shifted and has to be realigned then it will all have to be dug out, slewed and reballasted. I suspect poor track maintenance is to blame for the incident with the track moving slowly sideways under normal usage and without regular structure gauging. If you've ever stood at trackside with a train passing at normal line speed it is easy to see where track is vulnerable to movement, wet beds are a frequent culprit as the track will literally bounce up and down by several inches as the bogies pass over, especially at the rail joints. In extreme cases it leads to other problems such as trainstop failure, loosening of nuts and bolts at turnouts and in point equipment altering the gauge of locks, creating lead and lag in the switch rails etc and point failure. I recall a trainstop on the WB fast approaching Acton Town platform that I had to change several times before the 'wet bed' under the nearby rail joint was dug out and reballasted. Acton was also a favourite spot for lifting and packing of points, the whole area subject to movement especially in the rainy months. |
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jun 7, 2014 11:31:21 GMT
The coming together of 2 S Stock. Mr Bootle, who is LU's District Line manager, said there were no injuries in the collision on 1 May, which was caused because of a "very slight movement of the tracks."
'Very slight movement of the track' who is he trying to kid..... If it was very slight movement that caused that, it begs the question how close the trains are normally? |
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Jun 8, 2014 16:51:40 GMT
I think that the trains are normally two hair breadths apart. The track moved three hair breadths  |
|
Ben
Box Boy
Posts: 65 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 9, 2014 9:41:18 GMT
Its funny how this collision went almost uncommented on by the press, whereas the new French trains havent even turned a wheel yet and they've already been slated for needing to alter platforms.
Presumably outside hung doors give an increased risk to the TOp in collisions like this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Jun 10, 2014 9:35:57 GMT
I suppose there's a slight risk, but the driver sits on the "outside" in the cab, so there shold never be any risk of another train scraping the door their side. Worse case scenario for a cab door is that if the other door gets hit at speed, the driver may get hit by flying debris, although even then I think that's unlikely.
Derailments, one-unders, objects on the track, etc. aside, contact between trains and other objects is very rare, considering the amount of journeys made. Out of these, the most common is probably where a train scrapes the platform edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellocontrol on Jun 15, 2014 10:00:18 GMT
I have not seen any response from TfL as to what follow up if any, perhaps there were other sites that were a bit close for comfort and they have been checked out but discreetly?
|
|
