Jump to content
 

London Overground, No Service Today


Recommended Posts

No trains today due to suspension of stock,  I heard that a unit in service  lost components  of the braking  system, the lost parts  were found  during a  track examination.  drivers are  stood down on depots,  stock will   be checked and signed back into service when  safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No trains today due to suspension of stock,  I heard that a unit in service  lost components  of the braking  system, the lost parts  were found  during a  track examination.  drivers are  stood down on depots,  stock will   be checked and signed back into service when  safe.

According to the TfL website at 15:05 today, the only part of the Overground without a service is the Gospel Oak - Barking section, closed for NR electrification works.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having now caught up with the BBC News report, there are elements about this that I suspect simply would not have happened in pre-TfL days, if only because TfL effectively contract out the engineering and maintenance, with the result that there is no-one that will take a balanced risk assessment of the situation. Instead everyone tries to play it safe by stopping the job instead, without thinking of the safety effects of dumping all of the Overground's passenger load onto the parallel operators. Remembering back to two occasions in the 1980s, involving different LU rolling stocks, where a traction motor dropped due to a bracket fracture and led to a derailment, I don't recall the whole fleet as being stopped there and then. Certainly, the whole fleet was checked PDQ (over about two days, I think) and as many units as practicable were pulled from service, inspected and released back to service. Part of the process is identifying as quickly as practicable the cause of the failure, so that engineering judgment can be applied to the scale of the risk, ie is the defect the start of a sudden epidemic, likely to occur again in a short/long time, or probably a one-off. A useful touchstone, taught me by my peers at the time was that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times - you have a problem". Simply stopping everything at the first instance of a failure is not a way to run a railway.

 

Now let's see if they reported it to the RAIB.

 

Jim

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Having now caught up with the BBC News report, there are elements about this that I suspect simply would not have happened in pre-TfL days, if only because TfL effectively contract out the engineering and maintenance, with the result that there is no-one that will take a balanced risk assessment of the situation. Instead everyone tries to play it safe by stopping the job instead, without thinking of the safety effects of dumping all of the Overground's passenger load onto the parallel operators. Remembering back to two occasions in the 1980s, involving different LU rolling stocks, where a traction motor dropped due to a bracket fracture and led to a derailment, I don't recall the whole fleet as being stopped there and then. Certainly, the whole fleet was checked PDQ (over about two days, I think) and as many units as practicable were pulled from service, inspected and released back to service. Part of the process is identifying as quickly as practicable the cause of the failure, so that engineering judgment can be applied to the scale of the risk, ie is the defect the start of a sudden epidemic, likely to occur again in a short/long time, or probably a one-off. A useful touchstone, taught me by my peers at the time was that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times - you have a problem". Simply stopping everything at the first instance of a failure is not a way to run a railway.

 

Now let's see if they reported it to the RAIB.

 

Jim

 

The problem of course is that man in the wig takes a rather different view - as several railwaymen have found out to their embarrassment if not actual cost.  When asked question along the lines 'were you aware of this problem Mr So & so?' and you reply 'yes' the man in the dog will immediately come back with 'So what did you do about it?' and if you then say something along the lines of 'I applied sensible judgement based on my experience' you will be pilloried for not applying precisely what the book says or engineering procedures say and don't forget they will have been written nowadays as much to protect the employer from being sued as they will have been written to apply engineering common sense.

 

This sort of thing started with the Southall and Old Oak Common collisions I know one very experienced railway man who was set upon in court by members of the legal trade, and then the judge, for not having applied the letter of the Rule Book in the precise order printed in the Rule Book when it came to protecting the site.  He was an experienced man whose judgement and course of action I would both respect and support (and my actions would have been little different from his) yet he was seriously taken to task.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Snowdon said at post 7, "A useful touchstone, taught me by my peers at the time was that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times - you have a problem".

 

Going back to my misspent youth, the saying, "Once is happenstance, twice is co-incidence and thrice is enemy action" comes from the main villain in either "Moonraker" or "Goldfinger" - the books by Ian Fleming rather than the films of course. I don't have either of the novels immediately to hand but I suspect it was said by Auric Goldfinger.

Edited by ted675
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...