2O41 28/11/23 SWR on the Kingston loop

[Notchapple]

Currently on the 2O41, going to Earlsfield, journey was going fine until Wimbledon when the driver tried to set off and the train rolled back. He stopped the train and tried again, it rolled back. Power then went out for a few minutes(assume full restart) and the train was working. However, the guard then announced we were going fast to Waterloo and no one was allowed to get off the train.

Is there some sort of safety measure in place causing the guard to not reopen the doors?

 

[Deepgreen]

That's especially odd as there is no discernible gradient at Wimbledon station as far as I know. Which stock was involved?

 

[Notchapple]

That's especially odd as there is no discernible gradient at Wimbledon station as far as I know. Which stock was involved?

According to RTT, 455874 & 455723 I didn't get to note the units at Waterloo as we were told to stay on the train for the return journey.

 

[brad465]

The RTT log is currently odd for this (presumably errors): it's picked up that Earlsfield and Vauxhall were skipped, but thinks it departed Clapham Junction (16:14 1/2) before it arrived (16:15), and it's put its passing time through West London jct the second time under the first time and says it's 67 late. It got to Waterloo 16:21 1/4 in the end only 2 mins late:


(Screenshot of the Realtime trains log for 2O41 1500 London Waterloo to London Waterloo)

 

[30907]

According to RTT, 455874 & 455723 I didn't get to note the units at Waterloo as we were told to stay on the train for the return journey.

Were you eventually allowed to get off?

 

[Towers]

According to RTT, 455874 & 455723 I didn't get to note the units at Waterloo as we were told to stay on the train for the return journey.

Can you clarify that - the train ran fast to Waterloo but then left again to make a return journey? That would indeed be most odd!

Edited to add: traction fault which was rectified, sets did indeed run their next journey. Departed WAT 2 mins late at 16:29, formation has remained in service all evening so presumably no further problems reported thus far.

OP it was presumably a case of getting the late running train out of the way, rather than an issue actually preventing it from calling at subsequent stations. That close to Waterloo I can understand the decision, it wasn’t a massive delay (albeit a delay all the same) to ship everyone into W’loo and then back out again.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The 67 late on the return run seems to be a misreading by the system, as it's actually the time it passed West London Junction on the way back into Wterloo on the Windsor side having been round the houses. This does occasakionally happen on the "Rounders" - you also get the automated announcements announcing stations the train has already been to, or asking hyou to "Mind the Gap" at Queenstown Road when you are on the main side (and there are four or five tracks between you and the platform)

 

[Horizon22]

The RTT log is currently odd for this (presumably errors): it's picked up that Earlsfield and Vauxhall were skipped, but thinks it departed Clapham Junction (16:14 1/2) before it arrived (16:15), and it's put its passing time through West London jct the second time under the first time and says it's 67 late. It got to Waterloo 16:21 1/4 in the end only 2 mins late:

View attachment 147470
(Screenshot of the Realtime trains log for 2O41 1500 London Waterloo to London Waterloo)

When services run fast (which this did) RTT occasionally gets that sort of anomaly.

 

[Trainguy34]

Even worse on RHTTs in Kent, as I find often when trying to track where to see them..

 

[Notchapple]

Were you eventually allowed to get off?

Yes

OP it was presumably a case of getting the late running train out of the way, rather than an issue actually preventing it from calling at subsequent stations. That close to Waterloo I can understand the decision, it wasn’t a massive delay (albeit a delay all the same) to ship everyone into W’loo and then back out again.

I'd understand if the doors were opened at Wimbledon and passengers who weren't going to Waterloo had the chance to get off and then it ran fast to Waterloo. However that didn't happen and everyone was told: sorry for the inconvenience we're going fast to Waterloo, doors are not opening.

You may say it wasn't a massive delay but I, and many other Earlsfield passengers, ended up arriving there almost half an hour after the next train from Wimbledon would've arrived at Earlsfield.

 

[bb21]

Yes

I'd understand if the doors were opened at Wimbledon and passengers who weren't going to Waterloo had the chance to get off and then it ran fast to Waterloo. However that didn't happen and everyone was told: sorry for the inconvenience we're going fast to Waterloo, doors are not opening.

You may say it wasn't a massive delay but I, and many other Earlsfield passengers, ended up arriving there almost half an hour after the next train from Wimbledon would've arrived at Earlsfield.

I won't profess to know exactly what went on however if they did not have an inkline what was causing the traction issue, the safest resolution once it regained traction following a reboot is to run it to the destination. The risk with reopening the doors (assuming train had not yet moved from its starting position - if it did and two doors had moved off the platform it is straight to the next suitable location) is that had it been an intermittent interlock issue that was causing the symptom, you'd be back to square one again, and unfortunately you are deep in the middle of a crucial corridor bang in the middle of the afternoon peak where you cannot really afford to risk any delay at all where possible.

It also has to be balanced against the resultant inconvenience to passengers (not to mention risks due to stranded trains which there would have been several of). On the balance of it they probably did the best they could with the information available at the time and better to ask some passengers to circulate via Waterloo then potentially delaying hundreds of them on trains behind, but there is no perfect solution. In an ideal world trains wouldn't fail but these are 40+ year old units effectively already life-expired so there is only so much which can be done.

 

[swr444]

The 67 late on the return run seems to be a misreading by the system, as it's actually the time it passed West London Junction on the way back into Wterloo on the Windsor side having been round the houses. This does occasakionally happen on the "Rounders" - you also get the automated announcements announcing stations the train has already been to, or asking hyou to "Mind the Gap" at Queenstown Road when you are on the main side (and there are four or five tracks between you and the platform)

that's because the guard hasn't updated the code at the half way point. so it is announcing the teddington via richmond calling pattern. We are meant to change the code at strawberry hill or can also change it at twickenham/kingston.

 

[norbitonflyer]

that's because the guard hasn't updated the code at the half way point. so it is announcing the teddington via richmond calling pattern. We are meant to change the code at strawberry hill or can also change it at twickenham/kingston.

That would seem to explain it. Except I think I've heard it happen on the outward leg too.

 

[driverd]

No knowledge of the event so just a suspicion, but this sounds like a Traction Interlock issue.

The traction/door interlock prevents taking power if the doors are not detected as closed correctly. On many traction types, you will still get a brake release, without power, if there is a fault in this system. When the traction interlock switch is operated, this safety system is overridden, however, it requires a manual check that every door on the train is closed and secure at every station (which would explain fast to Waterloo).

Anyone confirm?

 

[Notchapple]

I won't profess to know exactly what went on however if they did not have an inkline what was causing the traction issue, the safest resolution once it regained traction following a reboot is to run it to the destination. The risk with reopening the doors (assuming train had not yet moved from its starting position - if it did and two doors had moved off the platform it is straight to the next suitable location) is that had it been an intermittent interlock issue that was causing the symptom, you'd be back to square one again, and unfortunately you are deep in the middle of a crucial corridor bang in the middle of the afternoon peak where you cannot really afford to risk any delay at all where possible.

It also has to be balanced against the resultant inconvenience to passengers (not to mention risks due to stranded trains which there would have been several of). On the balance of it they probably did the best they could with the information available at the time and better to ask some passengers to circulate via Waterloo then potentially delaying hundreds of them on trains behind, but there is no perfect solution. In an ideal world trains wouldn't fail but these are 40+ year old units effectively already life-expired so there is only so much which can be done.

Ah, I was not aware the doors opening could have caused the issue to reoccur, now it makes sense why they ran us straight to Waterloo. Thanks all for the replies.

 

[joystick]

Without interlock you can not release the brakes , the 2nd part of what driverd said is correct, It would be more likely a traction power issue and once they got moving probably didn't want it stopping again

 

[driverd]

Without interlock you can not release the brakes , the 2nd part of what driverd said is correct, It would be more likely a traction power issue and once they got moving probably didn't want it stopping again

Do you know if 455s have door/brake interlock or just door/traction? I've never signed them, but I've known both (eg: 321s only had door/traction interlock, as such, you could roll away with the doors wide open). Switch sensitivity was also an issue, where by, you may get a brake but not power. 150s are a particular pain for this - doors can be closed enough to get brake, but not quite enough for power (eg: with a small item trapped in the door).

 

[joystick]

The Swr 455 have door/brake interlock , before South west trains converted them to AC you would lose traction power if interlock was lost .

 

[bb21]

No knowledge of the event so just a suspicion, but this sounds like a Traction Interlock issue.

The traction/door interlock prevents taking power if the doors are not detected as closed correctly. On many traction types, you will still get a brake release, without power, if there is a fault in this system. When the traction interlock switch is operated, this safety system is overridden, however, it requires a manual check that every door on the train is closed and secure at every station (which would explain fast to Waterloo).

Anyone confirm?

In this specific case had TIS been operated then it would have been everybody off, if necessary via local door. You would not risk someone falling out the doors which may open mid-journey without the crew knowing when you're already at a major station like Wimbledon. In such considerations safety concerns will always far outweigh delays. Obviously you have to manually check every single door is closed shut and held closed by air whether to keep passengers onboard or not.

The only reason passengers are allowed to be carried to the next suitable location when TIS are operated is to prevent them being stranded lineside or at a small/rural/deserted/unsuitable location without facilities or help.

Ah, I was not aware the doors opening could have caused the issue to reoccur, now it makes sense why they ran us straight to Waterloo. Thanks all for the replies.

It is just one of the possibilities off the top of my head, but equally possible someone made a bit of a hash of the situation although without knowing the exact detail of the incident it is hard to say for definite, just that in the heat of the moment you had to make a best judgement call, and that may turn out in hindsight to be less than optimal at times, but we live and learn. Looks like they may have just considered that risk not worth taking so safest to run it to Waterloo non-stop and take it from there.

 

[driverd]

In this specific case had TIS been operated then it would have been everybody off, if necessary via local door. You would not risk someone falling out the doors which may open mid-journey without the crew knowing when you're already at a major station like Wimbledon.

I can appreciate why a TOCs contingency plan may stipulate this, but if only TIS has been raised and not EBS, the risk of the doors opening (if held closed by air as per normal and checked), would be no different to regular operations. If a door were to be opened by egress, the train would still stop as per usual, as train wire 4 would still be broken. The door/brake interlock would still be in working order and as such the train couldn't move with the doors open.

In such considerations safety concerns will always far outweigh delays. Obviously you have to manually check every single door is closed shut and held closed by air whether to keep passengers onboard or not.

The only reason passengers are allowed to be carried to the next suitable location when TIS are operated is to prevent them being stranded lineside or at a small/rural/deserted/unsuitable location without facilities or help.

Fair enough - is that an SWR specific contingency? Obviously it's very TOC dependent - it isn't something that we'd immediately detain for in my experience - though obviously things do change.

 

[43066]

I can appreciate why a TOCs contingency plan may stipulate this, but if only TIS has been raised and not EBS, the risk of the doors opening (if held closed by air as per normal and checked), would be no different to regular operations. If a door were to be opened by egress, the train would still stop as per usual, as train wire 4 would still be broken. The door/brake interlock would still be in working order and as such the train couldn't move with the doors open.



Fair enough - is that an SWR specific contingency? Obviously it's very TOC dependent - it isn't something that we'd immediately detain for in my experience - though obviously things do change.

I think most TOCs take the approach that, once you’re isolating safety systems, it’s a case of detraining and continuing ECS to get the unit out of the way. That’s certainly the position where I am now, and at my previous TOC.

I’d be very dubious of anyone in control or maintenance asking me to continue in service.

 

[LAX54]

Even worse on RHTTs in Kent, as I find often when trying to track where to see them..

Keeping the same headcode when passing reporting points within a fairly short space of time, can confuse TRUST, and get false reports, when (on the G.E) we had the old Sandite units, the headodes used to changed en route.. 1) to reflect the slower speed, when applying, and 2) to avoid errors in reporting.

 

[driverd]

I think most TOCs take the approach that, once you’re isolating safety systems, it’s a case of detraining and continuing ECS to get the unit out of the way. That’s certainly the position where I am now, and at my previous TOC.

I’d be very dubious of anyone in control or maintenance asking me to continue in service.

Why be dubious? The methods of degraded working exist for a reason. Certainly at my last TOC, you were fine to continue to the end of the journey with 1 safety system isolated (provided degraded working rules applied and contingency plan was followed). The train wouldn't go back into service once the journey was completed, however.

 

[43066]

Why be dubious? The methods of degraded working exist for a reason. Certainly at my last TOC, you were fine to continue to the end of the journey with 1 safety system isolated (provided degraded working rules applied and contingency plan was followed). The train wouldn't go back into service once the journey was completed, however.

Because sometimes we are asked to do things that contravene the TOC’s own policies, and that won’t necessarily be discoverable at the time. If something goes wrong the driver would potentially get the blame for continuing. Hence it’s generally better to err on the side of caution. As an established driver, with the respect of management, making these decisions should never be a problem; it’s what we are there to do.

There’s no way I would feel comfortable driving a train with passengers aboard if the traction interlock circuit was isolated, and no real need to in a busy corridor with stations very close together. Running fast is all very well, but there’s a good chance of someone missing the announcement, then panicking and egressing when the train passes through their stop.

It’s a very rare eventuality, in any case.