FCC Pantograph strike at Blackfriars

[hairyhandedfool]

Noticed on my Facespace page a comment about this incident and the impression I have is that it was an 8-car train and the front pantograph did go down (meaning the buzzer in the cab stopped) but the rear did not.

 

[A-driver]

Noticed on my Facespace page a comment about this incident and the impression I have is that it was an 8-car train and the front pantograph did go down (meaning the buzzer in the cab stopped) but the rear did not.

Can see that happening. I have often wondered about that happening at Drayton park as you rely on the DC light and buzzer-you can't see the rear pan from the cab so have to assume it has dropped to an extent.

 

[Katada]

Now I understand why GA class 377s have lit pantographs with cameras pointing at them

 

[Manchester77]

Greater Anglia have 379s
And wouldn't the cameras be for OHLE checking, like virgin having a pendolino fitted with monitoring equipment?

 

[12CSVT]

Only the rear unit had its pantograph up when it arrived at Blackfriars.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Greater Anglia have 379s
And wouldn't the cameras be for OHLE checking, like virgin having a pendolino fitted with monitoring equipment?

It is. It seems that most new fleets are having monitoring equipment fitted at least on some of their fleet. The IEP spec document seemed to mandate half the kit on the NMT being on all of them and almost all the rest being fitted to some of them. Isn't technological progress wonderful?

 

[Whistlekiller]

I often despair at the hysteria whipped up on occasions like this. The sadly predictable and ill-informed initial culprit, Twitter, fuelling the fires for other story starved and inept media, keen for some righteous indignation to trot out.

Everyone wants someone to hang, draw and quarter nowadays don't they? The last thing they want to hear is that it was a simple mechanical fault that couldn't be avoided. Things break, and unfortunately for the vultures, it's not always somebody else's fault.

I'd advise the baying mob to settle down and wait for the results of the inquiry. It makes a lot more sense........

 

[MK Tom]

http://www.london24.com/news/transp...riars_station_as_carriage_hits_roof_1_3171085

Err did that say Southeastern service?

 

[island]

Technically it was a Southeastern service at that stage, no?

 

[ModernRailways]

Err did that say Southeastern service?

It is a SouthEastern service once it reaches Blackfriars.

 

[A-driver]

Err did that say Southeastern service?

Those trains are southeastern/FCC joint services.

 

[A-driver]

I often despair at the hysteria whipped up on occasions like this. The sadly predictable and ill-informed initial culprit, Twitter, fuelling the fires for other story starved and inept media, keen for some righteous indignation to trot out.



Everyone wants someone to hang, draw and quarter nowadays don't they? The last thing they want to hear is that it was a simple mechanical fault that couldn't be avoided. Things break, and unfortunately for the vultures, it's not always somebody else's fault.



I'd advise the baying mob to settle down and wait for the results of the inquiry. It makes a lot more sense........

Very good post, completely agree.

 

[Bedpan]

Well, it was a Southeastern service from Blackfriars to Sevenoaks, even if an FCC service from St Albans to Blackfriars. So they were very close to being right!
--As has been said twice whilst I've been writing this!

 

[MK Tom]

Oh Sevenoaks sorry, I was thinking of Sutton.

 

[jopsuk]

Looking at the pictures, the clearance seems quite low- was Blackfriars' roof not built with OHL in mind (be it as it may that this won't happen any time soon )?

 

[455driver]

Although if it is true that trains can draw current from both systems simultaneously then there is probably no reason why the entire thing can't be done on the move.

Trains can be in contact with both but will only draw current from one at a time.

 

[jon0844]

Looking at the pictures, the clearance seems quite low- was Blackfriars' roof not built with OHL in mind (be it as it may that this won't happen any time soon )?

Yeah, I thought that. I even posted it as a comment on the London24 site, only to have someone blaming FCC (well private operators in general) for not having thought ahead!

I assume that all of the station rebuilding work was undertaken by Network Rail!

 

[mrmatt]

It was mentioned on another post (can't find it now) that when they were planning the Thameslink upgrade they considered taking the wires to Elephant and Castle as it has 4 platforms so a train that failed to switch traction could be reversed without completely blocking the line. The expense and the fact it made the Blackfriars roof design much trickier meant they scrapped the idea and Blackfriars roof was redesigned more simply assuming it would not get OHLE.

That said how far do the wires go exactly? Are they to the end of the platform or the tunnel mouth?

 

[westcoaster]

It was mentioned on another post (can't find it now) that when they were planning the Thameslink upgrade they considered taking the wires to Elephant and Castle as it has 4 platforms so a train that failed to switch traction could be reversed without completely blocking the line. The expense and the fact it made the Blackfriars roof design much trickier meant they scrapped the idea and Blackfriars roof was redesigned more simply assuming it would not get OHLE.

That said how far do the wires go exactly? Are they to the end of the platform or the tunnel mouth?

The wires finish just north of city tl station, there is then a length of non electrified ROCS till the tunnel mouth.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Blackfriars roof has clearance for any future OLE, but I don't remember where. Given that there is no particular reason to keep the roof below a particular height, and the various proposals for conversion of third rail routes, it strikes me as very short-sighted if they haven't provided that clearance.

However even if the roof is high enough to permit OLE, the pantograph could still hit it if the OLE isn't there and the roof is within the maximum exension of the pantograph.

 

[DJL]

I think, having decided not to put up wires, they wanted to keep the roof as low as possible to minimise the visual impact from the river.

But that is based on something I vaguely remember reading sometime that wasn't recent!

 

[westcoaster]

We was told that the reason the glass windows do not go all the way to the roof is because there had to be a way a cross wind could pass the bridge without causing structural problems, maybe that's also why the roof isn't very high.

 

[swt_passenger]

The wires finish just north of city tl station, there is then a length of non electrified ROCS till the tunnel mouth.

Not now, the wires are energised all the way to the south end of City Thameslink station, and northbound DC > AC changeovers are routinely taking place in City Thameslink since the last timetable change. There was an earlier period when the northbound OHLE through City T/L was not energised, but that ended some time last year after the bays at Blackfriars became available again, and various EMU classes were barred from the through route as a result.

 

[westcoaster]

Sorry i put north, when i should of put south.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry i put north, when i should of put south.

Easily done!

I often have to do a double take following the descriptions of what's where because I remember when 'Snow Hill Tunnel' did not include City Thameslink station, the latter being built south of the original portal of the tunnel. Presumably it made a lot of sense to 'logically' extend the tunnel length to include the whole area of the station.

 

[dviner]

Only the rear unit had its pantograph up when it arrived at Blackfriars.

There you go then - train fault.

Easy when you know how.

 

[Class377]

We was told that the reason the glass windows do not go all the way to the roof is because there had to be a way a cross wind could pass the bridge without causing structural problems, maybe that's also why the roof isn't very high.

I'd have thought there could be a way to have a "gap" in the windows near the top or something, providing protection from the elements as we have now but then a bit to allow wind through, and the roof higher up? It does strike e as somewhat strange to have a roof so low that the pantograph is a risk, especially quite soon after the change-over point.

 

[sbt]

There you go then - train fault.

"Ah, but what is the Root Cause, what is the Root Cause my dear Watson? Finding that is not quite so elementary. Quite the Three Pipe Problem for the RAIB."

"No, don't disturb that volume of their reports, its weighing down a leaf I am pressing as part of our joint investigation into Adhesion Problems."

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd have thought there could be a way to have a "gap" in the windows near the top or something, providing protection from the elements as we have now but then a bit to allow wind through, and the roof higher up? It does strike e as somewhat strange to have a roof so low that the pantograph is a risk, especially quite soon after the change-over point.

The problem that is apparent here doesn't necessarily mean the Blackfriars roof is especially low, or too low for a conductor or overhead beam system to be fitted in future.

A pantograph will be always capable of much higher extension than needed to contact typical OHL fitted at a normal height, it's how they deal with the rising OHLE over level crossings.

 

[DJL]

It stands to reason that the OHLE would be a different heights in different places for specific local reasons (not least of which could be differing standards & historical reasons). Therefore the modern pantograph obviously needs to be able to operate over a range of different heights.

So it is not implausible that the roof could be high enough to allow OHLE to be installed and yet still low enough as to obstruct the pantograph if at full height extension.