Incident involving 2G14 (0706 from Guildford) at Clapham Jn on 18/08

[Dieseldriver]

EAD, no worries mate, sorry if I initially seemed defensive. Unfortunately I get so used to people 'attacking' the driving grade. I was also trying to make you aware of just how many things can cause an emergency brake application on a train (in a car if the brakes slam on, it is because the driver slammed their foot on the pedal, on a train there are many reasons why it could have occured). Thank you for your comments about the train crew, incidents do happen, and, by and large the crew involved will try to remain professional. andrewkeith5, it does appear it was a TPWS activation in the end, yes. Try not to appear too smug about that, TOCs take them very seriously and I've never actually once said it wasn't a TPWS activation.

 

[talltim]

I started reading the thread wondering why the MOD would be involved!

 

[embers25]

I started reading the thread wondering why the MOD would be involved!

You'd be amazed at the reasons given for blocking messages....that being said I'm sure being a mod is a thankless task!

 

[carriageline]

The official reason from Network Rail:



At 0802 the driver of 2G14, HY, 0706 Guildford – London Waterloo, reported that the TPWS Overspeed Sensor had activated on the approach to W120 signal, which was displaying a red aspect on the Up Main Slow line at Clapham Junction whilst travelling at approximately 45mph with unit 455703. The OSS is set to intervene at 41.5mph.

Control logs shouldn't be posted on forums, and infact could easily land you in hot water.

I do feel for the OP, i can tell it wasn't an attack at the driver, merely his own opinion. Whilst yes, it could of been worded a lot better for our sensitive drivers ( ), it wasn't the worse I have seen (ie 'I was on a train this morning that had a TPWS act., we all could of died!!!')

We all know what speculation and assumptions cause, and as a fellow rail professional we often get accused and subject to speculation over what has happened, (which often appears to be false) but the general public only have limited knowledge, and frankly I'm happy for people to come on and ASK questions, that's why I'm here, to try and share knowledge/experience.

 

[najaB]

You'd be amazed at the reasons given for blocking messages....that being said I'm sure being a mod is a thankless task!

*psst* I think it was a joke about the MoD being involved.

 

[Deepgreen]

So putting the word 'seemed' in there makes it alright does it! :roll:

If that is the case why is it that my post where I said the OP seemed to be a <oopsy> was quickly deleted and I received some 'advice' from a MOD about my posting style?

Yes, it does, because it fundamentally qualifies the statement as a personal view and invites explanatory responses from those with the facts, which is what the OP stated he wanted.

I suspect your post was deleted because, unlike the OP's, it was intended as a personal attack, assuming the word replaced by "oopsy" was an abusive one?

 

[455driver]

I suspect your post was deleted because, unlike the OP's, it was intended as a personal attack, assuming the word replaced by "oopsy" was an abusive one?

But I used the word 'seem' so it couldn't have been an attack!

 

[EAD]

But I used the word 'seem' so it couldn't have been an attack!

All water under the bridge 455.

 

[ainsworth74]

You'd be amazed at the reasons given for blocking messages....that being said I'm sure being a mod is a thankless task!

That's one way of putting it

*psst* I think it was a joke about the MoD being involved.

Suggesting we aren't, in fact, part of the MoD?

 

[najaB]

Suggesting we aren't, in fact, part of the MoD?

Please don't tell me - I want to live!