Thameslink Core pantograph strike

[Horizon22]

I love all these suggestions, all of which add complication. All you need is an illuminated sign saying "Check Pan" set at an appropriate position. And maybe a shore-mounted arrangement so the driver has to leave their controls to acknowledge the notice by pressing a button. Nothing else needed. No lasers, no strings, no insulated run-off, no modulated signal superimposed on the traction current, no balises, no triggers mounted on gantries, no track-mounted magnets, no software. Just a light source, a sign, a switch and a power source.

Do you know how many signs there are at Farringdon already?

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Do you know how many signs there are at Farringdon already?

And at City Thameslink

 

[Samzino]

I love all these suggestions, all of which add complication. All you need is an illuminated sign saying "Check Pan" set at an appropriate position. And maybe a shore-mounted arrangement so the driver has to leave their controls to acknowledge the notice by pressing a button. Nothing else needed. No lasers, no strings, no insulated run-off, no modulated signal superimposed on the traction current, no balises, no triggers mounted on gantries, no track-mounted magnets, no software. Just a light source, a sign, a switch and a power source.

If only it were that simple plus it doesn't still failsafe the fact that a driver who is ecs (and has a moment of lapse) may still continue past the station. This after all is one of the suspected reasons this incident happened as driver were already expected to stop at City or Farringdon to pan drop.

 

[Somewhere]

If this was a mistake it will have cost a good few quid in delay repay as well as inconveniencing many passengers

No one in the industry cares about Delay Repay

 

[SamYeager]

No one in the industry cares about Delay Repay

Why am I not surprised? Maybe if it had an affect on their income?

 

[GordonT]

If only it were that simple plus it doesn't still failsafe the fact that a driver who is ecs (and has a moment of lapse) may still continue past the station. This after all is one of the suspected reasons this incident happened as driver were already expected to stop at City or Farringdon to pan drop.

Shouldn't be beyond the wit of man for relevant signals to be held at red until trains have stopped and panned down?

 

[Bald Rick]

Shouldn't be beyond the wit of man for relevant signals to be held at red until trains have stopped and panned down?

How does the signalling know the pans are down?

 

[ComUtoR]

How does the signalling know the pans are down?

The Driver could then press 'SG'

 

[wagnaga]

How does the signalling know the pans are down?

From what has been said I'm not even sure it needs to know the pans are down. It feels like the issue is that the rare times a train doesn't have to stop is what causes the issue. Just being forced to stop is likely to eliminate the issue almost entirely.

 

[rd749249]

From what has been said I'm not even sure it needs to know the pans are down. It feels like the issue is that the rare times a train doesn't have to stop is what causes the issue. Just being forced to stop is likely to eliminate the issue almost entirely.

I agree with that. We have a similar issue on the Liz line where ECS moves from Westbourne Park that continue ECS after Paddington are forced to stop at Paddington in order for the AR move to finalise at Paddington and not beyond. The signalling system is set in such a way that the train knows to stop, knows to change to a 5 headcode and therefore knows not to release the doors.

 

[ComUtoR]

Just being forced to stop is likely to eliminate the issue almost entirely.

Where should the train be forced to stop ? The RLU or the FLU mark ? If the train is stopped on a Red then is there still a requirement to actually stop on a car mark or should the stopping point be 1 coach from the signal ?

How do you stop Drivers still using AC/DC mode ?

What happens when you introduce a forced stop by Red ? The SPAD risk increases, TPWS and AWS incidents increase too.

Also there will be an increased performance risk. You will lose time waiting for the signal to step up.

Sometimes the simple looking solutions have unintended consequences.

 

[Tim_UK]

I love all these suggestions, all of which add complication. All you need is an illuminated sign saying "Check Pan" set at an appropriate position.

So a few years ago, I ran a software system. Screens that people operated for their job.

And everytime a mistake was made, simple solutions were proposed like an extra ‘tick here to say you checked’. Or make a brighter, bigger warning box. Make that bit have bigger text. These were all implemented (easy add ons for junior software people to do).

But it was very obvious to that people would go straight through the extra steps on autopilot. And simply not see the massive flashing orange box. No improvement to cockups, but frustration with the extra time.

It was the more subtle things which helped - more spacing between rows of text in a table of information. Removing lines from tables and other screen clutter.

(I could write for a whole day about things I learnt about 1 screen for 1 job role over 10 years. It wasn’t safety critical but it was business critical )


So before jumping to conclusions about laser beams, string and signals, remember that human factors are hard and subtle.

Also, if the laser beam fails sometime, the drivers will decide that because they didn’t get a warning, it’s fine. If the mean time between failures of the tech is worse than that of a human, it will have a negative effect.

If the signalling gets super complicated in a non standard way, then this is just setting up for much bigger failures in the future when it gets wired up wrong after maintenance

All the ideas suggested are valid - just will they actually work? Motion rather than progress.

 

[uglymonkey]

Perhaps run the unit with a DC loco to City Thameslink, uncouple and take the loco off, run back with a AC loco couple and proceed.!

 

[Bald Rick]

Just being forced to stop is likely to eliminate the issue almost entirely.

“likely to” doesnt cover all bases.

 

[Samzino]

Still believe a danger signal is the main way to reduce these incidents. Its the ultimate warning about potential danger not just infront of you but actually on and around you. You won't be checking or double checking anything on the go as this incident has shown.

If City Thameslink or Farringdon is an established place to change power then in my opinion the signal should default to red for each train heading towards blackfriars on the platform. Once the driver has done the procedure and other duties they're expected, they just press SG on the GSMR and the signaller ideally will go thru a process of which one may be a visual camera feed showing enough to see both pans aren't up.

This just ensures there are two pairs of eyes confirming pans are down of which one can actually control signals directly.

 

[ComUtoR]

Still believe a danger signal is the main way to reduce these incidents.

What do you do when someone then has a SPAD ?

Its the ultimate warning about potential danger not just infront of you but actually on and around you.

It isn't what signals are for. Signals aren't there to tell me anything about what's happening around my cab.

 

[43066]

And yet, the pantograph smashing into the tunnel at Farringdon was still a regular occurrence.

The dual voltage alarm got cancelled and ignored. Having the same alarm trip, at the same point, on every trip quickly becomes something you cancel and forget.

Okay thanks (and to @Bald Rick), so the 319 buzzer was simply activated by the shoes receiving power at the same time as the pan. That answers my earlier question.

Re. your first paragraph, it would be interesting to know what effect the automation has had on incidents of this type. The 700 systems means drivers never normally have to think about the pan at all in normal working, yet evidently the system isn’t able to deal with relatively common out of course situations, so has perhaps shifted the problem.

The infamous 2014 319 incident
that left scars in the Blackfriars roof was due to the pan springing up of its own accord and the ADD not operating after a mechanical failure, as I recall. (We both worked with the gent unfortunate enough to be involved, incidentally. Has he retired yet? Must be close to it!)

How many extra reds would be involved (and surely they would only show in the event of a trangression) - one or two, and could they be, say, white like a SPAD signal?

I think the suggestion was that each and every train should be brought down to a red.

I love all these suggestions, all of which add complication. All you need is an illuminated sign saying "Check Pan" set at an appropriate position. And maybe a shore-mounted arrangement so the driver has to leave their controls to acknowledge the notice by pressing a button.

Again every driver having to leave the cab builds in delay that cumulatively will exceed the occasional blockbuster pantograph incident.

Why am I not surprised? Maybe if it had an affect on their income?

Bad idea. Delay repay is there to incentivise TOCs to run trains on time. It should (hopefully) be obvious why that must never translate to pressuring staff into rushing safety critical tasks, which I believe was the point being made.

It isn't what signals are for. Signals are there to tell me anything about what's happening around my cab.

Indeed. I’m not sure the relevant workstation at Three Bridges ROC would be too keen on clearing the signal/checking pans on all southbound services at Farringdon. They wouldn’t have time to do anything else!

 

[sh24]

Interesting, so that means there is space to fit overhead wires in the tunnels of the Northern City Line?

It's just a single wire so I very much doubt it.

 

[ComUtoR]

Re. your first paragraph, it would be interesting to know what effect the automation has had on incidents of this type. The 700 systems means drivers never normally have to think about the pan at all in normal working, yet evidently the system isn’t able to deal with relatively common out of course situations, so has perhaps shifted the problem.

Automation introduces new risks and new processes. It's also in part because we don't have full automation. The pan does 'automatically changeover' but still requires a switch to be in 'auto' I guess a big example are the headlights on a 700. When I drove them, most of us would leave the switch on Red. Each time you put the key on, they automatically changed to white. Sounds awesome... However, some will switch White/Red/Off so you would invariably key off and then not check your lights and end up with no reds on the back :/

I've done similar in my car. I drover around 10 miles home last week from getting it serviced and I didn't realise till almost home that my lights weren't on. It was just light enough to drive but the Service techs left my auto switch in 'off' It took me a minute or so to figure out how to turn my headlights on as I don't think I've touched them in a couple of years.

There was another rather infamous incident at Elephant with a 700. The Driver was trying to offside the doors but the CSDE prevented it. However, it was then reported as a fault because the Driver thought the system was broken and not that they released the wrong side. Yes this incident has more to it but if the Human believes the system isn't working, they will try and override it or just completely ignore it.

Has he retired yet?

Nope.

 

[Somewhere]

Delay repay is there to incentivise TOCs to run trains on time.

Is it? It doesn't work! I thought Delay Repay was there just to appease the public

 

[Samzino]

What do you do when someone then has a SPAD ?



It isn't what signals are for. Signals aren't there to tell me anything about what's happening around my cab.

Wouldn't someone SPAD then have addressed a clear lack of awareness that could have been more dangerous elsewhere, earlier?

Indeed agreed signals shouldn't be used for everything in the cab but isn't the while point of them to warn about immediate danger. If a Panto is about to be smacked off at Blackfriars and cause x amount of hours of delays and removal work I'd argue that's not a bad use case for it.

As for the signaller I guess it would be the case of how much a single delay caused by a panto smack off would be vs the extra process per train continuously would be and issued from that if shortcuts are taken.

 

[Deepgreen]

I love all these suggestions, all of which add complication. All you need is an illuminated sign saying "Check Pan" set at an appropriate position. And maybe a shore-mounted arrangement so the driver has to leave their controls to acknowledge the notice by pressing a button. Nothing else needed. No lasers, no strings, no insulated run-off, no modulated signal superimposed on the traction current, no balises, no triggers mounted on gantries, no track-mounted magnets, no software. Just a light source, a sign, a switch and a power source.

Your 'location' is amusing in this context. The existing system is based on signs saying 'Pan Down' or similar. It is not fool-proof, hence the various suggestions. Human error is the basis for very much of the complicated equipment and processes used on the railway and elsewhere.

What do you do when someone then has a SPAD ?



It isn't what signals are for. Signals aren't there to tell me anything about what's happening around my cab.

While I understand your point, it could be argued that signals inform drivers whether it is safe/clear/they have permission to proceed.

 

[Somewhere]

While I understand your point, it could be argued that signals inform drivers whether it is safe/clear/they have permission to proceed.

No. Signals are there purely to keep trains apart and to stop them entering sections where points are again them.
If you start using signals for other purposes, then you are massively increasing risks of trains passing danger signals when you think they haven't been cleared for some other purpose.
For instance , there is a 'RA' indication from platform staff when station duties are complete. They don't clear a signal for that purpose

 

[172007]

Why am I not surprised? Maybe if it had an affect on their income?

It's a mindset, don't chase time ever, don't rush and don't dash changing ends.
The Japanese are obsessed by running late aka delay repay and causing multiple deaths. Google

Amagasaki derailment​

 

[Taunton]

I do take the point though if something happens "in the core", it screws over train services all over from Brighton, Cambridge, Luton and Peterborough. Are the lines in the core bi-directional? So that you could work round a stranded train and run a very limited service on the other line? Or is this not allowed for safety?

As elsewhere, there has been considerable expenditure on bi-di signalling, which it then turns out is unable to be used to advantage because both there needs to be staff dealing with the issue, so no trains are now allowed to run on the opposite line, and also almost all the crossovers have been removed to save the track engineering budget, thus trains can't work around any issue anyway.

In case we think this approach is confined to rail, the road Blackwall Tunnel nearby had a multi-million makeover of its emergency signalling to use just one of the pair of tunnels for two-way traffic when the other was closed for works or an accident, and at the conclusion of the expenditure a separate department decided it was unsafe to have two way traffic in one tunnel (which had been done ever since the two were completed), so it has never been used as intended.

 

[Merle Haggard]

No one in the industry cares about Delay Repay

What I don't know is where the expenditure on delay-repay is debited. Does it come out of the T.O.C.'s income (I know they're only management fee-takers) or some central source? I can't see how there could be a connection between expenditure on delay-repay and the payments through delay attribution for the same incident because it would be very complicated.
I've noticed that some on-train staff are much more interested in drawing the attention of passengers to the availability of delay-repay if the delay is caused by another operator, or even better, Network Rail. For instance, I was on an XC heavily delayed by a points failure (it could have been avoided if the XC driver's route knowledge hadn't been so very limited) and the conductor was very persistent about taking a d-r form - even when I explained I was travelling on a status pass, he said 'fill it in, you should get some free sandwiches'

 

[Deepgreen]

No. Signals are there purely to keep trains apart and to stop them entering sections where points are again them.
If you start using signals for other purposes, then you are massively increasing risks of trains passing danger signals when you think they haven't been cleared for some other purpose.
For instance , there is a 'RA' indication from platform staff when station duties are complete. They don't clear a signal for that purpose

Again, fair points, but signals already are used for other purposes - for example to hold a train for any number of reasons where proceeding would be wrong. The reasons for not entering a section are not just because of points - they include obstructions on the line, for example, which could be taken to include a pantograph not lowered, and therefore likely to cause an obstruction - in other words, the route is not properly set or available until the pan is down. I am not necessarily wedded to using signals for panto purposes, BTW, but it could be the method that involves the least additional equipment and complication.

 

[TFN]

Could something like a tripcock tester like LU have work?

A standalone piece of equipment at City Thameslink on the pantograph that would detect a connection, and would illuminate a white (blue or whatever colour) pantograph sign at the signal.

A vast majority of trains would never have it because they’d drop their pans at Farringdon automatically and if a ECS driver fails to drop it there and sees a light that they never normally see then it should remind the driver about the pantograph.

I’m no engineer or electrician so I don’t know if it’s even possible.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Presumably if the train was in ATO it would stop at every station or if its setup as a Class 5 does it override station stops?

 

[Horizon22]

Bad idea. Delay repay is there to incentivise TOCs to run trains on time. It should (hopefully) be obvious why that must never translate to pressuring staff into rushing safety critical tasks, which I believe was the point being made.

Not sure it is. It is to compensate passengers who have been inconvenienced. Controllers, signallers and drivers don't make decisions on trying to get a train less than 15 minutes late, rather make decisions so that overall the service goes back to normal and leads to a reduction in overall delay & inconvenience.