Trouble With Picadilly Line Train Doors

[SpacePhoenix]

This is a little worrying:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35337580

A train door opened on a moving Piccadilly Line train on Saturday morning, prompting an inspection of all the trains on the Piccadilly Line.

The door opened as the train approached Terminal 4 Heathrow, where passengers were taken off the train.

The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union said it was the fifth time it had happened in recent weeks....

 

[swj99]

I'm interested to know how something that happens 5 times can be an isolated incident.

Transport for London (TfL) said it had carried out checks which showed it was an "isolated incident".

 

[cactustwirly]

shouldn't the doors be interlocked, and Emergency brakes automatically applied when this happens.

 

[TheNewNo2]

shouldn't the doors be interlocked, and Emergency brakes automatically applied when this happens.

They should be, yes. Of course what we're reading here is little more than rumours, and it's in the interests of none of the parties to actually tell the truth about what happened.

 

[EM2]

If you're interested in hearing it 'from the horse's mouth', have a read of this Twitter timeline:
https://twitter.com/severedelays/status/688799595695046656
If you prefer not to read Twitter, the series of tweets has been put on Storify:
https://storify.com/nikki/london-underground-policy-on-door-opening-alarms

 

[island]

Well, the outcome of all this appears to be that most of the line's train operators have walked off the job today, leaving a skeleton Picc service running from Heathrow T123 to Acton Town (latterly Hammersmith) most of the day.

 

[Domh245]

Well, the outcome of all this appears to be that most of the line's train operators have walked off the job today, leaving a skeleton Picc service running from Heathrow T123 to Acton Town (latterly Hammersmith) most of the day.

I would say that refusing to take a train out isn't quite the same as walking off the job. For all we know, the drivers turned up, refused to take the trains out, and then went and sat in the mess rooms awaiting a train to become available that had been checked and guaranteed as safe. It'd be interesting to hear what exactly the Piccadilly T/Ops did today? I would guess that they will have lost pay over this, which really hammers home how important safety is to them

 

[island]

I would say that refusing to take a train out isn't quite the same as walking off the job.

I would put it to you that it is entirely the same as far as members of the general public are concerned.

 

[Bletchleyite]

shouldn't the doors be interlocked, and Emergency brakes automatically applied when this happens.

Not all trains have doors interlocked with brakes. It's often just with traction.

 

[185143]

Was this why the service was so poor yesterday? Standing on Arsenal platform from 20:30 to 20:46 with the train being due in 1 minute. (Bailed out for a shack score, train due at 20:31)

Given I was going for the last Manchester train off Euston (21:00).......
Would London Underground have had the same obligations to get me home that a TOC would?

 

[A-driver]

Not all trains have doors interlocked with brakes. It's often just with traction.

Very few are left which don't. A few Unmodified 70/80s built units but most have been modified now.

 

[Mojo]

Very few are left which don't. A few Unmodified 70/80s built units but most have been modified now.

Emergency brake doesn't apply on 73 Stock.

 

[A-driver]

Emergency brake doesn't apply on 73 Stock.

I didn't say they did-just that most modern trains running in the uk presently have interlock linked to brakes.

 

[tsr]

I would put it to you that it is entirely the same as far as members of the general public are concerned.

Do LU not have a "refusal to work on safety grounds" policy?

Where I work, if you genuinely (as in, not maliciously) deem a situation to be too unsafe to work in, you keep yourself and others protected from the hazard if possible, move to a place of safety and follow instructions from there. There is an extensive dispute procedure should you deem said further instructions to be unsafe in and of themselves.

Should one invoke this policy, no disciplinary action can be taken for doing so. This is explicitly stated in the policy. If you have booked on for work then pay does not come into it. I can confirm this, having (partially) invoked this policy on one occasion.

As my employer operates passenger train services I would hope others also have similar policies. If Piccadilly Line drivers refuse to work on safety grounds they should surely not be disciplined, unless the dispute procedures are followed and no grounds are found. In which case, in the event of a dispute like this, I should imagine somebody would be ringing CIRAS and the RSSB very quickly, if they take it seriously. It sounds like they do, with good reason.

 

[island]

If I see evidence that such a procedure exists and was properly followed by the train operators concerned, I will gladly modify my opinion.

 

[Nym]

They should be, yes. Of course what we're reading here is little more than rumours, and it's in the interests of none of the parties to actually tell the truth about what happened.

Not all trains have doors interlocked with brakes. It's often just with traction.

Emergency brake doesn't apply on 73 Stock.

1973 Tube Stock and the sister D78 Surface Stock do not lock the emergency brakes (Safety Brake Circuits) against the signal relays or door safety master relay.

Traction demand is locked against saloon door and non-active cab door interlocks (DSM Relay), as logically, one would not loose a door interlock while moving as no electrical command to release or open the doors should be able to be made above the 'doors speed' of around 4mph.

It is also locked with "Traction Re-Stroking" so that if the TBC is in a position where traction is being demanded, the DSM relay will not pick up and the door interlock will not be achieved, until motoring is no longer being demanded.

 

[philthetube]

Do LU not have a "refusal to work on safety grounds" policy?

Where I work, if you genuinely (as in, not maliciously) deem a situation to be too unsafe to work in, you keep yourself and others protected from the hazard if possible, move to a place of safety and follow instructions from there. There is an extensive dispute procedure should you deem said further instructions to be unsafe in and of themselves.

Should one invoke this policy, no disciplinary action can be taken for doing so. This is explicitly stated in the policy. If you have booked on for work then pay does not come into it. I can confirm this, having (partially) invoked this policy on one occasion.

As my employer operates passenger train services I would hope others also have similar policies. If Piccadilly Line drivers refuse to work on safety grounds they should surely not be disciplined, unless the dispute procedures are followed and no grounds are found. In which case, in the event of a dispute like this, I should imagine somebody would be ringing CIRAS and the RSSB very quickly, if they take it seriously. It sounds like they do, with good reason.

Under Health and safety legislation everyone has a refusal to work on safety grounds policy, LU certainly stress this to drivers during training.

However refusing to work because of a perceived danger to others, (and I am not commenting on whether this specific case was a real threat or not), is a much more difficult area.

 

[bramling]

Under Health and safety legislation everyone has a refusal to work on safety grounds policy, LU certainly stress this to drivers during training.

However refusing to work because of a perceived danger to others, (and I am not commenting on whether this specific case was a real threat or not), is a much more difficult area.

Yes the difficulty occurs if the drivers and/or unions percieve a situation as unsafe but the company doesn't.

Hypothetical example: a control room's regular staff are on strike and the company has managers covering, who have received a slimmed-down training course compared to what a regular controller would have. This sort of scenario can turn messy.

 

[philthetube]

Yes the difficulty occurs if the drivers and/or unions percieve a situation as unsafe but the company doesn't.

Hypothetical example: a control room's regular staff are on strike and the company has managers covering, who have received a slimmed-down training course compared to what a regular controller would have. This sort of scenario can turn messy.

That one is relatively easy, the equipment will not allow control room staff to do anything dangerous, because of interlocking etc. they can only instruct staff to do dangerous things, at which point it is easy to say no.

A much bigger issue is, when as with the Piccadilly line trains, there is an alleged safety fault, that puts train staff in a very difficult position.

 

[MatthewRead]

The worst thing about this is that there aren't any other trains that can replace the 1973 tube stock not until the NTFl comes in and that won't be till at least 2022 and we were promised new trains on the Piccadilly line by 2014 and by which point a daily service from Turnham Green would be introduced once there were new trains in service but why do we have to wait at least 6 years.

 

[Nym]

That one is relatively easy, the equipment will not allow control room staff to do anything dangerous, because of interlocking etc. they can only instruct staff to do dangerous things, at which point it is easy to say no.

How about re-charging traction current with people still working out on the line? That isn't locked.

 

[bramling]

That one is relatively easy, the equipment will not allow control room staff to do anything dangerous, because of interlocking etc. they can only instruct staff to do dangerous things, at which point it is easy to say no.

A much bigger issue is, when as with the Piccadilly line trains, there is an alleged safety fault, that puts train staff in a very difficult position.

Things would soon get dangerous if a control room is only staffed by people who can press buttons. Sooner or later a situation will arise where some form of manual intervention or decision would be required, and if the railway sits down because the controller or signaller doesn't know what they're doing it doesn't take long for things to get dangerous, with trains loaded with potentially 700+ people in potentially hot tunnels.

Also, no response or the wrong response to a situation could be dangerous. Driver reports he's opened the doors on the wrong side, for example. Needless to say consequences could be fatal if juice isn't taken off and trains on an adjacent track stopped.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The worst thing about this is that there aren't any other trains that can replace the 1973 tube stock not until the NTFl comes in and that won't be till at least 2022 and we were promised new trains on the Piccadilly line by 2014 and by which point a daily service from Turnham Green would be introduced once there were new trains in service but why do we have to wait at least 6 years.

The reason for the delay is quite simply that the money disappeared at the same time as Tube Lines was taken over by LU.

From an immediate passenger experience point of view I don't really see a major need to replace the 73 stock. Internally they were fully refurbished in the late 1990s, and the passenger ambience is basically identical to the 95 and 96 stocks. The seat covering is in a poor and worn state, but that's a maintenance issue, and could be easily resolved. Operationally the stock is generally highly reliable nowadays, I believe it now rates amongst the most reliable. We didn't really see a massive decrease in reliability from the 67 or A stocks as they reached 45 to 50 years, so there's no reason to suppose 73 stock reliability should tail off. The stock has all the other features you'd expect from a modern train, eg information displays, wheelchair spaces.

The only immediate benefit from replacement would be a bit of extra space, although of course still constrained by the tunnel size and platform lengths. And maybe a few more trains available for service, and - perhaps - air cooling. Any further benefit will come from a resignalling package, and there's no money immediately available for that at this time.

 

[jopsuk]

The Bakerloo 72 stock has major corrosion issues.

I have no idea how closely the 73 stock has been investigated- it would hardly be a surprise if similar issues were discovered

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The Bakerloo 72 stock has major corrosion issues.

I have no idea how closely the 73 stock has been investigated- it would hardly be a surprise if similar issues were discovered

Is it the 72 or 73 stock that is due to eventually get sent over to the IoW to replace the Island Line's current stock? Will the corrosion issues kill off that idea?