"Emergency engineering works" at Wandsworth Common meant my train, and
no doubt many others, were delayed for an hour coming into Victoria.
Totally unacceptable - what a way to run a railway.  This sort of power
failure simply should not happen.  Ever.

More high jinks at Clapham Jn when passengers in the rear 4 coaches of
this 12-car 377 were told to move to the front 8 coaches in order to
alight at plat 14 (plat 12 being closed).  I guess this is something to
do with selective door opening but really, why on earth couldn't the
doors be opened manually?  The platforms were there, after all.

Richard

On 2 Aug 2005 03:31:53 -0700, Richard wrote:


> This sort of power failure simply should not happen.  Ever.


But it will. Chalk it down to experience.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12906824.html
(47 146 at Basingstoke, 2 Apr 1998)

But *why* will it?  I have travelled by rail extensively in Europe and
power failures leading to hour-long delays are unheard of.  Surely we
can do better than this.

Richard

Richard wrote:

> But *why* will it?  I have travelled by rail extensively in Europe and
> power failures leading to hour-long delays are unheard of.  Surely we
> can do better than this.


Really? I was once held up in Mainz for *four* hours because of OHLE
problems.

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:31:53 UTC, "Richard"  
wrote:

: "Emergency engineering works" at Wandsworth Common meant my train, and
: no doubt many others, were delayed for an hour coming into Victoria.
: Totally unacceptable - what a way to run a railway.  This sort of power
: failure simply should not happen.  Ever.

How much extra would you be willing to pay in fares or taxes for that 
to be the case?

Ian

--

Let me answer that question by asking you another one.  Why is it not
already the case under current levels of subsidy and fare revenue?

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:10:15 UTC, "Richard"  
wrote:

: Let me answer that question by asking you another one.  Why is it not
: already the case under current levels of subsidy and fare revenue?

Do you think it should be? If so, why? 

Is it worth spending public money on getting a system from, say, 99% 
reliability to 99.9%, or 99.99%

Ian

"Why is it not already the case under current levels of subsidy and
fare revenue?"

Because that would be very difficult/unlikely. Believe it or not, we
already get a lot for our money. The railways carry more and more
traffic each year but total revenue has not grown in line with this.
Total government funding is, I believe, now around 5p per passenger km.

There are other countries with slightly better railways, but they only
do so at much greater expense.

The last time I looked, out of 17 European countries, the UK was 5th in
terms of declared subsidy per passenger-km (and there are lots of
hidden subsidies outside the UK), and a couple of the 4 above us had
railways borrowing heavily to fund services (so they'll need a huge
subsidy in future). Each of these has strengths and weaknesses in rail
services, but none has drastically better passenger service than the
UK.

It might be nice to reelectrify the third rail network with reliable,
efficient modern technology - but if you want that you'd have to pay
for it. Pay more.

I too "have travelled by rail extensively in Europe", and experienced
occasional delays just like in the UK.

"Richard"  wrote in message 
news:1122985895.205551.35900@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> But *why* will it?  I have travelled by rail extensively in Europe and
> power failures leading to hour-long delays are unheard of.  Surely we
> can do better than this.
>
> Richard
>

Try Switzerland about a month ago- the entire railway network shut down for 
four hours or more due to power supply problems. There are also often 
problems in the Bordeaux/Landes areas in weather such as we are currently 
experiencing due to catenary problems- over-expansion of the copper wires 
causes it to wrap around the pantograph heads.
Brian

On 2 Aug 2005 05:31:35 -0700, Richard wrote:


> But *why* will it?  I have travelled by rail extensively in Europe and
> power failures leading to hour-long delays are unheard of.


Power failures happen elsewhere at roughly the same rate as here, which
is by anyone's reckoning rather rarely. Occasionally, as in .ch a few
weeks ago, large parts of the country grind to a halt.

Like you, I've been on trains all over the continent. I've certainly
experienced difficulties of one sort or another (not all power failures)
in .de, .ch, .fr and .pt. Of those, the worst (4 hrs in one incident)
was in .pt. It's just a fact of life. Try not to get stressed about it.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683641.html
(53469 (Class 104) at Manchester Piccadilly, Jun 1985)

Ian Johnston wrote:

:: Let me answer that question by asking you another one.  Why is it
not
:: already the case under current levels of subsidy and fare revenue?

:Do you think it should be? If so, why?

:Is it worth spending public money on getting a system from, say, 99%
:reliability to 99.9%, or 99.99%

Yes, I do think it should be.  The railway system should indeed be 99%
reliable.  Why?  Because we as passengers deserve it.  At the moment,
of course, it's very far from 99%.  

Richard

bobrayner wrote:

"Because that would be very difficult/unlikely. Believe it or not, we
already get a lot for our money. The railways carry more and more
traffic each year but total revenue has not grown in line with this."

I don't agree.  Subsidy may be high but performance is not
commensurately high.  Why?  Because the system is inefficient.  Network
Rail, for example, charges huge sums to carry out maintenance and
repair work, due in part to its extreme risk aversion.   To return to
my original gripe as an example, it should be possible to install and
operate a 99% reliable power supply for the Southern Region within
current subsidy and farebox levels.   The industry just isn't trying
hard enough.

Richard

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:54:45 UTC, "Richard"  
wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
: 
: :: Let me answer that question by asking you another one.  Why is it
: not
: :: already the case under current levels of subsidy and fare revenue?
: 
: :Do you think it should be? If so, why?
: 
: :Is it worth spending public money on getting a system from, say, 99%
: :reliability to 99.9%, or 99.99%
: 
: Yes, I do think it should be.  The railway system should indeed be 99%
: reliable.  Why?  Because we as passengers deserve it.  At the moment,
: of course, it's very far from 99%.  

Ah, but you wanted one which never had these failures. That's 100% 
reliable, which in practice means 99.-some-number-of-nines percent 
reliable, and that is going to cost a lot more money.

Ian

Ian wrote:

"Ah, but you wanted one which never had these failures. That's 100%
reliable, which in practice means 99.-some-number-of-nines percent
reliable, and that is going to cost a lot more money."

You're right - I should have said that the system ought to be 99.99%
reliable.  And I believe that is achievable within current subsidy and
farebox levels.  The industry just needs to become more efficient at
spending the money it has already got.

Richard

"it should be possible to install and operate a 99% reliable power
supply for the Southern Region within current subsidy and farebox
levels.   The industry just isn't trying hard enough."

OK, I'll bite.
What ideas do you have about power supply reliability that have not yet
occurred to (or been implemented by) anybody in "the industry"? Could
you give us some examples?

In article , 
pookster2607@yahoo.co.uk says...

> "Emergency engineering works" at Wandsworth Common meant my train, and
> no doubt many others, were delayed for an hour coming into Victoria.
> Totally unacceptable - what a way to run a railway.  This sort of power
> failure simply should not happen.  Ever.
>

In the REAL world things like this do happen - can be due to vandalism 
or things entirely out of control of the railway operators.

In this case it was the 0750 Gatwick Airport to Victoria which dislodged 
a conductor rail in the Wandsworth Common area. This effectively closed 
50% of the lines towards Victoria - only the slow lines remaining open. 
 

> More high jinks at Clapham Jn when passengers in the rear 4 coaches of
> this 12-car 377 were told to move to the front 8 coaches in order to
> alight at plat 14 (plat 12 being closed).  I guess this is something to
> do with selective door opening but really, why on earth couldn't the
> doors be opened manually?  The platforms were there, after all.
> 


Platform 14 at Clapham Junction will only accommodate 8 coaches being on 
the 'slow' lines where the booked maximum train length is 8 coaches. 
Would you rather all passengers in the rear four coaches jumped out onto 
the ballast and/or conductor rail - causing far more delays rather than 
just walking forward a few coaches - inconvenient yes, but necessary. 
Clapham Junction is classed as a 12 car station for SDO operation on 377 
units as these are only ever BOOKED on the fast lines (platforms 12 and 
13), when they are BOOKED to be diverted onto the slow lines (platforms 
14 & 15) the maximum length is limited to 8 cars. At times of disruption 
when trains do run on alternative lines, like this morning, the correct 
course of action was taken by the traincrew.  There are plans to place 
sensors on the approach to some platforms which will activate the 
appropriate number of doors. Clapham Junction is one of these stations, 
Balcombe and Lewes (Brighton platforms) being others where platform 
lengths differ depending on route or direction. Until these are 
installed the above course of action you describe will continue.


> Richard
> 

I am surprised no other readers have picked up on this - rather than 
saying how bad british railways are compared to other countries. 

Travelled on 1547 Victoria to Hastings this afternoon - right on time 
and correct formation. The guys in Control managed to get the service 
sorted out to get people home on time - well done to them !

Yes - I do work for Southern Railway !

"Phil Hills"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d59b8b4dd035d3698968b@news-europe.giganews.com...

> In article ,
> pookster2607@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> "Emergency engineering works" at Wandsworth Common meant my train, and
>> no doubt many others, were delayed for an hour coming into Victoria.
>> Totally unacceptable - what a way to run a railway.  This sort of power
>> failure simply should not happen.  Ever.
>>
> In the REAL world things like this do happen - can be due to vandalism
> or things entirely out of control of the railway operators.
>
> In this case it was the 0750 Gatwick Airport to Victoria which dislodged
> a conductor rail in the Wandsworth Common area. This effectively closed
> 50% of the lines towards Victoria - only the slow lines remaining open.
>
>> More high jinks at Clapham Jn when passengers in the rear 4 coaches of
>> this 12-car 377 were told to move to the front 8 coaches in order to
>> alight at plat 14 (plat 12 being closed).  I guess this is something to
>> do with selective door opening but really, why on earth couldn't the
>> doors be opened manually?  The platforms were there, after all.
>>
>
> Platform 14 at Clapham Junction will only accommodate 8 coaches being on
> the 'slow' lines where the booked maximum train length is 8 coaches.
> Would you rather all passengers in the rear four coaches jumped out onto
> the ballast and/or conductor rail - causing far more delays rather than
> just walking forward a few coaches - inconvenient yes, but necessary.
> Clapham Junction is classed as a 12 car station for SDO operation on 377
> units as these are only ever BOOKED on the fast lines (platforms 12 and
> 13), when they are BOOKED to be diverted onto the slow lines (platforms
> 14 & 15) the maximum length is limited to 8 cars. At times of disruption
> when trains do run on alternative lines, like this morning, the correct
> course of action was taken by the traincrew.  There are plans to place
> sensors on the approach to some platforms which will activate the
> appropriate number of doors. Clapham Junction is one of these stations,
> Balcombe and Lewes (Brighton platforms) being others where platform
> lengths differ depending on route or direction. Until these are
> installed the above course of action you describe will continue.
>
>> Richard
>>
> I am surprised no other readers have picked up on this - rather than
> saying how bad british railways are compared to other countries.
>
> Travelled on 1547 Victoria to Hastings this afternoon - right on time
> and correct formation. The guys in Control managed to get the service
> sorted out to get people home on time - well done to them !
>
> Yes - I do work for Southern Railway !
>
>

How sad for you.

On 2 Aug 2005 05:31:35 -0700, "Richard" 
wrote:


>But *why* will it?  I have travelled by rail extensively in Europe and
>power failures leading to hour-long delays are unheard of.  


Power failures caused a *complete* collapse of the
often-considered-perfect Swiss railway system recently.  I am not
aware of anything, strikes excepted, that has ever disabled the entire
UK railway network for that length of time, or indeed any part of it
comparable in size with the entire Swiss network.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:25:14 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On 2 Aug 2005 05:31:35 -0700, "Richard" 
>wrote:
>
>>But *why* will it?  I have travelled by rail extensively in Europe and
>>power failures leading to hour-long delays are unheard of.  
>
>Power failures caused a *complete* collapse of the
>often-considered-perfect Swiss railway system recently.  I am not
>aware of anything, strikes excepted, that has ever disabled the entire
>UK railway network for that length of time, or indeed any part of it
>comparable in size with the entire Swiss network.


Hatfield?

Phil Hills wrote:

> In article ,
> pookster2607@yahoo.co.uk says...
> > "Emergency engineering works" at Wandsworth Common meant my train, and
> > no doubt many others, were delayed for an hour coming into Victoria.
> > Totally unacceptable - what a way to run a railway.  This sort of power
> > failure simply should not happen.  Ever.
> >
> In the REAL world things like this do happen - can be due to vandalism
> or things entirely out of control of the railway operators.
>
> In this case it was the 0750 Gatwick Airport to Victoria which dislodged
> a conductor rail in the Wandsworth Common area. This effectively closed
> 50% of the lines towards Victoria - only the slow lines remaining open.


I also experienced the distruption this morning.

I was curious to know what exactly had happened to cause the power
problems, so thanks for the explaination. How common is a dislodged
conductor rail, and do any particular types of trains cause it more
than others?

"Neil Williams"  wrote


> I am not
> aware of anything, strikes excepted, that has ever disabled the entire
> UK railway network for that length of time, or indeed any part of it
> comparable in size with the entire Swiss network.
>

IIRC the 1987 storm shut down pretty well all of Network SouthEast for a
whole day (partly because the National Grid shut down in South East England,
which wasn't much help for electric trains, and partly because all lines
were blocked by fallen trees).

Peter.

Peter

"asdf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:j1cve11ng2h0ufes3pf28ofs1f86cddoah@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:25:14 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> Williams) wrote:
>
>>On 2 Aug 2005 05:31:35 -0700, "Richard" 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But *why* will it?  I have travelled by rail extensively in Europe and
>>>power failures leading to hour-long delays are unheard of.
>>
>>Power failures caused a *complete* collapse of the
>>often-considered-perfect Swiss railway system recently.  I am not
>>aware of anything, strikes excepted, that has ever disabled the entire
>>UK railway network for that length of time, or indeed any part of it
>>comparable in size with the entire Swiss network.
>
> Hatfield?

Hatfield slowed things down a lot and buggered up time-keeping for a long 
while but, apart from the trains in the immediate vicinity ,didn't cause 
anything like as much short-term disruption as the Swiss incident. I would 
suggest that travellers elsewhere on the UK Network that day didn't notice 
any noticeable disruption attributable to Hatfield. However, once the cause 
was suggested as being 'gauge-corner-cracking', blanket speed restrictions 
were imposed on similar locations nationwide.
Brian

Phil Hills wrote:


> In this case it was the 0750 Gatwick Airport to Victoria which dislodged
> a conductor rail in the Wandsworth Common area.


How did this happen?  What caused it?  I suggest that it could and
should have been prevented.


> Platform 14 at Clapham Junction will only accommodate 8 coaches being on
> the 'slow' lines where the booked maximum train length is 8 coaches.
> Would you rather all passengers in the rear four coaches jumped out onto
> the ballast and/or conductor rail - causing far more delays rather than
> just walking forward a few coaches - inconvenient yes, but necessary.


I was in the fourth coach from the rear and there was a platform next
to it.


> There are plans to place
> sensors on the approach to some platforms which will activate the
> appropriate number of doors. Clapham Junction is one of these stations,
> Balcombe and Lewes (Brighton platforms) being others where platform
> lengths differ depending on route or direction. Until these are
> installed the above course of action you describe will continue.


Surely a better idea would have been for the train crew to manually
open all doors in the rear four coaches that had platforms next to
them.

Richard

bobrayner wrote:

"What ideas do you have about power supply reliability that have not
yet
occurred to (or been implemented by) anybody in "the industry"? Could
you give us some examples?"

No, I couldn't - and in a way that is precisely my point.  What are
needed are radical solutions to train and network reliability,
solutions that no-one has come up with before.  I expect the industry
to come up with these within current affordability constraints.  If it
doesn't, it's letting us all down.

Richard

"Richard"  wrote

>
> I was in the fourth coach from the rear and there was a platform next
> to it.
>
> Surely a better idea would have been for the train crew to manually
> open all doors in the rear four coaches that had platforms next to
> them.
>

Do you think this would have been quicker than asking passengers to move
forward, when there's a queue of trains stratching back to Croydon waiting
to use that platform?

However, it does strike me that Control/the signallers may have been a bit
slow to react to the problem. It was inevitable that the train that
dislodged the conductor rail, and perhaps one or two trapped behind it,
would have been badly delayed, but if it is true that other trains were
delayed by up to an hour, they should instead have been terminated at East
Croydon, or diverted to London Bridge. At least, we hear, that at least one
GatEx was diverted via Tusle Hill and Herne Hill.

Peter

"Richard"  wrote

>
> No, I couldn't - and in a way that is precisely my point.  What are
> needed are radical solutions to train and network reliability,
> solutions that no-one has come up with before.  I expect the industry
> to come up with these within current affordability constraints.  If it
> doesn't, it's letting us all down.
>

Which won't be achieved by spending a fortune chasing a tiny improvement on
things that raely cause a problem (like power supply, except in known
locations where it does need strengthening), instead of improving
reliability of things that are known to be frequent causes of delay, like
points, track circuits, and train doors.

Peter

Richard, you don't live under a bridge by any chance? I'm beginning to
wonder...

On 2 Aug 2005 12:32:24 -0700 someone who may be "Richard"
 wrote this:-


>> In this case it was the 0750 Gatwick Airport to Victoria which dislodged
>> a conductor rail in the Wandsworth Common area.
>
>How did this happen?  What caused it?  I suggest that it could and
>should have been prevented.


Conductor rails are displaced from time to time, generally due to
some part of the train and/or rail not being in the right position.
The conductor rails could perhaps be bolted down firmly, but that
would need a thorough evaluation of the advantages and
disadvantages.

Perhaps you would like a conductor rail on both sides of the running
rails. This would reduce the chances of such things, but not to
zero. This would also need a thorough evaluation of the advantages
and disadvantages, probably in comparison to conversion the overhead
system.

As others have said, this sort of thing happens overseas as well.
TGVs have ended up with many kilometres of overhead wiring wrapped
around them, the Shinkansen timetable became a work of total fiction
when the overhead lines wore out more quickly than anticipated (a
couple of decades ago now ISTR).


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Richard"  wrote:


>To return to
>my original gripe as an example, it should be possible to install and
>operate a 99% reliable power supply for the Southern Region within
>current subsidy and farebox levels.   The industry just isn't trying
>hard enough.



On what basis do you consider the reliability of the Southern Region's
power system to be less than 99%?

"Richard"  wrote:


>Ian wrote:
>
>"Ah, but you wanted one which never had these failures. That's 100%
>reliable, which in practice means 99.-some-number-of-nines percent
>reliable, and that is going to cost a lot more money."
>
>You're right - I should have said that the system ought to be 99.99%
>reliable.  And I believe that is achievable within current subsidy and
>farebox levels.  The industry just needs to become more efficient at
>spending the money it has already got.



As the regulars here will attest, I would be absolutely delighted if
the taxpayer got better value out of what is currently being spent on
rail.  However, I am not at all sure that spending more money on
Southern Region power supplies would be in any way cost effective.

I think it would be useful if you would declare how reliable you
believe the Southern Region power supplies are now (for example 98%,
99%, 99.7%) and from where you obtained the figures.

The reason I ask is that I would expect the reliability figure to be
already well above 99%.

"Mizter T"  wrote:


>I was curious to know what exactly had happened to cause the power
>problems, so thanks for the explaination. How common is a dislodged
>conductor rail, and do any particular types of trains cause it more
>than others?


In five and a half years of commuting from Brighton or Haywards Heath
to and from London, I think the number of occasions when the conductor
rail was displaced was only three or four.  IIRC, of course.

contrex wrote:

> Richard, you don't live under a bridge by any chance? I'm beginning to
> wonder...


No, I don't :-)  And I don't really understand the joke, either, so
please elucidate :-)

Richard

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:44:00 +0100, asdf <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:


>>Power failures caused a *complete* collapse of the
>>often-considered-perfect Swiss railway system recently.  I am not
>>aware of anything, strikes excepted, that has ever disabled the entire
>>UK railway network for that length of time, or indeed any part of it
>>comparable in size with the entire Swiss network.
>
>Hatfield?


A good example, but while it slowed everything down it didn't kill it
off completely.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 2 Aug 2005 12:32:24 -0700, "Richard" 
wrote:


>Surely a better idea would have been for the train crew to manually
>open all doors in the rear four coaches that had platforms next to
>them.


Given that, on most sliding door stock, the only way to do this is to
use the manual emergency release, a mechanical device which I
understand takes a while to reset, this would seem rather silly.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:54:54 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


>In five and a half years of commuting from Brighton or Haywards Heath
>to and from London, I think the number of occasions when the conductor
>rail was displaced was only three or four.  IIRC, of course.


In about 21 years of growing up with Merseyrail, I don't think I
(consciously) came across that kind of failure once.

The usual causes of delay/cancellation were the traditional frozen
points, failed EMUs, stuck doors, staff shortages and track circuit
failures.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Richard"  wrote:


>contrex wrote:
>> Richard, you don't live under a bridge by any chance? I'm beginning to
>> wonder...
>
>No, I don't :-)  And I don't really understand the joke, either, so
>please elucidate :-)



Perhaps "contrex" is suggesting you might be a troll.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:52:51 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


>I think it would be useful if you would declare how reliable you
>believe the Southern Region power supplies are now (for example 98%,
>99%, 99.7%) and from where you obtained the figures.
>
>The reason I ask is that I would expect the reliability figure to be
>already well above 99%.


Not quite the same but on the GWML where I have been commuting for
almost a year now, I've only been delayed and diverted once due to
power supply problems to the signalling equipment. This would equate
to a 99.8% reliability.

Duncan

Neil Williams wrote:


>
> Given that, on most sliding door stock, the only way to do this is to
> use the manual emergency release, a mechanical device which I
> understand takes a while to reset, this would seem rather silly.
>

What?  The crew can't just press a button and release, say, the door of
third carriage individually?  I didn't realise this, and if true I find
it, to use your words, rather silly :-)

Richard

"Perhaps "contrex" is suggesting you might be a troll."

What's that?  Someone who deliberately says silly things to attract
attention to himself?  No, I'm not.

Richard

"Richard"  wrote in message 
news:1123047720.794936.8410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Neil Williams wrote:
>
>>
>> Given that, on most sliding door stock, the only way to do this is to
>> use the manual emergency release, a mechanical device which I
>> understand takes a while to reset, this would seem rather silly.
>>
> What?  The crew can't just press a button and release, say, the door of
> third carriage individually?  I didn't realise this, and if true I find
> it, to use your words, rather silly :-)
>
> Richard
>

Sadly, the application of Selective Door Opening is rather limited by rule 
applied by the HSE- there is apparently some worry that a staff member might 
authorise the opening of a door at a point where there is no platform. When 
you think that trains with such a facility are replacing those with doors 
which may be opened at any point or at any speed by a passenger, and without 
any means of monitoring them (apart from staff vigilance) then it becomes 
even more silly (I could use stronger language, but I'm not at work..) This 
application of rules concerning SDO has caused problems elsewhere in the UK, 
restricting possible general service enhancements on lines simply because a 
few stations have short platforms- the Portsmouth Direct is one, IIRC, 
whilst I believe there have been problems somewhere on the Western.
Brian

In message , at 
08:59:48 on Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Richard  
remarked:

>To return to my original gripe as an example, it should be possible to 
>install and operate a 99% reliable power supply for the Southern Region 
>within current subsidy and farebox levels.


With 200 working days a year, that means power failures stopping you 
getting to work twice. Is that really your target reliability?

[FWIW, I reckon 97% is roughly what the knitting on the southern end of 
the ECML achieves - ie six serious hiccups a year].
-- 
Roland Perry

On 2 Aug 2005 22:42:00 -0700, "Richard" 
wrote:


>What?  The crew can't just press a button and release, say, the door of
>third carriage individually?


Generally speaking, no.  I think that, even if there is a crew panel
at each set of doors, you need to be keyed in at that set of doors
(and therefore not another set) to have the local open in use.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:24:48 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>With 200 working days a year, that means power failures stopping you 
>getting to work twice. Is that really your target reliability?


That was not far from the reliability level of the Hamburg U-Bahn when
I lived there.  Superb system.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Richard"  wrote:

>"Perhaps "contrex" is suggesting you might be a troll."
>
>What's that?  Someone who deliberately says silly things to attract
>attention to himself?  No, I'm not.



try looking here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


Personally, I would not have accused you of being a troll.  However,
your refusal to state how reliable you believe the Southern Region
power system is makes me think that you might be exactly that.

You rant and rave about its unreliability because of one incident that
happened to you, yet it is a very reliable system.  In my experience
of over 5 years daily commuting (1992-1998), the power system was over
99.9% reliable.  What basis do you have for suggesting that this
figure has dropped?

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:26:28 GMT someone who may be
wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-


>In about 21 years of growing up with Merseyrail, I don't think I
>(consciously) came across that kind of failure once.


A very much less intense service though.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Richard"  wrote>

> However, the incident that happened to me was apparently a dislodged
> conductor rail (and thanks to the poster who provided that
> information).  So let me make another complaint :-)  Why did that one
> incident cause my train (and, probably, others) to be delayed for an
> hour?  In my view that is an unacceptable amount of downtime.  Workers
> should be on the track immediately to fix the problem, and the downtime
> should be no more than, say, 15 mins.  Is that too much to ask?  I'm
> not being rhetorical here.  I'm just asking :-)
>

That is probably too much to ask. I suspect that the first indication of
anything wrong was that the GatEx stopped in section without power. The
driver would not immediately have known that it was a track fault, and not a
fault on his train. It would have taken a few minutes to do the diagnostic
tests to establish the situation, then to report to the signaller. By this
time at least one more train would have been trapped behind. It seems that
your train must have joined the queue far enough back to be crossed to the
slow line at Balham, so the delay to your train of an hour seems to me to be
excessive, unless the fault meant that power had to be switched off from the
slow line as well for a time. IMHO what should have happened, within a few
minutes of the driver reporting the apparent nature of the fault, is that
trains should have been turned back at East Croydon or diverted to London
Bridge. Trains that had passed Windmill Bridge Junction should have been
funnelled through on the Slow Line (as happened to your train) or diverted
via Tulse Hill and Herne Hill (as happened to at least one GatEx) If all
this had been done promptly, I can't see why trains should have been delayed
more than 20 - 30 minutes, apart from the GatEx involved in the initial
incident, and any train trapped so close behind it that it couldn't be
switched Slow Line at Balham.

As for fixing the fault, track maintenance staff would have to be briefed on
what to do, make sure they had the necessary tools and euipment, then travel
to the site (where from?). To be there in half an hour would be very good
going (how long did the AA take to get to your car breakdown last time you
had to call them out?), then the fault had to be repaired.

Peter

On 3 Aug 2005 02:10:00 -0700 someone who may be "Richard"
 wrote this:-


>I have no statistics to back up any assertion.  My only point is that
>the power supply should never break down - so the industry should be
>aiming for 100% reliability.  If that's an impossible dream, then fine
>- although it's very sad.


About twelve years ago someone asked me for an assurance that the
electricity supply to the office they managed would never fail
again. Only fools and liars give such assurances. I pointed out that
there were things we had offered to make the supply more reliable,
but which they had rejected on cost grounds, but in the end only two
things can be guaranteed and neither of them are to do with
electricity. The suppressed giggles around the table, the office
being occupied by what was then the Inland Revenue, indicated that
my bolt had gone home amongst some of those present.

100% reliability is not offered by those that generate electricity
and transmit it to the railways. The term power cut is commonly used
and I have had several, of short duration this year. Last year the
electricity was off for half a day, which is unusual. The railways
have not been allowed to build power stations themselves since
before the Second World War. The last railway power stations (Lots
Road and Greenwich, for central London underground) did not provide
100% reliability. Their reliability was less than that of the public
electricity system in fact, though there were particular engineering
reasons for this.

Given that the electricity coming into the railways is not 100%
reliable it is difficult to see how the railways can magic the
reliability to 100%. They do what they can for reasonable amounts of
money though. An obvious example is that if an external supply fails
(or is switched off for maintenance) then the electrification system
can be switched to take electricity from the supplies on either
side. This has been explained for AC systems here before. For DC
systems there are fewer external supply points, but instead railway
ring main cables are used to link sub-stations. As well as allowing
electricity to get from available external supply points to
sub-stations, these cables and the switching system also allow
individual sub-stations to be isolated for maintenance while trains
continue to run. Passengers tend not to know about these planned and
emergency alterations to the supply. Unfortunately during the
massive power failure in parts of London a couple of years ago it
was not possible to keep the trains running using these cables,
essentially because too much of the external system had failed.

Standby diesel generators would be very large, very expensive (to
buy and maintain) and there would need to be lots of them. I am not
aware of any railway that has thought this a cost-effective option
for traction. Standby sets are used for signalling.

Providing duplicate conductor rails is expensive, providing a
duplicate overhead supply is just about impossible, they didn't even
try this in the Channel Tunnel which has lots of other duplicated
systems. The best that can be done is alternative routes and/or
standby diesel locomotives. This does mean inconvenience for some.

The railways have also looked at what goes wrong in order to learn
lessons. I was pleased to hear that there is now a presumption
against headspan construction for new works. Those things are cheap
to install but then cost money for the rest of their life in the
form of disruption.


>Why did that one
>incident cause my train (and, probably, others) to be delayed for an
>hour?  In my view that is an unacceptable amount of downtime.


As has been explained before, a few trains will end up trapped
behind the failed train.

There are some own goals by the railways though. The current
inability to couple all trains together and drag them somewhere else
must cause extra delays. That is one of the reasons the former
Southern Region standardised such things, to the extent that it was
possible to couple almost anything together and control the whole
ensemble from any cab.


>Workers should be on the track immediately to fix the problem,


This is probably easier in a small dense area like SE England than
elsewhere. However, until staff are provided with matter transport
equipment they will take a finite time to get to an incident
(whether they travel by rail or road).

When they arrive they have to work out what has happened and how to
fix it. The latter might be complicated by there being a great big
train in the way and they may need to get tools and materials. There
might be other considerations too, for example it may be better to
leave the fixing it until traffic is quieter, for many reasons.


>and the downtime should be no more than, say, 15 mins.


That depends on what has gone wrong. If 500m of conductor rail has
been displaced then, even if the insulators are undamaged and the
rail can just be lifted back onto/into them, it is going to take
some time to do, simply because rails are heavy things to lift.

I get just as annoyed by delays as anyone else and from time to time
have said here that sorting things out has taken too long. I suspect
I will say so again. However, power supply failures are some way
down the list of what causes delays.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In article ,
   Richard  wrote:

> However, the incident that happened to me was apparently a dislodged
> conductor rail (and thanks to the poster who provided that
> information).  So let me make another complaint :-)  Why did that one
> incident cause my train (and, probably, others) to be delayed for an
> hour?  In my view that is an unacceptable amount of downtime.  Workers
> should be on the track immediately to fix the problem, and the downtime
> should be no more than, say, 15 mins.  Is that too much to ask?  I'm
> not being rhetorical here.  I'm just asking :-)


It **is** too much to ask. Given that dislodged conductor rails are fairly
rare, but may be anywhere on the system, where are you going to find these
workers who can be there in time to do the repair in less than fifteen
minutes?

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:00:55 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>A very much less intense service though.


True, and generally one which has a very high standard of track
maintenance, with a couple of notable exceptions such as the old
bullhead that remains on the curve from Sandhills towards the
Southport line.

That the Merseyrail of today is the most punctual TOC in the country
isn't really a surprise - though that it has not always held this
accolade is rather to the disgrace of its previous operators.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Haw you seen the rule book today it would take the 15 minutes to set up the 
safe system of work.. RIMINI etc..

Steve Cooper (ex Southern Man)


"David H Wild"  wrote in message 
news:4d94b97b02dhwild@talktalk.net...

> In article ,
>   Richard  wrote:
>> However, the incident that happened to me was apparently a dislodged
>> conductor rail (and thanks to the poster who provided that
>> information).  So let me make another complaint :-)  Why did that one
>> incident cause my train (and, probably, others) to be delayed for an
>> hour?  In my view that is an unacceptable amount of downtime.  Workers
>> should be on the track immediately to fix the problem, and the downtime
>> should be no more than, say, 15 mins.  Is that too much to ask?  I'm
>> not being rhetorical here.  I'm just asking :-)
>
> It **is** too much to ask. Given that dislodged conductor rails are fairly
> rare, but may be anywhere on the system, where are you going to find these
> workers who can be there in time to do the repair in less than fifteen
> minutes?
>
> -- 
> David Wild using RISC OS on broadband 

>From my personal experience, Southern handled the situation well.


I turned up at Sanderstead for the 1039 to Victoria but it had been
cancelled due to the problems. However, Southern did the sensible thing
and an Uckfield - London Bridge service, usually fast from Oxted to
East Croydon, was calling at all stations so stopped at Sanderstead at
1036. The guard advised pax that there were severe delays to Victoria
so if possible travel to London Bridge so that's exactly what I did and
continued my journey by tube and bus.

Out of interest, what causes the 30 sec delay in Electrostar doors
opening at Victoria?

Chris.

christovgreen@gmail.com wrote:

>> From my personal experience, Southern handled the situation well.
>
> I turned up at Sanderstead for the 1039 to Victoria but it had been
> cancelled due to the problems. However, Southern did the sensible
> thing and an Uckfield - London Bridge service, usually fast from
> Oxted to East Croydon, was calling at all stations so stopped at
> Sanderstead at 1036. The guard advised pax that there were severe
> delays to Victoria so if possible travel to London Bridge so that's
> exactly what I did and continued my journey by tube and bus.
>
> Out of interest, what causes the 30 sec delay in Electrostar doors
> opening at Victoria?


Goodness, is that still happening?  I was told months ago that it was
because there are platforms of various lengths at Victoria, so the
automatic system that decides how many doors to open has to assume that
it's at a short platform.  On a 12-coach train, the rear four coaches
have to have their doors opened by human intervention.  Perhaps someone
can explain why this takes 30 seconds instead of 2 seconds.  (It was
actually about 10 seconds when I last experienced it.)
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard"  wrote:


>I have no statistics to back up any assertion.  My only point is that
>the power supply should never break down - so the industry should be
>aiming for 100% reliability.  If that's an impossible dream, then fine
>- although it's very sad.



100% reliability in anything is impossible.  No doubt you would also
be outraged at the unreliability of the Swiss Railways, which are
generally excellent but don't reach your standards.

Of course nothing does.

If you expect perfection you will always be disappointed.

In article , 
Richard  writes

>You're right - I should have said that the system ought to be 99.99%
>reliable.


That's about 53 minutes of unreliability per year.

[For comparison, 99.9% is 8h46m and 99.999% is 5.3 minutes.]

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: