The Australian press is reporting a senior transport official as saying
that two pax were electroocuted as they tried to walk to safety after
the 7/7 terror attacks. Did that get reported here in London?

eg, from http://tinyurl.com/bq6at

or

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16201875%255E1702,00.html

"But evidence from the July 7 bombings of the London Underground and
bus system showed passengers might be safer locked inside, he said.

"From the London bombings it does appear that at least two passengers
who survived the blasts were electrocuted as they sought to exit the
train," Mr Graham said. In the UK, the electrifying rail powering the
trains is on the ground.

It wasn't reported because nobody got electrocuted. I suspect what
might have happened here is either plain misreporting or else that some
dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
and US.

"contrex"  wrote in message
news:1123605605.185342.326050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> or else that some
> dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
> shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
> and US.


And what does it mean, please?

-- 
M Stewart

Malcolm Stewart  wrote:


> "contrex"  wrote in message
> news:1123605605.185342.326050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > or else that some
> > dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
> > shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
> > and US.
> 
> And what does it mean, please?


To be _killed_ by electricity.

-- 
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

In article , 
jshugg@westpac.com.au writes

>The Australian press is reporting a senior transport official as saying
>that two pax were electroocuted as they tried to walk to safety after
>the 7/7 terror attacks.


Recall that the bombs were initially reported as a "power surge", and 
their simultaneity was determined from the time the power tripped on 
each section. So I find it unlikely.

Passengers should not have been allowed to walk until the power was off 
and a short-circuiting device placed down.

-- 
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:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

>
> Passengers should not have been allowed to walk until the power was
> off and a short-circuiting device placed down.


You tell that to a load of passengers trying to get out of a train.

FFS "passengers should not have been allowed" indeed.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:13:51 +0100, "dwb"
 wrote:


>You tell that to a load of passengers trying to get out of a train.
>
>FFS "passengers should not have been allowed" indeed.


It's a good point, if a bit poorly articulated.

Perhaps LUL should consider having passenger alarm buttons fitted in
the tunnels that, if pressed, will immediately trip out the power
supply and turn on the tunnel lighting?

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.

In message , Neil Williams 
 writes

>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:13:51 +0100, "dwb"
> wrote:
>
>>You tell that to a load of passengers trying to get out of a train.
>>
>>FFS "passengers should not have been allowed" indeed.
>
>It's a good point, if a bit poorly articulated.
>
>Perhaps LUL should consider having passenger alarm buttons fitted in
>the tunnels that, if pressed, will immediately trip out the power
>supply and turn on the tunnel lighting?
>

If you're going to do that, you may as well just put notices up 
instructing passengers to touch the two telephone wires together (which, 
I believe, has exactly this effect).
-- 
Daniel (a.k.a Spyke)
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. Replace the bit before the
@ with 'daniel' to get through. The opinions expressed in this post do not
necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:42:45 +0100, Spyke  wrote:


>If you're going to do that, you may as well just put notices up 
>instructing passengers to touch the two telephone wires together (which, 
>I believe, has exactly this effect).


Perhaps a good idea.  After all, in this particular case the driver
was "cut off" from part of his train in each case.  Those behind that
point may well have decided it was best to get out themselves.

The panicking masses may well ignore such notices, but given that
there may well be someone with a bit of presence of mind it might
help.  While I can't say how I'd react in such an emergency as I've
never experienced one (and hope never to), I will certainly bear the
above in mind - but can someone else confirm it for certain?

Thanks,

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.

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
 wrote:


> > And what does it mean, please?
> To be _killed_ by electricity.


Even more precisely, to be executed by electricity. Dates back to the
early use of the electric chair in the US.

In article <1h11giv.1jgsji6l036jeN%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com>,
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco  wrote:

>Malcolm Stewart  wrote:
>
>> "contrex"  wrote in message
>> news:1123605605.185342.326050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > or else that some
>> > dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
>> > shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
>> > and US.
>> 
>> And what does it mean, please?
>
>To be _killed_ by electricity.


So when, as a child, I electrocuted myself with a table lamp I'd removed
the bulb from, it means I've really been dead for the last 35 years ?

Nick
-- 
http://www.leverton.org/                      ... So express yourself

Nick Leverton  wrote:


> In article <1h11giv.1jgsji6l036jeN%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com>,
> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
>  wrote:
> >Malcolm Stewart  wrote:
> >
> >> "contrex"  wrote in message
> >> news:1123605605.185342.326050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > or else that some
> >> > dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
> >> > shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
> >> > and US.
> >> 
> >> And what does it mean, please?
> >
> >To be _killed_ by electricity.
> 
> So when, as a child, I electrocuted myself with a table lamp I'd removed
> the bulb from, it means I've really been dead for the last 35 years ?


No, it meant that you got the wording wrong. You didn't electrocute
yourself, you got an electric shock.

To the other poster, despite the history of the term, I think that both
meanings (i.e. to be executed by electricity, and to die as a result of
electricity) are now standard.

-- 
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
pictures at homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

"Nick Leverton"  wrote in message
news:ddbe4h$tqq$1@hub.home...

> In article <1h11giv.1jgsji6l036jeN%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com>,
> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
 wrote:
> >Malcolm Stewart  wrote:
> >
> >> "contrex"  wrote in message
> >> news:1123605605.185342.326050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > or else that some
> >> > dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an
electric
> >> > shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the
UK
> >> > and US.
> >>
> >> And what does it mean, please?
> >
> >To be _killed_ by electricity.
>
> So when, as a child, I electrocuted myself with a table lamp I'd removed
> the bulb from, it means I've really been dead for the last 35 years ?


No, it means you weren't electrocuted. You got an electric shock.

"Electrocution" was a word coined specifically to from the term "Execution
by electricity".


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:32:40 +0100, Ronnie Clark wrote:


> "Electrocution" was a word coined specifically to from the term "Execution
> by electricity".


So, does that mean that "elocution" is the penalty for not saying
"hello" properly?
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632997.html
(43 192 at Reading, 27 Apr 1985)

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
news:qhrs1tgp6alr$.1qjmlg3azfqdd$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:32:40 +0100, Ronnie Clark wrote:
>
> > "Electrocution" was a word coined specifically to from the term
"Execution
> > by electricity".
>
> So, does that mean that "elocution" is the penalty for not saying
> "hello" properly?


If it isn't, it bloody-well should be! :)


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

"contrex"  wrote in message 
news:1123605605.185342.326050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> It wasn't reported because nobody got electrocuted. I suspect what
> might have happened here is either plain misreporting or else that some
> dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
> shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
> and US.


Don't think it is misreporting, just "dumb Ozzie" Vince Graham CEO of 
Railcorp trying to defend the indefensible in Railcorp's flawed policy of 
passenger containment, but misrepresenting the facts.  The same story was 
reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, which has a better journalistic 
reputation than the tabloid Melbourne Herald Sun.  Under Vince Graham's 
(mis)management, Sydney's trains under the CityRail banner have become 
notoriously unreliable, and next month there is the fiasco of running to a 
slower timetable (worse than that run in the 1930s)  so that no so many 
trains will be running late.

See the thread entitled "passenger lockup policy review" in aus.rail and 
uk.transport.london for more on this subject.

Regards


David Bennetts
Australia

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:38:57 +1000 someone who may be "David
Bennetts"  wrote this:-


>Under Vince Graham's 
>(mis)management, Sydney's trains under the CityRail banner have become 
>notoriously unreliable, and next month there is the fiasco of running to a 
>slower timetable (worse than that run in the 1930s)  so that no so many 
>trains will be running late.


He has obviously been taking lessons from British railways, who have
adopted the same policy for some time.


-- 
 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.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:57:38 GMT someone who may be
wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-


>>touch the two telephone wires together (which, 
>>I believe, has exactly this effect).

>I will certainly bear the
>above in mind - but can someone else confirm it for certain?


It is stated in a number of places that pinching the tunnel wires
together will operate the circuit breakers for that section and
bring on the tunnel lights. Some lines do not have this ISTR, driver
radio fulfilling the same sort of function. There are no tunnel
wires in open sections either (though there are some in short
cuttings).

However, that is not the end of it. Some other things to bear in
mind:

1) The safest place to be after an incident is usually inside the
train. Passengers leaping out instantly generally puts them in more
danger, not just from electrification but from moving trains.

2) After a trip I imagine that the electrical controller waits for a
minute or two for station staff or a driver to contact them (on the
telephone clipped to the tunnel wires, unless a better system is now
in use) before attempting to re-close the circuit breaker(s).

3) Before detraining passengers the driver will apply a short
circuiting bar to the conductor rails, to prevent re-energisation.

4) Electrification is arranged in sections and it is advisable to
think if possible. On one occasion the conductor rails remained
energised at a crossover by a station, although the conductor rails
in the tunnel itself were switched off. The fire brigade were most
unhappy about this. Assumptions can be dangerous.

5) Leaving the conductor rails energised means that trains can be
moved to stations to allow passengers to get off, rather than
walking along the tunnel.

6) Once passengers start getting off trains the disruption is going
to spread and take a long time to sort out. That is why it needs to
be thought out.

In my view evacuations need to be carefully thought about before
being carried out in a planned manner. This may not be possible for
some trains in some circumstances, but it will still probably be
possible for trains not immediately affected.


-- 
 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.

How would you move trains into platforms if the tracks have become
blocked and inoperable by a bomb that had blown a train to pieces?

Kevin

"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote in message 
news:mLkNsSEyxN+CFw3e@romana.davros.org...

> Recall that the bombs were initially reported as a "power surge", and 
> their simultaneity was determined from the time the power tripped on each 
> section. So I find it unlikely.


But surely this depends upon which sections have been tripped. Both Circle 
Line trains were in double-track tunnels, so the power might have only 
tripped on one track. In the case of the Picc, the back of the train was 
stopped near the crossover at King's Cross - so it might have been possible 
for passengers to stray into the other tunnel

In article , dwb 
 writes

>> Passengers should not have been allowed to walk until the power was
>> off and a short-circuiting device placed down.
>You tell that to a load of passengers trying to get out of a train.
>FFS "passengers should not have been allowed" indeed.


I'd like to see them try on a tube line.

Even on a sub-surface line it isn't trivial.

-- 
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:

In article , 
kajr@mwfree.net writes

>How would you move trains into platforms if the tracks have become
>blocked and inoperable by a bomb that had blown a train to pieces?


Apart from the bombed train, the others will be able to move forward or 
reverse (so long as the power is on).

-- 
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:

contrex wrote:

> It wasn't reported because nobody got electrocuted. I suspect what
> might have happened here is either plain misreporting or else that some
> dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
> shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
> and US.



How would it be possible to get an electric shock in the Underground
without being killed?  Some kind of residual current?  If the power was
on and their shock was from rails, they'd be dead.

"MIG"  wrote in message
news:1123706873.709436.180490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> contrex wrote:
> > It wasn't reported because nobody got electrocuted. I suspect what
> > might have happened here is either plain misreporting or else that some
> > dumb Ozzie thinks that the word  "electrocuted" means "got an electric
> > shock".  I am afraid that such ignorance is also to be found in the UK
> > and US.
>
>
> How would it be possible to get an electric shock in the Underground
> without being killed?  Some kind of residual current?  If the power was
> on and their shock was from rails, they'd be dead.


Not necessarily. It's the current path that matters, ones through the torso
being generally fatal. A path from the shin / calf to the ground through the
leg would be non-fatal, but probably requiring an amputation.


-- 
Ronnie

Also bear in mind that the conductor rails on the Tube are at +400 and
-230 V, which means that the maximum electric shock you would get would
be from 400 V as opposed to 660/750 V on the former Southern Region. If
you stepped onto the con-rail in dry weather and were wearing fairly
stout footwear, you'd get an unpleasant belt but very unlikely to be
fatal. (I don't recommend trying this!!!)

The worst thing that can happen is if you touch the con-rail with the
the palm of your hand as the electricity will then cause the muscles to
contract and you will simply grip the rail and be unable to let go. And
as the current that will be passing through you is much less than that
required to trip the circuit breakers, you are very likely to end up at
best badly burnt and at worst dead. Again, don't try this out!!!

In article ,
billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com writes

>Also bear in mind that the conductor rails on the Tube are at +400 and
>-230 V, which means that the maximum electric shock you would get would
>be from 400 V as opposed to 660/750 V on the former Southern Region. 



Umm.. Not quite. The maximum difference voltage there is 630 volts.

+400 and -230 reference to O volts or earth, that is if its tied to
earth......



>If
>you stepped onto the con-rail in dry weather and were wearing fairly
>stout footwear, you'd get an unpleasant belt but very unlikely to be
>fatal. (I don't recommend trying this!!!)
>
>The worst thing that can happen is if you touch the con-rail with the
>the palm of your hand as the electricity will then cause the muscles to
>contract and you will simply grip the rail and be unable to let go. And
>as the current that will be passing through you is much less than that
>required to trip the circuit breakers, you are very likely to end up at
>best badly burnt and at worst dead. Again, don't try this out!!!
>


-- 
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer"  wrote in message
news:c5wkAjACrn+CFwTV@bancom.co.uk...

> In article ,
> billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com writes
> >Also bear in mind that the conductor rails on the Tube are at +400 and
> >-230 V, which means that the maximum electric shock you would get would
> >be from 400 V as opposed to 660/750 V on the former Southern Region.
>
>
> Umm.. Not quite. The maximum difference voltage there is 630 volts.
>
> +400 and -230 reference to O volts or earth, that is if its tied to
> earth......


Still, you'd be doing well to manage to get yourself in contact with both at
the same time! I think practically, you're only really like to be up against
400V. Which, nevertheless, is still a somewhat deadly potential!

I never understood why outside plant went for balanced 110V. 55V, while on
the lower limits, is enough to drive a deadly current through someone. 100V,
while not appearing appreciably smaller, does significantly reduce the risk.

Ronnie
(who generally uses unbalanced 230V outside anyway!)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:20:26 UTC, "Ronnie Clark" 
 wrote:


> I never understood why outside plant went for balanced 110V. 55V, while on
> the lower limits, is enough to drive a deadly current through someone. 100V,
> while not appearing appreciably smaller, does significantly reduce the risk.


100V appears appreciably /bigger/ than 55V to me. Have I missed 
something?

Ian

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
news:dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-5krQRCvMRwi3@localhost...

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:20:26 UTC, "Ronnie Clark"
>  wrote:
>
> > I never understood why outside plant went for balanced 110V. 55V, while
on
> > the lower limits, is enough to drive a deadly current through someone.
100V,
> > while not appearing appreciably smaller, does significantly reduce the
risk.
>
> 100V appears appreciably /bigger/ than 55V to me. Have I missed
> something?


Yes. On a balanced voltage, the 110V is created by having one line at +55V
and the other at -55V w.r.t. earth. By going with 100V balanced, ie +50V
and -50V, you significantly reduce the risk of death should someone come
into contact with one of the wires (yes, those 5V can really matter!)


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

On 10 Aug 2005 13:47:53 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:



>
>How would it be possible to get an electric shock in the Underground
>without being killed?  Some kind of residual current?  If the power was
>on and their shock was from rails, they'd be dead.


I think most people who work (or have worked) on 3rd and 4th rail
systems have tales to tell of receiving shocks.

I certainly received the full 750v twice in my railway career.  I
have told here before of the dog that would have got away with
nothing more than a painful jolt had it not decided to bit the thing
that hurt it - that *was* fatal.

I'm not advising anybody to try it for themselves, but a shock from
the live rail is seldom fatal.


-- 
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com
md@rossrail.com

In article <ddduhp$v94$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ronnie Clark 
 writes

>> +400 and -230 reference to O volts or earth, that is if its tied to
>> earth......
>Still, you'd be doing well to manage to get yourself in contact with both at
>the same time! I think practically, you're only really like to be up against
>400V.


Unless there's an earth fault somewhere in the section. In which case 
one power rail will be at 0V and the other at 630V.

-- 
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: