stuving
|
|
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2017, 20:47:23 » |
|
I would also have expected the point in question to be clipped and padlocked as well as relying on "A temporary modification to the points control system". Might burn the point motor out!
It is a double slip crossover, with four routes/positions. IIRC▸ from other discussions there are four separate points machines, and four possible positions of the crossover. AIUI▸ they cannot be partially clipped out of use because of the way the moving blades have to interact. Clipping it in one position, say UMR to P12/13, would have taken P11 out of use. (or vice versa.) Paul That doesn't sound quite right. Surely the four routes only occur in two pairs, i.e. it has just two positions. If all the movements are linked, however many motors do the pushing, then you can't lock out one route without blocking the other route linked to it. If they all moved independently that might not be true - though detection might be an issue.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2017, 21:34:27 » |
|
I would also have expected the point in question to be clipped and padlocked as well as relying on "A temporary modification to the points control system". Might burn the point motor out!
It is a double slip crossover, with four routes/positions. IIRC▸ from other discussions there are four separate points machines, and four possible positions of the crossover. AIUI▸ they cannot be partially clipped out of use because of the way the moving blades have to interact. Clipping it in one position, say UMR to P12/13, would have taken P11 out of use. (or vice versa.) Paul That doesn't sound quite right. Surely the four routes only occur in two pairs, i.e. it has just two positions. If all the movements are linked, however many motors do the pushing, then you can't lock out one route without blocking the other route linked to it. If they all moved independently that might not be true - though detection might be an issue. The point end approached by the passenger train that was incorrectly set is operated as a double slip pair. The third end, controlled by the same point identity, was under the barrier train. On a double slip each end is a pair that operate together from a single point operating mechanism. I'll post up a drawing later. In the meantime here is a video that shows the principle of operation. Its not in the UK▸ but the principles are the same: https://youtu.be/VpfJdm71u6g
|
|
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 21:43:23 by SandTEngineer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2017, 22:29:05 » |
|
The point end approached by the passenger train that was incorrectly set is operated as a double slip pair. The third end, controlled by the same point identity, was under the barrier train. On a double slip each end is a pair that operate together from a single point operating mechanism. I'll post up a drawing later.
Ah - so it is linkage (mechanical or not), but not what I said. After all, even if two routes can be set through that crossing at once, only one can be signalled - so there's no need to bother about their compatibility. It's more like linking the two ends of a crossover, and extending that to a third point end that can't usefully be moved independently. And then trying to quickly alter it temporarily.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #48 on: September 02, 2017, 12:14:30 » |
|
The point end approached by the passenger train that was incorrectly set is operated as a double slip pair. The third end, controlled by the same point identity, was under the barrier train. On a double slip each end is a pair that operate together from a single point operating mechanism. I'll post up a drawing later. In the meantime here is a video that shows the principle of operation. Its not in the UK▸ but the principles are the same: https://youtu.be/VpfJdm71u6gDid you manage to find a drawing? I'm thinking the signalling panel engraved lines means something the way they are drawn, presumably they show the default straight route (i.e. P11 left <> DMR right) with everything set normal? I had a quick glance at the hardware from a passing train and it looks like these are "clamp lock" operation, does that affect how the pairs are linked/operated? Paul
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2017, 16:37:03 » |
|
The point end approached by the passenger train that was incorrectly set is operated as a double slip pair. The third end, controlled by the same point identity, was under the barrier train. On a double slip each end is a pair that operate together from a single point operating mechanism. I'll post up a drawing later. In the meantime here is a video that shows the principle of operation. Its not in the UK▸ but the principles are the same: https://youtu.be/VpfJdm71u6gDid you manage to find a drawing? I'm thinking the signalling panel engraved lines means something the way they are drawn, presumably they show the default straight route (i.e. P11 left <> DMR right) with everything set normal? I had a quick glance at the hardware from a passing train and it looks like these are "clamp lock" operation, does that affect how the pairs are linked/operated? Paul Paul, still trying to find my drawings. Might have to sketch it out myself......but have found a basic animation here: http://www.dccwiki.com/images/2/2f/CrossingDoubleSlip.gif You are correct about the panel presentation and the fact the points concerned are Clamplock operated.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 16:45:17 by SandTEngineer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2017, 17:25:37 » |
|
Thanks. In the conversation about four positions, of course what we a looking at is analogous to a binary truth table, where Normal and Reverse are the equivalent of 0 and 1. So two 'mechanisms' each with 2 conditions gives you four results?
N N N R R N R R
...sort of thing?
Paul
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 18:14:40 by paul7755 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2017, 18:44:27 » |
|
Thanks. In the conversation about four positions, of course what we a looking at is analogous to a binary truth table, where Normal and Reverse are the equivalent of 0 and 1. So two 'mechanisms' each with 2 conditions gives you four results?
N N N R R N R R
...sort of thing?
Paul
Correct again (I'll make a signal engineer out of you yet ). In the incident the train was signalled through the points concerned NN, but they were actually set RN. On clamplock operated double slips each end of a pair is individually driven by separate hydraulic rams but they are connected to the same single electro-hydraulic pump unit so 2 per double slip arrangement (there is a design version that has 2 separate electro-hydraulic pump units per pair - 4 in total for a set of double slips; but for reasons of economy in design, installation and ongoing maintenance, that configuration is rarely used).
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #52 on: September 08, 2017, 01:40:22 » |
|
Well, I'm glad to see that you two apparently understand it ...
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #53 on: September 08, 2017, 10:11:29 » |
|
Still doesn't answer why weren't the points clipped N N. If RN and RR would cause a collison
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #54 on: September 08, 2017, 10:14:16 » |
|
Still doesn't answer why weren't the points clipped N N. If RN and RR would cause a collison
Its not for us to speculate why. Its for RAIB▸ to determine that.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #55 on: September 08, 2017, 10:16:50 » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #56 on: September 08, 2017, 16:01:15 » |
|
Still doesn't answer why weren't the points clipped N N. If RN and RR would cause a collison
Because if clipped to straight through i.e. "NN" there would have been no access to P13? Paul
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #57 on: September 18, 2017, 12:28:56 » |
|
Roger Ford's monthly preview of his next Modern Railways article again quotes an unnamed source who says that the points simply "should have been clipped" so I still await the RAIB▸ detailed explanation.
Paul
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2017, 10:58:56 » |
|
RAIB▸ interim report. I'm no expert - it is as expected all to do with stage works and testing, is very detailed and I'm hoping someone can follow it through and come up with a short precise. Seems the point ends the train approached were physically 'mid position' as seen from the FFCCTV. As was postulated in various forums at the time, the driver and signallers cannot be considered responsible in any way. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669469/IR022017_171220_Waterloo.pdfPaul
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Oxonhutch
|
|
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2017, 11:35:36 » |
|
Primarily points 1524A and 1524B should have been clipped in their normal position (as per plan) but were not.
Secondarily, a test wire was left connected which shorted out the electrical detectors to 1524A&B and fooled the signalling system into believing the point blades were correctly set and locked normal.
If only one of the above had happened the accident would not have occurred - it required the combination of the two. Holes in the cheese.
Had unclipped point blades moved without the testing wire being present, detection would have been lost and the starting signal would not have cleared.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|