Discussion:
Chalfont & Latimer near miss 23rd June
(too old to reply)
Recliner
2020-06-25 00:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
There's already a thread on uk.t.l. There's speculation on whether it was
a points or signalling fault or a SPaD.

Whatever it was, it led to the Chesham branch being closed for a couple of
days.
Recliner
2020-06-25 08:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
There's already a thread on uk.t.l.
Well, that at least explains why the topic "Near miss on Met" has
suddenly appeared in the u.r ng. I was beginning to think Google Groups
were messing with my head again.
That's one of the problems with using Google Groups: it no longer includes
uk.t.l.
Recliner
2020-06-25 23:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.

Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?

This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Christopher A. Lee
2020-06-26 00:20:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?

Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-26 08:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?
Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?
Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Christopher A. Lee
2020-06-26 13:49:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn?t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren?t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can?t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can?t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn?t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points?). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?
Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?
Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.
I know. But is there train protection for the other operators on these
sections?
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-26 14:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn?t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren?t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can?t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can?t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn?t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points?). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?
Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?
Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.
I know. But is there train protection for the other operators on these
sections?
The DC line (Queens Park to H&W) used to require tripcock fitted NR stock
(or with special arrangements, dual-manned cabs), but is now TPWS fitted.
The others have TPWS.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Christopher A. Lee
2020-06-26 15:01:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:43:29 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:48:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn?t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren?t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can?t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can?t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn?t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points?). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Does this mean there is no train protection for the District line
trains on that section?
Or the Bakerloo trains between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone?
Trainstops are fitted wherever LU trains operate.
I know. But is there train protection for the other operators on these
sections?
The DC line (Queens Park to H&W) used to require tripcock fitted NR stock
(or with special arrangements, dual-manned cabs), but is now TPWS fitted.
The others have TPWS.
OK.
Graeme Wall
2020-06-26 06:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Isn't Richmond now TfL, Overground?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Charles Ellson
2020-06-26 09:12:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 07:51:47 +0100, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Isn't Richmond now TfL, Overground?
LU starts at the junction with the District Line NE of Gunnersbury.
Overground services run (almost?) exclusively on NR metals. Richmond
station is managed by SWR, Kew Gardens and Gunnersbury (like other
stations served only by LU and LO together) are managed by LU.
Recliner
2020-06-26 09:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 07:51:47 +0100, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system? I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Isn't Richmond now TfL, Overground?
LU starts at the junction with the District Line NE of Gunnersbury.
Overground services run (almost?) exclusively on NR metals. Richmond
station is managed by SWR, Kew Gardens and Gunnersbury (like other
stations served only by LU and LO together) are managed by LU.
Yes, I think LO track is all maintained by NR, though the ELL is still
owned by TfL.

I assume tripstops are fitted on track shared with LU trains.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2020-06-26 08:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Thanks for the confirmation and extra details. So it sounds like the
Chiltern driver made multiple mistakes (travelling much too fast, spadding,
perhaps wrongly proceeding after resetting the tripcock, running through
and destroying the facing points…). It sounds like a spectacular way to end
a driving career.
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
AFAIK the shared sections will retain lineside signalling (similar
arrangement to the Central line with an additional aspect for ATO trains,
though in this case I believe it will be blue rather than white); but the
resignalling of Harrow and north thereof is currently on hold.

I would expect trainstops to be retained, or possibly TPWS to be fitted
instead.
Post by Recliner
This raises another question in my mind: in the modern era, are there any
other places where national rail trains run in routine passenger service on
some other railway's tracks, with a different signalling system?
In the early days of TW Metro, IIRC BR freight trains still used one of the
lines (outside of the Metro service hours?). Most of the other instances I
can think of involve non-NR services venturing onto NR lines under NR
signalling; TW to Sunderland, and Sheffield tram-train.

More widely there are two accepted types of tram-train operation - the
Karlsruhe Model where suitable tramway vehicles operate over the railway
network, and the Zwickau Model where suitable railway vehicles operate over
the tramway network <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwickau_Model>.
Another example is Nordhausen where certain services from the Harz network
run through onto the tram network.

Further afield, I can't comment on the signalling arrangements but certain
lines in Japan meet the rest of your requirements. A few JR trains a day
run through onto the Kyoto Tango Railway (holders of JR passes are required
to pay an additional charge on board).

Metro systems in Japan involve a lot of through running. My reference for
the following is mostly the three Japanese editions of the rather fabulous
Schwandl series of tramway/metro books:

Kyoto metro Tozai line has through running to the Keihan Keishin line.
Within Kyoto this had been a street-running line (separate from the city's
tram network and crossing it on the level! Several pictures of this section
are online if you have the patience to feel Japanese Wikipedia through
google translate), and was put underground at the opening of the metro line
along the same route; the far end of the Keihan Keishin line still has a
street running section.

Fukuoka metro Kuko Line has through running onto JR's Chikuhi line - 8tph
off-peak (15tph peak) on the metro section, with 4tph extending 12km over
JR metals, 1tph of which continues a further 32km! These services are
operated with JR stock with toilets whereas the services which don't run
beyond the metro section use metro stock without toilets.

Ten of Tokyo's 13 metro lines feature through-running. Schwandl says "The
concept of reciprocal through-running has been developed to a unique degree
in Japan". The fragmented ownership of Tokyo's rail network has resulted in
a system designed to protect the independence and revenues of the companies
involved, whilst delivering a more efficient and convenient service,
reducing congestion and transfer traffic at termini. "Each operator remains
responsible for run all services on their own network with rolling stock
for through services pooled in proportion to the car-kms covered on their
respective tracks. [...] Trains pass from system to system but crews
generally stay on their home territory."

I guess the equivalent would be Crossrail (or Hammersmith and City) having
through running to (say) fast services to Oxford, Basingstoke via Reading,
Southend, Chelmsford and Rochester, with 345s, 387s, SWR stock, c2c stock,
GA and SET stock all through-running to each destination, worked by the
appropriate TOC's crews over their own tracks!
Post by Recliner
I think
the shared Richmond line is NR, and the Wimbledon line is run to NR
standards.
Yes I think that's right, and both sections have both TPWS and trainstops.
The DC line used to be similar to the Met in that all NR stock had to have
trainstop equipment (though on the DC line double-manning of driving cabs
was an acceptable alternative), but now AIUI it is TPWS-fitted.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
London calling
2020-07-28 19:57:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:23 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
AFAIK the shared sections will retain lineside signalling (similar
arrangement to the Central line with an additional aspect for ATO trains,
though in this case I believe it will be blue rather than white); but the
resignalling of Harrow and north thereof is currently on hold.
I would expect trainstops to be retained, or possibly TPWS to be fitted
instead.
Speak to TC. Big changes are afoot and lots has now been abandoned!
Marland
2020-07-28 20:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by London calling
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:23 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
AFAIK the shared sections will retain lineside signalling (similar
arrangement to the Central line with an additional aspect for ATO trains,
though in this case I believe it will be blue rather than white); but the
resignalling of Harrow and north thereof is currently on hold.
I would expect trainstops to be retained, or possibly TPWS to be fitted
instead.
Speak to TC. Big changes are afoot and lots has now been abandoned!
Isn’t he that Cat who lives in a trash can ?

GH
Peter Able
2020-07-29 13:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by London calling
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:04:23 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
AFAIK the shared sections will retain lineside signalling (similar
arrangement to the Central line with an additional aspect for ATO trains,
though in this case I believe it will be blue rather than white); but the
resignalling of Harrow and north thereof is currently on hold.
I would expect trainstops to be retained, or possibly TPWS to be fitted
instead.
Speak to TC. Big changes are afoot and lots has now been abandoned!
Isn’t he that Cat who lives in a trash can ?
GH
TC OT UK !

PA

Clive D.W. Feather
2020-06-26 15:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Do you know how Chiltern trains will be adapted for the new Met signalling,
or will conventional signals and tripcocks be retained for them?
I've answered that elsewhere: the control centre will generate movement
authorities for Chiltern trains just like ones for Met trains. These
will then be used to cause the coloured lights to show red, yellow, and
green as appropriate, rather than the blue that a Met train will see and
which means the cab signalling is in charge.
--
Clive D.W. Feather
Recliner
2020-06-26 20:27:00 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:17:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:36:03 +0100, Guy Gorton
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 22:56:46 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
Evening all,
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53150748>
It will be interesting to see what happened here.
"Passengers narrowly avoided a collision when a train travelled the
wrong way on a London Underground track.
The Chiltern Railways service stopped a few metres in front of a Tube
train at Chalfont and Latimer station in Buckinghamshire.
An image from the scene shows the two just metres apart on the
Metropolitan line on Sunday night.
No casualties were reported and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch
(RAIB) is investigating.
The train caused damaged to points and parts of the track, according to
BBC London Transport and Environment Correspondent Tom Edwards."
I'll choose this one of the two threads to reply to as it seems to have the
most posts. I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about this,
but I can confirm some of the speculation as correct and some as being
false.
The trains involved were an Up Chiltern, and a Northbound LU to the Chesham
branch. The LU train was timetabled across the junction first, if the
Chiltern unit had been slowing appropriately for the signal aspects
received, it likely wouldn’t have had to actually stop before being routed
into the station (where it was booked to call).
For reasons currently unknown to me, the Chiltern train spadded the signal
(which is around 700m-1km from the station, its shadow is clearly visible
on google maps near a footbridge around halfway between the station and the
divergence of the two lines), apparently at some speed (the track-mounted
tripcock equipment was damaged). It had received YY, Y, fog-repeater Y (ie
an additional single yellow aspect in the sequence) then the red. No AWS or
TPWS is fitted to the line because LU use tripcocks; all Chiltern stock
which uses the line must be tripcock-fitted.
The driver then reset the tripcock and carried on, for reasons unknown. The
signal went back to danger in front of the LU train before it moved from
the station; the Chiltern ran through and damaged the trailing points (bent
the end of the point blade and broke parts of the mechanism), then ran
across the facing crossover (which is presumably when the driver applied
emergency braking) ending up 23m from the LU train.
Points to bear in mind are the differences between LU and NR signalling and
procedures. This was a controlled signal so the following rule doesn't
apply, but its existence needs to be considered, I think: LU auto signals
aren’t allocated to a signaller as NR ones are; you contact the Line
Controller for any problems at them (eg signal failure, etc). As used to
apply at NR automatic signals, if you can’t contact anyone you can pass
them at danger and proceed at caution. The additional rule is that if you
spad one, and can’t contact anyone within two minutes, you can proceed at
caution up to a suitable location. This being a controlled signal that rule
didn’t apply, of course.
Also, after tripcock operation, most LU stock has a feature which limits it
to 10-15mph for 2 minutes; the Chiltern stock does not have this feature.
Personally I wonder whether the lack of AWS (a great tool for focusing the
attention of a distracted driver to something out of course) will be
considered by the investigation.
For clarity: there was no fault with any signalling equipment, no wrong
route was set or taken, and no fault with either of the trains.
From the signal the Up Chiltern train spadded, only one route can be set -
straight on into the southbound platform at C&L. There's no signalled route
across the crossover in that direction.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
I was at Little Chalfont yesterday with a long-lens camera. My
vantage point was the road bridge for the road from L C to Latimer.
The last signal the Chiltern driver would have seen is almost under
the bridge on the western side - I could only capture its back over a
rather high parapet. I could not see any other signals before the Up
platform - there is one on the Chesham line which controls whether an
ex-Chesham train goes on to the main line or into the bay platform..
There is no signalling in the Up direction controlling use of rhe
crossover which is therefore one-way signalled.
The trailing crossover just a little west of the facing crossover has
no main signals and ground signals at that distance were beyond the
scope of my lens.
Does the working timetable put the Chesham Down train departure before
or after the Chiltern platforming ?
Google's sattelite view shows a signal almost on top of the facing
crossover. What would that be?
I have just put part of one of my photos on alt.binaries.pictures.rail
- I hope you can access binary groups.
I still cannot see a signal for the Up mainline. Clearly one to
control ex-Chesham trains which is showing red. I can also see a
ground signal just west of the trailing cross-over.
I can see at the left the back of a signal but that would refer to the
Chesham line.
Hope that helps.
You had quite a heat haze in that picture! Presumably you took it from the
Bell Lane bridge?
I wonder if there are any modern cab videos of that section of route?
Not quite a cab view, but I found a modern S-stock passenger view video of
the whole Met route from the City to Amersham. It gets to C&L at 50:00.
The section in question is covered in the following three minutes.


You can see all the Up line signals.
Recliner
2020-06-30 09:08:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:23:16 +0100, Guy Gorton
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:28:41 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
I was at Little Chalfont yesterday with a long-lens camera. My
vantage point was the road bridge for the road from L C to Latimer.
The last signal the Chiltern driver would have seen is almost under
the bridge on the western side - I could only capture its back over a
rather high parapet. I could not see any other signals before the Up
platform - there is one on the Chesham line which controls whether an
ex-Chesham train goes on to the main line or into the bay platform..
There is no signalling in the Up direction controlling use of rhe
crossover which is therefore one-way signalled.
The trailing crossover just a little west of the facing crossover has
no main signals and ground signals at that distance were beyond the
scope of my lens.
Does the working timetable put the Chesham Down train departure before
or after the Chiltern platforming ?
Google's sattelite view shows a signal almost on top of the facing
crossover. What would that be?
I have just put part of one of my photos on alt.binaries.pictures.rail
- I hope you can access binary groups.
I still cannot see a signal for the Up mainline. Clearly one to
control ex-Chesham trains which is showing red. I can also see a
ground signal just west of the trailing cross-over.
I can see at the left the back of a signal but that would refer to the
Chesham line.
Hope that helps.
What's the object more or less in line with that signal, to the left
of the down line?
The satellite view gives a distorted vertical perspective.
I cannot see anything but my long-distance photo is rather poor. If
the light remains good, I might have another try tomorrow with a
different DSLR and a different lens.
Guy Gorton
I have added a photo taken from the Down platform which shows the
crossover and other details.
Hope that helps.
Just one comment - the crossover and Chesham line points are
incrediblly close together.
Incidentally, while looking for your photos, I glanced at some of the
others posted at around the same time. One caught my eye (US BNSF 7638
Cameron IL 6-23-2019 c), as it features two heavy freight trains passing
over each other, one hauled by three locos and one by four. All seven locos
are in shot, close to the photographer's position, and the thunderous roar
as they passed must have been deafening.
Loading...