Atomic Systems

Front page of the Evening Standard tonight

Also on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5286274.stm

Only with First.......

If Class 365s formed the service, it has happened several times under WAGN too.

Nathan

How many times has this happened now?

Mind you, knowing the expensive people in charge over at FCC it was bound to happen.

Maybe the people who don't wan't to pay so much got their payback.

It's a bit of a non-story, really. But I suppose "TRAIN SAFETY SYSTEM OPERATES CORRECTLY" isn't a great headline is it?

arabiandisco wrote:It's a bit of a non-story, really. But I suppose "TRAIN SAFETY SYSTEM OPERATES CORRECTLY" isn't a great headline is it?

Tottaly agree with you there. It does happen, which is why we have safty systems in operation to bring the train to a halt should it become divided.

Details as follows...1P01 became divided on the Down Fast at New Southgate at roughly 1733. Rear portion designated 1G01.

I notice the Telegraph today was saying it occured ot "100 miles per hour". Would it have been that fast, or was it just exaggeration based on the trains top speed?

martinhodgson wrote:I notice the Telegraph today was saying it occured ot "100 miles per hour". Would it have been that fast, or was it just exaggeration based on the trains top speed?

Is quite possible if it had a clear run, as it was about 8 minutes into its journey.

arabiandisco wrote:It's a bit of a non-story, really. But I suppose "TRAIN SAFETY SYSTEM OPERATES CORRECTLY" isn't a great headline is it?

I had a good laugh at this. It's funny because it's true.
Heh

But he added: "We really would like to apologise for this, it's something that concerns us immensely - these particular units are quite new.

While they are not old, I'd have thought that at a minimum of 9 years old they are not 'new'.

While they are not old, I'd have thought that at a minimum of 9 years old they are not 'new'.

They are definitely NOT new. not even relatively new. Although they are new to the company - maybe thats what was meant

Carl

carlwestwood wrote:

While they are not old, I'd have thought that at a minimum of 9 years old they are not 'new'.

They are definitely NOT new. not even relatively new. Although they are new to the company - maybe thats what was meant

Carl

But everything is new to FCC, including stuff like 317's which are 20 years old

Maybe if FCC keep telling themselves the units are new the customers might start to believe them...

"It was travelling at 90mph but the trains are designed for such things to happen at those speeds and to stop safely."

The trains are designed to separate at 90mph?!?!?!

AlistairW wrote:Maybe if FCC keep telling themselves the units are new the customers might start to believe them...

"It was travelling at 90mph but the trains are designed for such things to happen at those speeds and to stop safely."

The trains are designed to separate at 90mph?!?!?!

You'd be surprised at the disaster scenarios which tend to be considered on the railway, especially where safety is concerned. A train splitting at speed is one of the more obvious ones!

I'm aware of that I was having a jab at the spokepersons choice of wording.

I would of thought
"In the highly unlikely event of a train splitting whilst in motion the brakes are designed to apply automatically to ensure the both parts of the train come to a standstill within a safe distance."