DOI fails again

[offshoremanxman]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No, because you are confusing two incidents. It’s not difficult given the circumlocution used, the ( unnecessary ) words.

What I think Minister Thomas means is.

Since the last incident 4 years ago we have done X, Y, Z as back up braking systems. They worked well in this case on 12 May 2023 when the primary system failed.

He doesn’t explicitly say that though.

[John Wright]

25 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

He doesn’t explicitly say that though.

No. It’s written in a totally opaque and almost meaningless way designed to confuse and confer deniability. What other construction could you put on it.

Its either

1. we’ve done this since the previous incident, and it worked

2. we’ve done all this since 12 May ( come off it, we both know they haven’t, didn’t, couldn’t )

3. Gobbledygook

Take your choice.

[A fool and his money.....]

21 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

He doesn’t explicitly say that though.

That's as close as you're going to get with that whopper.

It fairly explicitly says that there are 5 braking systems on the team (although it doesn't mention whether the newly installed system is one of the five you'd have to assume so). The first braking system failed ( as has obviously been anticipated by the presence of the other four) the other braking systems worked fine. No biggy.

It's also probably worth pointing out that the service ran perfectly well for over a century, presumably with just the four braking systems - the fifth was only deemed necessary after Ian Longworth decided to remove a hump at the summit during regeneration work, predictably causing an unoccupied tram to career to its destruction down the track. The subsequent enquiry opted for a hugely expensive retro fit of a fifth braking system, rather than replacing the half ton of earth that had prevented such a calamity for 100 odd years before.

In answer to the obvious next question - retired on full pension like the rest of them.

[Dr Beeching]

The latest brake system had to be put in when DEFA put the trams on stop because they were so unsafe. 

There's a whole load of FOI details on the subject. The approach of DOI management to the situation is probably best described as "eye opening but not at all surprising".

[CallMeCurious]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:00 AM, The Phantom said:

I received an email last night from the Harbours Office, a dept of the DOI. 

First line:

"Email Body to go here..."

It's the little things... 

It's not about the little things for them though is it, they are all about the grand schemes. Can't fix a potholes on the main A roads but will resurface miles of B roads to ensure the budget is retained for next year. I'm waiting for AI to start being used to duplicate the enitre message for any government correspondence or notice next.  

 

[Roger Mexico]

There's actually fairly full coverage (including the statement Chris Thomas quoted) in an IOM Newspapers article published today:

Snaefell tram in brake failure drama

That little 'in' spoiling what would otherwise be a magnificent five-nouns-in-a-row headline.

[La Colombe]

1 hour ago, A fool and his money..... said:

It fairly explicitly says that there are 5 braking systems on the team

That's all very well but how often are the whole team on the tram at any one time?

[A fool and his money.....]

9 hours ago, La Colombe said:

That's all very well but how often are the whole team on the tram at any one time?

As well as multiple user names you can spot spelling mistakes too! Is there no beginning to your talents?

[doc.fixit]

12 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

That's as close as you're going to get with that whopper.

It fairly explicitly says that there are 5 braking systems on the team (although it doesn't mention whether the newly installed system is one of the five you'd have to assume so). The first braking system failed ( as has obviously been anticipated by the presence of the other four) the other braking systems worked fine. No biggy.

It's also probably worth pointing out that the service ran perfectly well for over a century, presumably with just the four braking systems - the fifth was only deemed necessary after Ian Longworth decided to remove a hump at the summit during regeneration work, predictably causing an unoccupied tram to career to its destruction down the track. The subsequent enquiry opted for a hugely expensive retro fit of a fifth braking system, rather than replacing the half ton of earth that had prevented such a calamity for 100 odd years before.

In answer to the obvious next question - retired on full pension like the rest of them.

Could it be that there was  better maintenance in the old days?

[WTF]

1 hour ago, doc.fixit said:

Could it be that there was  better maintenance in the old days?

there is basically no maintenance these days , it's bodge it when it breaks to keep it going.

[Two-lane]

"‘One of the Snaefell trams suffered a failure of a brake resistor in service.

‘While these units are extremely robust, they undergo regular heating and cooling which can lead to occasional mechanical failures."

I doubt that the DoI will be happy to list the number of times the primary braking system has "occasionally" failed. Failure of a primary safety system should be a serious matter.

"‘The electromagnetic brakes, wheel brakes and both fell brakes were all fully operational and the specified tests had been undertaken and passed that day."

I also doubt they will be willing to produce any documentation for the "specified tests" - or the daily log showing it has been done.

I suppose they have to say something, and what they said was something.

 

[Jarndyce]

12 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

That little 'in' spoiling what would otherwise be a magnificent five-nouns-in-a-row headline.

One noun for each braking system!   Those rascally sub-editors…

[The Phantom]

Has anyone considered having an anchor on the back of them? 

[doc.fixit]

30 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

"‘One of the Snaefell trams suffered a failure of a brake resistor in service.

‘While these units are extremely robust, they undergo regular heating and cooling which can lead to occasional mechanical failures."

I doubt that the DoI will be happy to list the number of times the primary braking system has "occasionally" failed. Failure of a primary safety system should be a serious matter.

"‘The electromagnetic brakes, wheel brakes and both fell brakes were all fully operational and the specified tests had been undertaken and passed that day."

I also doubt they will be willing to produce any documentation for the "specified tests" - or the daily log showing it has been done.

I suppose they have to say something, and what they said was something.

 

If a component is known to fail occasionally there should be either a parallel component or a fail safe similar to a car's dual master cyl.

[Blade Runner]

On 3/24/2023 at 6:03 PM, Blade Runner said:

If you have friends or family then tell them NEVER to go on that mountain railway.

It is fundamentally unsafe due to the "emergency brake" that passengers sometimes have to apply themselves....See above for details and the attempt to keep that secret.

Then even, the  NORMAL BRAKES , NOT EVEN THE EMERGENCY ONES, rely on the electric motors for slowing down the trams, ergo, when the tram does not have contact with the electric line for many reasons the braking "System" does not work.

It is only a mater of time until there is a multi fatality on that railway due to trying to keep it "Heritage"

Bump