Christopher125
-
Posts
737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Christopher125
-
-
I've just come across the PIN, which gives more detail to prospective contractors and appears to confirm the details of the meeting - seems TPWS (and cab radio!) really are on the cards: http://bidstats.uk/tenders/2019/W39/711590030
- Track works: A number of interventions are planned along the extent of the Island line to accommodate the new trains and improve track ride quality. These interventions will be items such as rail replacement, closure of current jointed track, ballast replacement, tamping, track lowering at stations and minor gauging interventions. A new passing loop will be provided at brading station and platform 2 will be reopened for passenger use.
- Civil engineering works: Civil engineering works will be carried out at the current station sites to complement track lowering and where this is not possible, the application of a new surface to the platforms to raise the platform height. There are a number of structures that require intervention such as minor bridge decking works and retaining structures.
- Signalling works: New signalling will be provided to control the new loop at Brading station together with the provision of a new control panel at Ryde St Johns signal box. Additionally, TPWS will be provided throughout the Island line together with the upgrading of a number of point mechanisms. To support the new signalling system at Brading station, a time division multiplexor system will be installed which will also replace the current westinghouse S2 legacy system provided at Sandown.
- Telecommunications works: A cots ethernet compatible fibre optic transmission system will be established on the Island Line to support the new signalling equipment and train radio system. This system will be compatible with VOIP systems.
- Electrical supply works: A number of station power supplies may need upgrading as part of the works to support the new signalling and systems which will require co-ordination with local DNO operators.
-
2
-
6
-
On 22/01/2020 at 13:54, Dunsignalling said:
If the wall had only carried local traffic, it wouldn't have been viable to repair last time and it would probably have gone long before that.
Not a chance; in the 21st century there's no political appetite for closing any railway service - hence the Conwy Valley is reopened at vast expense every few years, Island Line get's a £26m upgrade and even a station as lightly used as Breich gets a complete rebuild despite frequent suggestions on forums like this that the money won't be found.
In this case the line's aesthetic appeal alone would probably prompt enough of an outcry to make any politician think twice, let alone the size of the local population it serves and the political ramifications of trying. Closing railways is something most modern politicians just want nothing to do with thankfully.
-
2
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Mike Storey said:
I wonder which bit is not funded - the entire loop or the lowering of the track bed? And not funded by whom?
The lowering of the trackbed, a whole loop for £1m would be a tad optimistic! AIUI it's being funded by the DfT, via SWR.
-
3
-
-
SWR's programme manager for the project has supplied a bit more detail, courtesy of the IW Bus Users Group:http://www.iwbususers.btck.co.uk/RecentMinutes
- Design work is 75% complete.
- Platforms heights will be raised or track lowered to provide level boarding.
- There are gauging issues to address with some bridges.
- Rowborough sub-station will be renewed.
- A passing loop will be installed at Brading with level access provided by the foot crossing south of the station.
- Network Rail is considering the possibility of making Ryde St John’s Road fully accessible.
- 484s will need 700 miles of test running and should start passenger service in May 2021.
- Two closures next Autumn; 4 weeks between Pier Head and St Johns, and 8 weeks between Smallbrook and Shanklin.
- Construction works will require 7,000 tones of material to be moved.
- Provision of a Train Protection and Warning System is being considered between Ryde St John’s Road and Sandown stations to allow a 20-minute interval service to be run. [why?]
Perhaps time to rename the thread?
-
1
-
4
-
On 11/01/2020 at 16:17, phil-b259 said:
Naturally things may have improved since the articles I saw were written but I definitely saw references to the fact that the only way the engineers could get ECTS to work reliably down the hole was to switch off the ATP system. If so it would be most informative to have some engineering fact based clarity - because there is no doubt the engineers have had significant problems and its a bare faced lie to say otherwise (not that you did of course Simon)
I had a similar impression, but I've seen subsequent comments suggesting the issues weren't as intractable as some suggested and the real sticking point had proved to be the 345s - thankfully even that seems to have made progress with recent software updates, with training on ETCS/Heathrow imminent?
-
On 05/01/2020 at 22:49, melmerby said:
He's been against it from day one so is hardly going break any good news, even if he was given some.
He comes across as the ultimate 'crayonista' - he knows enough to think he has viable 'alternatives' like his Euston Express scheme, but not enough to see how fundamentally flawed and/or hopelessly undeveloped they are. Even when attempts are made to explain the problems to him, as they were at some length during the committee stage of the hybrid bill, he seems either unable or unwilling to understand.
Unfortunately his latest report is just more of the same vague and muddled thinking; William Barter has tweeted a useful analysis of which I've picked out a few:
https://twitter.com/WilliamBarter1/status/1214156556566237191
QuoteHere we go – the Berkeley report. A vague report relying heavily on assertions, quotations and weasel words - “could easily”, “probably” and other terms intended to cover up lack of analysis. This is most apparent in anything about operations and service planning.
Factual errors and misprints need no comment, there will always be some – but he keeps quoting the HS2 London – Manchester journey time as 82 minutes, whereas it will be 72 minutes. This mistake is made twice so needs to be called out.
But the worst example is in 2.4 para 2. There is blatant double-application of the UIC ‘75%’ prudent use of theoretical capacity in practice – HS2 reduces the theoretical 24 tph to 18 tph by applying the 75% guideline, but then Berkeley applies it again to reach 13 tph.QuotePara 6.3.3. Old Oak could not reliably accommodate even the 10 tph of Phase 1 as a terminus, as the space available does not permit a track layout as flexible as Euston – because it doesn’t have the grade separation that Euston has even in Phase 1.
Here the casual flashing of “could easily” is a complete giveaway – Berkeley has no analysis to support his contention that Old Oak could handle 10 tph as a terminus, with the reliability, and flexibility of paths to and from NR, that Euston has.
As for “another platform or two” for Phase 2B! Anyone can smell here, on such a critical issue and location. Of course, to Berkeley Phase 2B is not 18 tph, which could not in any universe be dealt with at Old Oak with “a platform or two” extra.QuoteThen there’s a few buried nasties! ‘Incorporation of DC lines into the WCML’. It’d be nice to know what the ‘reassessment of the Bakerloo line’ means! What’s the cost of a reasonable substitute, including termination of the Bakerloo service clear of the WCML?
‘Review of Cheddington, Tring and Apsley station’. What does ‘review’ mean? What can it mean other than closure? Please come clean on this, Lord Berkeley. Why Tring anyway, which is very well used? Why Apsley and not Kings Langley?QuoteAnd there is nothing in this report about the services that would run. That’s not just a gap, it’s a key element of proving feasibility. If the proposals don’t work, they have no value. If they don’t deliver what HS2 does, they are not alternatives to HS2.
There is a lot of detail about freight loops North of Preston, which isn’t really anything to do with HS2. But nothing whatsoever about the services he hopes his ‘options’ will run, let alone a basic train graph to demonstrate feasibility.
You show whether they work by specimen timetabling. And Berkeley hasn’t. You don’t show feasibility by just saying “could easily”. That’s not just naïve, it’s laughable. It’s as if he doesn’t realise that a railway runs trains, and does so to serve passengers and freight.-
1
-
2
-
5
-
-
On 20/12/2019 at 21:20, Gwiwer said:
Dawlish can be very wet and wild. But most loco-hauled trains backalong got through unless the line itself was blocked. HSTs and even the widely-loathed Pacers normally got through. The problem seems to be the more complex the hardware the more there is to go wrong and the more sensitive it is to anything upsetting it. May we please apply KISS to future builds?
If it was that simple then rolling stock should have become progressively, and significantly, less reliable as the complexity increased - it's hard to see much evidence of that.
Surely what we see at Dawlish is the downside of trains designed to protect themselves from damage - ordinarily a big benefit to reliability, but unhelpfully conservative in exceptional circumstances.
Thankfully this is something that can be addressed, as it was for Electrostars and Desiros when they struggled in their first bad winters - AIUI the 800s are due a software update which should address issues restarting engines knocked out by a wave, while a long-awaited fix for the Voyagers has been recently tested.
QuoteEven allowing for the post-electrification rolling stock shuffle it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to run the Bedwyns with a 166 and release IETs for where the need is greater.
I don't think that was ever on the cards, IIRC the initial plan was for a Newbury-Bedwyn DMU shuttle before the plan to lengthen the Bedwyn headshunt and use 800s - no conceivable business case could be found for electrification .
-
3 hours ago, caradoc said:
Track circuits can be used purely for LC operation, for example on the Ardrossan Harbour branch in Scotland, where they do not control the signalling and the Signaller has no visibility of their status. If those were the only TCs affected by wrong side failures on the Sheringham branch, fitting treadles at the relevant LCs would solve that particular problem, as long as the units could be trusted to occupy correctly all other TCs ?
AIUI that's the case - the Cromer branch was resignalled as a trial primarily using axle counters, but as described in The Rail Engineer (pg30) they also fitted level crossing predictors for the first time and these do use track circuits to detect oncoming trains and calculate the appropriate timings.
...a level-crossing predictor was first introduced between Norwich and Cromer when the line was resignalled in 2000. The GETS Harmon HXP-3 uses audio frequency track circuits to detect an approaching train, and the rate of change of the inductance of the rails is used to determine its speed and hence calculate the trigger moment to provide and constant warning time for each train.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Classsix T said:
Everyday is a school day. It's never occurred to me that sand might be used as an aid to speed retardation, I'd always assumed it's sole purpose was as an adhesion aid to acceleration, specifically in wet rail head conditions.
Interestingly this is being developed further, with Variable Rate Sanding recently trialled on the Redditch branch whose results are described in the Rail Engineer article below:
'A little sand in the right place works wonders'
QuoteTo illustrate the effect of the enhanced sanding, a step 3 brake with no sand only managed to reduce speed from 55 miles/hour to 40 miles/hour by the end of the paper tape (a speed reduction of 15 miles/hour over the 750 metres travelled).
Once the enhanced sanders were activated for a repeat test, the brake application was so successful that the brakes had to be released early because there was barely enough momentum left to coast to the end of the paper tape so that the pantograph could be raised again. Your author was in conversation with Parvaiz Elahi, the ASLEF health and safety representative, during the step 3 test with sand and we were both suitably impressed.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, richardw1970 said:
I suspect this is mainly due to that being the first driven axle on many units, the exceptions in my experience are the 14x and 153 which do sand the leading axle due to the limited number of axles available.
That would surprise me - it isn't the first driven axle on the 387s mentioned in the article and I can think of many other classes where that isn't the case, in one direction or both.
-
16 hours ago, Zomboid said:
I'd love to know the thinking behind putting sanders on unmotored wheels. Sounds like rookie mistake to me, though it's not something I know much about. There could be a good reason for it being like that...
This Rail Engineer article appears to suggest sanding the third axle is standard (if not required?) practice, presumably so sand doesn't interfere with the front bogie triggering track circuits.
It might be unusual for axle 3 to be so far from the next set of driven wheels but braking performance surely takes priority, so it's as far forward as possible.
I think that all makes sense?
-
2
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Suzie said:
Saw a Sibil on the Clacton branch today running on Diesel. Not quite sure why it was there!
Driver training I think?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Zomboid said:
Could well be that the specific issue is one which just hasn't affected anything else in the past, and it's just chance that these are the first trains to discover this. Or it could be that it was known and Stadler weren't told, or it could be that they were told and it didn't make it to the construction phase...
Perhaps it only shows up as an issue in combination with the track circuits used on the Cromer branch?
-
6 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:
Add together a potentially complex issue with confused messaging, especially if some of it is demonstrably wrong, and you end up in a mess. Let's hope someone senior gets a grip soon and starts setting out the facts publicly.
Was the messaging actually confused, or does it only seem that way because of the torrent of uninformed speculation in the media and amongst enthusiasts? My initial reactions were influenced by what I was reading here and elsewhere, but on reflection perhaps GA are right to feel aggrieved.
1 hour ago, uax6 said:I'm interested to see who will foot the bill for any modifications to the infrastructure for these trains. I believe it should be GA, as it is not a network change by NR, as other trains run ok.
I think that's unlikely now the fault seems limited to the Cromer line.
According to this 2011 ORR report concerning the Whitlingham LC the Cromer line was resignalled "as a trial site for the Vaughan Harmon interlocking and level crossing predictor / processor technology".
Perhaps unsurprisingly for a trial of new technology the system proved unreliable, poorly supported by the manufacturer and limited staff competency - it seems entirely plausible and consistent with recent statements that Stadler met all the relevant standards but the design has exposed characteristics or flaws with the non-standard signalling.
QuoteIn this case the following issues were identified:
- Concerns that the system is not robust and is prone to intermittent failures which can cause significant train delays.
- The cost and difficulty of obtaining spares for the VHLC system.
- The lack of any meaningful support for the VHLC system by GETS.
- The limited number of competent staff and difficulty obtaining training.-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, wombatofludham said:
Only problem with that is the fact for the past 17-18 autumns and winters the previous traction has, apparently, coped with the weird American track circuits without triggering a wrong side failure (as I'm sure we would have heard about it by now). The first autumn with new trains and one of them fails to trigger the circuits and suddenly there's a design flaw?Is this a binary issue though? This appears to be an existing characteristic/flaw that apparently affects everything - presumably previous traction hadn't triggered it to the same degree and/or as consistently as the Stadlers so escaped attention.
This would explain the most recent statements, why the Stadlers aren't being blamed and are back in use, and seems way more plausible than some grand conspiracy by Greater Anglia to deceive the public which would surely be exposed?
-
49 minutes ago, beast66606 said:
Your attitude stinks and smells of troll.
Absolutely, 100%... but that doesn't mean he hasn't got a point, however badly he puts it across.
I do feel there's been an assumption by most enthusiasts that the train *must* be to blame, but it seems entirely possible that the Stadler design merely exposes some kind of fault or design issue with the signalling that shouldn't exist.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Harry Lime said:
Poosibly the ugliest looking livery - makes it look like a lizard...
IMO it's perhaps the best livery on the network; modern, distinctive and really grabs your attention.
-
3
-
3
-
-
On 21/11/2019 at 23:01, melmerby said:
I wonder what the branding will settle down as?
First LMS, complete with maroon coaches?
'Avanti West Coast' looks a good bet, possibly orange?
-
90035 is being used to test the new wires to Cardiff, Gary Keenor explains all in this twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/25kV/status/1195098952833601538
QuoteThis is an OLE test train that's been put together by the @networkrailwest electrification project team. The train is intended to undertake mechanical and electrical testing of the OLE between Bristol and Cardiff in advance of entry into service
The mechanical testing is performed using the pantograph on top of the class 90. It is unusual in two ways: 1) it carries force & acceleration sensors so that it can measure contact force, and 2) it is the only cl 90 carrying an HS-X pan, the type used by @GWRHelp at 125mph
The train can also function as an electrical load bank, by simply using the class 90 to drive the train and draw power from the OLE. Staff in the lineside substations can then measure the electrical behaviour of the system as the train passes through.-
4
-
-
31 minutes ago, russ p said:
The 800 seems to have come off a lot worse, looks like the intermediate bar couplers have allowed a lot more lateral movement than Buckeyes or tightlocks.
They are 26m long vehicles, surely that's to be expected? The offset as they go through tight pointwork is eye-opening.
-
On 08/11/2019 at 17:13, lmsforever said:
Could the trains be used elsewhere until this line actually opened at least then revenue would be earned plus some rolling stock shortages will be helped.I wait for further delays on this project maybe it is overengineered?
I gather the vast majority of the fleet will be needed when full dynamic testing through the core gets underway alongside Tfl Rail services to Reading, Shenfield and Heathrow.
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Mike Storey said:
Very surprising.
Is it? Doug Oakervee's conclusions seem pretty obvious to me, while the cost has risen none of the arguments are new and the fundamentals haven't changed - if they specifically wanted someone to scale back or kill the project, regardless of the evidence, they could have chosen Lord Berkeley to lead it.
-
3
-
-
On 07/11/2019 at 21:55, Fat Controller said:
Not sure that it isn't one of the NoL sets that have been used on Paris- Lille internal workings. I believe the units may be for use in one of the two Academies being set up in conjunction with HS2; not running, of course, but for use as classrooms.
Didn't they receive theirs a year or two back?
-
On 30/09/2019 at 17:56, PhilJ W said:
The 1938 units currently in use had their bodies raised by just over one inch before going to the I-o-W.
A little bit more than that - thanks to Ben on the District Dave forum I've been pointed to some NSE-era diagrams showing basic dimensions: https://www.networksoutheast.net/dc.html
This suggests a lift of 63mm - roughly 2.5 inches - from 2883mm as-built (according to wiki) to 2946mm which IMO makes them look noticeably less squat from some angles. Note the modern light clusters.
-
1
-
2
-
IoW light rail conversion proposed
in UK Prototype Discussions (not questions!)
Posted · Edited by Christopher125
Possibly but this is a few months old so plans may have evolved - either way renewing the Rowborough substation was specifically mentioned by the programme manager at the Bus & Rail Users meeting a week or two back.