UK Railway Engineering Works - A Puzzle To Me

[iL Dottore]

I will soon be making one of my infrequent trips to London and my visit will coincide with the ExpoEM show in Bracknell, which I plan on visiting. Now, to get to Bracknell I have to get to either Reading or Ascot by train and then get a "replacement bus service" (sic) to Bracknell - due to planned engineering works. But why the complete line section closure? (Bracknell Stn has two tracks)

 

The reason I ask is that in the past year or so I have taken a number of trips (weekday and weekend) out of Basel and the SBB has been doing work on double-track lines on my journey but allowing passage of trains on the unoccupied line (yes, it slows you down, but there is still a rail service) so when I am in England on a trip and I find that sections of my planned journey are closed due to planned engineering works, I am both annoyed and bemused by this.

 

Now what puzzles me, and I hope this is the right place to ask this question, is what is the rationale for closing a section of (presumably) double-track line? Is it the way power is fed into the OHC? or that the entire section of double-track line is being worked upon? or they are working on the signalling and the entire section is without signals? Or could it be due to the HSE? I confess to being rather puzzled and quite curious about the reason for complete closure.

 

One last question: why can't as much of the work as possible be done at night and not just at weekends?

 

F

[newbryford]

 

Or could it be due to the HSE? I confess to being rather puzzled and quite curious about the reason for complete closure.

 

One last question: why can't as much of the work as possible be done at night and not just at weekends?

 

F

 

HSE has a lot to do with it. Men and machinery on an adjacent line is frowned upon in the UK.

Also, much of the equipment/systems used by British companies for track renewal is designed to use the adjacent running line for access and use. There are such things as the Harsco track renewal train that can operate on single tracks, but I think there's only three of these in the UK. Incidentally, sections of the double track outside my house were done using the TRT

 

With regard to night time working, it is far more efficient to block the line for fewer, longer periods than lots of short-time closures. My local line has no regular service between 2330 and 0600 (0700 Sunday), taking into account the time taken to set up the worksite and later remove the equipment, there's about 5 hours of available working time. It's been more cost effective to close the line at 2330 Saturday and reopen for 0600 Monday.

 

There are possibly a couple of other reasons. Large sections of British double track are not setup for single line working with crossovers and signalling systems. Also the frequency of the double track service may not fit into the singled sections.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Kenton]

Just conjecture - but I'd guess it has something to do with signalling. Or if the work extends all the way up to Wokingham (the junction) then replacement of/repairs to one of the level crossings (there was some talk locally of removing one of them).

 

One last question: why can't as much of the work as possible be done at night and not just at weekends?

That one is easy - the same reason why motorways only have rows of cones and no one working there ...

[Adam]

Certainly, single line working is common enough. There's been a lot of it on the south Wales mainline for the last year or so for example and of course, the closure of Southampton tunnel where single-line running continued more or less throughout the work to lower the floor. Work to renew the crossovers either side was far more disruptive thna the rather more involved tunnel works oddly enough - probably because of the need to retain access to Northam depot, the docks and the knock-on effects of cancellations and delays at Reading, Basingstoke, Bournemouthand even Birmingham...

 

Similarly, there are an awful lot of overnight posessions, but some jobs will always take longer than the time available overnight and suburban residents won't necessarily appreciate two weeks worth of overnight possessions and when they're trying to sleep and unintended over-runs delaying their journey to work the next morning. On the SR there is the rather important consideration of the next morning's peak services, which which probably only give the engineers six* hours or so to bring their kit in, do the job, take it away... I would say tidy up, but Network Rail seem not to do this as a general rule.

 

Adam

 

* In the specific case of Bracknell, I'm not sure what they were doing last year, but the weekday timetable has a gap between the last late-night service (arr. Reading 0052) and the first morning service (arr. Reading 0640) of about six hours and is a very intensively used commuter run - with correspondingly light loadings at the weekend - it's something of a no-brainer as when the work gets done.

[The Stationmaster]

I will soon be making one of my infrequent trips to London and my visit will coincide with the ExpoEM show in Bracknell, which I plan on visiting. Now, to get to Bracknell I have to get to either Reading or Ascot by train and then get a "replacement bus service" (sic) to Bracknell - due to planned engineering works. But why the complete line section closure? (Bracknell Stn has two tracks)

 

The reason I ask is that in the past year or so I have taken a number of trips (weekday and weekend) out of Basel and the SBB has been doing work on double-track lines on my journey but allowing passage of trains on the unoccupied line (yes, it slows you down, but there is still a rail service) so when I am in England on a trip and I find that sections of my planned journey are closed due to planned engineering works, I am both annoyed and bemused by this.

 

Now what puzzles me, and I hope this is the right place to ask this question, is what is the rationale for closing a section of (presumably) double-track line? Is it the way power is fed into the OHC? or that the entire section of double-track line is being worked upon? or they are working on the signalling and the entire section is without signals? Or could it be due to the HSE? I confess to being rather puzzled and quite curious about the reason for complete closure.

 

One last question: why can't as much of the work as possible be done at night and not just at weekends?

 

F

 

An excellent question and one which I used to ask regularly of Railtrack when I was one of their customers - and I couldn't get a logical answer even then!

 

The reasons are manifold but you have already identified some of them. On electrified lines it is often the case that power control zones mean that both lines have to be powered down although in some cases that powering down (and earthing) is done as much for personnel safety reasons as anything else.

 

Bracknell, as you obviously appreciate, is on a double track route and some kinds of work require the opposite line to be blocked if the other is being worked on. In BR days the usual aim was to try to cvomncentrate that part of the job to the NBS (No Booked Service) period or the shoulders of it in order to minimise disruption to trains and then put in slw (single line working) while the job was finished.

 

But for some reason known (perhaps?) only to themselve Network Rail seem very loathe to put in slw and in any case the Rule Book now requires trains to be slowed past the worksite on adjacent lines so recasting the services can be quite involved. I get the impression from those within the industry, and what I have seen of it from consultancy work in the not too distant past that many of today's train planning staff simply haven't got the experience or background to be able to do that sort of planning (mind you it didn't exactly come in vast quantities back in BR days - there were, I found over the years, relatively few of us who could do that sort of thing and, even more importantly, could do it against very tight timescales).

 

To those of us familiar with the old railway (i.e. the nationalised one) a lot of this seems like the nanny state gone barmy - we though nothing of putting in slw at the drop of a hat and pre-planned was easy. Also as operators we would insist in programming and pre-planning that the engineers get teh job done and get out to allow trains to run. NR do not seem to have that attiotude but in their defence they have fewer staff available for things like slw and many of those they do have seem to have limited experience and aren't given much chance to gain any. Equally many of their engineering staff or contracttors are just as inexperienced in working next to a live railway so perhaps the idea of doing it doesn't occur to them/

 

So the culture of the 'substitute road service' has blossomed into an even greater industry and the train operators often don't mind because it doesn't cost them anything.

 

Oh, and of course although things have got much better in more recent schemes a large part of Britain's double line railway is not signalled for reversible or bi-directional running so you can't take the standard mainland European approach of writing your timetable to suit single line working on certain days or at particular parts of the year. And that criticism goes back even to BR days although some parts of the railway were quite good at it back then.

 

Sorry to have rabbited on and ranted a bit but regrettably some of what happens today raises my hackles when I know what could be done so very easily (except at Bracknell as it happens).

 

And why isn't more done at night - well the RMT don't seem over keen on that idea although in places I've no doubt it does happen that way - and it should as much of the night-time railway is now very peaceful with few, or no, trains.

[Bomag]

One last question: why can't as much of the work as possible be done at night and not just at weekends?

 

F

 

As mentioned above the working window is just too short to make it cost effective to do relaying etc. In addition with the working time limitations most staff can only do two extra shifts a week and the issues with having gangs permanently on nights are normally to much of a problem (and cost). However, before the Hidden report came out after the Clapham Jct crash a lot of work was done at night, both perpetrations for relaying and follow up work e.g. distressing/tamping/DTS. One of my colleagues when I was in RCE Anglia PW design section managed to get several 168 hour weeks. At that time, during electrification, you could do nights, and a shortened 'day' shift through the week and two long weekend shifts. If you had less than a nine hour break you booked straight through, therefore it was possible to get paid continuously for a solid week!

 

With the current restrictions on working time you have to program it for times when you can maximise the work done - which is weekends and bank holidays.

 

I regularly travel to a test track near Bracknell and I always go via Reading from Paddington. Its half the time and likely to involve less bus travel than the direct route.

[iL Dottore]

My thanks to all for the clarifications, it seems from what has been described that for the UK this is the "least worst" option.

 

Regarding engineers, etc., not having enough experience/background (as referred to by Mike [The Stationmaster] in his post), with DB buying up TOCs, etc. in then UK, I wonder if we'll soon see job rotations where UK staff are sent to Germany (or elsewhere in the DB empire) to get experience. It happens in other industries.... (just a thought)

 

F

[The Stationmaster]

My thanks to all for the clarifications, it seems from what has been described that for the UK this is the "least worst" option.

 

Regarding engineers, etc., not having enough experience/background (as referred to by Mike [The Stationmaster] in his post), with DB buying up TOCs, etc. in then UK, I wonder if we'll soon see job rotations where UK staff are sent to Germany (or elsewhere in the DB empire) to get experience. It happens in other industries.... (just a thought)

 

F

 

It could be interesting to see such intercjange although there are a lot of differences between British and mainland practice (mind you that might also be helpful as folk will pick up some ideas - I hope).

 

The matter of time taking and giving up possessions is something which has worsened, gradually at first but then more rapidly, over the past 20 years or so. Having watched how DB and SNCF can go into a line within minutes of the previous train passing plus being well aware of their procedure on the LGVs - where almost all maintenance work is done at night plus the one hour daytime 'white period' for inspection and urgent work (which will very occasionally include tamping!) we are undoubtedly well behind the pack in terms of geting into and out of jobs.

 

And looking at the way SNCB does a lot of its work is a revelation to anyone used to the British approach. Its not surprising that many continental folk have found our system of engineering possession planning incomprehensible.

 

Part of the reason for this is the often poor access facilities for on-rail kit with machines etc having to stable remotely from work sites because sidings have been removed (years ago in most cases) and other access is often poor or 'not up to current standards'.

 

Perhaps things will change but I spent the last 6 years of my fulltime railway career constantly badgering - at quite high level - with little result. My best effort did however lead to a 26 hour tamping possession being produced instead of 6x 6 hour possessions after a meeting to which Railtrack admitted the contractor resulted in him snatching my offer of 26 hours once a year instead of Railtrack's proposed 6x6. That arrangement cost Railtrack more money, which probably explained their unwillingness to think outside the box, but suited both me as an operator and the tamping contractor.

[beast66606]

The TOCs have a lot of "influence" (=control) about how and when engineering works are carried out.

[Edwin_m]

I suspect it's often cheaper and less hassle for the TOC simply to run buses and send the bill to Network Rail. This may be changing though - witness the thread somewhere else on here with 67s dragging 225 formations diverted off the Leeds route.

[Oldddudders]

Not so clued-up as Mike on the present arrangements, but SLW really is, in practical terms, pretty difficult to do in most places, due to the lack of xover roads. Thus the thin train service that can be run is of limited interest to the TOC, who are in a strong position to dictate the form of possession to NR. SLW was easy in the days of local signalboxes with multiple crossovers and plenty of competent staff, but must be a nightmare to organise now. I did it on several nights in the mid-70s, between Gillingham and Rochester. This was a paper train route, so lifting in some form was obligatory, and thus SLW appealed. Significantly, even only a couple of years later, when SLW was in operation on a Sunday between New X and London Bridge, the Area Manager insisted on all his junior managers turning up to take a role as Pilotman or Responsible Officer, simply for the experience.

 

The railway now is quite different. No longer can the bloke who clips your ticket and waves the train away be asked at a moment's notice to go and flag a failed signal, clip a pair of points or pull a hookswitch. The "blockade mentality" is seen as the norm, and watching the entire West Coast Main Line service being bussed between Hemel Hempstead and Milton Keynes Central a few years back was quite something. We had had to spend months re-designing the forecourt at Hemel to take the zillion coaches involved.

 

As Mike says, trainplanners are not about in the profusion of past years. Every BR Division had a whole planning organisation, with able people who specialised in accommodating the engineers' needs. The quarterly planning meeting, which I chaired for a couple of years on the South Eastern, and where all the engineers tabled their proposals and we discussed the best means of meeting them, was an all-day affair. But Divisions went the way of the dodo in 1984.

 

Frankly, Dear Doctor - I'd hire a car.....

[Guest Phil]

My thanks to all for the clarifications, it seems from what has been described that for the UK this is the "least worst" option.

 

Regarding engineers, etc., not having enough experience/background (as referred to by Mike [The Stationmaster] in his post), with DB buying up TOCs, etc. in then UK, I wonder if we'll soon see job rotations where UK staff are sent to Germany (or elsewhere in the DB empire) to get experience. It happens in other industries.... (just a thought)

 

F

 

I doubt "engineers" would be sent anywhere far in Britain, let alone to Germany. From what I can make of the industry there are so many companies chasing Network Rail's contracts, they must be falling over each other. I won't bore you with any "back in my day" stuff but just a few months ago there was a situation on the outskirts of Birmingham which gave me a pretty good reason why I wouldn't like to see SLW and trains running on the other track.

 

One Saturday evening an XC class 170 on the 1919 Birmingham-Nottingham passed through Washwood Heath on the main Birmingham-Derby line and was struck by some steel hanging from a digger / crane. Apparently the steel had swung and hit the front fairing and bogie of the 170, luckily only causing paint gouges / scrapes rather than any serious damage. The train driver climbed down to compose himself then talk to the "engineers" but they denied all knowledge of the incident. The driver changed ends and took the train back into New St where it terminated and went empty to Tyseley for inspection and repairs. After filing reports the driver was taken home in a taxi - shook up.

 

I believe the scenario actually was that the mainlines were open, but the goods lines were under possession for engineering work. It seems to me that if the "engineers" can't keep their toys on the right side of the fence in a situation described, SLW is a more extreme situation.

 

Yeah, maybe I am generalising and perhaps shouldn't do it, but it does highlight the safety issues of the modern railway when (IMHO) the P way arn't always "railwaymen", unlike wot things used to be pre privatisation.

[The Stationmaster]

 

One Saturday evening an XC class 170 on the 1919 Birmingham-Nottingham passed through Washwood Heath on the main Birmingham-Derby line and was struck by some steel hanging from a digger / crane. Apparently the steel had swung and hit the front fairing and bogie of the 170, luckily only causing paint gouges / scrapes rather than any serious damage. The train driver climbed down to compose himself then talk to the "engineers" but they denied all knowledge of the incident. The driver changed ends and took the train back into New St where it terminated and went empty to Tyseley for inspection and repairs. After filing reports the driver was taken home in a taxi - shook up.

 

I believe the scenario actually was that the mainlines were open, but the goods lines were under possession for engineering work. It seems to me that if the "engineers" can't keep their toys on the right side of the fence in a situation described, SLW is a more extreme situation.

 

Yeah, maybe I am generalising and perhaps shouldn't do it, but it does highlight the safety issues of the modern railway when (IMHO) the P way arn't always "railwaymen", unlike wot things used to be pre privatisation.

 

Cranes have always been dangerous 'toys' and in some respects I don't think some 'proper' railwaymen were any safer with them than contractors. The incident mentioned above mirrors fairly closely one which happened in the Manchester area back in the late 1950s or early '60s involving a steam hauled passenger train - only difference was that the crane was beyond the boundary fence!

 

I never took chances with the things, even on one occasion being so tight with the load/jib at rest situation as to extend a dmu re-railing job at Paddington into the beginning of the evening peak to the chagrin of a number of people.

 

But modern plant designed to work effectively within gauge needn't be such a source of worry I think.