Cirencester Community Railway

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Why would Kemble need signalling alterations?

 

IIRC the former branch feeds directly into the abandoned platform now used as a siding for on track plant and that has suitable trapping facilities to protect the main line.

 

If the reinstated branch was worked on the old ‘one train in steam’ principle there would be zero need for signalling on the branch itself.

 

As for driving to Kemble being quicker - there are plenty of other places on the existing network where this applies, not to mention the possibility of capturing traffic from non car owning folk.

Simple as far as signalling is concerned -

1. Assuming a service captive to the branch there is the awkward matter of a trap point at the mainline end and if I recall correctly there isn't a main aspect on the signal which currently reads from the siding so that would be needed. and to ensure one train working as on similar lines a single would have to be provided reading towards Cirencester to allow for the 'one train' axle counter controls.  And,

If the siding is there for a reason (why was it left, vcomplete with new facing crossover access off the Down Main?) it would need to be replicated 'round the corner' past the platform.

2. If through passenger trainrunning was envisaged all the connection to/from the branch siding would need to be signalled to passenger standards which means software alterations for the locking and an additional replaced running signal.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Andy Kirkham said:

The Cirencester line is historically interesting for being one of the earliest parts of the Great Western system; in fact Cirencester was connected to Paddington a month before the through route to Bristol opened.

That's not technically correct because the line between Swindon and Cirencester didn't become part of the GWR until May 1844.  The original section between Swindon Junction and Cirencester was constructed under Parliamentary Powers granted to the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway however in terms of the running of trains it is correct because the GWR leased of the C&GWUR for period of 7 years from the date the line was opened to Cirencester.

 

So GWR trains ran from Swindon to Cirencester from 31 May 1841 but the line between Swindon and Bristol was not opened throughout until 30 June that year.  However the  line from Swindon to Cirencesterdid not become part of the GWR system until it amalgamated with the C&GWUR on 10 May 1844

[KeithHC]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I don't see that as heresy, in the right places. But in this case, the cost is not justified as the road runs very freely all day apart from coming northwards and having to get out of that junction. Better to spend the money on a roundabout or lights there.

 

I agree on the junction especially as I always  drive to from Tetbury........

 

Keith

[Northmoor]

9 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Seems fanciful - does anyone proposing it have any experience of rail infrastructure etc ?

just make a bigger car park at Kemble !

SWT stated at a presentation to the RCTS not so long ago, that generally people don't like changing from bus to train or between trains.  This is why bus links to stations only sometimes justify themselves, but every time SWT had enlarged a car park at their stations, the new capacity was taken up quickly.  This suggests there is latent demand from car users.  Remember SWT/SWR operates in an affluent part of the UK with high levels of car ownership; Cirencester is a similarly affluent town judging by the numbers and models of car in the Kemble station car park.

[john new]

Hardly surprising in some ways -

 

Leave home well before the bus (Safety margin for catching it), then add in any inconvenience of the connecting link bus times which may not be that frequent then factor in that the bus with stops probably takes longer than the drive from home to the station car park/nearest bus stop and conceptually using your own car makes sense. 

[caradoc]

14 hours ago, Northmoor said:

SWT stated at a presentation to the RCTS not so long ago, that generally people don't like changing from bus to train or between trains.  This is why bus links to stations only sometimes justify themselves, but every time SWT had enlarged a car park at their stations, the new capacity was taken up quickly.  This suggests there is latent demand from car users.  Remember SWT/SWR operates in an affluent part of the UK with high levels of car ownership; Cirencester is a similarly affluent town judging by the numbers and models of car in the Kemble station car park.

 

13 hours ago, john new said:

Hardly surprising in some ways -

 

Leave home well before the bus (Safety margin for catching it), then add in any inconvenience of the connecting link bus times which may not be that frequent then factor in that the bus with stops probably takes longer than the drive from home to the station car park/nearest bus stop and conceptually using your own car makes sense. 

 

Agree absolutely with both posts; My local station is 15 minutes walk from my home, but if the weather is particularly inclement (not unusual in the West of Scotland !) I drive; I would not consider using the bus, even though it stops at the end of my street, and outside the station, because at best the service is four per hour (and not at evenly spaced intervals), in the evening it goes down to hourly, and is unreliable. However given the focus now on climate change and pollution, and because I am unlikely to be able to afford an electric car, perhaps I will one day have to sacrifice the convenience of the car; But a greatly improved bus service would be essential first.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by caradoc
Grammar

[Captain Kernow]

On 31/01/2020 at 15:17, The Stationmaster said:

 

If the siding is there for a reason (why was it left, vcomplete with new facing crossover access off the Down Main?) it would need to be replicated 'round the corner' past the platform.

 

The siding is used for stabling on-track machines.

 

[rogerzilla]

Apart from SJP, Ciren has few big employers so most people will drive to Swinedun or Gloucester for work.  The A417/A419 can't be much straighter.  It would take an age by train compared to car, despite the congestion at Nettleton Bottom and Commonhead.

[phil-b259]

On 31/01/2020 at 15:17, The Stationmaster said:

Simple as far as signalling is concerned -

1. Assuming a service captive to the branch there is the awkward matter of a trap point at the mainline end and if I recall correctly there isn't a main aspect on the signal which currently reads from the siding so that would be needed. and to ensure one train working as on similar lines a single would have to be provided reading towards Cirencester to allow for the 'one train' axle counter controls.  And,

If the siding is there for a reason (why was it left, vcomplete with new facing crossover access off the Down Main?) it would need to be replicated 'round the corner' past the platform.

2. If through passenger trainrunning was envisaged all the connection to/from the branch siding would need to be signalled to passenger standards which means software alterations for the locking and an additional replaced running signal.

 

IIRC the siding DOES have a trap point to prevent any runaway from accessing the main line and thus isolating the siding.

 

If you alter those point controls such that they cannot physically move from the ‘trapping’ setup without some form of local on site slotting arrangement then you are protected from anything escaping or venturing setting into the branch / siding.

 

If the siding branch / siding is self contained then the fact it only has a position light giving access to the main line is thus irrelevant.

 

Such a thing requires no messing round with SSI software or installing extra signals.

 

Agreed things become far more complicated if you are going for through running - but if you are not then there is no reason a couple of minor modifications could not allow a Stourbridge Junction to Stourbridge Town setup to be installed.

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

IIRC the siding DOES have a trap point to prevent any runaway from accessing the main line and thus isolating the siding.

 

If you alter those point controls such that they cannot physically move from the ‘trapping’ setup without some form of local on site slotting arrangement then you are protected from anything escaping or venturing setting into the branch / siding.

 

If the siding branch / siding is self contained then the fact it only has a position light giving access to the main line is thus irrelevant.

 

Such a thing requires no messing round with SSI software or installing extra signals.

 

Agreed things become far more complicated if you are going for through running - but if you are not then there is no reason a couple of minor modifications could not allow a Stourbridge Junction to Stourbridge Town setup to be installed.

The siding is indeed trapped.  But if it becomes a passenger line it should not be trapped (unless thinking has changed on that in more recent years?).   So the trap has to go and the signal has to stand a full overlap back from the connection.  if the trap can be retained then the new running signal can be put much nearer to the trap point facers but it will still need a sub route to the Down Line.  So alterations will be needed whatever happens (in reality of course they won't be needed because this idea will never get off the ground).

[Will Crompton]

We visited Cirencester to see friends last October and were picked up from Kemble having travelled from Paddington. I thought the station was rather interesting and took some pictures on our return including a couple of the now famous (or should that be infamous!) siding. The first view is looking towards Swindon showing the connection with the mainline and the second is looking along the siding towards the car park. I couldn't get a clear view of this given the conveniently situated tree. I can confirm from discussions with our friends that traffic congestion is a big issue in these parts and in particular with connection to projected traffic increases associated with Lord 'Batty' Bathurst's proposed housing dvelopment on the edge of the town.

[phil-b259]

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The siding is indeed trapped.  But if it becomes a passenger line it should not be trapped (unless thinking has changed on that in more recent years?).   So the trap has to go and the signal has to stand a full overlap back from the connection.  if the trap can be retained then the new running signal can be put much nearer to the trap point facers but it will still need a sub route to the Down Line.  So alterations will be needed whatever happens (in reality of course they won't be needed because this idea will never get off the ground).

 

But surely if the actual siding to main line connection is never used by passenger moves then it doesn't require a main running signal. Again I refer to the Stourbridge branch situation where access from the main line is via a ground frame and that doesn't seem to cause a problem.

 

In the situation where only the siding itself becomes part of a reinstated Cirencester branch then installing a fixed red at the Swindon end by the points (thus limiting passenger operations) plus converting the current 3 aspect position light signal to a 2 aspect subsidiary type would be sufficient to do the job.

 

As for requiring a full overlap before trap points, a look round the network shows this is quite clearly not required if speeds are low and trap points that lead into a sand drag or simply the dirt are quite common just beyond platform ends. While current standards may well require something more extensive its always possible to get derogations and operation along the lines of the Stourbridge branch would facilitate the granting of them.

 

Naturally if through running were to be implemented then a much more extensive set of changes would be needed.

 

Finally I completely agree that is is all an academic exercise as it is extremely unlikely to come close to meeting the BCR requirements for railway reinstatements.

[The Stationmaster]

On 03/02/2020 at 17:33, phil-b259 said:

 

But surely if the actual siding to main line connection is never used by passenger moves then it doesn't require a main running signal. Again I refer to the Stourbridge branch situation where access from the main line is via a ground frame and that doesn't seem to cause a problem.

 

In the situation where only the siding itself becomes part of a reinstated Cirencester branch then installing a fixed red at the Swindon end by the points (thus limiting passenger operations) plus converting the current 3 aspect position light signal to a 2 aspect subsidiary type would be sufficient to do the job.

 

As for requiring a full overlap before trap points, a look round the network shows this is quite clearly not required if speeds are low and trap points that lead into a sand drag or simply the dirt are quite common just beyond platform ends. While current standards may well require something more extensive its always possible to get derogations and operation along the lines of the Stourbridge branch would facilitate the granting of them.

 

Naturally if through running were to be implemented then a much more extensive set of changes would be needed.

 

Finally I completely agree that is is all an academic exercise as it is extremely unlikely to come close to meeting the BCR requirements for railway reinstatements.

It would require a fixed red -  a main running signal - because the limit of passenger train movement has to be somehow marked.  It might be possible to do that with noticeboard of some sort but you still need a method of some sort to get a train towards, and through, the Main Line connection, even as an empty going for servicing etc.  And none of that reproduces the OTM stabling requirement.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It would require a fixed red -  a main running signal - because the limit of passenger train movement has to be somehow marked.  It might be possible to do that with noticeboard of some sort but you still need a method of some sort to get a train towards, and through, the Main Line connection, even as an empty going for servicing etc.  And none of that reproduces the OTM stabling requirement.

 

Surely the current GPL would be perfectly adequate for ECS moves - though its also entirely possible that were a Stourbridge branch setup used, then the railcar used could be serviced on the branch itself.

 

A fixed red, being, well fixed is just a lamp permanently lit and consequentially there is no need necessarily for such an installation to be linked to the signalling system other having some verification it its lit.

 

Yes the loss of OTP stabling at Kemble would need to be considered, but its entirely possible NR could work around its loss if the political pressure was there for them to do so.

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

Surely the Stourbridge Town branch, before the People Movers, was fully signalled with protection between the branch bay at the Junction and the main line, and some form of One Train Working control for the branch itself, and is that not still in place; Or is the branch now totally disconnected from the rest of the world ?

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

Surely the Stourbridge Town branch, before the People Movers, was fully signalled with protection between the branch bay at the Junction and the main line, and some form of One Train Working control for the branch itself, and is that not still in place; Or is the branch now totally disconnected from the rest of the world ?

 

 

 

IIRC the only way the branch could be accessed from the min lines was a shunt manoeuvrer via the carriage sidings to the north of the Junction station.

 

As you say, once the train was on the branch it was ' locked in' and simply shuttled back and forth as the timetable required. I have no reason to believe this has changed with the introduction of the people movers - which are maintained in a small shed at the south end of the platform and never need to venture on to the main line.

 

Were people to desire trains to return to Cirencester then this setup is about as low cost as you can get...

[corneliuslundie]

What is the difference between a train approaching a terminal platform such as a bay with a buffer stop at the end and approaching the bay platform at Kemble with a buffer stop at the end of the stub siding with the connection to the main line locked? All a buffer stop has is a simple red light, which as far as I know is not monitored? Whyever should a red signal be needed?

Jonathan

[DCB]

What a waste of time and effort.   The line from Kemble to Tetbury is a better candidate.

Kemble - Ciren is only a couple of miles,  How much per mile would you have to charge to make that pay?  Most of the route would have to be new and people getting from Ciren centre to Kemble .  Better Idea close Kemble station, bulldoze it , build a car park on site and build platforms south of the present site.  There is room for a Tamper north where the goods depot was adjacent to the A 429.

Cirencester is now too congested for commuters to get to or through to reach either a station in Cirencester or Kemble station easily.  Commuting north to Kingham  for London is now a more reliable option.   Swindon is the other option and they propose reducing car parking there to stop people commuting by car to catch the train, again idiots in charge.

Consultants , experts, waste of time, you only have to ask down the local pub to find it won't work.   Still I could certainly use a chunk of the £50 000 if you want an "Expert" opinion. 

[caradoc]

19 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

What is the difference between a train approaching a terminal platform such as a bay with a buffer stop at the end and approaching the bay platform at Kemble with a buffer stop at the end of the stub siding with the connection to the main line locked? All a buffer stop has is a simple red light, which as far as I know is not monitored? Whyever should a red signal be needed?

Jonathan

 

How would a set leave the branch and access the main line ? Unless the branch is totally physically separate from the rest of the railway there must be signalling to control that move.

 

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

What is the difference between a train approaching a terminal platform such as a bay with a buffer stop at the end and approaching the bay platform at Kemble with a buffer stop at the end of the stub siding with the connection to the main line locked? All a buffer stop has is a simple red light, which as far as I know is not monitored? Whyever should a red signal be needed?

Jonathan

The difference is a facing point which a passenger train movement would not be allowed over (no FPL) and which therefore has to be protected (and detected) by a fixed red signal aspect.  Plus it would then be trapping a passenger line and - unless the rules have changed - trapping of passenger lines at junction and when exiting loops etc isn't normally permitted.

[Andy Kirkham]

A while ago I read "last Trains" by Charles Loft https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/last-trains, a study of the Beeching closures. He is a lecturer and I recall (i may not remember this exactly right) his account of how he described to his students the anguished protests that greeted the announcement of the Cirencester closure, with apocalyptic predictions of the place becoming a ghost town etc. His students could not understand what the fuss could have been about - "It's only a taxi ride to Kemble", one of them said.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[phil-b259]

19 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The difference is a facing point which a passenger train movement would not be allowed over (no FPL) and which therefore has to be protected (and detected) by a fixed red signal aspect.  Plus it would then be trapping a passenger line and - unless the rules have changed - trapping of passenger lines at junction and when exiting loops etc isn't normally permitted.

 

Firstly If the points are powered then most operating mechanisms (e.g. HW machines, clamp locks, etc) incorporate an FPL by default.

 

Secondly trapping of loops IS permitted - there are loads on the Southern region - some of which simply lead into Buffers like Kemble (Clapham Junction Platform 17 south) or a sand drag (Redhill platform 3 south) and some which simply end up in the dirt (Headcorn Up Platform east)

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Firstly If the points are powered then most operating mechanisms (e.g. HW machines, clamp locks, etc) incorporate an FPL by default.

 

Secondly trapping of loops IS permitted - there are loads on the Southern region - some of which simply lead into Buffers like Kemble (Clapham Junction Platform 17 south) or a sand drag (Redhill platform 3 south) and some which simply end up in the dirt (Headcorn Up Platform east)

Might well be that the provision of TPWS has made a difference.  Under the original ruling we were pulling them out whenever a freight loop was upgraded to passenger standards.  So if the trap remains that might mean providing TPWS, but it would definitely mean providing a fixed red main aspect (and a retro reflective distant board of course).

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Might well be that the provision of TPWS has made a difference.  Under the original ruling we were pulling them out whenever a freight loop was upgraded to passenger standards.  So if the trap remains that might mean providing TPWS, but it would definitely mean providing a fixed red main aspect (and a retro reflective distant board of course).

 

All the examples I gave pre-dated the invention of TPWS - 1982(ish), 1985(ish) and 1992(ish) being when the areas concerned were resignalled.

 

Of course it may be that current design rules would not normally allow such things to be put in place nowadays .

 

Also as you have pointed out to me before regional differences could come into play here - the WR taking traps out for passenger working but the SR keeping them in.

 

Not disputing a fixed red (and associated TPWS) would be needed at Kemble - but as I said, other than proving its lit there is no real need for it to be linked into the mainline signalling system if the branch were an entirely self contained ‘one train in steam’ setup akin to how the Stourbridge branch is currently operated.

[The Stationmaster]

43 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

All the examples I gave pre-dated the invention of TPWS - 1982(ish), 1985(ish) and 1992(ish) being when the areas concerned were resignalled.

 

Of course it may be that current design rules would not normally allow such things to be put in place nowadays .

 

Also as you have pointed out to me before regional differences could come into play here - the WR taking traps out for passenger working but the SR keeping them in.

 

Not disputing a fixed red (and associated TPWS) would be needed at Kemble - but as I said, other than proving its lit there is no real need for it to be linked into the mainline signalling system if the branch were an entirely self contained ‘one train in steam’ setup akin to how the Stourbridge branch is currently operated.

As there is a physical connection to the main line signalling system (via a ground frame) it would obviously have to be linked to it.  You could hardly not have something signalled into the former bay line while it is occupied or a train is running towards it from the opposite direction.   Precisely how it's done would depend on the One Train Working controls provided for the branch (and such controls might be as simple as a Train Staff interlocked with the GF release or even similar to those introduced on various recently resignalled branches where axle counters are used).   Whichever way it's done it means. design and physical changes costs.

 

BTW the removal of trap points from loops used by passenger trains was a requirement from HMRI, not a matter of Regional policy