'ZIg-Zag' welding on rail face surface - what was it for?

[johnb]

Certainly for the 313s, they rumbled quite well over the zigzags. I used to commute through Euston many years ago so knew the sound well. Maybe even back to the 501s

[The Stationmaster]

6 hours ago, BR traction instructor said:

Locos had the weight per axle to overcome contaminated rail surfaces and ensure that the track circuit was operated. Lightweight units, especially ones without tread brakes to clean wheel running surfaces would have been a much bigger culprit.

 

153s were amongst the first units fitted with TCAs…single car, tread brakes (apologies), limited wheels to activate track circuits, lightweight etc etc

 

03s were an exception amongst locos and needed a match wagon attached to them to ensure that track circuits were activated e.g. the Norwich allocated one’s working around the station.

 

BeRTIe

Oddly the WR's allocation of 03s had no general problem activating track circuits.  The situation with the NER and ER 03s was as explained above by iands.  It this also applied, for a similar reason, at Bristol TM on the WR but there it included all diesel shunters and they had to havea fully fitted vehicle attached while running on any line with colour light signals controlled from either Temple Meads East or West signal boxes.

[Rail-Online]

Thanks Guys, their use on infrequently used (therefore rusty) track makes sense

 

Cheers Tony

[Ken.W]

17 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Always drive onto it in York station as well - the sound of a Harrogate train arriving in Platform 8 is quite distinctive!

 

We had to always drive onto the zig-zags at Kings X.  With HST or Mk4 sets it was necessary to stop at the 'lollipops' so the hoses would reach for watering the coaches - more than about half a cab length out and they didn't reach, presumably they couldn't afford any longer hoses.

 

4 hours ago, iands said:

The match truck/wagon with the 03s were for a slightly different reason, well at York anyway. Because the 03s have a relatively short wheelbase, the match truck/wagon effectively lengthened the 03s wheelbase to ensure the 03 didn't momentarily "dissappear" off the panel when moving about the station, particularly across complex S&C. 

 

The same applied to 03s on the Newcastle station pilots.

 

When 08s were used they didn't need a runner. They did however need double manning, due to the curvature and signals being on either side, so were only used if an 03 wasn't available

[iands]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Oddly the WR's allocation of 03s had no general problem activating track circuits.  The situation with the NER and ER 03s was as explained above by iands.  It this also applied, for a similar reason, at Bristol TM on the WR but there it included all diesel shunters and they had to havea fully fitted vehicle attached while running on any line with colour light signals controlled from either Temple Meads East or West signal boxes.

Hi Mike,

Not sure what type of track circuits were in use at the time, but at York (prior to the re-signalling that brought the IECC into use) the track circuits were "AC" with "vane relays". This may have had a slight effect on the operation of track circuits close to the "block joints".

[Davexoc]

1 hour ago, Ken.W said:

We had to always drive onto the zig-zags at Kings X.  With HST or Mk4 sets it was necessary to stop at the 'lollipops' so the hoses would reach for watering the coaches - more than about half a cab length out and they didn't reach, presumably they couldn't afford any longer hoses.

 

Wasn't that more to do with the length of the shore supply 3 phase cable, rather than hoses on the HSTs?

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, iands said:

Hi Mike,

Not sure what type of track circuits were in use at the time, but at York (prior to the re-signalling that brought the IECC into use) the track circuits were "AC" with "vane relays". This may have had a slight effect on the operation of track circuits close to the "block joints".

All I know about the track relays at Bristol is that according to mv-GRS they were 'the Model 2 Form A type'  using an ac power supply and that they were all in the signal boxes and not in any location cupboards.

[iands]

28 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

All I know about the track relays at Bristol is that according to mv-GRS they were 'the Model 2 Form A type'  using an ac power supply and that they were all in the signal boxes and not in any location cupboards.

Hi Mike,

Can't remember the model/type of relays at York, other than they were "reactance feed" type and yes, they were also located in the relay room in the signal box and not trackside locs.

[Ken.W]

11 hours ago, Davexoc said:

 

Wasn't that more to do with the length of the shore supply 3 phase cable, rather than hoses on the HSTs?

 

No, continued to be the case until the HSTs sad demise, long after the shore supplies were taken out of use, and presumably still does for the few remaining Mk4s.

And if the marks were missed the sets did have to moved to be watered

Edited January 9, 2022 by Ken.W

[Ken.W]

1 hour ago, iands said:

Hi Mike,

Not sure what type of track circuits were in use at the time, but at York (prior to the re-signalling that brought the IECC into use) the track circuits were "AC" with "vane relays". This may have had a slight effect on the operation of track circuits close to the "block joints".

 

In the NER the problem was always said to have been gaps in the track circuits through switches and crossings rather than the type of TC

[Trog]

Also known as eutectic strip after the alloy used, which I think was originally intended for welding armour plate. Applied in a zig zag by arc welding often with the welders initials at the end as if you just put a straight line down the middle of the rail the strip would be hard enough to make a groove in any wheel sets that often got run onto it to often.

 

Originally to ensure the track circuit detection of a loco waiting for release or a van, horse box etc sitting on the rusty or greasy rails at the stops ready to be added to a train as tail traffic. So the driver of an incoming train would not find the available platform length was shorter than he had been led to expect after it was too late to adjust his approach.

[jim.snowdon]

2 hours ago, Ken.W said:

 

In the NER the problem was always said to have been gaps in the track circuits through switches and crossings rather than the type of TC

The problem is usually staggered insulated joints in S&C, something of a physical necessity, that result in short sections where the rails are at the same potential and therefore will not 'see' a bogie or, in this instance, the very short wheelbase of the 03s. The bogies on the ex-LU Standard stock used on the Isle of Wight have a much shorter wheelbase than usual for main line stock, as a result of which there are special rules about the maximum permissible stagger of IRJs on the Island.

 

[LNERGE]

I know of at least three level crossing that have it. Two are mine that i look after and have rather complex controls 75 yars apart. The third was on The Abbey branch between Denver Junction and Abbey over the A10 bypass.

Edited January 10, 2022 by LNERGE

[andyman7]

On 08/01/2022 at 12:47, Michael Hodgson said:

Only on the running rails, or the 3rd rail too?

The third rail collectors effectively scrape the conductor rail so no need there

[Brian The Signal Engineer]

The zigzag upon the top of rails in under used portions of lines is there to ensure the operation of track circuits and also used at the end of a terminus platform.

It is called a Utectic strip by the S&T and PWay. 

As typical voltages for track circuit are below 20 volt and of a low current the stainless steel strip provides a clean surface to interface with the wheels of a vehicle. It's zigzag pattern ensures that somewhere along the vehicle the wheel will rest upon it. 

Failing to detect a vehicle can lead to incoming train formations overhanging a platform.

Although I cannot say for definite, TCAIDS where not used at these locations, at least none I knew of on the Eastern Region and its successors.

Also it was not required to be used upon the electrified rail in a three or four rail area. Traction voltages are at 750V with an available current of something like 3000 Amps, a little bit of rust would not that sort of energy.

[jim.snowdon]

On 10/01/2022 at 17:57, andyman7 said:

The third rail collectors effectively scrape the conductor rail so no need there

It has been known for electric stock to become stranded on heavily rusted conductor rail.

 

[96701]

On 08/01/2022 at 14:18, Ken.W said:

 

We had to always drive onto the zig-zags at Kings X.  With HST or Mk4 sets it was necessary to stop at the 'lollipops' so the hoses would reach for watering the coaches - more than about half a cab length out and they didn't reach, presumably they couldn't afford any longer hoses.

 

 

Not so much about length of hoses, it's more the amount of hose on the platform causing a tripping hazard.

[Ken.W]

On 19/01/2022 at 00:31, 96701 said:

Not so much about length of hoses, it's more the amount of hose on the platform causing a tripping hazard.

 

At Kings X the hoses are are under flaps at the platform edge, so they're not on the platform.

Also, they don't start boarding the train until the watering's been done.

 

It made for a greater hazard in that in the Western side, where the concourse was extended for the new concourse, it resulted in the stop markers being rather close to the stops, especially 7 & 8 which l doubt were even the regulation 6 foot.

 

Not a problem now though, as Hitachi don't allow LNER to water their trains anyway