GWML Electification

[royaloak]

18 hours ago, St. Simon said:

However, clearly the members of RMWeb are all far superior experts than the creators of the system, so I’ll hand my IRSE license in.

 

Simon

But some of those members are also drivers who ask question like why is there a neutral section so close to a signal that the rear pan of a 10 car IET will be in it when we get stopped at said signal (SW1238, on the Up Main at Wootton Bassett jn), despite the fact there are miles of plain line that could have been used but weren't (about 10 yards/metres further West would have solved the problem), while I appreciate we can clear the neutral section by getting a bit closer to the signal than we should it isnt really ideal especially with the dynamic brake being reinstated with the same problems still prevalent which caused it to be switched off last time, I am sorry but to my simple drivers mind that is just crap design.

 

Thats before we get onto the resignalling where various workstations share the same signal prefix so we dont know if we are talking to the right one or not etc etc.

 

I appreciate we have done both of these to death and are never likely to agree so you dont have to respond again. Merry Christmas.

 

As we have now reached the ends of the changeover points, Newbury, Chippenham, Cardiff etc when are the promised ballises going to take over the changeover process the drivers cant be trusted with?

[jim.snowdon]

As often as not, these design foibles are the result of compartmentalised design by engineers who, whilst capable in their own specialism lack understanding of the wider aspects of railway system design and operation. There is supposed to be interdisciplinary coordination, but it usually occurs too late in the design process, after much of the work has been done and various disciplines are reluctant to adjust their designs, especially those that are very standards-driven and where even quite small changes ripple through the whole of the design.

 

Jim

[62613]

14 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

As often as not, these design foibles are the result of compartmentalised design by engineers who, whilst capable in their own specialism lack understanding of the wider aspects of railway system design and operation. There is supposed to be interdisciplinary coordination, but it usually occurs too late in the design process, after much of the work has been done and various disciplines are reluctant to adjust their designs, especially those that are very standards-driven and where even quite small changes ripple through the whole of the design.

 

Jim

 

I can agree with that; it's not just on the railway, either! About 15 years ago I was working on a job for the new leisure centre at Cirencester (the swimmng pool bit) I remember going to a site meeting, trying to discuss with thee civils and H & V contractors on site to try and get a bit more space for our kit. In the end, there was a multi-disclipinary meeting at the consultant's office trying to make the point that our kit wouldn't fit and couldn't be maintained in the space we'd been given. In The end, a red line was drawn on the drawings with the remarks "That's what you've got; fit it in somehow!" Our kit was crucial to the whole pool working properly; it was the filtration plant!

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by 62613

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

The whole thing is ridiculous.  Many people think the eastern end of the route has been hugely over engineered and now for the want of a few structures and wire runs the west end of Cardiff has this farce.  Talk about one extreme to the other.

I'm not entirely sure if the whole of the eastern end has been over-engineered although it clearly has been in some places. (e.g Didcot station).  But I don't doubt for one minute that is has been poorly engineered with insufficient attention to some aspects of detail design, especially the sinking of the foundation tubes, and what was visibly some absolutely abysmal and grossly over-expensive planning and long drawn out implementation of the work.

[DY444]

On 26/12/2019 at 20:05, St. Simon said:

 

However, clearly the members of RMWeb are all far superior experts than the creators of the system, so I’ll hand my IRSE license in.

 

 

 

Are these licensed "creators of the system" the same people who designed the nonsense with the mid platform signals at Bristol TM which resulted in a 10mph speed restriction?  If they are then they absolutely should hand in their IRSE licence because that is another farce to which there is a simple solution apparent to almost everybody except those actually responsible.

[talisman56]

3 hours ago, 62613 said:

 

I can agree with that; it's not just on the railway, either! About 15 years ago I was working on a job for the new leisure centre at Cirencester (the swimmng pool bit) I remember going to a site meeting, trying to discuss with thee civils and H & V contractors on site to try and get a bit more space for our kit. In the end, there was a multi-disclipinary meeting at the consultant's office trying to make the point that our kit wouldn't fit and couldn't be maintained in the space we'd been given. In The end, a red line was drawn on the drawings with the remarks "That's what you've got; fit it in somehow!" Our kit was crucial to the whole pool working properly; it was the filtration plant!

 

 

I had a job to install the computer equipment in a new Head Office building for the company I worked for, in the days when the computers had to be in their own, fully air-conditioned environment with dedicated electrical installation. I was asked to provide 'full details of the equipment that would go into the room' , so I did. Full dimensions, and the required clearances for installation and maintenance, air conditioning specs and location, and full peak and steady load requirements for the juice, and even included a copy of the room plan as helpfully provided for the job by the computer suppliers.

 

The 'final plan' was a complete disaster. The 'Computer Room' was only 40% of the size required - the bloke in charge said he couldn't fit it all in as the Chairman and CFO wanted bigger rooms - the former was only in two days a week and the latter wanted a conference table in his office when there was a perfectly suitable one in the dedicated room next door. The resulting 'discussion' wasn't for faint hearts, but in the end the computer room was provided as required - the threat to host the Finance systems elsewhere and bus in the output so that the CFO couldn't get his financial reports he wanted in the timescale he wanted otherwise was probably the deal-clincher.

Edited December 28, 2019 by talisman56

[talisman56]

17 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

Are these licensed "creators of the system" the same people who designed the nonsense with the mid platform signals at Bristol TM which resulted in a 10mph speed restriction?  If they are then they absolutely should hand in their IRSE licence because that is another farce to which there is a simple solution apparent to almost everybody except those actually responsible.

 

And that solution is...?

 

As a regular user of BTM I'm a little fed up of trains which are already late having more time added to the delay by them crawling to a halt on a line which patently in the past has seen faster movements. The snails move faster sometimes...

[The Stationmaster]

57 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

Are these licensed "creators of the system" the same people who designed the nonsense with the mid platform signals at Bristol TM which resulted in a 10mph speed restriction?  If they are then they absolutely should hand in their IRSE licence because that is another farce to which there is a simple solution apparent to almost everybody except those actually responsible.

Probably not so much down to the signalling designers as to those who have become so risk averse they leave the designers with little choice.  Reading is of course exactly the opposite where, in some platforms, all that separates an arriving train from one already standing at the further end of the platform is a simple (fixed) sign - just like Bristol TM used to be (albeit a different sort of sign).

[St. Simon]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

Are these licensed "creators of the system" the same people who designed the nonsense with the mid platform signals at Bristol TM which resulted in a 10mph speed restriction?  If they are then they absolutely should hand in their IRSE licence because that is another farce to which there is a simple solution apparent to almost everybody except those actually responsible.

 

I won't be drawn into an argument surrounding the competency of my colleagues, but I think you'll find that the 10mph restriction has nothing to do with the design of the mid-platform signals, but instead stemmed, I believe from the thoughts of one of the driver representatives for one of the TOCs.

 

Simon

[St. Simon]

47 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Probably not so much down to the signalling designers as to those who have become so risk averse they leave the designers with little choice.  Reading is of course exactly the opposite where, in some platforms, all that separates an arriving train from one already standing at the further end of the platform is a simple (fixed) sign - just like Bristol TM used to be (albeit a different sort of sign).

 

Hi Mike,

 

From what I've been told, by several signal engineers, of the St. Andrews Crosses at BTM, they were regarded as signals (in exactly the same way as the current signals) where you had to get permission from the signaller to pass them, whilst the Rear Clear Markers at Reading are only advisory.

 

Simon

[Mike Storey]

21 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

As often as not, these design foibles are the result of compartmentalised design by engineers who, whilst capable in their own specialism lack understanding of the wider aspects of railway system design and operation. There is supposed to be interdisciplinary coordination, but it usually occurs too late in the design process, after much of the work has been done and various disciplines are reluctant to adjust their designs, especially those that are very standards-driven and where even quite small changes ripple through the whole of the design.

 

Jim

 

That was one of the big reasons for mandatory, multi-disciplinary Peer Review being implemented. The odds are, that what has been designed is the only design possible, within the contemporary guidelines and standards, and input of "third" parties, such as staff H&S reps, and budget constraints on any further, mitigatory work. As detailed design has continued on GWEP over some 8 years, standards have changed, which explains some of the inconsistencies.

 

Such issues are certainly not confined to GWEP, nor even to the UK.

 

One can only hope that any anomalies or sub-optimised design, can be corrected in subsequent, performance driven, improvement schemes, with new budgets, as has been happening on the WCML and ECML for decades.

[jim.snowdon]

4 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

I won't be drawn into an argument surrounding the competency of my colleagues, but I think you'll find that the 10mph restriction has nothing to do with the design of the mid-platform signals, but instead stemmed, I believe from the thoughts of one of the driver representatives for one of the TOCs.

 

Simon

If that is the case, it is high time that the responsible authorities, ie within NR, told the TOC concerned that their drivers do not run the railway. If the safe approach speed is, say, 20 mph, and that TOC's drivers want to insist on not exceeding 10mph and incur delays as a consequence, it is the TOC's responsibility. If there I a sound argument for 20 mph being too fast, it is for the TOC to make the case.

Even then, with three large stations having mid-platform stops so that two trains can be accommodated for opposing direction arrivals, namely Birmingham New Street, Reading and Bristol TM, there are three completely different solutions. I'm not aware that any of them are considered unsafe, although that at Bristol would seem operationally inefficient, and the object of the exercise is run a railway.

 

Jim

[royaloak]

7 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Are these licensed "creators of the system" the same people who designed the nonsense with the mid platform signals at Bristol TM which resulted in a 10mph speed restriction?  If they are then they absolutely should hand in their IRSE licence because that is another farce to which there is a simple solution apparent to almost everybody except those actually responsible.

Yeah put the St Andrews crosses back in, they worked and everyone who needed to know how it worked knew how it worked, now we have the situation where we can accept a single yellow into certain platforms but need a double yellow (at the same signal) for other platforms.

[royaloak]

7 hours ago, talisman56 said:

 

And that solution is...?

 

As a regular user of BTM I'm a little fed up of trains which are already late having more time added to the delay by them crawling to a halt on a line which patently in the past has seen faster movements. The snails move faster sometimes...

It might surprise you but when there is a big circle with a 10 in the middle it means the train is only allowed to do 10mph that is why the trains crawl in, unless you want us to speed?

[royaloak]

5 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

I won't be drawn into an argument surrounding the competency of my colleagues, but I think you'll find that the 10mph restriction has nothing to do with the design of the mid-platform signals, but instead stemmed, I believe from the thoughts of one of the driver representatives for one of the TOCs.

 

Simon

Which I understand stems from the threats made to TOCs to accept the design or else, none of the TOCs were happy with the situation and it was only when a certain green passenger TOC was threatened that their much advertised timetable wouldnt be allowed that they begrudgingly accepted the design.

[royaloak]

39 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

If that is the case, it is high time that the responsible authorities, ie within NR, told the TOC concerned that their drivers do not run the railway. If the safe approach speed is, say, 20 mph, and that TOC's drivers want to insist on not exceeding 10mph and incur delays as a consequence, it is the TOC's responsibility. If there I a sound argument for 20 mph being too fast, it is for the TOC to make the case.

Even then, with three large stations having mid-platform stops so that two trains can be accommodated for opposing direction arrivals, namely Birmingham New Street, Reading and Bristol TM, there are three completely different solutions. I'm not aware that any of them are considered unsafe, although that at Bristol would seem operationally inefficient, and the object of the exercise is run a railway.

 

Jim

Tne speed through the station was set at 10mph, there were big signs with 10 on them so how fast would you like the trains to go?

 

The speed limit is just that and unfortunately it isnt the drivers choice whether to exceed it or not!

[royaloak]

As others are still posting incorrect methods of working for Bristol Temple Meads, I will remove the correct method of working, either that or I have been operating my train wrong at Bristol Temple Meads for years!

Edited December 30, 2019 by royaloak
I am obviously wrong about train operations around Bristol Temple Meads.

[jim.snowdon]

4 hours ago, royaloak said:

Tne speed through the station was set at 10mph, there were big signs with 10 on them so how fast would you like the trains to go?

 

The speed limit is just that and unfortunately it isnt the drivers choice whether to exceed it or not!

Set by whom - a certain TOC's driver representatives by what has been said. It pays to read carefully what I had said, including the ifs and so on. As a driver, you are stuck with what the signs show; what I am doing is challenging why it is 10mph in the first place, and why Bristol, Reading and Birmingham should all have been done differently.

 

Jim 

[royaloak]

6 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Set by whom - a certain TOC's driver representatives by what has been said. It pays to read carefully what I had said, including the ifs and so on. As a driver, you are stuck with what the signs show; what I am doing is challenging why it is 10mph in the first place, and why Bristol, Reading and Birmingham should all have been done differently.

 

Jim 

I never realised TOC Drivers Representatives set speed limits, or maybe he pointed out something where they werent complying with their own subs?

Edited December 29, 2019 by royaloak

[DY444]

17 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

I won't be drawn into an argument surrounding the competency of my colleagues, but I think you'll find that the 10mph restriction has nothing to do with the design of the mid-platform signals, but instead stemmed, I believe from the thoughts of one of the driver representatives for one of the TOCs.

 

Simon

 

It has everything to do with the design of the mid platform signals.  The track layout was designed for 25mph but the mid platform signals have zero overlap and can be approached with a single yellow on the east or west gantry with a train standing a few yards in advance.  The drivers reps pointed out that was unacceptable with a 25mph speed limit as other locations with zero overlap and approach signals showing a main aspect (eg New St) have a 10mph speed limit to mitigate the collision risk from a spad of the mid platform signal.  The 10mph limit at Bristol was thus applied retrospectively as a cheap way out but the bottom line is the intention was to allow a 25mph limit and the signal design was found to be unfit for that after it was installed. 

Edited December 29, 2019 by DY444

[DY444]

11 hours ago, royaloak said:

Yeah put the St Andrews crosses back in, they worked and everyone who needed to know how it worked knew how it worked, now we have the situation where we can accept a single yellow into certain platforms but need a double yellow (at the same signal) for other platforms.

 

Now come on you know they can't do that.  The modern railway won't allow anything BR did that worked for over 45 years to be done again because it must be dangerous.  See also AC ole clearances

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi Mike,

 

From what I've been told, by several signal engineers, of the St. Andrews Crosses at BTM, they were regarded as signals (in exactly the same way as the current signals) where you had to get permission from the signaller to pass them, whilst the Rear Clear Markers at Reading are only advisory.

 

Simon

The former system at  Bristol with the St Andrews crosses didn't work like that Simon.  A clear main aspect authorised the Driver of an arriving train to pass the St Andrews cross and proceed as far asthe relevant stopping market r etc in order to get teh rear of their train past the St Andrews Cross.  Trains admitted to the platform with a subsidiary indication were authorised to proceed only as far as the St Andrews Cross and could only pass it when either verbally instructed to do so by the person in charge of the platform or if the line in advance t the signal at the platform end was not occupied and that signal was showing a proceed aspect.  The speed through the platform lines was 25 mph.

 

I can't find a current GWML Sectional Appendix online but I presume the system with the intermediate marker boards at reading is similar - main aspect and the line is clear to the signal at the far end of the platform, sub and the train is not to proceed past the marker board until authorised (by whom?).  Apart from not being able to see the signal aspects that is certainly what appears to happen when a second train or unit arrives and will subsequently connect with another unit already standing at that platform with the person in charge of the platform authorising the second train to pass the board.  It would be interesting to see what the Appendix says because I can only talk from what I have observed.

 

In some instances - specifically XC trains I presume they might well run in on a main aspect - their speed suggests that to be the case - but they stop at the board because they don't need the whole length of the platform.

[The Stationmaster]

6 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

It has everything to do with the design of the mid platform signals.  The track layout was designed for 25mph but the mid platform signals have zero overlap and can be approached with a single yellow on the east or west gantry with a train standing a few yards in advance.  The drivers reps pointed out that was unacceptable with a 25mph speed limit as other locations with zero overlap and approach signals showing a main aspect (eg New St) have a 10mph speed limit to mitigate the collision risk from a spad of the mid platform signal.  The 10mph limit at Bristol was thus applied retrospectively as a cheap way out but the bottom line is the intention was to allow a 25mph limit and the signal design was found to be unfit for that after it was installed. 

Ah - so replacing the St Andrews Cross which had a zero overlap with a signal which has a zero overlap has meant reducing the line speed from 25mph to 10mph.  I believe that is called 'progress'   (Incidentally it takes things back to exactly how they were when before the St Andrews Crosses replaced the 1930s colour light signals - when the speed limit was 10 mph.).  

 

Clearly the SPAD risk element in the new Temple Meads signalling will (should?) have been properly assessed in the design stage and while such techniques are not necessarily used in that process it would have been illuminating, to say the very least, to see the result of a quantitive risk assessment of the risks of using the St Andrews Crosses with a 25mph speed limit as it could have used real data over several decades to assess the 'likelihood' element of keeping that line speed.

[Grovenor]

I would agree with whoever said that 25 is excessive for entering an occupied platform. If using a sub as for the stationmasters examples then the rule for obeying the sub takes precedence over the line speed limit. If there is a mid platform signal with no overlap, then, IMHO there should not be an unrestricted yellow but rather a warner (approach released at an apropriate speed) so the relevant rule can apply. If warning aspects are no longer used (and I can see why that might be the case) then it should fall back to the sub again, so no need for the mid platform signal.

As far as the yellow for some platforms, double yellow for others goes, that is presumably for full length trains and relates to platforms having a midway signal or not. It certainly does not IMHO represent good practice, the potential for mistakes is pretty obvious.

Rgds

[Grovenor]

Quote

Ah - so replacing the St Andrews Cross which had a zero overlap with a signal which has a zero overlap has meant reducing the line speed from 25mph to 10mph.  I believe that is called 'progress'

Not just a simple replacement though, the problem comes from allowing a yellow up to a signal with no overlap. Entering on a sub to the St Andrews cross should not have been at 25 anyway, IMHO. Incidentally would the sub in that case have had a special route indication?