Barnetby and the new signaling work

[APOLLO]

That CB 8802 LED signal is grotesque.

 

Where / what is CB ?

 

Brit15

[HillsideDepot]

One advantage of the new system is that you can now follow the trains from the comfort of your favourite armchair.

http://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/northlincs

[Bon Accord]

It all looks rather bland and uninteresting now, another haven of history and interest now sacrificed in favour of modern efficiency - until the leckie fails that is. Interesting to note the old yard lamps still survive.

[St. Simon]

That CB 8802 LED signal is grotesque.

 

Where / what is CB ?

 

Brit15

Hi,

 

CB is the controlling signalling workstation, probably in York ROC,although I don't know what the CB actually stands for.

 

Simon

[great central]

Hi,

 

CB is the controlling signalling workstation, probably in York ROC,although I don't know what the CB actually stands for.

 

Simon

If it follows the pattern of the new signals around here it'll refer to a route, possibly Cleethorpes-Barnetby?

For example GN on signals between Grantham and Nottingham. Rather appropriate as the route was the Great Northern line.

[4630]

.

[SwissRailPassion]

That CB 8802 LED signal is grotesque.

 

Where / what is CB ?

 

Brit15

CB is Cleethorpes-Barnetby workstation in the York Box.

[Richard E]

CB8802 is typical of the new LED heads/posts. Compare it to this junction version in Peterborough:

 

[AberdeenBill]

Richard -- what can the other heads/panels(?) show on P433?

 

Thanks,

Bill

[russ p]

Those flat LED signals look more like a device to celebrate Christmas with rather than controlling trains!

[russ p]

The one below the main aspect is a subsidiary the rest are route indicators

CB8802 is typical of the new LED heads/posts. Compare it to this junction version in Peterborough:

 

The one below the main aspect is a subsidiary the rest are route and RA indicators

[caradoc]

The major advantage of a resignalling scheme such as this is the massive reduction in staffing it allows. It is of course very sad that so many boxes are closing and so many Signallers are being displaced, and it is absolutely essential that all staff affected are properly treated and compensated. However, given the huge cost of running the railway (highlighted again on the BBC today, 'why are our rail tickets so expensive ?'), every opportunity to minimise costs has to be taken. I would imagine that with the new signalling one Signaller can easily cover the area controlled by the multitude of manual boxes which are closing.  

 

Another example is a route in the news just now, the GSW via Dumfries. Between Gretna Jc and Kilmarnock there are boxes at Annan, Dumfries, Holywood, Thornhill, KIrkconnel, New Cumnock, Mauchline and Kilmarnock: Apart from Thornhill and Kirkconnel, which can switch out (although at the expense of long section working), all these boxes have to be staffed to run trains. Again, one Signaller at a Workstation could control the whole route.  

[SwissRailPassion]

There have been huge reductions in staffing. Is the railway less expensive? No. Costs are still some two to three times higher than at the end of BR.

[Reorte]

There have been huge reductions in staffing. Is the railway less expensive? No. Costs are still some two to three times higher than at the end of BR.

I suppose the counter-argument is that it would cost far, far more still if such schemes weren't undertaken. Definitely wish that wasn't the case and these changes didn't happen though.

[Dunsignalling]

The major advantage of a resignalling scheme such as this is the massive reduction in staffing it allows. It is of course very sad that so many boxes are closing and so many Signallers are being displaced, and it is absolutely essential that all staff affected are properly treated and compensated. However, given the huge cost of running the railway (highlighted again on the BBC today, 'why are our rail tickets so expensive ?'), every opportunity to minimise costs has to be taken. I would imagine that with the new signalling one Signaller can easily cover the area controlled by the multitude of manual boxes which are closing.  

 

Another example is a route in the news just now, the GSW via Dumfries. Between Gretna Jc and Kilmarnock there are boxes at Annan, Dumfries, Holywood, Thornhill, KIrkconnel, New Cumnock, Mauchline and Kilmarnock: Apart from Thornhill and Kirkconnel, which can switch out (although at the expense of long section working), all these boxes have to be staffed to run trains. Again, one Signaller at a Workstation could control the whole route.  

Other than those that coincide with the need to replace life-expired systems (which might well be the case, here), such schemes are designed to create headline savings in the operating (staff) budget by throwing hefty amounts of capital at it. That incurred to reduce signalling jobs will take many years to be recovered through the saving in staff expenditure.

 

The overall cost of funding the new equipment and making people redundant has, in many cases, been in excess of £1.5m per job abolished and much of the new gear will need to be replaced again long before ongoing savings cover that.

 

Neither do remaining staff costs reduce in proportion to the number of posts - to reflect increased workload, all of the 8 signalling jobs covering my former patch are significantly better-paid than any of the 30-odd that existed before. As a "re-control" rather than "resignalling" project, usable line capacity remains unchanged, though certain features with the potential to improve service recovery after disruption have been incorporated. 

 

Annual operating savings to be set against the capital expenditure will thus be rather less than the 75% or so that simple arithmetic might suggest. 

 

J.

[The Stationmaster]

Other than those that coincide with the need to replace life-expired systems (which might well be the case, here), such schemes are designed to create headline savings in the operating (staff) budget by throwing hefty amounts of capital at it. That incurred to reduce signalling jobs will take many years to be recovered through the saving in staff expenditure.

 

The overall cost of funding the new equipment and making people redundant has, in many cases, been in excess of £1.5m per job abolished and much of the new gear will need to be replaced again long before ongoing savings cover that.

 

Neither do remaining staff costs reduce in proportion to the number of posts - to reflect increased workload, all of the 8 signalling jobs covering my former patch are significantly better-paid than any of the 30-odd that existed before. As a "re-control" rather than "resignalling" project, usable line capacity remains unchanged, though certain features with the potential to improve service recovery after disruption have been incorporated. 

 

Annual operating savings to be set against the capital expenditure will thus be rather less than the 75% or so that simple arithmetic might suggest. 

 

J.

A lot of the real facts in there John.  The simple fact is that cutting out Signalmen's jobs is hardly the way to achieve massive savings in NR's staff costs - the economies which could achieve that are a lot further up the overall organisation than at the point where its revenue is being created.

 

The big advantage of centralised control is reduction in the need to staff possibly remote locations where there could be recruitment difficulties and of course in renewing time expired infrastructure.  The downside is that centralised control can be far less resilient to what is known in the trade as 'perturbation' - i.e. things going wrong and the more technology and centralisation you have the more vulnerable it becomes.  In my view I think the pendulum has swung too far with massive centralisation schemes which are not really achieving much compared with potentially more localised central control.  Thus the CB workstation could just as readily be at Barnetby as (presumably) York and would be much less vulnerable to a long communication chain failing somewhere or a loss of power at a site very remote from the railway it controls and which might still have power.

 

And in view of various past incidents I really do wonder just how robust some of these schemes actually are when things go wrong?  All of this might be seen as a luddite view but I still think that over centralisation has as many potential headaches as any perceived advantages it might deliver.

[SwissRailPassion]

Network Rails recent enthusiasm for centralised signalling will be very expensive. It seems most of the problems with the railway will be solved by better signalling. This is NR silo thinking and because NR doesn't operate trains perhaps it would think that. More concerning is the moving block and ETMS. There is a belief that moving block will provide huge capacity increases on the ECML. A friend working on the driverless car was very surprised to find that headway between trains was not a minimum 3 minutes. Because the new cars would have moving block the headway could be much tighter. When I told him that it was more like 20 to 25 seconds already with conventional signalling he was annoyed. Some people in NR seem to be convinced just like the car man.

 

Smarter platform working, use of the whistle and less waiting for the doors to release would increase capacity. So would less padding in the TT.

[Grovenor]

 

When I told him that it was more like 20 to 25 seconds already with conventional signalling he was annoyed.

Pull the other one.

Regards

 

PS. Moving block is certainly not a panacea, it can help a bit at platform stops but does little for junctions. It's benefits come in other areas and you have to be very careful or they turn out to be disbenefits.

[PenrithBeacon]

Like those new signals

 

Regards

[Mallard60022]

Sorry P, I really dislike those new signals, but I'm an old bu**er .

I also think that 'local intervention' is now lost and local knowledge when things go t1ts up.

Phil

[woodenhead]

I think if you are above a certain age you can see all the flaws in the plan because we are used to stuff being done one way.

 

But ultimately the railways they are changing and modernising fast, the IEP will sweep away the last of the BR designed Inter City trains from top link services and soon the very reason railways were invented will be a thing of the past when the coal trains stop serving power stations.

 

Amazingly amongst all this the humble 08 shunter still plies it's trade in a few places around the country, born in an age where semaphore and steam were still kings.

 

As vegetation claims back the yards and permanent way no longer used, palliside fencing blocks the camera views and stations are no longer quite as welcoming to enthusiasts you have to wonder what happened, but it's just progress.

[phil-b259]

A lot of the real facts in there John.  The simple fact is that cutting out Signalmen's jobs is hardly the way to achieve massive savings in NR's staff costs - the economies which could achieve that are a lot further up the overall organisation than at the point where its revenue is being created.

 

The big advantage of centralised control is reduction in the need to staff possibly remote locations where there could be recruitment difficulties and of course in renewing time expired infrastructure.  The downside is that centralised control can be far less resilient to what is known in the trade as 'perturbation' - i.e. things going wrong and the more technology and centralisation you have the more vulnerable it becomes.  In my view I think the pendulum has swung too far with massive centralisation schemes which are not really achieving much compared with potentially more localised central control.  Thus the CB workstation could just as readily be at Barnetby as (presumably) York and would be much less vulnerable to a long communication chain failing somewhere or a loss of power at a site very remote from the railway it controls and which might still have power.

 

And in view of various past incidents I really do wonder just how robust some of these schemes actually are when things go wrong?  All of this might be seen as a luddite view but I still think that over centralisation has as many potential headaches as any perceived advantages it might deliver.

 

The other supposed big advantage of the new signalling kit is it is supposed to be maintenance free. If you have a look at the North Lincolnshire scheme all those mechanical signals require maintenance every quarter, while these new LED versions are supposedly self cleaning, don't have moving parts that need to be greased and only require a few basic checks once a year thus freeing up staff. Moreover as the signals can be folded down, the H&S brigade love them as no more climbing up ladders - and if all signals are like that Nr doesn't have to train its response staff in 'working at height' and provide them all with climbing harnesses.

 

On a broader note, with the Chancellor keen to fund 'enhancements' but at the same times wanting to eliminate / radically reduce 'maintenance / operating costs' in all forms of public expenditure (TfLs grant has been slashed for the next financial year, though spending on capital projects is not affected) a reduction in manpower through the removal of signallers and maintenance staff is a easy way to make the required savings.

[31A]

Another benefit of resignalling schemes such as these (although I'm not sure it's taken into account in the costings) is that ability to be more flexible with the train service.

 

One example being the Peterborough-Doncaster Joint Line where part at least of the route was operated in one signalman's shift; the train service finished at about 1800 and the line wasn't available for unplanned diversions such as fatalities or 'wires down' incidents.  Now trains can operate over it for as long as the controlling power box / ROC is open, i.e. 24 hours.

 

Another example is the York-Harrogate line where there are still numerous signal boxes and staffed level crossings and consequently there was no Sunday morning service.  The Sunday service does now start earlier than it did a few years ago (although still not 'early' by any means); even to achieve this modest improvement meant altering the shift patterns of a lot of signalmen and gate keepers.  Once it all comes under the ROC, it will be possible to run trains whenever there is a need, although sadly the character of the stations will be changed.

[locoholic]

CB8802 is typical of the new LED heads/posts. Compare it to this junction version in Peterborough:

 

 

Why does almost EVERYTHING modern on the railway have to be so UGLY?!!!

 

Would it cost so much more to make the infrastructure a bit nicer to look at? I know I'm old, and it's all in the eye of the beholder, but so few modern structures look like they've had any thought given to their aesthetics, and that must have an unconscious, negative effect on the people who have to look at them.

[russ p]

What annoys me is that under BR there were standards for new signals where a signal gave more or less the same result no matter who manufactured it.

Now it seems that anyone can design a signal go to network rail and they will buy it.

Peterborough is a Classic example, the road next to the monstrosity above has a different LED signal and the one after that a conventional head with LED illumination.

All have different sighting distances especially in bad weather.

Seems like another decision made by network rail by persons who haven't got a clue!