East Coast Mainline Blockade for Werrington Junction diveunder

[Richard E]

The down Stamford is also the ECML Down slow/relief through Werrington Jn. The up Stamford isn't electrified as there is a separate up slow/relief.

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, Richard E said:

The down Stamford is also the ECML Down slow/relief through Werrington Jn. The up Stamford isn't electrified as there is a separate up slow/relief.

 

And as such it could be used by electric trains at any time for regulating purposes, or in the event of an issue blocking or affecting the Down main (unless of course a temporary block to electric trains is imposed).

[Donington Road]

Having ever seen one electric using the down Stamford along comes another one today

 

[Donington Road]

The main structure of Cock Lane footbridge is now all up.

Still a lot of work to do, panels to fix where joints are, non-slip flooring to do, pathways and fencing.

Mondays opening is looking less likely, official sources say it maybe put back as much as another week.

 

 

[Ken.W]

On 22/10/2019 at 15:18, ess1uk said:

How many electric trains use the Stamford line?

there is new OLE in the area so who knows?

 

 

The Cl.91 17:48 KGX - Leeds having stopped at Peterborough was booked to use the Down Stamford for the 18:00 KGX - Edinburgh (first stop York) to pass.

(Don't know if this has changed since Azumas came in)

 

5 hours ago, Richard E said:

The up Stamford isn't electrified as there is a separate up slow/relief.

 

And would be pointless anyway (pun intended), as there's no normal** direct access from the Up ECML to the Up Stamford.

 

** I have actually done so once, with an HST naturally, by running wrong line Up the Down Slow from Tallington under Pilotman's Working.

OLE damage at Werrington IIRC.

 

It's an Up Slow on the ECML btw. No WR here

Edited October 24, 2019 by Ken.W

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Donington Road said:

The main structure of Cock Lane footbridge is now all up.

Still a lot of work to do, panels to fix where joints are, non-slip flooring to do, pathways and fencing.

Mondays opening is looking less likely, official sources say it maybe put back as much as another week.

 

 

I wonder how much that footbridge cost?  Any advance on £2.5 million?

[russ p]

There are footbridges all over now which seem almost as complex as the forth bridge.  Trouble is they spend so much on these they can't afford to do essential things like cutting back vegetation.  The east Midlands seems to be very bad for this.

Trouble is no one seems accountable,  there was the incident where that woman died on an hst by hitting a tree but no one has actually said it shouldn't have been so close to the train!

[Donington Road]

14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I wonder how much that footbridge cost?  Any advance on £2.5 million?

 

The latest I heard was nearly £4 million, initial costing was £2 million.

Goodness knows how much the very large crane cost to put up the main span.  The one in the photos used to put up the other bits was £9000 a day for its nine days of use.

[John Tomlinson]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I wonder how much that footbridge cost?  Any advance on £2.5 million?

FWIW I've spent a good few hours on that bridge doing pictures in recent years. Not once have I witnessed anyone disabled taking advantage of the slope with a wheelchair.

 

A bit like the palisade fencing, someone decides it's a good idea and certain places blindly install where there's no need, such as the Westmorland Fells!

 

A pity for us poor taxpayers who foot the bill.

 

John.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, russ p said:

There are footbridges all over now which seem almost as complex as the forth bridge.  Trouble is they spend so much on these they can't afford to do essential things like cutting back vegetation.  The east Midlands seems to be very bad for this.

Trouble is no one seems accountable,  there was the incident where that woman died on an HST by hitting a tree but no one has actually said it shouldn't have been so close to the train!

 

Actually the RAIB did highlight the branch being foul of the loading gauge being a contributory factor.

 

They did however make it clear that the loading gauge and providing enough space to lean out of an open window are not the same - and it was unreasonable for NR to maintain the grater clearances necessary. All NR have an obligation to do is keep vegetation clear of the loading gauge.

 

There is of course the point that vegetation scraping along the side of a metal train with toughened glass windows is unlikely to cause serious damage and present a hazard to passengers travelling inside.

[Richard E]

1 minute ago, John Tomlinson said:

FWIW I've spent a good few hours on that bridge doing pictures in recent years. Not once have I witnessed anyone disabled taking advantage of the slope with a wheelchair.

 

A bit like the palisade fencing, someone decides it's a good idea and certain places blindly install where there's no need, such as the Westmorland Fells!

 

A pity for us poor taxpayers who foot the bill.

 

John.

But, under current legislation, wouldn't it be illegal to not put the ramps in?

[John Tomlinson]

6 minutes ago, Richard E said:

But, under current legislation, wouldn't it be illegal to not put the ramps in?

Yes it would.

 

My point was simply that decisions of this kind ought, in my humble opinion, to have some kind of value criteria attached, so that sums such as those quoted here aren't spent automatically regardless of likely use. To do so would require the law to be changed, which given the sensitivity of the subject is as likely as Blackburn Rovers winning the F.A. Cup!

 

John.

Edited October 24, 2019 by John Tomlinson
typo

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

FWIW I've spent a good few hours on that bridge doing pictures in recent years. Not once have I witnessed anyone disabled taking advantage of the slope with a wheelchair.

 

A bit like the palisade fencing, someone decides it's a good idea and certain places blindly install where there's no need, such as the Westmorland Fells!

 

A pity for us poor taxpayers who foot the bill.

 

John.

 

Palisade fencing is very good at keeping certain large animals like deer off the line due to its height where as its easy for them to jump across drystone walls or waist high post an rail stuff.

 

Have a think back to Polmont in 1984, large animals can in the right circumstances serious incidents - not to mention significant delay / disruption if the train is damaged such that it requires the attention of fitters / rescue locos after an impact with a large animal at high speed.

 

Please remember that NR is a 'taxpayer owned' company and the delay minutes compensation they are required to pay to TOCs still apply even if the incident is something you might dismiss* as 'act of nature' / 'unavoidable stuff'

 

 

* Suicides, flooding of the tracks, landslips, bridge bashes, animal impacts, level crossing misuse, etc are all categorised as a 'NR Fault' and thus large amounts of compensation to the TOCs must be paid out when they disrupt services

[russ p]

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Actually the RAIB did highlight the branch being foul of the loading gauge being a contributory factor.

 

They did however make it clear that the loading gauge and providing enough space to lean out of an open window are not the same - and it was unreasonable for NR to maintain the grater clearances necessary. All NR have an obligation to do is keep vegetation clear of the loading gauge.

 

There is of course the point that vegetation scraping along the side of a metal train with toughened glass windows is unlikely to cause serious damage and present a hazard to passengers travelling inside.

 

That may be the rule but its utter b#llox I am supposed to periodically look back along my train while driving,  you honestly dare not do that now vegetation is a death trap. I always give management help on the saloon about it,  and actually got them to get a gang to cut some back straight away recently to avoid an embarrassing report for them.

I'm not getting into an argument about vegetation again but as I've said before I cant see you on the track, you can't  see me and at some horrible stage it will be someone on the track will see a train too late and have no escape due to vegetation! 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Richard E said:

But, under current legislation, wouldn't it be illegal to not put the ramps in?

 

It depends...

 

If the footpath was previously usable by all (e.g. it was formerly a foot crossing with ramped / level approaches) then a ramped bridge would have to be provided.

 

If the footpath however previously required steps up to / down to the railway before crossing it on the level, then a ramped bridge is no necessary. A foot crossing over the busy BML at Salfords got a stepped bridge around a year ago precisely because the previous foot crossing required users to climb the embankment via steps to use the old foot crossing.

 

If the railway bridge is going to be located next to (or further along a path which already has a stepped structure elsewhere - over a motorway or a series of styles to get through farmers fields) then a ramped bridge is not necessary.

 

On the other hand if a stepped bridge is being replaced and the fields either side have now become a housing estate, then a ramped bridge will probably be necessary. Several foot crossings on the rural WCML were replaced in this manor in preparation for the Pendalinos

 

Equally if the steps only bridge in question forms part of access to a station and it has to be renewed, then ramps or lifts will be required to be provided with its replacement.

 

[John Tomlinson]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Palisade fencing is very good at keeping certain large animals like deer off the line due to its height where as its easy for them to jump across drystone walls or waist high post an rail stuff.

 

Have a think back to Polmont in 1984, large animals can in the right circumstances serious incidents - not to mention significant delay / disruption if the train is damaged such that it requires the attention of fitters / rescue locos after an impact with a large animal at high speed.

 

Please remember that NR is a 'taxpayer owned' company and the delay minutes compensation they are required to pay to TOCs still apply even if the incident is something you might dismiss* as 'act of nature' / 'unavoidable stuff'

 

 

* Suicides, flooding of the tracks, landslips, bridge bashes, animal impacts, level crossing misuse, etc are all categorised as a 'NR Fault' and thus large amounts of compensation to the TOCs must be paid out when they disrupt services

I'm sure you are correct Phil in the example you cite, however surely what is required here is risk management rather than elimination for something that happens once every few decades..

 

I don't understand why the fencing is required in Westmorland, whereas there is almost none in my local area, which is rural and has lots of deer not to mention in some cases a busy railway line close to human population. Nor do I see the benefit in Westmorland when a few hundred metres of track have the fencing, and the next few hundred don't - I suspect the wildlife is capable of finding the spaces.

 

You rightly state that NR is a "taxpayer owned" company, and as I noted in my earlier post as it runs a deficit this has to be funded by the taxpayer, as does capital spend not covered by revenue flows, such as on expensive fencing or indeed the footbridge installation discussed above.

 

John.

[Donington Road]

26 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

FWIW I've spent a good few hours on that bridge doing pictures in recent years. Not once have I witnessed anyone disabled taking advantage of the slope with a wheelchair.

 

The slope on the old bridge was STEPS, no good for a wheeled mobility vehicle and not very cycle friendly either.

[John Tomlinson]

Just now, Donington Road said:

 

The slope on the old bridge was STEPS, no good for a wheeled mobility vehicle and not very cycle friendly either.

Thanks for that, yes I remembered it had small steps between the ramped sections but assumed that counted as "disabled compliant" - obviously not. Makes you wonder why it was built in that way if it wasn't compliant.

 

Some of the younger cyclists seemed to enjoy going downhill over the little steps, somewhat more difficult if going uphill however.

 

John.

[Donington Road]

48 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

It depends...

 

If the footpath was previously usable by all (e.g. it was formerly a foot crossing with ramped / level approaches) then a ramped bridge would have to be provided.

 

If the footpath however previously required steps up to / down to the railway before crossing it on the level, then a ramped bridge is no necessary. A foot crossing over the busy BML at Salfords got a stepped bridge around a year ago precisely because the previous foot crossing required users to climb the embankment via steps to use the old foot crossing.

 

If the railway bridge is going to be located next to (or further along a path which already has a stepped structure elsewhere - over a motorway or a series of styles to get through farmers fields) then a ramped bridge is not necessary.

 

On the other hand if a stepped bridge is being replaced and the fields either side have now become a housing estate, then a ramped bridge will probably be necessary. Several foot crossings on the rural WCML were replaced in this manor in preparation for the Pendalinos

 

Equally if the steps only bridge in question forms part of access to a station and it has to be renewed, then ramps or lifts will be required to be provided with its replacement.

 

 

Here is an old photo of the original foot crossing looking back towards Werrington. I have marked it on the map.

It was an unfriendly track across open fields, ok for walking or using a push bike in the drier weather.

Non-railway side was grass/soil, beyond the gate was ballast slope with wooden sleeper crossing.  You had to be nimble once deciding to cross as it was a long way to the other side.

The foot crossing was closed early nineties and replaced with a stepped foot bridge, a rather awkward step of about a metre long and 125mm rise.

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, russ p said:

 

That may be the rule but its utter b#llox I am supposed to periodically look back along my train while driving,  you honestly dare not do that now vegetation is a death trap. I always give management help on the saloon about it,  and actually got them to get a gang to cut some back straight away recently to avoid an embarrassing report for them.

I'm not getting into an argument about vegetation again but as I've said before I cant see you on the track, you can't  see me and at some horrible stage it will be someone on the track will see a train too late and have no escape due to vegetation! 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I am very much in agreement with what you say. Unfortunately with the big push to prevent ‘red zone’ working* by the authorities - a lack of sighting caused by vegetation is more likely to be addressed by simply banning red zone working rather than clearing it.

 

 

 

* we hear the ORR want to ban it by 2020 despite there simply not being enough time overnight or between trains on busy lines like the BML for all departments to get their work done.

[russ p]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Actually the RAIB did highlight the branch being foul of the loading gauge being a contributory factor.

 

They did however make it clear that the loading gauge and providing enough space to lean out of an open window are not the same - and it was unreasonable for NR to maintain the grater clearances necessary. All NR have an obligation to do is keep vegetation clear of the loading gauge.

 

There is of course the point that vegetation scraping along the side of a metal train with toughened glass windows is unlikely to cause serious damage and present a hazard to passengers travelling inside.

 

That may be the rule but its utter b#llox I am supposed to periodically look back along my train while driving,  you honestly dare not do that now vegetation is a death trap. I always give management help on the saloon about it,  and actually got them to get a gang to cut some back straight away recently to avoid an embarrassing report for them.

I'm not getting into an argument about vegetation again but as I've said before I cant see you on the track, you can't  see me and at some horrible stage it will be someone on the track will see a train too late and have no escape due to vegetation! 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

I don't understand why the fencing is required in Westmorland, whereas there is almost none in my local area, which is rural and has lots of deer not to mention in some cases a busy railway line close to human population. Nor do I see the benefit in Westmorland when a few hundred metres of track have the fencing, and the next few hundred don't - I suspect the wildlife is capable of finding the spaces.

 

 

 

It it could be that there have been a high number of animal incursion incidents (resulting in significant payouts) in Westmorland, but in your local area there haven’t been any.

 

If you sit in and office and compare these statistics then it’s easy to conclude that Westmooorland does indeed represent a ‘high risk’ and requires investment in mitigation, while your area represents a low risk and does not.

 

NOTE:- I have no access to the data to prove this is actually the case - but it seems a logical way to explain the disparity you highlight. 

[russ p]

 I hear what you say Phil,  but there are other reasons for it to be cut back other than red zone working,  what if the holes in the cheese come together some day and a train details and looses all power including the radio the mobile coverage is bad and a driver has to carry out emergency protection which means he has to have a good view of approaching trains? 

I've heard they want to abolish red zone working which will cause massive delays when things go wrong and talking to NR management this isn't something they really want, as if it's done correctly its very safe. Unfortunately the operative word is correctly and unfortunately as I found out this year it's not always done so.

 

 

 

[Pandora]

Arrived at Kings Cross this morning to find near 100% cancellation of trains north of Peterborough ,ECML  passengers and LNER platform staff were being sent to St Pancras to deal with travel,   announcements give the reason as  shortage  of train crews at Kings Cross.

Trains I believe were being diverted  via Lincoln and  some extra trains from St Pancras  to provide a Leeds service.

Is this all due to engineering work at the Werrington diveunder? 

Experts please advise as what is going on today.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Pandora

[dhjgreen]

54 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Arrived at Kings Cross this morning to find near 100% cancellation of trains north of Peterborough ,ECML  passengers and LNER platform staff were being sent to St Pancras to deal with travel,   announcements give the reason as  shortage  of train crews at Kings Cross.

Trains I believe were being diverted  via Lincoln and  some extra trains from St Pancras  to provide a Leeds service.

Is this all due to engineering work at the Werrington diveunder? 

Experts please advise as what is going on today.

Lots of trains showing PD cancellation code, trains are passing Werrington though

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/KGX?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt