Barnt Green to Bromsgrove Electrification

[iands]

A bit unfair to blame the 'modern contract-driven railway' without knowing full details of the situation. Why was the Cross City train still at Longbridge - Presumably delayed, but for what reason ? Was it known that it would be delayed, and by how much, when the second Cross City train was signalled away from Barnt Green ? What would have been the implications had the second Cross City been held at Barnt Green, perhaps the repercussions would have been more serious overall than the delay to the Cross Country service ?

Quite. Could have been for any reason; was the driver experiencing a problem with the train? Had a passenger been taken ill? Just two possible reasons why the train was delayed in the platform, I'm sure there could be a few more before we get to the 'modern contract-driven railway' excuse.

 

Regards, Ian.

[The Stationmaster]

The local rag may have got it off some publicity given out to schools etc. IIRC the BTP spent several months attempting to educate kids near the Doncaster Leeds Line before that went live. They were probably all told to treat any wiring as live irrespective of the actual go live date.

 

Jamie

 

Definitely what. happened in the Thames Valley between Reading and Didcot - stern warnings about the overhead being live, plus plenty of stickers on structures to warn you that it was.  Just a shame that there weren't any wires fixed to the structures.

A bit unfair to blame the 'modern contract-driven railway' without knowing full details of the situation. Why was the Cross City train still at Longbridge - Presumably delayed, but for what reason ? Was it known that it would be delayed, and by how much, when the second Cross City train was signalled away from Barnt Green ? What would have been the implications had the second Cross City been held at Barnt Green, perhaps the repercussions would have been more serious overall than the delay to the Cross Country service ?

 

Difficult to explain without any details but the comment about 'the contract driven railway' is basically correct as generally trains have to run in booked order without too much thought allowed to be given to the 'old fashioned'  idea of regulating them on the basis of headcode priority or speed.  Back in Railtrack trains one of our trains had a habit, for various reasons, of running early and some of Railtrack's Signalmen (although they were called 'xxxlers' by then) had the excellent idea of giving them the road in front of something else instead of leaving them in their rightful path behind a much slower train.   Railtrack duly billed us for running early, at £100 per minute and when time was gained because of the way their staff had done what would generally be called 'proper' railway work (and the other train was only delayed for a couple of minutes which it easily regained).

 

I don't know if they still exist but the original Level 1 Regulating Instructions made such things all too clear.

[melmerby]

The Longbridge train was maybe 5 mins or so late.

I was only pointing out how quickly a small delay can ripple down the schedule on such a congested route

 

There are six trains an hour on the Cross City, one Worcester/Hereford, several Cross Country and regular freight to fit in as well.

All except the freight go via Selly Oak

 

No doubt the trains have a set order to enter New Street due to platform allocations and sending the XC in first might have it standing in the tunnel waiting for a platform to clear anyway.

 

There is not a lot of scope for mitigating delays as due to the track layout only the fast lines are electrified from Longbridge to Barnt Green and the Down Goods/Slow was cut short at Cofton some time back anyway.

It's a pity when the Cross City was electrified the catenary wasn't done on the slow lines all the way to Barnt Green, leaving the inner fast lines solely for non-stopping trains.

 

Keith

[TheSignalEngineer]

Quite a few Bristol - Manchester services go via Camp Hill, consequently if not at Grand Junction on time get shafted there. What time were you looking at?

[TheSignalEngineer]

The Down Goods was shortened back to Cofton before Saltley resiganlling which took place in 1969. The Outer track on the Up side was only changed to a Slow Line recently, possibly when it was transferred to the WM Signalling Centre. It was originally going to be converted at the time of the original Cross City scheme but that was abandoned when the scheme was cut back to Longbridge.

[caradoc]

Definitely what. happened in the Thames Valley between Reading and Didcot - stern warnings about the overhead being live, plus plenty of stickers on structures to warn you that it was.  Just a shame that there weren't any wires fixed to the structures.

 

Difficult to explain without any details but the comment about 'the contract driven railway' is basically correct as generally trains have to run in booked order without too much thought allowed to be given to the 'old fashioned'  idea of regulating them on the basis of headcode priority or speed.  Back in Railtrack trains one of our trains had a habit, for various reasons, of running early and some of Railtrack's Signalmen (although they were called 'xxxlers' by then) had the excellent idea of giving them the road in front of something else instead of leaving them in their rightful path behind a much slower train.   Railtrack duly billed us for running early, at £100 per minute and when time was gained because of the way their staff had done what would generally be called 'proper' railway work (and the other train was only delayed for a couple of minutes which it easily regained).

 

I don't know if they still exist but the original Level 1 Regulating Instructions made such things all too clear.

 

I have to say that I am not aware of Railtrack or Network Rail ever being able to bill operators for delays caused by their trains running early; As all signalling and therefore train movements are controlled by RT/NR, any such delays would be attributed to the Signaller, or if applicable the Controller, who allowed the train ton run early.

 

To give one example from my own experience; Before part of the Barrhead/Kilmarnock route was redoubled, the Riccarton-Grangemouth empty tank train was booked to cross the hourly Up passenger train at Lugton. One day I was asked by the Freight Operator to run the train early, and agreed on the basis that it ran exactly 60 minutes early and therefore still crossed at Lugton without causing delay. The train duly departed Kilmarnock 60 minutes early but for unknown reasons arrived at Lugton only 55 minutes early, thus delaying the passenger train. That delay was attributed to Network Rail and, moreover, to me personally. Please note also that even if a Train Operator's Control agrees to accept any delay caused by running early to assist their operations, this will not be accepted by their Performance Section and the delay will still come to NR. The reluctance to run trains early can therefore be understood.

 

Where late running is concerned, Signallers most certainly do have the power and responsibility to regulate to minimise delay; Those at Carlisle and Motherwell Signalling Centres for example have this down to a fine art and make full use of the loops on the WCML to keep freights running but out of the way as far as possible of passenger trains, beaing in mind that 60mph freights are mixing it with 125mph passengers, and that some freights now are too long for many, if not all, of the loops.

[TheSignalEngineer]

In the early days Railtrack would try to impose penalties on everything and everyone. They wanted to try it on me on one occasion for a 20-minute over-run on a possession which actually delayed two ECS and then one passenger service by 5 minutes from the originating station. Didn't stick when I pointed out that me taking an extension to the possession had been delayed by two hours at their request due to problems they were in elsewhere, and I was going to claim against them for the extra work I incurred replanning the work teams to get round it. .

Edited January 6, 2018 by TheSignalEngineer

[The Stationmaster]

I have to say that I am not aware of Railtrack or Network Rail ever being able to bill operators for delays caused by their trains running early; As all signalling and therefore train movements are controlled by RT/NR, any such delays would be attributed to the Signaller, or if applicable the Controller, who allowed the train ton run early.

 

To give one example from my own experience; Before part of the Barrhead/Kilmarnock route was redoubled, the Riccarton-Grangemouth empty tank train was booked to cross the hourly Up passenger train at Lugton. One day I was asked by the Freight Operator to run the train early, and agreed on the basis that it ran exactly 60 minutes early and therefore still crossed at Lugton without causing delay. The train duly departed Kilmarnock 60 minutes early but for unknown reasons arrived at Lugton only 55 minutes early, thus delaying the passenger train. That delay was attributed to Network Rail and, moreover, to me personally. Please note also that even if a Train Operator's Control agrees to accept any delay caused by running early to assist their operations, this will not be accepted by their Performance Section and the delay will still come to NR. The reluctance to run trains early can therefore be understood.

 

Where late running is concerned, Signallers most certainly do have the power and responsibility to regulate to minimise delay; Those at Carlisle and Motherwell Signalling Centres for example have this down to a fine art and make full use of the loops on the WCML to keep freights running but out of the way as far as possible of passenger trains, beaing in mind that 60mph freights are mixing it with 125mph passengers, and that some freights now are too long for many, if not all, of the loops.

 

We had a couple of instances come to the Access adjudication process where Railtrack were raising charges for trains running early and they were in effect permitted to do so under the Access Conditions particularly, but not only, if another operator's train was delayed as a result of someone's train running before time.  At one time they operated a system of using early running minutes to counterbalance late running minutes when billing for delay minutes but that was stopped by directive from their HQ c.1996/7.

[melmerby]

Some pictures from today showing the current state of OHLE infastructure at Bromsgrove.

 

An example of the fencing now on all the bridges at the South end.

 

 

View South from Finstall Road:

 

 

St Godwald's Road looking North:

 

 

St Godwald's Road looking South into the station:

 

 

It's not easy getting decent pictures now these barriers are up.

 

Keith

Edited January 8, 2018 by melmerby

[TheSignalEngineer]

Gives the impression that somebody forgot they need to raise the parapets even where the bridge isn't rebuilt to get OLE clearances.

 

The building work has to be done before the Inspector calls. It can probably only be done under possession unless a platform is built over the track, and nowadays needs either a road closure or a very big barrier on the road side whilst it is done. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by TheSignalEngineer

[melmerby]

Gives the impression that somebody forgot they need to raise the parapets even where the bridge isn't rebuilt to get OLE clearances.

 

The building work has to be done before the Inspector calls. It can probably only be done under possession unless a platform is built over the track, and nowadays needs either a road closure or a very big barrier on the road side whilst it is done. 

Interesting!

 

All the overbridges North of the ones by the station have been done ages ago (long before any masts were planted), even those which are way over the wiring height and not needing deck raising..

Raising Finstall Road bridge deck could cause a few a problems (if needed) as it is already a bit of a hump on a rising gradient coming from Tutnall direction

https://goo.gl/maps/gxhM51PufVQ2

 

Keith

[Covkid]

Some pictures from today showing the current state of OHLE infastructure at Bromsgrove.

 

An example of the fencing now on all the bridges at the South end.

Keith

 

Interesting. When they started work on the Cannock line modernisation, the bridges I have seen have been neatly rebuilt with bricks and triangular cappings, ready for the electrification. 

Also the bridge over the Sutton Park line on Bosty Lane near Aldridge was rebuilt in the same manner - suggesting there may yet be OLE to a new Aldridge station in the future. Unless that is the defacto attention to each bridge irrespective of whether OLE runs under it.

 

One of the rebuilt bridges over Hednesford way

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Chase-Line-electrification-Walkers-Rise-Hednesford-bridge-reconstruction.bmp

Edited January 10, 2018 by Covkid

[melmerby]

Interesting. When they started work on the Cannock line modernisation, the bridges I have seen have been neatly rebuilt with bricks and triangular cappings, ready for the electrification. 

Also the bridge over the Sutton Park line on Bosty Lane near Aldridge was rebuilt in the same manner - suggesting there may yet be OLE to a new Aldridge station in the future. Unless that is the defacto attention to each bridge irrespective of whether OLE runs under it.

 

One of the rebuilt bridges over Hednesford way

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Chase-Line-electrification-Walkers-Rise-Hednesford-bridge-reconstruction.bmp

These are the totally reconstructed parapets of the Linthurst Newtown bridge over the Lickey:

https://goo.gl/maps/dmgpbgogPpr

 

Notice the height in relation to the men putting the finishing touches to them.

 

For comparison; St Godwalds Road before any work has been done:

https://goo.gl/maps/mr8fzhLDXbD2

 

Finstall Road is even lower:

https://goo.gl/maps/Vk7HCDbaJV12

 

I don't know why it is "Park Road Overbridge" as there isn't a Park Road!

 

Keith

 

Edit: there was a "Park" so maybe the entrance to the Park &  named as such

Finstall Road & the bridge is a lot newer than the Railway.

Edited January 10, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

In the latest issue of Today's Railway UK there is a short article about the new West Midlands Trains franchise with a quote from WMT that electric trains will be running to Bromsgrove from May 2018 (and also to Rugeley from December 2018)

 

Keith

[Robert Shrives]

Hi Just adding 10 pence to the  Longbridge/ XC south . It was real shoestring scheme and  only "washed its face" with slow lines wired and no camp hill diversion , no power supply with it being a link into New st supplies.  However the plan went astray at Longbridge.

The story has it the plan was upside down or up and downs confused as it had been planned for the down line electrics to run on the down goods - to become down slow to Cofton but the wires on the up goods were put in as if the down and extend beyond the down points and then end. The down goods OLE  stops where if a signal had been put in two trains could reverse had it been installed on the upside ! Best part of all was that some of this wire was run out and then the noddy clips that hold up were missing and for weeks the wires were pulled aside and held by rope...  I do wonder what would be said if it happened now. - !! .

 

I agree with Andrew that the lack of south end signalling  preventing turn back is an oversight that will bite NR much sooner than later. It would have been so easy at the time and allow service to turn back south massively reducing the bustitiution distances  - GCR or CNM to BHM something that part industry recognises as a major turn off for passengers at weekends. But short term the morning failure of a train on the Lickey will see Bromsgrove a carpark for trains and no ability to turn back in an orderly manner. The North end crossovers are not signalled for it and pretty certain the bank has not got bidrectional signalling as part of the enhancements currently in hand.

 

I do look forward to the electric service as for  probably 360 days a year it will be an excellent improvement for everybody.

robert       

[CovDriver]

In the latest issue of Today's Railway UK there is a short article about the new West Midlands Trains franchise with a quote from WMT that electric trains will be running to Bromsgrove from May 2018 (and also to Rugeley from December 2018)

 

Keith

 

Well they better get some route learning done pretty dam soon as there's well over 200 drivers and guards to learn the route to Bromsgrove and sign it off so personally I think it won't be happening from May 2018 the same could be said for a route that we are learning currently and that supposed to be starting from the 19th February.

 

 

Cheers 

 

Colin 

[phil-b259]

Hi Just adding 10 pence to the  Longbridge/ XC south . It was real shoestring scheme and  only "washed its face" with slow lines wired and no camp hill diversion , no power supply with it being a link into New st supplies.  However the plan went astray at Longbridge.

The story has it the plan was upside down or up and downs confused as it had been planned for the down line electrics to run on the down goods - to become down slow to Cofton but the wires on the up goods were put in as if the down and extend beyond the down points and then end. The down goods OLE  stops where if a signal had been put in two trains could reverse had it been installed on the upside ! Best part of all was that some of this wire was run out and then the noddy clips that hold up were missing and for weeks the wires were pulled aside and held by rope...  I do wonder what would be said if it happened now. - !! .

 

I agree with Andrew that the lack of south end signalling  preventing turn back is an oversight that will bite NR much sooner than later. It would have been so easy at the time and allow service to turn back south massively reducing the bustitiution distances  - GCR or CNM to BHM something that part industry recognises as a major turn off for passengers at weekends. But short term the morning failure of a train on the Lickey will see Bromsgrove a carpark for trains and no ability to turn back in an orderly manner. The North end crossovers are not signalled for it and pretty certain the bank has not got bidrectional signalling as part of the enhancements currently in hand.

 

I do look forward to the electric service as for  probably 360 days a year it will be an excellent improvement for everybody.

robert       

 

IIRC part of the problem is that NR are effectively trying to make the minimum of changes at present because there are long term aspirations to resignal the entire line between Birmingham and Bristol including removing the likes of Gloucester Panel (1970s era I believe) plus the mechanical signalling at Worcester.

 

As a result it does not make economic sense to 'future proof' / over provide at Bromsgrove so to speak when in reality other constraints posed by the older signalling mentioned above still exist. You also need to be wary about using 'disruption' to justify additional expenditure - as we keep having to explain to fans over rebuilding the LSWR route over Dartmoor business positive business cases can only generally be made by focusing on normal operations - not simply on avoiding 'disruption' should things go wrong.

 

Given enough time, I'm sure that bi-directional signalling will make an appearance over Lickey - and indeed probably the whole Bristol - Birmingham corridor eventually (assuming ERTMS doesn't supersede lineside signalling before then) given its strategic importance.

[melmerby]

May 2018 start?

Don't think so unless they really get their skates on.

 

Some photos of the current state (Friday 9th Feb)

The bright, low sun didn't help on some shots.

 

St Godwalds Road North:

 

St Godwalds Road showing detail on mast:

 

St Godwalds Road looking South

(actually from the old Station car park because the barriers block the view from the bridge)

 

View from the new station car park

 

Three views looking North from Railway Walk:

 

 

 

Final view looking South showing where it ends:

 

Keith

 

Edit

 

You can see the barriers on the parapets do not shield a work platform but are just raising the height.(Photo 2)

So why?

 

They don't need them until the system is live and surely the parapets should be rebuilt before then?

Edited February 10, 2018 by melmerby

[melmerby]

Looks like there are more delays.

 

According to BBC Midlands Today the electrification wont now be ready until July this year.

Also in the Midlands,  Kenilworth station opening has been delayed again.

 

Keith

Edited March 15, 2018 by melmerby

[Sam*45110*SVR]

Route learning trips between Barnt Green and Bromsgrove for cross city drivers are scheduled to start on Monday 16th. There are quite a few trips up and down per day according to realtimetrains.

 

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/BMV/2018/04/16/0000-2359?stp=S&show=non-passenger&order=wtt&toc=LM

 

Sam

[CovDriver]

That's just in the system now but nothing has been agreed for us drivers to learn the route so don't bank on any trains actually running yet pardon the pun.

[Supaned]

I'm sure those route learners won't get in the way of the booked passenger trains at all....

[melmerby]

Route learning trips between Barnt Green and Bromsgrove for cross city drivers are scheduled to start on Monday 16th. There are quite a few trips up and down per day according to realtimetrains.

 

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/BMV/2018/04/16/0000-2359?stp=S&show=non-passenger&order=wtt&toc=LM

 

Sam

Time to go and have another look to see the nearly finished (?) OHLE

Still on to start the new serviceas in July apparently.

 

I see the RTT runs are listed for 2 x 158 DMUs from Tyseley

 

Keith

 

EDIT if the locals see those trains they are going to think it's an extremely frequent service!

Edited April 8, 2018 by melmerby

[Covkid]

Time to go and have another look to see the nearly finished (?) OHLE

Still on to start the new serviceas in July apparently.

 

I see the RTT runs are listed for 2 x 158 DMUs from Tyseley

 

Keith

 

EDIT if the locals see those trains they are going to think it's an extremely frequent service!

 

 

Are you sure they are 158s ? 

Tyseley haven't had 158s for several years and WMR nee LMT  certainly haven't had them in the fleet for most of the previous franchise. Guessing it might be a 170, and hoping it isn't a single 153 !!!!  

[melmerby]

Are you sure they are 158s ? 

Tyseley haven't had 158s for several years and WMR nee LMT  certainly haven't had them in the fleet for most of the previous franchise. Guessing it might be a 170, and hoping it isn't a single 153 !!!!  

I'm only quoting RTT which shows the diagram for 158s

Looking at "real" trains they are often different to what RTT lists, 170s seem a possibility, as they run the current  Birmingham -Worcester-Hereford services

The other day I spotted a freight that was listed as electrically hauled 75mph. but some of it's route wasn't wired, the train loco was the inevitable 66.

 

Keith

Edited April 8, 2018 by melmerby