Urgent Safety Advice today from RAIB

[Oldddudders]

But you would also have to ensure somehow that every single Driver booked to work (and even remotely likely to work, in case of unplanned diversions) over the route had seen the notice, so trains would have to be stopped and cautioned for several hours, despite all the equipment being in place on the ground.

 

Quite so. That is the railway I used to know. Neighbours were most unimpressed, but no driver ever got a shock. Which matters more?

[TheSignalEngineer]

This notice by RAIB concerns that during this investigation, they’ve found a non-compliance with established industry guidance which has evidently been considered serious enough to issue an immediate Urgent Safety Advice for any operators concerned to review their practices.

 

To me this is a part of the systemic problem within our railway. Too many of what used to be Requirements, enshrined in the Rule Book and other documents are now just reduced to the status of advice which anyone can ignore if they think it will improve their bottom line. 

 

Fortunately I'm out of it, partly because I didn't like the way things were heading and didn't want to be part of the next Big One.

[phil-b259]

Indeed it can. But on the day, and until every notice case has it published, a red light and dets should greet every train.

 

Dets are not used in such circumstances these days - the closest controlled signal to the defect is maintained at red until a driver has been individually spoken to by the signaller over GSM-R (having a working one is a mandatory requirement* for trains these days)

 

In fact the H&S brigade within the ORR are very anti-dets and want them done away with (including Heritage railways by the way). Unfortunately all the alternatives all rather rely on ERTMS style in cab signalling to prevent trains going where they shouldn't go.

 

* Obviously a GSM-R defect can occur at any time - but if it does then a portable set must be got to the train or the train removed to a depot ASAP. Relying on SPTs (particularly as so many are either considered to be / are physically in places which puts the user in great danger of being struck by trains) is not acceptable these days.

Edited December 2, 2018 by phil-b259

[Ncarter2]

 

Which could be expressed more simply as 72m 139yds !

 

Because those of us who use chains should convert because that is the belief of some?

You may use yards, your choice. We use chains and it works perfectly. So much so that if anyone tries to report in yards to the box or control we are asked for it in chains. Why change something that isn’t broke and has been used successfully for many many years?

[Supaned]

Just catching up with this after some time away.

 

Turning this on it's head , how many drivers having read ALL of their applicable notices actually slow down for a TSR or ESR where there are no boards provided whatsoever (ie the restriction has either not been imposed or if any repairs have been done , no SPATE boards are provided)? I suspect in reality very few.

 

My take on this is that every TSR or ESR these days should have at least one warning magnet (2 if an ESR) , a warning board , a commencement board and a termination board. Whilst one of these items could well be missing (ie fallen over) , the likelihood of the full set of boards and magnets being missing is, I would hope, very small , likewise if a speed restriction is newly imposed, trains should be stopped and cautioned until such time as all the warning boards etc are in place. Whether the boards and magnets are correctly laid out is a matter for another debate , but either way , the driver should, upon encountering the warning equipment for the restriction , take some appropriate action and timings etc be damned, as soon as a restriction is imposed then any delay penalty should the driver reduce speed well before the actual restriction will be on the infrastructure owner and not the TOC.

[Southernman46]

Broken crossing, it’s a special, takes weeks to procure a replacement. It happened in my day, surely still now?

Not if your managing your spares properly - and anything strategic / unique like Saltwood Jn - get 2 so that 1 can go in track immediately and there's still a spare just in case - learned that hard lesson with the shite performance of RT60/NR60 obtuse xings at Vauxhall / Weybridge & Basing .............................. where they would fail within weeks - Weybridge's still have TSR's on some 6 years after the first failure - now on the 4th - 5th set of xings there too ..................

 

It does take about 13 weeks to get a replacement cast xing hence the need to ensure that there are adequate spares available for those in one's area ................... often been able to donate a xing to another PW Engineer around the country when the "has anyone got an 1 in XYZ rhubarb rhubarb" call has gone out - the same applies to 1/2 sets of switches ........................

 

Apologies that all sounds a bit smug but we did get it right in our area and I am proud of that

Edited December 5, 2018 by Southernman46

[Oldddudders]

Not if your managing your spares properly - and anything strategic / unique like Saltwood Jn - get 2 so that 1 can go in track immediately and there's still a spare just in case - learned that hard lesson with the shite performance of RT60/NR60 obtuse xings at Vauxhall / Weybridge & Basing .............................. where they would fail within weeks and still have TSR's on at Weybridge some 6 years after the first failure.

 

It does take about 13 weeks to get a replacement cast xing hence the need to ensure that there are adequate spare available for those in one's area ................... often been able to donate a xing to another PW Engineer around the country when the "has anyone got an 1 in XYZ rhubarb rhubarb" - the same applies to 1/2 sets of switches ........................

 

Apologies that all sounds a bit smug but we did get it right in our area and I am proud of that

Not smug - just prudent! Perhaps times, in terms of order levels, have changed. I suspect that the signatory on the Special order might have refused to order the spare, thus keeping costs down. Sevenoaks old layout was the favourite for this, in DCE days. Early 80s.

[caradoc]

Which could be expressed more simply as 72m 139yds !

 

Because those of us who use chains should convert because that is the belief of some?

You may use yards, your choice. We use chains and it works perfectly. So much so that if anyone tries to report in yards to the box or control we are asked for it in chains. Why change something that isn’t broke and has been used successfully for many many years?

 

I have not suggested that anyone change their system of measurement, just pointed out that some parts of the railway work perfectly well with miles and yards, without having to involve chains as well. And that is not my 'belief', or indeed my choice, just the method that was in use where I happened to work.

 

PS I can just imagine the delight of someone asked to convert, say, 757 yards into a multiple of 22, plus of course with some odd yards left over !

[big jim]

PS I can just imagine the delight of someone asked to convert, say, 757 yards into a multiple of 22, plus of course with some odd yards left over !

Our train lists have SLU on them as well as ft, the problem being the class 66 train length computer is in meters so i have to convert it myself!

[The Stationmaster]

I obviously will not make any comment regarding the actual incident at present, and yes, I do know the driver concerned, who's currently removed from duty pending investigations.

 

Regarding only the RAIB notice itself;

Remote signing on was introduced under the Driver Restructuring Initiative under GNER. No provision was made for posting of ESR notices.

Since the RAIB notice was issued we are now, as an interim measure, e-mailed copies of the notices issued by NR advising of the imposition of ESRs, and there's been a section listing ESRs added to the POIS sheet (Train formation, timing, and other info, issued at start of journey)

 

As an aside, it's been interesting to see on there the term 'Restriction of Speed' used, including in the notice copied above, is this a WR thing? Elsewhere, I've only ever seen the term 'Speed Restriction' used, whether Permanent, Temporary, or Emergency

 

It probably is (or was) a WR thing.  It is actually the correct form of written English as we are talking about restrictions of speed below the normal speed and the term was definitely used in some GWR operating literature.  I worked in a Regional Rules & Regs office (on the WR) where the Rules & Signalling Officer, who was also WR trained, insisted on correct form of English in written material hence, for example, we had EROS Instructions which were also called that in the Red Notice procedure document which subsequently became a Management Instruction document.

 

Nowadays it is all TSR PSR etc and therefore ESR as well but some of us who were brought up the old way still use the original (for us) terminology).

 

The point about the Driver is obviously a matter of any internal investigation and is sub-judice.  However I remain concerned that RAIB are not addressing what might or might not be a potential flaw in the system.  The 'metal mickey' method of indicating EROSs was established to avoid precisely this sort of failing and while one swallow does not make a summer an incident of this nature must inevitably raise questions about the method itself and its efficacy, the manner in which the relevant Rules and procedures are laid out, and possibly even standards  of instruction and examination of competency.   The wider issue goes some considerable way beyond the posting of Red Notices or their electronic equivalent for the very basic reason that restrictions such as this can be imposed at any time and there will inevitably be Drivers working trains towards them who booked on before even the NR notice was issued (although that was not the case in this particular incident).  Only universal introduction of ERTMS is likely to change that.  

 

PS  I don't like the way the Rule applicable to Drivers is currently written as it starts by referring to the exception - i.e. stopped and informed by a Signalman(ler) - before stating the norm, i.e. metal mickey emergency indicator in use.  It was arranged correctly in the BR Rule Book as it happens (although even late editions still refer to use of a Handsignalman as an alternative method)  but 'Signalman stop and advise the Driver' was the last section in the Rule because it was the exception from the standard methods of warning.  A very basic principle of writing Rules and Instructions is to put the exceptions last - for what I would consider to be obvious reasons.

But what happened to dets and signals maintained at danger when an ESR was required?

 

From 1948 until 1996, the railway was required to run a service, not make a profit. It did so, by and large, safely, but without benefit of half the gismos now in use.

 

Very glad to be retired!

 

But in any case the speed was always handsignalled, including a distant Handsignalman, and the need to stop trains at the 'box in rear only applied until the Red Notice was posted (the actual wording in Rule 217(g) was ... ' stopped at the signalbox in rear' ---- 'until such time as notification can be given by other means').

 

It changed quite a lot when incorporated in Section T in the 1973 Rule Book and then (referring 1975 reissue) the only time a Signalman was requred to stop a train and inform the Driver was if the Warning Board was not showing a light or was not being handsignalled.  the only other requirement on signalmen was a cony tinusation of the earlier Rule that if the Warning Handsignalman was at a stop signal he was to check trains by not clearing his stop signals until the train approached.

 

Overall the relevaRules went through quite a lot of change from the 1960s onwards but the biggest of these were firstly the adoption of gaslit warning boards, then the use of an AWS magnet at the Warning Board, and finally the introduction of the 'metal mickey' Emergency Indicator in place of the Warning Board and the concurrent abolition of the handsignalman's post at the Warning Board.

[The Stationmaster]

I agree though they didn't always hold trains in those days either. The point i was making was that despite some shortcomings the current set up is far more passenger orientated than BR. I can relate many stories from my commuting days that just wouldn't be tolerated as acceptable these days.

 

Royaloak I was just saying at return to the old days is not what is needed and there are far too many with rise tinted glasses around who seem to forget the bad bits.

 

We need something different to what we have now but BR isn't the answer. Times have changed and things moved on. Anyhow perhaps I've drifted far too far off topic.

 

And as a matter of historic fact BR was required to make a profit (and in some cases make a significant contribution in excess of nett profit) in various parts of its train operating businesses.

 

As far as holding, or not holding connections is concerned privytisation has changed very little.  In BR days we had 'Maintenance of Connection' instructions and they still exist today and they are based usually on the principles of not spreading reactionary delay around the network and, in most cases, trying to maintain connections where the onward service is infrequent or the last train is involved.  Thus on our branch, with a 30 minute interval service and tight turnrounds, most connections are not held because the turnrounds are tight but certain connections are held for up to 5 minutes in the evening for trains heavily used by commuters.

 

In fact the biggest problem that has been encountered is when the last connection of the night is not maintained and that, especially on Saturday nights, was usually due to it departing before time and the back working Up the branch doing the same.  Once GWR management were made aware of what was happening, and having to fork out for taxis, the practice ceased and the train now waits its connection from London.

[The Stationmaster]

Our train lists have SLU on them as well as ft, the problem being the class 66 train length computer is in meters so i have to convert it myself!

 

As a matter of interest Jim why do you need to add the length of the loco, or rather in what circumstances do you need to add the length of the loco as all loop and many siding capacities (in terms of refuge or reception sidings) quote a figure of XX SLUs which also allows for the length of a loco in addition to the SLU total.  I can see the point if there is a second loco formed in the train somewhere and it isn't shown on the consist but that is all.

[big jim]

The computer is used for the whole length of the train including the loco, not just the loco

 

It’s used to tell you when the rear end of the consist is over a speed restriction or exited a yard etc as long as you click it to start to count down when you get to the end of the lower speed

[Ncarter2]

I have not suggested that anyone change their system of measurement, just pointed out that some parts of the railway work perfectly well with miles and yards, without having to involve chains as well. And that is not my 'belief', or indeed my choice, just the method that was in use where I happened to work.

 

PS I can just imagine the delight of someone asked to convert, say, 757 yards into a multiple of 22, plus of course with some odd yards left over !

And I am pointing out that those of us who use chain have no issues with it. I have worked on the WCML, I was part of the team who done a lot of work introducing ATG, we used miles and yards, I didn’t have any issues with it. Moving down South and getting used to chain wasn’t a problem.

 

Train recorded data is produced with both yards and chains, as for converting yards into chains, it’s not a problem when you do it regularly, my planners have no problem with input into Ellipse or RDMS. Also, don’t forget the train can be up to a chain, 22yds, out, or a length for those that prefer, so the odd few yard over a chain doesn’t make a difference.

 

I’m curious, what are your thoughts on HS1, with its KM and M? As this will be the mileage method used on HS2, there will soon be even more to work with.

[big jim]

I’m curious, what are your thoughts on HS1, with its KM and M? As this will be the mileage method used on HS2, there will soon be even more to work with.

They tried it on the Cambrian when they introduced ERTMS at great expence fitting signage only to abandon it and return to miles and chains (the in cab equipment is still KPH, KM and M though)

[caradoc]

And I am pointing out that those of us who use chain have no issues with it. I have worked on the WCML, I was part of the team who done a lot of work introducing ATG, we used miles and yards, I didn’t have any issues with it. Moving down South and getting used to chain wasn’t a problem.

 

Train recorded data is produced with both yards and chains, as for converting yards into chains, it’s not a problem when you do it regularly, my planners have no problem with input into Ellipse or RDMS. Also, don’t forget the train can be up to a chain, 22yds, out, or a length for those that prefer, so the odd few yard over a chain doesn’t make a difference.

 

I’m curious, what are your thoughts on HS1, with its KM and M? As this will be the mileage method used on HS2, there will soon be even more to work with.

 

That certainly will make things interesting ! IIRC when the northern section of the WCML was electrified in the early 1970s metric measurements were used for the numbering of the OHL structures, so BR did start to go metric if only in a limited way.

[iands]

That certainly will make things interesting ! IIRC when the northern section of the WCML was electrified in the early 1970s metric measurements were used for the numbering of the OHL structures, so BR did start to go metric if only in a limited way.

 

The ECML OLE structures are also referred to in kilometres, from London northwards and continuous all the way and they don't reset (to zero) with any change of ELR, except at Doncaster on the route to Leeds. IIRC, new OLE electrification schemes have used 'kilometres' since 1971. 

[Trog]

The ECML OLE structures are also referred to in kilometres, from London northwards and continuous all the way and they don't reset (to zero) with any change of ELR, except at Doncaster on the route to Leeds. IIRC, new OLE electrification schemes have used 'kilometres' since 1971. 

 

But fear not the P-Way probably have a little book listing the position of every mast in miles and yards, just in case they need to know where the mast is.

 

Counting sleepers from the nearest OHL mast being a very convenient way of locating something when between mileposts.

[Hobby]

Counting sleepers from the nearest OHL mast being a very convenient way of locating something when between mileposts.

 

As long as you don't drop off to sleep before you reach the next one! 

[The Stationmaster]

The ECML OLE structures are also referred to in kilometres, from London northwards and continuous all the way and they don't reset (to zero) with any change of ELR, except at Doncaster on the route to Leeds. IIRC, new OLE electrification schemes have used 'kilometres' since 1971. 

 

I thought (perhaps wrongly?) that all the WCML electrification structures were numbered on a kilometre basis - possibly to avoid confusion with other features which were mileage related? 

[iands]

I thought (perhaps wrongly?) that all the WCML electrification structures were numbered on a kilometre basis - possibly to avoid confusion with other features which were mileage related? 

 

Hi Mike,

 

The Professional Head of OLE in the company I work for stated it was a decision made by the powers that be at the time (1971) to "standardize" on kilometres. Whether this was to avoid confusion with other infrastructure assets which were (are) referenced in "imperial" units (miles, chains, yards, etc.) I'm afraid that reasoning appears to have been lost in the mists of time.

[Oldddudders]

In a country where all road distances are, by law, measured in miles, it does seem bizarre to go metric on railway distances, and most are not. When I was SM at Dartford about 40 years ago, I was just outside the 12-mile limit for payment of London Allowance. My Assistant, located at Slade Green, was inside the 12 miles and received the allowance. I am acutely aware that the railway is measured in miles!

[Southernman46]

ISTR there was an attempt to metricate the GWML out of Paddington back in early 90's ................. ??

[96701]

The Sectional Appendix which is the only controlled document that shows the railway in a diagrammatic form is in miles and chains. The computerised maintenance management system (Ellipse) has a default of miles and yards. The early OLE schemes were in imperial, so the structure numbers on the Euston - Manchester and Liverpool are in miles, so structure number G 48/12 is the 12th structure in the 48th mile on the WCML. Subsequent OLE schemes were designed in metric, so structure number E 48/12 is the 12th structure in the 48th kilometre on the ECML. There were plates fitted to the wall outside Paddington that were obviously in Km. I'm not sure they've survived Crossrail. Signalling schemes are now designed in metric because the locs, REBs and power supply buildings are numbered in Km.

 

The Rail Defect Management System is designed to receive data from the trains that are employed to find rail flaws. This includes GPS co-ordinates and is also converted to miles and yards. 

 

According to Wikipedia:

The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845^[8] compels UK railway companies to provide their passengers with a means of determining the distance travelled (fares were set by distance at this time). Section 94 states:

"The company shall cause the length of the railway to be measured, and milestones, posts, or other conspicuous objects to be set up and maintained along the whole line thereof, at the distance of one quarter of a mile from each other, with numbers or marks inscribed thereon denoting such distances.

 

So, until that act is repealed and the Sectional Appendix is changed and all drivers are retrained on which markers to use, I reckon we will keep using miles and chains as the 'formal' measure.

Edited December 5, 2018 by 96701

[rockershovel]

... the whole point of measuring in chains, is that the Surveyors Chain, 22 yards in length, was formerly a common item to be found in any engineers stores concerned with any sort of field engineering. Robust and readily understood by those who used it, it was particularly associated with the various traditional measures of land area. 

 

Measuring in chains passed into railway practice because when those practices developed, the chain was in widespread use. It's as simple as that