WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[phil-b259]

32 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Sectional route release, TORR or not is a hazard in any area where shunt moves occur

No it’s not - because all routes are not the same as far as the interlocking is concerned!

 

It should NEVER be the case that trains only traverses ‘half’ a set route then reverse direction mid way through the route! 

 

This is why at busy locations shunt class routes are provided which do not extend as far as the routes covered by main aspect signals.

 

Trains still MUST adhere to the ‘must traverse the entire route’ principle but because the shunt routes are shorter than those associated with main signal aspects the reversing can take place closer to the starting position than would be the situation with a main class route.

 

Shunt routes can of course be set one after the other - what may look like a single route in terms of a given train movement may actually be 2 or 3 routes bolted end to end as far as the interlocking and signaller are concerned.

 

 

 

Edited January 30 by phil-b259

[Michael Hodgson]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

(the same people who wanted the Rules to use the term 'faraway signal' instead of distant signal)

 

 

That probably seems an excellent description when the wind's blown the lamp out and you've got to trudge out in the pouring rain and a howling gale in the middle of the night to relight the s*dding thing!

 

As for whether the Preston incident needs investigation, I suppose the authorities could be tempted to take the view that there's not a lot of point investigating the management of a company whose licence they've already suspended because of management failings.  The details of what went wrong in an incident in which nobody got hurt aren't that important if the whole attitude and culture are unsafe.

[phil-b259]

Just now, Michael Hodgson said:

As for whether the Preston incident needs investigation, I suppose the authorities could be tempted to take the view that there's not a lot of point investigating the management of a company whose licence they've already suspended because of management failings. .

Point of order - the ORR have not suspended the entire WCR operation - all they have done at present is ban WCR from using coaching stock which hasn’t got central door locking fitted.

 

 The ORR would probably only get involved if  it could bd shown that WCRs procedures and processes are faulty because at the end of the day even the best trained person can make a mistake - and that in itself is not particularly noteworthy.

 

The questions that will be asked is effectively is the incident at Preston a ‘one off’ or does it point to wider and more systemic failings within the company as a whole.

[Grovenor]

14 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

No it’s not - because all routes are not the same as far as the interlocking is concerned!

 

It should NEVER be the case that trains only traverses ‘half’ a set route then reverse direction mid way through the route! 

 

This is why at busy locations shunt class routes are provided which do not extend as far as the routes covered by main aspect signals.

 

Trains still MUST adhere to the ‘must traverse the entire route’ principle but because the shunt routes are shorter than those associated with main signal aspects the reversing can take place closer to the starting position than would be the situation with a main class route.

 

Shunt routes can of course be set one after the other - what may look like a single route in terms of a given train movement may actually be 2 or 3 routes bolted end to end as far as the interlocking and signaller are concerned.

 

So, you quote half my post, contradict me with "No its not" then continue in some detail to explain why I'm correct if you read all my post. A pity we don't have a signalling plan of the area and which points were run through.

[keefer]

I'm sure the decision whether to investigate the run-through will be taken on the basis of the incident itself, then any mention of WCRC would be whether their involvement was felt to be a relevant mitigating factor.

i.e. wouldn't necessarily mention everything they have been investigated for but might include previous issues which involved unsatisfactory driver behaviour/training etc. (e.g. Wootton Bassett)

Edited January 30 by keefer

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'm sorry Phil but I'm not with you on this.  If the loco hadn't reached the protecting signal how did it manage to run through some points because surely the signal in rear woiuld have been at danger if there were points in advance of it not correctly set?   So was it a handpoint in a siding or what exactly was it?    If the Driver misread and took another signal as applying to him he must surely have passed the protecting signal for his line in order to run through the points - how could it happen otherwise?

 

To be honest it sounds a bit like e the old Saltley problem - although there it was due to GPLs being on the wrong' side of the line they applied to.  This led to Drivers not very familiar with the place, especially Eastleigh men, taking a GPL as theirs when it wasn't and duly SPADing and running through points or hitting something that was making a legitimate move

 

Incidentally the expression 'behind the signal' is one of the most dangerously ambiguous terms I have ever come across and use of it has killed a few people over the years.  Unfortunately the current 'kiddiwinks reading age' version of the Rule Book dispensed with the terms 'in advance' and 'in rear' in the cause of 'plain English' (the same people who wanted the Rules to use the term 'faraway signal' instead of distant signal)

 

This incident  might however possibly take us back to WCRCs unfortunate past habit of not properly managing Drivers - assuming that it was their Driver.  But whoever the Driver belonged to he should have known the road and the layout and driven accordingly and it woud appear from what is being said that he did not do so.  That is a serious offence and probably still amounts to a Category A SPAD so the Driver would have to e relieved and taken off the job

Do we know which end of the 86 the driver was at?

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

It should NEVER be the case that trains only traverses ‘half’ a set route then reverse direction mid way through the route! 

 

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Trains still MUST adhere to the ‘must traverse the entire route’ principle but because the shunt routes are shorter than those associated with main signal aspects the reversing can take place closer to the starting position than would be the situation with a main class route.

That seems to make sense.

 

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

even the best trained person can make a mistake

Of course. That's why the the design and installation must a) minimise the risk of the mistake being made and b) if a mistake is made, which may be what has happened here, minimise the consequences.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Do we know which end of the 86 the driver was at?

No.  If he was doing his job properly and there was not a competent qualified person  in the other cab he must change ends before moving off in the opposite direction.

[keefer]

I think it was mentioned one or two pages back that the driver changed ends.

[phil-b259]

11 hours ago, Grovenor said:

So, you quote half my post, contradict me with "No its not" then continue in some detail to explain why I'm correct if you read all my post. A pity we don't have a signalling plan of the area and which points were run through.

If we are agreeing why did you start by saying TORR is hazardous?

 

Its not a hazardous concept in itself and it’s entirely reasonable for the interlocking designers to assume that train drivers will do what they are supposed to do - namely fully complete any signalled move in it entirety.

[St Enodoc]

22 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

it’s entirely reasonable for the interlocking designers to assume that train drivers will do what they are supposed to do - namely fully complete any signalled move in it entirety.

When it comes to safety, it is not reasonable to assume anything, least of all human behaviour. See the third part of my previous post:

 

 

 

[Mike_Walker]

I've heard there was a potentially serious incident on the GCR at the weekend when a passenger on a train passing Quorn non-stop opened a door, presumably expecting it to stop.  The door remained open through much of the station but fortunately nobody on the platform was struck.  If they had it would have resulted in serious injury or possibly a fatality.  One can just imagine the resulting RAIB investigation and the ORR deciding to extend the CDL requirement to heritage lines.

[25kV]

For anyone interested in the CME loco movements at Preston - 86259 can be seen in this video by West Coast Mainline trains at about 14 min, signalled from Platform 4a bay onto the down fast under a green aspect.  There are also techno-accompanied stills at the end of Tangmere hauling the train into Platform 6, 47746 running light northbound into Platform 5, and also at the south end of the train on Platform 6.

[The Stationmaster]

36 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

I've heard there was a potentially serious incident on the GCR at the weekend when a passenger on a train passing Quorn non-stop opened a door, presumably expecting it to stop.  The door remained open through much of the station but fortunately nobody on the platform was struck.  If they had it would have resulted in serious injury or possibly a fatality.  One can just imagine the resulting RAIB investigation and the ORR deciding to extend the CDL requirement to heritage lines.

An interesting point about the GCR is that it is permitted to operate movements at speeds up to 60mph.  I presume that does not apply to trains carrying fare paying passengers.  But if they are operating trains which don't stop ar all stations and which aren't provided with stewards (as the dining trains would be) maybe there is something which needs to sorted out?

[Ian Hargrave]

20 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

An interesting point about the GCR is that it is permitted to operate movements at speeds up to 60mph.  I presume that does not apply to trains carrying fare paying passengers.  But if they are operating trains which don't stop ar all stations and which aren't provided with stewards (as the dining trains would be) maybe there is something which needs to sorted out?

The practice of not stopping at Quorn can cause confusion for passengers. Two years ago,wanting to experience Deltic  Alycidon’s visit,I consulted the GCR timetable for that specific day which was a Friday and planned my visit.

So I drive to Quorn and park. I join the Leicester bound train and return with it to Loughborough,intending to return to Quorn on it in as timetabled in order to pick up the car & drive home. The p a announcement at Loughborough then informed that the train would be non-stop to Leicester. I made “suitable remonstrations” with the train crew,reminding them of the advertised online timings and succeeded in achieving the then unscheduled stop at Quorn without having to take a flying leap. At the time,I suspected this was a case of the right and left hands not being in accord. The 60 mph stunts usually operate for demos ( at Quorn ) of their TPO 
 

 

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 At the time,I suspected this was a case of the right and left hands not being in accord. The 60 mph stunts usually operate for demos ( at Quorn ) of their TPO

I believe they've also made use of it to do some paying testing.

[TheSignalEngineer]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

If we are agreeing why did you start by saying TORR is hazardous?

 

Its not a hazardous concept in itself and it’s entirely reasonable for the interlocking designers to assume that train drivers will do what they are supposed to do - namely fully complete any signalled move in it entirety.

TORR is basically an automated version of what we used to refer to as 'Route Away' control, where sectional route release alowwed the setting of a route across the rear of a train. It was common in complex station areas, Birmingham New Street had it on all of the platform ends and the station would not have worked without it. 

In about 30 years associated with the place I can't remember an incident caused by it.

 

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

When it comes to safety, it is not reasonable to assume anything, least of all human behaviour.

When it comes to interlocking design certain decisions have to be made, working on the basis of 'As low as reasonably practicable'.

It is possible to defeat almost any interlocking controls if the associated operationg rules are incorrectly applied or deliberately ignored.

 

I can design an almost completely foolproof interlocking but you could only have one moving train in the interlocking area at any one time unless all signals had trap points or all trains were automatically controlled.  Imagine trying to do that at a station like Leeds or New Street.

[ruggedpeak]

3 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

TORR is basically an automated version of what we used to refer to as 'Route Away' control, where sectional route release alowwed the setting of a route across the rear of a train. It was common in complex station areas, Birmingham New Street had it on all of the platform ends and the station would not have worked without it. 

In about 30 years associated with the place I can't remember an incident caused by it.

 

When it comes to interlocking design certain decisions have to be made, working on the basis of 'As low as reasonably practicable'.

It is possible to defeat almost any interlocking controls if the associated operationg rules are incorrectly applied or deliberately ignored.

 

I can design an almost completely foolproof interlocking but you could only have one moving train in the interlocking area at any one time unless all signals had trap points or all trains were automatically controlled.  Imagine trying to do that at a station like Leeds or New Street.

Out of curiousity and for the layperson like myself who understands safety principles but not running a railway, does TORR detect/know a train is clear of the route being released, or is it (using the wording from an earlier post) 'assumed' and therefore not known whether it is clear/safe at the point of route release? If 'assumed' then presumably this requires drivers to be aware of TORR and drive accordingly e.g. proceed but be aware there could theoretically be a train blocking the path whilst you are in the TORR area?

 

If this is a highly technical point that requires a lengthy and detailed explanation for uninitiated, or I have completely misunderstood it, then please don't feel any need to respond! Thanks.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 minute ago, ruggedpeak said:

Out of curiousity and for the layperson like myself who understands safety principles but not running a railway, does TORR detect/know a train is clear of the route being released, or is it (using the wording from an earlier post) 'assumed' and therefore not known whether it is clear/safe at the point of route release? If 'assumed' then presumably this requires drivers to be aware of TORR and drive accordingly e.g. proceed but be aware there could theoretically be a train blocking the path whilst you are in the TORR area?

 

If this is a highly technical point that requires a lengthy and detailed explanation for uninitiated, or I have completely misunderstood it, then please don't feel any need to respond! Thanks.

The principle of TORR and Sectional Route Release is to allow restoration of part of a route when a train has passed over it. Simplistically it works by sequentiol operation of track circuits from the signal to the point at which the release is required. Each track circuit is occupied then proved clear with the next one in direction of travel occupied.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

17 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

Out of curiousity and for the layperson like myself who understands safety principles but not running a railway, does TORR detect/know a train is clear of the route being released, or is it (using the wording from an earlier post) 'assumed' and therefore not known whether it is clear/safe at the point of route release? If 'assumed' then presumably this requires drivers to be aware of TORR and drive accordingly e.g. proceed but be aware there could theoretically be a train blocking the path whilst you are in the TORR area?

 

If this is a highly technical point that requires a lengthy and detailed explanation for uninitiated, or I have completely misunderstood it, then please don't feel any need to respond! Thanks.

There need be no specific awareness by drivers of TORR, or indeed anything else that the signalling system might do after their train has passed. What the driver needs to understand (and almost certainly does) are the rules concerning reversing movements. I have no idea what the current rulebook says, but previous versions have been quite elaborate on the subject. For most light engine shunting movements in a busy station, this means taking the locomotive beyond the signal controlling the reverse movement, changing ends (where appropriate), and only moving when the signal shows clear.

This is, of course, entirely undermined if the driver thinks a different signal applies to their route.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Just now, Jeremy Cumberland said:

This is, of course, entirely undermined if the driver thinks a different signal applies to their route.

 

It occurs to me that this is still one area where drivers are required to retain an awful lot of very specific knowledge, with (perhaps in this particular case, although we don't know the cause) no back up system when they get things wrong. I expect the driver of the class 86 signs for at least London to Carlisle, with all the diversionary routes around Birmingham and Manchester. That's an awful lot of signals, most of which they will never have to obey in anger ('What  '$/&*ing dummy?' as @The Stationmaster wrote in a different thread recently):

 

Unlike in many other situations, there isn't really anyone the driver can ask if they are not sure. Do drivers carry route maps in their bag, to be able to check? I imagine it would not be acceptable for the driver to contact the signaller to ask which signal applied to their route (although I have heard, on a heritage railway, a driver quietly asking the signaller the exact operation of a particular signal - but this was at the end of their turn of duty, not while their locomotive was stood at at the signal in question).

 

Is route knowledge still largely done on a self-assessment basis?

[TheSignalEngineer]

I was chairing a risk assesment on a resignalling scheme on a 125mph line. The FOC representative said that his drivers didn't need route knowledge as they didn't run at above 60mph. His boss was told not to send him next time as I didn't consider hom competent for his role in the process. He didn't last much longer before he was moved on.

[LeeWL]

 It is perfectly acceptable for a driver to ask a signaller to explain a move if they are not sure.  With drivers signing for so many routes and diversions etc there is always the chance that they will be required to do an unfamiliar shunt.  There is certainly no problem with a driver asking for a bit of help.

[31A]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

An interesting point about the GCR is that it is permitted to operate movements at speeds up to 60mph.  I presume that does not apply to trains carrying fare paying passengers.  But if they are operating trains which don't stop ar all stations and which aren't provided with stewards (as the dining trains would be) maybe there is something which needs to sorted out?

 

I had a very enjoyable day at the Great Central Railway's Winter Steam gala on Saturday, which included an excellent all day breakfast in the Griddle Car on a non stop run from Loughborough to Leicester on the 1345 departure (75069 + 73156).  It was a very well organised event making full use of the double track, with frequent passenger trains interspersed with freights, so there was almost always something on the move to watch.  I would really recommend the GCR as a heritage railway incarnation of a proper steam main line!

 

As far as I remember the non stop I was on was announced at Loughborough as non stop to Leicester by station announcements and finger boards, but I don't think there is any PA on the trains.  Neither are there door stewards or any kind of door locking.  In fact I thought it unusual (although nothing at all wrong with it) that the middle doors of the Mk1 TSOs were available for use - these days most I've come across on heritage lines have them locked or sealed.

 

I don't believe any of the trains I was on exceeded 25mph at any point, and such was the density of the traffic that the train was checked almost to a stand at Quorn and Rothley due to preceding trains still 'in section' ahead in any case.  Later I rode on the single unit Derby Lightweight DMU M79900 and was waiting for it to 'get going' then realised it wasn't allowed to exceed 25mph!

 

I believe the higher speed limit which they have authorisation for only applies when the line is not open to fare paying passengers, i.e. so that the railway can benefit from revenue from third parties using it for such things as testing new stock or for training purposes etc.

 

[31A]

13 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

I had a very enjoyable day at the Great Central Railway's Winter Steam gala on Saturday, which included an excellent all day breakfast in the Griddle Car on a non stop run from Loughborough to Leicester on the 1345 departure (75069 + 73156).  It was a very well organised event making full use of the double track, with frequent passenger trains interspersed with freights, so there was almost always something on the move to watch.  I would really recommend the GCR as a heritage railway incarnation of a proper steam main line!

 

As far as I remember the non stop I was on was announced at Loughborough as non stop to Leicester by station announcements and finger boards, but I don't think there is any PA on the trains.  Neither are there door stewards or any kind of door locking.  In fact I thought it unusual (although nothing at all wrong with it) that the middle doors of the Mk1 TSOs were available for use - these days most I've come across on heritage lines have them locked or sealed.

 

I don't believe any of the trains I was on exceeded 25mph at any point, and such was the density of the traffic that the train was checked almost to a stand at Quorn and Rothley due to preceding trains still 'in section' ahead in any case.  Later I rode on the single unit Derby Lightweight DMU M79900 and was waiting for it to 'get going' then realised it wasn't allowed to exceed 25mph!

 

I believe the higher speed limit which they have authorisation for only applies when the line is not open to fare paying passengers, i.e. so that the railway can benefit from revenue from third parties using it for such things as testing new stock or for training purposes etc.

 

 

In fact now I think about it, there were announcements made while I was waiting at intermediate stations asking passengers to stand back from the platform edge as trains approached in case a door was opened before the train stopped, which may perhaps have been in response to the incident mentioned.  I think the phrase was to ask passengers to stand clear of the coping stones (there aren't any yellow lines, thankfully!).