Ghosts in the Machine.

[The Stationmaster]

1 minute ago, iands said:

Going out in the dead of night and installing a buffer stop on a running line would, in my opinion (and no doubt many others), constitute vandalism. 

I know what you are getting at, but 'Network Change' is a very complex issue. 

No need for opinion - it is network change because iy tirns what was through line into something which isn't a through line.  although it isn't dissiomalr tp something which actually happened although in that case a panel of track was partially dismantled but havin exactly the same effect as plavcinga biffer stop.  NR lost that one when an operator challenged them for both a failure to comply with the procedure for making a network change and for making a change which had not been agreed with the operator.

 

and in fact in the Network Change proc rules as writtem there was no room for 'opinion' anyway - something either was (prrsent/usable) or it was not.   Introducing the legal trade to the disputes process has alas somewhat muddied that original clarity (apart from wasting the railway industry's money on unnecessary expenditure).

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, iands said:

I suspect it was a lot more than just ripping up a length of track. Although I wasn't involved with the project, I assume the platform extension work was funded by the TOC and/or DfT, which would only be sufficient to cover the cost of the build itself. To rip out the track would involve the 'Network Change Process' which requires an awful lot of funding, quite possibly 4 or 5 times the actual build cost, not least because all the necessary associated signalling works that would be required (circuit correlation, redesign, implementation works, testing, documents update etc., etc.), and the impact that all this would have had on timescales. The DfT in particular (from my experience) never quite seemed to have a grasp on these realities when trying to push through these so called 'quick fix' projects.

So it's still officially on the books but under a possession that never got surrendered?

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, iands said:

Bureaucracy may well have gone mad (along with the rest of the world), but it is nothing to do with H&S in this context. It is how the  'privatisation rules/wording' were being implemented/interpreted/imposed on Railtrack (and subsequently Network Rail as the network owners) back in 1994. Although the platform extension has been built over the existing track and signalling assets, believe it or not, the 'network' has not been changed. If 'access' were required to the track/sidings again at some point in the future, it would be 'relatively straightforward' (and I use that term loosely) to reinstate by removing the platform extension build. All the track assets, signalling assets (including, crucially, the 'interlocking) all still being intact - thereby retaining the network unchanged.

 

I understand that, under current operational rules, it may be easier from an administrative perspective to bury infrastructure, rather than to remove it as redundant; the question is whether this should be the case.

 

Are you really trying to tell us that track and signalling 'assets', buried for several (many?) years, are going to be 'relatively straightforward' to safely re-activate?

 

(Please bear in mind that you are communicating with a career civil engineer (retired)).

 

A lot of weasel words are nowadays used to justify using the convenient solution, rather than the correct engineering process.

 

If the rules /  procedures / regulations dictate this approach, there is something very wrong with said rules /  procedures / regs.

 

CJI.

Edited April 22, 2023 by cctransuk

[The Stationmaster]

21 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I understand that, under current operational rules, it may be easier from an administrative perspective to bury infrastructure, rather than to remove it as redundant; the question is whether this should be the case.

 

Are you really trying to tell us that track and signalling 'assets', buried for several (many?) years, are going to be relatively straightforward' to safely re-activate?

 

(Please bear in mind that you are communicating with a career civil engineer (retired)).

 

A lot of weasel words are nowadays used to justify using the convenient solution, rather than the correct engineering process.

 

If the rules /  procedures / regulations dictate this approach, there is something very wrong with said rules /  procedures / regs.

 

CJI.

You are of course spot on and don't overlook the fact (and I'm sure that you are not) that network change also relates to the ability to use an infrastructure asset as well as to the alteration or removal of such an asset.  (or rather that was how the rules were originally intended).  

 

Thus the technicality of burying a siding to avoid lifting it achieves nothing as long as somebody has it in their access contract and might at some future date wante to use it - at which point it either has to be restored to use or it finishes up at one, or more, of the committees.   But I do know there have been examples where an asset has been made unusable witiout a Network Change Notice and when somebody later wanted to make use of it NR have used the lack of ability to use over the past X months or Y years asa reason not to restore it and sometmes a ruling (from the legal trade, not a proper committee) has gone in NR's favour.

 

A problem might, I suspect, have come with the blurring which seems to have occurred in more recent years where the original black & white of the Access Agreement has been suborned to the many shades of legal trade grey.  And some rulings from that source which seem to be bsed on nothing logical in railway terms.  And that of course is why everything was originally drafted to very specifically keep the legal trade's noses out of it and is why they were ejected from committee hearings should someone be daft enough to turn up with them in tow.  

 

But it all seems to have gota lot more complicated than that for whatever reasons -

 

https://accessdisputesrail.org/accessDisputesCommitteeDirectoryOfPrecedents/networkCode2/partG/

[cctransuk]

14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

You are of course spot on and don't overlook the fact (and I'm sure that you are not) that network change also relates to the ability to use an infrastructure asset as well as to the alteration or removal of such an asset.  (or rather that was how the rules were originally intended).  

 

Thus the technicality of burying a siding to avoid lifting it achieves nothing as long as somebody has it in their access contract and might at some future date wante to use it - at which point it either has to be restored to use or it finishes up at one, or more, of the committees.   But I do know there have been examples where an asset has been made unusable witiout a Network Change Notice and when somebody later wanted to make use of it NR have used the lack of ability to use over the past X months or Y years asa reason not to restore it and sometmes a ruling (from the legal trade, not a proper committee) has gone in NR's favour.

 

A problem might, I suspect, have come with the blurring which seems to have occurred in more recent years where the original black & white of the Access Agreement has been suborned to the many shades of legal trade grey.  And some rulings from that source which seem to be bsed on nothing logical in railway terms.  And that of course is why everything was originally drafted to very specifically keep the legal trade's noses out of it and is why they were ejected from committee hearings should someone be daft enough to turn up with them in tow.  

 

But it all seems to have gota lot more complicated than that for whatever reasons -

 

https://accessdisputesrail.org/accessDisputesCommitteeDirectoryOfPrecedents/networkCode2/partG/

 

When common-sense was trumped by precedent, and conveniently perceived (legal) technicalities, the industry was already a long way down a dark and dangerous blind alley!

 

This is not in any way the sole preserve of the railway industry; in local government, the 'hiving-off' of any department that was in danger of 'doing' anything - as opposed to commissioning it - was implemented at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

G*d forbid that the 'buck' landed on my desk!

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, iands said:

Bureaucracy may well have gone mad (along with the rest of the world), but it is nothing to do with H&S in this context. It is how the  'privatisation rules/wording' were being implemented/interpreted/imposed on Railtrack (and subsequently Network Rail as the network owners) back in 1994. Although the platform extension has been built over the existing track and signalling assets, believe it or not, the 'network' has not been changed. If 'access' were required to the track/sidings again at some point in the future, it would be 'relatively straightforward' (and I use that term loosely) to reinstate by removing the platform extension build. All the track assets, signalling assets (including, crucially, the 'interlocking) all still being intact - thereby retaining the network unchanged.

It might be there, but are you going to trust using it, umpteen years from now ?

 

If that extension went and the track “reinstated” for use, I bet most of what your looking at would be ripped and replaced.

 

I use Battersea Park platform 1 as a more “sensible” approach.
 

However as the days of 12 coaches are now gone, I look forwards to the wooden extension of Plat 3 to be removed, and track reinstated to Plat 1, and points to plat 2 ?… er thought not… sensible to extend, but gone forever.

 

After a decade + of parliamentary trains from Wandsworth road direction (6am out, 2318 return), its good to see LO are now putting 5 a day in their in the morning peak.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by adb968008

[iands]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

I understand that, under current operational rules, it may be easier from an administrative perspective to bury infrastructure, rather than to remove it as redundant; the question is whether this should be the case.

 

Are you really trying to tell us that track and signalling 'assets', buried for several (many?) years, are going to be 'relatively straightforward' to safely re-activate?

 

(Please bear in mind that you are communicating with a career civil engineer (retired)).

 

A lot of weasel words are nowadays used to justify using the convenient solution, rather than the correct engineering process.

 

If the rules /  procedures / regulations dictate this approach, there is something very wrong with said rules /  procedures / regs.

 

CJI.

As I stated previously, I wasn't involved with the Sandy project personally, so I can't comment on the finer points of the details. As to the 'burying of infrastructure, whether it should, or should not, be the case, is a matter of opinion for us 'outsiders' (i.e. those not involved with the project).

 

As for 'relatively straightforward' I did add "and I use that term loosely". It would be 'relatively straightforward' to reinstate because crucially the signalling interlocking is still intact. 

 

I wouldn't disagree that a lot of weaselly words are used to justify a convenient solution in lots of things, and not just on the railways.

 

And I would not say that I agree with the rules/procedures/regulations that allows this approach to occur. All the photo shows is an 'option' that has clearly been deemed acceptable (under said rules/procedures/regulations), especially for a relatively small budget project for extending a platform.  

 

I'm sure the 'industry' would be pleased to hear suggestions on how to rectify these flawed rules/procedures/regulations.

 

Please also bear in mind that you are communicating with a career S&T engineer (retired).

[cctransuk]

9 minutes ago, iands said:

I'm sure the 'industry' would be pleased to hear suggestions on how to rectify these flawed rules/procedures/regulations.

 

This could only be achieved by a commitment, at the highest (political) level, to abandoning 'convenient' shortcut / cheap working practices in favour of engineeringly-sound, long-term solutions to genuine strategic network development.

 

..... which I do not remotely expect to happen in mine, or my offspring's lifetimes.

 

CJI.

[rodent279]

8 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

This could only be achieved by a commitment, at the highest (political) level, to abandoning 'convenient' shortcut / cheap working practices in favour of engineeringly-sound, long-term solutions to genuine strategic network development.

 

..... which I do not remotely expect to happen in mine, or my offspring's lifetimes.

 

CJI.

That would require a sea-change, a complete overhaul from top to bottom, in the whole way we do things in this country.

[jamie92208]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what the current legal status of the Middleton Railway's main line connection is. The Balm Road branch does connect to Hunslet sidings and the Middleton has a legal agreement signed by the Midland Railway gauranteeing that the connection will be maintained. There is a fence across the line and the point work is heavily overgrown.   Just asking. I believe that it was last used in the 1980's.

 

Jamie

Edited April 22, 2023 by jamie92208

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, iands said:

All the track assets, signalling assets (including, crucially, the 'interlocking) all still being intact - thereby retaining the network unchanged.

Except they are not

The connection with the running line has been completely removed.

So re-instatement would require a new turnout, switch machine and signalling changes:

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by melmerby

[TheSignalEngineer]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

If the rules /  procedures / regulations dictate this approach, there is something very wrong with said rules /  procedures / regs.

Unfortunately all privatisations are beset with legal stuff by the lorry load. The original agreement which fixed what we pay for electricity took six feet of shelf space when that came into use. One of the senior managers at Powergen showed me how easy it was for the generating companies to rig the prices so they could be inflated out of all proportion to the production costs

[TheSignalEngineer]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

You are of course spot on and don't overlook the fact (and I'm sure that you are not) that network change also relates to the ability to use an infrastructure asset as well as to the alteration or removal of such an asset.  (or rather that was how the rules were originally intended).

A few years ago I did some work for the person running the control systems provision for the proposed Manchester ROC. Whilst goint through what infrastructure was shown in the various documents I found several connections that no longer existed onthe ground and sidings still there but not connected to the running lines. When I moved on to assessing the traffic patterns I found some paths booked in the WTT which were impossible to actually run as shown. 

[The Stationmaster]

53 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

A few years ago I did some work for the person running the control systems provision for the proposed Manchester ROC. Whilst goint through what infrastructure was shown in the various documents I found several connections that no longer existed onthe ground and sidings still there but not connected to the running lines. When I moved on to assessing the traffic patterns I found some paths booked in the WTT which were impossible to actually run as shown. 

The latter is not at all unusual in taht sort of document.  When i was involved, as an operating type person, with signalling design work for St Pancras International certain things had to be established for the design and the obvious source was the CTRL spec and documentation.  It took me about 5 minutes to clearly establlsih that the terminus couldn't handle the specified  (and already designed) capacity of CTRL  And in fact it got even worse when the line opened because it was also quickly confirmed what most us were pretty sure was the case that the station itself couldn't turn round trains quicj kly enough to make optimum use of the number of platforms and the signalling. 

 

And now just the same seems to be happening with HS 2.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

This could only be achieved by a commitment, at the highest (political) level, to abandoning 'convenient' shortcut / cheap working practices in favour of engineeringly-sound, long-term solutions to genuine strategic network development.

 

..... which I do not remotely expect to happen in mine, or my offspring's lifetimes.

 

CJI.

I think we need to be careful of conflating two different things here.  Network change is one thing and the basic procedure is simple and very straightforward and readulily inci ot rporated into any project - in fact it is little different from what happenedin BR days except that it is actually written down as a procedure - which was mainly included to keep the infrastructure owner in check. The difference from BR days is that there is laid down procedure to be applied should there be disagreement between the operating companies and the infrastructure owner-or should the infrastructure owner fail to apply the procedure.  If done properly as originally established one meeeting by the committee would in fact replacea whole string of debates at suv ccessive project eetings and reams of associated correspondence.

 

But where it gets conflated is when stuff is done for other reasons.  The design costs for signal alterations are nowadays massive - for a variety of reasons - and every time you remove a facility or add one there is a cosyt of signalling design plus actually doing the work.  Thus it is far cheaper to leave unwanted connections and sidings in place than it is to remove them.  

 

I know of one in Scotland which I came across when doing a job up there in the early years f this century involvinga disused private siding at Plean Jcn.  nobody wanted it retained byt ut equally nobody was prepared tp pay the costs of removing it so it jsut sat there rotting away.  We recommended various line capacity improvements for the train service additions in mind and the connection would have gone as part of the cost of carrying out them - and I believe that is in fact what happened several years later.

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by The Stationmaster

[ess1uk]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

Except they are not

The connection with the running line has been completely removed.

So re-instatement would require a new turnout, switch machine and signalling changes:

 

 

 

ETCS is coming soon anyway so if they do the job properly then the signals should be removed 

[keefer]

There was a colour-light signal on the Scottish ECML at Burntisland which was for trains to/from the Alcan works (I think it may have even been for wrong-line moves). It remained in place and lit for many years after the Alcan site closed.

Would probably have required a local signalling upgrade to justify removing it.

 

EDIT: found it. There was a wrong-line fixed distant to the Alcan works.

The one i think i meant was at the north end of the station (i.e. way behind the camera iin the following pic), which controlled access to the docks sidings.

Crossovers had been removed but the signal remained

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/20/148/

I think signal referred to was either EU471 or EU472

Edited April 23, 2023 by keefer

[SZ]

On 22/04/2023 at 13:29, iands said:

On Thursday I mentioned Sandy and how NR didn't remove a section of track before they built the platform extension. Managed to dig out a photo.

 

Another might be the siding at Berkswell, currently plain lined out of use but with the far end now inside the HS2 site fencing.

[david.hill64]

On 23/04/2023 at 05:59, melmerby said:

Except they are not

The connection with the running line has been completely removed.

So re-instatement would require a new turnout, switch machine and signalling changes:

 

So no chance of the Middleton's engine being used to shunt the yard as occasionally happened...........

[david.hill64]

On 23/04/2023 at 07:37, The Stationmaster said:

But where it gets conflated is when stuff is done for other reasons.  The design costs for signal alterations are nowadays massive - for a variety of reasons - and every time you remove a facility or add one there is a cosyt of signalling design plus actually doing the work.  Thus it is far cheaper to leave unwanted connections and sidings in place than it is to remove them.  

 

When TPWS was being introduced the ROSCOs were eager that this should be seen as a Network change as it would mean that Railtrack would have to pickup the bill for T&RS as well as infrastructure. Railtrack argued that with such schemes 'costs shall lie where they fall'.

 

Good to see that Network Rail have agreed that ETCS is a Network change and are funding trial fitments on things with grandfather rights.

[jamie92208]

4 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

So no chance of the Middleton's engine being used to shunt the yard as occasionally happened...........

I think that @melmerby was referring to the one in rural Hertfordshire.  The fields in the picture don't look like the Hunslet that I used to patrol.

 

Jamie

[david.hill64]

Just now, jamie92208 said:

I think that @melmerby was referring to the one in rural Hertfordshire.  The fields in the picture don't look like the Hunslet that I used to patrol.

 

Jamie

You're absolutely right: nothing like Hunslet!

[jamie92208]

5 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

You're absolutely right: nothing like Hunslet!

Yes It was my regular foot beet in the late 70's.  Looking at Google earth the connection is still in place accessed from the up goods loop at Hunslet just before the Balm Road Bridge,.  Google earth doesn't want to play so I can't upload a screen print. 

 

Jamie

[jamie92208]

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Yes It was my regular foot beet in the late 70's.  Looking at Google earth the connection is still in place accessed from the up goods loop at Hunslet just before the Balm Road Bridge,.  Google earth doesn't want to play so I can't upload a screen print. 

 

Jamie

I've just checked on the Opentraintimes track map for the Wakefield Kirkgate to Leeds section.  The Middleton's connection is shown with signals 920 and IIRC 919 protecting it. 

 

Jamie

Edited April 24, 2023 by jamie92208

[Reorte]

On the whole rules discussion, well, it happens. No set of rules / practices etc. are perfect, and ones that'll avoid issues in one area will cause them somewhere else. At the risk of sounding like a wimpy cop-out neither defending them blindly nor automatically pouring scorn on them (not accusing anyone here of doing either BTW) is particularly useful or informative; for that matter neither's saying sensible reality lies half way between two extremes.

 

Solving one problem always creates others, quite often it's really just a case of the lesser evil. This certainly seems to be true with bureaucracy getting in the way of doing stuff. It's easy enough to look back at things from the same time and say both "thank heavens that couldn't be bulldozed through like that now" and "lucky them, not having to put up with the nonsense we've got now," and be correct in both.