Cornwalls signalling

[flyingsignalman]

The term Signaller came into use when the signalling grades were restructured by Railtrack and changed from a wages grade to a salaried grade job.

I think it was in 1995/6 (time flies when you're having "fun").

[The Stationmaster]

The term Signaller came into use when the signalling grades were restructured by Railtrack and changed from a wages grade to a salaried grade job.

I think it was in 1995/6 (time flies when you're having "fun").

Following the 1994 Signalmen's strike Keith (the strike was over the restructuring, among other things) - I remember it well as during the strike I think I found more ways of getting from Reading to London than even Bradshaw might ever have thought of

[Oldddudders]

The 1994 strike must have been tough stuff - even I was on distant standby to man a panel!

[flyingsignalman]

The 1994 strike must have been tough stuff - even I was on distant standby to man a panel!

 

Going off topic; the Wirral lines (traditionally signalled) were closed by the strikes, the Northern lines (controlled by the new IECC) had a limited service worked by managers.

I thought it had taken Railtrack longer to restructure the Signalmen/Signallers than it obviously did.

At the end of the dispute the Supervisers only had a few days to accept the new conditions (something to do with pensions).

[Captain Kernow]

Equally we would try to get in SLW, or whatever, in order to keep some sort of service running but that too seems to be regarded now as a dark art and there are ever fewer folk around with experience of doing it.

 

(although I understand at least one part of NR is considering reintroducing SLW to get round engineering sites instead of simply shutting the railway and keeping 'bus companies in work.

That's not quite in accordance with my understanding, Mike, in that under '7 day railway', we would normally seek (wherever possible, depending on the location and configuration of the possession and the nature of the engineering work being undertaken) to keep a path open past engineering works, whether using SLW or reversible working. In some cases, it's operationally more sensible (in terms of capacity), to keep trains running 'right direction' on the unaffected line and divert trains in the other direction via an alternative route (where such exists without introducing excessively long journey times). On our part of the network, we have a lot of recent experience in regular institution of SLW, which is certainly not considered a 'dark art' (well, only in that it's often done under cover of darkness!)...

 

Of course, there are some jobs which cannot be done without a complete 'all lines' block, but you can rest assured that our local TOCs (and we in Ops as well) will challenge anything that we think could be done in a less disruptive way.

[The Stationmaster]

That's not quite in accordance with my understanding, Mike, in that under '7 day railway', we would normally seek (wherever possible, depending on the location and configuration of the possession and the nature of the engineering work being undertaken) to keep a path open past engineering works, whether using SLW or reversible working. In some cases, it's operationally more sensible (in terms of capacity), to keep trains running 'right direction' on the unaffected line and divert trains in the other direction via an alternative route (where such exists without introducing excessively long journey times). On our part of the network, we have a lot of recent experience in regular institution of SLW, which is certainly not considered a 'dark art' (well, only in that it's often done under cover of darkness!). And 'tidal' working of SLW is, of curse, the best way to use it if you can - especially when there are lots of trains around - as it minimises cumulative delays (not that it always feels like that!

Of course, there are some jobs which cannot be done without a complete 'all lines' block, but you can rest assured that our local TOCs (and we in Ops as well) will challenge anything that we think could be done in a less disruptive way.

 

I realise - from previous private chat - that you're doing that sort of thing in some places Cap'n but there still seem to be plenty of places on the wider network where (from what I am told by railway folk on the ground) it is regarded as far easier to shut up shop and call in the 'buses in situations where in the past SLW or diversions etc would be brought in (and I don't just mean pre-planned situations).

[Gwiwer]

I suspect there are places - and a good many of them - where the removal of crossovers and (to some extent) local signalling control may preclude SLW past an obstruction. Long gone are the days when any half-decent station had at least an emergency crossover.

[The Stationmaster]

I suspect there are places - and a good many of them - where the removal of crossovers and (to some extent) local signalling control may preclude SLW past an obstruction. Long gone are the days when any half-decent station had at least an emergency crossover.

 

In many cases it's not so much the lack of crossovers but, I think, far more likely the lack of staff - especially for 'current' situations - as NR have taken out large numbers of jobs plus of course TOC staff aren't available and even the training of NR staff would cost money.

[Eggesford box]

 

 

In many cases it's not so much the lack of crossovers but, I think, far more likely the lack of staff - especially for 'current' situations - as NR have taken out large numbers of jobs plus of course TOC staff aren't available and even the training of NR staff would cost money.

Hi,

I think a lot depends on the particular location. With power worked points the need to clip up is not needed nor is there a need for a handsignalman at the end to control movements back onto the right road if a signal is provided which may be a shunt signal . In some locations you would be in a position to put in SLW with only a pilotman required. The local MOM should be competent to do this. In cases where emergency SLW is required for a relatively short period I think that it is not put in at times owing to the delay to come to agreement/arrangements between NR and the TOCs. Certainly, I have been sent to a location ready to put in SLW, nothing has come past on the unaffected road for a while yet nothing turned up in the affected direction, being held back until the affected road was fit for traffic.

 

Another reason is an increased aversion of the engineers to having trains running past their worksites where years back this would be treated as normal.

 

Having said that, from my limited knowledge, I think some areas have been wary of putting in SLW for a long time. Pre Privatisation I was chatting to a friend who was a signalman at Barnham who was a little amused at our regularity at putting in SLW on the Western and he commented that no one down there (Sussex coast) would know how to put it in. Possibly it may have been a slight exageration.

 

Thinking a little bit more about it, another obstacle of putting in SLW where more staff are rquired is elf & safety. Nowadays you are not allowed to go on the track unless you are dressed in virtually a 'suit of hi vis armour' and also various certification. Signalmen, not even reief signalmen, are not issued with such things so you can forget about calling them out or asking them to stay on to help out. I would not say they are not competent but that the powers to be deem them not to be so.

[Oldddudders]

Having said that, from my limited knowledge, I think some areas have been wary of putting in SLW for a long time. Pre Privatisation I was chatting to a friend who was a signalman at Barnham who was a little amused at our regularity at putting in SLW on the Western and he commented that no one down there (Sussex coast) would know how to put it in. Possibly it may have been a slight exageration.

I think perhaps the nature of the terrain has an effect here. Your friend works/worked on a stretch of line where level crossings are frequent. When we first sought authority for Chichester-Havant Resignalling, the General Manager expressed concern about the ability to introduce SLW, and the reply was that we (NSE) doubted he had enough competent staff in the area to man all the crossings! Add in the relative frequency of services along the Coastway route, and the need for a live conductor rail, and the engineer is going to have to stop work while trains pass rather often. Having been RO & Pilotman a few times myself (Rochester - Gillingham and New Cross - London Bridge) I have a fair idea of how SLW "feels" and for busy routes it's not always the best choice. Add-in the paucity of trained staff and the idea isn't very attractive at all.

[Eggesford box]

point taken Oldduders!

[Gwiwer]

Spot on Ian.

 

What might work on the Cornish main line with something like an hourly service definitely won't work on the Sussex coast with a 10minute headway! You'd be very pressed indeed to find two locations between which you could implement SLW at that headway!

[Eggesford box]

Hi,

I am aware that sometimes SLW is not feasible owing to train service or the physical geography of the railway. However, there are times when you would think SLW could be put in place but is not even where wrong direction controls have been put in place on crossings. I agree you would very rarely be able to put in SLW without causing delays to services on the unaffected line but there may be occasions where completely screwing up the service on the unaffected line is the lesser evil. I am thinking of something like an engineers overun on an up line (not location specific) heading towards London at the start of the morning peak.

 

I think my friend at Barnhams point was because they would never normally put in SLW for the reasons given by Olddudders the staff would be somewhat unsure of themselves if they ever did have to put it in. It is probably simpler, as far as the rules are concerned, to implement it than in previous years. Certainly, the normal reaction from signalmen that I have known after their first time SLW is that it was much simpler than they thought and they wondered why they had been so worried. Apologies, Olddudders if you thought I was casting aspersions on staff on the Southern.

 

Getting somewhat more back on post some photos from around Lostwithiel.

[Rugd1022]

Superb set of photos... very evocative and it's remarkable just how 'historic' they are now. I particularly like the going away shot of the two 37s on westbound clay hoods... a very nice composition, with the semaphore still off - hit's the right spot does that!

[Oldddudders]

Apologies, Olddudders if you thought I was casting aspersions on staff on the Southern.

No apology needed! Your friend made a valid comment, but the intensity of service and number of staff required in his locale simply make the logistics of setting up SLW a little more complex than in more modestly-trafficked areas, or where staff are more numerous. As for differences in staff "quality" I'd hesitate to make any valid comment - except that in places further from London, railway wages might be more competitive and therefore attract a better class of employee - e.g. bright and reliable - than we were sometimes able to recruit in the SE.

[cornish trains jez]

Hi,

I am aware that sometimes SLW is not feasible owing to train service or the physical geography of the railway. However, there are times when you would think SLW could be put in place but is not even where wrong direction controls have been put in place on crossings. I agree you would very rarely be able to put in SLW without causing delays to services on the unaffected line but there may be occasions where completely screwing up the service on the unaffected line is the lesser evil. I am thinking of something like an engineers overun on an up line (not location specific) heading towards London at the start of the morning peak.

 

I think my friend at Barnhams point was because they would never normally put in SLW for the reasons given by Olddudders the staff would be somewhat unsure of themselves if they ever did have to put it in. It is probably simpler, as far as the rules are concerned, to implement it than in previous years. Certainly, the normal reaction from signalmen that I have known after their first time SLW is that it was much simpler than they thought and they wondered why they had been so worried. Apologies, Olddudders if you thought I was casting aspersions on staff on the Southern.

 

Getting somewhat more back on post some photos from around Lostwithiel.

 

Lovely selection of pictures from the good old days of BR blue! Thank you for sharing!

 

Best regards,

 

Jeremy

[Eggesford box]

A handful of shots looking over the wall at Penzance in semaphore days. The mundane now gone, the stock for the TPO and the yellow van (Viva?). Incidentally has anyone got any close up shots of 08 641 as it was the first engine I ever had a ride on when it must have been one of the last if not last 08 at Barnstaple. Seems strange to see you with those levers from Fenny Compton as I used to work that box on an irregular basis.

[Gwiwer]

Sea Sidings also now gone apart from a short stub of the Long which is baulked at about a single loco length.

[beast66606]

the yellow van (Viva?).

 

Marina I think. (and a Renault 4 iirc)

[Pugsley]

Marina I think. (and a Renault 4 iirc)

The van appears to be a Mark II Escort, and I think the car is a Renault 12.

[Captain Kernow]

Sea Sidings also now gone apart from a short stub of the Long which is baulked at about a single loco length.

Actually you can get a 3-car unit in there, Gwiwer, and we are considering restoring it to at least a 4-car unit length at the request of the local ops people.

[Captain Kernow]

No apology needed! Your friend made a valid comment, but the intensity of service and number of staff required in his locale simply make the logistics of setting up SLW a little more complex than in more modestly-trafficked areas, or where staff are more numerous. As for differences in staff "quality" I'd hesitate to make any valid comment - except that in places further from London, railway wages might be more competitive and therefore attract a better class of employee - e.g. bright and reliable - than we were sometimes able to recruit in the SE.

Whichever way you look at it, a failed train or obstruction on one of two running lines is bound to cause delays of one kind or another.

 

Even in areas such as ours, where SLW is common-place and competent staff exist in sufficient numbers, it's not always the best option. The service over the unaffected line (ie. in the 'right' direction) may be more intense than that on the blocked line, in which case the sensible option is often to keep trains running 'right direction' and substitue road transport (if you can get it) for the 'blocked' direction.

 

One problem is if there are a lot of level crossings which don't have bi-directional controls, as that will be a significant impediment to the efficient through-put of trains via SLW, as the Rules usually require (always if AHB) the crossings to go on Local Control (ie. with an attendant operating the barriers to the signallers's instructions), and when that happens, trains have to be cautioned to approach the crossing at such a speed as to be able to stop short if the driver doesn't see the proceed handsignal exhibited by the attendant.

 

On some lines now, we are putting in bi-directional controls to help that precise issue.

 

In my experience, engineers will concede SLW past the site of work, if it can be demonstrated that it can be done in safety and without compromising the safety of the staff working. In some cases, such as with the current mid-week night High Output-related SLW on the Western, this usually involves a speed restriction past the site of work. It does add to journey times, but it still means that trains can get through, and schedules are adjusted accordingly, to ensure that passengers know when they will arrive at their destinations.

[Gwiwer]

trains have to be cautioned to approach the crossing at such a speed as to be able to stop short if the driver doesn't see the proceed handsignal exhibited by the attendant.

 

On some lines now, we are putting in bi-directional controls to help that precise issue.

 

[mode= tin hat donned] If we had full barriers (skirts not required, just four booms instead of two) at what are now AHB crossings there is also a greater physical deterrent to the motorist "jumping" the barriers which - in theory at least - improves safety albeit at a not insignificant capital cost. That might also assist with permitted "wrong road" approach speeds and the need to staff up those crossings in emergencies [/mode]

[Captain Kernow]

[mode= tin hat donned] If we had full barriers (skirts not required, just four booms instead of two) at what are now AHB crossings there is also a greater physical deterrent to the motorist "jumping" the barriers which - in theory at least - improves safety albeit at a not insignificant capital cost. That might also assist with permitted "wrong road" approach speeds and the need to staff up those crossings in emergencies [/mode]

Yes to the safety bit, deterring folk from dodging around barriers.

 

With regards to the SLW situation, that will depend on how the crossing is wired up. Some CCTV crossings can encompass this, others cannot...

[Eggesford box]

Some shots of St Blazey