GWML Electification

[D1059]

Serious accident on the A34 last night near Oxford involving a rail substitution coach which broke down and was then almost immediately rammed off the road from behind by a lorry. Fortunately no one killed, but some with serious injuries

Edited December 15, 2014 by D1059

[Xerces Fobe2]

Due to the stringent H&S regulations there is a lot of bus substution for a myriad of reasons. There often appears to be very little appetite for a restricted rail service as in days gone bye. The big issue is the fragmentation even First Great Western and First Beelee/Berkshire run as totally separate entities with none of the advantages of one company providing the service!

No one can fault H&S considerations however some of the operations of some of the replacement buses leave a lot to be desired. I was at High Wycombe Station a few years ago when a replacement coach moved quite a dustance with one on the lower luggage compartment doors open which nearly hit me and and few others. So why are not interlocks to stop bus moving and when you have interlocks throughout on passenger trains?

It would be nice to see the railway working in a level playing field.

XF

Edited December 15, 2014 by Xerces Fobe2

[Fenman]

Due to the stringent H&E regulations ...

 

My memory of my teenage years is a bit hazy, but isn't H&E short for "Health & Efficiency", which was a naturist magazine that, for us curious boys in those prurient pre-internet days, was the closest thing we could find to, er, titivation?

 

I didn't realise naturism had become such a powerful regulatory force?

 

Paul

[Southernman46]

but it so should be....................

[Xerces Fobe2]

My memory of my teenage years is a bit hazy, but isn't H&E short for "Health & Efficiency", which was a naturist magazine that, for us curious boys in those prurient pre-internet days, was the closest thing we could find to, er, titivation?

 

I didn't realise naturism had become such a powerful regulatory force?

 

Paul

 

I know why I did the typo, a pair of subliminal messages entered my brain!

 

XF

[Hobby]

Back on topic - OLE shemes are by their nature often ugly, 

 

Could try this? Outskirts of Prague...

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AFxttPDeCFo/UPLFT2605BI/AAAAAAAAAlA/IyW3aSFm0GI/s1600/CD+Pendolino.JPG

[corneliuslundie]

Surely that new gantry is O gauge! It reminds me of an old cartoon in Railway Modeller - The Little People. Those of you old enough will remember it.

[Xerces Fobe2]

It looks better than some of the 1960's WCML one though!

[m0rris]

Due to the stringent H&S regulations there is a lot of bus substution for a myriad of reasons. There often appears to be very little appetite for a restricted rail service as in days gone bye. The big issue is the fragmentation even First Great Western and First Beelee/Berkshire run as totally separate entities with none of the advantages of one company providing the service!

 

No one can fault H&S considerations however some of the operations of some of the replacement buses leave a lot to be desired. I was at High Wycombe Station a few years ago when a replacement coach moved quite a dustance with one on the lower luggage compartment doors open which nearly hit me and and few others. So why are not interlocks to stop bus moving and when you have interlocks throughout on passenger trains?

 

 

The problem with the Rail Replacement bus operators is that ultimately you are relying on companies that are able to produce a large number of coaches at the drop of the hat at any time of the day. Much like with charter trains, these are generally not the people with brand new equipment and full time staff which can cause problems!

 

It makes little business sense for First to burden FirstBus Berkshire with the rail replacement bus requirement: FB Berkshire would have to carry a significant number of extra buses to provide an effective service (bearing in mind you are talking six figure sums for new buses and new disability regs has shrunk the pool of suitable second hand buses). The Slough depot is effectively an island with no other depots along the route until you get to Somerset/West Wiltshire. Then there's the potential for first to sink a load of money into buses only to lose FGW within a couple of years! Incidentally First do run First Rail Support to help co-ordinate rail replacement buses.

 

As for bustitution vs reduced service it all depends on the circumstances. These will include nature of the incident (both lines unusable, how long will the lines be blocked, is it safe to do so etc) and some basic practicalities (traincrew availability, could sets get stranded, adequate facilities for the crew for their PNBs, adequate stabling/turnaround locations - taking into consideration track layouts, whether there's bi-directional signalling and so on). All in it is a bit of a minefield and rarely as simple as telling a driver Problems at point X mean that service will act as a shuttle between Y and Z.

The increased use of bustitution maybe related to the health and safety culture change on the railways but it is worth noting that this culture has taken us from Ladbroke Grove, Southall, Potters Bar etc to the current much improved situation. It might be excessive at times but the battle between inconvenience and safety, I am glad it is safety that wins!

[Talltim]

Surely putting people on buses for 'health and safety' reasons is counter productive?

[m0rris]

The health and safety case would roughly be: Is it safe for trains to pass a certain point? (Bearing in mind the risk of something happening to the train and the passengers i.e. derailment, hit by obstacle etc or for the pway staff working on the line) And secondly is it safe to leave passengers where they are? (Generally yes, but if it is freezing cold, raining and there is insufficient shelter or stations could become dangerously overcrowded - they need to be moved).

 

All that said, the transport industry aims to do just that - transport. If we can't do it by rail we'll have to do it by the next best thing so we can keep passengers moving!

Edited December 15, 2014 by m0rris

[The Stationmaster]

Can somebody please explain to me (as a long serving railway operator, retired) what on earth 'Health & Safety' has to do with bustitution?  The only likely impact which I am aware of, which has nothing at all to do with H&S legislation, is the presence of staff protection areas and provision of barriers to protect personnel on sites.

 

The main reason for providing 'buses is far simpler - it's easy and it doesn't cost train operators anything, and it can in many cases mean that NR doesn't have to find scarce ground staff to deal with 'out of the ordinary' operating procedures.   Understandably many folk take exception to what they see as deviation from traditional railway procedures such as Single Line Working but without considering the lack of people for such operations.  Equally keeping trains completely out of the way very often allows work to be carried out more quickly and without interruption - quite a change from the days when newspaper trains had to be got through overnight possessions for contractual reasons.

[RJS1977]

Equally, closing both lines may mean that work is able to be carried out more quickly,so although bustitution may mean more inconvenience during the period of the works, if everything can get back to normal considerably sooner, that may be a price worth paying.

 

Not directly related to electrification,but as an example, I remember seeing Jarvis demonstrating a train (below) at Railfest in 2004 which could lay about quarter of a mile of track panels into position in a matter of minutes, but needed to be parked on an adjacent line to do so. So on a double track line, one line would be being relaid while the other had the train on it, which means there is no line available to run trains. However compared with laying one panel at a time end-on it was clearly much faster.

 

[Edwin_m]

Can somebody please explain to me (as a long serving railway operator, retired) what on earth 'Health & Safety' has to do with bustitution?  The only likely impact which I am aware of, which has nothing at all to do with H&S legislation, is the presence of staff protection areas and provision of barriers to protect personnel on sites.

 

The main reason for providing 'buses is far simpler - it's easy and it doesn't cost train operators anything, and it can in many cases mean that NR doesn't have to find scarce ground staff to deal with 'out of the ordinary' operating procedures.   Understandably many folk take exception to what they see as deviation from traditional railway procedures such as Single Line Working but without considering the lack of people for such operations.  Equally keeping trains completely out of the way very often allows work to be carried out more quickly and without interruption - quite a change from the days when newspaper trains had to be got through overnight possessions for contractual reasons.

Keeping other trains out of the way is also considered to be a safety issue.  In particular with the standard six-foot the sleeper ends of a line blocked to traffic will be out of bounds if the adjacent line is still open.  Working on the rest of the blocked track will require a site warden arrangement which still carries some risk to the workforce, or a total closure of the adjacent line before and after the work to place and remove the barriers, which shortens the working time and I think also prevents engineering trains from using the blocked line.  This must mean that quite a number of jobs that would traditionally have been done with the adjacent line open now need it to be closed as well.  

 

Glad to see that some of the more recent big yellow plant (such as the GW electrification trains) is designed to work with the adjacent line open and includes various safety barriers to allow this.  Other non-safety reasons remain, such as the relative lack of crossovers, rarity of bi-directional signalling which would speed the process, and the increase in passenger numbers late at night and on Sundays which make it difficult to schedule the necessary number of trains on a single line. 

[Budgie]

Not directly related to electrification,but as an example, I remember seeing Jarvis demonstrating a train (below) at Railfest in 2004 which could lay about quarter of a mile of track panels into position in a matter of minutes, but needed to be parked on an adjacent line to do so. So on a double track line, one line would be being relaid while the other had the train on it, which means there is no line available to run trains. However compared with laying one panel at a time end-on it was clearly much faster.

How practical is it to operate that thing under the knitting?

[The Stationmaster]

Keeping other trains out of the way is also considered to be a safety issue.  In particular with the standard six-foot the sleeper ends of a line blocked to traffic will be out of bounds if the adjacent line is still open.  Working on the rest of the blocked track will require a site warden arrangement which still carries some risk to the workforce, or a total closure of the adjacent line before and after the work to place and remove the barriers, which shortens the working time and I think also prevents engineering trains from using the blocked line.  This must mean that quite a number of jobs that would traditionally have been done with the adjacent line open now need it to be closed as well.  

 

Glad to see that some of the more recent big yellow plant (such as the GW electrification trains) is designed to work with the adjacent line open and includes various safety barriers to allow this.  Other non-safety reasons remain, such as the relative lack of crossovers, rarity of bi-directional signalling which would speed the process, and the increase in passenger numbers late at night and on Sundays which make it difficult to schedule the necessary number of trains on a single line. 

Yes Edwin - I fully understand that but it has about as much to do with Health & Safety legislation as my Aunt Fanny.  There is a very distinct difference between what legislation says and what happens in the real world.  The H&S Act came into force in the 1970s with exactly the same legal impact as it has today as far as persons working on a railway site are concerned.  the only difference today is where a site is under CDM Regulations - which is not only much more recent but is also more recent than the situation where adjacent lines have been closed for staff protection reasons.

 

Staff protection on the railway is part of safety procedures but in many cases as far as railway engineering work is concerned it goes above and beyond the legal requirements of H&S legislation and I think it is wrong to 'blame' that for things like bustitution, especially as that in many cases preceded the levels of staff protection which is now applied by the Rule Book.

[Xerces Fobe2]

How practical is it to operate that thing under the knitting?

I think no problem if all the equipment has a maximum lifting height is tested and proved safe processes are used.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Xerces Fobe2

[Xerces Fobe2]

With regards to Bustitution one organisation that manages this very well is TFL/ Underground. They have the advantage of a plentiful supply of buses both from within and without the TFL are with bus stops and routes perrmantly in place and lots of knowledgable staff to help. TFL learnt their lesson with the likes of Tube Lines and services were brought back in house by Boris!

Edited December 16, 2014 by Xerces Fobe2

[Edwin_m]

Yes Edwin - I fully understand that but it has about as much to do with Health & Safety legislation as my Aunt Fanny.  There is a very distinct difference between what legislation says and what happens in the real world.  The H&S Act came into force in the 1970s with exactly the same legal impact as it has today as far as persons working on a railway site are concerned.  the only difference today is where a site is under CDM Regulations - which is not only much more recent but is also more recent than the situation where adjacent lines have been closed for staff protection reasons.

 

Staff protection on the railway is part of safety procedures but in many cases as far as railway engineering work is concerned it goes above and beyond the legal requirements of H&S legislation and I think it is wrong to 'blame' that for things like bustitution, especially as that in many cases preceded the levels of staff protection which is now applied by the Rule Book.

Various reports have said over the years that the degree of risk to track workers is still excessively high.  So arguably the various extra measures introduced in the last decade or so were needed to bring this into the range of ALARP as required by the H&S Act.  The latest RSSB Safety Performance Reports note a reduction in risk in recent years. 

[DY444]

The motors would have the full 650V (or later 750V) across them when running in parallel or weak field.  In series they would see half the voltage each. 

 

The problem is the amount of current that would flow if the motors were connected in series at low speed.  The resistors are provided to limit this current but only rated for use for a short period while the train accelerates up to a speed when they are no longer needed.  I assume the problem at Folkestone was that the train was unable to reach that speed up the gradient so the resistors would stay in circuit for longer than intended.  Sounds also like the special switch would cut the resistors out at a lower speed, which would avoid problems with them overheating but could lead to the circuit breaker dropping out or something else getting hot. 

 

IIRC the DC EMUs also had a shunt notch that would keep all the resistors in circuit for very low speed running.  Not sure if this was allowed to be used for long periods though. 

 

All the "Folkestone Harbour" switch did was prevent the equipment moving out of series into parallel (ie it made the equipment behave as if the controller was kept in the series position even if it was moved to parallel or weak field).   

[RJS1977]

I think no problem if all the equipment has a maximum lifting height is tested and proved safe processes are used.

 

I would assume that if used under "knitting", the power would be turned off, and it looks to be within electrification clearances so it shouldn't be an issue.

 

Assuming that the Jarvis yard in York (adjacent to the NRM) where it was being demonstrated was its "home" base then I would guess it saw use under the ECML wires from time to time.

[96701]

Yes Edwin - I fully understand that but it has about as much to do with Health & Safety legislation as my Aunt Fanny.  There is a very distinct difference between what legislation says and what happens in the real world.  The H&S Act came into force in the 1970s with exactly the same legal impact as it has today as far as persons working on a railway site are concerned.  the only difference today is where a site is under CDM Regulations - which is not only much more recent but is also more recent than the situation where adjacent lines have been closed for staff protection reasons.

 

Staff protection on the railway is part of safety procedures but in many cases as far as railway engineering work is concerned it goes above and beyond the legal requirements of H&S legislation and I think it is wrong to 'blame' that for things like bustitution, especially as that in many cases preceded the levels of staff protection which is now applied by the Rule Book.

Stopping trains on the adjacent line isn't to protect the workers from trains, it is there to protect trains from loads that are lifted within the possession, but could foul the adjacent line. 

[The Stationmaster]

Stopping trains on the adjacent line isn't to protect the workers from trains, it is there to protect trains from loads that are lifted within the possession, but could foul the adjacent line. 

In which respect it saves money and time - and avoids the potential for a collision between the crane's load and a passing train (which, officially, the Rule Book had theoretically long dealt with but which was as often observed in the breach as it was honoured).  I remember working with a crane, as the Ops Supervisor, alongside a busy passenger line back in the early 1980s and the chap I relieved bet the breakdown crane supervisor the job would take three times as long with me there as it would have done with him - he was right, because I insisted the load ( a dmu vehicle) was grounded and secured before allowing a train to pass, and it was the evening peak.  All too easy to take a chance and finish up doing a  lot of damage or injuring someone, or worse.

 

Mind you some crane work (not with rail mounted cranes) I see nowadays makes me wonder - there is, alas, a precedent for a load on a lineside tower crane coming into contact with a passing train, back in the 1950s.

[Bert Cheese]

Regarding the above, there was a nasty one with 33115 coming into contact with a crane at Hilsea back in 1979, albeit with one line under possession and the other cleared for use.

 

The report found on the Railway Archives website is here: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=796

[Fat Controller]

There was an incident with a rail-mounted crane fouling an adjacent, in-use, running line and causing (fortunately superficial) damage to a passing DMU within the last few years; IIRC, it was on the Midland route out of Birmingham towards Derby.