Horizontal Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 More likely a case of far more practical experience, especially among operations & safety type folk, the vast majority of whom had 'been through the mill' of real operational work at every level in the industry - and who rapidly became a vanishing breed following privytisation, especially if they asked awkward questions. Don't forget also that now we have a body responsible for the Rule Book which is totally divorced from the railway where those Rules etc have to be applied and who not uncommonly take no notice at all of input from the practical level while at the other end of the scale we have folk new to the industry or with very narrow/limited experience 'producing' Signalbox Special Instructions or issuing written Instructions to Signalmen. Right up to the end of my railway career in 2006, I continued to come up against the 'Can't Do' mentality amongst what a certain ex-NR Chief-exec allegedly called ex BR 'Pipe-Smoking' managers. For example in 2004 we had a part of the Rule Book called 'T2', which at the time had become so complicated and cumbersome, and whose procedure in instigating it wasted so much time with form filling and protection procedures, and had little to show for improving safety, that I decided to compare what was involved here in the UK and what was involved on other railways around the world. I then made a written suggestion to my then Ops Manager with my results, as to how I thought things things could be improved - Needless to say, the standard letter came back saying 'thank you etc.etc…… (in other words, 'Oh..., go away'!) - Anyway, what happened not long after I left? Yes, T2 was abolished, and, what has replaced it? Yes, pretty well much as I suggested in the first place! With regards to the 'One Train In and One Train Out' method of working goes, I will contact a former colleague of mine who now works at the RSSB in London, to find out what criteria is required for that method of working to be acceptable. I'll let you know when I get the result - BTW, his credentials are that he started in the same signal box after me in 1973. 'One difference between us though, - he has never smoked a pipe!! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 If they are using axle counters for the main line, then why not just use the one at the junction to create a single-ended axle counter section covering the branch? This ensures that the same number of axles comes out as goes in, and wouldn't need any extra equipment. Edit: having checked back I've just realized we are talking about branches where wagons might be attached/detached at the far end, so this wouldn't work. Alternatively get the driver to confirm back that the train is complete once it comes off the branch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2014 The RSSB version of T2 was probably one of the best examples of how to concoct a totally disconnected and far from 'fit for purpose' Rule I have ever come across, got more and more ridiculous as it went on with, seemingly at times, more debate over having or not having the correct form rather than worrying about the important thing which is protecting the site of work. I'm pleased to say that when I was involved in the mid 1980s rewrite of the Rule Book we even shortened the old BR T2 from what was already a fairly straightforward procedure. The version I have used elsewhere - which HMRI are quite happy with - is far simpler than anything the RSSB seem able to dream up and that in my view is what Rules are all about - straightforward and readily understood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2014 If they are using axle counters for the main line, then why not just use the one at the junction to create a single-ended axle counter section covering the branch? This ensures that the same number of axles comes out as goes in, and wouldn't need any extra equipment. Alternatively get the driver to confirm back that the train is complete once it comes off the branch. The first idea won't work if train lengths differ (which they could with freights) but is ideal for passenger trains on many lines and much more reliable than track circuits (we are frequently told). The latter is ideal for freights because it is a practical and it is simple and easily understood. More or less no more than a different way of doing what the WR called Table C2 working but putting the responsibility with the Driver, which is logical as he is often the only person there (but maybe he needs to check he has all of his train before he says the section is clear). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2014 More or less no more than a different way of doing what the WR called Table C2 working but putting the responsibility with the Driver, which is logical as he is often the only person there (but maybe he needs to check he has all of his train before he says the section is clear). I've tried to introduce 'C2' to another location recently, but the idea won't really be entertained.... will have to try to retain the OTW staff instead... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 C2 usually involved the use of a 'Post Office' telephone between the Signalman and PIC at the remote location as on the Burngullow to Drinnick Branch, and Bodmin Rd to Boscarne Jct section of the Wenford Branch - didn't it? :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The RSSB version of T2 was probably one of the best examples of how to concoct a totally disconnected and far from 'fit for purpose' Rule I have ever come across, got more and more ridiculous as it went on with, seemingly at times, more debate over having or not having the correct form rather than worrying about the important thing which is protecting the site of work. I'm pleased to say that when I was involved in the mid 1980s rewrite of the Rule Book we even shortened the old BR T2 from what was already a fairly straightforward procedure. The version I have used elsewhere - which HMRI are quite happy with - is far simpler than anything the RSSB seem able to dream up and that in my view is what Rules are all about - straightforward and readily understood. Yes, the best method was in the 'old days', when an agreement was reached between two people who both really knew what they were doing, with a reminder appliance being applied to the appropriate controlling lever(s) or button(s), and a stamped and endorsed entry in the train register sufficed - Needless to say that on the York IECC area, very little work got done at the end of my time there, as, by the time the paperwork was completed and the protection put was out, it was time to give the road back! Anyway, I think that we are probably going a bit off topic here! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2014 I've tried to introduce 'C2' to another location recently, but the idea won't really be entertained.... will have to try to retain the OTW staff instead... C2 usually involved the use of a 'Post Office' telephone between the Signalman and PIC at the remote location as on the Burngullow to Drinnick Branch, and Bodmin Rd to Boscarne Jct section of the Wenford Branch - didn't it? :-) Alas all changed on the Cornish freight branches (sort of back on topic, phew!) and those elsewhere on what had been the WR when Trainload Freight took over. The TLF Rules & Regs folks - who were almost all ex ER HQ - had some very different ideas and were horrified by C2 working although it had worked perfectly safely, and on some very complex branches (with stubs/twigs) off them, for many years. So the branches were converted to TS&T - which struck me as overkill on some lines. They also had some other very odd ideas - we were on an Inspection Special over the Oxford - Bletchley line where there was modern retro-reflectve Distant board approaching Claydon L&NE Jcn with a 2 aspect colour light Home Signal (it was a typical LMR shoestring bit of re-signalling at a place where costs needed to be minimised and was very fit for purpose. Anyway the York chaps were horrified that a colour light Home Signal didn't have a colour light repeater and declared it was simply not right. I was not in the R&R trade by that time (although very closely involved with several major resignalling schemes) but pointed out to them there was nothing against it in the Signalling Principles and it hadn't been the practice in our part of the world, or the LM's, to overdo signalling on freight lines. I think I won (it was never altered by TLF) but it was an interesting clash of cultures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 On the LM, C2 working was simply known as 'HIT & MISS'!:-D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Triang Paul Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 A bit more info has come to light regarding the Night Riviera. Now there is more money than planned, the original refurbishment has been upgraded to what the public announcements consisted and there is now a video on Youtube with impressions of what will be. this will result in the two "new" vehicles at Kilmarnock being stripped down completely and may not be done for planned September entry to service in refurbished state. They may come to us partially done to allow our stock to be done properly OR come to us jan 2015 fully done which means the fleet will still be 4 daily SLEPs next summer instead of 5, this being introduce early 2016 when the project is completed. Having now seen photos of inside, its quite a change. No family berths but there will be disabled berths. No showers !! The impression of the RFMB look like they have been lifted from the current Scotrail coach but that's better than what Serco have planned ! It appears that the berths will be larger.....? I don't think the seating in the day coaches look like either leather - as per original plan or reclining but i'm sure they are ! Cant do a link to the video. 604 now back on stream just as 305 becomes officially a DRS loco. By the end of this coming week, all 3 BFOs and all 3 RFMBs will be wifi fitted allowing the 2 TFODs to be done so a change in rake formations will be happening for the next 3 weeks with 2 brakes being used to replace the open. There should be 4 SLEPs done by end of week too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 With regards to the 'One Train In and One Train Out' method of working goes, I will contact a former colleague of mine who now works at the RSSB in London, to find out what criteria is required for that method of working to be acceptable. I'll let you know when I get the result :-) I have just heard back from my former colleague who now works at the RSSB. With regard to the 'One Train In and One Train Out' method of working through track circuiting, the only criteria for it to be used is that no trains conveying passengers are allowed to be involved unless a staff is provided. Therefore, if the days of the Carne Point Train Staff are numbered, then the days of any passenger excursions down the branch may be numbered as well. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 6, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 6, 2014 Having now seen photos of inside, its quite a change. No family berths but there will be disabled berths. No showers !! The impression of the RFMB look like they have been lifted from the current Scotrail coach but that's better than what Serco have planned ! It appears that the berths will be larger.....? I don't think the seating in the day coaches look like either leather - as per original plan or reclining but i'm sure they are ! Cant do a link to the video. I can quite understand why there are no showers - the plumbing job is bad enough on a brand new design let alone trying to work it into an existing shell. But that isn't even the half of it - the whole design of the shower area uses up space and calls for a lot of ingenuity (i.e it costs a lot) and there are a number of practical hurdles fitting inside C3 gauge. Plus of course adding showers means losing berths = losing potential revenue; and the ETH Index gets a healthy kick up the scale as many folk like their showers to pump out hot water. So it might not sound so wonderful as adding showers but I truly think it's a lot more practical, especially with diesel traction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I have been advised that it is extremely likely that the remaining six full barrier level crossings within the county will be fitted with Obstacle Detection (OD) equipment. This OD equipment enables the operation of the barriers to be taken completely out of the Signaller's hands during normal working, and so the load of the New Signaller's post in Didcot will be reduced even further. CCTV equipment is provided at each OD equipped crossing, but it is not available the for the Signaller to monitor the crossing itself. It is only used to prosecute those who have been found to misuse the crossing, i.e. jumping the red flashing road traffic signals. As I no longer live in the county, I don't know what the plans for future train services on the Newquay Branch are. If it is anticipated that passenger trains will regularly cross at Goonbarrow, it will be probable that Track Circuit Block working will be extended from the Goonbarrow Jct side of St Blazey Bridge Level Crossing to the Bugle side of Goonbarrow Jct itself, and full crossing facilities provided there. This will mean the abolition of the St Blazey to Goonbarrow Jcn Token - What actually happens though, we'll have to wait and see! Going back to the Penryn to Falmouth section, AFAIK an axle countered 'track circuit' is provided on the approach to the signal leaving the section at Penryn. The axle counter at the Falmouth end of this 'track circuit' counts the axles going in and the axles coming out of the single line dead-end to provide the 'Section Occupied' and 'Section Clear' status of the system and its associated indications on the diagram in Truro Box - For non-multiple unit workings to the docks however, an 'Annette's' Key for the Ground Frames that work the points into the loop and also the connections into the docks at Falmouth, is kept locked in a Key Release Instrument, which is in a locked cupboard at Penryn - This key is released from the instrument by the reversal by the Signaller at Truro of lever No.44. The removal of this key does not effect the axle counter at the Falmouth end of the approach 'track circuit' - However, it is the replacement of the key into the instrument, and the restoration of lever No.44 in Truro Box that will in effect correct any discrepancies between the number of axles counted onto the dead-end section, and the number counted out - 'Very clever! If TCB working is extended to Goonbarrow Jcn as shewn above, then a similar method of counting axles on and off the Newquay Branch maybe employed at Goonbarrow Jcn as well, although an 'Annette's Key' will not be required as no Ground Frames are involved! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 7, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 7, 2014 Therefore, if the days of the Carne Point Train Staff are numbered, then the days of any passenger excursions down the branch may be numbered as well. Unless, of course, the Special Instructions applicable to that/those particular excursion(s) authorise the use of a Pilotman... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Unless, of course, the Special Instructions applicable to that/those particular excursion(s) authorise the use of a Pilotman... The obvious way out - Let's hope so! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 7, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 7, 2014 The obvious way out - Let's hope so! :-) I'll see if I can jolly well 'make it so', then! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Obstacle detection sensor on the back of the road traffic signals at Thorpe Hall Crossing near Selby. These are being fitted when the original controlling boxes are abolished, and 'will probably be fitted as standard to the remaining six full barriered crossings in Cornwall when they are transferred to Didcot. The signaller of the new controlling box plays no part in the normal operation of the crossing, but an integral camera that the signaller has no access to is provided to collect any evidence of crossing misuse! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted July 27, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 27, 2014 The camera package (and that's what it is because there are at least 6 colour high definition cameras per crossing) is actually pretty impressive. Two of the six are placed at the ends of the bracket sticking out from the post below the wig wag and are there to record evidence that the red road lights are flashing. This prevents motorists from arguing that "the lights weren't flashing" - without it even though S&T logging equipment can prove all the associated relays were working that cannot be taken to"'prove" the actual lamps were alight in a court of law. (Out of interest it's why drivers (railway) allegations about incorrect signal aspects are a devil to deal with, without good quality footage of the signal at the time the event occurred you must assume their report is correct which means plenty of cable testing to prove that the signal is not misbehaving now). The next two out of the six are aligned such that the capture the vehicles rear number plate as it goes across the crossing from which a fine can quickly be dispatched via the DVLA database. The final two are basically "general view" cameras giving a view of the entire crossing. They are useful where for example a driver tries to "beet" the crossing usually with bad results (remember there is no signalman observing so as to stop the barriers halfway through their lowering sequence, once they start coming down they will continue to come down vehicle or no vehicle). Thing is on the crossings done as part of the Ely / Thetford scheme it's not just private cars or unmarked trucks - well known bus operators and household names in terms of supermarket / DIY stores have all been made to pay for their drivers damaging the barriers and it's amazing how the companies change their tune when faced with video evidence. Certainly it's been the downfall of more than one delivery driver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
floss_4 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Aren't there are seven full barriers in Cornwall that would be in scope for this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Lostwithiel, Middleway, St Blazey Bridge, Truro, Roskear, and Camborne station, are the six crossings equipped with full barriers. As I understand it Long Rock has now been closed, and Ponsandane Crossing closed many years ago - Dolcoath and Gwinear Road are automatic half-barrier crossings - Whether these last two are upgraded to full barrier status with obstacle detection will remain to be seen as time goes by! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted July 28, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 28, 2014 Long Rock level crossing is still open. There was a foot crossing closed in the area that caused a lot of local ructions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizontal Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Ahh - I stand corrected - Sorry about that - I left the county and its railway in 2001 - Please amend my previous entries to seven remaining crossings :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted July 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 28, 2014 There was a foot crossing closed in the area that caused a lot of local ructions. Apparently there is an anti-NR 'folk song' on YouTube... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Apparently there is an anti-NR 'folk song' on YouTube... There is a lot of local feeling in Long Rock that NR have made a knee-jerk decision to close the crossing to serve their own agenda and completely ignored the wishes of the local community and are threatening the viability of local businesses. Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted August 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 5, 2014 There is a lot of local feeling in Long Rock that NR have made a knee-jerk decision to close the crossing to serve their own agenda and completely ignored the wishes of the local community and are threatening the viability of local businesses. Rob Yes, I am aware that some people feel that way. They are entitled to feel whatever way they wish, obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.