When is a loop not a loop?

[Talltim]

Reading through this ADA (Access Dispute Adjudication) regarding the loop at Clay Cross, I found it amusing that Network Rail could even seriously consider insisting that a loop, with the pointwork removed and the main lines 'plain lined' could still count as a loop!

Their contention was that the loop would only count as removed when the signalling was altered to remove it and all track was removed because the points could always be replaced. I was glad to see the Hearing Chair agreed with me.

[bécasse]

I can see NR's point of view though. BR started, in the late-1960s?, to wholly or partly plain line points which had fallen out of current use even though they might be needed again in the future. It was done to reduce maintenance costs.

[kandc_au]

I cannot see the point of view!

If the points are there, and connected at each end it is a loop.

IF the points are removed and the line is not connected to the mainline in any way it is NOT a loop!

It cannot be.

All it can be is a piece of track DISCONNECTED  from the mainline!

 

Khris

[Campaman]

That would be a programming track then

[Spitfire2865]

That way of thinking seems like a recipe for disaster.

[The Bigbee Line]

The signalling is the biggest change. The points are almost a consumable. To replace them is relatively easy. To make a signalling change is not.

Years ago the exit from Ashford West Yard towards Maidstone was changed from control by Ground Frame to control from the Power Box. The previously possible shunt towards the short shunt neck was prevented by a Track Circuit interrupter. I was told the cost to allow a shunt move from the power box would cost many tens of thousands. So be careful before you remove any signalling.

[The Stationmaster]

Reading through this ADA (Access Dispute Adjudication) regarding the loop at Clay Cross, I found it amusing that Network Rail could even seriously consider insisting that a loop, with the pointwork removed and the main lines 'plain lined' could still count as a loop!

Their contention was that the loop would only count as removed when the signalling was altered to remove it and all track was removed because the points could always be replaced. I was glad to see the Hearing Chair agreed with me.

What an utterly scandalous waste of money.  The original method of Dispute resolution specifically excluded the legal trade and for very good reasons - read through that lot ('defendants'  ) and you can quickly understand why - introduce those with limited standing and you get a load of words to deal with a very simple matter, total nonsense.

 

Original procedure simply required the infrastructure owner to issue a notice of the change and any affected parties either agreed or objected.  If the objection could not be resolved it went to the appropriate Access Disputes Resolution Committee who reviewed it on a procedural basis and with an injection of commonsense.  Simple and cost effective and it worked - wasn't broken so why change it?

 

(At this point I will admit to a little bias as I was Deputy Chairman of one of the three committees which handled the various categories of disputes - like all the other committee members except the Chairman, who was an outside appointment with senior previous railway experience, all of us were unpaid volunteers and subject to re-election every three years.)

[caradoc]

The outcome of the report seems to be that a loop which was hardly ever used, and which no-one can predict will be used in the future, has to be re-instated just in case. Perhaps one of the freight operators is planning to re-introduce 25mph unfitted freights ?

Given that freight from the Derby direction is most likely to be heading for the Old Road via Barrow Hill, would it not just be quicker to signal the freight across Clay Cross Jc and onto the Down Slow line, rather than route it into this loop, wait while the train clears inside and the route at the loop exit times out, and then later stll somehow have to find a path, from a standing start, out of the loop and onto the Down Slow ?

[Talltim]

As far as I can see the problem was that the loop (or the points anyway) was removed before any change had been agreed with the TOCs and signed off (because a possession slot was available) so it would still have gone to the the Access Disputes Resolution Committee under the old system, although probably with less lawyers.
One of the FOCs arguments was that they hadn't ever planned around using it as Network Rail had the length wrong in the Sectional Appendix so they thought it was of no use to them, although whether they would have done is another question, and would mainly be up to the signallers anyway.
This ADA dates from 2011 IIRC*, the down slow through Chesterfield station has had a bit of a change of role in the past few years as it now has a platform and is bidirectional, so ideally needs to be kept clear of waiting freight, although that is NR's responsibility anyway.
As an aside, the two fast lines at Chesterfield are also bi-di, I can remember a bit of slick working a few years ago when the station lift wasn't working and a wheelchair passenger was arriving on an up train (station access is on the down side). The up train was rerouted into the down platform and simultaneously my down train into the up platform. Cue lots of quick moving passengers!

 

EDIT *I remembered incorrectly, it was 2013, when the down slow had definitely already become a bi-di line with a platform.

[phil-b259]

As far as I can see the problem was that the loop (or the points anyway) was removed before any change had been agreed with the TOCs and signed off (because a possession slot was available) so it would still have gone to the the Access Disputes Resolution Committee under the old system, although probably with less lawyers.

 

 

Quite so.

 

People need to be aware that the principle of not letting NR remove infrastructure arbitrarily is a sound one, as very often the reinstatement costs once a facility has gone completely are significant, particularly if signalling works are subsequently required to put the facility back. If you look back at the days of BR, there were many examples of stuff that got taken out as 'redundant assets' only for them to have proved to be missed in later years as the growth returned to the network.

 

As Mike has highlighted though the biggest problem since privatisation is keeping the legal trade out of what should be strictly operational matters. Unfortunately much like certain 'pests' they do seem to be expert at finding all the 'holes' in the procedures designed to keep them out with the result that today, despite the intentions at privatisation, they do seem to have become firmly ensconced within many areas that should be left to the industry itself to sort out.

[Glorious NSE]

Given that freight from the Derby direction is most likely to be heading for the Old Road via Barrow Hill, would it not just be quicker to signal the freight across Clay Cross Jc and onto the Down Slow line, rather than route it into this loop, wait while the train clears inside and the route at the loop exit times out, and then later stll somehow have to find a path, from a standing start, out of the loop and onto the Down Slow ?

Most trains yes, but not all. There are several freight trains which run from the Derby direction towards Dore before heading into the Peak district - for them in particular you'd think such a loop would be quite useful.

 

I'd also agree with Tim that with fewer places to cross freight heading towards Barrow Hill over (there isn't actually a Clay Cross Jcn anymore!) added to the passenger trains using what used to be freight lines through the area it may not be so easy as it used to be to just get freight well out of the way.

 

(Not saying that it needed the old layout, clearly we have different needs now with more passenger trains and generally faster freight trains versus when the previous layout was put in...)

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

As Mike has highlighted though the biggest problem since privatisation is keeping the legal trade out of what should be strictly operational matters. Unfortunately much like certain 'pests' they do seem to be expert at finding all the 'holes' in the procedures designed to keep them out with the result that today, despite the intentions at privatisation, they do seem to have become firmly ensconced within many areas that should be left to the industry itself to sort out.

I well remember the last vacancy list for management grades I received in BR as we went into privatisation. It contained 41 jobs, 3 for people who knew about how the railway was put together or operated and 38 for people with legal or accounting qualifications.

[Talltim]

As Mike has highlighted though the biggest problem since privatisation is keeping the legal trade out of what should be strictly operational matters. Unfortunately much like certain 'pests' they do seem to be expert at finding all the 'holes' in the procedures designed to keep them out with the result that today, despite the intentions at privatisation, they do seem to have become firmly ensconced within many areas that should be left to the industry itself to sort out.

Perhaps they needed more lawyers involved in writing the procedures to keep the lawyers out. Oh, hang on...

[Colin_McLeod]

I can see NR's point of view though. BR started, in the late-1960s?, to wholly or partly plain line points which had fallen out of current use even though they might be needed again in the future. It was done to reduce maintenance costs.

 

 

I cannot see the point of view!

If the points are there, and connected at each end it is a loop.

IF the points are removed and the line is not connected to the mainline in any way it is NOT a loop!

It cannot be.

All it can be is a piece of track DISCONNECTED  from the mainline!

 

Khris

IMO, if the loop is not an operational loop, i.e. with points AND signals, then it is of no use to the operators. Whether  it would be easy/cheap to reinstate the operational loop (trackwork only required)  or more expensive (signalling required) is irrelevant to the operators. If the loop is not operational, then it mattes not what would be required to make it operational.  

[Reorte]

If you look back at the days of BR, there were many examples of stuff that got taken out as 'redundant assets' only for them to have proved to be missed in later years as the growth returned to the network.

It sounds rather like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Throwing away anything you don't need right now vs. keeping every single little bit just in case it comes in useful in the future. It's impossible to steer a reasonable course between those extremes and get it right every time.

[Glorious NSE]

If you look back at the days of BR, there were many examples of stuff that got taken out as 'redundant assets' only for them to have proved to be missed in later years as the growth returned to the network.

 

Weirdly enough, in this case the area has been totally rebuilt and re-signalled within the last decade (when Clay Cross junction was removed, I think circa 2008/09?) - that includes renewal of the points and signalling for the loop (including the addition of a nice new trap run-off with buffer stop beyond replacing the old derail style trap) plus from the photo's I can find on the net it looks like a fair chunk of the loop was relaid relatively recently as well - you'd have thought if it really was regarded as having no use then it would have been removed as part of that big scheme rather than lots of money being spent replacing and upgrading it!?

 

That does kinda point to NR being motivated by trying to find some line speed improvements rather than being motivated by it not being used much...

 

Goods loop is on the left of these images:

 

2007 (looking freshly relaid even then!):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Intermodal_train_at_Clay_Cross_junction_-_geograph.org.uk_-_761996.jpg

 

2012 (scroll to 05/09/12 about half way down the page):

http://bars-blog.weebly.com/latest-news.html

[The Stationmaster]

Weirdly enough, in this case the area has been totally rebuilt and re-signalled within the last decade (when Clay Cross junction was removed, I think circa 2008/09?) - that includes renewal of the points and signalling for the loop (including the addition of a nice new trap run-off with buffer stop beyond replacing the old derail style trap) plus from the photo's I can find on the net it looks like a fair chunk of the loop was relaid relatively recently as well - you'd have thought if it really was regarded as having no use then it would have been removed as part of that big scheme rather than lots of money being spent replacing and upgrading it!?

 

That does kinda point to NR being motivated by trying to find some line speed improvements rather than being motivated by it not being used much...

 

Goods loop is on the left of these images:

 

2007 (looking freshly relaid even then!):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Intermodal_train_at_Clay_Cross_junction_-_geograph.org.uk_-_761996.jpg

 

2012 (scroll to 05/09/12 about half way down the page):

http://bars-blog.weebly.com/latest-news.html

And the second photo even shows a brand new signal at the loop exit!  (I presume it is the right loop? - just checking).

 

The involvement of the legal trade, complete with their lack of understanding of railway matters, is something new and has effectively required a re-write of the disputes resolution process; presumably someone saw involving them as a way to avoid any potential bias?  However as originally drafted - by a very clever man as it happens - the procedures were perfectly watertight and generally very straightforward (hence they were freely and exactly copied elsewhere, e.g. Australia) and they were also designed specifically to be readily understood and followed by ordinary people without any need at all for legal waffle.

 

In addition should any operator etc actually turn up with anyone from the legal trade for a disputes hearing said legal trade practitioner was totally excluded from the hearing and the person who'd brought them along was not allowed out of the hearing to consult them.  Cases a were then heard and hearings conducted in accordance with the procedure and every case which was brought was tested against the relevant part of the Access Conditions - the letter being invariably sufficiently comprehensive and distinct as to allow a ruling to be made although there was an appeals procedure which was very occasionally invoked  (South Eastern Trains were the first to go that route as their case involved a very large sum of money.

 

Effectively all the shennigans of NR failing to observe the Network Change Procedure (which was incorrect on their part and for which they should be taken to task) is one thing.  As far as use of the loop, any loop, is concerned it is a very simple matter to ascertain if it has or hasn't been used and it is an equally simple matter to ascertain if there is likely to be a traffic flow arising in future which might need to use it and it is an equally simple matter to ascertain and demonstrate, one way or the other,  that a suitable path would exist for that flow if the loop wasn't there - it is all very basic and straightforward railway work; maybe that is the problem?

[Talltim]

In this particular case past history of use (or not) wouldn't count to anything as everyone had thought it was too short to loop the trains that might have used it.

[Glorious NSE]

And the second photo even shows a brand new signal at the loop exit!  (I presume it is the right loop? - just checking).

Yep!

 

AFAIK the loop (and it's cripple siding) is the only pointwork at Clay Cross nowadays?

 

(Edit - well...NR removing it notwithstanding!  )