david.hill64

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

There are perfectly valid reasons for doing this but I'm just not seeing the widely parroted cost reduction being one.   I suspect any cost reductions there are will be to NR but the overall costs to the industry will actually be higher than they would have been if this wasn't done. 

Unless the rules have changed, this will be covered by the 'Network Change' clauses in the access agreements, the costs of which will be covered by Network Rail.

Under EU law, the relevant section of which may or may not have been repealed by the UK, it is mandatory to use ETCS when resignalling an existing route or opening a new route on the mainline railway, which constitutes a valid reason for doing it if still mandatory! I think that ETCS level 2 with back up axle counters will not save much money. I am not aware of any mainline railway that has been brave enough to do away with secondary detection, and only one MRT (Bangkok Skytrain) that has. If someone knows different, I would like to hear.

16 hours ago, ess1uk said:

ECML testing plan

And this says no more sections with overlays, which implies that they will be optimizing blocks when ETCS is designed (or at least will have the ability to do so). Good!

14 minutes ago, icn said:

Switzerland is fully ETCS equipped by now. I wouldn't call that small by kilometers (5000km network, vs UK's 15'000 - and I believe the total number of passenger journeys is quite similar at around 400 million/year for both), extremely busy network, and also has the station with the highest volume of rail traffic worldwide.

 

It's true that most of the network is ETCS-L1/overlay - pure ETCS-L2 is only used on select sections, but some of those sections are critical for network stability (NBS, and arguably the Gotthard and Lotschberg tunnels are too even if not as important for commuters). And there is a lot of ETCS-only rolling stock all over the network by now (on top of all the stock that's been retrofitted to operate on the ETCS-only sections). The system works, and it works at scale.

 

The UK approach is certainly rational, but it's still a laggard relatively speaking.

Switzerland got in early: I think a lot of the 'hands-on' development was done there. Good for them.

ETCS level 1 overlay is relatively simple to achieve. I'm not disputing the Swiss achievement and I have no idea what they had before (Indusi??) But ETCS level 1 would give marginal safety benefit over TPWS (How many ATP preventable accidents have there been in UK since TPWS roll-out?), so going for ETCS level 2 is, in my opinion, the correct option for UK. Could it be done more quickly? I don't know as I'm not working in UK, but I suspect that availability of competent staff as much as funding will be an issue.

Having said that, I can still remember vividly being told by Railtrack in 1994 that as the commercial benefits of ETCS level 3 were overwhelming, Industry would deliver within 5 years and Railtrack would complete the installation within 10. Happy days!

7 minutes ago, DY444 said:

Now full supervision ATP should give the confidence that you can drive closer to the braking curve in safety however after years of defensive driving being hammered in and possibly fear that an ATP intervention will be a hanging offence, I just don't see it.

 I think you are correct, but then I am sure I read that we don't need HS2 because digital signaling will give us greater capacity..................

15 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Firstly techniques do exist to allow co located signals even with different line speeds - on the ECML they slow lines (max 100mph) generally use three aspect signalling and the fast (125mph) lines use 4 aspect signals.

Yes: and that just proves that the slow lines are not optimised for capacity. Slow lines with 100mph line speed  and 4 aspect optimised signalling would have higher capacity but would not be done with conventional signalling because of the probability of misreads.

15 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Secondly higher speeds come later because that will also need other non ECTS things addressing like eliminating level crossings and making sure the track / OLE is up to it.

Absolutely agree, but it was the only way I could think of getting extra capacity with existing block lengths.

15 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Thats the beauty of ECTS - it can be bought in bit by bit and as an overlay initially rather than requiring a 'big bang' approach - which is quite important when you factor in things like driver training* with lineside signals being removed later on.

Hence my comment about migration issues.

15 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The ECML is due to become the first UK ECTS installation which sees lineside signals eliminated, but even that will be a gradual process with sections being done one at a time - I had to pay a visit to Welwyn last week and noticed lots of 'CAB' signage appearing at what will presumably the boundary of one of the phases.

I thought that lineside signals have disappeared from the Cambrian?

15 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

* I am told that even on Thameslink because of the backlog of driver training that last year there were still occasional days when 70% of trains were being driven manually rather than using ECTS and its rare for every train on a particular day to be in ATO mode.

 

 

There is a delicious irony in this! Trains are driven manually because the drivers have not been taught how not to drive !!!

Reading back through the last pages it seems that the ETCS applications are being done as an overlay. I can understand why that is (cheaper and migration easier) but that eliminates one of the benefits of ETCS: improved capacity. (You can use shorter block sections where you have continuous ATP as some of the safety margins are not required and where you have slow lines next to fast you can optimise the block sections on the slow for that traffic rather than being constrained to use longer sections than necessary so that signals on adjacent lines are aligned).

Is the plan generally to retain existing blocks or will they be optimized? Or will higher speeds be allowed?

7 hours ago, PortlandStone said:

Metrovick Co--Bos also appeared on passenger trains. Either in pairs, or double heading a Black 5 4-6-0.

Or being rescued by a black 5 ...........

7 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

Apart from the UK it seems.

I think that is rather harsh. 

There is a world of difference between equipping self contained monorail systems or small national railways and complex conventional national systems with a variety of rolling stock, complex layouts and existing signalling systems.

I think that the UK approach has been rational. Try it first on a lightly used, relatively unimportant line (Cambrian) where problems are unlikely to affect the national network to any serious degree. More than 10 years experience. Success.

Then with that experience under your belt, feel confident enough to introduce it - together with an ATO add on -through the Thameslink core route where performance is critical. You still have the simplicity of a unified fleet but are now getting experience in a high risk operational environment. Success.

Then take a deep breath and integrate it with two other signalling systems on another line where performance is critical (Elizabeth line). Success.

Next up equip a conventional main line and a wide variety of rolling stock - electric, diesel and steam.

Seems reasonable to me.

21 hours ago, icn said:

Most likely it's simply the most cost effective and future proof option. There's probably a larger choice of suppliers for example. Presumably the other options are an expensive custom system, or the German legacy systems which will become unavailable at some point.

The other options would include standard metro signalling systems such as Siemens Trainguard or the CBTC systems produced by Alstom/Bombardier and Hitachi/Thalys. 

Metro systems are excluded from the interoperability directive, so there is no standard metro CBTC system. 

I suspect that the Wuppertal system is an ETCS level 2 system as it is unlikely that they need moving block. So likely both cost-effective and  future proof.

The photos of Hardwicke and Evening Star remind me that I was at Horsforth that day. Unfortunately from my vantage point the attempted photo was completely ruined by the dmu going in the opposite direction. I suspect that you have photographed the offending beast.

Reading the WCRC website, they are certainly playing the victim, unfairly singled out by the ORR.

Ho hum.

On 25/04/2024 at 21:22, Dave said:

I've now found there are quite a few on the LNWR Society site and here's a link to the folder https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p990703580 only problem is they have a logo on them which hides a good part of the detail and it would cost a lot to see them without.

If anyone knows what the backhead looks like I'd be eternally grateful !

Laurie Griffin provides a good diagram with his backhead sets.

The fact that Labour appears to be willing to continue leasing trains via ROSCOs may be an indication of some economic competence by Rachel Reeves.  Some posters here seem to believe that investors should be willing to accept low returns on their investment for the good of the industry, but why should they? Would you invest your savings in an account paying 1% pa when you could get 2% in an alternative account with the same risk? No sane person would. Similarly the backers of the ROSCOS - the big financial institutions - have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to protect their investment. If you cannot get the return on money by investing in rolling stock leasing it will be invested elsewhere. Only when there is too much money in the system would it make sense to take on a lower return.

Pension funds may be willing to take on lower returns for zero risk investments - such as railway infrastructure - where there is a guaranteed income stream for decades, but rolling stock leases are not guaranteed for the life of the rolling stock even if DfT does provide protection after the first lease expires.

Having listened to the Green Signals special edition I am rather more positive about the future, if things happen as planned.

I would imagine that everyone - of whatever political persuasion - must agree that the current situation of micro-management (or is it macro-mismanagement?) by DfT has to be done away with. If successful rail professionals are allowed more control, that has to be a good thing.

One disadvantage with the current structure is the duplication of posts that are essential in the structure of the operating companies but must yield savings when combined. Head of Safety, Chief Engineer, Head of Finance, Head of HR etc. If removal of some of these frees up money for front line posts that is good.

But I do see some difficulties especially if there are currently different conditions of service for staff doing similar jobs in different companies.

The ASLEF dispute needs to be settled. Drivers deserve to be rewarded well for their job, but they also need to realise that it is a 24/7 railway. It is clearly a nonsense when Sunday working is entirely voluntary. So get everyone round the table and work out what the industry can afford and how staff can benefit.

New rails are covered in mill scale, they are ground to provide a smooth surface.

Old rails can suffer from corrugations leading to the effect known as 'roaring rails'. As well as the noise, the higher wheel-rail forces generated damages bogie and track components.

Old rails can also suffer from rolling contact fatigue. Grinding removes the incipient cracks before they grow. If this isn't done you get a Hatfield disaster.

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I don’t think I’m being selfish to ask whether £10 per ticket is a reasonable price to pay for a tiny reduction in risk. 

No, you are not being selfish, but that misses the point.

Under UK Health and Safety Law, risks have to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable if they cannot be eliminated or made negligible. This is calculated using an economic figure for the Value of a Fatality Prevented. Currently for single fatality events this is about £2.4 million. (Sorry I don't have the current figure to hand and my search function is being slow). So if you think that there is a chance over the lifespan of the Mark 1 coaches used by WCRC that one life might be saved by fitting CDL, then WCRC needs to spend up to that amount. The court's assessment was that CDL fitment was reasonably practicable. Whether that results in a £1, £10 or £100 supplement to the fare to cover that cost is WCRC's business. Personally, given the experience with stewards and bolts, we know that that mitigation measure is not as effective as CDL.

Yes the risks are small. Fortunately we are at the stage now where the railway is inherently safer than it's ever been. Unfortunately that means that the cost of further risk reduction is high. However, if the risk is not ALARP then measures need to be taken to make it so. In the case of these relatively low probability risks, the ORR has been able to take a pragmatic view and allow generous timescales for the enactment of the fitment programmes. 

12 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Parents are also responsible for keeping their brutes under control & out of danger.

Tends to become more difficult once they reach teenage years and above.................

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

This thread seems to have come down firmly on the side of the ORR. To my mind we have a classic David v Goliath situation, with the ORR being an arrogant, overbearing, undemocratic beaureacracy which is completely out of touch with how ordinary people assess risks (for example look at the different attitudes to working on ladders at home and at work). WCRC have clearly made some mistakes but thank goodness that some organisations are prepared to put their neck on the line and stand up against unnecessary expenditure and state sponsored bullying. I for one, don’t want to travel in mark 2s or spend an extra £10 for a useless safety initiative.

 

I apologise if I’ve missed it in the 70 odd pages on here, but how many people have been injured in the 40 years of running steam on the West Highland?

 

Andy

There are many readers of the Daily Telegraph who agree with you.

If it was your child, killed while standing on a platform and hit by the uncontrolled opening of a hinged door, would you consider the £10 a useless safety initiative?

As they say with financial investments, history is no guarantee to future performance. Same with safety: we no longer think just about preventing what has happened in the past, but what is reasonably foreseeable. What ORR is doing is entirely in keeping with UK safety law.

Small wheels: 19" Goods I think.

On 09/04/2024 at 04:20, Crewe North said:

Thanks to the LNW tender interchange policy some POW's did run with Whale tenders....

 

John

And even Robinson ones.............

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I've fired off a letter to the Daily Telegraph to let them know some of what WCRC didn't say.  But I doubt they'll print it because surely they don't want WCRC's lovable steam trains shown up as not even bothering with their own safety mitigations!!

 

Good luck with that! I made the mistake on engaging with the online comments. Never received so many downvotes for any point I've made. I had the audacity to suggest that perhaps WCRC was not as innocent as they claimed and that preventing fatalities was a good idea. The top voted post suggested that Brighton beach should be off limits as people might walk into the sea and drown...........

I have just been reading the Telegraph article. The view of the Telegraph readers is that the nanny state is getting in the way and that WCRC should be allowed to get on with it.

29 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Whilst accepting the partisan nature of this thread, those showing support for posts reducing safety, is exactly what it is…a show support for reducing safety on a thread debating challenging of safety by another operator… which I find hypocritical.. surely safety is safety, not selective safety ?

 

 

Seat belts are useful in situations where the passengers can be subject to very high jerk rates and decelerations, such as motor cars colliding, or planes entering extreme turbulence.

These situations tend not to happen in railway crashes. I knew someone who was in the Clapham accident, fortunately at the rear of the train that crashed into the stationary train. He was unaware that they had been involved in a devastating crash that took the lives of many.

I am unaware of any railway that has thought it necessary to provide seat belts as a safety control measure.

24 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Were those researchers from the accountancy team by any chance ?

 

No, they were led by my erstwhile bridge partner, Sandy Scholes. A tremendously accomplished individual who was in charge of BR Research's vehicle structures department. He also represented BR/UK on the European committees responsible for developing crashworthiness standards: external and internal. He had a better understanding than anyone else of how to reduce risk to passengers in an accident. 

11 hours ago, arran said:

https://www.westcoasttoday.co.uk/news/jacobite-petition-builds-up-a-head-of-steam-as-business-owner-warns-of-devasting-effect-of-suspension

In this report WCRC is quoted as saying that the timing of the resumption of the Jacobite services is 'entirely out of our control'. 

Actually not: if WCRC bothered to make their stock compliant with the regulations, they could start to run again. The timing of the fitment is entirely under WCRC control.

However, if your business plan is to evade the regulations for as long as possible, then I agree.