david.hill64

A friend of mine who was depot manager at Tinsley always maintained that the difference between the UK ones and the Romanian ones was that the UK ones could, just about, pull the skin off a rice pudding.

It doesn't matter if nobody has to date been killed or injured by falling from a Jacobite or leaning out of the window. The whole basis of modern safety management systems is that they are no longer reactive to things that have happened, but seek to identify the things that reasonably could happen and ensure that measures are in place to eliminate or mitigate the risk. You summed this up nicely in the first three sentences quoted above.

Perhaps ORR are treating Lumo the same as WCRC: make a mistake and you get a second* chance. If Lumo has a repeat incident, then we will know. * actually for WCRC it may be more......

I should have said fall-back train detection, not signalling (of which train detection and signals form parts).* I agree that train integrity detection is a key issue for moving block railways, but it has been done on mixed traffic conventional railways. Bombardier installed an ETCS level 3 look alike system in Kazakhstan. I say look alike as it uses TETRA radio instead of GSMR. In theory ETCS level 2 could remove the need for axle counters if there was a safe method of train integrity assurance but nobody would do that as axle counters are cheap and assured. The Bangkok BTS uses a system based on ETCS level 2 (Eurobalises to transmit information and for location reference points) but with a different type of radio transmission system. It has no track circuits or axle counters on the main line, relying on self location reporting only, but it is fixed block. Movement authorities are not optimized but given only to where a block section marker would be if installed. (They are not). I have written, or reviewed, safety cases for a number of systems using moving block technology. All of them had a back up system of fixed block axle counters. Even with MRTs operating fixed consist EMUs, where train integrity is an integral part of the onboard ATP system, back up axle counters are used. The main reason is for recovery from severely degraded modes where a number of trains may have become non-communicating. Siemens has a nice solution in which their moving block Trainguard system can coexist with an ETCS level 2 solution and automatically fall back seamlessly to fixed block working. They proposed this for the Marmaray project but in the end a hybrid system was chosen with moving block signalling for the EMUs and ETCS level 2 for the freight. So I go back to my original statement. It is understandable that NR is moving to ETCS level 2. It's a low risk option and saves them the cost of funding and installing train integrity detection on those trains that don't already have it. Railtrack's vision, 30 years ago, was the right one, but they could not have foreseen that it would take 25 years to agree the specification for ETCS level 3. I haven't fully understood your comment 'And if you think that I do question your ability to make judgements in other areas.' *Edit. On reflection, having just mulled this over on a long walk, I agree that the standard ETCS level 2 solution for NR is probably the correct one. Nothing to do with the train integrity detection issue with ETCS level 3, for which SIL4 solutions are available, but just down to recovery from degraded modes. I still bemoan the fact that it takes so long to agree standards.

Very sensible of them! There seems to be a very wide range of trees being planted: HS2 lists oak, hazel, birch, holly, hawthorn, field maple, hornbeam, bird cherry, mountain ash, yew and spindle. The area covered will be more than double that of the removed woodland.

If the heritage sector were interested in this, they might consider looking into what stock is going for scrap and whether the bogies are suitable/available. New build bogies are very expensive.

I suspected that there would be a requirement for replanting, but HS2 gets little or no credit for the planting it is doing to replace trees lost along the route.

Actually figures from the Forestry Commission and confirmed by the SNP government. Equivalent to 1700 trees per day.

Elsewhere it was reported this week that in the last 20 years over 15 million trees have been felled in Scotland to make way for wind turbines. Where are the complaints from the environmentalists about this?

Some interesting thoughts here. I have just read Roger Ford's depressing Informed Sources preview. Annual interest on Network Rail's debt is now £2.5bn per year. The industry is now paying more than BR had in subsidy to pay for profligate spending. As others have posted, until that is under control then the future is not as good as it should be. To put that payment into perspective, annual fares revenue is about £10bn. Simplification of the organizational structure would be beneficial. Perhaps that is the intent of GB Rail, but nobody seems to make progress on implementation. There is potential overlap between the roles and responsibilities of ORR, RSSB and RAIB. Could these be amalgamated? ORR appears competent: its report on Hitachi train cracking is excellent. It has also moved reasonably quickly on moving away from EU standards where appropriate: electrification schemes now adhere to standards that are safe and appropriate for the UK structure gauge and ORR has recognized that designing rolling stock to be compatible with UK track would be a good idea. Roger Ford also reports that the new TPE coaches have yaw damper cracking problems. Probably worth a small wager that higher than expected loads are part of the problem. I am not convinced that widespread reopening of closed lines is possible or would be cheaper than new alignments. Before HS2 was chosen a lot of work was done to investigate upgrades of the existing lines, reopening of the GCR route and the conclusion was that HS2 would be cheaper. Of course scope creep has upped the costs as has the increase in construction costs. California High Speed Rail suffers the same issue and closer to home, my proposed house extension which was costed at £60-70k last year has been quoted at £170k by builders. No change in scope, just costs.

And as was discussed earlier, there is likely to be a degree of training necessary. At busy stations I agree that there are likely to be staff doing despatch duties, but I can see that for lesser used stations, having better skilled staff could be a way of justifying staff retention. I am surprised at how many people are reluctant to consider change.

Last time, I promise. I responded to a post in which someone said that there needed to be staff on hand in case the driver had a heart attack. I pointed out that there was no way in which you could always justify that from a safety point of view. People seem to think that you should spend any amount of money for safety. You cannot justify it. Ticket office staff behind a counter can only advise people and sell tickets. Staff on the concourse can advise people, sell tickets, observe the safety and security of passengers in that environment. Staff on the platforms can do all of those things and check the safe boarding and alighting of passengers. So long as they are still there.

So no DOO or single manned freight operations then? And, for the avoidance of doubt, on rural and intercity services I think that there needs to be suitably qualified staff available for situations where the driver is incapacitated.

Agree, but I think the issue is capacity. HS2 will help a lot but more needs to be done.

As the thread on Ticket office closures has morphed into a 'what sort of railway do I want' discussion, I thought it worthwhile to start a new thread for this discussion, so that views on the pros and cons of ticket closures could be aired without distractions. In an ideal world there would be ample funding for whatever lifestyle we want, but in the real world funds are limited so please keep that in mind. I think that demographic trends are actually working for rail travel. We have an aging population who still want to travel and are less likely to drive. At the other end of the generation gap, younger people are now less likely to drive than in previous years. Across the whole population environmental concerns are also higher in people's priorities than before. So I think that demand for rail travel (passenger and freight) is likely to increase. So how do we achieve this safely, reliably and economically? What are your views? How would you spend what money is available? It is clear that the current system is not ideal. I have little time for DfT, believing that they lack engineering competence to manage what is essentially an engineering system (the same criticism I have of the civil service in general). But there are signs that some intentions are right. The goal of an unified ticketing system for the non-open-access operations seems good. I already use a multi mode (conventional rail, metro, bus taxi and car parking) smart card in Taiwan. It works very well. In my world we would all use such a card, or phone app. Tap in, tap out on gates at commuter routes and by train manager smart card reader/issuer on rural or intercity routes. It would be nice if it were linked to bus fares. (In Taiwan the bus journeys are free if combined with an MRT journey). I would continue with DOO on commuter routes where trains are frequent and distances between stations relatively short, but I would have train managers on all other services. As well as revenue protection they would be trained for emergency operations. Having written, or assessed, safety cases for the operation of driverless trains I am convinced that we will never see this level of automation on the ex BR network (nor LUL for that matter). However, I do see more widespread use of ATO (as per Thameslink) when ETCS role out is more widespread. With smart control centres regulation of trains then becomes far easier to achieve. This will help alleviate capacity constraints. It is a pity, though understandable, that Network Rail has opted for ETCS level 2 with fall back signalling. Railtrack's vision of adopting ETCS level 3 (no track circuits, no axle counters, no lineside signals) is a better way for a safe reliable railway. Shame it has taken 30 years to agree the specifications. In my view electrification is a no-brainer for all except very lightly used routes. Now that we once again have our own safe standards there is no reason to delay.

I think there needs to be a thread about 'what sort of railway do we want?' so that this can return to ticket office closures.

You want all of these double manned with staff who have the necessary skills to relieve an incapacitated driver? If so, on what grounds? Remember, my original comment on this was in answer to a poster who suggested that staff needed to be 'on hand' in case the driver had a heart attack.

Freight drivers? DOO passenger?

Actually I agree. But it requires a different mindset from the unions. I would have train managers trained in basic train handling skills so that in case of need they would be able to move the train to a safe location. Ideally 'railmen' (of whatever sex) could be working as train managers or drivers on different shifts, but not all drivers will have the people management skills to be a competent train manager, and not all train managers will have the skills for drivers. So that utopia will never be reached even if ASLEF and RMT could give up their turf.

Are you seriously suggesting that we ought to double man every driving cab to mitigate the effect of a driver having a heart attack? And both men would need to have competence in first aid. You cannot eliminate all safety risks on a railway and there is no requirement anywhere (in the world to the best of my knowledge) to do so.

I wish my coach recognition skills were better: there is a fabulous collection of vehicles behind D278 in J1063.

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance: HMRC enables us to do it by giving us personal allowances and ISA's for example. Tax evasion on the other hand is a serious matter and I fully agree that it should be sorted. For international companies, they will choose to set up base in a country with a low tax rate: hence Ireland's success. But is it right that the Irish should be able to deprive other countries of tax revenue in this way? (Rhetorical question).

Congratulations on reaching 1000 pages. Yours has always been one of my favourite threads.

But the report you link to says that, for inequality as measured by the GINI coefficient, UK is average within the developed world. It is also clear that the country is losing many of the super wealthy individuals who pay most tax. Oil and gas companies like Shell are considering moving their tax base out of the UK because of taxation policies. A spot of levelling down runs the risk of being too successful, with no money available even for basic services. Funding for infrastructure projects will always be cheaper if done by government money but if that is not available then institutions with a long view, such as pension funds, may be the best option. Government money will only be available if we can grow the economy productively. Government debt is now about 100% of GDP and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that this will rise to 300% in 50 years, so not much hope for rail projects without a step shift in economic performance. The sad thing is that Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2 etc are key elements of that step shift but when competing for funding for NHS pay will likely lose out.

Trams are usually fitted with magnetic track brakes for emergency stops. The deceleration rate is non-linear (increases as speed drops) but overall is likely to be about 4m/s/s. A car can stop at about 10m/s/s.