Edwin_m

Even allowing for the long lens, those structures look nearly as ugly as the GW ones and considerably worse than those installed northwards from Bedford.  

Didn't seem too bad here, but I'm currently only a short distance from the railway at Bradford on Avon where reportedly multiple trees have come down.  

Do we know that the work by HS2 is actually delaying the completion of EWR?  If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter.  

At a guess, the bottom of the retaining wall is being secured to the earth behind it, as excavation near its foot would otherwise risk undermining it.  The tracks will descend immediately alongside this wall and ultimately tunnel beneath it.  Residents of houses just above tried to stop the project on grounds of subsidence risk.  

There is also some piling going on, but it's not possible to see exactly what this is for.   Another retaining wall is needed between the HS2 tracks and the WCML to form the other side of the ramp.  This will probably be done by building a wall of piles then excavating one side of it.  

Oops.  

Toto, we aren't in Warwickshire any more...

6 hours ago, NorthEndCab said:

£350m a year?

 

I’ll get you 250 guys with chainsaws for a bargain £349m a year and solve your problem. 

Not always that easy.  

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/near-miss-with-track-workers-and-collision-with-a-tree-on-the-line-at-uphill-junction

On four-track sections such as the ECML, colour light signals on the fast and slow lines are placed alongside each other to reduce the risk of drivers "reading across" to a signal intended for the other tracks.  This means that the same spacing has to be used for both, which may not be optimal for capacity.  By removing the signals, ETCS Level 2 also removes that constraint and this is a additional, fairly small, capacity benefit.  

In fact neither ERTMS Level nor the future Level 3 offers a huge capacity benefit, because on a real railway the achievable capacity depends on what happens at stations, and ERTMS doesn't make much difference to that.   

Traditionally wheelslide protection systems worked by comparing the speed of the wheels, and this is probably still quite effective because the front wheels tend to clean the rails to some extend for later ones, and also if the train suddenly hits a bad patch (such as oil spilled on the rail) the front will react before the rear reaches it.  Modern sanding systems also apply to the second bogie so the front one can be used to detect poor adhesion.  But I assume modern WSP systems would detect and react to a sudden non-feasible drop in speed on all the wheels they are comparing.  

19 minutes ago, anroar53 said:

You can find plenty of photos of mixing coaching stock on sites like Flickr 

BR Class 82 82005 with empty coaching stock passing Kensal… | Flickr

Sorry if the link doesn't appear to be working ?

On this site you can't just paste a link into the text.  Use the link button that appears when you compose a message.  

The original Mk2 series (also known as Mk2z) were built as vacuum braked.  Mk2a onwards had air brakes.  So these types could never run in the same train, except for the Mk2z converted to air braking for the Glasgow-Edinburgh service.  

Minimum radius on most modern tramways is 25m or around 1ft at 1:76.  Nottingham goes down to 18m or about 9" and I think there's a curve of about 14m radius in Berlin.  

I can't think of any layout such as you describe for Canning Town, but many overseas tramways do have termini on loops.  Sometimes they switch to left hand running via a diamond on the approach, to give cross-platform interchange with buses on the outside of the loop (these are trams with doors on the right only, so the easier option of left hand running for the buses won't work).  Scissors crossings exist on tramways, Wolverhampton St George's being a British example.  

5 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

How bizarre.  If NR had gone GW ATP -> TPWS -> ETCS (eventually) on the Heathrow branch it would have been so much easier initially (no need for 387s to have ETCS from the get go, 7 car 345s could go to Heathrow, de-risk Crossrail completion due to one less signalling system to get working initially etc etc).  But no they went GW ATP -> ECTS.  Yet on Moorgate they are going to the trouble and, importantly, cost of going Train Stops ->  TPWS -> ETCS eventually despite 717s having been successfully tested on ETCS.

 

And I thought regional variations of doing things went out with Sectorisation.  Good job NR isn't pressed for money and can afford to install TPWS which will be used for about 5 minutes.  Hey ho.

Two problems with the Heathrow branch.  Firstly the 332 units didn't have TPWS (as they were only ever operated on GW-ATP routes) and secondly it was deemed that GW-ATP could only be replaced by something with similar levels of safety.  

I don't know why they need an interim TPWS stage for Moorgate, but at least TPWS is designed to be interfaced into existing signalling with minimum disruption.  

There was a Low Adhesion Warning System under development in the former BR Research around 20 years ago.  

48 minutes ago, didcot said:

She had previously been a house cat, so isn't chipped yet. We will give it a while before doing that. 

Make sure she runs OK on DC first.  

15 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

What is a "framework to deliver"? Is it an actual lift?

 

Martin.

I think it's just a framework contract as suggested, and "to deliver" isn't part of its formal description.  Think of it with a comma between "framework" and "to".  

30 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

They will be despatched and received at a new facility at Toton. See:

 

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/business/cars-made-toyotas-burnaston-plant-5746867

 

Still can't see why the routeing from Toton would require a reversal at Bletchley!  

2 hours ago, uax6 said:

What about the Morecambe - Heysham branch? Wasn't that up at 25Kv as a test site?

It was originally 6.6kV at 25Hz and was converted to 50Hz but the voltage stayed the same.  

Pretty sure most or all Southern EMUs didn't get electrification flashes until the 1990s when some of them had a chance of running under 25kV near the Channel Tunnel.  Overhead DC electrification, whether at 750V in Southern goods yards or 1500V on the ex-LNER routes, is much less dangerous in proximity - unlike 25kV it won't arc for any significant distance so someone has to be virtually touching the wire to be at risk.  

3 minutes ago, Ken.W said:

Not usually a problem, as feathers are normally mounted directly above the signal, as in the photo in Rugd1022's reply, so it's clear to which side of the main aspect the feathers illuminated.

 

There are of course exceptions due to sighting or space restrictions, but these are comparatively rare, and again this was part of route knowledge and you'd take special care at such signals.

One such example as l recall, was King Edward Bridge Jn prior to the 1990 resignalling for electrification, where as they were mounted on the wall of a cutting the feather was to the right of the signal. There were, as l recall, no directly opposite feathers on this one though.

I've an idea there was a concern about both positions sloping bottom left to top right (or vice versa) and not obvious from a distance whether they were to the left of the aspect or to the right.  

Hitchin Down Slow was (and may still be) another one where the junction indicators were alongside the signal, as it had to fit under the platform canopy.  

IIRC the derailment at Foxhall Junction in the late 1960s led to a change in the practice for route indication.  The train was approaching the end of the relief line from Paddington and signalled over the crossovers to continue towards Swindon, with no indicator as this was the principal route.  But there was also a "straight ahead" route into the power station and it was thought the driver was misled by this to believe there was no need to reduce speed.  This was the one where railway author OS Nock was a passenger.  

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Didcot1967.pdf

1 hour ago, d winpenny said:

From what I have seen the knitting is still not up beyond the portals already up they appear to be upgrading a lot of the line side troughing but beyond that I can’t tell 

I read on another forum that signals are also being replaced.  Not sure if this is to make them AC immune, because of sighting issues when the OLE is added or both, but if the OLE supports appeared first probably the former.  Immunisation may well involve replacing the trackside cables so that might also explain the troughing work,  

6 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The 'in the middle' type of turnback tends to be favoured where there are intensive services, as on the London Underground, simply because it has fewer conflicting movements. The main line railways could generally find enough time between trains to get trains in and out of 'outside' reversing sidings, but there (inevitably) exceptions.

 

Conversely, on a main line railway there will often be non-stop trains passing through fairly fast so curves on the through tracks must be fairly gentle.  Splaying the lines out to provide a centre turnback therefore has to extend over a much greater length than the turnback itself at both ends, and may involve buying up quite a lot of extra land.  This becomes even more of a problem if a walkway is needed alongside the turnback for the driver to change ends.  A side turnback only needs land for its own length plus that of the points connecting it to the nearest through track.  

There is a centre turnback on the Slow lines north of St Albans City.  

Harrow & Wealdstone has two.  They are only used by Underground trains but they are Network Rail infrastructure.  

1 hour ago, Bomag said:

 

The one I have seen in Manchester are correct in that the restriction in the opposite direction was not the same as the primary 'tram only'. The abuse of the the no entry sign is often advocated by those who are not competent highway engineers, the problem being that the no entry sign has ben placed in so many incorrect locations is a terrible human factors problem. 

 

So a section of single carriageway where the primary direction is tram only but the other direction is a highway (or road) open to all, or some traffic, then the no entry sign with plate is correct.

 

For a section of tramway where there is no traffic permitted in either direction then Diagram 953.1 must be used. DfT have neither authorised, nor prescribed, the use of the former signs (no entry) for this situation. It would be Ultra Viries to do so. The fact that the authorisation for Manchester require a TRO would indicate that they  all fall into the above category.  Therefore the statement that Dia 953.1 is the same as Diagram 616 + plate is not correct. You have to use the correct sign; Dia 616 is not a RTA Section 36 sign while Dia 953.1 is, therefore a section of tram only infrastructure, which is not a road, can be entered without it being a road traffic offence if signed with Dia 616+plate.

 

In terms of level crossings, the current consultation by ORR would indicate that they still do not properly get traffic signs, nor highway engineering. As far as I am aware the highways side of ORR was not in the loop before they went out to consultation.  Having sat on the Law Soc review the best part of decade ago you would have thought ORR would have read up on the issues to resolve.  

Not sure I understand this fully - the detailed stuff was dealt with by colleagues who are highway engineers, presumably competent ones, and not by me.  

However, after delving into the Manual, I think you are re-stating the point about the No Entry sign not being legally enforceable, something I noted several posts back. But the current Manual states:

Quote

Where an integrated on‑street tramway leaves the general traffic route to enter a tram gate, a segregated on‑street tramway (or tram‑only road) or an off‑street tramway, upright signs to either diagram 616 (“no entry”) with an “Except trams” plate (...) or diagram 953.1 (...) are provided... The “no entry” sign is most likely to be appropriate where drivers might be tempted to or accidentally follow a tramway that becomes off‑street, resulting in vehicles becoming stranded on the tram tracks

To me that's strongly steering people towards using the No Entry.  

The people involved were much more interested in getting the message over to drivers that they shouldn't go down the tramway than in prosecuting them if they did, having often having to suspend the service for some time while a vehicle was dragged off a ballasted track section.  I've an idea they used both signs in the end, along with various other visual deterrents, so the No Entry actually conveyed the message and the Tram Only (953.1) allowed them to cite an offence. 

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

If a particular variant of a sign is to be used widely (and the example of 'no entry except trams' is a good example) it needs to be made a proscribed variant in the TRSGD.  This did in fact happen in the most recent revision to the TRSGD even though it technically wasn't required as the 'tram only' blue sign had the same legal standing and 'no entry except trams' was only needed because the think British public seemingly don't understand the meaning of the former.

At the risk of going off-topic...

Blue "tram only" is a terrible bit of design from a human factors point of view.  Agreed blue is the standard colour for mandatory instructions, but for everyone except tram drivers (who have no choice on where to go) the sign at the divergence of tram tracks from a road needs to be a prohibition on everyone else.  It's easily confusable with the tramway signs provided for pedestrians, which tend to be put up all around these junctions and are also blue with a picture of a tram, and with the exception of "one way" and a few others most blue signs are irrelevant to vehicle drivers unless on motorways.  No Entry "Except Buses" has been acceptable for many years.  

All the experienced tram operators advising the design team were agreed that No Entry "Except Trams" would be a far more effective deterrent against the frequent incursions of road vehicles onto tram-only sections.  Many other tram operators at the time (about 10 years ago now) erected the same signs a few inches into the tram-only section so they didn't count as being on the highway.  So you might think this was an open and shut case, but the permission we got took some time and was only for Metrolink - I'm glad to hear it's since been made universal.  

The meaning of these narrow wig-wags is self-evident to anyone with knowledge of the standard type - they aren't going to be ignored just because they don't conform to the standard dimensions.  The vertical ones are possibly more problematic because they look like a normal traffic signal that has gone out.  This may explain why at least one vertical one has changed to a narrow horizontal one, as noted in an earlier post.  On a quick check all illustrations of these lights in the online Highway Code show them horizontally.