phil-b259

31 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

The ECML OH specification may have been cheap and nasty (I don't know enough to really say) but it was delivered efficiently.

 

Given the increasingly severe weather the UK is experiencing as a result of climate change, 'cheap and nasty' simply doesn't cut it anymore, however efficiently you deliver it.

3 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

Took my Bachmann Midland Pullman along to The Locoshed this afternoon in order to test run it (it is chipped, and I don’t have DCC - yet!) 

 

 

As supplied from Bachmann the DCC decoders fitted to the model (one in each driving car) are configured so that you can operate the train from a bog standard 12V DC controller.

In other words the train will work quite happily on both systems so there are no issues if you only have a traditional DC powered layout.

11 hours ago, Grovenor said:

So, you quote half my post, contradict me with "No its not" then continue in some detail to explain why I'm correct if you read all my post. A pity we don't have a signalling plan of the area and which points were run through.

If we are agreeing why did you start by saying TORR is hazardous?

Its not a hazardous concept in itself and it’s entirely reasonable for the interlocking designers to assume that train drivers will do what they are supposed to do - namely fully complete any signalled move in it entirety.

Just now, Michael Hodgson said:

As for whether the Preston incident needs investigation, I suppose the authorities could be tempted to take the view that there's not a lot of point investigating the management of a company whose licence they've already suspended because of management failings. .

Point of order - the ORR have not suspended the entire WCR operation - all they have done at present is ban WCR from using coaching stock which hasn’t got central door locking fitted.

 The ORR would probably only get involved if  it could bd shown that WCRs procedures and processes are faulty because at the end of the day even the best trained person can make a mistake - and that in itself is not particularly noteworthy.

The questions that will be asked is effectively is the incident at Preston a ‘one off’ or does it point to wider and more systemic failings within the company as a whole.

32 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Sectional route release, TORR or not is a hazard in any area where shunt moves occur

No it’s not - because all routes are not the same as far as the interlocking is concerned!

It should NEVER be the case that trains only traverses ‘half’ a set route then reverse direction mid way through the route! 

This is why at busy locations shunt class routes are provided which do not extend as far as the routes covered by main aspect signals.

Trains still MUST adhere to the ‘must traverse the entire route’ principle but because the shunt routes are shorter than those associated with main signal aspects the reversing can take place closer to the starting position than would be the situation with a main class route.

Shunt routes can of course be set one after the other - what may look like a single route in terms of a given train movement may actually be 2 or 3 routes bolted end to end as far as the interlocking and signaller are concerned.

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

That sounds like very odd locking if a signal section is still occupied and points within it can be reset to conflict with the movement that is in that section.

 

It’s not odd as you put it - the whole point of TORR (or sectional route release if the releasing is done by the signaller manually cancelling the route behind the train) is that the interlocking only releases the route when it believes the train has occupied and cleared a particular track circuit and it is therefore available to be used by other movements.

If follows there can never be any conflict - if there was then the route would remain set until danger was no longer present.

Moreover there has never been any restriction on signalmen moving points once they have verified a train has passed the points in question, particularly in areas of intensive services.

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

But yet the points where changed… despite the loco being on the wrong side of the signal, and I would presume still in an occupied section behind that signal as a result.

 

how does that happen ?

what would have happened if it didnt move and the other train crossed over it ?..

 

I am puzzled at this ?

Given the nature of the layout at somewhere like Preston a route from signal ‘A’ to signal ‘D’ will pass through a lot of different track circuits.

Each track circuit will have a route locking relay and when a route is set all these route locking relays will lock all points and prevent conflicting routes etc.

However if we wait until the train has fully completed its route before we release these route locking relays you tie up the layout for quite a while - and on a busy area this is undesirable as it constrains train throughput.

So what most modern signalling installations (particularly those covering complicated / large layouts) will have is something called ‘Train Opperated Route Releasing’ - know as TORR for short.

With TORR, the interlocking does not have to wait until a movement is fully completed before it can release those route locking relays. Instead the interlocking looks for the sequential occupation and clearing of track circuits to effectively monitor the train as it moves through the route. Assuming the track circuits operate and clear in the correct manor then they will trigger the release of the route locking relays behind the train.
 

This means that the train can still be passing through the last few track circuits / points at the end of its route but the track circuits at the start of its route are clear and free of route locking so the points under them may be swung and new routes set across them.

18 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'm sorry Phil but I'm not with you on this.  If the loco hadn't reached the protecting signal how did it manage to run through some points because surely the signal in rear woiuld have been at danger if there were points in advance of it not correctly set?   

Train Opperated Route Release, if fitted, will release a route in sections behind a movement. Thus it’s entirely possible to set a second opposing route as it were which uses those same points thus speeding up train throughput.
 

As such I can well imagine a situation where the section of route through pointwork has released behind the incident loco  (allowing points to be swung and routes set over them) even if the loco hasn’t fully completed its signalled move from one signal to another.

Without knowledge of the actual layout or the control tables for the interlocking, nor any actual replay of what the interlocking saw it is rather difficult to rule anything out though - and I suspect the incident won’t be seen as one the RAIB will need to get involved in so we are unlikely to get the complete story.

All that has come out is (1) the loco didn’t go far enough along the route and failed to stop behind the signal they should have done plus (2) Upon changing ends the driver saw a signal showing a proceed and assumed it applied to his line rather than an adjacent one. The driver then set of and ran through a set of points which were not set correctly due to the signaller not having set a route for that movement.

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

.

Staff shortages are cited for this.

 

To be fair if you are told you are going to be made redundant then I wouldn’t want to hang around and simply trust my luck on the labour market once Hattons had finished with me and would be looking for a new job as soon as Hatton said it was closing.

As such I can well believe that more than a few staff will have already gone and the capacity of the business to process orders is much reduced.

13 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

What other locos have shown the same?

 

It sounds like a circuit component heating up, cutting out, cooling down and repeating itself.

I seem to recall Hornby have had issues with a number of their motors rapidly deteriorating (overheating, going slower, less torque etc) including the H and B12 classes.

Owners have reported changing the motors cures the issues so it’s quite possible the same is repeating itself here. 

3 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Who made that decision, and why? 

 

If the decision was after the run through then it would most likely have been because a new driver was required, plus the loco would have needed checking / replacing and then there is the whole matter of actually finding a time slot to extricate the train from where it was sat with the available infrastructure much reduced as a result of the run thru damage.

52 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Isn't this an admission that not enough people want first-class travel to Cornwall to make the service economic?

But there is most likely enough people from Devon.

Short of having train interiors which reconfigure themselves on route or adopting a London suburban attitude to 1st class (I.e. where it’s no different to standard) then you will end up carrying surplus first class accommodation into Cornwall anyway.

19 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

(I put Avanti as I understand operators are supposed to help each other, but theres was canceled).

 

Yes and no…

There have been instances where after an incident on the ECML ticket acceptance on EMR say has been declined because EMR routes were undergoing engineering work and were already running with significantly reduced capacity.

3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I get all of the above.

 

But the statement implies the passengers are to blame, or at least be penalised.

 

They are the victims.

This doesnt just apply to saturdays events, anytime any event flops the system, passengers are made into victims, and increasingly are being held against their will, in insanitary conditions for several hours…

 

They are often then victimised a second time when they take matters into their own hands…

 

 

WRC passengers are not to ‘blame’ for the incident - but the basic truth is the only reason they were able to afford tickets* in the first place is that NR agreed to absorb any delay minutes that WCR caused.

Given the chaos the damage to the points caused the compensation NR would have had to pay out to other TOCs would have been huge!

* If charter train companies had to insure themselves against the huge potential costs of delay minutes then there is no way they would be able to afford to stay in business.

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

On a different tangent, would that be a SPAD then  ?

Surely the loco cannot run through points set against, with a signal set for that direction ?

 

Correct.

Though things are confusing it’s not a SPAD as such because the loco involved didn’t actual go far enough to be behind a signal which applied tho their line in the first place!

It seems like the loco stopped short and after the driver changed ends they went and took a signal which actually applied to a different line as ‘theirs’ and seeing it was at a proceed moved off back towards the station.

This short of thing (if true) demonstrates why drivers NEED up to date and accurate route knowledge…..

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

a lot of wcrc’s passengers are elderly in years and as such a day out that becomes a 24 hour coach trip could actually pose a health risk to some.. not just stress, missed medications etc.

 

it’s unreasonable to expect a passenger for a day out to pack an overnight bag. Granted last night was unfortunate and the 2000 Preston- Euston wasn’t cancelled for other reasons making it more difficult. 

 

 

We’ll if WRCs loco hadn’t effectively SPADed a signal and run through some points there wouldn’t have been any issue in the first place.

With only a single platform available at Preston station thanks to the damage it’s perhaps inevitable that the Charter ended up at the bottom of the pile….

44 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I am not sure that 140mph running will happen any time soon.

All trains needing to use the line will need to be compliant. Some sections are only 2 tracks. Others are 4 but you cannot just ban non-compliant stock from the fast lines because there may be an issue of some kind on the slow: points or signal failure, land slip, failed train, engineering works. All trains would then need to use the fast lines.

For a number of years now Network Rail have a programme running to make sure an ECTS in cab system is available for every train cab design which will use the ECML. The theory is that because its an infrastructure change train owners shouldn’t bare the cost of developing a solution - but once the solution is proven the train owners will then have to pay to roll it out to the rest of their fleet.

This is important as when ECTS is deployed on the ECML ALL lineside signals on ALL LINES and sidings will be REMOVED!

Therefore if a traction unit doesn’t have ECTS it will be banned from working over the sections of the ECML so fitted.

Once lineside signals are taken out of the equation the only limitations to 140mph become the track maintenance standard and the railway alignment….

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

It is signalled for 140mph north of Peterborough with a fifth aspect - flashing green, but 140mph running has not been implemented.

Trials done during the last few years of British Rail conclusively proved that it was NOT SAFE to use lineside signals at speeds grater than 125mph - drivers simply didn't see them for long enough.

As such even though Grantham - Peterborough (NOT the whole ECML north of Peterborough) has flashing green aspects these are treated as bog standard green aspects by drivers who must NEVER exceed 125mph.

The flashing greens have not been removed simply because its not worth spending the money amending the huge quantities of drawings + paying for the lineside alterations to return it to a standard 4 aspect installation.

Only once ECTS and in cab signalling goes live will anything above 125mph be permitted.

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Surely you need some sort of override to deal with failures.  Over the years I've sen a few tube trains running empty with a door stuck open and a LT railwayman standing on board, presumably to make sure nobody boards it en route.

Obviously you have overrides - if you tripped enough MCBs you could run a Electrostar unit along at line speed with all its doors wide open...

But the point is that by making it necessary to go and isolate things in the event of a failure (which in turn will require compensatory measures like physically securing the door so it cannot be opened) you protect yourself against not noticing failures in the first place.

17 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

CDL was a design to lock coach doors whilst in motion using air and electricity.  I don't think it was interlocked with brakes, and was controlled by the guard.

 

Door interlock or traction interlock was built into newer designs of trains      

Anything built now regardless of whether its a multiple unit or a loco haulled coach will be expected to have the door locking interlocked with the brakes so a door which is not proved to be locked will prevent the train moving off.

Doing it this way will prevent human error (as in the Guard not observing the locking system has a problem and the right away being given with doors unsecured which is a possibility if you don't link the door system to the brakes (or traction system).

Not sure if the BR system fitted to the M2 / M3 fleet had any interlocking though - given money was tight and it was basically a 'do minimum' solution (as opposed to rebuilding the coaches with powered doors say) then it may not have done.

Whether the ORR would be happy with that today is another matter of course.

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Definitely wcrc got thrown to the bottom of the pile when it came to turning around services… I wonder if this is how it will be going forwards ?

 

You forget that in exchange for NR absorbing the costs of delay minutes for charter trains charter train operators, said operators have to accept that they are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to getting things moving during disruption.

From what I can see it also appears that a set of points may have been run through while set in the wrong direction (thus making them unusable by any train in any direction for the rest of the day) during a shunt manoeuvre by a loco off the charter set (loco stopped in the wrong place then after changing ends the driver took a signal which had been cleared for another train on another line) which caused chaos to all other operators services through Preston for the rest of the day..

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Some dogs are not exactly small. Huskies and the like seem very popular these days. Much the same effect as hitting a sheep I would think.

Jonathan 

From a railway perspective the 'large' or 'small' animal differentiation is more to do with their bone structure than animal size / species!

Thats because big, tough bones which don't shatter on impact are a derailment risk!

A large cattle bone was the cause of the Polmont accident in the late 1980s as it didnt disintegrate when hit and instead ended up forcing the leading bogie off the rails.

By contrast the biology of sheep means they don't have body parts which produce a derailment risk and I would imagine a dog, however large, falls into that category.

40 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

That looks very dodgy... could easily imagine someone under that bridge, blocking the road, no room to get by and the barriers drop...

Hence the road signs telling drivers that vehicles travelling away from the crossing have priority over those coming the other way under the narrow bridge and the level crossing itself being of the full barriered 'controlled' type using CCTV.

In short it is perfectly safe and not in any way 'dodgy'

On 11/11/2023 at 11:17, Ian Morgan said:

Having a road go under a rail bridge and then across a level crossing never looks convincing on a layout.

 

 

Not confined to the USA....

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4025478,-0.2652875,3a,75y,171.01h,73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIu2sTOeZnuTaaIBU0Xt6Sg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DIu2sTOeZnuTaaIBU0Xt6Sg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D61.66148%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

My point being that these crossings have "grandfather rights"; a new route, even with the fastest trains at the lower of the two figures, would not be allowed level crossings.  Increase the maximum running speeds on either WCML or ECML and the crossings would need to be closed - I think?  

 

As a hypothetical example, if the Grimsby - Louth - Boston route was re-opened - with something like thirty crossings on the closed section - what would be the maximum line speed permitted?  I would guess at something like 50mph.

If the ECML went to 140mph running then I believe it would need all level crossings closed.

However I think this is more because of the increased level crossing downtimes* than an issue with the crossing itself because with a controlled full barrier setup in theory there are no derailment / collision risks** to any train whether it is going at 4mph or 140mph!

There may also be concerns over pedestrians getting fed up with waiting and vaulting over the barriers in some cases.

* Remembering that the crossings would need to be lowered even earlier than is now the case for 125mph running because trains would need to be given a 'green' signal (even if said signal is shown on an in cab display) at least 5 signal sections away compared to the current 4 and the effect that would have on local communities on either side of the crossings / traffic congestion / the ability for the signaller to lower the barriers (if people 'know' they are going to get 'trapped' by the barrier for ages they are less likely to stop when the red lights show and try and beat the barriers as they lower).

** Granted if someone was desperate enough, like criminals seeking to evade perusing police then there is always the risk of them smashing through the barriers in a bid to shake off the cops and that is obviously something that no level crossing can prevent happening.

Turning to a hypothetical reopened Grimsby - Louth - Boston route, there would be no issue with level crossings as the ORR have made it crystal clear that new / reopened railways MUST NOT INCLUDE ANY LEVEL CROSSINGS WHATSOEVER! If that condition was absolutely impossible to implement for any reason then the only acceptable crossing would be of the controlled full barrier type - which does not come with any speed restrictions as far as railway traffic is concerned.