phil-b259

More trouble for Redhill travellers today. A carelessly discarded tin can has shorted the conductor rail to one of the running rails on the slow lines at Gatwick causing quite a lot of damage to a couple of sets of points. My colleagues have got a busy day ahead of them as a result.

That fence / wall is as close to the track as it can be (i.e. no places of safety for staff) and its extension further round the corner forces the line curving round to Reigate to be added to the list of "Red Zone Bared" areas where work cannot be undertaken without line blockages. Not very helpful given:- (i) the intensive service at Redhill effectively preventing daytime blockages, (ii) the exsisting signalling layout and the blocking options available, and most importantly (iii) the 'Platform Zero project' have already grabbed pretty much every single possestion opportunity that exists! Why do I get the feeling the needs of maintenance have been ignored yet again? Incidentally there is a rumour going round that a cash shortage in NR might actually force the commissioning of Platform zero to be postponed with just the flats / supermarket / platform structure completed - with the difficult bits affecting the actually railway to follow at a later unspecified date.

As far as I am aware there are no trains in the world that pass 25KV between two self contained units - designing auto couplers capable of handling 25KV (with its flashover potential and insulation requirements) is simply too difficult, particularly as in most countries the OHLE is properly engineered to cope with multiple pantographs up at once. Its the UKs adoption of cheap and lightweight OHLE equipment that constrains things - which is why the GWML (and other NR electrification schemes) have gone for more robust equipment which allows two 5 car IEPS travelling at 140mph to both have their pantographs raised. Within units its a different story. As I have highlighted before the French way back in 1980 were quite happy to have a 25KV powerline running along the roof of the passenger coaches to connect both power cars allowing a single power car to be used. In the UK the H&SE (or whoever they were back in then) vetoed the idea - forcing the APT-E to put its two power cars in the centre of the train and duplicate prevent passenger access from one half of the train to the other. The first UK train to feature a 25KV power line throughout the unit being the Pendalino.

Spot on (at least as regards to what has been used from the early 80s in Sussex). Most UTX chambers are basically very similar to those you get n the road or the pavement for the utility companies to access their cables. The thing is surface routed cable (across the track) is very susceptible to damage and, more importantly has to be disconnected and and moved out the way if complex p-way work is undertaken. As such having multicore signal cables (up to 48 cores in the largest cable) requiring disconnection affecting multiple pieces of kit (many of which may not be affected by the work in the case of quad track lines) is not a viable long term solution. Such cables will therefore be run in UTX and troughing routes with only the 'tail cables' running out to individual equipment being run on the surface and going through orange / yellow pipe or clipped to the sleepers (depending on date of install). It should be noted that while theoretically possible BR / Railtrack / NR does not generally use signal gantries or bridges to swap the main cable route from side to side. This compares with the situation on London Underground where their approach has historically been to use elevated cable hangers and special cable bridges as opposed to UTXs (thus avoiding the issues of them filling with water / mud or collapsing) when it comes to swapping what might best be called 'system' (as opposed to individual equipment) cables from one side of the formation to the other.

Or to be more precise, the cost of a DDA compliment footbridge sent the BCR into very negative territory so it was a case of the current setup or no loop at all!

It depends on the era. At places where space was tight (Borough Market area outside London Bridge or Holborn Viaduct space restrictions required drivers pull up tight to the signal to avoid obstructing other routes. Equally there are plenty of photos of locos standing at Waterloo, beyond the signals due to the length of the train but crucially still within the track circuit running along the platform (and thus not locking up the station throat). Nowadays however the emphasis is very much on making sure signals are visible from the drivers cab wherever they stop as part of SPAD mitigation measures and drivers are expected to hang back from the signal if necessary. Of course a great deal depends on the location of the signal itself. If it is mounted on the left hand side of the track at drivers eye level then the driver may be able to get closer than a gantry mounted one for example. Other options may include having co acting signal heads, approach control at the signal in rear or simply preventing trains from approaching the signal when it is at red (not a lot of use at platforms where trains terminate of course) As I said in an earlier post - as this layout is designed with more of an eye to play than slavishly following the prototype I would suggest you don't get too hung up about such matters. As long as the signal placement and types look plausible then I wouldn't say the stopping point of trains is that important in the grand scheme of things.

Ignoring short term factors, I would say the H tank is more likely to emerge from Bachmann than Hornby. If you ignore the lead time issues Bachmann already have suitable stock (the birdcage)s in the pipeline plus they sell the C and E4 classes with which the H tanks regularly worked with, which makes the H an attractive proposition for them. Hornby by contrast have gone down the western section with their SR releases - the M7, 700 and the rebuilt ex LSWR compartment stock for example. The big issue with them is their finances and whether they feel like making an entry into a part of the SR that they have tended to ignore henceforth is worth it. On the real Southern Railway the Brighton main line was very much a dividing line between the two spheres. M7s were hardly ever seen east of it - where the H tanks held sway on Pull Push work with birdcage stock, while to the west of the BML it was all M7s and ex LSWR stuff. Ex LSBCR locos tended to mingle with both SECR OR ex LSWR stock depending in whether their duties took them east or west of the BML, however given their coaching stock was mostly air braked it tended to be scraped upon electrification rather than cascaded as was the case for ex SECR & LSWR stock (both vacuum braked)

Indeed it did - the worker concerned was bending over to look at something in the 4ft while wearing only a high vis top and blue jeans (on the Cambrian line through mid Wales). As he bent over the orange top disappeared from view so an approaching train driver almost failed to spot the person until it was too late. Before I saw the briefing materials I was of the opinion that "all orange" was more about cooperate identity (NR having recently taken infrastructure maintenance and staff like me back in house not long before the time the incident in Wales occurred) than anything else. After said briefing however, and a particularly effective video presentation my mindset had changed completely - and that change had everything to do with the fact that the activity featured (bending down to look at stuff in the 4ft) is one we undertake very frequently while on the line and how an 'all orange' PPE policy could be shown to make a very real difference in terms of drivers being able to spot us. I have yet to receive a similarly effective explanation that justifies the policy of mandatory hard hat wearing, or to a lesser extent safety glasses at all times. However to go back on topic, we recently were shown a video montage of how work (and indeed fashions) have changed through the ages. Its interesting to consider how things have evolved and if I can find it I will add a suitable link as it could bring back a few memories for some ex BR staff.

(1) Possibly, however given you have said this is a layout built for fun (particularly youngsters) - i.e. you have gone for lots of bi-directional working, lack trap points etc then I don't see it as an issue as such. (2) Feathers and the Theatre indicator seem Ok, but I would think again about the 2 aspect signals at the station as that is very unrealistic and stands out. The real thing avoids mixing 2 and three aspect signals as you must never have a green leading on to a red situation* (mixed 3 and 4 aspect signals are far more common) (3) It depends. If the main aspect is used to signal into the yard then yes a feather is acceptable, but unless the yard is particularly large (and yours is not) it would be most likely to be done using a subsidiary signal (two white lights at 45 degrees below the main head) and a small 'stencil' route indicator. (4) Again the real railway used both main aspects or shunt signals depending on era, regional preference, yard size, etc. As such main aspect signal leading out of the yards (a signal allowing exit from the top yard is missing by the way) is certainly not wrong. * Yes I know that in certain situations this used to be acceptable, but it wasn't the norm.

Well, lets just say many of my now retired collogues had some very interesting stories to tell on that score.......

'Abiding by' does not mean the same thing as 'agree with' in any dictionary I know of.' do I have already said I abide by the rules in spite of my own views because because:- (1) I have to (not because I want to - which is how it should be with H&S rules*) (2) I do actually enjoy my job. *Give me the risk assessments that show I am at serious risk of having a head impact while out patrolling and I might change my mind.

Don't be ridiculous. If I set off down the track and I don't know where the hazards likely to need a hard hat are, or have not considered the tasks I will be doing and the PPE necessary to complete them, then I am clearly not acting in a responsible manor and shouldn't be on track in the first place. Fact :- NR have invested lots of money training me up and now trust me day in day out to ensure vital signalling equipment is safe (to put that comment into perspective, if I get things wrong I could very easily cause a Clapham Junction style crash) - but the very same company won't train / trust trust me (or any of their staff) to make a pretty straightforward risk assessment over whether I am likely to bash my head and thus need head protection. If a hard hat* is not necessary for the entire time (as defined by a proper analysis of the risks) then I could carry it in my hand, attach it to my backpack, or yes put it on my head - but if I wanted to but take it off when stopping to undertake tasks that do not require it I could do so. They key point being that I would not be forced to wear it - it would be worn when necessary as determined by a proper risk assessment. *In any case, many of the tasks I am involved in would only require a 'bump cap' rather than a full helmet. What about you? do you constantly carry around an umbrella with you whenever you go out doors? if you adopted your thinking then it would be necessary to carry one with you at all times "just in case" you encountered a rain shower - even if you had checked the weather forecast. in fact I could take it further and suggest you should have it open at all times - it could prevent you from being hit by bird poo (just as a hard hat might) or conkers falling from trees in the autumn. A responsible H&S policy is not one where management say "everybody must to this" rather it is where front line staff are given the training, PPE and the ability to make decisions for themselves based on the work they will be doing - not be forced to comply with requirements that are designed around other departments or which are either an inability to undertake proper risk assessments or which are basically cooperate arse covering.

I can get as 'sniffy' about the law as I want to thank you. Just because something happens to be the law doesn't make the law 'right'. Yes I have an obligation to obey such laws, and grudgingly do so because I have no choice - but don't expect me to pretend I agree with them.... In any case, if you actually bothered to examine the photo clearly you would note that the signal gantry handrails of such a structure etc are not designed to withstand the weight of somebody dangling from a safety harness like a conker - thus the decision not to use a safety harness is acceptable on this occasion. Its exactly the same when you use a stepladder, safety harnesses are not required use to the lack of something suitable to hook onto. I happen to believe that if you want people to respect H&S rules then the rules require clear justification. For example, when working in a confined space where you may bash your head a hard hat is a perfectly reasonable H&S measure. Walking along the cess on a nice sunny day doing some paroling does manifestly does not expose me to anything like the same sort of risk and the inability of NR to actually recognise that and demanding blanket hard hat wearing in all situations simply brings the whole policy into disrepute as far as I am concerned. On the other hand I have no issues with the requirement to wear safety boots or 'all orange' when trackside because sufficient justification has been made for the move and many of the risks said PPE addresses are present at all times - which is not the case with regard to hard hats, safety glasses or safety harnesses.

The thing is a full buffet vehicle is rather wastefull in seating terms. ScotRail will not be serving full meals so they don't need to cart a full kitchen around with them - a counter, espresso machine, a water boiler, sink and a microwave / grill thing to to toasted sandwiches is probably all that is required - which can easily be fitted into a couple of seating bays like Cross country did with their Mk2s

Close..... right failure mode, wrong aspect

Spot the problem with the signal on the right* Out attending a fault on the mainline between the two sides of the Siemens depot at Three Bridges in the early hours of Wednesday morning. *(OK so it doesn't have any people in shot - not everyone wants to be famous )

My view from the box last Sunday as Bluebell Railway S&T staff attend to a dodgy signal wire wheel on a gantry at Horsted Keynes. (And - NR H&S managers take note, all done without hard hats, safety glasses or climbing harnesses, with no ill effects - the staff being quite capable of / being trusted to evaluate the risks themselves as opposed to some office bod mandating every single bit of H&S kit they can find in the stores catalogue for every job).

I actually say that having the rounded on them - even if it is not authentic makes the coaches look far more atractive. Every other 'mainline' BR livery features contrasting colours or lining to break up the slab of base colour. But back to 73s....

But thats the problem. If the BBC are to continue to have success with selling the show overseas (it was a very high earner for the BBC) then the emphasis has to be one of "the presenters may have changed but the show hasn't". Going round emphasising the new top gear will be different from its predecessor in TV buying circles is more likely to put people off buying it than getting them signing up for another series (Broadcasters generally only buy 'imports' if they think they have a proven record of attracting viewers).

Not so - given the publicity over the 'incident' at the hotel. However you dress it up you cannot ignore the fact that JC assaulted a fellow BBC employee. Most people understand workplace violence is not tolerated in other organisations - so why should the Beeb be any different? Ironically had the Beeb not purchased Top Gear off Clarkson and co several years ago (i.e. been in the same position they are by buying in HIGNFY from an independent production company) then neither JC nor the person he punched would have been Beeb employees and the Beeb could have tried to fudge it by saying that it was somebody else's problem to sort out.

Which does beg the question of how they prevented tampering with the guards controls or any luggage carried in the brake van by passengers.

Maunsell era stock didn't have any form of partition in the guards / luggage area so the end gangway could only really have been for staff use - as passengers would have easily been able to tamper with the handbrake or goods being carried in the luggage area. Bulleid designs by contrast and the later Mk1 stock had the luggage area - and more importantly the guards brake valve + handbrake wheel - behind a lockable partition / door thus allowing passengers to be able to pass by and through the end gangway to the rest if the train. I am not sure what other companies did but it would be interesting to know if there was a similar split between say Collet and Hawksworth designs or Greasley and Thompson designed brake vehicles

Hmm, so not as bad as it initially appears then - mind you even if the amount of permanent demolition is small, its still not exactly a cheap scheme and I cannot see anyone rushing to take on the challenge when there are more pressing matters to address.

I'm not so sure that your scepticism is justified. The GWML at present has very poor connectivity to radial rail services - namely the North London and west London Lines. As such an interchange at Old Oak with both of these lines (as TfL are pushing for) has lots of potential - Just look how rammed current WLL services get from Clapham Junction / South Croydon with people wanting to avoid going into central London or how popular getting off GEML services at Stratford is. Similarly the current Southern service along the WLL to Watford / Milton Keynes is very popular with those heading to the NW, who wish to avoid using the tube. Being able to connect with HS2 at Old Oak would be just as attractive. The other big reason for having interchange between HS2 and the GWML is I imagine a significant number of HS2 passengers will find Crossrail a more attractive way of getting to where they want to go in London than taking the Tube from Euston. As you correctly highlight however the whole HS2 - Heathrow flow is in many respects the weakest of the linkages Old Oak provides in justification terms. However when you consider all the other elements outlined above there is definitely a case for having a station on the GWML at Old Oak - though I accept that stopping express services to the likes of Bristol / South Wales or the West Country may not be worth doing and as such a better track layout may be possible.