phil-b259

33 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

And of course the country is short of bus and coach drivers. to shift 1000+ passengers would need about 200 50 seat coaches with drivers who have enough tacho hours to undertake such work.

A very valid point which many in their haste to TOC bash completely ignore!

From the control logs I note whenever disruption occurs and busses are required its increasingly hard to get hold of any (and thats even in densely populated SE England with lots of bus companies / operations to ring round and ask .....)

17 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

 

It was clear - just - a test loco passed (0Z57, Carlisle - Carlisle via Tebay) at 5mph and was deemed to be too close for comfort hence the SLW remained in force. Wouldn't like to try passing at high speed though.

Physically clear when creeping past (and with lots of eyes on to shout "Stop") is very different from guaranteeing it to remain clear for all trains to routinely pass at 5mph.

Hence the decision to keep the up main blocked - and in any case the point to take away was more NR did actually perform a physical test rather than simply dismissing the idea out of hand as some folk may assume.

50 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

 

A TC interrupter doesn't help if the Pendo is 200 yards away - thats what the traps are for and - imho - should have done a better job at deflecting the errant wagons away from the running line.

 

 

Thats being very selective and rather pedantic.

Railway safety systems (which includes the applications of trap / catch points) are generally not there to guarantee safety in every single set of circumstances you can think up (particularly in legacy situations)! 

In this case ensuring the signal before the points reverts to red via the use of a track circuit interrupter will protect against a high speed collision in 99.9% of cases - the only exception being is if a train happens to have passed the last signal on the up main just as the wagons become de-railed.

On 12/05/2024 at 14:36, rogerzilla said:

GWSR is an example of (almost) nowhere to nowhere, although there are some vague plans to extend to Cheltenham centre.  As with many heritage lines, subsequent development is the obstacle.  GWSR does ok, though.

Please remember that the GWSR now serves Broadway - a village which attracts hoards of visors wanting to what has been marketed as "The Jewel of the Cotswolds" so in terms of things / places served its not quite a 'nowhere to nowhere' situation.

https://explorethecotswolds.com/visiting-broadway-cotswolds/

22 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

Topics like this should come with a health warning and perhaps be under a separate thread, so those of us old enough to remember how British Rail used to get on with it and find ways to keep trains running, can avoid reading them and how appallingly passengers, sorry customers, are currently treated when things go wrong.

(1) Physical Investigations involving an actual loco were made by NR to see if the wagons could be passed by trains on the up main at 5mph but the clearances were insufficient for this to be a safe option.

(2) Single line working was quickly set up on the down line, however at certain points during the closure of the up main both Avanti and TPE explicitly told NR they would not be taking advantage of it preferring to terminate either side. Of course if your TOC is very short of drivers and is mired in industrial relations disputes then when disruption strikes you are not going to be able to call in favours like drivers varying their booked turns or working extra hours - something which is a given if single line working is to be utilised.

In short the real problem yesterday was the dire state of industrial relations in the industry - something which is ENTIRELY the result of years of DfT micromanagement and their fostering of a hostile environment for staff under their cut, cut, cut agenda.

There is also the possibility that it would have been more financially advantageous for Avanti and First group to not try and run services as they could get grater compensation from NR by cancelling everything than they would do if things ran through but were delayed. If so then I suspect an over focus on the financials to please the DfT and their private shareholders was the cause - and again something which the DfT can be held 100% responsible for...

2 hours ago, beast66606 said:

 

More concerning seems to be that while the trap did it's job and derailed the wagons it looks like they still blocked a high speed line - it could have been a lot worse.

 

Thats why such trap points are usually fitted with a track circuit interrupter on the run off.

This is simply a sacrificial bit of metal standing proud of the rail that gets broken off by any wheel passing over it. When it breaks it also cuts an electrical circuit - and that circuit is usually track circuit indication of the line which will be fouled by something coming off the rails via the catch /trap point.

That was exactly what happened in this case - as soon as the wagon snapped the track circuit interrupter the track circuit on the adjacent up main went occupied* (and would stay that way until the interrupter was physically replaced) 

* The first indication anyone had that something was aims was when the signaller at Carlisle saw the track circuit on the up  main suddenly become occupied for no reason.

On 21/05/2024 at 12:13, The Stationmaster said:

But in terms of passenger user access Waterloo was  indeed massively better than St Pancras and served a far greater hinterland. 

I wouldn't be so sure of that - in fact the move to St Pancras has made Eurostar massively more accessable to those living in Essex, Hertfordshire, etc than Waterloo was. 

Its also still pretty accessible to many living in SE London / East Surrey / Sussex due to Thameslink

The only real losers from the move are those on the SWR and to a lesser extent GWR network - and while its true they will have formed a large part of Eurostars clientele pre- move that does not mean that they have not been replaced by persons from other areas to the North / NE of London who now find St Pancras a much easier place to get to.

Yes in an ideal world you would have services from both St Pancras and Waterloo - but if you have a Government which believes that all international travel to / from these shores has to be entirely funded by the private sector and the passenger numbers are insufficient to fund the operations of both termini then  what else did you expect to happen? UK / international business primary concern is to deliver dividends to shareholders - not lose money just because people find it useful to have a choice of London termini

2 hours ago, Neil said:

A little more detail on the fingerprinting requirements from this weekend's Guardian, hopefully all will pan out as Eurostar hope.

 

Thinking of other UK stations it seems a shame that HS2 from Birmingham isn't to be linked to HS1 as originally thought. With a brand new station under construction it would be an excellent opportunity to include the passenger handling facilities required. There's a large hinterland and the Birmingham - Paris (or Brussels) journey time would be around that for St Pancras- Rotterdam. Even if services were to abstract some of the traffic from St Pancras, in the current situation that might be of benefit.

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

I would agree, having an international terminal in the middle of the UK rather than central London might encourage other people to use such services instead of air.  Imagine the people of Liverpool and Manchester taking a HS2 train (on not HS2 tracks) to Birmingham and transferring there to an international service rather than a Pendo to Euston, a walk down Euston Rd to St Pancras and then going through Customs in a cramped not designed for Brexit transit point.

 

One can hope a new government in a few weeks might usher in a change in relations with the EU and seamless travel might yet be back on the cards.

We have discussed this many times before!

First, a reality check - for as long as the UK Government prohibits the mixing of international and domestic travellers on the same train you need to find 800+ people* who all want to travel to Europe AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME OF DAY from the Birmingham area to make it FINANCIALLY VIABLE - particularly as the UK Government stance is that all international travel is a strictly private sector enterprise and there must NEVER be any subsidy given over to it**. 

Secondly. the plans to provide a connection between HS2 and HS1 were deleted before the enabling acts of Parliament were changed and there is now no way from an engineering perspective of adding a relatively cheap link between Old Oak and the throat of St Pancras even if an incoming Government were to desire one! Therefore even if the Uk Government had a sudden change of mind and decided to bring forth legislation to build such a link then it is going to have to be much longer (thus costing more) and run from near Ruslip in Bucks round the M25 to near Rainham in Essex to link the two lines up. Plus an outer link means that Old Oak or Stafford cannot be used to pick up additional Europe bound travellers or as a place to drop off domestic passengers heading for central London in the event that 'mixed' trains were allowed by the UK which makes it less attractive financially.

Now thats not to say that a new Government won't help, but to be brutally honest truly meaningful change will only happen when we stop this ridiculous 'fortress Britain' mentality and re-commit to the idea of European integration including re-joining the EU and ultimately joining the Schegnen area. Unfortunately given the UKs historic hostility to such integration plus the worlds current woes (that is to say war, repression, famine, etc which are the REAL root cause of mass migration - including the "small boat chrsis" in the channel) means I don't see it ever happening.

* Eurostar trains MUST be of a certain length (375m IIRC) with a continuous passenger gangway from end to end (so two half units coupled cab to cab are a no-no) . This is so that if the train comes to a halt within the tunnel then at least one door will be no further than 20m from an emergency exit to a cross passage. This in turn is important because the ventilation system is designed to create a bubble of high pressure in the running tunnel around the selected cross passage which extends for around 20m in each direction from the door and keeps any smoke away from  passengers while they evacuate into the service tunnel.

** The French Government / state / regions have been quite happy to subsidise cross channel ferries from Dieppe / Brittany because unlike our pig headed UK Government they recognise that the spin off benefits in terms of maintaining local employment, or the use of local produce on board outweighs the 'burden on the taxpayer' which certain sections of the UK political establishment keep beating on about (while quietly ignoring all the extra costs of unemployment etc such pig headedness causes)

16 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

No. The secondary line from Exeter to Newton Abbott through Chudleigh was to be upgraded to two track mainline.

Not so!

I believe the evidence is the GWR rejected that option in favour of a totally new build Dawlish by-pass (including purchasing some of the land needed) which avoided the twisty route through Chudleigh (the rebuilding of which would have been so great that it wouldn't have saved much in money terms).

5 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

It's part of a much wider trend to try and clamp down on retail competition from overseas and to ensure treasury departments take their cut. In this case Korea is using safety certification but it's based on the same underlying concern. Recognising CE would undermine the intent as so many Chinese goods already have a suite of foreign certication marks.

The original poster said that goods without the 'CK' mark would be banned from entering the country for safety reasons, not that their would be an increased fee / levy to be paid of such a mark was lacking - so I fail to see how its going to increase revenue, particularly if there is no other source for some products inside Korea.

If the goal is to increase Treasury revenues then you do it through taxes - not safety certification!

Thats what the EU / UK has done things whereby VAT must be paid on any imports - something which is completely separate form any safety certification markings

24 minutes ago, BrakeCoach said:

 I've also seen model trains labeled as "toy train" in the customs form when i get them shipped from the UK.

Model trains are officially classed as toys!

This is important because under WTO rules 'Toys'' are usually exempt from import duties.

Detailed scale models which are only designed to be sold to adults are not necessarily so blessed and may well attract import duties depending on which category authorities decide to bestow on them..

The downside of model trains being classed as 'toys' is that in terms of longevity / warranty matters / manufacturing defects like Mazak rot, courts will say that 'toys' effectively have a short shelf life and can expect to become defective within a short time frame so manufacturers cannot be liable if it stops working after a couple of years or so.

34 minutes ago, BrakeCoach said:

https://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=217208

 

This is a policy intended to target buying from aliexpress, temu and the like, but it inadvertently bans the shopping of overseas goods in every country without the KC certificate (korean safety standard certificate). This means that I cannot buy any model trains from UK or US retailers from Korea, and I assume ebay as well, starting this June.

 

Direct purchasing of models, for me, has been , as there are barely any retailers for this in Korea, so this would mean not only a direct hit to interests that are niche in Korea, as well as other more mainstream hobbies that do not really have KC certificates. Its already facing backlash and I am not sure how this would really end up.

I suspect that this will be amended as from a business perspective it will potentially hit some big US and EU interests - though this may take the form of allowing certain other certification marks like 'CE' alongside KC rather than the initiative being dropped completely.

On 15/05/2024 at 20:31, wubbo22 said:

Good afternoon all,

 

I am in the process of determining where to place the signals on my layout. It is set in the late 80s-early 90s in suburban London. Network Southeast, 3rd rail, former LSWR/LBSCR territory. 

In terms of locomotives, it is classes 33, 37, 47, 50 , 73 and 92.

For rolling stock, it is the likes of MK1, MK2, EPB, HAP, VEP, 159, 165 and appropriate freight for the era & location.

 

It takes the form of a branch line junction station, with two through platforms (1 & 2) for the double track mainline, and a single through platform (3) on the "up side" of the station for the single track branch line, forming an island platform altogether with platform 2. (I'm unsure if these are numbered correctly, please correct me if so!). A branch before the branch line platform allows access into a headshunt, and the approach to a diesel depot. From the headshunt, a carriage shed and washer can be accessed through a crossover. Diagram is attached for clarity.

 

My issue pertains to the positioning of signals for the running lines (as far as I understand, within a depot or carriage sidings would not require signals).

 

I have identified 4 locations where, following some reading-up, I think signals would be located:

1. Approaching station - 3 aspect with feather for diverging line
2. Platform 2 starter - 3 aspect
3. Platform 3 starter - 3 aspect
4. From headshunt/depot - 3 aspect

Note: as a viewer of the layout, it is not possible to see 1 head-on - thus, it will be modelled using LEDs in the tunnel that illuminate in front of the light rather than lighting the signal itself. 

 

I have definitely missed some ground signals in the shed/depot so please let me know where they would be located. 

Many thanks.

The depots and sidings would not have signals for movements totally within each area - they would have hand points set by the shutter and loco movements be verbally authorised.

You would not use a main aspect signal to authorise movements into the depot - that is done by a subsidiary signal (2 white lights at 45 degrees - not the 3 lights in a triangular setup as the red of the main aspect provides the ‘stop’ instruction) and small format ‘stencil’ route indicator located below the main aspect head.

You do not use main aspects for locos backing down onto trains - that is handled by the subsidiary signal as described above.

You require some form of trapping arrangement for platform 3 so as to avoid a SPAD ending up on the main line. To achieve this I suggest you replace the point where the branch platform and the depot / sidings line diverges with a single slip - any train SPADing the starting signal can then be sent ‘straight on’ into a sand drag or similar thus protecting the main line.

You also need some form of trap point to avoid locos from the diesel depot ending up on the main line should a SPAD occur.

Here I suggest you replace the single slip between the carriage sidings and the head shut with a double slip. This would need to be under control of the signaller so as to ensure routes cannot be set towards the main line unless main line trains had stopped. Because of this you will need to provide 3 shunt signals to protect the point - one from the headshunt, one from the depot and one from the carriage siding.

3 hours ago, ColinB said:

thought by the time they made these late chassis all those issues had been solved

.

Mazak rot is caused by contamination of the metal where it was produced - just because we know this it doesn’t stop said contamination occurring due to negligence or just an accidental mistake during manufacture right through to the current day. Providing the chassis holds together for the watery period manufacturers don’t necessarily care about it.

You might as well ask why we are still dumping raw sewage into lake Windermere when it’s been obvious for decades this is not good for the environment or people’s health - yet allegedly due to a ‘Telecoms fault’ at a treatment plant for 14 hours earlier this year it happened AND the utility company didn’t see it as a problem….

11 minutes ago, Matt37268 said:

There still is, have a look at anything operated by Saphos, there’s a long diagonal metal bar from one corner of the droplight to the other. It also acts as a handrail for when alighting or boarding. 

The thing is if CDL is fitted then there is no obligation to have a steward hanging round the vestibules to discourage folk from sticking their heads out of the window.

It seems like to allay any fears the ORR may have about the reduction in safety this means Saphos have fitted a diagonal bar to mitigate this concern while still allowing the stoplight to be fully lowered and the external handle reached.

The alternative would be to fit interior door handles and restrict the wi Dow opening - but I guess that fitting the bar is an easier, quicker and cheaper option.

17 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Heard yesterday that Quainton centre aregoing  to be running trains to where the HS2  are dumping rocks and when they finish   they will run through to  Aylesbury   Parkway this is for six years and then it will be regular on Sundays.

Good news for the folk at Quainton - However do do hope that it’s been made clear to them this is not a permanent arrangement as in any sane country (I.e. not one being run by a party desperate to cling on to power and only caring about the short term) then the reintroduction of national rail services between Aylesbury and Bletchley would be an integral part of the east - west scheme.

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

That's one of the best ways I know of to get points run through.   Unless they are hand points always leave the two ends in correspondence even if you're only barring them over otherwise you'll eventually pay the penalty for not doing so

Totally agree - but the point is there is no way a fully functioning signalling system would leave them that way. 

13 hours ago, simon b said:

 

 

That's what I'm getting at, they've got everything there except the point itself. Surley it should go in now rather than cause disruption later, or is it not much of a problem to add one in when required?

A point which is not used is a maintenance liability and as such installing one at this stage when there is no guarantee it will be used (if left long enough critical parts such as the switch and stock trails will need renewing even if only used in one direction). Consiquently it’s much more sensible to not install it at this stage.

By contrast signalling alterations are VERY expensive to do retrospectively (hence why you sometimes get signals still illuminated in a Forrest of birch trees with pointwork removed). This is particularly true if retrospective changes need to be made to interlockings - and East West Rail is getting a brand new Smartlock installation by Alstom who will demand a huge fee to make changes once commissioned.

Hence the result you see here - from a signalling perspective everything is installed from the get go even if it may not be used for years while from a p-way perspective they have only installed what will be used from day one and will need to add things later if train services alter.

4 hours ago, Reorte said:

Definitely cash for the sort of amount exhibitions cost (unless I'm booking a ticket in advance remotely of course). I find the keeness on avoiding it rather strange to be honest.

Because cash (particularly coins) weighs your pockets down and you can run out of it easily meaning you have to stick up in advance.

These days it takes a conscious effort to stock up on cash if needed as I don’t usually carry it about - everything I usually purchase on a day to day basis is done via a card.

15 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

The problem with that approach is that delayed enforcement can be presented as 'they were OK with this last week and have randomly changed their mind' 

That depends as to whether they were 'officially' aware an infringement was occurring or not.

The ORR only has a finite number of personnel (who are all entitled to reasonable working hours and days off etc) plus the ORR would wish to ensure it has evidence which stands up in a court of law (particularly given WCRCs love of resorting to the courts instead of complying) before taking action.

13 hours ago, woodenhead said:

So keeping to the topic - is there any actual news regarding WCRC or are they simply running the Jacobite again now with some Mk2s in the mix to be compliant?

It seems that way - although based on what 'The Stationmaster' has said up thread WCRC are still in breech of the regulations around Mk1s by virtue of the fact that the public still have access to said coaches.

As others have also noted however the ORR has a finite number of staff but an awful lot of things to oversea so cannot afford to spend all their time on WCRC - so it may be that the current situation is being unofficially considered acceptable* for the time being as long as no report able incidents occur.

*That does not mean that further enforcement action will not be taken in future of course.

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

it needs to be more like nymr at Whitby, what is it the nymr can manage to do that Swanage is unable, when it comes to costs ?

 

Primarily be because the Network Rail line from Grosmont to Whitby is lightly used Northern trains so there are lots of spare paths. It is also non electrified and has a relatively low line speed so track access charges are relatively low.

There is also the little matter that because the risks of a collision etc are deemed to be low then NYMR locos have exemptions from the requirement to fit data loggers which are a requirement for everywhere else on the national network.

Down at Wareham things are fundamentally different - the Network Rail line between Worgret Junction and Wareham station is heavily used by SWR and electrified meaning higher track access charges and no chance of exemptions from data loggers.
 

There is also an issue that the sidings east of Wareham station cannot be used to recess trains / get them out of the way of SWR services because of a foot crossings which suffers from considerable misuse and needs closing but the local NIMBYS keep kicking off whenever NR tries to add ramps to the current footbridge.

21 minutes ago, Railpassion said:

What sort of battery did the Bardic have?

One of these https://www.buyabattery.co.uk/eveready-ad28-battery-4-5v-3r25-ever-ready.html

At the top of the battery where the + and - symbols are were two holes and you literally plugged in a plug type thing into them.

see the photos here https://talesfromthesupplydepot.blog/2017/07/06/bardic-lamp/

These days Bardic lamps retain the same basic shape / ‘form factor’ so they can still be hung on the lamp brackets fitted to trains but are made of plastic and have multicolour LEDs rather than a coloured shade you rotate round over the lens.

A modern Bardic lamp https://spartansafety.co.uk/product/led-bardic-lamp-4-aspect/

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

"I thought that lineside signals have disappeared from the Cambrian?"

They have but Welwyn is rather a long way from Wales.

The last manual (literally) signal a driver sees going west is at Shrewsbury controlling the junction.

Jonathan

They have - but the Cumbrian scheme was classed as a Pilot scheme to test the technology - what is being rolled out on the ECML and has been installed on the Thameslik core / GWML is the  full ‘production system’

Thsre is also the fact that ERTMS on the Cambrian replaced the RETB system (which also lacks signals) and if you want to be really picky then you could go back to the first RETB system to find a railway without lineside signals…..

2 hours ago, big jim said:

Conventional signals have gone, apart from the bit around Machynlleth depot where there are a couple of ground signals but there are block markers, I wonder if the ECML bit will not have any block markers lineside? 

It will have block markers as far as I know for the simple reason that drivers still need reference marks where they can stop and be cautioned from should the train / ECTS system fail.