Page 2 of 2
| Bidirectional signalling in UK - main routes 15/11/2024 at 12:29 #159198 | |
flabberdacks
636 posts |
Yes I definitely find myself in the minority in such discussions, which is perfectly fine of course. Unfortunately down here in Melbourne, for one example, the railway is disrupted so often for so many reasons, that replacement buses are big business. Keeping the old railway spirit alive is a challenge all around the globe. There's not a sane person alive who would rather be on a replacement bus, and failure to get the freight through just means it ends up on trucks and we all lose. Log in to reply |
| Bidirectional signalling in UK - main routes 16/11/2024 at 15:31 #159205 | |
TUT
532 posts |
kbarber in post 159195 said:I fear TUT's thinking reflects one of the (unforeseen?) consequences of privatisation. If you're in a TOC, try to keep right-time trains right-time and claim performance payments (don't remember what section number it is) from NWR if one of their signals gives problems (a nice little earner if the affected trains are relatively lightly loaded).Hardly that! If that is the impression I gave I suppose I can't have chosen my words with enough care. When I say "the idea that one might value the ability to suspend the passenger service and keep the freight running, or vice versa, doesn't really strike a chord in the heart of this British railwayman" I simply speak the truth. If I consider the Chiltern Main Line, for example, with its trickle of freight, I can scarcely imagine myself ever feeling a need to choose between passengers or freight. I remember one time about a year ago there was a very disruptive points failure next door to me (not on the Chiltern Main Line to be clear). I still got both of the freights that were due. They sat buffer-to-buffer on the goods line waiting their path. If you come to me and say, "oh but the great thing is you can suspend the passenger service and keep the freight running" it just doesn't have the desired effect. I can honestly say I've never really given any thought to how delay payments might be divvied up. When I said "Bound to put a few minutes into almost every train on a congested main line. Which can make it a lot better to confine the problem to trains in one direction" I was in fact taking the whole service into account. My experience of these things is that one often comes to regret trying to be cleverer than one is. Picture the succession of trains being stepped down, double yellow, single yellow, approach release from red, over the 25 mph crossover, back up to speed again, back down, double yellow, single yellow, approach release from red, over the 25 mph crossover, back up to speed. And the next one behind, and the next one behind, and the slow progress propagating down the line giving us more reds further back. Add 600 yards of Tesco train into that little dance and you're knocking every single train. Then you've go to remember that the crossovers are usually paired, so it's all very well to talk as if you can blithely run the ups up the down and the downs down the up but that rather assumes they don't arrive at the crossovers at about the same sort of time or one of them is waiting for the other to clear. This soon affects every train. This soon means the express has missed its path at New Street and so puts 10 minutes into the freight from the south which then knocks the stopper, which knocks the express. This is not helping the general effort. Then you've got the disabled passenger who can't use the footbridge. These considerations are nothing whatsoever to do with post-privatisation performance payments. They're all about minimising overall delay. And sometimes, if your "faulty signal" is just one that cannot show a green, it's way, way better to just hold it at double yellow and crack on. If it's completely black on the ground, OK, yes, it might be worth swapping lines about as that requires talking by two signals (although now we have the ability to pass two main aspect signals at danger under the same authority in this case, provided a number of other conditions are met) and is a big nuisance. But I'm sure you've had the experience of trying out a master plan and wishing by the end that you'd just not bothered. At least if the problem is confined to one direction everything arrives in the correct platform, everything arrives on the line it's supposed to in the right order and the minutes can be clawed back with turn around times and perhaps the odd pine - particularly if it doesn't get caught up in the same problem on its way back. Once you start involving the ups in a problem that was only affecting the down by swapping lines about you can soon find yourself doing more harm than good. Last edited: 16/11/2024 at 16:14 by TUT Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Bidirectional signalling in UK - main routes 16/11/2024 at 16:01 #159207 | |
|
TUT
532 posts |
As for keeping the job going, I have to say I must surely have given quite the wrong impression. For myself I would love to see more single line working done and fewer replacement buses. I'll tell you a story that you'll like. Sadly it's not my story, a colleague told it to me, so I'll probably get the details wrong, but as I recall it was a failed freight train that was the problem. The MOM arrived at the signal box to see what there was to be done and I believe what he then said was "would you like to do something fun?" My colleague rather guardedly (much to his discredit!) replied that it depended what it was. "Do you wanna put some single line working in? I haven't done in an ages." Apparently he had everything they needed and so they put it in. Essentially for fun. They only ran about two trains before everything was cleared up. But that warms the cockles of my heart and at the same time turns me green with envy. But the fact is, whether I like it or not, I know why it isn't done. In fact, if we face the facts squarely, we must admit that part of the reason is that in the past railway workers were paid terribly. But the overtime was pretty nice. And there was never a shortage of people who would happily stand opposite a signal with a red and a yellow flag for 12 hours on a Sunday and make a bit of money. And you could pretty much afford them because headline pay was so meagre. Those days are not these days. Many would say that's for the better. Today a man with a couple of flags standing opposite a signal for 12 hours struggles to justify the money he earns. Assuming he volunteers to do it in the first place. It's just the case. I wish I had had your career. But I didn't. So what about bi-di signalling then? Is that not the answer? Is that not the point of this thread? I'm sorry I'm just not convinced of that. It's nothing to do with cynical delay payout calculations. I just don't see it. Consider a different example. Consider the flying junction. Are flying junctions great for performance? Yes they are. Are they brilliant in times of disruption? Absolutely. Is it standard practice to renew any and all flat junctions as flying junctions? Clearly not. The costs have to outweigh the benefits. And if I say that the cost of a flying junction does not merit its provision it has nothing to do with privatisation. Consider another example. Consider this YouTube video of deplorable level crossing misuse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCbSlxc_RYU One of the things that struck me is the number of comments asking why the crossing hasn't been replaced by a bridge. Or this one for example: Quote: More alarming the gates dont have bell chimes, locks or wig wag lights. It seems alien to me almost, signalling to an average person that there is no danger? Leaving the driver and his horn blast to bare full responsibility for their saftey? Correct me if i am missing something.Now as you and I know there are thousands of footpath crossings all over the network serving, well, little footpaths. The cost of replacing them all with bridges would be Biblical. Even converting them all to R/G would cost 5-figures apiece. Now obviously we all know a bridge is a lot safer than a crossing. Obviously I accept that a bridge is safer than an FP crossing. But if I tell you I don't see the justification for replacing all FP crossings with bridges it's not because I'm thinking of performance payouts! Well you get my point. I hope I haven't taken your comments too personally. Anyway, to conclude. You will notice that rationalisations are everywhere. Point to a place on a map and I will show you a rationalisation. What resignalling scheme has not come with the removal of a bolt-hole siding or an emergency crossover? For me, if it turns out the savings are being spent on four line's worth of signalling applied to just two running lines, with 50% of the signalling being used <1% of the time, I just don't think that's a good deal. I would rather have the track layout. Of course we'd have a better railway if we had a pair of crossovers at every station, a siding at every station, goods lines, reversible lines, no level crossings of any kind, no flat junctions anywhere, 8 tracks through the Severn tunnel, 12 tracks through Llandrindod Wells etc. etc. But we can't afford it. And where would be the fun in that anyway? Last edited: 17/11/2024 at 15:51 by TUT Reason: None given Log in to reply |