Two metres too short

[whole diary]

[PhilWakely]

Over the years, the Up starter signal at Pinhoe station has migrated several metres westward. In the days of semaphore signals, it was right up against the level crossing. The first colour light signal moved it a couple of metres and the latest iteration moved it a further six metres.





Even with the signal in its current position, a full six-coach train has 'comfortably' fit on the platform and all doors were available to board or alight from the train. However, early last year, a driver voiced concern about the visibility of the signal from his stopping position and since then, the Stop board has been moved about a metre - meaning the rear door of a six-coach train is not quite on the platform. Therefore, the Up platform at Pinhoe has been declared too short for a six-coach train and only the doors in the front three coaches will be opened.

This picture shows the position of the rear of the train before the Stop board was moved.


As you can see, the platform only needs to be extended by a couple of metres to allow the whole train to be accessible.

How much would it cost to build this extension? I guess additional lighting would be required as well.   

[Robin Summerhill]

As you can see, the platform only needs to be extended by a couple of metres to allow the whole train to be accessible.

How much would it cost to build this extension? I guess additional lighting would be required as well.   

Wouldn't make more sense to move the signal which is the root cause of the problem?

[PhilWakely]

As you can see, the platform only needs to be extended by a couple of metres to allow the whole train to be accessible.

How much would it cost to build this extension? I guess additional lighting would be required as well.   

Wouldn't make more sense to move the signal which is the root cause of the problem?

Putting it simply - YES! But apparently, that is not an option - something to do with H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) and proximity to the level crossing 

[paul7575]

Pity they can’t just cut a 2m chunk out of the unused end and shove it down the platform...   

Paul

[stuving]

Pity they can’t just cut a 2m chunk out of the unused end and shove it down the platform...   

Paul

But is it to do with the crossing - or is it the end of the platform? In which case that wouldn't work, as you'd need to move the signal again...

[Robin Summerhill]

As you can see, the platform only needs to be extended by a couple of metres to allow the whole train to be accessible.

How much would it cost to build this extension? I guess additional lighting would be required as well.   

Wouldn't make more sense to move the signal which is the root cause of the problem?

Putting it simply - YES! But apparently, that is not an option - something to do with H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) and proximity to the level crossing 

Hmmm... apparently Health & Safety... 

Im not having a go at you personally, but this sort of excuse gets right up my proverbial, because in itself it is meaningless.

"Well its Elfin Safety innit" tends oh be the cry of those who don't want to do something, can't be bothered to do something, and/or wants you to stop doing what you are doing. Beloved of insurance companies, local councils, bureaucrats and jobsworths the country over.

Are you telling me that there is a not a single level crossing in the country without a signal right next to it? If so have a look at the down side of Avonmouth on Google Street View and see one parked right next to the platform ramp.

No - I would very much like to understand who's interpretion of H&S legislation we are dealing with, and what clause in what bit of what Act is preventing them from putting that signal in a more sensible position.

Until I get to find out that information I will consider that this is one of Network Rail's "solutions" to a problem that totally fails to take into account the wider operational repurcussions. In other  words, solve what they see as a problem for themselves and sod the consequences for anybody else.

PS - and mark my words - we're likely to see a lot more of this because the other favourite "cop out" phrase has just been withdrawn from service. You know - the one that goes:"well its the EU^» (European Union - about) innit?"

[SandTEngineer]

This is all to do with allowing, or not, trains to approach the level crossing with the barriers raised and the crossing open to road traffic.  Modern standards require a minimum spacing from the protecting signal to the road edge of the level crossing (this used to be a minimum of 20m).  In the event of a train overunning the protecting signal at danger the red road lights are designed to illuminate immediately, without the preceeding yellow light.  On more modern crossings the overrun sequence can be triggered by treadles located on the approach side of the signal to give greater warning but retro-fitting that to an existing crossing is expensive and complex compared with moving the signal further from the crossing.

.....and yes, its all to do with Health and Safety.  Whats wrong with keeping people safe?

[stuving]

This is all to do with allowing, or not, trains to approach the level crossing with the barriers raised and the crossing open to road traffic.  Modern standards require a minimum spacing from the protecting signal to the road edge of the level crossing (this used to be a minimum of 20m).  In the event of a train overunning the protecting signal at danger the red road lights are designed to illuminate immediately, without the preceeding yellow light.  On more modern crossings the overrun sequence can be triggered by treadles located on the approach side of the signal to give greater warning but retro-fitting that to an existing crossing is expensive and complex compared with moving the signal further from the crossing.

.....and yes, its all to do with Health and Safety.  Whats wrong with keeping people safe?

The relevant words appear to be these, from GK/RT0192 issue 2 (Dec 2012):

2.1.1.3 Stop signals and ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) block markers shall be positioned at least 50 m from the level crossing, except where either:
a) The level crossing is immediately beyond a station platform, in which case the stop signal or ETCS block marker associated with the platform shall be positioned at least 25 m from the level crossing, or
b) The signalling system is configured so that movement authorities towards the stop signal or ETCS block marker are only displayed when the level crossing is closed to road traffic.

So if it was 20 m, and is now 25 m but I suspect measured from the edge of the footpath not of the roadway - that's your 6 m.

[Robin Summerhill]

This is all to do with allowing, or not, trains to approach the level crossing with the barriers raised and the crossing open to road traffic. 

.......

On more modern crossings the overrun sequence can be triggered by treadles located on the approach side of the signal to give greater warning but retro-fitting that to an existing crossing is expensive and complex compared with moving the signal further from the crossing.

.....and yes, its all to do with Health and Safety.  Whats wrong with keeping people safe?

OK - a valiant attempttoput me in my place but I ain't finished yet

"...retro-fitting that to an existing crossing is expensive and complex compared with moving the signal further from the crossing." This strikes me as a polite way of saying "too expensive to do the job properly"

Is it more expensive than extending a platform?

Is it too expensive to cater for the passengers who are at least doing their bit towards paying NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s wage and materials bill when they now have to move forward in a train to get off when they previously didn't have to?

Does the passsenger matter to the S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) department, or do they even realise that that is what the railway is there for?

I have to admit that Pinhoe is not an area I know well (spelt at all...). But the limited research I have done in less than five minutes shows me via Google Street View that the road doesn't look particularly well-used (OK they might have sent the camera car down there at daft-o-clock in the morning but there are cars in the adjoining Surgery car park).

RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) tells me that Pinhoe is a crossing point for services and for the majority of the day there are a mere two trains per hour, and they both turn up at broadly  the same time. So why does the crossing need to be kept live for road traffic when this is going on? It is going to be open for c.58 minutes consecutively in each hour anyway?

It's all very well using the argument "Whats wrong with keeping people safe?" but if the media pick upon this story and spin it the way they would spin in, NR in general and the S&T department in particular will not come out of it smelling of roses...

I see that stuving has posted up the appropriate regulations as I was typing. Neverthless, the existing situation is putting passengers to an inconvenience they did not have beforehand, so perhaps the regulations themselves need examining?

[SandTEngineer]

OK - a valiant attempttoput me in my place but I ain't finished yet

I didn't intend to put anybody 'in thier place' just try and provide my interpretation as to the situation at PINHOE.  I wrongly thought this would help you understand the reasons behind the signal position but you decided to shoot me down instead.  Next time I won't bother.......

One thing I will say though, is that after 50-years of working in the S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) department at all levels, that I have never treated any of the decisions I have had to take, lightly.  When taking design decisions its always about striking a careful balance between cost/benefit and safety and all subject to formal risk assessment.  And yes, I did know who payed my wages and who I felt accountable to, so no need to lecture me on that point.

Edit to add:That I won't be responding further.

[Bmblbzzz]

Is it more expensive than extending a platform?

I don't think these are alternatives. The signal has to be at least 25m from the crossing. The other end of the platform could also be extended, but hasn't.

[grahame]

Is it more expensive than extending a platform?

I don't think these are alternatives. The signal has to be at least 25m from the crossing. The other end of the platform could also be extended, but hasn't.

I suspect that's the same clearance rule that has the signal for Devon-bound trains in what feels like the middle of the platform at Saltash?

[Robin Summerhill]

Firstly I apologise unreservedly to S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) Engineer if I caused any offence. None was intended (despite my choice of phraseology) but it was the last line "and yes, its all to do with Health and Safety.  Whats wrong with keeping people safe?" that hot my back up. I'm not saying that it was the intention in this case, but I have encountered these false "either/or" arguments before, and usully with the intention if closing down debate. Once again I aplogise.

This now appears to me to be a another case of the Law of Unintended Consequences kicking in. I very much doubt that the person who drafted the regulation in the first place  intended a sittuation to arise where half a train was hanging off the end of a platform because of it. Whether or not it crossed their minds we will probably never know. Nevertheless, that is the situation that has been caused here.

As somebody who has cast a critical eye over other people's strategies and policies in connection with my work (especially when I was a Complaints Officer where it was essentially part of the job), it is clear that this policy has a hole in it. So,options:

1. When the policy was adopoted were there certain exceptions that might apply in certain situations, and have these exceptions been examined to establish whether one could apply here?

2. If not, and this situation has now arisen, might it be a good time to review the policy in the light of these events?

As things stand, perhaps we should be grateful that there is not an LC^▸ (Level Crossing) and signal at one end of Avoncliff station. If there was, there wouldn't be any doors facing the bloody platform that could be opened!

[Bmblbzzz]

Or even worse, Dilton Marsh!