McNulty Report on the UK rail network published

[whole diary]

[super tm]

As there is no useable access between the driving cab and the passenger accomodation on HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))-P operation is not an option, whether fitted with power operated doors or not.

Is this required for DOO ? Turbos operate DOO in multiple and there is no access between the units.

[ChrisB]

I think that was his opinion, not a fact.

[The SprinterMeister]

As far as the Turbo operated LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) routes are concerned, the following are the only non-DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) routes:

• Reading to Basingstoke
• Reading to Gatwick
• Bourne End to Marlow
• Oxford to Hereford
  

Do the Bedwyns run with a guard beyond Newbury as I haven't noticed much in the way of DOO-P mirrors at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn.

[The SprinterMeister]

As there is no useable access between the driving cab and the passenger accomodation on HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))-P operation is not an option, whether fitted with power operated doors or not.

Is this required for DOO ? Turbos operate DOO in multiple and there is no access between the units.

I assume the LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) units are set up in such a way that the Passcom doesn't apply the brake when operated and the driver on hearing an alarm proceeds to the next booked station and deals with the situation by going directly along the platform to the vehicle with the illuminated hazard light. The distance between stops being more conducive to that method of working than most long distance services.

I shall ask the LTV drivers next week as I am up that way.

[ChrisB]

This is, I believe, correct.

[super tm]

As far as the Turbo operated LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) routes are concerned, the following are the only non-DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) routes:

• Reading to Basingstoke
• Reading to Gatwick
• Bourne End to Marlow
• Oxford to Hereford
  

Do the Bedwyns run with a guard beyond Newbury as I haven't noticed much in the way of DOO-P mirrors at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn.

No they dont have a guard.  As only 3 car turbos stop at those stations the driver can look out of his window and see all the doors before closing them.

[Electric train]

The main reason the Bourne End - Marlow requires a Guard is to operate the ground frame at Bourne End and to issue tickets because Marlow does not have ticket issuing facilities; morning and evening peak Maidenhead - Bourne End do not have a Guard the drive carries out the Token exchange.   Also during the day after about 10:30 to issue tickets on the whole Maidenhead - Marlow. 

Back to McNulty will he and Hammond have the same impact on the Railways as Messrs Marple & Beeching or indeed what the Major Government did.   Yes there are some radical items even some controversial ones but I think even McNulty realises the railways are a bit of a supper tanker it will take some time to change direction

[The SprinterMeister]

No they dont have a guard.  As only 3 car turbos stop at those stations the driver can look out of his window and see all the doors before closing them.

I would have thought the platform curvature on the up road at Hungerford would have precluded that unless the driver actually got out of the train to see the doors were shut and nobody was caught in the doors by their coat etc.

[The SprinterMeister]

Back to McNulty will he and Hammond have the same impact on the Railways as Messrs Marple & Beeching or indeed what the Major Government did.   Yes there are some radical items even some controversial ones but I think even McNulty realises the railways are a bit of a supper tanker it will take some time to change direction

I tend to to agree with 'Industryinsiders' view of all this. McNulty has thrown a few ideas up based on his commute between Reading and Padd during the day. Whether these ideas are actually practical to implement are for the industry / unions to decide.

If however SWT^▸ (South West Trains) guards are sitting in the back cab instead of collecting revenue then if DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))-P comes about (or is being suggested) on SWT then those guards only really have themselves to blame assuming their current operational role includes time to do tickets without interfereing with their operational duties.


However McNultys preferred option for branch lines (four wheeled vehicles with 'Radial Steer', no air con or power doors) seems to me a retrograde step. A sort of latterday AC cars railbus with a TMS screen on it. Passive Radial steer a la class 66 bogie cannot be done with two axle vehicles so I assume some kind of active system with a track train interface (something else to go wrong...) is proposed. Cant remember which page of the report I read that bit of comedy on...

[SandTEngineer]

Everybody seems to be overlooking the whole purpose of the review which has concluded (supprise, supprise) that we cannot (and should not) carry on as before.  There are lots of ways that we could operate rural railways at a much cheaper price.  Why not change standards to allow DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) on all routes (the technology already exists).  We don't need to control all of the network from a few centralised places using top notch (and expensive technology).

Time to move on, and forwards and be positive about change.  We all want the railways to succeed (well I do anyway).  As an old adage in business says 'if you don't change you die'

[JayMac]

But if you do change and get that change wrong you can still die.

[The SprinterMeister]

Everybody seems to be overlooking the whole purpose of the review which is to conclude that we cannot (and should not) carry on as before.  There are lots of ways that we could operate rural railways at a much cheaper price.  Why not change standards to allow DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) on all routes (the technology already exists). 

Denpends if you really want to de-spec all branchlines to 'drive on sight' light rail / tramway operations using long wheelbase Parry type gadgets. If for example you take the Barnstaple line it competes with other public transport modes on speed. The train journey being something like half that of the bus journey (Turners 377 bus). If we despec the line to a light rail operation running at 25 - 30mph using lightweight tram train thingies you'll find most of the passengers decant onto the cheaper Turners bus (or drive to Tiverton Parkway or Exeter) due to the doubling of the rail journey time. There will be far less passengers and you'll still incur losses due to start up costs and purchasing the tramtrain gadget, your only financial plus being the redundant signallers and the weighing in of the signalling kit.

Im only using the Barnstaple line as a 'for instance' as I have some experience of it.


What we need to make clear is that 'Change Standards' must never mean 'Reduce Standards to the lower levels found on road public transport'. If thats to be the case you'd just as well tarmac over the branch lines and be done with it.

[The SprinterMeister]

But if you do change and get that change wrong you can still die.

Exactly. The role of rail should be to attempt to attract as many passengers as possible and convey them in comfort, speed and above all safety in modern efficient units. Not wave a white flag, assume nobody will ride trains and stick some cost saving motorised go kart on instead.

Notice use of the word 'attract' and not 'compell', passengers should want to use rail and not be priced onto it from other modes although Rail must of course compete on price.

[Electric train]

DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) equipment does not need to be platform mounted, modern CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) and LCD monitors mean this can all be train mounted.  Advantage of train mounted DOO less risk of it being vandelised, greater flexibility of routes of operation i. e. just not limited to ones with platform mounted kit.

The railways have always been looking for the "light weight" trains for branches and rural lines, light weight does not mean light railway.  BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did have those hideous units (still in operation) based on freight wagon and a Leyland bus nice idea but did not work, what is needed is a 60 / 70 mph unit that can run in multiple based on some off the shelf equipment.

[The SprinterMeister]

The railways have always been looking for the "light weight" trains for branches and rural lines, light weight does not mean light railway.  BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) did have those hideous units (still in operation) based on freight wagon and a Leyland bus nice idea but did not work, what is needed is a 60 / 70 mph unit that can run in multiple based on some off the shelf equipment.

I don't know if you noticed that but the existing class 14x does all that rather well, given welded flat bottom CWR^▸ (Continuously Welded Rail) to run on. Disabled access regs from 2020 being the limit of their usefulness.

I gained the impression McNulty invisages lighter built, less crashworthy and therefore slower units to replace the existing kit. 'Run on sight' and no signals means 25-30 top whack anyway.