McNulty Report on the UK rail network published

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

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.

Correct in the override being available to the driver, although it's not guaranteed a station is always going to be the best place to stop - if you've just gone through Maidenhead, then Twyford is a good 6 minutes away, but it does mean that a position of safety can be chosen to stop the train, i.e. not on a viaduct, in a tunnel etc.

[SandTEngineer]

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.

Why not (change the standards that is)?  Most branch lines work on the 'One Train Working' principle and if you take the Cornwall branch lines as an example there are very few stretches of line on which you can achieve an average speed of above 30mph if you take station stops into account.  At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of a lighter standard and of course with OTW you don't need to drive on sight .  You also don't need signalling, points can be spring, hand or power operated by tramway type mechanisms controlled on the ground.

As you have cited the Barnstaple branch as an example, here goes:  No signalbox required at Credition (level crossing becomes AOCL^▸ (Automatic Open Crossing (Locally monitored) A level crossing without barriers that is observed by the train crew before they proceed over the crossing) type), No token working required (ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.)), no level crossing equipment at Eggesford (level crossing becomes AOCL type), lightweight track and bridge requirements, top speed of 30mph, less track and minimal signalling maintenance, extra loops (no signalling required) at two places makes a half hourly service.  Whole Life costs significantly reduced but much improved journey opportunities and end to end time around the same as no time required for token exchanges etc.  I'm sure there is lots more than this that could be done if minds were put to it.

Bus competion: Hmm, I think I would rather use a lightweight tram than a bus and I'm sure that many other people would as well.  But, let people decide what is best for themselves.  Are you sure that a bus could do all of this better?  I'm sure if there was a half hourly service on the Barnstaple branch that people would flock to it.

LETS BE BOLD.

[dviner]

McNulty has thrown a number of cost saving ideas into the hat for discussion, nowhere have I read that he is prepared to sign any or all of these ideas off as a safe method of working, he seems to want the industry to do that for itself. As such it remains to be seen if any or all of his ideas are actually accepted and put into place.
 

I don't think that McNulty has to - his report was on the value for money of the railways, not on the nitty-gritty of methods of working that are safe in a railway environment.

I was actually a bit surprised by the report. It wasn't the hatchet-job that it could have been - it identified some valid points and made some good suggestions. Some suggestions weren't as good, and some showed the downside of using outside agencies to examine the methods of railway working.

I'm pretty sure that the government is not obliged to adopt the recommendations of the report in full (and I hope they don't).

[eightf48544]

LETS BE BOLD.

I agree but i think we should aim for a 60 max rather than 30, to get a faster service and realy beat the bus. Most peole won't like travelling in a bus at 60.

We should also consider any potential for freight beofre putting in more lightweight track. there should be scope for things like reusing life expired ex mainline track on branches. After all it may not be capable of taking 125 trains but ought to able to accomodate a relatively light unit at 60.

Re signalling it's interesting to note that the Germans are reducing the speed of lines to be equiped with PZB90 train control from 100 kph to 60 kph. This is as result of the recent fatal head on collision at Hordorf.  

PZB90 is the harmonised version of "Indusi" the autotrainstop in use on DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)/DR.
http://www.marco-wegener.de/technik/pzb90.htm gives an explanantion Google does quite a good translation.

Or you can Wolfgang Meyenberg's website on German signalling which is in English.

http://www.sh1.org/eisenbahn/index.htm Whilst you are there have a look at the 18 apsects of the HLs signal set. Then have alook at the K's which are a simplification and convey speed information directly.

[super tm]

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.

From memory I think there is a mirror on that platform.

[old original]

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.

Why not (change the standards that is)?  Most branch lines work on the 'One Train Working' principle and if you take the Cornwall branch lines as an example there are very few stretches of line on which you can achieve an average speed of above 30mph if you take station stops into account.  At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of a lighter standard and of course with OTW you don't need to drive on sight .  You also don't need signalling, points can be spring, hand or power operated by tramway type mechanisms controlled on the ground.

As you have cited the Barnstaple branch as an example, here goes:  No signalbox required at Credition (level crossing becomes AOCL^▸ (Automatic Open Crossing (Locally monitored) A level crossing without barriers that is observed by the train crew before they proceed over the crossing) type), No token working required (ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.)), no level crossing equipment at Eggesford (level crossing becomes AOCL type), lightweight track and bridge requirements, top speed of 30mph, less track and minimal signalling maintenance, extra loops (no signalling required) at two places makes a half hourly service.  Whole Life costs significantly reduced but much improved journey opportunities and end to end time around the same as no time required for token exchanges etc.  I'm sure there is lots more than this that could be done if minds were put to it.

Bus competion: Hmm, I think I would rather use a lightweight tram than a bus and I'm sure that many other people would as well.  But, let people decide what is best for themselves.  Are you sure that a bus could do all of this better?  I'm sure if there was a half hourly service on the Barnstaple branch that people would flock to it.

LETS BE BOLD.

In respect of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))...
Bear in mind that 99% of all intermediate stops and Devon & Cornwall branch lines are unmanned and ungated.
Even if you go to the expense of installing ticket machines at all of the stops, who would do the checks on the train?

[super tm]

In Japan you can pay the driver at the front of the train.  Just like a bus.  Now that is radical.  Cant see too many drivers keen on that. 

[Super Guard]

In respect of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))...
Bear in mind that 99% of all intermediate stops and Devon & Cornwall branch lines are unmanned and ungated.
Even if you go to the expense of installing ticket machines at all of the stops, who would do the checks on the train?

What happens regarding disable assistance?  Are drivers going to be getting the ramp out at Digby/Topsham/Crediton?  Or are new trains going to be like buses and have suspension that falls to the ground?

I suppose the whole "second person" is implying it does not have to be a guard, but as soon as you start adding anything safety back into an ATE's job, are you not creating a guards position again?

The Government doesn't have to do anything with the report, but from Hammond & ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) talk, you can guarantee anything to cut staff and antagonise the unions will be attempted.

Also - Hungerford does have a mirror on the up.

[broadgage]

On lightly used branch lines, I feel that signalling could be very much simplified without total elimination.
Years ago "time interval" signalling was used, this was prone to human error and not entirely satisfactory.
For lightly used routes, perhaps AUTOMATIC time interval signalling could be developed.
This could be done very simply and cheaply, at each signal location simply provide a three aspect LED signal controlled by a timer.
After a train has passed this would display red for say 10 minutes, then yellow for say 10 minutes, and then green. The equipment would be self contained and solar powered, no cables to maintain and replace after theft.
Such a simple system would allow higher speeds than driving by sight only.
It is not absolutely fool proof, the main weakness being that in case of accident blocking the line, a green light would be shown automaticly after 20 minutes.
However the risks are minimal with modern trains and a top speed of say 60MPH, in case of accident the guard or driver would have to walk back with a red flag or lamp, and stop following trains.

In 20 minutes, they should get at least a mile away, ample stopping distance from 60MPH.

Not totally proof against every possible mishap, but vastly cheaper than conventional signals and much faster than driving by sight alone.

[bobm]

Among the many things that relies on is someone being available to walk back and protect a train. We have already discussed DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)). That increases the chance of there being no one available to act in the case of an emergency.

I am not sure the industry would be prepared to move away from the current system where there is actual proof that a section is clear and systems fail to the most restrictive aspect rather than assume all is well because sufficient time has passed.

[dviner]

Not totally proof against every possible mishap, but vastly cheaper than conventional signals and much faster than driving by sight alone.

Maybe a bit overly dramatic, but I think the litmus test for this is -

Would you be willing to stand up in front of an inquiry and admit that you implemented this safety system (because the signalling system is there for both the safety and regulation of rail traffic) on the basis that it was cheaper and quicker?

[Electric train]

There are some of the McNulty recommendations being carried out already, devolution has commenced with 2 Route Managing Directors (RMD) established Wessex and Scotland, the other routes will be devolved during the rest of this financial year.  This is almost a total U turn from the centric Coucher everything based in Milton Keynes while many things will still be in MK^▸ (Milton Keynes) some people destined to be deported to the North of Buckinghamshire have been reprieved.

Even Investment Projects are looking at how to devolve so it can match the shape of the routes. 

As much rests with DoT and ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) to change as it does with the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s FOC^▸ (Freight Operating Company)'s and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) often the TOCs FOC's and NR are fighting the bureaucracy of DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and ORR

[The SprinterMeister]

Not totally proof against every possible mishap, but vastly cheaper than conventional signals and much faster than driving by sight alone.

Maybe a bit overly dramatic, but I think the litmus test for this is -

Would you be willing to stand up in front of an inquiry and admit that you implemented this safety system (because the signalling system is there for both the safety and regulation of rail traffic) on the basis that it was cheaper and quicker?

Fotunately a lot of rural railways are single track so there isn't much chance that this flawed idea would be required anyway. It's flawed in the sense that rather than the signalling system detecting trains and protecting them this function is transferred to the traincrew. Not a direction to go in my opinion.

[dviner]

Fotunately a lot of rural railways are single track so there isn't much chance that this flawed idea would be required anyway. It's flawed in the sense that rather than the signalling system detecting trains and protecting them this function is transferred to the traincrew. Not a direction to go in my opinion.

My other objection would be along the lines of - do we really need to develop yet another signalling system? We would be better off if we able to find a way to speed up the national implementation of ETRMS without compromising safety.

[The SprinterMeister]

At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of a lighter standard and of course with OTW you don't need to drive on sight .  You also don't need signalling, points can be spring, hand or power operated by tramway type mechanisms controlled on the ground.

As you have cited the Barnstaple branch as an example, here goes:  No signalbox required at Credition (level crossing becomes AOCL^▸ (Automatic Open Crossing (Locally monitored) A level crossing without barriers that is observed by the train crew before they proceed over the crossing) type), No token working required (ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.)), no level crossing equipment at Eggesford (level crossing becomes AOCL type), lightweight track and bridge requirements, top speed of 30mph, less track and minimal signalling maintenance, extra loops (no signalling required) at two places makes a half hourly service.  Whole Life costs significantly reduced but much improved journey opportunities and end to end time around the same as no time required for token exchanges etc.  I'm sure there is lots more than this that could be done if minds were put to it.

A lot of those ideas are already in place as far as the Barnstaple line is concerned as there are no fixed signals beyond Crediton anyway. The points at Eggesford are hyropnueumatially operated with point indicators rather than signals provided. The level crossings at Eggesford and Crediton are incapable of being converted to AOCL operation due to the roads layouts in the immediate vicinity. The level crossing at Eggesford is already operated locally by the train crew rather than from Crediton signal box.

In terms of the line speeds if you were going to run a half hourly service with 30mph tram train gadgets you would need to provide more than two extra loops as the line speed is currently 55 mph with appreciable amounts of 60 mph and 70 mph running permitted. 39 miles at 30 mph is rather more than an hour even if the tram train gadget ran non stop between the two places which due to the presence of the additional loops (at which trains will require to stop presumably) is not going to be the case as well as the need to stop at at the stations en route. This extends even more if we expect the driver to fidget with the ticket machine at stations which cannot of course be done with the train in motion. Therefore the journey time will increase to rather more than 90 minutes at which point the buses (with cheaper fares and better access to the villages en route) start to gain a journey time advantage over the train. The cranks among us might go for the novelty of tram trains but I honestly doubt that the passengers will be convinced of the "improvements" of running the branch with 30mph tram gadgets.


I honestly doubt that the safety people will sanction running the tram trains at more than 30mph, having seen photographs of the structural parts of the Parry People mover it would appear to have the collision resistance of wet cardboard. A hard impact with a silage trailer on an occupation crossing would destroy it in a collision of much greater than 30mph.

Its not a case of 'lets not be bold' rather than realizing that technology has its place in the improvement of the rail network if used appropiately. De-speccing the Barnstaple branch to a tramway and running 45 seat 30mph tram trains isn't however one of these instances.


As the Branch services have to run along the main line from Cowley Bridge Jn to Exeter St Davids (and beyond) this would appear to knock the idea of running lightweight tram trains on the head as far as the Barntaple line is concerned fortunately.