McNulty Report on the UK rail network published

[whole diary]

[The SprinterMeister]

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.

That is probably the way to go in my book too. I certainly doubt that the reapplication of a 'time interval' based signalling system with huge safety disbenefits is going to find any favour anyway.

[The SprinterMeister]

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. 

And as the driver will only be able to check / issue tickets at stations with the train stationary the passengers will not be too keen either when they find that journey times are extended in order to allow for increased station dwell times.

[ChrisB]

Presumably, the Japanese arent bothered?

[The SprinterMeister]

Presumably, the Japanese arent bothered?

I assume the Japanese line which uses that system of operation is one of their rural ones which is lightly used and not part of their major metro system. Therefore lengthened journey times are less of an issue. I would estimate that the Journey time on the Exmouth branch would double if you used that mode of operation on that line unless you made it compulsory to buy a ticket before getting on and supplied TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine)'s which never failed.

As far as the Barnstaple line goes hopefully ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) will remove the need for the driver to operate the NSTR token machines which will speed things up. About 5 minutes is allowed to operate the level crossing and NSTR kit at Eggesford.

[broadgage]

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?

I think that I would be willing to stand up in front of an enquiry and justify this system in low risk enviroments, such as no more than 2 trains an hour, speed not to exceed 60MPH, 2 crew on board.
It could be argued that the alternative would be closure, and that automatic, basic time interval signalling would be much safer than road transport, the likely alternative.

[SandTEngineer]

At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of
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.

Not quite.  Shared running Light Rail/Heavy rail already in place on the Tyne and Wear metro to Sunderland and well proven over the past 5 years.

[paul7575]

At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of
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.

Not quite.  Shared running Light Rail/Heavy rail already in place on the Tyne and Wear metro to Sunderland and well proven over the past 5 years.

Not forgetting that when first opened the Metro also had shared running for occasional freights from Benton Jn to ?Fawdon? (somewhere around there anyway).  The Sunderland extension isn't the first shared use.

Paul

[brompton rail]

Running tram-train has not yet been trialled in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). Yes, it seems to work in Germany as an extension of the existing street tramway onto existing railways. Here attempts to trial such vehicles on the Huddersfield - Penistone - Barnsley - Meadowhall - Sheffield line came to nothing and the idea has transferred to running trams partly on Sheffield's Supertram network and partly on a freight only line to Rotherham. The Network Rail freight line has to be electrified first, a new (lower) platform added at Rotherham Central Rail station and some new trams ordered. The Penistone Line idea failed because no manufacturer was prepared to tender for 5 diesel operated trams sets. Even then these trams would not have had toilets and would have contained fewer seats than the Pacers currently in use. The point behind choosing the Penistone line was that it contained a mostly single track (2 passing loops) Huddersfield to Barnsley section where driving on line of sight could be used. A mostly passenger train line from Barnsley to Meadowhall (double track section with speeds of unto 70 mph (rarely any freight) that is at capacity with current signalling at 4 tph each way. Then a very busy (about 11 tph each way passenger) freight and Intercity 100+ mph section Meadowhall into Sheffield. So tram-train or lightweight railcars are not going to offer the capacity, speed or savings envisaged. After all Sheffield Supertram has a driver and at least one conductor as years ago they discovered that using TVMs^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) at tram stops resulted in a great deal of are evasion and conductors were the answer. Stagecoach wouldn't continue using them if there was a cheaper way!

[The SprinterMeister]

I think that I would be willing to stand up in front of an enquiry and justify this system in low risk enviroments, such as no more than 2 trains an hour, speed not to exceed 60MPH, 2 crew on board.
It could be argued that the alternative would be closure, and that automatic, basic time interval signalling would be much safer than road transport, the likely alternative.

The alternative to your 'signalling' system isn't closure bearing in mind that you appear to be referring to existing lines with a signalling system in place. The alternative is to life extend the existing kit along with any rationalisation / removal of surplus kit that can be reasonably carried out.

If your prepared to sign off as safe and back up at a fatal accident enquiry a flawed system with the potential to show a green aspect with a train stood ahead of the relevant signal your a much braver man than me. The crew of any train that comes to an involuntary stop on that line now has to consider protecting their train rather than concentrating on fault finding etc. You admit that the train must be double manned by two personel with PTS^▸ (Personal Track Safety) etc, which if we are considering DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))-P is the last thing we want to insist on as a result of installing a non standard and in my view dangerous signalling system. Two trains per hour can be dealt with using TCB^▸ (Track Circuit Block) / axle counters and two aspect signals with seven mile block sections in far greater safety.

[The SprinterMeister]

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

There is. And Kintbury up side too. My ability not to notice things that don't concern me seems to have developed with age!
 

[inspector_blakey]

I think that I would be willing to stand up in front of an enquiry and justify this system in low risk enviroments, such as no more than 2 trains an hour, speed not to exceed 60MPH, 2 crew on board.
It could be argued that the alternative would be closure, and that automatic, basic time interval signalling would be much safer than road transport, the likely alternative.

Time interval working kills people. End of story.

If you don't believe me, take a look back through the annals of early railway history before the development of more failsafe signalling systems, and just see how many accidents occurred then. The history of rail accidents is also littered with examples of train crews, for one reason or another, failing to protect the rear of their disabled trains with results that ultimately proved fatal.

If you want to drag standards of railway safety back to 19th century levels then it's a great suggestion. Otherwise, forget it.

[Super Guard]

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

There is. And Kintbury up side too. My ability not to notice things that don't concern me seems to have developed with age!
 

Yet... 

[The Sleeper]

To view Sir Roy McNulty's Value for Money Study in full, visit:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10401

If Sir Roy wished to get a handle on how today's railways are run, there would have been no better publication than the current routeing guide
 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks, The Sleeper. 

However, in the words of my learned colleague ...

A warm welcome to the Coffee Shop, The Sleeper. 

Any chance of a slightly smaller avatar? It's a nice picture of a Pacer in the snow but just a little large to be used as an avatar. Thanks awfully. 

[dog box]

quite frankly most of the Railway Staff i have spoken with view the comments in this report regarding staff as a disgusting insult to there professionalism