‘Digital Signalling’ to be introduced on the ECML

[higthomas]

A train running at 140mph on the entire Selby diversion would save, approximately, 30 seconds.

I think we sometimes forget the extent to which every little helps. If we can keep shaving 30 seconds here and there journeys keep getting quicker, and when we add up these savings, the differences can be quite big. We seem to have forgotten that these days.

 

[Irascible]

I think we sometimes forget the extent to which every little helps. If we can keep shaving 30 seconds here and there journeys keep getting quicker, and when we add up these savings, the differences can be quite big. We seem to have forgotten that these days.

If it's a software upgrade with minimal new training, sure - especially if it's a training precursor to doing more sections of the line. Not sure if Bald Rick's estimate covered accelerating & decelerating or if he assumed you just entered & left the section at 140, but I'd think the CBA just for the training for a probably-less-than-30s time reduction would be pretty bad...

And then there's extra power usage, and extra maintenance.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think we sometimes forget the extent to which every little helps. If we can keep shaving 30 seconds here and there journeys keep getting quicker, and when we add up these savings, the differences can be quite big. We seem to have forgotten that these days.

That assumes that marginally faster journeys is a key issue for many people. Some might prefer greater attention to simple customer-focused issues like working toilets in all trains, improved communication etc. If you can do all of this as well then it's excellent but I think we keep forgetting the simple, basic, issues that affect most passengers.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think we sometimes forget the extent to which every little helps. If we can keep shaving 30 seconds here and there journeys keep getting quicker, and when we add up these savings, the differences can be quite big. We seem to have forgotten that these days.

Oh it’s not forgotten at all. The Kings Cross remodelling also saves about half a minute per train, for a lot more trains, and a lot lot more passengers too.

My point is that spending a lot of money to get from 125 to 140 (and it could well be a lot of money), on a 14 mile stretch of line doesn’t make sense on it’s own, nor in comparison to other ways of getting similar time savings.

If it's a software upgrade with minimal new training, sure - especially if it's a training precursor to doing more sections of the line. Not sure if Bald Rick's estimate covered accelerating & decelerating or if he assumed you just entered & left the section at 140, but I'd think the CBA just for the training for a probably-less-than-30s time reduction would be pretty bad...

And then there's extra power usage, and extra maintenance.

Yep, including acceleration / decel.

 

[class26]

I think we sometimes forget the extent to which every little helps. If we can keep shaving 30 seconds here and there journeys keep getting quicker, and when we add up these savings, the differences can be quite big. We seem to have forgotten that these days.

That`s what BR did on the ECML, Every little helps !

 

[Ianno87]

That`s what BR did on the ECML, Every little helps !

Was BR finding quick, cheap opportunities here and there to relay / recant the track etc etc, or spending lots of money as would be necessary for Selby diversion?

 

[MarkyT]

Was BR finding quick, cheap opportunities here and there to relay / recant the track etc etc, or spending lots of money as would be necessary for Selby diversion?

Don't forget the Selby diversion (mostly paid for by others) also avoided the tight curve and lift bridge through Selby. That must have saved a considerable number of seconds for a non-stop.

 

[class26]

Was BR finding quick, cheap opportunities here and there to relay / recant the track etc etc, or spending lots of money as would be necessary for Selby diversion?

I believe (please do correct me if I am wrong) that the Coal Board paid for the Selby diversion. As for the rest its my opinion that BR, far from being the inefficient organisation some politicians would have us believe were very inventive at squeezing a lot from little. I have a copy of Modern Railways from the early 80`s when HSTs first ventured north of Edinburgh and there was a desire to speed things up. The headline of the article is "13 minutes saved for £55,000" Ok, it is now 40 years on but many times £55K wouldn`t probably pay for the consultants report now !

 

[Irascible]

I believe (please do correct me if I am wrong) that the Coal Board paid for the Selby diversion. As for the rest its my opinion that BR, far from being the inefficient organisation some politicians would have us believe were very inventive at squeezing a lot from little. I have a copy of Modern Railways from the early 80`s when HSTs first ventured north of Edinburgh and there was a desire to speed things up. The headline of the article is "13 minutes saved for £55,000" Ok, it is now 40 years on but many times £55K wouldn`t probably pay for the consultants report now !

I believe it's about 4x, if you're just going on inflation rather than costs of whatever the work was ( which with 40 years of regulations is going to be rather more, and that's not a criticism ). £220k isn't going to get you much, no.

 

[Ianno87]

I believe (please do correct me if I am wrong) that the Coal Board paid for the Selby diversion. As for the rest its my opinion that BR, far from being the inefficient organisation some politicians would have us believe were very inventive at squeezing a lot from little. I have a copy of Modern Railways from the early 80`s when HSTs first ventured north of Edinburgh and there was a desire to speed things up. The headline of the article is "13 minutes saved for £55,000" Ok, it is now 40 years on but many times £55K wouldn`t probably pay for the consultants report now !

If it didn't cost BR much, chances are it didn't involve doing very much. Which is a problem now such all "low hanging fruit" is exhausted, so it's big bucks to do anything more these days.

 

[edwin_m]

If it didn't cost BR much, chances are it didn't involve doing very much. Which is a problem now such all "low hanging fruit" is exhausted, so it's big bucks to do anything more these days.

It was probably just identifying bits of track that were suitable for upgrade without any major work, changing the signs and issuing a notice.

BR probably had an engineer who was competent to assess the track to the standards of the day, familiar enough with it not to have to go out specially, and had the authority to do both. There would have been far less cross-checking and senior sign-off. And the costs of most the people involved were probably funded from another budget in any case.

 

[HSTEd]

It was probably just identifying bits of track that were suitable for upgrade without any major work, changing the signs and issuing a notice.

BR probably had an engineer who was competent to assess the track to the standards of the day, familiar enough with it not to have to go out specially, and had the authority to do both. There would have been far less cross-checking and senior sign-off. And the costs of most the people involved were probably funded from another budget in any case.

And all the staff involved were salaried and not contractors who would have been expensive to use for any non standard work.

 

[Dr Hoo]

BR probably had an engineer who was competent to assess the track to the standards of the day, familiar enough with it not to have to go out specially, and had the authority to do both. There would have been far less cross-checking and senior sign-off. And the costs of most the people involved were probably funded from another budget in any case.

Very much the case in the era before 'Extension of Project Costs'. The Investment Manager's organisation was seen as a fixed overhead rather than charged to projects; people ignored the costs of buses during possessions; and so on.

On a related point, some of the line speed gains came from things like re-positioning semaphore distant signals for braking from higher speeds or adjusting level crossing strike-ins. Virtually none of that low-hanging fruit around nowadays.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe it's about 4x, if you're just going on inflation rather than costs of whatever the work was ( which with 40 years of regulations is going to be rather more, and that's not a criticism ). £220k isn't going to get you much, no.

It was probably just identifying bits of track that were suitable for upgrade without any major work, changing the signs and issuing a notice.

BR probably had an engineer who was competent to assess the track to the standards of the day, familiar enough with it not to have to go out specially, and had the authority to do both. There would have been far less cross-checking and senior sign-off. And the costs of most the people involved were probably funded from another budget in any case.

I remember that headline too, and I think it might have been from the use of the first dynamic track stabiliser. The alternative is that it might have Ben from the application of exceptional curving rules north of Newcastle, which didn’t need much in the way of physical work, just the cost of the PWMEs assessment , plus the extra cleaning for all the coffee on the carpet of the HSTs.

Very much the case in the era before 'Extension of Project Costs'. The Investment Manager's organisation was seen as a fixed overhead rather than charged to projects; people ignored the costs of buses during possessions; and so on.

So much was overheads it was ridiculous. Engineering trains? Overheads. Design? Overhead. I’ve even heard of some of the ‘labour’ being classed as overhead as they were paid for anyway. Some track jobs were basically costed on the materials!

 

[XAM2175]

I believe (please do correct me if I am wrong) that the Coal Board paid for the Selby diversion.

Yes, the National Coal Board paid for the Selby diversion to enable development of the coalfield underlying the original alignment. Final cost
in 1983 was in the vicinity of £63 million (circa £214 million today), against an estimated loss of £500-800 million (£2.5-4.0 billion today) if the coal underlying the original alignment could not be extracted.

I believe it's about 4x, if you're just going on inflation rather than costs of whatever the work was ( which with 40 years of regulations is going to be rather more, and that's not a criticism ). £220k isn't going to get you much, no.

Even less, actually - inflation on £55 thousand from 1983 brings it to just shy of £187 thousand nowadays.

 

[Ianno87]

It was probably just identifying bits of track that were suitable for upgrade without any major work, changing the signs and issuing a notice.

BR probably had an engineer who was competent to assess the track to the standards of the day, familiar enough with it not to have to go out specially, and had the authority to do both. There would have been far less cross-checking and senior sign-off. And the costs of most the people involved were probably funded from another budget in any case.

Although that probably relied on the knowledge contained in their head and not written down anywhere...which went out the door the day they retired. I suggest cheap, but not a sustainable practice.

 

[edwin_m]

Although that probably relied on the knowledge contained in their head and not written down anywhere...which went out the door the day they retired. I suggest cheap, but not a sustainable practice.

In BR days they would probably have passed the knowledge on to someone else. But after privatization there was often no such person, or if there was they probably went to work for someone else on an unrelated job, or the person with the knowledge just took the redundancy and ran.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, the National Coal Board paid for the Selby diversion to enable development of the coalfield underlying the original alignment. Final cost
in 1983 was in the vicinity of £63 million (circa £214 million today)

That £63m was the final cash price, but not the final price at 1983 prices. Most of that money had been spent over the 3-4 year construction period, and some was spent in the planning in the late 70s. Inflation was rampant back then, so taking a mid point pricing it would be he equivalent of about £250m-£280m now. Adding in the things that weren’t accounted for then (overheads in BR terms) and it would be around £300m-£350m today. This is is £22m-£25m a mile, which is a ittle cheaper than it would be today for a twin track non electrified railway across flat open country. But the right order of magnitude.

 

[XAM2175]

That £63m was the final cash price, but not the final price at 1983 prices.

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the correction!