Cambrian Six Car DMU's Scuppered by Network Rail metal fencing

[The Planner]

Is that 6 car related at Aber or just 4 ?? as didn't they join up two 158s when the new re-furb was shown ?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Is that 6 car related at Aber or just 4 ?? as didn't they join up two 158s when the new re-furb was shown ?

The 0807 Mach to Aber weekday commuter (arr c0844) train gets shunted into run round loop to allow the 0624 ex New St to arrive (0925) in platform at present. The ex New St unit then forms 0930 to BHM INTL. The ex local working unit then runs ecs to Mach after it in time to get into coast loop at Mach to work the c1100 to Pwhelli which connects with the 0809 ex INTL which was only 2 car on weekdays.

As the 0809 ex INTL is now a 4 car all week that splits at Mach for Aber and caost the unit off the local working should connect up with unit off 0624 ex New St at Aber and then join up with unit off coast at Mach to got forward as 6 car unit.

So ATW are saying 2 separate units cannot join up at Aber station due to ertms even though it happens 6 times a day at Mach.

 

[John55]

The 0807 Mach to Aber weekday commuter (arr c0844) train gets shunted into run round loop to allow the 0624 ex New St to arrive (0925) in platform at present. The ex New St unit then forms 0930 to BHM INTL. The ex local working unit then runs ecs to Mach after it in time to get into coast loop at Mach to work the c1100 to Pwhelli which connects with the 0809 ex INTL which was only 2 car on weekdays.

As the 0809 ex INTL is now a 4 car all week that splits at Mach for Aber and caost the unit off the local working should connect up with unit off 0624 ex New St at Aber and then join up with unit off coast at Mach to got forward as 6 car unit.

So ATW are saying 2 separate units cannot join up at Aber station due to ertms even though it happens 6 times a day at Mach.

In your previous post you reported that ATW were waiting for the ORR to approve what is presumably a new or amended operating practice for ERTMS. Is this so difficult to understand that the regulatory authority want to give this due consideration?

The incident at Llanbadarn level crossing last year has no doubt given NR, ATW and the regulator something to think about in relation to the operation of ERTMS at Aberystwyth and of course part of the reason for the signalling trial was to discover if there are issues which need further thought.

 

[Masboroughlad]

Not read the whole of the thread, but I have to say if the fact that fence stops longer trains being run, the world has gone mad.

How come that prior to central door locking, selective door opening long trains that missed platforms by a long way manged to run?

Health and safety gone mad, common sense out of the window. If there is no platform there - don't get out.

The industry needs to get a grip of nonsense like this. A fence should not stop demand for longer trains.

 

[Michael.Y]

Not read the whole of the thread, but I have to say if the fact that fence stops longer trains being run, the world has gone mad.

Well, in this case, not reading the whole thread is your downfall. It is not the fence, but rather the new signalling system that is causing the problem. As has been mentioned, the signalling blocks are too close together at Aberystwyth at present to facilitate a 3-unit formation being formed. Once the ORR has considered and approved amending the working practices for ERTMS, this could happen.

Given that average pax numbers for Caersws are 9 per train, 1-door operation is not a hinderance in this case (given that Llanfair PG and Conwy both deal with large numbers of tourists and have to survive on 1-door operation).

As always with the privatised railways, there are too many cooks in this situation (NR, ATW, ORR, SARPA, the EU, WAG and DaFT). It's all too easy for each one of them to blame any one of the others for even a minor problem.

Incidentally, in researching this topic, I've come across a few politicians' "blogs" and websites which all have one demand : "more capacity". Yet somehow they neglect to mention where the funding for leasing or purchasing extra rolling stock will come from, or indeed funding for increased staffing levels will come from, or indeed funding for additional fuel and track access costs will come from.

It seems that they, like the GBTP, seem to think that only some of the trains are out and about running around the country, and that most are tucked up in sheds doing llareggub.

 

[merlodlliw]

Michael SARPA is the voluntary Rail User Group, probably with more rail experience than most of the others you mention, it is right & proper they champion on behalf of the passenger, SARPA in my opinion is one of the more proactive RUGS.

It was ATW Director Mike Bagshaw in his letter to stakeholders and the press spun six car 158 working on the Cambrian this summer,without doing any obvious research to see if it was possible,here lies the problem.


Bob

 

[Michael.Y]

I'm aware of SARPA and Gareth Marston's role, I mention them in that list as they have a vested interest in this area and have a powerful voice.

I have little doubt however that a solution to this problem will be found in due course and will be rolled out when it is safe and possible to do so. Too much has been invested in ERTMS to allow something as trifling as joining units to derail it (no pun intended). Then, perhaps, hourly services with more capacity will become a reality, sooner and with more value to passengers (and therefore with greater reward to stakeholders) than was otherwise possible.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Its not 3 units being joined up at Aber but 2. It happens 6 times a day at Machynlleth on a shorter platform in between sets of points and with the potential of conflicting moves on the adjacent lines the track layout at Aber is now far more simplified than Mach.

The incidents at Llanbadarn Fawr LC in recent years have all had separate causes. Since ertms was commissioned there's been charters run to Aber with locos running around, 4 car DMU formations have turned up occasionally and every day a 158 shunts into the loop to allow another one to arrive at the platform.
I really cant see what the problem could be with a 4 car DMU triggering the LC at Llanbadarn once it departs Aber and goes past the treddle. One 158 sits in the platform and another joins up with it before departing eastbound is all that can happen! What possible "risk" is there? If there worried about them splitting then why aren't the rest of ATW operations on Cambrian and to BHM INTL 2 car only?

 

[Tomnick]

What happens at Machynlleth is irrelevant - pre-ERTMS, they were permissive platforms (under TCB regs, presumably) and provision will have been made under ERTMS for that to continue. I doubt that there was any provision for permissive working at Aberystwyth under RETB - it would have been possible to make shunts to attach or detach, I'm sure (as opposed to bringing an arriving train in on top of one), but probably not within the turnaround of the service in question.

 

[John55]

Its not 3 units being joined up at Aber but 2. It happens 6 times a day at Machynlleth on a shorter platform in between sets of points and with the potential of conflicting moves on the adjacent lines the track layout at Aber is now far more simplified than Mach.

The incidents at Llanbadarn Fawr LC in recent years have all had separate causes. Since ertms was commissioned there's been charters run to Aber with locos running around, 4 car DMU formations have turned up occasionally and every day a 158 shunts into the loop to allow another one to arrive at the platform.
I really cant see what the problem could be with a 4 car DMU triggering the LC at Llanbadarn once it departs Aber and goes past the treddle. One 158 sits in the platform and another joins up with it before departing eastbound is all that can happen! What possible "risk" is there? If there worried about them splitting then why aren't the rest of ATW operations on Cambrian and to BHM INTL 2 car only?

None of the situations at Aberystwyth you mention cover the joining and splitting of trains. Did the original scope of work for the installed system allow for this to happen? If it did has it ever been trialled and proved to work correctly?

Contributary factors in the recent incident reported on by the RAIB at the level crossing were the drivers workload and the lack of interface between the signalling system and the automatic crossing. These are not trivial matters and should be given the necessary study and not dismissed out of hand.

 

[68000]

Not read the whole of the thread.

You should try reading the whole thread then because the rest of your post is misinformed nonsense

 

[Gareth Marston]

None of the situations at Aberystwyth you mention cover the joining and splitting of trains. Did the original scope of work for the installed system allow for this to happen? If it did has it ever been trialled and proved to work correctly?

Contributary factors in the recent incident reported on by the RAIB at the level crossing were the drivers workload and the lack of interface between the signalling system and the automatic crossing. These are not trivial matters and should be given the necessary study and not dismissed out of hand.

Split/ joining happening- as a previous poster mentioned the first refurbished 158 was previewed at Aber last April (after ertms) by this method.

Driver Workload- I would suggest there is scant difference between running around attaching/ detaching from LHCS trains and a pair of DMU's joining up on the platform. In fact the latter is probably less of a workload. Yet from the pile of charter runs ( c6) I've just seen announced in RAIL Mag as confirmed to run into Aber they seem to be going ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What happens at Machynlleth is irrelevant - pre-ERTMS, they were permissive platforms (under TCB regs, presumably) and provision will have been made under ERTMS for that to continue. I doubt that there was any provision for permissive working at Aberystwyth under RETB - it would have been possible to make shunts to attach or detach, I'm sure (as opposed to bringing an arriving train in on top of one), but probably not within the turnaround of the service in question.

The working tt gives arriving units 10 min turnaround at Aber at moment more than sufficient to join up 2 Class 158's.

 

[Tomnick]

The working tt gives arriving units 10 min turnaround at Aber at moment more than sufficient to join up 2 Class 158's.

Sufficient to simply join two units, but is it sufficient to allow the second to be shunted from the loop to the platform within that ten minute window (after faffing about getting the movement authority after the ex-B'ham unit arrives)?

 

[merlodlliw]

Sufficient to simply join two units, but is it sufficient to allow the second to be shunted from the loop to the platform within that ten minute window (after faffing about getting the movement authority after the ex-B'ham unit arrives)?

With all respect,this is 2012 with all the latest technology only a few miles down the line,why on earth can they not be joined up,after all they are the only two movements on the line within the station for two hours.
It just seems that providing a better service for passengers is an interference with the comfort zone.

My opinion of course

Bob

 

[OxtedL]

Having read the RAIB report and a few other things, it looks very much like ERTMS is an ongoing experiment. I get the impression that they're still working out what they can do with it as they go along to a certain extent, so it's unsurprising that things are moving slowly still.

 

[Masboroughlad]

You should try reading the whole thread then because the rest of your post is misinformed nonsense

LOL. Your kind words flatter me.

Maybe I should have read it fully, but whatever the reason, there should be NO REASON why trains of adequate length cannot be run in the 21st Century when it has been done safely for may years before.

 

[John55]

Split/ joining happening- as a previous poster mentioned the first refurbished 158 was previewed at Aber last April (after ertms) by this method.

Driver Workload- I would suggest there is scant difference between running around attaching/ detaching from LHCS trains and a pair of DMU's joining up on the platform. In fact the latter is probably less of a workload. Yet from the pile of charter runs ( c6) I've just seen announced in RAIL Mag as confirmed to run into Aber they seem to be going ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The working tt gives arriving units 10 min turnaround at Aber at moment more than sufficient to join up 2 Class 158's.

The joining of two trains at a mechanical level is trivial and not an issue.

The report into the June 2011 incident at the level crossing were a train entered the crossing and endangered the road users who might have been correctly using it is not trivial.

The report described how the train left Aberystwyth in a degraded mode of operation, which with other matters led to a very heavy workload for the driver in the cab while the train was running. The lack of integration of the signaling with the level crossing meant the driver had a proceed instruction from the ERTMS but was simultaneously approaching (and passed) a physical stop signal mounted on the ground.

This arrangement was contrary to the signaling rules and was only allowed by a derogation from these rules. This derogation was allowed against the advise of the industry experts and the RSSB and no one was able to give any reason why the derogation had been allowed.

Do you really think it is ok to bang two trains together and drive off when there seem to be a fair few issues to sort out in the ERTMS implementation and the proceedures in use?

With all respect,this is 2012 with all the latest technology only a few miles down the line,why on earth can they not be joined up,after all they are the only two movements on the line within the station for two hours.
It just seems that providing a better service for passengers is an interference with the comfort zone.

My opinion of course

Bob

If the technology is not designed to perform a function correctly is doesn’t matter have modern it is.

 

[Tomnick]

With all respect,this is 2012 with all the latest technology only a few miles down the line,why on earth can they not be joined up,after all they are the only two movements on the line within the station for two hours.
It just seems that providing a better service for passengers is an interference with the comfort zone.

Bringing a running movement (as the arrival from B'ham would be) into a platform on top of something already in there is a significant departure from the basic signalling principle of "one section, one train", and as such the ability to do so (in normal working) is only provided where it is justified. I don't know how the ERTMS is set up, but it's possible that the movement authority to approach Aberystwyth station can only be issued from a fair way out (as I'm sure used to be the case in RETB - Borth, I think?). You certainly wouldn't want to be issuing any authority to come in on top of one in the platform from that distance.

 

[The Planner]

There are quite a few sections on the approach to Aberystwyth from Borth, one marker board on the Aber side of Llanbadarn crossing, one at the entrance to the up sidings and one mid platform.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks - do the marker boards listed all apply to movements in the Down direction? Presumably some form of permissive working could be implemented quite easily if there really was a need then.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Do you really think it is ok to bang two trains together and drive off when there seem to be a fair few issues to sort out in the ERTMS implementation and the proceedures in use?


The logical conclusion of these comments is that no trains should be running at all now if using the crossing is such an issue..Bustitution from Borth?


Those not familiar with Aberystwtyh the LC at Llanbadarn is some way from the station not at the end of the platform or in site. The buffers are 95m 60ch, No 1 GF 95m 30ch and Llanbadarn (ABCL) 94m 56ch.

There has to be movement authority with ERTMS as there's been LHCS Charters whose locos run round arrive at Aber since ERTMS.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are quite a few sections on the approach to Aberystwyth from Borth, one marker board on the Aber side of Llanbadarn crossing, one at the entrance to the up sidings and one mid platform.

correct - I've seen someone walk into the platform one whilst taking a photo as were on the theme of safety!

 

[Tomnick]

The logical conclusion of these comments is that no trains should be running at all now if using the crossing is such an issue..Bustitution from Borth?

Those not familiar with Aberystwtyh the LC at Llanbadarn is some way from the station not at the end of the platform or in site. The buffers are 95m 60ch, No 1 GF 95m 30ch and Llanbadarn (ABCL) 94m 56ch.

What's the crossing got to do with anything? It's been mentioned in this thread as one of the 'problems' encountered so far with ERTMS, and a factor that might be affected by the additional workload with setting ERTMS up after coupling two units, but the crossing itself isn't the reason why the platform can't be worked permissively.

There has to be movement authority with ERTMS as there's been LHCS Charters whose locos run round arrive at Aber since ERTMS.

Yes, we've established that. We've also established that a unit can shunt to the loop and back, and could (I'm sure) shunt from the loop to couple to a unit already in the platform. None of the above involve an arriving train (a running move as opposed to a shunt) being signalled into an occupied platform at Aberystwyth, and I think you'll find that's where the problem lies; that's the movement that (probably) hasn't been provided for in the ERTMS installation.

 

[John55]

Do you really think it is ok to bang two trains together and drive off when there seem to be a fair few issues to sort out in the ERTMS implementation and the proceedures in use?


The logical conclusion of these comments is that no trains should be running at all now if using the crossing is such an issue..Bustitution from Borth?


Those not familiar with Aberystwtyh the LC at Llanbadarn is some way from the station not at the end of the platform or in site. The buffers are 95m 60ch, No 1 GF 95m 30ch and Llanbadarn (ABCL) 94m 56ch.

There has to be movement authority with ERTMS as there's been LHCS Charters whose locos run round arrive at Aber since ERTMS.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


correct - I've seen someone walk into the platform one whilst taking a photo as were on the theme of safety!

Locomotives arriving at Aberystwyth and running round a train is not the same as two trains arriving independently then coupling and returning as a single train. My understanding from the press was that there were lots of issues with joining and splitting trains at Mach before the ERTMS system was successfully commissioned. Has the work to ensure these problems don’t recur been done at Aberystwyth? The single incident you mentioned earlier in the thread for a special event may not be particularly meaningful as special arrangements may have been made for a one off.

The location of the level crossing about 1 mile from the buffer stops is very much part of the problem as described by the RAIB report. I suggest you read it. The combination of leaving in a degraded mode, running brake test, difficulty of control of speed, recovery from late departure and requirement to operate a timing plunger helped to create the conditions for the run through of the level crossing. If the level crossing was at the platform end or 5 miles away there would not have been the same problems for the driver.

Now I expect it will be possible to ensure trains can be split and coupled at Aberystwyth and safely depart over the level crossing but is cannot be a surprise that coming up with a satisfactory technical and/or procedural method takes time and may in the short term prevent coupling at Aberystwyth.

 

[Tomnick]

Is such provision justified though? Apart from this particular movement, there's no other need to couple running moves here that I'm aware of. It's no different to, say, Blaneau Ffestiniog or Matlock, where you can shut units inside, run round or attach and detach, but can't bring one in on top of another. Compare that to Whitby, where there's provision for leaving a two car unit against the stops and bringing another train in on top.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Locomotives arriving at Aberystwyth and running round a train is not the same as two trains arriving independently then coupling and returning as a single train. My understanding from the press was that there were lots of issues with joining and splitting trains at Mach before the ERTMS system was successfully commissioned. Has the work to ensure these problems don’t recur been done at Aberystwyth? The single incident you mentioned earlier in the thread for a special event may not be particularly meaningful as special arrangements may have been made for a one off.

The location of the level crossing about 1 mile from the buffer stops is very much part of the problem as described by the RAIB report. I suggest you read it. The combination of leaving in a degraded mode, running brake test, difficulty of control of speed, recovery from late departure and requirement to operate a timing plunger helped to create the conditions for the run through of the level crossing. If the level crossing was at the platform end or 5 miles away there would not have been the same problems for the driver.

Now I expect it will be possible to ensure trains can be split and coupled at Aberystwyth and safely depart over the level crossing but is cannot be a surprise that coming up with a satisfactory technical and/or procedural method takes time and may in the short term prevent coupling at Aberystwyth.

remember ertms is suppose to be magic answer to everything - clearly we can see it isn't if such simple things as DMU's coupling up cant be done- the clues in the name. If it holds back badly needed and overdue improvements for passengers then I will only criticize more. It may all be a jolly technical wheeze for some but remember the Cambrian is an operational railway used by over 1.5 million people per annum. Its a living used railway not a playset for signal engineers/ enthusiasts.

 

[Tomnick]

It can cope with units coupling, as at Mach (once the issues have been ironed out), but only if provision is made at that location. Just as NSTR signalling allows it at Whitby, but the similar signalling at Blaneau or Matlock won't. RETB (as far as I know) didn't allow it at Aber, so no operational flexibility has been lost.

 

[tirphil]

This matter is NOT ERTMS related.

Aberystwyth station has no provision for permissive working (which is what two 158 units coupling together would be) This is different from a loco(s) running round a train.

Furthermore the 0930 ex Aberystwyth is never busy as the 1730 ex Aber.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks for confirming - just as I suspected. Permissive working is clearly possible under ERTMS, as it's provided at Machynlleth, but such provision has not been made at Aberystwyth.

 

[merlodlliw]

remember ertms is suppose to be magic answer to everything - clearly we can see it isn't if such simple things as DMU's coupling up cant be done- the clues in the name. If it holds back badly needed and overdue improvements for passengers then I will only criticize more. It may all be a jolly technical wheeze for some but remember the Cambrian is an operational railway used by over 1.5 million people per annum. Its a living used railway not a playset for signal engineers/ enthusiasts.

I fully agree, ertms has installed by NR has been a disaster from the start,I can not accept the argument its new and has to be nursed at the expense of passengers(thats why the Cambrian is there).
In my opinion some NR Management need to understand they are there to serve the passengers, not the other way round. This attitude of tomorrow will do plus gross mismanagement to attention to detail, train driver screens that could not be seen in daylight,£millions overspend,years late in commission that would not be tolerated in the Private sector.
It is now high summer, Cambrian Coast holiday resorts are suffering due to the weather, the last thing needed is overcrowded Cambrian bi hourly trains to turn passengers off.
The latest farce of NR not allowing six car units is typical, like tour trains being told at the last minute you can not use Llandudno station by an over zealous NR Signal Manager, its gone crazy this attitude of its easier to ban trains & stock than find a solution, the sooner the comfort zone enjoyed by some at NR is challenged the better in my opinion.
Gareth is right to challenge in support of the passenger who should come first not last.
If I have upset a few sorry, but It is my opinion as I see it.

 

[Tomnick]

You know when you feel like you're banging your head against the wall...?

I've never claimed that the introduction of ERTMS has been trouble-free - we all know there have been numerous issues, and I think the passengers on the Cambrian are justified in being upset at the various cases of disruption. If I've understood the situation correctly, it's one of those issues preventing sets being joined at Machynlleth - it's not NR "not allowing" it, but rather a shortcoming of the ERTMS installation that will, I'm sure, be resolved. I don't know what's gone wrong at Llandudno, but it sounds very much like an error that's gone unnoticed - planning something unworkable. The local management, faced with something that presumably won't work without disrupting some part of the 'regular' service, seem to have done the right thing by coming up with the alternative solution of starting the tour at Llandudno Junction.

What I have tried to say though, is that it's neither the fault of the ERTMS installation nor Network Rail that there's no facility for permissive working at Aberystwyth. If there had been a case for providing such a facility, then no doubt the TOC would have pushed for it to be included in the specification.