• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Greater Anglia PBoro to Ipswich service abandoned

Status
Not open for further replies.

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
Is it just me that finds it hard to believe the signalling system is in fact at fault, when other DMUs pass through the area without incident, or someone is using their PR "Skills" to blame someone else, rather than their incredibly non-standard new fleet?
I suggest that something got 'lost in translation' somewhere. It will be an issue with the signalling system caused by interface with the new trains. That is, the trains produce interference that upsets the signalling.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,070
Is that a new thing? EMR obstruct the level crossings at a few stations in Lincolnshire such as Swiderby if the train is 3 coaches (or longer). The driver needs to use the local door to let passengers out. I assume if EMR had new stock we would have the same issue.
HSTs with SDO were trialled on Skegness and would have had special stopping boards in place at Swinderby, Hubberts Bridge and Aslockton off the top of my head, so that the train would draw forward and the rear coaches would be unlocked. Swinderby is rear 2, Aslockton rear 1, and I think Hubberts is rear 2 as well. It's all moot as it never got off the ground aside from the test run.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,822
Location
East Anglia
The 08:03 & 09:50 return where planned to run but have been scuppered by a faulty cab door.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I suggest that something got 'lost in translation' somewhere. It will be an issue with the signalling system caused by interface with the new trains. That is, the trains produce interference that upsets the signalling.

Then forgive my simple engineering mind for thinking, "What isn't compliant here?"

Neither the manufacturer of the rolling stock, nor the infrastructure operator are particularly innocent when it comes to non-compliance with the applicable industry standards. Nor do I expect either of them to be particularly open with regards to what could be the root cause of these issues, nor, and this truly saddens me, understand enough of each system to actually know from where such an issue could stem.

But what I do expect to be true is, "This is the first Bi-Mode unit to operate on this line." So, what is different?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
It sounds to me like some sort of compatibility issue that isn't fully covered by standards, or the standards aren't fully understood, or pre-existing equipment isn't compliant with the standards applicable to new equipment. Rather like the issues between Azumas and SSI which restricted their use on the northern ECML until recently.

The question of who is compliant and who is non-compliant directly influences the question of who pays to fix it, so m'learned friends are likely to be involved. That means that limited information will be available, and any put out by one party should be taken with a pinch of salt.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
Imagine the following:

I design a tube for conveying marbles in 1973. I spec it to be one inch wide, draw it on paper, then have it made. It successfully conveys marbles that are 9/16ths of an inch, so all is well.

Flash forward to 2020. My tube has had quite a few modifications over the years, but the specification is still the very same 2.54cm it always was. Elsewhere some very nice new marbles are running at a whopping 2.54cm in size! But when I try to run my shiny new marbles on my old tube, they start to get stuck. There's nothing wrong with the tube, since the old marbles work just fine, and the spec says the new marbles should work. Yet now, thanks to some inaccuracy down the line, I have to rework the entire marble tube interface.
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,178
Location
Spain
Network changes - and the introduction of a new type of train is classed as a Network Change - are governed by the Common Safety Method as required by the ROGS regulations. It is the responsibility of The Proposer of Change - in this case the TOC who is introducing the new trains - to ensure the CSM Risk Analysis (CSM-RA) is properly undertaken and that it includes all stakeholders.

Clearly something has gone wrong with this process in this instance. There was a risk associated with the trains interface with the signalling system that either was not identified or the mitigation that was identified failed.
 

mawallace

Member
Joined
20 Nov 2006
Messages
291
I was told by someone at GA that the SSO's stopped as the other operators got fed up helping GA out!
 

Alfie1014

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2012
Messages
1,118
Location
Essex
I was told by someone at GA that the SSO's stopped as the other operators got fed up helping GA out!

They’ve also stopped non inter available ticket acceptance too. Can sort of understand XC doing it but as EMR is a fellow Abellio franchise seems unduly unfair on passengers. Today for example with the one train cancelled pax arriving at PBO for it at 13:50 have been told they need to wait for the 15:50 bus unless they have open tickets rather than travel via Cambs or Norwich!
 

2HAP

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
467
Location
Hadlow
They’ve also stopped non inter available ticket acceptance too. Can sort of understand XC doing it but as EMR is a fellow Abellio franchise seems unduly unfair on passengers. Today for example with the one train cancelled pax arriving at PBO for it at 13:50 have been told they need to wait for the 15:50 bus unless they have open tickets rather than travel via Cambs or Norwich!

OK, and what if said passenger is unable to use a bus because they need ready access to toilet facilities, which can be found on said train. Can they invoke disability legislation and insist on travelling by train without penalty?
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,462
Is it just me that finds it hard to believe the signalling system is in fact at fault, when other DMUs pass through the area without incident, or someone is using their PR "Skills" to blame someone else, rather than their incredibly non-standard new fleet?

Perhaps one needs to look at why a Class 156 or 170 operates these AHBs just fine, and the new Stadler units, far from trouble free, do not.

Not that one is defending NR's design decisions on level crossings, but the simplest solution is not usually the correct one for inter-operability issues like this?

I read that some AHBs in Anglia are fitted with a rather dubious form of train detection which measures the eddy currents in the track circuits (or something like that) to detect how far away the approaching train is, and times the barrier sequence accordingly. Problem is that it was only designed to work with Sprinters but Railtrack didn’t take the possibility of any different future traction into account when buying it in the early 2000s and that the full implications of this weren’t appreciated by Network Rail until something sufficiently different came along in the form of a 755. Might be me, but there’s worrying echoes of Moreton-on-Lugg about it.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
I read that some AHBs in Anglia are fitted with a rather dubious form of train detection which measures the eddy currents in the track circuits (or something like that) to detect how far away the approaching train is, and times the barrier sequence accordingly. Problem is that it was only designed to work with Sprinters but Railtrack didn’t take the possibility of any different future traction into account when buying it in the early 2000s and that the full implications of this weren’t appreciated by Network Rail until something sufficiently different came along in the form of a 755. Might be me, but there’s worrying echoes of Moreton-on-Lugg about it.
Hang on. Seemed to work ok with 153/156/158/170s. And various classes towing a line of condensate tanks to/from North Walsham, RHTT etc.

And it is not random AHBs 'in Anglia', they are only installed on the Bittern Line ie Norwich-Sheringham.
Of course someone perhaps should have thought to check in more detail both at the rolling stock procurement and testing stages ....
The RAIB will no doubt have plenty to say in due course.

Apart from delaying new Class 755 commissioning, driver training and further route clearance there is no connection to the service on Ipswich-Peterborough.
 

Edders23

Member
Joined
22 Sep 2018
Messages
549
There arent very many drivers in that neck of the woods passed for 755s yet. At last check, you could count the number on one hand. I'm sure that is being rectified as best they can though.


so why didn't they wait until they had sufficient trained to start using the new stock ?
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,462
Hang on. Seemed to work ok with 153/156/158/170s. And various classes towing a line of condensate tanks to/from North Walsham, RHTT etc.

And it is not random AHBs 'in Anglia', they are only installed on the Bittern Line ie Norwich-Sheringham.
Of course someone perhaps should have thought to check in more detail both at the rolling stock procurement and testing stages ....
The RAIB will no doubt have plenty to say in due course.

Apart from delaying new Class 755 commissioning, driver training and further route clearance there is no connection to the service on Ipswich-Peterborough.

Thanks Eastdyke - I somehow hadn’t noticed the thread specifically discussing the issue at Norwich Road (plus the BBC video footage - yikes!)
 

TurbostarFan

On Moderation
Joined
8 Aug 2016
Messages
462
Location
UK
They’ve also stopped non inter available ticket acceptance too. Can sort of understand XC doing it but as EMR is a fellow Abellio franchise seems unduly unfair on passengers. Today for example with the one train cancelled pax arriving at PBO for it at 13:50 have been told they need to wait for the 15:50 bus unless they have open tickets rather than travel via Cambs or Norwich!
Couldn't you travel via Norwich on GA (without using any other TOC) by travelling Ipswich to Norwich, then Norwich to Ely, and then Ely to Peterborough?
 

47421

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2012
Messages
654
Location
london
I think this is technically possible at some locations but is rarely permitted. The location of the signal or the need for the driver to be able to access the platform might cause practical problems too.


The Aug 16 GA Franchise Agreement carefully identifies platforms which need to be extended. There are the bays at Wickford and Manningtree (here the FA must be wrong when says need to extend to accommodate 10 car units, must mean 5 cars), Hertford East and Kings Lynn terminus where location of points n signals needs changing, although I expect we will never see 10 car 720s at KL as the work currently being done on fenline is only for 8 cars. Otherwise the other 4 are all locations where the signal is at the end of the platform and there are crossings immediately to rear.

No platform extension work done at any of these locations AFAIK. At Hertford East planning application was rejected as local busy-bodies objected to removal of the long disused signal box. Application been re-sibmitted, decision pending.

Once the 720s arrive will be interesting to see whether 10 cars are permitted to stop at Enfield Lock and Elsenham.

Pursuant to paragraph 105.1 such changes to the infrastructure shall include such infrastructure works at each of Hertford East, Wickford, Manningtree, Kings Lynn, Elsenham, Ware, St Margarets and Enfield Lock Stations as are necessary to enable any Passenger Services comprised of 10 rolling stock vehicles to call at such Stations by no later than 1 September 2018.​
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,178
Location
Spain
No nothing to do with that. 755s have ASDO. Network Rail will not permit new train fleets to obstruct level crossings.

I read that some AHBs in Anglia are fitted with a rather dubious form of train detection which measures the eddy currents in the track circuits (or something like that) to detect how far away the approaching train is, and times the barrier sequence accordingly. Problem is that it was only designed to work with Sprinters but Railtrack didn’t take the possibility of any different future traction into account when buying it in the early 2000s and that the full implications of this weren’t appreciated by Network Rail until something sufficiently different came along in the form of a 755. Might be me, but there’s worrying echoes of Moreton-on-Lugg about it.

A “dubious” system that has worked perfectly well for more than 19 years with a wide variation of rolling stock?

The CMS-RA system requires the Proposer of Change to adequately risk assess the change, clearly the risk was not adequately assessed as a train came within a very close chance of a collision. No doubt the investigation in to this incident will review what failed in the CSM process. I look forward to seeing what the proposed changes are to the process.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
A “dubious” system that has worked perfectly well for more than 19 years with a wide variation of rolling stock?

The CMS-RA system requires the Proposer of Change to adequately risk assess the change, clearly the risk was not adequately assessed as a train came within a very close chance of a collision. No doubt the investigation in to this incident will review what failed in the CSM process. I look forward to seeing what the proposed changes are to the process.
The process should have identified a hazard of incompatibility between the train and the crossing predictors and closed this out by some demonstration that the two are compatible. Most likely this will be by compliance to a particular standard, so the problem may not be the process. The standard could be wrong or there could be some error in the testing or analysis that demonstrates compliance.
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,178
Location
Spain
The process should have identified a hazard of incompatibility between the train and the crossing predictors and closed this out by some demonstration that the two are compatible. Most likely this will be by compliance to a particular standard, so the problem may not be the process. The standard could be wrong or there could be some error in the testing or analysis that demonstrates compliance.

The hazard should have been identified. The mitigation should also have been identified. If that mitigation revolved around on site testing then that should have been undertaken under controlled conditions, clearly it was not.

Standards? Whose standards? A proper risk assessment will never rely on standards, one of the risks is that standards do not address the latest risks. Network Rail is notorious for not updating it’s standards for the latest legislation let alone the latest risks!
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,176
As I said above, as reported in January’s “Modern Railways” page 96 as well as the crossing incident on 24th November. A class 755 disappeared from all track circuits from Trowse Swing Bridge all the way into Norwich station on the December 5th December, prompting the class being withdrawn from service on the 6th. No other class of train was effected on that section of track. It is looking like these units might have a wheel rail interface problem.

Which is a shame as they look like nice units and I was hoping that if all of Southern’s class 171s get poached that a bimode based on these would make a good 750dc/diesel or battery solution for Marsh link and Uckfield line.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
Credit where it's due:
It looks as though they are running the whole (2-hourly) stopping service today.
Pity it doesn't work on weekdays!
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
As I said above, as reported in January’s “Modern Railways” page 96 as well as the crossing incident on 24th November. A class 755 disappeared from all track circuits from Trowse Swing Bridge all the way into Norwich station on the December 5th December, prompting the class being withdrawn from service on the 6th. No other class of train was effected on that section of track. It is looking like these units might have a wheel rail interface problem.

Which is a shame as they look like nice units and I was hoping that if all of Southern’s class 171s get poached that a bimode based on these would make a good 750dc/diesel or battery solution for Marsh link and Uckfield line.

The 5th December incident was the catalyst for the suspension of and thorough inspection of class 755 services but I am pretty sure the incident was at Warpole level crossing on the Cromer/Sheringham branch, not Trowse junction...which incidentally is literally just around the corner from Norwich.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The hazard should have been identified. The mitigation should also have been identified. If that mitigation revolved around on site testing then that should have been undertaken under controlled conditions, clearly it was not.

Standards? Whose standards? A proper risk assessment will never rely on standards, one of the risks is that standards do not address the latest risks. Network Rail is notorious for not updating it’s standards for the latest legislation let alone the latest risks!
Compliance with a recognized and appropriate standard is an accepted method of closing a hazard under the Common Safety Method. This does of course require that the standard is applicable to the hazard situation being addressed - so the standard must the risk in question otherwise it can't be used. The demonstration of compliance to the standard must also be robust. If the standard proves to be incorrect then clearly this approach won't assure safety. We don't know if this is the case, or if the demonstration of compliance to a standard was faulty, or if they relied on explicit risk assessment in the absence of an applicable standard and something went wrong in that.
 

Tio Terry

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
1,178
Location
Spain
Compliance with a recognized and appropriate standard is an accepted method of closing a hazard under the Common Safety Method. This does of course require that the standard is applicable to the hazard situation being addressed - so the standard must the risk in question otherwise it can't be used. The demonstration of compliance to the standard must also be robust. If the standard proves to be incorrect then clearly this approach won't assure safety. We don't know if this is the case, or if the demonstration of compliance to a standard was faulty, or if they relied on explicit risk assessment in the absence of an applicable standard and something went wrong in that.

A good, properly conducted, HAZID/HAZOP will always challenge any existing standards. All mitigation’s that are related to standards need to explain why the standard is considered to be an adequate mitigation, not to simply list the standard. Blind reliance on standards is not an acceptable mitigation as you quite rightly say.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
Thameslink 700s block the crossing at Littlehaven twice an hour. Either this rule post-dates their introduction, or dispensations can be granted, it seems.
What's even more bizarre is that the platforms were extended to eight cars not long before Thameslink started running the stoppers. So we've gone from very few trains blocking the crossing back to blocking it every half an hour. In fact it's worse than ever. When Southern ran the stoppers, a lot of off peak trains were only four cars so they didn't block the crossing.
 

stonojnr

Member
Joined
17 Apr 2019
Messages
30
well as an example of the kind of problems you can get with standards and odd things that can happen with new trains and the increasingly complicated software used to run them. Remember back last year when the national grid had a power supply wobble, that resulted in blackouts in some places and the frequency of the grid power supply dropped below 49Hz, which for most people didnt cause much of an issue.

But an unknown (or at least its implications were unknown at the time) safety feature of Thameslinks class 700s and 717s was if their power supply dropped below 49Hz, and note Network rails spec standard says the minimum could be 47Hz, the train software put the train into a failure mode which only a manual reset could fix.

Siemens had coded the trains to work from a nominal 50Hz supply and not expected the supply to drop below 49Hz, which fair enough is a rare occurence, but it doesnt follow the full range of NRs spec, and so the trains stopped and refused to go any further, now some of the trains running an earlier software version, allowed the driver to reset and carry on, the others required an engineer with a laptop to reset. and Siemens have been working on a software patch to fix this for the future.

Which makes me think maybe its similar kind of thing happening here and NRs barriers and signalling system on these rural lines is setup to be within the published standard still, but the tolerances have drifted over the years and so its maybe marginally out of spec or only able to handle lower margins and with the brand new train whose engineering tolerances should be spot on to begin with its messing it up, whilst the older trains trundling around for 30-40 years dont have that same precision
 

TurbostarFan

On Moderation
Joined
8 Aug 2016
Messages
462
Location
UK
well as an example of the kind of problems you can get with standards and odd things that can happen with new trains and the increasingly complicated software used to run them. Remember back last year when the national grid had a power supply wobble, that resulted in blackouts in some places and the frequency of the grid power supply dropped below 49Hz, which for most people didnt cause much of an issue.

But an unknown (or at least its implications were unknown at the time) safety feature of Thameslinks class 700s and 717s was if their power supply dropped below 49Hz, and note Network rails spec standard says the minimum could be 47Hz, the train software put the train into a failure mode which only a manual reset could fix.

Siemens had coded the trains to work from a nominal 50Hz supply and not expected the supply to drop below 49Hz, which fair enough is a rare occurence, but it doesnt follow the full range of NRs spec, and so the trains stopped and refused to go any further, now some of the trains running an earlier software version, allowed the driver to reset and carry on, the others required an engineer with a laptop to reset. and Siemens have been working on a software patch to fix this for the future.

Which makes me think maybe its similar kind of thing happening here and NRs barriers and signalling system on these rural lines is setup to be within the published standard still, but the tolerances have drifted over the years and so its maybe marginally out of spec or only able to handle lower margins and with the brand new train whose engineering tolerances should be spot on to begin with its messing it up, whilst the older trains trundling around for 30-40 years dont have that same precision

Didn't you mean if the train's power supply dropped below 50Hz? The 49 Hertz Friday incident involved the power supply dropping to 49Hz, which whilst rare was still close to the specification.
 

Southern Dvr

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2010
Messages
875
Let’s just take that in for a moment shall we? A train was designed and accepted to operate in the UK that would shut down in such a way that only an engineer with a laptop could rectify.

you can’t make this nonsense up, because depressingly it’s true!
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
Also reported (I believe in modern railways magazine) that one disappeared from all the track circuits from Trowse swing Bridge all the way into Norwich station a couple of weeks after the AHB incident.

Interesting, I do not recall anyone reporting such an incident in the box, and there has been no mention of it on any shift ! A thing like that would be the talk of the box, for some considerable time
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,176
Interesting, I do not recall anyone reporting such an incident in the box, and there has been no mention of it on any shift ! A thing like that would be the talk of the box, for some considerable time

I know at my place, sometimes if your not on duty when something happens then quite a lot can pass you by without knowing the latest gossip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top