Should the two track railway north of Preston be fitted with bidirectional signalling?

[hexagon789]

Could the current heat have something to do with it?

Perhaps but I don't recall so many failures in such a short time frame.

It's also much cooler today than yesterday.

 

[The Planner]

One very minor but useful scheme on the WCML between Lancaster and Morecambe South Jn would allow Morecambe-Lancaster trains to traverse the Down Main without crossing-over and crossing-back, leaving the Up Line uninterrupted.

It certainly has been looked at.

 

[Zomboid]

In the true way of a crayonista, have that section of bi-di extend to the junction at Hest Bank, so up trains from the north can run wrong road into Lancaster if necessary using the crossover for the Morecambe line.

 

[Snow1964]

Bi-directional signalling will not happen on that portion of the WCML until the interlockings are replaced as they are 1970s era geographical relay interlockings and there is little chance NR or the supply chain now has the capability of doing such design and testing work. The interlockings are probably due for renewal within the next 10 years so should be looked at then. One of the problems will be the need to bring the signalling up to modern standards (eg signal sighting) which generally means more invasive intervention than a like for like replacement and will cost more.

Although I agree about loss of knowledge, we are not talking about some massively complicated station with lots of loco release crossovers etc. Something that only tiny number would be able to design or test.

We are talking about miles and miles of two track line, with token number of loops, sidings. Bluntly something that is routine with hundreds or thousands of miles like this existing in UK.

Of course there are off the shelf ETCS systems that are designed to cope with basic 2 track railways with a few crossovers, loops and sidings. If it is true ETCS (rather than bodged to some non-normal spec) then engineers from another country could design and test it.
It is sort of place where there is no point in having an overlay, just a straight switchover. Much easier to fit traction with ECTS ahead of switchover (each type can be tested on another line that already has it if needed). Trying to parallel two systems with overlays is time consuming, expensive, and staff heavy, and full of risks.

Not that many classes of traction that need converting (and anything built in last few years is supposedly prewired to ETCS ready). And before long probably be lot more lines with ETCS so traction fitted will over time become the norm (in much same way as AWS and air brakes were added over time to locos that weren't built with it).

 

[The Planner]

It is sort of place where there is no point in having an overlay, just a straight switchover. Much easier to fit traction with ECTS ahead of switchover (each type can be tested on another line that already has it if needed). Trying to parallel two systems with overlays is time consuming, expensive, and staff heavy, and full of risks.

Not that many classes of traction that need converting (and anything built in last few years is supposedly prewired to ETCS ready). And before long probably be lot more lines with ETCS so traction fitted will over time become the norm (in much same way as AWS and air brakes were added over time to locos that weren't built with it).

How do you train the drivers without an overlay section? release a shed load of them to train on a different line with different traction?

 

[Falcon1200]

Surely with so many incidents recently, questions need to be asked of both Network Rail and freight operators in terms of resilience, disruption, rescue contingencies and so on...

Fortunately the impact was not quite as severe this time, with 6S50 passing Summit at 1657, 117 minutes late.

There did of course used to be locos stationed at Beattock to bank trains up the hill, IIRC 2 x Class 20 supplied from Carstairs post-steam, and these could also assist any failed train. But they are long gone, even before I moved to Scotland in 1984. I can only say again that bi-di signalling would have long since paid for itself!

A couple of incidents I was involved in, from the early 2000s;

I came in for the night shift one day to find that an Up freight had derailed at Beattock. The Down line was clear, however the location of the derailed train blocked the crossovers at Beattock, so the Single Line Working (SLW) was a double section, between Wamphray and Summit. When I took duty there were already multiple trains standing, awaiting passage through the SLW, at both Wamphray and Summit. The first thing I did was advise the Signallers at Glasgow Central, Motherwell and Carlisle to despatch no further trains for the WCML, as they would end up standing for around 5 hours, minimum.

Another night, the overheads were down at the southern extremity of Scotland Route's part of the WCML. Again, SLW was possible, but we had great difficulty, even with the assistance of North West Route, in arranging enough staff; So much so that by the time the final person required for SLW was on site the overhead line staff had attended and repaired the fault!

 

[brad465]

Fortunately the impact was not quite as severe this time, with 6S50 passing Summit at 1657, 117 minutes late.

There did of course used to be locos stationed at Beattock to bank trains up the hill, IIRC 2 x Class 20 supplied from Carstairs post-steam, and these could also assist any failed train. But they are long gone, even before I moved to Scotland in 1984. I can only say again that bi-di signalling would have long since paid for itself!

How easily could spare locos be deployed here? I suspect a key challenge will be having crews on standby in the locations of such locos, especially in a part of the world as remote as the Southern Uplands.

 

[68000]

Perhaps the Freight Operator thought, and advised NR, that the problem had been resolved? It would not be the first time this situation has occurred.

Apparantly, the first 4S38 rescue loco ran out of fuel and that is why it sat down near Beattock Summit!

 

[zwk500]

Although I agree about loss of knowledge, we are not talking about some massively complicated station with lots of loco release crossovers etc. Something that only tiny number would be able to design or test.

We are talking about miles and miles of two track line, with token number of loops, sidings. Bluntly something that is routine with hundreds or thousands of miles like this existing in UK.

Of course there are off the shelf ETCS systems that are designed to cope with basic 2 track railways with a few crossovers, loops and sidings. If it is true ETCS (rather than bodged to some non-normal spec) then engineers from another country could design and test it.

ETCS require a lot more than just kit. It requires an accurate data profile of the line and traction to calculate the required braking curves for each End of Authority. All of that data must be collected or accessed, checked, prepared for ETCS and then stored, transferred etc to the signalling and trains.

It is sort of place where there is no point in having an overlay, just a straight switchover. Much easier to fit traction with ECTS ahead of switchover (each type can be tested on another line that already has it if needed). Trying to parallel two systems with overlays is time consuming, expensive, and staff heavy, and full of risks.
Not that many classes of traction that need converting (and anything built in last few years is supposedly prewired to ETCS ready). And before long probably be lot more lines with ETCS so traction fitted will over time become the norm (in much same way as AWS and air brakes were added over time to locos that weren't built with it).

Remember that it's not just tracks and trains that need to be converted to ETCS. Drivers, Signallers, Track workers, Engineers and so forth all need to be trained on the entirely new parts of the rulebook ETCS requires because things like Temporary Speed restrictions are dealt with in a different way. (They must be input in to ETCS to allow the speed supervision to monitor for TSRs as well). If there is no nearby ETCS suitable to train on, then lumping an island of ETCS-only in is a very high-risk strategy.
Even where there is a nearby ETCS line, it may still be sensible to have a brief period of overlay to train up drivers. Which is exactly what happened with Moorgate.

 

[MarkyT]

Only Kennington South Jn to Oxford Parkway/Wolvercot North Junction is equal capacity in both directions though. Didcot North Jn - Kennington South Jn and Oxford Parkway - Bicester is reduced capacity of only 1 signal between crossovers for wrong-direction movements (but I think 'full' signalling so not SIMBIDS).

I assume as costs escalated it got descoped quite quickly, to await ETCS.

I think most of the GWML between Didcot and the Severn Tunnel/Bristol Temple Meads is reduced capacity in the wrong direction (although some sections might get 2 trains in the wrong direction rather than just 1). However it is at least usable without prior notice, I think, so presumably has full protection of the wrong-direction signals.

RT/NR changed rules to allow BIDI to be used if exigent in normal running, used by signallers at Exeter for example to allow randomly presented long-distance down expresses to bypass stoppers through Dawish via the BIDI on the up line along the sea wall, as long as something's not coming the other way, clearly! An equivalent facility for up expresses might be useful for recovery scenarios in this area. The crossover speeds don't dramatically increase the section times in a fairly slow area overall with modern fast-accelerating trains.

 

[GW43125]

Not sure if it's the same system but SIMBIDs was installed on the SWML as well. I want to say Worting Junction (South of Basingstoke) to Winchester (possibly Shawford), and Woking to Guildford.

Woking to Guildford was never commissioned, despite some signals being installed. SWML is something like Micheldever to Allbrook (Eastleigh)-there's no crossovers at Worting Jn to get you over.