The end of signal boxes

[lincolnshire]

Do people think we can see a future when station adoption scheme members use signalboxes near to the relevant stations as storerooms and staff facilities? I think there are a few cases where this is already done, but I can't remember where! I feel that volunteers who prove themselves capable of helping to maintain a station to a good standard should be allowed to do this if they have the time, requirements and inclination to do so.

Sorry can,t see that happening at all, Network Rail don,t want people trackside at all, even there own staff unless they have to be there.
Station adoption scheme members won,t be PTS trained and the TOC won,t want the additional cost of maintaining another building etc.
Think it will be a classic case of it was there on Saturday and Monday morning its gone and just a patch of ground where it used to be.
I might be wrong, but they just want rid of the old and the staff from B.R days if they could in the same way.

 

[33056]

As to whether the whole scheme will end with all the signalling done from fourteen signalling centres?..if you had have asked me last year I would have doubted the prospect,but now?,yep I think it well might do...

N/R do seem quite keen on this at the moment but I have seen too many grandiose plans come to nought in the past, including one where all the signallers in an area were issued with redundancy then the scheme never came to fruition :roll: In fact the boxes concerned only finally closed in the last couple of years.

What might make things different this time round is the advances in technology with things like SSI and modular signalling which does make things a bit easier in that you can in very basic terms "unplug" a modern computerised installation and control it from somewhere else relatively easily. It will be interesting to see how quickly concrete plans to resignal areas such as Shrewsbury or Worcester appear, as such places appear to be well down the list at present.

I might be wrong, but they just want rid of the old and the staff from B.R days if they could in the same way.

Don't think you are too far wrong regarding the latter

 

[mwmbwls]

http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/028-2012WEB.pdf

seen on another site

 

[tsr]

Operational signal boxes? Definitely not! Otherwise (as I suspect you mean), I think it'd be a good idea if it helps to keep the structure looking cared for and hopefully less attractive to vandals. The main problem would be access in some cases, and maintenance on the outside of the structure unless the railway continued to provide this.

Sorry can,t see that happening at all, Network Rail don,t want people trackside at all, even there own staff unless they have to be there.
Station adoption scheme members won,t be PTS trained and the TOC won,t want the additional cost of maintaining another building etc.
Think it will be a classic case of it was there on Saturday and Monday morning its gone and just a patch of ground where it used to be.
I might be wrong, but they just want rid of the old and the staff from B.R days if they could in the same way.

I'm sorry - evidently I should have been clearer. I do, of course, mean non-operational signal boxes (either non-operational now or, due to redundancies, in the future, due to the new NR signalling centres or otherwise), and ones that are readily accessible without using the track.

For example, there are plenty of signal boxes which can be accessed from public roads and paths, not to mention the ends of station platforms.

 

[Sox]

FWIW, heard an anecdote about a traditional signal box at Stockport station that was retained as it would have been too expensive to get rid of. They refurbished same using Indian technicians (a skill no longer available in this country).

 

[John55]

I'm sorry - evidently I should have been clearer. I do, of course, mean non-operational signal boxes (either non-operational now or, due to redundancies, in the future, due to the new NR signalling centres or otherwise), and ones that are readily accessible without using the track.

For example, there are plenty of signal boxes which can be accessed from public roads and paths, not to mention the ends of station platforms.

I cannot but help thinking disused Signal Boxes are very bad places to store anything. They are completely insecure and very inflammable.

 

[Bald Rick]

FWIW, heard an anecdote about a traditional signal box at Stockport station that was retained as it would have been too expensive to get rid of. They refurbished same using Indian technicians (a skill no longer available in this country).

Not an anecdote, but the truth! Although the skills are available in this country, they were just already booked when Stockport was done as a rush job.

Technology has moved on though, and all the 'boxes will go.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

No matter how attractive "traditional" signalling looks from a heritage point of view - in the 21st Century , it seems out of place to have someone physically pulling levers to move a piece of metal up and down , or to switch tracks. Much is technology that G P Neale of the LNWR (who retired in 1905) would recognize.

Have to move on (whilst preserving as much as we can on heritage lines / sites) - there are not many Bessemer converter steel plants in full operation , let alone water powered flannel mills (which date from the the same era)

 

[MattRobinson]

Sadly, Keighley Junction 'box was decommissioned a while ago and is now listed, but is now rotting away. It's owned by NR, rather than KWVR, but according to this link it's going to be the oldest surviving Midland Box. Sadly, it's unlikely to be restored, given that it's hard to access, but it's a really nice box and it would be nice to just get it back into good cosmetic condition.

 

[Rick1984]

If a box is inaccessible just lift it up and plonk it somewhere more useful. (obviously cost would come into it)

 

[WL113]

FWIW, heard an anecdote about a traditional signal box at Stockport station that was retained as it would have been too expensive to get rid of. They refurbished same using Indian technicians (a skill no longer available in this country).

Stockport 1 and 2 Signalboxes.

 

[Robsignals]

The object detection crossings won't be visually checked Rob,it's a system that is apparently already being successfully worked in Germany and has already been trialled here in Bridlington.What I would say however is that if these type of crossings are misused to the extent that some of the present one's are,both manned and unmanned,then this could cause a few problems in regards to performance.
As to whether the whole scheme will end with all the signalling done from fourteen signalling centres?..if you had have asked me last year I would have doubted the prospect,but now?,yep I think it well might do...

Thanks for the info. Yes, when the public realise that barriers don't lower until, presumably, the crossing is completely clear they will just keep going across. Does detection continue once the barriers are down? Imagine the fun local yoof will have if they find waving over the barrier brings trains screeching to a halt!

 

[WL113]

No matter how attractive "traditional" signalling looks from a heritage point of view - in the 21st Century , it seems out of place to have someone physically pulling levers to move a piece of metal up and down , or to switch tracks. Much is technology that G P Neale of the LNWR (who retired in 1905) would recognize.

Have to move on (whilst preserving as much as we can on heritage lines / sites) - there are not many Bessemer converter steel plants in full operation , let alone water powered flannel mills (which date from the the same era)

Manual Signalboxes are still the most reliable, foolproof and efficient method of signalling trains. The Power Signal Boxes commissioned in the 1960s followed this tradition.

 

[Robsignals]

No matter how attractive "traditional" signalling looks from a heritage point of view - in the 21st Century , it seems out of place to have someone physically pulling levers to move a piece of metal up and down , or to switch tracks. Much is technology that G P Neale of the LNWR (who retired in 1905) would recognize.

Have to move on (whilst preserving as much as we can on heritage lines / sites) - there are not many Bessemer converter steel plants in full operation , let alone water powered flannel mills (which date from the the same era)

Amberley, a platform level frame, on the Arun Valley line is simply there for headway reduction and could be replaced by a couple of Auto signals. It was always Closed Out until a timetable change a few years ago introduced splitting at Horsham requiring it to be open 10 hours a day Mon - Sat, what a pointless and boring job it must be for the signaller.

 

[Metroland]

Manual Signalboxes are still the most reliable, foolproof and efficient method of signalling trains. The Power Signal Boxes commissioned in the 1960s followed this tradition.

I politely disagree. While some people like them, many are very attractive buildings and give a sense of contact with the trains I can't see any of those points hold true.

They are certainly not the most efficient. The quantity of manning needed for even a simple layout or stretch of line imposes huge costs on the railway. It's very difficult to get an 'overall view' with this type of signalling and it relies on a lot of co-operation between signallers.

Many of these boxes were added when trip-freight trains were the norm and they controlled access to yards and sidings, men were kept busy because of the sort of railway 100 years ago. On branch lines, signalmen often did station duties too. Railway operating has completely changed since, and people sitting about for 30 mins to an hour or more is not efficient.

They are also certainly not the most foolproof. Look at the accident a while back near Hereford. Full track circuiting and 21st century interlocking is going to trump something that was mainly conceived in the Victorian and Edwardian period.

They can be quite reliable IF the equipment is maintained in tip top condition, the problem is this takes quite a lot of maintenance using skills that are fast disappearing.

They are something from the past, and while in a way I am sorry to see them go, they should be confined to heritage railways. However, we must salute their designers, not much technology from the late 1800s has made it into regular service in any industry today. The design has more than stood the test of time, and very little of the 14 control centres will remain in 2112.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for the info. Yes, when the public realise that barriers don't lower until, presumably, the crossing is completely clear they will just keep going across. Does detection continue once the barriers are down? Imagine the fun local yoof will have if they find waving over the barrier brings trains screeching to a halt!

That's not how they work. The entry barriers will still come down. If after a set number of scans by the 2 separate obstacle detection systems there is still an obstruction, the exit barriers will drop, the protecting signal will remain at danger, and the next train cautioned.

With normal operation, obstacle detection does not continue after the crossing has been proved clear, in exactly the same way that CCTV crossings are not required to be monitored after the crossing clear is given.

 

[Robsignals]

That's not how they work. The entry barriers will still come down. If after a set number of scans by the 2 separate obstacle detection systems there is still an obstruction, the exit barriers will drop, the protecting signal will remain at danger, and the next train cautioned.

With normal operation, obstacle detection does not continue after the crossing has been proved clear, in exactly the same way that CCTV crossings are not required to be monitored after the crossing clear is given.

Thanks. So do entry barriers lower regardless then, is CCTV removed as part of the conversion? After incidents at Automatic Crossings it's often suggested that object detectors radio linked to trains would improve safety and it might be considered an enhancement at full 'xings to detect a major obstruction such as a vehicle crashing through a barrier other than just a barrier fault alarm.

 

[Toots]

Bald Rick seems to have a better handle on these type of crossings than I do,but no they will not have CCTV . There is a slight delay between the action of entry and exit barriers.On busy crossings this could cause problems as vehicles and people simply continue to cross whilst the barriers lower.I'm surprised that some CCTV crossings aren't required to be monitored after the crossing clear has been given,I certainly wouldn't be happy with that situation,but understand that it does exist.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks. So do entry barriers lower regardless then, is CCTV removed as part of the conversion? After incidents at Automatic Crossings it's often suggested that object detectors radio linked to trains would improve safety and it might be considered an enhancement at full 'xings to detect a major obstruction such as a vehicle crashing through a barrier other than just a barrier fault alarm.

The normal sequence is:

Road lights
scan crossing (1)
Entry barriers down
scan crossing (2)
Exit barriers down
scan crossing (3)
Crossing clear given
Protecting signal may then be cleared.

If the scan shows an obstruction at point 1 or 2 , then the system waits for a set number of seconds before rescanning, then progressing to the next step regardless of outcome.

If scan 3 shows an obstruction, the exit barriers will raise for a short while, then the sequence will continue from scan (2). This loop only happens once.

If scan 3 shows an obstruction a second time, the crossing reports an obstruction to the signaller, protecting signals are maintained at danger, and the signaller must then caution the next train across. If there is no obstruction the crossing is considered to have failed and S&T are called. If there is an obstruction, the cavalry are called.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bald Rick seems to have a better handle on these type of crossings than I do,but no they will not have CCTV . There is a slight delay between the action of entry and exit barriers.On busy crossings this could cause problems as vehicles and people simply continue to cross whilst the barriers lower.I'm surprised that some CCTV crossings aren't required to be monitored after the crossing clear has been given,I certainly wouldn't be happy with that situation,but understand that it does exist.

Very rarely are any CCTV, or indeed manned crossings required to be monitored after closure, although some signallers choose to do so. The reason is that once the crossing clear has been given, and the protecting signal cleared, the route is proved and safe. In theory a train travelling at line speed may not be able to stop if the crossing subsequently became obstructed, indeed once past the protecting signal the driver would not know of an obstruction until the crossing came into view.

I must admit to being a former sceptic of MCB-OD crossings, but having read the paperwork, they are clearly the safest type of crossing available (short of a bridge) because they remove human error from the process under normal operation. Having been party to dozens of investigations where signaller error has unfortunately been a causal factor in level crossing incidents and accidents, this has to be the right. The ORR inspectors I have dealt with share this opinion.

 

[Proud Salopian]

There's also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19464080 which lists the ten best boxes

Mentions Shrewsbury's Severn Bridge box, but only as England's largest... no, it's now the WORLD's largest.

 

[Crossover]

One of the ones I'm surprised hasn't gone is the one on the entry to the section up to Barton-on-Humber. What with the demise of the freight terminal there, the signaller must get a bit bored passing the token to and from a train once every 2 hours (so two movements per 2 hours, no more than 30 mins apart) - probably the same crew at that!

 

[Robsignals]

The normal sequence is:

Road lights
scan crossing (1)
Entry barriers down
scan crossing (2)
Exit barriers down
scan crossing (3)
Crossing clear given
Protecting signal may then be cleared.

If the scan shows an obstruction at point 1 or 2 , then the system waits for a set number of seconds before rescanning, then progressing to the next step regardless of outcome.

If scan 3 shows an obstruction, the exit barriers will raise for a short while, then the sequence will continue from scan (2). This loop only happens once.

If scan 3 shows an obstruction a second time, the crossing reports an obstruction to the signaller, protecting signals are maintained at danger, and the signaller must then caution the next train across. If there is no obstruction the crossing is considered to have failed and S&T are called. If there is an obstruction, the cavalry are called.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Very rarely are any CCTV, or indeed manned crossings required to be monitored after closure, although some signallers choose to do so. The reason is that once the crossing clear has been given, and the protecting signal cleared, the route is proved and safe. In theory a train travelling at line speed may not be able to stop if the crossing subsequently became obstructed, indeed once past the protecting signal the driver would not know of an obstruction until the crossing came into view.

I must admit to being a former sceptic of MCB-OD crossings, but having read the paperwork, they are clearly the safest type of crossing available (short of a bridge) because they remove human error from the process under normal operation. Having been party to dozens of investigations where signaller error has unfortunately been a causal factor in level crossing incidents and accidents, this has to be the right. The ORR inspectors I have dealt with share this opinion.

So could barriers come down onto vehicles causing drivers to move in panic breaking them off? I agree with you but human nature means when road users realise they're not being watched (the cameras may be left and recorded and/or be available via IP on Intranet) they will continue crossing until barriers start to lower causing delay. When the media find out they're likely to manufacture outrage about the public "being put in danger" like when AHBs first appeared which may sting politicians into setting up a review.

Then the unions will want extra pay for drivers as when they're cautioned by they will have new 'management' responsibilities to investigate and make decisions about how to deal with the obstruction. Are "Drivers of slow vehicles... phone for permission" signs provided?

 

[Tomnick]

Then the unions will want extra pay for drivers as when they're cautioned by they will have new 'management' responsibilities to investigate and make decisions about how to deal with the obstruction.

Surely it's no different to cautioning Drivers for a UWC where the user has failed to call back, a failed AHB or failed CCTV?

 

[MarkyT]

So could barriers come down onto vehicles causing drivers to move in panic breaking them off?

If the barriers are damaged, the continuity strip should detect that and prevent the sequence completing, maintaining or replacing the protecting signals red, and sending a status alarm to the signaller. Local cameras recording such incidents should be able to identify offenders.

 

[GB]

Bald Rick seems to have a better handle on these type of crossings than I do,but no they will not have CCTV . There is a slight delay between the action of entry and exit barriers.On busy crossings this could cause problems as vehicles and people simply continue to cross whilst the barriers lower.I'm surprised that some CCTV crossings aren't required to be monitored after the crossing clear has been given,I certainly wouldn't be happy with that situation,but understand that it does exist.

Unless otherwise stated in the special box instructions, I don't think you even have to watch the CCTV while the barriers are being lowered....only required to watch it before pressing crossing clear.

 

[Robsignals]

Surely it's no different to cautioning Drivers for a UWC where the user has failed to call back, a failed AHB or failed CCTV?

The difference is these are the busiest crossings which up till now have required visual inspection at each operation, the chances of encountering an obstruction are far greater than for any other Crossing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the barriers are damaged, the continuity strip should detect that and prevent the sequence completing, maintaining or replacing the protecting signals red, and sending a status alarm to the signaller. Local cameras recording such incidents should be able to identify offenders.

Yes, and the object detector will also prevent signal clearance. Road users aren't in danger but they don't know that and will panic, if the barriers are broken then there'll be substantial delays for road and rail traffic. If it happens "often" then a media storm is likely to develop...

 

[Tomnick]

Perhaps - but the sequence described above should give any traffic queuing back over the crossing time to clear before finally lowering the exit barriers and reporting an obstruction - how often, in reality, does the lowering sequence have to be stopped owing to an obstruction? I'd guess it'd be far less often than a train has to be cautioned for a AHB failure (or failed phones, or missing signs...) or has to approach an AOCL or ABCL in normal operation. Despite all that, I think some busy crossings will prove unsuitable for OD technology, and a few occasions of vehicles trapped on crossings (even if protected by signals) will possibly turn public perception against them!

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps - but the sequence described above should give any traffic queuing back over the crossing time to clear before finally lowering the exit barriers and reporting an obstruction - how often, in reality, does the lowering sequence have to be stopped owing to an obstruction? I'd guess it'd be far less often than a train has to be cautioned for a AHB failure (or failed phones, or missing signs...) or has to approach an AOCL or ABCL in normal operation. Despite all that, I think some busy crossings will prove unsuitable for OD technology, and a few occasions of vehicles trapped on crossings (even if protected by signals) will possibly turn public perception against them!

On current supervised crossings, lowering sequences are stopped due to an obstruction relatively often. However the number of times an obstruction remains after the sequence has been paused, and (more rarely) exit barriers have been raised, is very small. And sometimes, unfortunately, these obstructions are not picked up by the signaller, whereas MCB-OD has never failed in this respect.

 

[Robsignals]

Perhaps - but the sequence described above should give any traffic queuing back over the crossing time to clear before finally lowering the exit barriers and reporting an obstruction - how often, in reality, does the lowering sequence have to be stopped owing to an obstruction? I'd guess it'd be far less often than a train has to be cautioned for a AHB failure (or failed phones, or missing signs...) or has to approach an AOCL or ABCL in normal operation. Despite all that, I think some busy crossings will prove unsuitable for OD technology, and a few occasions of vehicles trapped on crossings (even if protected by signals) will possibly turn public perception against them!

Sorry, should've made clear I was referring to the entry barriers lowering onto a vehicle which the sequence suggests is possibile, everyone is keen to get clear once the entry barriers are down! I think there's often a pause waiting for traffic/pedestrians to clear the crossing before the exit pair descend, there seems to be potential for say 30 secs extra delay if the exit barriers have to rise again. Timing the sequence to start earlier to allow for this will mean the crossing will always be closed for longer which in itself will cause much public anger.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, should've made clear I was referring to the entry barriers lowering onto a vehicle which the sequence suggests is possibile, everyone is keen to get clear once the entry barriers are down! I think there's often a pause waiting for traffic/pedestrians to clear the crossing before the exit pair descend, there seems to be potential for say 30 secs extra delay if the exit barriers have to rise again. Timing the sequence to start earlier to allow for this will mean the crossing will always be closed for longer which in itself will cause much public anger.

Lowering on to a vehicle is possible, just as it is today with AHB and CCTV crossings with auto-lower; albeit less likely as the system will have two attempts at scanning before lowering, unlike existing crossings which just drop regardless. MCB-OD will not be timed to operate with a barrier raise in mid sequence; any obstruction will be likely to delay trains, exactly as it does today.