Potential DfT/ORR Consultation On Diversionary Routes/Rail Replacement Bus Services?

[Peregrine 4903]

What is your definition of a station where you cannot reliably undertake RR buses?

This Sunday you have 20-25 miles closed between Three Bridges and Brighton. 10 buses an hour in each direction into a major city, up to 7 stops taking anything up to 90mins. Not a recipe for reliability.

You don't need 'infrastructure' to turn trains back, you need a process. Far easier to fix that than achieve the pipe dream that we keep being promised - relaying on one track while trains keep running on the next.

Umm, there are worksites in that possession at Balcombe Tunnel, Copyhold Junction, Burgess Hill and Lewes. Please explain how the possession could be shortened in anyway to trains to run further.

 

[jayah]

Umm, there are worksites in that possession at Balcombe Tunnel, Copyhold Junction, Burgess Hill and Lewes. Please explain how the possession could be shortened in anyway to trains to run further.

Excluding Lewes which is on another line - what is going on at all three worksites, that merits a full weekend closure of both running lines?

I suspect that having taken a vast occupation, more minor work is absorbed into it as a convenient opportunity.

Perhaps rather than attack any constructive suggestions on how to improve, you reflect and tell me what could be improved?

Or perhaps everything really is done perfectly and what we have now cannot actually be improved in any way at all?

 

[zwk500]

Excluding Lewes which is on another line - what is going on at all three worksites, that merits a full weekend closure of both running lines?

They were relaying track.

I suspect that having taken a vast occupation, more minor work is absorbed into it as a convenient opportunity.

No, they have taken the smallest possession possiblele and planned as much work into it as possible

Perhaps rather than attack any constructive suggestions on how to improve, you reflect and tell me what could be improved?

You're suggestion that you don’t need infrastructure to turn trains back does not help a realistic discussion.
Also bear in mind that things like single line working next to active worksites place real people in real danger. The convenience of avoiding a RRB does not justify a risk of death.

Or perhaps everything really is done perfectly and what we have now cannot actually be improved in any way at all?

Things could be improved, but bear in mind NR have to pay compensation for how much of the railway they close, and for how long. They don't take blocks longer than they need to with the current setup.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps rather than attack any constructive suggestions on how to improve, you reflect and tell me what could be improved?

Come and get a job in Sussex route engineering planning, and make it all better, please.

 

[TUC]

From a passenger viewpoint I suspect that many people would regard being able to stay on the same train throughout for their journey, even if longer than normal, as far better than having to get on and off several trains and coaches, carrying bags across several stations etc.

 

[The Planner]

What is your definition of a station where you cannot reliably undertake RR buses?

This Sunday you have 20-25 miles closed between Three Bridges and Brighton. 10 buses an hour in each direction into a major city, up to 7 stops taking anything up to 90mins. Not a recipe for reliability.

You don't need 'infrastructure' to turn trains back, you need a process. Far easier to fix that than achieve the pipe dream that we keep being promised - relaying on one track while trains keep running on the next.

One without a decent car park or somewhere to hold coaches or buses clearly, poor access roads, or one that has the facilities for people to wait without getting wet if its raining or without causing ped flow problems. That isn't exhaustive.
Yes, you need a process to turn back if you want to do things like single line working/adjacent line open or working to the point of obstruction, but what if that only allows such a degraded service that once your average punter looks at whatever website and decides "that'll do" it gets to the point everyone wants to get on that train?

 

[Falcon1200]

Excluding Lewes which is on another line - what is going on at all three worksites, that merits a full weekend closure of both running lines?

I suspect that having taken a vast occupation, more minor work is absorbed into it as a convenient opportunity.

Yes, because it means that a huge amount can be achieved in one blockage between A and E, instead of a blockage for a couple of weekends between A and B, then another the next couple of weekends between B and C, and so on.

 

[jayah]

One without a decent car park or somewhere to hold coaches or buses clearly, poor access roads, or one that has the facilities for people to wait without getting wet if its raining or without causing ped flow problems. That isn't exhaustive.
Yes, you need a process to turn back if you want to do things like single line working/adjacent line open or working to the point of obstruction, but what if that only allows such a degraded service that once your average punter looks at whatever website and decides "that'll do" it gets to the point everyone wants to get on that train?

If you have a reliable operation some of these concerns are not material. There is virtually no station in the country where passengers joining a replacement bus are not doing so exposed to the rain.

Someone boarding halfway along a 90 bus journey is going to have all the problems of an unreliable service.

In this example and most others like it, there are intermediate locations with facilities, parking and from where more than a token service could be run and turned back.

At what point does someone say I could close East Croydon to Brighton and justify this by declaring 6 worksites at various points between, but that isn't actually the way to do the work?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

Yes, because it means that a huge amount can be achieved in one blockage between A and E, instead of a blockage for a couple of weekends between A and B, then another the next couple of weekends between B and C, and so on.

But is there actually a 'huge amount' of work going on in all these worksites in all these blockades week after week?

Most of these possessions don't even involve high output kit and looking at the sheer number of them each Sunday it is actually implausible.

The whole point I am making is they should concentrate more work into a smaller area.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

From a passenger viewpoint I suspect that many people would regard being able to stay on the same train throughout for their journey, even if longer than normal, as far better than having to get on and off several trains and coaches, carrying bags across several stations etc.

Nobody should be getting off several trains, but that is actually the reality of Sunday travel because there are simply so many possessions it is easy to get disrupted by at least 2 of them in one journey.

Too many possessions, too much closed railway means resources must inevitably spread thinly, be that the people and plant onsite, the people managing the bus operations and the overhead of managing so many vast possessions at once.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

Come and get a job in Sussex route engineering planning, and make it all better, please.

Unfortunately this attitude is all too common.

You cannot reflect or make any suggestions on how to make engineering less disruptive for customers and when others make general points or constructive suggestions there is a barrage of 'what ifs' and 'what abouts'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

They were relaying track.

No, they have taken the smallest possession possiblele and planned as much work into it as possible

You're suggestion that you don’t need infrastructure to turn trains back does not help a realistic discussion.
Also bear in mind that things like single line working next to active worksites place real people in real danger. The convenience of avoiding a RRB does not justify a risk of death.

Things could be improved, but bear in mind NR have to pay compensation for how much of the railway they close, and for how long. They don't take blocks longer than they need to with the current setup.

So how much track is being relayed at each site? One track or both? Is the junction being relayed? All or some? Are the station sites in the station or to one side? When does the next section of track to that being relayed get relayed?

Anyone can close Croydon to Brighton and declare 6 worksites but that doesn't mean this is how it should be done.

 

[JonathanH]

Anyone can close Croydon to Brighton and declare 6 worksites but that doesn't mean this is how it should be done.

No one would consider shutting the whole line from Croydon to Brighton in one go.

Is shutting Three Bridges to Haywards Heath one week and Haywards Heath to Brighton the next better than shutting Three Bridges to Brighton in one go?

 

[zwk500]

So how much track is being relayed at each site? One track or both? Is the junction being relayed? All or some? Are the station sites in the station or to one side? When does the next section of track to that being relayed get relayed?

Copyhold Junction was being relaid entirely. Can't remember the others

Anyone can close Croydon to Brighton and declare 6 worksites but that doesn't mean this is how it should be done.

Croydon to Brighton isn't a good way to do it hence why it isn't done.

Unlike you, I have been directly involved in timetabling diversionary trains around engineering works. It's a lot more complicated than banging your fist on the table screaming 'run the trains'.

 

[The Planner]

If you have a reliable operation some of these concerns are not material. There is virtually no station in the country where passengers joining a replacement bus are not doing so exposed to the rain.

Someone boarding halfway along a 90 bus journey is going to have all the problems of an unreliable service.

In this example and most others like it, there are intermediate locations with facilities, parking and from where more than a token service could be run and turned back.

At what point does someone say I could close East Croydon to Brighton and justify this by declaring 6 worksites at various points between, but that isn't actually the way to do the work?

So how does the token service provide a suitable level of service, or do you have standby RRBs to take the passengers that cannot get on as you have decimated the service?

 

[RT4038]

If you have a reliable operation some of these concerns are not material. There is virtually no station in the country where passengers joining a replacement bus are not doing so exposed to the rain.

There are lots of stations where large numbers of passengers and buses cannot be accommodated satisfactorily either at the station, or on the approach roads from the main road network to the station. this will rule out any major road/rail transfer.

Someone boarding halfway along a 90 bus journey is going to have all the problems of an unreliable service.

As if the railway service is a punctual paragon of virtue!

Unfortunately this attitude is all too common.

Perhaps because your attitude of 'I'm being inconvenienced so there must be a better way of doing it - the people organising must be incompetent and only considering their own interests' is even more common.

On the assumption that the work being carried out is all required (and why wouldn't it be?) then concentrating the disruption into one block will be minimising the amount of delay overall, especially when there is a fast road available for the RRBs. Yes, people travelling on that day/weekend/week will be more inconvenienced, and it is probably advisable to avoid travelling at that time at all, rather than having every weekend disrupted on a smaller scale.

We know that the single line working past worksites of yore is not going to happen now due to H&S legislation. You will have to get over this.

I do not know the area well, but with the worksites that @The Planner tells us, the only train that could have run would be Brighton-Hassocks. The ability to park buses at Hassocks station appears to be fairly limited, and the road connection from there to the A23 long and convoluted. It would not make sense to rail passengers from Brighton to Hassocks and put them on a bus there. I am unsure if there is a crossover at Hassocks, or how far this shuttle train (which would only have been of any use to intermediate passengers) would have been on an effective single line. I am unsure if the power supply for this would have been affected by the need to switch off for the Burgess Hill works. I am unsure what the requirement for works trains access was required limiting the capacity at Hassocks.

I know RRB is annoying, due to the lengthening of journey times and the general inconvenience of changing etc. But if we are going to have intensively worked lines 20hr every day then unfortunately they are a necessary evil. These types of blocks are fairly common on European railways too....

 

[Carlisle]

freights from the relatively new connection at Arcow Quarry (with both shunts at Arcow and run-rounds at Blea Moor) have become more frequent in recent years. Whilst these might be 'flexed out of the way a bit' for pre-planned engineering works this doesn't apply for short-notice emergencies.

Sorry I’m not convinced that’s a crucial reason S&C diversions can’t hapen. They happened throughout the period when DB & Freightliner both ran regular coal trains along the route that have now entirely disappeared.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It is interesting as I have somewhat of an opposite view to a lot of people - in some very specific cases I think buses should be used more where doing so could reduce the number of changes between train and bus passengers need to make where a journey is disrupted anyway. My view is that I would prefer a journey to take longer and be more by bus if it mean I didn't have to change back onto a train for a short 5/10 minute leg!

As an example, on a couple of days this week there were replacement buses on the South Wales valley lines which meant that a journey from parents to Cardiff, which is usually a single train taking about 55 mins, was turned into marathon of a train, a replacement bus and another train - taking about 90 minutes in total. It would have made life a lot easier, and not cost any additional time, for the replacement bus to be extended slightly to get rid of one of the train sections. I appreciate this may well have cost TfW more and the usual practice is to use actual trains as much as possible, but in some specific cases extended the bus makes more sense (as an example of where that is done - GWR sometimes do a replacement bus between Cardiff and Bristol when the severn tunnel is shut, even though technically doing it between Newport and Bristol (or even Severn Tunnel Junction and Bristol) would mean less bus mileage).

 

[jayah]

There are lots of stations where large numbers of passengers and buses cannot be accommodated satisfactorily either at the station, or on the approach roads from the main road network to the station. this will rule out any major road/rail transfer.


As if the railway service is a punctual paragon of virtue!


Perhaps because your attitude of 'I'm being inconvenienced so there must be a better way of doing it - the people organising must be incompetent and only considering their own interests' is even more common.

On the assumption that the work being carried out is all required (and why wouldn't it be?) then concentrating the disruption into one block will be minimising the amount of delay overall, especially when there is a fast road available for the RRBs. Yes, people travelling on that day/weekend/week will be more inconvenienced, and it is probably advisable to avoid travelling at that time at all, rather than having every weekend disrupted on a smaller scale.

We know that the single line working past worksites of yore is not going to happen now due to H&S legislation. You will have to get over this.

I do not know the area well, but with the worksites that @The Planner tells us, the only train that could have run would be Brighton-Hassocks. The ability to park buses at Hassocks station appears to be fairly limited, and the road connection from there to the A23 long and convoluted. It would not make sense to rail passengers from Brighton to Hassocks and put them on a bus there. I am unsure if there is a crossover at Hassocks, or how far this shuttle train (which would only have been of any use to intermediate passengers) would have been on an effective single line. I am unsure if the power supply for this would have been affected by the need to switch off for the Burgess Hill works. I am unsure what the requirement for works trains access was required limiting the capacity at Hassocks.

I know RRB is annoying, due to the lengthening of journey times and the general inconvenience of changing etc. But if we are going to have intensively worked lines 20hr every day then unfortunately they are a necessary evil. These types of blocks are fairly common on European railways too....

Trains are something like 95% within 5 mins and are tracked to within an inch of their lives.

With a bus, even if there are staff, nobody knows where they are and the punctuality depends heavily on traffic. So not comparable at all.

Lots of European railways do blockades of weeks and months when work is needed, rather than 800yds of plain line renewal in 30 different locations, every single weekend. The level of weekend disruption is not even close to what we have here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

So how does the token service provide a suitable level of service, or do you have standby RRBs to take the passengers that cannot get on as you have decimated the service?

An operation like Three Bridges will already have a huge number of standby vehicles on top of the 10 paths an hour to Brighton. The token service is the 1tph diverting via Littlehampton taking 20mins longer than the bus.

The defence of x worksites needs to be unpicked, you could justify planning any conceivable closure by filling the geography with worksites - that isn't planning the engineering work.

 

[The Planner]

The defence of x worksites needs to be unpicked, you could justify planning any conceivable closure by filling the geography with worksites - that isn't planning the engineering work.

Why isn't it? If you are utilising access you would only need to take at a different point in time, how is that not planning and integration? TOCs and FOCs expect that to happen and refuse access if it doesn't.

 

[jayah]

Copyhold Junction was being relaid entirely. Can't remember the others

Croydon to Brighton isn't a good way to do it hence why it isn't done.

Unlike you, I have been directly involved in timetabling diversionary trains around engineering works. It's a lot more complicated than banging your fist on the table screaming 'run the trains'.

There is no need for that attitude. It is a start at least you recognise closing a line and filling it with worksites doesn't justify anything.

There are photos on the Network Rail website saying Copyhold was already relaid along with 1,000m of plain line in a 9 day blockade, so I am even less clear what is going on this weekend.

Then start asking what other possessions are on this route, last year, next year, if I close Balcombe to relay xxxyds on one track, what happens to the next xxxyds, how many years does it take to relay to Brighton on both lines, when Copyhold is closed, what else needs doing further south that might cause another closure in 6 months?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

Why isn't it? If you are utilising access you would only need to take at a different point in time, how is that not planning and integration? TOCs and FOCs expect that to happen and refuse access if it doesn't.

The FOCs are little impacted at weekends. Are the TOCs informed buyers in the sense they are really able to influence the engineering schedules.

I don't see how it is efficient to have so many worksites in so many often large possessions at the same time, nor why there seems to be so little use of high output equipment when there are such distances of plain line involved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

Why isn't it? If you are utilising access you would only need to take at a different point in time, how is that not planning and integration? TOCs and FOCs expect that to happen and refuse access if it doesn't.

You seem to imply the process is self regulating? You might have a worksite to fit yellow tactile paving or cut down some bushes. The TOCs are financially compensated for closures and given the lack of use here of the Arundel diversion seem quite happy substituting with very large bus operations.

Based on the earlier information there are no worksites at all in the south of the possession. Granted there is also nowhere obvious to set up a bus operation south of Haywards Heath, but when will there be a worksite that then involves another 25 mile closure to do something in the tunnel at Clayton etc...?

This all needs to be unpicked and given the huge number of and size of these possessions every weekend and absence of high output kit at most, I am far from convinced by current practices.

 

[zwk500]

The FOCs are little impacted at weekends.

What is your evidence for this statement?

Are the TOCs informed buyers in the sense they are really able to influence the engineering schedules.

Yes.

I don't see how it is efficient to have so many worksites in so many often large possessions at the same time, nor why there seems to be so little use of high output equipment when there are such distances of plain line involved.

I am far from convinced by current practices.

What would you do differently that maintains the safety of every person working on the line?

 

[The Planner]

The FOCs are little impacted at weekends. Are the TOCs informed buyers in the sense they are really able to influence the engineering schedules.

Yes, massively, its called Part D of the Network Code. If they say no it ultimately ends up at Access Dispute Resolution Committee. Nothing is in the Engineering Access Statement without all parties agreeing to it.

 

[Ex-controller]

Maybe if the WCML is shut Preston to Carlisle it might be worth extending 1tph of LNER through from Edinburgh to Central via Shotts or Carstairs so there's still a "direct" Glasgow > London 1tph?

Perhaps, but LNER would need the resources for this as well. What would be the point when there’s already a half hourly service between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh?

 

[RT4038]

Sorry I’m not convinced that’s a crucial reason S&C diversions can’t hapen. They happened throughout the period when DB & Freightliner both ran regular coal trains along the route that have now entirely disappeared.

We all know what the crucial reasons are - it doesn't make economic sense, in terms of the additional staff (and their route knowledge) required to run the diversion, and the cost of planning and moving trains about to get diesel trains available. There may be other constraints too, but this is the main and crucial one.

 

[jayah]

Yes, massively, its called Part D of the Network Code. If they say no it ultimately ends up at Access Dispute Resolution Committee. Nothing is in the Engineering Access Statement without all parties agreeing to it.

There are very few freight trains running at weekends, less so on Sunday except the volume of them running in conjunction with said engineering work.

I would be surprised if the code really allows operators to veto all engineering work, but with FOCs and TOCs both gain from agreeing to engineering work in different ways. In 2017/18 the TOC compensation payments were reported to be in excess of £500m.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

We all know what the crucial reasons are - it doesn't make economic sense, in terms of the additional staff (and their route knowledge) required to run the diversion, and the cost of planning and moving trains about to get diesel trains available. There may be other constraints too, but this is the main and crucial one.

It is a real state if the cost of planning the timetable to avoid the diverted express getting stuck behind a local train is now a material factor in deciding to run dozens of buses up and down the M6? What is the cost of planning all that, staffing stations, closing car parks etc....?

The main issue is the balkanisation of train crew competence to operate different routes and traction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

What is your evidence for this statement?

Yes.

What would you do differently that maintains the safety of every person working on the line?

My evidence is the fact the vast majority of freight on Sundays is actually engineering trains only operating because of such engineering work.

The other points I have addressed already at length.

 

[The Planner]

There are very few freight trains running at weekends, less so on Sunday except the volume of them running in conjunction with said engineering work.

I would be surprised if the code really allows operators to veto all engineering work, but with FOCs and TOCs both gain from agreeing to engineering work in different ways. In 2017/18 the TOC compensation payments were reported to be in excess of £500m.

Be surprised then as that is exactly what it enables them to do. Freight is still around on Saturday mornings, hence you still need their collaboration to take weekend blocks. Blocks and integration allows savings to the Sch4 compensation we pay out.

 

[jayah]

Be surprised then as that is exactly what it enables them to do. Freight is still around on Saturday mornings, hence you still need their collaboration to take weekend blocks. Blocks and integration allows savings to the Sch4 compensation we pay out.

It would be completely dysfunctional if operators were given a veto. The existence of a dispute mechanism also means that doesn't sound quite correct and a veto could be challenged.

In practice as TOCs and FOCs are all gaining handsomely from engineering work there is little incentive to, and the Access Disputes website suggests that while there are plenty of arguments over cost claims, there are almost no disputes over access for engineering work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

Perhaps, but LNER would need the resources for this as well. What would be the point when there’s already a half hourly service between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh?

If the WCML is closed south of Carlisle what are all the train drivers at Glasgow doing?

Ah, would this be because nowadays the train has to match the drivers uniform or they aren't allowed to drive it?

Something the pre-sectorisation BR would have avoided?

 

[RT4038]

It is a real state if the cost of planning the timetable to avoid the diverted express getting stuck behind a local train is now a material factor in deciding to run dozens of buses up and down the M6? What is the cost of planning all that, staffing stations, closing car parks etc....?

The main issue is the balkanisation of train crew competence to operate different routes and traction.

Planning the bus services will be relatively simple - no paths to be found, signal blocks to worry about etc. No planning required to move diesel trains from one route to another. Not sure what is meant by staffing of stations and closing car parks - the intermediate stations would have to have these anyway, and the few extra RRB supervisors at Preston and Carlisle will not be on top whack wages either.
Diverting via the S&C would probably twice as many drivers, as it probably would not be possible to scheduled Glasgow-Preston & return both ways via S&C in one shift (as it would be on the direct line). Where are all these staff going to come from with route competence, on a Sunday? Where are the staff going to come from to move the diesel trains from their normal routes and put them all back to where they belong before the next day?

I am guessing that maintaining route competence for all the normal staff would cost a colossal amount of money (running empty trains via the route, as there is precious little normal traffic).

It simply isn't worth the effort, for little passenger advantage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

If the WCML is closed south of Carlisle what are all the train drivers at Glasgow doing?

Just taking a train from Glasgow to Carlisle and back, as going to Preston and back via the S&C would probably be longer than the shift allowed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

Ah, would this be because nowadays the train has to match the drivers uniform or they aren't allowed to drive it?

Something the pre-sectorisation BR would have avoided?

I think you are being a bit misty eyed. The traction is now completely different, and freight operations are carried out in a more efficient manner. These additional drivers would likely simply not be available, as keeping bothies full of spare staff is no longer economical or possible.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unfortunately this attitude is all too common.

You cannot reflect or make any suggestions on how to make engineering less disruptive for customers and when others make general points or constructive suggestions there is a barrage of 'what ifs' and 'what abouts'.

having been involved in planning engineering works at all stages of the process for more than quarter of a century, let me expand / explain.

I would welcome any ideas on how disruption to passengers could be reduced, sustainably. We do run this railway for passengers and freight users, after all.

what are your alternative proposals for this weekend on the Brighton line? How would they be sequenced, and how would it be better for passengers and taxpayers? There are several jobs, many of which cannot be broken down into smaller durations. I’m genuinely interested what you think.

Are the TOCs informed buyers in the sense they are really able to influence the engineering schedules.

yes, and always have been. Sometimes not to the benefit of passengers.

I don't see how it is efficient to have so many worksites in so many often large possessions at the same time, nor why there seems to be so little use of high output equipment when there are such distances of plain line involved.

there’s no such thing as a “high output S&C renewal machine”, nor a “high output under bridge construction machine”

and there’s only so many high output track machines. They are not best used in big blockades, particularly those where there’s no track at either end of the block…

I would be surprised if the code really allows operators to veto all engineering work, but with FOCs and TOCs both gain from agreeing to engineering work in different ways.

it does.

The existence of a dispute mechanism also means that doesn't sound quite correct and a veto could be challenged.

of course a veto could be challenged. Last resort though. If a TOC feels that strongly (and it would have to be a firm opinion at MD level, with the opposite equally firm opinion at NR MD level), then the planning has gone wrong.

 

[jayah]

Planning the bus services will be relatively simple - no paths to be found, signal blocks to worry about etc. No planning required to move diesel trains from one route to another. Not sure what is meant by staffing of stations and closing car parks - the intermediate stations would have to have these anyway, and the few extra RRB supervisors at Preston and Carlisle will not be on top whack wages either.
Diverting via the S&C would probably twice as many drivers, as it probably would not be possible to scheduled Glasgow-Preston & return both ways via S&C in one shift (as it would be on the direct line). Where are all these staff going to come from with route competence, on a Sunday? Where are the staff going to come from to move the diesel trains from their normal routes and put them all back to where they belong before the next day?

I am guessing that maintaining route competence for all the normal staff would cost a colossal amount of money (running empty trains via the route, as there is precious little normal traffic).

It simply isn't worth the effort, for little passenger advantage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==


Just taking a train from Glasgow to Carlisle and back, as going to Preston and back via the S&C would probably be longer than the shift allowed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==


I think you are being a bit misty eyed. The traction is now completely different, and freight operations are carried out in a more efficient manner. These additional drivers would likely simply not be available, as keeping bothies full of spare staff is no longer economical or possible.

In the last part, I was actually referring to the suggestion for 'extra resource' to extend trains to Glasgow from Edinburgh, when the usual trains from Glasgow to London aren't running.

As for planning rail replacement it all needs planning and rostering, route guides, roadworks, car parks have to be closed to the public, lots of extra staff provided.

Again this competence question is moot because it only arises as a result of the way the industry has structured itself.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2022 ==

having been involved in planning engineering works at all stages of the process for more than quarter of a century, let me expand / explain.

I would welcome any ideas on how disruption to passengers could be reduced, sustainably. We do run this railway for passengers and freight users, after all.

what are your alternative proposals for this weekend on the Brighton line? How would they be sequenced, and how would it be better for passengers and taxpayers? There are several jobs, many of which cannot be broken down into smaller durations. I’m genuinely interested what you think.





yes, and always have been. Sometimes not to the benefit of passengers.




there’s no such thing as a “high output S&C renewal machine”, nor a “high output under bridge construction machine”

and there’s only so many high output track machines. They are not best used in big blockades, particularly those where there’s no track at either end of the block…





it does.




of course a veto could be challenged. Last resort though. If a TOC feels that strongly (and it would have to be a firm opinion at MD level, with the opposite equally firm opinion at NR MD level), then the planning has gone wrong.

It is genuinely extraordinary that someone involved in planning this for 25 years cannot furnish a single suggestion for improvement? Do you really think the current situation is as good as it can possibly be?

I have explained principles at length. No detailed information has been forthcoming about the actual work involved nor the other forthcoming possessions in the area for the example that has been discussed. One among dozens taking place each weekend. The junction at Copyhold has already been relaid according to Network Rail PR team.

Then more what ifs and what abouts.

As I have explained no TOC seems to have a financial interest in reducing this disruption as they are being handsomely compensated for it.

How much plain line renewal gets done by high output kit? How much actually gets replaced in two days of track closures?

 

[tbtc]

I'm not sure that a (say) three-hourly frequency would achieve very much, bearing in mind that two changes would still be required for 'through' passengers (e.g. Birmingham-Glasgow or Edinburgh-Manchester). With a typical level of WCML services of 3tph each way we are talking about 9 trains 'connecting' into one of the shuttles either end

The Preston-Carlisle via S&C trip involves effectively four single line bottlenecks (ladder junction south of Preston station, junction onto the Clitheroe line near Blackburn, Ribblehead Viaduct and the southern approach to Carlisle station) so is especially difficult to timetable. Other 'core' services, such as the Todmorden Curve trains to Blackburn, the Bentham line and freights from the relatively new connection at Arcow Quarry (with both shunts at Arcow and run-rounds at Blea Moor) have become more frequent in recent years. Whilst these might be 'flexed out of the way a bit' for pre-planned engineering works this doesn't apply for short-notice emergencies.

With particular reference to 'Plan B', I am still unclear how the Voyagers can magically be taken from Euston, Holyhead, Shrewsbury or wherever to Preston and Carlisle in time to be useful.

Agreed - it's a lot more complicated than people on here are suggesting - there seems to be a view that "we should have some 125mph trains running over Ribblehead, without having to pay Charter fares", even if it means that the majority of passengers are put on replacement buses - but it's really not as simple as this

From a passenger viewpoint I suspect that many people would regard being able to stay on the same train throughout for their journey, even if longer than normal, as far better than having to get on and off several trains and coaches, carrying bags across several stations etc.

Sure, all things being equal

But diverting trains via longer routes means additional units/ staff are required

It means we need to regularly divert trains that way the rest of the year to maintain route knowledge (e.g. would we disrupt existing passengers by slowing down a couple of London - Glasgow trains a day so that they can take the slow route via Ribblehead to ensure that enough Avanti staff keep the S&C on their cards?)

It means finding paths on the other route (e.g. if the London - Brighton trains are to go via Horsham then how does that affect existing services on the West Coastway? Do we cut some local services to make way, putting those passengers on buses instead?)

It means we need additional trains to cope with the longer duration of the diverted route

It means awkward decisions about which other lines to pinch stock from (e.g. if Avanti need self powered trains for S&C diversions then is it okay to remove the Holyhead services? Or replace other routes with buses so you can focus resources on the line that's being diverted?)

It means we need to take decisions about what to do with other stations on an affected line (e.g. if the WCML is closed at Shap then people here would want to divert London - Glasgow trains via the S&C but then what about London - Lancaster passengers? What about Penrith - Glasgow passengers?)

Then, if you accept that we'd not be able to run through trains (and London - Glasgow passengers would be taking an electric train from London to Preston, then a diesel train from Preston to Carlisle, then an electric train from Carlisle to Glasgow) then the disruption of changing from train to bus becomes less significant

Then there comes a point at which we'd have to put large numbers of passengers on buses anyway, so is a token "every three hours" kind of service level more of a box ticking exercise than anything (but nice if you want to stand taking pictures of 390s crossing Ribblehead)?

I'd rather that I had a direct train, but that comes at a cost - do we inconvenience passengers by diverting daily services via much longer routes to ensure that there are enough staff with maintained route knowledge capable of running via the diverted line a couple of weekends a year? It's like the "diversionary resilience" argument for re-opening lines like Okehampton - Bere Alston - nice in theory but comes at a huge cost)

Trains are something like 95% within 5 mins and are tracked to within an inch of their lives.

With a bus, even if there are staff, nobody knows where they are and the punctuality depends heavily on traffic. So not comparable at all

There's no way of tracking buses?

https://bustimes.org/map#18/53.382/-1.47 << thousands of buses tracked - you can check their location from your phone before you leave the house

This all needs to be unpicked and given the huge number of and size of these possessions every weekend and absence of high output kit at most, I am far from convinced by current practices.

You're getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory territory here

If the WCML is closed south of Carlisle what are all the train drivers at Glasgow doing?

Ah, would this be because nowadays the train has to match the drivers uniform or they aren't allowed to drive it?

Something the pre-sectorisation BR would have avoided?

When was the era when the stock was the same though?

It's a bit more complicated than the colour of uniforms - e.g. I don't think that the Unions would have allowed the WCML staff (trained on their 86/87s) to get behind the controls of an ECML HST

In the last part, I was actually referring to the suggestion for 'extra resource' to extend trains to Glasgow from Edinburgh, when the usual trains from Glasgow to London aren't running

London - ECML - Edinburgh trains are run by different stock to London - WCML - Glasgow trains, and have been since before I was born - so are you suggesting that we magic up some 800/801s to extend London - Edinburgh services to Glasgow, or that we use some of the WCML 390s down the ECML (which would require a bit of route training etc)? Maybe if we had one type of train for all Long Distance High Speed services it'd be easier to pinch stock to suit circumstances like this, but you're talking about something that has never been the case - fine in theory but seems a bit odd to blame sectorisation/ privatisation for the fact that ECML trains are different to WCML trains, when it was never the case at any time in history (in the Deltic era, in the era of double headed 50s, in the days of A4s...)

 

[jayah]

Agreed - it's a lot more complicated than people on here are suggesting - there seems to be a view that "we should have some 125mph trains running over Ribblehead, without having to pay Charter fares", even if it means that the majority of passengers are put on replacement buses - but it's really not as simple as this



Sure, all things being equal

But diverting trains via longer routes means additional units/ staff are required

It means we need to regularly divert trains that way the rest of the year to maintain route knowledge (e.g. would we disrupt existing passengers by slowing down a couple of London - Glasgow trains a day so that they can take the slow route via Ribblehead to ensure that enough Avanti staff keep the S&C on their cards?)

It means finding paths on the other route (e.g. if the London - Brighton trains are to go via Horsham then how does that affect existing services on the West Coastway? Do we cut some local services to make way, putting those passengers on buses instead?)

It means we need additional trains to cope with the longer duration of the diverted route

It means awkward decisions about which other lines to pinch stock from (e.g. if Avanti need self powered trains for S&C diversions then is it okay to remove the Holyhead services? Or replace other routes with buses so you can focus resources on the line that's being diverted?)

It means we need to take decisions about what to do with other stations on an affected line (e.g. if the WCML is closed at Shap then people here would want to divert London - Glasgow trains via the S&C but then what about London - Lancaster passengers? What about Penrith - Glasgow passengers?)

Then, if you accept that we'd not be able to run through trains (and London - Glasgow passengers would be taking an electric train from London to Preston, then a diesel train from Preston to Carlisle, then an electric train from Carlisle to Glasgow) then the disruption of changing from train to bus becomes less significant

Then there comes a point at which we'd have to put large numbers of passengers on buses anyway, so is a token "every three hours" kind of service level more of a box ticking exercise than anything (but nice if you want to stand taking pictures of 390s crossing Ribblehead)?

I'd rather that I had a direct train, but that comes at a cost - do we inconvenience passengers by diverting daily services via much longer routes to ensure that there are enough staff with maintained route knowledge capable of running via the diverted line a couple of weekends a year? It's like the "diversionary resilience" argument for re-opening lines like Okehampton - Bere Alston - nice in theory but comes at a huge cost)



There's no way of tracking buses?

https://bustimes.org/map#18/53.382/-1.47 << thousands of buses tracked - you can check their location from your phone before you leave the house



You're getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory territory here



When was the era when the stock was the same though?

It's a bit more complicated than the colour of uniforms - e.g. I don't think that the Unions would have allowed the WCML staff (trained on their 86/87s) to get behind the controls of an ECML HST



London - ECML - Edinburgh trains are run by different stock to London - WCML - Glasgow trains, and have been since before I was born - so are you suggesting that we magic up some 800/801s to extend London - Edinburgh services to Glasgow, or that we use some of the WCML 390s down the ECML (which would require a bit of route training etc)? Maybe if we had one type of train for all Long Distance High Speed services it'd be easier to pinch stock to suit circumstances like this, but you're talking about something that has never been the case - fine in theory but seems a bit odd to blame sectorisation/ privatisation for the fact that ECML trains are different to WCML trains, when it was never the case at any time in history (in the Deltic era, in the era of double headed 50s, in the days of A4s...)

In the pre sector days, drivers drove not only different types of stock but also freight and passenger, on different routes, within the geography of their area. There wasn't this separation between Provincial and Intercity, let alone Intercity West Coast and East Coast. I can appreciate that is a truly alien concept today.

If you are a one fleet, one route TOC that is all some people do, and the competence is pretty tightly defined around the current timetable with little scope to do anything different within or between companies.

It is hardly a conspiracy theory to suggest the current volume of disruptive possessions and scale of bus operations could and should both be reduced, senior people in Network Rail have said the same for years, sadly they fail to achieve anything.

The fact their own planners seem to think there is no room for improvement on the current situation, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised...

 

[Bald Rick]

It is genuinely extraordinary that someone involved in planning this for 25 years cannot furnish a single suggestion for improvement?

I didn’t realise I needed to.

so here we go - by far the most effective and efficient way of doing big engineering works is to do them in big chunks. It’s cheaper, it concentrates disruption (which is soon forgotten about by 99% of passengers) it results in better quality, and it’s safer.

in my experience, the best blocks for big works are those that concentrate as much work as feasible into the ‘shadow’ of the disrupted train service, with that disruption based on what delivers the best overall experience for the affected passengers. In the case of this block, I can see they got it right. The alternatives would have been a couple of months worth of closures all weekend every weekend, with no through route London - Brighton.

I have explained principles at length.

In my opinion, you haven’t. A challenge - can you either set out exactly how you would have covered this block differently, or alternatively give me a scenario of a given route and work required and ask me to improve it.

No detailed information has been forthcoming about the actual work involved nor the other forthcoming possessions in the area for the example that has been discussed.

I don’t have all the detail, but what will be in this weekends work is the 7 day follow up tamping of the new Copyhold Junction - which I suspect needs tandem tamping. I expect there will also be some welding (potentially hundreds) and stressing to do, particularly given Storm Eunice will have affected how much could be done in the main block. without that the speed restrictions will stay on, and we are entering the high risk period for Heat speed restrictions for renewal work, so the potential for 20mph restrictions increases. The block will also include some spare time in case the main block didn’t go to plan and work got carried over.

same sort of works at a lower scale on the Balcombe renewal site.

and again at the subway site.

plus ballast profiling, site clearance, marking up, and various other jobs.

could it all be done in shorter blocks? Yes. Would that take much longer? Yes, much longer In total hours of disruption. Would it cause more disruption to passengers? Yes. Would it be more expensive? Yes.

How much plain line renewal gets done by high output kit?

more than half of it, nationwide. Most of what doesn’t simply can’t be done with high output, or is cheaper to do conventionally.

How much actually gets replaced in two days of track closures?

In simple plain line (no drainage or other complicating factors) done conventionally, you would normally bank on 1000-1500 yards of track and ballast for a 52h closure, or 6-800 yards for 2 x 28 hour closures. For high output, the figures are not much different, simply because of the logistics of feeding the two machines on any one site.

High output is ideal for locations where you can take two lines out of use for 7-8 hours at a time to do 4-500 yards of ballast or track, but not both in the same location the same time.