Signal boxes: Being replaced by operating centres like Basingstoke?

[Sonik]

ERTMS isn't (yet) a cost-effective solution for rural/low usage lines so fitting is being concentrated on routes like ECML where the capacity and safety benefit can support a business case - and those are the ones where control is generally centralised anyway.

HS2 and NPR ect. are though now driving a more strategic view of the whole network at all levels, including government. I'd suggest that ERTMS will first be rolled out in the course of upgrades (e.g. ECML/TPRU) and in future, during routine asset renewals, and at some point it will become worthwhile to fill in some of the the gaps so left, if only to provide more effective management of core routes where they intersect with the remaining 'islands'.

So ultimately I think the timescales for each area/route will be determined by the remaining lifetime of existing signaling assets. If they need replacing anyway the cost of upgrade becomes moot. And at least in theory ERTMS will be cheaper to deploy and maintain (than conventional signaling) once a critical mass is reached. So expect to see a tipping point.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Well, yes and no. Mechanical signalboxes obviously would have to go if ERTMS was fitted on a route, and that would be an opportunity for centralisation of control. However ERTMS isn't (yet) a cost-effective solution for rural/low usage lines so fitting is being concentrated on routes like ECML where the capacity and safety benefit can support a business case - and those are the ones where control is generally centralised anyway. The Network Rail Grand Plan at one point promised a fully integrated approach with ROCs (which were originally called Regional Operating Centres, whatever they are now) rolled out across the whole country and ERTMS fitted in a linked programme, but it kind of ignored affordability. You aren't going to throw away signalling kit that's only halfway through its design life when money is short - and that applies to both the ROC programme and the ERTMS programme, but in subtly different ways. Simplistically, fitting ERTMS requires replacement of the interlocking (unless it's a modern one designed to be ERTMS compatible) whereas centralisation of control doesn't (unless it's mechanical).

The only reason ECML got authorised was so Shapps could claim some benefit for his constituency and without L3 it won't improve capacity on ECML. Of course there covering themselves by keeping lineside signals thus adding considerably to the costs so they can quietly drop the ERTMS element. There are far better places to spend the billions this is costing on other parts of the network. ERTMS has its place on the likes of HS2 and with captive stock on Moorgate branch even that has a modicum of sense about it but its not going on EWR.

 

[Sonik]

The only reason ECML got authorised was so Shapps could claim some benefit for his constituency and without L3 it won't improve capacity on ECML. Of course there covering themselves by keeping lineside signals thus adding considerably to the costs so they can quietly drop the ERTMS element. There are far better places to spend the billions this is costing on other parts of the network. ERTMS has its place on the likes of HS2 and with captive stock on Moorgate branch even that has a modicum of sense about it but its not going on EWR.

IIRC only one (middle) section of ECML is having a conventional overlay.

So it's arguable that it still makes sense to update simply as a renewal, albeit it is conveniently located for certain politicians.

 

[Annetts key]

I knew it wasn’t possible to call them directly, but I had assumed they were still equipped with something…. How do they notify the next box or trains in the area that there is an issue with the crossing, for example?

I should know better than to ask a question I might not like the answer to!

They have a normal internal railway telephone. Some also have direct lines to the supervising / controlling signal box / PSB / signalling centre.

 

[43066]

They have a normal internal railway telephone. Some also have direct lines to the supervising / controlling signal box / PSB / signalling centre.

Thanks. As predicted, I don’t particularly like the answer! It seems a little remiss that they can’t at least initiate an emergency call.

 

[endofthetunnel]

Crossing boxes not having a direct line to their controlling box would be the exception rather than the norm. Those which don’t work any signals (slotted to a box, or directly) won’t necessarily know what is approaching or the state of the protecting signals, so a call to their controlling signaller is the best option for dealing with emergencies.

The staff would also need to be differently trained and monitored I suppose if they need to use GSMR to talk to trains.

 

[Annetts key]

As crossing boxes are not ‘block posts’, and the staff employed in them are crossing keepers rather than signallers (although you may find a signaller covering for a crossing keeper), they are not normally required to communicate with train drivers. Even if they control the signals that protect the crossing. Indeed, the SPTs for such signals connect to the supervising / controlling signal box / PSB / signalling centre.

If a crossing keeper sees or discovers a problem, they immediately contact the signaller. Who then will take the appropriate action. This is no different to what happens if station staff, engineering staff or indeed any other staff working line side sees or discovers a problem that is, or may affect the safety of trains or may cause operational difficulties.

 

[LAX54]

Would they like to close rugby signalling centre as they haven’t got a clue how to regulate trains ,old signalmen would turn in their graves at giving freight precedence over class 1 and 2 trains today.

Nothing to do with Signalmen regulating, they are 'told' by Control what to run, plus contracts/ delays etc, delaying a freight can have dire consequences on another part of the network, and whilst a '4' may clip a '2' for 3 or 4 mins, it will run away from the Class 2 when that train does it's stops,
Run a '4' behind a '2' the freight will slow / stop and lose more time, and thus more chances of heavier delays elsewhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

I knew it wasn’t possible to call them directly, but I had assumed they were still equipped with something…. How do they notify the next box or trains in the area that there is an issue with the crossing, for example?

I should know better than to ask a question I might not like the answer to!

The Crossing Box will have a direct line to the Supervising Signalbox, and will be in communication via that line, or a 'dial' phone if needed, any cautioning past signals / over the crossing will be done by the Signaller, not the Crossing Keeper/Operator.