Signalling and 140mph running

[ainsworth74]

Never been an incident due to overspeeding? What about Maidstone East, Nuneaton or Morpeth?

Another for the list Eltham Well Hall.

 

[E&W Lucas]

would any driver in his right mind ever even edge up to 130mph or is the culture and the chance of getting caught just too strict now?

Drivers are subject to regular random data recorder downloads, and also to unobtrusive monitoring from on board trains. Lineside speed guns as well. Would you want to explain to your children that Christmas is canceled because you'd gone a few mph over? Please credit those that work in the industry with some degree of professionalism. There is a culture of "get it right every time" amongst all operational grades. It's absolutely hammered into you.

Overspeeding due to loss of concentration or misjudgment will still happen on very rare occasions. The widespread fitment of TPWS overspeed sensors on the approach to speed restrictions has done a great deal to mitigate the effect of this. Wouldn't mitigate the effect for the driver though, who could expect to be in very hot water indeed.

 

[tbtc]

The ECML should've been electrified in totality like the WCML.

Agreed.

I'd rather we filled in "gaps" like Doncaster to Hull or Leeds - Harrogate to enable more electric units to be used on the ECML - it's a real waste - much better to fill in these missing links than electrify half of the GWML

 

[RichW1]

Absolutely. I think the GWML could survive a while as it is if budgets are pressed. I hear the HST reliability is higher than it's ever been? Any electrification money should as said be spent infilling the ECML I think. I always never understood how the Skipton branch wasn't given sufficient power for 91's either; slight oversight?!!

 

[tbtc]

Absolutely. I think the GWML could survive a while as it is if budgets are pressed. I hear the HST reliability is higher than it's ever been? Any electrification money should as said be spent infilling the ECML I think. I always never understood how the Skipton branch wasn't given sufficient power for 91's either; slight oversight?!!

Trouble with GWML electrification is that London has direct services to Hereford/ Cheltenham/ Fishguard/ Weston Super Mare/ Torbay/ Newquay/ Penzance etc.

If you don't electrify ever single branch then you end up with diesel trains still running under the wires for a long long way.

Or, you cut the London links which won't go down well (dual mode IEP is *years* away, lets face it)

Whereas electrifying the same number of miles on routes like Doncaster to Hull would eliminate dozens of DMUs which would be much better for the railway overall, plus provide a lot of diversions (e.g. the Tyne Valley route)

 

[jon0844]

Have any drivers been sacked for this? I was on a late running train doing 139/140mph (confirmed by GPS) from Scotland to London, for a section north of Peterborough, (under GNER) and if a driver was that sure he'd be caught - why would he have risked it?

This was on a Sunday evening for what it's worth, no idea how busy the line was - but our delay had been not far off leaving Edinburgh so it may have been pretty quiet later on (9-10pm approximately). With the recovery time, it probably arrived at King's Cross not very late at all.

 

[notadriver]

The OTMR (On Train Monitoring Recorder) must be fitted to all trains using Network rail lines (even steam locomotives) but AFAIK it doesn't send out a massive warning if the line speed is exceeded. Needs to be downloaded and looked at by a driver manager. They are obviously examined randomly anyway and most definitely in the case of an incident occuring. So unless the train or the driver had been involved in some sort of incident prior he could just have gotten away with it.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Have any drivers been sacked for this? I was on a late running train doing 139/140mph (confirmed by GPS) from Scotland to London, for a section north of Peterborough, (under GNER) and if a driver was that sure he'd be caught - why would he have risked it?

This was on a Sunday evening for what it's worth, no idea how busy the line was - but our delay had been not far off leaving Edinburgh so it may have been pretty quiet later on (9-10pm approximately). With the recovery time, it probably arrived at King's Cross not very late at all.

Drivers have most definitely been sacked for speeding. However, every case I know of has been due to a lapse in concentration, rather than the "few MPH over on purpose" situation that you describe.

Every driver has to be "downloaded" several times a year. A certain number of journeys have to be downloaded at random too. Any sort of incident, and the whole journey is downloaded & checked.

Don't pay too much heed to GPS either. You get errors due to the devices re - triangulating themselves between satellites. Many cheaper devices do not allow for changes in height above sea level either, ie they shorten the distance that the train has actually covered.

You need to understand that every aspect of a train's journey is monitored. Signallers know how long a train will take to cross their patch. Control monitor journeys to the minute, for delay attribution purposes (and that's all recorded on computer).

Look elsewhere on this site, and you will see a lot of bandwidth expended on how to pass the driver selection process. This is because this process is very exacting, and looks for people who will do the job correctly, every time, without someone watching over them. Not everyone is like that, so not everyone is going to be able to pass it. Even after selection, training & assessment, drivers are managed very tightly indeed. We do not work in an environment that tolerates mistakes or cutting corners.

 

[Bedpan]

A few questions, if I may be so bold, having read this extremely interesting thread:-

If my memory serves me right the HST and APT were developed at more or less the same time, the HST being designed for 125 mph (or it would seem 120mph initially) and the APT for 150mph. Was the APT equipped with in cab signalling and if not, was it the case that drivers having difficulty in sighting the signals was one of the reasons for it being abandoned?

It always seemed strange to me that it did a couple (?) of runs on the WCML in atrocious winter weather conditions, when it seems to acquit itself quite well considering, and was then shelved.

I can also recall from 20 or may be more years ago that a system of in cab signalling was introduced on part of the South Western main line out of Waterloo where the aspect of the previous signal was shown in the cab (ie an extension to AWS). Couldn't this solve the problem of 140mph running on the ECML?

More recently, wasn't the WCML upgrade intended to allow 140mph but was pegged back to 125mph on cost grounds? Was it the in cab signalling that proved too expensive and so was abandoned?

Also, can somebody please explain 2 aspect signalling as referred to on page 4. Surely it doesn't involve a green signal being immediately followed by a red, so is it a system which involves a signal showing either red or green, or yellow or green, with the track circuiting operating both simultaneously, ie a yellow repeater being situated in advance of the red signal?

 

[notadriver]

Don't pay too much heed to GPS either. You get errors due to the devices re - triangulating themselves between satellites. Many cheaper devices do not allow for changes in height above sea level either, ie they shorten the distance that the train has actually covered.

I agree you get errors (blips) but I think on the whole they can give you a good idea of how fast you are going over a distance, especially the more expensive models.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Two aspect signaling is no different to semaphore. You get a "distant" which can exhibit either a yellow (for expect a "red" at the next one), or a green (next one clear), and the section signal, which can give a red or a green. The sections do tend to be rather long.

 

[Metroland]

On the 2 aspect signalling, you have a yellow/green signal (repeater in TCB talk, with 'r' on) at braking distance from the red (stop) signal. The signals capable of showing red can be quite far apart in some cases, maybe many miles.

Significant stretches of 2 aspect signalling on main lines are worked under TCB are: Aynho Junction-Oxford, Southampton to Bournemouth, Stowmarket-Trowse (south of Norwich) Carstairs-near Edinburgh, Castle Cary-Cogload Junction, Newton Abbot-near Plymouth.

There's quite a few other semi-secondary route as well, it tends to be a direct replacement for semaphores. So Norwich-Ely, now it's being resignalled with feature it and Tysley-Statford-upon-Avon, for example.

Of course, there are many, many other miles of line that have 2/3 aspect signals mixed with semaphores, worked under absolute block.

You only really have 4 on very busy main lines and suburban areas, even lines as busy as the GWML is mostly three, with significant stretches of 3 on the MML.

 

[E&W Lucas]

I agree you get errors (blips) but I think on the whole they can give you a good idea of how fast you are going over a distance, especially the more expensive models.

There is a lot of very expensive technology in place to assist in the managing of drivers, who by and large are not the sort of people to play fast and loose with the safety of themselves and their passengers. It is not the job of enthusiasts to manage railway professionals, and please recognise that we will take a degree of offense when you appear to be trying to do so.

I have seen the fallacy of GPS demonstrated on a heritage line. An enthusiast claimed a speed attained, that the loco in question is physically incapable of achieving with that load in that location. Some further questions led to the information that I posted above. Unless you have access to the OTMR (black box) data for a particular journey, and the knowledge to interpret it, it is probably unwise to make accusations as to what has been happening.

 

[O L Leigh]

Could a train doing 140 mph stop within the same distance that a train from 125 mph can? What about adverse rail conditions?

See my post way back on the first page of this thread for the answer to your question.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

I would say in terms of the transport environment the railways are probably monitored and more disciplined than any other, even aviation. It's to a mind boggling degree, everything is recorded, all phone calls, everything that is done. It can be remotely monitored from all sorts of places and people are expected to be 100% all the time. Certainly it's planets apart from the roads which is very 'free and easy' in comparison.

I once went to a meeting with the road haulage association and they were bitching about speed cameras and the like, which they had to worry about once in while. They seemed to think that the railway is some free and easy environment, where the driver is out there on his own and 'anything goes'. Utterly clueless.

 

[notadriver]

See my post way back on the first page of this thread for the answer to your question.

O L Leigh

It was a hypothetical question to the OP. Of course 140 mph requires a lot more distance to stop than travelling at 125.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a lot of very expensive technology in place to assist in the managing of drivers, who by and large are not the sort of people to play fast and loose with the safety of themselves and their passengers. It is not the job of enthusiasts to manage railway professionals, and please recognise that we will take a degree of offense when you appear to be trying to do so.

I have seen the fallacy of GPS demonstrated on a heritage line. An enthusiast claimed a speed attained, that the loco in question is physically incapable of achieving with that load in that location. Some further questions led to the information that I posted above. Unless you have access to the OTMR (black box) data for a particular journey, and the knowledge to interpret it, it is probably unwise to make accusations as to what has been happening.

All I am saying is that today's modern GPS devices can be quite accurate. In no way am I trying to "manage railway professionals" as you put it. Do you think I'm a railway enthusiast who goes around timing trains and making dubious comments? Please! And the OTMR is not the only way to determine the speed of a train.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Do you think I'm a railway enthusiast who goes around timing trains and making dubious comments? Please! And the OTMR is not the only way to determine the speed of a train.

I simply quoted your post to assist in answering the general drift of the thread; sadly, some others above clearly have been doing precisely what you describe.

It reminds me of primary school children "telling tales"!

 

[sprinterguy]

A few questions, if I may be so bold, having read this extremely interesting thread:-

If my memory serves me right the HST and APT were developed at more or less the same time, the HST being designed for 125 mph (or it would seem 120mph initially) and the APT for 150mph. Was the APT equipped with in cab signalling and if not, was it the case that drivers having difficulty in sighting the signals was one of the reasons for it being abandoned?

It always seemed strange to me that it did a couple (?) of runs on the WCML in atrocious winter weather conditions, when it seems to acquit itself quite well considering, and was then shelved.

I can also recall from 20 or may be more years ago that a system of in cab signalling was introduced on part of the South Western main line out of Waterloo where the aspect of the previous signal was shown in the cab (ie an extension to AWS). Couldn't this solve the problem of 140mph running on the ECML?

More recently, wasn't the WCML upgrade intended to allow 140mph but was pegged back to 125mph on cost grounds? Was it the in cab signalling that proved too expensive and so was abandoned?

1. Yes, the APT was fitted with a transponder based in-cab signalling system, which I believe displayed the permitted speed the train could operate at based on the signalling aspects. The APT-P trains ran on this system throughout their operation from 1979 to 1986. The transponders were fitted to the length of the London to Glasgow WCML at maximum intervals of 1km.

2. The APT-P ran a daily London to Glasgow return relief diagram in normal passenger service for about a year in 1984. There were also numerous press trips and trial runs earlier in the life of these trains. There seem to have been a few runs in awful winter conditions where the trains suffered problems with their hydro-kinetic braking and tilt systems, which served to ruin their reputation in the media, as at least one of the trips was a press run. For a completely experimental train I think they did very well in such conditions. The APT project collapsed mainly due to a lack of political and managerial will and coordination that meant it eventually fell flat, as by the time the three APT-P trains were withdrawn in 1986 most of the mechanical problems had been ironed out.

4. Yes, the original plan with the West Coast upgrade was for a phase 2 that would see in-cab signalling operating to allow 140mph running, but due to spiralling construction costs and the massive amount of disruption that was caused by the upgrade, it was capped at 125mph with the completion of phase 1. The cost of in-cab signalling probably had something to do with DfT reluctance to press on with the project.

 

[Bedpan]

Thanks for that, (and E&W Lucas and Metroland earlier re the 2 aspect signalling).

Funny how one's memory fades with time, I'd forgotten that the APTs were in normal passenger service for a year, just remember them acquiting themselves will in the snow and then being slated by the press.

 

[Pumbaa]

The OTMR (On Train Monitoring Recorder) must be fitted to all trains using Network rail lines (even steam locomotives) but AFAIK it doesn't send out a massive warning if the line speed is exceeded. Needs to be downloaded and looked at by a driver manager. They are obviously examined randomly anyway and most definitely in the case of an incident occuring. So unless the train or the driver had been involved in some sort of incident prior he could just have gotten away with it.

390 OTMR is beamed directly back to HQ, any anomalies are flagged up immediately by control wrt timing, speed, abnormal behaviour including horns, brake applications and lights. Pre-planned performance profiles form a large part of this.

Same also applies for 350264 - 350267 as part of LMs trial to fit energy monitoring and live-feed train performance.