|
CrazyScot posted:The Thales Azlms are good don't get me wrong but the Frauschers are a maintainers dream. They are effectively now just plug and play once setup. If you drop them off the rail for track works you can throw them on, ensure the height is right (which 99 times in 100 it will be because of how the claw is fitted) and then have it automatically recalibrate. The new K types are like that for the AZLM, two bolts rather than the 15,000,000 parts of the old H type to get them calibrated properly. We had the same hand wringing in the UK over tracks vs axle counters, track engineer ended up having to do a long rear end report called a Rail Integrity Management Plan which basically listed every bit of track pre 1979 (I think, I'm a signalling designer...) and how it was gonna be dealt with. Ended up our asset management guys thought this was just pissing away cash as we have fairly good records for dealing with rail breaks and most tracks here actually don't provide that robust broken rail detection, so it's a bit of a red herring. Professionally (and personally) I don't think it's the job of the S&T equipment to monitor p-ways asset to the detriment of their own. Not sure how well that'd go down if I dropped that bombshell at work...
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
ollie74656 posted:Can any UK train goons shed any light on these mysterious card readers? They were installed about 4-5 years ago by Stagecoach in partnership with South West Trains as part of a joint travel card system but never ever worked at stations and is only used on busses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Bozza posted:The new K types are like that for the AZLM, two bolts rather than the 15,000,000 parts of the old H type to get them calibrated properly. I've only had experience with the SK30H's combine with the ZP30H trackside units. Whilst calibrating wasn't hard; it also wasn't just manipulating two switches from the location as it is with the Frauschers. I personally just see the Frauscher as the current industry leader with regards to what we actually want from axle counters. I do believe that broken rail detection is partly our responsibility given have the ability in some cases (not all given the way in which track circuits work) to give advanced warning of a major rail break. It should never come at the cost of proper P-Way checks but we can't just throw up our hands and say it's not our problem at all. If we can put a track circuit in under an axle counter section as a non-vital check then we should be doing it for that one in a million chance we stop a passenger train derailing. Originally I'm from the UK and I fully understand how important protecting the passengers is to the industry there. It's just a minor addition with minimal development of required standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
I must disagree, if you're providing tracks you're providing block joints which are much more likely points of failure than plain line rail breaks. You're removing loads of significant points of failure and it makes your traction return bonding much more simple, which means that your overall systemic failure is reduced. One of the big talking points going on at the moment is how to deal with failures (and SPADs) without it becoming a total job stopper as we switch from a fully interlocked signalling system which fails to a uselessly safe state to blokes on phones working via instruction to try and get stuff moving again - what is more risky? I'm sure we could have a multi page debate about this though as its a bit of a hot topic at the moment. Management of overruns has just been totally overhauled in the data prep world following similar logic as we used to remove the 'inherent' rail break detection of track circuits. When did you move over to Aus if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Do you feel the culture of safety has greatly improved in your time with Network Rail? I know rail track was much maligned and we were talking about this at work the other day: it's the 20 year anniversary of one of the drivers from our depot being hit by another train, whilst using a signal post phone that wasn't correctly labelled as limited clearance. The phone itself was reported several times for near misses given the fact it was low to the ground with a short cable, things that would only become apparent to the driver once he was at the phone cabinet. Railtrack accepted full responsibility for his death at the time but what irked my colleagues was that the driver in question was pronounced dead at 2pm after being taken to hospital, and by 5pm a list of phones not to be used was being circulated: it felt like that list existed prior to the fatality but they didn't want to declare the phones unsafe unless necessary. On a lighter note, I have an interview for a driver's job  If I pass the interview the assessment is the day after, which should be fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Bozza posted:I must disagree, if you're providing tracks you're providing block joints which are much more likely points of failure than plain line rail breaks. Not every track requires a block joint and not every axle counter section would require it's own joints. CSEE/UM71 tracks with tuned loops could be used for the task; or you could cover a kilometer with only two joints and provide what you required. This way you reduce overall systemic failure points but also maintain current levels of broken rail detection. Stepping up to coded tracks you can run into the tens of kilometers. As for moving block systems and dealing with "SPADs" (exceeding limits of authority); I can tell you the situation isn't much better. Instead of having an interlocking in an area, our current method of making things work is to make each individual train an interlocking of its own (in effect). Due to that the train can't just move under the authority of a bloke on the phone when something goes wrong. Sadly I can't go into much detail on the hows and what nots but I can say I had a very interesting experience of a failure situation on a train fitted with in cab signalling. That's just the mechanical side of it. Inherently we have to accept there's going to be more risk involved when a driver has to take responsibility for failures which traditionally were locked by the signalling system. Without fixed points dictating safety we're eventually going to have an accident when someone moves too far forward (or backwards) after a failure, something that to a reasonable extent was protected by signalling principles and equipment. To put a train in imminent danger he would need to exceed his overlap or when talked forward pass the next signal also at red. With moving block or any in-cab system; should there be a failure the driver mught have innacurate or no indication on where exactly he is in relation to where he should be if the system on board is gone. Something we'll design to protect against but not removing the issue completely. I first came to Aus in 2009, moved full time in late 2010. I've worked in Aus/NZ since. Pinball Jizzard fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Think this is a difference in British vs Australian practice, even with coded tracks you'd still end up with tons of block joints for your S&C, plus all your bond wire etc for the OLE. If you've got no block joint in your point systems they're much stronger which is better for the overall maintainability. Think we might be comparing apples and oranges on two different railways  E: interesting points about in-cab, I've been involved a bit in the development of ETCS which is fixed block in cab in L2 here in the UK and all this stuff has been causing much hair to be torn out. The switch from route signalling to speed signalling is bad enough without trying to move in cab at the same time. Bozza fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
S&Cs aee a different matter completely. Given they make up such a small proportion of your overall line. I agree that the idea becomes kind of broken at that point for having tracks under the axle counters. I worked on the Cambrian lines that you mentioned earlier in the thread as well as another level 2 system here (using L15K ATP) which was being upgraded. For me the problem is complexity. The UK is a far too complicated in many places to allow level 2 to work easily. Level 2s by definition need to be run on simple railways, it's difficult to convey simply to a driver his exact route when there's a lot of crossings and lines and all he has is a screen with limited output. Think of how many transponders you'd need at somewhere like Bristol Temple Meads never mind New Street, Paddington or Euston. How do you convey to a driver which line he's going to be on when there's 14 lines he could potentially end up on? Never mind in a failure situation where a level 3 alarm causes the emergency brake application and he needs a transponder (or two depending on standard) to allow full functionality to return. There's a good reason why in many metro projects worldwide ETCS has been removed from the scopes until a later date. I am glad that Network Rail is pushing development though; one of the reasons I moved here was because the British industry had become quite stagnant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Bozza posted:One of the big talking points going on at the moment is how to deal with failures (and SPADs) without it becoming a total job stopper as we switch from a fully interlocked signalling system which fails to a uselessly safe state to blokes on phones working via instruction to try and get stuff moving again - what is more risky? Are we talking about SPAD detection in a degraded state? What's the current idea for that? Are they using caution orders and on board cameras?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
CrazyScot posted:S&Cs aee a different matter completely. Given they make up such a small proportion of your overall line. I agree that the idea becomes kind of broken at that point for having tracks under the axle counters. The current sway of the debate is that it's not relevant that the driver knows where they're going. It's a simple statement that has absolutely huge implications for how we operate as a network as it changes some real fundamentals. In terms of complexity, relatively it's not so bad if the signalling is designed on this assumption, but the whole thing is causing huge debates at levels way above my pay grade as stuff like how do you deal with misrouting? Currently the drivers responsibility but now moving into the signallers, with ARS being notoriously shaky if things get messed up it becomes a lot to manage. The Traffic Management System was supposed to solve all this has bagged it so it's all gone well tits up. I agree with you about L2 being not well designed for complex running, by all accounts the European Rail Authority got a copy of the specs for ETCS for High Speed lines, crossed out the high speed and wrote all lines in crayon. The UK is rapidly going from "barely able to install ETCS on the Cambrian" to "European industry leaders in application design" at the moment though because of just how busy and complicated our railway is. Gonna be an interesting couple of decades...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
spamman posted:Are we talking about SPAD detection in a degraded state? What's the current idea for that? Are they using caution orders and on board cameras? Nah, when a SPAD occurs the overrun detection that used to be hard coded into the interlockings would go into panic stations, dead locking points and sticking signals back to red with great abandon over great swathes of area which would lock up railway. Eg Paddington until the data purge at Christmas, if the SPAD detection is set off, you'll get all lines blocked with a total mess to try and manage. The signaller would then not only have to manage the SPAD train but potentially 10/20 trains that are now trapped with the interlocking holding lots of points and signals at red which is the worst place to be. The modern system is to put very small overrun groups into the interlocking with the overrun detection in the control system, this calls big groups of signals back to red to protect the SPAD, then the interlocking can calculate what really needs to be held down and what can be reset and freed to get stuff moving again. Signaller restrokes on the panel and away trains go, leaving him to deal with the SPAD train.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:[...] How I read your post at first...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Bozza posted:Nah, when a SPAD occurs the overrun detection that used to be hard coded into the interlockings would go into panic stations, dead locking points and sticking signals back to red with great abandon over great swathes of area which would lock up railway. Eg Paddington until the data purge at Christmas, if the SPAD detection is set off, you'll get all lines blocked with a total mess to try and manage. Wow, that's monstrous. Is the hard coding of SPADs into the interlocking data a feature of the interlocking that's used, or is it for compliance with local industry standards? I'm not sure I've ever seen that before, SPADs here are detected at a non vital level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
spamman posted:Wow, that's monstrous. Is the hard coding of SPADs into the interlocking data a feature of the interlocking that's used, or is it for compliance with local industry standards? I'm not sure I've ever seen that before, SPADs here are detected at a non vital level. SPAD detection is a non-vital alarm yes. But SPAD protection is in the interlocking circuitry and is definitely vital. The most basic example is the overlap of a route. This is a vital level protection in case a train SPADs the signal. The overlap distance is calculated based on line speed and train braking distances and stops a SPADing train from ever coming into contact with another train route or SPADing train. We have a lot more protection levels which aren't as obvious and a bit more complex at the interlocking level (flank protection, swinging overlaps, approach locking etc etc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Bozza posted:The current sway of the debate is that it's not relevant that the driver knows where they're going. It's a simple statement that has absolutely huge implications for how we operate as a network as it changes some real fundamentals. That's a massive statement to make and a dangerous one at that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
CrazyScot posted:SPAD detection is a non-vital alarm yes. But SPAD protection is in the interlocking circuitry and is definitely vital. The most basic example is the overlap of a route. This is a vital level protection in case a train SPADs the signal. The overlap distance is calculated based on line speed and train braking distances and stops a SPADing train from ever coming into contact with another train route or SPADing train. We have a lot more protection levels which aren't as obvious and a bit more complex at the interlocking level (flank protection, swinging overlaps, approach locking etc etc) Yeah, I get that I've just never really heard it referred to as under the umbrella of SPAD protection (although it makes sense). The difference is which area you deal with (the old idea of if you've got a hammer everything looks like a nail). Having been train control for three years when I hear SPADs I think of detection, non vital alarms and operational responses, when I hear swinging overlaps, flank protection I tend towards route availability implications, when I come across overlap protection my first instinct is to think about route blocking etc. Just a part for the course for specialisation I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
CrazyScot posted:That's a massive statement to make and a dangerous one at that. It's one that's fundamental to the system - ETCS inherently does not provide routing information (though we are currently looking at proving text messages before major diverging routes eg Airport Jn at Stockley which is route barred to non electrics towards Heathrow) so you need to change your entire operating model to one where the driver has gone from having route knowledge to one where they don't. It's a quirk of the British way of doing things, European railways have been operating on similar systems for decades so their operating models are more mature whereas we've been rocking route signalling since Victoria was on the throne. spamman posted:Yeah, I get that I've just never really heard it referred to as under the umbrella of SPAD protection (although it makes sense). To be fair, it came as a response to the Ladbrooke Grove and Southall rail crashes so it makes sense in the context of it's era - lock everything up and untangle it rather than let two trains smash up. Now we've got TPWS it makes less sense and actually causes you more trouble than its worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
I keep reading this conversation as us having systems to detect Special Advisers 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:I keep reading this conversation as us having systems to detect Special Advisers Funnily enough this thread has me doing the opposite, someone in the UKMT talked about Yvette Cooper ignoring her spads and I couldn't work out how exactly train signals were being used as a metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:I keep reading this conversation as us having systems to detect Special Advisers Very important systems, you want spads as far away from the railways as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Bozza posted:It's one that's fundamental to the system - ETCS inherently does not provide routing information (though we are currently looking at proving text messages before major diverging routes eg Airport Jn at Stockley which is route barred to non electrics towards Heathrow) so you need to change your entire operating model to one where the driver has gone from having route knowledge to one where they don't. That's the big issue for me with complexity though. On a simple system a driver knows what is happening and where he's going based on the limited information they have, on a complex railway that information is important but difficult to learn instinctively. For instance (and perhaps a very fringe situation). In the north west of Australia there's a hill which the railway is built upon which requires the drivers to be prepared for roughly 10km before going up and down. If you come from the top too quickly the brakes can't stop you and if you approach it too slowly from the bottom you're going to end up going back down. The level 2 system doesn't cater to that it just shows an exit speed and LoA; the only information the drivers have is from a Driver Assist screen (which shows rail profile). What if you remove route knowledge from those drivers? As an aside, do you know if NR is planning on developing a driver assist system or driver strategy engine for use in conjunction? Not particularly signalling but it does feed off and into development. *edit* There's a hill in the western region I believe near Gloucester with a similar profile. I know that they have to have to use a banksman if trains are over a certain length to get up it. Pinball Jizzard fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:I keep reading this conversation as us having systems to detect Special Advisers I'm glad I'm not the only person trying to figure out where politics and trains intersect, and what either of them have to do with first world war fighter biplanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
CrazyScot posted:That's the big issue for me with complexity though. On a simple system a driver knows what is happening and where he's going based on the limited information they have, on a complex railway that information is important but difficult to learn instinctively. For instance (and perhaps a very fringe situation). In the north west of Australia there's a hill which the railway is built upon which requires the drivers to be prepared for roughly 10km before going up and down. If you come from the top too quickly the brakes can't stop you and if you approach it too slowly from the bottom you're going to end up going back down. The level 2 system doesn't cater to that it just shows an exit speed and LoA; the only information the drivers have is from a Driver Assist screen (which shows rail profile). What if you remove route knowledge from those drivers? Defined within the speed profile (supposedly) but I take your point. This happened when the ETCS went in on Cambrian, the journey times got longer as the system didn't allow the train to ever go above 40mph for long stretches, as defined in the sectional appendix, but drivers had been speeding to make it up banks. Same happened in Scotland on traditional signalling when they did a series of linespeed improvements to lift a load of PSRs and renewed all the speed signage, journey times got longer as drivers were basically tanking it full tilt anyway, no regard for the speed profile. You're thinking of Lickey Incline
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Bozza posted:Defined within the speed profile (supposedly) but I take your point. This happened when the ETCS went in on Cambrian, the journey times got longer as the system didn't allow the train to ever go above 40mph for long stretches, as defined in the sectional appendix, but drivers had been speeding to make it You see that's the thing though. Unless you specifically set the speed limit low to go down a hill (increasing headway) you don't have it set in the system and in many cases that's just route knowledge, we both know how important headway is on a mainline and there's not many good workarounds to it. Going beyond the speed limit to go up a hill is a problem when you use a protected system similar to ATP where excessive speed leads to an alarm and ultimately an emergency brake application. These are complexities you find (like the Cambrian line) during implementation and trust when I say the impact can be incredibly severe; which I'd like to discuss but I'm unsure if I can. What I can say is that because of the type of traffic and frequency of traffic on the Cambrians, there was never going to be an incident of major note. I'm sorry for being so cagey about real world experiences with these kind of things, I'd love to discuss but it would most likely be breaking a few contract clauses and that would be a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Drop me a PM, professional discretion guaranteed. I'll send you my LinkedIn or something so you know I'm not some oval office who's gonna grass you up. Experience is more important than theory and I've still got good contacts in the ETCS world in NR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Has anybody read any of Corbyn's policy documents, especially those pertaining to rail? "That much of the network continues to run on trains built in Britain prior to the deliberate decimation of the industry by the Major government is a testament to the skill of those workers."  https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/103/attachments/original/1438626641/NorthernFuture.pdf?1438626641
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Hi guys. Can I take this opportunity to thank Virgin Trains for banning railcards on peak trains and thus pricing me and my girlfriend out of a long distance relationship. Thanks Richard Branson, you clearly need the cash. I hope Corbyn nationalises you, you oval office
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
I thought they'd just changed it so you had to have advance tickets rather than off peak ones? Also who wants odds on whether we'll have CorbynRail before the Thameslink 2000 project is finished?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:I thought they'd just changed it so you had to have advance tickets rather than off peak ones? Yeah I got a bit mixed up. Still screwing us out of money to see one another. Not cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
If we're whingeing about trains I'd like to thank the nice man from first transpennine for letting me know about twenty times in 30 minutes that they're very sorry for the delay because the points are broken at middlesbrough. Also thankyou for letting me know there are definitely men in orange on the tracks so they must be fixing it, that makes me feel much better than when you said earlier that there were men fixing despite them not being allowed on the track because there was a train going the other way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
The ECML and its branches have not had a good week. Including a One Under near Sandy on Tuesday evening. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:Hi guys. Can I take this opportunity to thank Virgin Trains for banning railcards on peak trains and thus pricing me and my girlfriend out of a long distance relationship. Thanks Richard Branson, you clearly need the cash. I feel your pain, I spent well over a grand with Virgin trains seeing my ex. Not having that railcard discount would have bled me dry(er). I guess there's a silver lining in breaking up before the Virgin price hike. :v
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS2Sxyj0e68
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
when's this happening in the UK Bozza?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Network Rail privatisation 'on the table' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34276868 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:Hi guys. Can I take this opportunity to thank Virgin Trains for banning railcards on peak trains and thus pricing me and my girlfriend out of a long distance relationship. Thanks Richard Branson, you clearly need the cash. he did you a favor, long distance relationships are retarded
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
So how should performance on the trains be measured? Do you think that PPM and CaSL are correct? I'm all in favour of weighting it based on passenger usage but can see how that would piss stone people off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Does anyone know how the procing model works. I go from up north to london and back each week and have to travel at peak times so the tickets cost a bomb, yet the train is mostly empty. However when I happen to travel nonpeak its jammed to the point of having to stand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Does anyone know how the procing model works. I go from up north to london and back each week and have to travel at peak times so the tickets cost a bomb, yet the train is mostly empty. However when I happen to travel nonpeak its jammed to the point of having to stand. "Poorly." Apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Network Rail privatisation 'on the table' I loved listening to the Tory transport minister stating that Corbyn's stance that the railways should be nationalised was an ideological boondoggle and totally ignored available evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 22:35
|
|
