A890: Cars could go on rails to end 140-mile detour

[Glen]

Well I am delighted the road is reopened. However, looking at the 40 minute open windows every few hours in practical terms it might as well not be. Looks like when I'm up there in April I need to be prepared for the long detour - and every minute I am hoofing it east then south then west to get round it is minutes I am not on Skye.....

Or you could just look at the times the road is open and plan your journey around them.
The contractors have still got to be able to work on the rock face to get the road reopened, and they will limited in what they will be able to do while there is traffic passing, even behind a concrete wall on the railway.

[michael769]

Or you could just look at the times the road is open and plan your journey around them.
The contractors have still got to be able to work on the rock face to get the road reopened, and they will limited in what they will be able to do while there is traffic passing, even behind a concrete wall on the railway.

I would imagine much of that limitation applies even without traffic due to the need to protect the railway at all times.

[A303Paul]

Sorry but I cannot see why they need to be linked in any way to the RETB signalling or its' panel.

You haven't seen how hard it is to get any operational rule changes past the ORR and HSE!

That dosent seem to make sense to me. There is nothing novel about it, it is, as I understand it, established signalling practice and, if Phil is correct, it appears to have already been done once since RETB was introduced, I can't really see what the problem is?

I would have thought the far more difficult task was to get permission to install the "level crossing" at all, as ORR are not to keen at all on new level crossings and only allow them in exceptional circumstances, and I would have thought they would prefer a crossing that had protecting signals either side of it?

[djw1981]

But because of how RETB works, either the train or the convoy can have the token for the section. To allow cars to pass, even with signals would require the section to be split into 3 for RETB purposes - Strathcarron to access 1, access 1-access 2 and access 2-kyle.

The railways rules are now fairly strict and since programming requires use of external contractors, and all the re-programming and re-certificaton etc of signalling costs would be billed to Highland council, it may be that they have budgeted that the windows available are sufficient for the volume of traffic expected.

If the situation were to be semi permanent, then these changes could be written into the software and local signals placed, but the council would have to foot the bill - similarly with level crossings rail rules apply for safety etc, and the majority of incidents are road user error; this makes rail safety staff suspicious of cars on railways.

[Phil]

But because of how RETB works, either the train or the convoy can have the token for the section. To allow cars to pass, even with signals would require the section to be split into 3 for RETB purposes - Strathcarron to access 1, access 1-access 2 and access 2-kyle.

No it wouldn't, the clue is in the name. RETB (Radio Electronic Token Block) is exactly the same in railway terms as the Electric Key Token system developed by the Victorians and still in use quite safely on many railways today. This includes the Banstable line and the Whitby line where the driver still has to get a lump of metal from token machines at passing loops , not forgetting the many heritage lines across the country. All RETB means is that rather than the train driver having to be given a physical lump of metal to say it is safe to proceed into a single line section, he is given a virtual one transmitted by radio. Thats it - RETB doesn't control points, doesn't control lineside signals, doesn't give the driver any linespeed info, doesn't provide any in cab signalling information. All RETB does is povide a single line token to the driver giving him authority to enter the section of track betwenn "x" and "y". What it most certanly doesn't do is remove the need for drivers to observe lineside signals.

When I say signals it is important to remember that RETB DOES have lineside signals - its just that they don't look like them. A "Stop and .... " sign (with a big retroreflective red circle on it) means exactly the same thing to a train driver as a red colour light signal or a horizontal red semaphore arm. Equally distant boards (with black and yellow lines on them) mean exactly the same as a yellow colour light or a traditional semaphore distant signal fixed at caution. Thus when the driver gets to a station he Stops at the "Stop. Obtain token for xxx" sign, sends back the virtual token he has just carried through the previous section, obtains a new virtual token from the signalman for the section ahead, then moves off

Also it should be noted that before it was upgraded to ETRMS a couple of years ago the Cumbrian line between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth was controlled by RETB and had at least three level crossings protected by traditional signals mid way between passing loops. Treadles were provided so the crossing keeper knew when to close the gates and clear the signals but this was seperate from the issuing of an RETB token.

Therefore to return to the A890, there is absolutley no pratical reason whatsoever that something similar could not be installed on, what is in effect just a very very long level crossing. There is no need to touch the RETB software at all just the cost of a few new signals, distat boards and treadles, plus someone competant to oversea their opperation. As I said in an earlier post this was the approch taken back in the early 90s which - suprise, superise - worked absolutly fine.

Of course what has changed since then is the structure of the railways and indeed the attitude of the HMRI, HSE, etc to such things. Back in the 90s it would have been fairly easy for the local BR manager in conjunction with the local counicil and the Scotish Office to design and implament the scheme outlined above fairly easy without the need to get it signed off by everybody and their wife (to use a phrase).

These days however, what with the way the rail industry has evolved not to mention the seemingly rampent blame culture, increased costs and general hightened sense of risk I can well understand why the decision has been taken to link the convoy opperation to the issue of a RETB token. However it is important to remember that the decision to go down this route is linked to what I might term "paper factors". An pratical, proven and safe engineering solution that avoids any interaction with the RETB system can be put in place if desired.

[A303Paul]

I agree with Phil on Central Wales line etc.

I suspect that the truth of the matter is that providing the "crossing keeper" with a RETB token "machine" can be implemented overnight as no fixed infrastructure is required, whereas locally controlled signalling would take weeks at best, if not months, to implement (plus attendent significant infrastructure installation and commissioning costs). I have a recollection that there are portable such devices that allow local track workers to take possession of the line, by being in possession of the radio token, and presumably they are using one of those issued to the "crossing keeper".

If that is what has been done then it is a case of someone using their head to implement a quick and economical solution acceptable to the authorities. I don't buy the "H&S won't allow" it argument for the traditional arrangement, as the traditional arrangement provides a locally controlled fixed signal either side, protecting the "level crossing", which can immediately be put back to red by the crossing keeper if some idiot car driver goes onto the level crossing without permission when a train is in section.

I suspect there is a speed restriction imposed on trains approaching the crossing to mitigate this risk together with radio contact between signalman/train/crossing keeper. Whatever mitigation is actually put in place will have been thoroughly risk assessed & deemed acceptable by the safety authorities.

So I think, that far from H&S standing in the way and seemingly demanding expensive gold plated solutions, it seems to me that they have actually allowed an innovative, economical and practical arrangement, which is what I hoped would start to happen now that ORR have taken over "HMRI" from the HSE, and to my mind the railway safety authorities are to be congratulated for allowing an innovative, economical and practical approach and signing it off without undue delay.

The fact that they have allowed a new "level crossing" at all indicates a positive attitude in deeming it as "exceptional circumstances" and so permitting it in the first place (they could have claimed that as an alternative car ferry is in place there was no overriding need)

If the arrangement was to be made permanent or long term and they wanted to minimise the "closed time", I'm sure they would go for locally controlled fixed signals, as used at this location in the 1990's and on the Central Wales line level crossings, as messing around with the RETB to add extra block sections would be to my mind a logistical nightmare.

If separate RETB block sections for level crossings was such a good idea they would have done it on the Central Wales line when RETB was installed in the first place and would have cost pennies metaphorically to install, instead of forking out for the expense of fixed locally controlled colour light signals to protect the Central Wales line level crossings (which is what RETB was designed to eliminate the need for in the first place - as they cost too much to install on such lengthy lightly used lines) through remote areas. Indeed I suspect it was safety considerations that mandated the locally controlled fixed signals level crossing arrangements on the Central Wales line.

[Phil]

I agree with Phil on Central Wales line etc.
If separate RETB block sections for level crossings was such a good idea they would have done it on the Central Wales line when RETB was installed in the first place and would have cost pennies metaphorically to install, instead of forking out for the expense of fixed locally controlled colour light signals to protect the Central Wales line level crossings (which is what RETB was designed to eliminate the need for in the first place - as they cost too much to install on such lengthy lightly used lines) through remote areas. Indeed I suspect it was safety considerations that mandated the locally controlled fixed signals level crossing arrangements on the Central Wales line.

The crossings in Wales remainded unchanged when RETB was installed (i.e. remained protected by Semaphore signals, had gates not barriers & road lights, etc) and were worked the same way they had been ever since the railway opened. RETB made no difference to their equipment or opperation.

As to why they were not upgraded when RETB was introducded I suspect this was actually down to cost and technical problems. I seem to recall reading that these particular crossings were unsuitable for conversion to automatic crossings (both open or AHB style) and the costs of providing a CCTV link plus control circuits all the way back to Machynlleth for full maned barriers was judged as too expensive. Hence the previous system was retained and there is no engineering, safety or opperational reason why such a system could not be installed on a tempory basis in Scotland. All it needs is a bit of time to organise and for the various bodies involved to stop being so obsessed with risks, blame, paperwork, and most importantly look beyond their own personal interests and consider the wider community.

[AndyB]

Why would we need any colour light signals? Distant boards, Stop boards (specifically off-the-shelf "Stop and obtain instructions"), and handsignallers.

[A303Paul]

Why would we need any colour light signals? Distant boards, Stop boards (specifically off-the-shelf "Stop and obtain instructions"), and handsignallers.

And how much do you think providing three shifts of two handsignallers for seven days a week would cost, plus shelter for them, messing facilities, overnight accomodation (as it is in the middle of nowhere)?

Hence the previous system was retained and there is no engineering, safety or opperational reason why such a system could not be installed on a tempory basis in Scotland. All it needs is a bit of time to organise and for the various bodies involved to stop being so obsessed with risks, blame, paperwork, and most importantly look beyond their own personal interests and consider the wider community.

Phil, I think you are being overly harsh here. I very much doubt that the speculation that the safety authorities have blocked provision of fixed, locally controlled, signalling is accurate.

While I have no knowledge of what has been done here and why, other than what I have read on this forums, I think, far from being obstructive, the safety authorities have been flexible and reasonable here in seemingly allowing the gate keeper to accept an RETB token using a portable unit. This is because there is still the risk of an idiot car driver illegally entering the crossing when the crossing keeper has surrendered the token and the train is in section (as is the case at any level crossing), without any protecting signal to stop the train at the crossing if such a car driver did. Clearly the safety authorities have accepted entirely reasonable alternative mitigation such as radio communication between the "crossing keeper" and signalling centre and or train and/or speed restriction in vicinity of the crossing and/or secure barriers to stop the traffic etc.

If the safety authorities were being obstructive, then they would have insisted on a Central Wales type level crossing arrangement with locally controlled signals protecting the crossing, or refused permission for it at all, as new Level Crossings are only permitted under exceptional circumstances and it could be argued that the rescusitated Strome Ferry is a reasonable alterntative and the "level crossing" should not be permitted on safety grounds.

The solution that seems to have been accepted has zero infrastructure cost and can be implented overnight. Fixed local signals would take weeks or months to do as drawings/ method statements etc. have to be done, signal sighting commitees approve, then infrastructure has to be installed tested and commissioned by which time the road repairs would probably be complete.

No, this is a welcome return to the sort of practical, low cost solution that the old British Rail was very good at, Railtrack was appalling at, and we first a positive change of attitude with Network Rail with the temporary station at Workington North.

Unless the road is going to be closed for a year or two, it is not worth the cost of installing temporary signalling infrastructure of any sort.

[J--M--B]

I presume they have some sort of physical barrier to prevent any idiot trying to use the section along the railway line out of hours?

[t1(M)]

And how much do you think providing three shifts of two handsignallers for seven days a week would cost, plus shelter for them, messing facilities, overnight accomodation (as it is in the middle of nowhere)? .

About the same as the crossing keepers?

Fixed local signals would take weeks or months to do as drawings/ method statements etc. have to be done, signal sighting commitees approve, then infrastructure has to be installed tested and commissioned by which time the road repairs would probably be complete.

A standard "Stop and Await Instructions" board surely wouldn't take that long to make - and what's to test?
And as for sighting - a TSR can be put in at very short notice - why is this different? The drivers will all know the fixed board is there.

[A303Paul]

About the same as the crossing keepers?

Yes it would be, except that you would need a total of three people per shift instead of one, one crossing keeper and two handsignalmen.

A standard "Stop and Await Instructions" board surely wouldn't take that long to make - and what's to test?

A stop board would be cheaper to make and install but, as above you then have the need for handsignalmen. Cheaper than handsignalmen would be a stop board with instructions to stop and phone the crossing keeper for permission to proceed, but either way you have to stop each the train for several minutes delaying the service. It might take you a long time to get a safety case agreed though as I don't think a level crossing (other than on a light railway perhaps) has ever been protected by a stop board on a passenger as opposed to freight line.

And as for sighting - a TSR can be put in at very short notice - why is this different? The drivers will all know the fixed board is there.

A stop signal is a very different thing and very severe consequences are faced by any driver going past one, even a couple of feet past one on a dark and foggy night. I wouldn't fancy your chances of getting agreement from the drivers if it had not been properly agreed by a sighting committee and I wouldn't blame them either.

I presume they have some sort of physical barrier to prevent any idiot trying to use the section along the railway line out of hours?

Stopping idiot car drivers doing it out of hours is the lesser problem. Stoping idiot car drivers doing it in hours when the barriers are closed and the train has been authorised to proceed to and over the crossing is the main issue.

Overall it seems to me that what they have done is sensible and propotional, given that the road will be open before too long and there is an alternative car ferry (which was after all, all there was until the 1970s)

[Glen]

I presume they have some sort of physical barrier to prevent any idiot trying to use the section along the railway line out of hours?

The part of the road diverted onto to railway is in the middle of the long stretch operated under convoy working, there are gates at either end of the site (which is being worked on 24/7) to close the road outside the convoy times, there are also crossing gates at either end of the temporary road on the railway. Outside the convoy times the public can get nowhere near the railway section.

[AndyB]

Staffing levels will depend on how they stop traffic. I'd say there will be three anyway - one to drive the convoy vehicle, and one at either end to look after the gates - last convoy goes, the keeper at one end shuts the gate behind the last car, and so on. Even if it only took two people to do that, it wouldn't surprise me if the PICOP controlling the whole thing on site isn't a third person, so that the convoy driver's sole responsibility is driving a vehicle instead of being distracted.

[A303Paul]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a PICOP. It would appear that in railway terms a full possession is taken between trains in section to allow the convoys, presumably with the PICOP in possession of the virtual token (just as would be the case with normal engineering possessions)

To my mind, it's a clever way of obviating the need to put any temporary signalling infrastructure in, keep costs reasonable and allow the whole thing to be got up and running very quickly.

Whether the other convoy people are "railway" or local authority staff or a mix is a matter of conjecture.

[Glen]

There is one Network Rail person at the "crossing", the gates close across the railway and have stop signs and flashing red lights facing the line.
The traffic convoy is being operated by a traffic management contractor with two convoy vehicles (it is a long convoy section so they will need to ensure the final vehicle has cleared it) and the usual staff at the stop/go boards.

[Phil]

Why would we need any colour light signals? Distant boards, Stop boards (specifically off-the-shelf "Stop and obtain instructions"), and handsignallers.

And how much do you think providing three shifts of two handsignallers for seven days a week would cost, plus shelter for them, messing facilities, overnight accomodation (as it is in the middle of nowhere)?

Hence the previous system was retained and there is no engineering, safety or opperational reason why such a system could not be installed on a tempory basis in Scotland. All it needs is a bit of time to organise and for the various bodies involved to stop being so obsessed with risks, blame, paperwork, and most importantly look beyond their own personal interests and consider the wider community.

Phil, I think you are being overly harsh here. I very much doubt that the speculation that the safety authorities have blocked provision of fixed, locally controlled, signalling is accurate.

While I have no knowledge of what has been done here and why, other than what I have read on this forums, I think, far from being obstructive, the safety authorities have been flexible and reasonable here in seemingly allowing the gate keeper to accept an RETB token using a portable unit. This is because there is still the risk of an idiot car driver illegally entering the crossing when the crossing keeper has surrendered the token and the train is in section (as is the case at any level crossing), without any protecting signal to stop the train at the crossing if such a car driver did. Clearly the safety authorities have accepted entirely reasonable alternative mitigation such as radio communication between the "crossing keeper" and signalling centre and or train and/or speed restriction in vicinity of the crossing and/or secure barriers to stop the traffic etc.

If the safety authorities were being obstructive, then they would have insisted on a Central Wales type level crossing arrangement with locally controlled signals protecting the crossing, or refused permission for it at all, as new Level Crossings are only permitted under exceptional circumstances and it could be argued that the rescusitated Strome Ferry is a reasonable alterntative and the "level crossing" should not be permitted on safety grounds.

The solution that seems to have been accepted has zero infrastructure cost and can be implented overnight. Fixed local signals would take weeks or months to do as drawings/ method statements etc. have to be done, signal sighting commitees approve, then infrastructure has to be installed tested and commissioned by which time the road repairs would probably be complete.

No, this is a welcome return to the sort of practical, low cost solution that the old British Rail was very good at, Railtrack was appalling at, and we first a positive change of attitude with Network Rail with the temporary station at Workington North.

Unless the road is going to be closed for a year or two, it is not worth the cost of installing temporary signalling infrastructure of any sort.

I agree as a tempory quick fix, the methods taken so far are sensable. However if this is likely to continue for the next 3 - 9 months (which based on the previous history of the site and the various statements made thus far, could be the case) then I would seriously look at trying to improve road traffic throughput. Now it may be that discussions are already happening behind the scenes because as you rightly say it would take time to organise ( however good Network Rail may be BR was still quicker at this sort of thing) with the lead being taken by Highlands council. On that score it would be helpfull if I could find more info on how long it took to put the system in place back in the 90s though and indeed how long the road diversion was in place for.

However as a signal tech, I stand by the fact that installation of a couple of tempory signals, a couple of tempory TPWS installations and a couple of reflectorised distant boards is not, in railway terms expensive (I say in railway terms because to those working outside the industry even the most basic of components / tasks tends to bring the reaction of "how much!!!!!, what a rip off" when told how much things cost). Expensive is modifying the RETB system with additional block sections with all the extra testing and validation requirements that altering an interlocking (which is what you would be doing) brings.

All of which brings us to he point you rasied about costs. Given that costs within the railway system have tripped since privitisation (ignoring inflation, where BR spent £1 the privitised rail industry has to spend between £3 to get the same result) it may well be the case that what was afordable in the 90s, is too expensive to be a financially viable option today. If that is the case then I don't have a problem - the problem comes if people said it was impossable from an engineering point of view - the two things are not the same, just be honest and say its to expensive.

[A303Paul]

I agree as a tempory quick fix, the methods taken so far are sensable. However if this is likely to continue for the next 3 - 9 months (which based on the previous history of the site and the various statements made thus far, could be the case) then I would seriously look at trying to improve road traffic throughput. Now it may be that discussions are already happening behind the scenes because as you rightly say it would take time to organise ( however good Network Rail may be BR was still quicker at this sort of thing) with the lead being taken by Highlands council. On that score it would be helpfull if I could find more info on how long it took to put the system in place back in the 90s though and indeed how long the road diversion was in place for.

However as a signal tech, I stand by the fact that installation of a couple of tempory signals, a couple of tempory TPWS installations and a couple of reflectorised distant boards is not, in railway terms expensive (I say in railway terms because to those working outside the industry even the most basic of components / tasks tends to bring the reaction of "how much!!!!!, what a rip off" when told how much things cost). Expensive is modifying the RETB system with additional block sections with all the extra testing and validation requirements that altering an interlocking (which is what you would be doing) brings.

All of which brings us to he point you rasied about costs. Given that costs within the railway system have tripped since privatisation (ignoring inflation, where BR spent £1 the privitised rail industry has to spend between £3 to get the same result) it may well be the case that what was afordable in the 90s, is too expensive to be a financially viable option today. If that is the case then I don't have a problem - the problem comes if people said it was impossable from an engineering point of view - the two things are not the same, just be honest and say its to expensive.

I think that is a fairly sensible analysis, it is pretty well a decade since I worked on the "national" rail network, but would agree that even though some of "S" maintenance has gone back in house it is not as easy to do things that crop up unexpectedly as in BR days. Partly down to privatisation meaning things that were done by command now have to be done by contract and partly down to things like RIMINI.

At first reading the thread, I thought that some safety authorities had blocked a "central Wales" solution but I'm now fairly convinced that this is just speculation. Certainly if this situation is going to persist long term that is the way forward. Altering the RETB block sections is to my mind totally impractical for both cost and logistical reasons.

One difference from the 1990's is I think that in the 1990's Strome Ferry (No Ferry) did not have its ferry reinstated.

[J--M--B]

I presume they have some sort of physical barrier to prevent any idiot trying to use the section along the railway line out of hours?

The part of the road diverted onto to railway is in the middle of the long stretch operated under convoy working, there are gates at either end of the site (which is being worked on 24/7) to close the road outside the convoy times, there are also crossing gates at either end of the temporary road on the railway. Outside the convoy times the public can get nowhere near the railway section.

I wondered if they were working around the clock, also thought they might have had someone in attendance even if not working or else some of the plant and equipment might disappear.

[Glen]

Here's some photos I took today:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inverness_ ... 55/detail/