Norton Bridge Flyover

Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt

Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt

Well-Known Forumite
henryscat said:
On cab signalling it is down to investment. The technology is all available off the shelf. On mainlines it would be a benefit as you can run at higher speeds and operate more trains. The original West Coast upgrade plans included cab signalling but it never happened. Basically the driver is given a speed to drive at, which is updated each time the train passes a trackside beacon, the speed given ensures a safe distance is maintained from the train in front. You can run trains faster and closer together so line capacity is improved. One of the arguments against HS2 is that cab signalling could be put in on the West Coast and line speed increased to 140mpg.
Click to expand...

Cab signalling is only as accurate as the information fed to the driver & so it is far from the silver bullet solution that you appear to imply. Trains are susceptable to human error whether that human is sitting in the train behind the wheel or manning / maintaining and feeding a computer hub somewhere remote. As far as I know we haven't reached judgement day yet where the computers have become self aware and can think independently and so somewhere along the line you still run the risk of Bill having a fag break or Doreen failing to input something properly because she is telling Margaret about her holiday in Benidorm at the critical moment..

If you run trains faster and closer to together then simple laws of probility suggest that you increase the likelihood of an accident. On the West Coast trains can already run at 120mph ish so to increase to 140mph through the application of what is probably a massive amount of signalling investment seems to suggest a bit of a waste of money, especially as we already have a very good rail safety record in the UK.

N.B. I believe in Spain where they have a very modern (and probably still unpaid for) rail system that operates cab guidance systems....
 
John Marwood

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
FsrKddW.jpg
 
henryscat

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt said:
Cab signalling is only as accurate as the information fed to the driver & so it is far from the silver bullet solution that you appear to imply. Trains are susceptable to human error whether that human is sitting in the train behind the wheel or manning / maintaining and feeding a computer hub somewhere remote. As far as I know we haven't reached judgement day yet where the computers have become self aware and can think independently and so somewhere along the line you still run the risk of Bill having a fag break or Doreen failing to input something properly because she is telling Margaret about her holiday in Benidorm at the critical moment..
Click to expand...

I think you need to read up on signalling systems.

In the UK there is already a heavy reliance on computers to run signalling.

If you run trains faster and closer to together then simple laws of probility suggest that you increase the likelihood of an accident. [/quote}

Nope. If the control systems are in place, risk does not increase. High speed rail has an extremely good safety record.

The Victorian rail system had trains running slowly and not particularly close together, but accidents were frequent, which contradicts your logic...

the West Coast trains can already run at 120mph ish so to increase to 140mph through the application of what is probably a massive amount of signalling investment seems to suggest a bit of a waste of money, especially as we already have a very good rail safety record in the UK.
Click to expand...

Our safety record in rail has increased on the back of the sort of technology you appear to oppose.

N.B. I believe in Spain where they have a very modern (and probably still unpaid for) rail system that operates cab guidance systems....
Click to expand...

The accident happened on a section of non-high speed track where cab signalling wasn't fitted. The evidence so far, which is limited in nature, is that cab signalling may have prevented the accident that occurred.
Click to expand...
 
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt

Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt

Well-Known Forumite
Hmmmm, it might be helpful if you actually read what is written before engaging fingers in keyboard-warrior-esque responses.
I didn't say that we have no computer control processes on the rail, I DID say that we don't use cab signalling such as the type that is commonly used overseas (including in Spain but who knows until the investigation is complete whether it was or wasn't used in this case).

I DID make the point that our railway system (Victorian or otherwise) has a very good safety record, despite not using the continental type of Cab Operating system that you appear to be a pseudo salesman for.
I DIDN'T say I "oppose" the introduction of the cab operating system, I was merely questioning the premise that it would make things either A) run a lot faster or B) run a lot safer and that given A) and B) it is actually worth the expenditure. Clearly I'm not on my own as if the Dept for Transport thought it was as great as you do they would have made the case for it years ago.

There hasn't been a serious incident on the UK rail network (outside of the London Underground bombings) since Potters Bar in 2002 and then a relatively small (although of course still tragic) 7 people were killed. This on one of the busiest and oldest networks in the World, compared with what we've just seen in Spain with a modern, highly technological system that smashed 80 people to their deaths and countless others with possible life changing injuries. You have to go back to the Lewisham rail crash in 1957 where 90 people lost their lives to get a UK case anywhere near to what has just happened in Spain.

The venn diagram of velocity / distance apart / number of rolling stock would show that with these three elements in place whilst it could be argued that it doesn't necessarily make the system more dangerous given the right use of technology, it does show that any incident is likely to be more catastrophic.

As for reading up on signalling systems, if its all the same I'll leave that to you. You seem like a railway signalling buff kind of guy
 
John Marwood

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Work on a £250m scheme to speed train journey times through Staffordshire could finish a year earlier than planned, Network Rail has said.
The company said it was installing new signals on the West Coast Main Line between Norton Bridge and Crewe.
Plans to build a new flyover at Norton Bridge are still subject to the outcome of a public inquiry.
Nigel Barber from Network Rail said: "We are pushing to bring the works' end forward from December 2017 to 2016."
The first stage of work, which began in April, aims to increase train speeds on 23 miles (37km) of track between Norton Bridge and Crewe from 75mph to 100mph.
'Major bottleneck'
Network Rail said if planning permission was given to build the flyover at Norton Bridge, work on that would begin in April 2014.
Mr Barber said: "We've got an issue with capacity now on the West Coast Main Line, it's the busiest rail artery in the UK.
"This work removes a major bottleneck on that route to make it better for passengers and train operators."
Network Rail said following the work it would be able to put on two extra trains every hour in each direction between London and the North West.
That would include one additional train hourly both ways between Manchester and Birmingham, via Stone, and a further freight train every hour each way through Stafford, it said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top