Dropped Joints

[boing_uk]

Having read this weeks Railway Herald and some of the old pictures within and I noticed just how straight and level the jointed track was way back when.

How come jointed track, in the main, isn't like this now? And what exactly causes the joints to "drop"?

For instance, Platforms 3 and 4 at Blackpool North were re-railed in jointed bullhead rail earlier this year. Before then, the track was awful at the joints and now you wouldn't know that there were joints there. Yet the sleepers haven't been touched or tamped as far as I know.

Is there THAT much play in the shoes, or baseplates that the rail can bow so much? I am presuming there is a way of keeping the joints level, in which case I would ask, why is this not done?

 

[Old Timer]

How come jointed track, in the main, isn't like this now? And what exactly causes the joints to "drop"?

This particular post may help ?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=365370&postcount=5

 

[boing_uk]

OT... yet another enlightening post. Thank you.

 

[Old Timer]

No problem.

Any further questions just keep on asking !

 

[boing_uk]

I am presuming then that jointed track these days isnt given the care and attention it should be?

One other question then, which isnt really related to joints... on the line I use every day there are a number of user worked crossings and these happen to be on curves. When travelling at speed, there is a noticable sway as the vehicles pass over the crossing, as though the track either side has been maintained and moved slightly, with the rails at the crossing points still fixed in position.

Is this as a result of machines changing the track geometry on the approaches, but the crossing has been left as it would mean removing the crossing timbers, therfore leaving the track there in its "original" position?

Also, why is rail grinding discontinued through such crossings?

 

[Old Timer]

I have my own views on the standards of maintenance and on Network Rail's management or otherwise of the Railway which I know will cause heated debate on here.

I will simply constrain myself to pointing out that track maintenance costs have actually INCREASED since NR took it in house, and both track geometry records, as well as anecdotal evidence from maintenance staff and train crew will support the argument that track quality has definitely reduced. These facts are available within NRs own records.

Figure showing costs reductions have been achieved by the medium of deferring track renewals and either not filling, or reducing, staff numbers within the maintenance organisation.

Meanwhile despite publicly promising to undertake maintenance in-house using its own staff, NR has steadily increased the number and volume of labour agencies providing staff to its maintenance organisations since 2003. Even during the regime of the Infrastructure Maintenance Contractors such a reliance was not placed upon labour agencies to the degree that it is now.

Currently NR is negotiating even further cuts in employment conditions.

A review of the various derailments and incidents on the RAIB website will quickly highlight the same repetitive observations in respect of the Infrastructure and how it is managed.

So judge for yourself.

In respect of the level crosings I would suggest that no staff are provided to remove the level crossing surface and thus the tamper "runs out" before and "runs in" afterwards thus leaving a hard spot of sorts.

NR has never really grasped the strategy of using tampers, which requires a lot of advanced preparation of the track in advance preferring instead to drop them into sites at relatively short notice when their maintenance units cannot identify let alone plan their use properly.

Instead of producing a proper level design, the tamper does a "recording run" and then attempts to produce an average (compromise) solution, which can only apply to the specific area. There appears to be no clear reasoning behind how the tampers are allocated other than it appears to relate to finding a Possession and sending in a tamper to "do something", which is a strategy fraught with trouble.

That is why we discover newly laid track which has been tamped out of its newly installed and designed track geometry and then fails the subsequent track recording runs, or we discover that a tamper has been sent in to tamp track which has a failed formation and all that happens is that the track condition deteriorates even faster than before.

This type of approach led to the destruction of much of the track alignment on the WCML by maintenance tamping, which then meant that the track had to be re-tamped back to its correct position prior to being opened for high speed running.

 

[boing_uk]

Yes, my post was not meant to cause debate on the policies of NR as such, more the reasons for things as they stand and where its going wrong from an Engineering perspective.

The whys and what-if's of policy aren't really my domain.

What you say though is very similar to highways maintenance, which IS my forte (although our health and safety regime is a little more practical!) and the way some people choose to deal with a problem by tittivating certain problem areas and the symptoms, rather than dealing with the root cause.

An example would be continually re-patching an area of failed surfacing when in actual fact the problem is structural which needs a full structural patch rather than just wearing course.

Or another example would be surface dressing a road without removing the road markings first. This leads to the binder stripping off from the old white lines, or worse, fatting up to the surface, leaving the old markings visible as tar.

OKay there is very little comparison with activities on the railway, but the principle is the same - not treating the underlying problem properly.

 

[Old Timer]

Dipped joints generally indicate the failure of the formation in that area, and only proper corrective work will resolve this. Repetitive tamping will obviously return the track to its correct level but only at most for a few days before the fault re-occurs.

With each tamping run, the ballast is being broken down both in solidity as well as the stone is being eroded.

There is also the possibility of the rail ends being crippled and the rail head being battered as well which will lead to catastrophic failure of the rail end at some point.

 

[boing_uk]

Yes I think I know what you mean.

In the direction of travel over the joint, there is an area at the leaving end of the rail which is not worn and the joining edge of the next rail is heavily worn with an almost "dovetail" appearance, fading off to what I would say is a normal wear pattern on the railhead.

Am I correct?

The thing with the ballast though is obvious, even to me, as a rail technology lay-man.

 

[Old Timer]

Yes I think I know what you mean.

In the direction of travel over the joint, there is an area at the leaving end of the rail which is not worn and the joining edge of the next rail is heavily worn with an almost "dovetail" appearance, fading off to what I would say is a normal wear pattern on the railhead.

Am I correct?

The thing with the ballast though is obvious, even to me, as a rail technology lay-man.

Yes you are correct. What you describe is a perfect example of a dipped joint.

The end of the rails are now being impacted by the movement of the wheels from one rail to the other and in due course one will break. In addition to this stress being passed down through the rail, it is also being transmitted through the fishplates at an angle not intended, so in due course the fishplates will break as well.

 

[Trog]

 

[Vlad the Impaler]

As ever, OT , you hit the nail on the head!

Most crossings (foot or road crossings) don't come out for the tamper (no one to take them out) ,so as OT says, we have to ramp(run) in and out to the fixed point caused by the crossing.

Even if the crossing does come out (most large road crossings come out as a giant jigsaw puzzle!), usually whilst we can lift, lining gets limited or left as is, due to the fear that they can't get the crossing back in if we move the track too much! (can't have an over run !)

Add to that, when you lift most crossings, underneath you usually have the mother of all wet spots.....so rather than dig it out, chuck in fresh stone and THEN send in the tamper......

>


>>


"Go on mate, in you go, give it a good squeeze" (and we cover everyone watching in mud and goo from stirring it all up!) , and as OT says, just make it worse.

Other things that stop the tamper giving a good line and top ....(apart from NR Planning!!)....

treadles not removed (s&t busy elsewhere doing faults -)
greasers
Axle counters (though some might say if we tamp them its an improvement!)

Whilst we don't ramp out/in for the above, the lift units (depending on the machine) have to come up, so the line is not corrected, and neither is it lifted so there is a dip over the obstruction.

Rails in the four foot too close to the running rails and not moved (when we go back to the same site twice running and miss half of it out you would think the penny drops !!!).

Platforms .... unless its a design job (ie on a memory stick or marked up and a TO on site), the computer is not (on our kit anyway), allowed to line in the platforms as the computer does a best fit to give a good line.....and we could end up taking off the platform edge slabs with the tamping banks


Cheers

Vlad

PS OT, your former haunt has not been the same without your wise words/ experiences of how it used(should!)be done.

 

[Old Timer]

PS OT, your former haunt has not been the same without your wise words/ experiences of how it used(should!)be done.

Thank you for your very kind words, Vlad. I am embarrassed !

Why not come on here and help us make this the premier Infrastructure site ?

 

[Navviboy]

I have my own views on the standards of maintenance and on Network Rail's management or otherwise of the Railway which I know will cause heated debate on here.

.

Now then chap, of course that post will cause heated debate! I can't let it go completely unchallenged.

Much of what you say is sadly true but you ARE tarring everyone with the same brush here. Some of us do try, very hard, to get it right.

Lack of resource is the biggest stumbling block. We're that busy fire fighting we don't have time for prep-work. You refer to this shortage yourself and I agree with you completely. That shortage is not our fault though and doesn't automatically mean we are no good at what we do. We can only work with the staff we've got. The problem lies well above section level and probably above delivery unit level. The lack of time served experience doesn't help either.

I sympathise totally with Vlad. His comments are right on the money. We are "Spoiling the ship for the proverbial ha'peth of tar"!

Even contractors can get it wrong though OT. I've just had a level 2 alignment fault installed for me on the back of a renewal. A rare event I know but it proves it can happen.

As I've said before elsewhere when we've had this same debate, the world is a much better place when we support each other and try to work together. There's good and bad in everything and that includes contractors and NR. We're a long way from where we should be I know, but for those of us trying to get it right some of your comments feel a bit like a kick in the teeth. If only we had more people with your experience and knowledge. (I'm not being sarcastic when I say that, I really mean it).

Maybe we would both be happier if you were doing the renewals on our patch, or I was on the maintenance where you are relaying. I'm sure that I, for one, would find it a pleasure and an education.

 

[Old Timer]

Navviboy,

My comments VERY, VERY rarely are directed towards Chaps such as yourself, who I know work hard with what you have been given.

Mostly I encounter good Maintenance guys, but on occasions we do encounter guys who treat us as if we were something they had trodden in. That from someone who is a "johnny come Lately" into the Industry does annoy.

HOWEVER

In the past I have been castigated ironically enough by NR Managers for helping out the Maintenance boys with all sorts of favours.

Where possible my guys will always leave spare rail where we can, tamp out bad areas if they can be set up within the worksite (remember NR tamper crews report all back to I&I), drop spare stone on the way in and out, and generally I do try to work with rather than against the Maintenance boys.

The latest bollocking (once again from NR) was for lending a team of trackmen to a site which had gone bad and the Maintenance boys were in danger of over-running. I dropped some guys in and it got sorted but somehow it got back to I&I and once again I was summoned and the cost of those men has been taken away from that site. Now (on the basis of the old maxim that no good turn goes unpunished) I have to face another bollocking from my Guvenor for financial performance. Perhaps you can see why I and most other Managers have such a dislike of NR ?

So for clarity my comments are almost always aimed at NR management NOT at the local guys who in general do help us out, especially when we do drop a bollock, as we are all apt to do every so often, despite setting out wiuth the best of intentions.

 

[royaloak]

Navviboy, if you check back through some of OTs post you will see that you are both fighting the same corner side by side.

 

[Trog]

I dropped some guys in and it got sorted but somehow it got back to I&I and once again I was summoned and the cost of those men has been taken away from that site. Now (on the basis of the old maxim that no good turn goes unpunished) I have to face another bollocking from my Guvenor for financial performance. Perhaps you can see why I and most other Managers have such a dislike of NR ?

Does anyone like I&I?

Come the revolution will the biggest argument be over who gets to put them up against a wall and shoot them?

 

[Old Timer]

Does anyone like I&I?

Come the revolution will the biggest argument be over who gets to put them up against a wall and shoot them?

Just give us a Call Off Contract managed by the Maintenance Engineers and together I am convinced we could deliver a much much more cost effective service, which would be to the satisfaction of both parties.

I&I add absolutely no value and simply poison the relationships with the principal Infrastructure Contractors, whilst the growing I&I organisation sucks more and more renewals money away from the front line.

I find it truly saddening that no-one of any importance within NR can see that taking 1,500 Maintenance staff out of the Industry will do nothing but harm, when at the same time massive savings could be made by a cull at I&I

 

[Vlad the Impaler]

.... (remember NR tamper crews report all back to I&I), .....

OT,

Do we??

Fortunately we are all not like that! Ok, there are some both long and short in service, who have been brainwashed by the office that the paperwork must be total truth and accurate in every respect Most of us hate the reams of paperwork that go with every shift, there just to pacify the bean counters and desk drivers who thrive on this stuff:-x

However, most of us are reasonable and if the TO pitches it right and is one of the "better eggs" then we do the best to help and not drop anyone in the smelly stuff.

I look at it like this , we are there to tamp , we tamp what the TO/TQS wants us to do (within reason) and lets try and do a good job and leave it as good as we can when we trundle off back to the bat cave at the end of the shift!

 

[Navviboy]

Navviboy,

My comments VERY, VERY rarely are directed towards Chaps such as yourself, who I know work hard with what you have been given.
.

OT,

Thank you for posting such a clear and explanatory response.

Royal Oak is correct, we are basically fighting the same corner. I believe that is because we both have the intersts of the railway as a whole (rather than our own little corner of it) at heart. In my book that's part of being a railwayman; seeing the railway as a whole (operating, pway, S&T, the complete package). Sadly the industry is very short of railwaymen, I see no signs of them in the upper echelons of many companies.

Your suggestion of the engineers managing renewals is eminently sensible. With an increase of only a few staff the work done by the hoards in I&I could be easily and efficiently absorbed. Effectively a return to the days of the A.C.E.. Thoughts like this will do us no good though old chap. We shall be deemed to be "old Railway" and that seems to be the worst thing anyone can be of late. Just look how the redunadancy package is weighted in this latest initiative!

I too have been castigated in the past and will no doubt continue to be. In my case for helping the renewals boys and doing the odd bit of horse trading, both in materials and job mileages. So long as decent professionals like yourself are still involved I shall continue to do so where it is of benefit to the railway.

I'll shut up now before I hang myself completely. Thanks again for your post OT. I'd loose faith altogether if it wasn't for chaps like you.

 

[royaloak]

that the paperwork must be total truth and accurate in every respect

I find there are several versions of "the truth and accuracy" depending on how much gets written on the form.
Heard a story about a driver that used to go into every detail on any form he submitted, manglement asked him to stick to the basic facts in future, next report consisted of-
it broke, I stopped.

thats definitely the "basic" facts

 

[Saltleyman]

Talking about "short" report forms there was a Driver at Saltley,some years ago,who after a derailment, put on his report " Off again, On Again, Away again,Flanagan."

 

[Trog]

Effectively a return to the days of the A.C.E.

Baggsie the Renewals Assistant job. Or possibly a senior Renewals PTO as that is likely to pay better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just give us a Call Off Contract managed by the Maintenance Engineers and together I am convinced we could deliver a much much more cost effective service, which would be to the satisfaction of both parties.

I think you need something a little larger in geographical scope than that, to ensure a level playing field between areas, and to cover for the fact that different maintainers have differing levels of renewals experience. But it would not need to be much, seven or eight people a region should cover it nicely.