Engineering Work issues: British Rail vs Network Rail

[Ivo]

I've just been subjected to a rant from my father who has yet again tried to travel without checking for engineering works in his area (which does get them quite often) and been caught out. He told me that, in BR days, engineering work did not exist, or where it did exist it just meant closing one line and running everything on the same line, and that closures of any description were very rare.

Needless to say, I defended the modern system, saying things like the network being too busy to manage with one track in many areas, doing it in bulk to avoid disruption to commuters, and even the somewhat controversial idea of a lack of interest from BR potentially having increased the modern workload (which, if true, would have been cleared long before now).

So, to those of you who knew BR and how engineering works were planned and progressed, what insight can you provide? What experience do you have of engineering works in the BR era, was the system then better than now, how have safety aspects changed (for instance "shutting both lines to protect workers on one track" to give my father's example, which is frankly ridiculous) - and most importantly, how wrong is he?

Also, which areas are most vulnerable to engineering works? Obviously electrified areas are more frequently covered due to having AC/DC works as well as track etc, but is there any particular reason why his area (Feltham) seems to be hit so often? I assume the third rail system (with 6tph each way) is the reason?

 

[Wyvern]

"shutting both lines to protect workers on one track" to give my father's example, which is frankly ridiculous) - and most importantly, how wrong is he?

GEnerally he right. In the old days one track would be run as a bidirectional single line with a severe speed restriction. Not generally done nowadays for extended work. May be done if there is enough room to eract a protective fence.

THey are trying to cut down the death and injury rate among infrastructure staff.

a good website to read each month is "Death by Health and Safety"

 

[Ivo]

In the old days one track would be run as a bidirectional single line with a severe speed restriction. Not generally done nowadays for extended work. May be done if there is enough room to eract a protective fence.

They are trying to cut down the death and injury rate among infrastructure staff.

But in so many areas - least of all around London - this is practically impossible without at least three tracks now. I know it still works on some lines (explaining for instance why the line I grew up around, Shoeburyness to Southend Central, is almost never affected on Sundays), but for the most part bi-di running just isn't practical. Whilst I appreciate that this would have been possible in BR days in many areas, it just doesn't work now.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[steamybrian]

In BR days I was an Engineering Works Planning Manager on the Southern Region before my retirement.
As said previously I planned many "single line working" arrangements or SIMBIDS (Simplified bi-directional signalling) which I rarely see today. Someone may give me recent examples but in BR days it was quite common but maybe H&S regulations reduce opportunities.
On several occasions when working was carried on signalling we used "absolute block working" in track circuit block areas.
There was a close partnership with the engineers in minimising lengths of possessions to permit maximum length of lines available to passenger services. Today long lengths of line are closed which in BR days would not be allowed. I am not convinced that today enough attention to shortening possessions to run passenger trains over a bit more of the track.
Trains were diverted over routes which today would not be allowed as it is another train operating companies line or train crews would not now have route knowledge or stock would not be permitted.
On electrified lines we often ran a DMU service when the electric supply to the third rail was unavailable.
Today main lines are closed during summer weekends or bank holidays which in BR days would be against "rules of the route". Example was in 2012 when all lines were closed at Tonbridge (an important junction) were closed on a bank holiday plus a weekend in August which in my days were a complete "no-no".
It is easy today for example "Arriva" who operate trains in Wales to accept a line closure and then accept compensation to run a bus service operated by .. "Arriva" buses. In my days BR paid for the buses so there was more pressure to minimise substitute bus costs.
The only plus side is more work now is done on Christmas Day and Boxing Day which when I was doing the job we only just started doing for major jobs at key junctions such as track or bridge replacement
Finally my successor to my job covering the BR Southern Region now has his desk in Milton Keynes which begs the question what local knowledge has he as he is not close to the "action". At least I lived and worked in the area.!

 

[jopsuk]

With less goods sidings etc around the network, is there less pointwork available that would help in keeping the physical length of a possession shorter? It of course has the advantage of there being less complex pointwork to maintain...

 

[The Planner]

Much less as crossovers have been taken out to save on maintenance costs.

 

[Ze Random One]

AFAICT, the current arrangements are an artefact of the contractual arrangements imposed as a part of our rushed privatisation approach. Essentially, operators are expected to run the service according to their Service Level Commitment, which specifies train frequencies (per day), normal stopping patterns, hours of service (first/last train), and maximum journey times. Whenever an operator fails to provide this service level, they are generally considered to be in breach of contract. Exceptions are made to allow for engineering work, but as far as I can tell Network Rail has to compensate the operator any time they are unable to meet their SLC due to the failure or unavailability of the required infrastructure.
Now I suspect the operator is still permitted compensation payments even if alternative routeings or SLW would allow a partial service to be operated. Given this, plus the additional cost of hand-signallers / greater site supervision / requirement to move engineering trains away from any residual running line ..., it can be cheaper on a project-by-project basis just to close the line outright, and pay the TOCs additional compensation for providing bus services.
Very few project managers, looking to keep the cost of their project to the minimum, are going to have either the time or the management backing to consider the full economic case for keeping lines open during engineering works, if the immediate balance sheet shows a substantial reduction in cost by closing the line.

To give NR its dues, they have at least started to look at the wider economic benefits to the railway of retaining some sort of service 7 days per week, on a route-by-route basis. They've picked the lines which they believe to be most susceptible to lose revenue in the event of bus substitution (with a nod to the additional "weekday" revenue, and environmental gain also lost), and identified specific packages of works and strategies which will allow services to continue operating throughout engineering works. It should be noted that in many cases these strategies concentrate on intercity and goods services, as these tend to be the most profitable on a Sunday, and can usually be diverted if needed.

The banner for this project is the "7 Day Railway", and it is being rolled out on the main lines predominantly, including the SWML, Waterloo - Weymouth and Portsmouth.
The Windsor line is not one of the 7DR project routes, although it acts as a diversionary route when the SWML is closed through Wimbledon/Surbiton, so Feltham's services will continue to be affected by engineering closures for the forseeable future.

With regards to this weekend's closure, it should be noted that the following stations are within about 3 miles of Feltham, and are providing rail services:
Hatton Cross (LU Piccadilly Line)
Heathrow T4
Sunbury
Strawberry Hill
(though I should note that Piccadilly services are closed in the Hammersmith area, so two changes are required to reach central London)
In addition, there will be an hourly Sunday service from Reading to Waterloo via Weybridge tomorrow, to cater for the longer-distance passengers on the route, and due to the more extensive closure tomorrow.

It may also be appropriate to note that the Heathrow Airtrack services, so vehemently opposed* by local residents, would have provided alternative rail-bourne journey opportunities via Heathrow to central London.
(*the opposition was not without reason, but it is worth noting that some local groups can fail to appreciate the wider implications)

 

[Trog]

Much more separation of work and open lines these days, hence larger and more disruptive possessions. As there are just not the number of staff available who can be trusted to work next to open lines anymore. Its one of the downsides of using contract labour you have never seen before. Instead of your own staff where you know who can be trusted to do what, and more importantly who can not.

The reaction of H&S management to staff mistakes is always to ban the proceedure being carried out or impose controls that are often dangerous in themselves or that make the work impossible. Never just to ensure better staff, training, or more care in future. So we just go round another ever descending spiral, of more paperwork, expense and less efficient working methods.

I was on a job once where a safety officer visited and insisted that the fence seperating us from the open line was moved until it was on top of the line we were trying to reballast. Despite there being a wideway with OHL masts between us and the open line which also had a 20MPH TSR on it.

He also insisted on the appointment of a banksman to work with each machine, these he then stationed in the hole where the machine drivers could not see them properly. The man was a complete auto-erotic, and as soon as he was gone the banksmen were moved up the side of the cutting slope. Where both they and the machine drivers could see each other, I could keep an eye on them, and the banksmen were not at constant risk of being run over. As for the fence it stayed where the rule book said it should be.

 

[Welshman]

As I remember, bustitution was very rare in my younger days when I first became interested in the railways [1960s], for reasons already given:-

1] It was a nationalised system, and drivers and guards often had route knowledge of all the lines in their area, so diversions were easier to plan;

2] The track had not been simplified to the extent it is now, so there were more potential diversionary roues available. Also each station [of which there were many more then] and siding seemed to have its own trailing and facing crossovers, allowing short sections of "wrong-line" working to bypass engineering works on the other line. If the crossovers were not locked or used regularly by passenger trains, they were simply scotched with something like large "G" clamps by the signalman before the train passed over them.

3] There were not the health and safety issues of one line being used for traffic in both directions while the other was being worked-on. Trains would be hand-signalled if necessary, and worked by pilotman - ie a designated person who showed himself to the signalman at one end of the section and either rode in the cab of the train, or authorised the crew to pass through the section.

4] There was no such thing as the "Seven Day-a-Week Railway" - services were very thinned-out on Sundays and engineering work usually took place on that day. Indeed, Sundays became a byword for slow, and from an enthusiast's standpoint, interesting railway journeys. You could be subjected to all kinds of weird and wonderful diversions, but were very rarely decamped on to a bus!

 

[Ze Random One]

I was on a job once where a safety officer visited and insisted that the fence seperating us from the open line was moved until it was on top of the line we were trying to reballast. Despite there being a wideway with OHL masts between us and the open line which also had a 20MPH TSR on it.

He also insisted on the appointment of a banksman to work with each machine, these he then stationed in the hole where the machine drivers could not see them properly. The man was a complete auto-erotic, and as soon as he was gone the banksmen were moved up the side of the cutting slope. Where both they and the machine drivers could see each other, I could keep an eye on them, and the banksmen were not at constant risk of being run over. As for the fence it stayed where the rule book said it should be.

That's odd, because the training from our H&S officer (not Railway) made it clear that risk assessments should be drawn up by the manager in charge of the staff performing a task, and they should do so by asking the people on the ground how they did their jobs and what risks they could see. Similarly control measures should be identified by the people on the ground -- perhaps with some prompting. The important thing being the dialog between manager and worker so they both came to an understanding of what the job was, where the risks are, and how a safe system of work is to be achieved. That has far more benefits, as it helps those on the ground understand what is being asked of them, and managers what tasks and methods are realistic and safe. It also gets those on the ground thinking about what is and isn't safe in their current working practices, so they have their eyes open to notice any unforeseen hazards, and they understand the reasons for some non-obvious risk controls.
The bottom line is that the risk assessment process should fundamentally involve someone that knows the job to be done. Yelling edicts from behind a shiny suit and a rarely worn hard-hat doesn't achieve that, and I hope the mentioned officer has learnt how to do it better!

 

[moggie]

Another factor besides those mentioned above is the increased use of road-rail mechanised plant in posessions often using one or both lines. The benefit being that longer sections of work can be completed in shorter periods. I'd also suggest that signallers workload has increased owing to the larger geographical areas they cover in the newer Control Centres which mean they either have more posessions to work around and / or more areas of normal runnning to look after in addition to engineering activities.

I think H&S though is a large part of the reason coupled with the general de-manning of people capable of operating temporary single line ticket working arrangments between fixed signals in conjunction with the signaller and the removal of emergency GF / crossovers to save on maintenance.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Very briefly , as a member of supervisory and junior management , one did not worry much about engineering overuns as they were very rare. (bar exceptional circumstances) - handback times were nearly always maintained , even if the work was (maybe) not completed due to few "contractual" interfaces. Staff on the ground did the work , even if perhaps the spent ballast was flung onto cutting sides to get the job done.

Single line working on a 2 track section was common - (plenty of competent inspectors and junior staff prepared to work weekends to do so) - it was not feared , so that a Sunday (for example Norwich to London) service might be extended by maybe 20 mins before 12 noon , but there was nearly always a one seat train ride (not a bus from say Ipswich to Colchester)

Innovative BR diversions were the norm , sometimes over Goods lines (Neath to Bridgend via Maesteg for example)

 

[Darandio]

My memory is that everything was done on overnight on a Saturday, that is where the men got their weekly overtime. At least that is the way it seemed.

Based in Ferryhill (Co.Durham) I can remember my father doing work as far north as Berwick and as far south as Doncaster for a Saturday night shift. You just put your name down and went where the work was.

 

[Tomnick]

Also each station [of which there were many more then] and siding seemed to have its own trailing and facing crossovers, allowing short sections of "wrong-line" working to bypass engineering works on the other line. If the crossovers were not locked or used regularly by passenger trains, they were simply scotched with something like large "G" clamps by the signalman before the train passed over them.

Facing crossovers were rare beasts in years gone by, so Single Line Working would inevitably involve a shunt to gain the single line, and clipping/scotching at both ends (and any trailing points that become facing in between). Although this is still the case on many routes, particularly those retaining mechanical signalling (and complicated by the removal of many of those crossovers, extending the single line and reducing capacity), the introduction of various forms of bi-directional signalling on some main lines in recent years (along with a mixture of facing and trailing crossovers in many cases too) makes the whole thing a lot easier operationally.

There were not the health and safety issues of one line being used for traffic in both directions while the other was being worked-on. Trains would be hand-signalled if necessary, and worked by pilotman - ie a designated person who showed himself to the signalman at one end of the section and either rode in the cab of the train, or authorised the crew to pass through the section.

Other posts have referred to the issues around working with an adjacent line open to traffic, and I'm not really qualified to comment on that. From an operating point of view though, SLW is entirely possible to arrange if the engineering works allow it - but not really the favoured option, as Ze Random One's post above explains. It's not just a Pilotman required, but often one or two Handsignalmen (depending on what you want to achieve in terms of movements) and in some places countless LC attendants too. Given the fragmentation of the industry, and no doubt the requirement for contractors to seek agency labour with the necessary competencies, it's not surprising that folk shy away from this approach!

 

[30907]

In the late 70's I worked at Waterloo Telephone Enquiry Bureau so had to digest the EW notices every week so can partly back up SteamyBrian's post.
There were at least as many possessions every weekend, except for the major Bank Holidays (there was still some BH traffic to the coast, as shopping malls etc were thin on the ground!).
The Southern (at least) had plenty of alternative routes and they were well used, but there was a lot of bus replacement too. On the SE we had to have at least one Boat Train Route open too....
SLW was not much use as I remember, basically because we ran too many Sunday trains for it to work!
So in short - at least on the Southern, not very much has changed. Except that you can now find out the engineering works 12 weeks in advance instead of a few days, which is a great improvement.

 

[Bald Rick]

A few random thoughts.., but it depends how far you go back in 'British Rail' days.

If you compare now to most of the 1980s, there is broadly twice as much track renewal work going on around the network, which all things remaining equal means twice as much disruption.

A good chunk of the network was closed every Sunday anyway.

Single Line working was used routinely, and the current regulations around working next to an adjacent open line didn't exist. A couple of road railers swinging their buckets into the sides of passing trains saw to that. Also much more activity regarding staff safety - in the late 70s a couple of dozen railwymen were killed every year in the course of their duties, unthinkable today.

Similarly, much engineering work was done in the week, daytime - e.g. the slow line weave booked for all daytime WCML services between 1000-1600 south of Rugby (adding 10-15 mins); the SLW on one section north of Ipswich for 2 years for the Norwich Electrifiation (adding almost half an hour). Often these moves were not planned and the trains were just late.

Signal testing and commissioning procedures changed comprehensively after Clapham; up to that point new auto signals were often commissioned between trains; not something that happens now!

Some things are done now that have never had to be done before, e.g. renewing OLE equipment like on the GEML. (As an aside, when the GEML was electrified from Shenfield to Chelmsford; the passenger service to Chelmsford outside the peaks consisted of an hourly DMU shuttle from Shenfield...)
Also wholesale renewal of major power signalling equipment - whilst this did happen in BR days it was nothing like on the scale we see today.

Fewer diversionary routes - either through closures or the semi-artificial boundaries created through franchising. (although maintaining go-anywhere crew knowledge has quite a considerable cost for infrequet use).

Finally, the railway carries twice the number of people it did 30 years ago, and except for long distance routes most of this is Monday-Friday. By far the quietest times on most of the network is Sunday morning till 1200 ann Sunday pm from 2100. Therefore jobs that need 24 hours or more are usually planned on Sundays to cover these two quiet periods.

So in summary, a combination of more work, different work, comprehensively improved working practices for staff safety and (altimately) passeneger safety, a much busier network, plus less work in the week to keep the railway open when it is most needed.

 

[steamybrian]

In the late 70's I worked at Waterloo Telephone Enquiry Bureau so had to digest the EW notices every week so can partly back up SteamyBrian's post.
There were at least as many possessions every weekend, except for the major Bank Holidays (there was still some BH traffic to the coast, as shopping malls etc were thin on the ground!).
The Southern (at least) had plenty of alternative routes and they were well used, but there was a lot of bus replacement too. On the SE we had to have at least one Boat Train Route open too....
SLW was not much use as I remember, basically because we ran too many Sunday trains for it to work!
So in short - at least on the Southern, not very much has changed. Except that you can now find out the engineering works 12 weeks in advance instead of a few days, which is a great improvement.

I worked at Waterloo on the 4th floor the same floor as the CTB.
The amount of possessions may or may not have increased but blocks have got longer a recent example was the whole line from Tonbridge- Hastings was closed one Sunday which I cannot remember planning a block of that length.
I agree train service frequencies on Sundays have increased over the years so that could be another reason for not having SLW.
In the past we often used SLW or trains in both direction over one line.
The longest section I remember was Redhill-Tonbridge a distance of 20 miles which was then possible with a train every 2 hours.
Other regulars were sections overnight or early Sunday mornings between Three Bridges- Preston Park using SIMBIDS.
Sections of the Uckfield line before singling with an hourly service.
Dorking-Warnham daytime off peak.!
Sections between Paddock Wood- Ashford using SIMBIDS.
Tonbridge- Hastings line used sections of SLW before partial singling. After partial singling used SLW on some of the double line sections.

 

[jopsuk]

Single Line working was used routinely, and the current regulations around working next to an adjacent open line didn't exist. A couple of road railers swinging their buckets into the sides of passing trains saw to that. Also much more activity regarding staff safety - in the late 70s a couple of dozen railwymen were killed every year in the course of their duties, unthinkable today.

I think this bears repeating. The rules that are now in place, which do restrict the work that can be done, exist, in the most part for good and tragic reasons. One death is one too many.

 

[30907]

Thanks for the examples re SLW - wouldnt have thought of Redhill-Tonbridge, but then it wasnt a route CTB fielded many enquiries for.... same goes for Dorking-Warnham which I must have missed!

 

[Trog]

I can remember working on the WCML midweek days blocks.

Often on middle road blocks re-railing with the outer tracks open at linespeed 100 and 75MPH. When working on the 6' rails the drill was to set up the welds, wait for a train to go by, check the moulds were still OK and drop the weld quickly. So the weld would have a couple of minutes to cool before the next train passed.

The maintainance supervisors also wanted to get work done during the same time period, if the work was on the blocked line great. If not they would wait until the relayers had taken the booked block, then find a 36 hour rail defect that had to be taken out, and take a second block further down the line.

Once the relayers re-railing block was delayed, and a maintenance supervisor took his emergency block first. The operaters then refused the booked relaying possession. Later that afternoon the renewals received a phone call apologising for the mistake, and promising to be more careful in future to check that the booked block had already been taken.