Barnt Green to Bromsgrove Electrification

[Phil Bullock]

Only one word to describe Oddingley box.....cute!

 

http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=iGXAKFFi&id=DBA265825E22168A239623E29E4D6B0324A0BA99&thid=OIP.iGXAKFFi1O2-ENcAe7XCYAEsDh&q=oddingley+signal+box&simid=607989473006718945&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0

 

That's progress!

 

Phil

[melmerby]

Cross Country trains are currently frequently delayed by Cross City trains crossing from the down to the up at Longbridge (Halesowen Junction in previous days). The Bromsgrove layout should avoid this and I presume this is why there are four platforms.

Quite a messy layout there which is a legacy of the original electrification of Cross City south.

To access the up slow (Platform) line terminating trains in the down slow (Platform) line cross the Down Fast, Up Fast and Up Slow into the reversing siding before they pull forward into the up platform.

The reversing siding is used as the up goods/slow from Barnt Green isn't electrified.

 

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

Northroader, you're spot on about Oxford. Apart from the capacity issue, since the extension of Chiltern services into Oxford and the (somehow) associated demolition of the canopy at the north end of the Up platform, the station is an absolute disgrace. The crush on Platform 3, when an Up express is due and hordes are coming off the footbridge from Platform 4, is at best inconvenient and at worst dangerous; Then there is the build-up at the hopelessly inadequate ticket gates. I can only think that plans to improve the station are in limbo, but it cannot be left any longer.

 

Network Rail and Great Western should hang their heads in shame that this is the gateway to one of Britain's major tourist destinations.

 

Zomboid, you're right about the GWML bigger picture, however to me postponing the fairly straightforward wiring of 10 miles of double track from Didcot to Oxford, at the expense of splitting the Oxford/Paddington local service at Didcot, with the implications of additional rolling stock and crew costs, platform occupation, passenger inconvenience, and under-utilisation of a fleet of brand new EMUs, is bizarre to say the least. Again, perhaps wiring Oxford station is in limbo pending agreement on a new station ? Whatever, they had better hurry up !

 

I have heard  - from an unofficial source - that the problem at Oxford is indecision about the new station thus delaying resignalling thus delaying electrification.  It does seem rather daft that such should be happening but presumably there are worries about abortive expenditure (which would chickenfeed in the GW electrification overspend) and I doubt if anyone has asked the logical question about increased operating costs as a result of the need to change trains at Didcot.

 

However I suspect there is no the 'curse of bi-mode' hanging over things as the fast trains could all be worked by class 800s leaving only the locals to be covered by dmus.  But even then I wonder about the cost, and siting, of the new stabling sidings at Didcot which now lie within the critical path for opening Class 387 working through to Didcot in December.

 

As far as the Bromsgrove layout is concerned what I don't know is detail and frequency of the proposed electric train service but I presume there will be 4 electric trains per hour to Birmingham as most articles refer to 'three extra trains every hour'.  For that level of service the layout appears to be poorly planned effectively concentrating that service onto a single platform.  This compares with Maidenhead where a similar number of trains will reverse in each hour but using a central reversing siding to cross from arrival on the Down Relief for departure from the Up Relief although obviously there will be more through trains using those two lines than would be the case at Bromsgrove.   Logically Bromsgrove should have the higher speed lines round the outside of the two islands with both of the central platforms available for reversal through crossovers clear of the through lines - such a layout would be far more resilient to perturbation and would offer capacity for service level increases in the future even without a reversing siding.  

 

Looking at aerial views of the area I think provision of a reversing siding, or even reversing from the southern end of No.2 Platform Line with a trailing crossover to No.3 south of the platform, is nota practical option because I don't think there is sufficient space to provide a walkway to enable Drivers to change ends.  Quite why walkways have to be provided puzzles me (why don't Drivers walk through the train - much safer surely?) but they have certainly been provided at new reversing sidings elsewhere.  So the best operational alternative is the one I've outlined above and I must admit to be a bit puzzled as to why it has not been adopted - is there a site constraint or was it lack of practical forethought?  There is a new track layout costing millions of £s so surely it is best to do a decent job rather than half a job?

 

Yes I can confirm that. The Bromsgrove Re-Signalling scheme extends from Ashchurch to Five Ways Birmingham and is now under the control of the West Midlands Signalling Centre. This involves full re-signalling between Aschurch and Barnt Green, Relock and control from Barnt Green to Kings Norton, and re-signalling between Kings Norton and Five Ways. All of this is now controlled from the new Bromsgrove Workstation in WMSC. In fact the regional boundary has also moved to Northway Crossing which is just north of Ashchurch.

In short what we have today is going to remain for an awfully long time. In the early days of the Project the passenger TOC's were pushing hard for bi-directional running on the Lickey but unfortunately there was not enough money to finance it.

I should also add that Oddingley Gate Box also closed as part of this Project and has been replaced by barriers.

 

Regards

 

Reversible signalling (rather than full bi-directional) would have been fairly cheap to incorporate in a newly installed modern system of interlocking and controls and would provide a facility almost as useful as full bi-directional signalling.   Sounds like NR just being a bit churlish and thinking very firmly inside their own box.  Incidentally not only is all the existing reversible signalling being reproduced in the GWML resignalling but new sections seem to be added and in every case it incorporates brand new signals (probably the most expensive part of providing it).

[TheSignalEngineer]

Cross Country trains are currently frequently delayed by Cross City trains crossing from the down to the up at Longbridge (Halesowen Junction in previous days). The Bromsgrove layout should avoid this and I presume this is why there are four platforms.

When Cross City was first being talked of the trains were going to run alternately to Barnt Green, Alvechurch and Redditch or Longbridge, Rubery, Frankley (and possibly beyond) on the old Halesowen branch. There was even a DMU with a ficticious destination of Woodgate Valley on the blinds.. Political changes meant that the PTE became limited to the West Midlands County Council boundary in 1974. No extra funding was forthcoming from Worcestershire, so minimal changes were made at Redditch and the Frankley project abandoned. The result was WMPTE having to put Longbridge Station on the main line rather than where the branch went under the Bristol Road and fund the building of the 6-car turnback siding alongside thge old Austin Works south of Halesowen Junction.

[Tavy Man]

Only one word to describe Oddingley box.....cute!

 

http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=iGXAKFFi&id=DBA265825E22168A239623E29E4D6B0324A0BA99&thid=OIP.iGXAKFFi1O2-ENcAe7XCYAEsDh&q=oddingley+signal+box&simid=607989473006718945&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0

 

That's progress!

 

Phil

Absolutely and always a friendly wave in my driving days. I hope the people who were working there have been looked after.

 

Regards

[TheSignalEngineer]

As far as the Bromsgrove layout is concerned what I don't know is detail and frequency of the proposed electric train service but I presume there will be 4 electric trains per hour to Birmingham as most articles refer to 'three extra trains every hour'.  For that level of service the layout appears to be poorly planned effectively concentrating that service onto a single platform.  This compares with Maidenhead where a similar number of trains will reverse in each hour but using a central reversing siding to cross from arrival on the Down Relief for departure from the Up Relief although obviously there will be more through trains using those two lines than would be the case at Bromsgrove.   Logically Bromsgrove should have the higher speed lines round the outside of the two islands with both of the central platforms available for reversal through crossovers clear of the through lines - such a layout would be far more resilient to perturbation and would offer capacity for service level increases in the future even without a reversing siding.  

 

 

The existing train service to Bromsgrove is the hourly service from New Street to Hereford. The additional three per hour appears to be extension of the current 20-min interval Longbridge turnbacks.

I think there may have been a problem with putting the Up Fast on the outside as to get the required alignment there woudn't have been room for the longest freight to take on a banker if the siding was put in the middle at the south end of the layout without rebuilding the bridge by the old banker sidings.

 

 

Looking at aerial views of the area I think provision of a reversing siding, or even reversing from the southern end of No.2 Platform Line with a trailing crossover to No.3 south of the platform, is nota practical option because I don't think there is sufficient space to provide a walkway to enable Drivers to change ends.  Quite why walkways have to be provided puzzles me (why don't Drivers walk through the train - much safer surely?) but they have certainly been provided at new reversing sidings elsewhere.  So the best operational alternative is the one I've outlined above and I must admit to be a bit puzzled as to why it has not been adopted - is there a site constraint or was it lack of practical forethought?  There is a new track layout costing millions of £s so surely it is best to do a decent job rather than half a job?

 

You can't get from one end of a 6-car 323 without walking down the outside. No connection between the middle cabs.

[melmerby]

When Cross City was first being talked of the trains were going to run alternately to Barnt Green, Alvechurch and Redditch or Longbridge, Rubery, Frankley (and possibly beyond) on the old Halesowen branch. There was even a DMU with a ficticious destination of Woodgate Valley on the blinds.. Political changes meant that the PTE became limited to the West Midlands County Council boundary in 1974. No extra funding was forthcoming from Worcestershire, so minimal changes were made at Redditch and the Frankley project abandoned. The result was WMPTE having to put Longbridge Station on the main line rather than where the branch went under the Bristol Road and fund the building of the 6-car turnback siding alongside thge old Austin Works south of Halesowen Junction.

Won't be going to Frankley any time soon as the new Longbridge "Town Centre" is right in the way!

 

It's interesting that the direct descendents of the old PTE (Centro now TfWM) have extended their reach down to Bromsgrove and now including some funding from Worcestershire CC have produced the New Bromsgrove station.

I believe they were also responsible for the recent rebuild of Alvechurch station to provide a long passing loop so that an increase in Redditch services could be accomodated on the, mainly single, branch.

 

Keith

[Liam]

The existing train service to Bromsgrove is the hourly service from New Street to Hereford. The additional three per hour appears to be extension of the current 20-min interval Longbridge turnbacks.

I think there may have been a problem with putting the Up Fast on the outside as to get the required alignment there woudn't have been room for the longest freight to take on a banker if the siding was put in the middle at the south end of the layout without rebuilding the bridge by the old banker sidings.

 

 

You can't get from one end of a 6-car 323 without walking down the outside. No connection between the middle cabs.

There's only a few, but in peak hours XC run services which stop at Bromsgrove; generally to Nottingham in the morning and Cardiff in the afternoon. And then on weekends there's charters

[Phil Bullock]

There's only a few, but in peak hours XC run services which stop at Bromsgrove; generally to Nottingham in the morning and Cardiff in the afternoon. And then on weekends there's charters

 

And the Gloucester to Stansted Airport also calls.....

 

Phil

[phil-b259]

I have heard  - from an unofficial source - that the problem at Oxford is indecision about the new station thus delaying resignalling thus delaying electrification.  It does seem rather daft that such should be happening but presumably there are worries about abortive expenditure (which would chickenfeed in the GW electrification overspend) and I doubt if anyone has asked the logical question about increased operating costs as a result of the need to change trains at Didcot.

 

However I suspect there is no the 'curse of bi-mode' hanging over things as the fast trains could all be worked by class 800s leaving only the locals to be covered by dmus.  But even then I wonder about the cost, and siting, of the new stabling sidings at Didcot which now lie within the critical path for opening Class 387 working through to Didcot in December.

 

As far as the Bromsgrove layout is concerned what I don't know is detail and frequency of the proposed electric train service but I presume there will be 4 electric trains per hour to Birmingham as most articles refer to 'three extra trains every hour'.  For that level of service the layout appears to be poorly planned effectively concentrating that service onto a single platform.  This compares with Maidenhead where a similar number of trains will reverse in each hour but using a central reversing siding to cross from arrival on the Down Relief for departure from the Up Relief although obviously there will be more through trains using those two lines than would be the case at Bromsgrove.   Logically Bromsgrove should have the higher speed lines round the outside of the two islands with both of the central platforms available for reversal through crossovers clear of the through lines - such a layout would be far more resilient to perturbation and would offer capacity for service level increases in the future even without a reversing siding.  

 

Looking at aerial views of the area I think provision of a reversing siding, or even reversing from the southern end of No.2 Platform Line with a trailing crossover to No.3 south of the platform, is nota practical option because I don't think there is sufficient space to provide a walkway to enable Drivers to change ends.  Quite why walkways have to be provided puzzles me (why don't Drivers walk through the train - much safer surely?) but they have certainly been provided at new reversing sidings elsewhere.  So the best operational alternative is the one I've outlined above and I must admit to be a bit puzzled as to why it has not been adopted - is there a site constraint or was it lack of practical forethought?  There is a new track layout costing millions of £s so surely it is best to do a decent job rather than half a job?

 

 

Reversible signalling (rather than full bi-directional) would have been fairly cheap to incorporate in a newly installed modern system of interlocking and controls and would provide a facility almost as useful as full bi-directional signalling.   Sounds like NR just being a bit churlish and thinking very firmly inside their own box.  Incidentally not only is all the existing reversible signalling being reproduced in the GWML resignalling but new sections seem to be added and in every case it incorporates brand new signals (probably the most expensive part of providing it).

 

I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of NRs decision as regards signalling - Roger Ford has recently written for example about the alarming gulf between what the inhabitants of Whitehall / NRs top brass said the 'digital railway' would do to signalling costs (Roger and sources from equipment suppliers reckon NR will be lucky to get even a 20% reduction compared to the 40% figure those at the top have been assuming in their financial planning). As such what may seem like a 'small' enhancement could well be seen as 'unaffordable' even if it does not represent a big percentage increase.

 

Down in Sussex, the Coastway East scheme only got delivered within budget due to the decision to postpone part of it and re-use BR SSI modules rather than a new SmartLock / WestLock interlocking, while the Gatwick interlocking renewal saved money by omitting Comprehensive approch locking from the then new Smartlock installation (It was present in the previous RRI interlocking).

 

At Bromsgrove, we have already heard that the 'scheme' actually consists of three separately funded projects (new station, signalling re-control / renewal and electrification) - which naturally brings with it a 'silo' mentality with each project not wanting to alter anything without extra cash being allocated.

 

Finally there is the little matter of location and the importance to Government - who are in charge of allocating funds to enhancements. We have already heard how the DfT did their uppermost to sabotage the original cross city electrification back in BR days on the grounds that it was too extravagant for a City in the provinces (i.e. it had no effect on London), and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find similar attitudes still prevailing in Whitehall. By contrast the GWML directly affects London Commuters - who are far more important electorally than those who might be inconvenienced by any shortcomings in the Bromsgrove scheme. As such the provision of Bi-Di / reversible signalling to keep trains moving on the GWML will seem like 'money well spent' - where as spending more (even if its not that much more) keeping trains moving between Bromsgrove and Birmingham will seem like a 'waste' to funders based in Whitehall.

Edited April 19, 2017 by phil-b259

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

Down in Sussex, the Coastway East scheme only got delivered within budget due to the decision to postpone part of it and re-use BR SSI modules rather than a new SmartLock / WestLock interlocking, while the Gatwick interlocking renewal saved money by omitting Comprehensive approch locking from the then new Smartlock installation (It was present in the previous RRI interlocking).

 

 

Having to keep it simple is nothing new on these schemes. When the DC Lines was done in 1988 it was the early days of SSI and the interlocking capacity was crammed to the hilt, not so much in terms of the actual number of modules but in the amount of data required against the available processing capacity. It's quite easy to add 50% to the cost of a resignalling or remodelling scheme by putting in stuff which will only be of significant benefit on a couple of days in a year. The rest of the time they can be a real PITA.

 

Eric's Square Law of Scheme Development Mistakes theorises that the probability of causing a c**k-up is proportional to the square of the options available -1. Put simply, only give one way of how to deal with something, 1 squared -1=0. 2 options, 2 squared -1=3. Give 3 or more options and you are deep in it.

[melmerby]

For those of us that don't know could someone explain, from a signalling point of view, what a "Workstation" is?

e.g. the signalling from Barnt Green to Aschurch (exclusive) is now controlled by a Bromsgrove workstation with the designation "BA"

 

Is that a desk in the WMSC with an operator of it's own? (Or is situated in Bromsgrove?)

Or is it part of the wider control where numerous signallers cover the whole area? etc. etc.

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[Liam]

For those of us that don't know could someone explain, from a signalling point of view, what a "Workstation" is?

e.g. the signalling from Barnt Green to Aschurch (exclusive) is now controlled by a Bromsgrove workstation with the designation "BA"

 

Is that a desk in the WMSC with an operator of it's own? (Or is situated in Bromsgrove?)

Or is it part of the wider control where numerous signallers cover the whole area? etc. etc.

 

Cheers

 

Keith

A workstation is a fairly large desk with associated equipment controlling a specific area. The area between Barnt Green and Ashchurch (the Bromsgrove workstation) is located at Saltley WMSC and might require more than one operator. There would probably be a diagram of the route with small indicator boards showing the route number in the block sections.

[TheSignalEngineer]

This is the Coventry line workstation  at WMSC

WMSC by Bill Wright, on Flickr

Edited April 20, 2017 by TheSignalEngineer

[CovDriver]

So that what it looks like I was on the phone to the signaller lastnight whilst waiting at Coventry when the VT traincrew got a bit confused and delayed us about 10mins.  

[Phil Bullock]

Bobby looking very relaxed there - wheres his duster for heavens sake?

 

Phil

[Chris116]

Bobby looking very relaxed there - wheres his duster for heavens sake?

 

Phil

Not allowed dusters, the cleaners are the only ones who can have a duster!

[Liam]

And where's the cat?

[Titan]

And where's the cat?

 

Chasing the mouse?

[The Stationmaster]

Chasing the mouse?

 

Shame they haven't got a decent mouse instead of that tracker ball arrangement.  When I did some ergonomic tests (as the ergonomists' 'guinea pig') on the kit for Stoke rather more than a decade back I found the tracker ball a darned nuisance to work with as you (I) couldn't get a suitable angle for my back.  Vaughan Harmon (to use their real name) offered the alternative of a rather special mouse of a quite unusual shape and with two very carefully placed buttons - lovely comfy thing to use but apparently they cost about £200 each back in the early 2000s so I suspect 'the infrastructure provider' didn't go for that option.

[Edwin_m]

I was first involved with IECC as the first prototype was being lab tested so after the tracker ball was selected.  But from talking to people at the time I believe the tracker ball was preferred over a mouse because it is more difficult to damage and impossible to lose.  The tracker and buttons in that photo look identical to the ones specified back then - I seem to recall the ball itself is actually a billiard ball. 

[melmerby]

Shame they haven't got a decent mouse instead of that tracker ball arrangement.  When I did some ergonomic tests (as the ergonomists' 'guinea pig') on the kit for Stoke rather more than a decade back I found the tracker ball a darned nuisance to work with as you (I) couldn't get a suitable angle for my back.  Vaughan Harmon (to use their real name) offered the alternative of a rather special mouse of a quite unusual shape and with two very carefully placed buttons - lovely comfy thing to use but apparently they cost about £200 each back in the early 2000s so I suspect 'the infrastructure provider' didn't go for that option.

Didn't the computer mouse originally develop from early track ball devices?

I can remember a very early design which was little different to an upturned mouse. You held it in your hand the same way you do a mouse except you moved an upward facing ball with a finger instead of the body of the device. (Marconi or some such maker?)

 

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

Didn't the computer mouse originally develop from early track ball devices?

I can remember a very early design which was little different to an upturned mouse. You held it in your hand the same way you do a mouse except you moved an upward facing ball with a finger instead of the body of the device. (Marconi or some such maker?)

 

Keith

 

The Vaughan Harmon (forget their UK trading name but someone will remember no doubt) version that I used had the ball on the top and it was hard wired so couldn't get lost or dropped on the floor although it did stretch just over the edge of the desk but you used it on a flat surface where it worked admirably.  The ball was smaller than the BR tracker ball but larger than most of those I've come across in ordinary marketplace computer mice.

[melmerby]

Looks like there is going to be a banked freight train tonight.

 

012P light engine from Bescot to Bromsgrove up goods loop and into the banker siding and 640P (6E30) is due into the up goods loop shortly after for 30mins before continuing up the Lickey

 

Keith

[Ian Rathbone]

Mast foundations went in at BG station this weekend, except for one that needs a tree removing. You'd have thought that would have been done first.

 

Ian R