Cambrian Line Radio Signalling failure - RAIB investigating

[russ p]

We aren't having a go at yo simon , just letting you know how frustrated a lot of railwaymen are with the current railway.

A lot of the modern management of the railway seem to think staff that started before the mid 90s spend most of there time trapped in lifts!

[Junctionmad]

 

 

And after what has happened recently on the Cambrian the technology is flawed

The implementation is flawed , thats different to the technology 

[4630]

Okay, I give up, the experts have won.

You know, maybe I should just quit my job, I'm clearly not good enough at it...

Simon

Simon, I think you’re misunderstanding Big Jim and Russ P.

 

Your dismissal of them as ‘experts’ in that manner is both unjustified and unfair. They’re explaining to you the practical, everyday difficulties, that being at ‘the pointy end’ involves. What every time served railwayman has by the bucketload - experience.

 

IMHO a significant number of the problems on the railway today (of which the wider implications of the ‘Cambrian issue’ is only one) can be put down to people beavering away in their own silos and not drawing on the vast experience that railway men and women across all parts of the industry possess.

 

I’ll get off my soapbox now.

[big jim]

Thank you russ, you have once again put it better than I possibly could!

 

Edit: thank you 4630 too, you can see where I’m coming from too

Edited February 21, 2018 by big jim

[TheSignalEngineer]

Chill out Simon, you are probably very good at your job, you certainly don’t listen to or respect the opinion of people on the front line so your certainly management material

During my training and later in early years in management roles I had the good fortune to work for a man who became one of the top signalling men at both region and BRB. He always impressed on us that in designing anything the only thing you made by sitting at the drawing board was mistakes. He made us get out and walk the track, talk to our own installation and maintenance teams as well as visiting signal boxes we were involved in and getting rides up front to see how the whole system worked. This type of approach has unfortunately disappeared in the days of the disintegrated railway.

[St. Simon]

Simon, I think you’re misunderstanding Big Jim and Russ P.

Your dismissal of them as ‘experts’ in that manner is both unjustified and unfair. They’re explaining to you the practical, everyday difficulties, that being at ‘the pointy end’ involves. What every time served railwayman has by the bucketload - experience.

IMHO a significant number of the problems on the railway today (of which the wider implications of the ‘Cambrian issue’ is only one) can be put down to people beavering away in their own silos and not drawing on the vast experience that railway men and women across all parts of the industry possess.

I’ll get off my soapbox now.

No, I didn't mean it as a derogatory remark, they are experts in driving trains, they made their point quite correctly and have pointed out some valid points, I was wrong.

 

I have talked to drivers in many scenarios, I have done carbides, I always bow down to a train drivers superior knowledge of the route, I can't get better advice.

 

Simon

[big jim]

Simon, you say you haven’t seen ects or ERTMS for real so if you can spare some time over the next few months (even just one night) I’ll arrange for you to come for a ride out on one of the ballast turns down the Cambrian with me so you can see just how the system works from the front and discover it’s flaws etc

 

More than happy to arrange it

 

You can come and experience ‘the tallerddig triangle’ aka the twilight zone, where anything can happen, and probably will!

Edited February 21, 2018 by big jim

[russ p]

No, I didn't mean it as a derogatory remark, they are experts in driving trains, they made their point quite correctly and have pointed out some valid points, I was wrong.

I have talked to drivers in many scenarios, I have done carbides, I always bow down to a train drivers superior knowledge of the route, I can't get better advice.

Simon

 

Don't get down on it Simon, you didn't invent it its not your fault.

I hope you didn't invent those horrible flat LED type signals because if you did you will be hung drawn and quartered!

Only joking

See if you can get a ride out with Jim

[Junctionmad]

 

 

Your dismissal of them as ‘experts’ in that manner is both unjustified and unfair. They’re explaining to you the practical, everyday difficulties, that being at ‘the pointy end’ involves. What every time served railwayman has by the bucketload - experience.

 

IMHO a significant number of the problems on the railway today (of which the wider implications of the ‘Cambrian issue’ is only one) can be put down to people beavering away in their own silos and not drawing on the vast experience that railway men and women across all parts of the industry possess.

Anyone will tell you , that " operatives " to use a generic term, will always be experts at telling you, the systems designer , of faults and failings ( of any system no matter what ) , what they rarely can tell you  are "solutions", especially solutions that are not simply rehashing whats already there ( and which they have outlined at lengths its deficiencies ) 

 

it has always been the way.  Systems designed after vast " consultations " with users are often just as gaff prone as any other , in my 30 years experience of systems engineering . The " user" typically knows what they dont want , but rarely know what they do want.  The systems designer , unfortunately cant design a system that does nothing ( however hard some try )

Edited February 22, 2018 by Junctionmad

[big jim]

Junctionmad, as it happens one of my ERTMS trained drivers also runs a very successful IT company outside of the railway so when it comes to ‘solutions’ he has actually come up with some by removing his train driver hat and putting on his nerd glasses for an hour

 

When we did the ERTMS course we were lucky to get to see the signalling control centre computer room in Machynlleth signal box, my colleague was like a kid in a candy shop when the door was opened, he and the server room bloke were talking ram this, rom that, patch cord this, modem that, I think the box guy was glad to have a fellow nerd, sorry IT geek to talk to!

[phil-b259]

I've been to a few meetings about the god awful system , I actually asked the question of how this system was better Than coloured lights!

Everyone laughed but no one could actually give a definitive answer

Once this system is widespread there will be no pleasure whatsoever working on the railway

 

In theory no driver will ever be able to cause a collision / derailment with this system in place!

 

All things considered, it provides grater capacity, lowers infrastructure costs and is much safer than the current arrangement. The fact that there have been problems with glare / reflections has far more to do with the constrained class 158 cab than any fundamental problem with the system in general. Having speed restrictions not coming up when they should do (and with the signaller blissfully unaware of any problem) on the other hand.....

 

Yes it might well make the job of being a train driver more 'dull', and yes it switches responsibility for most aspects of driving onto computer programmers, but exactly the same sort of things could be said of railway signalling with the move away from Absolute block and lots of little signal boxes.

 

The railway is not there to make people happy - its there to shift people an goods about as efficiently as possible (something the steam gricers always seem to ignore). If any train drivers find that this modernisation is not to their liking then I respectfully suggest they have 2 options:- (i) find another job, or (ii) put up with the change and stop whingeing*

 

*Note reporting specific system failures to the approprate authorities is not 'wingeing'

Edited February 22, 2018 by phil-b259

[wombatofludham]

I don't know about the incident in the RAIB report, which is concerning to read as a local, but I did read something from Arriva TW which was less than effusive about the ERTMS system as a whole from an operator's point of view, basically saying they never wanted it and it hit them badly in terms of performance measures when implemented, and that it is overkill for the line. That was from a manager, someone I would have thought would not openly use fairly critical language in a public meeting where normally you would expect more diplomacy and singing from an agreed hymn sheet. I know when it was first implemented the line became badly unreliable and there was a lot of frustration from local user groups, and even now trains seem to approach Fairbourne and other stations at a snail's pace which I have been told is partly down to the ERTMS system. I met with a few ATW people when I was a local Community Councillor and off record there seemed to be a lot of frustration with the system as being overspecified and as others have said, inflexible at times, strangely they suggested often when out of course running occurs which I thought in theory the system ought to assist.

 

Of course, not being involved at the sharp end (or blunt end as the only stock allowed on our line is the 158 or the English Earthquake Yellow Perils) I couldn't comment on whether this was a personal "downer" or a more widely held view, but looking at it as an outsider you have to question the relevance of putting the trial system on a line with no freight, a fairly standardised timetable and little variation in traffic. I would have thought a line with more variety of traction and traffic would have been a better test bed.

[phil-b259]

Simon, you say you haven’t seen ects or ERTMS for real so if you can spare some time over the next few months (even just one night) I’ll arrange for you to come for a ride out on one of the ballast turns down the Cambrian with me so you can see just how the system works from the front and discover it’s flaws etc

 

More than happy to arrange it

 

You can come and experience ‘the tallerddig triangle’ aka the twilight zone, where anything can happen, and probably will!

 

Dammit Simon, how comes you designers get all the best invites while maintainers are ignored

 

If you are not interested, maybe I should get creative with my company I.D. as it were

Edited February 22, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

I don't know about the incident in the RAIB report, which is concerning to read as a local, but I did read something from Arriva TW which was less than effusive about the ERTMS system as a whole from an operator's point of view, basically saying they never wanted it and it hit them badly in terms of performance measures when implemented, and that it is overkill for the line. That was from a manager, someone I would have thought would not openly use fairly critical language in a public meeting where normally you would expect more diplomacy and singing from an agreed hymn sheet. I know when it was first implemented the line became badly unreliable and there was a lot of frustration from local user groups, and even now trains seem to approach Fairbourne and other stations at a snail's pace which I have been told is partly down to the ERTMS system. I met with a few ATW people when I was a local Community Councillor and off record there seemed to be a lot of frustration with the system as being overspecified and as others have said, inflexible at times, strangely they suggested often when out of course running occurs which I thought in theory the system ought to assist.

 

Of course, not being involved at the sharp end (or blunt end as the only stock allowed on our line is the 158 or the English Earthquake Yellow Perils) I couldn't comment on whether this was a personal "downer" or a more widely held view, but looking at it as an outsider you have to question the relevance of putting the trial system on a line with no freight, a fairly standardised timetable and little variation in traffic. I would have thought a line with more variety of traction and traffic would have been a better test bed.

 

Don't forget ERTMS is a Europe wide system intended to be adopted throughout the Union (and beyond if it is attractive to 3rd party railway administrators looking for signalling solutions) and the UK chose / was allocated the job of testing the 'single line' variant.

 

NR / Railtrack jumped at the chance because the RETB system was proving problematical to maintain and thats why the Cambrian got it. Other EU countries have tried out ERTMS on other types of railway with the results from ALL trial sites being used to further develop the system.

 

As such any future deployment of ERTMS on the likes of the ECML for example is likely to have been influenced by its use on a similar mainline in the Netherlands say. The fact that the UK has not hosted a trial on a mult-track mixed traffic railway is irrelevant - it will have still actually happened somewhere in the EU where any fundamental issues will have been discovered.

[big jim]

The fact it’s a Europe wide standard system is another issue, it’s designed that so as long as a driver signs the various traction you could get from wick to Rome using one signalling system displayed through a standard DMI showing the same display regardless of traction

 

So sticking to the UK my class 97 has the same display as a 158 and the same as a Eurostar so the speedo goes up to 240kph, all traction will have the same display so should they ever fit it to an 08 Shunter that would also have a speedo that went upto 240kph!

 

 

Another flaw is also despite me inputting at the start of the journey that my train is say a 60mph freight (which i’ve Just this second have realised is a bit odd as it’s in mph!) the speedo will where the line speed is more than 100kph (60mph) still show me the top line speed as my ‘ceiling speed’ rather than 100kph so you have to remember to keep to 100kph, very easy to see the outer speedo ring ‘open’ at 120kph and forgetfully speed up to it (especially light engine) although technically the info you have inputted into the system regarding the train configuration should in theory safely brake you down from the higher speed without issue (obviously the rule book and train list say different so you keep to the correct speed)

 

Phil: if you too want to come out for a ride get in touch and we can arrange something officially

Edited February 22, 2018 by big jim

[david.hill64]

Without wishing to prejudge any investigation i will offer an opinion based as somebody who, until recently, was writing safety cases for Communications Based Train Control Systems. Not ETCS but similar.

 

One issue that bugs many of these systems is that Temporary Speed Restrictions are usually imposed by a system which at best is SIL2 or more often SIL0 (Safety Integrity Level where SIL4 is the highest and applies to things like interlockings and ATP systems). Constructing an argument that the removal of a TSR is safe is rather difficult as there is always the possibility of a wrong side failure of the non-SIL4 system used to apply/remove the restriction. 

 

There have also been occasions in mainland Europe - one resulting in an incident - where the failure of an interlocking caused the hot standby to kick in as designed. A subsequent TSR applied to the standby interlocking was lost when the main interlocking was restored. This resulted in a SRAC (Safety Related Application Condition) being issued requiring all operators to re-apply TSR's following any signalling system failure.

 

One wonders whether these are relevant to the reported issue.

 

On the wider topic of ETCS I was surprised by Jim's comments about the inability of the system to accept different train lengths. This is fundamental and as Jim notes having a default that is longer than the actual will inevitably result in extended journey times. Considering that some observers believe that ETCS level 2 offers significant capacity improvements compared to a well designed 4 aspect system (I don't), this is significant setback.

 

ETCS with its inherent ATP functionality will provide a benefit to UK in eliminating the low probability high consequence events that TPWS cannot address. It should also result in reduced maintenance and better reliability and may offer some capacity improvements particularly in its level 3 (moving block) form.

 

The transition to ETCS is a mandatory requirement for all EU states, but even post Brexit it would be entirely logical to adopt the system.

[uax6]

Hi,

 

I realise that Russ is a driver and I have no doubt that drivers views are totally valid, and I'm more willing to say that Russ's are fair, I can see there are problems, but there are factors in play which drivers aren't necessarily aware of. I wasn't pointing out Russ specifically, it was more of a general statement.

 

I can see where you are coming from in terms of amount of failures, but of course power failures aren't as common as lamp failures etc.

I suppose a better term would be risk of failure is lower as there are fewer 'working' parts compared to a traditional Lineside set up.

 

Simon

 

I wouldn't be so sure of saying lamp failures are more common than power failures Simon.... I've never had a blank aspect in the 10 years I've been here, but I have witnessed two complete 650V failures here, and two complete engine failures at the PSB, a UPS fire and engine failure at PSB, and numerous instances of Power Group killing lineside REB's while doing routine testing work....

 

The other points are vaild, as you can get more traffic moving, but sadly translate this to the real world where you have lineside incidents and all the rubbish that we deal with day in day out, and what you will end up with is a railway that can never recover from the smallest thing happening. If you don't believe me, its already happening....

 

Andy G

[jjb1970]

I suspect that the system probably is a bit pointless on the Cambrian but it has to be tested somewhere and the functionality offered by the system for busier routes will be extremely useful. There is a lot of truth in the comments of Junctionmad in post 59, people tend to like what they are familiar with and feel uncomfortable with change. Particular when the benefits of those changes may not be anything like as visible as the coalface transitional issues.

[Gareth 73]

The system has been designed, specified and is being continually improved by trained and highly experience signalling engineers.

Simon

Thats the best laugh ive had for ages when it comes to signalling projects. What about the highly trained and highly experienced end users of said systems ( i means signallers and drivers in case there was any doubt) there seems to be precious little interface with them when it comes to what needs to, rather than what can be.

Just my view with 25 years of signalling systems experience, using not designing that is.

[St. Simon]

Thats the best laugh ive had for ages when it comes to signalling projects. What about the highly trained and highly experienced end users of said systems ( i means signallers and drivers in case there was any doubt) there seems to be precious little interface with them when it comes to what needs to, rather than what can be.

Just my view with 25 years of signalling systems experience, using not designing that is.

 

Yes, there is a worrying lack of talking between those developing and those using, clearly.

 

In Reading we try to talk to drivers and signallers about what they want, but I know that this isn't the case in other companies.

 

Simon

[iands]

Don't forget ERTMS is a Europe wide system intended to be adopted throughout the Union (and beyond if it is attractive to 3rd party railway administrators looking for signalling solutions) and the UK chose / was allocated the job of testing the 'single line' variant.

 

NR / Railtrack jumped at the chance because the RETB system was proving problematical to maintain and thats why the Cambrian got it. Other EU countries have tried out ERTMS on other types of railway with the results from ALL trial sites being used to further develop the system.

 

As such any future deployment of ERTMS on the likes of the ECML for example is likely to have been influenced by its use on a similar mainline in the Netherlands say. The fact that the UK has not hosted a trial on a mult-track mixed traffic railway is irrelevant - it will have still actually happened somewhere in the EU where any fundamental issues will have been discovered.

And the trials on other EU rail networks started well in advance of anything starting on the Cambrian.

 

Regards, Ian.

[big jim]

Davidhill: regards the inability to accept different length of train it’s certainly the case on the 97 but I have been told it’s merely a software upgrade that needs implementing, the daft thing is last week I had 2x97 and 15 auto ballasters so I inputted “air brake freight 60mph”

And that must be set up for 10 wagons as the restriction ‘opened up’ long before the rear of the train had passed over it

[TheSignalEngineer]

I wouldn't be so sure of saying lamp failures are more common than power failures Simon.... I've never had a blank aspect in the 10 years I've been here, but I have witnessed two complete 650V failures here, and two complete engine failures at the PSB, a UPS fire and engine failure at PSB, and numerous instances of Power Group killing lineside REB's while doing routine testing work....

 

 

Lamp failures certainly were a big problem on power boxes to the extent that we used to under-run SL35 lamps at about 11.2-11.5 volts instead of the rated 12 volts. The reason why you didn't see black signals was the auto changeover to the second filament which raised an alarm either on the panel or at the techs monitoring panel. The driver didn't get one as the controls were arranged to need the signal lit or the one in the rear reverted to red. There was an exemption to this especially at 1960s LMR boxes where the signal could clear to a single yellow if the one in advance was not lit but the relay controlling the yellow at that signal was energised, 

 

As for experiencing it for real, I never did personally in BR times as we had a rule that said if a first filament fails then you change the bulb within 24 hours. Into privatisation things changed and when I did an analysis of faults and delays on an area for a maintenance contract bid in 1999 I noticed that they were a weekly occurrence on one of of the main lines out of London causing signals in rear to be held at red and drivers being talked by, thus delays racking up at an alarming rate plus the risks involved when the human takes over.

 

On power supplies, when we relied on the local electricity supply we ran via trickle charged batteries which were specified to give power for at least 10 hours in the event of losing the mains. Because the equipment ran from the battery there was no down time at changeover, and we used to test on a regular basis to make sure it worked. Even at PSBs I remember putting in 50 volt batteries to maintain certain vital circuits in the event of power problems. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

Thats the best laugh ive had for ages when it comes to signalling projects. What about the highly trained and highly experienced end users of said systems ( i means signallers and drivers in case there was any doubt) there seems to be precious little interface with them when it comes to what needs to, rather than what can be.

Just my view with 25 years of signalling systems experience, using not designing that is.

 

 

Yes, there is a worrying lack of talking between those developing and those using, clearly.

 

In Reading we try to talk to drivers and signallers about what they want, but I know that this isn't the case in other companies.

 

Simon

In my 40+ years involved in the railway industry I saw an alarming decline in the understanding of what was required by opposite sides in putting things together. Before Sectorisation we had District Signalling Inspectors who had all been long-terms signalman, Footplate inspectors who has all been drivers, the people who worked in the Divisional Manager's signalling works office had largely started as signalmen or in places like the timetable section. Signaling designers and testers started as either probationers in the wages grades or engineering students in the salaried grades. The latter was no boil-in-the-bag job as we spent five years before being let loose unsupervised starting with learning how to put up a signal, as the junior in the gang you got to dig the hole if you wanted to get respect in future, set up points, wire circuits, cut locking for frames etc. 

 

In the early 1980s I was involved in producing documents which became a regional standard on specifying operational and signalling design requirements for projects which were later translated into BR standards. By 1992 we even had a manual on how to specify and implement infrastructure projects. Railtrack binned it on day one.

 

Privatisation of operations only made things worse. I had a Traction man from a FOC at a Junction Risk Workshop i was running for a 125mph line. He said he wasn't interested in route knowledge as his trains only ran at 60mph so if we were sighting for 125mph it wasn't necessary. He wasn't in the job by the second meeting, wonder who put a spoke in his wheels.

 

I was only too glad to get out and just act as an casual hired hand as soon as I was able to take an early pension

[Chris116]

I have always understood that all signalling systems had to fail safe. Does this fancy system do that under all situations? If it does not fail safe under all circumstances then it has no place on our railway system.