MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 12:03, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> GSM-R only allows direct cab-to-cab communication in very limited
>> circumstances, assisting another train, and you both need to register with
>> the same headcode, in a way so specific that I carry the reminder card with
>> me in case I ever need to do it.
>
> It usually depends on how the system is configured.

GSM-R, specifically-R for railway, is configured as I said above.

> I heard the
> ambulance service crews were concerned that when they went to a trunked
> system they would just have calls from control to one vehicle (and vice
> versa) and not hear anything else because you effectively called a
> specific radio but I think it was set up for Group Calling so it was
> like the old system with people knowing what was going on and able offer
> assistance. Though I think most calls were sent to their screens which
> has continued as they moved to Airwave then the current system.
>
> But railways obviously need to operate in a different way though I
> presume there is a way for their control to call a group of users to
> relay some information.
>
>

On 11/02/2022 15:45, Bob wrote:
> I'd have thought the risk of distraction for somebody engaged in a
> safety critical role of having a radio chattering away is not going to
> be very sensible, and if the driver gets used to the radio producing a
> continual stream of irrelevant information, they are more likely to miss
> actually critical information that comes out of it.

On any open talkback system you very quickly learn to filter out
irrelevancies and pick up on the stuff you need to listen to. ATC being
a prime example.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 11/02/2022 18:33, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 15:45, Bob wrote:
>> I'd have thought the risk of distraction for somebody engaged in a
>> safety critical role of having a radio chattering away is not going to
>> be very sensible, and if the driver gets used to the radio producing a
>> continual stream of irrelevant information, they are more likely to
>> miss actually critical information that comes out of it.
>
> On any open talkback system you very quickly learn to filter out
> irrelevancies and pick up on the stuff you need to listen to. ATC being
> a prime example.
>

Agreed but...

You get so used to filtering out the irrelevances that the chances of
filtering out something important are very high.

On 11/02/2022 18:44, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 18:33, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 11/02/2022 15:45, Bob wrote:
>>> I'd have thought the risk of distraction for somebody engaged in a
>>> safety critical role of having a radio chattering away is not going
>>> to be very sensible, and if the driver gets used to the radio
>>> producing a continual stream of irrelevant information, they are more
>>> likely to miss actually critical information that comes out of it.
>>
>> On any open talkback system you very quickly learn to filter out
>> irrelevancies and pick up on the stuff you need to listen to. ATC
>> being a prime example.
>>
>
> Agreed but...
>
> You get so used to filtering out the irrelevances that the chances of
> filtering out something important are very high.

Been doing it for 50 years, don't think I've missed anything important.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 18:44, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 11/02/2022 18:33, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2022 15:45, Bob wrote:
>>>> I'd have thought the risk of distraction for somebody engaged in a
>>>> safety critical role of having a radio chattering away is not going
>>>> to be very sensible, and if the driver gets used to the radio
>>>> producing a continual stream of irrelevant information, they are more
>>>> likely to miss actually critical information that comes out of it.
>>>
>>> On any open talkback system you very quickly learn to filter out
>>> irrelevancies and pick up on the stuff you need to listen to. ATC
>>> being a prime example.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed but...
>>
>> You get so used to filtering out the irrelevances that the chances of
>> filtering out something important are very high.
>
> Been doing it for 50 years, don't think I've missed anything important.

ATC is an example where there are definite procedures and discipline to
make sure the right people hear the messages - IDing the sender and
intended receiver in every message, and specific phraseology. There have
been occasions on the railway where the lack of that discipline has
resulted in accidents occurring - my memory is of this having been
discussed in Inflamed Sauces, way, way back, but I don’t remember the
specific incident(s).

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 11/02/2022 16:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> GSM-R, specifically-R for railway, is configured as I said above.

So if there was a report of a potential incident in an area and it was
wanted to warn all trains in that area, they all have to be called
separately.

You often find that the normal users only get access to a limited range
of the facilities. We could call out onto the PSTN from the ambulance
radio system and similarly call an ambulance from the PSTN, the normal
users cold not do that and probably did not even know it was possible.

On 11/02/2022 18:44, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> You get so used to filtering out the irrelevances that the chances of
> filtering out something important are very high.

There are usually words or groups of word to use to get attention, some
standard ones and some for specific applications. Also radio systems
have codes to use when "dialling" a subscriber number - there is one on
MPT1327 that gives priority over all other traffic, if necessary
disconnecting other users.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2022 13:27, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

>>
>> I agree with you saying that, but I have also wondered in some cases if
>> GSM-R takes away from safety to a degree as it would not be possible to
>> hear radio chatter.
>>
>
> "Hearing radio chatter", other than in specific circumstances such as
> shunting in yards and depots, has never been a thing on the railways in the
> UK, ever.
>

Definitely a specific circumstance but a little bigger than a yard or depot
the USA
tanks that were purchased by the the Southern Railway were equipped in
thec1950’s with two way radios for their duties on the 70 miles of track
within Southampton Docks ,the practise continued with the replacement 07
Diesel Locos.

GH

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 16:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> GSM-R, specifically-R for railway, is configured as I said above.
>
> So if there was a report of a potential incident in an area and it was
> wanted to warn all trains in that area, they all have to be called
> separately.
>
>

No, as I mentioned elsewhere in my longer post on the topic, there are two
(actually three) options for that scenario:

A driver noticing something dangerous can stop all nearby trains by using
the Big Red Button which sends out an emergency stop message to all drivers
in the relevant geographical area (including of course those heading away
from the incident!), and broadcasts the subsequent conversation between
driver and signaller to those drivers, as well as over loudspeakers in the
relevant NR and TOC control rooms.

Signallers can make a general broadcast call to all trains in a specific
area, receipt of which is confirmed by the driver pressing a particular
button on the radio head unit.

Signaller can set up a "berth-triggered broadcast" which plays a recorded
message to each train which occupies a particular track
circuit/axle-counter section, which again is confirmed by the driver
acknowledging receipt of the message.

None of this contradicts my statement that there's no way for one driver to
directly contact another driver outside of very specific circumstances.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2022 13:27, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I agree with you saying that, but I have also wondered in some cases if
>>> GSM-R takes away from safety to a degree as it would not be possible to
>>> hear radio chatter.
>>>
>>
>> "Hearing radio chatter", other than in specific circumstances such as
>> shunting in yards and depots, has never been a thing on the railways in the
>> UK, ever.
>>
>
> Definitely a specific circumstance but a little bigger than a yard or depot
> the USA
> tanks that were purchased by the the Southern Railway were equipped in
> thec1950’s with two way radios for their duties on the 70 miles of track
> within Southampton Docks ,the practise continued with the replacement 07
> Diesel Locos.
>
>

I'd count that as 'shunting in yards' ;)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 10/02/2022 13:27, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you saying that, but I have also wondered in some cases if
>>>> GSM-R takes away from safety to a degree as it would not be possible to
>>>> hear radio chatter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Hearing radio chatter", other than in specific circumstances such as
>>> shunting in yards and depots, has never been a thing on the railways in the
>>> UK, ever.
>>>
>>
>> Definitely a specific circumstance but a little bigger than a yard or depot
>> the USA
>> tanks that were purchased by the the Southern Railway were equipped in
>> thec1950’s with two way radios for their duties on the 70 miles of track
>> within Southampton Docks ,the practise continued with the replacement 07
>> Diesel Locos.
>>
>>
>
> I'd count that as 'shunting in yards' ;)
>
>

A very large yard, or to start a Perryesque debate two large yards with a
link line in between,
that was just about still operating when I moved to Southampton in 1973 .
I wish I had payed more attention to it but only witnessed a couple of
movements on the roadside track by Town Quay and over the entrance to the
Ferry terminal . What was a money wasting exercise was till the route was
actually closed a temporary level crossing created over the track to
provide exhibit and trade vehicle entry to the boat show had for several a
flagman assigned to it who sat there diligently in his hi-high viz and
rolled up red flag for a train that was unlikely to come. I have mentioned
before on here in the past that some of my vehicles were equipped with a
set of BR Horns , my job took me into the boat show site so one day I gave
a quick dee-daa as I came close.Poor bugger nearly fell off his stool.

This shows one of the link line movements.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/31890193@N08/14999690240/in/photostream/>

There were also a couple of Railtours in the mid seventies using 4TC sets
that used the link line,
at least one was headed by an 07.

GH

On 11/02/2022 15:45, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-02-10 22:03:50 +0000, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk said:
>> What if a train suddenly stops, requiring a crew member to detrain onto
>> the tracks? I would probably want the signaller to able to bark an
>> order to any other trains in the vicinity to slow to restricted and
>> lean on the horn. It'd be even better if other trains in the area heard
>> the initial discussion.
>
> GSMR has the capability to send and receive automatic emergency stop
> requests. These are digital information passed between the radios
> themselves, so there is no need for anyone to bark, sing, shout or
> otherwise vocalise, simply to push the big red "oh shit" button. This
> can be done by the signaller or by the driver, on their way out the
> door. That signal will bring all trains in the vicinty to a halt.

Is the braking automatic, or does it require drivers to manually operate the
brakes?

On 10/02/2022 10:49, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-02-10 09:55:59 +0000, Scott said:
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 23:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 09/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> So traditional signals are being / have been phased out? I am aware that
>>>>>> some lines (e.g. to Oban) have moved to radio signalling and, last time
>>>>>> I passed, the traditional signals had been marked as out of use. Is this
>>>>>> the new norm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, very much so. Large parts of the London Underground now operate
>>>>> without lineside signals, as does the Cambrian line. The southern end of
>>>>> the ECML is currently being converted to ETCS Level 2:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/ertms-on-the-east-coast-main-line/
>>>>>
>>>> I would hope that they at least retain waysides at danger sites, such as
>>>> at draw bridges or at points -- even if it is a simple stop and proceed.
>>>
>>> No, all lineside signals are first covered, and eventually removed. It's
>>> much safer than lineside signalling. HS1 has operated this way for many
>>> years, and all high speed routes are the same.
>>
>> What happens if a train that is not equipped with cab signalling (eg
>> empty carriage stock or a charter train) needs to travel on the route?
>> Does this mean many train types unable to use the WCML even in
>> exceptional circumstances?
>
> ECML, not WCML. The short answer is, no rolling stock lacking the
> relevant ETCS2 hardware will be able to operate over the route (King's
> Cross and Moorgate to Royston and almost-Grantham, including the
> Hertford Loop). Many of the trains that regularly use the route
> already have the needed equipment as-built (Thameslink, 80x, 717). One
> of the reasons for the Cambrian line pilot scheme was to iron out the
> bugs involved in retrofitting legacy rolling stock for operation using
> this system, and on the basis of that, the legacy fleets, as well as
> freight locomotives and various "yellow trains" are to be so-upgraded.
> There is a project to work on fitting the needed equipment to certain
> heritage locomotives as well (eg Tornado, a Deltic). For any other
> purposes, the options are to modify trains (if they are expected to use
> the route regularly, eg charter fleet) or arrange for a suitably
> equiped locomotive (eg from the freight fleet). It is likely that
> should the ECML work out, similar conversions will be made to other
> routes as they come due for resignalling.

The RailEngineer article referenced above mentions various fleets that will
be modified, but omits the 158s (or 170s or whatever is used these days) on
the Norwich to Liverpool via Peterborough and Grantham route. Are these
likely to be upgraded or replaced? Apparently the Ely to Stamford and
Spalding slow lines through Peterborough are likely to keep the traditional
lineside equipment, but the situation for Lincoln to Peterborough via
Spalding terminators is also not clear.

On 12/02/2022 07:42, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> None of this contradicts my statement that there's no way for one driver to
> directly contact another driver outside of very specific circumstances.

As I wrote, each user will have a different set of priveleges.

We were not given all the passwords for the system we looked after but
someone managed to work out what it was but there was said to be another
"GOD" level which gave even more privileges (these were at exchange
level, not the radios but you could set what each radio could do).

In message <ejekdi-boc.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 10:26:22 on Sat, 12
Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>On 10/02/2022 10:49, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-02-10 09:55:59 +0000, Scott said:
>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 23:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> So traditional signals are being / have been phased out? I am aware that
>>>>>>> some lines (e.g. to Oban) have moved to radio signalling and, last time
>>>>>>> I passed, the traditional signals had been marked as out of use. Is this
>>>>>>> the new norm?
>>>>>> Yes, very much so. Large parts of the London Underground now
>>>>>>operate
>>>>>> without lineside signals, as does the Cambrian line. The southern end of
>>>>>> the ECML is currently being converted to ETCS Level 2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.railengineer.co.uk/ertms-on-the-east-coast-main-line/
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would hope that they at least retain waysides at danger sites,
>>>>>such as
>>>>> at draw bridges or at points -- even if it is a simple stop and proceed.
>>>> No, all lineside signals are first covered, and eventually
>>>>removed. It's
>>>> much safer than lineside signalling. HS1 has operated this way for many
>>>> years, and all high speed routes are the same.
>>> What happens if a train that is not equipped with cab signalling
>>>(eg
>>> empty carriage stock or a charter train) needs to travel on the route?
>>> Does this mean many train types unable to use the WCML even in
>>> exceptional circumstances?
>> ECML, not WCML. The short answer is, no rolling stock lacking the
>> relevant ETCS2 hardware will be able to operate over the route (King's
>> Cross and Moorgate to Royston and almost-Grantham, including the
>> Hertford Loop). Many of the trains that regularly use the route
>> already have the needed equipment as-built (Thameslink, 80x, 717). One
>> of the reasons for the Cambrian line pilot scheme was to iron out the
>> bugs involved in retrofitting legacy rolling stock for operation using
>> this system, and on the basis of that, the legacy fleets, as well as
>> freight locomotives and various "yellow trains" are to be so-upgraded.
>> There is a project to work on fitting the needed equipment to certain
>> heritage locomotives as well (eg Tornado, a Deltic). For any other
>> purposes, the options are to modify trains (if they are expected to use
>> the route regularly, eg charter fleet) or arrange for a suitably
>> equiped locomotive (eg from the freight fleet). It is likely that
>> should the ECML work out, similar conversions will be made to other
>> routes as they come due for resignalling.
>
>The RailEngineer article referenced above mentions various fleets that
>will be modified, but omits the 158s (or 170s or whatever is used these
>days) on the Norwich to Liverpool via Peterborough and Grantham route.
>Are these likely to be upgraded or replaced?

158's (most of the time, so a few 156's), due to be replaced by 170's,
which is why I think only two sets were ever re-liveried; but it's
running late.

>Apparently the Ely to Stamford and Spalding slow lines through
>Peterborough are likely to keep the traditional lineside equipment, but
>the situation for Lincoln to Peterborough via Spalding terminators is
>also not clear.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
> On 11/02/2022 15:45, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-02-10 22:03:50 +0000, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk said:
>>> What if a train suddenly stops, requiring a crew member to detrain onto
>>> the tracks? I would probably want the signaller to able to bark an
>>> order to any other trains in the vicinity to slow to restricted and
>>> lean on the horn. It'd be even better if other trains in the area heard
>>> the initial discussion.
>>
>> GSMR has the capability to send and receive automatic emergency stop
>> requests. These are digital information passed between the radios
>> themselves, so there is no need for anyone to bark, sing, shout or
>> otherwise vocalise, simply to push the big red "oh shit" button. This
>> can be done by the signaller or by the driver, on their way out the
>> door. That signal will bring all trains in the vicinty to a halt.
>
> Is the braking automatic, or does it require drivers to manually operate the
> brakes?
>

Driver action is required.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 12/02/2022 10:04, Marland wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/02/2022 13:27, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you saying that, but I have also wondered in some cases if
>>>>> GSM-R takes away from safety to a degree as it would not be possible to
>>>>> hear radio chatter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hearing radio chatter", other than in specific circumstances such as
>>>> shunting in yards and depots, has never been a thing on the railways in the
>>>> UK, ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely a specific circumstance but a little bigger than a yard or depot
>>> the USA
>>> tanks that were purchased by the the Southern Railway were equipped in
>>> thec1950’s with two way radios for their duties on the 70 miles of track
>>> within Southampton Docks ,the practise continued with the replacement 07
>>> Diesel Locos.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'd count that as 'shunting in yards' ;)
>>
>>
>
> A very large yard, or to start a Perryesque debate two large yards with a
> link line in between,
> that was just about still operating when I moved to Southampton in 1973 .
> I wish I had payed more attention to it but only witnessed a couple of
> movements on the roadside track by Town Quay and over the entrance to the
> Ferry terminal . What was a money wasting exercise was till the route was
> actually closed a temporary level crossing created over the track to
> provide exhibit and trade vehicle entry to the boat show had for several a
> flagman assigned to it who sat there diligently in his hi-high viz and
> rolled up red flag for a train that was unlikely to come. I have mentioned
> before on here in the past that some of my vehicles were equipped with a
> set of BR Horns , my job took me into the boat show site so one day I gave
> a quick dee-daa as I came close.Poor bugger nearly fell off his stool.
>
> This shows one of the link line movements.
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/31890193@N08/14999690240/in/photostream/>
>
> There were also a couple of Railtours in the mid seventies using 4TC sets
> that used the link line,
> at least one was headed by an 07.
>

There was an 09 (09 001) that used to occasionally work traffic between
the two sections. Here it is at Mt Pleasant, presumably working back to
Eastleigh after a day in the docks.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/09001_gronk.jpg>

The 07 was presumably Eastleigh's works shunter, 07 007:

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/BR_D2991_%2807007%29.jpg>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/02/2022 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ejekdi-boc.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 10:26:22 on Sat, 12
> Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>On 10/02/2022 10:49, Bob wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-10 09:55:59 +0000, Scott said:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 23:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>https://www.railengineer.co.uk/ertms-on-the-east-coast-main-line/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would hope that they at least retain waysides at danger sites,
>>>>>>such as
>>>>>> at draw bridges or at points -- even if it is a simple stop and proceed.
>>>>> No, all lineside signals are first covered, and eventually
>>>>>removed. It's
>>>>> much safer than lineside signalling. HS1 has operated this way for many
>>>>> years, and all high speed routes are the same.
>>>> What happens if a train that is not equipped with cab signalling
>>>>(eg
>>>> empty carriage stock or a charter train) needs to travel on the route?
>>>> Does this mean many train types unable to use the WCML even in
>>>> exceptional circumstances?
>>> ECML, not WCML. The short answer is, no rolling stock lacking the
>>> relevant ETCS2 hardware will be able to operate over the route (King's
>>> Cross and Moorgate to Royston and almost-Grantham, including the
>>> Hertford Loop). Many of the trains that regularly use the route
>>> already have the needed equipment as-built (Thameslink, 80x, 717). One
>>> of the reasons for the Cambrian line pilot scheme was to iron out the
>>> bugs involved in retrofitting legacy rolling stock for operation using
>>> this system, and on the basis of that, the legacy fleets, as well as
>>> freight locomotives and various "yellow trains" are to be so-upgraded.
>>> There is a project to work on fitting the needed equipment to certain
>>> heritage locomotives as well (eg Tornado, a Deltic). For any other
>>> purposes, the options are to modify trains (if they are expected to use
>>> the route regularly, eg charter fleet) or arrange for a suitably
>>> equiped locomotive (eg from the freight fleet). It is likely that
>>> should the ECML work out, similar conversions will be made to other
>>> routes as they come due for resignalling.
>>
>>The RailEngineer article referenced above mentions various fleets that
>>will be modified, but omits the 158s (or 170s or whatever is used these
>>days) on the Norwich to Liverpool via Peterborough and Grantham route.
>>Are these likely to be upgraded or replaced?
>
> 158's (most of the time, so a few 156's), due to be replaced by 170's,
> which is why I think only two sets were ever re-liveried; but it's
> running late.

170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too, before
reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end doors. Presumably the
170s will be fitted with ETCS?

In message <p2lldi-ddp.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Sat, 12
Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>On 12/02/2022 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ejekdi-boc.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 10:26:22 on Sat, 12
>> Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>On 10/02/2022 10:49, Bob wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-10 09:55:59 +0000, Scott said:
>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 23:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>https://www.railengineer.co.uk/ertms-on-the-east-coast-main-line/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would hope that they at least retain waysides at danger sites,
>>>>>>>such as
>>>>>>> at draw bridges or at points -- even if it is a simple stop and proceed.
>>>>>> No, all lineside signals are first covered, and eventually
>>>>>>removed. It's
>>>>>> much safer than lineside signalling. HS1 has operated this way for many
>>>>>> years, and all high speed routes are the same.
>>>>> What happens if a train that is not equipped with cab signalling
>>>>>
>>>>> empty carriage stock or a charter train) needs to travel on the route?
>>>>> Does this mean many train types unable to use the WCML even in
>>>>> exceptional circumstances?
>>>> ECML, not WCML. The short answer is, no rolling stock lacking the
>>>> relevant ETCS2 hardware will be able to operate over the route (King's
>>>> Cross and Moorgate to Royston and almost-Grantham, including the
>>>> Hertford Loop). Many of the trains that regularly use the route
>>>> already have the needed equipment as-built (Thameslink, 80x, 717). One
>>>> of the reasons for the Cambrian line pilot scheme was to iron out the
>>>> bugs involved in retrofitting legacy rolling stock for operation using
>>>> this system, and on the basis of that, the legacy fleets, as well as
>>>> freight locomotives and various "yellow trains" are to be so-upgraded.
>>>> There is a project to work on fitting the needed equipment to certain
>>>> heritage locomotives as well (eg Tornado, a Deltic). For any other
>>>> purposes, the options are to modify trains (if they are expected to use
>>>> the route regularly, eg charter fleet) or arrange for a suitably
>>>> equiped locomotive (eg from the freight fleet). It is likely that
>>>> should the ECML work out, similar conversions will be made to other
>>>> routes as they come due for resignalling.
>>>
>>>The RailEngineer article referenced above mentions various fleets
>>>that will be modified, but omits the 158s (or 170s or whatever is
>>>used these days) on the Norwich to Liverpool via Peterborough and
>>>Grantham route. Are these likely to be upgraded or replaced?

>> 158's (most of the time, so a few 156's), due to be replaced by
>>170's, which is why I think only two sets were ever re-liveried; but
>>it's running late.
>
>170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too, before
>reverting to 158s.

I remember when they were previously 170's, probably brand new ones.

>I preferred the 158s due to the end doors. Presumably the 170s will be
>fitted with ETCS?

If (as has been suggested) they don't need it for the stretch from
Peterborough on the US/DS to Stamford, maybe not.

Anyone know if ETCS is required for platform 5 at PBO?

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/ecm2#T_PBRO

Before they built the new island (6/7) the services used 5,
bi-directionally.
--
Roland Perry

On 12/02/2022 21:23, Roger Lynn wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ejekdi-boc.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 10:26:22 on Sat, 12
>> Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>> On 10/02/2022 10:49, Bob wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-10 09:55:59 +0000, Scott said:
>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 23:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/ertms-on-the-east-coast-main-line/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would hope that they at least retain waysides at danger sites,
>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>> at draw bridges or at points -- even if it is a simple stop and
>>>>>>> proceed.
>>>>>>  No, all lineside signals are first covered, and eventually
>>>>>> removed. It's
>>>>>> much safer than lineside signalling. HS1 has operated this way for
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> years, and all high speed routes are the same.
>>>>>  What happens if a train that is not equipped with cab signalling (eg
>>>>> empty carriage stock or a charter train) needs to travel on the route?
>>>>> Does this mean many train types unable to use the WCML even in
>>>>> exceptional circumstances?
>>>>  ECML, not WCML.  The short answer is, no rolling stock lacking the
>>>> relevant ETCS2 hardware will be able to operate over the route (King's
>>>> Cross and Moorgate to Royston and almost-Grantham, including the
>>>> Hertford Loop).  Many of the trains that regularly use the route
>>>> already have the needed equipment as-built (Thameslink, 80x, 717).  One
>>>> of the reasons for the Cambrian line pilot scheme was to iron out the
>>>> bugs involved in retrofitting legacy rolling stock for operation using
>>>> this system, and on the basis of that, the legacy fleets, as well as
>>>> freight locomotives and various "yellow trains" are to be so-upgraded.
>>>> There is a project to work on fitting the needed equipment to certain
>>>> heritage locomotives as well (eg Tornado, a Deltic).  For any other
>>>> purposes, the options are to modify trains (if they are expected to use
>>>> the route regularly, eg charter fleet) or arrange for a suitably
>>>> equiped locomotive (eg from the freight fleet).  It is likely that
>>>> should the ECML work out, similar conversions will be made to other
>>>> routes as they come due for resignalling.
>>>
>>> The RailEngineer article referenced above mentions various fleets
>>> that will be modified, but omits the 158s (or 170s or whatever is
>>> used these days) on the Norwich to Liverpool via Peterborough and
>>> Grantham route. Are these likely to be upgraded or replaced?
>>
>> 158's (most of the time, so a few 156's), due to be replaced by 170's,
>> which is why I think only two sets were ever re-liveried; but it's
>> running late.
>
> 170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too, before
> reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end doors. Presumably
> the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?

It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a 170 +
158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer seats than
158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach 170s were better,
but there were insufficient to meet a desire for every train to be 3
coaches.

In message <suc09m$cug$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:21:43 on Sun, 13 Feb
2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 12/02/2022 21:23, Roger Lynn wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ejekdi-boc.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 10:26:22 on Sat, 12
>>> Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 10/02/2022 10:49, Bob wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-10 09:55:59 +0000, Scott said:
>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 23:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/ertms-on-the-east-coast-main-line/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would hope that they at least retain waysides at danger
>>>>>>>>sites, such as
>>>>>>>> at draw bridges or at points -- even if it is a simple stop and
>>>>>>>>proceed.
>>>>>>>  No, all lineside signals are first covered, and eventually
>>>>>>>removed. It's
>>>>>>> much safer than lineside signalling. HS1 has operated this way
>>>>>>>for many
>>>>>>> years, and all high speed routes are the same.
>>>>>>  What happens if a train that is not equipped with cab signalling (eg
>>>>>> empty carriage stock or a charter train) needs to travel on the route?
>>>>>> Does this mean many train types unable to use the WCML even in
>>>>>> exceptional circumstances?
>>>>>  ECML, not WCML.  The short answer is, no rolling stock lacking the
>>>>> relevant ETCS2 hardware will be able to operate over the route (King's
>>>>> Cross and Moorgate to Royston and almost-Grantham, including the
>>>>> Hertford Loop).  Many of the trains that regularly use the route
>>>>> already have the needed equipment as-built (Thameslink, 80x, 717).  One
>>>>> of the reasons for the Cambrian line pilot scheme was to iron out the
>>>>> bugs involved in retrofitting legacy rolling stock for operation using
>>>>> this system, and on the basis of that, the legacy fleets, as well as
>>>>> freight locomotives and various "yellow trains" are to be so-upgraded.
>>>>> There is a project to work on fitting the needed equipment to certain
>>>>> heritage locomotives as well (eg Tornado, a Deltic).  For any other
>>>>> purposes, the options are to modify trains (if they are expected to use
>>>>> the route regularly, eg charter fleet) or arrange for a suitably
>>>>> equiped locomotive (eg from the freight fleet).  It is likely that
>>>>> should the ECML work out, similar conversions will be made to other
>>>>> routes as they come due for resignalling.
>>>>
>>>> The RailEngineer article referenced above mentions various fleets
>>>>that will be modified, but omits the 158s (or 170s or whatever is
>>>>used these days) on the Norwich to Liverpool via Peterborough and
>>>>Grantham route. Are these likely to be upgraded or replaced?
>>>
>>> 158's (most of the time, so a few 156's), due to be replaced by 170's,
>>> which is why I think only two sets were ever re-liveried; but it's
>>> running late.

>> 170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>before reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end doors.
>>Presumably the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>
>It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a 170 +
>158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer seats than
>158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach 170s were better,
>but there were insufficient to meet a desire for every train to be 3
>coaches.

Back in the day, there were two routes:
Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.

They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted crew
would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).

The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping, to
the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to recover.
And for while that hop was permanently removed from the timetable.

I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the route
was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section given to the
local operator, and the south-east section rather more bizarrely given
to XC.

That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's, with
former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's two
cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the Standard
Class seating).

The other service was always very overcrowded north of Nottingham, so
they introduced a scheme, after swapping back to 158's, to add a second
two cars for that leg. On more than one occasion they threatened to also
split that service into two, with the Liverpool end being transferred to
whatever Northern was called that week (who also have an outlying
Leeds-Nottingham service) but I don't recall if the Norwich end would
have stayed with whatever East Midlands was called that week, or handed
over to whatever Anglia was called that week.

Anglia already had their own outlying service to Peterborough, usually
operated by a dogbox, from Ipswich via Ely at 0.5tph. And East Midlands
had no other services on the ECML south of Grantham, but did have the
Nottingham-Grantham-Skegness service and Lincoln-Spalding-Peterborough.

If EMR do eventually get some 3-car 170's back for the Liverpool-Norwich
service, it would mean an increase in capacity on the southern half of
the route, but potentially reduced on the northern half (compared to
4-car 158). I don't know if that strengthening has been suspended during
Covid.
--
Roland Perry

On 14/02/2022 06:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suc09m$cug$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:21:43 on Sun, 13 Feb
> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 12/02/2022 21:23, Roger Lynn wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2022 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ejekdi-boc.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 10:26:22 on Sat, 12
>>>> Feb 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 10/02/2022 10:49, Bob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-10 09:55:59 +0000, Scott said:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 23:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/ertms-on-the-east-coast-main-line/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would hope that they at least retain waysides at danger
>>>>>>>>> sites,  such as
>>>>>>>>> at draw bridges or at points -- even if it is a simple stop and
>>>>>>>>> proceed.
>>>>>>>>  No, all lineside signals are first covered, and eventually
>>>>>>>> removed. It's
>>>>>>>> much safer than lineside signalling. HS1 has operated this way
>>>>>>>> for  many
>>>>>>>> years, and all high speed routes are the same.
>>>>>>>  What happens if a train that is not equipped with cab signalling
>>>>>>> (eg
>>>>>>> empty carriage stock or a charter train) needs to travel on the
>>>>>>> route?
>>>>>>> Does this mean many train types unable to use the WCML even in
>>>>>>> exceptional circumstances?
>>>>>>  ECML, not WCML.  The short answer is, no rolling stock lacking the
>>>>>> relevant ETCS2 hardware will be able to operate over the route
>>>>>> (King's
>>>>>> Cross and Moorgate to Royston and almost-Grantham, including the
>>>>>> Hertford Loop).  Many of the trains that regularly use the route
>>>>>> already have the needed equipment as-built (Thameslink, 80x,
>>>>>> 717).  One
>>>>>> of the reasons for the Cambrian line pilot scheme was to iron out the
>>>>>> bugs involved in retrofitting legacy rolling stock for operation
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> this system, and on the basis of that, the legacy fleets, as well as
>>>>>> freight locomotives and various "yellow trains" are to be
>>>>>> so-upgraded.
>>>>>> There is a project to work on fitting the needed equipment to certain
>>>>>> heritage locomotives as well (eg Tornado, a Deltic).  For any other
>>>>>> purposes, the options are to modify trains (if they are expected
>>>>>> to use
>>>>>> the route regularly, eg charter fleet) or arrange for a suitably
>>>>>> equiped locomotive (eg from the freight fleet).  It is likely that
>>>>>> should the ECML work out, similar conversions will be made to other
>>>>>> routes as they come due for resignalling.
>>>>>
>>>>> The RailEngineer article referenced above mentions various fleets
>>>>> that will be modified, but omits the 158s (or 170s or whatever is
>>>>> used these days) on the Norwich to Liverpool via Peterborough and
>>>>> Grantham route. Are these likely to be upgraded or replaced?
>>>>
>>>> 158's (most of the time, so a few 156's), due to be replaced by 170's,
>>>> which is why I think only two sets were ever re-liveried; but it's
>>>> running late.
>
>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>> before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end doors.
>>> Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>
>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a 170
>> + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer seats
>> than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach 170s were
>> better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for every train
>> to be 3 coaches.
>
> Back in the day, there were two routes:
> Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
> Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>
> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
> timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
> crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted crew
> would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>
> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping, to
> the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to recover.
> And for while that hop was permanently removed from the timetable.
>
> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the route
> was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section given to the
> local operator, and the south-east section rather more bizarrely given
> to XC.
South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country services
so that wasn't a bizarre decision. What was bizarre was diverting them
to Nottingham.
>
> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's, with
> former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's two
> cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the Standard
> Class seating).
We've always had four car 170s on some Cardiff services. I've seen five
and six as well on rare occasions. You may even hear an apology when a
two unit service is reduced to a single unit.
>
> The other service was always very overcrowded north of Nottingham, so
> they introduced a scheme, after swapping back to 158's, to add a second
> two cars for that leg. On more than one occasion they threatened to also
> split that service into two, with the Liverpool end being transferred to
> whatever Northern was called that week (who also have an outlying
> Leeds-Nottingham service) but I don't recall if the Norwich end would
> have stayed with whatever East Midlands was called that week, or handed
> over to whatever Anglia was called that week.
>
> Anglia already had their own outlying service to Peterborough, usually
> operated by a dogbox, from Ipswich via Ely at 0.5tph. And East Midlands
> had no other services on the ECML south of Grantham, but did have the
> Nottingham-Grantham-Skegness service and Lincoln-Spalding-Peterborough.
>
> If EMR do eventually get some 3-car 170's back for the Liverpool-Norwich
> service, it would mean an increase in capacity on the southern half of
> the route, but potentially reduced on the northern half (compared to
> 4-car 158). I don't know if that strengthening has been suspended during
> Covid.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>
> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's, with
> former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's two
> cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the Standard
> Class seating).
>

XC have ~recently gained around five 170 centre cars, augment their fleet.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end
>>>>doors. Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>
>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a
>>>170 + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer
>>>seats than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach
>>>170s were better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for
>>>every train to be 3 coaches.

>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
>>Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.

>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
>>timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
>>crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted
>>crew would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).

>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping,
>>to the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to
>>recover. And for while that hop was permanently removed from the
>>timetable.

>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>route was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section
>>given to the local operator, and the south-east section rather more
>>bizarrely given to XC.

>South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.

Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section of
Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
on the route at all.

Meanwhile, XC had a presence through Burton on Trent to Derby and
Sheffield, so were already within 7 miles of Nottingham.

>What was bizarre was diverting them to Nottingham.

My memory is hazy of who previously operated the
Nottingham-Derby-Birmingham service; MML (as EMT would have been then)
perhaps?

>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's,
>>with former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's
>>two cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the
>>Standard Class seating).

>We've always had four car 170s on some Cardiff services. I've seen
>five and six as well on rare occasions. You may even hear an apology
>when a two unit service is reduced to a single unit.

Four car 170's are especially inefficient because you have two sets of
"wasted" space, and no corridor connection. I think I've only ever seen
multi-unit 170's to Stansted twice in ten years, and I that's when one
half was probably rescuing another (locked out, you'd need a second
guard) one.

--
Roland Perry

In message <sudesr$lde$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:59 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's, with
>> former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's two
>> cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the Standard
>> Class seating).
>
>XC have ~recently gained around five 170 centre cars, augment their fleet.

That'll help. In fact I don't remember seeing a 2-car one for ages, but
put that down to a Covid-reduced timetable.
--
Roland Perry