Discussion in 'Civil Engineering M.I.C.' started by ralphchadkirk, Mar 31, 2009.
Sadly it's too big to PM - send me your email address and i'll drop it off at Ropley on disk.
I'm gonna put it online here. A couple are up now (not PTS but relevent). Those who would still like it on disk, let me know.
Where is it on Youtube? Can't seem to find it - Got 4 to choose form so it seems...
I still haven't had the time to upload the PTS course ones
Re: May 2009 Issue
I've taken this up with an acquaintance who works for RSSB. Whilst he's not directly involved with the rule book he is very knowledgeable about it and is aware that there have been long discussions as to whether to drop the terminology of 'four foot' 'six foot' and 'ten foot' and replace them with something else, more modern. He is quite adamant that the diagram G2.1 is simply an example of an arrangement and not definitive as to order and pointed out that the majority of the multi track sections of the East Coast main line are laid out as cess/4'/10'/4'/6'/4'/10'/4'/cess, as is some of the West Coast and, indeed, other lines.
Re: May 2009 Issue
As a railwayman of some 30 years standing I will agree that diagram G2.1 is an 'example' and not everywhere conforms to it (there are always exceptions on the railway!) but what RSF describes is actually the 'norm' in railway practice. Effectively, as someone posted earlier, the six foot is the space between 2 lines of a pair, the ten foot is the space between separate pairs and these can be in different configurations which could lead to the examples you quote on the ECML and certain sections of the WCML. It comes down to local knowledge.
With regard changing the terminology, don't get me started on that one; The call for change is often from someone new to the industry who fails to comprehend basic railway terminology, I think training is actually the issue. If you keep changing terminology, the old terms still linger on (human nature) and we end up with even more names for newcomers to remember. Yes there are times when things need to change but often these days it is just for the sake of change. The Rule Book has gone through various changes in the name of clarity but, in my opinion, has become more ambiguous and open to misinterpretation than the 1972 version.
Nigel, were you ever right.
Some of the changes to the rule book made in order to make it more "user friendly" and easy to understand for the kid graduate managers, and others who now pervade the industry have actually, had the opposite effect.
I also suspect that there is a bit of a job creation programme within the RSSB
The use of terminology that has developed over the years and is understood by all (given proper training) aids correct understanding, particularly in respect of safety critical communication.
The requirement for those with experience in the job to have to re-learn what they have been using for years in addition to those who think that they know it all (those from Sainsburys, et al) getting it wrong has the opposite effect.
Back to the track safety terms
It should be remembered that the terms are used to identify areas of the line and are not meant to identify exact distances
I don't agree that what RSF (and others at the MHR) has been arguing is the 'norm' in railway practise. It quite possibly is on the old Southern network where it was common to have up/down/up/down layouts but it was much more common to have up/up/down/down layouts, especially where goods loops existed and the ten foot was always between the loop and main line. This practise was perpetuated when goods loops were then joined to provide four track lines. To a large extent the ten foot was dictated by where the signal posts were required to be and that is usually on the left hand side of the line, looking in the direction of running.
I agree that the modern rule book doesn't seem as easy to understand as the 1950 rule book but it may well be an age thing. I learnt the 1950 (1961 version) rule book when I was young and enthusiastic. I look at todays Group Standard rulebook and try and assimilate the various sections to the old one.
RSSB run a management training course for their staff whereby they spend a week on the NYMR learning all aspects of traditional railway operation. This gives them first hand experience of shunting both on the ground and in the driving position, signalling, footplate operation on both steam and diesel, and as much else as can be crammed in to a week. Most of the people coming on that course have no experience of railway operations at all. Some, but by no means all, of the participants on the course will be involved in writing standards, which may include the rule book. It seems, from my experience, to be the norm for civil servants and other government persons to be given work that they have no previous experience of. It is probable that, by adopting this approach, people are encouraged to think outside the box and not to revert to the traditional ideas and approach because that's what they've been brought up with.
And most of the WCML follows RSF's "rule"....as in up/down/up/down
A whole week, eh?
Re: May 2009 Issue
'Most' isn't all. So you're now agreeing that you were wrong and that the ten foot is not necessarily in the middle of a four track layout as you previously insisted?
Well, five day week! They all seem to enjoy it tremendously and the footplate trip on a steam loco leaves them speechless. Well, it would, wouldn't it? =D>
No, it can still go Up/Down/10ft/Up/Down
Blimey, you had me worried there, I thought that you meant seven days and was worried that they would get too experienced and over confident!
Oh don't take them on steam, you'll frighten the poor dears and they'll get grubby
Too true! I had one lass for her footplate ride (quite a few females come on these RSSB courses) and she appeared to be hanging on tightly to the handbrake. I asked her if she was OK and she said she'd never been so terrified in her life! I responded by asking her if she wanted to get off at the next station and got the response of 'Not likely; it's absolutely fantastic, even if I am terrified!'
Yup, I've fired to drivers like that!
Just as a further point to note.
6ft between a pair of tracks and 10ft between pairs of tracks.
This relates to 2 tracks alongside each other whatever their direction of traffic.
North of York train running changes from UP/ UP - DOWN / DOWN to UP/ DOWN - UP / DOWN but the space designation remains the same 6ft - 10ft - 6ft
Whatever the space is called either 10ft or 6ft bears no relation to actual distance.
In a number of locations especially south of York in the 4 track areas between Holgate and Colton. The 6ft is actually wider than the 10ft.
Yes, that's been established already, many times, by many people. ](*,)
The former South Western Division DOES have up/up/down/down as the norm therefore it is USL/6ft/UFL/10ft/DFL/6ft/DSL so the up lines are paired together as are the down lines, though this does vary at some locations. You are assuming that a pair is one up and one down. As I, and others, have said it is HOW the lines are paired that dictates where the 6ft and 10ft are. Oh and my experience is not only Southern, I worked on the LMR for 6 years (West Midlands) including working over onto WR metals.
I seem to recall that before the alterations for CTRL, the approach to Waterloo used to be:
Up / Down / Down / Up / Up / Down / Up / Down
(UW / DWF / DWS / UMR / UM / DM / UL / DL)
I wonder how the gaps were described in that lot!
Separate names with a comma.