Great Western Coffee Shop

There were delays and cancellations at Wokingham for nearly four hours yesterday afternoon after the 14:54 from Reading to London Waterloo was accidently sent towards Crowthorne.

The driver was able to stop with the rear of the train still on the third rail but blocking the junction. (Not sure about the level crossing.)

Two trains, one to Gatwick and the following service to Waterloo were trapped behind between Winnersh Triangle and Wokingham and a service from London was caught between Bracknell and Wokingham.

Fleets of taxis were ordered to get passengers moving.  The three trapped trains were eventually able to reverse to Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle and Bracknell respectively.  It is reported those on the train which took the wrong route were evacuated after around two hours.  The train itself needed fitters to come from Waterloo to tie up shoegear before it could be brought back into the platform at Wokingham some three hours after the incident began.

The traction current had to be turned off to get the shoegear lifted, back on to move the train and then off again to lower the shoegear which obviously all took time.  However it does seem an awful lot of time to clear the problem.  Thankfully the unit was still able to pick up some current.  In previous incidents a rescue unit has been needed if the train had reached the end of the third rail.

Oops ... and, as you say, not the first time.

Naughty thought ...  why not fill the little gaps in the third rail between Reading and Guildford, and Guilidford and Redhill  ;D ;D

I saw the end of that yesterday, without knowing the cause, and only worked out later last night what it must have been. Having been asked how the trains were running, and on checking finding they weren't, I looked out and saw the crossing was closed. I went out (this was about 18:25) as an SWR train (2x458) was crossing the road, backwards, at walking pace - by the time I was on the bridge and could see its back (nominally leading) end it had passed the junction.

I did see what happened when it was platformed. A load of people did get off and rush towards the flock of taxis waiting, pausing only to object that the toilets were locked (officially only open when the ticket office is, which it wasn't, but I'm sure it's often closed even then). It struck me that they were less vocally and visibly hacked off than I 'd expect by being stuck on a train for three hours - maybe those ones had been taken off in situ.

Among the dozen or so NR and SWR staff there was also a Siemens guy (and van). Once the power had been cut, and tested, he leaned down and took off a couple of big tie-wraps (or similar) from the two bogies that had shoe-gear on at the London end. Then he and a couple of NR types walked once round the train, and it went back into service and set off to Waterloo. That was puzzling - if the train was not damaged, why was it stuck for so long?

I've come to the conclusion that they probably replaced the damaged shoegear before recovering the train.  If the Siemens response to a "train straying off the third rail" call-out was a van with spare shoegear in it, it takes little extra time after taking off the damaged ones. The alternative would leave a defective train with no access to the relevant bogies due to the platform. Of course it may have taken some time to decide that was the right intervention, and then find and send out the spares.

I knew our "Wokingham correspondent" will be able to fill in some details.   ;D

Just a train length clear of the junction, or up to signal 502, would have kept the train undamaged, and on juice.  It could then be reversed out on the signaller's instructions.

You're right, of course - the shoes are designed to sit clear of the running rails when unsupported, so will not be damaged just by crossing points. After all, they do that all the time! I was looking for a reason for it to take three hours.

I have found out why the shoes needed to be tied up, though, but only on that side. If you hold on a few minutes I'll process the photographic evidence.

Have you gone off to your dark room?  ;D

This picture was taken in April this year, looking "down" towards the station. 2C46 was hoping to take the line off towards our leftright (Up Main), but instead came straight on towards us (Up Guildford). This junction has had a lot of intermittent tinkering over several years, as well as that emergency repair last year and the replacement of one or more of the crossings (still visible by the signal box). The yellow paint must be related to some of that.

One of the effects this frequent work may be that the third rail installed is not ideal; some bits may be left out if trains can still run. Perhaps "we'll put them in when the work's finished". However, I suspect it's always been like this.

The important feature is that continuous run to the right of the points, which the shoes would need to climb on top of as the train went back into the station. Now a gap could have been left there, whether a short length of third rail was added opposite or not. If you look at the Down Main, there is such a gap where the feed changes side, but then there's a much longer gap with no power from either side where it crosses the Up Guildford.

So it is a bit of an own goal - a small change to the track would allow recovery by phone calls alone, or at worst a "wait for a MOM" incident. And if it does need those shoes tied up, should that really take three hours?

Thats interesting STUVING.  In my days on the Southern area, the conductor rail always used to extend over the junction on the un-electrified route for at least a trains length.  NR cutbacks when the junction was last relayed.....?

I expect that both the signaller and driver concerned, though, will be called in for 'tea and biscuits' but possibly without either the tea or the biscuits!

Was this a problem / glitch of ARS ?

What was the junction signal showing and was there a reasonable sighting distance from the cab to see the signal and dependant on the speed of the train such that the driver couldn't stop the train before the junction pointwork ?

Does the junction have flashing yellows on the approach to the junction if the minor route is cleared ?

All will probably become clear if and when an RAIB report is issued if indeed reports of incidents of this nature are investigated.

No ARS at Wokingham.  Its a mechanical signalbox that works colourlight signals.  No flashing yellows.  Probably won't be any independent investigation.

It was due for recontrol from Basingstoke last year, though that has been put off and I'm not sure if there is a definite date for it now. Before that initial due date, a lot of work was done there, I think by the mechanical signalling team, which I assumed would do all the local preparation for recontrol. As there's no sign of any point motors going in, is there any other way of automating points ready for such a changeover? Is there some kind of remote controlled multiple points activator that can be put into the base of the signal box, for example?

Its very rare that I travel in third rail country but in cases like the junction depicted I have seen ramps on the sides of the conductor rail so that the current pick-up shoes can regain their normal position for taking current. Perhaps in this case the powers to be deemed it not necessary as no electric trains would pass over the junction towards Guildford.

 ::)

I didn't realise it was a local box, I thought it would be a powerbox/signalling centre (Feltham maybe) being so close to the capital.

The SWT (now SWR) Desiro fleet has something missing that is present on the 350/1.  The latter have shoes that can be raised or lowered from the cab.  I have it on good authority that the bogie end of the raise/lower hardware was not fitted to 450/444 as a minor cost saving - although with 162 vehicles it’ll be a noticeable sum...

I was at Bournemouth years ago and they had a mobile teaching aid next to Platform 1 where drivers were practicing using the wooden paddle, (carried on board), to lift the shoe prior to securing it up with ty-wraps.

As said above there is another option for the third rail at such a junction, they can provide a ‘side entry ramp’ on the side of the continuous section of third rail.   The side entry ramps can be seen at some crossovers and junctions where one route or other has a continuous section of rail past the points.

Will try and find a picture:  https://goo.gl/images/J7PUif

Paul

I can't see any evidence on the photo of a side entry ramp on the down lines conductor rail for a unit exiting the siding on the left of the photo which appears to be electrified so a similar "tie up the pick-up shoes" should be necessary on electrics exiting that siding.

There has been, a fairly, recent change to the placing of conductor rails in junction areas. The changes revolve around ensuring that no live conductor rails will extend into an area where the conrail has been discharged as part of worksite.  Part of the removal is to do with negative bonding straps placed on the conrail during an isolation, this will become even more acute as the negative bonding devices are installed a substations and TP Huts

The number of "live floaters", side ramps etc have been where gapping analysis allow to be removed.  As for extending the conrail down the Northdowns route I expect this will be a question in the enquiry, there will be a balance of the cost (install & maintenance)  and the risk of a train being incorrectly routed; given the number of trains per day against the number of incorrectly routed trains in the last 5, 10 years.

I remember the paddle form my BR SR days.

The other formidable thing that used to be (still?) carried was the shorting bar which was a wooden pole with a bent steel hook which you put over the conrail and then levered to touch the running rail with. I was shown how to use one in theory but never used it in practice, I do remember we were told to turn your head away and not watch the spark!

And you won't see an electric train in it, either. It was lengthened to 8-car a long time ago, like over ten years, with third rail only on half of that, but seems to have gone out of use. I last saw a turbo in it several years ago, so it may be entirely U/S. It's not shown as running line in the sectional appendix, but as non-NR sidings are; I'm not sure what that implies.

This is what the driver should have seen before departing the platform at Wokingham.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/wkmsig.jpg)

Stuving, in your photo isn't the line to Bracknell/Waterloo the line to the right not left?

So it looks like a driver error then if the white indicated route lights were not alight which is what it would be for the Guildford line unless there was a dodgy wire somewhere in the electrics which displayed the indicated route lights or as I said in a previous post on this thread, the train was a non-stopper and by the time the driver had sighted the signal with unlit route indicator lights braking distance was such that the train couldn't be stopped before traversing the junction pointwork.

I wonder if the siding was "upgraded" for the Reading blockades / remodelling to allow GWR to turn back / stable.   Non NR siding I think it means its not a network siding but a single TOC who pays for the maintenance and connection, it my by OOS and clipped out of use.

The SWR description on Journey Check said "due to an operational incident". The GWR version said "due to a broken down train".

I suppose a car that has run out of petrol could be described as broken down. There are various flavours of broken down of course.

You are right - my imperfect adjustment of viewing direction; sorry.

Sometimes, if there is money in the budget (not very often, then), mechanical points would be converted to power operation prior to a resignalling changeover.  This would be done to reduce the workload during the commissioning.  The power point mechanism would be temporarily operated by a 'circuit controller' box which itself is operated off an existing mechanical lever in the signalbox.

The yellow paint you can see in your photograph is purley there to highlight items of S&T and E&P equipment so that the S&C Tamping Machine doesn't strike them during maintenance (well, in my experience, not too often!).

In fact, having checked up, it was once the reception siding for the tramway to a brickworks - still there on the map in 1931. That was very long, at over 300m, and with a headshunt. In 1998 the OS map showed a loop, including part of the headshunt to make more like 500 m. Of course OS surveyors had stopped being punctilious about such details by then.

What I remember (from about that date) was a refurbishment, which may even have shortened the overall (but unusable) length, and I think may have been when it was electrified for a short distance. As I never saw anything electric in it I can believe the Main Line's third rail was never altered to make it usable. This was some time before the "Wokingham turnback" work, so unlikely to be related to RASR.

The only use I can recall of that siding was during an unplanned disruption (line to Reading blocked) five years ago. SWT then turned their trains as quickly as they could, bearing in mind the allowed dwell in the timetable is minus two minutes, or swapped their trains from P2 to P1. But their trains don't need a new crew, while GWR ones do. On that occasion one train (at least) was parked in the siding so its crew could go off by taxi, without blocking P2, and a new one were sent out to pick up the train and load it at P2.

If you look (or looked at the time) at the various online sources of information on yesterday's goings-on, you could get quite confused. SWR and National Rail referred to it as "an operational incident" - I can see that might mean "this is embarrassing, we'd rather not go into details". GWR JourneyCheck, however, said it was a broken down train; well it wasn't one of theirs, was it?

RTT (or rather its sources) can't cope with trains going in reverse, and struggles when several are so late it's hard to know which train is which; that much is well known. Also, the reason given that we see is only shown for cancellations, not delays, and is only an initial entered code which may be altered later in the more detailed version used internally. But even so, those codes were unconvincing.

The train that was singing "Oh! Mr signaller, what shall we do? I want to go to Bracknell and you've sent me on towards Sandhurst" was 2C46, shown as cancelled from Wokingham "due to an issue with the train crew (TG)". That's the usual code for no driver being available, though arguably it's not the right one (TA and TI overlap with it). There was also a round trip cancelled with this code not long before; that presumably was a staff shortage. The later SWR trains that were turned at Ascot show as cancelled between Ascot and Reading due to the train operator's request (TB).

However, TG also covers driver errors of several kinds.  As we saw the last time a train took a wrong turn, the driver is responsible for detecting (from signals) mis-routing and is expected to take action to prevent or mitigate it as soon as possible. At Wokingham, assuming the points were not moved after the train passed the signal (not possible, I hope), the feather lights are there to be seen by the driver before starting (as in bobm's picture). So there will be an internal "TG" incident, but there should be another one coded "OC", signaller error.

GWR trains continued to run, with interruptions, but only towards Reading, and only as many as had got out past Wokingham in time. Those unable to depart Reading were not defined as cancelled and given a reason until the end of the incident (which is normal). When they were, they showed up as OC, though there are also some shown as TG (of course that could be due to GWR's own staff shortages). 

Incidentally, the fact that there is still a mechanical signalbox by the station means the driver and signaller could be in direct communication at all times, simply by leaning out of their windows and rasing their voices a bit. So if they had any differences to settle, that could be done directly one-to-one, and if it came to "I'll see you outside" that wasn't far either (albeit against the rules).