Track replacement at Ruislip

[Ben]

So I see theres been some track replacement at Ruislip. New rail, new sleepers, apparently altered cant. I also hear they replaced the wrong road...

The Eastbound has just been renewed, I can just about remember the last time they did this I think. However I cant remember when the westbound was last replaced. Indeed it stil has bullhead rail, chairs, and woden sleepers whereas the eastbound didnt. I also hear that during excavation for drainage work they cut through the water/sewage supply for the taxi company in the former goods yard.

Is there any substance in these claimes; if there is, how much money was wasted, if not, was was the older formation of the westbound not replaced first?

Many thanks!

[neasdena60]

The wrong road? I very much doubt it. But you never know...

[citysig]

A ridiculously huge planning operation is undertaken before any major works - probably more so now than in years gone by because the penalties of over-runs on the Monday morning are normally the noose around a planner's neck.

Track replacement is not just a group of lads turning up one Saturday morning with a white van load of rails, some sleepers and a couple of shovels.

As for the drain rumours, I cannot confirm them, but remember in many projects where digging is involved, it is sometimes the case that such things "get in the way" and sometimes it can be merely a mis-measurement or a case of nobody realising / being informed it was there.

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2009 14:56:48 GMT @citysig said:

Track replacement is not just a group of lads turning up one Saturday morning with a white van load of rails, some sleepers and a couple of shovels.

Are you sure? Some of the work is usually done to such a high standard, there have been occasions where have had to get our own PWay or ERU out on a Monday to finish the job properly!

[stanmorek]

The infraco line closures database shows planned BTR works on the Metropolitan eastbound road between Eastcote and Ruislip 20-23 March.

RE: the damaged pipe. The exact route may have not been known. Also it may have already been in such a poor condition that disturbance in the soil nearby may have caused damage.

When we broke up and replaced the concrete slab at the gated Granville Gardens entrance to Ealing Common Depot in 2002 we came across an old uncharted pipe about 1.5m below ground level. It was a small diameter cast iron pipe running under the depot roads. It was thought to be a redundant gas feed to the old point heaters.

[swedishblue]

Apr 8, 2009 15:19:02 GMT @linecontroller66 said:

Apr 8, 2009 14:56:48 GMT @citysig said:

Track replacement is not just a group of lads turning up one Saturday morning with a white van load of rails, some sleepers and a couple of shovels.

Are you sure? Some of the work is usually done to such a high standard, there have been occasions where have had to get our own PWay or ERU out on a Monday to finish the job properly!

I agree entirely. I've seen emergency speed restrictions put in place at various locations over the years, following weekend engineering work that has been completed to a standard that is not fit for a toy railway. As usual, LU clears up the mess it has already paid thousands for.

[stanmorek]

How many P-way gangs does LUL have then?

[citysig]

Apr 8, 2009 15:19:02 GMT @linecontroller66 said:

Are you sure? Some of the work is usually done to such a high standard, there have been occasions where have had to get our own PWay or ERU out on a Monday to finish the job properly!

Apr 8, 2009 18:35:07 GMT @swedishblue said:

I agree entirely. I've seen emergency speed restrictions put in place at various locations over the years, following weekend engineering work that has been completed to a standard that is not fit for a toy railway. As usual, LU clears up the mess it has already paid thousands for.

I am sure you will both agree that it is a lot more rare than it used to be.

[Deleted]

Who is responsible for that section of the Met/Piccadilly lines?

if it is Tubelines, then did they not also use 30 miles of the wrong cabling on the Jubilee a few months back?

[Colin]

I would have thought it would be Metronet.

As for the Jubilee and the wrong cable affair, it is my understanding that the cable was laid in good faith but that the specifications were changed at some point and the information did not filter through correctly.

[Chris M]

Apr 9, 2009 13:30:19 GMT @ltmuseumguy said:

Who is responsible for that section of the Met/Piccadilly lines?

This map shows that Metronet is responsible for that section of railway.

[Deleted]

Apr 9, 2009 12:02:35 GMT @citysig said:

Apr 8, 2009 15:19:02 GMT @linecontroller66 said:

Are you sure? Some of the work is usually done to such a high standard, there have been occasions where have had to get our own PWay or ERU out on a Monday to finish the job properly!

Apr 8, 2009 18:35:07 GMT @swedishblue said:

I agree entirely. I've seen emergency speed restrictions put in place at various locations over the years, following weekend engineering work that has been completed to a standard that is not fit for a toy railway. As usual, LU clears up the mess it has already paid thousands for.

I am sure you will both agree that it is a lot more rare than it used to be.

It certainly is a lot less common in recent times. However, I can't wait for the morning we're on together and the bodgers have struck again. I will, of course, allow you to be in control that part of the railway!

[metman]

I thought Tubelines maintains all the tracks between Wembley Pk and Finchley Road?

[Chris M]

Apr 9, 2009 19:31:55 GMT metman said:

I thought Tubelines maintains all the tracks between Wembley Pk and Finchley Road?

See the "BCV", "SSL" and "Tubelines" maps at www.cryptart.com/tube/

[metman]

Cheers, some interesting maps, showing all the crossovers and links.

[ruislip]

According to the map referenced herein, what is a "Section 12 station."?

[Colin]

The Fire Precautions Act (sub surface railways) 1989 came into being via section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The 1989 Act was a direct result of the Kings Cross fire in 1987.

So in railway terms (not just LU!!), section 12 means the Fire Precautions Act (sub surface railways) 1989.

Section 12, in the most simple of terms, applies to stations with substantially covered platforms below street level, or indeed stations wholly underground. The most obvious indicator that you are on a section 12 station are the red fire call points.

That last paragraph is deliberately vague as there is far far far more to it than that; I'm just giving the basic answer to the question.

[orienteer]

Seem to recall the last time the eastbound track at Ruislip Station was replaced, the first train next morning rubbed its cant rails against the platform

[Ben]

The cant was always 'extreme' going into the eastbound under the bridge

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2009 3:21:39 GMT Colin said:

The Fire Precautions Act (sub surface railways) 1989 came into being via section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The 1989 Act was a direct result of the Kings Cross fire in 1987.

So in railway terms (not just LU!!), section 12 means the Fire Precautions Act (sub surface railways) 1989.

Section 12, in the most simple of terms, applies to stations with substantially covered platforms below street level, or indeed stations wholly underground. The most obvious indicator that you are on a section 12 station are the red fire call points.

That last paragraph is deliberately vague as there is far far far more to it than that; I'm just giving the basic answer to the question.

You may be interested to read that a new fire precautions act (sub surface railway) act comes into force later in 2009.

Read it at www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090782_en_1

[mrfs42]

Apr 12, 2009 23:03:37 GMT Ben said:

The cant was always 'extreme' going into the eastbound under the bridge

I think orienteer means 'cant' in the sense of the outside of the roof/monitor rails on the vehicles, rather than the cant applied to the running rails!

[stanmorek]

Apr 13, 2009 1:11:03 GMT @centralsimon said:

Apr 10, 2009 3:21:39 GMT Colin said:

The Fire Precautions Act (sub surface railways) 1989 came into being via section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The 1989 Act was a direct result of the Kings Cross fire in 1987.

So in railway terms (not just LU!!), section 12 means the Fire Precautions Act (sub surface railways) 1989.

Section 12, in the most simple of terms, applies to stations with substantially covered platforms below street level, or indeed stations wholly underground. The most obvious indicator that you are on a section 12 station are the red fire call points.

That last paragraph is deliberately vague as there is far far far more to it than that; I'm just giving the basic answer to the question.

You may be interested to read that a new fire precautions act (sub surface railway) act comes into force later in 2009.

Read it at www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20090782_en_1

Interesting. What level of knowledge of safety legislation are operational station staff, e.g. supervisor, GSM, etc trained and examined on? I assume the relevant details of parlimentary acts and regulations they need to know are included in the LUL Rule Books? My question also applies to all other LUL grades.

[flippyff]

Apr 9, 2009 21:38:47 GMT Chris M said:

Apr 9, 2009 19:31:55 GMT metman said:

I thought Tubelines maintains all the tracks between Wembley Pk and Finchley Road?

See the "BCV", "SSL" and "Tubelines" maps at www.cryptart.com/tube/

What purpose did/does the 'coded map' serve and why does it show proposed lines/extensions such as the Bakerloo to Camberwell?

TIA

Simon

[Chris M]

We've had a thread about that map recently, and although I can't immediately find it one of the experts in thread archaeology will dig it up shortly I'm sure.
I don't remember there being a definitive answer as to why certain proposed/disused lines are shown and others aren't.

[slugabed]

May 5, 2009 20:30:53 GMT Chris M said:

We've had a thread about that map recently, and although I can't immediately find it one of the experts in thread archaeology will dig it up shortly I'm sure.
I don't remember there being a definitive answer as to why certain proposed/disused lines are shown and others aren't.

It's in the "Signalling and track" section,thread title "BRS code map again" started by Ben on 31st March this year,but was discussed in earlier threads as the thread name implies.
As I recall the consensus reaction to the question as to what qualified a feature for inclusion ,or not,was bafflement.....

[Chris M]

Cheers slugabed - I didn't think to look in that section (doh!)

Anyway, here is the link to the thread - districtdave.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Signals&action=display&thread=10564

[Deleted]

It is so reassuring to hear that LT suffers from the same level of competance from its contractors as the national network. Having been involved with engineering work on a traincrew level up until nine years ago (today!) when I left EWS, I can state that engineering work problems were one of the reasons I got out! It got to the stage many years ago that absolutely nothing surprised me anymore!

I always found that the standard of work and organisation deteriorated the nearer the job was to London. I could easily fill a book with some of the escapades that went on but, as a current employee on the national network, it would probably cost me my job! Suffice to say that the penalty payments for engineering overruns sometimes went into millions!

Every so often the word got out that the 'Brass' (Management) were to visit a site. One such occasion was at Mortimer (Basingstoke to Reading line) one Sunday in the 'Mainline Freight' era. The previous weekend had been a total shambles with the trains entering the possesion in the wrong order and with the wrong wagons. My Secondman and I had been warned to be on our best behaviour as the Management would be out in force. We were rostered to travel by taxi to Mortimer to board a class 37. On arrival it transpired that the train in front of us was the one that should have been behind us so we were to sit tight. After several hours of doing nothing I was resting my eyes while my mate was checking out the racing form. Out of the corner of one eye I noticed an individual climbing up the steps of our locomotive. As he entered the cab I turned round to greet him with 'I hope you've got some good news about us ****ing off mate!' to which he replied 'Good afternoon. Kim Jordan, Managing Director, Mainline Freight'...... It was one of those 'Ground? Swallow me now!' moments. Mr Jordan actually stayed on the loco for nearly an hour talking things over and asking our opinion about what could be done to improve things. Subsequently, whenever he visited Eastleigh, he always spent time in the Drivers room not only talking but making notes. It was not by accident that, of the five Freight 'Train Operating Units' set up in the lead up to privatisation, Mainline Freight was the best performer by a country mile.

Not strictly an engineering story but a factual one nonetheless concerned some rebuilding work done in the Diesel depot in Eastleigh shed. The refuelling of locomotives was to be moved from inside the old Diesel Depot building outside onto a through road. A new fuel point was to be built with a small roofed structure over the top of it. The track was removed in the relevant area and a concrete 'drip tray' laid. Then the contractors drilled the holes in the concrete for the chairs for the new track. At this point someone happened to look along the line of the new holes....... They had been drilled to accomodate a track gauge of approx. 4'3"! The holes were hurriedly redrilled in the correct position but, to this day, the outside fuel point has an off-centre drip tray!

[stanmorek]

Talking about engineering trains entering a possesion in the wrong sequence, during a District line weekend closure, 100m of six foot drainage was being replaced in the Blackfriars area. It was and still is as far I know common practice for the drainage contractor to book its own site within and "piggy back" onto a bigger possession for track replacement. Therefore Balfour Beatty Rail held sway as it was their possession.

For the drainage works two trains full of materials were booked for the possession, one with the pipes and the other with new ballast, shingle, etc. The replacement work involves digging a trench in the six foot to take out the existing drains. This was done by the saturday but BBR commandeered one of the trains for its own track materials and the ballast meant for the drainage site reloaded when an empty train returned to Ruislip. Unfortunately this meant the order of trains reversed and ballast train entered the worksite first. All the piping material and equipment had to be handballed up the tunnel past the train in front eating into possession time. Without reinstatement of the ballast, the track sleeper ends were basically overhanging a huge hole and no trains were going to pass especially the stack of works trains leaving late sunday/early monday before hand back.

[stanmorek]

May 5, 2009 22:09:24 GMT @glyn said:

Not strictly an engineering story but a factual one nonetheless concerned some rebuilding work done in the Diesel depot in Eastleigh shed. The refuelling of locomotives was to be moved from inside the old Diesel Depot building outside onto a through road. A new fuel point was to be built with a small roofed structure over the top of it. The track was removed in the relevant area and a concrete 'drip tray' laid. Then the contractors drilled the holes in the concrete for the chairs for the new track. At this point someone happened to look along the line of the new holes....... They had been drilled to accomodate a track gauge of approx. 4'3"! The holes were hurriedly redrilled in the correct position but, to this day, the outside fuel point has an off-centre drip tray!

It would be interesting to know if the contractor grouted up the wrong holes before re-drilling especially if the old and news holes are going to be close to each other. I've experienced a similar problem for the fixing bolts to an escalator motor base.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2009 15:49:46 GMT @stanmorek said:

Interesting. What level of knowledge of safety legislation are operational station staff, e.g. supervisor, GSM, etc trained and examined on? I assume the relevant details of parlimentary acts and regulations they need to know are included in the LUL Rule Books? My question also applies to all other LUL grades.

Fire tests have to be taken on a regular basis - I think for T/Op's it's officially every two years but it's normally done every year as part of the annual refresher training, which currently goes by the acronym CDP. The tests are tailored to grades - the one a T/Op sits is different to that which a CSA sits, for instance, because there are different requirements for each role. While I can't say with complete certainty, I expect the same holds true as you climb up the grades. (If I recall correctly, our trainer at Ashfield House said that the one for CSA is actually more comprehensive than the one for T/Ops. I've never had any problem with the fire tests but it probably helps that they're multiple choice which has always been a strong point of mine!)

The actual refresher training tends to take the form of being shown a video (again, tailored to grades: the T/Op one focuses on trackside fires, smoke in carriages, arcing and fusing, etc and the CSA one is station oriented), some group discussion, and then the test. If any wrong answers are given then those may be discussed. The relevant regulations are discussed, such as the Electricity at Work ones (14 and 15 apply, IIRC!).

Does that answer the question or am I barking up the wrong tree there?