|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 3 Dec 2014 23:55 from: Godfrey Earnshaw
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I base my trackwork designs on the accepted default recommended distances of 6ft and 10ft separation. By this I mean straight parallel tracks will have a nominal 6ft way and tracks then the tracks outside this will have a 10ft way as will goods sidings. However, I also separate my tracks by 10ft in passenger stations, including terminals. This is my assumption, based on the possible requirement for staff to need access to couplings and hoses when joining/separating vehicles. Is my assumption correct? Thank you Godders |
||
posted: 4 Dec 2014 08:15 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Godfrey Earnshaw wrote: I base my trackwork designs on the accepted default recommended distances of 6ft and 10ft separation. By this I mean straight parallel tracks will have a nominal 6ft way and tracks then the tracks outside this will have a 10ft way as will goods sidings. However, I also separate my tracks by 10ft in passenger stations, including terminals. This is my assumption, based on the possible requirement for staff to need access to couplings and hoses when joining/separating vehicles.Hi Godders, I think it is a reasonable working assumption for terminal stations and and junctions, although each case would need the actual drawings to be sure. If the platforms already exist there is the 9ft rule for special cases. I'm fairly sure someone will be able to provide instances of situations where staff need to go between vehicles even with only 6ft way to the adjacent track, especially where it is not a running line. For an ordinary passing station where trains are not normally split I think the usual 6ft way would apply. Bear in mind though that this is a minimum, there is no rule that it can't be wider. There is no mention on the official structure gauge drawing that the presence of the platform modifies the 6ft dimension: 2_040252_350000000.png 2_040306_490000000.png The above diagram is available full-size in the Image Gallery: gallery/2/original/2_040252_350000001.gif regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 6 Dec 2014 18:32 from: roythebus
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Tenterden Station only has 6' between the platform road and run-round loop. | ||
posted: 1 Mar 2015 09:11 from: D Foster
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I fear that the assumption is incorrect. There are several issues. 1. The space between tracks is effectively un-productive land - land had to be purchased for the railway to be built - a vast amount of land - which meant a vast amount of money (or shares in lieu there-of). The result is that for the vast majority of railway the original builders bought as little land as they could - they had no option. Also any non-productive land has to be kept in good order - vegetation control and drainage being the main items. (Even the modern railway has had to get back to good husbandry after many years of deferred maintenance - aka neglect). 2. Terminals - passenger station terminals are usually in towns - where land prices are usually considerable higher. This mitigates against dead space between tracks. The image here can be deceptive though. When we look at a modern terminus layout we may well see quite a bit of space between platform tracks. This can be because a loco release road, or two, has been removed. This space sometimes gets used to install safe walkways and water hydrants - even shore lines (power). A non-terminal example is Worcester Shrub Hill. This has a single mid road and siding used for ECS movements and stabling. There's a lot of space around this one road through the middle and a safe walkway. Looking at old pictures though one sees that there used to be four tracks though the platforms - the platform roads and two through roads - all spaced with the basic 6ft way. 3. I think that we should not retroactively apply our modern "risk averse" thinking to the railways. The first step is to not assume that staff should be protected (made safe) from the big and nasty trains. Following from carting and seafaring days the traditional thinking was that if you didn't want to get hit by a moving vehicle you shouldn't put yourself in front of it. This still very much applied when I joined the railway in the 1970s - and lasted well into the 80s if not the 90s. (The same applied to railway noise - if you didn't want your cosy home to be disturbed by the nasty trains - then don't buy a house near the railway... simple). 4. In all railway working the standard practice is for men to not be on or even about the track unless they have to be there. It is only enthusiasts that love to wander about admiring the scene. Workers want to get on, do the job and get off as quickly as possible. There is safety as well as self-interest in this. This reduces the risk of getting in front of any movement. As far as possible any work on rolling stack, whether it is maintenance or loading, is carried out on non-Running Lines. That is - in sidings, yards or depots. The lines through platforms and terminal platforms may or may not be designated as Running Lines - but they are inevitably used for Running Movements - i.e. trains making journeys between towns. This means that platform lines tend to not be the places where any activity is carried out around rolling stock... The key word there is "tend". Basically the way that stations are arranged means that some activities inevitably occur in platform areas. While we are clearly not going to see carts backing up to be loaded between these tracks we can see some traffic being loaded to/from the platforms - it is necessary to ensure that this doesn't impact on any adjacent track and also that no other movement affects the activity. This is a major factor in why and how platform - in fact stations - are signalled. The most obvious element being that anything standing in a platform should be protected by fixed signals - in both directions - conventionally by Running Signals in the normal (left handed) direction of travel and non-Running (shunt) signals in the wrong direction of travel. Two varieties of work will, however, put staff on the track with stock between platforms. Coupling is the more dangerous. In general coupling in platforms is avoided as much as possible - which might not be much. However; the working rule is that any movement coming onto standing stock must stop dead six feet from the stock and then draw on. Anyone (that's anyone with a functioning brain cell) will not be between the stock and the movement until the draw-on has been completed and everything is at a stand. Further - except when it is impossible, one always goes in between and climbs out on the platform side. Any brake hoses, jumpers or other connections are always connected / disconnected on the platform side as far as practical. Extreme care is used when this has to be done on the "outside". The other main work that can be carried out between platforms is maintenance. This is kept to an absolute minimum. This would be things like lubricating a loco and checking axleboxes or wheels. No-one hangs about doing these things. It is also possible that while we expect a train at a platform to be protected by Fixed Signals worked from the Signalbox we can also use the signals for the other line(s) to protect any work that needs to be done in the 6ft way. First a combination of knowledge of the timetable gives a little (tiny) indication of when work can be done. Secondly semaphore signals can be read from the back as well as the front so that station and train staff can see when anything is signalled to move through an adjacent road... Clearly this depends on the visibility of signals - so it's much better with Running Signals (larger and more prominent) than with Non-Running (shunt) signals. This is also why shunt movements make more use of audible warnings when moving about - i.e. they whistle or honk). This also means that Colour Light and Position Light signals are useless from this point of view - they cannot be read from the back... Which is why modern practice has had to develop a more cautious approach. Talking of greater caution if/when anyone has to work in the 6ft area between platforms - it is simply possible - and wise - to tell the Signalman/Signaller and arrange for the work to be protected by the Fixed Signals. Doing this has become increasingly common. It can be that a Signalman will tell whoever wants to work that they need (will have to) wait until a movement has been completed. Alternatively a movement may be held on a signal until any (urgent) work has been completed. There is a vast difference between the old style mechanical signalboxes that had a clear view of the lines under their control and the modern Area Signalling Centres that may not even have a view of any track. When, for example, a goods train arrived at a station and some coupling and uncoupling had to be done between platforms in order to get stock in and out of a siding or yard the old-style signalman would know what exactly was going on in front of him and the staff would (should) be in communication with him about what traffic was approaching (if any). Even with this the amount of time spent on the track would be kept to an absolute minimum - and it would be kept out of the 6ft way except when it was impossible to do the job without going into it. Clearly, in modern practice, goods trains are not re-shuffled at local stations and there is a minimum of attaching and detaching outside of depots. Even so, what work has to be done is now done as much from the platform and at platform level as possible. Modern couplers also take away the need to go in between. In fact, in the modern context on Network Rail, about the only time you would be likely to see anything being coupled by going in between in platforms would be during engineering work. Where Heritage railways use loco-hauled stock and have to run round at each end you will see some old style coupling activity... This should avoid any going into the 6ft way... Even though the scramble between buffers and platform edge can be quite interesting. 5. Diverging into goods yards...Carters, like modern truck drivers might park up in a scattered manner but, where space was limited they would have squeezed together as tightly as possible. While modern trucks will tend to move to individual bays or place themselves where fork lifts can access them - including from the sides - boats would often have to moor side-by-side - with the result that some loading would be across ships. Both of these principles can be seen in goods yards. In general wagons would be placed where carts could be worked alongside - but - it was also possible to put planks between wagons and load through one wagon into another. In all the cases everyone actually shifting goods wants to minimise double handling. In goods yards staff would not move between lines of wagons that were spaced close together - except when essential - which would be very rarely. 6. In all cases where staff need to work on stock and there is any risk of it being moved a "Do Not Move" or "Not to Be Moved" sign or a red flag or lamp will be placed on the approach ends of the stock. In addition a siding and even a through line may be blocked from movement by the use of a red flag or lamp if/when a Fixed Signal is not available (or, sometimes, in addition to a Fixed Signal). When a Fixed Signal is used the Signalman should also use a lever collar or reminder appliance on the lever/control so that he doesn't forget and dangerously clear the signal. An entry should also be made in the train register... This adds up to staff working safely together. A step beyond these basic measures is for a line to be blocked under Section T of the Rule Book - but that is getting a bit further away from the track... However - I hope that the above will give some indication of why tracks were not usually spaced further apart in platforms and how work was done to minimise the risks that this could create. :-) |
||
posted: 1 Mar 2015 09:28 from: D Foster
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Oops! Almost forgot... The Requirements for Passenger Lines and Recommendations for Goods Lines first issued by the Board of Trade and perpetuated (and extended) by the MoT and subsequent bodies applied to new developments and alterations - where they could be applied. This is most significant. Due to the fact that land had been bought, tracks laid and traffic was being handled it would have been prohibitively expensive in most cases to alter the physical arrangement of most of the UK's railways that had been set out long before the Requirements etc were even thought of. This means that most railways were built to the basic minimum clearances and were rarely altered. Also - the 10ft way was only required between additional lines or between Running Lines and Non-Running Lines when new works or major amendments were made and the space was practically achievable. In many cases the presence of structures on neighbouring land meant that the 10foot way was not possible. However, as has been pointed out, there is nothing to stop the railway companies from providing more than a 6ft way in the Requirements. One thing that tends to increase the 6ft through platforms is that lines of drainage tend to move between the tracks through platforms. This tends to mean that there will be a line of catch pits through the middle of a platform area - or - at least drain covers. Other things that intrude can be either bridge girders for under bridges - even for passenger subways - and supports for over bridges. These can be more interesting because they can cause the tracks and platforms to move away from being parallel. The principle thing to do is a massive amount of looking at appropriate period photographs to see something of the variety of ways that things were and are done. |
||
Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |