Kettering to Corby Capacity Works - GRIP 4
Signalling Scheme Plan Design Log
Doc Ref: 134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001
Version A07
August 2017
Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.
This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.
Contents
1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Design Log 1 1.2 Description of Project 1
2 References 3 2.1 Source Data 3 2.2 Standards 3 2.3 GRIP 3 Signalling Deliverables 3
3 Design Log Items 4 3.1 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 0.1 4 3.2 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 0.2 11 3.3 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 1.0 20 3.4 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 1.1 23 3.5 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 1.2 29 3.6 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 2.0 32 3.7 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 2.1 32 3.8 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 3.0 36 3.9 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version A 36 3.10 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version B 41 3.11 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version C 42 3.12 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version D 45
4 Non-Compliances/Derogations 51
Appendix A Technical Queries/Request for Information Appendix B Braking Calculations Appendix C TPWS Assessments Appendix D Kettering to Corby Signal Numbering Matrix Appendix E Designers Risk Assessment Abbreviations
Abbreviation Explanation AIP Approval In Principle AFC Approved for Construction ARS Auto Route Setting AWI Advanced Warning Indicator AWS Automatic Warning System BSC British Steel Corporation CAD Computer Aided Design CBI Computer Based Interlocking CDM Construction (Design and Management) CRE Contractors Responsible Engineer DPE Designated Project Engineer eB electronic Browser ( A Network Rail system) ELR Engineering Line Reference EMCC East Midlands Control Centre ESOC Emergency Signals On Control FMA Track section, synonym: Counting circuit GRIP Guide to Railway Investment Projects GPL Ground Position Light HABD Hot Axle Box Detector HERRF Hazard Elimination and Risk Reduction Form IBCL In-Bearer Clamp Lock IDC Interdisciplinary Design Check IDR Interdisciplinary Design Review IRJ Insulated Rail Joint LSI Line Speed Improvement LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging MAR Main Aspect approached controlled from Red Main Aspect approach controlled from Yellow – Flashing yellow Aspects in MAY-FA rear MML Midland Main Line MMLE Midland Main Line Electrification MSRP Major Scheme Review Panel OLE Overhead Line Equipment OSS Overspeed Sensor Systems OTW One Train Working PLJI Position Light Junction Indicator PSR Permanent Speed Restriction PWay Permanent Way PZT Point Zone Telephone REB Relocatable Equipment Building RRI Route Relay Interlocking SB Signal Box SDO Selective Door Operation SOD Safe Overrun Distance SORAT Signal Overrun Risk Assessment Toolset SPAD Signal Passed At Danger SPT Signal Post Telephone TPWS Train Protection & Warning System TSS Train Stop System, TQ Technical Query VDU Visual Display Unit
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Design Log
This design log is intended to act as a record of the development of the alterations for Kettering to Corby Capacity Works - GRIP 3 project. It is a living document and should be maintained up to the point the scheme is commissioned and the Scheme Plan becomes the Signalling Plan.
1.2 Description of Project
The purpose of the project is to increase the route capacity between Kettering and Manton Junction via Corby which will be achieved through a combination of track doubling works and signalling enhancements.
The enhancements will also provide an alternative route for train services between Bedford and Leicester during construction of the electrification of the MML and a potential diversionary route for services subsequent to electrification.
The Kettering to Corby route runs from the north end of Kettering Station (ELR SPC3) through Corby Station (ELR GSM1). The capacity enhancement between Corby and Manton Junction, which is already double line, will be achieved through signalling works only.
The area affected by the project is controlled by the EMCC at Derby (Kettering Workstation) and Manton Junction SB, spanning three RRI Interlockings.
The existing interlocking boundary falls along the Corby lines at approximately the 78 MP. South towards Kettering falls within Kettering RRI Interlocking and is controlled by the EMCC at Derby (Kettering Workstation) and north towards Manton Junction falls within Corby RRI Interlocking and is controlled by Manton Junction SB.
Manton Junction has its own local RRI interlocking that fringes with Corby RRI interlocking, the boundary falling at the start/end of CD and DC axle counter sections (Manton side of Wing Tunnel).
The new EMCC CBI interlocking will now control all infrastructure up to the existing Manton/Corby interlocking boundary, which will be modified by the requirements of this project to bring Corby under control of the EMCC.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 1
The sketch detailed in Figure 1 below shows the geographical limits:
Figure 1: Geographical Scope of Work
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 2 2 References
2.1 Source Data
The source documentation that was used in producing the Signalling Scheme Plan is: -
East Midlands Control Centre Signalling Plans, 135110/SBP/004 and 135110/SBP/005, version 1; Manton Doubling Scheme plan 12-NE0035 version E; Line Speed Improvement Scheme plans 12-NE-0017/08 & 09 version C; GRIP 3 Contract Specific Requirements version 2; Kettering to Corby GRIP 1-2 Study Signalling Sketch Option 2,6610485- SIG-xxx sheets 1to8, version A; Project Requirements Specification GRIP Stage 3 (Phase 1 Option Selection), K2C _G3_phase _1_PRS v1a, Version 1a.0; K2C GRIP 1-2 Signalling headway analysis, Version A; Atkins MMLE OLE AIP report 121926-ATK-DOC-OH-000002 version 01; PWay design 5121795-K2C-DRG-TR-0000010-27 version A01 and 5121795-K2C-DRG-TR-0000031 version A01.
2.2 Standards
The Railway Group Standards and Network Rail Standards applied to this project are the standards at time of AIP. Any changes in standards from the AIP date will need to be reviewed at GRIP 5 and highlighted to Network Rail for further guidance.
2.3 GRIP 3 Signalling Deliverables
Scheme Plan and Aspect Sequence Charts; Design Log; OPS; Hot AxleBox Detector Strategy; Train Detection Strategy; SORA Report; Excess and Irregular Signal Spacing Risk Assessment; Trap Point Risk Assessment; Permissible Working Risk Assessment; Signalling Principles Review.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 3 3 Design Log Items
3.1 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 0.1
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 10/04/14 (IS) Base information taken as per the issued signalling plans 135110/SBP/004 and 135110/SBP/005 and Scheme Plan Closed have been updated to Omnicom measurements/ survey for correlation. The scheme plan number Design received is 13-NE-0075. This will be used to create 4 sheets, sheet one is for Kettering, sheet 2 for Corby and sheet 3 and 4 is for the aspect sequence charts.
Due to information received regarding the Numbering philosophy the equipment numbers identified in scheme plan Version 0.1 design logs below have changed as per the information shown in Appendix D, Kettering to Corby Signal Numbering Matrix. Where a log has been superseded by Version 0.2 design log entries this has been identified with the superseding log number.
2 15/01/14 (IS) Some equipment shown on the base plan was not in the Omnicom videos as this was introduced as Scheme Plan Closed part of the line speed increase scheme for the area. This has been verified from the supplied scheme Design plan design 12-NE-0017/09 version C. 3 15/01/14 (IS) The Kilometerage used in the design files does not match any of the Kilometerages taken from Scheme Plan Closed Omnicom. The signal to signal distances seem to be correct, with 7 yard difference between some Design signals but this could be due to the curvature of the track. The Kilometerage is not to be updated as there seems to be up to 10m difference between Omnicom positions and the existing base plan positions. All equipment will be positioned relative to the signals using the differences identified in the Omnicom survey. Up to 2 yard differences will not be updated, apart from for TPWS measurements, as this is the accuracy of the software. 4 15/01/14 (IS) The measured position of existing 715 points was different to the position shown. This required Scheme Plan Closed moving the point ends by 3 to 4 yards. The clearance points have also been moved 3 to 4 yards to Design maintain consistency. 5 15/01/14 (IS) LR71 signal was shown the wrong side of the signals on the other lines. This is the only signal that Scheme Plan Closed has been moved to reflect the installed layout. Design 6 15/01/14 (IS) The measured position of 718B points was different to the position shown. The clearance point has Scheme Plan Closed also been moved to maintain consistency by 5 yards as per the point end. Design 7 15/01/14 (IS) On the Corby plan 135110/SBP/005 the distance from MJ15 to MJ5R is 15yds out from the Omnicom Scheme Plan Closed survey and this is also the same for MJ24R to MJ6. Again the Kilometerage used on the base plan Design does not tie in with the distances noted during the Omnicom survey however the distances of the signals from Corby station MJ17 to MJ15 all seem to tie in with the Omnicom distances between signals. Therefore it will be assumed signals between 80 ½ mile post and 79 ½ mile post are in the correct position and equipment will be positioned accordingly from these signals. 8 15/01/14 (IS) Additional information was received from Network Rail regarding the doubling of Manton Junction. Scheme Plan Closed
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 4 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed These changes have been updated onto the base plan using the scheme plan 12-NE-0035 version E Design supplied by Network Rail. 9 15/01/14 (IS) The draft PWay design was used to determine PWay alteration limits and positions of points. However Scheme Plan Closed this positioned the new 720 junction to be at the existing LR71 signal gantry. The new point positions Design would cause problems with time of operation locking as a minimum of 20m is preferable from points to signal. The points have been positioned as per the Draft PWay design and the new signal gantry has been installed 525m from the conflict point from the new junction 719. This allows TPWS to be effective for 60mph and 90mph. 10 10/04/14 (IS) It has been assumed all track mounted equipment and track is to be recovered and replaced within Scheme Plan Closed the limits of alterations detailed on the draft PWay design. Using the draft PWay design signals and Design signs will be recovered if required. It has since been confirmed that the track is to be slued in certain areas but there is still confusion from what is shown on the PWay drawings. Until this is verified this will not be updated. Updated PWay now received and design updated accordingly 11 15/01/14 (IS) To maintain the signal number sequence the existing LR72 signal is to be renumbered to LR70 and Scheme Plan Closed the new signal on the gantry at 116764 is to be numbered LR72. This will ensure the least amount of Design changes required in the signals reading up to and from these two signals. 12 17/03/14 (IS) There is an existing MAY-FA on LR76 but LR74 uses a MAR for the same route and for the route to Scheme Plan Closed LR68 and LR71 used MAR routes to LR81 and LR83. 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000005 has been raised Design to see if Network Rail wishes to keep the MAR conditions or convert this to a MAY-FA and provide a MAY-FA for the new route. The response has been received. Dependent on Kettering being re- interlocked using CBI. As this has now been decided MAR to be recovered and MAY-FA has been provided. 13 15/01/14 (IS) To provide the fastest through put MAY-FA will be provided on all new routes through junctions where Scheme Plan Closed required. To provide this AWI boards will be needed as the signals are not approach controlled from Design red as required in GK/RT0075 Lineside Signal spacing and Speed Signage section 3.3.7.1. 14 15/01/14 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 4 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design For Corby scheme plan (13-NE-0075/2) all Kilometerages have now been shown as per the position in the CAD base record. Any reference to yards has been converted to metres or updated to the correct distance when measured. This has not been shown as red and green work. As these are all theoretical brackets have been used as the milepost and gradients could not be measured/ seen on the Omnicom video. 15 15/01/14 (IS) See log 11 in version 2.1 for further information (signal renumbered) Scheme Plan Closed Design Although the conflict point for the new signal LR91 is further than the clearance point as this would not be the first conflict for a SPADed train (it would be LR78 signal) it was decided to take the same conflict point as LR71 to ensure all trains are stopped before the points to stop the train going bang road down Up Corby. 16 15/01/14 (IS) Due to positions of tunnels, viaducts and under bridges stop signals on the Corby Lines cannot be Scheme Plan Closed positioned to the 3000m difference shown in the sketch. They have been positioned to be clear of Design bridges and viaducts.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 5 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed To ensure no train is stopped within a tunnel the first signal section past MJ6 would need to be positioned over 4000m away and the headway calculations limit this to 3709m. Therefore MJ6 has been converted to 3 aspect signal to maintain the required separation for the headway calculations. MJ6 will also act as the distant signal for the new 2 aspect stop signal MJ12. MJ5R was required to be moved as this was the only way to fit a signal section in that would not put any equipment within Glaston Tunnel on the down Corby. MJ15 signal also required moving, to maintain less than 3709m to the next available position of the signal ahead. The rest of the signals have been placed to ensure they have been installed away from bridges, tunnels and viaducts and also no equipment, i.e. axle counters and AWS magnets, have been placed inside tunnels or on top of and viaducts where poss ble. The signals have also been positioned to ensure no more than 3709m signal spacing exists as per the requirements of the Headway analysis. 17 15/01/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 22 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design MJ33 AWS magnet has been installed 120m on approach to be clear of the points and metal work of 75 points. This reduces the number of AWS magnets that would be needed if this was installed on approach to points 75A end. At 60mph this will still give 4 seconds warning but this will still be subject to signal sighting recommendations. 18 10/04/14 (IS) All new replacement joints have been positioned at 6m to satisfy the 2 of the 3 differing figures in Scheme Plan Closed NR/L2/SIG/11201 Mod B07, NR/L2/SIG/30009/E450 and GK/RT0060. Design 19 15/01/14 (IS) As Kettering interlocking is now to be interlocked using CBI, track sections have now been numbered Scheme Plan Closed all the way to the existing interlocking boundary at Manton Junction using numbering as per the Design existing Kettering interlocking. 20 15/01/14 (IS) TPWS OSS loops for MJ5 have been positioned as per the measurements taken from Omnicom. The Scheme Plan Closed position designed on the Manton Junction doubling project has this at a different position. This will Design need to be confirmed on site during commissioning/ detailed wiring correlation as the videos from Omnicom was prior to this project and the existing plan did not show these loops. 21 10/04/14 (IS) The draft PWay design does not show 73B point being renewed although it shows the PWay being Scheme Plan Closed new over it. This point end will be renewed and part of the PWay will also be renewed. The design has Design been done to show a like for like replacement but this will need to be confirmed once the PWay design has been verified as what has been shown is not clear. This has now been confirmed with updated PWay and this is not to be renewed. 22 15/01/14 (IS) Route table information for existing LR72 was incorrect. This has been updated to reflect the existing Scheme Plan Closed control tables. Design 23 10/04/14 (IS) For TPWS assessments the new spreadsheet from Network Rail’s signalling tools collaboration Scheme Plan Closed website has been used. Only existing signals that have had their conflicts affected have been Design assessed as well as new signals where required. This calculator was used to provide the best fitment with the available SODs and will be subject to risk assessment at the DA workshop. It was confirmed with Network Rail signalling tools super user that it was necessary to try to attain effective TPWS fitment for 12%g braked passenger trains and 7.5%g braked freight trains. Where possible we have provided effective TPWS for 9%g braked passenger trains and 6%g braked freight trains also.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 6 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 24 15/01/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 21 in version A Scheme Plan Closed Design Using the new TPWS spreadsheet and using the existing positions for the TPWS fitment on LR76 it was found that positioning the loops at 900m instead of 1000m would provide better protection. These loops were repositioned to 900m, This was confirmed for 100mph and 110mph trains. It is assumed Freight cannot do more than 75mph. As the benefit is small and the effectiveness is not addressed even with 3 sets of loops this could be retained in its existing position if the project deemed it not cost effective. 25 15/01/14 (IS) TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000001 was raised to confirm the use of the new SORAT or existing SAT Scheme Plan Closed system and a response has been received which detailed the new SORAT system is now to be used. Design See Appendix A for further information. 26 10/04/14 (IS) TQ’s 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000002 and 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000004 were raised to confirm various Scheme Plan Closed information required to undertake the SAT/SORAT assessments as well as option development for the Design positing of LR71 and LR91 signals. See Appendix A for further information. This information was supplied via separate email correspondence and telephone conversations. The TQ response does not detail this information. 27 15/01/14 (IS) TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000003 was raised to attain a copy EMCC numbering strategy. See Scheme Plan Closed Appendix A for further information. Design 28 10/04/14 (IS) TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000006 has been raised to confirm the discrepancy between different input Scheme Plan Closed information received for the base signalling plans. The Kilometerages used on two scheme plans Design detailing the same area were up to 8m different. See Appendix A for further information. The Kilometerages used in our base record is to be taken as correct. 29 10/04/14 (IS) TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000007 has been raised to confirm that Network Rail are happy to remove Scheme Plan Closed the HW machines for 74 points as only one end is being renewed and normally a like for like Design replacement is required. The scheme plan has progressed with the implementation of new IBCL points. This has been confirmed with the TQ response and updated PWay design. 30 15/01/14 (IS) TQ’s 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000008 and 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000009 was raised to confirm the Auto Scheme Plan Closed working facilities requirements for Kettering North and the new junction at Corby. As the track has Design been doubled there is now a benefit to providing auto working on LR71, 72, 78, New signal MJ41 and MJ28. See Appendix A for further information.
31 15/01/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 20 in version 0.2 & logs 12 and 29 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000010 was raised to confirm the permissive working requirements at Kettering station. As the braking is not adequate at 60mph using the existing layout it has been proposed to remove the platform starters LR60 and LR64 on the slow lines and not provide Call-On routes into the platform. This will make the platform working and signalling layout more similar on all platforms. To maintain the shunt route from LR64 to LR618 a new shunt route will be provided from LR72 to LR168. An overlap symbol has also been provided as this was an existing deficiency. There is a signalled route up to the GPL so an overlap is required. This is greater than the required minimum of 45m. Due to the speed increase to 60mph the existing 30mph PSR 91 now needs an AWI board
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 7 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 32 15/01/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 15 in version 0.2 Scheme Plan Closed Design TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000011 was raised to confirm that provision of ‘E’ buttons for replacement facilities is to be maintained for consistency on the signallers display. In the Kettering interlocking, the wiring drawings show that there is an indication that the signal has been replaced to red (RGPR circuits) for signals with an ‘E’ associated with them. This cannot be confirmed using the relay room records on eB for LR101 and LR102 but the location wiring drawings show the RGPR circuit in Loc 61/171A. The scheme plans have also had the symbol shown in the notes section explaining an indication is sent back to signal box. For Manton Junction the existing ‘E’ symbol note has been retained. 33 10/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 25 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Non provision of a PLJI on platform starter MJ37 at Corby station is compliant to NR/L2/SIG/19609. PLJI has been provided at the request of the sighting committee. 34 15/01/14 (IS) Aspect sequence charts have been done on a separate sheet for ease of use and clarity of Scheme Plan Closed presentation. Design 35 15/01/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 14 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Appendix D of NR/L2/SIG/19609 miniature indicators cannot display an ‘S’ on its own, this has now been changed to SDG for signals MJ28 and MJ37. 36 17/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 29 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Corby Platform is below the required 240m (236m) however class 377 12car formations can be up to 243m it has been raised to the CRE and Network Rail via TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000013 and 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000014 to confirm if there will be platform extensions or whether car stop markers can be implemented as the junctions are not moving either end of Corby station increasing the platform length may be an issue as the signals cannot move. However at the left hand mounted signal it may be possible for trains to draw up closer to the signal. For now the scheme plan will show stop car markers for 12car trains. However there will be an issue with the opening of doors as the first set of doors from the end of the train looks to be within 3-5m.
Implementing the car stop markers would require the first door from the front to remain closed when letting off passengers from the train. Alternative solutions would be to have the train stop at the end of the platform and not allow passengers off the last car from the drivers end or to extend the platform to be a minimum 240m with car stop markers 2m off the platform or increase the platform to 245m and car stop markers at the end of the platform to ensure the driver of 12car trains stops at the required position.
The scheme plan has progressed with the provision of car stop markers and SDO boards, consistent with Kettering station platform 1 and 2, at the end of the platform without extending the platform. This is subject to the response received from Network Rail. It should be noted that it is stated in GE/GN8577 that manual SDO operation is not allowed for new works. So a derogation would be
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 8
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed required if this was to be implemented.
TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000013 has been returned with the response that Corby Station platform is not to be extended.
The type and provision of SDO facilities is to be confirmed by Network Rail Operations in the next GRIP stage. The scheme plan is to progress with the design as detailed above. The design log entry will be closed on this basis. 37 15/01/14 (IS) An axle counter has not been placed in close proximity to the new junction 719B on the down slow line Scheme Plan Closed as the number of trains that use the route in the wrong direction is not known and the information we Design do have suggest it is only one train. So there is no benefit in providing this axle counter to allow the points to be released earlier. A spare track identity has been left in case this is required in later GRIP stages 38 15/01/14 (IS) Log Superseded by log 2 In version 0.2 Scheme Plan Closed Design To provide a separation between the signal numbers used on the fast line and Corby lines the signalling numbering sequence has been started from the 90’s. 39 10/04/14 (IS) Clearance points have been taken from the updated PWay drawings. Scheme Plan Closed Design 40 15/01/14 (IS) Log Superseded by log 2 In version 0.2 Scheme Plan Closed Design The existing layout for Manton to Corby has the signals incrementing towards the Up end instead of towards the Down end of the plan, which is not compliant to NR/L2/SIG/11201. This has been maintained for consistency with the existing layout. However these signals will need to convert to Kettering numbers and will increment towards the Down end as required in NR/L2/SIG/11201 once confirmation received from Network Rail regarding the numbering philosophy. However with CBI interlocking the signal prefix may change all together. For now this has been maintained using the existing philosophy. 41 15/01/14 (IS) The speed has not been increased back up to 60mph after a train is routed from the Down Corby to Scheme Plan Closed the Up Corby to go to Corby station as all trains using this route will stop at the station. If the speed Design was increased to 60mph the train would not be able to speed up until he has passed the return to speed board and would need to brake to stop at Corby station. Additional speed boards and AWI boards would also be required and would not make this a cost effective design. 42 15/01/14 (IS) AQ treadle has been recovered and an axle counter section has been provided in the same region. Scheme Plan Closed AQ is used to provide the signaller with an indication that the berth track circuit is occupied. Without Design this extra section the berth track will be more than 1000m so it was decided to replicate the same functionality with axle counters. 43 15/01/14 (IS) As axle counters are being used it was decided to recover the treadles that give an indication back to Scheme Plan Closed the signaller when the tunnels are entered and exited. The feature has been replicated using axle Design counter sections. This reduces the different types of technology used in the area. 44 15/01/14 (IS) It has been assumed that the telephones provided for points 75 was required as existing signal MJ17 Scheme Plan Closed
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 9
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed was too far so this has been replicated for the new crossover. A point zone telephone has also been Design provided for 70 points. As this is further than the distance from the existing signal MJ17 to 75 points. this will be subject to signal sighting recommendations. 45 15/01/14 (IS) MJ26 TSS is not required as a SPAD would be directed to the trap points due to the points being Scheme Plan Closed called normal by MJ37 overlap requirements. However this has been kept as it will reduce the Design consequence of any SPADS as this will activate the emergency braking immediately on SPADing the signal, this will also reduce the amount of alterations required. 46 15/01/14 (IS) Further supported/superseded by log 27 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Auto signals protecting viaducts or tunnels have been plated as non passable as per GK/RT045 section 3.1.3.2h. 47 15/01/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 37 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design No derogations were raised for the proposed new works. However due to the interlocking being renewed as a CBI this may require derogations against standards and recommendations as detailed in Kettering to Corby Capacity Works – GRIP 3 Signalling Principles Review, 134187-JAC-SG-RET- 000001.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 10
3.2 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 0.2
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 17/03/14 (IS) Scheme plan up versioned as it was issued as draft at version 0.1. As the plan was still being Scheme Plan Closed checked at the time all updates and additional design log entries will be done under version 0.2 for the Design scheme plan and P02 for the design log. 2 17/03/14 (IS) As we have now had a response to TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000012 and 138389-JAC-EG-TQN- Scheme Plan Closed 000017 regarding the numbering philosophy. This has been applied as per Network Rails Design requirements. Signal numbers have not been renumbered in the logs for version 0.1. See Appendix D for the spread sheet that shows the version 0.1 signal numbers with the new numbering requirement. 3 17/03/14 (IS) For the aspect sequence chart the existing aspect sequence chart record for Kettering was used to Scheme Plan Closed determine that for existing signals LR49 and LR76 that the signalling system will revert to MAR if Design MAY-FA does not operate, as there are both MAY and MAR conditions shown for these signals. 4 17/03/14 (IS) As we have introduced signals on the approach to Welland Viaduct and Corby Tunnel the telephones Scheme Plan Closed associated with the tunnel/viaduct can now be made redundant as the SPT can be used for this Design purpose. 5 10/04/14 (IS) Partially superseded by log 2 in version 1.1 (as both SPC3DS7306 AWI boards no longer Scheme Plan Closed required) Design
All new AWI’s have been given up to 10m more than the required minimum deceleration distance where possible to allow for construction tolerances. AWI boards SPC3DS7306U and SPC3DS7306D have been positioned without any tolerance to provide a single post to mount the boards back to back. If this is not acceptable 2 separate boards can be provided with a 10m separation. 6 17/03/14 (IS) The Excess and Irregular Spacing Risk Assessment reviews everything that is raised in GK/RT0075 Scheme Plan Closed and NR/L2/SIG/30009/D220. NR/L2/SIG/30009/D220 says that you can have more than 100% over Design braking as long as it is risk assessed against specified criteria (which are captured in the risk assessment). The STAMP braking calc User Guide seems to be the only document that states you can’t have signals more than 100% over braking but it is not clear where that came from. We have designed the scheme plan to the required headway analysis using 2 aspect signalling and positioning signals for 90mph compatibility. The high percentage of signals over braked by more than 100% is not considered an issue as this will be risk assessed and taken to a workshop for verification. 7 10/04/14 (IS) Points North of Kettering station are to be renumbered. This has been done in line with the information Scheme Plan Closed provided by Network Rail. The numbering has been changed to 696 to 699. The signal numbering Design matrix details the existing and new numbers. See Appendix D for further information. 8 17/03/14 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 12 in version 1.2 (required signals now re-headed) Scheme Plan Closed Design New LR72 has been mounted 5m on approach to the existing gantry with LR66/68/72 to allow for provision of light weight LED signal, the clearance cannot be guaranteed if the signal was to be gantry mounted. This will allow for maintenance of the signal without interfering with the gantry. It needs to be confirmed if the signals on the gantry are LED or standard SL35 signals and then this will need to be confirmed by Signal Sighting whether it is an issue to have an LED signal in close proximity to SL35 signals or whether to replace the entire gantry mounted signals to LED type.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 11
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 9 17/03/14 (IS) The HABD risk assessment and TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000015 stated HABD is not to be provided Scheme Plan Closed on the Down Corby at Geddington. The response from Network Rail has asked for the HABD to be Design provided on both the Up and Down Corby lines. This has been implemented as per Network Rails requirements 10 17/03/14 (IS) Existing LR78 is in poor condition as a result this is to be renewed as a light weight LED signal. This is Scheme Plan Closed to be positioned 5 metres on approach to the existing signal as the light weight structure will be able to Design be installed and commissioned without removing the existing structure. Prior to commissioning the signal can be installed and left in the lower position without affecting the sighting of the existing signal. Post commissioning the existing signal can be covered and left in situ until all recoveries are completely commissioned if required. 11 17/04/14 (IS) The existing base information showed a relay room at 127623 near Corby station. This is not known to Scheme Plan Closed be a relay room so has been removed from the base information without green work. The walkway Design provided between the Corby Relay Room and this building will not be required once this is recovered to make way for the new Down Corby Line. TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000019 has been raised to confirm if Network Rail require this walkway. The TQ response has now been received and confirm the information received at a meeting with Network Rail. Jacobs were advised to recover this. This has been updated on the scheme plan. 12 17/03/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 9 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design LR194 currently show a Flashing aspect. Network Rail have informed us that this was installed line side and is capable of flashing but was not commissioned as part of the interlocking design. Correlation will need to confirm this is true in the Location case and the interlocking will need to incorporate this as part of the new CBI interlocking. On the scheme plan this will not be shown as new/altered design. It will remain as per the existing with a blue note to highlight this. 13 17/03/14 (IS) Axle counter sections 385(X) and 400(X) to have both ends of axle counter section renewed so there Scheme Plan Closed is not a mix of new and old axle counter technology requiring differing re-set facilities. The axle Design counter section FD in BSC sidings will also be renewed for this reason. 14 17/03/14 (IS) It has been confirmed by the signal sighting chairman, existing records and ELIPSE that existing MJ24 Scheme Plan Closed and MJ24R are LED signals. These signals will not need to be renewed but will be renumbered in line Design with Network Rail requirements. MJ24R will require a distant board to be applied. As we are introducing axle counters into the area and all other distant signals on the Corby lines will be replaced using axle counters the ‘E’ button will also be recovered from MJ24R and the signal will be replaced using a new replacement track. 15 17/03/14 (IS) TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000011 has now been answered. From the Draft Scheme Plan review it Scheme Plan Closed has been decided to implement the standard ‘R’ button facilities instead of the ‘E’ button for all new Design Auto signals on the down and up Corby lines through to Manton junction. ‘R’ buttons not to be provided for the existing autos for all other signals in the Kettering interlocking. Including the ones that do not have any facilities provided at present. 16 17/03/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 14 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed KM3962/3973 do not require MI’s as there is only one shunt route, not up to a LOS and not against Design the normal direction of traffic as per NR/L2/SIG/19609 section 6.2. We have replicated this to maintain the existing operations seen by trains using the sidings.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 12 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 17 24/04/14 (IS) In the Draft Scheme Plan review Jacobs were asked to investigate the possibility of implementing Scheme Plan Closed spring points in the reception line by Corby station. After investigation TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN- Design 000018 has been issued to Network Rail. The current local operational requirements cannot be met if this was to be implemented. See Appendix A for the TQ to see full details of the existing local operating requirements. The TQ response received has asked for spring points to be provided. The scheme plan has been updated accordingly. From the IDC it has been stated that the spring point PWay design is to be shown as existing and the design will be reviewed by PWay at a later GRIP stage. The spring point symbol has been shown as red with the Hand Point shown as green to show the type of point operation has changed. 18 17/03/14 (IS) As the interlocking boundary between Corby and Manton interlocking cannot be confirmed using the Scheme Plan Closed existing records TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000020 has been issued to Network Rail to confirm this. Design The axle counter sections CD and DC have been used at present. This has been updated to reflect the requirements of the project from the draft scheme plan review. Network Rail have confirmed their acceptance of this proposal in the response to TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000020. 19 10/04/14 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 5 in version 2.1 (limits of indications altered) Scheme Plan Closed Design Limits of track indications have been discussed at the draft scheme plan review. The scheme plan has been updated in line with the comments raised. MJ6 is now become a controlled signal under the Kettering interlocking but the tracks are to remain in Manton SB.
For the EMCC indication on the Up Corby/Main it is assumed that by showing the limit of indication at the replacement track for MJ2, with the condition that AD, AE and BE are indicated when points 53 and 54 are reverse will indicate all tracks from CH towards Kettering. There are only shunt routes that can approach from points 51 from the down line towards Corby. It is assumed that once the train comes onto CH track this will give sufficient indication to the signaller. Therefore additional limit of indication is not required.
Due to the required changes of TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000021 the limit of indication can no longer be positioned at the replacement of the distant signal MJ11R, this signal is not longer to be provided. The limit of indication has been placed at the exit of Glaston Tunnel.
20 30/04/14 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 29 in version 1.1 (new SDO boards not required) Scheme Plan Closed Design After a meeting with Network Rail and a risk assessment review of the permissive working at Kettering station the platform starters LR60 and LR64 are to be retained as well as the call on moves into the platform. Although there is currently no time tabled uses of this manoeuvre may be required in the future. The response to TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000010 confirms that conditional MAR controls are to be used to accommodate the under braking for 2 signal sections for freight on both the Down Slow and Up Slow lines in the up direction. Additional measures required as a result of this is the provision of split tracks in platform 1 and 2. This to give the signaller an indication of the occupied platform, however as it is the intention to extend the platforms in the future.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 13 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed The split track is to be positioned to be able to accommodate a 5 car train between the split track and LR57 and LR59. For the current design this will introduce the possibility that a train signalled into the platform could occupy both track circuits in platform 1 and 2 until the platforms are extended. This will need to be facilitated in the Control Table design. These have been positioned 118m on approach to the TOR nearest LR57 and LR59, this consists the length of a 5 car train (115.5m) plus a buffer of 2.5m. It has been assumed the call on route will allow passengers to get on to the additional train after the move has been completed.
Due to the split track section requirements axle counter sections have been extended up to the overlap tracks for LR60 and LR64, all section numbers renumbered accordingly.
It was also highlighted that SDO and car stop markers were missing from the platform. After investigation using Omnicom the position of car stop boards, SDO boards and beacons were identified. As there is limited space on the scheme plan the position of the car stop and SDO boards have been listed in table form. To emphasise this, the table has been shown as existing work but the # note as red.
To facilitate 12 car trains the 10 car stop boards will be recovered and replaced with 12/10 car stop boards. 21 17/03/14 (IS) There has been an update to the signal spacing tool which has now been up versioned to 6.01 but as Scheme Plan Closed the change only effects gradients over 1:1000, which we do not have on our plan, we have not Design transferred the calcs to the updated sheet. The update stipulates that no fundamental mathematics have been changed. 22 17/03/14 (IS) KM3978 has been moved to be on the approach side of the Gretton Foot Path. This has been Scheme Plan Closed positioned 25m on approach. KM3995 cannot be moved and braking maintained with an additional Design distant signal outside of the Glaston Tunnel. TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000021 has been issued with the proposed solution of removing the distant signal and converting KM3991 to a 3 aspect signal.
The scheme plan will be progressed on this basis. See TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000021 for full details of the other possible solutions. To allow the train driver to be clear of the tunnel and have adequate distance from the tunnel the position of this signal has not been placed in the midway between KM3978 and MJ5. The response has been received and Network Rail have confirmed they are happy with Jacobs proposal. 23 17/03/14 (IS) Seaton project will be modifying the line speed on the Up and Down Corby Lines between the 85 and Scheme Plan Closed 89 mile post. The commissioning date of this is not known and cannot be confirmed if it will be done Design prior to this project. Network Rail has confirmed that this does not need to be shown/updated on this scheme plan. We have been issued a copy of the Seaton scheme plan, 12-NE-0092 for information. KM3988 is currently sufficiently braked with the existing 20/40 speed board on approach to it. However when Seaton project is undertaken this will remove this speed board. At 60mph freight will be under braked. KM3988 can only move just over 440m and remain less than 3706m to maintain the required headway. However this would put it 71m past Seaton tunnel. As this could potentially be at red this would not be ideal. The current position of KM3988 is the most protective layout as it will protect both Seaton tunnel and Welland viaduct.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 14 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed
The signal spacing will not be increased however when Seaton project is undertaken this will need to introduce a 40/60mph differential board at KM3990 with a 40/60 AWI in the existing 20/40 AWI position on approach to Glaston tunnel. This will ensure freight trains will reduce their speed to 40 on approach to KM3990. 24 17/03/14 (IS) Superseded by log 4 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design All trains need to stop at KM3973. MAR has been used instead of MAY-FA on KM3959. As the braking was insufficient for freight the signal has been moved 79m in rear to provide compliant signal spacing with 40mph turnout speed. 25 17/03/14 (IS) For the braking calculations, where gradient and speed information was required from the adjacent Scheme Plan Closed plan that covers Wellingborough RR, the LSI plans supplied was used to attain the relevant positions. Design Although there is an issue with the Kilometerages listed and the base plan issued for this project, the listed Kilometerages have been used when they are not on this scheme plan. No correction factor has been applied as it is not considered a major issue with the differences being up to 8m. 26 17/03/14 (IS) After discussions at the draft scheme plan review it has been decided not to provide flashing aspects Scheme Plan Closed on LR59. All routes from LR91 would require all trains to have MAY-FA controls applied. A 50mph Design speed board will be applied at Platform starter LR59. This will enable all trains to adjust their speed accordingly without the need to apply approach control conditions and will remove the additional AWI provided for the flashing sequence.
Although there is still a 1/3rd in reduction of speed within 3.2km, 2.8km of it is at 50mph. The required AWI would be located where all trains will be doing 50mph and not 60mph so would not be approaching the AWI at 60mph. Therefore the AWI has not been retained. 27 17/03/14 (IS) Where MAR conditions exists the braking calculations have had the MAR condition applied in the Scheme Plan Closed signal ahead to get the calculator to show the reduced speed approach in the approach controlled Design signal. This has been confirmed by using the previous braking calculation tool used for projects to confirm the % overbraking for the reduced speed approach. Where there is no reduced line speed ahead of the signal 35mph has been taken for a nominal figure. 28 17/03/14 (IS) To facilitate a reduced line speed for flashing aspects the aspect sequence in the flashing signal has Scheme Plan Closed been shown to have 4 aspects but restricted to 3 aspects as part of the sequence as detailed in the Design user manual for the SSpaM tool. 29 17/03/14 (IS) OSS loops have been identified as OSS+, OSS or OSS- as per the existing fitment on the scheme. Scheme Plan Closed Design 30 17/03/14 (IS) When reading the requirements of GK/RT0045 and NR/L2/SIG/19609 our interpretation of flashing Scheme Plan Closed aspect inhibition controls are that the flashing sequence needs to be inhibited if a train has reached Design the MRD of the flashing signal. To do this on new works a track section would need to be provided at the MRD. As the signals that have flashing aspects are existing or in areas where we have not affected the track circuits, the existing berth tracks will be used dependant on the MRD. This is to be determined/ confirmed during signal sighting so TBC has been inputted on the berth track circuit. Where there are banner signals the berth track of the banner signal has been used. 31 17/03/14 (IS) LR42 and LR44 are 4 aspect signals however only LR44 can show a 4 aspect sequence back to LR48 Scheme Plan Closed so double yellow has been shown for this. All routes from LR42 require MAR conditions therefore the Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 15 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed best aspect LR46 will ever show is a yellow which is why it is a 2 aspect signal. This has been reflected on the aspect sequence for information to the next signals as required. 32 10/04/14 (IS) Log updated by log 5 in version A Scheme Plan Closed Design For shunt routes into Kettering sidings the length of the berth tracks are all above 500m for LR49, LR51 and LR103. This is not compliant to the lengths shown in figure 8 of 11201 mod B7 section 3.3.3 b). This will not be highlighted as a non compliance to Network Rail for further guidance in the Signalling Principles Review report 134187-JAC-SG-RET-000001. However a further assessment needs to be undertaken at GRIP 4 to determine the requirements for providing compliant timers. The Aspect sequence chart will use TBC for the timers for these routes until this has been investigated and a way forward has been finalised with Network Rail. 33 17/03/14 (IS) All crossovers from Kettering station towards Corby have renumbered in line with TQ 138389-JAC- Scheme Plan Closed EG-TQN-000012 response and draft scheme plan review comments. The new crossover to facilitate Design passenger moves from the Up slow to the down Slow into platform 2 has been designed as per the extract from PWay design issued to Jacobs as this was not shown on the A01 version of the design. 34 17/03/14 (IS) The track section at Corby station has been split to provide compliant timers for the shunt routes from Scheme Plan Closed KM3962 and KM3973. Design 35 17/03/14 (IS) Splitting Banner aspect sequence formation determined using GK/RT0045 as a guide. No typical Scheme Plan Closed circuits exist to show how this should be shown as an aspect sequence chart. Design 36 17/03/14 (IS) There is a difference of up to 18m between PWay dimensions and the scheme plan dimensions from Scheme Plan Open the existing datum point LR66/LR68 and LR72 gantry. An exercise is to be carried out by the project to Design confirm the Kilometerages as it is believed this difference could related to the way the measurements have been taken between Omnicom and Topographical survey. Once this has been done the scheme plan will be updated to the findings if required. 37 10/04/14 (IS) BR18A and several culverts were not shown on the original base record. As it is detailed on the Scheme Plan Closed updated PWay drawings the dimensions and position have been extrapolated from the PWay design Design and shown on the scheme plan. 38 17/03/14 (IS) For consistency between the two plans TPWS symbols have now been shown the same on both Scheme Plan Closed plans. The route tables have been shown in one location on both plans. The full stop in the Design dimensions has been removed as this did not reflect the correct position in metres. 39 17/03/14 (IS) A search was made through the standards to see if there is an issue for providing separate track Scheme Plan Closed circuit types over the 2 ends of a crossover. Nothing could be found so it is assumed it will not be an Design issue for the 2 instances at Kettering North and Corby South Junctions. 40 17/03/14 (IS) LR78 TPWS assessment at 90mph would put the TPWS in the 65mph region. If the signal is at red Scheme Plan Closed the driver should not accelerate up to 90mph therefore this signal has been assessed at 65mph for the Design TPWS fitment. 41 17/03/14 (IS) Although the control tables do not show MAR conditions for existing LR71 routes A and B to the Main Scheme Plan Closed lines the entry in the route table is correct. This will remain on the route table and be shown as green Design with red MAY-FA. 42 17/03/14 (IS) ‘E’ button not shown on latest photos of Manton panel on MJ3R. This has been removed from the Scheme Plan Closed base plan. Design 43 17/03/14 (IS) Points have been identified as A or B in line with the existing arrangement. This is compliant to Scheme Plan Closed
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 16 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed NR/L2/SIG/11704 section 4.1. Design 44 17/03/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 37 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design To provide complaint Junction controls at Kettering South Junction MAR is to be applied to LR49, with the removal of the flashing aspect on LR45, for all diverging routes and MAR is to be recovered from LR58 and LR52 route C. TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000022 has been issued to Network Rail to confirm this is to their requirements. See Appendix A for full details. 45 17/03/14 (IS) Junctions at Corby station has been renamed and identified as Corby Station North and South Scheme Plan Closed Junction as requested in the Draft scheme plan review. Design 46 17/03/14 (IS) Log updated by log 7 in version 1.0 Scheme Plan Closed Design 90mph speed layout applied as per the details in 5121795-K2C-Output Specification-v0-1 document issued to Jacobs. With the provision of the crossover, for moving passenger trains from up slow to down slow into platform 2, the speed change to 60/90 would occur in the middle of the crossover. To facilitate the change in speed over the crossover the speed change will be applied on approach to this new crossover (696) to allow a 40 board for the crossover speed as well as a speed change down to 60mph to be mounted together. The speed boards will be mounted in the same position on the down slow line to facilitate a speed increase up to 90mph in the down direction and a decrease to 60mph in the up direction. To provide a reduced amount of OSS loops as well as positioning the speed boards on approach to points 651(from Kettering) the speed change has been applied at the new signal KM3959 on the down line and in the same position on the up line.
TPWS and braking calculations have been updated to capture the change in speed profiles as well as provision of AWI boards as necessary. 47 17/03/14 (IS) Although MJ25 is out of use it has been renumbered using the signal numbering matrix after Scheme Plan Closed discussions with the CRE. As 72 points are plain lined these have not been renumbered but a spare Design identity has been left to accommodate this (653) in the future should it be required. The routes to the warehouse sidings have been maintained out of use. 48 10/04/14 (IS) Log updated by log 12 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Further to Log 30 in version 0.1 due to the requirement of retaining platform starters LR60 and 64 and the call on routes Auto working controls have not been provided on LR72. This is due to the requirement for retaining MAR controls for the underbraked signal sections for freight within Kettering Station platform 1 and 2. It cannot be confirmed within the standards if it is acceptable to have conditional MAR controls and auto working facilities on the same route. If it is decided to provide auto working facilities this can be updated at a later GRIP stage. Auto working facilities have been retained on LR71, 78, New signal KM3959 and KM3692 as confirmed by TQ’s 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000008 and 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000009 responses. In addition it was decided auto working facilities would be beneficial for KM3974 (existing MJ24) as well so this facility has also been provided for this signal. 49 10/04/14 (IS) New PWay design has been supplied which details the required sluing and the new proposed Scheme Plan Closed crossover at Kettering station. The scheme plan has been updated in line with the new PWay design Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 17 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed which has been given new numbers from the draft design that was issued originally. The relevant PWay plan numbers that cover each part of the scheme plan have been included in the scheme plan notes. In addition the existing crossover for points 656 (existing 74) are now to be fully renewed in line with TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000007 response and PWay design. The PWay design shows slued track, new track and existing track to be re-railed/formation changed. On the scheme plan only slued track is to be identified in addition to new track. The new track on the scheme plan will include the regions of re-railed/new formation for the track as red and green work. 50 10/04/14 (IS) For approach release conditions GK/RT0045 stipulates that the junction protecting signal can be Scheme Plan Closed released to better proceed aspect when the train has passed the signal in rear. NR/L2/SIG/19609 Design stipulates that this also needs to release to a better proceed aspect once the train has past the signal in rear but also and when the PLJI and Main aspect become visible. To be compliant to both standards a timer will be used for all approach controls based on the sighting point of the signal. This will need to be confirmed once signal sighting has been completed. 51 09/02/15 (IS) The scheme plan was subject to specific risk and SORAT assessments. This was assessed at a Scheme Plan Closed workshop held for any signals scoring above H3 in the risk band and assessing the risk assessment Design reports undertaken. No further comments/recommendations were made. 52 10/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 15 in version A Scheme Plan Closed Design To provide compliant timers for the approach controls and the call on routes for LR70 and LR72 two track sections have been provided on approach to these signals. 53 10/04/14 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 2 in version 1.2 and log 24 version A (All R/RA indicators Scheme Plan Closed recovered) Design At Kettering station there is a mix in use of R and RA indicators according to the existing records on eB. As we are not affecting these as part of these works it has been identified on the scheme plan that ‘R’ stands for right away indicator. 54 10/04/14 (IS) The existing base record did not have entries in the TPWS table/route table for existing signals MJ24R Scheme Plan Closed and MJ19. This has been added to the scheme plan and updated as required with red and green Design work. 55 10/04/14 (IS) The existing point zone telephone has been retained by the existing 720 points that are to be Scheme Plan Open recovered. This is subject to signal sighting and telephone requirements for the new layout. Design 56 10/04/14 (IS) Corby Relay Room has now been shown as recovered. Scheme Plan Closed Design 57 10/04/14 (IS) For the MAY-FA routes on LR74 and LR76 up to LR70 and LR72 the forward routes do not need to be Scheme Plan Closed set and ready to clear as LR70 and LR72 have TPWS fitment. This is compliant to section 10.2 of Design NR/L2/SIG/19609. 58 10/04/14 (IS) A reference to the Manton Junction Doubling project scheme plan has been added into the base Scheme Plan Closed records used for the production of this scheme plan in the notes section. Design 59 10/04/14 (IS) The requirements for retaining/removing existing routes from KM3962 and KM3967 to and from Scheme Plan Open Warehouse Siding/Wincanton Distribution Siding, which has had the existing 72 points plain lined, is Design still being investigated. At present this has been maintained on the scheme plan. 60 10/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 9 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 18 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed Looking at previous projects the way a re-lock was depicted and approved was detailing the change in interlocking type/name at the relevant boundary’s. This is has been applied to this project in the same manner. 61 10/04/14 (IS) Point numbers for North of Corby station have now been renumbered in line with Network Rails Scheme Plan Closed requirements and the previously used numbers have now been changed. See Appendix D for the Design Numbering Matrix used.
62 10/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by logs 12 and 29 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design With retaining the Platform starter LR64 the TPWS has to be re-evaluated for 60mph. this is also the case for LR62. However if LR62 is at red MAR controls are to be applied to LR64 due to the non compliant signal sections for freight trains. This is also similar for LR64 so MAR controls would be required on LR72. For this reason LR62 and LR64 could be assessed for a lower approach speed. Using 40mph, for LR62 this could be changed to have a single loop at 100m to be effective down to 6%g braked trains. For LR64 TPWS TSS alone would be sufficient. However for worst case these signals have been assessed at 60mph and the TPWS fitment has been optimised to be effective down to 6%g braked trains. 63 10/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 18 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design For LR69 the TPWS assessment cannot provide effective TPWS fitment for Freight due to the short SOD. The existing fitment can be improved to reduce the overrun so this has been modified to have 2 OSS loops instead of 1 and be effective for Passenger trains as they will use this signal more than Freight trains. 64 10/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 12 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Existing PSR 91 has had a TPWS assessment carried out using the PSR spreadsheet TI-014_6.0 from the Network Rail Signalling Tools web site. The result was that TPWS was not required for this PSR. New PSR SPC3DS7223U SPC3US7223U and GSM1DC7900D were also assessed. These required TPWS fitment. The scheme plan has applied TPWS as per the results of the spread sheets. See Appendix C for details. 65 10/04/14 (IS) For the existing PSR on approach to Manton Junction, near Welland Viaduct the 20mph(138312) and Scheme Plan Closed 20/40mph(139753) PSRs, it cannot be confirmed what reason these PSR did not have TPWS fitment Design as there is only a short section of this reduced Speed it could be due to the rail conditions. Exclusion coded I and Ji could be used as the PSR could have been provided for extending asset life or Gauging/Aerodynamic reasons. The TPWS tables have not been completed for these PSRs and TPWS assessment has not been carried out. Should Network Rail deem it necessary to confirm this this would need to be investigated by Network Rail to confirm the reasons for providing the reduced line speeds at these locations.
It should be noted that the Seaton Scheme Plan, 12-NE-0092 is modifying these as part of their project so this could have been already investigated as one of the speed reductions is to be removed(20/40mph). Log 23 for version 0.2 above should also be noted as this would need to be reassessed.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 19 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 66 10/04/14 (IS) The existing type of track circuits have been listed in the train detection notes section for all existing Scheme Plan Closed affected track circuits. Design 67 10/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 37 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design As we have now converted the MAY-FA controls of LR49 to MAR to be compliant to the standards it is not normally required to have splitting banner repeaters. As this is an existing fitment in a re-locked area this will not be modified. 68 10/04/14 (IS) The provision of 3 state banner over a 2 state banner is not definitive in NR/L2/SIG30009/F210. As we Scheme Plan Closed are relocating the banner at Corby station this has been applied as a 3 state Banner. This has been Design confirmed to be acceptable by Signal Sighting Committee.
3.3 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 1.0
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 17/03/14 (IS) Scheme plan up versioned as it was issued as draft at version 0.2 for IDC. As the plan was still being Scheme Plan Closed checked at the time all updates and additional design log entries will be done under version 1.0 for the Design scheme plan and A01 for the design log.
2 17/03/14 (IS) Minor alteration were required from the production check, the scheme plan and aspect sequence Scheme Plan Closed charts were updated as required. Time of operation locking will be required at control table design Design stage for 656A points as the points are within 20m from the replacement joint of KM3973 3 24/04/14 (IS) From the IDC review of the scheme plan no signal positions have had to change from version 0.2. The Scheme Plan Closed braking calculations will not have the version of the plan updated as they are still valid. Design 4 24/04/14 (IS) Due to probability that ‘wheel rock’ can happen at Kettering Station with the use of Call on routes to be Scheme Plan Closed retained providing an axle counter boundary in the centre of the platform is non preferred. The Design boundary has been extended to the overlap of LR60 and LR64. 5 24/04/14 (IS) An extract of the EMCC control centre notes for Kettering interlocking has been added under the site Scheme Plan Closed plan section of the scheme plan. This was requested to be added at the IDC. Only modified Design requirements have been shown as well as information we know using Manton Junction SB notes (Train describer, Emergency Alarms and telephones). There is no existing signalling plan with this information on for Kettering Interlocking. For the revised layout it has been assumed that all tracks will be separately indicated for limit of track indications from Manton fringe. Point normalisation and signal group replacement facilities are to be determined at a later GRIP stage after input has been received from Operations, notes have been applied accordingly. The existing all signals on control has been shown black. This will need to be updated during detailed design to capture all the new signalling requirements.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 20 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 6 24/04/14 (IS) A comment was made regarding GPL LR617 shunt route into Kettering station at the IDC. Currently it Scheme Plan Closed does not require any track sections beyond the first track past the signal to be clear. After reviewing Design GK/RT0044 there is no requirement to check for cleared tracks for GPL permissive moves up to platform starting signals. Looking at NR/L2/SIG/11201 Mod B7 section 3.2.7, this states that if attaching/ detaching operations are necessary the track sections where these occur can be omitted. This is allowed as long as the signal ahead has a separate overlap and first wheel replacement, this is present in LR59. After further discussions with Network Rail the route tables are to show a permissible shunt [(S)(P)] and Non permissible shunt move[(S)(NP)]. This has been shown as new work on the route tables. The way that these routes are shown is not to current scheme plan development standards. However this is in line with previous scheme plans accepted by the Network Rail Project team. 7 24/04/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 13 in version 1.2 Scheme Plan Closed Design Changes in speed to 65mph have now been taken from the AIP PWay design. This required repositioning and renaming both sets of boards on the Up and the Down Corby. Braking Calculations have been updated as required. 8 24/04/14 (IS) Additional note added to section B.1 on scheme plan regarding positioning axle counters within 10m Scheme Plan Closed of clearance points as detailed in NR/L2/SIG30081 section 5.7.8.3. 698 Points has been assessed as Design a turn out as the track separation is greater than 4m. At Corby station the long axle counter section 363 has been split and an additional track section, 361, implemented to allow 657 points still be used in case of axle counter failure. 9 24/04/14 (IS) At Corby Station bridge 17 is to be reconstructed in its existing position. As the reconstruction may Scheme Plan Closed not require complete removal of the existing structure this has not been shown as recovered and Design replaced with green and red work. A miscellaneous Civil section has been added to the notes section and a note has been applied to this section on the scheme plan. 10 24/04/14 (IS) Electrical Detection has been provided on new spring point in Corby Sidings. Although section 18.1 of Scheme Plan Closed NR/L2/SIG/11704 only says consideration should be given, it has been provided for worst case. If it is Design decided that this does not improve the safety of the operation then this can be removed at a later GRIP stage. PWay alterations not shown, this is to be investigated during later GRIP stages. 11 24/04/14 (IS) Scheme Plan has been extended with a not to scale region on approach to Kettering station to show Scheme Plan Closed the aspect sequence up to the first Kettering interlocking signals. This has also been updated onto the Design Aspect Sequence chart as required. The LSI scheme plan 12-NE-0017/08 Version C was used. Only part details have been shown. The new speed boards have not been identified on the redrawn section as this does not affect the aspect sequence. No correction factor was applied for the discrepancy between base plan and LSI plan Kilometerages. TPWS and Route tables will not contain entries for equipment in the Not to scale region. 12 24/04/14 (IS) For the Aspect sequence charts all re-controlled signals have had their aspect control lines shown as Scheme Plan Closed red to highlight the signal has been re-controlled and will require testing. Design 13 24/04/14 (IS) 3 aspect banner repeater symbol in the notes section has been updated to include that for this type of Scheme Plan Closed banner it is to be identified on the signal structure that it is a 3 aspect banner. It is assumed the LSI Design scheme design has applied this to the banners introduced as part of that scheme design. We do not have any photos with the LSI design implemented to confirm.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 21 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 14 24/04/14 (IS) Additional bridges and culverts have been added to the scheme plan as per the information supplied Scheme Plan Closed by Atkins. As this information does not contain the span of bridges a small section has been shown. Design This will need to be confirmed in later GRIP stages if deemed necessary for the following bridges: SPC3 - 51A. GSM1- 15Z and 16A 15 30/04/14 (IS) The scheme design has had various Risk assessments carried out in addition to the SORAT Scheme Plan Closed assessments. These include Excess and Irregular Signal spacing, Trap points and Permissive Design Move(Call-On) risk assessment. No other risk assessments are required for the proposed scheme design. 16 30/04/14 (IS) The control tables and Aspect sequence charts cannot be sourced for Market Harborough Interlocking Scheme Plan Open to confirm the timers and controls used for signals at Market Harborough Station. The timers have Design been left as TBC on the aspect sequence chart design. This will need to be confirmed in the later GRIP stages for testing purposes. 17 05/05/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 2 and 16 in version 1.2 Scheme Plan Closed The TPWS assessment for LR59 was initially designed for 50mph but the approach speed needed to Design be 60mph. No configuration of TPWS gave effective fitment for freight at LR59 when assessed for 60mph, the configuration used for 50mph was retained. 18 05/05/14 (IS) Harringworth Relay Room has now been shown recovered. The records from eB show that this only Scheme Plan Closed contains equipment for the axle counter section CD and DC which are now to be recovered. Design 19 05/05/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 22 in version 1.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design KM3973 can never show a Yellow aspect. This has now been designed to be a 2 aspect signal, red and green. The braking calculations have not changed this to be a 2 aspect signal as the spacing calculations will not be affected. 20 05/05/14 (IS) A response has not been received for TQ 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000022 regarding the non compliant Scheme Plan Open approach controls. However, Network Rail have identified that LR58 and LR62 route C have MAR Design controls for signal sighting purposes. The approach controls for these routes have not been recovered now and the aspect sequence charts have been updated to show this control.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 22
3.4 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 1.1
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 08/08/14 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned to 1.1 and MSRP comments have been addressed. Scheme Plan Closed Design 2 08/08/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 29 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design On the Down Corby the speed change to 90mph at 118769, in the up direction, has now been removed as there is no benefit in increasing the speed to 90mph to change down to 60 then to 40mph along the route through Kettering station. To eliminate the signal spacing issue for signal sections between LR70 to LR58 a 40/60mph has been implemented instead. This results in re-assessing the TPWS for LR70. Using the TPWS positioning tool, only TSS is now required to get the first column effective. It has been noted that introducing 1 OSS loop can make the fitment more effective. If optimised at 75m the first 2 columns would be effective. But as the tool has found TSS to be effective this has been applied on the scheme plan. The TPWS table has been updated accordingly. 3 08/08/14 (IS) Log superseded by logs 12 and 29 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design MAY-FA provided on LR72 route up to LR60 instead of MAR to provide the least restrictive approach controls for the route. Flashing aspect provided on LR78 and AWI provided for turnout speed. The 40mph directional PSR (SPC3US7223U) has been assessed with an approach speed of 60mph. although the position of the AWI is in the 90mph line speed section there is another AWI on approach to this AWI that is reducing the speed down to 40/60mph so this is not considered an issue. An additional track section has been introduced to facilitate flashing aspect inhibition controls. This has been positioned at the sighting point of 350m. Aspect sequence charts updated accordingly, as the signal sighting forms are still to be validated in the next GRIP stage the timer will be kept at TBC, the axle counter section may need to move if the sighting points are altered. Return to line speed miniature speed board provided after 696B points. Signal controls also introduced as the signal ahead does not have TPWS as required by NR/L2/SIG/19609 section 10.2. Part c) could be applied but as it could be possible for freight trains to be signalled into this section from LR72 it was decided providing signals ahead set controls would be the safest option as Freight trains would not need to stop at the platform. 4 08/08/14 (IS) MAY-FA provided on KM3959 route up to KM3973 instead of MAR to provide the least restrictive Scheme Plan Closed approach controls for the route. Flashing aspect provided on KM3957. An additional track section has Design been introduced to facilitate flashing aspect inhibition controls. This has been positioned at the sighting point of 350m. Aspect sequence charts updated accordingly. The SOD for KM3973 is still the distance to signal KM3974 as the points would be set for all routes from Down Corby to normal. If the CP was to be used instead an additional OSS loop is required to provide effective TPWS. 5 11/08/14 (IS) 40mph miniature speed board applied on exit to BSC sidings. Due to the MSRP comment regarding Scheme Plan Closed the position of speed boards this has been left hand mounted. TPWS is not required for this fitment Design as the line speed is 40mph the TPWS table has been completed accordingly.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 23 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 6 11/08/14 (IS) See log 6 in version 2.1 for further info Scheme Plan Closed Design To reduce the number of axle counter sections used to for bridge/tunnel indications and signal replacement facilities if there is an axle counter within 250m of the tunnel this will suffice to indicating to the signalling the tunnel is occupied or cleared and can be used for signal replacement facilities as well. Confirmation received from Network Rail that a single axle counter section for Welland Viaduct and Seaton Tunnel will be acceptable as this has further reduce the number of axle counter sections required. Axle counter sections 368, 375, 376, 377, 404, 406, 408, 410 and 417 have been removed. 7 11/08/14 (IS) Log 23 of version 0.2 is still valid at present. Until confirmation received from network Rail that the Scheme Plan Closed Seaton Project alterations have been commissioned this will not be updated on to the scheme plan. Design 8 11/08/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 5 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Slot now provided on KM3996 (existing MJ6). The slot has been numbered MJ6 as the controlled signal is operated by Kettering and will need to be slotted by Manton Junction as the secondary control point. It has been assumed numbering the Slot MJ6 will not cause any confusion with the signaller however if this is a concern then this can be renumbered to MJ30. 9 11/08/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 7 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Blue boundary added to scheme plan to depict the area of relocked and resignalled infrastructure. LR58 and LR62 have been identified as resignalled as the MAR controls have been removed from these signals. LR618 has been identified as resignalled as an overlap has now been provided. 10 11/08/14 (IS) Welland Viaduct measurement of 1164m added to scheme plan. Scheme Plan Closed Design 11 11/08/14 (IS) MAR controls removed from LR58 and LR62 C route. Scheme Plan Closed Design 12 11/08/14 (IS) All scheme plan ‘A’ notes have been reordered to have a standard generic set of notes followed by Scheme Plan Closed plan specific notes. Design 13 11/08/14 (IS) MAF applied to all routes where controls not provided on scheme plan across a junction. Scheme Plan Closed Design 14 11/08/14 (IS) Blue note applied to scheme plan to detail that replacement facility to be provided in Bedford to Scheme Plan Closed Kettering scheme plan design for LR45-LR48. LR101 and LR102 can be changed to ‘R’ buttons as Design they are proved in the interlocking. 15 11/08/14 (IS) All ‘OFF’ notes have been amended in the route tables to details either ‘PRESETS #’ or ‘REQ’S # Scheme Plan Closed SET’ where # equals the GPL number that is preset by the main and shunt routes. Design 16 12/08/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 12 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Speed change to 40/60mph now applied at LR72 as gantry cannot move to remove freight braking issue. 60mph speed board removed from PSR at 116325. AWI now moved to be 1438m from new 40/60mph speed board at LR72 for worst case 75-40mph speed change which is for the freight trains, the passenger trains would be 90mph to 60mph but would require the AWI to be closer to the PSR. LR62 and 64 reassessed for TPWS and TPWS tables updated accordingly.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 24
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 17 12/08/14 (IS) Log partially superseded. See Log 29 in version 2.1 for further info Scheme Plan Closed Design All new speed boards have been left hand mounted where possible. Due to the complexity of SPC3DS7365U PSR at 118769m and SPC3UF7403D PSR at 119152 on plan 1 these have been retained as a right hand mounted PSRs. On plan 2 at Corby station the exiting 15mph at 74A (now 656A) points has been changed to a ground mounted PSR due to the close proximity of the tracks. 18 12/08/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 3 in version 1.2 Scheme Plan Closed Design LR67/69 signals have now been relocated with the new signals LR71/91. It has been assumed a single Gantry will be installed which will span across all 4 lines. This will need to be confirmed during construction/signal sighting. All associated equipment and joints have been recovered/repositioned accordingly. Two additional braking calculations have now been added to cover the braking for the fast lines in the down direction. TPWS has been reassessed for the increase in SODs, the existing fitment for LR69 was never effective for the OSS fitment at 350m but with the increase in SOD this is now effective with one loop at 450m. Additional track sections affected now included into plan Train Detection Note B1.2. Although LR69 is greater than 800m from the junction this is still to standard as detailed in GK/RT0045 section 3.1.1.4b) there is another parallel signal protecting a junction that is within 800m. 19 12/08/14 (IS) Log Partially superseded by log 2 in version 1.2 Scheme Plan Closed Design It has now been requested that LR57 has a route to LR91. A PLJI has been provided for this route. Currently this route will be designed with MAR controls as LR57 is a flashing signal for another junction protecting signal so it cannot have Flashing aspect sequence on approach as detailed in NR/L2/SIG/1902 section 10.1.3 paragraph 2. However there is an open discussion whether or not LR57 is to keep this flashing aspect as it has a Banner repeater. However if it is determined that the Flashing aspect is not to be provided on LR57 then to provide a flashing aspect sequence on approach LR49 will also need to be confirmed if it is allowed to have a flashing aspect as it also has a banner signal. The other signals LR51 and LR103 can have a flashing aspect. But if it turns out LR49 cannot have a flashing aspect then MAR will need to be maintained for LR57 to LR91 as it would create too much confusion to only have flashing aspects from 2 lines and not all three.
A miniature PSR has been provided for the speed over the 696 crossover. A return to line speed of 50mph PSR has been applied on exit to the crossover as well. A braking calculations has been provided for this additional route. 20 09/02/15 (IS) AWI on Up Main for 40mph PSR located at 119052 has been located parallel with AWI on Down Main Scheme Plan Closed as requested by MSRP. This was to be subject to investigation by Siemens regarding the Provision of Design Flashing aspects for LR192.If Flashing aspects are not to be provided then AWI on Down Main will be removed and AWI can be put back to previous position if required. As the location cases are to be renewed as detailed in scheme plan version 2.1 design logs for the interlocking boundary, the flashing aspect is now to be provided and no further investigation will be required. 21 13/08/14 (IS) All axle counter and non-axle counter boundaries will need to be subject to a timing assessment to Scheme Plan Closed ensure no loss of train detection occurs at line speed. This is in accordance with NR/L2/SIG/30081 Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 25 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed section 5.7.6.1. This will need to be confirmed in later GRIP stages. 22 13/08/14 (IS) Signal KM3962BR and KM3973 have been relocated 2m in rear of its existing positions to facilitate Scheme Plan Closed installation of these signals away from Bridge 17 as the existing positions will create installation Design issues. The structure to be used will be a standard structure. KM3975 has been relocated to be in parallel with KM3973 and be a 3 aspect signal, this will be a light weight structure. TPWS has been reassessed for this signal due to points being in the route. KM3973 has now become a 3 aspect signal again as it can now display a yellow aspect. All new signals from Kettering North Junction to Corby station on the Down Corby Line have been repositioned to provide even spacing between LR71/91 to Corby station. All braking calculations have been updated accordingly. Only the affected braking calculations will be updated and up versioned as required. 23 13/08/14 (IS) The TPWS assessment for KM3975 using the worst case gradient (as required per the instructions on Scheme Plan Closed the spreadsheet ,1:200 falling) places OSS loops within the new point work for 651 points (27m and Design 52m from 651A). This requires 3 loops to be provided. This requires signal controls on the OSS loops on approach to the points to ensure they are suppressed when routes into Corby station are set.
A method to use 2 loops and not introducing signal controls on the TPWS loops could be to use the average gradient between the signal and OSS loops instead of worst case as per the standard calculation requirements, if positioned at 500m from the signal this would equated to a gradient of 1:261 falling. Using this figure effective TPWS fitment is provided with 2 loops. 24 15/08/14 (IS) To release the 654 points faster, at Corby station, the axle counter section has been extended to Scheme Plan Closed create a section into the warehouse/BSC sidings. Track section FA has been shortened accordingly Design to have a single axle counter section release the points. 25 15/08/14 (IS) See log 25 in version 2.1 for further input Scheme Plan Closed Design PLJI now removed from KM3973 signal as it is the end of a Bi-di section so does not need to be provided as requested by MSRP. 26 15/08/14 (IS) Neutral section shown on the main lines in blue as per Atkins MMLE OLE AIP report 121926-ATK- Scheme Plan Closed DOC-OH-000002 version 01. The kilometerages used do not tie in with the scheme plan so the Design neutral section has been shown as positioned 1092m from LR201 and 1088m from LR204 as detailed in Appendix F of the OLE report. It is not known if this will be installed at the same time as this project will be commissioned so it has not been shown as new work. 27 15/08/14 (IS) Corby Station South and North Junction boards moved to be central to all points. For Corby Station Scheme Plan Closed South Junction this has been positioned to be clear of the bridge for ease of installation. Design 28 15/08/14 (IS) ‘R’ buttons changed to ‘E’ button within Kettering Interlocking as these have been investigated and are Scheme Plan Closed proved in the interlocking. Design 29 15/08/14 (IS) New SDO boards / alterations to exiting fitments have been removed from the design as this was only Scheme Plan Closed requested to be passively provided. This has been shown in blue for information only. This will need to Design be captured in another project. Network Rail has advised Jacobs that the LDHSS project will provide the required boards and agreed to retain the information in blue on the plan. 30 15/08/14 (IS) Position of equipment to be updated to LiDAR figures as part of AFC design. No alterations are to be Scheme Plan Open undertaken at this stage. Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 26 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 31 15/08/14 (IS) Note copied from Manton junction doubling project plan 12-NE-0035 version E regarding the ground Scheme Plan Closed frame and MJ8A(S) route – ‘GF IS FITTED WITH A REVERSE LOCK ON LEVER 2 AND Design INTERLOCKING CONTROLS THAT APPLY WHEN MJ8A(S) ROUTE SET, WHICH LOCKS THE GF REVERSE UNTIL THE TRAIN IS CLEAR OF THE CROSSOVER.’ 32 20/11/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 10 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design MJ6 signal ahead warning board has been retained following the signal sighting committee review of the new KM3996 signal. The sign has been updated to show the separate information plate being renewed with updated details. 33 09/02/15 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 9, 11, 12, 16 in version A (TPWS reassessed) Scheme Plan Closed Design All TPWS in the relocked area has been assessed. See Appendix C for calculations. LR54, 67, 76 and 103 were previously required to be taken to a VariSPAD workshop after SORAT Assessment so TPWS has not been moved at present this will be considered after VariSPAD assessment is carried out if the workshop considers it to be an issue. A list of the findings is detailed below for ineffective fitments. The SORATs will need to be reassessed to the updated scheme plan. LR51 existing fitment is not effective for Freight trains but this can be improved with changing the positions but not made effective an assessment has been included in Appendix C but the TPWS loop have not been moved. It is also noted there are no Time tabled Trains at this signal. LR52 existing fitment is not effective for Freight trains but this can be made effective by moving the loops to 525m. This shall be updated/considered as part of another project (Bedford to Kettering). LR54 existing fitment is not effective for Freight trains but this can be made effective by adding an additional set of loops at 600m. The existing loops can be moved to bring the loops closer to the signal and still remain effective but this would require additional work to be done with no added benefit. This shall be updated/considered as part of another project (Bedford to Kettering). LR74 is only effective for passenger trains with 12%g braking capability. This can be made effective for freight and passenger trains by applying an additional OSS loop at 775m. An existing fitment assessment has been included in Appendix C but the OSS loop has not been provided. It is also noted there are no Time tabled Trains at this signal. KM3963 and KM3965 are low speed, 15mph, TPWS fitment is not effective for freight trains but adding OSS loops at 50m does not improve this significantly and is still ineffective. KM3970 is low speed, 15mph; TPWS fitment is not effective due to the short distance to the conflict point 14m even with OSS provided at 25m(which is against standards as this should not be placed closer than 50m). This is not considered an issue as this signal has trapping protection. This is looked at in more detail in the Trap point risk assessment 134187-JAC- SG-RET-000006. No further mitigation measures have been proposed.
No comments were raised at the VariSPAD workshop.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 27
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 34 20/08/14 (IS) AWI required for 60 down to 40mph at 651A points for turn out speed as MAY-FA now provided. This Scheme Plan Closed would position the AWI board in a non-compliant position between KM3959 signal and its AWS. This Design has been positioned 10m on approach to the AWS. Signalling controls will also be required to suppress this for the straight on route. 35 17/02/15 (IS) 90mph reminder board will not be applied at the exit of 697B points to allow speed of trains to be Scheme Plan Closed increased once they have passed this board when coming from the fast lines. There is a 40 AWI in Design advance it is not expected that the trains can pick up speed once they see the AWI board if the 90mph PSR was provided. The trains coming from the fast lines would need to wait until they have passed LR72 before they could pick up speed to 60mph. 36 29/08/14 (IS) Partially superseded by log 12 and 29 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Braking calculations up to LR60 and 64 shown as being under braked but the braking is 103%. This is an automatic response to any braking calculation for tolerance issues. LR72 can be moved to remove the braking issues from this signal but then the signal would not be parallel. Routes from LR70 cannot be fixed without moving the signal but this is deemed beyond the scope of this project unless otherwise instructed by Network Rail. The signal should not be positioned any closer to Kettering Station but there is 39m tolerance to do so and would still be 100% braked. 37 05/09/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 28 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design LR49 to retain existing MAY-FA controls as well as flashing aspect on LR45. Both of these are non- compliant use of MAY-FA, as the speed of the crossover is 30mph and the minimum speed needs to be 40mph for the existing line speed of 100/110mph and inhibition controls are required on LR45 flashing aspect, as detailed in NR/L2/SIG/19609 figure 1 in section 10.1.1e). Network Rail to submit a retrospective tracker. Aspect sequence charts updated accordingly. Note 3 on the scheme plan has been updated to highlight there is now one non compliance
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 28
3.5 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 1.2
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 20/10/14 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned to 1.2 and provisional signal sighting comments have been Scheme Plan Closed addressed. Design 2 27/10/14 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 22 in version 2.1 and log 24 version A (banners moved for Scheme Plan Closed platform extension and RA indicators recovered. OFF indicator provision updated for all Design platforms at Kettering Station)
Platform starting signals on gantry located at 116024 are to be moved 90m north. A banner repeater signal is required on approach to signals LR53 and LR55 to have minimum 5 second viewing time. LR57 no longer requires banner repeater. The new banner repeater signals for LR53 and LR55 provided 6m on approach to the existing track section, before the south side of the platforms, to provide replacement facilities as soon as possible on the new banners, LR55BR to be right hand mounted. Both Banners are to be provided as a 3 state LED banner. Although the LR53, LR55, LR57 and LR59 signals are to be recovered from the gantry the gantry structure is to be retained as it is used as cable bridge. LR55 and LR59 have RA indicators. This has been maintained with the new signals but the new RA indicators are to be platform mounted, however OFF indicators are also now to be provided for all signals that have moved off the platform where an existing OFF indicator is not provided. The positioning of the OFF/RA are to be confirmed at the next GRIP stage. This will be subject to Signal Sighting Committee recommendations. Platform dispatch arrangements will need updated to ensure trains do not leave the platforms with the signals displaying a stop aspect. This will need to be discussed with the TOC and Network Rail Operations department. All new signals and indicators are to be of LED type. 3 07/04/15 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 16 in version A (TPWS reassessed) Scheme Plan Closed Design LR69 and LR67 no longer to be repositioned to be parallel with LR71 and LR91 as this cannot be done while providing effective sighting of these signals when the OLE equipment/structures are positioned due to the existing layout of the railway. The design will keep the existing positions for LR67 and LR69. The TPWS provision has been reverted back to the scheme plan design for version 1.0 with OSS loop positions. The TPWS has been assessed for LR67, the existing fitment is effective for 12%g braked passenger trains and 7.5%g braked freight trains, however this can be improved for passenger trains only by moving the OSS+ loop to 850m so this has been applied for LR67 as requested by the sighting committee. As detailed in version 1.0 no fitment will be effective with freight for LR69 but additional loops have been implemented to provide effective fitment for passenger trains. 4 20/10/14 (IS) As the new crossover 696 is to be used for perturbation only the use of warner routes to improve the Scheme Plan Closed operational flex bility is not to be considered. Design 5 20/10/14 (IS) 5121795-K2C-DRG-TR-0000031 version A01 used to detail PWay alterations for 699 (existing 721) Scheme Plan Closed points. Additional track circuits T33D, T34, T37, T38, 267, 268A now added to scheme plan notes list Design as affected by the scheme design in note B1.2. PWay design used has also been updated in the
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 29
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed notes. 6 09/02/15 (IS) Log superseded by log 16 in version A (TPWS reassessed) Scheme Plan Closed With the signals LR69 and LR67 to retain the existing signal positions the TPWS for LR74 is no longer Design effective for Freight trains. As LR74 is assessed as a relocked signal this has not been updated on the plan but to provide effective TPWS for freight trains another OSS loop would be required at 775m. No comments were made at the workshop. 7 05/11/14 (IS) At the request of signal sighting chairman, as a result of signal sighting of signals from Corby to Scheme Plan Closed Manton Junction, KM3978 has been moved to be 250m on approach to its designed position to aid in Design better sighting of the signal. The distance signal KM3980 has also been moved 175m to provide better signal sighting. This would put the signal at the foot of BR30. Braking calculations have been updated accordingly. No under braking issues have been highlighted as a result. The whistle board in advance of KM3978 will be recovered and a new whistle board will be collocated on the signal post. 8 27/10/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 12 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design Due to signal sighting issues on approach to LR72 a splitting 3 state banner is to be provided on approach. As detailed in NR/L2/SIG/19609 section 16.2 the splitting banner repeater has been provided with an offset in height with the turn out banner mounted lower and to the right of the main, straight on route banner. ‘(M)’ and ‘(R)’ label used as per splitting banner on LR49. It is assumed (M) is for the straight on main route and (R) is for the right hand turnout. The aspect sequence chart has been updated accordingly. An axle counter section has been used to replace LR72BR as soon as possible. However from NR/L2/SIG/19609 section 10.2.1 states, for MAY-FA signal controls, the junction signal shall be released from yellow to the normal aspect sequence up to the next signal ahead when a train has passed the signal in rear and can see the PLJI for the diverging route. Section 16.2 states ‘Where a splitting banner repeating signal is provided for a junction signal then the divergent banner head shall clear when any diverging route to which the divergent banner head applies is cleared.’
As a splitting banner has been provided it could be understood that the diverging banner of the splitting banner provides advanced information with regards to the diverging route ahead so it can be possible to combine the sighting distance of the main aspect with the banner to provide a timer for approach to the banner to release the junction signal for the normal aspect sequence. As section 10.2.1 states this can only be done when the PLJI is viewable this may not be possible as the banner has been provided for poor sighting issues. 9 05/11/14 (IS) 60mph speed board in advance of new signal KM3988 by Seaton Tunnel is now to be recovered and Scheme Plan Closed a miniature PSR to be provided on KM3988 after recommendation from the signal sighting committee. Design
Entry now made in the PSR TPWS fitment table for the new PSR on the signal. No TPWS is required as line speed is less than 60mph. exclusion code ‘F’ applied. Braking calcs updated as required. 10 20/11/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 25 in version 2.1 Scheme Plan Closed Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 30
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed KM3977 to be moved to be 3m on approach to the 80 ¾ mile post. It is to retain a straight post but a co-acting signal is to be provided right hand mounted in the up cess as per the signal sighting recommendations. 11 05/11/14 (IS) KM3983 distant signal to be moved 60m from its designed position to be 6m on approach to BR38 at Scheme Plan Closed the request of the signal sighting committee. Braking calculations have been updated accordingly. Design 12 11/11/14 (IS) Signal sighting committee has confirmed that the following signal are to be re-headed to be LED type Scheme Plan Closed signals to facilitate better sighting of the signals as there would be a mix of different signal heads with Design the proposed scheme design: LR66; LR67; LR68; LR69; LR70; LR74; LR76; LR192; LR194. Due to restricted space on the plan # notes have been used to depict the recoveries of the signal heads. 13 13/11/14 (IS) PWay design has been changed to show the speed change from 90mph to 65mph 119917 and Scheme Plan Closed 120534 to be upgraded to 70mph. This has now been updated on the scheme plan and the braking Design calcs have been updated as required. 14 13/11/14 (IS) BR1 is now to be re-profiled on site in its existing position, instead of being re-built in a new position, Scheme Plan Closed to allow for future OLE requirements. This is now shown as existing, a note has been applied to the Design scheme plan notes section to refer to the civil drawings for further details. 15 18/11/14 (IS) Project number prefix changed from 138389 to 134187. This has been updated on all relevant Scheme Plan Closed references apart from TQ numbers. This is because the issued TQ numbers with responses will still Design have the old number listed so it would introduce confusion by changing the reference to these TQ with the new number. 16 18/11/14 (IS) With the overlap for LR59 now to be provided beyond 696 points an additional axle counter section Scheme Plan Closed has not been maintained to allow the points to release sooner on the Up Slow as the crossover is only Design to be used during perturbation moves so moves across the crossover will be infrequent. If it is deemed necessary this can be added at a later GRIP stage and the numbering can be rearranged to use the spare 451(X) identity. 17 20/11/14 (IS) Log superseded by log 30 in version 2.1 and Log 4 in version A Scheme Plan Closed Design At present the scheme plan has been updated to signal sighting activities which has covered all the new KM signals. There is still outstanding signal sighting activities for Kettering Station and LR signals. Any further updates from signal sighting, including signal release timers and calculations will be captured during GRIP 4.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 31
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 18 26/11/14 (IS) KM3957 moved 165m closer to Corby station at the request of the signal sighting committee due to Scheme Plan Closed sighting issues. Braking calcs updated accordingly. Design
3.6 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 2.0
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 26/11/14 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned to 2.0 for issue to MSRP for AIP. Scheme Plan Closed Design
3.7 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 2.1
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 04/02/15 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned to 2.1 for updates to further MSRP comments from the AIP Scheme Plan Closed submission. Design 2 04/02/15 (IS) Unique id of PSR at 139232 corrected within table on plan 2 Scheme Plan Closed Design 3 04/02/15 (IS) Route tables now updated to show correct letters i.e. A(M) etc where only (M) was used previously as Scheme Plan Closed the new interlocking will require new control tables to be produced to standard. Design 4 04/02/15 (IS) The mile posts on Plan 2 have been checked on Omnicom up to MJ5 to confirm if there is a physical Scheme Plan Open milepost on site. The following milepost cannot be confirmed so have retained brackets or had the Design datum updated to have brackets: 77 ¼; 79; 81, 81 ¼, 81 ½, 81 ¾, 82 – within tunnel cannot be confirmed; 83; 84 ¾ ; 85 ½; 87 ½, 87 ¾, 88, 88 ¼ - within tunnel cannot be confirmed; The following milepost have not got a physical milepost on site, but have had the brackets removed: 79 ½ - painted on disused platform; 80 ¾ - painted on sleeper; 85 ¼ - painted on viaduct; 85 ¾ - painted on viaduct; 88 ¾ - painted on sleeper;
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 32
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 90 – painted on BR58. All datum’s on the scheme plan are subject to NR review with regards the use of LiDAR measurements, this will be reviewed/updated as part of the next GRIP stage if this information is made available. 5 04/02/15 (IS) MJ6 signal to remain as part of Manton interlocking, KM3996 to be used as the slot. Existing boundary Scheme Plan Closed retained and fringe track circuit indications updated to reflect updated boundary. Design 6 04/02/15 (IS) Additional track section added on Down and Up Corby halfway between Seaton Tunnel and Welland Scheme Plan Closed (Harringworth) viaduct to allow the two items to be individually indicated to the signaller. Design 7 04/02/15 (IS) Re-signalled/re-interlocking boundary now changed to show new location cases and interfaced Scheme Plan Closed location case boundary. Note also applied to existing boundary at Manton Junction on plan 2 as new Design location cases will be used up to this boundary. 8 04/02/15 (IS) As new location cases are to be implemented between Kettering Station up to 76 ½ mile post on the Scheme Plan Closed fast lines all existing auto signals without replacement facilities will now be provided with the facility. It Design is not envisaged that the bidirectional controls, that need to be replicated within the new interlocking, will be affected with the introduction of replacement facilities. The replacement facilities will provide an additional layer of protection to stop a train within the authorised route without the need to cancel the bi-directional control. 9 04/02/15 (IS) LR194 now shown to have new flashing aspect. Blue note regarding existing installation removed. Scheme Plan Closed Design 10 04/02/15 (IS) MJ6 signal ahead board now shown recovered. Train drivers at the VariSPAD workshop have Scheme Plan Closed identified that the countdown markers are present on approach to MJ6. This has now been shown on Design the scheme plan 100m to 500 on approach to the signal. They have been shown recovered as per the signal ahead board as it is believed this mitigation is not required with the provision of MJ14. This has been confirmed by the signal sighting committee Chair. 11 04/02/15 (IS) LR91 renumbered to LR93 so the last digit is not the same as parallel signal LR71. This has also been Scheme Plan Closed updated on all the braking, TPWS calculations and tables. The Signal Numbering Matrix in Appendix Design D has included this numbering change for completeness. 12 08/04/15 (IS) 40mph now introduced at LR72 instead of 40/60. This removes the requirement of turnout 40PSR at Scheme Plan Closed 696A and associated AWI board for the turnout. OSS loops for 90mph down to 40mph changes to Design 609m on approach to 40mph PSR. The position of the AWI moves to 1680m on approach for 90mph down to 40mph. Flashing aspect on LR78 removed and MAY-FA controls removed from B(M) route on LR72. MAF applied to table for B(M) route and Auto working provided for A(M) route as MAR controls no longer required for signal spacing deficiency.
As MAY-FA is no longer required and the speed profile will now be the same for both routes from LR72 the routing from this signal is not considered to be critical. Therefore as 696 points is to be used for perturbation moves only and for cost savings a standard 3 state banner on a lightweight structure is to be implemented in place of a splitting banner. This will reduce the requirements of a bespoke structure and improve maintenance access as well as reduce the interlocking requirements. The aspect sequence charts have also been updated.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 33
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed At present track section 447(X) has been provided for the call on routes from LR72, an additional timing section has not been provided for the combined sighting point. If it is deemed that LR72 can be released on the combined sighting point then an additional section can be introduced. 13 05/02/15 (IS) Speed on approach to LR62 is now as per the existing arrangement. Although this would mean only Scheme Plan Closed an assessment of the TPWS would be required the TSS alone is not effective for freight trains. As the Design number of trains approaching this signal has now been increased it has been decided to retain the additional loops at 100m to provide effective fitment at this signal. If this is determined to be out of the scope for these works the loops can be removed from the design in the next GRIP stage. 14 05/02/15 (IS) Miniature Indicators are not required on KM3962 and KM3973 as there is only a single shunt route Scheme Plan Closed from these signals. This was provided previously to maintain the existing operations. This has now Design been recovered and not replaced with the new signalling arrangements. The Aspect sequence charts have been updated accordingly. 15 05/02/15 (IS) To depict the left hand panel being recovered at Manton Junction SB the symbol has been partially Scheme Plan Closed shown green and red on plan 2. Design 16 22/11/15 (IS) ‘Corby’ now prefixed to all siding line names in red. Reception Line and Run Round now replaced with Scheme Plan Closed a single name Run Road Siding as per the Sectional Appendix LN3601. Now called Corby Run Round Design siding. The Run Round section in the automotive branch to be prefixed ‘Corby Automotive’ to avoid confusion with Corby Run Round Siding. Sectional appendix will need to be updated by Network Rail for all changes. 17 05/02/15 (IS) Welland Viaduct now changed to Harringworth Viaduct Scheme Plan Closed Design 18 05/02/15 (IS) Note regarding tunnel indications removed from plan 1. Scheme Plan Closed Design 19 05/02/15 (IS) 50mph speed board at LR59 now to be mounted in the 6 foot instead of on the gantry. The note on the Scheme Plan Closed scheme plan has been updated accordingly and a post now shown on symbol Design 20 05/02/15 (IS) Side by side speed boards around Kettering north junction are to have 2 separate posts and uniquely Scheme Plan Closed identified for each board. This has been updated on all occurrences that we have introduced. Where a Design full size board can be fitted this has been updated on the plan after reviewing against the PWay design 21 05/02/15 (IS) Signal group replacement facilities and predetermined overrun protection SPAD protection groups Scheme Plan Closed now detailed in the control centre notes section on plan 1 as per the details received from Network Design Rail in response to TQ 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000086. Response now included in Appendix A. There was a repeated group name in the information provided. This was queried and agreed with Network Rail and rectified by changing the name of group 7, of the predetermined overrun protection groups, from KETSTNUP to KETSDGUP. It has also been identified that Group 5 and 6 were incorrectly named and should be group 05 - KETSTNDN and group 06 - KETSTNUP 22 05/02/15 (IS) New banner signals for LR53 and LR55 now moved to be 70m on approach to the top of ramp of Scheme Plan Closed platform 4. This ensures they will be clear of the proposed platform extension work if extended on the Design south side. 23 09/02/15 (IS) Scheme plan note A3 now modified to not include dates and version of standards AIP submission has Scheme Plan Closed been done to as requested by MSRP. Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 34
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 24 09/02/15 (IS) Note A4 now included to state braking tables A and B used for scheme plan design. The other notes Scheme Plan Closed were renumbered accordingly. Design 25 10/02/15 (IS) After signal sighting review of MSRP comments it was initially recommended to provide the PLJI on Scheme Plan Closed KM3973. After further discussions with the committee members, Network Rail and the standards this Design is no longer to be provided and the scheme design is to remain without the provision of the PLJI. MSRP have recommended using a banner repeater signal in place of a co-actor signal for KM3977. This has been reviewed by the committee and a 3 state banner has been provided (in place of a 2 state for consistent use of 3 state banners within the area) at 190m on approach to the signal, at the required minimum 5 seconds would put this at 134m which would place the banner between the AWS and the KM3977. The replacement joint has been positioned 6m in advance of the banner which would keep 4m to the centre of the AWS. 26 17/02/15 (IS) Signals KM3963 (MJ21), KM3965 (MJ23) and KM3967 (MJ25) have position lights and miniature Scheme Plan Closed indicators on site but all controlling circuitry has been recovered from the location case. This has not Design been shown on the scheme plan as it is not controlled by the interlocking and the only changes we are making are to renumber these signals. As new location cases are being used it could be possible to recover the redundant equipment on site but this will need to be confirmed/proposed by Network Rail. 27 17/02/15 (IS) The revised Railway Group Standard GK/RT0045 no longer stipulates that signals have to be Scheme Plan Closed designated as passable/non passable. After confirmation received from Network Rail all new auto Design plates on the Corby lines (KM signals) are not to be provided. Auto signals on the Fast Fines (LR signals) are to maintain the provision of Auto plates as another project will remove these as part of their scope of works. 28 17/02/15 (IS) MAR now applied to LR49 for all diverging routes at the request of Network Rail, this also results in Scheme Plan Closed the flashing aspect being removed on LR45. This is due to the future provision of a banner repeater Design signal on LR45 with the new OLE structures required. Therefore derogation will not be required for retaining the MAY-FA controls and flashing aspect on LR49. Aspect sequence chart and braking calculations updated accordingly. 29 17/02/15 (IS) 40mph now applied for all routes on the Down Slow line in the up direction towards Kettering station. Scheme Plan Closed This removes the requirement for speed boards at 697A points and 696B points. This also removes Design the requirement for the existing AWI board and 40mph PSR past Kettering station on approach to Kettering South Junction. The recovered board has also been recovered from the PSR TPWS table. This has been done in response to TQ 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000088. 30 17/02/15 (IS) Log superseded by log 19 and 24 in version A Scheme Plan Closed Design Majority of signal sighting has been completed via Omnicom and the Bentley model. There are some outstanding issues with regards to the Kettering Platform extensions and positioning of OFF/RA indicators and the banner signals for LR53 and LR55 as well as the sighting requirements for LR68. LR68 has been assessed at 90mph existing but the Line Speed Improvement scheme has applied HST speeds for 105mph. the MRD required is 390m at 105mph and the signal cannot be seen at this distance. The scheme plan may require updates once this has been through the sighting committee assessment and recommendations. 31 23/02/15 (IS) Information received from the signal sighting committee that LR192 and LR194 currently use the Scheme Plan Closed Dorman Light Engine LED modules. They have requested these signals be re-headed to full LED Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 35
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed signals as the existing fitment cannot be flashed. This was confirmed by Network Rail. This cannot be confirmed within the standards or technical instructions. 32 23/02/15 (IS) Derogation is now to be sought for the non-provision of Tunnel indications, see section 4 of this design Scheme Plan Closed log for further information. Network Rail has issued Jacobs with a preliminary copy of the tracker Design (tracker number 20100) for information. This will be submitted by Network Rail once the updated forms/process has been completed. 3.8 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version 3.0
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 27/02/15 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned to 3.0 for issue to MSRP for AIP. Scheme Plan Closed Design 2 27/02/15 (IS) Limit of electrification now to be added to plan to as per information supplied by Network Rail. The Scheme Plan Closed limits have been shown to be 250m beyond 656A points on Down Corby and Up Corby and up to the Design buffer stop within Corby Run Round Siding. The branch lines are not to be electrified. The existing blue note regarding the limits of Omnicom survey has been expanded to detail this. 3 27/02/15 (IS) References to previous survey undertaken by the electrification project now removed from plans Scheme Plan Closed instead of green work. Design
3.9 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version A
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 16/03/15 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned for AFC issue at GRIP 4 to A as AiP has been approved at GRIP Scheme Plan Closed 3. Design 2 16/03/15 (IS) LRK-BO-SWI(40)-DS-71m1318 AWI permanent AWS magnet now shown recovered as this was not Scheme Plan Closed shown recovered previously. Design 3 16/03/15 (IS) Signal dimension for MJ6 corrected to show only MJ6 in black. Scheme Plan Closed Design 4 16/03/15 (IS) Aspect sequence charts timers now updated with sighting information where required. Scheme Plan Closed Design 5 16/03/15 (IS) The existing control tables have the shunt route timer as 82 seconds for LR49 & LR51 and 50 Scheme Plan Closed seconds for LR103. This is to be replicated within the new interlocking, non-compliance is not required Design as this is compliant to NR/L2/SIG/30009/E810. 6 16/03/15 (IS) The timing sections for LR49 and LR51 are to use two track sections as the existing locations case Scheme Plan Closed circuitry has these combined and sent back to the interlocking. This is within the interfaced location Design case area so changes cannot be implemented to use a single track section. This will require timers of 41 seconds as detailed in the interlocking principle review report as well. The track sections will be listed with ‘/’ separator on the aspect sequence chart as these are combined, therefore this will not be
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 36 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed individually listed as first track occupied with a timer or second track occupied. This will be confirmed to be acceptable by approval of the GRIP 4 principles review document and updated scheme plan design. The timer for LR103 will be 15 seconds using the achievable reading distance stated in the signalling principles review report. Although all the timers are in the non preferred grey section this is still to standard so is not an issue. 7 16/03/15 (IS) Timers for LR209, LR211, LR212 and LR214 have not been determined as these are part of the Scheme Plan Closed adjacent interlocking and have been shown for information only regarding the aspect sequence. TBC Design is to be retained, should it be required the existing records will need to found as the control tables cannot be sourced from eB to confirm what these are. 8 19/03/15 (IS) ‘CORBY’ prefixed to siding names within the route table on plan 2. Scheme Plan Closed Design 9 01/04/15 (IS) The following signals on gantries are to be relocated to provide complaint structures for the project: Scheme Plan Closed LR66/68/70 (now adding LR72 to the gantry) – 5m south; Design LR67/69 – 7m north, to provide standard overlap on LR69; LR74/76 – 171m north at the request of the committee. LR192/194 – 5m north. Braking calculations, TPWS calculations updated accordingly. 10 01/09/15 (IS) Auto plates no longer to be provided for new signals and altered signals in the Kettering interlocking Scheme Plan Closed area and not just on the Corby Lines. This has been requested via the project from Network Rail. Also Design Auto plates for LR81, LR83, LR191 and LR193 are to be removed. 11 08/04/15 (IS) RA indicators now not to be provided at Kettering station by the request of the signal sighting Scheme Plan Closed committee after review at the workshop on 19/05/2015. Design 12 20/11/15 (IS) Gantry with LR66, 68, 70(old 72) is to be recovered and a new gantry to be provided 5m in advance. Scheme Plan Closed LR72 is now to be mounted on the gantry. 40mph speed change now to be post mounted on its own Design at the same position as the gantry. LR72BR no longer required and has been removed from the plan, and the aspect sequence chart, at the request of the sighting committee. A single track section now implemented to provide timing section for the call on routes. This has been positioned at 100m to get 0 second timer for the call on route. Future MAR controls is more restrictive than permitted (MAY-FA), however as this route will only be used at times of perturbations it is considered to be a low usage route, if MAY-FA was implemented, which is considered to be not cost effective for a low usage route. Track 445 has been removed and made spare. For LR70 track section 337 is used as the berth track section positioned at 100m from the signal. This will require a 0 second timer. PSR number changes to SPC3US7244U instead of SPC3US7245U. The OSS loops are still required and have been repositioned accordingly. Associated AWI board moved 10m as well. 13 08/04/15 (IS) Gantry with LR67 and 69 moved 7m in advance. TPWS recalculated. For LR67 for the loop Scheme Plan Closed positioning with the correct gradient used the existing fitment will provided effective TPWS so this has Design no longer been changed to 850m for the OSS+ loop. However the distance to the OSS loops have now been increased from 348m to 355m and 752m to 759m. For LR69 the first loop needs to be 275m and the second 750m. It could go at 725m but this would put
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 37 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed it within the TI21 tuned zone so this has been put at 750. This is still only effective for passenger trains only due to the short SOD. At 700m this will not be effective. Replacement joints moved to be 15m to allow clearance from TI21 tuned zone. 14 08/04/15 (IS) Replacement track removed for KM3977 banner. 365 track section made spare. Scheme Plan Closed Design 15 05/05/15 (IS) All existing track circuits affected by the signal gantry moves have now been included into the scheme Scheme Plan Closed plan notes in section B1.2 to detail the type of track circuit used. Alterations will require using the Design same type. Track sections T31 and T272 will need to convert from normal TI21 to Low power TI21 track circuits due to the track section been shortened to below 200m. New sections T32 and T271 will also need to remain as low power TI21 track circuits. This has been identified in the FPS. T320, North side of Kettering Station, has been recovered as a MVDC track circuit. A new LVDC track circuit identified as T320 will be required at Kettering South Junction. New track circuits T38B and T259 will need to be low power TI21 for the new overlap track circuits for LR74 and LR76. It will also be identified in the FPS that all track circuits within the new CBI location area are to have the track circuits individually indicated back to the interlocking. 16 08/04/15 (IS) LR53BR and LR55BR now moved to be 300m from the signal. This will be mounted on the platform Scheme Plan Closed on a post. Signal sighting forms will be updated to reflect the required layout. This was done as a Design result of signal sighting recommendations to maintain less than 3 seconds between the main signal and the banner and to locate the banners as per the 3D model position from the signal. This will also ensure when the platform extension works occur this will not require alterations to these banner signals. 17 08/04/15 (IS) Blue note added to the red and green changes from ‘E’ to ‘R’ replacement facilities to explain changes Scheme Plan Closed only required on the VDU display and not on site. Design 18 05/05/15 (IS) With moving LR74 and LR76 Gantry TPWS was reassessed to provide effective TPWS with an Scheme Plan Closed increase in the SOD for both signals. LR74 only requires one loop. LR76 still requires 3 loops to be Design effective for freight as well within the 12/7.5% column at 110mph. Although this philosophy has not been applied by the MMLE project for TPWS fitments, it has been applied for a consistent approach as per the TPWS assessments undertaken by the Kettering to Corby project. It is proposed to have an extended overlap of 355m on the down main for LR74 as there are no trains routed in this direction so the headways will not be impacted. For LR76 it is proposed to install an overlap at 189m and introduce an additional track section. The overlap with be the new T259 track circuit section and another section T260 will be introduced beyond the overlap. The other options that could be introduced for LR74 if the proposed is not acceptable would be to introduce T38A and T38B using T38B as the overlap. However on the panel display it would need to be determined which method of display is allowed/ possible. Either a combined T38 can be displayed with the overlap shown in the middle or T38A and T38B to be indicated separately. The replacement joint positions for LR74 and LR76 have been positioned to be 15m as these are TI21 track sections and there is a tuning area of 20m where the required TPWS TSS loops cannot be within or close to. This will allow for 4m separation from the tuning zone and the edge of TSS loop. 19 05/05/15 (IS) The timer used for LR69 MAR route is within the non-preferred section of the table but this is still Scheme Plan Closed compliant to the standard. All timers have been provided on the length of the berth track section from Design the signal to the limit of the track section.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 38 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 20 05/05/15 (IS) The revised boundary between the existing location cases and the new location cases has been Scheme Plan Closed confirmed by Siemens to be acceptable. There is no requirement to replace the existing locs up to Design Kettering South Junction with moving signal gantry with LR52, LR54, LR58 and LR62. 21 20/05/15 (IS) After the Signal sighting/ VariSPAD workshop all OFF and RA indicators have now been assessed. Scheme Plan Closed No RA indicators are to be provided, existing RA indicators and plungers now shown recovered. The Design provision of the OFF indicators will be of LED type and as follows:-
Platform 1 – Northbound train dispatch - LR59 existing OFF indicator at 230m from signal to be relocated trackside of platform pillars, 2.5 metres from platform edge. LR59 new OFF indicator at 270m from signal.
Platform 2 – Northbound train dispatch - LR57 OFF indicator positions will duplicate those of platform 1. i.e. 230m & 270m from the signal.
Platform 2 – Southbound train dispatch - LR60 existing OFF indicator at south end of platform, adjacent to 72MP, to be retained in its current position.
Platform 3 – Northbound train dispatch - LR55 existing OFF indicator at 224m from the signal to be relocated trackside of platform pillars, 2 metres from platform edge.
Platform 4 – Northbound train dispatch - LR53 new OFF indicators at 152m for the train driver 244m from the signal for platform staff, the one at 244m is to be double-sided.
All new OFF indicators are to be CAT 3 readability. 22 28/08/15 (IS) MAY-FA to be maintained on LR49 with the flashing aspect on LR45. This is to be done at the request Scheme Plan Closed of the RAM. See section 4 for full details. Scheme plan updated accordingly including aspect Design sequence and braking calcs. 23 28/08/15 (IS) 50mph speed board at LR59 now to be mounted in the cess instead of the 6 foot. The note on the Scheme Plan Closed scheme plan has been removed as the symbol can now be fitted on the plan. Design 24 28/08/15 (IS) After confirmation has been received that Network Rail Network Change proposal has been accepted, Scheme Plan Closed MJ25 and 72 points now shown as recovered. At present the rest of the sidings have been shown Design green but this does not mean it will need to be recovered on site. This is just to show that it will not need be detailed on the scheme plan/ future signalling plan. If the track is to be recovered it will be done as part of another project as this is out of the scope for this project. Routes into the Warehouse/Wincanton sidings have been removed from KM3962, this signal does not need a position light to be provided. 25 28/08/15 (IS) Banner repeater signal now provided for LR60 at the request of the sighting committee. This has been Scheme Plan Closed positioned 141m on approach. Design 26 15/09/15 (IS) Limit of track circuit indications to EMCC for Up Corby now shown on the main line at the replacement Scheme Plan Closed track section of MJ2 instead of MJ6 at the request of Network Rail. This has been conditioned on Design points 53 and 54 being reverse.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 39
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 27 01/12/15 (IS) Log partially superseded by log 13 in version C (BR1 and BR17 no longer to be altered) Scheme Plan Open Design Bridge 4 GSM1 is to be renewed, it has been assumed this will be done in its existing location as there is no information on Projectwise that details this to be in a new location. This will need to be confirmed by Network Rail. This has been shown as red only on the plan. Miscellaneous note B4 has now been removed from plan 1 and hash note applied next to the bridge . Confirmation from Network Rail with regards to the other bridges affected in the area has now been received. Bridge 1 located at 120494 is to be re-profiled in its existing position, this is shown as red only with a hash note. It has been confirmed that bridge 5 located at 122450 is still to be recovered. Bridge 11 located at 125069 is now only to be repaired and refurbished instead of recovered, this has been updated on the scheme plan to show it as an existing bridge only. On plan 2, bridge 17 is now to be shown red with a hash note next to it. Miscellaneous notes B4 to be removed from the notes section. The bridges are to be shown as red to highlight there are changes required that may not be identified easily with the notes on the plan only. 28 28/09/15 (IS) 70mph speed changes on the Corby lines, located at 119917m and 120534m, now reverted back to Scheme Plan Closed 65mph at the request of Network Rail. Braking calculations updated accordingly. Design 29 21/10/15 (IS) 6 countdown markers, each individually labelled as ‘US’, on approach to LR72 to be applied at the Scheme Plan Closed request of the Signal Sighting Committee, 100m apart from 600m on approach to LR72. Line identifier Design ‘US’ also applied above LR72. These mitigations will aid in sighting this signal as a result of misread issues due to the curvature of the approach and possible alignment to the Down Slow approach. This is required in addition to the 450m vegetation cutback required on site for the sighting of the new gantry to enable all four signals to come into view at the same time rather than one at a time to avoid misread issues. 30 20/11/15(IS) It was noted that some track circuits have been duplicated on the Kettering to Corby scheme. T341, Scheme Plan Closed T342, T343 have been used south of Kettering station. We had introduced 340, 341, 343 and 344 Design north of Kettering station. The recovered tracks T317, T318, T319 are now reused allowing tracks 340-344 not to be used and the numbering continuing from 345 as per designed layout. Aspect sequence chart updated as required. 31 20/11/15(IS) OFF indicators shown at Corby station updated to shown correct symbol for double sided off and Scheme Plan Closed canopy mounted. The position has now also been shown on the plan. Design 32 20/11/15(IS) Kettering Relay Room now shown on the plan. Scheme Plan Closed Design 33 20/11/15(IS) Gantries used as cable bridges now identified on the scheme plan with #note. LR74/LR76 existing Scheme Plan Closed gantry not shown recovered as it will need to be retained as a cable gantry. The existing Location Design Area Plan, 5YO1B-J0/19B, was used to confirm which gantries are used as cable gantries within the area. 34 30/11/15 (IS) At the request of the sighting committee, the 90mph PSR at 126724 is to be moved to be within the Scheme Plan Closed sighting distance of KM3958, which is 350m. The speed board has been moved to 126005 and Design renamed to GSM1UC7825U. 35 02/12/15 (IS) Network Rail to confirm the requirements for MJ19 (KM3961) whether this signal is to be retained or Scheme Plan Open recovered. At present the design has been done with this being retained and renumbered. Design
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 40 3.10 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version B
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 15/02/16 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned to re-submit design with Kettering Station area redrawn Scheme Plan Closed Design 2 15/02/16 (IS) At the request of Network Rail the Kettering station area has been re scaled. This has been scaled Scheme Plan Closed 1:1000 instead of 1:5000. The 1:5000 scale changes now only occurs on approach to 70 ½ mile post Design and beyond 74 ¼ mile post. The scale between these two mile post has been changed to 1:2500 for the majority of it apart from between the two signal platform starter gantries south and north of the station which has been done 1:1000..
This has required the need to provide an additional sheet of scheme plan design so all other sheets have been renumbered accordingly.
This will also be updated on to the braking calcs to ensure the correct scheme plan number has been referenced. 3 15/02/16 (IS) PWay design at Corby station not correctly updated on the scheme design as the new points Corby Scheme Plan Closed North has been moved 9m north and not replaced in its existing positon. This has now been Design corrected. 4 24/02/16 (IS) At the recommendation of the Signal Sighting Committee the distant signal KM3989, north of Seaton Scheme Plan Closed Tunnel on the Down Corby line, has been moved 160m in advance of its designed position (from Design 139238 to 139398) as it is not possible to see the signal at the AWS. Braking calcs updated accordingly. The speed on approach is 20mph so the signal could move more than 160m. However to future proof the area for 60mph (as will be required after completion of the Seaton Tunnel Project) the braking calcs were confirmed at 60mph to give 105% braking for freight trains and 170% for passenger trains with the signal moved by 160m. This will not be shown in the braking calcs. 5 24/02/16 (IS) Signal sighting committee have recommended a large backboard on a post to be mounted in rear of Scheme Plan Closed KM3970, at Corby Station North Junction, to mitigate read through issues with KM3962BR. Design KM3962BR is to be a 3 state banner, capable of showing a green aspect, therefore increasing the risk of misreading KM3970 at red and a SPAD occurring. No alterations required to the scheme plan design. Full details will be included within KM3970 signal sighting form.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 41 3.11 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version C
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 05/05/16 (IS) Scheme plan has been up versioned to re-submit design with further updates to MSRP comments. Scheme Plan Closed Design 2 05/05/16 (IS) Double directional arrow (predominant direction of travel) at Corby station on the Up Corby now Scheme Plan Closed retained as a single arrow. Design 3 05/05/16 (IS) Appendix C added to list of tables used for signal spacing calculations in general notes section note Scheme Plan Closed A4. Design 4 05/05/16 (IS) Reference to non-compliance regarding the tunnel indications now removed from note A3 in the Scheme Plan Closed general notes section. Network Rail has confirmed, via email correspondence, that the project is Design deemed complaint with the design alterations undertaken. The tracker was rejected by Network rail with the following reason : The panel discussed the application and were clearly of the opinion that the requirement does not specify that track section limits need to be aligned to tunnels and viaducts within tolerance, and that the track sections for this application are to be indicated individually. Panel recommend the application is rejected on the basis of the view the arrangements are compliant. 5 05/05/16 (IS) MSRP questioned if the non-compliant MAY-FA circuitry for LR49 needed updating. It was Scheme Plan Closed determined that the circuitry was compliant at the time of introduction therefore does not need to be Design updated. Additionally the banner repeater for this signal acts as an additional reminder for the driver so is not considered to be an issue. 6 05/05/16 (IS) AWI board added at LR45 signal at the request of MSRP, this is to be mounted on the gantry leg as Scheme Plan Closed there is 2m to the gantry leg from the running edge (measured on Omnicom). This is required as LR49 Design signal will not be approached controlled from red. The minimum distance required would position the board in advance of LR45 signal gantry but this has been located at the signal as requested. This fitment will not require an additional AWS fitment as AWS magnet associated with LR45 can be used as detailed in GK/RT0075 section 3.3.7.2. The speed change down do 30mph for the turnout does not need TPWS as it is excluded by the trains using this route being approach controlled. 7 05/05/16 (IS) General notes section B2.3 updated to detail new crossovers are to have split detection at the location Scheme Plan Closed case and separate indications sent back to EMCC, in line with current standard practice. The existing Design provision was confirmed via the lineside wiring and updated as required. 8 05/05/16 (IS) The AWS positions of LR60/LR64 is not within 10% of the distance to LR57/LR59 however this will be Scheme Plan Closed within 10% when LR60/LR64 is moved as part of MMLE and platform extension requirements. A blue Design #note has been applied to the scheme plan. 9 05/05/16 (IS) A blue #note has been applied to the split track axle counters within platform 1 and 2 at Kettering Scheme Plan Closed Station to detail the theory for the position used. This is as detailed in log 20 in version 0.2 above. Design 10 05/05/16 (IS) LR72 count down markers to be retained. The markers are not to be used for judgement but Scheme Plan Closed association with the signal due to the high SPAD history in the area. These were requested by the Design train operating companies. 11 05/05/16 (IS) New side by side speed boards SPC3UF7369U1 and SPC3UF7369U2 do not need to be mounted as Scheme Plan Closed shown. These can be stacked on top of each other with a single identity as per other line speed Design boards in the area. This has been updated on the plan and tables. Full size boards to be used.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 42
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 12 05/05/16 (IS) MSRP have commented that investigation was required to see if LR191 and LR193 signals can be Scheme Plan Closed mounted on the new gantry with LR192 and LR194. Network Rail has confirmed that passive provision Design will be provided for this on the new gantry. No alterations required on this scheme plan. 13 05/05/16 (IS) Bridges GSM1 1 and 17 no longer to be altered as part of this project. Alterations shown on the Scheme Plan Closed scheme plan removed. Design 14 05/05/16 (IS) Noted that for future project POP groups do not need to be shown on scheme plans but kept in the Scheme Plan Closed signalling deliverables like Operational Requirement Specification. Design 15 05/05/16 (IS) Network Rail has confirmed that the provision of ARS is not required after the work load assessment Scheme Plan Closed has undertaken. Design 16 05/05/16 (IS) # Note for KM3996 slot updated to state slot provided for axle counter reset purposes and will Scheme Plan Closed normally be off. This will reduce the interaction required between signallers at different interlockings Design and control points. 17 12/05/16 (IS) KM3990 distant signal now moved into Glaston Tunnel, this will need to be a special 2 aspect tunnel Scheme Plan Closed signal, single aperture tall housing, which will be ground mounted. This will be a double aperture Design signal head the symbol on the plan has been shown with the most restrictive aspect at the top. The signal has moved 9m in advance of the 87 ½ milepost at the request of the Signal sighting chairman. Braking calcs updated accordingly. With this revised position there will be no under braking issues with freight once Seaton project has been commissioned. The sighting committee including the train operating companies have no issue with this proposal. 18 12/05/16 (IS) Auto working provided on LR60 and LR64 at the request of Network Rail. Scheme Plan Closed Design 19 12/05/16 (IS) Retaining non-compliant MAY-FA controls on LR49 has now been confirmed by formal acceptance of Scheme Plan Closed Trackers 22116 and 22117. This has been confirmed by an email from Network Rail on 16/05/16 and Design is supported by Network Rail Operations. 20 12/05/16 (IS) Position of GSM1UC7950D moved to match sighting form. Moves 9m as per the distance the PWay Scheme Plan Closed has moved Design 21 12/05/16 (IS) 40mph directional AWI board GSM1DC7851D now aligned to same post and position at 60mph AWI Scheme Plan Closed board GSM1DC7811D. There is no longer a need for a condition on the AWS magnet for the 40mph Design AWI as the AWS indication will be required for the straight on route as well as the turnout.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 43 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 22 12/05/16 (IS) At the request of the Data designers at Siemens additional notes have been added to the scheme Scheme Plan Closed plan design to capture the requirements for bi-directional controls. To reduce clutter on the scheme Design plan and several additional # notes, these were added as tables into the control centre notes section on plan 1. The information received from Siemens was as follows:
SINGLE LINE DIRECTION SWITCH ‘XXXX’ PROVIDED FOR THE ‘YYYYYYY’ BETWEEN ‘JUNCTION1’ POINTS AND ‘JUNCTION2’ POINTS CROSSOVERS
For the K2C Scheme Plans, ‘XXXX’, ‘YYYYYY’, ‘JUNCTION1’ and ‘JUNCTION2’ would be as follows:
1005 - DOWN FAST - HARROWDEN JUNCTION 711 - KETTERING SOUTH JUNCTION 714 1006 - UP FAST - HARROWDEN JUNCTION 711 - KETTERING SOUTH JUNCTION 714 1007 - UP & DOWN SLOW - HARROWDEN JUNCTION 710 - KETTERING SOUTH JUNCTION 715 1009 - DOWN FAST - KETTERING SOUTH JUNCTION 714 - KETTERING NORTH JUNCTION 699 1010 - UP FAST - KETTERING SOUTH JUNCTION 714 - KETTERING NORTH JUNCTION 699 1013 - DOWN MAIN - KETTERING NORTH JUNCTION 699 - MARKET HARBOROUGH JCN 746 1014 - UP MAIN - KETTERING NORTH JUNCTION 699 - MARKET HARBOROUGH JUNCTION 746
It was noted on the additional information received, that another project had added the prefix for the control area. LR was added to the switch numbers listed above. It was also requested that reference to the direction switch be used in the signal special notes section in the relevant route box. An example of what Siemens required is detailed below:
Taking the Down Fast as an example between Wellingborough and Kettering South Jcn, the following could be added in the Special Notes Column for 52A(M): REQUIRES DIRECTION CONTROL 1005 ‘REVERSE’ A corresponding note would apply to 39(1M) at Harrowden Jcn but would read: REQUIRES DIRECTION CONTROL 1005 ‘NORMAL’
14 additional # notes have been used over plans 1-2 to capture the required notes. For completeness all routes required have been added to the route tables & TPWS tables where not originally provided as the section to Harrowden Junction was added for information only and for aspect sequence details. The routes listed for the Up & Down Slow has taken the down direction as the normal direction of travel for the future requirements for Bedford to Kettering where the Up & Down Slow will become the Down Slow.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 44 3.12 Signalling Scheme Plan – Version D
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 1 14/12/16 The line names between Kettering and Wellingborough have been changed from ‘Main’ to ‘Fast’ lines Comments from Closed (CSB) as per the Sectional Appendix. Siemens 2 14/12/16 The Permissive routes from signals LR49/51/103 to Kettering Sidings preset LR617 GPL rather than Comments from Closed (CSB) just requiring a route set from LR617. Siemens The route tables have been amended accordingly and LR620 has been shown as the destination signal for routes into the sidings. 3 14/12/16 The kilometerage (119453) for signal LR78 was missing from 13-NE-0075/1, this has now been Comments from Closed (CSB) added. Siemens 4 14/12/16 Emergency Pump Handle boxes have been added to 13-NE-0075/3 for Corby North and South Comments from Closed (CSB) Junctions as per PZT siting forms. Siemens 5 14/12/16 The interlocking boundary between Kettering and Manton has been amended to show MJ6 AWS on Comments from Closed (CSB) Manton side. Siemens 6 14/12/16 A note has been added to all three scheme plan regarding the minimum length of Frauscher axle Comments from Closed (CSB) counter sections that is permitted that will still maintain correct operation. Siemens The calculation is taken from the Frauscher Design and planning manual D20001, item 1.6.2. Minimum length of track section (FMA) = v max[m/s] * (T maxAge + T occupied-delay)[S]
The configured time-out (T maxAge) has been taken as 400ms with a line speed (v max) of 40.2 m/s (90mph) and T occupied-delay is 0 (default) which equates to 16.08m (an actual minimum of 18.3m still applies). A minimum axle counter length of 20m has been applied for the affected area.
It should be noted that the Frauscher default configured time-out (T maxAge) setting is 300ms (configuration 0). 400ms equates to configuration 1, Network Rail preferred setting. 7 14/12/16 LR60BR has been changed to a 2-state banner rather than a 3-state. Comments from Closed (CSB) Signal Sighting Committee recommendation. Siemens 8 14/12/16 Glaston tunnel mouth was found to be 172m from the proposed KM3991 signal position and not 180m Comments from Closed (CSB) as shown. The replacement axle counter head will be placed at a reduced overlap position of 170m Siemens and included in the reduced overlap risk assessment report. 9 14/12/16 The new HABD installation has been moved opposite the new REB at 124358m on the Up Corby & Comments from Closed (CSB) Down Corby lines. Siemens
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 45 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 10 14/12/16 Log to be read in conjunction with log 15 in version 0.1 Comments from Closed (CSB) Siemens As stated in log 15 v0.1, although the conflict point is at LR78 signal (1313m), the TPWS fitment was designed to be effective for an overrun to be stopped before 697B points. This was to allow for full operational flex bility in the event of a SPAD overrun of LR93 signal. Assessment of the TPWS has proved that the OSS loops can be removed as the provision of TSS only on LR93 would be fully effective for a SOD of 1313m. It has been agreed with Siemens that the conflict point will remain at 525m and the OSS loops will not be removed. The following #note has been added to the TPWS table: ‘#1 697B POINTS USED AS CONFLICT POINT TO ASSIST OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY’ 11 14/12/16 KM3974 signal head renewed on the existing structure. Comments from Closed (CSB) Siemens 12 10/07/17 Following discussions between Siemens and Network Rail Ops (as noted in the Interlocking Comments from Closed (CSB) Requirements Report BK82-D2.5-019) it has been agreed that the following points should auto Siemens normalise: 654, 656, 696 and 718. 13 10/07/17 Log to be read in conjunction with log 22 in version C Comments from Closed (CSB) Siemens Bi-directional switches – ‘Normal’ will be used for the Down direction routes and ‘reverse’ will be used for Up direction routes. The #notes detailing these requirements on plans 1 &2 have been updated accordingly i.e. Plan 1 Plan 2 #16 = LR1006 Reverse #14 = LR1010 Reverse #17 = LR1006 Normal #17 = LR1014 Reverse #18 = LR1010 Normal #18 = LR1014 Normal 14 10/07/17 In response to TQ 134187-SIR-ETQ-ESG-00179, the note ‘Forward Route Set OL’ has been added to Comments from Closed (CSB) swinging overlaps and preferred overlaps designated with note ‘Preferred OL’ for LR57 and KM3962 Siemens signals. 15 10/07/17 Signals KM3988 & KM3990 on the Up Corby have been repositioned as per the revised version C Comments from Closed (CSB) Signal Sighting Forms. Siemens Distance for KM3988 on the SSF has been shown to the nearest ½ metre, as 139048.5m. We have chosen to use 139048m on the scheme plan, as this places the signal against the tunnel entrance, and all associated calculations have used this figure. Axle counters have been moved to suit the new signal positions but the number of sections has been kept the same as instructed by Siemens as this is fixed by their REB design. Signal Spacing/Braking Calculations have been updated to correspond with these changes.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 46 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 16 10/07/17 A Signal Sighting Form has been supplied by Network Rail for the ‘presumed’ missing fixed distant Comments from Closed (CSB) board on the BSC Branch. Siemens However, a subsequent site walk-out of the BSC Branch has located the fixed distant signal at approx. 200m from the associated stop board. This existing board has been shown on the scheme plan and the proposed new fixed distant is no longer required. This approach has been communicated to Siemens and agreed. 17 10/07/17 New AWS magnets have been introduced for signals LR66/67/68/69 at 180m standard distance. Comments from Closed (CSB) The AWS for LR57/60 and LR59/64 have been shown as renewed in accordance with version 2 of the Siemens L2C Scheme Plan 16-NE-0033/4A, a position 9m different further north. This provides a distance of 196m to signals LR57 & LR59 and a distance of 124m to signals LR60 & LR64. The distance to LR60 & LR64 will increase to 195m upon implementation of the L2C Scheme when LR60/64 signals are relocated and therefore provide equal distance spacing for the AWS positions. 18 10/07/17 Signal KM3976 on the Up Corby is now proposed to be renewed as a straight post instead of mounted Comments from Closed (CSB) on the embankment retaining wall as you exit Corby Tunnel. Siemens Signal structure positioned as per version D signal sighting form supplied at a distance of 130055m, braking calculations updated accordingly. New AWS position shown at standard 180m. The SSF will be updated for ‘As Built’ records. 19 10/07/17 In response to TQ 134187-SIR-ETQ-ESG-000163, ESOC facilities will not be provided for the Comments from Closed (CSB) Kettering CBI. Note added to the plan to the effect that only existing ESOC facilities for the fringe RRIs Siemens will be retained. 20 10/07/17 In addition to the new SPTs for LR53/55/57/59 at 15m on the approach side of the gantry, the existing Comments from Closed (CSB) SPTs off the end of the platform ramps are being retained. The ‘mouthpiece’ symbol has been added Siemens to the plan at the end of each ramp with a corresponding #note to denote the duplication of SPTs. 21 10/07/17 The #notes that explain the replacement facilities on LR101 and LR102 signals have been re-worded Comments from Closed (CSB) to better define the interface between the control system and the CBI re-lock. Siemens LR101 becomes #3A - REPLACEMENT FACILITY SYMBOL TO BE UPDATED ON VDU DISPLAY. NO CHANGES REQUIRED TO LINESIDE CIRCUITS (OTHER THAN FOR INTERFACING TO NEW CBI). LR102 becomes #3B - REPLACEMENT FACILITY SYMBOL TO BE UPDATED ON VDU DISPLAY. CONTROL SYSTEM LOGIC & REPLACEMENT CONTROL CIRCUIT TO BE CONVERTED TO ‘DE-ENERGISE TO REPLACE’ OPERATION. 22 10/07/17 Siemens have confirmed that no replacement facilities will be provided, as part of the K2C scheme, for Comments from Closed (CSB) signals LR45/46/47/48 and therefore the blue box note placed around these signals has been Siemens removed. 23 10/07/17 LR46, LR48 & LR102 are Wellingborough controlled signals and a #note has been added to the plan Comments from Closed (CSB) to denote this. Siemens 24 10/07/17 It has been agreed, following on from the second Permissive Working Risk Assessment on 17/05/17, Comments from Closed (CSB) that LR70A(C) route will be ‘barred out of use’ in the interlocking when the K2C scheme is Siemens commissioned. A #note to this effect has been added to the route table.
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 47
No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 25 10/07/17 The positions of ‘OFF’ indicators on Kettering Station for LR53, LR55, LR57 & LR59 have been Comments from Closed (CSB) amended due to constructability issues. The indicators have been moved as per the revised version D Siemens sighting forms: LR53 OFF(1) – No longitudinal change. LR53 OFF(2) – 115868m (-2m) LR55 OFF – 115918m (+28m) LR57 OFF(1) – 115904m (+20m) LR57 OFF(2) – 115816m (-28m) LR59 OFF(1) – 115886m (+2m) LR59 OFF(2) – 115817m (-27m) 26 10/07/17 In response to TQ 134187-SIR-ETQ-ESG-000211, LR49BR right-hand head does not indicate green Comments from Closed (CSB) ‘off’ indication when LR49 is at green for a diverging route. The #note placed on the LSI scheme plan Siemens to explain, that was omitted from the K2C plan, has been re-instated. The aspect sequence chart has been updated also to reflect this. 27 10/07/17 It has been advised that LR49 signal does not revert to MAR control when the existing flashing yellow Comments from Closed (CSB) circuits for LR45 fails. LR49 will remain at single yellow with LR45 at steady single yellow. Siemens The #15 note on the aspect sequence chart has been updated to reflect this.
Correspondence between DPE and G Christmas confirms that non-compliant controls (i.e. not proving that driver has had minimum reading time to observe flashing yellow when junction signal becomes ready to clear and non-reversion to MAR when the flasher fails) can be retained in accordance with NR/L2/SIG/30009/E810 and does not require a derogation to be raised. 28 10/07/17 The IRJs between T263 and T264 were renewed as part of Stage 7B. Comments from Closed (CSB) In response to TQ 134187-SIR-ETQ-ESG-000107, the position of these IRJs has been updated to Siemens show them at 54.5m from 698A point toes, as per email from Richard O’Nion on 10/04/2017. It should be noted that the distance to 699B point toes is shown as 63.9m on the scheme plan and not 60.9m as stated in the email. Toe to toe distance (698A to 699B) Distance shown on Scheme Plan – 118.5m Measurements from Carillion – 115.5m 29 10/07/17 The #12 note that explains the replacement facilities on LR195, LR197, LR202 & LR204 signals has Comments from Closed (CSB) been re-worded to better define the interface between the control system and the CBI re-lock. Siemens The note becomes #12 - REPLACEMENT FACILITY SYMBOL TO BE UPDATED ON VDU DISPLAY. CONTROL SYSTEM LOGIC & REPLACEMENT CONTROL CIRCUIT TO BE CONVERTED TO ‘DE-ENERGISE TO REPLACE’ OPERATION. 30 10/07/17 #1 note regarding ‘OTW (SEQUENTIAL TCS)’ has been expanded to cover existing lamp override Comments from Closed (CSB) facility. Siemens ‘OTW (SEQUENTIAL TCS) WITH ‘LAMP OUT’ OVERRIDE FOR KM3965 MJ23’
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 48 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 31 10/07/17 Route MJ28A(M) has a ‘lamp out’ override facility for MJ19 which is left over from when the BSC Comments from Closed (CSB) Branch was operated as OTW. In response to TQ 134187-SIR-ETQ-ESG-000198, as the BSC Branch Siemens is now worked as Track Circuit Block there is no requirement to provide a lamp out override for MJ19 (KM3961). A green hash note has been added to the plan to show that this feature will not be replicated on Kettering Workstation. #14 ‘LAMP OUT’ OVERRIDE PROVIDED FOR MJ19 32 10/07/17 KM3961 (MJ19) changed to a 2-aspect signal as per the correlation information indicated on the Comments from Closed (CSB) Corby Branch Site Walk-out Plan 16-06-17. Siemens 33 10/07/17 Missing IRJ symbol at Manton Junction between AE and BE tracks has been added. Comments from Closed (CSB) Siemens 34 10/07/17 ‘INT R’ has been shown adjacent to the interrupters for 424(X) and 427(X) as these will require Comments from Closed (CSB) separate CBI inputs. Siemens 35 10/07/17 As requested by Siemens, the TPWS OSS and OSS+ loops for LR67 signal have been renewed. Comments from Closed (CSB) The OSS loop has been shown at 325m, adjusted by 25m as per the TPWS standard, for the rising Siemens gradient on approach to the signal. The OSS+ loop has been shown at 750m. The TPWS calculation has been updated accordingly and gives a fully effective fitment at these distances. 36 10/07/17 Signatures from the AFC version C plan have been added to the CAD file: Comments from Closed (CSB) Siemens RDE 25/05/16 S Gould NR SE 23/08/16 D Warwick NR Ops 26/08/16 D Edmonds 37 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/3 - Following a site walkout of the BSC Branch by Siemens, all equipment has been To verify the Closed (GP) repositioned to the correct meterages. position of relevant assets. 38 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1,2,3 - Duplicate axle counter heads provided for 696,697, 651 and 658 crossovers. B1.3 Comment from Closed (GP) note amended. Siemens 39 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1,2,3 - All axle counter heads with a 10m critical distance requirement to CP indicated Comment from Closed (GP) with a % symbol and train detection notes updated. Applicable to the following axle counters heads: Siemens 328/329, 337/339, 438/437, 345/347, 345/264, 357/361, 430/429, 427/428, 424/423, 422/421. 40 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/3 - %% symbol added to 656 and 654 axle counter heads, applicable to 424 and 427 trap Comment from Closed (GP) point ends and train detection notes updated. Siemens 41 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1 - LR103 and LR58 added to SGRC group at Kettering South junction. Comment from Closed (GP) Siemens 42 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1 – LR62 removed from POP group 09. LR70 added to POP group 05 in accordance with Comment from Closed (GP) TQ68 Siemens 43 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1,2 –B3.2 Note wording updated. Comment from Closed (GP) Siemens
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 49 No Date/Initial Addition/Change Reason Open/ Closed 44 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1 – LR53 OFF(2) Changed to single sided. To align with Closed (GP) Sighing Form 45 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1 – LR70A(C) Route barred Out of Use. To be Commissioned by a future project pending Following Closed (GP) assessment of Permissive working risks. #24 note added. This will require full testing of the route by Permissive the Kettering to Corby project. The barring shall only be removed by a future project once the risk Working RA assessment has been revisited and agreed by all operating companies and Network Rail. 46 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/1 – Axle counter heads defining a short section for ‘turn back’ removal of aspect Comment from Closed (GP) restriction shown with ‘@’ symbol and reference note added to Train Detection notes. Siemens Applicable to:318/319, 454/453 and 447/444 sections
47 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/4,5 –Bi-Directional working note updated for Auto signals. Comment from Closed (GP) Siemens 48 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/4 –LR49 Splitting Banner sequence updated to better illustrate all poss ble sequences. Comment from Closed (GP) Siemens 49 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/4 –Miscellaneous updates undertaken in line with comment on Siemens review document Comment from Closed (GP) BK82/D3/44. Siemens 50 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/4 –LR617 Aspect chart corrected. Comment from Closed (GP) Siemens 51 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/4 –TBC note against # notes for LR209 and LR211 Routes replaced with correct timings Comment from Closed (GP) (from Control Tables). Siemens 52 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/5 –LR60BR 2 aspect banner now shown. Comment from Closed (GP) Siemens 53 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/5 –Fixed distant and Stop Boards for the BSC and Automotive branches now shown. Comment from Closed (GP) Siemens 54 23/08/17 13-NE-0075/4 –TBC note against #6 and #7 for LR212 and LR214 Approach release conditions Comment from Closed (GP) replaced with correct conditions. Siemens
134187-JAC-SG-DLG-000001.doc 50 4 Non-Compliances/Derogations
The controls at Kettering North Junction do not comply with the requirements of NR/L2/SIG/19609 and GK/RT0045. The existing layout has MAY-FA for all main diverging routes from LR49. The permissible speed on approach is 100/110mph with a junction turnout speed of just 30mph, for which MAY-FA controls are not permitted. At the request of the RAM, this non-compliance will be maintained within the new CBI and Network Rail will apply for a retrospective derogation against Network Rail Standard NR/L2/SIG/19609, section 10.1.1 e), tracker number 22117 and Group Standard GK/RT0045, section 5.2.3, tracker number 22116. The trackers have now been formally accepted.
The non-compliant flashing aspect controls on LR45 will also be maintained under this derogation i.e. not proving the approaching train has reached the minimum reading distance for the inner distant (flashing yellow) at the point which the junction signal becomes free to clear. Appendix A Technical Queries/Request for Information
The following technical queries have been raised, please see attached documentation:-
Technical Queries with responses:
138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000001 – Confirmation of SAT or SORAT Process to be used 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000002 – Train Path Information for SAT/SORAT 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000003 – EMCC Numbering Strategy 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000004 – SAT Results for Signals at Kettering North Junction 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000005 – Approach Control Requirements for LR74 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000006 – Discrepancy between Base Information and LSI plans 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000007 – Replacement of 74 points from HW to IBCL 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000008 – Auto Working Requirements – Kettering North Junction 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000009 – Auto Working Requirements at Corby 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000010 – Permissive Working Requirements at Kettering Station 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000011 – New Auto Signal Replacement facilities 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000012 – CBI Numbering Strategy 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000013 – Corby Platform Length 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000014 – Corby Platform Operation 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000015 – Kettering to Corby HABD Strategy 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000016 – Kettering Interlocking Area Correlation 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000017 – Signal Numbering – Kettering North Junction to Manton Junction 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000018 – Corby Reception/Run Round Siding Nth Junction to Manton Junction 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000019 – Walkway Requirements near Corby Relay Room 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000020 – Corby/Manton Interlocking Boundary 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000021 – Potential Train Blocking Wing Foot Crossing 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000022 – Junction Controls on Kettering South Junction 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000086 – K2C SGRC requirements 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000088 – 40mph line speed Kettering Station Area 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000121 – NB142 Requirements for Whistle Boards
Technical Queries response outstanding:
None
The following requests for information have been raised, please see attached documentation:-
Requests for Information with responses:
138389-JAC-EG-RFI-000005 – Sign Sighting form for discrepancy between LSI plan and base record
Request for Information response outstanding:
None Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : TQ_000001(Jacobs)
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 11/11/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): N/A N/A Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Can Network Rail please confirm if they require the Signal Overrun Risk Assessment process to be completed using the SAT system or the new SORAT system for Kettering to Corby Prject.
If the SAT system is to be used can Network Rail please supply the existing data base for the the signals to cover the Kettering to Corby Area, including Manton Junction, so the assessments can undertaken on the most current version.
If the new SORAT system is to be used can Network Rail please arrange for assessor rights to be granted in the system for Idrees Shaikh to cover the Kettering to Corby Area, including Manton Junction signals.
SORAT viewer rights have currently been requested for all LNE routes, although not yet granted.
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Using SORAT This would be the first occasion SORAT would be used by the project team and To be assessed. To be assessed. there may be a certain learning curve as a result. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution: Using SAT. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None (programme based on SAT use). None.
Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by:
Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 11/11/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: SORAT to be used for all projects going forward.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64152595
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: 20/11/2013 Helen Teather Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 24/11/13
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 26/11/13 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : TQ_000002 (Jacobs)
To: From:
PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 11/11/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): N/A N/A Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Can Network Rail please provide the proposed new train paths to/from Kettering station to/from Corby and Leicester to enable the comencement of the Signal Overrun Risk Assessment?
This will need to detail:-
x Number and type of rolling stock(Passenger/Freight and class i.e. 377 etc); x Passenger loading (%); x Lengths of trains (car formation); x Which line the trains are proposed to run on and if/which trains will cross over from the slow lines to go to Leicester or cross from the fast lines to the slow lines from Leicester to Kettering station.
Can Network Rail also provide the SPAD history for the signals in the Kettering to Corby area.
This information is required ASAP to create the train movement diagram to populate the SAT/SORAT data base.
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: N/A
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution: Information provided as requested. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None if data provided in accordance with None if data provided in accordance with current intergrated programme. current intergrated programme. Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 22/11/2013 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs 11/11/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: Discussion carried out between 24/01/14.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64153114
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: 27/01/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: 11/02/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: 11/02/2014 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : TQ_000003 (Jacobs)
To: From:
PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 11/11/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): N/A EMCC Numbering Strategy Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Can Network Rail provide details of the EMCC numbering strategy and copies of the numbering grids for the signalling assets in order for us to progress with the signalling scheme plan design (Kettering to Corby).
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: N/A
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution: Numbering Grids for EMCC to be provided to allow Scheme Plan progression.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None None Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 22/11/2013 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 11/11/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: See response below signature boxes. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64153115
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: 07/11/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: 11/02/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: 11/02/2014
For signals on the down, starting with LR93 the numbers are to be from 3953, prefixed with KM. Signals on the up, starting with LR84 are to be numbered from 3952, also prefixed with KM. The numbers should not go beyond KM3995 & KM3994 for the up & down respectively. In the Corby station area please leave some spare. Signals MJ21, MJ23, MJ25, MJ26 & MJ28 will need to be renumbered in this theme too, as will MJ5, MJ6 & MJ14. Points it the Corby station area are to be numbered from 651 to 659. This includes the existing 71 points. Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : TQ_000004 (Jacobs)
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 11/11/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): N/A N/A Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Further to the requirement to undertake option selection at Kettering North Junction can Network Rail send the latest SAT results for the following signals to enable the option development to be undertaken using the latest information:
• LR67; • LR69; • LR71; • LR74; • LR76; • LR78.
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: N/A ; None
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution: SAT scores provided to enable the assessment of the layout to be completed and the option selected to be taken forward. Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: To be evaluated as part of the requirement To be evaluated as part of the requirement for for option selection at Ketering North option selection at Ketering North Junction. Junction. Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by:
Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
15/11/2013 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? Yes Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs 11/11/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply:
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference:
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date:
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date:
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date:
SAT ASSESSMENT FOR SIGNAL LR67 Risk Score
Checked by and Level Assessed by: Peter Colton Date 13-Aug-12 119 Level1 Level2 ADMIN
Signal Details for LR67 Result Summary
SignalBox EMCC Kettering WS
Line Name DOWN FAST EL SPC 2100 73mi 1424yds Risk 119 Frequency 6.8 Consequence 17.4
Approach Speed 100 OSS Dist (m) 348 TPWS+ (m) 7 Consequence Range 0.0 - 39.2 Risk from PS 0.0 Risk from NPS 118.5
Comments Reviewed July 2012 by Pete Colton ORCC, EMCC Derby using the recommended questions Has there been Infrastructure changes affecting the signal or layout? - NO - Conflicting routes in SAT ammended to reflect current arrangements Has there been any significant increase in the time TPWS table? - NO (No significant change one extra passenger Effective % Effective Revised train per hour - Corby) Risk Score Has there been increase in the number of passengers travelling? - No TPWS Yes 0% 119 Has there been a change of rolling stock? - YES - OSS Yes 0% 119 introduction of Class 222 which are capable of 125MPH and with 12% braking. TPWS Yes 95% 6 Does the signal have a history of operating incidents? - No -
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970215 Page 1 of 7 SAT Score Summary
119 119 119 RAW SAT 120 TPWS TPWS + OSS
100 TPWS Plus
80
60
40
20 6
0 Signal LR67 (EMCC Kettering WS)
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970215 Page 2 of 7 Intended Routes
Route:A81DownTo: Description: Main
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
PS Roll Stock Cspad NspadLspad Vspad Conflict Dc Nset PSRoll Stock Cspad Lspad Conflict %Stop Tstand
No Mark 3 8 12 75% 100 Signal Rear End 1992 NoMark 3 8 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1
No Mark 3 6 11 75% 100 NoMark 3 6 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 NoMark 3 5 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No Mark 3 5 12 75% 100 NoHST 11 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No HST 11 14 75% 100 NoFreight 20 0% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No Freight 20 2 0% 75 NoFreight 19 0% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No Freight 19 2 0% 60
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970215 Page 3 of 7 Conflicting Junction Routes
From Signal: 69 Route: A To Signal:81 Description: Up Main to Down Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 487 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 250 5%40 HST 10 0 55% 40 Freight 10 0 0% 40
From Signal: 71 Route: A To Signal:81 Description: Up & Down Slow to Down Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 487 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 571 5%40 Mark 3 251 5%40 Freight 10 5 0% 40 Freight 102 %40
From Signal: 74 Route: A To Signal:72 Description: Up Main to Up & Down Slow Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Head On Dc: 487 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 250 5%40 Freight 10 0 55% 40 Freight 10 0 0% 40
From Signal: 74 Route: B To Signal:68 Description: Down Main to Up Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Head On Dc: 487 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 10 0 55% 40 HST 10 0 55% 40 Freight 200 %40
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970215 Page 4 of 7 Intended Route Non Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970215 Page 5 of 7 Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970215 Page 6 of 7 05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970215 Page 7 of 7 SAT ASSESSMENT FOR SIGNAL LR69 Risk Score
Checked by and Level Assessed by: Peter Colton Date 15-Aug-12 213 Level1 Level2 ADMIN
Signal Details for LR69 Result Summary
SignalBox EMCC Kettering WS
Line Name UP FAST EL SPC 3100 73mi 1424yds Risk 213 Frequency 31.4 Consequence 6.8
Approach Speed 100 OSS Dist (m) 348 TPWS+ (m) 7 Consequence Range 0.4 - 13.7 Risk from PS 0.0 Risk from NPS 213.4
Comments Reviewed August 2012. TSS & OSS fitted. Signal only used for Bi-di operation therefore 50% trains used for issue 3 spreadsheet and SAT 93.1% effective. Conflicts etc revised in accordance with scheme plan 10-NE- 0044_3. TPWS Effective % Effective Revised Risk Score TPWS No 0% 213
OSS Yes 93% 15
TPWS Yes 93% 15
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970237 Page 1 of 7 SAT Score Summary
RAW SAT 250 TPWS 213 213 TPWS + OSS
TPWS Plus 200
150
100
50 15 15
0 Signal LR69 (EMCC Kettering WS)
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970237 Page 2 of 7 Intended Routes
Route:ATo: 81 Description: Up Main to Down Main
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
PS Roll Stock Cspad NspadLspad Vspad Conflict Dc Nset PSRoll Stock Cspad Lspad Conflict %Stop Tstand
No Mark 3 8 6 75% 40 Signal Rear End 1994 NoMark 3 8 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1
No Mark 3 6 6 75% 40 NoMark 3 6 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 NoMark 3 5 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No Mark 3 5 6 75% 40 NoHST 11 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No HST 11 7 75% 40
Route:BTo: 83 Description: Up Main to Up Main (Bi di)
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970237 Page 3 of 7 Conflicting Junction Routes
From Signal: 71 Route: A To Signal:81 Description: Up & Down Slow to Down Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 300 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 571 5%40 Freight 19 3 0% 40
From Signal: 71 Route: B To Signal:83 Description: Up & Down Slow to Up Main (Bi di) Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 300 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No
From Signal: 76 Route: A To Signal:72 Description: Up Main to Up&Dn Slow Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Head On Dc: 300 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 876 5%40 Mark 3 676 5%40 Mark 3 576 5%40 HST 11 7 75% 40
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970237 Page 4 of 7 Intended Route Non Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970237 Page 5 of 7 Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970237 Page 6 of 7 05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970237 Page 7 of 7 SAT ASSESSMENT FOR SIGNAL LR71 Risk Score
Checked by and Level Assessed by: Peter Colton Date 15-Aug-12 0 Level1 Level2 ADMIN
Signal Details for LR71 Result Summary
SignalBox EMCC Kettering WS
Line Name UP/DOWN SLOW EL SPC 3200 73mi 1424yds Risk 0 Frequency 0.0 Consequence 0.1
Approach Speed 60 OSS Dist (m) 251 TPWS+ (m) Consequence Range 0.0 - 0.4 Risk from PS 0.0 Risk from NPS 0.0
Comments Assessment completed to consider the head-on risk with trains passing/leaving Kettering to cross to Down Fast which may approach LR71 when a train is tanding at LR78 on the Corby line. Distances from scheme plan 10-NE-0044_3 TPWS Effective % Effective Revised Risk Score TPWS No 0% 0
OSS Yes 94% 0
TPWS Yes 94% 0
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970238 Page 1 of 7 SAT Score Summary
RAW SAT 1.60E-07 0 TPWS TPWS + OSS 1.40E-07 TPWS Plus
1.20E-07
1.00E-07
8.00E-08
6.00E-08
4.00E-08
2.00E-08 0 0 0
0.00E+00 Signal LR71 (EMCC Kettering WS)
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970238 Page 2 of 7 Intended Routes
Route:a81toTo: Description: Down Fast
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
PS Roll Stock Cspad NspadLspad Vspad Conflict Dc Nset PSRoll Stock Cspad Lspad Conflict %Stop Tstand
No Mark 3 5 2 75% 40 Signal Rear End 1992 NoMark 3 5 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1
No Freight 19 6 0% 40 NoFreight 19 0% Signal Rear End 1% 1
Route:bTo: 83 Description: to Up Fast (Bi di)
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
Conflict Dc Nset Signal Rear End 1992
Route:cMJ2CorbyTo: Description:
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
Conflict Dc Nset Signal Rear End 6960 Head On 693 20
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970238 Page 3 of 7 Conflicting Junction Routes
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970238 Page 4 of 7 Intended Route Non Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970238 Page 5 of 7 Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970238 Page 6 of 7 05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970238 Page 7 of 7 SAT ASSESSMENT FOR SIGNAL LR76 Risk Score
Checked by and Level Assessed by: Date 15-Aug-12 567 Level1 Level2 ADMIN
Signal Details for LR76 Result Summary
SignalBox EMCC Kettering WS
Line Name UP MAIN EL SPC 3100 74mi 268yds Risk 567 Frequency 28.9 Consequence 19.6
Approach Speed 100 OSS Dist (m) 403 TPWS+ (m) 7 Consequence Range 0.0 - 33.6 Risk from PS 0.0 Risk from NPS 567.1
Comments Information used was taken from Scheme Plans MID/MDLR2/KGMH/2 VERSION C, the Sectional Appendix Midlands Zone Page 2.1.2.26 Issue 10 March 2001 andTrainplan
TPWS Effective % Effective Revised Risk Score TPWS No 0% 567
OSS No 0% 567
TPWS Yes 87% 73
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970233 Page 1 of 7 SAT Score Summary
567 567 567 RAW SAT 600 TPWS TPWS + OSS
500 TPWS Plus
400
300
200
73 100
0 Signal LR76 (EMCC Kettering WS)
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970233 Page 2 of 7 Intended Routes
Route:ATo: 72 Description: Up&Down Slow
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
PS Roll Stock Cspad NspadLspad Vspad Conflict Dc Nset PSRoll Stock Cspad Lspad Conflict %Stop Tstand
No Mark 3 5 2 75% 40 Signal Rear End 2685 NoMark 3 5 75% Signal Rear End 5% 1
No Freight 20 2 0% 40 NoFreight 20 0% Signal Rear End 5% 1 NoFreight 19 0% Signal Rear End 5% 1 No Freight 19 8 0% 40
Route:BTo: 68 Description: Up Fast
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
PS Roll Stock Cspad NspadLspad Vspad Conflict Dc Nset PSRoll Stock Cspad Lspad Conflict %Stop Tstand
No Mark 3 7 12 50% 100 Signal Rear End 2064 NoMark 3 7 50% Signal Rear End 1% 1
No Mark 3 5 23 75% 100 NoMark 3 5 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 NoMark 3 4 75% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No Mark 3 4 11 75% 100 NoHST 11 50% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No HST 11 12 50% 100 NoFreight 20 0% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No Freight 20 2 0% 60 NoFreight 4 0% Signal Rear End 1% 1 No Freight 4 2 0% 60
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970233 Page 3 of 7 Conflicting Junction Routes
From Signal: 69 Route: A To Signal:81 Description: Up Main to Down Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Head On Dc: 289 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 570 5%40 HST 11 0 50% 40 Freight 20 0 0% 40
From Signal: 71 Route: A To Signal:81 Description: Up & Down Slow to Down Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Head On Dc: 289 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 572 5%40 Freight 20 2 0% 40 Freight 19 8 0% 40
From Signal: 74 Route: A To Signal:72 Description: Down Main to Up & Down Slow Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 289 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 250 5%40 HST 10 0 55% 40 Freight 10 0 0% 40
From Signal: 74 Route: B To Signal:68 Description: Down Main to Up Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 289 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No Mark 3 250 5%40 HST 10 0 55% 40
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970233 Page 4 of 7 Intended Route Non Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970233 Page 5 of 7 Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970233 Page 6 of 7 05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970233 Page 7 of 7 SAT ASSESSMENT FOR SIGNAL LR78 Risk Score
Checked by and Level Assessed by: Date 15-Aug-12 154 Level1 Level2 ADMIN
Signal Details for LR78 Result Summary
SignalBox EMCC Kettering WS
Line Name UP/DOWN CORBY EL GSM 3400 74mi 402yds Risk 154 Frequency 16.5 Consequence 9.3
Approach Speed 60 OSS Dist (m) 327 TPWS+ (m) Consequence Range 0.0 - 30.3 Risk from PS 0.0 Risk from NPS 153.6
Comments Train service from observation and including planned increases from Peak Forest to Elstow freight scheme. Also assumes regular freight from Corby which is timetabled but currently (Aug 2012) not operating. ECS movements included to reflect trains provided for Corby service. Scheme plan 10-NE-0044_3 dated 2011 used for TPWS measurements. Conflict distances from TPWS table. Effective % Effective Revised Risk Score TPWS No 0% 101
OSS Yes 95% 5
TPWS Yes 95% 5
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970232 Page 1 of 7 SAT Score Summary
154 RAW SAT 160 TPWS TPWS + OSS 140 TPWS Plus
120 101
100
80
60
40
20 5 5
0 Signal LR78 (EMCC Kettering WS)
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970232 Page 2 of 7 Intended Routes
Route:aTo: 72 Description: to Up and Down Slow
Trains on Intended Route Non Junction conflict on Route Non Junction Conflict % Stop and Tstand
PS Roll Stock Cspad NspadLspad Vspad Conflict Dc Nset PSRoll Stock Cspad Lspad Conflict %Stop Tstand
No Mark 3 12 1 50% 60 Signal Rear End 2684 NoMark 3 12 50% Signal Rear End 5% 1
No Mark 3 5 12 50% 60 NoMark 3 5 50% Signal Rear End 5% 1 NoMark 3 5 0% Signal Rear End 5% 1 No Mark 3 5 1 0% 60 NoFreight 20 0% Signal Rear End 5% 1 No Freight 20 2 0% 75 NoFreight 19 0% Signal Rear End 5% 1 No Freight 19 5 0% 60
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970232 Page 3 of 7 Conflicting Junction Routes
From Signal: 71 Route: a To Signal:81 Description: Up&Dn Slow to Down Main Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Head On Dc: 430 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No 50% Mark 3 572 5%40 Freight 20 2 0% 40 Freight 19 8 0% 40
From Signal: 71 Route: b To Signal:83 Description: Up&Dn Slow to Up Main Conflict Type: Head On Dc: 430 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No 50%
From Signal: 74 Route: a To Signal:72 Description: Down Main to Up&Dn Slow Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 430 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No 50%
From Signal: 76 Route: a To Signal:72 Description: Up main to Up&Dn Slow Roll StockCset Nset Lset Vset Conflict Type: Converging Dc: 430 PPS 1.0 Approach Control:No 50% Mark 3 571 5%40 Mark 3 501 %40 Freight 20 2 0% 40 Freight 19 8 0% 40
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970232 Page 4 of 7 Intended Route Non Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970232 Page 5 of 7 Junction Conflict Results
05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970232 Page 6 of 7 05-Dec-13 Assessment Serial 03970232 Page 7 of 7 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : TQ_000005(Jacobs)
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 18/11/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): NR/L2/SIG/19609 Requirements for Colour Light Junction Signalling Detailed Description of Query / Question:
NR/L2/SIG/19609 Requirements for Colour Light Junction Signalling states in section 8.1 that the least restrictive qualifying method should be used, although a more restrictive method may be used where this addresses specific risks identified for a particular case.
The existing signalling plan at Kettering North Junction has existing MAR routes up to signals LR72 (Up Down Slow) and LR68 (Up Fast) from LR74 whilst LR76 has a MAY-FA route to signal LR72 (Up Down Slow).
The proposed routes from LR74 have been assessed and all routes to the Up Fast, Down Slow and Up Slow could have MAY-FA applied as the least restrictive method to be compliant with NR/L2/SIG/19609.
Can Network Rail please confirm which option they would like to adopt for the approach control applied to signal LR74.
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Option 1 – the new route from LR74 to the Up Slow to have MAR condition applied and the existing diverging MAR conditions are to be retined. Network Rail None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 are to supply information regarding the existing specific risks to justify the current application of a more restrictive method. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Option 2 – the existing diverging routes are to retain the MAR condition whilst the new route to the Up Slow is to have MAY-FA applied to be compliant to None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 NR/L2/SIG/19609. Network Rail are to supply information regarding the existing specific risks to justify the current application of a more restrictive method. Option 3 – alter the existing approach control conditions for the diverging routes from LR74 to be the least restrictive None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 MAY-FA and apply MAY-FA to the new route to the Up Slow. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Option 1, to maintain the existing MAR controls and a consistent approach to LR74 reducing the interlocking alterations required at Kettering.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 29/11/2013 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 19/11/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: NR Agree with contractors proposed solution. This is due to the poor state of the wiring within Kettering Relay Room. However if it is decided that Kettering Interlocking is to be renewed with a CBI or equivalent then this response is no longer valid and the control be replaced with the least restrictive option.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64167841
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 04/12/2013
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 04/12/13
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 04/12/13 Technical Query Form Page 3 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQ-000006 To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 12/12/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 135110/SBP/004 Version 1 Base Signalling Plan - Kettering and Harborough Interlocking Detailed Description of Query / Question:
The base signalling record 135110/SBP/004 was issued to Jacobs for the Kettering to Corby project to be used as the source record for the project. Jacobs were also supplied with the Line Speed Improvement (LSI) scheme plans. Jacobs were informed that the LSI scheme plans were used to update the base record, as new PSRs were introduced. Jacobs were given the LSI scheme plans to confirm the new work as these would not be evident from the Omnicom video.
On inspection of the LSI scheme plan it was noted that the kilometerages listed for signalling equipment did not match the kilometerages on the base record issued to Jacobs. There is up to 8m difference between the kilometerages shown on the two plans. Both plans state that they have been correlated to Omnicom video January 2011.
The base record has been validated against the Omnicom video but it is unclear as to why there are differences between the the two plans?
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: The issued base record 135110/SBP/004 is the current record to be used and the kilometerages shown should form the None None kilometerages for the Kettering to Corby project. The issued base record 135110/SBP/004 does not have the correct kilometerages TBC 2-3 weeks and these should be corrected to reflect Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
those shown on the LSI plan to form the kilometerages for the Kettering to Corby project. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
The base record 135110/SBP/004 has the correct kilometerages for the Kettering to Corby project and once the equipment positions have been validated to the latest Omnicom video will form the basis of the Kettering to Corby project.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None None Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 20/12/2013 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 12/12/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply:
As the base record matches up to Omnicom NR agree with contractors proposed solution.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64203411
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 19/12/13
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 12/03/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 12/03/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQ000007
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 12/12/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): TI 143 Point Operating Equipment Detailed Description of Query / Question:
It is believed that the current P-Way proposal for Single Line Junction at Corby is to replace 74A points only retaining the existing 74B trap points. Both 74A & B ends of points are currently controlled by HW point machines.
TI 143 state that where no rails or only one half-set are being renewed the preferred option shall be like for like.
Currently 74A/B points are the only HW machines on the Kettering to Manton line, although machines do exist in the area at Kettering South Junction (714A/B and 715A/B points) and Ketton (5A/B).
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Renew both 74A and B ends of points None at GRIP 3 None at GRIP 3 and replace HW machines with IBCL. Renew only 74A points with like for like None at GRIP 3 None at GRIP 3 point operating equipment. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Renew both 74A and B ends of points and replace HW machines with IBCL in line with current preferences and to remove the isolated instance of HW machines on the Kettering to Manton route. Future S&C workbank should be investigated to establish if funding has been identifed elsewhere for renewal of points. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 08/01/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 12/12/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: Renew both 74A & B end with IBCL.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64203412
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 09/01/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 05/03/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 05/03/2014 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000008 To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 13/12/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075 Signalling Scheme Plan - Kettering to Corby Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Can Network Rail confirm what their Auto Working requirements are for new signalling at Kettering North Junction?
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: To provide Auto Working for routes from the Down Slow to Down Corby and from None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 the Up Corby to the Up Slow. No Auto Working facilities are to be None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 provided on the Slow/Corby lines. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
To provide Auto Working for routes from the Down Slow to Down Corby and from the Up Corby to the Up Slow to reduce the signallers. This will replicate the Auto Working facilities provided on the Up and Down Fast lines at Kettering North Junction.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 20/12/2013 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 13/12/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Representative) Reply:
NR agree with contractors proposed solution.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64203413
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 19/12/13
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 24/12/13
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 06/01/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000009 To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 13/12/13 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075 Signalling Scheme Plan - Kettering to Corby Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Can Network Rail confirm what their Auto Working requirements are for new signalling at Corby?
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: To provide Auto Working for normal None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 direction through routes. No Auto Working facilities are to be None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 provided for routes through Corby. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
To provide Auto Working for normal direction through routes along the Up and Down Corby lines to reduce the signallers.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 20/12/2013 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 13/12/13 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
NR agree with contractors proposed solution.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64203414
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 19/12/13
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 24/12/13
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 06/01/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQ-000010 To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 14/01/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075 Signalling Scheme Plan - Kettering to Corby Detailed Description of Query / Question:
NR/L2/OCS/085 – Permissive Platform working section 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 states:
“The Operations Manager shall justify the need to continue with permissive platform working. The need shall be allocated to one or more of the following categories: • contingency arrangements • attaching/detaching • platform sharing
If the need to continue with permissive platform working is for either contingency arrangements or for the purposes of attaching/detaching this should be clearly shown on the signalling plan and arrangements made for the signallers special instructions for that location to be suitably amended.
If the need to continue with permissive platform working is for the purposes of platform sharing then the Operations Manager shall demonstrate that further reasonably practicable control measures have been introduced to reduce the risk of a train collision.”
Can Network Rail confirm the requirements for permissive working at Kettering station on platform 1 and 2?
It should be noted that the existing signal section LR60 to LR54 (from platform 2) is under-braked for freight trains at the existing line speed of 60mph; LR72 currently has approach control conditions applied (MAR) for the diverging route and if LR60 is on due to under-braking. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Option 1 – Jacobs will recover LR60 and LR64 and the call on routes into Platform 1 and 2. A shunt route will be provided from LR72 to the GPL LR618 on the None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 revised layout to maintain this functionality. This will allow compliant signal spacing at 60 mph. Option 2 – the existing permissive movements are to be retained and the Up and Down line speed decreased to 35mph for freight moves towards LR60 None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 and LR64, by provision of a differential speed board. The existing MAR controls can be removed. Option 3 – the existing permissive movements are to be retained and the signals approaching Kettering from Corby respaced to achieve compliant signal spacing and repositioning of the None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 fast line turnout speed boards. The braking difficiency between signals LR60/LR58 and LR64/LR62 remains and will need resolving if this solution is chosen. Option 4 – the existing permissive movements are to be retained and the MAR controls to be maintained for routes up to LR60 and to be applied to the new signal for routes up to LR64 where the None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 appropriate signal is on. The braking difficiency between signals LR60/LR58 and LR64/LR62 remains and will need resolving if this solution is chosen. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Option 1. To remove the permissive working at Kettering Station as this would provide the safest option; justification is required from the Operations Manager if the functionality is to be retained. Additionally this enables compliant braking for 60 mph running through Kettering.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 28/01/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 14/01/2014 Technical Query Form Page 3 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: Following a Permissive Working Workshop attended by the Operations manager and other local stakeholders, it is decided that Permissive Working will be retained at Kettering Station. Option 4, retention of & implementation of MAR controls to be applied.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64242923
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 24/02/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 24/02/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 24/02/2014 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000011 To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 14/01/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075 Signalling Scheme Plan - Kettering to Corby Detailed Description of Query / Question:
The existing auto signals have a mix of either not having a replacement facilities or having an ‘E’ facility associated with it.
NR/L2/SIG/30009/E120 notes that “at some locations buttons operating as a replacement control were labelled ‘E’ although providing proven replacement, similarly some buttons labelled ‘R’ only fulfil the emergency replacement facility. When undertaking alterations the circuitry/data should be reviewed and any erroneous labels and colours corrected.”
NR/L2/SIG/30009/E120 section 6 also gives the following guidance “when alterations are undertaken, every effort shall be made to ensure consistency of presentation to the signaller, as required by GK/RT0025. Where practicable, new work and alterations should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements” stated in this standard. It also states “where an ‘E’ button currently exists for a signal being altered and it is not practicable to alter the emergency replacement circuitry, then a derogation against GK/RT0060 should be sought.”
The superseded GK/RT0060 section C8.1.1 states “the signaller shall at all times be able to replace a stop signal to danger, for example” clause b) “for an automatic signal, by use of a replacement facility. When operated, the associated indication shall confirm that the signal is displaying a red aspect.” This has not been re-iterated in GK/RT0055 or GK/RT0077.
In the Kettering interlocking, the wiring drawings show there is an indication that the signal has been replaced to red (RGPR circuits) for the signals with an ‘E’ associated with them. This cannot be confirmed using the relay room records on eB for LR101 and LR102 but the location wiring drawings show the RGPR circuit in Loc 61/171A.
On the VDU layout drawings these are all shown as ‘E’ where they have been provided.
Can Network Rail confirm what their automatic signal replacement facilities requirements are for new auto signals between Kettering North Junction and Manton Junction? Technical Query Form Page 2 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Can Network Rail also confirm if there is an existing derogation in place for the automatic signals that do not have any replacement facilities within the EMCC area as GK/RT0060 was only superseded in 2013.
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Option 1 – Jacobs will progress the design based on the ‘E’ facilities being retained. A note will be added to the Signalling Scheme Plan to record this None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 whilst maintaining a consistent presentation of the existing installation to the Signallers with the use of ‘E’ facilities instead of ‘R’ Option 2 – existing ‘E’ facilites to be maintained and ‘R’ facilities to be shown None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 for all new Autos only. Option 3 – All Autos within the Kettering interlocking to be renewed as ‘R’ facilites None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 on the Signallers display. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Option 1. To maintain the exisiting provision of ‘E’ facilites for the signallers of EMCC as the signal aspect is proved.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 28/01/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 14/01/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply:
Existing ‘E’ facilites to be maintained and ‘R’ facilities to be shown for all new Autos only.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction Technical Query Form Page 3 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
CCMS reference: 64242920 Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 09/04/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 13/04/14 Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 16/04/2014 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000012
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 28/01/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): N/A Kettering to Corby Numbering Strategy Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Further to TQ 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000003 can Network Rail confirm the new signal, point and track identity prefix/numbering sequence philosophy to be adopted for the new CBI interlocking to cover Up & Down Slow lines from Kettering station/North Junction to Manton Junction, incorporating the Corby interlocking onto the EMCC signalling centre.
Can Network Rail also provide a numbering Matrix to be used for the scheme plan design.
It should be noted that there is another project (Syston to Peterborough) that planned to recontrol the signals along the Corby lines to the EMCC, this project has already been allocated numbers in the relevant sequences that are superseeded by the requirements of the Kettering to Corby scheme.
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Numbering Grid to be provided to allow None None Scheme Plan progression. Numbering sequence required for the Yes (To be Yes (To be advised). route and control centre to be developed. advised). PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Numbering Grid to be provided to allow Scheme Plan progression.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None None Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 14/02/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 28/01/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply:
See response below signature boxes.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64279764
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 07/02/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 11/02/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 11/02/2014
Sorry for the delay but after a meeting with ColinGibbons yesterday we have an unofficial response to TQ2. The correct paperwork will be filled in and sent accordingly. For signals on the down, starting with LR93 the numbers are to be from 3953, prefixed with KM. Signals on the up, starting with LR84 are to be numbered from 3952, also prefixed with KM. The numbers should not go beyond KM3995 & KM3994 for the up & down respectively. In the Corby station area please leave some spare. Signals MJ21, MJ23, MJ25, MJ26 & MJ28 will need to be renumbered in this theme too, as will MJ5, MJ6 & MJ14. Points it the Corby station area are to be numbered from 651 to 659. This includes the existing 71 points. Track circuit numbering should be consistent with current nomenclature. Therefore the draft scheme plan track circuit proposal is acceptable. Kettering to Corby has now been allocated different numbers to Peterborough Syston Project therefore the conflict no longer exists. Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000013
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 28/01/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): K2C_G3_phase_1_PRS v1a.doc Kettering to Corby Capacity Project PRS Detailed Description of Query / Question:
The Project Requirement Specification details in section 2.10.3 that all platforms (including existing) shall be capable of accommodating trains up to 240m in length.
The existing Corby platform length is 236m.
Can Network Rail confirm if the platform is to be extended to meet the required 240m length?
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Extend the existing Corby platform to 240 None for Signalling None for Signalling GRIP3 metres. GRIP3 Retain the existing Corby platform length. None None PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Retain the existing Corby platfrom lengths.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None None Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 14/02/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 28/01/2014 Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: The existing platform length at Corby shall be retained.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference:
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: N/A Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 13/04/14 Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 16/04/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000014
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 28/01/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): K2C_G3_phase_1_PRS v1a.doc Kettering to Corby Capacity Project PRS Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Further to TQ 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000013 from the received time table information it is believed that the future passenger train requirement will be to utilise class 377 trains in both 8 or 12 car formations.
For previous work undertaken on the Thameslink KO2 project Jacobs were advised by the KO2 project team that a 12 car train will not exceed 243m, which is above the 240m minimum requirement of the platform as stated in the PRS.
Can Network Rail confirm the maximum length of train that will operate through Corby Station and, if the platform lengths are not to be extended, which of the following options is to be implemented?
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: 12 car stop car markers to be provided off the platform with SDO provided on the front car. (Possible sighting issues to be Yes (to be advised) Yes (to be advised) resolved to determine acceptability of trains requiring to pull closer than 20m to the platform starter signalss). 12 car stop car markers to be provided on the end of the platform with SDO None None provided on the last car. No provision of stop car markers will be None None provided by this project. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution: 12 car stop car markers to be provided on the end of the platform with SDO provided on the last car. Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None None Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 14/02/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 28/01/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: Trains will be 240m. Scheme plan is to retain current SDO board arrangement.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64279766
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 19/06/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Craig Sivorn 25.06.14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 25.06.14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 134187
Technical Query Number : 134187-JAC-EG-TQN-000015
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 28/01/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): N/A Kettering to Corby HABD Strategy Detailed Description of Query / Question:
The current Railway Group Standards, GE/RT8014 and GE/GN8614, do not specifiy the required spacing of HABDs and the British Standard, BS EN 15347-1:2009, states that ‘installation requirements are intentionally not given’ so that ‘each Infrastructure Manager defines how often and where HABDs should be installed as part of their developed safety strategy’.
The superseded Railway Group Standards previously indicated an interval distance of 20 to 30 miles and has previously been used to determine the existing HABD provision on the railway network.
At present, the HABD site at Corby (Geddington) is a bi-directional installation.
To the north it provides detection intervals in the Up direction of 44m 75ch (from Loughborough HABD) and 42m 62ch in the Down direction (to Barrow-Upon-Soar HABD) and to the south it provides detection intervals in the Up direction of 23m 28ch (from Oakley – Up Fast) and 9m 52ch (from Harrowden Jcn – Up Slow) and 9m 52ch in the Down direction (to Harrowden Jcn).
The Syston to Peterborough project has identified detection interval issues to the north of Corby and has recommended two additional HABD sites at Ashwell LC (Down Peterborough) and at Wyfordby LC (Up Peterborough). However, Syston to Peterborough project is scheduled to be commissioned after the Kettering to Corby project (exact timescale unknown).
Can Network Rail please advise on a route wide proposal that will help link the individual project HABD Strategy requirements and implement a HABD Strategy for the wider route? Technical Query Form Page 2 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Install an Up direction Corby HABD only as part of this project which maintains the detection intervals of 44m 75ch in the Up but increases the Down to 51m 34ch, None at GRIP 3 None at GRIP 3 until Syston to Peterbrough commissions where all intervals will be reduced to below 30 miles.
Install Up and Down direction HABD as part of this project which will maintain the current detection intervals of 44m 75ch in the Up and 42m 62ch in the Down, until None at GRIP 3 None at GRIP 3 Syston to Peterbrough commissions where all intervals will be reduced to below 30 miles. Install an Up direction Corby HABD only as part of this project but also bring forward the instalations proposed by the None at GRIP 3 None at GRIP 3 Syston to Peterbrough project to reduce all intervals to below 30 miles. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Install an Up direction Corby HABD only as part of this project which maintains the detection intervals of 44m 75ch in the Up but increases the Down to 51m 34ch, until Syston to Peterbrough commissions where all intervals will be reduced to below 30 miles.
Network Rail are to confirm if the detection interval is acceptable for the route based on the fact that no minimum distance is specified within the standards and the proposed installations will be risk assessed as part of the Scheme Risk Assessment Workshop.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None None Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 14/02/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 28/01/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply:
A new Hot Axle Box detector will be required on the Down Corby at Geddington, to replicate operation today. Jacobs are required to produce a HABD Requirements Report that includes reasoning and justification for duplication i.e. the Kettering to Corby project is not closing any signal boxes, removing any Station Staff etc. Technical Query Form Page 3 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64279762
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 04/03/14
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 05/03/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 05/03/2014
23/02/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 4 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 138389
Technical Query Number : 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000018
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 21/02/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): Corby Reception/Run Round Siding Detailed Description of Query / Question:
Further to NR comments at the recent Draft Scheme Plan review meeting on the 18th February 2014 in which it was requested that the hand points positioned at the entrance to Corby Reception/Run Round Siding should be investigated with a view to conversion to spring points, with the Normal position towards the reception line (Left hand line).
The existing local instruction for the sidings is listed below, as taken from the Sectional Appendix:
LN3601 - KETTERING NORTH JN TO MANTON JN CORBY
Method of working for Empty Passenger stock changing ends and Freight trains running round at Corby run-round loop Drivers who are required to take Empty Passenger trains into the run round loop at Corby will be advised of this requirement by Corby Station platform staff, trains will then be signalled into the run-round line to change ends ready to return southwards, on the authority of the position light signal associated with MJ17 signal. The signaller at Manton Junction will advise the platform staff at Corby that an empty passenger train is required to be taken into the run round loop, the signaller will also advise the platform staff that either the run round facility is empty or that there is a freight train already in the run round facility, that has run round and awaiting to depart, or that it is waiting to run round. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 4 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Hand points at Corby run-round loop The hand points at the entrance to the reception / run round line, are normally secured with a clip and scotch and locked towards the run round line (Right hand line) for the moves for EMT trains. Before a freight train is permitted into the reception line (Left hand line) the shunter must have authority from the signaller at Manton Junction, to remove the clip and scotch, once the freight train has finished running round and has departed the reception line, the shunter must give an assurance that the hand points have been re secured, with a clip and scotch and locked towards the run round line (Right hand line) If an empty passenger train is to follow a freight train into the sidings or after a freight train has run round and is awaiting to depart the sidings the signaller must have an assurance from the shunter that the hand points have been re-secured for the movement of the empty passenger train. Empty Passenger train turn back when the Run-round loop at Corby is clear. A passenger train approaching from Kettering will detrain passengers at Corby Station before being signalled towards the run-round loop from MJ17 signal it will proceed empty stock to the run-round loop to change ends, obeying all signs checking and if necessary setting the hand points for the right hand line. The train must be drawn up to the “Stop and Change Ends” board, before changing ends. Empty Passenger train turn back when the run-round loop at Corby is clear, but a freight train is following into the sidings. If there is a following freight train from Kettering the driver of the empty passenger train will be signalled into the run round loop and draw up to the “Stop and Change Ends” board, before changing ends. The train must not move until the freight train is at a stand. The freight train will enter the left hand line and come to a stand with the rear of the train clear of the hand points. The shunter must then confirm to the passenger train driver that the movement is at a stand. The passenger train driver may then contact the signaller and advise him that the empty passenger train is ready to depart. The freight train will run round after the departure of the empty passenger train when the right hand line is again clear. Once ready to depart the driver of the empty passenger train will advise the signaller at Manton Junction, from MJ26 signal Empty Passenger train turn back when the run-round loop at Corby is occupied. A passenger train approaching from Kettering if required will be signalled into the run-round loop the driver must draw the train up to the “Stop and Change Ends” board, before changing ends. If the freight train has run round prior to the empty passenger train arriving the freight train will depart whilst the passenger driver is changing ends. The shunter will follow the procedure for departing freight trains and then advise the passenger driver that the loop is clear. If the freight train is to run round after the departure of the empty passenger train then the passenger train will depart as for an empty loop obeying all signals. Dated: 10/05/10
Can Network Rail confirm the proposed operational requirements for the Reception/Run Round Siding at Corby and the preferred option of control for the hand points at the entrance to Corby Reception/Run Round Siding? Technical Query Form Page 3 of 4 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Points to remain as hand points.
This would enable empty passenger train turn-back and freight train operations to None None occupy the sidings simultaneously as per the existing local instructions.
Convert the hand points to spring operation.
This would effevtively only allow for None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 single train occupancy of the sidings at any one time, either freight or empty passenger stock in the Reception line.
Convert the hand points to powered operation controlled from the EMCC.
This would require additional signals within the siding and would affect the standage of each line taking into account None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 signal stand-back distances. This option would allow for dual occupancy of both siding lines as per the existing operational requirements.
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
1. Points to remain as hand points to allow current local operational requirements to be met.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None None Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 07/03/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 21/02/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: Convert the hand points to Spring operation. Technical Query Form Page 4 of 4 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 6431638
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 18/03/1014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 18/03/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 08/04/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 138389
Technical Query Number : 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000019
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 25/02/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075/2 Kettering to Corby Signalling Scheme Plan Detailed Description of Query / Question:
There is an existing Walkway shown on the existing Signalling Plan, positioned at 127628, which spans across the existing Branch Line and bi-directional Up & Down Corby aprroximately at the Corby Relay Room location.
It crosses the line in the vicinity of a building whose current purpose cannot be fully confirmed; however it is known that this is the location of the old Corby North SB which was destroyed by fire in 1995 and as a result a temporary cabin has been provided.
The walkway may have been provided as a route from the access point to the old SB or for a Signaller located in the SB/temporary cabin to issue drivers with tokens, as Token Block Working was in operation for the BSC line until 1998, when the new interlocking at Corby and panel at Manton Junction SB were installed.
The SB/temporary cabin building will need to be recovered or relocated to facilitate the installation of the new Down Corby Line, therefore can Network Rail confirm if this Walkway is still required when the line is doubled?
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Walkway to be retained and extended None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 over new Down Corby Line. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Walkway is no longer required and can None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 be fully recovered. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
The walkway is no longer required as it does not provide any functionality for todays operational railway. The access to the existing Corby Relay Room is from the Up side (RR side) therefore the only remaining purpose of the walkway would be to provide access to the unknown building, that is believed to be the now disused temporary SB cabin.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 11/03/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 25/02/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: Walkway will no longer be required.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64318057
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 08.04.2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 13/04/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 16/04/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 138389
Technical Query Number : 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000020
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 28/02/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075/2 Kettering to Corby Signalling Scheme Plan Detailed Description of Query / Question:
The Signalling Plan provided by the project does not detail the current interlocking boundary between Corby Interlocking and Manton Interlocking. The records on eB have been interrogated to try to establish where this boundary is located, however, it has not been possible to establish this from the records available to Jacobs.
Jacobs have used the axle counter limits, track sections DC and CD near Manton Junction signals MJ5 and MJ6 as the existing boundary; with the axle counters being a Corby Interlocking asset and the track circuits a Manton Interlocking asset
Whilst it has been agreed where the new boundary between Kettering CBI Interlocking and Manton Interlocking will be could Network Rail please confirm the location of the existing interlocking boundary between Corby Interlocking and Manton Interlocking on the Up and Down Corby lines so that the extent of alterations can accurately be depicted?
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: Existing boundary to be depicted using None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 the axle counter sections as the limits. Network Rail to provide the existing interlocking boundary with supporting None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 information. Technical Query Form Page 2 of 2 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
The existing boundary is to be depicted as per the draft scheme plan review using the axle counter sections DC and CD. The revised interlocking boundary is to be depicted as per the discussions at the draft scheme plan review.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 11/03/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 28/02/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply:
NR agree with contractors proposed solution.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64326146
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 03/02/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 03/02/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 04/02/2014 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 138389
Technical Query Number : 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000021
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 28/02/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075/2 Kettering to Corby Signalling Scheme Plan Detailed Description of Query / Question:
At the Draft Scheme Plan review meeting it was requested that Jacobs review the position of stop signal MJ11 to evaluate if it can be re-positioned to prevent Wing Foot Path being blocked by a train should it stop at this signal.
Due to the required braking distance it is not possible to locate the stop signal Corby side of Wing foot crossing without placing the distant signal in Glaston tunnel.
Can Network Rail confirm which option they wish to implement?
Note: all signal numbers detailed above & below refer to those shown on the Draft Scheme Plan that was reviewed and not the final numbering for the scheme. PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: The signal positions proposed on the draft plan (MJ11 and MJ11R) are to be maintained and the foot crossing will be blocked should a train stop at the stop None None signal. The stop signal is an auto signal so will not normally stop a train in this location. The signal positions proposed on the draft plan (MJ11 and MJ11R) are to be None at GRIP3 but None at GRIP3 but will maintained and the foot crossing is to be will impact later impact later GRIP stages. closed with a diversionary route provided GRIP stages. via over-bridge GSM1 54. Confirmation Technical Query Form Page 2 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
and consultation will be required if a closure is to be progressed. The signal positions proposed on the None at GRIP3 but draft scheme plan (MJ11 and MJ11R) None at GRIP3 but will will impact later are to be maintained and a footbridge impact later GRIP stages. GRIP stages. installed in its place. Signal MJ13 is to be converted from 2 aspect stop signal to a 3 aspect stop signal removing the requirement for None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 MJ11R; MJ11 is to be repositioned on the approach to the foot crossing. PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
Signal MJ13 is to be converted from 2 aspect stop signal to a 3 aspect stop signal removing the requirement for MJ11R; MJ11 is to be repositioned on the approach to the foot crossing.
This solution maintains the use of the foot crossing although Network Rail are to confirm that the risk profile of the crossing is still acceptable to remain open based on its current and predicted foot and rail traffic usage.
Converting MJ13 and removing the requirement for MJ11R will help to create a more even signal spacing between MJ13, MJ11 and MJ5, although the excess braking will be subject to risk assessment to confirm it is acceptable as part of the Excess and Irregular Signal Spacing Risk Assessment.
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 13/03/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 28/02/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: NR agree with contractors proposed solution. NR have undertaken initial assessment of Wing Footpath Crossing taking into Account the proposed volumes of traffic. Appropriate Risk Assessments will be undertaken and any recommendations considered and actioned where necessary.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
CCMS reference: 64335470
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 18/03/2014 Technical Query Form Page 3 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 18/03/14
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: James Gibson 08/04/14 Technical Query Form Page 1 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 138389
Technical Query Number : 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000021
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 04/03/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075/2 Kettering to Corby Signalling Scheme Plan Detailed Description of Query / Question:
The junction controls at Kettering South Junction are non compliant to NR/L2/SIG/19609 for several signalled routes. See below for the affected routes and direction of travel
Up Direction
Diverging routes LR58(C) and LR62(C) have MAR conditions shown in the route tables, diverging routes 58(B), 62(A) and 62(B) do not have MAR conditions. The line speed on approach to the junction is either 30mph or 40mph for routes from these two signals so they do not require MAR controls.
Can Network Rail confirm why there are MAR controls for only diverging routes LR58(C) and LR62(C), as there is no spacing deficiency for these routes? Can Network Rail confirm if MAR controls are to be retained or removed as part of the CBI interlocking Re-Lock?
Down Direction
NR/L2/SIG/19609 Section 10.1 stipulates that for line speeds of 80 to 125mph a divergence speed of minimum 40mph is required to provide MAY-FA.
The existing crossovers at Kettering South Junction are all signed as 30mph. The approach speed is 100mph and 110mph for HST for the Down Fast Line. The existing signalling layout at Kettering South Junction has MAY-FA for all main diverging routes from LR49 for the 30mph turn out which is non compliant to NR/L2/SIG/19609. LR51 has the similar diverging routes as LR49 but these are currently provided with MAR controls.
As part of the CBI interlocking Re-Lock can Network Rail confirm if MAY-FA is to be maintained or MAR controls are to be implemented to bring the existing layout to current standards?
Technical Query Form Page 2 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: To bring the existing layout at Kettering South Junction to current standards Up direction - MAR controls to be removed from LR58(C) and LR62(C). None at GRIP 3. None at GRIP 3. Down Direction - MAR controls to be applied to LR49 for all diverging main routes as required and recover the existing MAY-FA. Existing non-compliant controls to be retained and derogation to be applied for, unless there is a derogation already in place. If so Network Rail to provide a copy of the existing derogation or provide other evidence that the existing None at GRIP 3. None at GRIP 3. non-compliant junction controls are acceptable. However an AWI is to be provided for the speed reduction on approach to LR49 to be compliant with GK/RT0075 section 3.3.7.1.
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
To bring the existing layout up to current standards MAR controls to be applied to all diverging routes from LR49 in the Down direction. In the Up direction MAR controls to be removed from routes LR58(C) and LR62(C).
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 17/03/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 04/03/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply:
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction
Technical Query Form Page 3 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
CCMS reference:
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date:
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date:
Project Manager Name: Signature: Date:
Technical Query Form Page 1 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
Instructions for the Originator Instructions for Project
1. Complete all fields in Parts 1, 2 and 3. 1. Register TQ in Project log and allocate 2. E-mail relevant NR discipline engineer CCMS number. and c.c. NR Project Team Organiser. 2. Send courtesy copy to relevant people. 3. Send hardcopy of completed form to 3. On receipt of response, log in system and relevant discipline engineer. send to relevant Project Manager for agreement. 4. Complete Part 4. 5. Send copy back to Originator (via transmittal). Project Name: Kettering to Corby Capacity
Project Number: 138389
Technical Query Number : 138389-JAC-EG-TQN-000022
To: From: Elen Jones Damian Keenan PART 1 – QUERY /QUESTION (To be completed by Contractor ) Date Sent : Date Received by Project: 04/03/2014 Document Reference (where applicable): Document Title (where applicable): 13-NE-0075/2 Kettering to Corby Signalling Scheme Plan Detailed Description of Query / Question:
The junction controls at Kettering South Junction are non compliant to NR/L2/SIG/19609 for several signalled routes. See below for the affected routes and direction of travel
Up Direction
Diverging routes LR58(C) and LR62(C) have MAR conditions shown in the route tables, diverging routes 58(B), 62(A) and 62(B) do not have MAR conditions. The line speed on approach to the junction is either 30mph or 40mph for routes from these two signals so they do not require MAR controls.
Can Network Rail confirm why there are MAR controls for only diverging routes LR58(C) and LR62(C), as there is no spacing deficiency for these routes? Can Network Rail confirm if MAR controls are to be retained or removed as part of the CBI interlocking Re-Lock?
Down Direction
NR/L2/SIG/19609 Section 10.1 stipulates that for line speeds of 80 to 125mph a divergence speed of minimum 40mph is required to provide MAY-FA.
The existing crossovers at Kettering South Junction are all signed as 30mph. The approach speed is 100mph and 110mph for HST for the Down Fast Line. The existing signalling layout at Kettering South Junction has MAY-FA for all main diverging routes from LR49 for the 30mph turn out which is non compliant to NR/L2/SIG/19609. LR51 has the similar diverging routes as LR49 but these are currently provided with MAR controls.
As part of the CBI interlocking Re-Lock can Network Rail confirm if MAY-FA is to be maintained or MAR controls are to be implemented to bring the existing layout to current standards? Technical Query Form Page 2 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
PART 2 CONTRACTOR’S POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors possible solutions to query (add rows to cover all solutions):
Solution(s): Estimated Cost Estimated Programme Impact: Impact: To bring the existing layout at Kettering South Junction to current standards Up direction - MAR controls to be removed from LR58(C) and LR62(C). None at GRIP 3. None at GRIP 3. Down Direction - MAR controls to be applied to LR49 for all diverging main routes as required and recover the existing MAY-FA. Existing non-compliant controls to be retained and derogation to be applied for, unless there is a derogation already in place. If so Network Rail to provide a copy of the existing derogation or provide other evidence that the existing None at GRIP 3. None at GRIP 3. non-compliant junction controls are acceptable. However an AWI is to be provided for the speed reduction on approach to LR49 to be compliant with GK/RT0075 section 3.3.7.1.
PART 3 – CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED SOLUTION (to be completed by Contractor) Contractors Proposed Solution:
To bring the existing layout up to current standards MAR controls to be applied to all diverging routes from LR49 in the Down direction. In the Up direction MAR controls to be removed from routes LR58(C) and LR62(C).
Estimated Programme Impact of Proposal: Estimated Cost Impact of Proposal: None at GRIP3 None at GRIP3 Programme Impact valid if a Network Rail response/instruction received by: 17/03/2014 Is the TQ a change to the scope of work ? Is the TQ a scope clarification ? No Yes Contractor: Name: Signature: Date: Jacobs Damian Keenan 04/03/2014 PART 4 – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSE (to be completed by the Employer’s Representative) Reply: MAR controls to be removed from routes LR58(C) & LR62(C). RAM representative has requested that MAY-FA controls are retained for all main diverging routes from LR49 and that a retrospective tracker application is to be made.
Note: If this TQ is a change to the agreed scope of work no work must commence until a valid Project Managers Instruction / Site Instruction has been issued. This response is NOT a formal project instruction Technical Query Form Page 3 of 3 Form NR/L2/INI/02009/F0049 Issue Date 04/06/2011 Issue 01 Ref
CCMS reference: 64335469
Functional Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Helen Teather 29/05/2014
Designated Project Engineer Name: Signature: Date: Elen Jones 29/05/14 Project Manager Name: Signature: Date: 05/06/2014 Midland Mainline Electrification Technical Query Number:
Press F9 to update field 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000086
Contract No: 134187 Author: S. Gould Contract Name: Kettering to Corby Email Address [email protected] Supplier: Jacobs Ltd NR DPE: C. Sivorn Discipline: Engineering - Signalling Required by Date: 28/01/2015 Q&A:
Question Title: Signal Group Replacement Control Facilities
Can Network Rail please advise the existing EMCC Signal Group Replacement Control (SGRC) facilities are for the Kettering Interlocking area requirements for the re-signalled and re-controlled area from Kettering to Manton. Question
Add Hyperlink Here: 527 Characters Remaining - Note:Text may extend beyond the current cell size if more than 750 characters are used Network Rail are to advise the requirements of Network Rail Operations to be included on the Signalling Scheme Plan and other supporting documentation. Proposal
Add Hyperlink Here: 599 Characters Remaining - Note:Text may extend beyond the current cell size if more than 750 characters are used There are currently no SGRC on the Kettering Workstation Interlocking Area. The linked document has the proposed requirements for the SGRC. Please also see the link to the proposed POP groups. These are not identical to the SGRC due to the complexity of Kettering North Junction. Response 466 Attachment Link: 134187 Kettering Workstation Predetermined Overrun Protection.pdf Attachment Link: 134187 Kettering Workstation Signal Group Replacement Requirements.pdf
Sign Off: NR Project Engineer: DPE (where applicable ): Helen Teather Craig Sivorn
Change Management Change Identified? Explain Here: Programme? No Cost? No 3rd Party Impact? No Scope? No
Note: TQ’s are not an instruction to proceed. If the response constitutes a change to the agreed ‘Scope of Works’ no work shall commence until an Instruction has been issued
134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000086.xls Midland Mainline Electrification Technical Query Number:
Press F9 to update field 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000088
Contract No: 134187 Author: Stuart Gould Contract Name: Kettering to Corby Email Address [email protected] Supplier: Jacobs Ltd NR DPE: Craig Sivorn Discipline: Engineering - Signalling Required by Date: 18/02/2015 Q&A:
Question Title: 40mph Line Speed Kettering Station Area - Down Slow and Up Slow
Network Rail has confirmed that the sighting on approach to LR60 and LR64 at Kettering Station is not compliant at 60mph and should be reduced to 40mph on approach for both the Up Slow and Down Slow.
The designed speed change for the Up Slow is to provide a speed reduction to 40mph at LR72 signal, this removes the requirements for providing MAY-FA controls on LR72 and flashing aspects on LR78 for routes from LR72 to LR60 into platform 2
Could Network Rail please confirm the desired position for the 40mph speed restriction on the Down Slow for up direction trains, there are two possible proposals and Network Rail are to advise which the scheme is to proceed with. Question
Add Hyperlink Here: 72 Characters Remaining - Note:Text may extend beyond the current cell size if more than 750 characters are used Proposal 1: To implement the new speed restriction at the exit from Kettering North Jcn so that trains heading towards Kettering from Market Harborough use the 40mph crossover and maintain this speed through Kettering to the South Jcn (incorporating the existing 40mph restriction for the South Jcn).
Proposal 2: To implement the new speed restriction at LR70 signal creating approximately 1 1/4 mile long section of 60mph running. This will introduce the requirement for an additional AWI board and inductor on the Down Slow for the 40mph speed restriction. Consideration needs to be given to driving techniques and actual attainable speed when accelerating on the exit
Proposal from Kettering North Jcn to reducing speed for the 40mph reduction at LR70.
Add Hyperlink Here: 3 Characters Remaining - Note:Text may extend beyond the current cell size if more than 750 characters are used NR agree with Proposal one. Response 721 Attachment Link: Attachment Link:
Sign Off: NR Project Engineer: DPE (where applicable ): Helen Teather Craig Sivorn
Change Management Change Identified? Explain Here: Programme? No Cost? No 3rd Party Impact? No Scope? No
Note: TQ’s are not an instruction to proceed. If the response constitutes a change to the agreed ‘Scope of Works’ no work shall commence until an Instruction has been issued
134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000088.xls Midland Mainline Route Modernisation Technical Query Number:
Press F9 to update field 134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000121
Contract No: 134187 Author: Idrees Shaikh Contract Name: Kettering to Corby Email Address [email protected] Supplier: Jacobs Ltd NR DPE: Craig Sivorn Discipline: Engineering - Signalling Required by Date: 18/12/2015 Q&A:
Question Title: NB 142 Requirements for Whistle Boards
Network Rail have issued a Notice Board to provide guidance for the provision of whistle boards and states that action is required "Where the configuration of the railway changes, Routes should investigate the opportunity to remove whistle boards and replace them with an automatic warning system such as the MSL crossings."
There is no guidance on the Notice Board as to mandatory compliance dates or GRIP stage compliance requirements.
Does the Kettering to Corby project constitute a configuration change or should the project be classed as a reasonable opportunity to review the protection at Gretton 1, Gretton 2 and Wing footpath crossings. Question
Add Hyperlink Here: 102 Characters Remaining - Note:Text may extend beyond the current cell size if more than 750 characters are used Gretton 1, Gretton 2 and Wing footpath crossing risk assessments should be reviewed by the NR project team to ensure that the existing requirements for whistle boards remain compliant following the issue of NB 142 or confirm to Jacobs if further mitigation is now required to be considered and detailed as part of the latest scheme design updates, this could include solutions such as COVTEC AWD or MSL. Proposal
Add Hyperlink Here: 347 Characters Remaining - Note:Text may extend beyond the current cell size if more than 750 characters are used Response 750 Characters Remaining - Note:Text may extend beyond the current cell size if more than 750 characters are used Attachment Link:
Sign Off: NR Project Engineer: DPE (where applicable ):
Change Management Change Identified? Explain Here: Programme? No Cost? No 3rd Party Impact? No Scope? No
Note: TQ’s are not an instruction to proceed. If the response constitutes a change to the agreed ‘Scope of Works’ no work shall commence until an Instruction has been issued
134187-JAC-ETQ-ESG-000121.xls
Appendix B Braking Calculations
Braking calculations have been carried out in accordance with GK/RT0075. Please see attached documentation using SSpaM_v6p0 spreadsheet for each of the entries below:
1. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/1 – Up & Down Slow to Down Corby via Down Slow 2. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/2 – Down Corby 3. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/3 – Down Corby via Up Corby 4. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/4 – Up Fast to Down Slow 5. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/5 – Down Slow from Up Corby 6. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/6 – Up Slow from Up Corby 7. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/7 – Up Main to Up Corby 8. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/8 – Up Slow from Up Main 9. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/9 – Down Main to Up Slow 10. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/10 – Down Fast to Down Main via Down Slow 11. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/11 – Down Fast to Up Main via Down Slow 12. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/12 – Down Fast to Down Main via Up Slow 13. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/13 – Down Fast to Up Main via Up Slow 14. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/14 – Up Fast to Down Slow 15. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/15 – Up & Down Slow to Down Corby via Up Slow 16. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/16 – Down Slow from Up Main 17. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/17 – Down Slow from Down Main 18. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/18 – Down Fast (Down Direction) 19. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/19 – Up Fast (Down Direction) 20. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/20 – Down Slow to Up Slow 21. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/21 – Down Fast (Up Direction) 22. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/22 – Up Fast (Up Direction) 23. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/23 – Up Fast to Down Fast 24. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/24 – Down Slow to Down Fast 25. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/25 – Down Slow to Up Fast 26. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/26 – Up Slow to Down Fast 27. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/27 – Up Slow to Up Fast 28. 134187-JAC-SG-CAL-000001/28 – Up Fast to Down Main