This MAST blog is an archive from Feb 2011

Updated 29th March

This is a personal venture to provide information on Network Rail's claim to have an EU Mandate and planning permission to erect a 95ft mast near Calstock Railway Station. It is not a product of the local group 'Calstock TRAM'

The above plan is an extract from a document supplied by Network Rail. The cross presumably marks the location for the mast, at the south of the border between 3 and 4 Church Lane. I am assessing conflicting information about the exact co-ordinates.

I am not pro or anti Network Rail's proposal, but am interested in the concern amongst friends and 'neighbours' and challenge Network Rail on their approach to this development.

Network Rail: 08457 114141
My numbers ; deleted
Roger Lovejoy

"The Cullen report, and others, recommend a single national radio system between drivers and signallers."

EU directives or more precisely TSI's (Technical Standards for Interoperability) defines type of communications system. Mandatory once adopted by UK government.

However if the Mandate is void on the Tamar Valley line then Network Rail must resort to recommendation, not a mandate, not something required.

So why tout the mandate? Is it to bully and under such disguise the plough on into domestic areas or just a red herring to enquiry minds.

Is therefore the Cullen report any argument to want the mast at Calstock etc?

Without reading the report, but quoting Richard Flindell, Communications Manager for Network Rail "Cullen and authors of various other reports .... recommend a single national radio system to be used between drivers and signallers", as there are no signallers on the Tamar Valley line, then clearly there is no need for the mast on these grounds. (The only issue is when the train reaches St. Budeaux, where the mainline mast system will interact with any on-board communication hardware. Currently the driver halts the train and telephones through before proceeding onto the main line ensuring permission has been given via remote handling of the points.)

OK, so best get the Cullen report, or better still ask Mr Flindell to copy to me the part that "recommend(s) a single national radio system to be used between drivers and signallers"

Note there is no mandate or recommendation for a communication system for passenger information or driver chit chat.

See mastsanity.org for report on Cullen Report

Try to get definitive statement on proposed use as regards frequency of transmissions. is only when the driver is both localised to the antenna and has something to discuss ~ assuming the mast is erected under the guise of the Cullen argument.

There being no mandate as touted, nor is there ant justification to site the Cullen report etc. NR may just want to place a mast at Calstock for 'better' communication with the driver or workmen that may visit the site.

So the question of costs is an issue. That they may have already laid optic fibre at some expense, is no excuse to spend more on a 95ft mast to exploit it. It may well be someone's pet project that they were well paid to design, and they, or their successors in title would like to the fruits of their labour.

Costs:

Mast Installation
Running cost; Daily electricity.
Maintenance
Life expectancy

(Recast)
(Text with EEA relevance) Page 7 of 45

CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1 (Purpose and scope)

This Directive sets out to establish the conditions to be met to achieve interoperability within the Community rail system in a manner compatible with the provisions of Directive 2004/49/EC. These conditions concern the design, construction, placing in service, upgrading, renewal, operation and maintenance of the parts of this system as well as the professional qualifications and health and safety conditions of the staff who contribute to its operation and maintenance.

The pursuit of this objective must lead to the definition of an optimal level of technical harmonisation and make it possible to:
(a)facilitate, improve and develop international rail transport services within the European Union and with third countries;
(b)contribute to the progressive creation of the internal market in equipment and services for the construction, renewal, upgrading and operation of the rail system within the Community;
(c)contribute to the interoperability of the rail system within the Community.

1 . . .

2 . . .

3. Member States may exclude from the measures they adopt in implementation of this Directive:

(a) metros, trams and other light rail systems;

(b) networks that are functionally separate from the rest of the railway system and intended only for the operation of local, urban or suburban passenger services, as well as railway undertakings operating solely on these networks;

(c) privately owned railway infrastructure and vehicles exclusively used on such infrastructure that exist solely for use by the owner for its own freight operations;

(d) infrastructure and vehicles reserved for a strictly local, historical or touristic use.

Article 1(3)(b): networks (infrastructure) that are functionally separate from the rest of the rail system and intended only for the operation of local, urban or suburban passenger services and railway undertakings (and their vehicles) operating on such networks

Island Line: Isle of Wight (Ryde to Shanklin)

Article 1(3)(d): infrastructure and vehicles reserved for a strictly local use

Vehicles only

Parry People Mover (vehicles only)

Class 08 (0-6-0) shunters (built by BR)

Class 09 (0-6-0) shunters (built by BR)

Infrastructure only

St Ives – St Erth

Looe Valley: Liskeard - Looe

Tamar Valley: St Budeaux - Gunnislake

St Albans Abbey: Watford Junction – St Albans Abbey

Penistone – Barnsley - Huddersfield

Esk Valley: Middlesbrough - Whitby

Tarka Line: Barnstaple to Cowley Bridge Jnc

Maritime Line: Falmouth to Truro September

Source: House or Commons Standard note by Louise Butcher from House of Commons Library
Railways: EU policy
Standard Note: SN/BT/184
Last updated: 3 March 2010

Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the European high-speed train network came into force on 16 May 2002. The aim of the Directive was to make it easier for train operators to use the systems in other Member States by ensuring infrastructures, equipment and rolling stock were all compatible and also to assist the EC railway manufacturing industry by the adoption of common standards. It was made clear that the proposal did not require interoperability from every point in the network to every other point in the network, but only where necessary for the operation of international services over the network.

Update 24th March

"I have read Rogers issues, but the 2008 EU directive that I have, which is still not adopted by the UK, does not say (infrastucture) next to networks in article 1(3)(b).

The DRAFT UK list of exclusions does say "networks(infrastructure)" and excludes the Isle of Wight ONLY under this article1(3)(B). This is not UK law yet, and I would be very surprised if the UK Gov't would try to change a definition contained in the Directive.

The Tamar Valley line is excluded from infrastructure under this UK draft under article 1(3)(D) BUT the EU directive specifically separates "infrastructure" from "control-command and signalling" in Annex 11 (Sub systems) , as did the previous 2001/4 directives which are the ones adopted by the UK at present and quoted by Network Rail." Bill

Dear Bill

The only issue here is that the UK Draft document appends the word Infrastructure in brackets after Network, presumably to acknowledge the change in word.

The underlying legislation has not changed.

The purpose of the UK Draft is to define the parts of the network,(infrastructure) that are excluded from the legislation as they are not part of either the High-speed or Conventional networks. Whether some wishes to call parts of the Tamar Valley line sub systems of a larger infrastructure of the local railway network is irrelevant. The meaning and intention is to clarify to UK operators and to lodge with the bureaucrats in Brussels, those areas in the UK network of rail systems, infrastructures or networks that are not subject to the legislation.

Anyway both the 2004 and the 2008 Directives clearly state that although there may be many sub sections and more can be added, telecommunications and tracking and navigation systems are part of the network read (infrastructure).

DIRECTIVE 2008/57/EC

Annex I :Scope
1. Trans-European conventional rail system

1.1. Network
....

This network includes traffic management, tracking and navigation systems, technical installations for data processing and telecommunications intended for long-distance passenger services and freight services on the network in order to guarantee the safe and harmonious operation of the network and efficient traffic management.

DIRECTIVE 2004/50/EC
Annex III

THE TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM
1. THE INFRASTRUCTURE

....
This infrastructure includes traffic management, tracking, and navigation systems: technical installations for data processing and telecommunications intended for long-distance passenger services and freight services on the network in order to guarantee the safe and harmonious operation of the network and efficient traffic management.

That Annex II defines Sub systems does not detract from the overall meaning of infrastructure when applied to the previous declaration.

Infrastructure is any structure than can be separated from a larger one that is dependent upon it. There can be, and more often than not are, infrastructures within infrastructures, systems or sub-systems within each other.

As the Tamar Valley Line is exempt, it not being included in either the Conventional or High-speed networks to which this legislation applies, the exact terms used to define parts of the Trans EU Interoperability Rail Network are irrelevant to this line.

The majority of the UK rail infrastructure is managed by Network Rail and there is provision for national governments to list parts of railway infrastructure (domestic for example) to assist network infrastructure managers in deciding what parts and sub parts are subject to the legislation. This is again different for the rolling stock as this is managed separately.

LEGISLATION SCOPE

Interoperability is being applied, by means of the Regulations[2] to the UK part of the High Speed rail system and the Conventional Trans-European rail system. This includes the infrastructure, and all rail vehicles - passenger, freight, locomotives, and maintenance - that use those systems. The Regulations do not apply to the remainder of the heavy rail UK rail system, or to other systems such as metros and light rail. ....


Network Rail is the infrastructure manager for the majority of the mainland network, comprising approximately 30100 track kilometres, of which approximately 70% is on the Trans European Network and the remainder domestic railway outwith the scope of the Regulations;

You may like to avail yourself of the map that delineates those parts of the network that are subject to the legislation being either High-speed and Conventional lines and those that are domestic and hence do not.

The exemption speaks in terms of infrastructure so as to acknowledge that
rolling stock may pass from domestic to High-speed or Conventional etc. Signalling is part of the rail network infrastructure. Roger

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:59:38 +0000
From: roger
To: Richard.Flindell@networkrail.co.uk,
Richard Hoile, Calstock Parish
sheryll.murray.mp@parliament.uk, sheryll@sheryllmurray.com,
Peter.Phillips@cornwall.gov.uk

Subject: Calstock mast co-ordinates

Dear Mr Flindell

First I would like to point out that I am not a pro or anti mast casualty and my interest is due to friends and neighbours being concerned.

Whereas you wish to exploit Part 17 of the 1995 GPDO and inform residents that there will be a 95 foot mast at the bottom of their garden, like it or not, - my opinion is that this endeavour could have benefited from a proper public consultation as prescribed under Circular 9/95, Appendix B, para. 8." to consult with the Council and the general public" and a planning application.

So!

I have a number of queries relating to the irradiation that people will be exposed to from the mast at Calstock. I acknowledge that you are of the opinion that it is all within regulations, but then so are the toxins produced by smoking tobacco etc., but this does not make it acceptable. It can take many decades possibly even centuries to discover the health impacts of new technologies and update regulations. By then it is often to late to do much about it.

In fact, it is the perceived danger that is also the real danger, which is why a proper planning application, rather than using permitted development rights in this instance, would have seemed beneficial.

The real problem RE: the radiation is well expressed as follows :-   Washington Post

“The psychological effects were the biggest health
effects of all — by far,” said Fred Mettler, a University of New Mexico professor emeritus and one of the world’s leading authorities on radiation, who studied Chernobyl for the World Health Organization. “

In the end, that’s really what affected the most people.” Fears of contamination and anxiety about the health of those exposed and their children led to significantly elevated rates of suicidal thinking and anxiety disorders, and rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression about doubled, Mettler and others said.

“The effect on mental health was hugely important,” said Evelyn Bromet, a professor of psychiatry at Stony Brook University who studied the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. “People’s fears about getting cancer, or their children getting cancer, and family and friends dying from radiation exposure were very intense.”

Worry is a killer and therefore the crude manner of deploying this mast may be akin to torture for those living close.

Consequently it seems prudent to provide details of the perceived dangers so that the worry dissipates.

Off course there is also the visual impact alone, devoid of the fact that the mast radiates high frequency radiation. This matter I will discuss separately but for now please send me exact co-ordinates of the proposed location for the mast to be located near Calstock railway station and the other information detailed following the embedded plan.

• On a plan that you provided Calstock Parish Council, there is a
  cross. Is this an approximation or exact location?
• The document states that the centre of the map is as follows: You can also see the blue cross that was on the document, not exactly the same as the map centre.
• Moreover on your documents to Cornwall Council you state the proposed location, as inscribed by me, on the following extract and modified map referred to.

I have just obtained an accurate and detailed official copy of an OS map detailing the same area and will impose the three 'locations' that could be the real position.

I understand that in your earlier letter to Cornwall Council the co-ordinates may be approximate, given that they only refer to a 10m position, presumably allowing a 33feet adjustment should it be deemed advisable.

I note from that document you detail other masts to the metre, so I would be grateful if you would do the same for this instance. As you claim the beam is narrow, the site location therefore will impact upon the orientation of the beam.

Ok to add to the above and clarify my requests please provide me
with the following:

a) the exact co-ordinates for the mast

b) the radiation pattern relative to the area you intend it to cover so I can assess the need need for the beam widths of the antenna. i,e. The pattern relative to the extreme places near Harewood and Bere Alston that you want to cover.

c) the actual (field strength) in relation to the distance from the antenna, in both dBm and voltage

d) the controlled output of the amplifier as expected when used, I have it from you that the designed maximum output is 46dBm

e) the actual make and model number of the amplifier so I can check it's documentation from the manufacturers or maybe you could directly send me the manufacturer's info.

f) details on the contents of the big cabinet, as a 40watt amplifier is very small (46dBm)

g) details of the actual signal input and output voltages to the transmitting amplifier you expect

All these matters are important as I intend to assess your figures and produce a map of the projected irradiation to the immediate vicinity.

I already have a plan of the antenna beam width pattern from source, but this is not indicative of the actual power output you will generate.

One of the most important issues is the voltage at a particular distance, so a projection of that info from your dept. is paramount.

Thank you

As I live in the sticks with a slow dial-up connection, I would appreciate that if your reply contains attachments you send to *********

Roger Lovejoy

Copied to
Calstock Parish Council
Cornwall County Council
Sheryll Murray MP South East Cornwall