Page 1 of 1
| Track circuits and water troughs 08/04/2014 at 15:50 #58567 | |
jc92
3631 posts |
something I was pondering the other day. Where track circuits were provided around water troughs (for instance the troughs near Thirsk on the ECML which was TCB from a panel at Thirsk) were they track circuits, axle counters (assuming they had been invented!) or another method. I don't quite see how reliable a conventional track circuit would be around all that water. any ideas? "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Track circuits and water troughs 08/04/2014 at 15:58 #58568 | |
kbarber
1712 posts |
" said:something I was pondering the other day. I think we can confidently say axle counters weren't around in 1935 (the date of Thirsk panel, the first route relay interlocking in the country). Quite how they persuaded track circuits to work I'm not too sure, but as is well known the Sleep & Tea have powerful magic :dry: Log in to reply |
| Track circuits and water troughs 09/04/2014 at 11:53 #58612 | |
|
Haraubrad
103 posts |
I would imagine that after the surplus water had drained away it wouldn't have been any different to heavy rainfall. Aubrey Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
| Track circuits and water troughs 09/04/2014 at 12:42 #58615 | |
|
TomOF
452 posts |
I would have thought that even with the passage of a train taking on water both rails would be unlikely to be simultaneously submerged, and even if that did happen it would only be for a few moments upon which it would be dissapated into the ballast. The only likely side effect is the track circuit remaining occupied for a few moments longer than it would have done which I suppose is no bad thing. Log in to reply |
| Track circuits and water troughs 09/04/2014 at 13:46 #58618 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2029 posts 
|
I would be willing to guess that they would fail a lot more than a similar type of track circuit with no troughs.
Log in to reply |
| Track circuits and water troughs 09/04/2014 at 13:53 #58619 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
" said:I would have thought that even with the passage of a train taking on water both rails would be unlikely to be simultaneously submerged, and even if that did happen it would only be for a few moments upon which it would be dissapated into the ballast. But very wet ballast would have a lower resistance than you'd usually find, so the difference between the unshunted and shunted resistances would be very much less. I imagine that, in the real world, experienced linemen would be able to adjust things until it worked 'just so'. But I imagine it would need a good deal of skill & experience. Wet ballast can make a difference to TC operation. Biggleswade used to have a 'wet weather' switch in the box to adjust the resistance in the circuit of a TC on the up fast. It was installed after a series of TC failures returning the UF home to danger just in front of a train, to the acute worriment of the poor drivers. And Euston, at one stage in its life, had an enormously persistent TC failure (I have an idea it was on the up slow, at the southern mouth of Primrose Hill Tunnels) and defeated many months of S&T effort. Eventually the whole area was reballasted and (the signlmens'  sanity restored. Until the next time it rained, whereupon the track dropped...
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: sorabain |