Upcoming Games

Watton Oil Terminal

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Released > King's Cross > Watton Oil Terminal

Page 1 of 1

Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 14:35 #107751
ajax103
Avatar
582 posts
Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.
Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 15:03 #107757
headshot119
Avatar
3004 posts
ajax103 in post 107751 said:
Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.
It's not worth the time and effort really. It also restricts what can be done on the modern era. Eras are commonly quite broad to allow flexibility.

If it concerns you put some reminders on the associated controls.

EDIT

Which is exactly what they did on the real thing http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/20496/category/2138-2008_july

"James Street, Moorfields, Liverpool Lime Street and Liverpool Central"
Last edited: 29/04/2018 at 15:26 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: Meld, pedroathome
Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 15:44 #107759
pedroathome
Avatar
450 posts
headshot119 in post 107757 said:
ajax103 in post 107751 said:
Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.
It's not worth the time and effort really. It also restricts what can be done on the modern era. Eras are commonly quite broad to allow flexibility.

If it concerns you put some reminders on the associated controls.
To add an era can take, depending on what is involved, can take a significant amount of time, where, the benefits to the end user are minimal.

Where I've added Eras into Manchester North is where there is significant layout changes that prevent newer (or older) timetables from working.


James

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 21:36 #107767
ajax103
Avatar
582 posts
headshot119 in post 107757 said:
ajax103 in post 107751 said:
Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.
It's not worth the time and effort really. It also restricts what can be done on the modern era. Eras are commonly quite broad to allow flexibility.

If it concerns you put some reminders on the associated controls.

EDIT

Which is exactly what they did on the real thing http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/20496/category/2138-2008_july
By that argument, we should not have had Platform 4 at Gordon Hill removed in the modern layout even though both got disconnected and track removed over 30 odd years ago as we could have timetables with trains from Moorgate to Gordon Hill using both bay platforms to turnaround which as Platform 4 is not available in modern era is a slight disadvantage.

My point is I acknowledge a certain amount of licence has to be used but what's the difference between one location being available and the other not? As I don't see any difference as either both should be available or both should not, now if you use the Hitchin flyover or Platform 0 at Kings Cross they actually exist in real life and are used by numerous services so it is only right that they have been added to the modern era.

As to not being worth the time or effort, should I argue that it's not worth adding updates to various sims to correct layouts or offer suggestions as that is a very negative approach.

The modern era already exists, all it takes is a simple update after all there are three locations in the sim I like to one day see updated but that will take time and yes I know that developers have a life outside SimSig before anyone aims a MG34 at my window!

As to having different eras, it's good to have a change eg I rather play the modern era of Coventry to the 80s era as I detest the level crossings but that's going off track.

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 00:17 #107768
JamesN
Avatar
1045 posts
Online
ajax103 in post 107767 said:
By that argument, we should not have had Platform 4 at Gordon Hill removed in the modern layout even though both got disconnected and track removed over 30 odd years ago as we could have timetables with trains from Moorgate to Gordon Hill using both bay platforms to turnaround which as Platform 4 is not available in modern era is a slight disadvantage.
Actually, unlike Watton Oil Terminal, the 2nd Bay at Gordon Hill had been removed from the real panel.

http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/20470/category/2138-2008_july

The fundamental question is; why is the change to the simulation required?

Evidently it was shown, with reminder appliances on the controls, on the panel long after the track was lifted. Just like the sim.

The protecting signals are fitted with auto buttons; so it’s not as if you’re having to go back and forth restroking the route every time; you can set it to auto and leave it.

Compared to today it is entirely moot - the entire Hertford Loop is now a workstation; and the track & signalling layout has been altered significantly between Hertford and Stevenage to facilitate ETCS testing.

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: DriverCurran
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 12:56 #107771
ajax103
Avatar
582 posts
JamesN in post 107768 said:
ajax103 in post 107767 said:
By that argument, we should not have had Platform 4 at Gordon Hill removed in the modern layout even though both got disconnected and track removed over 30 odd years ago as we could have timetables with trains from Moorgate to Gordon Hill using both bay platforms to turnaround which as Platform 4 is not available in modern era is a slight disadvantage.
Actually, unlike Watton Oil Terminal, the 2nd Bay at Gordon Hill had been removed from the real panel.

http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/20470/category/2138-2008_july

The fundamental question is; why is the change to the simulation required?

Evidently it was shown, with reminder appliances on the controls, on the panel long after the track was lifted. Just like the sim.

The protecting signals are fitted with auto buttons; so it’s not as if you’re having to go back and forth restroking the route every time; you can set it to auto and leave it.

Compared to today it is entirely moot - the entire Hertford Loop is now a workstation; and the track & signalling layout has been altered significantly between Hertford and Stevenage to facilitate ETCS testing.
Actually as per the resignalling notice issued by Network Rail, it states "Watton-at-Stone GF recovered" so I say it's a safe bet that the location is no longer on the panel and indeed the notice states:

"Resignalling Notice NR-LNE-29 2013

The existing signals between between Alexandra Palace (aka. Wood Green) and north of Bayford retain the K prefix (Last on the Down = K897 and first on the Up = K900)
New WestCAD VSCS in Kings Cross SB
Gordon Hill and Hertford North areas removed from existing Kings Cross panel
New Hertford North Smartlock SML400 solid state interlocking housed in Hitchin relay room (3 x VIXL; HERTN01, HERTN02 and HERTN03)
Existing Gordon Hill GEC-Geographical Interlocking recontrolled from Kings Cross by Invensys S2 TDM
Existing Gordon Hill Emergency Control Panel retained
Amended area for Langley Junction GEC-Geographical interlocking
Watton-at-Stone GF recovered"

The signals in the area are labelled WL btw.

I'm just questioning the fact that if we can have the flyover and platform 0 at Kings Cross why not plain line this location?

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 13:16 #107772
y10g9
Avatar
424 posts
Given that Plat 0 and the Hitchin Flyover came into use with several years apart, are you going to be requesting that there are different eras put in place so that you can run a 2011 TT with P0, but no flyover? The eras in kings cross is just literally labelled as 'old' and 'Modern'. There is not a specific year mentioned for the old era (1900s to early 2000s), and modern being set in the 2013. Was the siding still there in that year (5 years ago) even if it had been mothballed and not used for many years?

Since the signals on each side of the the ground frame have autos on them, can you not just leave it in auto mode and just ignore the fuel terminal? Or even just put a black sticky note over the layout so you can ignore it? James has show a picture of the terminal having been retained on the panel whereas the platform at Gordon Hill has been removed.

If the line has as you said been plain lined, has that been reflected on the panel? Sometimes they'll plain line the track, but the interlocking remains in the system as its easier to keep the interlocking rather than spend the money on removing it.

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 13:25 #107773
Danny252
Avatar
1444 posts
Quote:
Actually as per the resignalling notice issued by Network Rail, it states "Watton-at-Stone GF recovered" so I say it's a safe bet that the location is no longer on the panel

You seem to have much more confidence in NR (and railways in general) doing a thorough (and for panel changes, expensive) job for such minor alterations! The Signalling Record Society's "signalling alterations" pieces regularly note glaring discrepancies between reality and the contents of notices.

Last edited: 30/04/2018 at 13:26 by Danny252
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 15:36 #107777
Peter Bennet
Avatar
4494 posts
This thread started with a reasonable question and a reasonable reply but then seems to have taken a slightly more confrontational tone, which is not helpful.

Peter

I can promise you this, if I didn’t pay the price for the things we both know I did do, I’m certainly not going to pay the price for the things I didn’t do. - Frank Underwood
Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 16:12 #107778
jc92
Avatar
2457 posts
Online
I think the same rule applies as with exeter. Not everything exists at the same time but if its there it can be used or ignored. If its not there and you need it youre stuffed!

Given the modern era is a blanket term to cover recent additions the main thing is that they are catered for. Does the plain lining of this siding pre or post date the addition of P0 and hitchin flyover. If it post dates then it should still be on there.

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 16:30 #107779
postal
Avatar
3620 posts
Peter Bennet in post 107777 said:
This thread started with a reasonable question and a reasonable reply but then seems to have taken a slightly more confrontational tone, which is not helpful.

Peter
Aided by a good dose of "shoot the messenger".

"The truth about your own life is not always easy to accept, and sometimes hasn't even occurred to you." - Anna Quindlen (Born 08/07/1952) American Journalist
Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 17:05 #107780
ajax103
Avatar
582 posts
jc92 in post 107778 said:
I think the same rule applies as with exeter. Not everything exists at the same time but if its there it can be used or ignored. If its not there and you need it youre stuffed!

Given the modern era is a blanket term to cover recent additions the main thing is that they are catered for. Does the plain lining of this siding pre or post date the addition of P0 and hitchin flyover. If it post dates then it should still be on there.
It def predates the addition of P0 and Hitchin flyover as it came out of use a long time ago.

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 20:07 #107782
metcontrol
Avatar
180 posts
The DMU sidings connected to the down slow at Hitchin existed at more or less the same time as many of the crossovers visible in the older era. The crossovers made it, the sidings didn't and I could make a few more similar comparisons. But I think at the end of the day the developers have to draw a line somewhere (be that by choice, design or available material) and the eras we have are what we have got.
The (overgrown) track which formed the access to Watton Oil terminal wasn't removed that many years ago, and was definitely still there (but unlikely to be operational - and the pointwork on the main was plain-lined) post platform 0 at King's Cross. But it did sit in a "never say never again" state for many years after it was last used - even though the oil terminal was long gone and new housing occupied much of the site.

Log in to reply
Watton Oil Terminal 14/05/2018 at 12:46 #107939
TRC666
Avatar
133 posts
I work at Watton on a regular basis and can tell you for sure the track has definitely been removed - all that remains are some old lamp posts and vegetation.
Log in to reply