Upcoming Games


Full list
Add a game

Upcoming Events

Routing Question on Derby

You are here: Home > Forum > General > General questions, comments, and issues > Routing Question on Derby

Page 1 of 2

Routing Question on Derby 16/01/2019 at 01:46 #114798
Klo653
Avatar
3 posts
SO i've started to play the derby sim for the first time and when I set a route say from one signal to another and then a train passes said route the track does not reset back to grey but stays white. Bc of this I have to go and manually cancel this route by right-clicking and I'm just wondering why this is and if theres a way to have the route reset as the train passes through it like in say the Brighton sim. Thanks
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 16/01/2019 at 03:57 #114799
Meld
Avatar
571 posts
Kio - you need to check the Train Operated Route Release box before you start the sim, its on the select options screen.
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 16/01/2019 at 09:20 #114800
kbarber
Avatar
1404 posts
This behaviour is in fact correct for Derby PSB. Before the advent of Solid State Interlocking, TORR was only provided at the busiest locations, and not even there until after Derby was commissioned (I believe London Bridge was the first in, IIRC, 1971). That was mainly because of cost - the additional relays and cicuitry added a huge overhead that was only worthwhile where the system was being driven to its limits. Everywhere else, routes had to be restored behind each train (by pulling up the exit button). (You have to remember that, when Derby was commissioned, the norm was still mechanical boxes in which levers had to be physically restored behind each train, with signal remaining clear until that was done, so restoring signals behind a train was still second nature for a bobby.)
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 00:47 #114822
Phil-jmw
Avatar
370 posts
kbarber in post 114800 said:
Everywhere else, routes had to be restored behind each train (by pulling up the exit button).
On every panel I've ever seen you pull out the Entrance button to cancel a route.

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 00:52 #114823
headshot119
Avatar
3260 posts
Phil-jmw in post 114822 said:
kbarber in post 114800 said:
Everywhere else, routes had to be restored behind each train (by pulling up the exit button).
On every panel I've ever seen you pull out the Entrance button to cancel a route.
Except on a Turn and Push panel where you would turn the entry switch

"CHECK Do you stop at Capenhurst?" - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 01:48 #114824
Phil-jmw
Avatar
370 posts
headshot119 in post 114823 said:
Phil-jmw in post 114822 said:
kbarber in post 114800 said:
Everywhere else, routes had to be restored behind each train (by pulling up the exit button).
On every panel I've ever seen you pull out the Entrance button to cancel a route.
Except on a Turn and Push panel where you would turn the entry switch :)
Granted Karl, but the principle is the same, it's the entrance button/switch rather than the exit.

Last edited: 17/01/2019 at 01:48 by Phil-jmw
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 08:49 #114825
kbarber
Avatar
1404 posts
Phil-jmw in post 114822 said:
kbarber in post 114800 said:
Everywhere else, routes had to be restored behind each train (by pulling up the exit button).
On every panel I've ever seen you pull out the Entrance button to cancel a route.
As I say, until the advent of SSI that was the case except for a few very busy locations (and even quite a few of them - Euston required the entrance button pulling after every movement, as did Kings Cross, West Hampstead, etc etc). London Bridge was the first to move away from that requirement. I suspect Victoria also had TORR, likewise Waterloo. I don't know about Three Bridges. I suspect - but would welcome correction - that those were the only *relay* installations that had TORR.

Implementing TORR in Solid State Interlocking is a much easier task (there may be someone knowledgeable here who can confirm whether easy enough to call it trivial). Therefore TORR was provided as standard in SSI installations. I know Banbury South had it and I believe Wembley Yard did too; those are the only SSI boxes I have personal knowledge of, though Wembley hadn't been commissioned when I saw it.

Of course we now have the situation where some remote interlockings controlled by large powerboxes have been converted to SSI while others remain as relay interlockings; I suspect that means a mix of TORR and non-TORR in the same box and sometimes even on the same panel. Kings Cross comes to mind, where I believe Finsbury Park and Hitchin (the latter controlling as far south as Langley Junction) are now SSI. (There may also be an SSI - or its modern-day equivalent - Westrace?... Westlock? - controlling Belle Isle, since the commissioning of the Thameslonk Junction.) The remainder, though, are still relay interlockings. So the bobbies at the Cross are presumably used to having to pull up behind every train at one signal but letting TORR do it for them at the next.

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: BarryM
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 09:56 #114827
Andrew G
Avatar
507 posts
kbarber in post 114825 said:

Of course we now have the situation where some remote interlockings controlled by large powerboxes have been converted to SSI while others remain as relay interlockings; I suspect that means a mix of TORR and non-TORR in the same box and sometimes even on the same panel. Kings Cross comes to mind, where I believe Finsbury Park and Hitchin (the latter controlling as far south as Langley Junction) are now SSI. (There may also be an SSI - or its modern-day equivalent - Westrace?... Westlock? - controlling Belle Isle, since the commissioning of the Thameslonk Junction.) The remainder, though, are still relay interlockings. So the bobbies at the Cross are presumably used to having to pull up behind every train at one signal but letting TORR do it for them at the next.
Birmingham New Street was similar in that the remodelled Proof House Junction area was TORR enabled while the rest of the NX panel wasn't. Signallers on the Centre Panel are very disciplined in quickly killing dead routes to keep the panel clean. A member of this group has raised a request for a no TORR option on the New Street Simulation!

The only other example I have come across with a split operation is Wakefield Kirkgate where the current control area is a mix of re control (without TORR) and re signalling (with TORR).

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 11:54 #114830
jc92
Avatar
2628 posts
Online
Andrew G in post 114827 said:
kbarber in post 114825 said:

Of course we now have the situation where some remote interlockings controlled by large powerboxes have been converted to SSI while others remain as relay interlockings; I suspect that means a mix of TORR and non-TORR in the same box and sometimes even on the same panel. Kings Cross comes to mind, where I believe Finsbury Park and Hitchin (the latter controlling as far south as Langley Junction) are now SSI. (There may also be an SSI - or its modern-day equivalent - Westrace?... Westlock? - controlling Belle Isle, since the commissioning of the Thameslonk Junction.) The remainder, though, are still relay interlockings. So the bobbies at the Cross are presumably used to having to pull up behind every train at one signal but letting TORR do it for them at the next.
Birmingham New Street was similar in that the remodelled Proof House Junction area was TORR enabled while the rest of the NX panel wasn't. Signallers on the Centre Panel are very disciplined in quickly killing dead routes to keep the panel clean. A member of this group has raised a request for a no TORR option on the New Street Simulation!

The only other example I have come across with a split operation is Wakefield Kirkgate where the current control area is a mix of re control (without TORR) and re signalling (with TORR).
From what I remember of visiting Sheffield PSB, parts of the panel had it and others didn't. I can't remember which is which now though

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 14:40 #114833
clive
Avatar
1933 posts
kbarber in post 114825 said:

Implementing TORR in Solid State Interlocking is a much easier task (there may be someone knowledgeable here who can confirm whether easy enough to call it trivial).
Making TORR possible is part of the SSI core code. I haven't read the SSI manuals in detail (I think Geoff has) but I suspect that adding it to a signal is basically a matter of either adding a flag to each affected route or listing the track circuits required for TORR on the route. So a little bit of design work (and testing) but much less than adding a route in the first place.

kbarber in post 114825 said:

Of course we now have the situation where some remote interlockings controlled by large powerboxes have been converted to SSI while others remain as relay interlockings; I suspect that means a mix of TORR and non-TORR in the same box and sometimes even on the same panel.
[...]
So the bobbies at the Cross are presumably used to having to pull up behind every train at one signal but letting TORR do it for them at the next.
I would be very surprised if it was *not* possible to disable TORR on a given signal.

Actually, I have a real example: the right hand (Ely) end of Cambridge panel - the part that uses huge squares instead of the normal little tiles - is controlled by three SSIs in the relay room in Cambridge PSB. But I'm pretty sure there's no TORR on that part any more than on the rest of the panel.

Last edited: 17/01/2019 at 14:40 by clive
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: kbarber
Routing Question on Derby 17/01/2019 at 20:42 #114841
GeoffM
Avatar
4503 posts
Online
clive in post 114833 said:
kbarber in post 114825 said:

Implementing TORR in Solid State Interlocking is a much easier task (there may be someone knowledgeable here who can confirm whether easy enough to call it trivial).
Making TORR possible is part of the SSI core code. I haven't read the SSI manuals in detail (I think Geoff has) but I suspect that adding it to a signal is basically a matter of either adding a flag to each affected route or listing the track circuits required for TORR on the route. So a little bit of design work (and testing) but much less than adding a route in the first place.
Yes, it's designed to handle it in core logic. The data needs two things in the OPT data: two track IDs (or 3 tracks or 3 sets of conditions), and conditions to release the route (usually very simple as the core logic does most of the work).

clive in post 114833 said:
kbarber in post 114825 said:

Of course we now have the situation where some remote interlockings controlled by large powerboxes have been converted to SSI while others remain as relay interlockings; I suspect that means a mix of TORR and non-TORR in the same box and sometimes even on the same panel.
[...]
So the bobbies at the Cross are presumably used to having to pull up behind every train at one signal but letting TORR do it for them at the next.
I would be very surprised if it was *not* possible to disable TORR on a given signal.

Actually, I have a real example: the right hand (Ely) end of Cambridge panel - the part that uses huge squares instead of the normal little tiles - is controlled by three SSIs in the relay room in Cambridge PSB. But I'm pretty sure there's no TORR on that part any more than on the rest of the panel.
I don't know if you mean SSI or something else. With SSI it's easy - just omit either of the two items I mentioned above. Quite a few permissive shunt routes do not have TORR these days.

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: kbarber
Routing Question on Derby 18/01/2019 at 20:23 #114858
clive
Avatar
1933 posts
GeoffM in post 114841 said:
clive in post 114833 said:

Actually, I have a real example: the right hand (Ely) end of Cambridge panel - the part that uses huge squares instead of the normal little tiles - is controlled by three SSIs in the relay room in Cambridge PSB. But I'm pretty sure there's no TORR on that part any more than on the rest of the panel.
I don't know if you mean SSI or something else. With SSI it's easy - just omit either of the two items I mentioned above. Quite a few permissive shunt routes do not have TORR these days.
I meant SSI - they're real SSI units. Here's a photo I took of them; they're in a corner of the relay room for the station interlocking (three floors below the panel).


Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 18/01/2019 at 22:50 #114863
GeoffM
Avatar
4503 posts
Online
clive in post 114858 said:
GeoffM in post 114841 said:
clive in post 114833 said:

Actually, I have a real example: the right hand (Ely) end of Cambridge panel - the part that uses huge squares instead of the normal little tiles - is controlled by three SSIs in the relay room in Cambridge PSB. But I'm pretty sure there's no TORR on that part any more than on the rest of the panel.
I don't know if you mean SSI or something else. With SSI it's easy - just omit either of the two items I mentioned above. Quite a few permissive shunt routes do not have TORR these days.
I meant SSI - they're real SSI units. Here's a photo I took of them; they're in a corner of the relay room for
Maybe they wanted consistency with the rest of the panel then.

For those interested, each cubicle has the following:
- 2 panel processor modules - basically comms devices with the workstation, ARS, and anything else interested. Dual so if one fails, the other can be used seamlessly.
- 3 interlocking modules. If one disagrees with the other 2 then it gets shut down.
- And I forget the bottom module.

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 18/01/2019 at 23:34 #114867
Tempest Malice
Avatar
72 posts
GeoffM in post 114863 said:

- And I forget the bottom module.
If I remember rightly that'll be the technicians terminal / logging processor.

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: GeoffM
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 09:21 #114872
kbarber
Avatar
1404 posts
GeoffM in post 114863 said:
clive in post 114858 said:
GeoffM in post 114841 said:
clive in post 114833 said:

Actually, I have a real example: the right hand (Ely) end of Cambridge panel - the part that uses huge squares instead of the normal little tiles - is controlled by three SSIs in the relay room in Cambridge PSB. But I'm pretty sure there's no TORR on that part any more than on the rest of the panel.
I don't know if you mean SSI or something else. With SSI it's easy - just omit either of the two items I mentioned above. Quite a few permissive shunt routes do not have TORR these days.
I meant SSI - they're real SSI units. Here's a photo I took of them; they're in a corner of the relay room for
Maybe they wanted consistency with the rest of the panel then.

For those interested, each cubicle has the following:
- 2 panel processor modules - basically comms devices with the workstation, ARS, and anything else interested. Dual so if one fails, the other can be used seamlessly.
- 3 interlocking modules. If one disagrees with the other 2 then it gets shut down.
- And I forget the bottom module.
I'm not S&T so may be talking out of turn, but isn't there also a need for an integrator module (is that what they call it?) to actually do the checking that all 3 interlocking modules are in agreement, or to decide which of the 3 is out of order?

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 12:00 #114878
Tempest Malice
Avatar
72 posts
kbarber in post 114872 said:

I'm not S&T so may be talking out of turn, but isn't there also a need for an integrator module (is that what they call it?) to actually do the checking that all 3 interlocking modules are in agreement, or to decide which of the 3 is out of order?
It's been a while since I've read the SSI specs (and I'm i the control system rather than interlocking side of S&T so this is all things I've read over a lunch break rrather than working knowledge) and I might be mis-remembering, but I have believe that they way it works on SSI is the three Main Processors are all operating the same program on the same clock so at every step their entire memory should be identical. I think that rather than having an extra box to check, instead, the state of the currently operated on part of memory of the other two is fed into each of the three boxes and its up to hardware rather than software component to notice that the state this processor is in has a different value to the other two and blow a so called safety fuse. Though I also have a feeling that there's something in the panel processor for checking the processors are in agreement though so it might be that that does it. Either way I'm relatively sure there no special box beyond the ones Geoff talked about just for agreement checking in SSI.

Westlock on the other hand for example, due to the fact that all three processors in it are running diferent programs on the same data to achieve the same output (two per processor as well in fact with each main processor checking for internall agreement first) doesn't actually run in lock step, so I believe the backplane down the back of the rack linking all the processors together contains the integration and checking gubins there.

Also while I'm remembering things,
kbarber in post 114825 said:
(There may also be an SSI - or its modern-day equivalent - Westrace?... Westlock? - controlling Belle Isle, since the commissioning of the Thameslonk Junction.)
Belle isle is still on a GEC geographical RRI (I can't off the top of my head remember whether it's on king cross or Holloway interlocking, but either way they are still relays). There are four new westlocks being drawn up to control the kings cross and Holloway areas after the remodelling that was meant to start this January untill the TOCs refused to let network rail take the possession to start the works but it is all still planned to happen at some less determinate point in the future. so once the third gasworks tunnel has it's track and all the point work for kings cross throat moves to the other end of said tunnels, then belle isle will be controlled from a westlock, but not yet.

I can see why you would assume the interlocking for Belle Isle had been upgraded though given that trains transition to ETCS control before leaving kings cross's control area. However this is achieved by the radio block controller (RBC, the box which translates current interlocking state into ETCS messages to the train) getting it's information from the westlock controlling the St. Pancras end of the canal tunnels, and that interlocking containing some latches which repeat relays from the kings cross interlocking just to inform the RBC.

Anyway to bring this thread marginally more back on track to the subject of train operated route release. This does lead to an interesting discussion I probably shouldn't repeat on the internet; about how, to avoid an RBC data change, it was requested that the new westlock covering the belle isle to canal tunnels junction should not TORR for routes used by trains under ETCS, as otherwise the RBC would see the route canceled under the train and give it an emergency stop when the route TORRed as currently to save data I believe the sub route relays aren't repeated to the RBC only the route relays so it would falsely see the route locking lost under the train if TORR were put in. Though I hopefully assume now that it has been agreed to change the interface and the RBC to take the subroute latches and allow TORR, but if when Kings cross is finally remodeled those particular routes don't TORR, that would be why.)

Last edited: 19/01/2019 at 12:04 by Tempest Malice
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: kbarber, BarryM
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 12:29 #114881
Edgemaster
Avatar
190 posts
Online
Tempest Malice in post 114878 said:

to avoid an RBC data change, it was requested that the new westlock covering the belle isle to canal tunnels junction should not TORR for routes used by trains under ETCS, as otherwise the RBC would see the route canceled under the train and give it an emergency stop when the route TORRed as currently to save data I believe the sub route relays aren't repeated to the RBC only the route relays so it would falsely see the route locking lost under the train if TORR were put in. Though I hopefully assume now that it has been agreed to change the interface and the RBC to take the subroute latches and allow TORR, but if when Kings cross is finally remodeled those particular routes don't TORR, that would be why.)
What is the standard operating procedure for cancelling routes behind trains? Does the signaller have to wait for the train to clear the route fully before cancelling behind? Will the potential limitations of subroute relays not being repeated to the RBC impose additional restrictions on manual cancellation of these routes?

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 13:00 #114883
Tempest Malice
Avatar
72 posts
Edgemaster in post 114881 said:

What is the standard operating procedure for cancelling routes behind trains? Does the signaller have to wait for the train to clear the route fully before cancelling behind? Will the potential limitations of subroute relays not being repeated to the RBC impose additional restrictions on manual cancellation of these routes?
I'm not sure what the standard operating procedure is though I can't imagine it generally requires waiting for entire routes to clear, so if it is needed in this one place then it might be an SBSI? I might also have misunderstood the technological reasoning from the document I read (I'm not even sure how subroutes are implemented in GEC geographical interlocking if they are at all.) and it might be something subtly different to what i said above with less current operational implications. But the limitations of insufficient indications for TORR handling (subroutes being missing is only my reading but I'm not certain it was explicitly stated that that was the issue) being transmitted to the RBC only applies to the current kings cross fringe as far as I am aware and is not a technical limitation of RBC's themselves(the RBC for thameslink will be handling TORR fine for the core area for which it has full access to all the required interlocking states).

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 15:55 #114890
clive
Avatar
1933 posts
Tempest Malice in post 114878 said:

I think that rather than having an extra box to check, instead, the state of the currently operated on part of memory of the other two is fed into each of the three boxes and its up to hardware rather than software component to notice that the state this processor is in has a different value to the other two and blow a so called safety fuse.
That's my understanding as well. I can also work out how it could be done: take a relay and connect the local processor to one end. At the other end, connect the relay to both other processors through separate equal resistors. If all three agree, there's no current through the relay. If two disagree but this one is in the majority, there's a small current, not enough to pick up. But if this one is the minority, there's enough power. Picking up the relay causes - in some way - the safety fuse to blow, which kills the power to the entire interlocking module.

I suspect it's not an actual relay but something like a transformer coil. Or it may be a field effect transistor, or something else like that. But that's the concept.

Tempest Malice in post 114878 said:

Though I also have a feeling that there's something in the panel processor for checking the processors are in agreement though so it might be that that does it.
Those require 2 out of 2 agreement. Same circuit, but with a smaller resistor.

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 16:15 #114892
clive
Avatar
1933 posts
Tempest Malice in post 114883 said:

(I'm not even sure how subroutes are implemented in GEC geographical interlocking if they are at all.)
I'm fairly sure they are. I have circuit diagrams somewhere.

But they're inside the modules and repeating them to the outside might be difficult if they aren't fed to the connectors.

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 17:40 #114897
GeoffM
Avatar
4503 posts
Online
Edgemaster in post 114881 said:
What is the standard operating procedure for cancelling routes behind trains?
Generally the first track clear but I've seen it both sooner and later.

Tempest Malice in post 114883 said:
(I'm not even sure how subroutes are implemented in GEC geographical interlocking if they are at all.)
I have Westpac IV diagrams but not GEC, though if anybody has that landscape-orientation Railway Signalling (?) book by AC Black from the 1980s it has "System A" and "System B", one of which is Westpac; the other GEC. Anyway, it must have some concept of subroutes as that would be how the panel lights are driven - usually "up" and "down" subroutes per track, with point calls determining the actual path.

kbarber in post 114825 said:
(There may also be an SSI - or its modern-day equivalent - Westrace?... Westlock? - controlling Belle Isle, since the commissioning of the Thameslonk Junction.)
Westrace is a ladder logic system, virtually boils down to a long list of boolean equations (X=A.B+C kind of thing), simplifying somewhat. Theoretically it could be used for anything - a nuclear power station. Westlock is Westinghouse's version of SSI with very similar logic/structures, and designed for railway interlockings. Westrace is used heavily on the London Underground (Central line and I think some other places) but I don't think on the big railway (though Nairn comes to mind); and the opposite goes for Westlock.

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 17:59 #114900
Tempest Malice
Avatar
72 posts
GeoffM in post 114897 said:
Westrace is used heavily on the London Underground (Central line and I think some other places) but I don't think on the big railway (though Nairn comes to mind)
Westrace gets around on the big railway a bit more now than it used to, often in so called "modular signalling" schemes (Shrewsbury -Crewe, Lincoln SCC (outside the station area), and north wales coast, being the three that are out there so far), but also many recent Westlocks get installed with a Westrace alongside as an "Axle Counter Processor" to preform the axle counter reset/restore functionality as I believe the logic needs much less data in a Westrace than a Westlock (or at the very least there isn't enough spare capacity in a Westlock to also do axle counter data and still cover the area it was designed to). And as you say Nairn is still out there too.

Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 19:06 #114903
GeoffM
Avatar
4503 posts
Online
Tempest Malice in post 114900 said:
GeoffM in post 114897 said:
Westrace is used heavily on the London Underground (Central line and I think some other places) but I don't think on the big railway (though Nairn comes to mind)
Westrace gets around on the big railway a bit more now than it used to, often in so called "modular signalling" schemes (Shrewsbury -Crewe, Lincoln SCC (outside the station area), and north wales coast, being the three that are out there so far), but also many recent Westlocks get installed with a Westrace alongside as an "Axle Counter Processor" to preform the axle counter reset/restore functionality as I believe the logic needs much less data in a Westrace than a Westlock (or at the very least there isn't enough spare capacity in a Westlock to also do axle counter data and still cover the area it was designed to). And as you say Nairn is still out there too.
Fair enough!

Regarding the Westlock capacity issue, yes that is a bit of a laughing stock. From the "interlocking in a suitcase", initially offered as a replacement for 4 SSIs, in reality turned out more like just 2. I much prefer Smartlock (each interlocking is the same size as an SSI, but inter-interlocking comms is far more sensible).

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 19/01/2019 at 20:20 #114907
Steamer
Avatar
2977 posts
Online
What do these interlockings boil down to internally? Are they a microcontroller-type device that executes a program, or are they FPGA-type devices that are essentially a large array of logic gates?
"Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q)
Log in to reply
Routing Question on Derby 20/01/2019 at 05:24 #114918
GeoffM
Avatar
4503 posts
Online
Steamer in post 114907 said:
What do these interlockings boil down to internally? Are they a microcontroller-type device that executes a program, or are they FPGA-type devices that are essentially a large array of logic gates?
There is a compilation process for SSI but I don't know much about the detail. The data (or logic) is on EPROMs. Mind you, it's been a very long time since I last saw an SSI being reprogrammed!

Westrace editor I've played with it and it's a bit clunky but I believe it transitions relay people more easily than, say, SSI which is a sort of programming language.

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Steamer