Upcoming Games

No games to display

Full list
Add a game

Upcoming Events

No events to display

Simulation Proposal - Crewe

You are here: Home > Forum > Wishlist > Simulation wish list > Simulation Proposal - Crewe

Page 2 of 2

Simulation Proposal - Crewe 25/06/2021 at 07:38 #140192
kbarber
Avatar
1712 posts
pedroathome in post 140174 said:
kbarber in post 140171 said:


So will you be modifying the SimSig Absolute Block to Permissive Block? (And what will the indications look like then, given there's provision for 9 in section on the tell-tale instruments?) That will be, er, fun!
I don't know how it gets used in reality, however, due to how short the section is, I see very few use cases for it travelling away from Basford Hall, however, heading the other way, where the signal at the end of the section protects the entrance to the yard, yes, I could see more uses here. For reference, I want to say that the section is somewhere around 500 meters (Not currently at my laptop to look)

The indications will look the same as any other sim with AB, just you'll have a calling on or shunt route also into the section that can be cleared at TOL. I'm thinking in my head that one indication could be to have extra TDs showing that there's more than one in section, however, the track layout doesn't really work for this.

James

I recall having three (admittedly all light engines, and one was a run-round offered under the old Reg 31) in a section of about 300 metres (early turn at Kensington South Main, permissive section on the middle road from the down starter, halfway along the platform, to North Main home). Happy days. I was a bit of an arrogant young brat in those days, eager to use everything the box had to offer, while the regular men were more used to giving themselves an easy life.

Log in to reply
Simulation Proposal - Crewe 25/06/2021 at 10:09 #140194
clive
Avatar
2738 posts
kbarber in post 140192 said:

I was a bit of an arrogant young brat in those days, eager to use everything the box had to offer, while the regular men were more used to giving themselves an easy life.
You're not alone.

I think it was Adrian Vaughan who, offered a train while learning a box, realized he had an opportunity and replied 3-5-5. There was a pregnant pause, probably while the other box wracked his memory, followed by 3-5-5 coming back in a disbelieving tone.

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: jc92, kbarber
Simulation Proposal - Crewe 25/06/2021 at 10:20 #140195
broodje
Avatar
180 posts
I like these kind of discussions, you learn something new every day. I just had to search what 3-5-5 meant. The first google result was an obscure site in a corner of the internet: https://www.davros.org/rail/signalling/bellcodes.html#bc355 Thanks again Clive ;).
Log in to reply
Simulation Proposal - Crewe 25/06/2021 at 13:26 #140196
jc92
Avatar
3629 posts
clive in post 140194 said:
kbarber in post 140192 said:

I was a bit of an arrogant young brat in those days, eager to use everything the box had to offer, while the regular men were more used to giving themselves an easy life.
You're not alone.

I think it was Adrian Vaughan who, offered a train while learning a box, realized he had an opportunity and replied 3-5-5. There was a pregnant pause, probably while the other box wracked his memory, followed by 3-5-5 coming back in a disbelieving tone.
He should've warned them he wanted to use reg 5. :)

Also reminds me of my first day in Loughborough box "we don't use lever 34 very often. I've been here 15 years and I think I've pulled it twice" an hour later, I'm pulling lever 34 off!

"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Log in to reply
Simulation Proposal - Crewe 25/06/2021 at 13:31 #140197
jc92
Avatar
3629 posts
broodje in post 140195 said:
I like these kind of discussions, you learn something new every day. I just had to search what 3-5-5 meant. The first google result was an obscure site in a corner of the internet: https://www.davros.org/rail/signalling/bellcodes.html#bc355 Thanks again Clive ;).
Clive: 2-2-2 isnt the same as the warning arrangement. It still requires a clearing point. Its used where mechanical slotting isn't present to maintain braking distance (cheapskate GWR signalling). If box B can't pull off for the train, he can accept it on 2-2-2 and box A would clear his signals but leave their distant on to provide suitable braking distance. Its regulation 4a in the block book. It also cant be upgraded to reg 4. Once accepted, its 4a all the way ( I learnt that the hard way)

"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Log in to reply
Simulation Proposal - Crewe 28/06/2021 at 09:22 #140233
kbarber
Avatar
1712 posts
clive in post 140194 said:
kbarber in post 140192 said:

I was a bit of an arrogant young brat in those days, eager to use everything the box had to offer, while the regular men were more used to giving themselves an easy life.
You're not alone.

I think it was Adrian Vaughan who, offered a train while learning a box, realized he had an opportunity and replied 3-5-5. There was a pregnant pause, probably while the other box wracked his memory, followed by 3-5-5 coming back in a disbelieving tone.
Yes, it was a bit similar there. I was still learning South Main at the time and I was itching for a chance to use Permissive Block. Early turn always had a load of light engines heading to Acton & Willesden to bring the morning trains back, but I think it took until Wednesday or Thursday before two arrived in quick-enough succession... I recall the anticipation (and the anxiety that North Main would get rid of the one in section too quickly). The initial response to 2-3 was that the phone rang with a "What's this?" question; not sure it was overly diplomatic to tell him it should be 2-4-2 acceptance on top of permissive block. Then the 'Kensington Belle' arrived and I promptly added insult to injury by offering the run-round engine as a shunt into forward section (3-3-2). And I withdrew it before the first northbound engine left the section. (The Southern crew were never less than eager to get back home with the Belle!) As I say, happy days.

Log in to reply