Upcoming Games

No games to display

Full list
Add a game

Pitlochry

You are here: Home > Forum > Miscellaneous > The real thing (signalling) > Pitlochry

Page 1 of 1

TRTS and the Proceed aspect 12/06/2019 at 12:41 #118938
Peter Bennet
Avatar
4555 posts
Online
GeoffM in post 118920 said:
Late Turn in post 118915 said:
Derby (certainly prior to last year’s resignalling) had a formal policy to encourage routes out of the station to be set prior to the arrival of through trains where possible, even those with crew changes, which I understand was to let drivers approach the normal stopping point a little more confidently.
That makes sense - no overlaps, so the train would have a route instead.

When we were setting up ARS for Stoke on Trent (in real life) the signallers wanted ARS to give the driver greens into the station. SoT does have overlaps but perhaps for similar reasons - bringing a train in faster.
Slightly off topic but related to overlaps. Apparently there was an incident at Pitlochry yesterday where new signalling has been installed with the signal half way down the platforms to allow for the overlap to be within the passing loop. This apparently is to permit trains to enter the station from both directions at the same time. Unfortunately whom ever thought this up did not appear to consider what would happen if two long-ish trains were passing (not entirely sure what the lengths were in this case) such that they fitted the loop but not with the signal placed in the middle of the platform.
Further details: http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/thread/503143/page1/

Peter

One of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.
Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:35 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 12/06/2019 at 13:19 #118939
DriverCurran
Avatar
483 posts
One train (1H89) was 735ft. Not sure how long the other was (5Z73)

Paul

You have to get a red before you can get any other colour
Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:35 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 12/06/2019 at 14:07 #118940
jc92
Avatar
2590 posts
Online
DriverCurran in post 118939 said:
One train (1H89) was 735ft. Not sure how long the other was (5Z73)

Paul
1H89 being the Royal scotsman set. Bet they weren't amused.

Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:35 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 12/06/2019 at 15:12 #118941
Ron_J
Avatar
232 posts
Online
Peter Bennet in post 118938 said:

Slightly off topic but related to overlaps. Apparently there was an incident at Pitlochry yesterday where new signalling has been installed with the signal half way down the platforms to allow for the overlap to be within the passing loop. This apparently is to permit trains to enter the station from both directions at the same time. Unfortunately whom ever thought this up did not appear to consider what would happen if two long-ish trains were passing (not entirely sure what the lengths were in this case) such that they fitted the loop but not with the signal placed in the middle of the platform.

Of course it was considered, the scheme plan was signed off by the Operations function and made it through several MSRPs long before any work began on the ground. The Operational Planning Rules were updated to reflect the shortened standage available - Monday’s issue was down to a NR Train Planning error. The situation at Pitlochry is no different from any other loop on a single line when it comes to overlength trains... two trains can’t cross if they’re both too long for the loop, it’s as simple as that.

Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:36 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 12/06/2019 at 16:42 #118942
bugsy
Avatar
440 posts
Online
Ron_J in post 118941 said:
The situation at Pitlochry is no different from any other loop on a single line when it comes to overlength trains... two trains can’t cross if they’re both too long for the loop, it’s as simple as that.
Has this situation occurred and if so, what was the resolution?

My goodness, that was difficult, but I managed it.
Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:36 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 12/06/2019 at 21:56 #118944
clive
Avatar
1900 posts
Ron_J in post 118941 said:

two trains can’t cross if they’re both too long for the loop, it’s as simple as that.
They can. It just requires a lot of shunting.

Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: jc92, Stephen Fulcher
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 13/06/2019 at 15:25 #118952
Ron_J
Avatar
232 posts
Online
Hardly something you’re going to launch into on the Highland Main Line with a loaded passenger train though, is it. And that’s before you consider that the Mk5 sleeper coach couplings are incompatible with standard drawgear.
Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 13/06/2019 at 16:49 #118953
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
1469 posts
I'd love to read the log entries Ron!
Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 13/06/2019 at 19:31 #118955
Ron_J
Avatar
232 posts
Online
Stephen Fulcher in post 118953 said:
I'd love to read the log entries Ron!

I’m afraid I can’t help with that.

Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 13/06/2019 at 21:25 #118957
Steamer
Avatar
2946 posts
Online
So out of interest, how was the situation resolved? Did one of them have to reverse back to Blair Atholl or Perth (assuming the length problem would be the same at Dunkeld)?
"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)
Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 13/06/2019 at 21:34 #118958
Peter Bennet
Avatar
4555 posts
Online
Steamer in post 118957 said:
So out of interest, how was the situation resolved? Did one of them have to reverse back to Blair Atholl or Perth (assuming the length problem would be the same at Dunkeld)?
I understand that they simply talked one (or both) trains past the offending signal(s). The issue is not with the length of the loops as such, it's that the signals are in the middle of the platforms.

Peter

Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
One of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas.
Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Steamer
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 13/06/2019 at 21:56 #118959
Ron_J
Avatar
232 posts
Online
Peter Bennet in post 118958 said:
The issue is not with the length of the loops as such, it's that the signals are in the middle of the platforms.
The position of the signals reduces the standage available though, thereby effectively shortening the loop in each direction. There are also problems with the newly converted (to MSL) pedestrian level crossings south of the station, Dundarach and Prospect Place, which time out and give a failure indication whenever an overlength train stands in the station.

I do concur that this is definitely not the optimal solution we’d ideally choose as operators but it meets the criteria specifed in the project brief which was to increase capacity and reduce journey times by allowing simultaneous acceptance from either end.

We’re a long way from TRTS indications now!

Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
TRTS and the Proceed aspect 13/06/2019 at 22:40 #118960
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
1469 posts
Ron_J in post 118955 said:
Stephen Fulcher in post 118953 said:
I'd love to read the log entries Ron!

I’m afraid I can’t help with that.
I meant the shunt Clive posted, not the actual incident.

Last edited: 13/06/2019 at 23:37 by headshot119
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
Pitlochry 13/06/2019 at 23:54 #118963
Hap
Avatar
250 posts
Online
Peter Bennet in post 118958 said:


I understand that they simply talked one (or both) trains past the offending signal(s). The issue is not with the length of the loops as such, it's that the signals are in the middle of the platforms.

Peter
Yeah one train was talked passed to allow the other to move. The new layout at PIT is a complete mind **** for train crew and passengers.

Though the log was an interesting read for this particular event.

The whole HML needs a TT reshuffle, in some way that most trains would pass South of Stanley Jn and between Blair and Dalwhinnie. And the sooner they get on with doubling the track from Kingussie the better... but good luck with that.

HAP
Log in to reply
Pitlochry 14/06/2019 at 14:45 #118972
Ron_J
Avatar
232 posts
Online
Hap in post 118963 said:
Yeah one train was talked passed to allow the other to move. The new layout at PIT is a complete mind **** for train crew and passengers.

Though the log was an interesting read for this particular event.
What was more interesting was what wasn’t written in the log...

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: Hap, kbarber
Pitlochry 14/06/2019 at 15:41 #118973
postal
Avatar
3739 posts
Online
Ron_J in post 118972 said:
What was more interesting was what wasn’t written in the log...
When I was much younger and looking for assistance with my physical needs from young ladies of varying virtues, there was a name for people like you!

"If you can find something everyone agrees on, it's wrong." - Morris King Udall (15/06/1922 – 12/12/1998), American politician.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Hap
Pitlochry Yesterday at 11:13 #119002
kbarber
Avatar
1400 posts
Ron_J in post 118972 said:
Hap in post 118963 said:
Yeah one train was talked passed to allow the other to move. The new layout at PIT is a complete mind **** for train crew and passengers.

Though the log was an interesting read for this particular event.
What was more interesting was what wasn’t written in the log...
Yes, I remember manoeuvres like that... either there was no 'company' around, or sometimes it was the company that gave us the confidence to do it!

Log in to reply