Page 1 of 1
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 16:59 #121919 | |
lazzer
604 posts |
I was thinking about giving myself a challenge, and playing the 1991 TT with the "Cutsyke blocked" start-up option. A couple of things occurred to me when thinking about the operational consequences of this. First, I assume that trains booked to go via Cutsyke will call in wrong route if sent the wrong way at Castleford and Pontefract Monkhill (or will they? I didn't find anything in the manual about diversions) Therefore, one assumes that abandoning the TT and re-instating later on appears to be the only solution. One longer-term solution did occur to me - create some new generic TTs (with no specific timings) for passenger trains booked to go via Cutsyke. You would have one TT per direction for each destination (Leeds, Knottingley, Goole, etc), containing locations for trains going via Normanton. Then, simply go to F2 -> Run to another timetable, and allocate the appropriate TT to the train in question while it's sitting at Castleford or Pontefract Monkhill. With no specific timings, the train won't know if it's running early or late once it's diverted, but that consideration goes out of the window when running under these conditions. For freight trains, you would simply abandon the TT and re-instate it once the train was on its way, choosing the appropriate "next location" in its timetable. Secondly, should trains to Prince of Wales Down Siding not technically be able to get there, given that signal CJ1038 is collared, and forms the limit of possession? Having never driven a train into a possession myself, would a train for POW DS be given special permission to approach CJ1038 to get in clear of P1041, or would all moves to the siding (except from the colliery) simply be cancelled? Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 17:40 #121922 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
lazzer in post 121919 said:Given the layout having just had a look, I suspect if the published limits where as in the sim, that special arrangements would be made to access the down siding, via the colliery (Extra loco about, top and tailed, or man on the ground etc), or perhaps cancelled. It would be frowned upon to start sending none engineering trains into the possession simply to access a siding. At least in 2019 anyway. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Last edited: 25/11/2019 at 17:40 by headshot119 Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 17:50 #121923 | |
jc92
3629 posts |
In all likely hood the 2Fxxs would likely be cancelled or turned back at Castleford rather than diverting, and there's nothing freight wise really booked that way other than trains into POW colliery. The likelyhood being trains for the down siding could use the up siding instead subject to availability or reverse in the colliery line instead. That scenario is really designed for a purpose built timetable which means wrong routes shouldn't be an issue "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Last edited: 25/11/2019 at 17:51 by jc92 Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 18:45 #121925 | |
|
lazzer
604 posts |
jc92 in post 121923 said:That scenario is really designed for a purpose built timetable which means wrong routes shouldn't be an issueI did actually think about that after I'd posted the original. I suppose to simulate it, one could abandon TTs of all trains arriving at Castleford from Leeds, and send them back to Stourton Junction, and do the same for trains at Pontefract coming from Goole. (EDIT - you'd probably do this at Knottingley) Last edited: 25/11/2019 at 18:58 by lazzer Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 19:01 #121927 | |
Jan
889 posts |
Given the relatively long turnarounds at Knottingley, diverting the 2Fxxs via Tanshelf might just work out time-wise?
Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 21:02 #121929 | |
|
jc92
3629 posts |
Jan in post 121927 said:Given the relatively long turnarounds at Knottingley, diverting the 2Fxxs via Tanshelf might just work out time-wise?I'm not sure that leeds drivers would've signed that route in 1991. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 21:07 #121930 | |
|
lazzer
604 posts |
jc92 in post 121929 said:Jan in post 121927 said:Are you implying that they would therefore not have used Tanshelf as a diversionary route if Cutsyke was ever blocked for any reason, simply turning trains back to Leeds at Castleford?Given the relatively long turnarounds at Knottingley, diverting the 2Fxxs via Tanshelf might just work out time-wise?I'm not sure that leeds drivers would've signed that route in 1991. Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 25/11/2019 at 21:59 #121932 | |
|
jc92
3629 posts |
lazzer in post 121930 said:jc92 in post 121929 said:I think its unlikely. Pascal might be able to confirm if it ever happened as it would rely on hiring conductor drivers from one of freight pools.Jan in post 121927 said:Are you implying that they would therefore not have used Tanshelf as a diversionary route if Cutsyke was ever blocked for any reason, simply turning trains back to Leeds at Castleford?Given the relatively long turnarounds at Knottingley, diverting the 2Fxxs via Tanshelf might just work out time-wise?I'm not sure that leeds drivers would've signed that route in 1991. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 26/11/2019 at 08:33 #121934 | |
Steamer
3922 posts |
jc92 in post 121932 said:lazzer in post 121930 said:You could always pretend it's a few months later, and the crews have just learnt it (the stations at Streethouse, Featherstone and Tanshelf re-opened in May 1992)jc92 in post 121929 said:I think its unlikely. Pascal might be able to confirm if it ever happened as it would rely on hiring conductor drivers from one of freight pools.Jan in post 121927 said:Are you implying that they would therefore not have used Tanshelf as a diversionary route if Cutsyke was ever blocked for any reason, simply turning trains back to Leeds at Castleford?Given the relatively long turnarounds at Knottingley, diverting the 2Fxxs via Tanshelf might just work out time-wise?I'm not sure that leeds drivers would've signed that route in 1991. "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 |
| Cutsyke blocked - the implications 26/11/2019 at 08:55 #121936 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
jc92 in post 121932 said:lazzer in post 121930 said:As this was pre-1994, it was still all one railway. I suspect conductor drivers would have been provided, either because that was how things were still being done, or on a 'you scratch my back...' basis between people who had worked together in the past and expected to again.jc92 in post 121929 said:I think its unlikely. Pascal might be able to confirm if it ever happened as it would rely on hiring conductor drivers from one of freight pools.Jan in post 121927 said:Are you implying that they would therefore not have used Tanshelf as a diversionary route if Cutsyke was ever blocked for any reason, simply turning trains back to Leeds at Castleford?Given the relatively long turnarounds at Knottingley, diverting the 2Fxxs via Tanshelf might just work out time-wise?I'm not sure that leeds drivers would've signed that route in 1991. If I recall rightly, the bill that became the Railways Act 1993 (<spit> ) wasn't published until sometime in 1992, so there would have been no reason to imagine the extent of balkanization that would eventually come to pass. Last edited: 26/11/2019 at 08:55 by kbarber Reason: None given Log in to reply |