|
|
Post by hlsmith on Sept 8, 2006 12:00:26 GMT
Anyone know what is being built there? Have LU sold the land?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2006 23:42:13 GMT
Anyone know what is being built there? Have LU sold the land? Something to do with Waitrose, but not 100% sure. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Sept 10, 2006 15:13:59 GMT
Wasnt there once a proposal to relocate Rickmansworth south or something? Make it 4 track too. Whatever happened to that idea; I know it was fairly recent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2006 16:06:01 GMT
It was proposed way back in 1959, as part of the four-tracking of the Met&GC between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Rickmansworth. Basically, the Watford Triangle would have junctioned the slow lines only, with the fast lines separated from the slows through a four-platform Rickmansworth station. Beyond the station, the fast lines would have then merged with the slows and continued north as now.
The current setup is a case of "almost, but not quite!"
|
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Sept 10, 2006 23:35:36 GMT
Four platforms at Rickmansworth.
The existing station site appears rather restricted and the area to the South would seem to have more room. It might also have allowed the curve through the present station to be eased and enabled the LNER expresses to get more speed up for the climb towards Amersham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 14:39:54 GMT
Indeed. If it were done today, it would allow TfL to cut Met services back to Rickmansworth, as they could simply terminate their trains in the new straight platforms.
I actually made a signalling diagram of what Rickmansworth might look like today if it had been four-tracked - does anyone want to see it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 14:52:37 GMT
I actually made a signalling diagram of what Rickmansworth might look like today if it had been four-tracked - does anyone want to see it? Yes Please  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 17:24:17 GMT
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,198
|
Post by Tom on Sept 11, 2006 17:54:28 GMT
Keep in mind the following caveats: (a) I am not Harsig  (b) I drew all of this after extensive study of existing LU diagrams and whatever signalling-related materials I could get my hands on (c) I only know how to do ASCII, so parts of the diagram are not very clear fx: stampede of signalpersuns...When I get MicroStation working on my computer for more than 15minutes I'll have a go at CADing it. Harsig isn't the only one who can produce PDFs of CAD drawings now... ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 18:50:04 GMT
When I get MicroStation working on my computer for more than 15minutes I'll have a go at CADing it. Harsig isn't the only one who can produce PDFs of CAD drawings now... ;D Oooooh, a challenge ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 20:14:44 GMT
I like it, would like to see a full version by Tom of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 11, 2006 22:50:11 GMT
When I get MicroStation working on my computer for more than 15minutes I'll have a go at CADing it. Harsig isn't the only one who can produce PDFs of CAD drawings now... ;D Oooooh, a challenge ;D If I've interpreted you're diagram correctly then it looks something like this(Sorry not quite up to the usual standard but I've been busy. See here) P.S. I notice you've used the number 49 for two different signals. Oh and you really ought to reconsider the normal position of points 4,5,6 & 7. At the moment there is a distinct lack of flank protection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 23:22:59 GMT
If I've interpreted you're diagram correctly then it looks something like thisPERFECT!!!!!! (Sorry not quite up to the usual standard but I've been busy. See here) w00t! More awesome diagrams! P.S. I notice you've used the number 49 for two different signals. Only once, huh? I checked it three times but managed to miss that error - ugh. I changed #49, "Shunt from Down Local to Down Watford" to #44. Oh and you really ought to reconsider the normal position of points 4,5,6 & 7. At the moment there is a distinct lack of flank protection. Well.... - for the up main to up local movement via JP1, JP2, JP3, I would have 19 crossover normal, 4 normal, 6 reversed, 7 reversed and 8 normal. That prevents a down local train from fouling the up main. - for the up main to up main movement via JP1, JP2, JP3, I would have 19 crossover normal, 4 reversed, 8 reversed and the rest normal. That prevents a down local train fouling the up main as well. - for the down main to down main movement via JP63, JP65, JP66, I would have 5 crossover reversed (this is the error! I mismarked it as trailing points) and 8 crossover reversed. This protects the down main from a down local. - for the down local to down main movement via JP58, JP65, JP66, I would have 5, 6 and 7 crossovers reversed and the rest normal. In this scenario, 5a points (now marked) would probably have to be Power Facing Spring Trailing points. Is that everything? Sorry for the remaining errors... |
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Sept 11, 2006 23:31:08 GMT
Nice Layout, One KEA.!
You show some 'modern' refinements - single track junctions, etc. When the original four track proposals were made before the 1939/1945 war these had not been invented or included in the Harrow resignalling after the War and, indeed, the four tracking of the 1960s . No doubt if it comes about now it will include these !
|
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Sept 11, 2006 23:34:08 GMT
Nice to see Harsig is back on line! You have ben sadly missed :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 23:40:07 GMT
Nice Layout, One KEA.! You show some 'modern' refinements - single track junctions, etc. When the original four track proposals were made before the 1939/1945 war these had not been invented or included in the Harrow resignalling after the War and, indeed, the four tracking of the 1960s . No doubt if it comes about now it will include these ! Indeed - the layout as shown would probably be what was surviving "on the ground" after freight yards and other infrastructure was removed. I included the Croxley Tip mainly because it lasted well after the loss of the freight infrastructure that "used" to be present. Thanks for the compliments everyone ;D ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2006 10:22:39 GMT
Just been having a look at Harsigs diagram, surely JP3 would have four routes? As Follows:  |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 12, 2006 11:35:41 GMT
Oh and you really ought to reconsider the normal position of points 4,5,6 & 7. At the moment there is a distinct lack of flank protection. Well.... - for the up main to up local movement via JP1, JP2, JP3, I would have 19 crossover normal, 4 normal, 6 reversed, 7 reversed and 8 normal. That prevents a down local train from fouling the up main. Which is fine until you want to clear JP64 at the same time. Tricly with 7 crossover reverse. Having 8 crossover reverse prevents clearing of JP23(1) and JP24 despite the fact that they are parallel moves. The list of moves prevented by having 8 crossover reverse is JP3(1), JP3(2)R,JP23(1) & JP24 all of which do not conflict with a down main to down main move. Not sure what you mean about 5 points. Well you haven't considered what happens when nothing is signalled and all points are normal. In that event if a train overruns JP 58 it ends up heading in the wrong direction along the southbound line. This is never a good arrangement to have as the default situation. I've tweaked the diagram a little. See what you think of this arrangement. (Notice that I've also renumbered everything) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2006 13:06:52 GMT
Well.... - for the up main to up local movement via JP1, JP2, JP3, I would have 19 crossover normal, 4 normal, 6 reversed, 7 reversed and 8 normal. That prevents a down local train from fouling the up main. Which is fine until you want to clear JP64 at the same time. Tricky with 7 crossover reverse. Ahhhh, I see your point... I hadn't considered parallel movements. Having 8 crossover reverse prevents clearing of JP23(1) and JP24 despite the fact that they are parallel moves. Indeed. I didn't think about parallel movements involving shunting. The list of moves prevented by having 8 crossover reverse is JP3(1), JP3(2)R,JP23(1) & JP24 all of which do not conflict with a down main to down main move. True. Not sure what you mean about 5 points. Ordinary sprung points (i.e. like the ones at Hanger Lane Junction where the eastbound lines converge) are banned, aren't they? Well you haven't considered what happens when nothing is signalled and all points are normal. In that event if a train overruns JP 58 it ends up heading in the wrong direction along the southbound line. This is never a good arrangement to have as the default situation. Yeah, I hadn't thought things through quite that thoroughly. Learning about all of this is quite exciting I've tweaked the diagram a little. See what you think of this arrangement. (Notice that I've also renumbered everything) Wow!! What a truly fascinating arrangement - I never once considered such an arrangement. The big difference I see is that the "straight route" through the western junctions is from the main lines, whereas with my layout it is from the relief lines, which is probably why my layout has such poor flank protection (and would probably thus require approach release on the home signals). I also find the addition of a few new crossovers to the eastern junctions quite interesting - I thought about doing that but couldn't decide if the increase in complexity would offset the flexibility of being able to reverse off both platforms. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 12, 2006 13:29:34 GMT
Just been having a look at Harsigs diagram, surely JP3 would have four routes? As Follows: Very nice, but your PLJI fails to meet the relevant standards. Actually there may be four routes from JP3 or there may only be three. Who knows whether the signal engineer will decide to signal both alternate routes to the northbound local platform and even if he does it is by no means guaranteed that a separate route indication will be provided for each alternative route to the same destination. I can think of examples where separate route indications are provided (JW3) and also examples where they are not (OB2). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2006 13:38:54 GMT
Very nice, but your PLJI fails to meet the relevant standards. Whys that? Actually there may be four routes from JP3 or there may only be three. Who knows whether the signal engineer will decide to signal both alternate routes to the northbound local platform and even if he does it is by no means guaranteed that a separate route indication will be provided for each alternative route to the same destination. I can think of examples where separate route indications are provided (JW3) and also examples where they are not (OB2). I would suspect in this day and age, they would provide an indication for each seperate route. I do like the look of the South Sidings Signalling!  |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 12, 2006 15:50:30 GMT
Very nice, but your PLJI fails to meet the relevant standards. Whys that? Because it should look like this  |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Sept 12, 2006 16:04:37 GMT
Because it should look like this Is LU changing/changed to using five lamps in their JRIs rather than the customary three? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,773
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 12, 2006 19:26:50 GMT
I don't know about LU, but I don't recal ever seing a JRI iluminated when a red aspect is displayed on NR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2006 19:29:12 GMT
I don't know about LU, but I don't recal ever seing a JRI iluminated when a red aspect is displayed on NR. Ive seen it. An example is the signal at west ealing that takes you onto the greenford shuttle. If you think about it, the JRI is showing the points are reversed, the aspect shows you that the section ahead is clear. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Sept 13, 2006 4:05:01 GMT
The route indicator lights always light up a fraction before the red changes to a less restrictive aspect.
The route indicator lights show the route is set. The yellow or green aspect proves that the locking mechanism on the points has set correctly therefore confirming safe passage - and that's a legal requirement for passenger trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Sept 13, 2006 6:14:22 GMT
JP 3 - Alternative Routes to Down Local Platform.
IIRR at the 'new' 1938 Signal Box at Uxbridge two alternative routes from the Southbound Line to the Midddle Platform ( via the Southbound OR over the scissors crossover and the Northbound line ) were both authorised by the right hand upper quadrant Junction Indication and a paragraph explaining this to Drivers was shown in the instructions.
(Harsig * may * be able to confirm this .)
|
|
