I turned up at Cutty Sark on Saturday to see that no train was
expected for 16 mins. Over the next 5 mins that figure varied up and
down slightly, but not very much.

A train passed heading for Lewisham, so we knew services were being
restored from whatever the problem was, but there was still a mess.
But soon an empty train, horn blaring, passed at speed though Cutty
Sark on what would normally be thought of as wrong road. It quickly
reversed and entered service.

Which is just my way of saying that the traditional UK meanness to
invest in 'frills' like decent bi-directional signalling is
short-sighted. I suspect that the economic cost of failures does not
enter the heads of the money men who fund our railways, as they
probably have been led, or prefer, to believe that if things are
maintained 'properly' such things happen so infrequently that they can
be ignored.

On 12 Mar, 00:24, Uncle Toby wrote:

Which is just my way of saying that the traditional UK meanness to
invest in 'frills' like decent bi-directional signalling is
short-sighted. I suspect that the economic cost of failures does not
enter the heads of the money men who fund our railways, as they
probably have been led, or prefer, *to believe that if things are
maintained 'properly' such things happen so infrequently that they can
be ignored.

The DLR doesn't have any lineside signals, so supporting bi-
directional
working is probably substantially cheaper than on most railways.

Ganesh

On Mar 12, 12:24*am, Uncle Toby wrote:
Which is just my way of saying that the traditional UK meanness to
invest in 'frills' like decent bi-directional signalling is
short-sighted. I suspect that the economic cost of failures does not
enter the heads of the money men who fund our railways, as they
probably have been led, or prefer, *to believe that if things are
maintained 'properly' such things happen so infrequently that they can
be ignored.

I thought that most of the recent major mainline resignalling projects
were bi-di?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:50:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:24*am, Uncle Toby wrote:
Which is just my way of saying that the traditional UK meanness to
invest in 'frills' like decent bi-directional signalling is
short-sighted. I suspect that the economic cost of failures does not
enter the heads of the money men who fund our railways, as they
probably have been led, or prefer, *to believe that if things are
maintained 'properly' such things happen so infrequently that they can
be ignored.

I thought that most of the recent major mainline resignalling projects
were bi-di?
This should really be discussed in uk.railway. I think there's a very
cheap-and cheerful limited accomodation for reduced-speed wrong way
moves in modern signalling schemes. The only recent project near me
that I'm aware of is the West Anglia Route Modernisation, which seems
to have some position-light signals for the wrong way but no proper
aspects.

No doubt useful but only in very limited circumstances.

In article ,
(Uncle Toby) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:50:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:24*am, Uncle Toby wrote:
Which is just my way of saying that the traditional UK meanness to
invest in 'frills' like decent bi-directional signalling is
short-sighted. I suspect that the economic cost of failures does not
enter the heads of the money men who fund our railways, as they
probably have been led, or prefer, *to believe that if things are
maintained 'properly' such things happen so infrequently that they
can be ignored.

I thought that most of the recent major mainline resignalling projects
were bi-di?
This should really be discussed in uk.railway. I think there's a very
cheap-and cheerful limited accomodation for reduced-speed wrong way
moves in modern signalling schemes. The only recent project near me
that I'm aware of is the West Anglia Route Modernisation, which seems
to have some position-light signals for the wrong way but no proper
aspects.

No doubt useful but only in very limited circumstances.

Royston station is fully bidirectional, but only the station. A relic of
the King's Cross suburban electrification when the service forward to
Cambridge became a diesel shuttle.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Uncle Toby) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:50:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:24*am, Uncle Toby wrote:
Which is just my way of saying that the traditional UK meanness to
invest in 'frills' like decent bi-directional signalling is
short-sighted. I suspect that the economic cost of failures does not
enter the heads of the money men who fund our railways, as they
probably have been led, or prefer, *to believe that if things are
maintained 'properly' such things happen so infrequently that they
can be ignored.

I thought that most of the recent major mainline resignalling projects
were bi-di?
This should really be discussed in uk.railway. I think there's a very
cheap-and cheerful limited accomodation for reduced-speed wrong way
moves in modern signalling schemes. The only recent project near me
that I'm aware of is the West Anglia Route Modernisation, which seems
to have some position-light signals for the wrong way but no proper
aspects.

No doubt useful but only in very limited circumstances.

Royston station is fully bidirectional, but only the station. A relic of
the King's Cross suburban electrification when the service forward to
Cambridge became a diesel shuttle.

Isn't that true of Worcester Foregate Street as well?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote:

In message ,
writes

Royston station is fully bidirectional, but only the station. A relic
of the King's Cross suburban electrification when the service forward
to Cambridge became a diesel shuttle.

Isn't that true of Worcester Foregate Street as well?

If you say so. It's not a station I'm familiar with.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Ian Jelf" wrote
writes

Royston station is fully bidirectional, but only the station. A relic of
the King's Cross suburban electrification when the service forward to
Cambridge became a diesel shuttle.

Isn't that true of Worcester Foregate Street as well?

Well yes, but it's not quite the same thing. Royston station is fully
bidirectional, whereas Worcester Foregate Street has one platform that can
only be accessed to/from Worcester Shrub Hill and another that can only be
used by trains avoiding Shrub Hill. Glenrothes with Thornton station, in
Fife, is similar.

"John Salmon" wrote in message
...
"Ian Jelf" wrote
writes

Royston station is fully bidirectional, but only the station. A relic of
the King's Cross suburban electrification when the service forward to
Cambridge became a diesel shuttle.

Isn't that true of Worcester Foregate Street as well?

Well yes, but it's not quite the same thing. Royston station is fully
bidirectional, whereas Worcester Foregate Street has one platform that can
only be accessed to/from Worcester Shrub Hill and another that can only be
used by trains avoiding Shrub Hill. Glenrothes with Thornton station, in
Fife, is similar.


As is Navigation Road (Altrincham) one platform for the Metrolink and one
for the Northern ChesterStockport-Manchester service. Both bi-directional.

Bare Lane near Morecambe seems to be as well. Trains that go to Heysham
have to use one side of it in both directions.

On 13 Mar, 11:02, "Paul Rigg" wrote:
"John Salmon" wrote in message

...

"Ian Jelf" wrote
writes

Royston station is fully bidirectional, but only the station. A relic of
the King's Cross suburban electrification when the service forward to
Cambridge became a diesel shuttle.

Isn't that true of Worcester Foregate Street as well?

Well yes, but it's not quite the same thing. Royston station is fully
bidirectional, whereas Worcester Foregate Street has one platform that can
only be accessed to/from Worcester Shrub Hill and another that can only be
used by trains avoiding Shrub Hill. Glenrothes with Thornton station, in
Fife, is similar.

As is Navigation Road (Altrincham) *one platform for the Metrolink and one
for the Northern *Chester-Stockport-Manchester service. *Both bi-directional.

Bare Lane near Morecambe seems to be as well. *Trains that go to Heysham
have to use one side of it in both directions.



Indeed it is - been that way since the present Morecambe station was
opened in 1994. Two independent (i.e unconnected) single lines from
Bare Lane to Morecambe - up & down Morecambe (runs to platform 1 at
Morecambe and uses the old eastbound platform at Bare Lane both ways)
and up & down Heysham (platform 2 and the former westbound platform).
Former is OTW without staff, latter is staff worked as it has the keys
for the ground frames for the Heysham branch at Morecambe and the
Heysham power station siding attached to it. It used to be double
from Bare Lane to Morecambe Promenade, but the method of working
changed when the latter was closed (and it's platforms built over -
the old station building still stands and is used as a pub and
restaurant). The few trains that go to Heysham (currently the 10.19
SuX Leeds to Heysham Port & 13.15 return passenger service plus the
weekly DRS nuke flasks from Sellafield) must use the up & down Heysham
line and platform 2 at Morecambe - the train crew operate the junction
ground frame there to get onto the branch after reversing at the
platform. The set up allows two trains to be on the branch at one time
(i.e a unit can shuttle to Morecambe & back whilst another is down at
Heysham or there can be two trains at Morecambe), so it allows a
certain degree of operating flexibility.

GM