Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Banbury resignalling

Current and future British signalling (UK except Northern Ireland)

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Mike Stone » Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:12 pm

I was going to suggest that the GWR locals are the most likely users as virtually all the Chiltern terminaters already sit in 1, but with removal of the facing crossover at Banbury North meaning freights will have to go inside at Banbury South, albeit at 30 rather than 15,checking the following passenger a signal earlier than necessary, presumably planned layovers there will not be acceptable in the new layout.
;
Mike Stone
Mike Stone
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby The Planner » Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:38 pm

The passive provision is behind the building, just because that it there now doesn't mean in the future you cannot knock it down and do something different.

We never planned for freight to go in at the north end of the platform as it is more restrictive as if I am correct BN43 doesn't have a feather and you go in on a GPL. The new layout has flashing aspects to go into the Down Loop. You also have 4 aspect signalling all the way back to about 2 miles south of Aynho from the Oxford direction with 8 signals between Aynho and Banbury South compared to the current 6 and its mixture of 2,3 and 4 aspects.
The Planner
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:28 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby JRB » Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:01 pm

I don't quite understand that first bit, but without drawings can't really go further. It still seems that to get a long platform it would have to be one track further out (i.e. east).
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby JRB » Fri Feb 5, 2016 3:32 pm

There's a conspicuous "Save our [North] Signal Box" item in this week's Banbury Guardian. A group of local organisations propose setting up a trust.
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Fosse Road » Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:19 pm

The Planner wrote:The passive provision is behind the building, just because that it there now doesn't mean in the future you cannot knock it down and do something different.

We never planned for freight to go in at the north end of the platform as it is more restrictive as if I am correct BN43 doesn't have a feather and you go in on a GPL. The new layout has flashing aspects to go into the Down Loop. You also have 4 aspect signalling all the way back to about 2 miles south of Aynho from the Oxford direction with 8 signals between Aynho and Banbury South compared to the current 6 and its mixture of 2,3 and 4 aspects.


You might not plan it that way but that's the way it's done! We never put freights in at the South Box unless there's a good reason for it because it's quicker to go in at the North, and the fact that the route into the DGL at the North is signalled with a sub signal makes no difference to the time it takes to get one inside clear. Besides, going inside at the North box is a better approach from the South because you've got one less restrictive signal. Drivers don't like coming in at the South box either because they can't see if BN4 is off until they get well down the platform. As for the nonsense of the new Platform 4 - it's only going to be long enough for 5 vehicles thanks to the bean counters and their penny-pinching. Even if the station buildings are in the way there's plenty of room to extend it northwards under the bridge. Hopefully when planning the terminating services from the south they will all be timed to go in there, as terminating on Platform 1 will prevent anything going into the Down Goods Loop!
User avatar
Fosse Road
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby JRB » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:07 pm

Indeed.
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby The Planner » Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Fosse Road wrote:You might not plan it that way but that's the way it's done! We never put freights in at the South Box unless there's a good reason for it because it's quicker to go in at the North, and the fact that the route into the DGL at the North is signalled with a sub signal makes no difference to the time it takes to get one inside clear. Besides, going inside at the North box is a better approach from the South because you've got one less restrictive signal. Drivers don't like coming in at the South box either because they can't see if BN4 is off until they get well down the platform.
:D I'll keep that one noted for when we next dispute a QA!

As for the nonsense of the new Platform 4 - it's only going to be long enough for 5 vehicles thanks to the bean counters and their penny-pinching. Even if the station buildings are in the way there's plenty of room to extend it northwards under the bridge. Hopefully when planning the terminating services from the south they will all be timed to go in there, as terminating on Platform 1 will prevent anything going into the Down Goods Loop!


But as I have said before, the new Platform 4 is longer than the current bay. The plan is already to put everything into the new Up platform.
The Planner
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:28 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Mike Stone » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:04 pm

To my mind that is increasing probability of delay, or at least reducing the full benefit of the extra signals - you then have to have a margin between up trains to cross a terminating train over, delaying trains behind, wheras if a freight can cross at the North the turn-round can slide into the down loop, and if it has to wait a margin to get out again it's doing no harm.
;
I know the argument is that "the all singing, all dancing" solution won't wash its face but I believe that it is almost invariably a false economy in the long term resulting in not getting the full benefit of what is spent.
;
Similarly at Oxford common sense suggests the new down relief should have been made reversible and formed the Worcester line allowing trains to and from the branch to run at higher speeds right up to the station and/or an alternative routing - after all its not a case of the approach curve being so sharp the junction speed is irrelevant, as it's 100 mph almost up to the junction.
Mike Stone
Mike Stone
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Fosse Road » Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:13 pm

The Planner wrote:
Fosse Road wrote:You might not plan it that way but that's the way it's done! We never put freights in at the South Box unless there's a good reason for it because it's quicker to go in at the North, and the fact that the route into the DGL at the North is signalled with a sub signal makes no difference to the time it takes to get one inside clear. Besides, going inside at the North box is a better approach from the South because you've got one less restrictive signal. Drivers don't like coming in at the South box either because they can't see if BN4 is off until they get well down the platform.
:D I'll keep that one noted for when we next dispute a QA!

As for the nonsense of the new Platform 4 - it's only going to be long enough for 5 vehicles thanks to the bean counters and their penny-pinching. Even if the station buildings are in the way there's plenty of room to extend it northwards under the bridge. Hopefully when planning the terminating services from the south they will all be timed to go in there, as terminating on Platform 1 will prevent anything going into the Down Goods Loop!


But as I have said before, the new Platform 4 is longer than the current bay. The plan is already to put everything into the new Up platform.


Glad to hear that common sense has applied regarding terminating services using the new Platform 4. However, you're missing the point. The present Platform 4 (the Up Bay) will hold four coaches, although Chiltern drivers won't put a 4-car set in there to form a passenger service because the driving cab is ahead of the DOO mirror. Both Up and Down Bays (The Down Bay is now passed for Passenger use as Platform 1B in connection with the remodelling possessions) are only accessible via a shunting move - there are no facing connections to allow anything else since the Down Bay on the Up side was removed circa 1968. One of the benefits of having an Up Passenger loop will be to provide the option of being able to regulate, or to get past a train that's having problems - as we often do on the Down side by using the Down Relief. By having a platform that's only long enough for five vehicles it will severely restrict the ability to do this. The Chiltern Silver sets are formed Loco, 6 Mark 3 coaches and a DVT so that's a non starter straight away (although I'm told they do have selective door opening) and many of the Birmingham services are currently formed with two units, so the signaller at the WMSC will have to check the length of any train before putting it in there. Not a good operating practice really, is it?
User avatar
Fosse Road
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Fosse Road » Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:26 pm

JRB wrote:There's a conspicuous "Save our [North] Signal Box" item in this week's Banbury Guardian. A group of local organisations propose setting up a trust.


Network Rail want it out of the way as they don't want any ongoing maintenance issues. I've had sight of an email sent to the Banbury Civic Society stating that anyone taking the building on in its current position would have to provide a high level access route from the bridge to the box because of its location between two running lines, and would be expected to sign a 99 year lease that includes proper maintenance. There's also the issue of the septic tank for the toilet facilities - it's on the Up side next to the present Up Siding with the pipe crossing under all running lines to reach it. That would also incur maintenance and repair charges. The alternative is to dismantle the building and rebuild it elsewhere, and the suggested price for this is at least a cool £500k! Somehow I think that in view of the costs involved in retaining it in some form the only practical option for the box is demolition, regardless of how unpalatable that might sound.
User avatar
Fosse Road
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby JRB » Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:23 pm

I'm in touch with those developments, but saying little for now.
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby The Planner » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:14 am

Fosse Road wrote:. By having a platform that's only long enough for five vehicles it will severely restrict the ability to do this. The Chiltern Silver sets are formed Loco, 6 Mark 3 coaches and a DVT so that's a non starter straight away (although I'm told they do have selective door opening) and many of the Birmingham services are currently formed with two units, so the signaller at the WMSC will have to check the length of any train before putting it in there. Not a good operating practice really, is it?


WMSCC manage to remember not to put 11 car Pendos into Wolves P3 and Cov P4 and Wembley don't put sleepers in any other platforms at Euston apart from 1 and 2. With the current layout at Banbury you cannot regulate at all with passenger trains in the up.
The Planner
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:28 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Mike Stone » Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:54 pm

NR have issued a press release confirming dates from 30/7 to 7/08
Mike Stone
Mike Stone
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Fosse Road » Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:45 pm

The Planner wrote:
With the current layout at Banbury you cannot regulate at all with passenger trains in the up.


Which is exactly my point. All the more reason that when providing this facility it would have been made fit for purpose! The only saving grace is that fact that the Down Main and Down Relief become Bi-Directional lines, so there's another way to get round any problems on the Up Main.
User avatar
Fosse Road
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: Banbury resignalling

Unread postby Train approaching » Sat Apr 9, 2016 10:10 pm

How far was the lever frame in Banbury South reduced to make way for the panel?

Also, I gather that there is a jump in the way the levers are numbered as a result of the reduction.

Finally(!) Is the platform edge being built out to create the new through Platform 4?

Thanks
Train approaching
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Signalling - current

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest