Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Perth to Inverness improvements

Current and future British signalling (UK except Northern Ireland)

Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Main Line » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:14 pm

Signal-sighter wrote:Lots of talk about Perth but nothing advanced so far. Further north Pitlochry closes and becomes a workstation in Stanley(!) and Aviemore migrates to Inverness Highland Workstation in 2018/19.

I was reading about this the other day. Does anyone know the reasoning behind the choice of Stanley rather than say Dunkeld or Blair Atholl? There do not appear to be any plans to close Dunkeld so it seems Stanley will end up sending a train to Dunkeld only to take control of it again from Dunkeld before sending it to Blair Atholl.
Last edited by Main Line on Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Main Line
Trainee
Trainee
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:43 pm

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Mad Mac » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:11 pm

Might it be as simple as Stanley Junction having the necessary room to accommodate the equipment? Remember, Dumfries has the bizarre setup where it sends a train to Annan and gets it back almost immediately at the other end!
Mad Mac
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:47 pm

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby JRB » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:11 pm

Maybe Stanley has to kept for other reasons. Banavie became a control centre because of the swing bridge for example.
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Signal-sighter » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:02 pm

It's down to signaller workload levels and room available in the box. The apparently obvious choice for locating a Pitlochry workstation would be Dunkeld but its future is up in the air at the moment due to the impending dualling A9 road directly across from the box, which may require alterations to the track layout so ultimately Dunkeld may well end up on the same workstation if the box does close. There wouldn't be much room for a workstation in Dunkeld anyway (or Blair Atholl, for that matter) whereas you could hold a dance in Stanley.
Signal-sighter
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:23 pm

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Benhar Jnc » Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:38 pm

It would be interesting to learn more about the thinking behind closing Pitlochry and retaining Dunkeld. In effect, those two boxes each control a simple passing loop and siding(s) on the single track from Stanley to Blair Atholl. I'm unfamiliar with current timetabling requirements but Dunkeld used to have a reputation for handling far more 'crossings' than Pitlochry, especially if trains weren't running to time. As has previously been noted, Stanley box has a lot more room in which to add panels/control gear - it is also a considerably more modern structure in which to work. Any re-modelling or replacement of Perth box could surely incorporate the very simple infrastructure arrangements at Stanley?

Hopefully some informed forum member will be able to further educate us.
...... another trip working to the Dardanelles
User avatar
Benhar Jnc
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat May 3, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Benhar Jnc » Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:54 pm

Signal-sighter wrote:It's down to signaller workload levels and room available in the box. The apparently obvious choice for locating a Pitlochry workstation would be Dunkeld but its future is up in the air at the moment due to the impending dualling A9 road directly across from the box, which may require alterations to the track layout so ultimately Dunkeld may well end up on the same workstation if the box does close. There wouldn't be much room for a workstation in Dunkeld anyway (or Blair Atholl, for that matter) whereas you could hold a dance in Stanley.


The current A9 cuts straight through the former goods yard at Dunkeld, running parallel to the main running lines. The previous upgrades to the A9 left access to and from the railway station rather challenging due to the volume and speed of traffic on the A9 and the car park space is rather tight. The signal box is located on the other side of the tracks from the A9 and therefore in a less vulnerable position as far as roadworks are concerned - unless like Forres, they realign both rail and road and replace the signalling infrastructure and station itself. Unless the main rail track is realigned at Dunkeld, the station remodelled, the car park and related access roadways repositioned - I cannot see a few semaphore signals and a rather fine signal box being key features in any decision making.
...... another trip working to the Dardanelles
User avatar
Benhar Jnc
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat May 3, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Signal-sighter » Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:15 pm

I assure you what I have written is correct. In the case of Dunkeld Network Rail has been given notice that due to geographical constraints the dualling of the road may require a complete realignment of the railway and relocation of the station, although at the moment the road design work for this section hasn't progressed past the finger-in-the-air stage. Planning is made more complicated by the fact that the station is a listed building and that the Pass of Birnam to Tay Crossing section of the road is by far the most technically complex and controversial of the entire dualling project. The outcome for the railway won't be known until the Public Local Inquiry for this section has been held some time in the next 18 months, allowing detailed designs to be drawn up. Transport Scotland will be footing the bill for any changes so NR has nothing to gain from the current station and signalling being retained. Regardless of the fineness of the box and signals for the moment Dunkeld has an entirely uncertain future.

Pitlochry box is abolished as part of the station works associated with extending the platforms and crossing loop for the new East Coast IET trains and as part of the wider Highland Main Line Upgrade project.
Signal-sighter
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:23 pm

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Benhar Jnc » Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:11 pm

Thanks for your further insight regarding potential developments at Dunkeld. It will be interesting to learn what the approved future design of the railway is at this location - possibly all new infrastructure from what 'Signal-sighter' has indicated. As this is a signalling related forum it looks like we might see all new infrastructure being implemented - although the basic design format of single track with a passing loop and platforms will probably carry over, even if the actual location has to move.
...... another trip working to the Dardanelles
User avatar
Benhar Jnc
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat May 3, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Perth to Inverness improvements

Unread postby Benhar Jnc » Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:23 pm

Signal-sighter wrote:Pitlochry box is abolished as part of the station works associated with extending the platforms and crossing loop for the new East Coast IET trains and as part of the wider Highland Main Line Upgrade project.


I understand that the former Ballinluig box controlled the longest loop between Stanley and Blair Atholl and historically that took pressure off Pitlochry for crossing longer trains. So it looks as though new infrastructure at Pitlochry will deliver more options for increased traffic on the route.
...... another trip working to the Dardanelles
User avatar
Benhar Jnc
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat May 3, 2008 7:21 pm


Return to Signalling - current

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests