Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Interlaced Track

Technical talk on signalling matters

Interlaced Track

Unread postby Ashley Hill » Wed Jun 7, 2017 3:05 pm

How were interlaced track sections controlled on mainlines? Was the section controlled by one box and suitably interlocked or could it be mid- section between two boxes. Would it be allowed on today's mainline?
User avatar
Ashley Hill
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Location: GWML

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Thu Jun 8, 2017 10:59 am

It could be controlled by one box and suitably interlocked or it could be controlled by two boxes and a form of single line protection installed (Token, Train Staff, Acceptance lever/switch etc).

There is no reason why it could not be allowed on todays mainlines with suitable protection.
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Ashley Hill » Thu Jun 8, 2017 12:38 pm

Cheers Graham. So theoretically it could be used in a modern signalling centre such as Basingstoke. One of the excuses given for not extending the double track SR mainline from Exmouth Jct to Honiton is the M5 overbridge at Pinhoe,not wide enough for a double line but a generous width for the single. With controls between Basing and Exmouth Jct boxes could interlacing be viable here?
User avatar
Ashley Hill
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Location: GWML

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby John Hinson » Thu Jun 8, 2017 12:44 pm

Of course, but you would still have a bottleneck.

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6838
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Andrew Waugh » Thu Jun 8, 2017 1:01 pm

I would suspect the main issue with interlaced track these days is the use of concrete sleepers. Clearly interlaced track couldn't use standard concrete sleepers as they would be too short and lack the support for four rails. I doubt it would be economic to design a special concrete sleeper specifically for interlaced track.

You could use wooden sleepers - are these allowed for new work on main lines in the UK?
Andrew Waugh
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby davidwoodcock » Thu Jun 8, 2017 1:08 pm

Andrew Waugh wrote:I would suspect the main issue with interlaced track these days is the use of concrete sleepers. Clearly interlaced track couldn't use standard concrete sleepers as they would be too short and lack the support for four rails. I doubt it would be economic to design a special concrete sleeper specifically for interlaced track.

You could use wooden sleepers - are these allowed for new work on main lines in the UK?


If interlaced track was used to pass a tight spot, that motorway bridge, for example, paved track could be used.
davidwoodcock
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:58 am
Location: Champlon, Belgique

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Ashley Hill » Thu Jun 8, 2017 6:51 pm

Or concrete slab. Yes the bottleneck will still be present but no facing points and only the crossings to maintain.
User avatar
Ashley Hill
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Location: GWML

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Ashley Hill » Thu Jun 8, 2017 9:04 pm

So going back to the control of interlaced sections,if on an AB line were double line blocks still used as well as other means? For example Saltash. Although single line between Royal Albert and Saltash boxes double line blocks were still used in conjunction with acceptance levers.
User avatar
Ashley Hill
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:29 pm
Location: GWML

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby JRB » Thu Jun 8, 2017 9:38 pm

Similar considerations apply on the Hastings line
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Thu Jun 8, 2017 10:15 pm

Ashley Hill wrote:So going back to the control of interlaced sections,if on an AB line were double line blocks still used as well as other means? For example Saltash. Although single line between Royal Albert and Saltash boxes double line blocks were still used in conjunction with acceptance levers.

Block instruments with acceptance levers is one such method or indeed just acceptance levers or token instruments or tokenless instruments.
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Thu Jun 8, 2017 11:02 pm

Interlaced track does not necessarily imply opposite directions - it is possible for parallel fast and slow lines to be interlaced as has happened in the past on ECML.
In this case single line arrangements such as token working are unnecessary and inappropriate, although you would obviously still want form of interlocking to ensure that you could not have trains on both at the same time.
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby John Hinson » Fri Jun 9, 2017 2:13 am

Mike Hodgson wrote:Interlaced track does not necessarily imply opposite directions - it is possible for parallel fast and slow lines to be interlaced as has happened in the past on ECML.
In this case single line arrangements such as token working are unnecessary and inappropriate, although you would obviously still want form of interlocking to ensure that you could not have trains on both at the same time.

In such cases, the two lines would share the same block instrument - unless the section was all controlled from one box, such as this:
https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1085

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6838
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Richard Pike » Fri Jun 9, 2017 8:27 am

I have seen some very nice pictures of interlaced track at Werrington Junction, near Peterborough. The Midland lines have been interlaced in the shots. Typing in Werrington Junction remodelling as a search is not a lot of use right now though...
Richard..
Richard Pike
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: GN(southern area)

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Fri Jun 9, 2017 10:15 am

John Hinson wrote:
Mike Hodgson wrote:Interlaced track does not necessarily imply opposite directions - it is possible for parallel fast and slow lines to be interlaced as has happened in the past on ECML.
In this case single line arrangements such as token working are unnecessary and inappropriate, although you would obviously still want form of interlocking to ensure that you could not have trains on both at the same time.

In such cases, the two lines would share the same block instrument - unless the section was all controlled from one box, such as this:
https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1085

John

I'm not sure Bollo Lane really counts as interlaced track as at this location it was really just a very long set of points so as to bring the point ends in to the view of the Signalman.
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: Interlaced Track

Unread postby John Hinson » Fri Jun 9, 2017 6:32 pm

It was indeed interlaced track, the reason it was dispensed with had something to do with electrification and the alignment of juice rails . . .

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6838
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Next

Return to S&T Department

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests