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?
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.
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.
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests