Page 1 of 1
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 16:25 #71817 | |
flabberdacks
636 posts |
 Have DWR signals 932 and 825 formed a rebellion here? I didn't think this kind of thing should be allowed, especially on main aspects. Is there something strange with the physical placement of the signals where this would be possible? I'm diverting due to a points failure at Harlesden Jn (savegame attached) and set the route from 825 right as the up train (just visible near the dive in the screenshot) cleared behind it. Definitely cannot set this up when no trains are present. [attachment=3183]uh.ssg[/attachment] Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 16:30 #71818 | |
Firefly
521 posts |
Doesn't look good, but if they're on the same gantry it wouldn't be a problem.
Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 16:36 #71821 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
Just had a look at a photo I have and they're not on the same gantry. It may be that real thing has some sort of back to back locking, but even if it doesn't if there was a train approaching one of those signals the other would be displaying a red aspect. FF Log in to reply The following user said thank you: flabberdacks |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 16:40 #71822 | |
|
flabberdacks
636 posts |
Yeah it doesn't appear to be unsafe - I couldn't set any other routes. edit: any chance of posting the photo at all? Last edited: 06/05/2015 at 16:41 by flabberdacks Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 16:46 #71824 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:Just had a look at a photo I have and they're not on the same gantry.I'll check the interlocking data later. I don't think it's supposed to happen in real life but I have seen interlocking where it wasn't restricted. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: flabberdacks |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 18:50 #71835 | |
Ltbuckler
9 posts |
This is definitely not right, interlocking directly opposing routes from controlled signals such as this are basic principles. I'd be very surprised if this is possible in the real box. There would be no reason or benefit to leave such fundamental locking out. Last edited: 06/05/2015 at 19:27 by Ltbuckler Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 19:32 #71840 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
That's a bit of a sweeping statement - especially as Geoff just pointed out he's seen examples where the interlocking wasn't included! Not main line aspects, but the Euston sim includes some signals which allow opposite routes to be cleared.
Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 19:35 #71842 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts 
|
It isn't as bad as it looks because any train stood at either signal would prevent a route being called from the other, so you could only ever get this scenario with nothing around. I would not have thought it desirable though, and Danny it is certainly not somewhere you would expect to see Opposing Locking Omitted - this isn't a scenario for a lot of shunts. Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 19:46 #71844 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
Ah, the word "expect" - a risky one in signalling, where one's expectations are often challenged! I too doubt it's actually the case here, as I can't see any advantage that would allow it to be justified, as you say.
Last edited: 06/05/2015 at 19:46 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 19:52 #71845 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:This is definitely not right, interlocking directly opposing routes from controlled signals such as this are basic principles.Strictly speaking they're not actually opposing as they share no common track. Pedantically speaking there is no benefit to put such locking in!  Anyway, standards change over time and I admit I'm scratching my head as to where we saw this - almost certainly a panel and thus probably relatively old. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Sudbury Junction interlocking 06/05/2015 at 20:13 #71849 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
Quote:Agreed, they're not directly opposing. There's no reason that it shouldn't be allowed (other than it looks bad). If a train was legitimately routed up to the signals the maintained route locking would prevent the opposing routes from being set. If a train was talked up to these signals there would be nothing stopping you setting the opposing route, however the track circuit controls would prevent a change of aspect. (this is no different than anywhere on the railway when you've talked a train past a signal) Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if it had back to back locking, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't FF Last edited: 06/05/2015 at 20:52 by Firefly Reason: Spelling Log in to reply |