Page 2 of 2
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 04/05/2010 at 11:34 #8953 | |
kbarber
1743 posts |
I wonder if a bit of context for Liverpool St control arrangements might help? The present arrangements have their origins in the pre-privatisation railway, which was of course vertically integrated. The East Side and West Side services always tended to run pretty independently; they served quite distinct geographical areas and, partly by historical accident, the track layouts made segregation much easier than integration. (It also meant that disruption on one side didn't necessarily wreck the peak on the other, which would be the case if trains & crews interworked.) The North East London services were managed separately from those of the GE, at first by Area Manager Broxbourne and then (after the Production Management reorganisation of 1989) by West Anglia, based at Cambridge. Most of the signalling in WA dated from about 1960 whereas the GE's was from 1949 and beginning to show its age, hence the GE was first to be resignalled with the first phase of the Bouncy Castle (aka Liverpool St IECC) opening in April '89 (and some serious problems with trackside modules wrecking the service for the first week). In those days it was envisaged that when WA was resignalled it would be controlled from a separate location, with Broxbourne being canvassed as the most likely. Co-locating WA and GE signalling control was decided much later on, certainly post-privatisation. My understanding is that it has led to a very strange layout on the operating floor, having been somewhat cobbled together to fit the space available. But clearly they still run broadly as two separate railways. Interesting to get the workstation names as they correspond surprsingly with preceding signalboxes. Hackney, of course, worked with Bethnal Green (and was largely a recontrol of colour light signalling installed as early as 1934-7); the box at Seven Sisters remained but had very little to do and Enfield Town was a hybrid (levers for local points, switches on a panel where the block shelf should be for signals and more distant points). Brimsdown controlled the Lea Valley line (resignalled about 1967), having taken control of CopperMill Junction and South Tottenham when Temple Mills West box was closed in 1988. When I knew that area (1985-9), Hackney station area was normally left to run automatically with the only serious work being Clapton Junction. Sisters, as I said, had very little to do - all signals ran automatically so the work consisted of describing trains to Hackney and advising by bell signal to Enfield. Enfield Town controlled Bury St Jc, just north of Edmonton Green ('twas Lower Edmonton when I was around) and the station area, but was never particularly taxed with 4 trains an hour off-peak rising to 6 or so in the peaks. Brimsdown was probably busiest, after 1988, but then mainly because of the level crossings (Northumberland Pk, Brimsdown itself and Enfield Lock), otherwise it too would,'ve been a very easy job. All in all not a very interesting area for the signalman really, although it was quite fascinating to a signal historian. Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 18:15 #8979 | |
ajax103
1120 posts |
The P2 is actually interesting but not as interesting as CCF which if you're luckily enough to be viewing the GE/WA maps, you can see the signals changing colour as if you're actually viewing SimSig! The P2 is a nifty tool which I use along with TRUST to keep a eye on my services and give updates if services are very late. For example, today I had a service running 20 minutes late so as well as announce it was going to be 20 mins late, I also explained why it was late and advised passengers of the availability of a waiting room with heater. Now with regards to Liverpool Street SimSig, I rather see more timetables then seeing extra panels but that's up to the community to do something about. Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 18:59 #8980 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
Liverpool St 2009 WTT? Hmm, plausible!
Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 19:00 #8981 | |
|
Rashan 170
73 posts |
Well in my SimSig if a service is running over 20mins or more i terminate it reschedule it back to where it cam from or send it into the sidings if i have no choice.
Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 19:03 #8982 | |
|
Rashan 170
73 posts |
And for the Liverpool St 2009 I thinks that's a no go because of the conflict and interest it would be cool but we have to wait to and see what's happening or hear further information.
Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 19:04 #8983 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
We have the existing Liverpool Street Simsig, I don't think the layout has changed so running a current day service should be doable.
Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 19:07 #8984 | |
|
Rashan 170
73 posts |
Well thats a possiblily but we could get the trains changed and the Timetable Name for the company from ONE Railway to National Express and that but its possible mate
Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 19:17 #8985 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
Rashan 170 said:And for the Liverpool St 2009 I thinks that's a no go because of the conflict and interestConflict OF interest - but it isn't if you or anybody else does it. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 19:18 #8986 | |
|
Rashan 170
73 posts |
yh i know Everybody going ape on this Topic
Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 05/05/2010 at 20:56 #8987 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
Now confusion is arising between the simulation and the timetable. The simulation of Liverpool Street SimSig cannot be extended by Geoff due to a conflict of interest between his work (SimSig-like stuff, but NOT SimSig) and his "fun"(SimSig). A timetable using the publically available information for any date is possible, if someone wants to spend the time writing one and the simulation track layout is the same as the date of the timetable (for accuracy purposes). Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 09/05/2010 at 20:24 #9066 | |
|
Rashan 170
73 posts |
Well we got to do what we have got here now
Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 09/05/2010 at 20:56 #9068 | |
|
lpeters
160 posts |
Please can someone lock this? This is turning into a "i want this", "you can't because ..." ""well i don't care" sort of thread that just goes around in vicious circles and it's making us all look bad. Log in to reply |
| How about a Tottenham Hale Simulation 09/05/2010 at 21:39 #9070 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
Agreed.
SimSig Boss Log in to reply |