Brighton - Should T1242 allow a call on?

I feel it important to emphasise though that just because something is not listed in the Sectional Appendix does not mean it does not exist in the interlocking. I know of many instances where things are not listed in documents but actually can be done. There seems to be a very popular misconception that the Sectional Appendix tells all - but it most definitely does not.

There are many occasions where routes were once authorised for permissive use but no longer are, however it would not be cost effective to alter the interlocking every time the Operations Department changes their mind over such things, so if it was installed at the start of the scheme then it would usually be left in.

Although not related to Preston Park, but still relevent. Call on moves are allowed to be made at Haywards Heath in platform 3 where a call on route between T348 and T340 being permitted even with T348 displaying a single yellow aspect (T348 is a fully automatic signal).

Paul

" said:

Although not related to Preston Park, but still relevent. Call on moves are allowed to be made at Haywards Heath in platform 3 where a call on route between T348 and T340 being permitted even with T348 displaying a single yellow aspect (T348 is a fully automatic signal).

Paul

when i last tried this on the sim, T340 had to be replaced using the replacement switch, before T348 would allow a call on.

" said:

I feel it important to emphasise though that just because something is not listed in the Sectional Appendix does not mean it does not exist in the interlocking. I know of many instances where things are not listed in documents but actually can be done. There seems to be a very popular misconception that the Sectional Appendix tells all - but it most definitely does not.

There are many occasions where routes were once authorised for permissive use but no longer are, however it would not be cost effective to alter the interlocking every time the Operations Department changes their mind over such things, so if it was installed at the start of the scheme then it would usually be left in.

Out of interest, why would permissive working no longer be authorised? It seems odd that someone would want to limit the operational flexibility of a location.

" said:

" said:

I feel it important to emphasise though that just because something is not listed in the Sectional Appendix does not mean it does not exist in the interlocking. I know of many instances where things are not listed in documents but actually can be done. There seems to be a very popular misconception that the Sectional Appendix tells all - but it most definitely does not.

There are many occasions where routes were once authorised for permissive use but no longer are, however it would not be cost effective to alter the interlocking every time the Operations Department changes their mind over such things, so if it was installed at the start of the scheme then it would usually be left in.

Out of interest, why would permissive working no longer be authorised? It seems odd that someone would want to limit the operational flexibility of a location.

I believe 'the powers that be' got very uptight about just about anything that helped the railway run effectively, on safety grounds, after the accidents at Ladbroke Grove & Hatfield. That was the period when HSE got rather involved (with the consequent four week closure of the ECML at Hatfield. (Just to put that in context, trains were running past the site of the Clapham Junction collision of 1988 inside 36 hours and full 4-track working was restored in 60.)

As long as we have a belief that there is no such thing as an accident and it is always someone's fault (i.e. there is the chance for m'learned friends to earn an honest crust getting their share of a "victim's" compensation) this will not get any better as the owners of the trains and infrastructure will want to make sure their backs are covered if at all possible. It is just the same on the roads, where an accident on the motorway used to be cleared up and the traffic on the move within an hour after which the police would start taking statements etc. Now it is at least half a day before there is a chance of things moving.

In a joined up world, the cost of the delay to everyone else would be taken against the potential costs of any claims and all those inconvenienced wouldn't have to put up with the inordinate delays we now have to accept.