Page 1 of 1
| Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 14:36 #107751 | |
ajax103
1120 posts |
Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.
Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 15:04 #107757 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
ajax103 in post 107751 said:Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.It's not worth the time and effort really. It also restricts what can be done on the modern era. Eras are commonly quite broad to allow flexibility. If it concerns you put some reminders on the associated controls. EDIT Which is exactly what they did on the real thing http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/20496/category/2138-2008_july "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Last edited: 29/04/2018 at 15:26 by headshot119 Reason: None given Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Meld, pedroathome |
| Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 15:45 #107759 | |
pedroathome
916 posts |
headshot119 in post 107757 said:ajax103 in post 107751 said:To add an era can take, depending on what is involved, can take a significant amount of time, where, the benefits to the end user are minimal.Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.It's not worth the time and effort really. It also restricts what can be done on the modern era. Eras are commonly quite broad to allow flexibility. Where I've added Eras into Manchester North is where there is significant layout changes that prevent newer (or older) timetables from working. James Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 29/04/2018 at 21:36 #107767 | |
|
ajax103
1120 posts |
headshot119 in post 107757 said:ajax103 in post 107751 said:By that argument, we should not have had Platform 4 at Gordon Hill removed in the modern layout even though both got disconnected and track removed over 30 odd years ago as we could have timetables with trains from Moorgate to Gordon Hill using both bay platforms to turnaround which as Platform 4 is not available in modern era is a slight disadvantage.Just a question but as the location has been out of use for many years and indeed has been plain lined with removal of track and pointwork, could we see it's removal from the modern era of Kings Cross in a update especially as we have the old layout which is fine for any timetables that use that location.It's not worth the time and effort really. It also restricts what can be done on the modern era. Eras are commonly quite broad to allow flexibility. My point is I acknowledge a certain amount of licence has to be used but what's the difference between one location being available and the other not? As I don't see any difference as either both should be available or both should not, now if you use the Hitchin flyover or Platform 0 at Kings Cross they actually exist in real life and are used by numerous services so it is only right that they have been added to the modern era. As to not being worth the time or effort, should I argue that it's not worth adding updates to various sims to correct layouts or offer suggestions as that is a very negative approach. The modern era already exists, all it takes is a simple update after all there are three locations in the sim I like to one day see updated but that will take time and yes I know that developers have a life outside SimSig before anyone aims a MG34 at my window! As to having different eras, it's good to have a change eg I rather play the modern era of Coventry to the 80s era as I detest the level crossings but that's going off track. Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 00:18 #107768 | |
JamesN
1608 posts 
|
ajax103 in post 107767 said:By that argument, we should not have had Platform 4 at Gordon Hill removed in the modern layout even though both got disconnected and track removed over 30 odd years ago as we could have timetables with trains from Moorgate to Gordon Hill using both bay platforms to turnaround which as Platform 4 is not available in modern era is a slight disadvantage.Actually, unlike Watton Oil Terminal, the 2nd Bay at Gordon Hill had been removed from the real panel. http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/20470/category/2138-2008_july The fundamental question is; why is the change to the simulation required? Evidently it was shown, with reminder appliances on the controls, on the panel long after the track was lifted. Just like the sim. The protecting signals are fitted with auto buttons; so it’s not as if you’re having to go back and forth restroking the route every time; you can set it to auto and leave it. Compared to today it is entirely moot - the entire Hertford Loop is now a workstation; and the track & signalling layout has been altered significantly between Hertford and Stevenage to facilitate ETCS testing. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: DriverCurran |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 12:57 #107771 | |
|
ajax103
1120 posts |
JamesN in post 107768 said:ajax103 in post 107767 said:Actually as per the resignalling notice issued by Network Rail, it states "Watton-at-Stone GF recovered" so I say it's a safe bet that the location is no longer on the panel and indeed the notice states:By that argument, we should not have had Platform 4 at Gordon Hill removed in the modern layout even though both got disconnected and track removed over 30 odd years ago as we could have timetables with trains from Moorgate to Gordon Hill using both bay platforms to turnaround which as Platform 4 is not available in modern era is a slight disadvantage.Actually, unlike Watton Oil Terminal, the 2nd Bay at Gordon Hill had been removed from the real panel. "Resignalling Notice NR-LNE-29 2013 The existing signals between between Alexandra Palace (aka. Wood Green) and north of Bayford retain the K prefix (Last on the Down = K897 and first on the Up = K900) New WestCAD VSCS in Kings Cross SB Gordon Hill and Hertford North areas removed from existing Kings Cross panel New Hertford North Smartlock SML400 solid state interlocking housed in Hitchin relay room (3 x VIXL; HERTN01, HERTN02 and HERTN03) Existing Gordon Hill GEC-Geographical Interlocking recontrolled from Kings Cross by Invensys S2 TDM Existing Gordon Hill Emergency Control Panel retained Amended area for Langley Junction GEC-Geographical interlocking Watton-at-Stone GF recovered" The signals in the area are labelled WL btw. I'm just questioning the fact that if we can have the flyover and platform 0 at Kings Cross why not plain line this location? Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 13:17 #107772 | |
|
y10g9
895 posts |
Given that Plat 0 and the Hitchin Flyover came into use with several years apart, are you going to be requesting that there are different eras put in place so that you can run a 2011 TT with P0, but no flyover? The eras in kings cross is just literally labelled as 'old' and 'Modern'. There is not a specific year mentioned for the old era (1900s to early 2000s), and modern being set in the 2013. Was the siding still there in that year (5 years ago) even if it had been mothballed and not used for many years? Since the signals on each side of the the ground frame have autos on them, can you not just leave it in auto mode and just ignore the fuel terminal? Or even just put a black sticky note over the layout so you can ignore it? James has show a picture of the terminal having been retained on the panel whereas the platform at Gordon Hill has been removed. If the line has as you said been plain lined, has that been reflected on the panel? Sometimes they'll plain line the track, but the interlocking remains in the system as its easier to keep the interlocking rather than spend the money on removing it. Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 13:26 #107773 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
Quote:Actually as per the resignalling notice issued by Network Rail, it states "Watton-at-Stone GF recovered" so I say it's a safe bet that the location is no longer on the panel You seem to have much more confidence in NR (and railways in general) doing a thorough (and for panel changes, expensive) job for such minor alterations! The Signalling Record Society's "signalling alterations" pieces regularly note glaring discrepancies between reality and the contents of notices. Last edited: 30/04/2018 at 13:26 by Danny252 Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 15:37 #107777 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
This thread started with a reasonable question and a reasonable reply but then seems to have taken a slightly more confrontational tone, which is not helpful. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 16:12 #107778 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
I think the same rule applies as with exeter. Not everything exists at the same time but if its there it can be used or ignored. If its not there and you need it youre stuffed! Given the modern era is a blanket term to cover recent additions the main thing is that they are catered for. Does the plain lining of this siding pre or post date the addition of P0 and hitchin flyover. If it post dates then it should still be on there. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 16:30 #107779 | |
postal
5265 posts |
Peter Bennet in post 107777 said:This thread started with a reasonable question and a reasonable reply but then seems to have taken a slightly more confrontational tone, which is not helpful.Aided by a good dose of "shoot the messenger". “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 17:05 #107780 | |
|
ajax103
1120 posts |
jc92 in post 107778 said:I think the same rule applies as with exeter. Not everything exists at the same time but if its there it can be used or ignored. If its not there and you need it youre stuffed!It def predates the addition of P0 and Hitchin flyover as it came out of use a long time ago. Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 30/04/2018 at 20:08 #107782 | |
|
metcontrol
227 posts |
The DMU sidings connected to the down slow at Hitchin existed at more or less the same time as many of the crossovers visible in the older era. The crossovers made it, the sidings didn't and I could make a few more similar comparisons. But I think at the end of the day the developers have to draw a line somewhere (be that by choice, design or available material) and the eras we have are what we have got. The (overgrown) track which formed the access to Watton Oil terminal wasn't removed that many years ago, and was definitely still there (but unlikely to be operational - and the pointwork on the main was plain-lined) post platform 0 at King's Cross. But it did sit in a "never say never again" state for many years after it was last used - even though the oil terminal was long gone and new housing occupied much of the site. Log in to reply |
| Watton Oil Terminal 14/05/2018 at 12:46 #107939 | |
|
TRC666
135 posts |
I work at Watton on a regular basis and can tell you for sure the track has definitely been removed - all that remains are some old lamp posts and vegetation.
Log in to reply |