Page 1 of 1
| Retford Track Section Failure 10/05/2022 at 22:17 #146437 | |
Civolics
8 posts |
Hey, Just writing this to ask a question about what to do at Retford when having a track section failure. I know I can literally just get rid of it entirely, just inquiring about what to do in these types of situations if a train approaching is scheduled to stop here when a train behind it is a service bypassing the station. Thanks!  Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 10/05/2022 at 22:21 #146438 | |
|
Newhampshires
101 posts |
I believe this would be a scenario where trains end up becoming very delayed, which happens in real life too when lines become blocked!
Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 10/05/2022 at 22:35 #146439 | |
|
Chromatix
190 posts |
Yep, I've been on a train stuck on the Down Fast for 40 mins just outside Thirsk after what was described as a "points failure". Thirsk, like Retford, only has platforms on the Slow lines. I bet there were several ECML down expresses stuck behind us.
Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 10/05/2022 at 23:19 #146440 | |
|
JamesN
1607 posts |
In real life the Train Operator may elect to not call at Retford, and convey passengers back from Doncaster to Retford on another service, potentially even stopping something additionally. The points have detection so there’s no rules/technical reason trains couldn’t just bypass Retford; it would be a commercial/passenger matter. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Hap, Civolics |
| Retford Track Section Failure 11/05/2022 at 12:13 #146443 | |
bugsy
1766 posts |
If I'm not mistaken, the points just beyond the Track Section failure can be manually set as per the attached screenshot and the trains "talked" past signal D143 to either enter the station platform or continue on the Fast line. ....  Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 11/05/2022 at 12:54 #146444 | |
|
TUT
532 posts |
Well alas not because the points are locked due to the fact that the route was set for the Down Main and now you've got the track circuit immediately in rear of the one containing the points occupied they're approach locked because the system assumes that's a train traveling at line speed (125mph?) about to hit the points. They can't swing! In real life you could do a release of signalling controls to allow you to move the points. That is a very rarely used option though and I'm unsure of the logistics of it. You could also presumably get a points operator down there to work them on the ground, but again it's quite unlikely unless the failure is expected to last for a good long while and the disruption of otherwise would be too great. Failing to stop at one station (not even a major interchange) might not justify it... Last edited: 11/05/2022 at 12:55 by TUT Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 11/05/2022 at 14:17 #146445 | |
|
bugsy
1766 posts |
TUT in post 146444 said:Well alas not because the points are locked due to the fact that the route was set for the Down Main and now you've got the track circuit immediately in rear of the one containing the points occupied they're approach locked because the system assumes that's a train traveling at line speed (125mph?) about to hit the points. They can't swing!I should have realised that but wasn't thinking owing to brain shrinkage 
Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 11/05/2022 at 14:43 #146447 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
TUT in post 146444 said:(not even a major interchange)It is if you're trying to get to Lincoln, or Worksop. Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 11/05/2022 at 16:29 #146451 | |
|
Civolics
8 posts |
Thankfully, I don't have to lol.
Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 12/05/2022 at 02:13 #146460 | |
|
Jsun
212 posts |
If the operator elects to wait it out are they responsible for the trailing delays or is it still on the party responsible for the original issue?
Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 12/05/2022 at 03:33 #146461 | |
jc92
3685 posts |
Jsun in post 146460 said:If the operator elects to wait it out are they responsible for the trailing delays or is it still on the party responsible for the original issue?Technically its on NR as an infrastructure fault, but practically I can't see an operator waiting it out due to the impact it would have on theirs and others services in the meantime. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 18/05/2022 at 13:21 #146529 | |
Guts
604 posts |
TUT in post 146444 said:Well alas not because the points are locked due to the fact that the route was set for the Down Main and now you've got the track circuit immediately in rear of the one containing the points occupied they're approach locked because the system assumes that's a train traveling at line speed (125mph?) about to hit the points. They can't swing!I've never in all my years seen a release of controls. They generally sent the MOM out and s/he would manually pump the points over and we'd be talking by till it gets fixed. Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 18/05/2022 at 16:51 #146533 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
I’ve done it twice, once due to a points run through where nothing was foul of the adjacent main line but the points (mechanical) were track locked the wrong way, and once due to an interlocking fault at Plymouth that locked the main to main crossover reverse. The main issues with releasing controls are the wide area over which train movements cannot happen - everything has to be at a complete stand in the whole interlocking area, and finding a suitably competent person to conduct the release. Log in to reply |
| Retford Track Section Failure 18/05/2022 at 16:52 #146534 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
jc92 in post 146461 said:Jsun in post 146460 said:I believe there is some sort of clause that operators still have to make best endeavours to prevent excessive delays irrespective of who is accountable for the initial incident.If the operator elects to wait it out are they responsible for the trailing delays or is it still on the party responsible for the original issue?Technically its on NR as an infrastructure fault, but practically I can't see an operator waiting it out due to the impact it would have on theirs and others services in the meantime. Log in to reply |