Page 1 of 1
Route cancel behind trains 22/02/2023 at 18:54 #150611 | |
qatommy
![]() 23 posts |
This may be an old question, cant find a thread on it but on some of the sims you have to cancel the route after the train has passed before a new train will enter that section. This gets old after a while and I was wondering if there was a tick box somewhere that would do this automatically?
Log in to reply |
Route cancel behind trains 22/02/2023 at 19:01 #150612 | |
TayViation
![]() 8 posts |
To avoid this, you should check the box that says "TORR", or Train Operated Route Release, during sim setup. This cancels the route in the signal block behind. Some simulations, such as East Coastway, do not have this option and you do have to manually cancel each route.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: qatommy |
Route cancel behind trains 23/02/2023 at 08:37 #150616 | |
kbarber
![]() 1723 posts |
May be worth adding that TORR was unknown before the commissioning of London Bridge Powerbox (1971 or thereabouts?) In a relay interlocking it needs a lot more relays and all the design and testing that goes into that, so it costs quite a lot of £££ and there needed to be a good financial case for it. It's technically impossible for some designs of panel in any case (any 'turn-push' panel, such as the Western Region 'domino' type or the original MV-GRS NX design forces manual cancel in every case by definition). Of course it essentially replicates the returning of signal levers to the Normal position that had always been necessary in mechanical and miniature lever boxes. The switches of OCS panels also had to be returned manually. London Transport's OCS panels, by contrast, used pushbuttons rather than switches so TORR functionality was easily achieved. It wasn't TORR circuitry though; those panels functioned by remote-controlling lever frames (Westinghouse Style N or N2, which were conventional miniature levers, or Westinghouse Style V which used vertical rotating shafts with handles directly attached for emergency use). The circuitry was designed so that signal levers were returned to Normal as soon as the requisite signal aspect and TC occupation conditions were met, thus releasing the route for the next move. Solid State Interlocking was, as I understand it, the first interlocking design to incorporate TORR by default. Nowadays, of course, TORR functionality can be incorporated in the remote control circuits for conventional relay interlockings where these have been recontrolled from a ROC workstation. Log in to reply |
Route cancel behind trains 23/02/2023 at 11:41 #150618 | |
TUT
![]() 514 posts |
kbarber in post 150616 said:London Transport's OCS panels, by contrast, used pushbuttons rather than switches so TORR functionality was easily achieved. It wasn't TORR circuitry though; those panels functioned by remote-controlling lever frames (Westinghouse Style N or N2, which were conventional miniature levers, or Westinghouse Style V which used vertical rotating shafts with handles directly attached for emergency use). The circuitry was designed so that signal levers were returned to Normal as soon as the requisite signal aspect and TC occupation conditions were met, thus releasing the route for the next move.This went spectacularly wrong at Aldersgate (Barbican) one morning in January 1955 when a train was signalled out of the sidings. The system specifically allowed you to preset the next route, which the signalman did on his push button desk. As the train left the sidings, rusty rails caused the track circuits to bob, the route released, the preselected route was set and the points moved under the train that was coming out of the sidings, derailing it. After that delta track circuits were installed 40' beyond the point where the train was clear of all pointwork (much more of a possibility on the Underground where train lengths don't vary so much and acceleration is quick anyway so it doesn't matter too much). The route wouldn't release until that track circuit was occupied, proving that the train had got that far and was clear of the pointwork. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: flabberdacks |
Route cancel behind trains 23/02/2023 at 17:49 #150624 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts ![]() |
kbarber in post 150616 said:Solid State Interlocking was, as I understand it, the first interlocking design to incorporate TORR by default. Nowadays, of course, TORR functionality can be incorporated in the remote control circuits for conventional relay interlockings where these have been recontrolled from a ROC workstation.I believe the later versions of geographical relay sets had TORR, though I'm not sure on the timing vs SSI. The Leeds area re-controlled a lot of remote relay interlockings with broadly only the station being resignalled and re-locked. None, or very few, of those remote interlockings had TORR but it was needed for ARS operation - not to mention desirable for the signallers! Rather than modify the interlockings, which is an expensive and, in some cases, impossible anyway, the interfaces between the interlockings and the control centres had TORR added in the interface. They could do this because it wasn't considered a safety-critical feature, just safety-related. Correct sequence of occupying and clearing tracks detected, then "pull" the entrance button. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following users said thank you: flabberdacks, kbarber |
Route cancel behind trains 23/02/2023 at 18:36 #150625 | |
Jan
![]() 892 posts |
kbarber in post 150616 said:May be worth adding that TORR was unknown before the commissioning of London Bridge Powerbox (1971 or thereabouts?) Though of course that only applies to the UK. I'm fairly certain that both West and East German (route) relay interlockings were equipped with automated route release pretty much right from the start of their respective developments after the war. The one refinement step we got after the initial generation of relay interlockings was that initially the route could only be released all-or-nothing, so until the train had cleared all the pointwork, the whole station throat on that side of the station would remain locked up – individual release of the route element-by-element only came in with subsequent interlocking generations. Unlike TORR, the operational advantage of that was also large enough that it became standard pretty soon at anything but the smallest stations. Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Last edited: 23/02/2023 at 18:36 by Jan Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: kbarber |
Route cancel behind trains 24/02/2023 at 13:01 #150649 | |
clive
![]() 2766 posts |
kbarber in post 150616 said:May be worth adding that TORR was unknown before the commissioning of London Bridge Powerbox (1971 or thereabouts?) In a relay interlocking it needs a lot more relays and all the design and testing that goes into that, so it costs quite a lot of £££ and there needed to be a good financial case for it.The cost justification is reducing the workload on the signallers, meaning you don't need so many. According to the circuits in the Green Book, it's only one or two extra relays per signal in a freewired system. It also notes that there were two reasons UK signal engineers didn't like TORR. One was light vehicles, which could make the track seem clear. The other was that a momentary short in an IBJ could make it look like a train had moved from one track circuit to the next and therefore the route could be released. This is why the standard TORR logic involves three track circuits being occupied and cleared in the correct order. Cambridge PSB is perhaps 10 years after London Bridge, but it doesn't have TORR. I don't know if that was a deliberate decision or was because the geographic interlocking didn't have it included. Last edited: 24/02/2023 at 13:06 by clive Reason: None given Log in to reply |
Route cancel behind trains 24/02/2023 at 13:03 #150650 | |
clive
![]() 2766 posts |
TUT in post 150618 said:Ouch. Were the points not track-locked by the train being on the track circuit containing them? Or was that the one that released because of the rusty rail? Log in to reply |
Route cancel behind trains 24/02/2023 at 13:53 #150653 | |
Stephen Fulcher
![]() 2055 posts |
GeoffM in post 150624 said:kbarber in post 150616 said:The same thing happened when the Western E10k interlockings on the Berks and Hants were recontrolled onto the new IECC at the Thames Valley Signalling Centre.Solid State Interlocking was, as I understand it, the first interlocking design to incorporate TORR by default. Nowadays, of course, TORR functionality can be incorporated in the remote control circuits for conventional relay interlockings where these have been recontrolled from a ROC workstation.I believe the later versions of geographical relay sets had TORR, though I'm not sure on the timing vs SSI. There’s an interesting article from (I think) the IRSE about it somewhere. Log in to reply |
Route cancel behind trains 24/02/2023 at 16:25 #150659 | |
TUT
![]() 514 posts |
clive in post 150650 said:TUT in post 150618 said:I believe that's precisely it. There's a bit more detail here:Ouch. Were the points not track-locked by the train being on the track circuit containing them? Or was that the one that released because of the rusty rail? https://tillyweb.biz/crossings/vstyle/history.pdf Though it doesn't go into all the ins and outs. I'm sure the details are out there to be found if you're interested. Log in to reply |
Route cancel behind trains 24/02/2023 at 17:55 #150665 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts ![]() |
clive in post 150649 said:kbarber in post 150616 said:Note that the Green Books were written a long time ago and standards have changed since then. However, contrary to that, I have never seen the three track TISP in practice - furthermore, I think it's actually discouraged these days.May be worth adding that TORR was unknown before the commissioning of London Bridge Powerbox (1971 or thereabouts?) In a relay interlocking it needs a lot more relays and all the design and testing that goes into that, so it costs quite a lot of £££ and there needed to be a good financial case for it.The cost justification is reducing the workload on the signallers, meaning you don't need so many. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
Route cancel behind trains 25/02/2023 at 08:55 #150668 | |
kbarber
![]() 1723 posts |
clive in post 150650 said:TUT in post 150618 said:Ouch. Were the points not track-locked by the train being on the track circuit containing them? Or was that the one that released because of the rusty rail? Mind you, it could happen on manual frames as well. I once sent a DMU both ways on No. 6 crossover at Marylebone. The driver had SPADed a shunt signal, unnoticed (it was at the north end of the layout and the train was almost in line with line-of-sight from the box) and the track failed to drop. Bit of an 'oh ***' moment when I saw it crabbing across the crossover, but I couldn't do anything until the control cables pulled out and stopped the train. Log in to reply |