ECML problems at Northallerton, 19 Jan

[Darandio]

Is the area bidirectionally signalled or is it being done the old-fashioned way?

Bi-Directional

 

[daikilo]

Bi-Directional

Bi-di between Darlington and Northallerton but possibly not where the trains stopped.

 

[Darandio]

Bi-di between Darlington and Northallerton but possibly not where the trains stopped.

Assuming we are still talking about 1Y44, which is where the original quotes stemmed from?

1Y44 was held at Northallerton shortly after the troubles in the next section, but it wasn't actually terminated there until around 2 or so hours later. By then, 1E21 had already been allowed south of Darlington and therefore 1Y44 couldn't go back bi-di to the Cowton crossovers. Failed 1E19 was then finally taken onward by the thunderbird and 1Y44 was allowed to move beyond the station, move back over the crossover just south of Northallerton and then proceed back north as ECS, allowing 1E21 and 1E22 to continue south.

If the decision had been made to terminate 1Y44 much earlier, it could have gone bi-di back to Darlington from the platform it was in, it just didn't happen for the reasons above. In fact, 3 other trains were all sent back from what is effectively the same bi-directional section between Northallerton and Danby Wiske.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

1E19 was first to go pop, folloŵed by 5E20. Be interesting to see what's said about why 5E20 entered the Up Slow adjacent to 1E19 as it had been confirmed there was possible OLE damage.

Ah, thats interesting. According to Genius 5E20 passed NTR 5 minutes before 1E19, bearing in mind 5E20 was runing 115E. Data gone off system now anyway and I might have misread it, i was in bed gloating at trapped colleagues after all....

 

[QueensCurve]

Bi-Directional

It really would be nice if we could have that on the 2 track sections of the WCML. Would help a lot when there are problems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the decision had been made to terminate 1Y44 much earlier, it could have gone bi-di back to Darlington from the platform it was in, it just didn't happen for the reasons above. In fact, 3 other trains were all sent back from what is effectively the same bi-directional section between Northallerton and Danby Wiske.

These decisions still seem to take long enought to be out of date by the time they happen.

Going back 25y or more there was an occasion I went to Bath Spa to take the HST to Paddington. A preceding service had failed at Keynsham. I mentally calculate that the train I was going for Could make it almost on time if routed on the Down line to Twerton and avoid delaying the next down service.

That decision was eventually taken about 12 mins later but was out of date by then. Chaos ensured.

 

[The North Briton]

If the decision had been made to terminate 1Y44 much earlier, it could have gone bi-di back to Darlington from the platform it was in,

The decision to terminate 1Y44 WAS taken much earlier, the problem was, an emergency isolation was taken just as it began its wrong-direction move North out of the platform at Northallerton, rendering it disabled until the power was turned back on.

 

[edwin_m]

It really would be nice if we could have that on the 2 track sections of the WCML. Would help a lot when there are problems.

Bi-di wasn't provided in any of the major re-signallings of the 70s and 80s except for London-Bristol and Bedford-Leicester. So the ECML south of York doesn't have it either. However it has been included in most double-track sections re-signalled from about 1990 onwards - presumably the adoption of SSI instead of relay technology made it cheaper.

 

[QueensCurve]

Bi-di wasn't provided in any of the major re-signallings of the 70s and 80s except for London-Bristol and Bedford-Leicester. So the ECML south of York doesn't have it either. However it has been included in most double-track sections re-signalled from about 1990 onwards - presumably the adoption of SSI instead of relay technology made it cheaper.

It was backfitted on London to Bristol while I was living in Batheaston 1988-93. I don't recall the exact date, but I do remember seeing the new Bathampton Junction crossovers being installed from Mill Lane bridge Bathampton.

 

[edwin_m]

It was backfitted on London to Bristol while I was living in Batheaston 1988-93. I don't recall the exact date, but I do remember seeing the new Bathampton Junction crossovers being installed from Mill Lane bridge Bathampton.

It was definitely provided, at least on part of the GWML, at around the time of HST introduction in the mid-70s.

 

[QueensCurve]

It was definitely provided, at least on part of the GWML, at around the time of HST introduction in the mid-70s.

Interesting. I certainly recall the installation of new "wrong line" signals and crossovers in the Bath area late 1980s.

I used to be able to see the signal on the main line protecting Bathampton Junction from my front window. A new one appeared alongside at the same time as the extra crossovers.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting. I certainly recall the installation of new "wrong line" signals and crossovers in the Bath area late 1980s.

I used to be able to see the signal on the main line protecting Bathampton Junction from my front window. A new one appeared alongside at the same time as the extra crossovers.

I think the original bi-di signals were on gantries to put them to the left of the driver when on the wrong line, but some or all have been replaced by conventional signals positioned to the right, as also used in later bi-di schemes. Perhaps this is what happened there? I don't know the reason, possibly corrosion of the gantries or in anticipation of electrification?

 

[QueensCurve]

I think the original bi-di signals were on gantries to put them to the left of the driver when on the wrong line, but some or all have been replaced by conventional signals positioned to the right, as also used in later bi-di schemes. Perhaps this is what happened there? I don't know the reason, possibly corrosion of the gantries or in anticipation of electrification?

My recollection was that it was just a unidirectional signal protecting the junction. Could this have been an interim arrangement?