I think the drainage is down the middle.
Wow that's great progress, thanks for sharing those!A few photos from the back this evening showing the work, looks like all sleepers laid from just after Deighton to just before the viaduct. Looks like the UF has both rails laid the whole distance, and there’s the odd bit of rail laid for the DF.
Edit: no safety critical work done while these photos were being taken
I was wondering that myself.
You could be right. On the photos above, I can see a concrete box with a blue cover between the two sets of tracks.
the blue cover is usually a catch pit for the drainage.
From the photos there doesn't seem to be space on much of the alignment for signals in the 10ft. Also, signals in the 10ft would definitely be a not preferred option due to the issues getting access for maintenance (particularly during a fault). Could be wrong though, I've also not seen any plans showing signal locations.
I know the triangular brackets are already in the UK Master Series design range (and Series 2, UK1, OLEMI Mark III etc before that), so they must be for portals from that range too; either the standard portal profile (e.g. like those seen on Digswell Viaduct on the ECML), or the hexagonal castellated ones on the Leeds approach.
Sorry for the noise you will have to endure but great news. Bases are a great step forward.
The best diagrams are probably on this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/etcs-rollout-on-transpennine-route-upgrade.299035/
I note that the lines in the drawings have directional arrows. I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that with ETCS you can basically have as much bidirectional working as you like "free of charge" (ok, there might be a bit more too it than just ticking a box in the software, but nowhere near as difficult as with conventional signalling). Is this not the case? What's proposed here?The best diagrams are probably on this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/etcs-rollout-on-transpennine-route-upgrade.299035/
Image copied across for ease of showing track layouts, refer to the thread for the ETCS discussion:
No, it's absolutely not the case. Bi-Directional Signalling under ETCS is easier and cheaper than with conventional signalling as you don't have to account for signal sighting (as much*), but it's absolutely not 'free of charge' to write all the additional interlocking logic, or provide all the additional crossovers, axle counter sections, etc...
Having said the above, it is possible that the diagrams above show only the 'normal' intended usage, and that Block Markers & routes will be provided to use tracks in both directions, but with a lower capacity in the 'wrong' direction (as is quite common around the network with conventional signalling).
Thanks for that, so no major track reinstatement in the West.The best diagrams are probably on this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/etcs-rollout-on-transpennine-route-upgrade.299035/
Image copied across for ease of showing track layouts, refer to the thread for the ETCS discussion:
Doesn't the 3 tracking through Slaithwaite and Mardsen count?
No....that's East of Standedge Tunnel, which has always been considered to be the boundary point since nationalisation in 1948.
The question was west of Huddersfield, wasn't it?
Yes.... you're correct. Slowit to Marsden is to the West of Huddersfield, but as I was saying 'the West' in Trans-Pennine terms has always referred to the section of line to the West of the summit in Standedge Tunnel and the former (North) Eastern Region/London Midland Region boundary.
With only two stops between Stalybridge and Standedge the stoppers should be able to keep ahead of the fasts, especially as they are likely to be EMUs. Three tracks from Marsden down to Huddersfield provides some opportunity for overtaking but will need careful timetabling to make that happen.
www.facebook.com
The best diagrams are probably on this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/etcs-rollout-on-transpennine-route-upgrade.299035/
Image copied across for ease of showing track layouts, refer to the thread for the ETCS discussion:
Unclear. I would assume that's the case because otherwise the eastern crossover makes no sense, but assuming things because the alternative makes no sense is not as reliable as it should be when the railway's involved.