Recent content by Tomnick

Nothing to do with the Hope Valley or its gradients specifically (yes, it's hard work for the units, but not for long). It's simply because 158s generally will inevitably start to fall over in the afternoon, either through traction issues or conditions inside the train and cabs, and binning...

That's no reason not to provide a block switch – it means, obviously, that the loops will be unavailable and the IB will be useless, but traffic levels overnight and on Sundays mean that that can/could be tolerated. One of my old boxes used to routinely switch out from Saturday evening to Monday...

If only it was that simple. It is perfectly legitimate to let someone cross with a train accepted or even already in section, if there's enough time for them to do so safely. It is only for large/slow vehicles requiring signal protection that the block indicator becomes rather more definitive...

I'm actually quite worried, yet again, by both the frankly dangerous way in which the crossing was being protected in the run up to the accident and the fact that the RAIB haven't really dealt with that in their investigation. I place the blame for that with the signalling regs and the...

Flashing yellow sequence available towards both the Trowell branch (usual route for Northern services, including this one) and the Up Erewash Slow. Ilkeston station is situated between the flashing double yellow and the flashing single yellow. I've never really liked how the pos.2 junction...

Can add EK (Nottingham Eastcroft) and DB (Derby Etches Park) to that too.

Helpston gives slots to York ROC for each line over each crossing that they control, so has pretty much full autonomy in that respect regardless of whether York has set a route. Many of the protecting signals for the various crossings are semi-autos anyway. I visited a few years ago – it was...

Based on current NR route boundaries, that makes sense. That, and the reliance on Syston to Manton for MML diversions. However, is there room for it in the EMCC? I was led to believe that the most recent resignalling proposal (10-15 years ago), it was first envisaged that it'd be split between...

...and then inevitably having to release the brake and coast towards the PSR, well below the (unknown) OSS set speed but still above the PSR speed, with a significant risk of losing focus and failing to make the second brake application that's then required.

Spot on – which is why I'm somewhat surprised that its replacement will be on the left hand side!

Apologies, the photo doesn't show the replacement nor was it intended to; it was just one of my own photos that I took a few years ago. The replacement will be in a more conventional position on the left hand side of the line, a little way beyond the position of the existing. Now, I wonder why...

It's being replaced by a two-aspect colour light signal in the next few weeks.

Absolutely. Fails "safe" is perhaps misleading in this context – it's not a wrong side failure, but it does introduce additional risks. The one that I referred to above, which was outstanding for many, many months, was for a distant signal which was followed by a short 30mph PSR and then a...

In some cases (albeit not this one, clearly), drivers not reporting such faults doesn't help, or in some cases being put under pressure to stop reporting them. I know of one where the S&T attended on numerous occasions in response to repeated reports; tested it and booked it back in order each...

The obvious suggestion is that, whilst it's not a peak time train, any stock that might be used to strengthen this train will have been needed for the heavy peak flow into London, from where it would struggle to get north in time for an 0945 departure.