(Almost) gauntletted track

[AndrewE]

The Werrington grade separation thread had a link to the signalbox diagram for Walton
https://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1036

which seems to have the Up Coal and Up Goods lines so close together that the convergence is protected by home signals and trap points.
Is there anywhere else like this?

 

[edwin_m]

The Werrington grade separation thread had a link to the signalbox diagram for Walton
https://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=1036

which seems to have the Up Coal and Up Goods lines so close together that the convergence is protected by home signals and trap points.
Is there anywhere else like this?

Examples of interlacing I can think of, none of which really matches this one:

• Selby swing bridge (historic) (to put the moving parts of some points on the same side of the river as the signal box, avoiding the need to transfer the motion across the bridge)
• Mitcham area of Croydon Tramlink (to avoid having to widen the formation which was narrowed at some point due to earthworks problems)
• Nottingham, Croydon (I think) and many overseas tramways (to avoid putting point blades in the middle of a road)
• At least one on the Amtrak NE corridor in the 70s (may not be there any more) and on a tram-train route at Baunatal in Germany (to allow wider vehicles to pass a platform that has to be close to the track)

 

[pdeaves]

I can't say exactly what happens at Walton but when you try to depict two rails with a single pencil mark on a drawing it is very difficult to distinguish between 'close together' and 'overlapping'. I would venture that the tracks probably were interlaced/gauntleted as such diagrams rarely try to show scale distances between tracks (or other features 'up and down the page'), only longitudinal distances.

 

[transmanche]

Nottingham, Croydon (I think) and many overseas tramways (to avoid putting point blades in the middle of a road)

One that's always intrigued me is on Leidsestraat (between Leidseplein and Koningsplein) in Amsterdam - routes 2, 11 & 12. There are three sections of gauntlet/interlaced track, on what is otherwise a pedestrianised street. Yet there is no obvious signalling to indicate which tram can go. Is there something in-cab? Is there a rule (e.g. one direction always having priority)? Or is it simply down to the drivers to be polite and sensible?

 

[rick pike]

The Eccelsbourne Valley Railway had some gauntlet track under a loading hopper/dock. There was a pic somewhere on rmweb of gauntlet track on a weighbridge in an industrial setting to allow the engine to bypass the scales

 

[fulf]

One that's always intrigued me is on Leidsestraat (between Leidseplein and Koningsplein) in Amsterdam - routes 2, 11 & 12. There are two sections of gauntlet/interlaced track, on what is otherwise a pedestrianised street. Yet there is no obvious signalling to indicate which tram can go. Is there something in-cab? Is there a rule (e.g. one direction always having priority)? Or is it simply down to the drivers to be polite and sensible?

Based on experience living in Amsterdam, I think this is just controlled by driver line-of-sight. There are passing places at each canal bridge on this street, so I think the rule goes 'if there is a tram visible at the next bridge, let it go first'. The throughput doesn't seem smooth enough for any kind of advanced in-cab signalling, as it's often quicker to walk the Leidsestraat rather than take a tram between the two ends. This is all just speculation however.

 

[themiller]

Tramlines in Seville (in front of the Cathedral of Seville) and Amsterdam (a main shopping street that I've forgotten the name of) have sections which allow movement in only one direction at a time.

 

[edwin_m]

Based on experience living in Amsterdam, I think this is just controlled by driver line-of-sight. There are passing places at each canal bridge on this street, so I think the rule goes 'if there is a tram visible at the next bridge, let it go first'. The throughput doesn't seem smooth enough for any kind of advanced in-cab signalling, as it's often quicker to walk the Leidsestraat rather than take a tram between the two ends. This is all just speculation however.

Indeed. As far as I remember the interlaced bits are fairly short, just over the bridge. There may be some kind of rule about which direction gets priority, rather as road traffic has on a narrow bridge. There's certainly no need for signaling unless there isn't a sightline of trams entering the other end of the single track, and even then it's to avoid operational disruption from two trams ending up nose to nose rather than because there is a safety issue.

 

[Taunton]

Based on experience living in Amsterdam, I think this is just controlled by driver line-of-sight. There are passing places at each canal bridge on this street, so I think the rule goes 'if there is a tram visible at the next bridge, let it go first'.

Single line tramways have always run like this, with the waiting or not at the next loop just governed by the drivers. There were extensive systems even in Britain run this way. Over time, however, it seems to be felt that this cannot be safe (although it is) and I presume the RSSB would never allow it on anything new.

 

[edwin_m]

Single line tramways have always run like this, with the waiting or not at the next loop just governed by the drivers. There were extensive systems even in Britain run this way. Over time, however, it seems to be felt that this cannot be safe (although it is) and I presume the RSSB would never allow it on anything new.

Not so (and tramway guidance now resides with LRSSB having had several homes over the decades): http://lrssb2018.wpengine.com/wp-co...ramway-Principles-and-Guidance-TPG-Final2.pdf

Where the visibility has been assessed as being adequate from one end of the single line to the other, such that the driver of a tram can be relied upon to assess whether a tram in the opposing direction has entered, or is about to enter, the single line, there is no requirement for signalling to be provided. In this case a rule regarding precedence of occupation of the section is appropriate, reinforced by signs.

 

[transmanche]

As far as I remember the interlaced bits are fairly short, just over the bridge.

It's the other way round. The interlaced track is along Leidsestraat itself, with the track reverting to normal double track on the bridges over the Prinsengracht and Keizersgracht. These 'passing loops' are where the tram stops are located.

 

[Snow1964]

There was one on the South Western Mainline in 1977 during a landslip near 100 milepost (Just to East of Ringwood Road near Hinton Admiral)
Ringwood Road is an overbridge with 2 separate single track arches so tracks are further apart, so interlace was about 20cm less than full single line (which would have required turnouts)the piling crane was on one track (cut off down line which had been slewed into the interlaced section) and interlaced temporary section on other (up) track. The track where the interlace was wooden sleepered at the time so could add other rails easily, but one set of chairs must have been close to end of sleeper.

Luckily someone has archived it. A Distant signal (near Walkford Lane) was made a stop signal and a temporary distant installed at New Milton as the stop signal was where landslip was, and with this out, would have been 5-6 miles between active home signals (was 2 aspect colour lights about every 3 miles at the time, installed during Bournemouth electrification). At the time the section was controlled from Lymington Junction (which closed in 1978 when semaphores were replaced)

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/archivesignals/brsr.php
see downloads 53 SWD 1977

Could you imagine Network Rail adding temporary coloured light signals and slewing and interlacing tracks to get trains around it if there was a landslip these days. Or would they just shut the line (as did in multiple locations in last month)

 

[InOban]

Not so (and tramway guidance now resides with LRSSB having had several homes over the decades): http://lrssb2018.wpengine.com/wp-co...ramway-Principles-and-Guidance-TPG-Final2.pdf

I always thought that a crucial difference between trams and trains was that trams, like road vehicles, operated on the visibility of the driver.
I moved to Edinburgh in 1956, just before the last tram, and on my route to school there was a 200m section of single track. There was one day when it was too foggy and the driver couldn't see to the end, so no tram!

 

[John Webb]

This photo taken in 1950 at Walton crossing (click on photo to go to larger original):
[url=https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4421210]Up 'Yorkshire Pullman', near Werrington Junction 1950 © Copyright Ben Brooksbank and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.[/URL]
seems to show on the far right the two tracks merging, but it is not clear if they are gauntleted or not.

 

[John Webb]

Sorry - double post!

 

[kentuckytony]

There used to be this setup years ago in Valencia, Spain (back when they had trams).
Also I think he trams in Lisbon, Portugal have some sections of track like that.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Just an observation about the map. If the trap points on the 'up coal' are drawn correctly, the result of a train on that line passing a signal that is it danger to protect a train passing on the 'up goods' would be to deflect the former train ... into the path or side of the latter! But there are (or certainly, were) a few traps that would make matters much worse than continuing on the conflicting move.

 

[John Webb]

The Tramway Museum at Crich has a section of gauntleted track:
Crich Tramway Museum

© Copyright Graham Hogg and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
This is the narrow Bowes-Lyon bridge where there is insufficient room for two separate tracks.

 

[edwin_m]

I always thought that a crucial difference between trams and trains was that trams, like road vehicles, operated on the visibility of the driver.

Absolutely correct. Hence why signals are not necessary for a short single line where visibility is good. Where signals are provided, they have the same role as traffic lights - they give an indication of priority but the driver is still responsible for stopping if there is an obstruction.

 

[30907]

Just an observation about the map. If the trap points on the 'up coal' are drawn correctly, the result of a train on that line passing a signal that is it danger to protect a train passing on the 'up goods' would be to deflect the former train ... into the path or side of the latter! But there are (or certainly, were) a few traps that would make matters much worse than continuing on the conflicting move.

True, but the alternative would be worse.
My guess is that the additional line was put in in a hurry (wartime) and it wasn't convenient to rebuild the LC.

 

[Merle Haggard]

True, but the alternative would be worse.
My guess is that the additional line was put in in a hurry (wartime) and it wasn't convenient to rebuild the LC.

Thank you, I can see that! I think that it reverted to 4 track after the war on the basis that the arrangement in the map would have been photographed and remarked upon if it survived to, say, the late 50's.

As a general question, is there any difference between gauntleted track and interlaced track? Usually, if there are two different railway technical terms they cover slightly different situations - unless the GW is involved...

The LNWR seemed to warm to interlacing/gauntleting; I think that when the Euston - Roade section was being widened at first only a single slow line was built with single track tunnel bores but, when the slow was subsequently doubled, interlaced track was used through one of the tunnels. Must have been tight! There was a particularly destructive crash when a train went through traps into the retaining wall to the side of the tunnel mouth, I think. The advantage of interlacing in that case (like Selby) is it obviates the need for point rodding to the remote p&c if the tracks converge/diverge. The LNW also seemed to use it during underbridge/viaduct/tunnel works to give more room on a normally double track line.

 

[edwin_m]

Thank you, I can see that! I think that it reverted to 4 track after the war on the basis that the arrangement in the map would have been photographed and remarked upon if it survived to, say, the late 50's.

As a general question, is there any difference between gauntleted track and interlaced track? Usually, if there are two different railway technical terms they cover slightly different situations - unless the GW is involved...

The LNWR seemed to warm to interlacing/gauntleting; I think that when the Euston - Roade section was being widened at first only a single slow line was built with single track tunnel bores but, when the slow was subsequently doubled, interlaced track was used through one of the tunnels. Must have been tight! There was a particularly destructive crash when a train went through traps into the retaining wall to the side of the tunnel mouth, I think. The advantage of interlacing in that case (like Selby) is it obviates the need for point rodding to the remote p&c if the tracks converge/diverge. The LNW also seemed to use it during underbridge/viaduct/tunnel works to give more room on a normally double track line.

The diagram in the OP was dated 1959 and on the Werrington thread I posted a diagram for that box from about 10 years later showing the same five tracks (though obviously that diagram didn't include the crossing). So while it may have gone in as a wartime economy measure it must have lasted for some time afterwards, possibly up until the re-signaling in the 1970s. Though if the crossing went before that then the interlacing might just have been replaced by normal parallel tracks.

As far as I'm aware gauntlet and interlacing are exactly the same thing - not the GW but I think the first is from the Americans, who have plenty of alternative names for the same bit of railway.