Calder Valley re signalling

[superkev]

Lots of work going on at the moment with cabinets, signal posts etc appearing. I hear Healy Mills box is to close an Jan 2018 followed by Mill Lane, Halifax, Milner Royd, Hebden Bridge later in the year.
Wouldn't Halifax box make a nice cafe for some entrepreneur..
K

 

[Holmevalley]

Apart from it's on a platform which has no trains (at the moment) and no passenger access (at the moment). When that moment passes and the proposed extra platform is brought into use then a possible maybe. When that will happen is anyone's guess and isn't the plan to reopen the old station building as the main entrance and utilise all that space for facilities for train users, cafe included

"I'm out" and won't be investing

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Isn't the box at Halifax listed?

Basically the lines that pass through Huddersfield will once again be treated to the nightmare that was the 12th and 13th August with rail replacements everywhere. Halifax seems to keep its rail services as I would have thought that it would have lost them through this resignalling work.

Probably worth mentioning that Huddersfield box is going as well.

 

[IanXC]

Isn't the box at Halifax listed?

Basically the lines that pass through Huddersfield will once again be treated to the nightmare that was the 12th and 13th August with rail replacements everywhere. Halifax seems to keep its rail services as I would have thought that it would have lost them through this resignalling work.

Probably worth mentioning that Huddersfield box is going as well.

There's two different sets of blockades.

Huddersfield PSB is being recontrolled to York ROC, when this work is ongoing its area of control is subject to closure, the boundary is somewhere around Greetland Junction. That means that Huddersfield doesn't control any of the Calder Valley route, and vice versa, so that if one is closed the other can remain open.

The second project is a resignalling, which is going to see closure of Bradford Mill Lane, Halifax, Milner Royd and Hebden Bridge boxes. This involves new signals and some slight track alterations. It will mean that this new 'Halifax panel' will border Manchester ROC Preston PSB and York IECC.

Healey Mills I believe is a recontrol which will be added to the Huddersfield panel at York ROC.

What I'm not sure of is what, if anything, is happening with Batley box.

 

[superkev]

A short section of the Calder Valley inc Copy pit around Todmordon is at present controlled from Preston PSB. Not sure if this will continue.
K

 

[Geeves]

You would imagine the Preston PSB boundary will become the Manchester ROC an York ROC boundary when ever the two eventually get that far.

 

[IanXC]

I'll check the quail later, I always though Preston PSB bounded Manchester ROC and not Hebden Bridge.

 

[takno]

Preston box takes over just to the East of Smithy Bridge, and goes through to the route border just before Hebden Bridge.

 

[lejog]

Isn't the box at Halifax listed?

I don't know about Halifax, Hebden Bridge signal box certainly is listed Grade II.

Basically the lines that pass through Huddersfield will once again be treated to the nightmare that was the 12th and 13th August with rail replacements everywhere. Halifax seems to keep its rail services as I would have thought that it would have lost them through this resignalling work.

The lines between Todmorden and Halifax were closed for six consecutive weekends earlier this year! Huddersfield gets closed for one or two weekends and all hell breaks loose.

As I've posted elsewhere as part of the resignallng, the signal at the end of the Leeds platform at Hebden Bridge is to be moved approx 30m onto the platform (and the platform extended) to "protect the existing crossover and to allow greater flexibility in allowing trains to move between platforms" according to the listed building consent document.

Wouldn't it be easier to move the crossover?

 

[superkev]

Putting the signal on the platform effectively shortening it looks on the face of it like an own goal. Perhaps next news will be a platform extension to compensate.
As was said why not just move the crossover.
K

 

[MarkyT]

If this: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1475/26559954401_566d077823_b.jpg
is anything to go by, there isn't a platform starter and the crossover forms part of the route from the previous inner home signal (#4 on diagram) that stretches right through the platform and out to the section starter (#5).
The new signal position therefore divides the block and for the first time allows a train to draw out of the up platform in the down direction and cross over while there is another train stationary in the down platform. It must be installed at clearance from the crossover which in this case is part way along the platform. The new signal then 'protects' the crossover in signalling terms. Platform lengthening at the opposite end of the station looks fairly straightforward. The crossover itself may not yet be up for renewal coincidentally with the signalling, i.e there's no Permanent way budget item to align with the signalling project and why should the signalling renewals budget pay for new track, unless absolutely neccessary for new build compliance reasons. In this case compliance is most practically met by the work proposed. The new signalling should be easier to change in the future when the crossover IS renewed, in which it might be better to renew at overlap distance clearance from the new signal so interlocking controls may be relaxed to allow the crossover to be reversed at the same time as a down arrival is entering the platform.

 

[IanXC]

I'll check the quail later, I always though Preston PSB bounded Manchester ROC and not Hebden Bridge.

Those of you who doubted me were absolutely correct. Hebden Bridge (and next year York ROC) will border Preston PSB rather than an existing Manchester ROC panel.

 

[lejog]

If this: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1475/26559954401_566d077823_b.jpg
is anything to go by, there isn't a platform starter and the crossover forms part of the route from the previous inner home signal (#4 on diagram) that stretches right through the platform and out to the section starter (#5).
The new signal position therefore divides the block and for the first time allows a train to draw out of the up platform in the down direction and cross over while there is another train stationary in the down platform. It must be installed at clearance from the crossover which in this case is part way along the platform. The new signal then 'protects' the crossover in signalling terms. Platform lengthening at the opposite end of the station looks fairly straightforward. The crossover itself may not yet be up for renewal coincidentally with the signalling, i.e there's no Permanent way budget item to align with the signalling project and why should the signalling renewals budget pay for new track, unless absolutely neccessary for new build compliance reasons. In this case compliance is most practically met by the work proposed. The new signalling should be easier to change in the future when the crossover IS renewed, in which it might be better to renew at overlap distance clearance from the new signal so interlocking controls may be relaxed to allow the crossover to be reversed at the same time as a down arrival is entering the platform.

Thanks for this. You are quite right about the signal position, I was having a senior moment. However the resignalling works (at least through Hebden Bridge) are being carried out as part of the Northern Hub Calder Valley Journey Time Improvements project - it says so on the plans on the council website. This project also includes substantial track renewals completed over the last 6 months, when the crossover could have been moved.

 

[MarkyT]

This project also includes substantial track renewals completed over the last 6 months, when the crossover could have been moved.

Was the particular crossover actually replaced during this period? If so it usually has to go back where the existing signalling expects it, unless there's some 'stagework' to reconfigure the old equipment. Sometimes such stagework design and installation is easy, sometimes it is not, especially if the old equipment being replaced is degraded, has been maintained indifferently or where build state and wiring details are not fully recorded and correlated. Proposing significant stagework on old signalling risks extensive costs and delays for surveys and refettling, just to get the old stuff into an understandable safe baseline state to do a change, all on equipment that is about to be ditched. Stageworks should be minimised ideally, and it's worth considering (if there's a choice ) resignalling before track changes, so iterative stage work changes to layout can be carried out on modern equipment, with interlocking logic accomplished in data changes for processor based systems, much easier than extensive rewiring of relays or electromechanical lever frames. The points are shown mechanical in the diagram with no FPL but today the twin dummies at the East end seem to have been replaced by a main CL signal with associated PL to cater for passenger reversing, so I expect at some time since the drawing was made in 1996 the points have been motorised, like the siding turnout and trap (with built-in FPL). Electric points might have been easier to relocate than mechanical, if there are no other constraints. The crossover would probably have to be relocated immediately beyond the siding turnout, which would put the trailing points within the home signal overlap, requiring an interlocking alteration and reducing flexibility, unless the signal was also moved, which might compromise braking from the previous signal, etc. I think the loss of a short length of unremarkable open platform at the east end of the station is a small price to pay so long as the new signal can be erected clear of the station canopy. There's clear, level ground at the west end of the station on the down side for construction of a short extension to compensate.