|
ChrisB
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2010, 09:01:16 AM » |
|
As for Aynho, is the turn-back going to be a separate siding off of the main line? As I understood it from our local NR Manager, yes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2010, 10:29:53 AM » |
|
OK, thanks Chris. That will indeed be a bigger job then - though hopefully mostly non-disruptive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7755
|
|
« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2010, 08:41:27 PM » |
|
I have my doubts about this being a siding, the network change proposal of Jan 2010 describes the work as:
"Upgrade of Existing Signals to Main Signals to Provide a Turn Back Capability".
In their response to the proposal, DB Schenker wrote:
"Whilst understanding the usefulness of the proposed facilities as a way of providing through access between the Didcot and Paddington areas during periods when direct routes via Reading are unavailable, DB Schenker has some concerns over the use of the crossover at Aynho Junction on account of the periods during which the drivers will be changing ends on the Down Line and northbound paths for other traffic will be unavailable. DB Schenker wishes to see evidence of robust timetable planning which maintains the availability of paths for other traffic using the route."
So as I said, that doesn't sound like a siding, of course things could have changed since then. Unfortunately NR only rarely publish the drawings that go with their Network Change proposals...
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #48 on: July 29, 2010, 09:34:08 AM » |
|
You're right - that sounds like a turn-back on the down line, utilising the crossover that Chiltern are putting in under EG3.  This will also require trackside running boards as the driver changes ends *outside* of the HST... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #49 on: July 29, 2010, 11:25:05 AM » |
|
Ah, OK - I did think a siding was a bit extravagant! There is already a crossing there (albeit a slower speed one than the Evergreen 3 project will provide), so, for this Xmas at least, I expect that will be utilised and a simple upgrade of the position light signal to a main aspect signal. Trains having reversed there could then access the Chiltern Line via that crossing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #50 on: July 29, 2010, 12:03:30 PM » |
|
Isn't the current one in the wrong direction (up to down?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anthony215
|
|
« Reply #51 on: July 29, 2010, 05:06:54 PM » |
|
Any idea what stock is to work this service:
Bristol - Bath - Westbury - Newbury - Theale
I know it may be possible for a class 165/166 to be used since they used to run Bristol to Oxford
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #52 on: July 29, 2010, 05:19:39 PM » |
|
Any idea what stock is to work this service:
Bristol - Bath - Westbury - Newbury - Theale
I know it may be possible for a class 165/166 to be used since they used to run Bristol to Oxford
It would need to be 125 / 142 / 143 / 150 / 153 / 158 165 / 166 not cleared between Bath and Westbury |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Busy elsewhere for a few days ... update |
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #53 on: July 29, 2010, 06:25:33 PM » |
|
Isn't the current one in the wrong direction (up to down?)
No, it's from the down to the up as you face towards London, so to reverse a train would run beyond the signal (that's being upgraded from a position light), the driver would change ends, and then move via the crossing to the Up Main (then either Up Main, the Up Loop, or the Up Chiltern Line). There's a farm overbridge directly over where the signal is located. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Oxman
|
|
« Reply #54 on: July 29, 2010, 06:35:35 PM » |
|
Bristol - Theale will be HSTs, with a temporary platform built at Theale to accomodate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #55 on: July 29, 2010, 07:08:24 PM » |
|
253/4 can work the chiltern line
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I work for the largest employer in the Rail Industry.
Electrification is what I do
Swindon engineering - if 3/8th steel plate is enough use 7/16th just in case
|
|
|
|
qwerty
|
|
« Reply #56 on: July 30, 2010, 04:03:10 PM » |
|
This will also require trackside running boards as the driver changes ends *outside* of the HST...
Safe walking Route. Any place where Drivers change end outside the train will be risk assessed and approved as part of the project. The safe walking route can be the cess if it is level and no adjacent running line. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7755
|
|
« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2010, 05:15:10 PM » |
|
Might it not be quicker and safer to 'double man' the trains between Oxford and wherever?
It's only for a few days after all, with a much reduced number of services, AIUI. Apparently this was the solution agreed with Virgin when they were diverting their double and triple Voyagers via the Chilterns which had a couple of reversals into Euston...
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2010, 05:27:22 PM » |
|
This will also require trackside running boards as the driver changes ends *outside* of the HST...
Safe walking Route. Any place where Drivers change end outside the train will be risk assessed and approved as part of the project. The safe walking route can be the cess if it is level and no adjacent running line. Can't the driver change ends inside the train? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bignosemac
|
|
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2010, 05:34:52 PM » |
|
Driver still has to do a lamp check at each end though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.
|
|
|
|
