Kallaroonian Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 I have been a bit lazy with the location and shape of buildings and platforms on the plan. There was no real benefit in getting it correct - just a lot of time fiddling about for no payback. So the platforms are straight for example whereas the track has a slight curve. The plan is also a proof of concept really. I'm sure that when I come to lay the track there will be issues that force some adaptations. This thread has probably gone a little sideways because I'm not necessarily looking to exactly mimic the trackplan (for reasons of space and the question of the plan from which year and my invented tweaking of the engine shed facilities). So there are two processes at work now : 1) I'm reviewing my current plan against the signalling diagram and might make some changes 2) The general original question about Fast-Slow transitions still has relevance to the tweaked plan because the exact solution as indicated by the prototype won't necessarily exist. rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter749 Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Having read other parts of this thread and 'Hatfield: Part the Second' I notice there is no crossing from the Up Fast to the Up slow at the North End of the station and no Crossing from the Down Fast to the Down Slow. Also you have a Single Slip at the North End Leading off the Down Fast towards the Luton Branch track - I don't think this is correct. Facing Single Slips are not common on Main lines. From the Signal Box Diag I think it should Trail on to the Down Fast - followed by the facing DF-DS Crossover. Points operated by leavers had to be Locked when Facing - on the signal diagram the Facing Point Locks [FPL] are indicated by a Red Bar next to a Facing Point. See Point 59 UF-US is locked by FPL 60. HTH Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERGE Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'm awake now... Just noticed Beast66606 had given me a nudge.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallaroonian Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 Greetings. I meant to respond to this some time ago. I reworked the track plan as follows : Hatfield Junction.pdf The signalling diagram had some oddities I though but I'm far from an expert in this. There's a single slip from the up fast to the down fast - how would that have been used? There also seems to be no means for the down fast to route to the Luton line unless one assumes this happened at the South of the station (ie down fast to down slow to Luton line was the only option) The changes I've made have reflected a goal of simplifying matters by opting for crossings rather than slips wherever possible. There may yet be an opportunity to simplify further by incorporating the assumption above and changing out the single slip (down fast to down slow to north of platform) for another crossing. I have also opted for no ability to swap up fast to up slow at the exit from the station rgds Mark PS I'm aware various tracks don't exactly line up. The design is a firm proof of concept rather than being exatly correct - these issues can get resolved when track laying Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I would comment that with that number of what appears to be slips on the main lines they would have quite a severe speed restriction on them. It seems quie an ambitious plan, good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted February 13, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 13, 2012 The signalling diagram had some oddities I though but I'm far from an expert in this. There's a single slip from the up fast to the down fast - how would that have been used? There also seems to be no means for the down fast to route to the Luton line unless one assumes this happened at the South of the station (ie down fast to down slow to Luton line was the only option) The single slip (I presume you mean points 39) is for shunt moves. The connections onto the St Albans line will be controlled by No.1 cabin, notice the slots on the signal 57 and 58, the other arms are controlled by No.1, meaning No.2 only has partial control of trains arriving from Luton and none for trains on the St Albans line. There's no issue with the speed through slips, especially trailing ones, they were harder to maintain and therefore more costly but there's no reason to impose a speed restriction because of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallaroonian Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Ambitious? It is, essentially, quite stupid to attempt and will likely take years to bear full fruit. But I like a challenge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Go for it then! I too like a challenge. Keep us posted how you get on with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.