Freight run-round at Wool

[RobR]

In the topic on Swanage to Wareham in the preservation section the quoted Network Rail document refers to a freight run- round at Wool. According to the December Modern Railways the cross-over put in at the down end of the station is a facing one. Does any-one know why a facing one?  Even with all the new technology now available I would have thought a trailing one would be prefered if it's only for a freight run-round.

Rob 

[PaulRhB]

Well the existing crossovers are both trailing. If they change it to facing its not really a problem as all passenger trains stop at Wool anyway so it will be low speed for passenger moves and would be for freight too if running round at Wool. Modern facing points are quite sophisticated if they go for one of the junction style ones with multiple drives.

They used to run round the sand train at Wool in Railtrack days but there was an irregularity and a puzzling solution in my opinion. I think it would be dealt with better these days with a more appropriate solution to the irregularity, one of the improvements under NR

[RobR]

Thanks for your reply Paul. So is there no difference in the cost between trailing and facing crossovers? Do trailing crossovers now require facing point locks?  The new facing crossover is in approximately the same place as the old trailing one, so surely there must be a reason for the change. Modern Railways also says that a new trailing crossover has been installed on the upside of Wool. So why was a facing one not installed there?  I don't have a copy of the current timetable, but the one up to 8/12/12 shows alternate trains stopping at Wool. I'll get the current one tomorrow.

Rob

[phil-b259]

Thanks for your reply Paul. So is there no difference in the cost between trailing and facing crossovers? Do trailing crossovers now require facing point locks? 

If the points are motorized then they have an FPL built in by default, you cannot physically remove it! (well, OK, you can but its simpler to leave it in place even if they are only signalled for trailing moves). Besides it adds flexibility and removes the need to clip points if it ever gets used in the facing direction.

 

Basically the thing about railways not liking facing points is a carry over from the days of mechanical signalling. Adding FPL mechanisms and leavers to traditional mechanical signalling added extra complexity so generally the number of facing crossovers were kept to a minimum even if it did make movements a bit awarkward at times.

 

In the case of wool, the whole area is being resignalled shortly anyway so it may simply be a case of reversing the crossover in preparation for this. Maybe the other one will be removed in future?

[phil-b259]

Even with all the new technology now available I would have thought a trailing one would be prefered if it's only for a freight run-round.

Rob 

If the run rounds are being done on the main line using one trailing then one facing crossover will make things marginally quicker and obstructs the adjacent line for slightly less time. Does the level crossing make a difference?

 

Track layouts these days are dictated by service provision, not by old standards that have very little relevance to modern signalling thanks to technical improvements.

[PaulRhB]

If the run rounds are being done on the main line using one trailing then one facing crossover will make things marginally quicker and obstructs the adjacent line for slightly less time. Does the level crossing make a difference?

.

There's no increase in speed as it doesn't save changing ends on the loco which negates the advantage of already setting the facing points before the train arrives.

The level crossing currently has an interlock that means once the down starter is replaced behind the loco there is a 2 1/2 minute timeout before the route cancels which prevents the barriers being lifted with a train over them, this is only applicable when the station track circuit remains occupied.

I suspect 'modern' overlaps may well lock them down longer as they have provided some very long ones on the WoE line since resignalling, if that's the case the traffic queues will be big as the road is very busy. I remember a colleague got up to do the barriers and found he'd forgotten to put them up after the last train 10 minutes earlier, the queue was spectacular and took several minutes to clear.

Once had a car miss turning left and ended up by the Down starter, got the people out with help from the guy at the garage but the car went up in smoke. Control asked what colour it was, so I said "we'll orange and red at the moment but no idea what it was at the start!"

As to traffic I forgot they'd added the extra trains! It was all stoppers when I was there 12 years ago

[RobR]

Thanks for your replies. Another possibilty has occurred to me. Perhaps the idea is to make the down platform bi-directional so that up trains can get past a shunting freight. Once the new signals go up we'll know, unless anyone has access to the resignalling diagram.

Rob

[PaulRhB]

I doubt that is the reason as the shunt takes so little time and they'd have to move the points further out with the new overlap standards or it'd be very restrictive on any train following. I've seen the diagram but can't remember what the signalling was if I remember I'll ask if its still up on the panel at Basingstoke.

[RobR]

Well, the new trailing crossover is situated nearer to Wareham, between Bindon No 1 and Bindon No 2 crossing. As for the time taken to do the shunt, how might it be done? Train arrives at down platform. The loco is uncoupled, moves forward over the level crossing and across the facing crossover. It then reverses back through the up platform to the trailing crossover, and moves forward onto the end of the train. It couples up and recreates the brake. Then over the trailing crossover to the up line, and shunts back into the sidings. The train is then split between the two sidings. How long would that take? 15 minutes? Looking at the passenger timetable I think it might be difficult to keep up and down lines clear at the appropriate times. so a reversible down platform may be nesessary.

Rob 

[PaulRhB]

Rob

You are correct

Didn't know they were moving it too, but that proves the point I made about needing to move the crossover for overlap reasons. Must be more money in the sand now as they abandoned an idea to put in a siding nearer the quarry when I was there. Splitting the train was always pretty fast but with the extra passenger services it was too tight and delay risk was high. At last they can get rid of the Dorchester move which was a reaction to an incident that badly needed reviewing due to its potential impact on following trains.

From the same source as I got the info on Wool we got some good news for Salisbury that will increase the flexibility of siding use soon which should allow better regulation and head ways for freight and passenger at least in the up direction. Great to see some investment in flexibility on small projects

[RobR]

Paul, thanks fo the confirmation. As you say, good to see investment going into smaller schemes. I wonder if they're expecting other traffic at Wool ?. Perhaps military traffic when the troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan? Good to hear of the investment at Salisbury as well. I hadn't heard about that one.

Rob.

[PaulRhB]

They've talked about military traffic several times but nothing has come of it. I think the main reason is that they only have the smaller stuff for training while their main battle tanks are too wide for rail transport. You often see convoys heading too and from Bovington and they are big transporters with MBT's and their support variants more commonly than Warriors or anything smaller. With Marchwood relatively close they seem to prefer a shuttle using the transporters rather than adding rail to the mix. On a 50 mile trip it probably makes more efficient use of the transporters rather than having them sat around.