Mickey wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 10:23 am
"I read not to long ago about an accident that possibly occurred on the former London Midland Region possibly in the very early 1970s and was attributed if not wholly but in part to the simplification of the then existing 'old fashioned' type junction designed layout (with flank protection) where the old junction was replaced by at the time the new type of 'ladder design junction' that is in common use of Britain's railways today. .... "
I can't think of the accident you refer to Mickey, but I was reminded of the 1989 head-on collision at Bellgrove, Glasgow, involving two fatalities and over 50 injured, where the principal cause was a 'Ding ding and away' SPAD
(Guard gave an Electric Multiple Unit's Driver the 'Right away' from a station stop bell signal and the train departed, the crew overlooking that the platform signal which protected the junction was displaying a red aspect).
But the two trains involved would not have met had the junction been of the traditional 'double junction' type, but Bellgrove had been simplified into a four simple point ends 'Single Lead Junction', so the positions of the points for the second involved, legitimately approaching, train guided the offending train onto the wrong line and into head-on collision, there then usually being no apparatus to stop a train passing a signal at Danger. without authority.
Pyewipe Junction wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 5:12 am
Hatfield Shed wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:17 pm
On our little island, the long range services are inevitably dominated by sea and air, and the relative importance of rail is diminished. If flying can genuinely go green, I would see that as further reducing longer distance passenger rail traffic within the UK. Much as I have always liked using the ECML and WCML for London -Scotland, when it came to business, the only way was to fly...
"I haven't been back to the UK for a number of years, so I found this statement to be quite surprising.
Are you really saying that the ordinary person (not talking about business travel here - for a number of reasons it's a separate market) would really prefer to fly from London to Edinburgh rather than catch a train that takes only just over four hours? And what sea services compete with rail?"
Pyewipe Junction, I've no idea about sea services I'm afraid, but regarding flying I'd suggest that, although there might be a time advantage over going by long distance train within the UK - though small, or possibly none at all
** - there is often a significant cost advantage.
** -
(taking airport check-in, security, local train/taxi/buses into consideration.)
Pyewipe Junction wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 5:26 am
" .... One thing I have noticed, however, (and this applies to other countries in Europe), is that track layouts on the Continent seem to be much more complex than those in the UK. The approaches to Zurich, for example, look like a signaller's nightmare, with all possibilities apparently covered by way of slips and diamond crossings that extend from one side of the track to the other. Elsewhere there are crossovers galore, although to be fair most Swiss double-track main lines are bi-directional.
In the UK, on the other hand, the policy seems to be to simplify track layouts as far as possible to meet current traffic requirements, even if this means costly reversals later on - for example Dore and Totley and Oxford to Worcester. And what about the 'two into one' junctions where double lines are singled before a major junction, creating difficulties where two trains want to use the junction at the same time.
I don't mean to excite the 'keepers of the faith' who will defend UK practice as best practice, but I would like to know if there is reason for this divergence of approach."
As regards simplified versus complex track layouts, although comparable British layouts to that which you describe at Zurich
[also, some 25-ish years ago, Bruxelles (Sud?) springs to mind as being similar], over the decades from (perhaps) about the 1960s, the UK railways seem to have steadily progressed from being happy to form up layouts with good operating flexibility, using bespoke track components, towards more and more simplification and standardisation of parts, with manufacture, installation, maintenance and subsequent replacement costs being increasingly taken into account; perhaps much moreso in the UK than in Europe, and maybe that policy being given greater priority as compared to operational flexibility, including for contingencies against unexpected situations.
As one example (though not Zurich/Bruxelles-like), I, like Mickey no doubt, have been familiar with Kings Cross through three versions of its approach lines' layouts.
Prior to 1977, the layout, which had changed little for at least 70 years, had been geared to all trains being loco-hauled, and involved tandem turnouts, diamond crossings, several sets of slips (of both inside and outside type) & some switch diamonds, and was mostly bespoke to the specifics of the positions of the 17 or 16 platforms, loco yard and loading docks, all limited by the generally restricted area of the station yard as a whole for the approx.150 yards between the platforms and the 3-bored Gasworks Tunnel.
The layout therefore allowed much flexibility for simultaneous train and very localised loco and vehicle shunting movements.
But with the six (uni-directional) running lines serving the terminus being 'Paired by use', a disadvantage of this and the layout was that a train arrival to a west side platform of the station prevented all departures from platforms further east: Similarly a departure from an eastern side platform conflicted with all potential arrivals to those west of it.
In 1977, the approach lines through the tunnel were reduced to four, but made bi-directional for the nearest 1/2 - 3/4 of a mile. The majority of trains had become of fixed formations (no locomotives involved) with wider use of same imminent, the number of platforms reduced to 10, and the two halves of the new platforms-to-tunnel layout were close to being mirror images of each other, so rather more standardised than previously, but still involved about five inside double-slips with switch diamonds, a sixth without, and 3 or 4 tandem turnouts.
From 2021, with changed numbers and patterns of train services, it was 'all change' again, with approach lines through the tunnel restored to six (all bi-directional), all points (fewer in number) at the immediate station approach are simple turnouts/crossovers, with more points beyond the tunnel, and the only diamond crossing of any sort being that of the necessarily conventional 'double junction' out at Belle Isle where Thameslink's Canal Tunnels' lines leave/join the Slow lines.