Query - Is Woking to Guildford Bi-directional?

[Deepgreen]

This working today has prompted me to wonder if Woking to Guildford is signalled for bi-directional working, given the apparent 10 minute wait at Worplesdon for another train to overtake the subject train (at least I think that's what the ambiguous wording is supposed to mean). I hadn't thought it was, but may have missed it as I have never actually alighted at Worplesdon.

 

[DelW]

It's shown as bi-directional in the current Quail atlas.

 

[swt_passenger]

However it‘s not bi-di in the public sectional appendix?

 

[zwk500]

It's not fully bi-di, but SIMBIDS (simplified Bi-Directional Signalling). Although you could theoretically book a train to overtake on the other line, at lunchtime I suspect the gap will not exist. The message has appeared because the NR planner has attached the activity code for a service to be held at Worplesdon, almost certainly waiting for the path through Guildford and onto the North Downs line.

 

[Watershed]

It is bidirectional on both lines (see the OpenTrainTimes signalling map, particularly GD633/635), but it can only accommodate one wrong-direction train between Woking Jn and Guildford at a time, i.e. SIMBIDS.

"Service passed another here" is just RTT's "translation" of the activity stop codes A or X. These don't always necessarily mean what they say on the tin - sometimes it's really just a pathing stop and no passing actually occurs. Other times it's an artefact from a previous timetable where a train may once have been overtaken, but the overtaking train no longer runs.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is it normal for a sectional appendix to have no indication of ”simbids” availability?

 

[zwk500]

It is bidirectional on both lines (see the OpenTrainTimes signalling map, particularly GD633/635), but it can only accommodate one wrong-direction train between Woking Jn and Guildford at a time, i.e. SIMBIDS.

"Service passed another here" is just RTT's "translation" of the activity stop codes A or X. These don't always necessarily mean what they say on the tin - sometimes it's really just a pathing stop and no passing actually occurs. Other times it's an artefact from a previous timetable where a train may once have been overtaken, but the overtaking train no longer runs.

To be fair, the A code is absolutely correct in this case - It's stopped for another train to pass. In this instance it's coming from a different line, but the code is still required.

Is it normal for a sectional appendix to have no indication of ”simbids” availability?

No, normally it would show the Double arrow for normal direction and Single arrow for alternate direction.

 

[Deepgreen]

Thanks - interesting. The code is not "absolutely correct" in this case as it says passed another train here, which isn't the case. I understand the principles involved, though. BTW, I still wish the
wording from the source used on RTT could be amended to say 'is passed by another train here' rather than the present wrong terminology. Thanks all.

 

[zwk500]

Thanks - interesting. The code is not "absolutely correct" in this case as it says passed another train here, which isn't the case. I understand the principles involved, though. BTW, I still wish the
wording from the source used on RTT could be amended to say 'is passed by another train here' rather than the present wrong terminology. Thanks all.

Sorry to pull you up on this, but that's RTT interpreting the code wrongly, not the code being used incorrectly by NR.

 

[Bigfoot]

The simbids signalling is not commissioned for Woking to Guildford.

 

[zwk500]

The simbids signalling is not commissioned for Woking to Guildford.

That explains the Sectional Appendix and lack of data for the signal aspects in OTT.