Query - Is Woking to Guildford Bi-directional?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
5,012
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
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.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2021-02-16 at 12.09.45.png
    Screenshot 2021-02-16 at 12.09.45.png
    430.6 KB · Views: 72
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
1,936
It's shown as bi-directional in the current Quail atlas.
 

zwk500

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
2,293
Location
Milton Keynes
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

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
2,671
Location
UK
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

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,926
Is it normal for a sectional appendix to have no indication of ”simbids” availability?
 

zwk500

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
2,293
Location
Milton Keynes
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

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
5,012
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
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

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
2,293
Location
Milton Keynes
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top