Ty Croes

Status
Not open for further replies.

driver_m

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
2,249
I've got a question about signalboxes that aren't block posts. I sign to Holyhead and anyone who knows the route will know there's a big block section between Valley and Gaerwen. Ty Croes is handily situated inbetween these two but isn't a block post. My question is why not? It looks like a box, has a crossing and semaphores and has someone in there 24hrs at an educated guess. There obviously has to be a good reason why this occurs, could someone better explain why I've sat at either end on many occasions waiting for the section to clear when it could be shrunk.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,939
Location
Nottingham
Traditionally it was because a gate operator was lower grade than a signaller and therefore cheaper, and I can't really think of any other reason it might be today. I agree it does seem rather penny-pinching given the length of the block section.

There was some discussion a few years ago about converting Ty Croes back to a block post, but from what you say it doesn't seem to have happened and I presume it won't now given that re-signalling is happening at some point.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
15,508
Location
Mold, Clwyd
There was some discussion a few years ago about converting Ty Croes back to a block post, but from what you say it doesn't seem to have happened and I presume it won't now given that re-signalling is happening at some point.

I believe it was going to be part of the "North-South Journey Time Improvements" project, which included the Saltney-Rossett redoubling (currently stalled).
It was to be funded by the Welsh Government.
I don't know if it is still going ahead, or been deferred to the wider resignalling project (which itself seems to be slipping backwards).
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
6,655
I doubt the signaller there would be employed these days it would just become an intermediate block signal(s) ciontrolled from an adjacent box.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,939
Location
Nottingham
I doubt the signaller there would be employed these days it would just become an intermediate block signal(s) ciontrolled from an adjacent box.

You would still have to have control of the crossing though. I guess it would be possible to have the signals protecting the crossing "slotted" with IB signals. But probably more likely either that it would become a full block post or that the crossing would become remotely supervised from one of the boxes either side.
 

driver_m

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
2,249
Strange it being about money. The delays incurred by any late Holyhead running and the subsequent costs must wipe out any savings. Are we talking about a small wage increase changing it from a crossing keeper to a signaller and putting in some block bells? (I realise signalling alterations are like lottery win money)
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
11,206
Wasnt required to run the timetable therefore it would never stack up funding wise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top