I think all you can do is keep checking the Scottish newspapers and particularly the local ones for that area - P&J and Ross-shire Journal.

Highland Council have a page but I think the news sites have often been updated more often.

http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourenvironm ... eferry.htm

Trac are hoping to have the road open at some point over the weekend. although there Will be long delays due to the trains still being operational. vehicles Will be diverted onto the tracks which Will only be allowed during railway possession times. Hence the long delays. expect weight restrictions also.

There have been some new permanent folding signs put up on the A82 at Invermoriston and Invergarry this week, I think someone is anticipating prolonged or regular closures. And it's probably cheaper than hiring the VMS trailer which has been conveying the same message for the past couple of months.

File:A890 Stromeferry sign Invermoriston.jpg

A great sign - Inverness doesn;t appear on the sign behind it......consistency of signage?

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/highlands-i ... -hit-road/

Meant to post this a few days ago.

That's cos Inverness is behind you!

Exactly - so how about for ......... please turn around and go via A82 to Inverness.

Makes you wonder if someone wrote out the sign for Invergarry and just said to use the same one at Invermoriston. Though I suppose it is possible there is one at Invergarry telling motorists to turn around and return via Inverness, stranger things have happened!

Excellent! It took long enough to sort it out. Convoy working I assume?

Yes, between the trains, which since the signal section is Strathcarron-Kyle, means some long gaps between convoy operation periods as no car movement allowed until train surrenders the token for the line.

Splitting it into 3 sections would require signals and rewriting the software controlling the signals and interlocking for the line, which the council could not afford.

I don't see why modifying the signal controls is necessary for safe opperation, it certanly wasn't last time this solution was chosen (and that was after the line had been converted to RETB with all lineside signals abolished). All it would take is the installation of tempory signals (which was what they did back in the 90s) at either end of the shared section. When a train is expected, road traffic is stopped, both signals turn green and remain so untill the train has passed when they revert to red. Seeing as the signal section would remain Strathcarron - Kyle you cannot get two trains approching at the same time from opposite directions therefore it doesn't mater that both show green at the same time.

I too am a little mystified by this.

All you need is a locally controlled signal either side of the "level crossing" with a fixed distant braking distance from it. Not uncommon for older level crossings in the middle of block sections.

But those signals need to be tied into the signalling control panel, without disruption the existing signals - not a straightforwards undertaking. It was much simpler in the days of local signalling and mechanical controls - then the signalers just needed to learn a new working practice.

Unfortunately computer software is much less flexible than a human being - when it comes to dealing with a situation the designers never considered!

Sorry but I cannot see why they need to be linked in any way to the RETB signalling or its' panel. They would not be signals demarcating a block section. They wouild purely be locally controlled signals to protect the "level crossing". All that is needed is a local control "gate box" and when the level crossing is clear of traffic, signals in both directions can be cleared at the same time (as only one train can be in the single line section at once this is not an issue).

As far as I can see, all that is needed is notices in the sectional appendix to say that locally controlled signals protecting the "level crossing" will be installed in the up direction at x miles x chains and in the down direction at y miles y chains to protect the level crossing, with fixed distant signal boards at xx miles xx chains on the up and yy miles yy chains on the down.

Then all I would have thought you need to do is go and install distant boards at the braking distance and 2 aspect colour light signals or semaphore signals either side of the crossing, clear it with the signal siting committee and arrange for any supplementary driver route knowledge training.

This sort of arrangement was common for level crossings in block sections and the signals were not linked to the block signals. All the gate box had were levers to pull off the signals and block bell repeaters so that they knew when a train was in section and they had to shut the gates and pull off the signals.

You would need some non safety critical radio or telephone contact with the RETB signalling centre (to replace the now non existent block bells) so that the signaller at the gate box knew when a train was approaching and could clear the crossing (or some sort of treadle system to alert the signaller a train was approaching), it wouldn't be safety critical as if a train turned up "unexpectedly" it would just be brought to a halt at the signal protecting the crossing.

However even this would cost a fair bit to do, and may well require some interlocking between the local signals and the level crossing flashing lights/barriers, TPWS etc, so it may well be that they were not prepared to pay the cost of this for a verty short time period.

You haven't seen how hard it is to get any operational rule changes past the ORR and HSE!

Well I am delighted the road is reopened. However, looking at the 40 minute open windows every few hours in practical terms it might as well not be. Looks like when I'm up there in April I need to be prepared for the long detour - and every minute I am hoofing it east then south then west to get round it is minutes I am not on Skye.....

Why can it not simply be operated as an automatic crossing, with an approaching train triggering the (road) traffic lights and/or alerting the convoy operators? The road can be re-opened, initially in the direction the train runs, immediately it has passed.

Actually, for the duration, would it not be simpler to suspend rail operation over the affected section, with a bus connection.

The amended times for the convoy operation starting Monday 26th Will be as below. a lot better for the public.


The revised timetable when the road diversion will be open to vehicles is now as follows:- Monday to Friday (0710 to 1030; 1135 to 1155; 1340 to 1420; 1610 to 1700; 1810 to 1900) Saturday (0710 to 1030; 1340 to 1420 to 1610 to 1700; 1810 to 1900) Sunday (0710 to 1245; 1400 to 1505; 1615 to 1900).

Buses cannot use this link due to the weight restriction so that would effectively cut off public transport access (except 12 seater minibuses and taxis). I don't know how busy the services are but it is worth considering that a single 2-car train has the equivalent carrying capacity of 3 double decker or 5 single decker buses.

As for the automatic crossing: I think that would not be possible due to the time it will take a convoy to clear the rails (IIRC the Rule Book calls for a automatic crossing to be clear 17s before a train arrives at full line speed). Only a manned crossing (as this is) would be possible. TBH getting even this form of crossing so quickly is quite an unusual achievement for the ORR - their slowness is notorious in rail circles.

I suspect part of the reason for the limited windows is that if a vehicle breaks down on the line it has potential to cause chaos to the rail network. It needs to be remembered that if a train is delayed it effects not only that service but all subsequent services that train and/or crew (who will now be out of position) are booked to run - hence a generous buffer will be in place to get recovery done and dusted before the train arrives.