The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology
Welcome to TDWTF Forums Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

Last post 02-25-2013 2:30 PM by Zecc. 101 replies.
Page 1 of 3 (102 items) 1 2 3 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-22-2013 9:44 PM

    To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    So while driving around in Australia (where cars keep to the left side of the road) I came across the following situation in Parkes, NSW.

    (The large sign and red lines are added to make the original sign in the image readable)

    The question I have is: Can I turn right?

  • 01-22-2013 11:06 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    No.
    SpectateSwamp exposing aliens. Obviously the World needs SSDS


    [10:07] <fatdog> so from now on.. be sure to wear nice clean underwear
    [10:07] <mps> fatdog: That is simply not going to happen
  • 01-22-2013 11:54 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    New South Wales

    BTW I agree: no. The sign outranks the painted lines-- the lines might only exist to let people know they can make a U-turn.

    Plus all the markings are on the left side of the road, so it's all wrong anyway. Drive on the right like God intended!

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 01-23-2013 1:11 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    portablejim:
    The question I have is: Can I turn right?
     

    In Thailand, it would depend on where the nearest policeman is, and what time of day it is (e.g. "I don't have to wear a motorcycle helmet, it's evening, the policemen are having dinner now.")

    In England, the answer would be "NO!", because they have robot cameras on every corner which shoot you if you disobey.

     

  • 01-23-2013 1:33 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Doesn't signs start taking effect after you have passed them? If so then the answer is yes, you may turn right here, but not after crossing the intersection.
  • 01-23-2013 1:55 AM In reply to

    • Zemm
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-26-2007
    • Gold Coast, Australia
    • Posts 1,380

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    blakeyrat:
    Plus all the markings are on the left side of the road, so it's all wrong anyway. Drive on the right like God intended!
    Backwards ass Americans! You only aligned with the French to piss off the British. Driving on the left is more natural and safer. Keep you right hand on the steering wheel, most people are right eyed, etc.
    Filed Under: Can you think of something that talks, other than a person?
  • 01-23-2013 2:19 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    blakeyrat:
    Plus all the markings are on the left side of the road, so it's all wrong anyway. Drive on the right like God intended!
    Like Napoleon intended, more like.

    Having lived in a drive-on-the-right country for the first 30 years of my life, and living in a drive-on-the-left country for the past 12, my first thought when I see a TV programme and somebody gets behind the wheel on the left is "why is he getting in on the wrong side?"

     If it was maybe 10% of the world that drove on the left I'd say OK, fair enough, but it's more like a third. So it's unlikely to switch to the right any time soon.

    Then, of course, there's the issue of the trains. In quite a few drive-on-the-right countries, trains run on the left hand side of double track.

     

  • 01-23-2013 3:47 AM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,916

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    AndyCanfield:
    In England, the answer would be "NO!", because they have robot cameras on every corner which shoot you if you disobey.
    Not too far from the truth actually.

    Summary: in the UK we have "box junctions" - bright yellow boxes with cross-hatching, thus:

    At either cross-roads or T junctions, these boxes may be placed where the roads overlap. You may not enter the box junction if your exit is blocked by traffic (however you may enter if on-coming traffic is blocking your right turning by driving past you but your actual exit is clear.)

    To enter a box junction when your exit is blocked is an offence for which you may be fined. One enterprising council in London have automated this process by putting cameras on one such junction where the traffic lights appear to be phased to increase the likelihood of such an offence occurring, and thus are raking in money.

    Of course, this requires the co-operation of drivers who either don't know about the 'obscure' and difficult to find/understand rules(rule 174) governing box junctions, or simply don't care.
  • Parp!
  • 01-23-2013 4:30 AM In reply to

    • Zecc
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-12-2007
    • and hasn't left since.
    • Posts 2,064

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    What's with the patch of pavement following the arrow?

    It looks like it's been photoshopped, though I assume it's been "painted" over in real life.

    What did it read before?

    If mixed metaphors were illegal, I'd be having an indigestion.
    typeof NaN == 'number'
    var ò_ó, ಠ⁔ಠ, ᄒᆺᄒ, ᅙᅳᅙ, ᖛᨓᖜ, ꖴᅩꖴ, ఠᨋఠ; // Naming your variables is serious business
  • 01-23-2013 4:46 AM In reply to

    • tchize
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-26-2006
    • Belgium
    • Posts 303

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    portablejim:

    (The large sign and red lines are added to make the original sign in the image readable)

     

    Glad to hear, i was a bit worried you had giant signs in Australia

     

    portablejim:

    The question I have is: Can I turn right?

    According to Belgian laws, yes. Such sign, in Belgium, only apply to first crossroads after the sign, which mean  next right is forbidden but this one is allowed. So my bet is that in Australia, being other side of world, rules  are the opposite and the sign applies. Do what you want, but expect to be required to blow a police officer.


     

  • 01-23-2013 4:47 AM In reply to

    • tchize
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-26-2006
    • Belgium
    • Posts 303

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Zecc:

    What did it read before?

     

     

    Wild guess:

     ____

    STOP

     

  • 01-23-2013 4:54 AM In reply to

    • tchize
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-26-2006
    • Belgium
    • Posts 303

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Severity One:

    Then, of course, there's the issue of the trains. In quite a few drive-on-the-right countries, trains run on the left hand side of double track.

     

    Belgium reporting and confirming. Cars and horses on the right, trains on the left, trams, metro and buses on the right, pedestrian on the left if they walk on a road. In some places: buses and car sharing on the middle of the road.

     

  • 01-23-2013 5:47 AM In reply to

    • Zecc
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-12-2007
    • and hasn't left since.
    • Posts 2,064

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

     

    tchize:

    Wild guess:

     ____

    STOP

     

    One would think so, but that last letter doesn't really look like a P.

    tchize:
    Belgium reporting and confirming. Cars and horses on the right, trains on the left, trams, metro and buses on the right, pedestrian on the left if they walk on a road. In some places: buses and car sharing on the middle of the road.
    Same here in Portugal, and I might add:

    - frequently pedestrians have to walk on the side of the street because of parked cars on the sidewalk;

    - bicyles are supposed to align on the right of roads and streets in single file, but they'll usually arrange themselves in double file. Also, cyclists aren't strangers to ride on the sidewalk and across crosswalks either (they're supposed to dismount in both cases). I don't really blame them. There aren't as many bycycle paths as there should be.

     

     

    If mixed metaphors were illegal, I'd be having an indigestion.
    typeof NaN == 'number'
    var ò_ó, ಠ⁔ಠ, ᄒᆺᄒ, ᅙᅳᅙ, ᖛᨓᖜ, ꖴᅩꖴ, ఠᨋఠ; // Naming your variables is serious business
  • 01-23-2013 7:18 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    I'd guess that the sign is actually intended to face the intersection to the left. Its not 100% clear but the median in the middle of that intersection seems to angle the traffic towards the left. In which case having a "No Right Turn" sign facing that traffic would make sense.
  • 01-23-2013 7:42 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Zecc:
    bycycle paths
     

    Is the bycycle path an extra branch that allows one bicycle to overtake another?

     


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

    Filed under:
  • 01-23-2013 8:01 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Zemm:
    Driving on the left is more natural and safer. Keep you right hand on the steering wheel, most people are right eyed, etc.
    That's racist!

    It's... Monkey Piston's Frying Circle!
  • 01-23-2013 8:28 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    I presume at this intersection: - you may turn right, into the side road - you may not do a U-turn and go back the way you came. The sign is misleading, but I think it presumes since (being in the turn-right lane) you intend to drive into the side road, you are "facing" the side road - so at that point you can't turn right, because that would be a U-turn. Or, the sign is just stupid.
  • 01-23-2013 8:29 AM In reply to

    • Paddles
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 11-11-2007
    • Australia
    • Posts 87

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    OzPeter:
    I'd guess that the sign is actually intended to face the intersection to the left. Its not 100% clear but the median in the middle of that intersection seems to angle the traffic towards the left. In which case having a "No Right Turn" sign facing that traffic would make sense.
     

    I think Peter's got it right. The sign probably got hit and twisted around so it was facing in the wrong direction. That, or a student prank.

     

    PJH:
    Summary: in the UK we have "box junctions" - bright yellow boxes with cross-hatching, thus:

    At either cross-roads or T junctions, these boxes may be placed where the roads overlap. You may not enter the box junction if your exit is blocked by traffic (however you may enter if on-coming traffic is blocking your right turning by driving past you but your actual exit is clear.)
     

    You mean to say that at all other interesections, it's ok to enter the intersection even though your exit is blocked, so that you're stuck there and potentially blocking other people going through even though their exit is clear? That, sir, is TRWTF. In New South Wales, entering an intersection when the exit isn't clear is always an offence (though, sadly, not one that gets policed enough when some idiot causes a traffic jam by being caught in the middle of an intersection when the lights change). Your stated exception (waiting for oncoming traffic but your exit is clear) is also the exception here.

     

    Zecc:

    What's with the patch of pavement following the arrow?

    It looks like it's been photoshopped, though I assume it's been "painted" over in real life

     

    No, that would just be our incredibly-high-quality road repairs, one section has been resurfaced more recently than the other.


  • 01-23-2013 8:52 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Zecc:

    tchize:

    Wild guess:

    STOP

     

    One would think so, but that last letter doesn't really look like a P.

     

    It makes sense if you spell it out in Australian.

     


    HardwareGeek:

    <blink> and you're dead!



    "Where is grumpy cat?"
    - Mozilla's MOST ADVANCED USER!
  • 01-23-2013 9:07 AM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,916

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Paddles:
    You mean to say that at all other interesections, it's ok to enter the intersection even though your exit is blocked, so that you're stuck there and potentially blocking other people going through even though their exit is clear?
    Well technically it's not against the law, but such arse-holes would normally get a full blast of the horn from the people they're blocking for being inconsiderate cunts. They certainly would from me.

    But those boxes normally appear where the traffic is busy enough to cause that sort of problem - the areas where they don't appear don't suffer from the problem because they're not busy enough to have traffic jams.

    Basically your scenario doesn't occur as often as you might suppose.
    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • Parp!
  • 01-23-2013 9:27 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Paddles:
    You mean to say that at all other interesections, it's ok to enter the intersection even though your exit is blocked, so that you're stuck there and potentially blocking other people going through even though their exit is clear? That, sir, is TRWTF. In New South Wales, entering an intersection when the exit isn't clear is always an offence (though, sadly, not one that gets policed enough when some idiot causes a traffic jam by being caught in the middle of an intersection when the lights change). Your stated exception (waiting for oncoming traffic but your exit is clear) is also the exception here.


    In Toronto, Canada,  we have similar crosshatching.  These are for the cameras that go off when the light turns red.  If your car is over the crosshatch for x seconds then you get mailed a ticket.  It's still illegal to block an intersection everywhere.  But they do these in the problem areas in an attempt to reduce gridlock.

  • 01-23-2013 9:50 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    The Uk drives on the left because our road nework dates back to knights on horseback.

    moving to the left means that oncoming trafic is on the side of your sword arm.

     Europeans drive on the right because Napoleon was left haned & made every one conform to his needs (& they never reverted back once we had defeated him)

    the septics USA drive on the right because they only date back as far as stagecoaches & guns, it is easier to point a shotgun to the left.

    On the whole I think the USA has a better reason than Europe for driving on the wrong side.

    Do things cheap and it will cost you dear
  • 01-23-2013 10:27 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Severity One:
    Then, of course, there's the issue of the trains. In quite a few drive-on-the-right countries, trains run on the left hand side of double track.
    Trains don't work that way. There's about a 50/50 chance of the train being on either side any given day. It just depends on how the schedule works out, and which track sections are locked-out by other trains. Unless it's a siding and not actually a double track. Or a mass transit system where the trains have to stay on the same track so the doors line-up with the platform. (Oh and on our mass transit system here in Seattle? The trains run on the right.)
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 01-23-2013 10:37 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

     except on sections of single tracks most railways will designate the direction of travel on the tracks, possibly with a short section used as the train chages direction & is moved back to the correct line.

     

    The reason for this is to reduce the possibility of collision, allowing bidirectional running on multiple tracks would be a true WTF. even if it collisions were avoided gridlock would be a strong possibility.

     

    Most of thre UK mainline has 4 parallel tracks with trains in each direction running on their left hand pair.

     

     

     

    Do things cheap and it will cost you dear
  • 01-23-2013 10:46 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    ip-guru:
    except on sections of single tracks most railways will designate the direction of travel on the tracks, possibly with a short section used as the train chages direction & is moved back to the correct line.
    Ok well the one around here doesn't. It's a double-track, but it works on a simple "first-come, first-serve" principle-- if there's no lock in front of you on one of the tracks, you get on it and go. The other track could be locked by a train going the same direction, the opposite direction, or at a stop.

    When I rode a commuter train on it daily, it was a complete crap-shoot whether it would spend most of the trip on the left or right track. And if we passed another train, it was a complete crapshoot whether we'd be passing a slow freight going the same direction, or a freight going the opposite direction-- regardless of which side we were on.

    Maybe your commie euro-railroads run differently.

    ip-guru:
    The reason for this is to reduce the possibility of collision, allowing bidirectional running on multiple tracks would be a true WTF.
    ... seriously? You don't have track lock-outs? What about collision between a fast-moving train and a stopped train, how does your "system" prevent those?

    Either you have lock-outs and centralized dispatch and it doesn't matter which direction you go on which track, or you don't and you're always railroading by the seat of your pants. My guess is you *do* have lock-outs, and the dispatchers keep the trains on the same half of the quad track out of habit and/or to line-up with platforms. Or maybe the tracks simply weren't built with enough cross-overs and the dispatchers are pissed each day about not having the flexibility they need.

    Demonstrably our system isn't a problem because we don't have a significant number of railroad accidents. So whatever we're doing works fine.

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 01-23-2013 11:04 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    blakeyrat:
    Maybe your commie euro-railroads run differently.
    ip-guru:
    The reason for this is to reduce the possibility of collision, allowing bidirectional running on multiple tracks would be a true WTF.
    ... seriously? You don't have track lock-outs? What about collision between a fast-moving train and a stopped train, how does your "system" prevent those?

    Either you have lock-outs and centralized dispatch and it doesn't matter which direction you go on which track, or you don't and you're always railroading by the seat of your pants. My guess is you *do* have lock-outs, and the dispatchers keep the trains on the same half of the quad track out of habit and/or to line-up with platforms. Or maybe the tracks simply weren't built with enough cross-overs and the dispatchers are pissed each day about not having the flexibility they need.

    Demonstrably our system isn't a problem because we don't have a significant number of railroad accidents. So whatever we're doing works fine.

    A big difference is that most of our trains are freight trains. It's the opposite in Europe. Obviously, a rigid schedule isn't very important for freight trains, at least, not in the way it is for passenger trains. They probably have lock outs, but dedicating a track to a single direction obviously rules out an entire class of collisions regardless of other controls, and probably makes their system more efficient given the nature of the traffic.
    I denounce myself for this post
  • 01-23-2013 11:07 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    PJH:
    Of course, this requires the co-operation of drivers who either don't know about the 'obscure' and difficult to find/understand rules(rule 174) governing box junctions
     

    I was told by my driving instructor that white cross-hatched regions are "no-go" areas (consider them marked out to be raised areas soon) and the yellow ones (box junctions) are "don't enter unless you can leave". My father also imposed upon me a "no stopping on the yellow stuff" rule - which was also a favoured highway code question during the theory part of driving tests.

    PJH:
    or simply don't care.

    More inclined to believe that. I frequently see cars rolling over "keep clear" sections or parked on double yellows, blocking exits, parked across several spaces, etc - as though there's some secret competition to see who can park in the most inconsiderate location possible, maximising danger to pedestrians and other road users.

  • 01-23-2013 11:19 AM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,916

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Cassidy:
    I was told by my driving instructor that white cross-hatched regions are "no-go" areas (consider them marked out to be raised areas soon)
    Ghost Islands.
    Cassidy:
    and the yellow ones (box junctions) are "don't enter unless you can leave".
    .. which ambiguates the real Highway Code rule to the point that some people don't enter the box when they are allowed to. Because "on-coming traffic" is "stopping them leave." Which creates more problems.
    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • Parp!
  • 01-23-2013 11:47 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Anyone else have the problem that the image doesn't show up unless and until you've successfully logged in to a Google Account?
  • 01-23-2013 1:14 PM In reply to

    • Zecc
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-12-2007
    • and hasn't left since.
    • Posts 2,064

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Paddles:
    No, that would just be our incredibly-high-quality road repairs, one section has been resurfaced more recently than the other.
    Ah, I see you've never been to this country.

    If mixed metaphors were illegal, I'd be having an indigestion.
    typeof NaN == 'number'
    var ò_ó, ಠ⁔ಠ, ᄒᆺᄒ, ᅙᅳᅙ, ᖛᨓᖜ, ꖴᅩꖴ, ఠᨋఠ; // Naming your variables is serious business
  • 01-23-2013 1:20 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Zemm:
    Driving on the left is more natural and safer. Keep you right hand on the steering wheel, most people are right eyed, etc.
    When I drive, my right hand is on the wheel. My left arm is perched on the window, so my left hand is usually idle, or playing in the wind, or maybe holding a beverage.
    Peace, unless you're a cow.
    Filed under:
  • 01-23-2013 2:00 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    PJH:
    Summary: in the UK we have "box junctions" - bright yellow boxes with cross-hatching, thus:

    Why are they using Transport Tycoon to teach traffic regulations in the UK?

  • 01-23-2013 2:00 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    ip-guru:

    The Uk drives on the left because our road nework dates back to knights on horseback.

    Europeans drive on the right because Napoleon was left haned & made every one conform to his needs (& they never reverted back once we had defeated him)

    the septics USA drive on the right because they only date back as far as stagecoaches & guns, it is easier to point a shotgun to the left.

    Then you have places like the Bahamas .. where being a former British colony they drive on the left. But because they are only 50 miles off the US coast, they get their cars from the US .. which are all left hand drive.
  • 01-23-2013 2:02 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    tchize:
    Belgium reporting and confirming. Cars and horses on the right, trains on the left, trams, metro and buses on the right, pedestrian on the left if they walk on a road. In some places: buses and car sharing on the middle of the road.

    And trucks on the left, I presume?

  • 01-23-2013 5:02 PM In reply to

    • Zemm
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-26-2007
    • Gold Coast, Australia
    • Posts 1,380

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    CarnivorousHippie:
    Zemm:
    Driving on the left is more natural and safer. Keep you right hand on the steering wheel, most people are right eyed, etc.
    When I drive, my right hand is on the wheel. My left arm is perched on the window, so my left hand is usually idle, or playing in the wind, or maybe holding a beverage.
    Changing gears, adjusting air, changing music, picking up a missile coming from the toddler, etc. I do all those things with my left hand. The right eyed comment is still valid, driving on the left means you can see oncoming traffic easier.
    Filed Under: Can you think of something that talks, other than a person?
  • 01-23-2013 5:52 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Zemm:
    CarnivorousHippie:
    Zemm:
    Driving on the left is more natural and safer. Keep you right hand on the steering wheel, most people are right eyed, etc.
    When I drive, my right hand is on the wheel. My left arm is perched on the window, so my left hand is usually idle, or playing in the wind, or maybe holding a beverage.
    Changing gears, adjusting air, changing music, picking up a missile coming from the toddler, etc. I do all those things with my left hand. The right eyed comment is still valid, driving on the left means you can see oncoming traffic easier.
     

     

    You can adjust the amount of air in your car?

  • 01-23-2013 5:57 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Zemm:
    Changing gears, adjusting air, changing music, picking up a missile coming from the toddler, etc. I do all those things with my left hand. The right eyed comment is still valid, driving on the left means you can see oncoming traffic easier.
    After being in the US for quite a while I am used to driving on either side of the road - though I still occasionally worry about traffic coming at me from behind from the wrong direction, or when I am not thinking try to get into the drivers seat on the right hand side . But one of my biggest challenges happened in Italy when I got off the plane from Oz and had to jump into a manual car and had to start shifting gears with my right hand.
  • 01-23-2013 7:28 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    To me that turn doesn't look like it lines up with the street I'm seeing over to the right of the picture - which makes me wonder if the turning lane is for something else and the no-right-turn sign is for that street to make sure people don't try to cut from that turning lane into it. I'm too lazy to try to track the street down in Google Maps to check though.

  • 01-23-2013 9:50 PM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Here's the google maps link: It also clears up about the sign
  • 01-24-2013 2:24 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    blakeyrat:
    Trains don't work that way. There's about a 50/50 chance of the train being on either side any given day. It just depends on how the schedule works out, and which track sections are locked-out by other trains. Unless it's a siding and not actually a double track. Or a mass transit system where the trains have to stay on the same track so the doors line-up with the platform. (Oh and on our mass transit system here in Seattle? The trains run on the right.)
    It really depends. Large stretches of railroad in Europe are still single track, but the main arteries are double, triple or quadruple track.

    Until fairly recently, double track would essentially be two unidirectional single tracks. Whilst a train can run anywhere, the signals would all be pointing in the wrong direction, and the safety systems would only work in one direction of running.

    In the Netherlands, all multi-track lines are now sets of bidirectional single tracks. This means that trains can overtake one another, but given that the Dutch railways are some of the busiest in the world (on account of having relatively fewkm of railway track per capita), it doesn't happen very often. In other countries, the situation may be different.

  • 01-24-2013 2:28 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    ip-guru:
    except on sections of single tracks most railways will designate the direction of travel on the tracks, possibly with a short section used as the train chages direction & is moved back to the correct line.

     The reason for this is to reduce the possibility of collision, allowing bidirectional running on multiple tracks would be a true WTF. even if it collisions were avoided gridlock would be a strong possibility.

    That depends entirely on your safety systems. As said, all tracks in the Netherlands are bidirectional these days, with signals pointing in both directions and safety systems working in both directions. But lack of investment and a profit-driven approach after the all-out privatisation during the Thatcher era means that UK railways don't exactly have a stellar safety record.

     

  • 01-24-2013 3:37 AM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,916

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    portablejim:
    Here's the google maps link: It also clears up about the sign
    That sign says "keep left", not "no right turn" - in traffic terms two completely orthogonal instructions and not mutually exclusive. That second link is what's on the *other side* of that sign - looks like someone's turned it around at one point - I'm guessing your original photo is the wrong orientation, and Google Map's one is the right one.
    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • Parp!
  • 01-24-2013 5:06 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    PJH:
    That second link is what's on the *other side* of that sign - looks like someone's turned it around at one point - I'm guessing your original photo is the wrong orientation, and Google Map's one is the right one.
     

    Score for Mr Poirot!


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

    Filed under: ,
  • 01-24-2013 9:40 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    TwelveBaud:
    Anyone else have the problem that the image doesn't show up unless and until you've successfully logged in to a Google Account?
    Yes.
    P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
  • Tue, Jan 19 2038 3:14 AMIn reply to

    Re: Whatever This Thread Is Named

    I agree with whatever Quietust just posted above.

  • 01-24-2013 10:20 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    Severity One:
    That depends entirely on your safety systems. As said, all tracks in the Netherlands are bidirectional these days, with signals pointing in both directions and safety systems working in both directions.
    If your railroad has lockout sections, I can't even imagine there's any safety improvement to keeping the tracks unidirectional. And like I said above, unidirectional tracks don't help the situation where one train is completely stopped and another moving fast-- but lockout sections do.

    The only thing I can think of is if your lockout sections are tiny (less than 10 miles) and your trains are all moving at 70 mph. Then it'd be a challenge to manage, but still no worse than the traffic controller at the average airport.

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 01-24-2013 10:33 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    blakeyrat:
    if your lockout sections are tiny (less than 10 miles)
     

    Dude, 10 miles is three stations (though express trains skip minor stations). You can't go 10 miles in any direction without hitting a city. :D

    blakeyrat:
    and your trains are all moving at 70 mph.

    That's about right for a high speed, depending on how much track there is between stations.

     


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

    Filed under:
  • 01-24-2013 10:41 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    dhromed:
    Dude, 10 miles is three stations (though express trains skip minor stations). You can't go 10 miles in any direction without hitting a city. :D
    What the hell is up with your tiny-ass nations. Christ. Bulldoze some of those produnks, they obviously are obstructing efficient railroading.
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 01-24-2013 10:44 AM In reply to

    • locallunatic
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-19-2010
    • (YourLocation==USA-KY?local:MisleadingUsername)
    • Posts 838

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    blakeyrat:
    What the hell is up with your tiny-ass nations.

    They are packed in like rats due to the nations being tiny-ass.  Hmmm, packed together like rats makes me wonder if some of them grow together into one critter like a ratking.

  • 01-24-2013 10:49 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    blakeyrat:
    What the hell is up with your tiny-ass nations. Christ. Bulldoze some of those produnks, they obviously are obstructing efficient railroading.
     

    Well at least I don't have to get in my car to drive to the nearest supermarket 258 miles away. I walk.


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 01-24-2013 11:03 AM In reply to

    Re: To turn or not to turn, that is the question.

    dhromed:
    Well at least I don't have to get in my car to drive to the nearest supermarket 258 miles away. I walk.
    How do you carry all of your stuff? I have two grocery stores within about a half mile of my house, but that doesn't mean I have to act like a poor person and waste my time walking there all the time.
    I denounce myself for this post
Page 1 of 3 (102 items) 1 2 3 Next >
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems