Signal ID in "failed signal" alerts

Whilst it's nice to be informed that a signal failure has occurred in the "xxx area", it would be nice if the signal was identified accurately, especially when you're manning a large panel or set of panels in rush hour!

Surely the signalling system would be able to provide this level of detail (more so in IECC/CAD panels than NX maybe)?

Thanks
Jamie

9pN1SEAp in post 121025 said:

Whilst it's nice to be informed that a signal failure has occurred in the "xxx area", it would be nice if the signal was identified accurately, especially when you're manning a large panel or set of panels in rush hour!

Surely the signalling system would be able to provide this level of detail (more so in IECC/CAD panels than NX maybe)?

Thanks
Jamie

The Welsh sims eg Cardiff, Port Talbot and Newport etc are how I think sims ought to cover issues like this as you have the choice of breaking the sim into panels or breaking them down even more into smaller areas that are more specific.

Eg you click on the INT button and it gives you the interlocking areas for the simulation in question, I rather this was extended to cover more simulations then ID specific signals then again I might be in minority.

Geoff and Developers over to you....

Granted but if we use West Anglia and Port Talbot as a example, I find it much quicker to fault find on the latter as it clearly has the interlocking areas highlighted in red.

That might just be me but I find how it’s done in the Welsh sims to be very user friendly!

And remember I’m neither local to either sim too which needs to be brought into mind.

ajax103 in post 121054 said:

Granted but if we use West Anglia and Port Talbot as a example, I find it much quicker to fault find on the latter as it clearly has the interlocking areas highlighted in red.

That might just be me but I find how it’s done in the Welsh sims to be very user friendly!

And remember I’m neither local to either sim too which needs to be brought into mind.

We're not trying to make it easy! Again, on IECCs, the interlocking boundaries are not shown*. MCS does. Not sure about Westcad but that might depend on the day of the week given their adherence (or lack thereof) to standards.

Most interlockings are named after a major local feature anyway, such as a station name.

[Edit] * - except a comms failure to an interlocking (which could mean a dead interlocking)

This reminds me of a point I think I brought up before. Signal lamp failures being visible to drivers *should* be uncommon, because the lamps have dual filaments and are routinely replaced when the primary one fails. Granted, SimSig deliberately exaggerates failure rates (even at only one tick up from "none"to make things "interesting" - so it could be said that the reason it takes so long for an S&T tech to repair failures is because they're running around like headless chickens trying to keep up with precautionary lamp replacements!

Also, I've seen a (German-style in Finland) signal automatically fall back in displayed aspect when it couldn't prove the desired one - in that particular case, from "clear expect slow" to "clear expect stop". That's a feature which would make handling lamp failures in SimSig much easier, as currently a failure of Y or G lamps on an automatic signal without an emergency replacement facility causes frequent ACOAs that are hard to avoid.

Chromatix in post 121085 said:

Also, I've seen a (German-style in Finland) signal automatically fall back in displayed aspect when it couldn't prove the desired one - in that particular case, from "clear expect slow" to "clear expect stop". That's a feature which would make handling lamp failures in SimSig much easier, as currently a failure of Y or G lamps on an automatic signal without an emergency replacement facility causes frequent ACOAs that are hard to avoid.

I don't believe that happens anywhere in the UK with three exceptions: a double yellow falling back to a single yellow, when the top yellow fails; flashing yellows where the flasher unit fails; and Ansaldo's use of either lamp for red/green/yellow (only Manchester South, and that had.... issues... in commissioning).

GeoffM in post 121097 said:

Chromatix in post 121085 said:

Also, I've seen a (German-style in Finland) signal automatically fall back in displayed aspect when it couldn't prove the desired one - in that particular case, from "clear expect slow" to "clear expect stop". That's a feature which would make handling lamp failures in SimSig much easier, as currently a failure of Y or G lamps on an automatic signal without an emergency replacement facility causes frequent ACOAs that are hard to avoid.

I don't believe that happens anywhere in the UK with three exceptions: a double yellow falling back to a single yellow, when the top yellow fails; flashing yellows where the flasher unit fails; and Ansaldo's use of either lamp for red/green/yellow (only Manchester South, and that had.... issues... in commissioning).

Didn't some of the earlier PSB schemes allow a Yellow onto an unlit signal?

Steamer in post 121127 said:

GeoffM in post 121097 said:

Chromatix in post 121085 said:

Also, I've seen a (German-style in Finland) signal automatically fall back in displayed aspect when it couldn't prove the desired one - in that particular case, from "clear expect slow" to "clear expect stop". That's a feature which would make handling lamp failures in SimSig much easier, as currently a failure of Y or G lamps on an automatic signal without an emergency replacement facility causes frequent ACOAs that are hard to avoid.

I don't believe that happens anywhere in the UK with three exceptions: a double yellow falling back to a single yellow, when the top yellow fails; flashing yellows where the flasher unit fails; and Ansaldo's use of either lamp for red/green/yellow (only Manchester South, and that had.... issues... in commissioning).

Didn't some of the earlier PSB schemes allow a Yellow onto an unlit signal?

Yes, in some interlockings - broadly speaking, only if the unlit signal is trying to display a proceed aspect.

GeoffM in post 121128 said:

Steamer in post 121127 said:

GeoffM in post 121097 said:

Chromatix in post 121085 said:

Also, I've seen a (German-style in Finland) signal automatically fall back in displayed aspect when it couldn't prove the desired one - in that particular case, from "clear expect slow" to "clear expect stop". That's a feature which would make handling lamp failures in SimSig much easier, as currently a failure of Y or G lamps on an automatic signal without an emergency replacement facility causes frequent ACOAs that are hard to avoid.

I don't believe that happens anywhere in the UK with three exceptions: a double yellow falling back to a single yellow, when the top yellow fails; flashing yellows where the flasher unit fails; and Ansaldo's use of either lamp for red/green/yellow (only Manchester South, and that had.... issues... in commissioning).

Didn't some of the earlier PSB schemes allow a Yellow onto an unlit signal?

Yes, in some interlockings - broadly speaking, only if the unlit signal is trying to display a proceed aspect.

AKA 'Lamp or Controls' I believe. I heard it said once that, around the time of implementation (mid-1960s for Euston), it would be theoretically possible to get a yellow out of the platform at Euston that would read (ie confirm routes set and signals with failed lamps but able to show a proceed aspect) all the way into the platform at Manchester Piccadilly!

Yes, Westcad does show interlocking areas, but you need to turn the feature on. It can be toggled to make the screen less cluttered.

[quote=ajax103;post=121054] Again, on IECCs, the interlocking boundaries are not shown*. MCS does. Not sure about Westcad but that might depend on the day of the week given their adherence (or lack thereof) to standards.

[Edit] * - except a comms failure to an interlocking (which could mean a dead interlocking)

GeoffM in post 121057 said:

ajax103 in post 121054 said:

Again, on IECCs, the interlocking boundaries are not shown*. MCS does. Not sure about Westcad but that might depend on the day of the week given their adherence (or lack thereof) to standards.

[Edit] * - except a comms failure to an interlocking (which could mean a dead interlocking)

Geoff, the WestCad I use has interlocking boundaries shown

GeoffM in post 121235 said:

[quote=Izzy;post=121171]Yes, Westcad does show interlocking areas, but you need to turn the feature on. It can be toggled to make the screen less cluttered.

Only if the data is set up to do so. Earlier Westcads certainly didn't show interlocking areas unless failed (see above).